New Jersey Public Safety Officers Law Blog : New Jersey Public Safety Employee Lawyer & Attorney : Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman Law Firm : Workers Compensation, Discipline Representation for Police & Firefighters : New Jersey

As reported by nj.com, the state wants to keep taking increasing pension and health benefits contributions from Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices while it appeals a judge’s ruling that the hikes are unconstitutional. 

The state Attorney General’s Office filed a motion to postpone implementation of Superior Court Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg’s ruling blocking the higher pension and health benefit payments for the judges and justices, spokesman Paul Loriquet said.

The first increased contributions under Governor Chris Christie’s new plan were taken from the judges’ October 14 paychecks. Feinberg’s ruling would have stopped those hikes from being deducted from their future bi-weekly checks, but the state wants to continue with those higher collections during the appeals process.

Feinberg rules judges and justices are exempt from paying more because a provision in the state Constitution prohibits their salaries from being “diminished” during their terms. Feinberg did not agree with the state’s contention that increasing pension and health benefits contributions does not constitute a reduction in their pay, infuriating Christie, who denounced the ruling as “self-interested and outrageous.”

Christie called for a constitutional amendment to allow for a reduction of judges’ salaries, but Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver sad they don’t support calling for a vote on it, preferring to see how it is handled in the courts.

Feinberg has been criticized for ruling on a case that affects her, but case law allows judges to hear cases that directly affect them when there is no other appropriate court to address the matter. She has not set a date yet to hear the motion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, Senate President Stephen Sweeney and Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver have no plans to post a constitutional amendment ensuring judges are subject to increases in pension and benefit payments proposed by Governor Chris Christie. “I am not inclined to support pursuing a constitutional amendment,” Oliver said. “It sets a very unhealthy precedent.”

Christie’s call for an amendment to the state Constitution stems from a decision issued by Superior Court Judge Linda Feinberg, who wrote requiring judges to pay more for pension and benefits is an indirect reduction in salary. The state Constitution prohibits pay cuts for judges and justices. The amendment would define justices and judges’ salary as exclusively salary, not encompassing pension and benefit payments.

Without support from Sweeney and Oliver, both of whom spearheaded the changes for public workers in June, Christie’s proposal is dead in the water. While Oliver said she is not inclined to post the amendment under any circumstances, Sweeney said he will re-evaluate based on the decisions of the higher courts. “Changing the Constitution based on one decision may not be warranted,” Sweeney said in a statement. “After the appeals process has been completed, the legislature will then determine the appropriate reaction, if any.”

In a press conference, Christie personally attacked Feinberg and called the decision “self-interested,” “outrageous” and “extraordinary hubris.” “Judge Feinberg’s decision yesterday, in addition to being legally indefensible, is morally indefensible,” Christie said. “If the courts will not fix this problem, then the Legislature has to give the people the opportunity to fix this problem.”

Christie said he will send language for a constitutional amendment to legislative leaders by the end of this week. He wants the Legislature to act in the lame-duck session after the November election, so the measure appears on the November 2012 ballot when voter turnout is highest.

To be on the ballot, a constitutional amendment must be approved by three-fifths of each house in the Legislature, 24 senators, and 48 assemblymen. Or, it can be approved by a majority of legislators in two consecutive legislative years. Once on the ballot, a simple majority of voters must approve the amendment.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, Superior Court judges and Supreme Court justices, protected by the state Constitution from salary reductions while in office, are exempt from Governor Chris Christie’s new pension and health benefits plan requiring them to contribute a larger share of their salary, a judge ruled yesterday. 

Christie immediately lashed out at the ruling handed down by Superior Court Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg and indicated the state would appeal. “This outrageous, self-serving decision, where a judge is protecting her own pocketbook and those of her colleagues, is why the public has grown to have such little faith in the objectivity of the judiciary,” the governor said in statement issued by his office.

In reaching her decision, Feinberg concluded that the increased contributions Christie is requiring of judges and almost 700,000 current and retired state employees is an indirect reduction in pay that the Constitution specifically forbids for judges and justices. Feinberg also rejected the State’s contention that the increase is similar to a tax and is not discriminatory because it applies to all state employees.”

Superior Court Judge Paul DePascale of Hudson County filed the lawsuit challenging the measure in July after Christie signed legislation on June 28 increasing judges’ pension contributions from 3 percent to 12 percent of their annual salaries and requiring them to pay 35 percent of their health care premiums.

State law allows judges to hear cases that directly affect them when there is no other appropriate court to address the matter. The case did not go to U.S. District Court because it does not involve any federal allegations.

It is not the first time Christie has tangled with the courts, though this time he is seeking redress from the very body he has had sharp words for. He has repeatedly said the state Supreme Court justices have overstepped their bounds by influencing policy and budget decisions best left to the governor and the Legislature.

In making her ruling, Feinberg said the salaries cannot be touched, even in difficult economic times, and noted the provision is in the Constitution to protect judges from potentially vindictive acts of the executive and legislative branches of government.

Two weeks ago a group of state employees tried to tie their own legal challenge to the changes in pensions and benefits to DePascale’s case, but Feinberg ruled the two were not closely enough related to consolidate them.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, two state panels approved higher rates for health insurance plans today, raising premium rates for coverage of all state employees, municipal workers, and public school teachers and staff. These new, higher rates for health insurance plans, mean the state will pay more for benefits and so will approximately 850,000 workers who are being asked to pay an increased cost of those benefits.

Today’s votes mark the next step in a statewide shift to make public employees pay a larger share of their healthcare. Rates for 2012 health insurance plans will rise by an average of 9 percent for active state employees, and by 3 percent for retirees, witnesses told the state health benefits commission today. For Medicare-eligible retirees, rates will be frozen at this year’s rate. Health plan rates for municipal employees grow an average of 10.3 percent. Early retirees increase 10.5 percent and Medicare-eligible retirees see a 2 percent change. 

The state commission in charge of reviewing health plan rates for school board employees have approved the following rate raises: for current teachers and all school administrative staff, plan rates rise by 10.1 percent in 2012. Rates for early retirees, who retire before the age of 65, rise by 6.5 percent. Medicare-eligible retirees see their rates freeze at 2011 levels.

The state hopes to offer 15 health plans in 2012, compared with three choices for state and local employees last year. Governor Chris Christie ordered that expansion as part of his successful change to public pension and benefits laws. Officials anticipate saving $10 million this year, a savings which they said Tuesday reflected “limited” enrollment in the new, cheaper plans by public employees.

Treasury officials announced last week that the state would also take up $90 million in federal dollars to pay towards retiree prescription costs, available as a result of federal healthcare reform proposed by President Obama and passed by Congress. The timing of that program’s availability this year is coincidental, and unrelated to Christie’s reforms.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, public employees, from state workers to local school teachers, may now choose from a wider range of health plans that include low-cost options and some with narrower coverage as they start paying more for their benefits. The signature benefit reform enacted by Governor Chris Christie calls for cheaper plans while demanding higher contributions from workers. 

The state hopes to save $10 million this year through those changes alone. The future savings will grow because as workers pay a greater share of their health plan costs they may select cheaper options, lowering the expense to the state, officials said. But New Jersey is also asking for help from the federal government. The state applied for a $90 million federal program, which will cover part of the state’s bill for retiree prescription plans.

Two state panels created to review health benefits voted this week to approve a raft of new health plans, amounting to 15 choices for public employees. The rates are not fixed until they get approved by a permanent state commission, which is scheduled to act next week.

In building the health insurance plans, Treasury officials anticipate using a new federal Employee Group Waiver plan to save around $90 million in the state’s obligation for retiree prescriptions. The waiver plan is available through President Obama’s health care reform, which allows employers and states to benefit from changes to Medicare. State Treasury officials confirmed the state would file an application to the federal government, through insurance provider Medco. Part of that savings, $20 million, will be used this year to offset rises in health care costs for retired workers. The amount ensures a cap on certain co-pays for retirees in plans at 2011 levels.

The new health plans are part of a shift away from what Christie has called “Cadillac” health care coverage offered to state workers and largely paid for by the state. State employers and local governments could pay $2,000 more for an employee’s family coverage annually than current plans, according to summaries provided by state officials. But at the lower end of the scale, the cheapest plans would be an estimated $7,000 lower than the current affordable options. Workers will pay a fraction of that total premium, but that fraction will increase in July over the next three years.

In late June, Christie ordered a 12-member panel to devise the new plans as part of a controversial law to make public workers contribute more for their health care. The panel missed an August deadline, raising questions over whether Christie’s signature policy would be implemented smoothly.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, the Christie administration touted big savings for local governments because of pension reforms as state employees and a judge tussled over lawsuits challenging new requirements for them to pay more their benefits.

The controversial public benefits overhaul, signed by Governor Chris Christie in June, shifts a greater share of the costs onto public workers. Yesterday, the Governor’s office said local governments across New Jersey will save $267 million in pension costs, according to figures provided by the state’s Treasury Department. Supporters said the move was necessary to help save the cash-strapped pension system for future retirees and to help ease the burden on local governments. The calculation takes into account the amount local public employees pay into the fund, but does not include judges’ pensions. The largest savings, about $220 million, comes from increased contributions to the police and firefighters’ pension fund.

The benefits reforms are being challenged in court. Yesterday, a state Superior Court judge ruled a group of state employees cannot have their suit considered jointly with a judge who claims the additional contributions are unconstitutional. Assignment Judge Linda Feinberg in Trenton said the cases, one brought by Superior Court Judge Paul DePascale and another filed by seven state workers, are not similar enough to combine into one legal challenge.

After deciding against consolidating the cases, Feinberg heard arguments on whether she should block the implementation of the contribution increases for judges and justices. The new law was enacted June 28 but the pay deductions take effect October 14.

In adopting the new law, the state Legislature did not change the statute that sets judges’ salaries, Assistant Attorney General Robert Loughy said. Their salaries remain intact, but their salary deductions to pay for the benefits are increasing, he said. “If you have a mandatory pension program and that’s coming out of your salary, it’s a diminution of salary,” Feinberg challenged Loughy. “It’s a deduction from salary,” he countered.

Until now, any increases to health benefits or pension contributions for judges have been accompanied by pay increases, argued DePascale’s attorney. Judges contribute 1.5 percent of their salaries toward their health care benefits. The new law requires them to pay 35 percent of the premium cost. DePascale, who earns $165,000, has said that would more than double his contribution to $5,230.86. He also said added pension contributions would, after a phase in, increase his biweekly deductions from $126.44 to $687.59.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com, reclaiming the gear they laid down more than two weeks ago, 18 formerly laid-off Trenton police officers returned to work Monday morning. 

The somber ceremony of laying down boots outside police headquarters the day of the layoffs was replayed backwards inside the department’s training room, as returning cops happily donned badges, guns, Kevlar vests and neckties before hitting the streets again.

Picking out the items from their individualized boxes that were stored away on the day of the layoffs September 16, the oldest new officers in the department had their colleagues who remained without a job firmly on their minds. “I’m glad to have my job, but we still have 80-some guys still waiting,” Charles Lamin, a seven-year veteran. “It’s like going somewhere without your best friend.”

The number of returning officers is only a fraction of the 105 who were terminated earlier this month. In addition, the re-appointments may be temporary. The 18 officers’ salaries are being paid with a combination of an existing federal grant and the savings from nine retirements that took effect Saturday, police officials said. But the city learned last week it will not receive a second grant award, meaning that the funds for these officers will run out in four to six months.

Though controversy remains over a plan by Mayor Tony Mack to send more than 40 officers of the now-247 member force to foot patrol, cops will be walking the beat today, albeit in smaller numbers. The future of foot patrol in the department remains up in the air. Mack had ordered the anti-crime and drug-units disbanded and their detectives sent to foot patrol, but the plan, which would have taken effect Monday was cancelled after a sit-down with county Prosecutor Joe Bocchini Friday afternoon.

Mack, Bocchini, and police officials will revisit the two competing plans for the depleted force during a meeting today, officials said.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link