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, parole requirements would be eased for some prisoners and job restrictions lifted for convicted felons under a package of bills that Democratic sponsors said Monday would redirect State funds from incarceration to rehabilitation.

The measures, introduced last week amid the start of the new legislative session and an address by the governor, were described by State Senators, Raymond Lesniak and Sandra Cunningham, the sponsors, as a way to revamp the criminal justice system by encouraging drug treatment and removing employment barriers.

One bill, S907, would require the State Parole Board to release inmates when they reached their parole eligibility date unless they had committed a serious infraction while in prison or had not participated in rehabilitation programs. As for the others: S881 would give judges and prosecutors greater discretion on who could be tried in a drug court. S876 would repeal the ban on convicted felons working in places where alcohol is sold. S878 would prohibit public and private employers from automatically disqualifying convicted felons from jobs.

The measures differ from the proposal put forward by Governor Chris Christie in his State of the State address, which called from mandatory drug treatment for nonviolent offenders. Lesniak said his legislation would not require drug treatment for those who did not want it because that would be counterproductive and costly.

Lesniak said the changes in parole requirements proposed by him and Cunningham could reduce the prison population by 2,300 inmates a year, saving about $100 million that could instead go toward preparing inmates for release by helping find jobs, housing, counseling, and other services. He also said he would like to see a 50 percent increase in drug court participation by giving judges and prosecutors more latitude in deciding who could be admitted.

Drug courts, started more than a decade ago, divert offenders from prison as long as they complete drug treatment programs. But the current program does not admit people who have committed several offenses even if they are not considered violent.

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

As reported by nj.com, the state’s top lawmakers said Monday they cleared a significant hurdle in efforts to overhaul public employee benefits after agreeing to a plan that shifts more medical costs onto workers while protecting future collective bargaining rights.

The spotlight now turns to Governor Chris Christie, who has been uncharacteristically quiet as Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver and Senate President Stephen Sweeney hammer out the final details of a controversial bill overhauling pension and health benefits that is scheduled for its first legislative hearing on Thursday. 

Sweeney endorsed a plan Monday being promoted by Oliver that would increase health benefits contributions for all of the state’s 500,000 public workers but allow unions to seek lower rates at the negotiating table starting in 2014. “The sunset provision is certainly fair and is another example of the kinds of compromise we have been able to achieve with this legislation,” Sweeney said in a written statement.

A spokesman for Christie, Michael Drewniak, said the governor had no comment on the sunset provision or the broader proposal. Christie has spent the last 18 months as governor making his case for overhauling what he has contended are overly lavish pension and health benefits for the state’s public employees, often resorting to blunt criticism of them, their union leaders and Democratic lawmakers.

Sweeney and Christie recently agreed on a plan that shifts more of the costs of pensions and health benefits to public workers in the form of increased contributions, along with pushing back the retirement age and freezing cost-of-living adjustments for retirees. Leaders of the state’s public unions have mounted a fierce opposition to the proposal, urging members to reach out to legislators, lobbying in the halls of the Statehouse and issuing blistering news releases questioning lawmakers’ commitment to collective bargaining.

Sweeny has decided to bring the bill to the Senate floor despite lack of support from Democrats, and will rely on Republicans to approve the measure. Facing similar opposition, Oliver has said she will not move the bill without “significant” support from Assembly Democrats, and it’s unclear whether the sunset provision has resulted in enough support to overcome that self-imposed threshold.

The sunset provision may attract lawmakers who were on the fence, but it will probably do little to persuade staunch supporters of collective bargaining, like Assemblywoman Bonnie Watson Coleman, whose district includes many state employees. “Any legislative attempt to erode the rights of public workers is a mistake,” said Watson Coleman.

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

As reported by nj.com, people who intentionally kill police dogs or dogs involved in search and rescue operations may soon face stiffer penalties in New Jersey. The Assembly is set to consider legislation this week that would mandate minimum five-year prison terms, with no chance of parole, for such offenders, who would also face fines up to $15,000. The current maximum sentence they now face is just three to five years in prison.

The measure, named for a police dog killed in the line of duty last November, was passed by the state senate earlier this year, so it would head to Governor Chris Christie’s desk if the Assembly gives its approval on Monday. The legislation honors Schultz, a 3 ½ year old German Shepherd who served with the Gloucester Township police force and was well-known in that southern New Jersey community due to appearances at many public events.

On the day he died, Schultz had helped track down a robbery suspect and sunk his teeth into the man’s forearm. The suspect then swung his arm and the dog was thrown into the path of an oncoming car, which struck and killed him. He was later memorialized with full police honors at a ceremony which drew large crowds and media coverage.

“Dogs that assist law enforcement are loyal allies in the fight against crime,” said Ruben Ramos, Jr., one of the bill’s primary sponsors. “This dog, like many others, was simply doing his job serving and protecting the public. They deserve legitimate protection against abuse, and those who abuse them need to face severe punishment.” Besides Ramos, other primary sponsors in the Assembly are Democrats Paul Moriarty of Turnersville, Charles Mainor of Jersey City and Gilbert “Whip” Wilson of Camden. It was initially considered by the Law and Public Safety Committee, which gave its approval in March.

In the senate, the bill was sponsored by Fred Madden, who served 28 years with the New Jersey State Police, and Donald Norcross. It was passed by that chamber in February by a unanimous 40-0 vote. Madden said police dogs are “vital parts” of the law enforcement agencies they serve with, so killing one should be viewed no less harshly than assaulting a police officer. “Schultz died in the line of duty doing exactly what he and every police dog has been trained to do, hunt down criminal suspects and help their human handlers arrest them so they can be brought to justice.”

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

As reported by Yahoo News, having declared that Wisconsin’s divisive union law is not really a law yet, a judge was set to return to one of the underlying questions dogging the measure, whether Republicans violated the state’s open meetings law during the frenzied run-up to passage.

Republican Governor Scott Walker’s administration reluctantly suspended efforts to enact the law after Dane County Circuit Judge Maryann Sumi unexpectedly declared the measure had not been properly published. The move marked another round in a messy legal fight over the law, which requires most public workers to pay more for their benefits and strips away most of their collective bargaining rights.

Democrats and unions have filed three lawsuits challenging the law. Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne’s action has taken center stage so far. He alleges Republicans did not provide the proper public notice when it convened a special committee to amend the plan before its passage.

The judge is scheduled to take more testimony on the open meetings allegations. It’s unclear when Sumi may rule, but any decision almost certainly will trigger a storm of appeals that could stretch to the state Supreme Court.

State Justice Department attorneys contend the Senate’s internal rules trump the open meetings law. Sumi’s authority is limited to constitutional questions; an open meetings violation does not rise to that level, they say. Plus, they argue, Ozanne cannot sue Republican legislators because state lawmakers are immune from civil actions while the Legislature is in session.

The collective bargaining law has been a flashpoint of contention since Walker introduced it in mid-February. Under the law, most public sector workers must contribute more to their pensions and health care, changes that amount to an 8 percent pay cut. The measure also prohibits them from collectively bargaining on all work conditions except wage increases up to the rate of inflation. Walker has said the law is needed to help the state balance a $137 million deficit and give local governments enough flexibility with their employees to withstand deep cuts in state aid coming in the next two-year budget. Democrats see the law as an attempt to weaken unions, which are among the party’s strongest campaign supporters. Tens of thousands of people turned up at the state Capitol for protests that went on for three weeks, and Senate Democrats fled to Illinois to block a vote in that chamber.

To get around that roadblock, Republicans called a special committee meeting on March 9 and stripped the fiscal elements out of the bill, enabling the Senate to vote without the Democrats. The Assembly passed the bill the next day, and Walker signed it into law on March 11.

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

As reported by nj.com, leaders of New Jersey’s public workers unions said they will launch a full court press against a bill sponsored by Senate President Stephen Sweeney that would force public employees to pay more for their health care benefits. The unions have called the bill an attempt to throw out collective bargaining rights.

Hetty Rosenstein, state director for the Communication Workers of America, said her union would picket, extract pledges from lawmakers to oppose it and hold “lobby days” against the bill over the next several weeks. “It becomes illegal to negotiate anything different than what’s in that bill,” she said. “It preempts all collective bargaining.”

Bill Lavin, president of the state Firefighters Mutual Benevolent Association, said police and firefighters will protest it at a Statehouse rally and press all 120 lawmakers. “It’s totally unacceptable. I think if that were to pass, it will guarantee that the Democrats will lose the majority,” he said. “We’re shocked that Steve Sweeney, who calls himself a Democrat, would act in this manner…He’s rolled over for the governor in every instance.”

The pushback comes as the legislation has gained bipartisan support in the state Senate, with Jennifer Beck (R-Monmouth) signing on as a prime sponsor. Public employees pay 1.5 percent of their salaries towards their health benefits. Under Sweeney’s plan and a proposal by Governor Chris Christie, workers would pay a portion of their premiums instead and would have more plans to choose from.

Under Christie’s plan, public workers would pay 30 percent of their premiums within three years. Under Sweeney’s, they would pay a sliding scale based on income, with the highest earners eventually paying 30 percent. Christie’s plan would require current retirees to pay part of their premiums.

Beck said she still has reservations about parts of the bill. She agreed with Sweeney that employees should pay rates based on their income, but agreed with Christie that current retirees should pay part of their premiums. Christie spokesman Kevin Roberts said the governor’s office was not upset that Beck signed onto the Democratic proposal.

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

As reported by nj.com on February 8, 2011, Governor Christie’s plan to drastically change the State’s troubled pension system was introduced by Republican lawmakers on February 7, 2011, but Democrats who control the Legislature indicated they will push their own plan instead.

Assemblymen Declan O’Scanlon and Gary Chiusano sponsored Christie’s proposals in the lower house, while State Senator Joseph Pennacchio said he would introduce them in the upper house. The 139 page bill mirrors ideas Christie first laid out in the fall and would only affect future retirees. “We’re in dire shape and we’re trying to save the system,” said O’Scanlon.

The State’s pension fund faces a $54 billion shortfall, brought on by investment losses, increased benefits, growth in the number of public employees and the State’s decision over the years to repeatedly reduce or skip payments. Last year, Christie skipped a $3.1 billion payment. The proposals would not affect already-retired workers. Among the biggest changes:

·         All public employees would pay 8.5 percent of their wages towards pensions

·         The retirement age would be raised to 65 for most workers. To retire early, employees would need to have accumulated 30 years on the job, rather than 25, and would be docked one-quarter of 1 percent for every month of their age under 65

·         Pensions for most workers would be calculated on a five-year average of their highest salaries, up from three

·         The 9 percent pension bump given to employees 10 years ago would be rolled back for current and future employees

·         Police and firefighter retirees would see their maximum benefit shrink from 70 percent to 65 percent of their salaries

·         Annual cost of living adjustments would be eliminated

Democrats also promoted their own proposal outlined in January. That plan would create joint labor/management boards to administer the system; force employees to pay more if the fund’s fiscal health declines; roll back the pension boost or make employees pay more for it; and eliminate cost of living adjustment for new and recent hires.

“The Senate President has put forward a plan that would blow up the pension system as it currently exists and recreate it so it works and is no longer a political football,” said Chris Donnelly, a spokesman for Senate President Stephen Sweeney. “The Governor’s plan is simply more of the same that got us to where we are now.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

As reported by nj.com on February 4, 2011, the effort to reform the State of New Jersey’s civil service system stalled as Governor Chris Christie conditionally vetoed a bill to overhaul the system and Democratic legislative leaders declared they will not agree to his proposed changes. 

Christie called the Democrats’ bill “tepid, ineffective and meaningless” and said it would not save property taxpayers’ money. “The Legislature has sent me special interest approved ‘reform’ that will do nothing to constrain property taxes,” said Christie in his veto message. “The time for real reform of civil service is overdue.”

The Governor proposed allowing the State’s 193 towns in the Civil Service system, rules that govern the hiring, promotion and firing of employees, to opt out of it through voter referendum. Democrats had balked at this, saying it would open the door to more political cronyism and nepotism. 

Senate President Stephen Sweeney said he was willing to compromise with the Governor after they passed the bill, but Christie “didn’t want to give an inch.” Sweeney said he will not put Christie’s conditional veto up for a vote in the Senate, and will not start from scratch on another civil service reform bill. “I’m not going to beg the governor to try to find reform. We’re equal branches of government,” he said. “This was the first time the governor was not willing to compromise on something. What he’s going to find out is when there’s no compromise, there’s no legislation.”

Changing the State’s Civil Service system is the biggest remaining piece of Christie’s proposed “tool kit” to help towns curtail property taxes. Starting this year, towns face a 2 percent limit on property tax increases. In addition to the 193 towns, most state workers and 20 of the State’s 21 counties are in the Civil Service system.

The Democrats said their bill was “real reform” because it allowed local leaders to move employees between departments and set up a task force to reduce the number of employee titles and give towns more flexibility in assigning work duties. In his veto, Christie struck language about creating the task force on civil service titles, saying it would add an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy.

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

As reported in the Star Ledger on October 26, 2010, Governor Chris Christie joined with the Democratic Essex County Executive, Joe DiVincenzo, to stop a legislative effort to water down his proposal to cap public employee raises.

Democratic lawmakers were trying to pass a bill that would have allowed exceptions to Christie’s proposal for a so-called “hard cap” on salary increases in public worker contracts. The bill, introduced last week, was not only opposed by Christie, but DiVincenzo and some mayors as well. The Assembly had been scheduled to vote on the bill, but the bill was forced to be tabled after a determination that key support from Democratic members was lost. Therefore, an announcement was made that the bill was being shelved after a frenzied week of lobbying by DiVincenzo and others aligned with the Governor.

Speaker Sheila Oliver and Senate President Stephen Sweeney summoned reporters to a news conference last Thursday to announce their proposal to reform the rules governing salary arbitration for public worker unions. In short, arbitration is a process that allows an “independent referee” to decide salaries when government entities cannot work out their differences with labor unions like those that represent police and firefighters.

The Oliver-Sweeney bill called for arbitrators to, among other things, take into account new statutory caps on property tax hikes and the economic climate of the region. However, it did not include a “hard cap” on pay raises which Christie and DiVincenzo are pushing.

Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak repeated the governor’s support for a tough salary cap and issued another call for the Legislature to pass the tax-control measures proposed by Christie as part of his “tool kit” agenda. “A hard cap would bring meaningful collective bargaining reform and is essential to finally control property taxes for every New Jersey homeowner,” Drewniak said. “Gov. Christie urges the Legislature to fulfill the commitment it made when it passed the 2 percent property tax cap and enact real arbitration reform and the other necessary tool kit bills without further delay.”

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