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, public pension funds may have gotten a much-needed boost from Governor Chris Christie’s landmark overhaul last year, but reports released show the funds continue to be hampered by the State’s failure to make full payments into the plans. 

Christie and Democratic leaders joined together last year and shifted a greater share of the pension costs on to public workers and cut out cost-of-living increases for future and current retirees. The move helped drive the State’s nagging unfunded pension liability from $53.9 billion to $36.3 billion when they revised 2010 figures, the report shows. 

But the State’s pension hole grew by $5.5 billion by the end of the 2011 budget year, largely because Christie followed in the tradition of his predecessors and failed to make a pension payment, an annual actuarial report on the pension funds shows. Overall, the State has only 67 percent of the money it needs to meet its future pension obligation, and that figure is expected to worsen as the State phases in its full pension payment over the next seven years.

The State was supposed to pay about $3 billion into the pension fund this year, but will only be paying about $480 million. Next year, the State will only pay about $900 million of its $3 billion bill, records show.

By 2018, State taxpayers will begin paying more than $5 billion a year for pensions, roughly ten times higher than the partial payment being made in this year’s budget, according to administration estimates. The tab for local taxpayers will rise by about $600 million by 2020, estimates show.

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

As reported by nj.com, the sponsor of a bill to end five and six figure sick-leave payouts for retiring public employees in New Jersey is calling on Governor Chris Christie to sign compromise legislation.

Senator Paul Sarlo of Bergen County told The Associated Press the Governor is holding up the bill over a relatively small difference that would end unlimited payouts for all future employees. On Monday, Christie said he is unlikely to compromise.

The sticking point is over whether to eliminate the sick time’s cash value, as Christie wants. Sarlo wants retiring employees to cash out a nominal amount to discourage employees from using up their sick-leave every year. Christie vetoed legislation a year ago that would have capped the payouts at $15,000. Democrats then offered to reduce the cap to $7,500.

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

As reported by nj.com, with a flood of retirements, the sluggish economy, and a governor intent on shrinking the size of government, the number of public workers in New Jersey has dropped to its lowest level in eight years, a Star-Ledger analysis shows. New Jersey shed about 29,100 state and local government jobs during Governor Chris Christie’s first 19 months in office, trailing only New York and California in the total number of public sector jobs lost, according to federal labor statistics.

The latest figures, released earlier this month, show the state has fewer public employees-from police and teachers to college administrators and state workers-on the payrolls than at any other point since September 2003. In fact, New Jersey’s sizable decline accounts for more than 8 percent of the 357,100 public sector jobs lost in states across the country since January 2010, the month Christie took office.

The loss of public sector jobs comes as New Jersey’s post-recession economy continues to struggle, translating into a 9.5 percent unemployment rate that is 13^th highest in the nation. In recent months, Christie has recast the unemployment rate-a critical yardstick for governors-saying it’s more a measure of his success than his failures. He said the stubbornly high jobless figure is an unavoidable consequence of his mission to shrink the size of government in New Jersey.

But economists and critics argue that Christie’s outlook ignorers how the loss of so many jobs, regardless of their origin, threatens the state’s broader economy. In January 2010, there were 590,200 employees on public payrolls in New Jersey. But that has dropped by more than 5 percent, the fifth highest percentage decline in the nation. In the same time period, the total number of jobs in New Jersey-accounting for gains in the private sector and losses in public jobs-rose by 20,300. That ranks New Jersey behind 38 other states in percentage of job growth. Christie’s critics say he may have been successful at shrinking government, but he has failed to expand the economy and provide new employment opportunities.

“In previous times, the decline in public sector jobs hit administration, but these last two years we are seeing a dramatic dip in police, fire, and EMS employees because the state aid was cut,” said William Dressel, executive director of the New Jersey League of Municipalities. Police and firefighters across the state have reacted with anger, framing the issue as a matter of public safety. “Our members are being asked to do their job without the manpower necessary to get things done. And at any given time, we can go to work and not come home,” said Dominick Marino, president of the International Association of Firefighters of New Jersey.

The city of Trenton is preparing to layoff 108 officers, which union officials there say would put staffing at 1930s levels.

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

As reported by nj.com, three major public worker unions’ committees stopped donating to state lawmakers while the legislators, who face elections in November, were preparing to vote on a landmark overhaul of pensions and health benefits.

The Communications Workers of America, New Jersey Education Association, and AFSCME zeroed out what had been historically steady donations to candidates and to political parties between January and March, records show. The reform bills were introduced in February. Instead, unions waited until the benefits fight was nearly over, holding their resources to fund last-minute donations in late May and early June to individual politicians before the party primaries.

In June, weeks after the primary, eight Democrats in the Senate and fourteen in the Assembly sided with Republicans and voted yes on changes to government workers’ pensions and health benefits. The public employee unions who had opposed the measure promised retribution.   

Today, campaign finance reports covering donations from April through June, records that will cover the final union donations before the primary, are scheduled to be released. Reports made public on Tuesday, however, showed that the Democratic State Committee received no contributions from the CWA, NJEA, and AFSCME.

Union heads say the pensions and benefits bill passage prompted soul-searching, not only among members disheartened by lawmakers’ decisions, but among the union-led committees that have given more in recent years than all other PACs combined and now have to decide what to do with their money.

Law enforcement unions, who are also affected by the changes to pensions and health benefits, continued to make donations to individual candidates, the ELEC reports showed. The political committee led by the Fraternal Order of Police gave $9,650 in the first quarter, while state troopers gave $8,000. Between April and June, the committee for State Troopers Fraternal Association of New Jersey was the only public workers union to give to the Democratic State Committee, making a $2,600 donation. Further funding will be decided after unions complete their lists of endorsements for November in early August.

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

As reported by nj.com, crime in Camden is on the rise following deep cuts to the police force earlier this year. An analysis of crime data by The Courier-Post of Cherry Hill finds violent crime was up 13 percent from January 1 through June 20 compared with the same period a year ago.

The rates were also higher than in the first half of 2008 and 2009. Assaults with guns have been particularly high, up 60 percent from last year. The newspaper also found nonviolent crime up by 21 percent so far in 2011.

Experts caution not to blame just the layoffs, which shed nearly half the city’s police force amid a budget crisis in January. Since then, some officers have been hired back.

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

As reported by nj.com, labor leaders in New Jersey, still licking their wounds after losing a fight over pension and health benefits in the Democratic Legislature last month, are being told a new anti-union bill does not stand a chance. 

The leader of the state Assembly told The Associated Press that New Jersey won’t become a battleground over allowing public and private sector workers with union shops to opt out of joining or paying dues. “This legislation is dead on arrival,” Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver said of the right-to-work bill introduced last week. “This type of move may play elsewhere, but, quite simply, this anti-worker bill will see the light of day.”

There are 22 right-to-work states, where labor unions can’t force workers to be members or pay dues. Most are in southern and western states, but they’re gaining interest in other places, especially states where Republicans control the Legislature and the governor’s office. In all, 42 right-to-work bills are pending in 24 states, according to the national Conference of State Legislatures.  

“It really weakens unions, that’s what it’s designed to do,” said Jeffrey Keefe, an associate professor at Rutgers University’s School of Management and Labor Relations, who has been watching as momentum ebbs and flows for a technique many view as undercutting organized labor’s influence. “Union dues is another name for tax. Could we imagine the quality of our school system and fire departments if paying taxes was voluntary?”

New Jersey’s bill would affect public workers. The sponsor of the right-to-work measure, Assemblyman Declan O’Scanlon, doesn’t view his legislation as piling on. Still, he quietly introduced the bill prohibiting union dues from being deducted from the paychecks of public employees amid the distraction of a scathing partisan battle over the state budget.

O’Scanlon said workers who believe they benefit by forcing employers to pay them more are mistaken. He said the opt-out legislation helps control building costs and, therefore, encourages economic growth. It also fits with Governor Chris Christie’s anti-union mantra.

Christie, who’s become a national GOP icon known for tough talk and fiscal restraint, has been unrestrained in his criticism of unions, particularly the state’s powerful public teachers union. The New Jersey Education Association, which recently spent $2 million in six weeks on anti-Christie ads, has been the recipient of many a Christie tirade, often for spending union dues teachers are required to pay to finance favored candidates or attack political foes.

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

As reported by nj.com, Attorney General Paula Dow, flanked by county prosecutors and state officials, formally unveiled a group of reforms designed to eliminate the abuse of anabolic steroids in New Jersey’s law enforcement ranks.

The measures, recommended by a panel Dow formed in December, pave the way for police departments to randomly test officers for steroids, increase safeguards in taxpayer-funded prescription drug plans, and heighten scrutiny of physicans who improperly prescribe steroids and human growth hormone. The reforms follow a series of Star-ledger reports about the use of steroids in law enforcement. The newspaper found at least 248 officers and firefighters obtained the substances from an unscrupulous Jersey City physician, Joseph Colao. In most cases, they used their government benefits to pay for drugs that ran as much as $1,100 a month. Taxpayers picked up the bill, which amounted to millions of dollars. 

“The investigative series done by The Newark Star-Ledger highlighted the damage that can be done when a doctor’s actions go unchecked and individuals become aware of the opportunity to obtain medications they may not be entitled to,” Dow said at a press conference in Hamilton. “The cost is borne not just by taxpayers, but in the erosion of faith people have in those who protect and serve. This is unacceptable.”

Among the initiatives, state guidelines on drug-testing will be rewritten to explicitly authorize departments to randomly test their officers for steroids. The guidelines will also allow chiefs or prosecutors to test officers if they have a “reasonable suspicion” of steroid use or as a condition of fitness-for-duty evaluations.

Other measures include:

·         Any officer who tests positive will be required to provide a note from a physician confirming that the use of steroids or human growth hormone is for a legitimate medical condition and that the officer is fit for duty.

·         Departments are encouraged to require officers to self-report prescriptions for anabolic steroids and human growth hormone based on the authority to determine fitness for duty.

.     Dow will recommend prescriptions for steroids or growth hormone be filled largely by mail order through Medco, the state’s pharmacy benefits manager. The provision is meant to help Medco spot potential abuses.

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

As reported by nj.com, state law enforcement authorities are mounting a coordinated response to rising gang activity in cities and suburbs, New Jersey U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman said. Gang violence in the state has become “more widespread, more violent and more sophisticated” in recent years, Fishman told about 400 law enforcement agents at the opening of a three-day conference at the Hyatt Regency. The increased gang activity comes amid severe budget woes that have forced places like Newark and Camden to reduce their police forces.

“Gangs aren’t just confined to one bad area now,” said Mary Lou Leary, U.S. principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Department of Justice. “They’re spreading out. We didn’t see that 10 years ago.”

Fishman said his office and the Newark field office of the federal Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms and Explosives are sponsoring the conference in response to a federal directive to lower gang-related violence. Fishman and other officials urged law enforcement agencies to reach new levels of cooperation and develop strategies to reduce recidivism and prevent kids from joining gangs. “We’re not going to arrest our way out of this problem,” he said.

Strategies must be based on what has worked in other municipalities, Leary said. “You just need to…tweak it to work here in New Jersey,” she said. Neither Fishman nor Leary would detail the strategies they are considering, saying they do not want to tip off gangs and undermine law enforcement efforts. Fishman also emphasized the importance of taking out an entire organization, not just the leader and allowing someone else to fill the spot. “Our strategy cannot be a high-stakes game of Whac-A-Mole,” he said.

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

As reported by nj.com, Senate President Stephen Sweeney said today he plans to introduce legislation to increase health and pension benefits payments for public workers and that the Budget and Appropriation Committee will hold a hearing on it next week.

Sweeney and Governor Chris Christie have reached an agreement on the measure, but Assembly Speaker Sheila Oliver has not signed onto it. Under the proposal, police and firefighters would pay an additional 1.5 percent of their salaries toward their pensions, and non-uniform public workers would immediately pay an additional 1 percent and eventually reach an additional 2 percent, for a total of 7.5 percent of their salaries.

Workers would also pay more for their health benefits on a sliding scale, with higher income workers paying up to 30 percent of their premiums and the lowest-income workers paying 3 percent. 

In recent interviews, several Assembly members called for the measures to be split into separate bills, one dealing with pensions and the other with health benefits. “Of course they want to do the pension bill, you know, that’s what the unions want,” Sweeney said. “They want their pensions fixed, but they don’t want to have to deal with the health care component. You know who needs the health care component. The taxpayers.” Sweeney also said, “This is not about being unfair to the unions, it’s about being unfair to the taxpayers.”

Assemblyman Jack McKeon said he supports splitting the bills because lawmakers have traditionally dealt with pension issues in the past, while unions negotiated health benefits. “The concept of combining these is foreign,” he said. Asked about Sweeney’s comments, McKeon responded, “We don’t need two bullies.”

A short time later, Oliver issued a written statement that said she was “committed to getting it done.” She added, however, “My caucus had legitimate questions after seeing the details of this concept for the first time. Working through these concerns is reasonable and appropriate. Reforming the public worker pension and health insurance system at all levels of government to bring relief to taxpayers while respecting worker rights is my priority.”

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

As reported by nj.com, public workers would pay more for their pension and health benefits under a deal struck between Governor Chris Christie and Senate President Stephen Sweeney. Under the deal, most public workers would immediately pay an additional 1 percent of their salaries for their pensions, while police and firefighters would pay an additional 1.5 percent. The State would pledge to increase its pension contributions to legally required levels.

Workers would pay up to 30 percent of their health care premiums after a four-year period. But, unlike Governor Christie’s original proposal, the payments would be tiered based on income, so employees with lower salaries pay less.

CWA New Jersey Director Hetty Rosenstein declined to discuss the specifics of the proposal, but said she’s opposed to legislation that “undermines collective bargaining.” “This proposal attacks collective bargaining. It’s absolutely unaffordable. And it does not one thing-there’s no indication that it does anything to address the high cost of health care,” she said. 

Public unions want health benefits to be decided through collective bargaining, not legislation. “We feel there is an avenue in the Assembly where we can protect our collective bargaining rights,” said Dominick Marino, president of the Professional Firefighters Association of New Jersey.  

Assemblywoman Joan Quigley said there is vocal opposition to health benefits legislation inside her caucus. “The Assembly is really just learning for the first time of the deal. There are millions of questions, and right now I don’t think there’s a consensus either way,” she said.

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

As reported by nj.com, five police officers laid off in January were sworn in at Orange City Hall council chambers. The city rehired the officers using money from a federal grant originally meant for new hires, Mayor Eldridge Hawkins, Jr. said.

The officers raised their right hands, then received their badges in a ceremony attended by dozens of city employees and officials. The five men, rejoining the department of almost 100 officers, will start immediately, the mayor said. “It’s a good feeling to be back to work,” Officer David Fanfan, 26, said.

State-aid cuts and a $3 million budget gap forced the layoffs, Orange Police Director John Rappaport said. Orange cut 11 officers in January as part of its 50 proposed layoffs, which included 12 firefighters and other city workers. The officers were brought back using a federal grant called the Community Oriented Policing Services grant that awarded the city $964,000 to hire five officers for three years.

In March, the city was able to rehire 12 laid-off firefighters and add 12 new hires by using $1.2 million in federal grants and negotiating givebacks.

• 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 nj.com, the New Jersey Supreme Court prohibited law enforcement officers from destroying the notes they take while interviewing witnesses, victims and suspects, saying defense attorneys should be allowed to view them so they can challenge official police reports.

The decision, by a divided court, addresses the decades-old struggle in New Jersey courtrooms of defense attorneys looking for possible errors, omissions or inconsistencies that could help their clients. When asked for their notes, officers often say it’s their department’s policy to destroy them once the official report is written. The ruling is the latest of a number of decisions critical of cops’ note-taking procedures. But for the first time, the court imposes sanctions and includes notes about officers’ observations at a crime scene as part of the list of documents that cannot be destroyed.

“We need not take much time to state, once more, that law enforcement officers may not destroy contemporaneous notes of interviews and observations at the scene of a crime after producing their final reports,” temporary justice Edwin Stern wrote more the majority. “Logically, because an officer’s notes may be of aid to the defense, the time has come to join other states that require the imposition of ‘an appropriate sanction’ whenever an officer’s written notes are not preserved.”

The ruling said trial court judges will be able to instruct jurors that the destruction of notes by a police officer can be a factor in determining whether he or she is telling the truth.

The Supreme Court gave the state Attorney General’s Office 30 days to inform local law enforcement officers and county prosecutors about the requirement. Cranford Police Chief Eric Mason, president of the New Jersey State Association of Chiefs of Police, said the requirement could be a state mandate that will cost local departments. “On its face, this type of practice will require additional administrative review internally at a time when police departments are being asked to do more with less with deep cuts in personnel,” Mason said.

Jon Shane, a professor of criminal justice at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, noted that New York City uses special notebooks that create duplicate copies of notes and require a supervisor’s signature as a protection against tampering. Shane also noted that, “What you’re talking about is accountability. That’s what the Supreme Court is imposing on policing.”   

The ruling grew out of an appeal by a man, identified in court papers as W.B., who was convicted of sexually assaulting his cousin, who later recanted her allegation. By a 4-3 margin, the Supreme Court upheld W.B.’s conviction.

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

As reported by nj.com, New Jersey’s price tag for public-worker retirement health benefits is higher than any state in the nation, according to a study to be released by the Pew Center on the States. New Jersey has promised $66.7 billion in medical benefits to future and current retirees, but has not set aside a single penny to pay for it, according to the study, which looked at 2009 financial data from all states.

New Jersey’s unfunded liability, the gap between what is owed and what has been saved, is higher than the nation’s most populated states of California ($66.5 billion), New York ($56.2 billion), and Texas ($53.8 billion). In fact, New Jersey’s unfunded liability accounts for 11 percent of the combined $604 billion accrued by all 50 states, the study shows.

With no money set aside, New Jersey is operating without a safety net and its annual medical costs will continue to rise even more as baby boomers retire. “The question is whether these costs are sustainable,” said Kil Huh, director of research at the Pew Center. “The more you pay, the less you’ll have for other services, such as education and health.” In order to better control retiree health costs, states should treat them like pensions, tucking away money each year to pay for future costs, said Huh. The money can then be invested and will eventually lower annual costs. As of 2009, 19 states have set aside no funds for future medical costs, while the others have mostly tucked away a small fraction of what they owe retirees, according to the study.     

Governor Chris Christie and Senate President Stephen Sweeney are working on changes to the public employee medical system that would push some of the costs to current workers and future retirees in the form of increased contributions. However, neither have proposed establishing a pension-style fund.

With enough in the bank to cover 66 percent of what’s owed in benefits, New Jersey’s pension system is also among the most poorly funded in the nation, according to the study. Based on the percentage funding, New Jersey has the 12^th poorest pension plan in the country. Many states, including New Jersey, have skipped or reduced pension contributions so they could divert money to other areas. Overall, states were supposed to contribute $115 billion to their pensions, but only kicked up $73 billion in 2009.

The study looked at the effect of the Great Recession on retirement benefits and covers the latest data available from the 50 states on pension, health care, and other benefits promised to current and future retirees. The gap between the promises states have made for public employees’ retirement benefits and the money they have set aside grew to at least $1.2 trillion in fiscal 2009, resulting in a 26 percent increase in one year.

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

As reported by nj.com, on a Monday morning in late March, counselors filed into the Piscataway police department on an urgent mission. The day before, a veteran officer distraught over the breakup of his second marriage had been killed during a shootout with colleagues in what some authorities called a clear case of “suicide by cop.” The counselors were there to give grieving officers a chance to talk through their emotions. They also wanted them to know that in times of crisis, there are alternatives to suicide, a growing problem one psychologist calls an “epidemic” among law enforcement officers in New Jersey and across the nation.

The March 27 death of Sergeant David Powell, 46, marked at least the fifth time this year an active or retired officer had taken his life in New Jersey, putting the state on pace to eclipse last year’s grim tally of 13 suicides, according to records kept by Cherie Castellano, the founder and director of a state-sponsored counseling service known as Cop2Cop.

New Jersey had just two known law enforcement suicides in 2002, the first year Castellano began keeping records. While the number has fluctuated since then, it’s been steadily climbing for the past seven years despite growing awareness and a flurry of programs to combat the problem.

Nationally, more than 400 active and retired officers commit suicide each year, said Robert Douglas, executive director of the National Police Suicide Foundation. No single force can be linked to the increase, according to those who study the issue. Rather, it’s a combination of factors that includes the ready availability of firearms, the stresses inherent in police work, difficulty explaining those stresses to loved ones and an inability to “transition from the street to the home,” said Douglas, a retired Baltimore police officer.

Eugene Stefanelli, the psychologist who refers to police suicides as an epidemic, has been working with the New Jersey State Policemen’s Benevolent Association to address the issue. Substance abuse, he agrees, plays a role in the increased risk of suicide. But Stefanelli also cited morale problems fostered by what he said was a lenient judicial system that returns criminals to the streets, a reduced respect for officers in general and “administrative pressures” within departments.

To Castellano, the founder of Cops2Cops, a helpline staffed by former officers and managed by the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, even the economy cannot be discounted as a contributing factor. Police departments across New Jersey have slashed jobs and benefits in recent years. State officials have taken some steps to address the growing number of suicides, making suicide-prevention programs available for officers and, beginning last year, mandating the training for cadets at New Jersey’s academies.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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 November 10, 2010, hundreds of Newark city police officers, firefighters, and civilian employees, barring a last-minute reprieve, will be laid off on Friday, November 12, 2010 after a judge dismissed a lawsuit aimed at blocking the city’s cost-cutting measures.

Superior Court Judge Patricia Costello told lawyers for the unions filing suit that she did not have the authority to issue a temporary stay to prevent 167 city police officers, 24 firefighters, and several hundred civilian employees from losing their jobs. While the Judge appeared sympathetic to the plaintiff’s claim that layoffs might adversely affect public safety and that the city had not engaged in meaningful negotiations, she said only the state Civil Service Commission can hear such a request.

Judge Costello also voiced frustration that the Commission, which had earlier approved the city’s layoff plan, is now one member short of the minimum needed to hold another hearing. “While the case law is completely clear, it’s hollow if the CSC is not meeting,” she said of the Commission, which is a defendant in the lawsuit along with Newark Mayor Cory Booker. The Appellate Division, however, can rule on the request for a temporary stay, Judge Costello said, and can issue a decision itself or return the case to her with that authority.

Facing an $83 million deficit, the Newark City Council approved the mayor’s budget last month, which includes a total of 866 layoffs and a 16 percent property tax hike. The Commission had earlier approved the city’s layoff plan and deemed an earlier appeal “not ripe” until the layoffs occur.

It is expected the unions will be filing a similar request for a temporary injunction with the Appellate Division. Therefore, please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain any updates that become available.

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

As reported in the Trentonian on October 15, 2010, a battle is brewing at the Statehouse over whether to cap salary increases for public employees who cannot strike. Various mayors want arbitration-awarded salary and benefits increases for police and firefighters capped at 2 percent to help them control property taxes, but union officials say the ceiling would mean wage givebacks once health care costs are factored in.

The bill is part of Governor Christie’s reform agenda and includes making the arbitration process more favorable to municipalities. The Governor signed a law limiting property tax increases to 2 percent a year beginning in January. Many mayors called the bill the “centerpiece” of Governor’s Christie’s plan. Without it, they say they will have to cut services to lower costs because a large portion of the 2 percent increase get eaten up by salaries for police and firefighters.

Unions have responded by indicating the arbitration process works and that without it, police would be taking an annual pay cut. Anthony Wieters, president of the 30,000 member State Policemen’s Benevolent Association, told lawmakers that binding arbitration, whereby an independent arbitrator settles contract disputes involving police and firefighters who are not allowed to strike, has been demonized by misconceptions. For example, he said arbitrators are already required to consider a town’s ability to pay before deciding public employees’ wage increases. Wieters also indicated that mayors were eager to “scapegoat arbitration as the boogeyman of property taxes.”

Bill Lavin, president of the Firefighters Mutual Benevolent Association, also testified, calling the cap artificial and politics-driven. “Firefighters and police officers have continued to responsibly negotiate in good economies and bad. They’ve accepted wage freezes and have reorganized active contracts to give relief to municipal governments,” he said. ‘Many local fire unions have, in fact, agreed to multiple-year wage freezes.” 

Please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain the status of this bill’s progression. Needless to say, such a bill would have a severe and detrimental impact upon New Jersey public safety officers throughout the State of New Jersey.

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

As reported in the Trentonian on October 13, 2010, the Ewing Township Police Department has slashed the number of tickets for motor vehicle violations in the past three months in response to the Township’s decision to lay off six patrol officers due to budget constraints.

According to Police Chief Robert Coulton, summons issued for moving and parking violations dropped from 633 written in June down to 340 in July, 293 in August and 290 in September. Coulton said younger officers, serving between one and five years, are traditionally the most productive in the ticket department, and the recent sharp drop in summonses, which means lost revenue for the township, is clearly a reaction to the township layoff notice issued months ago, targeting six junior patrol officers.

The police layoffs, however, have been put on ice following a request by PBA Local 111 to freeze final checks for unused vacation and sick time and start negotiations aimed at reinstating the six officers. No date has been set for the talks to begin, however.

Running down the number of tickets handed out this year, Coulton said Ewing police issued 684 in January, 500 in February, 734 in March, 644 in April, 504 in May, and then dropped off significantly. How much this has cost the Township in fines could not be determined. Coulton’s breakdown came at the request of Mayor Jack Ball, who issued the layoff order which took effect September 17 for the six officers and other township workers in various departments, laying the blame for these job cuts on Ewing’s loss of $2.5 million in state aid for Fiscal 2011, which began July 1.

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

On July 30, 2010, the Appellate Division decided James Henderson v. Board of Trustees, Public Employees’ Retirement System, Docket No.: A-6176-08T2. In the case, James Henderson appealed the Board of Trustees of the Public Employees’ Retirement System’s (“Board”) denial of his application for accidental disability benefits. Frank M. Crivelli, Esq. and Donald C. Barbati, Esq. of the Pellettieri, Rabstein & Altman law firm, and the authors of this blog, successfully argued to reverse the denial, thereby obtaining accidental disability benefits for Henderson.

The case addressed whether Henderson was entitled to accidental disability retirement benefits based upon two (2) separate work-related incidents. Notably, it was undisputed that the first incident causing Henderson injury constituted a “traumatic event.” After initially becoming injured, Henderson was unable to work for some period of time, returned to light duty for a while, and then, ultimately, returned to full duty. The injury was then aggravated and accelerated by a second incident in which Henderson attempted to perform an ordinary task within the scope of his duties and responsibilities of employment.

The Board initially denied Henderson’s application for accidental disability retirement benefits. To support the denial, the Board determined that the second accident did not constitute a “traumatic event” within the meaning of the applicable case law. The Board also found that the injury originally suffered by Henderson in the first incident constituted a “pre-existing disease or condition,” thereby precluding him from receiving said benefits. This appeal ensued.

On appeal, Henderson argued that: (1) the second incident constituted a “traumatic event” within the meaning of the applicable case law; and (2) the term “pre-existing disease or condition” was never intended to include injuries suffered in prior traumatic events for purposes of whether an individual qualifies for accidental benefits.

In its decision, the Appellate Division agreed with the Board’s initial determination that the second incident did not constitute a traumatic event within the meaning of the applicable law. Significantly, however, the Court agreed with our contention that the term “pre-existing disease or condition” does not include injuries suffered in prior traumatic events. Rather, the Court found that term has been uniformly applied to bodily diseases or conditions that were not caused by a traumatic event. The Court cited a litany of case law to support this contention and articulated that the Board’s suggestion that the injuries resulting from the original traumatic event and their sequelae should be treated as pre-existing diseases or conditions is utterly inconsistent with the applicable law.

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

www.state.nj.us/csc/

On July 20, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Latief Dickerson, Hudson County, Docket No.: A-1323-08T2. In the case, Latief Dickerson appealed from a final decision of the Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) terminating his employment as a corrections officer with the Hudson County Department of Corrections (“Department”).

On May 5, 2006, the Department served a Preliminary Notice of Disciplinary Action on Dickerson charging him with: (1) incompetency, inefficiency or failure to perform duties; (2) insubordination; (3) conduct unbecoming an employee; and (4) neglect of duty. These charges stemmed from Dickerson’s failure to satisfy mandatory training requirements and to obtain permission for his outside employment, as well as his arrest in Tuxedo, New York for various motor vehicle violations and criminal possession of a firearm.

Following a departmental hearing, Dickerson received a Final Notice of Disciplinary Action on July 19, 2006, finding him guilty of the charges and ordering his removal from office effective immediately. Dickerson contested the decision and requested a hearing before the Office of Administrative Law. That hearing was held on January 2 and March 12, 2008, before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”).

After the hearings, the ALJ determined that the Department failed to sustain its burden in sustaining the charges against Dickerson with the exception of conduct unbecoming a public employee by driving a motor vehicle while unlicensed. However, given Dickerson’s extensive prior disciplinary history, the ALJ ordered that Dickerson be fined 90 working days’ pay.

The Commission, upon its de novo review of the record, disagreed with the ALJ’s decision and upheld the Department’s decision to terminate Dickerson’s employment. This appeal followed.

On appeal, Dickerson argued that the Commission erred in failing to affirm the decision of the ALJ. Specifically, Dickerson contended that the Commission imposed an improper standard of review when it stated that it did not “agree” with the ALJ’s determination. Rather, Dickerson argued the Commission has the authority to modify or reverse the decision of the ALJ if the decision was not supported by credible evidence in the record or was otherwise arbitrary.

After considering Dickerson’s arguments, the Appellate Division affirmed the Commission’s determination and sustained the removal. The Court found the Commission’s decision comported with the applicable law regarding the review of ALJ decisions and was supported by sufficient credible evidence in the record. Specifically, the Court found, in rejecting and modifying the ALJ’s findings and conclusions, the Commission stated with particularity the reasons for doing so and made new findings supported by competent and credible evidence in the record.

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

On June 1, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Michael Sottilare, Department of Corrections Hudson County, Docket No.: A-4761-08T3. In the case, Michael Sottilare appealed from a Civil Service Commission (“Commission”) decision affirming the Hudson County Division of Personnel’s termination of his employment with the county’s Department of Corrections.

Sottilare, after more than ten years as a corrections officer, received four preliminary notices of disciplinary action arising from events commencing on November 30, 2005 and continuing through December 23, 2005. The final incident resulted in his termination.

While on leave due to an on-the-job injury, Sottilare was videotaped working at a construction site in contravention of Hudson County’s policy requiring persons on leave to remain at home unless they are receiving medical care or purchasing medication. A disciplinary charge of malingering issued as a result. Shortly thereafter, on December 23, 2005, Sottilare made a telephone call to the New Jersey Policemen’s Benevolent Association Local 109 office in order to obtain legal representation for the hearing scheduled on the malingering charge and to request a postponement. Officer Shaara Marie Green, then the Vice President of PBA Local 109, answered the phone call.

When Green testified before the Office of Administrative Law, she said she told Sottilare that the union could not provide him with legal representation because the Internal Affairs Unit (“IAU”) officers were no longer members. Sottilare had been assigned to IAU since 1995 or 1996. Green also told Sottialre to obtain his own attorney, and gave him the name of the person that his attorney should contact in order to request the postponement.

Green also testified that after she told Sottialre that PBA Local 109 could not provide him with counsel, Sottilare informed her that she was under investigation by IAU. Sottialre explained to Green that surveillance was being initiated because she was reportedly living with an ex-inmate in violation of departmental policy. 

Green immediately telephoned Ricardo Alves, Sottilare’s supervisor at IAU, to report the conversation. When Alves testified, he confirmed that he received a call from Green about the complaint that had been filed against her and that Sottilare had told her that she was the subject of an IAU investigation. Deputy Warden David Krusznis confirmed that Green was being investigated and said that disclosure of the existence of a pending IAU investigation is a violation of departmental policies and procedures, as well as of guidelines promulgated by the Office of the Attorney General.

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

On March 23, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Keith Curry, Vernon Township, Docket No.: A-4662-07T2. In the case, Keith Curry, a police officer with the Vernon Township Police Department (“the Department”), appealed from a final decision of the Merit System Board (“the Board”) rejecting the Administrative Law Judge’s (“ALJ”) initial decision reducing his suspension to 15 days and imposing a 30 day suspension for conduct unbecoming a public employee.

On March 31, 2005, a murder-suicide occurred in Vernon Township. Detective Sean Talt participated in the crime scene investigation and took a photograph of the suicide victim on his cellular telephone. Although not involved in the investigation, Curry asked Talt if he could view the photograph, as he had never been involved in such an investigation. Talt forwarded the photograph to Curry via cellular telephone and advised him not to share the photograph with anyone else, describing it as “for police eyes only.” Despite these instructions, Curry forwarded the photograph to a civilian female friend and told her to view it and delete it. However, before being deleted, this individual’s brother viewed the photograph, forwarded it to his own cellular phone, and shared it with several other members of the public.

Curry was charged with conduct unbecoming a public employee and violation of departmental rules and regulations. As to the latter, the ALJ concluded that the Department had not demonstrated a violation of a rule or regulation, but the ALJ concluded that “appellant’s conduct constituted conduct unbecoming a public employee, as it clearly signaled poor judgment.” 

On appeal, Curry does not challenge the finding, but argues that the 30 day suspension imposed by the Board was excessive. The Appellate Division rejected Curry’s argument and affirmed the Board’s determination. After carefully reviewing the record, the Court found no abuse of discretion and was satisfied the Board’s decision was not arbitrary or capricious and the suspension imposed was justified. According to the Court, the police investigation and the rights of the family may have been compromised by the unlawful distribution of the photograph.  Specifically, the Court indicated that there is a significant difference between sharing evidence with a fellow police officer and exposing the same evidence to the public for no good or valid reason.

The case illustrates the importance of law enforcement officers to not disseminate case evidence to the public and be guided in their use of cellular telephones. Though the technology age and the use of cellular telephones has no doubt aided law enforcement and streamlined certain investigations, they have also increased the exposure of law enforcement officers and increased the likelihood of investigations being compromised.

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

As reported in the Trentonian on March 12, 2010, Governor Chris Christie is looking privatize State jobs. Yesterday, Governor Christie created a task force to look at ways to privatize State jobs to save money as he tries to find a plug for a projected $11 billion budget deficit for the 2011 fiscal year.

Christie signed an executive order creating the five-person group to look at “every aspect of the way government does business.” He said privatization could narrow the scope of public services provided by the State’s nearly 75,000 workers and increase efficiency. Christie also stated that he would have ordered the audit even if New Jersey was not in dire economic need. Privatizing jobs would inevitably mean layoffs for State workers, but Christie said he had not asked the task force to come back with a specific level of savings.     

The creation of the task force comes just days after the new Republican Governor said he was wrong to think he could alter a deal Governor Corzine made with State workers that allowed them to keep pay raises and take furloughs in exchange for a no-layoff pledge. Democrats estimate that for every 1,000 workers laid off, the State would realize $30 million to $40 million in savings. However, according to Bob Master, spokesman for the Communications Workers of America District 1, privatization is a “failed tactic from the past that’s based on an ideological hostility to government.” Specifically, he indicated, “you get a real deterioration of services and you don’t save any money.” 

Governor Christie’s potential privatization could have an enormous impact upon New Jersey Public Safety Officers. As such, please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain updates regarding privatization and the workers it will affect.

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

As reported in the Trentonian on February 9, 2010, legislation requiring public workers to assume a portion of their health benefits costs and providing relief to the State pension system has been introduced. The package of bills introduced follows vows by Democratic leaders in the State Senate to revisit pension reform recommendations made four years ago.

One bill requires state, local, and school district workers to contribute at least 1.5 percent of their salary toward their health care costs. Another caps at $15,000 the amount of unused sick time that can be cashed in at retirement. A third bill repeals the 9 percent pension benefit increase put in place in 2001 by changing the way pensions are calculated. The last bill in the package requires the State to make its annual payment to the pension system, not skip it or short it, as has been the custom in recent years.

Most of the proposals would affect new hires, not those already in the pension system. However, the measure requiring public workers to contribute toward their health care costs would take effect when their current contract expires. No figures were immediately available on the potential savings. 

The pension system is underfunded by about $34 billion and is in danger of becoming insolvent unless fixes are made. The proposals were first made in 2006 after the Legislature met in special session to come up with ways to lower New Jersey’s property taxes, which average $7,045 a household and are the highest in the country. Pension and health care costs are major drivers of property taxes. 

Former Governor Jon Corzine halted some of the legislative-driven reforms, arguing that they should be part of the collective bargaining process. The State’s Unions, which have long resisted pension reforms, supported Corzine’s position. 

Other highlights of the bills include: (1) limiting enrollment in the pension system to those considered full time; (2) enrollment in a defined contribution plan for part-timers; (3) calculating pension benefits based on the 5 highest years of salary, instead of the 3 highest years, for future public workers, and basing benefits on the 3 highest years, instead of the highest year, for future State Police employees; and (4) allowing pension benefits based on one job, not multiple positions.  

Please check this blog periodically to ascertain updates with regard to this proposed legislation. Were the bills ultimately passed, there is no doubt they would have a drastic effect on New Jersey Public Safety Officers.

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

On January 21, 2010, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Rosemarie Tatusko, Docket No.: A-2888-08T3. The case involved an appeal from a final decision of the Board of Trustees of the Police and Firemen’s Retirement System which denied Rosemarie Tatusko’s (“Appellant”) application for an accidental disability pension.

Appellant was employed by the Department of Corrections as a senior correctional officer at the Burlington County Jail. Her application for an accidental disability pension was based on an incident that occurred on Ocotber 22, 2005, when she assisted in saving a female inmate who had attempted to commit suicide. Appellant heard a “hacking gagging noise,” and when she scanned the prison cells to determine the source of this noise, she found the inmate hanging from a sheet in her cell. Appellant called another correctional officer to help her and the two of them were able to cut down the sheet with scissors and get the inmate to the floor. Appellant though at the moment that the inmate had died, but later found out that she had survived the attempted suicide.

At the time of the incident, Appellant had been a corrections officer for eight years. During that time, she had witnessed three other attempted suicides, two of which involved inmates cutting their wrists and the third of which also involved a hanging. Appellant did not experience any psychological problems after any of those three prior incidents. However, Appellant suffered a total and permanent psychological disability as a result of the October 22, 2005 incident. When Appellant was asked at the hearing on her application before an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) how the October 22, 2005 incident differed from those prior incidents, she responded: “I don’t know. I can’t explain.”

The ALJ concluded that Appellant’s observations of the inmate’s attempted suicide and efforts to save her constituted a traumatic psychological event and, therefore, granted Appellant’s application. The Board rejected this recommended conclusion and determined that Appellant’s application should be denied because Appellant’s observation of the inmate’s attempted suicide and her subsequent efforts to save the inmate were not objectively capable of causing a reasonable corrections officer with training and experience similar to appellant to suffer a disabling mental injury. This appeal ensued.

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

On December 7, 2009, New Jersey State Correction Officer Darrell Kornegay was walking to his car after buying food at a restaurant on Springfield Avenue in Irvington Township, one of the township’s main drags, when he was attacked close to 9:00 p.m. A masked man carrying a handgun, later identified as Raymon Scott, stopped Officer Kornegay, demanding money and car keys. After Kornegay said he was a corrections officer, Scott opened fire and ran.

According to State officials, Kornegay carries a handgun when off duty and fired at Scott, hitting him several times. Scott then entered a vehicle that later dropped him off at East Orange General Hospital. Thereafter, Scott was charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault, unlawful possession of a weapon, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and robbery.

Officer Kornegay is a 17 year veteran at Northern State Prison in Newark. This incident illustrates the dangers that public safety officers face not only during the course of their employment, but outside of it. It also shows how public safety officers try to ensure public safety whether on duty or off. Please check this blog periodically to ascertain updates regarding this incident as an investigation by the Attorney General’s office is underway.    

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

On July 31, 2009, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Eddie Gonzalez, Docket No.: A-0644-07T2. In the case, Eddie Gonzalez, a Newark Police Officer, appealed from a final decision of the Merit System Board (“Board”) adopting the findings of fact and conclusions of an Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”), concluding that Gonzalez engaged in conduct unbecoming a public employee and violating certain Newark Police Department (“Department”) rules and regulations. The Board adopted the ALJ’s recommendation and imposed a six-month suspension.

In June 2003, Richard Diaz lived in Newark, and Gonzalez was his next-door neighbor. Diaz and Gonzalez were involved in a dispute, which resulted in Diaz filing a harassment claim against Gonzalez alleging that Gonzalez kissed Diaz’s minor daughter. On June 9, 2003, Newark Police Officer Philip Turzani was assigned as a dispatcher for the Department. Near the end of his 6:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. shift, he received a call from Gonzalez asking Turzani if he would like Gonzalez to bring him coffee. 

Gonzalez then arrived at the Newark Police and Fire Public Safety Communications Center (“Center”) at approximately 1:30 p.m., in plainclothes, and requested that Turzani run a license plate number through the Department’s computer system. Turzani asked Gonzalez if his purposes for running the plate were “legal,” and Gonzalez responded that his neighbor was trying to obtain a job and wanted to check his driving history. Turzani admitted to running the license plate, but could not recall the name of the individual connected with the search. Turzani stated that Gonzalez viewed the screen with the results on it.

Upon returning home from vacation on June 19, 2003, Diaz received twelve motor vehicle summonses in the mail. The summonses were allegedly issued by Officer Edward Sculthorpe of the Department on June 9, 2003 at approximately 2:00 p.m. Diaz challenged the summonses, claiming that he had not been stopped by a Newark police officer on that date. At the court hearing regarding the summonses, Officer Sculthorpe denied writing them and they were dismissed.

The summonses prompted a further investigation as on June 25, 2003, Diaz filed an Internal Affairs complaint with the Department against Gonzalez. In response to the complaint, Captain Robert Sbaraglio of the Department spoke with Sculthorpe, who confirmed that he had not written the summonses. Following the dismissal of the summonses, Sbaraglio conducted a preliminary investigation and identified the summons book that had been issued to Sculthorpe as the source of the summonses. Sbaraglio then had both Gonzalez and Sculthorpe submit administrative reports regarding the summonses. Both denied issuing the summonses.

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

On July 28, 2009, the Appellate Division decided In the Matter of Donald Michelson, Department of Safety, City of Union. In the case, Donald Michelson sought review of the Final Administrative Action of the Merit System Board accepting and adopting the initial decision of the Office of Administrative Law (“OAL”). The Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) found that the City of Union had proven its charges of neglect of duty, other sufficient cause, and absence without leave against Michelson and concluded that the penalty of suspension without pay for six (6) work days was reasonable and consistent with progressive discipline.

On October 14, 2005, Michelson, a sergeant in the Union Police Department, was assigned to work in the communication center from 2330 hours to 0730 hours but did not report for duty. The Police Department schedule cycle requires officers to report for duty four days on and three days off per week for three weeks, then report for duty four days on and two days off for one week (called “the short week”). Before 0400 hours, Sergeant Botti, the Desk Officer Supervisor called Michelson to inquire about his absence. Apparently, Michelson mistakenly believed he was on the short week and not scheduled to work that day. He ultimately reported for duty at 0400 hours.

The Police Department charged Michelson with neglect of duty, absence without leave, and other sufficient cause. Due to his absence, which was undisputed, the ALJ determined: (1) the communication center was without supervision for approximately four and one-half hours; and (2) the desk sergeant put aside his regular duties to conduct an inquiry into Michelson’s absence. The ALJ also noted the police department operates as a paramilitary organization and prompt attendance is critical to the efficient operation of the department. The ALJ further found that the six-day suspension comported with the concept of progressive discipline. The ALJ, reasoning that Michelson had no intention to report for duty until Botti called him, rejected Michelson’s contention that he was merely tardy, not absence without leave.   

The ALJ, noting that superior officers such as Michelson must set an example for subordinate officers, also rejected Michelson’s claim that he was subjected to disparate treatment because no other officer had been suspended for arriving late. Additionally, the ALJ concluded that the record was insufficient to support a claim of disparate treatment as it did not contain the prior disciplinary records of the other employees, a factor bearing on the discipline to be imposed. Thus, no reasoned comparison could be made. Consequently, the ALJ affirmed Union’s determination that Michelson be suspended for six (6) days.

On review by the Board, it accepted and adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact and conclusions of law and found “that the action of the appointing authority in suspending [Michelson] was justified.” Accordingly, it affirmed the action and dismissed Michelson’s appeal. This appeal ensued.

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

On July 23, 2009, the Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division issued its opinion in the case of James Liik, et al v. New Jersey Department of Personnel/New Jersey Department of Corrections, Docket Number A-4121-06T2.

This particular opinion has widespread implications in regard to pay and seniority of thousands of New Jersey corrections officers presently employed with the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

By way of background, in 1997, the New Jersey Department of Corrections and New Jersey Department of Personnel created and implemented a pilot program which modified training procedures for corrections officer recruits. Prior to the implementation of the pilot program, candidates for employment with the Department of Corrections were hired as employees and assigned the rank of “correction officer recruit” during their period of training and completion of their working test period. During this time, corrections officer recruits received full salary and benefits available for this particular rank. Once the working test period associated with the position of corrections officer trainee was successfully completed, they were then promoted to the position of senior corrections officer. The pilot program eliminated this practice and those individuals seeking employment with the New Jersey Department of Corrections were designated as “students/trainees.”

As a result of this change, they were no longer considered employees of the New Jersey Department of Corrections, but instead received the lesser rank of corrections officer recruit/trainee during the 14-week training period. During this 14-week training period, instead of receiving the regular salary of a corrections officer recruit, they received a $300 weekly stipend. If a recruit trainee successfully completed the prescribed program of training, they then became “employees” of the New Jersey Department of Corrections and received the salary and benefits of a corrections officer recruit. Despite the fact that the program was to last for only a period of one year, the New Jersey Department of Corrections and Department of Personnel made the program permanent in 1999. A stipend of $300.00 that was to be paid to student trainees never increased over the following years and a significant financial burden and hardship was placed upon those individuals seeking employment with the New Jersey Department of Corrections.

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

Employees in New Jersey’s largest state-worker union overwhelmingly ratified a revised contract agreement on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 that defers a raise and trades furloughs this year for future vacation days. With a little over 13,000 votes cast online or by phone by the deadline, the margin was 69 percent to 31 percent according to the Communication Workers of America. All four bargaining units, those represented clerical workers, professionals and two tiers of supervisors, voted for the revised deal, which bars layoffs until 2011. 

Workers in the CWA, which covers about half the state’s workforce, agreed to defer a 3.5 percent raise that was due July 1, 2009 by 18 months; they will get two 3.5 percent raises in fiscal 2011. Workers also agreed to nine furlough days over the coming year, on top of one taken in May. In exchange, they receive seven days off from work they can take starting in July 2010 or cash out when they leave state employment, at their pay rate at that time. 

The State agreed not to layoff any workers until January 2011 or add more unpaid furloughs before July 2011. If the State lays off any worker before January 2011, not counting any fired for disciplinary reasons or for cause, all state workers immediately get the deferred 3.5 percent raise and no further furloughs are required.

Workers due to receive increment raised in fiscal 2010 based on their years of service will get those increases. The nine unpaid furlough days include the day after Thanksgiving this year and Lincoln’s Birthday in 2010. The other seven dates will be worked out by workers and their supervisors and must be taken by the end of June 2010.

Republicans, who are hopeful that Governor Corzine will be replaced in this fall’s election, said the agreement ties the hands of the next governor to deal with next year’s multi-billion dollar deficit. “The governor did not need to negotiate these costly, election-year concessions. The courts had upheld his right to furlough workers as he originally proposed. The governor traded a plan that would have saved money during a recession for one that may very well slow the state’s recovery,” said Senate Minority Leader Thomas Kean, Jr., R-Union.

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

New York Governor David Patterson dropped a bombshell on two powerful unions yesterday when he unexpectedly vetoed a routine measure that for nearly thirty (30) years had allowed New York city cops and firefighters to retire with generous pensions.

“These are not routine times,” Paterson said in vetoing the “temporary” measure that, since 1981, had been habitually renewed by legislators, giving the Finest and Bravest gold-plated pensions known as “Tier II” even as new, less-generous tiers were created for non-uniformed workers. Paterson added, “Instead of a rubber stamp on a temporary fix, we need to move forward with real reform to the pension system.”

In recent months, the New York Post has detailed the spiraling costs of public-employee pensions and the growing threat they pose to state and local budgets. Paterson’s veto, which caught the lawmakers off guard, was his most aggressive move yet in his push to establish a pared-down pension tier for newly hired employees. Recently, the governor re-introduced his cost-saving pension proposal, which legislators flatly rejected during this year’s budget negotiations. In fact, Paterson estimates that his proposal for a new pension tier would save the state $48 billion over the next thirty (30) years. 

Labor unions and their allies in the Legislature said they were blindsided by the governor’s veto and argued that state and local governments will see no savings from the move because it’s unclear which pension tiers new cops and firefighters would join. According to Civil Service Committee Chairwoman Diane Savino, who sponsored the bill, “There was no cost to extending the current system. We don’t know what the cost would be. We don’t know what the savings will be.” 

The bill passed overwhelmingly, 136-6 in the Assembly and 58-0 in the Senate, leading to talk of a veto override, which requires a two-thirds majority of each house. 

The savings would come from, among other items, raising the minimum retirement age and banning overtime “spiking,” where workers run up OT in their final years to boost pension payouts.

As one can expect, developments such as these do not bode well for public safety officers across the county, to include those of our state. As detailed in previous entries, public pension reform has become an important topic, especially during these tough economic times. This article illustrates the types of responses that are being taken by government in response to the issue and the resulting effect upon public safety officers. Please continue to check this blog periodically to ascertain updates in regard to this matter.

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

On May 28, 2009, the Honorable Peter A. Buchsbaum, J.S.C. decided Mark Petersen v. Township of Raritan, Docket No. HNT-L-446-08. The complaint alleged contractual violations of the 1997-1999 collective bargaining agreement between the Township of Raritan and the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff was police officer who retired in 1999. The 1997-99 collective bargaining agreement included retiree health benefits at Article XXII. As of July 1, 2008, current employees and retirees would no longer be able to enroll in the Traditional Plan. Those who were already enrolled in that plan, such as Plaintiff, could switch to the POS plan without any cost to them. They could, however, choose to remain in the Traditional Plan, provided they agreed to pay the excess premium between these two plans from that point in time.

Count one of the complaint alleges a violation of Section 5 of the insurance clause of the collective bargaining agreement because, as of July 1, 2008, Plaintiff is paying a premium differential for the Traditional Plan in which he is enrolled, that is, the difference in premium costs between the Traditional Plan and the POS plan offered by the Township. Count two of the complaint alleges a violation of Section 5 of the insurance clause of the collective bargaining agreement because, as of July 1, 2008, Plaintiff’s co-pays for certain prescription drugs have increased. In response to the complaint, Defendant moved for summary judgment.

The trial court found the language of the collective bargaining agreement sufficiently complex to warrant further examination. Specifically, the court found ambiguity in the insurance clause as to whether the language “shall continue to receive all health and medical benefits provided by the employer for the remainder of his life” would reasonably lead Plaintiff to believe that he would receive health coverage equivalent to the Traditional Plan for the remainder of his life. Therefore, the court determined Defendant’s motion for summary judgment was premature and, thus, factual exploration of the issues in this matter is necessary.

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

On May 4, 2009, the Appellate Division decided City of Clifton v. Clifton P.B.A. Local #36, Docket No.: A-4806-07T3. In the case, Defendant, Clifton P.B.A. Local #36, appealed from a trial judge’s decision vacating an arbitrator’s award of thirteen (13) shift differential (SD) days to police detectives. 

The trial judge ruled that, in a case in which the union’s grievance was filed eighteen (18) months after the alleged wrong first occurred, and not within the twenty (20) days provided for in the collective bargaining agreement, the arbitrator exceeded his powers when stated that he had waived the twenty (20) day contractual time limit. In reaching that conclusion, the judge discussed the Supreme Court’s decision in Board of Ed. Of Borough of Alpha v. Alpha Ed. Ass’n, a case in which the Court recognized and applied the continuing violation doctrine to preserve a late-filed grievance by the union resulting from the Board’s cessation of payment of health insurance benefits. Because the trial judge found that the arbitrator exceeded his powers in considering the matter, the judge did not render an opinion on any substantive issue raised by the parties.

On appeal, the union claimed that the award was timely pursuant to the continuing violation doctrine as recognized by the Supreme Court. The City of Clifton argued, like the trial judge, that the arbitrator did not find a continuing violation to have occurred, but rather, determined to waive the contractual twenty (20) day requirement.

The Appellate Division determined the arbitrator’s decision is susceptible to both interpretations. According to the Court, the arbitrator’s decision suggests that he nominally declined to decide the applicability of the continuing violation doctrine, instead couching his decision in terms of waiver. However, the result reached was identical to the one reached in Alpha by application of the continuing violation doctrine. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter to the arbitrator for clarification of the basis for his decision on the timeliness of the action.

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

Recently, the primary authors of this blog, Frank M. Crivelli, Esq. and Donald Barbati, Esq., released a publication entitled “Taking the Necessary Steps to Win Your New Jersey Public Employee Disability Pension Appeal.” 

The publication thoroughly examines the different New Jersey Pension Systems, including the Public Employees’ Retirement System, Police and Firemen’s Retirement System, and the State Police Retirement System and the difference between accidental and ordinary disability benefits under the various pension systems. Moreover, the publication analyzes the applicable decisional and statutory law surrounding public employee disability pension appeals and articulates the necessary criteria to be satisfied and the steps one must take in order to obtain accidental and/or ordinary disability benefits.

This publication is a must have for all State of New Jersey, County and Municipal employees, especially New Jersey Public Safety Officers. Public employee disability pension law is a specialized and highly complex area of law. Should you ever find yourself in need of accidental or ordinary disability benefits, you would be hard pressed to find as useful a resource.

To obtain a free copy of the publication or, alternatively, to discuss its contents in more detail, please contact Frank Crivelli, Esq. or Donald Barbati, Esq. at (609) 890-1900 or via mail at: 2653 Nottingham Way, Hamilton, New Jersey 08619.  

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

On March 20, 2009, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey decided the case of Wade v. Colaner. In the case, plaintiff, a Tinton Falls police officer, was pulled over by New Jersey State Troopers for speeding. Plaintiff was subsequently charged with careless driving, obstruction of administration of law, and resisting arrest. On account of this incident, he was suspended from his position of employment.

Ultimately, plaintiff brought this action alleging excessive force and deliberate indifference. Defendants counterclaimed against Plaintiff for reimbursement of the wages paid to Plaintiff during his suspension and moved for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s other claims. The Court denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s excessive force claim, but dismissed Plaintiff’s deliberate indifference claim. Moreover, the Court granted the Tinton Falls Defendants’ motion for summary judgment finding that Plaintiff was not entitled to a pre-suspension hearing and also granted the motion for summary judgment for reimbursement of the wages paid to Plaintiff during his suspension.

This case shows that a public safety officer who is suspended from his or her employment and is continuing to receive their wages during the period of suspension potentially may have to reimburse their employer for the wages they have received. As a result, public safety officers should be conscious of this possibility in the event they are suspended from employment.

A similar type concept was the subject of previous posts to this blog regarding the 180 day bill recently signed into law. As you will recall, the bill, in essence, allows certain law enforcement officers and firefighters to regain pay status when appeals of termination are not resolved within 180 days. Under this bill, if an officer and/or firefighter has been receiving his/her base salary after expiration of the 180 day period and he/she ultimately loses their appeal, the officer and/or firefighter will be required to reimburse the employing agency of department all of the base salary received during the period of appeal. Certain rules of law such as these make it imperative for public safety officers to be informed regarding all the potential consequences in the event they are targeted for suspension and/or removal.   

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