Teamsters Union and State Board of Public Defense negotiators were inching closer toward a contract agreement when discussions were abruptly postponed after a flareup of tempers last Friday afternoon (January 21, 2000) at the Teamsters Local No. 320 offices in Minneapolis.

A day earlier, negotiators appeared to make significant progress toward resolving key issues after talks had resumed following a six-week period over the holidays where negotiations had slowed to a standstill.

Talks are scheduled to resume with sessions January 27 and January 31. Despite the abrupt end to last Friday’s meeting between unions leaders, public defenders and the Board, there is reason for optimism that a tentative contract agreement may be reached soon.

The Board’s current proposal was outlined by union negotiators to the Public Defender Negotiating Committee last Friday at the union offices. It contains several key provisions offering greater salary and benefits than earlier Board proposals.

The Board’s proposal includes the following:

• Public defenders would receive a 2.5% cost of living increase (COLA) retroactive to July 1, 1999. (This is no change from earlier Board proposals.)

• On July 1, 2000, public defender salary ranges would be adjusted upward to a minimum of $43,000 and maximum of $83,082 for full-timers. Part-timer salaries would be prorated based on their percentage of part-time employment. This would create a new salary scale based on the employee’s years of public defender experience. There would be no cap on an employee’s salary increase. (This represents some significant changes over prior Board proposals. The Board had earlier proposed a minimum salary of $38,000. The Board had also proposed a $10,000 cap on any employee’s salary increase. The cap was vigorously opposed by the public defenders as it would penalize those employees who were previously underpaid by continuing to pay them less than other public defenders with comparable experience. The latest proposal appears to avoid this basic inequity and would give some public defenders salary increases of more than $20,000, according to union negotiators.)

• Public defenders would progress through the salary range to the top of the scale in 22 years. (The prior Board proposal did not guarantee a progression to the top of the scale.)

• Beginning July 1, 2001, public defenders would receive a 2.5% annual salary increase on their hiring anniversary date, except years of service 3, 5, 8, 13 and 18, when they would receive 5.5% increases. Salary increases would thus average 3% per year. Any COLAs appropriated by the legislature would be in addition to these salary increases. (The prior Board proposal was for 2% annual salary increases, plus COLAs.)

• Overhead allowances for part-time public defenders would be increased to $3,000 per year for ¾-timers and $2,000 per year for ½-timers. Eligibility criteria, such as having a half-time secretary and Minnesota Statutes Annotated, would be eliminated. All part-timers would receive overhead allowances. In addition, part-timers would continue to receive payments from the fund of public defender reimbursements collected by the courts, pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 611. (The Board previously had been unwilling to discuss a change from the current overhead allowance of $1,500 per year for ¾-timers and $1,000 per year for ½ -timers who met the eligibility criteria.)

While the latest Board proposal appeared promising, union negotiators and members of the public defender negotiating committee quickly agreed they could not adequately evaluate it without disclosure of the Board’s proposed detailed salary scale and a complete list naming each individual public defender, their years of experience and proposed salary. With this information, the union and negotiating committee can examine whether the Board’s proposed salary scale would fairly pay public defenders based on their experience and would actually deliver what it promises.

Last Friday afternoon, union negotiators had agreed with Board Chief Administrator Dick Scherman to appear at the union offices to discuss the Board’s proposal with the public defender negotiating committee and disclose the proposed salary scale. However, when Scherman arrived he announced he did not have the detailed salary scale and public defender list with him and suggested he did not want to disclose it yet.

Union Negotiator Harold Yates exploded, telling Scherman he had broken his promise and was negotiating in bad faith. Scherman maintained he had not been asked to bring the list and thought he was only supposed to discuss the summary of the proposal. Yates reiterated that Scherman was not negotiating like a gentleman and should immediately leave the union hall. Scherman and Yates engaged in a jaw to jaw discussion in which Scherman essentially argued the age-old saw, You can’t kick me out, I’m leaving (i.e., you can’t fire me; I quit). Scherman then left, announcing he would still attend the scheduled negotiating session on January 27.

This was a disappointing end to a session that had been fairly upbeat and had given negotiating committee members optimism that a contract agreement may be near. However, Scherman and Yates talked by phone later in the afternoon and ironed out some of their differences. Scherman promised to disclose the salary scale and public defender lists at the January 27 negotiating session.

The January 27 and 31 sessions will include the small-group portion of the public defenders negotiating committee. Expected to attend are union negotiators Brian Aldes and Brenda Corrigan, and public defenders Tom Blackmar of the 1^st District, John Fossum of the 3^rd District and Charlann Winking of the State Public Defenders Office.

The full negotiating committee is expected to meet on January 31 after the small-group negotiating session. If the parties are able to reach a tentative agreement, the negotiating committee would decide whether to approve it, then would meet with the public defender membership to explain the tentative agreement before a vote of the membership on whether to ratify it.