The assistant public defenders and management agreed at the September 2, 1999 collective-bargaining session to exchange salary and financial package proposals and discuss them at the next session September 23.

The September 2 session was held at the Thunderbird Hotel in Bloomington.

The public defenders were represented by Teamsters Union Local 320 Business Agents Brian Aldes and Brenda Corrigan; and assistant public defenders Chris Anderson, Kari Seime, Kelly Madden and Patrick Fugina from the 10^th District; Thomas Blackmar from the 1^st District; John Fossum from the 3^rd District; Nancy Mattson from the 5^th District; and Charlann Winking and Gretchen Otto from the State Public Defenders Office.

Management was represented by Richard Scherman, Chief Administrator of the Board of Public Defense, and Tim Johnson, Chief Public Defender from the 8^th District.

The agreement to exchange salary and other financial proposals and discuss them at the next collective-bargaining session marked a reversal of previous plans to negotiate and reach agreement on all non-economic articles before beginning negotiations on financial issues.

However, discussions during the first three collective-bargaining sessions bogged down and it became apparent the parties would have difficulty agreeing on so-called non-economic issues without first discussing salary and other financial issues.

This was because many of the assistant public defenders’ "non-economic" proposals such as increased benefits in areas like sick leave, vacation, holidays, CLE expenses, and attorney licensing and professional organization fees carry costs that could affect the availability of monies for salary increases.

Neither side was willing to agree to either accept or withdraw proposals involving those benefits without first assessing the other side’s expectations for salary and other financial issues such as overhead compensation for part-time public defenders.

The Teamsters’ business agents and the Assistant Public Defender Negotiating Committee will meet during the next few weeks to finalize their financial package proposal.

The assistant public defenders’ package will surely include a new salary scale more in line with those of other attorneys doing the same type of work, such as public defenders in Hennepin and Ramsey Counties, and the state of Wisconsin; attorneys in the State Attorney General’s Office; and prosecutors.

The package will also likely include proposals that the salary scale be based on years of attorney licensure rather than the current system based loosely on years of public defender experience; and that annual salary increases be based more on pre-determined step increases rather than the current system of optional merit increases. Many of the assistant public defenders oppose merit increases because the current system has resulted in few such increases actually being given. The Board of Public Defense’s own 1999 salary study conceded that merit increases have been "sporadic" and proposed a modification to a 1% annual increase with optional increase of up to 4%. (Click here to see the Board’s 1999 Salary Advancement Study.)

The assistant public defenders and management did continue discussion on specific articles of the proposed agreement at the September 2 bargaining session.

These discussions were marked by a brief heated exchange of words between Union Business Agent Brian Aldes and Board Chief Adminstrator Dick Scherman. Scherman had questioned why the state should agree to a proposal that the employer pay a full contribution toward a ½-time attorney’s health insurance (the employer currently pays 75 %) when no other state employees receive such a benefit. Aldes replied that part-time public defenders have been subsidizing the state for years by providing an office and equipment at their own expense, and they should be entitled to increased compensation. Scherman commented that the negotiators were wasting time on issues that he was unable to negotiate. Aldes and Scherman then exchanged words on several other matters, including whether the assistant public defenders should have to calculate cost estimates for the increased benefits they are seeking. The parties then took a 20-minute recess. It was at this point Aldes and Scherman agreed to discuss financial issues at the next meeting. The session then resumed with the parties discussing issues cordially.

Here are several issues the parties discussed at the September 2 session:

The assistant public defenders have proposed the employer reimburse each attorney for conference fees, training or continuing legal education related to public defense. Scherman stated he is opposed to this because the Board provides all CLE credits needed by attorneys through training such as the Cragun’s conference and roadshows.

The public defenders propose the employer pay all attorney license fees and costs of membership in professional organizations. Tim Johnson said it would be nice if the state would pay these costs, but there is no money for it. He said the state legislature would not agree to pay the entire licensing fee for an attorney who does public defense part time.

The public defenders propose that attorneys not be assigned more than a certain number of cases per year. Examples are 120 felonies for a full-timer, 90 for a ¾-timer; 60 for a ½-timer. (Click here to see Proposed Agreement, page 51.) Johnson and Scherman stated this proposal has a significant cost factor and was very controversial. They said they want to table the issue.

The public defenders propose that attorneys be allowed to use their compensatory time in the same manner as vacation, and that part-timers receive compensatory time for any hours worked over their annual hourly requirements, and that the time be paid as a cash payment or carried over to the next year. Scherman replied that the Ramsey and Hennepin County public defenders’ offices have experienced serious problems with their comp time policies and that he wanted to table the issue.

The public defenders had proposed job-sharing be available as set forth in state statutes. However, the statute providing for job-sharing by state employees has been repealed. Scherman stated he has in the past allowed job-sharing to some extent, but that he believes it would be difficult to insert it into an agreement now that the state legislature has repealed the program. He said it was also stricken from the AFSCME contract. Scherman said he is not opposed to the idea of job-sharing, however, and did not rule out making some provision for it.

The public defenders propose there be 25 union stewards in the state to represent employees during contract negotiations and grievances. Management has proposed there be 11. Aldes stated the public defenders have agreed to withdraw an earlier proposal that the employer not be allowed to hire non-union lawyers as temporary independent contractors to handle special cases or projects.

The public defenders propose that attorneys be disciplined or discharged only for "just cause." Scherman stated he cannot agree to this because the Board believes state statute provides assistant public defenders are "at will" employees and that the statute would supercede any collective-bargaining language to the contrary.

The controversial language at issue is in Minn. Stat. § 611.26, subd. 4, where it states that assistant public defenders serve "at the pleasure" of chief public defenders. The Board believes the phrase defines at-will employment. Some assistant public defenders argue the phrase does not define at-will employment, but rather provides that assistant public defenders' job duties are assigned at the discretion of the district chief public defenders. (Click here to see text of Minn. Stat. § 611.26.)

The parties also discussed the possibility of approaching the legislature to modify or clarify the language in the statute. In any event, there will be further discussions on this issue of "just cause" discipline/discharge.

Aldes stated the public defenders are not currently proposing that part-timers receive sick leave or vacation. Scherman suggested people may want to approach the legislature in the future about part-timers receiving such benefits.

The public defender proposal is for full-timers to have the option of using sick leave to pay for up to $800.00 per year for health and fitness activities. Scherman stated he had such a benefit when he worked for Hennepin County and was not opposed to it, but that there is a cost to it that would likely reduce salary increases. He also suggested employees in outstate Minnesota do not have the same facilities available and would probably have less opportunities to take advantage of such a benefit.

The Board had proposed language that severance payments to attorneys leaving employment be distributed over a two-year period. Aldes stated such employees should receive their severance pay as soon as it’s processed. Scherman replied he did not disagree and felt the Board’s proposal seemed arbritrary. He promised to review the Board proposal.

The public defenders propose that part-timers receive pro-rated holiday pay and one floating holiday. They also propose that full-timers receive two floating holidays. Scherman stated the proposal involves a cost factor and therefore should be tabled pending discussions about the financial package.

The session ended on a fairly upbeat note with Scherman joking that discussions moved along "once we got our little tit-for-tat out of the way" and Aldes promising to revise the proposed agreement to reflect the changes the parties have agreed to. These areas of agreement cover fairly minor issues, however.

The next collective-bargaining session is scheduled for September 23 at the Ramada Inn in Roseville from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.