In a short but productive collective-bargaining session September 23 at the Ramada Inn in Roseville, the Public Defenders and Board of Public Defense negotiating teams exchanged ideas about a financial package and reached a tentative agreement on two key issues.

Near the end of the one and one-half hour meeting, Dick Scherman, Chief Administrator for the Board of Public Defense, announced that "I would tentatively say we do not object" to just cause termination and a grievance procedure for settling disputes between public defenders and management over disciplinary issues.

Scherman’s agreement that public defenders be disciplined or discharged only for just cause marked a turnaround from previous bargaining sessions, when the Board took the position public defenders were "at will" employees pursuant to state statute and just cause termination could not be negotiated due to that law.

Scherman’s statement appeared to settle an issue that appeared headed for controversy and stalemate. Public Defender Negotiating Committee members had been united in their position that, to be acceptable, the collective-bargaining agreement had to contain provisions guaranteeing public defenders the security of just cause termination and a grievance procedure. But the Board’s prior position that Minn. Stat. § 611.27 defined assistant public defenders’ employment status as "at will" had left the issue in limbo. The Board’s change in position marks the first agreement over a disputed issue during the two month long negotiations.

However, the parties were not able to find any common ground during their discussions about financial issues. Nonetheless, negotiators exchanged a fair amount of information that at least put ideas on the table and suggested there may be room to make progress during upcoming negotiating sessions.

The public defenders were represented by Teamsters Union Local 320 Business Agents Brian Aldes and Brenda Corrigan; and Public Defenders Negotiating Committee Members Tom Blackmar from the 1^st District; John Fossum and Kevin Riha from the 3^rd District; Sue Ginsberg from the 5^th District; Nancy Mattson from the 6^th District; Kari Seime, Kelly Madden and Patrick Fugina from the 10^th District; and Charlann Winking and Gretchen Otto from the State Public Defenders Office.

The Board of Public Defense was represented by Dick Scherman, Chief Administrator; Kevin Kajer, Fiscal Director; Bob Ellingson, Governmental Relations Manager; and Tim Johnson, Chief Public Defender of the 8^th District.

The public defenders presented their financial package proposal. It proposes a starting salary of $42,000 for an assistant public defender in his/her first year of attorney licensure. The salary would increase 5% per year under the proposed schedule to $51,051 after five years, $65,156 after 10 years, and $83,157 after 15 years. Part-timers’ salaries would be 75% of the schedule for ¾-timers and 50% of the schedule for ½-timers. (Click here to see the Public Defenders proposed salary schedule.)

Under the proposal, public defenders’ salaries would be based strictly on years of attorney licensure, not as under the current system based loosely on public defenders’ years of public defender experience.

The public defender proposal is designed to eliminate alleged inequities in the current classification system. Under the current step system, some public defenders did not receive credit for at least some of their prior experience practicing law. Moreover, under the current system there is no clear procedure for moving up in step classification as public defenders gain more experience.

The public defender proposal would also guarantee annual step increases on the attorneys’ hiring anniversary dates. The current system is based on discretionary merit increases that have been sporadic and even non-existent for many public defenders. The Board, in its own salary study, has conceded that merit increases have been sporadic (click here to see the Board’s 1999 Salary Advancement Study).

The public defenders’ financial package also proposes that part-time employees receive monthly administrative allowances as a reimbursement for overhead expenses. The proposal would pay ¾-timers $1,500.00 per month and ½-timers $1,000.00 per month. (Click here to see the Public Defenders proposed administrative allowance for part-timers.)

The administrative allowance proposal is based on a Board of Public Defense study from the mid-1990s indicating that office overhead for full-time public defenders averaged $24,000 per year for each employee. The public defender negotiating committee reasoned that prorated overhead cost for part-timers would equal $18,000 per year for ¾-timers,(i.e., $1,500 per month), and $12,000 per year for ½-timers, (i.e., $1,000 per month).

Scherman’s response to the public defender proposal was that there is not enough money available to the Board of Public Defense to fund it.

Scherman and Kajer presented the Board’s proposal: the current salary schedule remain in effect for Fiscal Year 2000 (i.e., July 1, 1999 to June 30, 2000) with an added 2-1/2% cost of living adjustment; the current salary schedule be adjusted for Fiscal Year 2001 to add in the $2.5 million appropriation from the legislature for the salary comparison study with the attorney general’s office, plus a 3% cost of living adjustment. Scherman also proposed a 2% annual step increase beginning after Fiscal Year 2000, although it was not clear whether he proposed this be a guaranteed or a merit based increase. (Click here to see the Board’s 1998 Salary Study comparing public defender salaries with those of the attorney general’s office.)

Teamsters’ Business Agent Brian Aldes asked whether the Board’s proposed salary schedule would be based on years of licensure. Kajer responded that, while the Board’s 1998 comparison study used dates of licensure in order to make the comparison and obtain an appropriation from the legislature for salary increases, the intent is now to make adjustments to the current salary schedule rather than create a new one. In other words, it appears the Board proposal would not base salary on years of licensure and would continue many of the inequities public defenders believe exist due to the manner in which attorneys were classified when hired.

Scherman and Kajer also addressed the Board’s position on the cost of additional benefits proposed by the public defenders. Scherman said they had done cost estimates on the proposed agreement. Kajer presented those estimates as follows:

PROPOSAL FY2000 FY2001

1. Compensatory time (FT) $ 46,210 $ 47,365

Compensatory time (PT) 512,035 524,836

2. Sick leave 28,860 29,582

3. Severance 13,398 27,663

4. Comp time at separation 22,947 23,521

5. Funeral leave 9,991 10,241

6. Union stewards 69,196 70,926

7. Reduction of PT hours

8. Holiday pay (PT) 342,165 350,719

9. Added floating holiday 57,417 58,852

11.Mileage rate to 32.5¢ 22,050 22,050

12.Copy reimburse to 15¢ 26,056 26,056

13.Area relocation expense 40,000 40,000

14.Stability pay 148,271 168,284

15.Training reimbursements 91,200 91,200

16.Attorney license fees 65,664 65,664

17.Meal reimbursements 325,013 325,013

18.Insurance cont. for 1/2PT 76,125 87,544

19.Sick leave—fitness 48,640 48,640

Scherman stated the total cost of the benefits package proposed by the public defenders would be an additional $4 million to $5 million per year. Scherman and Kajer also stated they calculated the total cost of the benfits and financial package proposal including salary and overhead reimbursement would be an additional $13.3 million in Fiscal Year 2000 and $12.3 million in Fiscal Year 2001.

Teamsters Business Agent Aldes responded by saying, "I didn’t realize we were proposing such a small package." The comment brought a roar of laughter from those in the room, including from the Board representatives.

Scherman noted that AFSCME employees settled for cost of living adjustments of 2.5% in FY2000 and 3% in FY2001, and that a number of benefits such as insurance and vacation benefits are set by state government units outside the Board of Public Defense. "I can’t act outside the realm of state government," he said.

Talking more specifically about the financial package proposal, Scherman said that while it was his position the Board could not afford it, some of the items could be debated and others might best be left to "meet and confer" in the future. He also stated "we might be able to agree" to approach the legislature and seek an additional appropriation to pay increased salary and benefits.

Aldes told Scherman the union would not be willing to approach the legislature with the Board unless the parties had agreed on a contract.

At Aldes’ request, Scherman promised to submit the Board’s salary proposal in writing prior to the next collective-bargaining session. With that, the parties agreed to engage in further negotiations seeking agreement on contract issues.

The parties agreed to meet again on October 14, 1999 at 8:00 a.m. The location of the meeting was not agreed to, but there was discussion about having it at the building housing the State Public Defenders Office in southeast Minneapolis.