Cost-cutting

The new deputy mayor for operations, Stephen Goldsmith, is soliciting for ways to cut the city's budget, and he has instituted an online suggestion box:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/misc/html/2010/ideas.html

Can you think of any ways the city might save some money? Any extra layers of management that might get eliminated and save the city millions? You can? Great! Let City Hall know. After all, they asked, right?

The WSJ profiles a colleague of ours

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303738504575568591097401742.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

Madelon Rosenfeld, an ALJ at ECB Manhattan has been excelling at fencing on both the national and international levels. The Wall Street Journal published a nice profile of her (with video!).

No, it's not labor related, but it's nice to read something positive for a change, right?

We're not the only ALJs with complaints

Judges in Jeopardy: ALJs Feeling Heat From Disgruntled Litigants

Statement of United Federation of Teachers Brooklyn Borough Representative Howard Schoor to the NYC Charter Revision Commission Submitted August 23,

My name is Howard Schoor. I am the Brooklyn Borough Representative at the United Federation of Teachers, and for the past four years I have been the point person in the UFT’s efforts to organize and negotiate a first contract for approximately 300 per session hearing officers employed as Administrative Law Judges at the City’s Environmental Control Board, the Department of Health, and the Taxi and Limousine Commission. I am here to speak on the Charter Revision Commission’s proposal for consolidation of the city’s administrative tribunals, which would significantly impact the functioning of these agencies in ways that are deeply troubling and problematic for the following reasons:

1. There is no evidence that consolidation would result in more efficient operations or reduced costs. The Commission proposes to give the Mayor a free hand to reorganize and supposedly “streamline operations” at the existing tribunals. The current proposal would authorize the Mayor to merge the city’s various administrative tribunals under the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) by means of executive order. But since last year, the Environmental Control Board which is the largest of the city’s tribunals, has been functioning under the jurisdiction of OATH. Despite promises from the person responsible that such transfer of authority would enable ALJs to be better trained, treated more professionally, and have access to the latest technology, there has been no demonstrable improvement in these areas. Rather, we have seen the growth of more high-paying managerial positions at ECB, while the wait time at ECB offices has increased and the support staff and roster of hearing officers working each day has been cut.

2. There is no reason to believe that consolidation would foster independence or impartiality within the tribunals. The Commission offers the need to “increase the appearance of impartiality and independence” as the basis for consolidation of the tribunals. We agree that this need exists, but consolidation is not the means to that end.

One of the reasons these per session hearing officers voted to unionize was to obtain due process rights and job protection. Currently, they have no right to a hearing prior to being disciplined or terminated, and they can be disciplined or terminated without cause. As a result, these ALJs, who are treated as at will employees, have no assurance that they will not be penalized for making a decision that is adverse to the City. The public needs hearing officers who have the freedom to decide cases in an atmosphere free from pressure or possibility of retaliation. It makes no difference whether the tribunals are located within the same city agency that issues the ticket, or whether the tribunals are transferred to a supposedly “independent” agency like OATH. As long as the hearing officers themselves remain without protection, the public does not have the guarantee of impartiality it deserves.

3. Consolidation of the tribunals could create the appearance of efficiency while sacrificing talent and expertise. Currently, the separate tribunals are staffed largely by hearing officers who have worked for years at the same tribunal and who have a thorough working knowledge for the legal issues presented at each hearing. Consolidation of the tribunals would open the door for hearing officers to be dispatched based on the convenience (or whim) of a central bureaucracy without consideration for the level of expertise each judge possesses. For example, a hearing officer who has been adjudicating cases at the Taxi and Limousine Commission could be sent to hear building code cases, regardless of that hearing officer’s training, simply because staffing levels dictated such an assignment.

4. There is no basis for granting the Chief ALJ authority to prescribe alternative qualifications for hearing officers. If the goal as stated by the Commission is to increase the appearance of impartiality, then surely this is not the way to achieve it. The Commission’s proposal raises the specter of hearing officers being hired for political patronage, rather than based upon their skills or experience as attorneys. The public should be able to have confidence that when they are required to appear at a hearing, the ALJ conducting the hearing will have been hired because of their talents, and not based on whom he or she knows.

5. The Commission’s proposal to amend subdivision 1 of section 1049 of the charter appears to be in violation of the NY State Taylor Law and/or the NYC Collective Bargaining Law. Section 1 (b) of the Commission’s proposal states that “the chief administrative law judge may prescribe alternative qualifications and terms and conditions of employment for ALJs transferred from another agency”. The Taylor Law and the NYC Collective Bargaining Law specifically provide public employees with “the right to be represented by employee organizations to negotiate collectively with their public employers in the determination of their terms and conditions of employment”.

Several previous documents released by the Commission throughout the public hearing process have proposed granting the chief administrative law judge the authority to prescribe “alternative qualifications or terms” or “alternative qualifications”. The current reference to “alternative qualifications and terms and conditions of employment” first appears in the Commission’s draft of the proposed amendments dated August 17, 2010. While we do not believe it is the Commission’s intention to attempt to override collective bargaining laws, as written the Commission’s proposal could be incorrectly construed as an effort to contravene the law with respect to these hearing officers, and deny their collective bargaining rights which were clearly upheld in a 1999 OCB ruling. Numerous legal challenges would result.

Negotiations with the City toward a first contract on behalf of these hearing officers are approaching the three year mark. Currently, the Union has five improper practice charges pending at the Office of Collective Bargaining (OCB), four of which allege that the City has made unilateral changes to various terms and conditions of employment for these employees.

You have already heard our objections to other aspects of the Commission’s proposal for consolidation of the city’s administrative tribunals. For all of the reasons mentioned above, we urge that the proposal, in its entirety, be removed from the list of charter revisions and not included on the ballot in November. However, in the event that the Commission does choose to adopt a proposal for consolidation into its final report, the language in this section should be amended to ensure that there is no confusion that the chief administrative law judge’s authority remains subject to the NYC Collective Bargaining Law.

I thank you for this opportunity to speak, and before you make your final decisions, encourage a further dialogue between you and a committee of our ALJS who can provide unique insight into the issues raised here tonight.

City Pragmatist

This blogger has some cogent commentary on the recent disastrous Charter Revision Commission shenanigans.

http://citypragmatist.com/2010/08/25/nyc-charter-revision-proposals-a-hobsons-choice/

Let Scott Adams say it for us

NYC Charter Revision Proposals: A Hobson’s Choice | CityPragmatist

NYC Charter Revision Proposals: A Hobson’s Choice CityPragmatist: "We welcome your comments."



How can we vote on Question #2 on the NYC Charter Revision? This question is comprised of a hodgepodge of issues! And we are expected to vote either YES or NO on the entire list of disparate items?

This does not constitute a free and fair election process but rather is an indication of our "currently" elected officials who seem to be doing the voting equivalent of cramming everything under the bed. How insulting to the people of NYC!

I believe that my right to vote freely and fairly is hampered by this patchwork of issues. In a fair voting process, I would vote Yes on some of these issues and NO on others. What is it that our "officials" are trying to hide with this ram-rod jumble of issues in Question #2?

Debreh Gilbert

A news clip of interest

http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/investigative/nyc-parking-ticket-judges-20100722

Essentially, PVB judges are complaining about quotas, being pressured to find motorists guilty, and that Chief Judge Mary Gotsopoulis has been hiding higher court rulings that favor motorists so that judges won't know they should dismiss certain tickets. Great footage of Mary running away from a reporter. Maybe a certain other Chief Judge might get the same journalistic treatment?

Has this ever happened to you?

Membership meeting Thursday January 14

Here are the details:

THURSDAY,

JANUARY 14, 2010

5 – 7 PM

UFT CENTRAL OFFICE,

52 BROADWAY

(enter at 50 BROADWAY)

2^nd FLOOR, ROOMS E & F

Refreshments will be available

A report from the New York County Lawyers Association regarding ECB

ALJs at ECB and other tribunals might find this interesting:

http://www.nycla.org/siteFiles/Publications/Publications1316_0.pdf

A little humor

I haven't had authorization to post anything here for a while, but I thought I would inject a little humor, particularly applicable for those of us at DOH. Enjoy.

An update on negotiations

It has been a while since this blog was updated, mostly because there has been little to announce. We have met with the City's representatives at OLR nine times since negotiations began, and our bargaining proposals have been presented and discussed by the parties, including issues that we know are of great importance to our membership such as wages and due process. As expected, the city has provided resistance on almost every one of our demands. The good news is that negotiation sessions, which had been difficult to schedule given the unusually large number of city agencies involved, are now coming at more regular intervals. We do not know if or when we will reach an agreement, but more frequent activity is most definitely a better sign than no activity at all.

When we have more concrete news to relay, we will let the membership know. In the meantime, please keep in mind that while bargaining is ongoing, your representatives on the Negotiating Committee cannot divulge details of the negotiations and asking them for specific information puts them in an awkward situation. Thanks for your understanding on this matter.

Legislation Update

On August 12, 2008, Mayor Bloomberg singed into law Intro 777 which, among other things, moves ECB into OATH. The law takes effect in thirty days.

July 31 Meeting Report

Due to the difficulty of arranging a full bargaining session during the summer months, a “technical session” with smaller delegations for both sides was held on July 31, 2008. No new language was exchanged between the parties, but representatives from both sides informally discussed their positions on the proposals already on the table.

As a result of the discussion, certain areas of disagreement were clarified, which should help guide the course of the next negotiating sessions. As the discussions were agreed to be informal and nonbinding, they will only be summarized here.

The City explained why it preferred to use its boilerplate when the choice of language is one of form over substance. The UFT staff has started its analysis of the proposed language differences to determine what substantive impact, if any there would be by using City boilerplate as it exists in other City contracts

The City representatives also explained that some of our other proposals are actually not covered in other contracts, but exist in policies outside the terms of the collective bargaining agreements. It was suggested that the City might be willing to agree to include these proposals either in the contract or by separate side letters, provided the two sides had a meeting of the minds on all of the outstanding issues.

Last but not least, there was a philosophical discussion regarding the role of per session judges, their rights to entitlements and the need for managerial flexibility in staffing. This philosophical difference on how the City envisions our role, in comparison to our vision, goes to the heart of our negotiations. While we will continue to vigorously pursue those rights and benefits, we anticipate that these fundamental differences of perception will make an early culmination of the negotiations unlikely.

The parties are hoping to schedule the next session by mid-September. Further developments will be posted here.

UFT Letter to Members, July 2008

July 16, 2008

Dear Administrative Law Judge:

I am writing with information on the status of our contract negotiations with the City, as well as other developments within our ALJ Chapter.

Since the opening of negotiations on April 2nd there have been three bargaining sessions with the City, the most recent of which took place on June 25th. The Negotiating Committee and UFT representatives met again with Management representatives at the Office of Labor Relations.The parties reviewed in detail the draft contract that the City proposed to us at the last session, and moved closer to agreement on several basic issues such as Union Recognition, Union Activity, and Dues Checkoff, where the parties share some similar positions. On some of the more significant issues including Due Process Rights, Grievance Procedure, and Employee Status, differences between the two sides were identified and acknowledged, but not addressed further. As is typically the case, it is expected that meaningful discussion of monetary issues such as salary and benefits will come toward the end of the bargaining process. As such, the Union has not yet provided Management with our proposal for an hourly pay raise.

Subsequent to the June 25th meeting, the Union provided the City with a document highlighting the specific language similarities and differences between our proposals. We are now awaiting the City’s response pending review of this document, and scheduling of our next bargaining date.

The membership should keep in mind that both parties are taking the position that until an entire agreement has been reached, either side may modify, amend or withdraw any of its proposals. While it is accurate to say that most of the main issues remain unresolved, progress on some of the smaller issues is noted. Given the complex nature of the bargaining and the fact that this is a first collective bargaining agreement with the City, members should expect that we’re going to have a tough fight ahead on our most
important proposals. Although our goal is always to share with you as much information as possible, I trust that you also will be sensitive to the strategic need for certain details not to be discussed publicly and to remain within the confines of the Negotiating Committee.

In an effort to keep you as informed as possible, the UFT will host a meeting open to the whole ALJ membership this September. Negotiating Committee members and UFT representatives will be present to address your questions and discuss the issues that are on your mind. Specific information on this meeting will be mailed to you later in the summer.

On other fronts, legislation accomplishing a transfer of ECB from DEP to OATH is now working its way through the City Council. Prior to the vote and during the committee hearing process, the UFT sent a letter setting forth some concerns. A copy of that letter is enclosed.

We look forward to having a more in depth conversation with you soon and encourage you to bring any questions to the UFT event now being planned for September. In the interim, you may always feel free to speak with any of the members of the Negotiating Committee listed on the first page of this letter, or you can also contact Ilene Weinerman, Special Representative at the UFT Brooklyn Office (718-722-6902 or iweinerman@uft.org). Information can also be found on the ALJ chapter blog, the address of which is http://newyorkcityaljs.blogspot.com. Also, as a reminder, if you have moved during the last few months, please contact Ilene with your new address to be certain you receive all of the mailings from our office.

I thank you again for your support of our efforts, and hope you will have a pleasant and relaxing remainder to your summer.

Sincerely,
Howard Schoor
Brooklyn Borough Representative

UFT Letter to City Council on ECB

Council Member Simcha Felder
Chair, Committee on Governmental Operations
NY City Council
250 Broadway—17th floor
New York, NY 10007

Council Member David Yassky
Chair, Committee on Small Business
NY City Council
250 Broadway—18th floor
New York, NY 10007

June 19, 2008


Dear Chairpersons Yassky and Felder:

As you may be aware, all of the per diem Administrative Law Judges of
the ECB are now represented by the United Federation of Teachers, after last summer’s landslide vote of 221 - 7 in favor of unionizing. Negotiations with the City toward a first collective bargaining agreement are now in progress. The Union has been offered an opportunity to comment on the proposed legislation, and for the record, has the following observation.

In an address to the Virginia State Convention of 1829-30, Chief Justice John Marshall stated:

"The independence of all those who try causes between man and man, and between man and his government, can be maintained only by the tenure of their office. I have always thought, from my earliest youth till now that the greatest scourge an angry Heaven ever inflicted upon an ungrateful and sinning people, was an ignorant, a corrupt, or a dependent Judiciary."

We agree that impartiality and independence are the foundation of fairness to respondents, and that the quality of administrative law adjudication should be constantly improved. The display of these qualities is dependent upon the integrity and strong ethical standards of each individual judge. While the general goals of the proposed legislation are laudable, the current City Council proposal contains no structural or institutional protection for the decision-making independence of ECB’s Administrative Law Judges. Consequently, these per diem judges may be dismissed at any time and for any reason.

Prior versions of this legislation provided 4-year terms for the ALJs. Currently, OATH judges are appointed to a 5-year term. In the absence of this type of protection, much of what the City Council hopes to achieve with this proposal may not come to fruition. We strongly urge the City Council to include a provision that protects the rights of ECB’s Administrative Law Judges and safeguards against the possibility of their arbitrary dismissal.


Thank you for your consideration of this matter.


Sincerely,
Howard Schoor
Brooklyn Borough Representative

Message From Wayne Greene

I will be commencing a full time position with the Department of Health & Mental Hygiene on June 23rd. In anticipation of that, I have resigned from the Negotiating Committee. To avoid any conflict, I did not attend the negotiating session that took place on June 6th. It has been a pleasure working with everyone on the Committee, and I wish you all great success.
Wayne Greene

Report about our second negotiation session with the city

The Negotiating Committee and our representatives from the UFT met with the city's negotiators for the second time on Friday June 6. The city's representatives presented what they styled a comprehensive agreement. After caucusing, we asked a number of specific questions and received a number of specific answers about the proffered agreement. It was then agreed that the next negotiating session would be held in several weeks, after the committee has had time to review the proffered agreement in further detail. The initial review of the agreement reveals that the City has adopted some of our demands verbatim while rejecting and/or ignoring others. Some demands have been countered by provisions very close to our demands. The next meeting with the city's representatives will take place before the end of this month, and we will keep the membership up to date as to our progress.

Report about our first negotiation session with the City

As scheduled, all nine members of the Negotiating Committee and one alternate member, along with our UFT representatives, sat down with representatives of the city for our first bargaining session on Wednesday April 2. Present for the city were several representatives each of the three agencies (DOH, ECB, TLC), as well as representatives from OLR, OATH, OMB and the Mayor’s Office. We presented written contract demands and, as expected, the OLR representatives indicated that they needed some time to review and develop their response to the comprehensive set of proposals that we have submitted. If anyone is interested in seeing a copy of the proposals, ask a member of the committee next time you see one, or e-mail us at newyorkcityaljs+negotiations@gmail.com.