Thursday,
March 7, 2002
REGISTER
OF PROBATE IANNELLA SLAMS JUDGES CONFERENCE CALL FOR
RANK-AND-FILE COURT EMPLOYEES TO ABSORB FURTHER BUDGET CUTS
Suffolk
County Register of Probate Richard Iannella reacted with
disappointment to a proposal from the Massachusetts Judges
Conference detailed in today’s Boston Globe. In a letter to
Trial Court Chief Justice Barbara Dortch-Okara, the judges’
association reportedly recommends that 3% raises previously
negotiated by unions representing most court workers be
postponed until July 2003. The judges claim that the move
would save enough to bring back recently laid-off employees
and ease future budget shortfalls.
“The
same judges making this latest proposal seem to have forgotten
that if they all took the eight-day furlough as everyone else
did, enough would have been saved to prevent last week’s
layoffs to begin with,” said Iannella. “Now, they want to
go back to the well instead of stepping up themselves?”
Register
Iannella added: “100% of rank-and-file court employees are
giving up eight days of pay through June, while a bare
majority of these judges – little more than half – agreed
to make the very same sacrifice. I find it offensive that the
judges ask for yet another 100%, and now want 200% worth of
sacrifice, while the judges themselves are barely at 50% right
now.”
In
a memorandum issued today to employees of the Suffolk
Registry, Iannella vowed to continue his outspoken criticism
of judges who refused to take furlough days, and of the Judges
Conference for this latest proposal. “Nowhere in this latest
proposal do the judges suggest cost-saving measures that
involve sacrifice on their part,” wrote Iannella. “(T)hey
once again turn to rank-and-file employees to take the hit
while they give up absolutely nothing.”
Iannella,
meanwhile, is awaiting response to a Freedom of Information
Act request for lists of judges who agreed to and refused to
be a part of the payless workdays. Thus far, the Trial Court
and Judges Conference have repeatedly declined requests to
provide such information.
“I
truly respect and congratulate those judges who may have
joined with us in doing the right thing, but just as many of
them turned their backs on us,” said Iannella. “Even the
president of the Judges Conference told a reporter asking
whether or not he accepted the furlough that it was
‘nobody’s business.’ He’s a public employee and
that’s shameful. Court workers and the taxpayers of the
Commonwealth have a right to know which judges were on board
and which were not.”
A
copy of the memorandum issued today to Registry employees
follows:
MEMORANDUM
DATE: 3/7/02
TO:
All Registry employees
FROM: Richard
Iannella
RE:
Reaction to statement from MA Judges Conference
As
many of you are aware, today’s edition of the Boston Globe
reports on the details of a letter written to Chief Justice
Barbara Dortch-Okara by the Massachusetts Judges Conference.
In the letter, the judges’ association is reportedly
recommending that scheduled 3% raises negotiated by unions
representing court workers be postponed until July, 2003. The
judges claim the move would save enough money to bring back
laid-off court employees and fund programs and services that
may be next to go because of the budget crisis.
I
am informing all Registry employees of my total and active
opposition to this proposal. It is completely outrageous for
the Judges Conference to make this request while Trial Court
employees are sacrificing eight days of pay through June. What
is particularly offensive is the fact that many of the
state’s judges completely refused to accept the furloughs
– even after they knew that their participation would
prevent the layoff of much lower-paid Trial Court employees.
(While the Boston Globe quotes that 35% of the judges did not
take the furlough, my understanding is that a bare majority
did, leaving nearly half that absolutely refused to take
part.)
Nowhere
in this latest proposal do the judges suggest cost-saving
measures that involve sacrifice on their part. Although The
Globe reports that the letter from the Judges Conference
states: “All members of the court family are being called on
to make sacrifices in these difficult fiscal times,” they
once again turn to rank-and-file employees to take the hit
while they give up absolutely nothing. Rank-and-file employees
have already done their share. Why should they give up 200%
while the judges are barely at 50% participation right now?
I
have been in contact with the two unions representing most
court employees throughout the budget crisis, and join with
them in active opposition to this latest proposal. I am also
expressing my opposition in communication with the Office of
Administration and Management of the Trial Court.
I
will keep you informed of further developments regarding this
or related budget issues.
