Daily "Recent Prince George's County News" updates were suspended in early March 2016. They were compiled primarily from retweets of news headlines. Those retweets continue, but in unformatted and unarchived form at PG-Politics-Briefs. To follow such headlines on a current basis, follow @pgpolitics on Twitter.

Wednesday, August 19, 2009

PG Police Furloughs Deemed Unconstitutional

So there will be layoffs because our elected officials violated the rights of the employees--and broke their solemn oaths to obey the Maryland and U.S. Constitutions.

It seems to me that it would only be fair to (1) punish and (2) layoff the officials responsible, including the county executive and all the members of the council.

But, as usual, the bad guys will not be held personally accountable for doing wrong.  The rest of us--not the individuals responsible--will have to pay the consequences.

Note that the judge who made this decision is a former Prince George's County States Attorney--Jack Johnson's predecessor in that position.

On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 8:03 AM, D. Foskey <dfoskey@crowell.com> wrote:

Comment:  FOP Union wins  but does thia win translate to permanent layoffs and/or reduction of our police force?  Where is the County Council going to "find the funds" to cause furloughed police officers made whole in recovering lost wages?


County Furloughs Unconstitutional, U.S. Judge Rules

Pr. George's Might Have to Repay Wages

Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that Prince George's County violated the U.S. Constitution when it furloughed 5,900 workers in the last fiscal year, a decision that could force the county to repay millions in wages in the midst of a crippling economic downturn.
The ruling, which the county plans to appeal, has the potential to upend a key Prince George's strategy for combating deficits. A county spokesman said in a statement that the decision would result in "massive layoffs" if it stands.
"As a result of this [economic] crisis, the county made a difficult decision to furlough its employees for 10 days, saving $17 million," James P. Keary, spokesman for County Executive Jack B. Johnson (D), said in the statement. "The court has substituted its judgment without acknowledging the economic challenges facing the country. . . . In order to protect their jobs and the lives of employees and their families we will be filing an appeal to remedy this irresponsible decision."
But U.S. District Judge Alexander Williams Jr. wrote that although he is mindful that local governments are facing financial challenges "in the midst of a global recession," officials could have turned to other "more moderate alternatives" to trim the budget.
"Although the County suggests to the Court that it faced dire circumstances and had no other reasonable alternatives, the record suggests otherwise and the County's actions resemble trappings of doing that which was politically expedient," Williams wrote in his 43-page opinion.
Last month, the County Council approved a second round of 10-day furloughs for the new fiscal year that started in July. In light of the ruling, a union leader Tuesday called on the county to halt implementation of those furloughs, though it is unclear whether that will happen. It also remains to be seen whether the ruling will set a precedent for other jurisdictions, which have considered furloughs as revenue has fallen below expectations.
Vince Canales, president of the county's Fraternal Order of Police -- one of the plaintiffs in the suit -- said he was pleased with the judge's ruling, but is ready for a long legal battle.
"We were always very optimistic that we would be successful," Canales said. "We're very happy with the decision from the judge, but we are aware that this is just a first step in a long process."
Several unions filed suit against the county last year, alleging that officials violated collective bargaining agreements by imposing the furloughs. In his opinion, Williams sided with the unions on one of three counts, finding that the county violated the contract clause of the U.S. Constitution, which bars states from passing laws "impairing the obligation of contracts."
The furloughs reduced employees' "salaries/wages and hours," which were guaranteed under contracts "not subject to unilateral adjustment by the County," Williams wrote. "To find otherwise would render the contracts virtually meaningless."
Williams ordered both sides to "consult and discuss the means and manner of refunding any monies owed to Union employees as a result of having complied with the [furlough plan], and, if necessary, submit a joint proposal for the Court's approval" within 10 days.
He sided with the county on two other counts, which alleged that the furlough plan violated the county's personnel laws.
Williams also wrote that the ruling "is not a pronouncement regarding furloughs in general" but applies to the specific circumstances in Prince George's.


To subscribe, send an email to:
To unsubscribe, send an email to:
To post, send an email to:

Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe


No comments:

Post a Comment