ALAA Roots — An Unofficial Site

April 27, 2001

2001.04.27: ALAA Instant Update

Filed under: Collective Bargaining,Funding,Indigent Defense,Labor Solidarity — nyclaw01 @ 12:33 pm

From: MLetwin@HQWEST.WEST
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2001 12:33 PM
To: ALAA MEMBERS@HQWEST.WEST
Subject: ALAA Instant Update
Importance: High

Saturday (Tomorrow):  WBAI Rally

ALAA, the UAW and the NYC Central Labor Council are among the endorsers of tomorrow’s march and rally to defend free speech and labor rights at WBAI radio.

Noon:  Assemble at Borough Hall, Brooklyn (2/3/4/5/N/R to Boro Hall, A/C/F to Jay St.).

1 p.m.  March across Brooklyn Bridge.

2:30 p.m.  Rally at WBAI, 120 Wall Street (east of Water Street)(2/3/4/5 to Wall St.).

Info: Concerned Friends of WBAI, 800.825.0055, www.wbaiaction.org.

Monday:  Special Delegate Council

The ALAA Delegate Council will meet this Monday, April 30, 6:30 p.m., for the specific purpose of discussing the staffing crisis in CDD and CAB.  All members welcome, but attendance by criminal division representatives is particularly important; please RSVP your attendance.

Judicial Screening Committee

Jennifer Ritter (CDD-Bk) will represent ALAA on the NY Co. Democratic Party Supreme Court Screening Committee.

April 20, 2001

2001.03.20: ALAA Delegate Council Bulletin #76

Appendix 2

ALAA Delegate Council Bulletin #76
Agenda:  Tuesday, March 20, 2001, 6:30 p.m. Sharp
•Estimated length:  1.5 hours.
•All ALAA members welcome (only elected representatives may vote).
•Free pizza/soda.

1. Adoption of DC Minutes for January 30, 2001 (attached).

2. Political Action (15 minutes).

2.1. Drop the Rock.

2.2. Mayor’s race.

3. Criminal Funding (15 minutes). 

3.1. Staffing.

3.2. Litigation.

4. Collective Bargaining (30 minutes).

4.1. Draft contract proposals (attached).

5. Internal Business (30 minutes).

5.1. Election of Health Benefits representative to Executive Board.   Nominees (closed as of March 13, 2001):

•Barbara Byrne.

•Kathryn Smith.

•Susan Sternberg.

5.2. Election of Health & Safety representative to Executive Board.   Nominees (closed as of March 13, 2001):

•Tom Bomba.

•Daniella Korotzer.

5.3. Part-timer representation.  Discussion and vote on proposed bylaw amendment to add part-timer representative to the Executive Board.

6. Contributions and Endorsements.

Minutes of ALAA Delegate Council:  January 30, 2001
Legend: Black=Present; Gray=Absent; Lowercase=Alternate

Executive Board

President:  LETWIN

Secretary-Treasurer:  ALBRO

Recording Secretary:  HITCHCOCK

VP–CAB/CAP/Fed:  BRISKEY, A1:  Kaye

VP–CDD/Bx:  GELTMAN, A1:  Bigelow

VP–CDD/Bk:  ZUSS, A1:  Torres, A2:  Korotzer

VP–CDD/M: GEIDA, A1:  Mulligan

VP–CDD/Qns:  POPPER, A1:  Byrne

VP–Civil:  HOLDER; A1:  Valentine

VP–JRD:  REEVES, A1:  Hochberg

VP–Vol. (CLO):  BING-HAMPSON, A1:  Rosa-Rios, A2:  Fishman

ACLA:  *CODLING

Aff. Action:  VACANT

Health & Safety: *NARRA

Health: *BENJAMIN

Junior:  HUGHES

Lesbian & Gay:  *BAHR

Senior: *TORRES

*Nonvoting in this capacity

Criminal Appeals Bureau (CAB)

COHEN, FABIANO, GRAVES, HARPAZ, HOPKIRK, KAYE, LANDAU, LITTLE, PETERS, A1: Taglieri, A2: Blum, P, A3: Sender

Capital Defender Division

VACANT

Criminal Defense Division (CDD)-Bronx

BxA:  ROGERS, SIM, A1: Rush-Fox, A2: Montoya, A3: Roman

BxB:  GARCIA, GURWITCH, A1: Meyerson, A2: Peppito, A3: Warshowksy

BxC:  ABBANDANDO, BOMBA, A1: Rudin, A2: Beltre, A3: Kelly

BxD:  CHEREBIN, IPPOLITO, A1: Sturman, A2: Albo, A3: Follett

Criminal Defense Division (CDD)-Brooklyn

BK1:  BAKER, BELL, A1: Costigan, A2: Hughes, A3: Dinjian, (Dolan)

BK2:  ANGRISANI, ASHWORTH, A1: Korotzer, A2: Pitts, A3: Wright

BK3:  RITTER, SHEEHAN, A1: Alzugaray, A2: Flanders, A3: Morris

BK4:  PELLEGRINO, CASHMAN, A1: Kurtz, A2: Rudnick, A3: Rahall

BK5:  DAVILA, MARTIN, A1: Newman, A2: Pratt, A3: Khashu

Criminal Defense Division (CDD)-Manhattan

M1:  DALEY, NEVINS

M2:  GROSS, NARRA

M3:  BAHR, SCHWARZ, A1: Michaeu

M4:  MARON, MULLIGAN, A1: Shapiro

M5:  ROBERTS, SOTO

M6:  AFFLER, WRIGHT, A1: Zablocki

Spec Lit:  WASSERMAN

Criminal Defense Division (CDD)-Queens

Q1:  GRUNDSTEIN, MORRISON, A1: Linneman, A2: Flamholtz, A3: Butchin

Q3:  FREDERICK, KNIGHTLY, A1: Haase, A2: Savage, A3: LoPiccolo

Q4:  AUSTIN, DIFLUMERI, A1: Byrne, A1: Auguste, A3: Horowitz

Civil Division

Aging:  BOEHM, A1: Hosannah, A2: Bart, A3: Durham

Appeals/HRP:  GOLDFEIN, KELLEHER, A1: Goldiner

Bronx:  FRIEDER, STOLLER, A1: Goetz

Brooklyn Neighborhood Office (BNO):  PIZZIMENTI, ROSENBERG

Far Rockaway:  SHORTELL, A1: Dierking, A2: Fielding

Harlem:  SACKEY, A1: Shaeffer, A2: Barbosa

Immigration:  FLOYD-MAYER, A1: Navarro

Lower Manhattan Neiborhood Office (LMNO):  DAVOL

Queens:  FLORES, A1: Mombrun, A2: Kim, A3: Friedheim

Staten Island:  MARCUS, A1: Sanchez, A2: McCann

Federal Defender Division

Appeals & SDNY:  STATSINGER

EDNY:  PADDEN, Solotaroff

Juvenile Rights Division (JRD)

Appeals/Spec Lit:  EGGER, A1: Rosenbloom

Bronx:  ROMAN, A1: Abbey, A2: Nevergold

Brooklyn:  KARASYK, A1: Koslow, A2: Baum, A3: Nolan

Manhattan:  LAMB, MARTIN, A1:  Pappadopoulos

Queens:  BOWLER, SCREEN, A1: Mittler, A2: Chiu, A3: Dandridge

Staten Island:  LEE

Parole Revocation (PRDU)

LOPEZ

Prisoners Rights Project

ZELERMYER, A1: Beritan

Volunteer Division/(Community Law Office)

MARIS, CODLING, A1: Epstein, A2: King

NB:  Italics=Adopted motion

1. Prior Minutes.  MOTION (Torres/Fabiano):  Adopt Delegate Council minutes of July 18, 2000 and November 21, 2000 (passed unanimously).

3. Criminal Divisions.  Letwin and Albro reported on ongoing campaign to secure City Council budget modification for increased LAS funding.  Without additional funding, there will be little or no additional hiring during FY01, thereby requiring reduction in CDD arraignment staffing and intake.  Letwin also reported that discovery is almost complete in ALAA/1199/LAS federal litigation, and that the court has ordered deposition of Rudolph Giuliani.

4. Collective Bargaining.

3.1.  Draft Proposals.  Letwin reported that the Executive Board is in the process of incorporating membership feedback into draft contract proposals.

3.2.  Parental Leave.  Albro reported that ALAA has negotiated paid parental leave for Dan Dolan (CDD–Bk), whose partner is also an LAS staff attorney, and to formally change the contract to provide such parental leave to all two-employee LAS households.  MOTION (Albro):  Amend the collective bargaining agreement to allow paid parental leave to both parents where each is employed by LAS (passed:  29-0-1).

5. Internal Business.

4.1.  [G.] Case.  Letwin reported that the Executive Board will be issuing a statement to the membership on the remaining internal Union issues in the [G.] case.

4.2.  Election of Joint Affirmative Action Committee Representatives.  MOTION (Albro/Torres):  Elect the following unopposed candidates as ALAA representatives to the Joint Affirmative Action Committee (alternates in parens):  Co-Chair:  Shanti Narra (CDD/Manhattan), Civil Division:  Marie Mombrun (Josephine Flores), Criminal Appeals Bureau:  (Juan Beritan), Juvenile Rights Division:  Dodd Terry (Michelle Rochester-Rae)(passed:  unanimously).

4.3.  Part-timer Representation.  Second notice of proposed bylaw amendment to add part-time representative to the Executive Board (for decision at March EB meeting).

4.4.  Change in DC Meeting Date.  Bomba said it was undemocratic for the citywide officers to have rescheduled, due to Letwin’s illness, the January 23 Delegate Committee meeting.  Albro, Narra, Letwin and others said that such changes are not frequent, but that the officers needed flexibility to reschedule meetings as necessary.  MOTION (Bomba): Prohibit rescheduling of DC meeting dates (failed:  6-17-4).

6. Contributions and Endorsements.

5.1.  Rockefeller Drug Laws.  MOTION (Albro/Bomba):  Authorize $1000 to rent buses for the March 27 lobby/rally to repeal the Rockefeller Drug Laws (passed:  unanimously).

7. Meeting Adjourned:  7:25 p.m.  Next meeting:  March 20, 2001.

Draft ALAA Bargaining Proposals

Rev. March 13, 2001

(Changes Indicated)

1.  Salaries.

1.1.  Increase salaries to achieve ADA comparability; across-the-board increases and additional senior steps.

1.2.  Increase comp/vacation buy-back.

2. TransitCheks.

2.1. Permanent contractual benefit.

2.2. Individual option to purchase additional TransitCheks on pretax basis.

3. Pension.

3.1. Increase contributions.

3.2. Fixed contribution schedule.

3.3. More individual investment options.

4.  Health Insurance.

4.1. Unified management/staff attorney plans.

4.2. Retiree coverage.

4.3. Opposite-sex domestic partner coverage.

4.4. Increase dental/vision benefits.

4.5. Lower doctor visit and R/X co-pays.

4.6  Contagious disease inoculation.

4.7. Cover birth control pills.

4.8. Cover removable prosthetic devices.

4.9. Permit faxed claim forms.

5. Life Insurance.

5.1. Increase benefit.

5.2. Implement individual option to supplementary group coverage by a date certain.

6. Long-Term Disability.

6.1. Increase benefit.

6.2. Investigate individual option to buy additional coverage on tax-free basis.

7. Loan Forgiveness Fund.

8. Time-Off.

8.1.   Paternity benefits for both parents in two-staff attorney households.

8.2. Sick leave to care for ill family members/domestic partners.

8.3.  Comp/vacation donations to other staff.

8.4. Personal/religious floating holidays.

8.5. Increase non-CDD personal days.

8.6. Comp. days for non-CDD staff attorneys.

8.7. Comp. time in all divisions for late court work.

8.8. Permit Reasonable exceptions to private practice ban during leaves of absence.

9. Part-Time Work.

9.1. Annual step increases.

9.2. Fully-paid health benefits.

9.3. Consistent policy across divisions.

9.4. Increase number of slots.

10. Expense Allowances.

10.1.  Increase arraignment cab fare, and extend to other assignments.

10.2.  Meal allowance for other off-hour assignments.

10.3. Paid local bar association dues.

10.4. Foreign language training and/or class reimbursement.

11. Quality of Representation.

11.1. Standardize CDD felony certification.

11.2.  Attorney:support staff ratios.

11.3. Stronger workload protection.

11.4. Union input on responses to oversight committee reports.

April 19, 2001

2001.04.19: To what degree will the Rockefeller laws be changed (Amsterdam News)

2001.04.19 – To what degree will the Rockefeller laws be changed – Amsterdam News — OCR

To what de ee will the ockefeller Laws e changed?

By ‘fRIPTI lAHIRI The laws also leave judges

With both New York Gov. little discretion to sentence

George Pataki and state assem- according to individual circumblymembers

p~posing reform stances, like extreme youth or

of the 30-year-o’l{ Rockefeller lack of a prior record. And with

drug laws this yea~change is many prisons located upstate,

likely, but its degree i8-~t cer- the laws appear to bolster

tain. Last Thursday, adv~tes upstate New York’s sagging

hoping for a major overh~, economy at a severe cost to

testified before a Statewide Inner-city communities.

Black and Puerto Rican/Latino EIY,Fontaine, from the East

Substance Abuse Task Force in Harlem HIV Care Initiative,

Brooklyn Borough Hall. asked assemblymembers to r “Drug abuse must be think of “The Matrix,” a 1998

‘removed entirely from the movie in which machines lived

ambit of criminal law and off cocooned human beings. “Is

treated as the social, economic this any different than the

and health issue that it is,” housing of Blacks and Latinos

Michael Letwin, president of in upstate prisons?” he asked.

the Association of Legal Aid Although several of those

I ~ttorneys, told assemblymem- who testified praised Pataki for

lJ’ers and state senators. proposing reform, they dis-

In response to the perceived agreed with certain aspects of

failure of rehabilitation, Gov. his plan.

Nelson D. Rockefeller pushed “All proposals for reform are

for the 1973 laws that mandat- not equal,” emphasized Seyed

terms of 15-years-to-life for mour James, also of Legal Aid,

anyone_ caught selling two pointing out that Pataki’s proounces

or possessing four posal will lower some senounces

of a narcotic drug, usu- tences, but will increase penalally

cocaine or heroin. Three ties for marijuana offenses and

decades later, prosecutors still make it harder for drug offendsay

the laws are vital to law ers to get parole.

enforcement and have helped The Assembly plan limits

reduce crime. sentences to a maximum of 25

But according to critics, the years for certain first-time

laws have taken a sharp toll on felonies, reduces minimums for

Blacks and Latinos and have other less serious offenses and

not reduced drug use. The two gives judges greater discretion

minorities make up 94 percent in sentences. But all of those

ofNewYork’s incarcerated drug who testified insisted that

offenders, even though reform must include the option

research from the federal of treatment for addicted

Department of Health and inmates. According to James,

Human Services shows that the treatment is several thousand

majority of users and sellers dollars cheaper than the

are white. $30,000 estimated annual cost

of housing an inmate, and far

more effective in reducing drug

dependency.

“If a person goes in and he is

addicted, why doesn’t he get

treatment? Isn’t that a violation

of the Eighth Amendment

[against cruel and unusual

punishment]?” added Fontaine.

Defense attorney Lisa

Schreibersdorf, head of the

Brooklyn Defenders Association,

also said that district attorneys

should not be the ones to determine

drug treatment options for

convicts, as outlined in the Pataki

plan. “The same person who

gets treatment in Brooklyn could

go to jail in Albany,” said

Schreibersdorf, “Most district

attorneys do not believe in treatInent.”

She added that New York

state needs to provide inmates

greater access to education,

expanding the experimental system

of specialized “drug courts,”

and make it easier to expunge

the records of former inmates

who have stayed out of trouble

long-term.

The assemblymembers,

many of whom represent areas

that have been adversely

affected by the drug laws,

appeared to agree _with most of

the points made by the public

defenders, treatment providers

and corrections officers.

“He wanted to make us

tough on crime, but he made us

stupid on crime,” said Assemb.

Adam Clayton Powell IV as he

listened to testimony.

But Sen. Velmanette Montgomery

sounded a note of caution

and raised the issue of “reentry.”

“Some people will be

coming back to their communities,”

said Montgomery,

“[They’ll need] housing, treatment,

job preparation. What

are we looking at and where

will the funds come from?”

AJ~ ( ll { 0 I – ‘( (tr( o I

April 14, 2001

2001.04.14: Fixing New York City’s Drive-By Defense Crisis

[Download .pdf version: defense]

Fixing New York City’s Drive-By Defense Crisis

April 14, 2001

By Michael Letwin, President

Association of Legal Aid Attorneys/UAW 2325

The New York Times exposé of “drive-by” criminal representation for poor defendants (April 8-10) vividly shows that retaliatory Giuliani administration policies have, predict­ably, fragmented and weakened an already-troubled indigent defense system.

As the Times reports make clear, this train-wreck need never have been.

In early 1994, a previous Times investigatory series illuminated gross deficiencies in the as­signed counsel system. Soon after, the adminis­tration agreed to observe the city’s 1965 indi­gent defense plan by assigning all non-conflict cases to the highly-respected Legal Aid Society, whose unionized attorneys had fought since the 1960s to lift the quality of criminal defense.

But this opportunity for reform was aban­doned when the Mayor unlawfully blocked an inexpensive labor settlement that the Society had been prepared to self-fund, thereby provoking a two-day strike in October 1994 by Legal Aid attorneys and support staff.

Though this federally-protected strike caused no disruption in the courts, a furious Mayor was determined to make an example of the law­yers-even if it meant breaking the law to do so.

As alluded to in the recent Times reports, striking attorneys were bludgeoned back to work by abrupt cancellation of the Society’s city contract and the threat of a PATCO-style black­list.

Immediately afterwards, $9 million was cut from the Society’s $79 million city funding, and it was announced that millions more would be transferred to numerous small providers-some of them for-profit businesses, none of them unionized-to be created specifically for that purpose.

Here was an early example of the trademark vindictiveness later imposed by the Mayor on other perceived dissenters, including school chancellors and school teachers, police commis­sioners and police protesters, art museums and street artists, homeless people and their advo­cates, taxi drivers and transit workers.

By Fall 1995, looming issuance of contracts for 20 percent of the Society’s remaining fund­ing provoked a chorus of concern.

Columbia Law School dean Lance Leibman pointed out that since “The Legal Aid Society suppl[ies] outstanding services and quality at the right price to the taxpayer. . . . it would be a great mistake to change it in this way.”

Forty-seven state court judges signed an unusually blunt public statement predicting that”such fragmentation would adversely affect the effective administration of justice.”

On behalf of communities reliant on Legal Aid representation, City Council Member Adam Clayton Powell IV linked the administration’s policy to “a long line of vicious attacks on the poor, the African-Americans and Hispanics who get caught up in this system.”

El Diario/La Prensa condemned the plan as an assault on “our society’s vulnerable segments,” and the Amsterdam News urged that “[i]t is imperative that [Legal Aid] be supported.”

Highlighting the Mayor’s anti-union motiva­tion, the Central Labor Council stated that “it is both offensive and illegal for the Mayor to retaliate against Legal Aid Society clients be­cause their attorneys belong to a union and have exercised their legally-protected right to strike.”

Although scorned by the administration, such prophecies have been fully borne out by the recent Times reports. The cumulative loss of $160 million in city funds since 1994 has whit­tled the number of Legal Aid’s public defenders from 520 down to 370. Those who remain to handle an undiminished 200,000 clients each year-without surrendering their commitment to quality-are near, at, or well beyond the break­ing point.

In 1998, a judicial oversight committee warned that the administration had forced Legal Aid to “handl[e] too many cases with too little staff and too little support.”

This Spring, the Mayor blocked City Council efforts to restore additional funds, despite the Society’s announcement that it had “already been forced to eliminate some of the vital ser­vices we render to the City’s criminal justice system” and that without an immediate $15.7 million infusion “these service cuts will continue to escalate.”

With Legal Aid increasingly hobbled, a growing number of non-conflict cases are han­dled by unmonitored, poorly-paid private 18-B counsel, whose overflowing number of indigent clients must compete for attention not only with each other, but with those who can afford to pay.

Meanwhile, millions of dollars stripped from Legal Aid subsidizes small-volume, runaway (nonunion) contractors paid more to do less and beholden to the administration for their very existence.

This increasingly dysfunctional defense system competes with fully-funded prosecutors, and with an NYPD responsible not only for the infamous Diallo/Dorismond killings, but for feeding thousands of black and Latino teenagers into the criminal justice assembly line.

It is a picture that, each day, looks a little more like Texas justice. Steps to fix it must include:

Level Playing Field. The Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Gideon v. Wain­wright will be meaningful only when the city matches each dollar spent on law enforcement with a dollar for indigent defense. This must include eliminating the huge salary advantage of prosecutors over Legal Aid attorneys and dra­matically raising pitiful 18-B fees.

One Non-Conflict Defender. The Times reports make clear that an indigent defense system motivated by union-busting and political revenge is inconsistent with adequate constitutionally-mandated representation. Rational reform begins with the recognition that a re-funded Legal Aid retains the unparalleled institutional independence, economy of scale, ancillary services, experience and dedicated staff to provide high quality, cost-effective represen­tation in all non-conflict cases.

As in Los Angeles and elsewhere, this pri­mary defense role should include homicide representation, assumption of which, a June 20, 1994 Times editorial pointed out, “is a . . . necessary step toward asserting Legal Aid’s proper role in the justice system.”

Unified Conflict Defense. Similarly, New York should finally implement a mid-1980s bar proposal to establish a unified, nonprofit, con­flict defender agency staffed by full-time attor­neys. This would yield far better results than current conflict representation, at a fraction of the cost.

Private attorneys should continue to repre­sent the relatively small number of indigent clients precluded from agency representation.

Uniform Standards. To halt the race to the bottom, primary and conflict defenders alike must be held to the same high-quality stan­dards-now codified in most professional guidelines-which generations of unionized Legal Aid attorneys have sacrificed to achieve and defend.

This is an indigent defense system of which New York City could be proud.

April 12, 2001

2001.04.12: Special April 30 DC on Criminal Workload

Filed under: Collective Bargaining,Criminal Justice,Indigent Defense — nyclaw01 @ 12:49 pm
Tags:

From: MLetwin@HQWEST.WEST [mailto:MLetwin@HQWEST.WEST]
Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2001 8:21 PM
To: ALAA MEMBERS@HQWEST.WEST
Subject: Special April 30 DC on Criminal Workload
Importance: High

Pursuant to decision of the March 20 Delegate Council meeting, there will be a special DC meeting on Monday, April 30 to consider further appropriate steps to address CDD/CAB workload caused by cumulative city budget cuts to LAS.

The March 20 DC agreed that Union representatives from each CDD/CAB office would hold office-level meetings in advance of this meeting so that representatives can accurately represent their members’ views; please coordinate the schedule for these office-level meetings with ALAA HQ so that citywide Union officers can be present.

The April 30 meeting will take place at 6:30 p.m. at ALAA HQ.  While it is particularly important for criminal representatives to attend, all members are welcome this important meeting.  Please RSVP your attendance.

The following DC will take place as scheduled on May 15.

April 5, 2001

2001.04.05: Contract Negotiations

Filed under: Collective Bargaining,Union Democracy and Structure — nyclaw01 @ 1:55 pm

Microsoft Word – Report 1

M E M O

To: ALAA Members

Fr: Michael Letwin

Re: Contract Negotiations

Da: April 5, 2001

Contract Proposals.  On March 20, the Delegate Council unanimously adopted the attached ALAA contract proposals, discussion of which with management will begin shortly.

Executive Board Elections.  The following are the results of election at the DC to vacant positions on the Executive Board (Bargaining Committee):

Health Benefits Representative.  Kathryn Smith:  24; Barbara Byrne:  18.

Health & Safety Representative. Daniella Korotzer:  30; Tom Bomba:  12.

Kathryn Smith (health benefits) can be reached via e-mail or at 212.577.3515.  Daniella Korotzer (health and safety) can be reached via e-mail or at 718.243.6296.  For help with specific problems, please continue to contact your office-level Union reps and/or ALAA HQ (212.343.0708).

On May 15, the DC will fill a newly-created part-timer position on the Executive Board (nomination deadline is May 8).

ALAA Bargaining Proposals
Adopted March 20, 2001

1.  Salaries.

1.1.  Increase salaries to achieve ADA comparability; across-the-board increases and additional senior steps.

1.2.  Increase comp/vacation buy-back.

2. TransitCheks.

2.1. Permanent contractual benefit.

2.2. Individual option to purchase additional TransitCheks on pretax basis.

3.         Pension.

3.1. Increase contributions.

3.2. Fixed contribution schedule.

3.3. More individual investment options.

4.  Health Insurance.

4.1. Unified management/staff attorney plans.

4.2. Retiree coverage.

4.3. Opposite-sex domestic partner coverage.

4.4. Increase dental/vision benefits.

4.5. Lower doctor visit and R/X co-pays.

4.6  Contagious disease inoculation.

4.7. Cover birth control pills.

4.8. Cover removable prosthetic devices.

4.9. Permit faxed claim forms.

5. Life Insurance.

5.1. Increase benefit.

5.2. Implement individual option to supplementary group coverage by a date certain.

6. Long-Term Disability.

6.1. Increase benefit.

6.2. Investigate individual option to buy additional coverage on tax-free basis.

7. Loan Forgiveness Fund.

8. Time-Off.

8.1.   Paternity benefits for both parents in two-staff attorney households.

8.2. Sick leave to care for ill family members/domestic partners.

8.3.  Comp/vacation donations to other staff.

8.4. Personal/religious floating holidays.

8.5. Increase non-CDD personal days.

8.6. Comp. days for non-CDD staff attorneys.

8.7. Comp. time in all divisions for mandatory after-hours work.

8.8. Reasonable exceptions to private practice ban during leaves of absence.

9. Part-Time Work.

9.1. Annual step increases.

9.2. Fully-paid health benefits.

9.3. Consistent policy across divisions.

9.4. Increase number of slots.

10. Expense Allowances.

10.1.  Increase arraignment cab fare, and extend to other assignments.

10.2.  Meal allowance for other off-hour assignments.

10.3. Paid local bar association dues.

10.4. Foreign language training and/or class reimbursement.

11. Quality of Representation.

11.1. Standardize CDD felony certification.

11.2.  Attorney:support staff ratios.

11.3. Stronger workload protection.

11.4. Union input on responses to oversight committee reports.

April 4, 2001

2001.04.04: Part-Timer Meeting and Nominations

Filed under: Collective Bargaining,Union Democracy and Structure — nyclaw01 @ 4:58 pm

From: MLetwin@HQWEST.WEST
Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2001 4:58 PM
Subject: Part-Timer Meeting and Nominations
Importance: High

Part-timers from all divisions are invited to meet with representatives of the Executive Board to discuss upcoming contract negotiations, and to meet among themselves to discuss potential candidates for the newly-established position of part-timer representative to the Executive Board.  The meeting will take place on Thursday, May 3, at 6:30 p.m., at ALAA HQ, 568 Broadway, Rm. 702A (N/R to Prince, B/D/F/Q to Broadway-Lafayette).  Pizza will be served; please RSVP your attendance.

Election of the part-timer representative will take place at the May 15 Delegate Council. Nominations must be received at ALAA HQ by the end of Tuesday, May 8.

NB:  ALAA will ask MIS to establish a public part-timer e-group; meanwhile, the recipients of this e-mail include all of part-timers, as provided to the Union by LAS HR.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.