MORRIS COUNTY —  A letter unanimously authorized by the seven-member Morris County Board of Freeholders has been sent to Morris County Sheriff Edward V. Rochford advising him that contracts he has negotiated with four labor unions representing his employees would far exceed his budget and could only be implemented through his layoffs of more than two dozen officers and civilian employees over the next two years.

The letter, signed by Morris County Administrator John Bonanni and sent to Sheriff Rochford on Thursday, explained that pay increases of 25 percent to 31 percent over three to four years negotiated by the sheriff for 2015, 2016 and 2017 with employees in his Division of Law Enforcement would far exceed his budget.

The freeholders, in the letter, strongly suggest that the sheriff re-negotiate those contracts to bring them proposed salary increases in line with realistic budget numbers and projections. Otherwise, the sheriff was advised that he should begin the process of developing a lay-off plan that would achieve needed savings to allow for pay increases he would like to implement.

The sheriff previously had been advised by the county, in July, that he would not have enough money to fund proposed salaries if he moved ahead with contracts he had negotiated, and would be faced with having to implement lay-offs.

If the sheriff were to implement those negotiated new contracts, the budget shortfall would require the sheriff to reduce his workforce by 16 full-time staff members of various ranks and levels in 2016, an additional 11 full-time employees in 2017, and at least one more layoff in 2018, to be able to fit the new salaries into his budget, the letter cautioned.

In the letter, Administrator Bonanni explained that the county treasurer has determined that pay raises negotiated by the Sheriff with Morris County Policemen’s Benevolent Association, Local 151; Morris County Policemen’s Benevolent Association, PBA 151 Superior Officers Associations; Sheriff’s Investigators; and Sheriff’s Civilians would exceed the amount allocated to Sheriff’s Office in the current 2015 county budget by $528,506.

They would result in a projected $905,767 shortfall in 2016 and exceed the anticipated 2017 county budget by $1.3 million. The county factored in anticipated 2 percent budget increase for 2016 and 2017, per Gov. Christie’s 2% cap on annual spending increases.

Any layoff plan would require at least 90 days to implement, so it would be too late for the sheriff to reduce his workforce in 2015 to offset pay hikes that would exceed his current budget.

The PBA 151 contract negotiated by the sheriff would provide a 25 percent pay increase over three years. The contract negotiated with Sheriff’s Superior Officers would result in a 31 percent pay hike over three years. The contract with Sheriff’s Civilian Employees would result in a 29.4 percent pay hike over four years.

The freeholders, in the letter, said that a September 2015 suggestion by the sheriff that a “$60 million” county surplus fund be used to pay for his negotiated salary increases would not be considered. There is no $60 million fund, they explained and suggested the sheriff meet with the County Auditor to learn the purpose, amount, source and allowed uses of surplus, of fund balances.

The sheriff set up a meeting with the County Auditor to be fully briefed on the issue of surplus, but then cancelled that session and sent surrogates from his office. Administrator Bonanni, in the letter, wrote that the offer is still open to the sheriff to meet personally with the county auditor, so he fully understands the surplus issue.

The sheriff, who is the sole employer of employees in his Division of Law Enforcement, has been asked to consider these facts and to respond to the freeholder board with a proposal on how to deal with this situation. There are about 130 employees budgeted for that division.

For a related article, click here.

Sheriff Edward Rochford, in a letter dated September 25 to Mr. John Bonnani, County Adminstrator he stated “I think it is most efficient to respond to your letter dated March 13, 2105 and go over point for point as to why the contract was negotiated as such with regards to the areas of concern you noted:

ARTICLE X- Sick Leave

The sick leave was negotiated in good faith as a gesture to give something substantial back to the county by way of a huge cost savings. Simultaneously, it was providing a means to help the  agency during our short staff status by giving the officers an incentive to come to work every day.

This part of the package basically allowed the officers to cash in their unused sick time at the end of each year at $.33 on the dollar.  This would have essentially  saved the county 66% of the funds allocated to pay for the sick benefits offered by the county. We figured this number to be  well over a million dollars a year agency wide if the officers indeed took advantage of it. We did not know it was illegal as we were informed it is taught in Public Administration studies in Universities and it was believed to have been implemented in other counties in the country; perhaps not New Jersey.  Regardless, since it is illegal as you say, the union have removed it from the contract.  The intention was to offer the county a means of savings and at the same time, find a creative motivation for the officers to come to work on every possible day to lessen overtime expenses caused by sick  days.

ARTICLE XII- Hospital  and Medical/ Surgical Insurance

This has since been edited to reflect the prior contract language.

ARTICLE XVI- Personal  Leaves

Administrative days are planned and approved by their supervisor and can often be filled by rearranging shifts and not incurring overtime unlike when an officer calls in sick. The administrative days were increased one day in years two and three of the contract only, not in the first year of the contract. This coupled with the sick incentive was to keep our daily requirements of staff and cut overtime.

ARTICLE XXII- Uniform  Allowance

$100 a year is merely covering the increase in cost to maintain the uniforms properly in order to make the uniforms last longer; ultimately  saving in the long run on the uniform needs.

ARTICLE  XXV- Wages

Although this has been portrayed  by the media as a 20+% raise, it is more accurate to figure   these contracts as essentially restoring the officers’ industry standard steps that were supposedly “temporarily frozen” in the last contract, along with a 2-3% increase.  We negotiated this as a means to only partially recover from the years they not only had their steps frozen but they also had two years of 0% increases.  So essentially, even at the 3% (1% above the proverbial  2% cap), the officers were still at a deficit of 3% from where they should be factoring in the 4% they gave up on those two years of  zeros.

The 2% cap that is so frequently referenced as the end all cap for the agency is more accurately a county-wide budget cap. This gives the counties allowance to make judgement  calls as to where  the money is to go each year. The Sheriff s Office is a Constitutional Office and my role of the Sheriff (the person who was elected by the people of this county to run this agency) is to inform you what funds I need to run this agency.   The idea is that we work together on this as we have the last 20 years of my tenure as Sheriff. I have cut and cut and cut to accommodate the governing body over the years. The last two years I have seen an egregiously costly trend that is 100% caused by the retention issue which I have brought to yours and the Freeholders’  attention  on numerous occasions. This retention issue is costing the county over  $2,000,000 a year*.

Additionally, this revolving door of new officers has gotten to a point of danger to the citizens of this county and all those who work in and visit the courthouse.  Both of these concerns have  seemed to have fallen on deaf ears. I will remind you of the statistics and reiterate that these are NOT to be made public as that would put everyone in utter danger as it will show the public and those who want to bring harm, the real vulnerabilities within the courthouse and the jail that the county has allowed to  manifest.

Industry standard is less than  15% of new officers leave within the first 5 years on the job.

Since 2012, 39% of the new hires in the jail have left within the first two years on the job. Similarly for the new hires in the Bureau of Law Enforcement. A number of officers in the courthouse have under 18 months on the job experience. These numbers are unacceptable  and are almost completely due to the grossly uncompetitive contracts, inclusive of the elimination of steps. MCSO officers are the lowest paid officers in the entire county despite their specialized  skills and multi-role  responsibilities.

The county was presented with this contract well before the governing body created and adopted a countywide budget so it was their responsibility to appropriate funds to cover the cost of this contract; the cost of running this agency. The county was also notified in writing that not only did they receive PBA 151 contract, but that all other contracts would be coming shortly and that they would closely mirror that of 151; allowing the Freeholders to factor in estimated increases for the subsequent contracts.

Additionally, throughout my 23 years as Sheriff, it has been a substantial past practice that each year the county representatives  and the Budget Committee members of the governing body,  would sit down multiple times with me and/or representatives  of this agency to discuss the areas  of concern, etc. to collectively come up with the necessary parameters. This was never done last year and I don’t know why. In fact, it has also been a 20 year past practice of the county to present me with a clearly defined budget that I am to review and physically  sign off on as my vow to stay within the budget designated. This, too, was never done this year.  So in essence, I  have never signed off on an agreement to any budget, nor would I have signed off on the proposed  budget that  showed the county arbitrarily cutting our Salary & Wages roughly $900,000 equating to an over  9% cut despite the state mandate of nine additional posts/courtrooms to be manned. Cutting our Salary & Wages when we have been mandated to  cover substantially more makes no sense. This unfunded mandate  scenario is similarly reflected in the new bail reform which has required the Prosecutors  Office to recently request an additional 11-15 employees. I was encouraged however, to see that the Prosecutor’s request was quickly granted and that a handful of costly studies were not ordered to be done on that office to determine if they could be run more efficiently.

I have shown you and the others who have the power to remedy this, the outrageous cost our retention  issue has been causing the county over the last two years and I have presented  you with  a solution to remedy it all at a fraction of the cost of this annual financial drain. I have also shown the powers at be in the county the point of danger the county is currently in as a result of  this retention issue.  I firmly believe and will state that this county is setting the stage for a tragedy to take place if this agency is not fortified with reasonable contracts that make it possible for young officers to stay with the agency. Experience is paramount in law enforcement and can only be gained by continued years on the job. Courthouses around the country have shown an  uptick in incidents hence the state mandated  additional coverage. I have plead my case to you and the governing body numerous times and will continue to do so on a broader scale. The county is handcuffing  me from doing my Constitutional duty and I don’t know why.

I am firmly stating that all the contracts have been negotiated in good faith and with a fiscally conservative mindset. These must be honored by the county even if you have to dip into the $60 million surplus that the county has garnered over the years to have for times and situations exactly like this. I would also like to add that in my tenure as Sheriff, I have saved the county over $16 million in tightening up the Bureau of Corrections’ efficiency and I have returned to the county treasury between $500,000 and $800,000 every year from the Bureau of Law Enforcement as a result of my cutting and efficient management of doing more with less. I have always worked with the numbers and cut whenever possible. It is no longer possible. Increase in security and law enforcement needs don’t follow a cost of living trend, they answer the need driven by society. It is the cost of keeping the county a safe place to live, work and play. You lose that characteristic of the county and you have lost a lot more than a few dollars.

As far as responding to “plans for a layoff ‘… I have no plans for a layoff. In my professional opinion with 50 years in law enforcement, this agency does not have the luxury of a single extra body. Even the Freeholders’ commissioned staffing study done by Concorde Group, albeit not holding any credibility in the opinion of those in law enforcement, had us as below acceptable levels when we only had 125 and suggested we add two more. Working together with the Freeholders, they have approved the Bureau of Law Enforcement for 131 employees and I have agreed to make that number work for this year. Your letter proposing a 10 person layoff, bringing the agency down to 121, is completely unfounded and accompanies no justification when we have a $60 million surplus.

In closing, I have signed a bona fide contract with my unions that fall within the parameters  of   the salary ranges set forth by the governing body for other county law enforcement agencies; namely the Prosecutor’s Office and the Park Police; still falling way below those counterparts in  the Prosecutor’s Office. I am asking that you and the others who have the power to remedy this crisis, please  do so and honor these contracts drawing from the $60 million surplus.

If you have further concerns and would like to engage in a dialogue, I would absolutely welcome that as well. I am looking forward to working with you and the governing body to fortify this area of the county.

*Officers from the Bureau of Corrections resigned and officers from the Bureau of Law Enforcement resigned within the first two years; basically just after their probationary training period. We are noticing a trend that more and more are resigning within the first year on the job; many within weeks of graduating the academy.

The county accepts a “reimbursement rate” for each poached officer of $25,000 per officer, although this is not the entire cost of training  a new officer which has been recently  calculated at $39,000 per officer.

Taking the county accepted reimbursement rate of $25,000 per officer. .. this alone equals a cost  of $1,225,000. To train and then lose the talent.

49 officers x $25,000 per officer = $1,225,000 If you take actual cost of getting an officer through the academy and on the job it would be $39,000 x 49 = $1,911,000.

This is $1,225,000 alone, not even factoring in the more costly factor of overtime which is  incurred during the void caused by the constant departure. Which we all agree has spiked in the  last two years.   (A cost we can greatly eliminate with fortified contracts)

REASONS OVERTIME IS SO HIGH…

For the Bureau of Corrections, it takes 4 to 5 months to get a candidate approved, through the academy and on the job.

For Bureau of Law Enforcement (longer academy) it takes 6 to 8 months. In both bureaus there is a possibility  for even more delay since the academy runs only twice a year.

During that void those shifts have to be covered and at one and one half times the hourly rate. (Time and a half is industry standard).

Also, they often have to be covered by a seasoned officer which is at a higher rate than a new officer.”