|
DeKalb County, Illinois |
Minutes of the
|
The
Public Services Committee of the DeKalb County Board met on Monday, September
25, 2001, at 6:30 p.m. at the Administration Building's Conference Room East.
Chairman Sue Leifheit called the meeting to order.
Members present were Marlene Allen, Edward Brown, Eileen Dubin, Michael
Haines and Dr. Conway. Others
present Ken Johnson, Dr. Thomas Weber, Judge Douglas Engel, Ronald Matekaitis,
Gary Hanson, Greg Millburg, and Diane Strand.
Mr. Haines amended the
minutes to reflect that on the last page of the minutes that the recommendation
to use the NIU work-study program for the part-time position in the Regional
Superintendent of Schools’ office was a cost of 70% federal monies and 30%
County monies. Moved
by Ms. Dubin, seconded by Ms. Allen, and it was carried unanimously to approve
the amended minutes from the September 20, 2001 meeting.
Moved
by Mr. Pritchard, seconded by Ms. Allen, and it was carried unanimously to
approve the amended agenda.
REGIONAL SUPERINTENDENT OF SCHOOLS BUDGET APPEAL
Dr. Weber, Regional Superintendent of Schools, stated that he was asking the committee to consider his appeal to add a part-time clerk typist to his office for $8160.00. He said that the Accounting Supervisor came to his office and visited with him to see if they could come up with any suggestions. Ms. Kahl and he sat down and really couldn’t come up with a solution either, he said. Dr. Weber said that for seventeen years he has stayed within his budget and never asked for any more personnel. He continued by saying that if a part-time person is added on that they will not require any benefits so it would keep the costs down. Other regional offices, the size of DeKalb, have more than one secretary. For example, Ogle/Lee Counties is slightly larger than us and they have 3 secretaries. In Carroll/Jo Davies, Stephenson, they are also slightly larger and they have 4 secretaries. He basically is asking for 1.5 secretaries. The job has become much bigger and that the County has grown because of the increased population and also because of the need for more teachers.
Dr. Weber said that the program at NIU consists of 70% of the salary to be paid by the federal government and 30% is paid by the County. He found out that they would post the jobs and only students that have student loans would be eligible then he could interview them. He could basically set it up for however long he needed them, that is, one or two years, and then that person would interview for it and then he could hire them. The County would have to pay 30% of the salary and the federal government would pay 70% of the salary. The students then are encouraged to take their checks to the Bursar’s office and pay off their student loans with it. He feels that he would rather have a person that might not be a student, he would like to have someone who is well trained as a clerk typist and that would stay long term.
Mr. Weber then said that he would be making some of the changes that IMO suggested to him. However, his staff will still have to enter all the information off of the forms in the State computer and he feels that it would be years before they are updated in their computer equipment from the State. Mr. Pritchard said that the State collects the fees; why not let them do the input? Dr. Weber stated that’s part of our duty, as we talked at the last meeting, my assistant and I am paid by the State. In the statutes we are supposed to be working with the State and we have to do this function, explained Dr. Weber. Mr. Hanson asked Dr. Weber how bad was the backlog in his office? Dr. Weber stated that they are about two weeks behind. It was agreed by the committee that this is an item that should be thought about including in our next legislative agenda.
After further discussion it was moved by Mr. Haines, seconded by Ms. Dubin, and it was carried to recommend the addition of a part-time person for the cost of $8160.00 and then revisit this issue again next year. It was moved by Mr. Pritchard, seconded by Mr. Brown, and it was carried to amend the motion by recommending the hiring of a part-time person under the NIU work-study program that includes the salary to be paid at 70% from the federal government and 30% by the County. There were 4 yes votes and 3 no votes. The no votes were Ms. Allen, Dr. Conway and Mr. Haines. Chairman Leifheit asked the committee to go back to the main motion and to recommend the part-time position as a 70%/30% split salary with the NIU work study program and to fund this as a temporary position and revisit it again next year, and to forward this recommendation on to the Administrative Services Committee. In a voice vote, the motion was carried unanimously.
PUBLIC DEFENDER’S BUDGET
APPEAL
Ms. Allen said that she would like to make a comment before the discussion starts. She said that it seems like a lot of people choose to treat the public defender’s office like they don’t like them. But it is the law; we do have to defend these people. So, when this gentleman makes his presentation, she feels that we need to keep an open mind, not to kill the messenger.
Mr. Johnson, Public Defender, said that as of 1994 the felony caseload has risen by 47% and misdemeanors have risen by 44%. Since that time there has been no felony assistant added to his office. Currently 60% of all felony cases are appointed to his office on an annual basis. He said that 480 felonies for this year would be added to his office, this would be an average of 240 cases per attorney. This does not include last year’s pending cases, new cases, cases with violations, nor does it include the misdemeanor and traffic cases, which he currently handles as well. He also stated that 15 states have gone through mandatory workload maximum and out of those 15 states he exceeds every one of those states. He further stated that the termination proceedings have quadrupled in numbers. So, if you look at the numbers of his misdemeanor and juvenile attorneys, they far exceed what is the comfortable standard. As far as drug cases in this County, when Mr. Johnson looked up the Index Drug and Crime arrests, it shows that in 1989 there were 481 arrests and as of 1998 there were 1,014 arrests. Those numbers are higher this year even.
Judge Douglas Engel said that we have a very vigorous public defender’s office and that each person has a right to be represented by a competent attorney. If the defendant, who is represented by the public defender, demands a speedy trial, which consists of 120 days, the system would shut down. We have 50 prisoners now and if they demand 120 days trial, he would need to appoint a special attorney at an added cost to the County.
Mr. Johnson stated that in some cases where a private attorney has represented a defendant for a murder charge, on a limited basis, these cases are coming back on appeal. The private attorneys take these cases, let’s say $20,000 up front. Those private attorney’s then don’t call the experts, they don’t interview individuals, etc. These cases are usually “red flagged” by the appellate and supreme court.
Mr. Johnson then informed the committee about the number of attorneys that are in his office. He said that in 1989 there were 4 part-time attorneys. In 1991 there were 3 full-time attorneys and then in 1996 there was one additional attorney placed on staff. In the year 2000 there was an investigator hired for his office. Mr. Pritchard asked if there is some standard based on the kinds of cases that come before the bench that there’s a relationship to the size of the state’s attorney’s office vs. the public defender’s office size? Judge Engel said that he didn’t know of any. Dr. Conway asked, what about the caseload? Judge Engel said that he isn’t really involved in the public defender’s offices around the state to see how large they are. Judge Engel did want to say that he has been around for quite some time now and that he has been doing criminal cases for a long time. Right now he feels that the state’s attorney’s office and the public defender’s office in the way that they are managed, run and representing both sides, both are doing the finest job that he has seen since he’s been on the bench.
Moved by Mr. Haines, seconded
by Ms. Allen, and it was carried to support the public defender’s appeal for a
new attorney in the amount of $47,000.00 and to forward this recommendation on
to the Administrative Services Committee. There
were 5 yes votes; Mr. Haines, Ms. Dubin, Dr. Conway, Ms. Allen and Ms. Leifheit.
There were 2 now votes; Mr. Pritchard and Mr. Brown.
The committee then discussed the responsible thing that they should do before sending this recommendation on to the full board. They felt that they should meet on October 1st to discuss where the money is going to come from to fund the new attorney in the public defender’s office in the amount of $47,000.00. It was agreed to meet on Monday, October 1, 2001 @ 6:30p.m. to discuss this item and to set priorities and where the monies would come from to fund this new position so that they could recommend it to the Administrative Services Committee at their meeting on October 3, 2001.
Moved by Ms. Allen, seconded by Mr. Brown, and it was carried unanimously to adjourn the meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
_______________________________
Sue Leifheit, Chairman
___________________________
Mary Supple, Secretary
| Home | Return
to top | A-Z Index | Return
to minutes |