Important
contacts/resources going forward:
Comptroller's
Office
Mission
Statement: "To increase the efficiency of back office
operations across state government, thereby enhancing
its delivery of services while ensuring a high level of
accountability throughout the Commonwealth's financial
operations and providing taxpayers assurance that tax
dollars are spent for their intended purposes."
Office
Of The Comptroller
One Ashburton Place RM 901
Boston, MA 02108
Email: comptroller.info@state.ma.us
Fax General: 617-727-2163
Fax Contracts: 617-973-2500
Fax Executive Bureau: 617-973-2555
Office
of the Comptroller - Pay Info
Instructions
for viewing your pay advice online:
In
the User ID field, key in your 6-digit employee number
located under the Pay Begin and Pay End date on your pay
stub
In
the Password field key in your 6-digit employee number
and the last 4-digits of your social security number.
Click: OK
The
next screen will prompt you to change your password. Once
this is done, you can view your pay advice.
Massachusetts
Group Insurance Commission (GIC)
Main
Phone: (617) 727-2310
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 8747
Boston, MA 02114-8747
The
GIC contains health insurance information and resources
for employees, retirees, survivors and dependents.
State
Retirement Board
One
Ashburton Place, 12th Floor
Boston MA, 02108
(617) 367-7770
1-800-392-6014 (In MA Only)
The
State Retirement Board is a division of the Treasurer's
office. PDF newsletters for employees and retirees are
available for download on its main webpage. Links to specific
resources are below:
Retirement
Resources- For Active Employees
Retirement
Resources - For Retirees
Retirement
Check Mailing Dates
REFORM
BILL UPDATE
November
27, 2009
Health
Insurance Enrollment Deadline: Tuesday,
December 1, 2009
Visit
HR 7am-4pm, 508-830-6331
Important information for all employees regarding state transition. Please
click here for the detailed
document. (8/20/2009)
PLYMOUTH
COUNTY NOW A STATE SHERIFFS OFFICE
August
6, 2009
PLYMOUTH—
Plymouth County Sheriff Joseph D. McDonald Jr. is pleased
to pass along news that Governor Patrick signed the
Sheriff’s reform bill into law today [Thursday
8/6].
Sheriff
McDonald said:
“This
was a sorely needed reform that both democrats and republicans
got behind. I would like to thank the Governor, Senate
President Therese Murray and the Plymouth County legislative
delegation for their hard work. There is more to come
to ensure a smooth transition.”
The transition date is January 1, 2010. Sheriff McDonald
was an early proponent of this reform and has been working
on it for over two years.
Commonwealth
of Massachusetts Executive Department
Office of Governor Deval
L. Patrick
Press
Release Contact:
Kyle Sullivan, Becky Deusser, Kim Haberlin – 617-725-4025
Governor
Patrick Signs Bill to Streamline County Sheriff System
Changes
will result in annual savings up to $10 million
BOSTON
– Thursday,
August 06, 2009 – Governor Deval Patrick today
signed legislation to streamline the Massachusetts County
Sheriff system by transferring the seven remaining independent
county sheriff departments under state jurisdiction.
Once the transition is complete, the Commonwealth expects
to save up to $10 million annually.
“This
change will promote a more efficient, consistent and
transparent budgeting system to reform the costly and
unpredictable county system that’s currently in
place,” said Governor Patrick. “I thank
the Sheriffs and the legislature for their work on this
bill.”
“This
reform takes away the current operational guessing game
that county sheriffs go through every year when developing
their budgets,” Senate President Therese Murray
said. “It’s an important functional change
that will simplify and stabilize the process and end
up saving taxpayers millions of dollars.”
“This
bill will bring consistency and efficiency to the sheriffs’
system in Massachusetts while reducing the burden on
taxpayers in local communities,” said Speaker
of the House Robert DeLeo. “In these difficult
fiscal times, I am proud that the legislature has found
substantial savings for our Commonwealth.”
The
seven county sheriffs affected by this change include
Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Nantucket, Norfolk, Plymouth
and Suffolk, all of which are currently funded under
an outdated system that includes multiple funding sources.
The most volatile funding source is the deeds excise
tax, which has dramatically declined as the housing
market has suffered during the nationwide recession.
“The
Massachusetts Sheriffs’ Association strongly supports
this legislation,” said Suffolk County Sheriff
Andrea Cabral, who is also President of the Massachusetts
Sheriffs’ Association. “We worked closely
with the Governor’s Office to craft a bill that
saves taxpayer money and eliminates the budget uncertainty
that has plagued half of the state’s sheriffs
every fiscal year.”
Transferring
the sheriffs’ 3,000 employees into the state’s
healthcare program, run by the Group Insurance Commission,
will generate the bulk of the savings. The employees
will also be transferred into the state pension system.
The Governor first proposed the legislation as part
of his Fiscal Year 2009 budget proposal.
“Transferring
the county sheriffs’ offices will save taxpayers
millions by reducing healthcare costs and establishing
a reliable method to build annual operating budgets,”
said Senator Brian A. Joyce, lead Senate sponsor of
the bill and chair of the Joint Committee on State Administration
and Regulatory Oversight. "We need to continue
to find ways to deliver core government services more
cost-effectively."
"With
this legislation, we plot the responsible course, thereby
allowing our sheriffs to focus on what really matters
- rehabilitating those members of society who have fallen
off the path and will one day be back amongst the general
public," said Charles A. Murphy, Chairman of the
House Committee on Ways and Means.
Massachusetts
has 14 County Sheriff departments that perform similar
functions. Under the current structure, seven county
sheriff departments operate on a separate accounting
system while receiving state funding. However, for more
than a decade, the other seven sheriff departments have
operated under the state accounting system including
payroll, health care and retirement.
In
FY 2007, the Governor recommended, and the Legislature
funded, $17 million in supplemental funding to meet
county sheriffs’ needs. In FY 2008, the state
provided $25 million in supplemental funding, and in
FY 2009 the state provided $32 million. Over the last
eight fiscal years, those supplemental appropriations
amounted to at least $83.5 million. The legislation
signed today will reduce or prevent the need for supplemental
appropriations.
While
the legislation will transfer the county sheriff departments
to the state system, it will not abolish the remaining
seven county governments or interfere with existing
sheriffs’ programs, such as providing fire dispatch
services to municipalities. The transition will take
effect January 1, 2010.
|
REFORM
BILL UPDATE
July
29, 2009
On
July 29, 2009, the Massachusetts House and Senate
passed the final version of the Sheriffs Reform Bill.
It is now awaiting Governor Patrick’s signature.
Below is a press release issued by Senate President
Therese Murray’s office:
Murray:
Senate Votes on County Sheriffs Reform Bill to Create
Financial Efficiency and Stability, Save Taxpayers
Millions
BOSTON
– Senate President Therese Murray (D-Plymouth)
announced today that the Senate and House passed final
legislation that could save taxpayers up to $8 million
a year by transferring the remaining seven county
sheriffs’ offices to the state payroll and state
health insurance plan. The bill is designed to promote
a more efficient delivery of services between state
and county governments and is the latest in a string
of reforms recently passed by the Legislature.
“This
reform takes away the current operational guessing
game that county sheriffs go through every year when
developing their budgets,” Senate President
Therese Murray (D-Plymouth) said. “It’s
an important functional change that will simplify
and stabilize the process and end up saving taxpayers
millions of dollars.”
The
bill, “An Act Transferring County Sheriffs to
the Commonwealth,” moves the Bristol, Norfolk,
Suffolk, Plymouth, Barnstable, Nantucket and Dukes
county sheriffs’ offices to the state payroll
and the state Group Insurance Commission (GIC), which
will provide sheriffs’ employees with more affordable
health care.
The
consensus bill also addresses concerns about the original
proposal that left counties with a sizeable unfunded
liability by leaving retired sheriffs’ employees
in the county retirement systems. The new version
allows counties to apply their annual corrections
Maintenance of Effort (MOE) assessment to offset these
unfunded liabilities.
Once
these liabilities are paid off, the MOE assessment
will be abolished, saving the counties millions of
dollars and ultimately providing tax relief to local
county taxpayers. Sheriffs’ office retirees
and current employees will be moved into the GIC to
provide savings on health insurance costs.
Furthermore,
the consensus bill adopts language to protect member
communities from increased pension funding costs as
a result of the transfer. This would be accomplished
by giving the county retirement board the ability
to address any shortfalls in available funding, for
example by extending its pension funding schedule
and in certain circumstances retaining a greater percentage
of deeds excise revenue to pay down liabilities.
The
final legislation also removes the $30,000 in pay
raises for the Dukes and Nantucket sheriffs that were
included in the original proposal. Instead, the Dukes
County Sheriff’s annual salary remains $97,000
and the Nantucket County Sheriff, who does not oversee
a house of correction, will see his pay reduced by
approximately one third of his current salary.
The
final bill also does the following:
·Sheriffs’
salaries will no longer be tied to that of an associate
superior court judge. In the future, sheriffs will
earn their pay raises based on merit;
·It
eliminates the current practice of supplementing the
Nantucket County Sheriff’s salary by allowing
him to keep an estimated $15,000 to $20,000 per year
in civil process fees. Those fees will now go toward
funding the operations of the sheriff’s office,
saving state taxpayers money;
·It
also eliminates the existing County Finance Review
Board.
Finally,
the bill creates a commission to investigate the possible
consolidation, elimination or realignment of certain
sheriffs’ offices and the potential cost savings.
It will be organized with the intention of taking
a broader look at the operations within the sheriffs’
offices and report on the efficiencies that can be
gained.
The
bill would go into effect January 1, 2010.
It now goes to the Governor for his signature.
TO:
All Staff
FROM: Sheriff Joseph D. McDonald
Jr.
DATE: July 8, 2009
RE: State Transfer Legislation
With the end of Fiscal Year 2009 on June 30th, I want
to update you about the status of the County Sheriffs
Reform Bill, which is currently pending before the Massachusetts
Legislature.
As reported on the radio and newspapers, the bill was
reported out of committee two weeks ago with a favorable
recommendation. The legislation, with several amendments,
now goes to conference committee where I am confident
differences in the House and Senate versions will be
resolved.
Change
never comes easy. For more than a year, many of us have
worked diligently to convince lawmakers that this reform
is in the best interest of the Department and the taxpayers
of Plymouth County.
While
I know many of us hoped for passage before the summer
break, there are many reasons for us to be cautiously
optimistic of success this fall.
In
the interim, I want to assure you I will do everything
in my power to make certain our staff is treated fairly,
if and when, the transfer is approved. In the past several
months, your colleagues have been involved in training
sessions to ensure a smooth transition in regard to
payroll, purchasing and healthcare benefits for you
and your families. We expect these preparations to continue.
I
am also working to make sure that as we transition to
the state system, that our annual budget is set at a
level that realistically reflects the costs associated
with the safe care and custody of nearly 1,500 inmates
daily.
Finally,
I want to reiterate my commitment to working with you
at every stage of the process so this transition can
be accomplished successfully and with the least disruption
to the facility, the county, and the citizens we serve.
Again,
thank you for your interest and your efforts. Please
do not hesitate to contact me with your questions and
comments as we move forward.
Sincerely,
Sheriff
McDonald
Click
here to read the latest letter on the reform legislation
from Secretary Kirwan.
|
In
the 1990s, seven county sheriffs began receiving reliable funding
through the state budget. Their core mission has not changed,
but we call them ‘State Sheriffs’. There are seven
remaining ‘County Sheriffs’ still operating under
an outdated funding formula. That formula hasn’t been
keeping pace with today’s obligations and tough economy.
This is why the County Sheriffs are pushing for the passage
of legislation, crafted by Governor Patrick, to make all 14
Sheriffs “State Sheriffs”.
Please
view this webpage as informational. I am sure you have many concerns;
you will have the opportunity to have those answered.
* Legislation
* Video clips from the March 23 County Reform
Discussion
* 9 FAQ’s
* Submit Questions
* Press
This is
legislation proposed by Governor Patrick. The Sheriffs through
the Massachusetts Sheriffs Association have been advocating
for months to make this happen but to also make sure you, the
employees, are well represented.
Governor Patrick’s Issue in Brief
Click HERE
County
Sheriff Reform:
"The
Administration is filing legislation to convert the seven existing
county sheriffs into state sheriffs (the other seven sheriffs
offices are already state agencies). While the seven state sheriffs
are funded exclusively through state appropriations, the county
sheriffs receive funding from seven different mechanisms –
including highly unstable deeds excise taxes – and are subject
to a more bureaucratic and fragmented funding process.
Making
them into state sheriffs would provide them with more stable and
predictable budgeting and offer a clearer and more immediate picture
of their fiscal needs. It would also achieve cost savings by allowing
the Group Insurance Commission to provide their employees’
health care. The structure of the fiscal year 2010 budget reflects
this reorganization plan.”—Governor Patrick’s
Budget Narrative"
Here’s
a PDF copy of the legislation HERE
9 Frequently Asked Questions
What does the so-called
“State Takeover” of County Sheriffs mean to Department
Employees? Are Counties being abolished?
Governor Deval Patrick, with the unanimous support of the Massachusetts
Sheriffs Association, has proposed changing the method by which
the so-called “county sheriffs” are funded. Instead
of funding from federal, state, county and local sources, all
sheriffs in Massachusetts would receive a line-item appropriation
in the annual state budget. County government would continue to
exist but they would no longer be involved in any Sheriff's Office
operations. They would not process Sheriff's Office payroll, purchasing
or health insurance.
To the outside world the Sheriff's Office would not appear any
different after the transition. They would still be called a County
Sheriff's Office. Not even the uniforms of the staff would change.
The staff will retain the same titles, positions and the existing
collective bargaining agreements will remain in place. The sheriffs
themselves will retain all of the same authority and responsibilities
that they presently have.
What
is the difference between a “state sheriff” and a
“county sheriff”? Are County sheriffs more independent
than their state counterparts?
The Governor’s bill does not affect the constitutional and
statutory powers of the sheriffs at all. Every sheriff would continue
to have the same duties to operate Jails and Houses of Correction.
State Sheriffs” have existed since the 1990’s, when
county government in places like Worcester and Middlesex were
abolished and were directly funded by the state. The remaining
“county sheriffs” continued to be funded from a myriad
of fees, taxes and federal reimbursements. While the county sheriffs
are working hard to transfer to the state, there are no state
sheriffs clambering to go back to the county system.
How
are county sheriffs currently funded?
County sheriffs
receive revenue from six sources – primarily from the state’s
General Fund, a percentage of county deeds excise tax fees, and
a Maintenance of Effort assessment (MOE) from local municipalities.
The amount and percentage of each category of potential revenue
varies among counties. Suffolk County, for example, benefits when
real estate sales are high in Boston. Nantucket receives a higher
percentage of income because of real estate values on the island,
but has no actual jail building to operate.
In recent years, the depressed real estate market has resulted
in wild fluctuations in fees generated for the support of county
sheriffs. Likewise, for almost a decade, every county sheriff
has had to rely upon the Legislature to pass supplemental appropriations
to balance their budgets.
Imagine if each year your collective bargaining agreement only
covered 80% of your salary; that the agreement did not cover May
and June. That each April the union had to sit down with the sheriff
to try to negotiate your last two months pay. That is exactly
how county sheriffs are funded. No other government entity is
funded that way. If you’ve been around awhile you know that
is exactly what happens every year.
Has
any other county function been shifted to the state without negatively
impacting local communities or independent control?
Yes. In 1979, the state’s District Attorneys were shifted
to the state budget from their respective counties – even
in those jurisdictions where county government remained. None
of the District Attorneys lost any statutory or budget control
over his or her office or its duties.
Similarly, the State Sheriffs have received a steady increase
in their annual budgets as duties and expenses have expanded since
the change. The state has funded those Sheriff's Office at a consistently
higher rate than the county sheriffs.
Why
can’t things remain as they are?
Won’t deeds revenues eventually rebound?
County government is already struggling to keep up with the responsibilities
it does have. In Plymouth County, for example, they have proposed
selling the furniture from its historic courthouse to pay the
bills. County taxpayers also must pay to fund bonds for their
jail complex built by a quasi-public corporation. A state line
item would ensure a steady, predictable revenue source and budget
for sheriffs from one year to the next.
Even in good times the sheriffs needed supplemental budgets every
year. They never were told on day one of a new year what their
funding would be. It was always a guessing game. This puts employees
at risk. Seventy-five percent of the cost of running a facility
is staff costs. We have no influence over the price of electricity,
gas, food or fuel. The other twenty-five percent are fixed costs.
At the end of each year the only real way to cut costs is to leave
positions unfilled or to lay people off. The uncertainty of lacking
a single line item propels this cycle of uncertainty.
Doesn’t
that mean the state will just eliminate local services currently
being provided by the sheriffs?
Not so fast. Under the proposed new legislation, local legislators
will be able to fight to make sure their constituents are treated
fairly like their counterparts in other parts of the state. Besides,
there is nothing to keep the Governor or the Legislature from
cutting the state’s contribution anytime they want. Counties
have no independent sources to raise revenues – this power
is derived solely from the state.
But, that is exactly the point. A single line item gives county
Sheriff's Offices a budget. The sheriff knows exactly what he
or she has to spend over the course of a year. There is no way
to plan if you do not know what your budget will be. Over the
last several years county sheriffs have shut down farms, warrant
units, youth programs and the like. The same cannot be said for
the state sheriffs.
I
am interested in three things – my salary, my health benefits
and my retirement. Does this mean I will lose all the valuable
benefits of being a county employee?
No. Collective bargaining agreements already agreed upon with
the Sheriffs will remain in full effect. Labor agreements entered
into by state sheriffs with their employees are comparable or
even better than in some counties.
Similarly, should health plans or contributions change, state
benefits offer a broader range of options than most local agreements.
These are the same benefits negotiated by powerful unions such
as the State Police and teacher groups. State salary guidelines
are already the basis of most county labor agreements. Under current
law, agreements between County Sheriffs and their Unions are subject
to approval by the Governor.
The State retirement system is also larger, more diverse and transparent
than smaller county retirement boards. Fees are lower, meaning
better performance and returns for individuals, and less subject
to abuse. If you are a state employee, you can go on-line to determine
your benefits and investments. In contrast, the secretive county
retirement board can be manipulated—resulting in flagrant
abuses such as a double-dipping former director of security receiving
a $140,000 pension for life.
I
was told this bill contains a secret pay raise for all sheriffs.
True?
False. The salary of sheriffs, state or county, is set by statute.
Two sheriffs—Nantucket and Dukes – would see their
salaries rise modestly to achieve parity with the other 12 sheriffs.
The remaining 12 sheriffs would receive no salary increase.
What would happen to my insurance contribution
if this bill passes? My current county contract has a 90/10 health
insurance payment. Would my contribution change if the department
is transferred to the state?
Answer: Not
necessarily. The legislation makes it clear that any collective
bargaining agreements already agreed upon will remain in effect
until that contract expires. After that agreement expires, sheriffs’
employees would pay the same rate as other state workers. Most
state workers pay 15 percent of their overall health care cost.
Of course, it’s important to remember there is no guarantee
remaining county employees will not be asked to increase their
health contribution in future agreements.
David Sullivan,
General Counsel for the Executive Office of Administration and
Finance, clarified this issue in a note to Sheriff McDonald following
the March 23 meeting:
Dear
Sheriff McDonald,
Thank
you again for inviting me to your forum yesterday and allowing
me to present the case for and answer questions about Governor
Patrick's bill transferring county sheriffs to the Commonwealth.
I
want to clarify one issue. I said that the bill protects collective
bargaining agreements executed before July 1, 2009, and that all
county sheriff employees' health insurance will be transferred
to the Group Insurance Commission. Both those statements are true.
But I neglected to mention that Section 20(c) of our bill expressly
states: "Employees who were covered by a collective bargaining
agreement on the transfer date shall continue to receive the group
insurance benefits required by their respective collective bargaining
agreements until the expiration date of those agreements."
This means, for example, that if such a CBA in force on July 1
provides that employees will pay only 10 percent of their health
insurance premiums, they will continue to do so until that agreement
expires.
Please
let me know if I can help answer any other questions from you,
your employees, or others.
David
E. Sullivan
General Counsel
Executive Office for Administration and Finance
Video
Clips:
Watch video clips from the March 23 County Reform Discussion.
Over 100 PCSD employees, along with local police and fire chiefs,
attended the discussion hosted by Plymouth County. Attendees heard
from Sheriff McDonald, Sheriff James Cummings of Barnstable County,
Representative Daniel Webster and General Counsel for the Executive
Office of Administration and Finance, David Sullivan.
*Access to YouTube required- you may not
have access from your workstation.
What
happens to Plymouth County without PCSD?
Click HERE
to watch
Hear
Sheriff McDonald discuss potential efficiencies.
Click
HERE
to watch
Are
regional services at risk? Hear from Attorney
Sullivan
Click
HERE
to watch
What
changes would happen? Hear from Attorney
Sullivan
Click
HERE
to watch
Submit
Questions
This
may not answer all your questions, please use the following form
to send Sheriff McDonald a question. Questions and answers will
be posted on this webpage. If
you'd like a personal response, include an email or phone number
with your question.
Submitted
Questions and Answers:
Where
is the funding for the contracts?
The legislature is considering the Governor's request for funding.
If
the state takes over will that increase the number of inmates
in the facility?
The state takeover will not affect the inmate population. The
Department will maintain its ongoing arrangements with the Marshal,
ICE, and the DOC to house Federal and State inmates at the Facility.
District and Superior Courts in the state system will continue
to send us sentenced inmates and pretrial detainees held on bail.
What
are the chances of there being layoffs if the state does take
over?
The
County has been unable to support the Department sufficiently
for the past 10 years. The state takeover will provide predictable
and stable funding for the Department’s operations. While
the Department hopes to avoid layoffs regardless of the outcome
of the legislation, the odds of layoffs will increase if the takeover
does not happen.
Attorney
Sullivan stated the retirement was 20 years 60% for group 4. Are
there other requirements that go along with this such as age?
The group 4 retirement under the state system is very similar
to under the county system, and provides for 50% retirement after
20 years. The Massachusetts Board of Retirement is the best place
to address questions. 1-800-392-6014. For more information on
Retirement click HERE
Is
it true that employees who start after 2003 will be paying 20%
of the monthly premium?
This is the case for non-union employees. For all union employees,
the terms of your collective bargaining agreements will govern.
Does the sick time policy change
for carry over and buy back upon retirement?
If so what is the policy?
Sick time carry-over and buy back are the same under the state
system. The state compensates retiring employees at the rate of
20% of unused sick time.
Seeing
all counties will now be under the state is it not only right
that we are paid the same as the state workers?
I would suggest a class action suit if not--same job, retirement
going to the state, state inmates, feds, ICE, and juveniles. Morally
wrong if not paid the same. All associate justices are paid the
same. The Sheriff has advocated for parity with state employees.
The case is strongest in Plymouth County, where the Facility houses
over 300 state inmates. While the state-takeover will not accomplish
this goal immediately, it is a step in the right direction.
Will
we be receiving a copy of our existing retirement account from
the county prior to the transfer, so we can be sure of what is
going into the state?
The Plymouth County Retirement Board will provide this information
on request. William Farmer is the contact person for the Board,
(508) 830-1803, 10 Cordage Park Circle, Suite 234, Plymouth, MA
02360.
What about dental coverage?
For non-union employees, dental coverage will be through Delta
Dental. For union employees, collective bargaining units will
govern.
What
date is the bill scheduled to be voted on?
There is no scheduled date. The Joint Committee on State Administration
and Regulatory Oversight will vote on the bill in the coming days.
After that, the Ways and Means Committee probably will review
the bill. The Legislature has taken steps to expedite its review,
but there is no firm timeline.
I
understand the state has different policies than the county for
maternity and family leave. If we are taken over by the state,
will I lose my maternity benefits?
What about adoption?
Family Leave is governed by Federal Law, so the Commonwealth can’t
and won’t take away family or maternity leave. The Commonwealth
actually provides better protection for employees than the Federal
Law. Employees engaged in adopting a child will remain eligible
for leave. For union employees, collective bargaining agreements
will continue to provide protection for leave.
I
started with the state in 1994, left in 2003, and started working
for the county in 2006. Does my prior service with the state qualify
me for the 15% premium for the health plans?
The County recognizes earlier state service as long as there was
not a break in service of more than 3 years. The state should
recognize such earlier service as well. All collective bargaining
agreements will remain in effect for union members.
Will we finally have direct deposit?
Yes!
What
happened to the almost 4mil made on illegals and federal detainees?
All money received from ICE and the Marshal Service is and will
continue to be used for the care and custody of Federal detainees.
As
State employees would we get any reduction is tuition at state
colleges?
The Commonwealth does offer reduced tuition at state colleges
and universities.
If
the Sheriffs dept is taken over by the state, would you still
have to live in the county to get a job in the Sheriff's Department?
There
is no current employment residency restriction here at PCSD nor
would there be if transfer bill passes.
With the new law to go into effect
Jan 2010 to place the remaining 7 County Sheriff's Department's
under State control, will the Sheriffs Departments be under State
consolidation. There will be a committee to look into the possibility
of consolidating several county sheriffs' departments if this
would be fiscally responsible. Will the Sheriffs Departments under
State control refuse that kind of recommendation under current
state law that was just signed?
Thank you for your question. The language of the transfer bill
is a bit misleading. The legislation signed last week by Governor
Patrick changes the method by which the so-called sheriffs are
funded. It does not affect the powers and duties of sheriff in
their respective jurisdictions. Each of the state and so-called
county sheriffs will retain all of his/her constitutional and
statutory powers.
There is language in the bill that calls for a study as to the
feasibility of combining some of the different jurisdictions.
This section was offered by members of the Cape legislative delegation
and is believed to be intended to review the sheriffs of the Cape
and Islands region.
I heard we will no longer have dental?
Is that true? I also heard we will not have the option of a hmo
plan is that true?
Dental
coverage for union employees will be governed by the collective
bargaining agreement. The Department and the union will negotiate
terms for dental coverage. Non-union employees get dental through
the GIC.
HR
is setting up a health benefits fair for November; the date is
to be determined. In the meantime, please explore the healthcare
options here
What about state pay...we don't make the same money as
state but we are state?
The question of pay equity between DOC employees and sheriffs'
employees remains a constant source of concern. It is unlikely
to change immediately, even after the reform takes effect. Salaries
for public safety employees already vary widely between agencies
and communities. For example, police in one town may enjoy higher
salaries than their counterparts in neighboring towns and cities.
One immediate benefit of the reform may be to bring more balance
between the state and so-called county sheriffs.
In the past decade, budgets for sheriffs already consolidated
with the state have increased. During the same period, funding
for county departments actually declined. Leveling the playing
field for all departments is one of the key aspects of the reform
bill. The Massachusetts sheriffs will continue to seek fair wages
for the men and women in community corrections -- often called,
"the toughest jobs in the state."
What
will happen to the Reserve Deputy Sheriffs with the take over
by the state? Will they be retained?
Deputy
Sheriffs will continue to work under the authority of the Sheriff.
The Office of Sheriff will retain all of its common law and statutory
authority. Deputies will continue to perform their duties under
the direction of the Director of Field Services or the Director
of Civil Process.
Now
that we are a state funded facility, can our time in military
service be added to the State time at no cost to us?
Please directed
your individual questions to the State Retirement Board.
One Ashburton
Place, Suite 1219
Boston, MA 02108
Fax: 617-723-1438
Tel: (617) 367-7770
Toll Free: 1-800-392-6014 (In MA Only)
Department Extensions:
Retirement
Counselors, Ext. 1
Disability Counselors, Ext. 2
Change of Address, Ext. 4
Survivor Benefits, Ext. 5
Buyback Department, Ext. 6
Refunds Department, Ext. 7
Request Direct Deposit, Ext. 8
Press
The ‘takeover’
topic has been written and talked about some in the past year
and a half.
Below
are several editorial pieces written in favor of the takeover.
Cape
Cod Times Editorial
State takeover
Click HERE
to see article
March 02, 2009
The
idea of having the state take over seven of the state's 14 sheriff's
departments — the other seven are already under state control
— is a good one. Barnstable County Sheriff James Cummings
thinks so and so do five Cape legislators.
Cummings' operation in Barnstable County, along with departments
in Nantucket, Dukes (Martha's Vineyard), Bristol, Suffolk, Norfolk
and Plymouth counties, would be affected. The sheriffs manage
jails, serve the courts and some, including Cummings, provide
inmate assistance programs.
State Reps. Jeffrey Perry, R-Sandwich, Sarah Peake, D-Provincetown,
Cleon Turner, D-Dennis, Demetrius Atsalis, D-Hyannis, and Susan
Gifford, R-Wareham, have sent a joint letter to the speaker of
the House urging prompt action on a bill that would enable the
switch. Gov. Deval Patrick filed a similar bill last year but
it was stalled over uncertainty about employee pension liability.
The problem is fixed and the bill is back, Perry reports.
Currently, the seven departments are funded from various sources,
including state and county. Locally, every town pays a portion
of the county assessment. The arrangement leaves the sheriffs
with unpredictable funding and no clear accountability. State
control would bring greater predictability and accountability,
it's believed. And also, it must be said, more consistent standards
and performance.
Not least, the move would lift the burden of local taxpayers just
a little bit. That would be a good thing.
The
Boston Globe
The case of the real estate market and the sheriffs
By
Michael G. Bellotti and Joseph D. McDonald
Click HERE
to see article
April
12, 2008
COUNTY
sheriffs face a long list of issues in operating correctional
facilities: drugs, gangs, overcrowding, healthcare, and mental
illness, to name a few. But one of their worries shouldn't be
keeping a close eye on the local real estate market.
Currently, seven of the state's 14 county sheriffs receive their
funding from the state budget. The remaining seven are funded
through a convoluted county system that relies on revenue from
a tax on real estate transactions.
That unpredictable revenue stream is the reason sheriffs have
been asking the state to shift to a better funding mechanism.
Governor Deval Patrick has filed legislation that would transfer
funding of sheriff's offices in Barnstable, Bristol, Dukes, Nantucket,
Norfolk, Plymouth, and Suffolk counties to the state budget.
This legislation provides sheriffs with the accountability
tools to oversee their facilities efficiently. Currently in seven
counties, sheriffs' operating budgets are subject to the whims
of the real estate market; the other seven sheriffs know at the
beginning of their fiscal year exactly how much money they can
rely on.
Having a correctional facility dependent on the vagaries of the
sagging real estate market is akin to it being tied to a financial
anchor. For example, Norfolk and Plymouth County sheriff's offices
project they will experience 17 percent and 33 percent decreases,
respectively, in deeds excise tax funds since 2005, resulting
in millions of dollars in lost revenue.
Last year, the plummeting deeds excise tax revenues forced the
Norfolk County Sheriff's Office to borrow items such as toilet
paper, soap, medication cups, tongue depressors, and saline solution
from other sheriff's offices. In addition, the Norfolk County
Sheriff's Office was within a few weeks of being shut off by its
pharmacy vendor, which provides medication to approximately 68
percent of the inmate population. All this occurred after the
Norfolk County Sheriff's Office reduced personnel costs through
attrition, layoffs, job freezes, and weeklong furloughs.
The Plymouth County Sheriff's Office was planning a "doomsday
budget" last year if the state had not rescued it through
a supplemental budget. A correction officer academy would have
been postponed; inmate reentry programs designed to stop the turnstile
of "catch-and-release" corrections would have been scaled
back; GED and anti-domestic violence classes would have been modified
or cancelled.
Patrick's legislation would eliminate the guesswork when it comes
to planning and implementing sheriff's department budgets. Some
adherents of the old form of county government have questioned
the feasibility of the plan. But there are precedents for its
success.
Little more than a quarter-century ago, county district attorney's
offices similarly transferred to the state budget while retaining
their autonomy and remaining accountable to the electorate.
With half of the state's duly elected sheriffs already funded
by the state budget, there is little reason to believe the remaining
seven would be hindered from carrying out their work in the best
interest of the public
.
These budget reforms should be made for the seven sheriffs still
under the county system, regardless of whether the real estate
market is good or bad. Concerns about details such as the fate
of revenues currently generated independently by sheriff's offices
should not be allowed to overshadow the ultimate goal of sound
fiscal planning.
In all financial situations, there is a bottom line. In this case,
the bottom line is that the current county funding system is no
way to run a public safety agency.
Michael G. Bellotti, a Democrat, is the sheriff of Norfolk
County. Joseph D. McDonald, a Republican, is the sheriff of Plymouth
County. |
