Update: Judge blocks Carcieri's bid to hike health costs
6:19 PM Tue, Aug 26, 2008 | Permalink
Email
 |
 |
Projo 7 to 7 News BlogTaking the news pulse of Rhode Island and Southeastern Massachusetts, by Providence Journal and projo.com staff, from 7 to 7, every business day |
|
Get the 7 to 7 on your mobile at www.projo.com. Twitter: projo | RSS | Email alerts
« Update: Carcieri to appeal judge's ruling to high court |
Main
| Bristol man in critical condition after Maine ATV accident »
By Steve Peoples PROVIDENCE -- A Superior Court judge today explicitly blocked Governor Carcieri from forcing higher health-care costs on nearly 5,000 unionized state workers. Judge Patricia Hurst released a "supplemental decision" this afternoon clarifying a complex ruling of six days earlier that confused both the Republican governor's administration and the largest state employees union, Council 94, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Both sides initially claimed partial victory in the case. But today's ruling was not ambiguous, spurring an angry response and promise to appeal from Carcieri. The clarification was "aimed at putting to rest any notion that the governor may act unilaterally..." Hurst wrote in a 10-page decision, which itself offered a sharp rebuke to the governor. At issue is the cost of health care for thousands of state workers and roughly $10 million of savings that lawmakers included in the state budget signed by the governor in June. As recently as Monday afternoon, Carcieri's office reiterated detailed plans to force higher benefit costs on 4,842 state employees beginning with their Sept. 5 paychecks. The health-care increases were to be applied as a percentage of employees' premiums instead of a percentage of their salary. Hurst barred such action. "He cannot implement an executive order increasing Council 94's health-care deductions if doing so runs afoul of the law -- as it would under the present circumstances," Hurst wrote in today's decision. "The governor is subject to all of the laws of this state that govern collective-bargaining disputes, and his executive powers neither supercede them, transcend them, nor trump them in whole or in part." But the governor said late today he will appeal the judge's ruling to the state Supreme Court. The governor will seek an immediate stay and appeal from the state's highest court and ask the court to require Council 94 to post a bond for the money that would have been collected through the co-share deductions, according to a statement from the governor's office late today. "A week ago it was one thing; now she completely changes her mind. I think that's just ridiculous," Carcieri said in an interview. "I think she's way overstepped her authority here." Carcieri met with top advisers for about an hour this afternoon after Hurst's latest ruling, then his office issued a statement vowing the Supreme Court appeal. "On August 20th, Judge Hurst correctly decided that she did not have the authority to enjoin this office from implementing the Executive Order within the Executive Branch," Carcieri said in the statement. "This latest decision by Judge Hurst is not a clarification of that decision; it is a complete and outrageous reversal of what she said just last week." Carcieri's statement this afternoon also hints that he could take other steps besides the health-care cost increases. As governor, he said, he "has a constitutional obligation to balance the budget, and will take the necessary actions to achieve the cost savings associated with that budget. I am prepared to implement other personnel cost saving measures if necessary." Before today's ruling, the two sides met twice with the judge behind closed doors to discuss her ruling last week. -- With reports from projo.com staff writer Michael P. McKinney 
CommentsLeave a commentPlease be civil. Vicious comments, personal attacks and profanity won't be published. Name and email are required; email address will not publish. |
Tags 
New comments
New photos
New posts
Projo blogs
Archives
Hmmm. So the governor is not above the law? That is refreshing.
I wondered about the morality if not the legality of promising someone a pension at 30 years service and then when they get to 29 years, unilaterally changing the agreement. I mean, they already earned 29/30th of it, right?
Report Abuse
This judge is completely incompetent. I truly believe she did not know her original ruling would apply to so many state workers, thus the reversal of her own decision. A decision made less than a week ago!!!! The Governor needs to take the gloves off and say enough. This judge is obviously biased towards union causes.
JUDCIAL ACTIVISM at its finest.
Report Abuse
When one party dominates the politics for generation, why be surprised when corrupt judges pervade the system? Like most RI official, the judge is at the beck and call of the union. Big deal...one more reason to get the heck out.
Report Abuse
Say what you will about the merits of this action, but Judge Hurst's inarticulate ramblings reflect poorly on our State's judiciary. She clearly devoted all of her limited intelligence and wit to chastising the Governor, but for all her ink, couldn't deliver a proper decision. Who sounds like a politician now?
This should be a cautionary tale for Rhode Islanders to consider each time a candidate is proposed to the bench. How little attention we pay to these powerful positions, with lifetime tenure no less!
Report Abuse
Gov Don and his Cookson America Flunkies slapped down! Ruins a company now he is doing the same with the State.
Report Abuse
Maybe ALL state workers should have to pay their share not just the executive branch. Does anyone realize that the legislators get a FREE ride? It should be spread evenly across the board. Does anyone realize that once the state personnel savings goes through we are still in a deficit? So no matter what the outcome we are still in the hole.
Just think of how much money is being put into going to court all these times and now to appeal to the Supreme court. How much will THE STATE actually gain when this is all said and done?
Maybe he should just sit down with the unions as the law states. Whether they actually had negoations or not is semantics; they still have other steps to follow, which are not being followed. The union members have no problem paying their share it is just that it is going to hurt the little workers more. Remember these are the people who service the public (DLT, registry, food stamps, etc.) The increase should be on your salary so the more you make the more it costs you.
Report Abuse
I guess the Governor's legal team did not really read the original decision from Judge Hurst. He still had to comply with State Law not give edicts in disregard of the law. Melissa is right. Ultimately, all employees of the state including all those lucrative personal services contracts which award benefits far greater than the contractual workers, and the members of the General Assembly should be paying the same for health care. The playing field will never be level. Those in power will see to that, but at least the Judicial branch of government is seeing to it that they at least follow their own laws that the were sworn to uphold!
Report Abuse
Melissa, I don't think our Reps and Senators should have to pay for their medical. I don't believe they should have it in the first place. But since they do they should pay a share. So should judges for that matter. The honorable (used very loosly)members of the GA do pay 10%. They would all have to pay if it wasn't for Paiver-Weed who felt that it showed more leadership to voluntarially pay a portion. THere is no honor amongst thieves. The Negotiated Union contract rejected by Council 96 does have a graded co-share based on salary. The lowest level earners will only need to pay 8% while the highest earners will need to kick in 25%. And if it hurts the lower earners more, maybe it will serve to motivate them to become qualified for higher paying positions.
Report Abuse