Brown Opposes Domestic Relations Reorg That Saves $9,000

Judge Paula Roscioli is the Administrative Judge of Domestic Relations. That's where $41 million in child support was collected last year. She thinks that's where most county residents come into contact with our judicial system. She was before Northampton County Council yesterday with a minor reorganization request in an office she calls a "well oiled machine." That's a first in her seven years overseeing Domestic Relations. It's a request that will actually save the county $9,000 a year. Amazingly, Executive John Brown was opposed.

Judge Roscioli was the leadoff hitter. She explained that, over the years, "there's been a lot of changes in the way we do business." In order to collect child support, Domestic Relations can seize bank accounts, personal injury settlements, IRA accounts and other liquid assets. But along with these opportunities, there is a significant responsibility to make sure it is done correctly, and the people who work in Domestic Relations must have the right training. To accomplish this, she has proposed the elimination of several file clerk positions and some minor upgrades in others. This will save $9,000. "To me, it's a no-brainer," said Judge Roscioli. "I'm not really sure why this is an issue."

Mat Benol worried that this reorganization might have a "snowball" effect throughout the county. Judge Roscioli said the upgrades would only make these positions more consistent with similar jobs throughout the county. 

As Judge Roscioli spoke, HR was standing in the well, and she provided a breakdown of the nine positions. Two of them are career service supervisors. The remaining seven are union positions, and three of them are in a union that is currently in contract negotiation. 

Brown claimed that there would be a ripple effect. "The first thing we hear in collective bargaining is, 'Well, they got it.'" He said that allowing this reorganization would be "sending the wrong message."

"It just seems like we're always in union negotiation," said Peg Ferraro. "If we use that as a reason not to revamp a department that actually does need revamping, it seems we could always be using that argument."

Mat Benol blamed the unions. "It's the unions that seem to be the hurdle here," he said. "The unions are hurting the people that they're there to protect."

President Judge Stephen Baratta was the closer.

He started with a slider

"This is not a raise," he told Council. "These three employees are being reclassified. Their job descriptions are changing. They're having more responsibility. ... It doesn't impact anything about his negotiations. It doesn't throw his salary schedule out of whack in any sense.

Strike one.

Then he went with the high heat, claiming that these employees were performing a "core function of a separate branch of government." He said it was a "fundamental job of the court to run its operation free and clear of the Executive or any other branch of government."

Strike two.

He finished with a knuckleball. He admitted that two years ago, he proposed a raise for his staff that ended up being a raise for everyone because Council was "compassionate"  and "it was the right thing to do."

Strike three.

Council President John Cusick, who admitted that he is a numbers person himself, said that "[S]ometimes we forget about what's really going on here. These are the people who collect child support for people who desperately need it. So it's important that we have qualified people in those positions who are compensated and know what they're doing. I'll just leave it at that."

Even Benol did an about face.

Council will vote on this proposal tonight.

Judges Roscioli and Baratta are usually behind the bench and have to be fair and impartial. I think they clearly enjoyed the rare opportunity to be advocates. Different styles, too. Roscioli was matter-of-fact and succinct. Baratta was more passionate and discursive.