Morris sheriff sues county over $2,500 employee bonuses

MORRISTOWN – Intent on handing out incentive bonuses of $2,500 each to about 274 employees, Morris County Sheriff Edward V. Rochford filed a lawsuit Friday to block the county freeholders from removing or transferring any funds from his budget until a ruling is made on his stipend proposal.

Rochford's lawsuit, filed with Superior Court Assignment Judge Thomas Weisenbeck in Morristown, wants the judge to bar the removal of any funds from his 2014 salaries and wages budget until a determination is made that he has sufficient surplus funds to dole out between $680,000 and $697,500 in bonuses. Weisenbeck reviewed the case and transferred to Somerset County to avoid a conflict of interest.

It comes on the heels of a Nov. 21 formal gala held at the Birchwood Manor and sponsored by his office to commemorate its 275th anniversary. The proceeds of the gala are for the benefit of the office's Police Benevolent Association and Fraternal Order of Police unions -- who also would profit from the $2,500 in bonuses to employees of both the Sheriff's Office Bureau of Law Enforcement and Bureau of Corrections.

The lawsuit is the latest fissure in a widening crack between the freeholder board and Rochford, the sheriff since 1993.

The lawsuit names as defendants the freeholders, county Treasurer Joseph A. Kovalcik Jr., and County Administrator John Bonanni. County Special Labor Counsel Matthew J. Giacobbe in October already told Rochford that his surplus projections were wrong and that he did not have the exclusive authority to give out bonuses, or funds beyond the scope of contractual obligations. Giacobbe also noted that the county is a co-employer of many Sheriff's Office workers and has a clear say in renumeration.

County Counsel Daniel O'Mullan said Friday that Giacobbe will handle the lawsuit for the county and he -- O'Mullan -- is confident that the county treasurer's surplus projections are correct. O'Mullan and Freeholder Douglas Cabana, who serves as liaison to the sheriff's office, said the sheriff's proposed incentive plan could wreak havoc on the county budget if employees of other unions start demanding bonuses.

"There are any number of Morris County departments and agencies doing superior work and to suggest $2,500 bonuses for all employees doing superior work would bankrupt the county," O'Mullan said.

Cabana said he believes Rochford must remember that the money is not personally his, but provided by taxpayers.

"This is taxpayer money, it's not his or shareholder money in a corporation. All of our employees work hard and to segregate one department from the others, I don't find that fair to all the employees," Cabana said.

The lawsuit contends that Rochford has enough surplus funds in his budget to give the bonuses and return about $1 million in unspent funds to the county treasury. It primarily contends, however, that Rochford as the appointing authority of his office has the power to give bonuses, and he cites case law and state statutes to back up his claims. The lawsuit interprets a recent Appellate Division decision involving Bergen County, which is pending before the State Supreme Court, as one that gives exclusive control over purse strings to county sheriffs.

Rochford also retained a financial expert -- Rutgers University Professor of Public Administration Raphael J. Caprio -- to opine that the surplus money is available and would not have any detrimental impact on taxpayers.

"The Sheriff's Incentive Plan is rooted in objective proof that his employees have and continue to overachieve for the residents of the county of Morris and continue to do so at a significant discount in relation to the Sheriff's Office budget. The Incentive Plan calls for a very modest and fiscally responsible incentive payment to award employees for excellent performance and to motivate them to continue to maintain the standard of excellence that Morris County and its residents have become accustomed," the lawsuit said.

Rochford in October caught Bonanni, the county administrator, and several freeholders off-guard when he suddenly declared that he wanted to give out bonuses and had negotiated a new contract with PBA 151, the union of officers who provide security in the county courthouse. His lawsuit Friday did not raise the issue of his authority to unilaterally negotiate a contract without the input of county labor counsel and other county officials.

Rochford in October simultaneously alerted his uniformed and civilian staff that he was giving them bonuses and sent a letter to the county treasurer directing that bonuses be given to workers on a list he provided. Senior officers in both bureaus are not on the bonus list. The county balked, saying that after all salaries and wages are paid through the end of 2014, Rochford would have a surplus $516,180, or $178,821 less than the total amount he wants to disburse in bonuses.

The county also objects to Rochford's assertion that he can hand out bonuses, which the lawsuit argues are designed to reward officers in one of the "elite law enforcement agencies" in the county. The complaint contends the bonuses are also a reward for the Sheriff's Office achieving a Triple Crown accreditation, but that achievement has been in place for 14 years.

"The sheriff, not the freeholders, is in the best position to assess and address issues of compensation within the sheriff's office," the lawsuit said. "Employees of the Sheriff's Office risk their lives on a daily basis to protect the citizens of Morris County and they do so with a level of professionalism and excellence that is unrivaled. The sheriff has determined that these continued efforts deserve a modest incentive payment."

The lawsuit requests that the judge hold a preliminary hearing by Dec. 10, the next freeholder meeting.

Staff Writer Peggy Wright: 973-267-1142; pwright@njpressmedia.com