A local union council is suing Ramsey County in an attempt to draw attention to what a union spokesperson described as the county’s “broken child-protection system.”

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Workers Minnesota Council 5 filed the lawsuit in Ramsey County District Court last week.

It claims county management has repeatedly interfered with employees’ rights, as well as their union access and labor organization. It also claims the county violated a previous settlement that stemmed from a 2015 dispute.

The suit doesn’t specifically address the climate in the county’s child-protection department.

But workers in that unit have faced pushback from county management in their attempts to air concerns about crushing workloads and the risks the working conditions pose for vulnerable children, said Jennifer Munt, public affairs director for AFSCME Minnesota Council 5.

“We are seeking a temporary injunction against the county because supervisors have threatened and disciplined social workers who question the county’s child protection system,” Munt said. “These whistle-blowers deserve protection, not retaliation.”

She added that she routinely hears from child-protection workers who report to her, sometimes in tears, about “overwhelming” caseloads in Ramsey County. Related Articles Mural workshop, events at Victoria Theater Arts Center in St. Paul’s Frogtown this weekend and next

Seasonal disease kills 4 reindeer at Minnesota Zoo, sickens 4 others

National bone-marrow registry to host virtual gala online

Virus rates suggest six MN counties should close K-12 schools, weekly health report says

Federal judge weighs if Gov. Walz orders on coronavirus violated Jason Lewis’ right to campaign

“We are so short-staffed that we can’t respond to reports of child abuse in the time required by law,” Munt said of child protection workers. “Our caseloads are so heavy that we live in constant fear that a child will slip through our safety net.”

ACSME Council 5 represents 43,000 state, local and nonprofit workers in 125 local unions.

Victoria Reinhardt, chairwoman of the Ramsey County board of commissioners, declined to comment on the suit Monday, as did Ryan O’Connor, deputy manager of the county’s health and wellness teams, which includes the child protection department.

O’Connor directed all inquiries to county spokeswoman Allison Winters.

However, Commissioner Janice Rettman, while not familiar with the lawsuit, did say Monday the county needs to be a fierce protector of children.

“I have not seen the document of which you speak, but my personal opinion is that our responsibility in child protection is to always, not only protect the child but to do it a timely manner and do everything we can … to have a good due process,” Rettman said.

The county issued the following statement after the lawsuit was filed last week:

“It is important to Ramsey County that we have a strong, supportive workplace in which all employees are valued, respected and have their voices heard,” the statement read.

Winters added on Monday that the county could not comment on pending litigation or allegations implied by the suit, nor would it comment on “the intentions another party may have in commencing litigation against the county.”

As for reports of overburdened child protection workers, county officials said employees’ case numbers are within national guidelines and are “trending” in the right direction.

“We continue to strive to keep caseloads manageable for employees so they can serve residents well, understanding the challenging situations they face on a daily basis,” Winters said. “We also continue to create opportunities where employees can discuss working conditions collaboratively with management to ensure we’re creating a supportive, comfortable workplace.”

Munt said a surge in cases in county child-protection departments statewide followed sweeping changes made by the Legislature in 2015.

The new directives require counties to more aggressively intervene in situations of reported abuse and neglect of children.

The reforms were prompted by reporting by the Minneapolis-based Star Tribune newspaper on gaps in child protection systems. In one case, a young boy named Eric Dean died despite repeated reports to Pope County authorities that he was being hurt at home.

The number of cases screened into Ramsey County following the reforms went from about 1,700 in 2014 to about 2,200 in 2015, according to Munt. She said the data was provided to the union by the county.

Employees in its child-protection unit, meanwhile, went from 66 to 59, Munt said.

Additional state money made available to support the legislative changes has funneled close to $4.2 million to the county in recent years to beef up child protection efforts, the county reported.

The county has used it to add 12 full-time employees to child protection as well as three staff members in areas that support their work, Winters said. The money has also paid for enhanced staff training, changes to the unit’s phone screening system and contracting with providers to help the county recruit more culturally diverse households to foster children.

Munt said county workers report that some of the hires simply filled vacant positions in the county or funded administrative or supervisory roles.

CASELOADS

While workloads fluctuate, the average caseload for screeners and investigators in 2015 was about 19, according to Winters, the county spokesperson. The average fell to about 15 by last December.

Case management workers, meanwhile, have seen their work go up slightly.

Average caseloads in November 2015 were about 13 compared to about 14 last December, the county reported.

While the average for case management workers is above the 10-case maximum recommended by the Gov. Mark Dayton’s 2015 task force on child protection, it’s within national guidelines, Winters said.

She added that while the county has increased its budget in recent years to add more full-time positions in child protection, the field has regular turnover so vacancies are common.

“Child protection is a very difficult and stressful field to work in,” Winters said. “We run an exam to fill vacancies every six months and have been able to fill all vacancies available with each exam; however, turnover remains a concern within the social work field as a whole.”

The county’s calculations conflict with what Munt has heard from child protection workers, she said.

“Bottom line, the workers say their caseloads are heavier, not lighter, after millions (in state funding),” Munt said. “They also say there has been no net gain of front-line child protection workers while there has been some gains in administrative staff. … So fewer workers and kids are less safe after the funding came to Ramsey County.”

THE LAWSUIT

The unaddressed concerns of Ramsey County child protection workers are not detailed in the civil complaint.

Instead, it spells out three instances where county management allegedly intervened in workers’ union rights.

Munt said the union opted to focus on a few “punitive” examples of where the county crossed a legal line to get the issue before the court. In court, employees may be granted an opportunity to articulate working conditions within child protection to a judge.

Of the three examples in the suit, the first involves a county training session on sexually exploited youth held in November in which the county’s director of Social Services, Womazetta Jones, “systematically disparaged Ramsey County’s Child Protection staff” and blamed them for the racial disparities in the counties’ out-of-home placements, according to the lawsuit.

That alone was not the problem, but Jones went on to warn staff in attendance from telling union representatives about her comments, the lawsuit states.

“Don’t email me about these things and don’t go talking to the union,” Jones said at the training, according to the lawsuit. “If you have something to say to me, meet me in the back of the room.”

The meeting was recorded.

County managers asked about the remarks by union representatives were reportedly told Jones had been joking at the time, according to the lawsuit.

But the lawsuit asserts: “Ms. Jones’ comment … was calculated to intimidate bargaining unit members.”

Another instance cited details a last minute disciplinary meeting called by a manager and supervisor in the county’s Child Protection unit to discuss the work of a union member. Without enough notice to be able to accompany the employee to the meeting, a union representative called the managers and told them it needed to be rescheduled.

However, management proceeded to tell the employee that the meeting time wouldn’t change and that she should find another representative, the complaint said. She and the union were later accused by the county of intentionally delaying the meeting, according to the lawsuit.

In the last incident, county management badgered union-member nurses for holding a union meeting at the Ramsey County Community Corrections facility over their lunch break, the lawsuit says. Related Articles During online meeting, Ramsey County manager announces he’s recovering from COVID-19

Ramsey County outlines new initiative to reform bail system

Ramsey County Attorney Choi resigns from presidential commission, saying it had ‘predetermined agenda’

No major COVID outbreaks among Ramsey County’s homeless so far — thanks to hard work and a former CDC specialist

Man assaulted with hammer in St. Paul homeless encampment, charges say

The union filed a similar lawsuit in late 2015. In it, union officials argued that a union leader was harassed for the time she spent on union activities, according to that lawsuit. It was “retaliation” for the union leader’s attendance at a meeting arranged by child protection workers and a county commissioner to discuss overwhelming caseloads, the lawsuit said.

That lawsuit was dropped after both sides reached a settlement last year. The latest lawsuit claims that the county’s recent practices violate that agreement.

“This is something where the administration failed to implement the settlement of the previous lawsuit,” Munt said.

A hearing is scheduled to take place on the current lawsuit on April 25.