Welcome to the November Q&A. Leaves are falling and our latest Q&A installment comes fluttering into your inbox (no raking required).
This is our 3rd monthly installment addressing questions and suggestions received through the online suggestion box (top menu bar on the intranet). The suggestion/comment site was created directly in response to staff requests for a mechanism to improve communication with senior leadership and give senior leadership more insights into the thoughts of the CPCS staff community.
We respond to questions based on whether they are relevant to the larger CPCS audience (i.e., we do not respond to individual-specific questions). For individual questions/issues, please speak with your manager or a divisional representative directly. Also, we can’t answer questions that may affect client or staff/personnel confidentiality protections.
As part of this process, some questions/suggestions were summarized or simplified in the interest of clarity, brevity or to address issues of tone. When we received multiple of the same questions, we selected the one (or created an amalgamation) that was most representative of the question.
In some cases, we received questions requiring more time to answer than available or they were received after we started drafting this Q&A, so they didn’t make it into this installment. We’ll work to address them in a later installment.
As an FYI, if we don’t understand your question or suggestion, we can’t answer it. So, if you can try to be as complete in your question as possible, it will help us respond. When questions/suggestions are anonymously submitted, we have no way to seek clarification. If you don’t submit a question anonymously, we can always contact you for a clarification.
With that, here is the Q&A!
Suggestions/Questions list
- Loss of formatting function in replying or forwarding certain emails
- Making calls from cell phones through the office number
- Business cards – confirmation of receipt
- Flexible spending accounts – ASI FLEX vs. Benefit Strategies
- Maternity / paternity leave
- Client self-harm policy
- Changes to conflict handling
- Email confirmation of expense report submission
- Posting Committee minutes to the CPCS public website
Suggestion/Question: Loss of formatting function in replying or forwarding certain emails
Why do I sometimes lose the ability to format when I reply to/forward an email? I sometimes want to highlight a section for the reader I am forwarding/replying to, but it won’t let me modify formatting at all (i.e. bold, underline, change font.).
Response:
As we semi-jokingly say in IT, “This is a feature, not a bug.” This has a very good and specific intention (even if it can be frustrating in the moment), because some email programs cannot read formatting (bold, highlight, italics, etc.)
When you lose the formatting function replying or forwarding certain emails, it’s because the person who sent you the email used “plain text” format rather than HTML or Rich Text. “Plain text” format does not support any formatting (bold, italics, highlight, etc.). When that happens, Outlook (our email program) assumes that the person’s email can’t/won’t read formatting, so it turns off that function in Outlook. You can turn it back on. Below is a link on how to turn it on for any individual email.
A caveat, though: if you are sending it to a person whose email program only accepts plain text, all your formatting will be lost to that person (their email program will strip it out). If you are forwarding or replying and some or all the individuals can support formatted emails (like forwarding to a colleague in CPCS), it will look fine to them, but not the person(s) whose email client is set for plain text only. So, you may say in your email, “Please note the green highlighted text.”, and they may respond, “I don’t see any green highlighting”, which is because their email program has removed all your careful and thoughtful formatting.
Division: IT – Daniel Saroff
Suggestion/Questions: Making calls from cell phones through the office number
Thanks to the last Q&A I know that we can have phone calls forwarded to our cell phones. Is there a way to make calls from our cell phones using the office #? This would be just as useful as call forwarding for the vast majority of us.
Response:
What you are suggesting is a good idea, but is not technologically feasible with our current implementation. I will work with the vendor to see if it is something feasible or not in the future.
Division: IT – Daniel Saroff
Suggestion/Question: Business cards – confirmation of receipt
It would be great if the settings on the [email protected] were changed so when we submit a request we receive a confirmation the request was submitted. Also, why is HR suddenly responsible for ordering business cards? What does this have to do with HR? Aren’t there bigger issues for them to tackle? Should this be an Accounting job?
Response:
The confirmation of receipt function has already been ordered and is in process. At present time, HR is processing business card requests once every two weeks. It generally takes the vendor between 2 – 4 weeks to process each order. Although this may be seen as a procurement function, HR agreed to take on this responsibility in order to verify and confirm official job titles for each order.
Division: HR – Donna Leete
Suggestion/Question: Flexible spending accounts – ASI FLEX vs. Benefit Strategies
Why did we switch from Benefit Strategies to ASI FLEX as a provider of our flexible spending accounts? I have found the amount of documentation ASI FLEX requires to be so burdensome that I no longer wish to have a flexible spending account. Ongoing visits to pediatricians and regular doctors repeatedly require additional documentary proof of the service to ensure that the money is being spent on medical care… as if a pediatrician’s office could bill for anything else? This was never the case with Benefit Strategies. Why did our office switch these providers?
Response:
As a state agency, CPCS does not control individual vendor selection, benefits administration or annual changes in benefits. Instead, we are required to follow the benefit decisions made by the Group Insurance Commission (GIC), who administer benefits on behalf of all Commonwealth employees.
HR has heard from many staff members in CPCS raising the same issues you are (and HR staff has had the same, unfortunate, experiences).
We have contacted GIC previously to inquire about the new documentation requirements presented by ASI FLEX, particularly since this was not required by the former vendor and seem overly burdensome. We were told that this requirement ensures plan compliance with IRS regulations.
I and my team will continue to press staff concerns with the current documentation requirement to GIC requesting both further consideration with the current vendor and reconsideration in the next vendor selection process.
Division: HR – Donna Leete
Suggestion/Question: Maternity / paternity leave (pulled from 3 questions)
We don’t currently have this option when we enroll. But there are some short term policies that would pay out for maternity leave. I think many folks would pay into it, knowing that it’s an option. Although paid maternity leave would be ideal and I definitely think we should explore this, the short term policy would be significantly better than possibly going on leave with no pay and no protection for our households.
Will CPCS be following Marty Walsh and Maura Healey’s lead granting extended paid parental leave to its employees? While salary relief is on the horizon, it would also be very helpful to many CPCS employees if the current 2 week leave policy were increased to 6 weeks as is now given to City of Boston employees and employees of the AG’s office. This would help relieve some of the burden of childcare expenses incurred by many CPCS employees with new children.
The issue of paid maternity and paternity leave (or more specifically, the lack thereof) has been a major topic in the news of late. The consensus among even moderately progressive minded thinkers on the issue is that paid parental leave should be expanded at virtually every level. Senator Warren, in support for legislation that would expand paid leave to 12 weeks, notes that childbirth is a leading cause of short-term poverty for new parents nationally, and a disturbing “7% of bankruptcy filers cite the birth of a child as a primary cause of their bankruptcy declaration.” Locally, Attorney General Healy expanded paid parental leave for her office’s employees to six weeks, and Mayor Walsh approved the same policy for City of Boston employees. Currently CPCS offers just two weeks of paid parental leave before an employee must tap into sick/vacation/personal days in order to continue receiving an income.
Response:
We have received a number inquiries regarding whether CPCS is considering expanding its paid parental leave benefit from two weeks to six weeks. This benefit expansion has been recently announced for employees in the Attorney General’s office, the Treasurer’s office, and the City of Boston, and so it makes people logically wonder about the same at CPCS.
CPCS is currently reviewing many of its personnel policies, including our Leave of Absence policy for revision. We expect to complete a revision of the Leave policy in the first half of the next calendar year. At that time, we will consider any changes to the paid parental leave provision or a possible addition of a short-term disability insurance policy to cover maternity/paternity benefits. Any and all changes to the personnel policies will (ultimately) require approval of the Committee.
Division: HR – Donna Leete
Suggestion/Question: Client self-harm policy
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t believe our agency has a policy on what to do if a client makes threats of self-harm. I think it is important and it comes up with regularity when dealing with clients with mental health issues. The policy should cover all employees – attorneys, SSAs, and support staff – who regularly come into contact with clients. The policy should also cover what to do when the client is in custody, on the phone, or in person (office or court house). Attorneys especially have a hard time separating what they can and cannot disclose if the client has made the threat directly to them.
Response:
CPCS does not have a written policy on how a staff person should respond when a client makes a threat of self-harm. We agree that we should provide guidance to staff, and we will consider how best to address the issue. It may involve adoption of a written policy, staff training, or some combination of the two.
If a client threatens self-harm, and it is feasible to do so, a staff member should consult with his/her supervisor before involving any outside party, and, if an attorney, should consult Mass.R.Prof.C. 1.6(b). Rule 1.6(b) provides “A lawyer may reveal confidential information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary … (1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm….” If a staff member believes that a client is in imminent danger, s/he should seek professional assistance. Assistance may be obtained from our Employee Assistance Program (EAP) at 866-649-2387. The EAP provides free, confidential assistance to CPCE staff, 24/7. Staff calling the EAP should be able to immediately consult with a Master’s level clinician. In an emergency, staff may also call 911.
As the questioner recognizes, a policy on how to deal with clients who threaten self-harm should address a myriad of circumstances. We will address this issue more fully, but we expect it will take us some time to do so.
Division: Training – Debra Krupp
Suggestion/Question: Changes to conflict handling
I am writing to propose that CPCS advocate for amendments to Mass. R. Crim. P. 10(a) which would make it easier for our public counsel division lawyers to resolve professional conflicts of interest without simply withdrawing from cases. The public counsel division has increased dramatically in size in the past ten years, greatly increasing the number of imputed conflicts. Conflict withdrawals waste resources and generally operate to the detriment of clients. If we were allowed to erect “Chinese Walls” between the various public defender division departments (PDD, YAD, CAFL, and MHLU), and if we could administratively seal closed cases to resolve former-client imputed conflicts, we could better serve our clients, make better use of our resources, and represent to the legislature that such an amendment would allow us to make more efficient use of tax dollars. The New Hampshire Public Defender has a very sophisticated conflict-resolution system which allows it to take on a relatively large portion of indigent-defense cases. Updating the outdated rule that all public defender division attorneys are invariably treated as members of the same firm for conflict-of-interest purposes would save money, reduce attorney frustration, and result in better services to our clients. I thus respectfully urge the administration to advocate for amendments to R. 1.10(a) which would allow us to adopt a flexible, sensible, and efficient conflict resolution policy.
Response:
We are in the final stages of drafting a policy on handling conflicts for all of CPCS. That policy will continue to look at all of CPCS as one firm. This is done for both policy and for administrative reasons. Unlike New Hampshire, our share of cases has been and will continue to be 25% of all indigent cases in the Commonwealth. New Hampshire, in contrast, has a goal to taking more than 75% of all criminal and juvenile offender cases. The New Hampshire was created, in part, to insure that most of the cases are handled by the PD. Their system is complicated and requires the sealing of records, which we are not currently capable of doing with existing software. In addition, as we have stated, it is not less expensive for staff to handle cases. The first step for CPCS in this area is to implement a consistent process for checking and resolving conflicts that includes a process for documenting how that is done. For now we will have to work with the imputed conflict rules of the RPC.
Division: Mental Health – Mark Larsen
Suggestion/Question: Email confirmation of expense report submission
I like we’re able to email all travel vouchers to one designated email address, but I think it would be helpful to get a confirmation email that the message was received. IT and Facilities does this and it lets the send know the message was received and if there are any issues about a voucher not being processed we can reference a confirmation email.
Response:
Finance is working with IT to implement your request.
Division: Finance – Kevin Lucchetti
Suggestion/Question: Posting Committee minutes to CPCS public website
Will the Committee’s meeting minutes be posted to the public website in the future? Why are they only being posted to the intranet?
Response:
Posting of Committee meeting minutes to the public web site requires pre-approval from the Committee for posting. We will seek approval to post them to the public web at a future Committee meeting.
Division: General Counsel – Lisa Hewitt