The State Worker

A group calling itself Peace Officers of California wants to create a 22nd bargining unit that would represent the 2,700 or so law enforcement officers currently in BU 7. Negotiators for the 7,000-member California Statewide Law Enforcement Association hammer out the BU 7 contracts.

POC makes the argument that sworn law enforcement officers need focused representation to get the best contract terms. A third of CSLEA members are peace officers, the rest, according to POC's press release, include milk inspectors, billboard inspectors, DMV drive test employees, lab technicians, smog-check employees and dispatchers.

We called CSLEA for a response. Manager and Chief Counsel Kasey Clark talked to us about the POC's severance move, noting that the sworn members of the union tried and failed years ago to split into their own bargaining unit. These Clark quotes sum up the association's position:

We oppose the severance. ... It's a little bit insulting if you look at the last contract. I'd be a lot more sympathetic if DPA was taking the position, "We're going give you a unit wide increase regardless of whether you're sworn. If you don't like it, too bad." But they didn't. DPA gave Fish & Game wardens, park rangers and special agents 25% pay increases. No one else in our bargaining unit got that. ... This is the politics of labor. This too will pass. These things just rear their heads from time to time.

POC has filed for certification with the Public Employment Relations Board. DPA and CSLEA both oppose the severance. We hear that hearings will run through the summer. Look for a ruling this fall.

From the Seattle Times:

The Seattle Public Library board of trustees has selected Susan Hildreth, most recently of library systems in California, to head Seattle's library system.

Read the story by clicking here.

IMAGE: www.library.ca.gov

Our colleague at the Capitol Bureau, Dan Walters, has new numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau on California's state government spending:

California's total is about half-again as big as the second place state, New York, and well over twice that of Texas. It is, moreover, 65 times as much as that of the least-spending state, South Dakota.

Click here to read Dan's post on our companion blog, Capitol Alert.

Prompted by our recent blog entry on the 8 percent raise given UC police, San Francisco state worker Joseph Jelincic did some nifty spadework to compare San Francisco State police and dispatcher starting pay to some other Bay Area law enforcement starting wages.

Here's his e-mail with corroborating links:

Jon:

The CSU has the same problem the UC system has in recruiting peace officers and public safety dispatchers.

At San Francisco State University, where I work (although not in law enforcement), we have had more then 5 openings (shows 7 openings as of current) at any time for peace officers since 2005.

SFPD starts at $75,868.

Oakland starts at $69,121 (link shows Oakland actually starting at $71,835).

Burlingame, a little town in San Mateo county with a population of 28,158 (original number from wiki ... http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0609066.html says 2007 est is 27,573) and 42 cops -- they start at $64,353 .

SF State has 30,014 students , several thousands staff / faculty members and 38 cops -- they start at $49,620 (see page 136).

Also to compare dispatchers:

City of San Francisco - $63,180

Oakland - $30.30/h or $63,024 (30.30 * 40* 52 = $63,024)

SF State - $36,660 (see page 129).

You tell me who is going to apply to work for the CSU?

IMAGE: adminfin.csusb.edu

Contract talks between the state and three bargaining units represented by SEIU Local 1000 didn't go anywhere Friday when union attorneys showed up for the last day of negotiations until after the holidays.

The union's take, as presented in this statement Monday afternoon on its Web site and e-mailed to members:

Our new policy of staffing each bargaining table with a Local 1000 attorney drew resistance from state negotiators last week ...

The state's walk-out kept our team from presenting testimony from two licensed vocational nurses (LVNs) about the need for a post and bid shifts in the prison system. Two LVNs from different prisons traveled to Sacramento to talk about post and bid.

"There was a heated exchange of words and then they walked out of bargaining," Unit 20 Chair Rionna Jones said. "We had hoped to show their team the importance of post and bid. Now that will have to wait until January."

We asked DPA's Lynelle Jolley to give us the Personnel Administration's take on what happened:

We think it's fine to have attorneys present at the negotiations. Once we learned that attorneys would be present for the union, we needed to make arrangements for the State to have legal counsel present as well. Even though these discussions are frustrating for both sides, we've never refused to negotiate. We still believe in bargaining, especially during tough times like we're facing now.

Last week's state audit of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board proves that old saw that rules are made to be broken.

It's hard to know where to start. Bee reporter Andrew McIntosh's story on the audit nailed the conflict-of-interest concerns raised by the report. The Sacramento County District Attorney's Office and the state attorney general's office are looking into the matter. Somebody may be going to jail.

But let's talk about another aspect of the audit, the part that covers "familial relationships and employee favoritism."

We get calls and e-mail blasting this sort of thing all the time. Retirees holler about it years after they've been out of state service. "Families control entire branches of state government," a retiree told us a few months ago. "It's like the Mafia!" We don't remember his name, but we remember the quote because it stuck us at the time as an extreme overstatement.

Now we wonder.

Let's start with a few numbers on page 27 of the 63-page report:

"Employees responding to our survey provided the names of 94 colleagues who were allegedly related to another employee. Those 94 names equate to nearly 15 percent of the 646 individuals who were employed by the appeals board as of April 2008."

That's just counting immediate family relationships, the auditor said. "Because ... we did not ask them to identity all known familial relationships, there could be other familial relationships within the appeals board that were not reported."

According to the auditor's survey, 45 percent of appeals board employees who responded to the questionnaire believed that hiring and promotions were sometimes or often compromised by family relationships or employee favoritism.

And who knows what the numbers would have looked like if more board employees had responded? Auditors looked at 355 responses. What about the other 300 employees? Did they fear retaliation if their responses leaked out? (Auditors screened the responses by using employees' work e-mail addresses, which may have made some folks jittery.)

Maybe many of those folks didn't chip in their thoughts because they figured that this was going to be yet another state audit with lots of thunder and no rain.

The State Auditor is great for giving news grinders like us plenty of fodder.But when it comes to producing results, it's a decidedly mixed bag.

The auditor can criticize, make recommendations and occasionally refer the worst sinners to law enforcement officials. Beyond that, its greatest power seems to be embarrassing the audited. For proof, see its January audit of responses to audits: "Recommendations Not Fully Implemented After One Year."

We're planning to write about this topic for our Thursday State Worker column. Want to weigh in on the record? Contact us at (916) 321-1043 or jortiz@sacbee.com. We'd love to hear from that disgruntled retiree.

A column in this month's Governing draws a parallel between Orange County's Measure J, which puts future county public pension benefit increases to a public vote, with Proposition 13, the tax reform measure that changed California's state government finances forever.

If you've followed this blog or its companion column for more than a couple of weeks, you know that we've written extensively about Measure J.

Governing, based in Washington, D.C., targets state and local government officials.

Columnist Girard Miller , who wrote the Measure J piece, also suggests five proposals to "reform retirement plan structures and benefits levels."

You can read the Miller column here.

Assemblyman Hector de la Torre, an elected state worker and Southgate Democrat, has told the State Controller's Office he'll now accept a bump in his annual pay from the $113,098 he was earning to the $116,208 set a year ago by the independent California Citizens Compensation Commission.

We left a message this morning with the Assemblyman's press secretary, Hilda Delgado, to get comment. When we hear from her or the Assemblyman himself, we'll pass it along.

In the meantime, you can click here to read de la Torre's letter to the SCO.

That knocks down the list of state legislators who didn't take the $3,110 raise from 26 to 25. We blogged about this select group last week. You can read that post by clicking here.

And add Assemblyman John Laird to the list of elected state workers who didn't take the October increase in per diem.

Laird spokesman Bill Maxfield sent us the e-mail string that shows the termed-out legislator turned down the $3-per-day bump. Maxfield also explains that state workers in the Assembly Clerk's office have the low-down on who doesn't take per diem, who does, and how much. We're grateful for that bit of info.

We thought that elected state workers had to make a formal request by letter to adjust their per diem, Apparently that's not the case. It's easier than we believed.

You can read the Laird e-mail string and Maxfield's explanation by clicking here.

IMAGES: Assemblyman Hector de la Torre, left, and Assemblyman John Laird; democrats.assembly.ca.gov

If you haven't already, check out Bee colleague Chris Bowman's story today, which highlights the work of the San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which has literally mapped out the consequences of global warming for California's shorelines and waterways.

The story includes links to online maps that show the impact of a 1-meter rise in sea levels. Pretty sobering stuff.

IMAGE: San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission

UC police have a new contract that gives them an immediate 8 percent pay increase with reopeners for the second and third years of the three-year deal. The deal also bumps up uniform allowances from $800 to $1,000 per year and boosts POST certification by $50 per month.

You can read about the contract in this month's PORAC Law Enforcement News piece by clicking here. (To rotate the downloaded page in Adobe Reader, click the "Rotate Counterclockwise" icon in the toolbar at the top of the document.)

The article's author, Dieter Dammeier, is a partner at Lackie, Dammeier & McGill, based in Upland. The firm specializes in police contract negotiations.

We called Dammeier to confirm the article. While we had him on the phone, we asked him a few quick questions about the contract, since he's the firm's chief police contract negotiator.

How the heck did you get this deal done, given California's budget crunch?

You're talking about a very small (300+ members) but a very important group -- in my opinion the most important group that there is.

What drove this deal?

There's a lot of competition for police, and many UC officers have been getting hired away by nearby communities that pay more. Santa Barbara, Irvine, places like that ... officers have been walking across the street for a better deal.

IMAGE: The University of California

The Spokesman-Review of Spokane, Wash., reported Sunday that state officials are talking about laying off civil service workers as part of bridging a budget shortfall pegged at $5.1 billion over the next 2-1/2 years (a quaint sum by California standards).

From the story by Richard Roesler reporting from Olympia:

The largest state workers union, the Washington Federation of State Employees, argues against job cuts. It represents about 40,000 of the state's more than 100,000 employees.

"We believe, as some economists believe, that the worst thing to do during an economic downturn is to lay off, especially public employees," said Tim Welch, the union's spokesman. Demand for state services rises in tough times, he said. And in an economy reliant on consumer spending, he said, keeping people on the job is a good idea.

"The problem with state government is everyone doesn't look at it as comparable to Microsoft or Boeing," Welch said. "They look at it as something that needs to be cut. But a worker is a worker is a worker."

A similar argument is being made by (Washington Gov. Chris) Gregoire, who's one of many governors calling for an influx of federal dollars to pay for construction projects and create jobs.

"We don't want people to lose hope," Welch said. "Government can step up and give hope by creating jobs, and that will help us recover."

You can read the S-R story, "Budget crisis has state workers on edge," by clicking on this link.

IMAGE: City of Olympia, Wash.

The Seattle Times reports that Susan Hildreth, California's state librarian, is among three finalists for Seattle's chief librarian job.

IMAGE: www.library.ca.gov

From today's story by Bee colleague Andrew McIntosh:

The state should consolidate its billion-dollar technology assets and personnel under the Office of the State Chief Information officer, the Little Hoover Commission suggests in a new report.

Click here to read the commission's 91-page report, "A New Legacy System: Using Technology to Drive Performance," then let us know what you think. Does the state need an IT czar? Will anything come of this, or is this another report that will gather dust on the shelf?

KFBK's Bruce Maiman on Thursday night led off his 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. talk show with our latest State Worker column "California's elected officials urged to pare their own pay."

At 2 minutes and 50 seconds into the show's opening segment, Maiman starts a 13-minute monologue that included these comments:

I know that many of you who criticize state workers are quick to accuse them of being loafers -- "it's a government job; they don't work that hard" -- all those stereotypes ...

If we're going to talk about state workers, please, let's not forget that lawmakers are state workers. And if they're not willing to cut their (own) salaries then we need to cut them out of a job ...

One of the worst things you can be in politics is a hypocrite. So please, quit the sanctimonious blathering about how badly we need to make cuts because the state has a spending problem when we're spending $116,000 a piece on you and you're not willing to take a pay cut for yourself and you're not really doing your job in the first place.

In the second hour of the three-hour show, Maiman brought up our Nov. 13 column about
Orange County's Measure J, "Voters take aim at civil service pay." We slowed the show down with a brief appearance in the third hour.

You can listen to Maiman's Thursday night broadcast by clicking here.

Blog backs review your thoughtful and provocative online comments, amplify points, answer questions, correct our mistakes and humbly accept your warranted criticism.

Nov. 14 A Controller's Office employee speaks out

George Orwell, in his great essay "Politics and the English Language" cites the use of euphemisms as a sign of intellectual dishonesty. In the same spirit. Governor Schwarzenegger, the Sacramento Bee and others who inflict harm on State Workers are using the word "Furlough", instead of the more accurate "Wage Reduction".

As we noted in this recent post, language does indeed frame perception. However in this case, after much thought, we'll stick with "furlough" because the wage decrease directly corresponds to reduced working hours. A "wage reduction" in our mind is the same as a pay cut, which would be paying less for the same number of hours on the job.

Whether furloughs save money is another matter. Cutting the number of hours that the state is open for business doesn't mean that there's less business. The work still has to be done. It's possible that furloughed employees perform less efficiently because of added stress to do the same amount of work in less time.

If anyone has seen a reputable study about furlough impacts on workplace efficiency, please send the info along to us.

Nov. 17 How to save $5 billion without a furlough

My review of the list didn't reveal a single suggestion that doesn't take away state employee current pay, pension benefits or other benefits. State employees have no obligation to assume a larger burden of the budget deficit. Lying to suggest that they should, is shameful. Shame on the Bee for promoting and featuring it.

Our aim was to report the The California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility list and put it up for discussion. It was not an endorsement. We invite specific criticisms to counter "lies."

Nov. 19 UPDATE: Former Consumer Affairs employee sentenced for data download

Question: Have the 5500 state employees whose SSN's were stolen been notified?
Since the Mexican Mafia apparently has access to that info can identify theft, consumer fraud, etc be far behind?

We asked Andrew McIntosh, the Bee reporter who has spearheaded the Dumbrique coverage. Here's what he told us:

The breach happened late - after 5 p.m - on Friday, June 6. Consumer Affairs says it notified its staff and retirees of the breach at the end of the day on Monday, June 9. It did not disclose the seriousness of the breach and the link between Dumbrique and her husband, the jailed member of the Mexican mafia.

The Bee disclosed the fear of ID theft and the link to the Mexican mafia on Thursday, July 10 - almost a month after Consumer Affairs let its people know about the problem.

Nov. 20 Forbes article speculates that CalPERS could be the 'next shoe'

In a state that is always in the red, how exactly is CalPERS guaranteed. No stock market investment is ever guaranteed is it? Could you explain?

CalPERS can require that state and local employers increase contributions to make up any pension funding gaps. For the last few years CalPERS' return on investments was so strong that it didn't require any contribution from employers (and by extension taxpayers).

Given its heavy investment losses, it now appears likely that CalPERS will have to require employers to kick in more money in 2010. The increased amount, if any, depends on the value of the funds' assets on June 30, 2009.

Click here to read our Oct. 23 story in The Bee for details about the tie between CalPERS investment returns and public employer contributions.

Nov. 20 Column extra: Legislators who didn't take pay raise, per diem hike

We've been made aware of two other legislators who declined the October per diem increase.

To view a copy of Democratic Assemblyman Anthony J. Portantino's declination letter, click here.

For Republican Assemblyman Bill Emmerson's letter, click on this link.

We appreciate the heads up from folks working for both lawmakers. Anyone else that we've missed?

We called out a comment by one investment expert quoted in this Forbes.com piece speculating that CalPERS could be "the next shoe" to drop in the global economic crisis.

The Forbes piece drew swift reaction from fund spokeswoman Pat Macht. Here's what she said in an e-mail this afternoon:

Two words for the Forbes article: Conjecture. Baseless.

CalPERS has more than enough money to pay benefits. It has never missed a payment in 77 years, not even during the Great Depression.

Forbes need only go to the S&P to get independent confirmation. Last week S&P re-certified CalPERS with the highest rating of liquidity. Just because the markets are down doesn't mean CalPERS can't weather it: We have short term tactics and long term strategies for investing and we have a long term investment horizon so we can afford to wait for the markets to recover. We aren't focused on the daily Dow number. The most improtant numbers to us are long term returns.

For the last 25 years we have had a positive return with an average of 16 percent return; we have had paper losses in five (averaged -3.8 percent). We are still way ahead of the game. Downturn in market values are concerning, but based on history of at least a half dozen downturns in 77 years, it is possible to overcome, given time. We have the right people, the right tools and the world's best investment minds navigating through the general financial markets' extraordinary conditions.

The rain falls on the just and unjust alike, and while the overall market conditions are unnerving, we are resilient and confident in our ability to protect our members' retirement security.

Jason Dickerson, who tracks all things state worker for the LAO, passed along this information:

I noticed the comment at Forbes' Web site too.

Even after mammoth investment losses, CalPERS reports having $176.2 billion worth of assets in its portfolio. According to CalPERS' audited financial statements, the Public Employees' Retirement Fund -- its main pension trust -- paid out just $10 billion in benefits in 2006-07 and had just hundreds of millions of dollars of other expenses. (See Comprehensive Annual Financial Report [CAFR], page 15.)

Other CalPERS defined benefit pension funds paid out under $200 million (CAFR, p. 19). In fact, CalPERS-wide, total benefit payments, refunds, administrative expenses, withdrawals, and other expenses from fiduciary funds totaled under $11 billion in 2006-07 (CAFR, pp. 34-35), and operating expenses of self-funded proprietary accounts (not funded from the same accounts as pensions) totaled under $2 billion (CAFR, p. 37).

There are serious funding issues that the state and local governments will need to address related to CalPERS in future years, but the specific comment you cite from Forbes has no basis in reality whatsoever.

Forbes.com has a lengthy piece that tries to devine whether another catastrophe will deliver a final blow to the economy before recovery starts. CalPERS is mentioned in the piece.

John Osbon, one of the experts on Forbes' "Investor Team," says, "I can imagine CalPERS or TIAA-CREF making some announcement that they are cutting benefits and payouts by 30% due to investment losses, non-functioning markets and so on. That would be a real hit with real money."

This strikes us as a bit ignorant, since CalPERS pension benefits are guaranteed. The fund can't simply "announce" a cut in benefits and payouts.

Still, the piece is worth your time if you're interested in what's happening in the national and global economies and what might be coming. Click here to read, "The next economic shoe to drop."

UPADATE: After we posted this item, CalPERS and the state Legislative Analyst weighed in with their takes on the Forbes piece. You can read those responses by clicking here.

Today's State Worker column has prompted several readers to ask for more details about the California Citizens Compensation Commission, which sets pay rates for the state legislature. You can get more information by clicking here.

With just 400 to 450 words for our Thursday State Worker column, much of what we learn in the ramp up to writing it never sees print. Column Extras give you some of the notes, the quotes and the observations that don't make the cut.

In trolling for background on State Legislature pay and per diem this week, we reached out to veteran reporter Jim Sanders of The Bee's Cap Bureau. Jim graciously shared information he recently received from the State Controller's Office:

As of Monday, the Controller had 26 legislators on its list of senators and assemblymembers who refused a 2.75 percent pay hike last December that was approved by an independent citizens commission. The bump added roughly $3,110 to legislators' pay, bringing it to the current $116,208 per year.

Click here to see that list.

Per diem is a different animal. As Jim noted in this Capital Alert post last month, the state Victim Compensation and Government Claims Board recently added $3 to per diem, raising it to $173 retroactive to Oct. 1.

State law requires the three-member board to set per diem no lower than the rate paid to federal employees traveling to Sacramento, currently $173.

Several local lawmakers have refused per diem, since they live close to the Capitol.

The SCO says that it has two letters on file declining the per diem increase: Asssemblyman Jim Silva, R-Huntington Beach, and Roseville Republican Assemblyman Ted Gaines.

To see Silva's letter declining the per diem increase, click here. You can read Gaines' letter by clicking here.

IMAGES: Assemblyman Ted Gaines, left, and Assemblyman Jim Silva; republican.assembly.ca.gov

The Governor's Office of Emergency Services' California Specialized Training Institute has announced that six civil servants have received charter certification in terrorism and homeland security, emergency management and crisis communications. Click on the links below for more details about the individuals and their training.

Terrorism and Homeland Security Specialist Training Program Certificate:

• Capt. Tony Hernandez, Reserve/Volunteer Fire Academy Coordinator, San Diego Unit of Cal Fire
  
• Investigator Shawn Dyball of the Orange County Sheriff's Department

Emergency Management Specialist Training Certificate

• Trudy Maletta, Emergency Services Coordinator for Kings County

Crisis Communications Specialist Training Certificate

• Sergeant Tammany Brooks, Antioch Police Department
• Lieutenant Richard Marchoke, Antioch Police Department
• Deputy Royjindar Singh, Stanislaus County Sheriff's Department

The Hospital Police Association of California on Tuesday issued this press release about two Atascadero State Hospital officers who were injured by a patient.

The attack happened last Wednesday. Both officers are recovering at home.

From the press statement, quoting HPAC President Karen Meredith:

"If we had sufficient staffing, they would have been able to stop this fight before it escalated. Additional personal safety equipment also may have helped control the situation. Our officers put themselves in harm's way from the worst of the worst society has to offer, and doing it short-staffed is like trying to take on the school bully with one arm tied behind your back."

Bee reporter Andrew McIntosh reports today that Rachael Dumbrique, the former Consumer Affairs employee who illegally downloaded a personnel file with the names and Social Security numbers of 5,500 state employees also possessed confidential reports about the gang affiliations of state prison inmates.

She has filed for divorce from a known Mexican Mafia member, Edward Dumbrique, whom she married last year in a ceremony at Corcoran State Prison. Edward Dumbrique is serving a life sentence for murder.

Rachael Dumbrique was sentenced Tuesday to a year in Sacramento County Jail, five years probation and ordered to pay up to $122,000 in restitution to the state of California.

Read the McIntosh report by clicking here.

IMAGE: Sacramento Bee

Members from Bargaining Unit 1, which is represented by SEIU Local 1000, continue to share their ideas for cutting state expenses to help with California's budget shortfall sans employee furloughs and benefits cuts.

You can read some other proposals that we posted last week by clicking here. SEIU also has some ideas, which you'll find by clicking here.

The following is taken directly from e-mail sent to us. This post (and others on this same thread) should not be construed as our endorsement.

Collect, levy, or auction property to secure the millions of dollars of tax debt outstanding - Specifically, business accounts identified by Board of Equalization as the "Largest Sales and Use Tax Delinquencies in California". Top outstanding account balance = $17,634,595.18

How much has the State spent on oil, diesel, gasoline spill responses and hazardous material clean up costs during the past 10-15 years ? FYI - the "Oil Spill Response Fee" of $.25¢ / per Barrel has not been collected since 1991. Since most of these incidents occur during refinery operations or the transportation of the fuel, shouldn't the manufacturer or business operation involved with a spill be responsible? An additional amount per barrel surcharge to the Oil Spill Prevention and Administration Fee [currently .05¢ per barrel] would provide funds to repay the state for prior expenses and help to establish a contingency fund for future occurrences.

Raise the vehicle licensing fees by $2.00-$3.00 no matter the classification.

Labor could gain some face with the State and compromise to gain a win/win - Adjust/relax the Transportation Incentive & Parking Rate allowances [Article 12.3.17].

Provisional allowance for a maximum 75% and cap of $65 reimbursement for public transit in congested urban areas - to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. I recommend lowering the reimbursement percentage to 70% and lowering the cap to $60 per month.

Personally would have no problem paying $5.00 - $10.00 month for my RT pass, which the current subsidized fee is $21.25 or $20.00 for ticket books. Even at a cost of $25 - $30 a month for is cheaper than driving and the cost of wear/tear on anyone's vehicle.

Additional income could be generated by increasing state parking garage fees by $5.00 per month per vehicle. For open parking lots on state property - charge a $5.00 fee for a monthly parking permit., which could be covered annually with pre-tax deduction as provided for in Article 12.3. I am aware that most state garage fees are well under the private sector monthly rates.

Earlier this month, SEIU 1000 President Yvonne Walker mentioned to us that the union has suggested several revenue-boosting ideas to ease the state's looming cash crunch. We went back for more details. Click on each idea for specifics:

• Do a better job of collecting the $8.5 billion in state taxes that goes unpaid each year.

• Cut down on personal services and consulting contracts.

Reduce information technology outsourcing

.

Pension expert and State Worker BrainBank member Susan Mangerio riffs today on a weekend story in the New York Times that explains why in the tumbling economy CalPERS must now decide whether to reshuffle its investments.

From the Times report:

Calpers, which will discuss its asset allocation at an investment meeting on Monday, had its portfolio thrown out of whack by the global equity mess. The fund aims to have about 56 percent of its $200 billion in equities, and 9.5 percent in alternative investments. The rest goes to bonds, real estate, inflation-linked assets and cash.

But because equities slid so drastically in the past month, Calpers is now overinvested in these riskier and less liquid alternative assets. Today they account for 14 percent of the portfolio. Since private equity and venture capital firms typically collect money over several years from pension funds -- which make commitments upfront to various funds -- the weighting is likely to increase even further.

The bottom line, according to the Times: This puts the pressure further down the chain, particularly if it forces pensioners to raise their contributions.

Mangerio goes further to explain the choices that CalPERS and many other pension funds face:

We've heard from plenty of plan sponsors that the "stay the course" or bid adieu to alternatives (some or all) is at the top of their decision list. The problem is that exiting a particular private fund may be costly, so much so that the plan sponsor is made worse off in the short- and intermediate-term. Additionally, plan sponsors seldom have the legal right to turn down a request for additional capital from private equity fund X or venture capital fund Y.

You can read the Times piece by clicking here. Then check out Mangerio's analysis on her blog, Pension Risk Matters.

Here comes another test of public sentiment toward civil service employee benefits.

The North County Times reports that Carlsbad Mayor Bud Lewis wants to overhaul the city's pension system by cutting retirement benefits for future city employees. He's hoping to put the measure before voters in 2010.

Putting a pension plan change on the ballot will take the backing of a majority of Carlsbad city council members. California lawmakers also would have to pass legislation to change how the state figures the city's payments into CalPERS.

From the story by Times reporter Barbara Henry:

The mayor said his rough proposal calls for decreasing retirement benefits that the city will eventually pay to any city employees hired after 2010 -- employees hired before then wouldn't be affected.

Instead of a "3 percent" plan, the new city employees could end up with a "2.5 percent" or a "2.7 percent plan," he said.

In Carlsbad, general city employees are eligible for a "3 percent at 60" plan, meaning that if they retire at age 60, they receive an annual pension equal to 3 percent of their highest yearly salary, multiplied by the number of years they were employed by the city.

Firefighters and police get the deal at age 50.

Under such a system, a city employee who worked 25 years before retiring and had a peak salary of $75,000 could receive an annual benefit of $56,250.

The council unanimously approved the benefit for police officers in 2001. When the firefighters' turn came in 2002, the council divided 3-2, with Lewis and Hall voting against the proposal.

The two men also voted against expanding it to general employees in 2003.

As we've mentioned on this blog and in last week's column on Orange County's recently passed Measure J, local calls for public employee pension changes are one way to measure the public's mood toward civil service benefits.

We've seen what happened in Orange County. Now keep your eye on Carlsbad.

Click here to read the North County Times piece.

IMAGE: City of Carlsbad

Cal-Tax Reports has the latest on mold clean-up efforts at The Board of Equalization's headquarters. DGS says that the problem has been fixed on the 23rd and 24th floors of the building. A BOE consultant "isn't so sure," Cal-Tax reports.

Click here to read the Cal-Tax Reports' Nov. 17 digest. The mold item is on page seven of the 8-page digest.

The California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility has offered 10 ideas it says will save the state $5 billion each year. Most of the suggestions don't cost state workers any out-of-pocket money. A few examples:

• Temporarily suspend earning of service years for pension benefits.
• Discontinue purchases of service ("airtime") credits.
• Reduce compensated time off.
• Adopt a second-tier pension plan for new hires.

Click here to see the entire list and the rationale for each suggestion.

Blog backs review your thoughtful and provocative online comments, amplify points, answer questions, correct our mistakes and humbly accept your warranted criticism.

Nov. 10 A state worker accepts Schwarzenegger's furlough, benefits cuts

Funny how the bee (sic) just wants to hear from people who agree with Arnold ...

We put out the call to workers who support the governor's proposal because we weren't having any problem finding workers who were willing to speak out against it.

Sac Bee, do you realize that the Whimpinator is our ultimate boss? Speaking to you over the phone, using our names in the paper - in some State agencies, that would be seen as an act of insubordination. And, certainly many civil servants would be held accountable - and it is possible in some instances termination could be the results (sic).

An interesting take that, if true, should spark some legal concerns. State agencies that we've talked to say that employees are free to speak and e-mail as individuals. Doing it on state time, however, is unwise.

Click here for a recent blog post about this issue.

Nov. 10 State responds to data security concerns

Mr. Ortiz, No one believes for one moment that you are not biased against state workers. Your final condescending statement that you believe most state workers "are not dishonest" doesn't fool us. This story is OLD, yet you run this article at a time when there is high scrutiny of state employees and much debate over mandatory furloughs for state employees.

True, the Dumbrique and Vue stories have been in the news for quite some time, but we thought the state's Nov. 6 policy memo deserved reporting, particularly because it came after those cases.

The Bee also featured a profile of Dumbrique the same day as this blog entry and her sentencing is scheduled for Nov. 19. We thought those events made the unfolding story blogworthy.

Sorry that the final sentence came across as "condescending."

Nov. 12 CalPERS housing investments lose 35 percent

well, to see the retirement of gov. employees go down doesn't make me feel bad for one moment. They get all the entitlements/freebies and we get social security.......I guess with that kind of loss, maybe they'll see how the average joe feels. Worse yet?....knowing that the taxpayer funds pensions etc that we ourselves don't even get. Hope it goes down 50% or more.

State worker pension benefits are guaranteed by the state, so if CalPERS' assets for some reason can't cover retirement obligations the state (and by extension, taxpayers) must make up the difference.

The state's pension plan is not a "freebie." Nearly all state employees pay 5 percent of their wages toward their retirement. And remember, they pay taxes, too.

Nov. 12 'State worker' versus 'state employee'

The Governor's plan is an attack on state employees not a "little haircut". I don't know where the Governor gets his hair cut. My hair cuts cost $25. A monthly unpaid day of leave amounts to $163.20 pay cut. This is one month's groceries for me.

Well said.

Nov. 14 State workers counter Schwarzenegger plan

Jon, Jon, Jon, Trying to use a State employee from bargaining unit one to make it look like we support our own cuts. Why would we want to eliminate jobs, and accept temporary pay cuts?

We're not trying to "use" employees to promote an anti- or pro-state worker agenda. Our sole aim is providing a forum for thoughtful opinions and vigorous debate by presenting information and ideas.

That means all ideas, even those that challenge the status quo.

We get criticism from readers for going easy on state workers, and we get criticism for promoting a bias against state workers. As long as we're catching heat from both sides, we're satisfied.

Sue Rasberry, who works for the SCO, has given us a copy of the letter she sent to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, incoming Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg and Assembly Speaker Karen Bass.

Two key paragraphs:

It's easy to make decisions effecting (sic) everyday people, while standing at a podium, under a rotunda in our state capitol. Come look us in the eye, tell us FIRST what you are giving up, and it should be equal or MORE than what is being proposed for state workers, then tell us how we can help save California from this budgetary mess, caused in good part by the ineffectiveness of our elected officials.

Am I willing to give my part in order to keep people from losing their jobs? Of course!!! Do I expect those responsible to also be accountable and share in the cutbacks? ABSOLUTELY!!!

You can read the entire letter by clicking here.

We put out the call this morning for counter proposals to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's employee furlough, holiday and OT changes. Ernest Feliciano, who belongs to Bargaining Unit 1, sent along an e-mail with several ideas from state employees:

1. No reduction in pay to state workers, There are 1,700 vacant positions, eliminate 1,100 vacant positions from current payroll to achieve the same savings.




2. Offer the one day off per month as a voluntary leave program. THE VLP program was previously offered and state employees volunteered to take VLP for reduced pay.
3. If forced to reduce pay (5 percent) for 19 months, seek a cost of living allowance (COLA) raise for 2008, 2009 and 2010 to be available at the end of the 19 month period, i.e,, a delayed pay raise at the end.
4. If forced to reduce pay 5 percent for 19 months, seek an automatic cost of living allowance (COLA) raise to all future Unit 1 labor contracts.

Other ideas are building on our earlier post, Tell Arnold how to avoid furloughs, benefit cuts. Click here to check those out.

A friend of ours who works for the state recently said that she pays $10 to $12 more for a case of copy paper through state-mandated vendors than what big box stores charge.

"I could get stuff so much cheaper at Target," she said.

The conversation reminded us of the comedy movie, "Dave," when Kevin Kline's presidential lookalike character whips out a pencil and notepad and, as high ranking federal officials squirm nervously, he rejiggers the government's finances and cuts billions in spending, all to save funding for a children's program.

Too bad government reform isn't that simple.

But let's pretend for a moment that you represent your bargaining unit in the current contract talks with DPA. Would you counter Schwarzenegger with your own cost-cutting proposals? If so, what alternatives would you suggest to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to furlough workers and pare back some benefits?

We'll start with a suggestion we've heard from a union official close to the negotiations: revive the personal leave program (for the history and details of the program, click here).

We know that state officials regularly visit this blog. Maybe an idea or two presented here could have some impact on contract talks.

With just 400 to 450 words for our weekly State Worker column, most of what we learn each week never sees print. Column Extras will give you some of the notes, the quotes and the observations that don't make the cut:

Info on pay reductions/furloughs
California has reduced state employee pay in the past. We asked DPA to provide a timeline and an explanation of cuts since the Wilson administration:

• 7-1-91: 5% reduction for managerial employees
• 10-1-91: 5% reduction for supervisory employees
• 6-92: 5% reduction for managers and supervisors converted to PLP (explained below)
• 7-1-92: PLP for rank-and-file
• 12-31-92: PLP ends for managers
• 3-31-93: PLP ends for supervisors
• 12-31-93: PLP ends for rank-and-file
• 7-1-03: PLP for managers, supervisors, and rank-and-file
• 7-1-04: PLP ends

PLP, or personal leave program, gives employees an extra day of leave per month in exchange for about 5% of pay (because each day is worth about 5% of pay).

What's the deal with holidays?
Today's editorial in The Bee supports the notion of erasing two of the 13 paid holidays on the state calendar:

Those who object to trimming holidays ought to check with other employers. None we could identify are as generous as the state. Federal workers receive just 10 paid holidays a year. The state of Nevada gives its employees 11. Sacramento County workers get 12.

We've heard different versions of how the state arrived at 13 holidays. Literally dozens of state workers have told us in e-mails and online posts that the holiday calendar grew over the years because the state offered the paid time off instead of pay raises.

We couldn't confirm that. In fact, DPA's Lynelle Jolley said this in an e-mail:

The number of holidays has expanded over the years through collective bargaining. It's unrelated to the issue of trading time off for pay increases.

What no one disputes, however, is that the holiday schedule came through bargaining.

When unions have taken wage and benefits issues to the Legislature, the governor has blasted the tactic as an end-run on good faith negotiations. Now he has adopted that tactic.

Questions asked and unanswered
We usually start our reporting by asking questions and then seeking answers. Some that we had this time:

Are the unions so unyielding that reductions can't be worked out through bargaining? Or is there history (prior concessions, meager raises in past contracts, etc.) that makes union concessions extremely difficult?

Is the state cash crisis so severe and the prospects for concluding labor talks soon so remote that pushing a controversial measure through the Legislature makes sense?

What about the appearance of hypocrisy?

What do the governor's proposals do to current labor talks?

Consumer Federation of America has given the California Department of Insurance Web site an "excellent" rating, according to a survey released this week.

You can read the department's press statement by clicking here. Click on this link to read the federation study.

CalPERS housing assets took a 35 percent hit last year, going from $9.3 billion to $6.1 billion as of March 31.

"This portfolio reflects the realities of today's market and accurately depicts readjustments of price and risk," said George Diehr, chairman of the CalPERS Investment Committee, in a press statement released about an hour ago.

The housing losses put the fund's entire real estate portfolio into the red when it was evaluated in March. "However, current gains in the 12-month period through June 30, 2008, have offset that decline, with overall real estate making a positive return for the three-year, five-year and since inception periods," according to the press release.

Click here to read Bee business writer Dale Kasler's story about CalPERS housing losses.

Click here to read the Housing Program Update scheduled for CalPERS committee discussion on Monday.

The California budget crisis that prompted Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to furlough employees and cut their benefits has spurred more than a dozen calls and e-mails to us saying that state civil service management positions have grown disproportionately to the the number of rank-and-file workers.

More than one person has suggested that thinning the supervisory herd would save the state millions of dollars with little or no lost productivity.

We asked DPA for the state's management and staff headcounts for 2007 and 2002. After checking with the State Controller's Office, here's what the department gave us (we did the math):

2007
Rank-and-file: 191,728
Managers and supervisors: 32,310
Management made up 16.85 percent of the workforce

2002
Rank-and-file: 184,100
Managers and supervisors: 30,407
Management made up 16.52 percent of the workforce

Of course, this only tells a very simple big-picture story. It could be that some individual departments have drastically increased the number of managers relative to the number of worker bees. The opposite may be true for others. And many departments have probably held steady.

Don't miss The Bee's story today on Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor's take on the state's budget crisis.

Want more? Click here to download the LAO's 28-page "Overview of the Governor's Special Session Proposals." We took a quick look. Page 10 mentions savings from "Furlough state workers and other costs" (total through 2009-10: $876 million) and on page 14 pegs the furloughing policy as equal to a 4.62 percent reduction in pay.

Want even more? Click on this link to watch Taylor's press conference discussing the report.

IMAGE: Sacramento Bee

Words matter.

Readers reminded us of that fact after reading our story on the governor's furlough and benefits cutbacks. A few gently rapped our knuckles for using two terms: "janitor" and "state worker."

"The correct word these days is 'custodian,'" said an unnamed caller responding to last week's story. "Just thought you'd want to know."

Another caller registered her reluctant acceptance of Schwarzenegger's plan to trim state payroll expenses and then threw in that she prefers "state employee" to "state worker."

It just sounds better, she told us.

Michael Fuller included the "e" word in one of his e-mails to the State Worker:

Unfortunately, we State employees (not State workers) are all painted by the same broad brush, so it's easy for the public to support cutbacks and reduced benefits, etc.

Self-defensiveness (and we writers -- ahem -- journalists are a defensive bunch) can make us prone to blowing off such concerns. Who cares? What's the big deal? Get a life.

But words do matter. They shape impressions and mold self-image.

CCPOA built itself into one of California's most powerful unions when a group formerly known as "prison guards" insisted that they were "correctional officers" and deserved to be treated better.

Now Schwarzenegger and labor interests are trying to shape the debate over the governor's cost-cutting proposals. You can see how the conflict is developing by the words used:

In a Monday interview with The Bee's editorial board, the governor said that he put forward the idea of eliminating two state holidays and requiring state workers to take a monthly unpaid day of leave "under the auspices of everyone gets a little haircut."

The SEIU California State Council called the plan, "an attack" on state employees, as we noted in this recent blog post.

So are the proposals a "haircut," and "attack" or something in between? How would you characterize them?

IMAGE: Sacramento Bee

We put out the call on Monday for state workers who agree with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to furlough state workers, trim their holidays and change overtime accounting rules. One person has responded so far.

Susan Amigh, staff services analyst, called us Monday morning with these thoughts:

I would certainly prefer a furlough to layoffs ... And if we obviously need longer-term measures past what the governor has proposed, we need to accept it. But I would like to see this spread out across the board, instead of big job cuts in a few places, we should have smaller cuts spread out across departments.

It seems like it would be more fair if everyone, including the Legislature shared the pain.

Our door is open to anyone else who wants to voice support for the Governor's proposals. Call us at (916) 321-1043 or e-mail jortiz@sacbee.com.

By the way, if you missed it, Schwarzenegger visited The Bee's editorial board Monday and talked about the "haircut" he wants to give state workers. You can read Kevin Yamamura's online piece by clicking here. Editorial Board member Stuart Leavenworth has posted the first of several transcripts of the conversation on The Swarm blog.

Today's profile of state worker Rachael Rivas Dumbrique by Bee reporter Andrew McIntosh reminded us of this memo recently released by the state Office of Information Security and Privacy Protection.

The memo, released a week after our blog and a companion column about about state database security concerns, opens with this reminder:

Safeguarding against and preventing security breaches involving personal information is essential to maintaining the public's trust in government. Failure to protect personal information can place people in jeopardy in a variety of ways, including identity theft, damage to reputation, and physical injury.

While ultimate responsibility rests with agency heads, every employee plays a role in the protection of personal information. This memo should receive the widest possible distribution within state agencies, and each organization and individual must understand their specific responsibilities for implementing and complying with information security and privacy requirements and procedures.

Despite recent stories about Dumbrique and former Sheriff's Deputy Chu Vue, it's worth saying again: We believe that the vast majority of state workers are honest and don't abuse their power to peek at intimate personal information.

IMAGE: Sacramento Bee

Blog backs review your thoughtful and provocative online comments, amplify points, answer questions, correct our mistakes and humbly accept your warranted criticism.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to furlough workers and cut their holidays and a few other benefits was the hot topic this week. Readers posted more than 400 comments to news stories about the proposal and related State Worker blog items.

Oct. 29 Order in the court: Arguments heard in employee pay lawsuit

What about the more than 10,000 state workers who were laid off on July 31? Where do we stand with regard to this lawsuit?

Gilb v. Chiang doesn't address whether the governor can lay off part-timers or retired annuitants. That part of the executive order, while unpopular in many quarters, has not been contested.

Nov. 6 Schwarzenegger wants furloughs, fewer holidays for state workers

Although there are many good people works (sic) for state there are also some "dead weight" workers as well...even Hugo Sanchez would not hire them for his government. I think Governor's decision is absolutely appropriate.

We think you mean Hugo Chavez, the controversial Venezuelan president and ardent critic of the United States.

State workers should be put on notice - not many people feel sorry for you. You took a job with the state, the state is a business, therefore if that business is in trouble, so is your job and all the perks.

We agree that the public isn't widely sympathetic to state workers, however the government is not a business.

It doesn't operate for profit (or to break even, apparently) and must conduct its affairs openly. It has a monopoly, but it's supposed to entertain dissenting opinions and treat people equally. It is above market forces -- government will never close, no matter how lousy the economy or how poorly it conducts it's affairs.

Government also has power that private business does not, including taxing authority and the ability to throw rule breakers in jail.

Someone told me that Federal workers get a "cost of living" increase every year. If this is true, why doesn't CA do it?

The federal government can operate with a debt ($10 trillion right now and growing). California must operate with a balanced budget.

Nov. 6 Schwarzenegger pens letter to state workers

So why ... eliminate two Holidays to save money? The workers are paid either way and the building is lit up so the net effect is that it costs more to take away the Holidays. The logic of one cancels out the logic of the other
.
This argument was raised in comments across several news stories and blog posts about the governor's proposal. It makes an assumption that the state's daily operating costs outweigh the value of the work produced by state employees.

Ask yourself: If it costs the state more money to take away Lincoln's Birthday and Columbus Day, would the state save more money by giving employees two more holidays?

Nov. 7 State workers rip Schwarzenegger's job furlough plan

You know, this reporter, Jon Ortiz, is really misrepresenting the reality of this issue. He has over-melodramatized the conflict. The unions and the Governor have been working together for weeks before this announcement came out. There are many folks who understand and sympathize with his plan. This is a pretty bad piece of journalism.

A union representative who did not want to be named divulging details of labor talks, said that DPA officials informed labor leaders of the governor's proposals shortly after the Nov. 4 election.

We have yet to hear from any union representatives at any level who support the proposals.

State workers don't march in lockstep, so we agree that "many folks" in the state workforce aren't hostile to the plan, but they're probably in the minority. Certainly no one we spoke with accepted what Schwarzenegger wants to do. But, as the next comment proves, the state workforce isn't monolithic ...

As a state employee, let me say something that will blow your minds: I want a furlough. Looking back, if my present job were offered to me at 95% of the pay but with 12 extra days off per year, I'd gladly take it......

We would love to hear from state workers willing to talk on the record who share this point of view. Call us at (916) 321-1043 if you want to chip in your comments.

Hey Jon, there's no hyphen in Arnold's last name.

True enough, oh sharp-eyed reader. We'll blame the rogue hyphenation on difficulties moving the copy from The Bee's software for print publication (where the Governor's lengthy last name often gets hyphenated to fit the newspaper's column width) to the software we use for online publishing.

Besides, we got it right seven out of eight times!

A federal judge has granted the Schwarzenegger administration's motion to return Gilb v. Chiang to state court. As you recall, the lawsuit between DPA and the State Controller's Office seeks to resolve whether state workers must be paid federal minimum wage during a state budget impasse.

If DPA wins, Schwarzenegger could order most state employees' pay reduced to $6.55 an hour should lawmakers miss the deadline for a 2009-10 budget.

You can read 43 pages of the court's 44-page ruling by clicking here, then click here to see the final page. (DPA accidentally scanned the document into two files.)

Three months into covering state employees and we're noticing a trend: More and more of you are telling us that you can't speak on the record to the media.

"I don't want any pressure from my boss. Please don't use my name," wrote one e-mailer who commented on Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to furlough state workers and cut some benefits.

"Can you use my words and not my name?" another state worker asked at the end of a telephone conversation.

Some workers have told us that they fear reprisal such as negative job reviews or bum assignments if their name appears in our weekly State Worker column or on this blog. One employee recently quoted in a column said that his supervisors approached him afterwards "just to see what was going on."

What is your deparment's policy? Do you feel any pressure to avoid making your personal opinions public?

Do you think that the governor's recent proposals for state worker furloughs and changes to the holiday schedule create more pressure on managers or department heads to control what state workers say? Or does your department take a more liberal view of state worker voices in the news?

Our phone and e-mail is flooded today with reaction to the story in today's Bee about Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to furlough state workers and cut their beneifts, The comments range from disbelief to anger to a sense of comeuppance for state workers, who many people feel enjoy unjustified job protections and guaranteed pensions, particularly in these difficult economic times.

One caller felt that the story was unfair because it failed to note that the $1.4 billion savings estimate was over two years. "Stop dumping on state workers!" he shouted.

"I will gladly accept a 5% pay cut for one year, but only if every other working person in California agrees to do the same!!" state worker Jim Porter said in an e-mail.

Amelia Smith of Fair Oaks wrote:

State workers need to be firing off e-mails and letters to the Legislature saying, "Hell, yes" to the proposal of giving up one day's pay a month. As a retired state worker, the benefits received (by state workers) far outweigh giving up one day's pay a month. As a temporary help worker, I received my walking papers via the Executive Order on July 1. I would have been glad to give up one day's pay to keep my job.

You can click here to read Bee colleague Kevin Yamamura's story today about the budget crisis. And click here to read Schwarzenegger's "Dear State Worker" letter, announcing the proposed cuts to state worker hours and benefits.

Air Force retiree Bob Cushman says: "Dire times call for drastic measures and that means some sacrifices. Unfortunately, people are generally very selfish and in my humble opinion that is the case with State Employees ... Many public servants have forgotten who really pays their wages, it isn't the State...it is the taxpayer ... So I have no sympathy for those who are upset about what amounts to a measly 5% cut in pay. Don't even get me started on the number of paid holidays they get. I commend Gov. Schwarzenegger's plan and the realization there are not better options."

The SEIU California State Council just released a statement. A key paragraph attributed to Executive Director Courtni Pugh:

"While the governor has finally, correctly, attributed the looming budget gap to insufficient revenues, he is unfortunately again using the budget crisis to attack the hard-working men and women who are California's economic engine. Cutting the pay of thousands of workers at this time of economic insecurity is the wrong thing to do for working families and for our economy."

Click here to read the entire press release.

The governor has made a personal appeal to state workers, sending a letter explaining his proposal for furloughs and other changes that will impact them.

"I am confident we will make it through this tough time by working together," he said.

Read the letter here: GOVLETTER.pdf

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is going to propose legislation that will make cuts to state worker pay and benefits, including:

• Elimination of Lincoln's Birthday and Columbus Day as paid state holidays.
• One-day-a-month unpaid furloughs for state workers for the next 17 months,
• Elimination of the ability to count leave time when calculating overtime.
• Giving state agencies the ability to schedule workers to 4-day, 10-hour weeks.

Follow the story here.

And tell us what you think.

A whopping 78 percent of Orange County voters were approving Measure J, which makes county public employee and elected retirement contracts contingent on approval at the ballot box. You can read the Orange County Register story by clicking here.

Is this the leading edge of a wave of public pension changes that could sweep statewide?

We'll see. Keep your eye on the political fortunes of Orange County Board of Supes Chairman John Moorlach, the driving force behind Measure J. Some SoCal pundits think he'll move up the political ladder and take his pension reform message with him. William Lobdell of OC Metro Business Magazine suggested in this piece that Moorlach run for governor.

In a decision with implications for public-private partnerships, Sacramento's Third District Court of Appeal has upheld a lower court ruling that the Legislature can't direct that only state workers provide some services on a Southern California construction project.

Consulting Engineers and Land Surveyors of California vs. CalTrans/LACMTA tested whether the state worker-only provisions of a highway bill Proposition 35, a constitutional amendment that California voters passed in 2000. The amendment includes this language: "... nothing ... shall be allowed to limit the State or any other governmental entities ... from contracting with private entities for the performance of architectural and engineering services ..."

A trial court agreed with the Consulting Engineers. Last week the appellate court agreed with the lower court.

Bruce Blanning of the Professional Engineers in California Government , which sided with CalTrans, told the State Worker late yesterday that he expected to lose. "We're considering what to do next, if anything," he said.

Paul J. Meyer, executive director of the American Council of Engineering Companies of California, said in an e-mail to The State Worker that the decision sets a legal precedent that will cascade into other legislation:

This past year there were at least ten bills in the Legislature that contained anti-Prop 35 provisions. Without this ruling such bill provisions will continue to appear over and over. Yesterday's ruling is the first published court ruling on an anti-Prop 35 statute enacted by the legislature after the passage of Prop 35. (The first of two preceding California Supreme Court rulings did not involve a legislative enactment, and the second Supreme Court ruling concerned the legislature's approval of a collective bargaining MOU, not a statute.)

You can read the court's decision by clicking here.

IMAGE: Sacramento Bee

Wall Street Journal columnist Evan Newmark continues the debate over public pensions in this "Mean Street" piece. He begins with a question:

Which job would you rather have?

That of an information-technology executive developing trading systems for a prestigious Wall Street firm, earning $200,000 a year?

Or a guidance counselor hunting down truants at a rundown New York City public school, earning $60,000 a school year?

His answer:

Before this year, most of you probably would have chosen the Wall Street job. Not anymore. It is getting harder and harder to have a stable career and healthy retirement in corporate America.

That is why jobs in the public sector-policeman, postman, politician, schoolteacher-and the "defined benefit" pensions that go along with them are looking better and better.

But here's the twist:

Many in government may welcome Wall Street's comeuppance in the Crash of 2008. But that very event now threatens the viability of the entire fat public-sector pension system ... but the U.S. stock market has effectively produced a zero return for the past 10 years.

And without decent returns in shares, the large public pension funds like CalPERS, the California Public Employee Retirement System, will face big troubles in meeting their obligations.

His point is well taken. The stock market's rising tide lifts all pension boats, but when it goes down the drain, taxes keep public pension plans afloat.

The e-mails and the calls we get almost every day reflect how deeply folks in the private sector resent public employee pensions. To their way of thinking, it's unfair that CalPERS, say, can lose billions in assets and then send a bill to the state to cover its retirement obligations. No one backstops 401(k) accounts, a fact that has been amplified by the markets' recent losses.

(Yes, we know that in the good times the state paid virtually nothing to CalPERS, but the public files that under "O" for "Oughta be that way all the time.")

Meanwhile, many public workers are sick of what they perceive as nothing more than envious civil service bashing. Some relish their guaranteed retirement. A recent comment from a self-identified state employee told public pension complainers on the blog to "shut up and pay your taxes."

Here's the thing: Public opinion matters, especially in a state like California that lets voters directly shape policy through the ballot initiative process. Look at Orange County. Residents there vote today on Measure J, which requires voter approval for all pension increases for county employees and county elected officials.

If the economy was strong and private pension plans were healthy, the public worker retirement debate wouldn't be nearly so strident. But if we're in for a long economic slog, how long before a ticked-off taxpayers group gets the idea to put a Measure J-type initiative up for statewide vote?

Newmark ends his piece with this cogent observation:

It all comes full circle. The public-sector employees need a healthy Wall Street. The American dream of "economic security" needs the American dream of going from rags to riches. And our guidance counselor needs the IT executive more than he knows.

Here's a cool new Web site about the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge that shows off all of the work that CalTrans and its partners are performing to upgade the busy span. You can click here to access a dozen video clips, fly over simulations, mini-documentaries and more on Bay Bridge 360. Just click on the multi-colored dots at different points on the span.

One time-lapse clip compresses the amazing Yerba Buena Viaduct project into about 30 seconds. You'll recall that C.C. Meyers Inc. over last year's Labor Day weekend demolished the football field-sized span and replaced it.

Another clip simulates soaring through the "self-anchored suspension span," which will be the most striking feature of the retrofitted bridge. "Wrangling Rebar" shows construction crews working in unique and precarious situations.

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission, based in Oakland, produced Bay Bridge 360.

Got a site that shows off some aspect of state work? Let us know. We'd love to share it.

IMAGE: Sacramento Bee

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has posted a virtual tour of the Lethal Injection Facility at San Quentin. The 1-minute 56-second soundless piece sweeps in, out, around and above the wing's many rooms, including the "viewing area," the "prep/control" room and the "Injection Room" (a hexagonal space measuring 7 1/2 feet in diameter, according to the video).

We spoke to CDCR spokesman Seth Unger about why the video is on the Web site. He said that it was part of the evidence submitted in response to litigation about whether its old death chamber and execution procedures were unconstitutional.

"What we wanted to do was to highlight what we had done to address those concerns,"
"It's about transparency," Unger said this morning in a telephone interview. "It's all about transparency."

San Quentin hasn't been able to execute anyone on Death Row since Michael Angelo Morales' lethal injection was postponed over Constitutional questions about the state's procedures. Morales was convicted of murdering and raping Terri Lynn Winchell, 17, in a Lodi vineyard in 1981.

The facility's $850,000 remodel has been completed, Unger said, but the state needs U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel of San Jose to sign off on the changes before San Quentin can restart its executions.

Special note: We want to recognize PacoVilla's Corrections Blog for bringing the video to our attention with its Friday post.

Click here to go directly to the execution chamber video. Clicking here takes you to the department's home page, with links to other CDCR videos that include its new, "CDCR Going Green" piece.

SEIU Local 1000, in this press release, says it is mobilizing for Assembly candidate Alyson Huber, a Democrat running for and Assembly seat in the 10th District.

And as we reported in this Oct. 1 blog post, union officials pushed back contract talks until after the Tuesday elections in part, they said, because many members would be taking time off to campaign in Nevada for Barack Obama.

You can check out an SEIU slide show of the union's efforts on behalf of Huber by clicking here.