The State Worker

Bee health industry reporter Bobby Caina Calvan has this short story today on the health insurance companies lining up to contract with CalPERS.

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

Mar. 24 EDD technology faces Senate scrutiny as unemployment rises

IT issues are a popular topic with State Worker blog users. This post by colleague Andrew McIntosh elicited some of the week's most amusing remarks:

To sum it all up, I would rather play Russian Roulette with Phil Spector than work at EDD.

Gee...we are still using IE6...only got Windows XP or Vista because it came with the computers that were bought...don't even get me started on Lotus Notes...we still have to use a dial up modem for paging...and yes still using pagers when there are vastly more efficient methods to communicate...it's all about money...between contract delays..."we've always done it this way" mindset...lack of understanding of new technologies...paranoia that employees will use computers for "unofficial business"...all of which can be easily addressed...it is bureaucracy at it's "finest"...

Mar. 25 Another 'water event' at BOE building = paid 'furloughs' for 250 state workers

TRANSLATION: ask DGS to work on the water pipes in your building for a possible extra week or more of paid vacation.

Mar. 25 See the SEIU Local 1000 contract vote counts

So when does the Legislator (sic) do their part?

The SEIU contract bill is scheduled for an Assembly committee hearing on Wednesday, as we noted in this blog post.

Since I have seen so many posts about missing ballots, no votes that weren't reflected in the votes, I wonder who validates the election results? I assume some objective third party validates the votes? or does this have to be requested?

Mar. 25 Assembly bill would cap state worker pay at $150,000 (but not for everyone)

The next two entries displayed invaluable user comment skills. The first, brevity and precision:

stunt.

The second, the apt analogy:

(Y)et another ridiculous idea from someone who obviously cares more about posturing than actually addressing our budgetary and human capital challenges. A law saying State workers earning $150,000 or more can't get a raise is like a law saying you can't serve hamburgers in a vegetarian restaurant.

Mar. 26 Public pensions should go from 'gain sharing' to 'pain sharing'

Jon---DPA has a salary & benefits/total compensation comparison study of most common state worker classifications to their comparable other public (city, county) where State (including pension benefits) received considerably less than their local public sector counterparts (& private sector when there is a comparable private job)--thus the reductions at the local level might bring them DOWN closer to what State worker compensation is--reducing State benefits would just perpetuate and worsen the disparity. Has the Bee ever published that study?

We've referenced several DPA compensation surveys in this blog. For a sample of those entries, click here. And this Oct. 2 State Worker column referenced the 2008 survey and an accompanying Column Extra blog post linked to it.

But be careful when looking at these comparisons.

The methodology of a survey can leave the conclusions suspect. For example, this 2006 survey takes a stab at comparing compensation of state workers with those in the public and private sectors. But the footnotes on the bottom of the survey's methodology section, contain this caveat:

The survey comparisons do not reflect private employers' contributions to defined contribution retirement plans, nor public employer contributions to defined benefit retirement plans. The element that is included in the public sector comparisons is the portion of the employee's contribution that gets paid by the employer. DPA's future surveys will include the employer's retirement contribution, as it reflects an employer cost of employee compensation.

The 2008 survey focuses on government compensation comparisons, as the reader noted. Still, there's a school of public policy thinking that says comparing salaries is of limited value. State work force policy expert Jason Dickerson of the Legislative Analyst's Office expressed that point of view in the October column: "If the state can pay less than other government employers and still get enough good people to get the job done, it should. If it needs to pay more, it should pay more."

The Bee has launched its new state government lobbying database. It's a clearinghouse of information for how various interest groups, including those that represent state workers, spent money to advance their agendas during the last two years.

The Bee organized the information from the Secretary of State's Web site afterShane Goldmacher, who runs our cousin blog, Capitol Alert, did tons of research that produced two stories so far. Today's piece looks at how lobbyists "recruit" leaders. Shane's A1 Sunday report included a list of the biggest spenders in Sacramento over the last two years.

You can search the database by interest group type (agriculture, education, government, labor unions, political organizations, public employees, etc.) or you can search by the group's name.

Go to the database seach engine by clicking here. We've also set up the following of links that might be of particular interest to state workers. Click on any of them to see the named list:

• The education lobby list
• The government lobby list
• The labor unions list
• The public employees list

The bill that appropriates money for the recently-ratified SEIU Local 1000 contract is set for a Wednesday hearing before the Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security. You can click here to read the bill.

The Highway Patrol literally will be doing overtime on Tuesday to focus on passenger seat belt and child restraint violations, according to this CHP alert. The officers' overtime is funded by a grant from the Office of Traffic Safety.

Interesting fact from the press release:

In 2008, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) issued 204,187 citations to drivers and passengers who failed to buckle up. That figure does not include the 17,076 tickets issued for child safety seat violations.

IMAGE: www.ots.ca.gov

A Web post by California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges, and Hearing Officers in State Employment has plenty to say about ...

What its representatives are hearing at the contract bargaining table: DPA is unwilling to offer CASE the same contract terms that were recently offered to and accepted by SEIU.

Furlough litigation before the Third District Court of Appeal: ... the appeal is still pending ... CASE will continue to challenge the Governor's authority on this issue, and will keep members updated as information becomes available in this case.

Whether constitutional officers will appeal their recent furlough lawsuit loss: It is our understanding that the constitutional and independently elected officials are currently evaluating the case to determine the propriety of an appeal.

There's plenty more about each of those subjects and others. It's worth a look, even if you're not in Bargaining Unit 2. Click here for CASE's Mar. 24 bargaining and litigation update.

The Office of the Chief State Information Officer will get new responsibilities unless the Legislature blocks an IT consolidation plan that the bipartisan Little Hoover Commission recommended last week.

The plan, proposed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, expands the authority of the OCIO in four areas now handled by other departments: infrastructure, information security, telecommunications and procurement.

Now that the commission has recommended the reorganization plan, the Legislature can allow it to go into effect or scrap it by a majority vote in the Assembly or the Senate. Barring legislative rejection, the plan will take effect May 10.

Some pertinent links:

The Little Hoover Commission's review of the governor's IT technology plan (58 pages)

The commission's press release.

The agenda for the Feb. 25 commission hearing about the plan with links to statements of various witnesses.

A press statement from State CIO Teri Takai about the commission's recommendation.

IMAGE: www.lhc.ca.gov

The California Association of Psychiatric Technicians filed an unfair labor practice charge today against DPA over changes to overtime pay calculations and holiday compensation policy contained in the recent budget bill passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The union explains its position in this e-mail to members:

Our 2006-2008 CAPT contract - which by law is still fully in place as we negotiate a new one - includes language that lets us count leave time toward overtime, and also pays us time-and-a-half for holiday work. The budget bill includes language deleting these rights.

Legislators were responsible for including this language in February's late-night budget bill. But because Governor Schwarzenegger signed the bill that contains these changes - and didn't use his line-item veto power to cut them -- and because these changes were not done through our legally protected bargaining process, CAPT says he is ultimately responsible for these illegal actions.

You can read the PERB filing by clicking here.

CalPERS CEO Anne Stausboll sent an e-mail to employees on Thursday, restating the fund's furlough policy. The punchline: Two-day furloughs remain in effect until the new SEIU deal is approved by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Once this happens, we are expecting additional direction from the Department of Personnel Administration on how the furlough will apply to excluded employees associated with the SEIU Bargaining Units, as well as to employees not covered by these contracts, and associated excluded employees.

You can read the CalPERS furlough memo here.

One of the touchy points in the saga of 450 N St. is the dual role of the Department of General Services. It's the state business manager that, in this case, owns and maintains the Board of Equalization's HQ. And it acquires property for agencies that need it, including the BOE.

So is DGS is a slumlord that BOE has to appease to have any chance for moving into a safe building? Or is the department is a vigilant landlord dealing with a problem renter in a difficult but functional property? How would you characterize the relationship between the two organizations?

On a related note, SEIU Local 1000 has plans to shoot footage for a BOE HQ feature for its Channel 1000 Webcast, according this e-mail circulating among BOE staff.

IMAGE: BOE headquarters / sacbee.com, 2005

We received an e-mail on Thursday's State Worker column from DPA spokeswoman Lynelle Jolley. We present it here, unedited.

Thanks for writing about the overtime changes for state employees who work on a paid holiday. However, with respect to the SEIU contract, some clarification is needed so folks don't think we simply signed off on all the old holiday rules when in fact the rules have changed in the SEIU contract.

First, two holidays have disappeared and they don't get overtime for those days. Second, when they take holiday time off either on a personal holiday or when the holiday is fixed, it doesn't count as "time worked" for overtime purposes.

We also want to correct the notion that the law change in holiday compensation "doesn't apply to new collective bargaining contracts." Rather, a premium for working holidays may be part of future negotiations.

--Lynelle

We visited the Board of Equalization headquarters at 450 N St. in Sacramento on Thursday afternoon with agency spokeswoman Anita Gore. Here's a one-minute snippet of footage from our tour of areas damaged by water and undergoing mold remediation after a pipe in the building broke on Sunday.

Malibu-based public pension consultant Girard Miller lays out the case for shifting more public pension costs to employees in,"Sharing the pension pain," in Governing.com. A few paragraphs will give a sense of his argument:

A decade ago, public employee unions lobbied for "gain-sharing" in which they got a share of governmental revenues or surplus investment returns. Very few governments actually established such systems, but those who did should now be demanding "pain-sharing" arrangements. Others may have no choice but to pursue the same course, because they naïvely granted de facto 'gain-sharing' deals through permanent and irreversible benefit increases when stocks peaked in 2000. Now they must achieve equilibrium through higher contributions ....

An ideal, properly balanced solution for most employers would be to require or bargain for their employees to pay one-half of the increased costs of pension benefits that resulted from the market meltdown. In some cases, this will take several years to accomplish, because of actuarial smoothing. In some cases, the increase in payroll withholding may be too abrupt for employees to absorb if their salaries have been frozen, and it might take a few years to ramp up their contributions ...

A corollary remedy for retirement medical benefits plans is to split the actuarial cost equally between employers and employees. Given the mounting magnitude of the OPEB underfunding (retiree health care), the primacy of pension benefits, and tight budgets everywhere, this may also require several years to ramp up, for both employers and employees ...

Retirees, Miller says, should share the pain, too. Government should defer COLAs:"... If salaries are frozen, in the worst economic crisis in 80 years, shouldn't pensions be as well?"

Click here to read the Miller article. You can read Miller's bio at this link.

On a related note, the San Diego Union-Tribune last weekend called for the 1,500 California government agencies that provide pensions through CalPERS to, "... return to pre-1999 pension benefits for all new hires. The old norm of non-public safety employees retiring with a pension equal to 2 percent of final pay times years of service wasn't just adequate; it was generous."

You can read the U-T editorial here.

Then the Daily Breeze last night published, "The pension predicament," that details how Redondo Beach, already struggling with falling tax revenues, now faces higher CalPERS' pension contributions. It also calls for pension changes.

You'll see more and more of these editorials and opinion pieces as CalPERS prepares to announce how much more employers will have to kick in to make up for the fund's asset losses. Could this create pressure to change pension benefits (for new hires, at least) on the state level?

We blogged last week about the Sacramento Regional Science & Engineering Fair, which was held on Saturday at Rosemont High School in Sacramento. PECG and CAPS helped sponsor the event, which drew students from around the region.

Blog users asked if we could get some details about the outcome of the fair. We contacted PECG / CAPS spokeswoman Lisa Marie Burcar, who was literally working up this press release about the event when she fielded our request for follow-up info.

After reading the press release you can check out the fair's Web site, now with updated lists of winners and photos from the event.

We're always interested in promoting charitable events sponsored by state worker organizations. In fact, we wish we would get more such news. Please keep this blog in mind whenever you'd like to get out the word about these kinds of events, employee awards or notable individual or group milestones. We want to share the good news.

Bee reporter Andrew McIntosh has a story today on the big water leak at the Board of Equalization headquarters on N Street in Sacramento.

Andrew made us aware of a recent report on the building's problems that you can read here.

UPDATE at 1:15 p.m.: If you work at the BOE building and would like to contribute to a story we're working on for tomorrow, give us a call at 916-321-1043 or e-mail jortiz@sacbee.com.

United we stand; divided we vote.

American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 2620, which represents about 5,000 state workers, is endorsing Prop 1A, the May 19 ballot measure that would temporarily raise taxes while putting a cap on state spending.

The local's endorsement runs counter to AFSCME international's opposition to 1A because of its spending limits. (Taxpayer groups oppose the measure for its higher tax provisions.) Capitol Bureau colleague Kevin Yamamura breaks down the ballot measure's opponents in this lead story in today's Bee.

AFSCME 2620, which represents state employees in the mental health, healthcare and social services fields, also supports Propositions 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 1F. In a press release the union called the initiative package, "... a crucial component of the state's overall budget plan, providing the framework needed to help preserve state services and guard against draconian spending cuts."

AFSCME 2620 President Nancy Swindell said, "We recognize the initiatives are far from perfect, but the alternative is far worse." You can read more of what she said in the 2620 press statement by clicking here.

Despite the local's endorsement, it looks like the measures are in trouble, according to this morning's Capitol Alert post by Dan Walters. A new poll shows that none have majority voter support.

As we've noted earlier, the outcome of the May 19 vote will probably have a direct impact on state workers.

Here are some documents that add context to today's State Worker column:

The budget bill, SBX3 8, that changes holiday pay policy. Scroll down to the second page to the section that starts with (4).

SEIU Local 1000's Master Contract. Go to PDF page 48. Item G covers full-time employee holiday pay.

DPA's Wednesday memo to Personnel Management Liaisons, "Change in Holiday Provisions."

CAPT's flyer to members, "CAPT reps take issues to DPA heads."

He doesn't represent any Sacramento area area district.

And that may be why Assemblyman Anthony J. Portantino, D-La Cañada Flintridge, is brave enough to introduce a bill that would prohibit any pay raises, overtime pay, or other increase in compensation for state workers who earn more than $150,000 a year.

Portantino's bill, which would remain in effect "until the economy recovers," would nevertheless let the governor make exemptions to the salary freeze for his powerful political allies - police officers and firefighters.

The exemption would allow pay raises for workers "necessary for protecting the safety and security of the people of California," but he'd still have explain their need.

Portantino says his AB 53 would even apply to legislative and gubernatorial staff.

The Assembly Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security Committee will take a look at his bill next Wednesday morning.

The hearing will be held at 9:30 A.M. at the Capitol, Room 444.

SEIU Local 1000 has put up each bargaining unit's contract ratification vote numbers.

This link takes you to the "Contract Updates & Information" page. The bargaining unit vote counts and contracts specific to each are on the right of the page under "Click below for unit-specific news."

If you'd rather not click through all of those links, we've rounded up the numbers here.

Between 250 and 300 employees at the state Board of Equalization have been put on paid administrative leave for at least a week - and possibly longer - after yet another burst water pipe at the tax collection agency's downtown headquarters.

The latest trouble at the 450 N St. office tower began Sunday.

A hot water pipe failed while General Services officials were working on it and it gushed water onto several floors below, BOE spokeswoman Anita Gore said.

When Department of General Services staff started to repair the damage caused by what the BOE's director described as a "water event," they discovered mold on the first floor near the BOE's history room. That museum-like area is open to the public.

More mold was found on floors 2, 3, 6 and 7 at water damaged areas on the hallway side of the northwest stairwell in the building.

The BOE headquarters has been plagued by water seepage and mold trouble and litigation involving employees who claim they've been made sick by the mold.

A water hose failed on the building's 11th floor about a year ago and that floor has been closed ever since, Gore said.

The building's 22nd, 23rd, and 24th floors also have been closed for almost two years because of mold removal and remediation work, Gore said.

The new moldy areas have been taped over, closed and contained by DGS until more mold busting work and remediation steps can be taken to address trouble spots.

 BOE consultant, Hygiene Tech, along with DGS consultants will continue testing at suspect locations and air quality throughout the building, the BOE told staff in a memo.

Gore said an estimated 60 BOE workers have resumed working today after taking Monday and Tuesday off, thanks to telecommuting arrangements and supplying them alternative work stations so they can perform their duties.

"We bring in more than $53 billion in revenue a year and that work has to continue, especially in these hard times," Gore said.

Three tax units affected have taken steps to ensure their public services are not interrupted, Gore said, and BOE is in the market for at least some new office space.

It's no April Fool's joke.

A Senate Web site is listing a joint Senate hearing for April 1 into how the Employment Development Department is using technology.

The hearing is to be led by the chairmen of the Senate Labor and Industrial Relations Committee and the Select Committee on Disaster and Emergency Response.

The official subject of the hearing, as reported today on the Senate Daily File, a Web site that tracks Senate activities and hearings: Technology at the Employment Development Department: How to build an EDD that meets the needs of California.

Sen. Dean Florez, D-Shafter, and Sen. Mark DeSaulnier, D-Concord, will oversee the late afternoon session.

Florez's Bakersfield-area district is among those that have been hard hit by the state's continuing recession.

The state's overall unemployment rate is closing in on 11 percent, and the Business Forecasting Center at the University of the Pacific's Eberhardt School of Business forecast today that it could top 12 percent by year's end.

The Fresno Bee's Jim Boren -- read his recent opinion piece here -- has joined The Sacramento Bee and other news outlets in chronicling the challenges that newly unemployed taxpayers face as they try to reach EDD officials by telephone to file their unemployment insurance claim or ask questions.

No word yet on who the witnesses will be or who from EDD will appear.

The five-year "strategic plans" that many state and federal government departments put together often make for great sleep aids for insomnia sufferers. Yet some of them offer historical insight -- and contain clues of troubles to come.

So it was for Employment Development Department Director Patrick Henning. Henning's EDD published a 26-page strategic plan to map its road from 2007- 2011, describing "critical issues and challenges" anticipated by the department.

You can see the whole EDD strategic plan report here.

Perhaps its most interesting part was an introduction by director Henning.

Two years ago, Henning wrote that while the state's economy was healthy, his department had problems of its own as it grappled with technological change at the same time the state's population was growing fast and its ethnic mix was changing.

"Our ability to meet these challenges is not without constraints," Henning wrote.

"Our department's workforce is aging and the majority of our most experienced staff who hold institutional knowledge is transitioning to well-earned retirement," he added.

"The technology that supports our programs and enables our services to be delivered efficiently and effectively is outdated, redundant, and difficult to maintain," Henning continued.

Was anybody in the administration reading or listening to Henning in 2007? We all know what's happened since, but for those of you who may need a quick reminder, here are a few stories The Bee has done on EDD's challenges.

Jobless Californians battle swamped EDD phone lines here.

EDD workers have still been semi-manually processing unemployment insurance claims, despite their department getting $66 million for upgrades from the federal government here.

Then, there's EDD's infamous 5 cent challenge. Each time a caller can't get through, a recorded message plays, and thanks to Verizon, that costs the department - and all taxpayers. That bill has hit $4.4 million in three months alone. Read about that here.

The problems highlighted by such stories are organizational and not the fault of its dedicated, hard-working staffers. The State Worker knows they are putting in countless hours of overtime to deal with the recession and related unemployment crisis.

An Assembly committee on government efficiency may want to ask Henning and his senior officials about all this. If its members do, his strategic plan is must reading.

In the aftermath of the the worst wildfire season in California in decades, the California Department of Forestry and Fire has been forced to pull the plug on a popular annual event for its statewide aviation firefighting team.

The 2009 aviation safety conference - held each spring before things heat up on the wildfire fighting front - has been canceled because there's no budget to pay for it, according to Tom Humann, the chief aviation safety officer at Cal-Fire.

Humann announced the news in a private e-mail he sent to air base battalion chiefs and staff at the department's airplane and helicopter operations statewide in late January.

"Despite the efforts of our chief officers to make this important event possible, there is simply no funding available," Humann wrote in the email, which was obtained by The State Worker under the Public Records Act.

"I am fully aware there is no substitute for the group dynamic of our conference," Humann added.  "Further it means  the loss of valuable presentations from subject matter experts from outside CAL-FIRE."

Humann promised he would work with chiefs in the field to develop "alternate means of getting the information out and soliciting feedback on safety issues."

Janet Upton, a CAL-FIRE spokeswoman, confirmed the air safety conference has been axed due to the state budget deficit. Other conferences have been nixed, too, she said.
.
Upton said Humann has continued to gather safety information while attending safety gatherings. He's disseminating the information he picks up to others in the aviation team.

"So, instead of having 70 people travel, he's hitting the road," Upton explained Tuesday, noting that Humann is making site visits and doing smaller group discussions to ensure that safety remains a top priority.

CalPERS and CalSTRS want to take the lead in lawsuits against Bank of America that allege the banking giant misled shareholders by failing to fully disclose Merrill Lynch's problems before the companies merged last fall. Click here to read Bee business writer and Home Front blogger Dale Kasler's story.

We've written about this before, but in light of furloughs, budget cuts and looming layoffs, it seems like a good time to again look at wages of our elected state workers (also known as legislators).

Background: The independent California Citizens Compensation Commission in 2007 approved a $3,110 pay raise for the Legislature, bringing their annual base wage to $116,208. (The Assembly Speaker, Senate President Pro Tempore and other caucus leaders earn more to reflect their added responsibilities.)

Last November, after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed furloughing state workers one day per month, we asked the State Controller's Office whether any lawmakers were sharing the burden by either cutting their pay or refusing the pay increase. SCO sent this list.

Since then, the list has changed somewhat. Some lawmakers who hadn't taken the pay raise in November now are. Others have cut their pay by 10 percent, the rough equivalent of wages lost to state workers who are furloughed two days per month.

Here's the latest unedited list of legislators' salary changes as of February, according to the SCO. (Yes, we know that some of these folks aren't in office any more. Like we said, it's an unedited list.)

LEGISLATORS DECLINING DECEMBER 2007 PAY RAISE
DATA AS OF FEBRUARY 23, 2009

Senate

Lou Correa
Dave Cox - taking a 5% reduction effective 02/01/2009
Jeff Denham
Christine Kehoe
Alan Lowenthal
Able Maldonado
Gloria Negrete McLeod
Carole Migden - reinstated to full salary effective 7/1/2008
Tom Torlakson - restored to full salary effective with appointment to Assembly on 12/1/2008
Mark Wyland

Assembly

Jim Beall Jr.
John Benoit - restored to full salary effective with appointment to Senate on 12/1/2008
Joan Buchanan - taking a 10% reduction effective 2/19/2009
Hector de la Torre - reinstated to full salary effective 11/4/2008
Mike Eng
Jean Fuller
Ted Gaines - also taking an additional 5% reduction effective 12/1/2008 for a total 7.75% salary reduction
Cathleen Galgiani
Martin Garrick
Ed Hernandez
Mark Leno - restored to full salary effective with appointment to Senate on 12/1/2008
Sally Lieber
Ted Lieu
Fiona Ma
Alan Nakanishi
Roger Niello
Nicole Parra
Anthony Portantino
Ira Ruskin - taking a 10% reduction effective 2/1/2009
Mimi Walters - restored to full salary effective with appointment to Senate on 12/1/2008

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

Note: Bee Cap Bureau colleague Andrew McIntosh will run The State Worker blog through Wednesday while we attend training sessions to expand our Web skills.

Mar. 13 Blog back: Ratification, rationale and raises

The judges (sic) ruling doesn't make sense. If a govenor wanted to abolish an elected officials (sic) office what's to stop him from saying "all of your employees are furloughed 7 days a week"?

From Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette's tentative ruling, which is now final:

... the Governor's power to order employee furloughs is not unlimited, but rather is controlled by law, and therefore cannot be exercised in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

In other words, the governor can't do things that interfere with the constitutionals' ability to carry out the duties of their offices. In the judge's view, furloughing workers two days each month doesn't cross that line.

I'm voting NO on everything. I've had it with politicians taking from us, yet they would not cut one of their own benefits or take a 10% paycut like many others have. So it's NO, NO, NO, NO. Until they get the message!!!

Shane Goldmacher, who runs our cousin Capitol Alert blog, reported last month that Assemblywoman Joan Buchanan, said she would take a self-imposed 10 percent wage cut.

It seems the need for services has more than kept up with the growth in governement (sic) ... Although I'm not a state worker, I've been a round (sic) a lot of them and for the most part they are hardworking, caring and dedicated to providing the services to the people of CA ... Like any organization, you're going to find that percentage that give an organization a bad name, but they definitly (sic) don't deserve the abuse they get on some of these boards.

According to a Bee analysis of payroll data provided by the state controller, the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation grew by 1,339 full-time positions from June 2008 through January of this year, more than any other department. (Some of the growth is from hires mandated by the federal receiver.) Meanwhile, the institutionalized population -- both in-state and out-of-state -- fell slightly:

June 30, 2008 -- 170,973
Jan. 31, 2009 -- 170,281

We bring this up not to pick on Corrections, but merely to point out that government's growth isn't always linked with a corresponding demand for services.

Mar. 16 Bowen waiting for furlough answers from Schwarzenegger

Reaction to this post revealed deep divisions among state workers over the furlough pass given constitutional officer employees:

Well Ms. Bowen, it must be sooo nice that "your" employees are part of the State Worker "aristocracy" and don't have to give up 10% of their pay like the rest of us do. Who was it?? Oh,yes, I'll paraphrase Leona Helmsley, "Only the little people state workers get furloughed." Indeed!!!

Another commenter made this assessment:

In light of the widening hole in the budget the constitutional officers need to implement the furlough. What can be saved today may mitigate the looming layoff that is coming, in my opinion ...

This blog user, catscan1, thinks the matter is clear-cut:

Why does she need to know how to proceed ? Other non constitutional offices started furloughs on Feb 6th. The DPA has the plan in place following the Gov's Executive order, get on the bandwagon & pay your share with the other 215,000 state employees.

.

That prompted this comment from someone who, apparently, works under a constitutional officer:

hey catscan1, you jealous? we'll never be furloughed!

Mar. 16 Schwarzenegger's office: Spending growing more slowly than before

Maybe they should develop a fact sheet on the rate of un-employment, the de-value of the housing market, the number of businesses leaving CA, the number of inmates, the inability to balance or have a timely budget, the rape of public servants, the number of appointments, the cost of his security that includes chp babysitting his kids, the corruption of his appointees, the murder rate, the cost of living, the number of tax payers who have left CA and anything else he has done.

It's tempting to blame the executive, be it at the state or federal level, for all of society's woes. Governors, like presidents, often shoulder a disproportionate amount of the criticism when things go poorly. Of course, they also tend to claim a disproportionate amount of the credit when things go well.

Mar. 19 Report: California not ready for wave of state worker retirements

Many users pointed out that recent moves by the governor -- furloughs, layoff warnings, the possibility that state wages could be slashed to the federal minimum during a budget impasse -- put the state at a disadvantage when it comes to hiring or retaining employees.

... And let's not forget the $6.55 an hour that is possibly down the road when the budget does not get enacted on time. The old-timers can't wait to leave and those joining State service these days should do so with their eyes open. Of course, it's better than no job at all, but that appears to be the best thing to be said about State service right now. And it's only going to get worse...

The younger workers (20-30 years old) at my agency are using State employment as a springboard to bigger and better things ... They do not consider the State to be a long-term employer and point to the low pay and lack of respect from their ultimate boss as reasons to get out fast.

The moment the economy turns and outside opportunities reappear there will be a stampede for the door. If not before. The State is earning a reputation as a terrible employer, an employer of last resort.

At my last agency I spent a lot of time interviewing bright and talented young people and trying to convince them to come work for us right out of grad school. It was nearly impossible for two reasons: (1) we couldn't navigate the byzantine hiring process before they got offered jobs in the private sector, and (2) the pay wasn't enough. So we tried to attract the best recruits by emphasizing job security and good retirement benefits, but now those things are being taken away, too.

Mar. 19 Read the court's decision in the $6.55 per hour state worker pay case

Let's see $6.55 per hour times 176 hours per month equals $1,152.80 gross. Or unemployment at $475 per week X 4 weeks per month equals $1,900.00. Hmmm ...

For the record: The federal minimum wage goes to $7.25 effective July 24.

Mar. 19 CalPERS calls out four companies for lackluster performance

John (sic)......I'm disappointed - this is filler. At least throw in one line about how or why we care. We trust CalPERS to protect our retirement. They do a good job ...

We're pleased to have set such high expectations for this blog. However, we disagree that the post has no news value. Nor do we think it necessary to spell out for state workers why decisions by their pension fund, one of the world's largest, are important to them.

Having said that, we recognize that not everyone will find every post of personal interest. We've put up nearly 500 items since launching The State Worker in July.

Mar. 20 The State Worker: Prison officers' suit calls furloughs an illegal pay cut

It's safe to say that nothing we write about draws as many comments as CCPOA. Last Thursday's column sparked debate over public employee unions:

It is time to get the unions out of government. It is also time to rethink what we send people to prison for, and for how long. The status quo is unsustainable.

... For those who think unions don't belong in Govt. you are really fooling yourself for without those unions no one would dare expose things that only those on the inside see.

Get rid of the damned unions. These guards are very much overpaid. If they were all fired their positions could be filled for half the pay they are getting.

Let me say first that I have worked for years in various CDCR prisons - as a doctor- and have seen firsthand how the guards take advantage of the system. They used to sit around playing cards or watching TV, and refuse to get up to help me get inmates (and I was being paid a lot of money to do nothing, essentially).

Most of the bashers wouldn't last five minutes doing the CO job. Good luck on your lawsuit.

The writ is posted on the CCPOA website at wwww.ccpoa.org. It will be in an Adobe PDF format. I am surprised that the Sacramento Bee did not attach it to this article.

We posted the documents on The State Worker blog at midnight and linked to the story. The first comment was posted at 2 a.m.

Regular blog users will recall that we called around to all the constitutional officers after a Sacramento Superior Court judge rejected Controller John Chiang's assertion that the independently elected statewide officials don't have to furlough their employees.

We asked two questions: Are you now going to comply with the governor's furlough order? If so, what details can you share?

As we plowed through our e-mail (it stacks up pretty quickly), we noticed that this missive from Tina Jung of the Education Department got past us. She forwarded an e-mail from Chief Deputy Superintendent of Public Instruction Gavin Payne that addresses the court loss. So, in the interest of being thorough, we share it now.

Dear Jon:

Attached below is the communication we received from the Office of the State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell.

Tina Jung, Information Officer II
California Department of Education, Communications Division
1430 N Street, Suite 5602, Sacramento, CA 95814

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear CDE colleagues:

You may seen news coverage about the ruling by the Sacramento Superior Court affirming the Governor's authority to order furloughs for employees overseen by other independently elected state Constitutional Officers. I want to assure you that these legal proceedings are not over. We believe that the judge's order will be appealed, and it might not be implemented while the case is on appeal.

While these legal proceedings are ongoing, please keep in mind that negotiations at the bargaining table between the Department of Personnel Administration and unions that represent most state employees could supersede any legal outcome of this case.

Please also be assured that Superintendent O'Connell is deeply concerned about the well being of the staff here at CDE and that he and the personnel office are doing everything possible on behalf of our employees' best interests. As always, we will share information about any future developments concerning employee compensation.

Sincerely,
Gavin Payne

Click here to read the response to our questions from Secretary of State Debra Bowen's office. This link will take you to a blog post on reaction from Chiang's office and the treasurer's office.

SEIU Local 1000 has ratified the contract negotiated last month with the Schwarzenegger administration, with about 90 percent of the votes in favor. (The union didn't provide a specific vote count, although spokesman Jim Zamora said Local 1000 might give us a breakdown of the numbers by bargaining unit next week.) Now the ratified deal goes on to the Legislature for its approval.

Here's our online story for today. We just filed a slightly longer version for Sunday's fiber/cyber editions of The Bee.

You can read the Local 1000 press release here.

The Bee has posted the latest financial disclosure forms of state consititutional officeholders, Equalization Board members and the Legislature.

Bee Editorial Research Director Pete Basofin explains the disclosures and what The Bee has to do to make the information available online in this post on his I-Tools Tips blog.

You can link to the financial statements through Pete's blog post or by clicking here. We highly recommend visiting I-Tools Tips if you're into learning about cool data available on the Web.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge wants more debate on whether he should hear a furlough lawsuit filed by California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment and three SCIF employees.

Judge Peter Busch heard oral arguments this morning about whether the CASE/SCIF lawsuit, which names Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as a defendant, is sufficiently different from furlough cases heard in Sacramento Superior Court. The procedural point is important because if the judge thinks the lawsuit isn't substantially different than those litigated in Sacramento, he won't consider it out of deference to the Sacramento court's jurisdiction.

Here's what happened in court today, according to Department of Personnel Administration spokeswoman Lynelle Jolley:

After hearing oral argument on the procedural matter, the judge ordered the parties to brief the issue of whether the case should be heard in SF or transferred to Sacramento where the other actions have been filed. The State's brief is due March 30; CASE's reply brief is due April 9. At the next hearing, set for April 15, the judge will decide if he should keep the case in SF; if so, he will also rule on the merits at the same time.

The lawsuit by CASE and SCIF employees Glen Grossman, Mark Henderson and Geoffrey Sims names Schwarzenegger, DPA Director Dave Gilb, Controller John Chiang and SCIF President Jan Frank. It claims that Schwarzenegger's furlough order shouldn't include SCIF employees because the quasi-govermental workers' compensation fund doesn't get money from the state's general fund and is run independently.

Click here to see court filings by various parties in the case. We'll post more as they become available.

LOGO: www.scif.com

The overtime policy dispute between SEIU Local 1000 and state management is heating up. Local 1000 VP Jim Hard on Thursday issued this letter to stewards about how to document and track overtime grievances.

As we've blogged here, SEIU says that the agreement negotiated last month excludes sick leave as hours worked for purposes of earning overtime pay. The Department of Personnel Administration has said that the agreement is subordinate to language in the recently enacted state budget bill that eliminates all leave from counting toward the overtime threshold.

From Hard's letter:

As a union steward you may have already been approached by workers wanting to file a grievance on the issue. We should remind members that even when management is wrong, we are to "obey now, grieve after."

You can click here to scroll through State Worker blog posts on the overtime controversy.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge will hear arguments this morning on whether he should consider a lawsuit brought by California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment and three SCIF employees against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

The lawsuit, which we blogged about last week, contends that Schwarzenegger's furlough order shouldn't include SCIF employees. It also names DPA Director Dave Gilb, Controller John Chiang and SCIF President Jan Frank as defendants.

A message on the court's tentative ruling phone line on Thursday afternoon said that Judge Peter Busch wanted attorneys in court today at 9:30 a.m. to debate whether the case is all that different from those heard in Sacramento by Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette. If Busch isn't convinced that it is, he'll conclude that the matter is under the Sacramento court's jurisdiction. But if he thinks the lawsuit is significantly different, he'll hear it.

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has issued his final decision on whether Controller John Chiang overstepped his authority by refusing to issue state worker paychecks at the rate of $6.55 per hour. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger issued an order that state workers' pay be temporarily cut to the federal minimum last summer after lawmakers failed to pass a budget.

We wrote an online story today about the decision that you can read here. We're working on another piece for tomorrow's fiber and cyber Bee.

You can read the Frawley decision, which confirms his earlier tentative ruling, by clicking here.

The California Public Employees' Retirement System this morning announced it has named four companies on its 2009 Focus List. They are

Eli Lilly, the big pharmaceuticals firm;
Hill-Rom Holdings, a medical technology provider;
Hospitality Properties Trust, a real estate investment fund;
IMS Health, which provides information and analysis to the pharmaceutical and health care industries.

The Focus List is an annual Hall of Shame that casts a spotlight on firms in CalPERS' investment portfolio that fund says resist adopting governance practices that could improve stock performance.

CalPERS has posted details about each firm, including specific policy changes the fund is proposing. You can view that list here.

A new report from the Bureau of State Audits this morning puts new numbers to the impact of the looming brain drain state government confronts as its workers reach retirement age.

Some highlights from the auditor's report:

• Forty two percent of today's state employees in leadership positions and more than 20 percent of rank-and-file employees may retire over the next seven years.
• California is just beginning to develop workforce and succession plans while other states have done more to develop their plans.
• Efforts to streamline the hiring process to bring new employees into state service are not expected to conclude until fiscal year 2014-15.
• For certain departments that provide critical services, the challenges of filling vacancies due to large numbers of retirements is an immediate concern.

A few other telling statements from the audit's summary:

... nearly half of the employees in rank and file positions at the five departments we reviewed were age 50 or older as of June 30, 2008. Of greater concern is that most of the departments we reviewed generally believe it will be difficult to replace experienced employees due to a variety of factors, including the State's lengthy and complicated hiring process and lower salaries in the public versus the private sector.

In 2008 California's Department of Personnel Administration (personnel administration) started providing guidance as some departments began planning for the retirement of their workers. Further, the State Personnel Board (personnel board) currently offers a one day introductory class for developing workforce and succession plans, but enrollment in this class has declined over the years. Finally, although California is working to streamline its hiring process to better ensure it can bring new employees into state service, these efforts are not expected to conclude until fiscal year 2014-15. Thus, any resulting improvements may not be realized until many workers have already retired.

Click here to read, "High-Risk Update--Human Resources Management: A Significant Number of State Employees Are Beginning to Retire, While Certain Departments That Provide Critical State Services Lack Workforce and Succession Plans." It's 40 pages long.

As we report in today's State Worker column, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association has filed a lawsuit in Alameda County Superior Court that challenges Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's furlough policy.

These two paragraphs give you the flavor of the argument:

Due to the 24/7 staffing needs at institutions within CDCR, the current problem of chronic understaffing, and the prohibition on the use of overtime to permit "self-directed" furloughs, it is impossible for CDCR to allow every employee to utilize the 34 deferred furlough days each will accrue during the time period allotted. For the more than 30,000 CDCR employees represented by CCPOA alone, this would require allowing more than one (1) million leave days, an absolute impossibility within a system where understaffing prevents employees from even using their accrued and vested leave credits.

In summary, it will be impossible for CDCR employees, including those represented by CCPOA, to ever use the misnomered "self-directed" furlough days that are the purported quid pro quo for their non-receipt of two days' wages per month. Thus, DPA's plan represents a de facto decrease in total salary paid for all affected employees within CDCR, amounting to approximately 10% of pay, without any commensurate,contemporaneous, or even eventual reduction in workdays or hours.

You can view CCPOA's 25-page court filing here. (Requires Java)

IMAGE: yolo.courts.ca.gov

Thursday is the last day for SEIU Local 1000 members to submit their vote on the union's tentative agreement with the state. Since we needed to know how to plan for covering the results, we e-mailed Local 1000 spokesman Jim Zamora about the timing of an announcement. His reply:

We expect to be able to announce results between 5:30 & 6 pm on Saturday. So far it is estimated that more than 30,000 ballots have been cast. Meetings are being held today & tomorrow all over the state. We expect more ballots to be cast there. Ballots are still arriving here at Local 1000 HQ, 1808 14th St. Members can deliver ballots here in person until 5 p.m. Thursday.

Dave Gilb, director of the Department of Personnel Administration, wrote a letter to editor that appears in today's Bee. He is responding to Monday's "State keeps hiring despite freeze," (the A1 print headline) / "California's state work force grew despite budget woes and cut promises" (the online headline).

Click here to see the letter. It's the third one down on the page.

IMAGE: www.calpers.ca.gov

California is the worst state in which to do business, according to 543 CEOs surveyed by Chief Executive magazine.

What does this have to do with state workers? Well, the executives were asked to evaluate their states in areas such as resources, regulation and taxes, among other things. The survey is in its fifth year.

This press release includes some historical rankings.

You can click here for the entire list. Each state entry has a little more detail about rankings in specific categories. California, for example, ranked 48 in both the "business friendliness" and "cost of business categories."

We read this and wondered how the survey would have looked if state workers had been surveyed. So what do you think? Does California deserve this bad rap?

DPA has scheduled a public meeting April 3 to give BU 9, represented by Professional Engineers in California Government, a forum to release its initial bargaining proposals on a new contract. The meeting details have been posted on DPA's Web site under "Public Notices."

If the PECG makes any proposals at the meeting, DPA will post them with a link from the same meeting notice page. PECG is the only union that hasn't negotiated a contract with the Schwarzenegger administration. It bargained its last contract, which ran for five years, with the Davis administration.

Click on Public Meetings to Release Initial Bargaining Proposals to look at last year's meeting notices and proposals to get an idea of how the department builds the page as events warrant.

We asked last week whether the tentative agreement SEIU Local 1000 reached with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration is the ceiling or the floor for the other unions now hammering out their own deals. Can the other bargaining units do better? Or is the SEIU contract as good as it gets?

The California Association of Professional Scientists says that its negotiators didn't get a Local 1000-type offer when they met with DPA last week, according a members-only e-mail. A CAPS member forwarded the e-mail to The State Worker; we confirmed its authenticity with a union official.

Your CAPS Bargaining Team met Wednesday with negotiators from the Governor's Department of Personnel Administration and several state departments which employ scientists. This lengthy meeting was most notable for what didn't happen, rather than what did. What didn't happen was that DPA didn't offer CAPS a comprehensive proposal similar to the one recently agreed to by SEIU. What did happen was that DPA verbally told CAPS that it wouldn't be offered the same elements of the SEIU agreement.

Rather, any such agreement with CAPS would not include layoff protections, the two floating holidays to replace Columbus Day and Lincoln's Birthday, or any language that would guarantee a reopening of negotiations in the event that DPA reached a better agreement with another union. In other words, Governor Schwarzenegger's DPA failed to present CAPS with any written proposal regarding a furlough program, and said that when it does, that proposal will not include several key elements from the SEIU agreement. CAPS has insisted that DPA present firm written proposals no later than the next scheduled meeting, April 2.

CAPS Proposals. CAPS presented proposals of its own. First, CAPS proposed a new "golden handshake" early retirement incentive proposal which would grant any state scientist who is eligible to retire two years of service and two years of age credit to encourage retirement on or before September 30, 2009. Second, CAPS proposed expansion of the voluntary personal leave program to enable scientists to increase participation in the voluntary personal leave program. Both proposals can be viewed on the CAPS webpage here: http://www.capsscientists.org/Bargaining-Proposals.htm

The CAPS proposals are another effort by CAPS to suggest ways other than mandatory unpaid furloughs to save state money. The state's negotiators took the CAPS proposals under submission.

Regarding surplus notices, the official position of DPA is that no surplus notices are being withdrawn. CAPS has learned, however, that some state departments refused to issue surplus notices in the first place, and other departments have either withdrawn the notices or told employees that layoffs in their department will be unnecessary.

With nearly 80 percent of Unit 10 Scientists being funded by special and not general funds, it is no surprise that layoffs are very unlikely in Unit 10.

The CAPS Team next meets with DPA on April 2. Thanks for your continued support.

With Thursday's ratification deadline looming on SEIU Local 1000's tentative agreement, union President Yvonne Walker last week sent out this e-mail, which was forwarded to The State Worker by a rank-and-file member. We've confirmed its authenticity with union headquarters.

March 13, 2009

TO: All Local 1000 statewide officers, DLC officers, stewards and staff
FROM: Yvonne Walker, Local 1000 president
SUBJECT: Only sick leave is exempt from overtime calculations for Local 1000-represented employees

Fact: Local 1000's new tentative agreement (also called a memorandum of understanding--MOU) states that only sick leave is excluded from overtime computation (see attached tentative agreement).

Fact: Recently passed legislation that excludes all leaves from overtime computation, exempts Local 1000-represented employees, because the legislation specifically states that any agreement reached on or after February 1, 2009 supersedes the new statute (see attached legislation).

Fact: The Department of Personnel Administration's March 10 Personnel Management Liaisons (PML), on overtime, erroneously ignores our MOU exemption from the recently passed overtime legislation.

Fact: For Local 1000-represented employees, the PML also inaccurately stated that "holidays, sick leave, vacation, annual leave, compensating time off, or any other leave" cannot be used in the computation of overtime; the legislative exception clearly requires that language in our MOU supersede the new statute exempting all leaves from overtime calculations.

Local 1000 is preparing to arbitrate the state's refusal to follow the overtime provisions of the tentative agreement. Our Legal Department is collecting information on how state departments are implementing overtime policies. If your department has issued any written policies on this issue, please fax them to: XXX-XXX-XXXX, Attn: Will Ramey or email them to Mr. Ramey at xxxxxx@xxxxxxxx.xxx

If you have a question about any overtime calculation directive you have been issued, please call Mr. Ramey at the Local 1000 Sacramento Union Resource Center; he can be contacted directly at XXX-XXX-XXXX ext. XXXX.

You can read the Department of Personnel Administration's March 10 Personnel Management Liaisons that Walker referenced by clicking here.

We've blogged several times about this contentious issue. You can scroll through those posts, which include the LAO's interpretation of how the budget bill would impact the union MOU and the tentative contract language versus budget bill language by clicking here.

Note: Phone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail address removed from the e-mail at 10:07 p.m.

Furloughs. Layoffs. Contract negotiations. Lawsuits. Seems like that's all we write about.

So when we have a chance to mention something positive, we want to. Like this:

PECG and CAPS are among the groups and business interests sponsoring the Sacramento Regional Science & Engineering Fair on Saturday from 10 a.m. to 6 pm. at Rosemont High School.

Click here for more information on the event.

Bee datameister Phillip Reese has a data table that's the basis for today's story, "California's state work force grew despite budget woes and cut promises."

Click here to view the data Phillip developed from the State Controller's Office.

California Republican Party official Jon Fleischman writes on his FlashReport Web site that last week's Sacramento Superior Court tentative ruling saying Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's furlough order applies to workers under Controller John Chiang and the other constitutional officers means

... future Governors will be able to implement furloughs to state employees without being disobeyed by elected officials who believe their employees are outside the Governor's jurisdiction. That means a fiscally responsible Governor will have another way to cut costs and avoid raising taxes.

Fleischman supports the furlough order, unlike Republican Board of Equalization member Bill Leonard, who asserted in an earlier FlashReport post that forcing constitutional officers to furlough employees violates the California's system of divided executive management -- and doesn't really shrink government anyway:

Rather than shrinking everybody's pay by 9.2%, I prefer reducing the state workforce permanently by 9.2%. And I prefer doing this with some forethought rather than straight across-the-board. We all know there are some government programs that are not effective. We all know there are many government programs that are lower priority. We should take advantage of this fiscal crisis to reduce and reform California government. Shrinking the pay of all existing state workers accomplishes no reforms and does not help the next Governor of California address the ongoing over-spending.

You can read the Feb. 6 blog post by Leonard, a former California legislator, by clicking here.

We wrote about the larger meaning of the governor's emergency furlough order last month in our weekly State Worker column. If you missed that analysis, you can check it out here.

IMAGES: Jon Fleischman (top) / sacbee.com; Bill Leonard / boe.ca.gov

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office has issued a fact sheet this morning on general fund spending during his time in office. The opening paragraph:

Under Governor Schwarzenegger's administration, the rate of General Fund spending growth has been lower than under recent California governors - including Republican governors. Furthermore, the Governor has taken steps, through two Executive Orders, to tighten the belt within his own administration and reduce costs, just as every family and business in California is being forced to do.

Click here to read the fact sheet. And click here to read our story, written with colleague Phillip Reese, on the size of state government since the governor's executive order last summer that terminated thousands of part timers, students and retired annuitants.

IMAGE: Arnold Schwarzenegger / sacbee.com file photo, November, 2008

We've called around to all the constitutional officers to see what they'll do in light of Thursday's Superior Court ruling that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger can furlough their workers.

Our questions to all: Are you now going to comply with the governor's furlough order? If so, what details can you share?

Secretary of State Debra Bowen's spokewoman, Kate Folmar, sent an e-mail on Friday after we left a phone message:

As you know, yesterday's Superior Court decision on furloughs will be appealed. Secretary Bowen has never disputed the need for shared sacrifice during these dire economic times -- that's why she has already cut 10 percent of her current budget. What's mystifying is why the governor is fixated on furloughs when there are many other sensible ways to save money and still serve the public.

Our follow-up e-mail:

Is the secretary going to apply the furlough order to her department or refuse pending the appeal? ... If the secretary does apply the furloughs, will it be for one day per month (as per the SEIU tentative agreement) for everyone, or split, with SEIU folks taking one day and everyone else taking two?

The response:

... Secretary Bowen is waiting for a number of answers from the Governor's office and DPA on how to proceed.

Click here to read the responses from the controller's office and the treasurer's office.

IMAGE: Debra Bowen / www.sos.ca.gov

California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment and SCIF employees Glen Grossman, Mark Henderson and Geoffrey Sims are suing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, DPA Director Dave Gilb, Controller John Chiang and SCIF President Jan Frank. The case will be heard in San Franciso Superior Court on Friday.

We blogged about this last month, but In the ramp-up to upcoming court action, we're posting the CASE 18-page brief again here, plus the subsequent filings of the other parties in the case:

The CASE / SCIF employee petition
What it says: Schwarzenegger's furlough order shouldn't include SCIF employees. It doesn't get General Fund money, so furloughing its employees won't help the General Fund; the Legislature has specifically excluded SCIF from hiring freezes and staff cutbacks; the SCIF board is vested with the authority to run the fund. Interesting note: SCIF puts this statement in all advertising: "The State Compensation Insurance Fund is not a branch of the State of California." (18 pages)

Schwarzenegger and Gilb's opposition on the merits

What it says: The Sacramento Superior Court has already ruled on the governor's power to furlough state workers; CASE is misapplying the Insurance Code that cited as a basis for this lawsuit. (23 pages)

Chiang's repsonse
What it says: The controller takes no position. (3 pages)

Franks' response
What it says: Franks tried to get her department exempted and has "the best interests of the Fund's employees in mind." She'll abide by whatever the court says. (5 pages)

Corrected declaration by Frank
What is says: Frank states her willingness to testify in court; she more formally explains SCIF's attempt to gain a furlough exemption; includes a copy of Schwarzenegger's Dec. 19 furlough order. (6 pages)

IMAGE: yolo.courts.ca.gov

Click here to view editorial cartoonist Rex Babin's furlough commentary, appearing in today's fiber and cyber Bee.

Earlier today we blogged about a recent bargaining update from the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. The update included this paragraph about the union's take on language in the recent budget bill that excludes all leave from factoring into overtime calculations:

But our position is that this bill shouldn't apply to us since we have a contract in place that allows compensated time off to be counted toward overtime, and any changes should be subject to negotiations. Plus such a law would unfairly penalize Psych Techs, who often work overtime to keep 24-hour facilities and services going. Our team is reviewing the legislative intent of this code change as it applies to our contract.

We thought that blog users would be interested in the reasoning behind this assertion, since CAPT members, like most other union-represented state workers, are working under expired contracts. So we asked CAPT to explain. Spokeswoman Brady Oppenheim sent this e-mail, which we are posting without edits:

The basis for CAPT's argument for exemptions from overtime cuts and other takeaways lies in a law called the "Evergreen Rule." Under Government Code Section 3517.8:

(a) If a memorandum of understanding has expired, and the Governor and the recognized employee organization have not agreed to a new memorandum of understanding and have not reached an impasse in negotiations, subject to subdivision (b), the parties to the agreement shall continue to give effect to the provisions of the expired memorandum of understanding, including, but not limited to, all provisions that supersede existing law, any arbitration provisions, any no strike provisions [and] any agreements regarding matters covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938... ."

Interestingly, having a contract in place is the same reason given by the state why they've exempted California Highway Patrol officers from furloughs and other cutbacks. They do have a new contract in place, but CAPT and other unions currently bargaining new contracts still have ones in place as well under the Evergreen Rule - they just aren't as recent as that of the CHP officers.

Also, we read the new budget bill as giving priorities to bargained contracts, rather than legislative changes:

(b) If subdivision (a) is in conflict with the provisions of a memorandum of understanding reached or amended pursuant to Section 3517.5 on or after February 1, 2009, or the date that the act adding this section takes effect, whichever is later, that memorandum of understanding shall be controlling without further legislative action, except that if those provisions of the memorandum of understanding require the expenditure of funds, the provisions shall not become effective unless approved by the Legislature in the annual Budget Act.

Our position on this budget bill language is that our contract currently in place was bargained before February 1, 2009, predating this language. Plus, the budget language emphasizes that the "memorandum of understanding shall be controlling without further legislative action," which means when we do get a new contract, our memorandum of understanding - not legislative action - will take precedence.

So what now? We know Judge Patrick Marlette has ruled that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's furlough authority extends to state workers under the other officials elected by statewide vote. And we know that Controller John Chiang, who lost the lawsuit argument on Thursday that he and other constitutional officers don't have to furlough their employees, is going to appeal the decision.

But what does that mean for state workers right now? Are they going to be furloughed right away? And how will make ups work for furlough days missed so far?

The answer to last question: It's up to the various departments to decide. The governor's office says that since everyone is being flexibly furloughed, the constitutional officers will decide their policy. In other words, ask your manager or supervisor.

We're trying to get answers to the first two questions. Here's what we've learned so far:

From SCO spokesman Jacob Roper: "This office will implement a 1-day furlough per month should the recently negotiated (SEIU) bargaining agreement be ratified."

SEIU members are voting through the middle of next week on the union's tentative labor deal, which includes monthly one-day furloughs. The union hasn't yet said when it will announce the results.

From Treasurer's Office spokesman Tom Dresslar: "We definitely will appeal (the Superior Court ruling), but we wiill comply with the order pending the appeal."

We have calls and e-mails out to the other constitutionals and we'll blog what we hear as we get more info.

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

Mar. 9 Union president urges agreement ratification

I would like to know exactly how this letter, dated February 24, was sent. If sent via e-mail or snail mail, it should have long ago reached all recipients. Has anyone actually gotten it or was it sent to the newspaper for distribution?

As the post mentions, the letter came to The State Worker from a union member. The union member received the letter in the mail with a ballot. We confirmed the letter with union officials, but SEIU Local 1000 headquarters did not send the letter to us.

Mar. 6 LAO analyzes SEIU Local 1000 deal

So someone help me out. Seems to me the governor imposed the furloughs with the "emergency" excuse with help from his favorite Judge Marlotte (sic) (hope I got the name right). So what is the justification for continuing furlough since we are no longer in a fiscal emergency? Isn't this a contradiction? Am I missing something or was this his agenda all along. How can we trust anything he says?

This argument came up in the lawsuit Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger filed against Controller John Chiang over furloughing employees who work under constitutional officers. Judge Patrick Marlette wasn't convinced. His rationale, as outlined in the tentative ruling made final on Thursday: The budget bills that lawmakers passed assume savings from furloughing state workers.

As to the governor's motivation for furloughs, his office has consistently said that just as the California families are having to tighten their belts, state government must do the same -- and furloughs are part of that cinching up process.

Mar. 10 Legislature avoided mandatory pay cuts

... I bet they give themselves a healthy raise, too, now that CA is getting so much money from the feds.

Elected officials' pay is set by the California Citizens Compensation Commission. The commission is comprised of seven gubernatorial appointees.

Mar. 9 Court filing argues constitutionals' employees subject to furlough

I have read parts of the Calif. Constitution that pertain to the elected offices. It appears the framers of the constitution were clear on these offices being separate from the Governor. If the court rules in favor of the Governor, then why would we need separate constitutional offices. Just let the Governor's office be responsible for all they do and he can appoint the necessary department heads. This would cut down on the size of the elections and their costs.

As we report today, Judge Patrick Marlette has ruled that the governor is the ultimate employer of state workers, including those of constitutional officers. The constitutionals control how there offices operate, but the governor's administration handles the terms of employment -- including layoffs, pay and, in this case, furloughs. The case will be appealed, Chiang's office told The State Worker.

The next two comments are best read back-to-back:

I work for a regular State office and am being furloughed. However, I do not agree that elected officials should have to abide by the Governor's ruling. This is the reason these are ELECTED OFFICIALS, that being, the Governor has no say. If you disagree, don't vote for the elected officials. If the Governor were to succeed in this, it takes away the power of the elected officials to make their own decisions.

As a fellow state worker who works under Insurance Commissioner Poizner, who is not furloughed yet, I completely agree with you.

We wonder how other state workers feel about this. Is this a constitutional question of such weight that it's worth some employees being furloughed and others not?

In the latest bulletin to members of the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, Bargaining Unit 18 reps report the latest on contract talks held earlier this week:

The proposal outlined by the Department of Personnel Administration was less than offered to other state employee unions. So our team rejected the plan outright and sent DPA representatives back to Governor Schwarzenegger with the message that Bargaining Unit 18 needs and deserves better treatment than that.

Our team will return to the bargaining table March 23 and 24 to review the state's counterproposal.

BU 18 reps also said that DPA maintains the new budget bill disallows any leave time to be used for overtime calculations. CAPT disagrees:

But our position is that this bill shouldn't apply to us since we have a contract in place that allows compensated time off to be counted toward overtime, and any changes should be subject to negotiations. Plus such a law would unfairly penalize Psych Techs, who often work overtime to keep 24-hour facilities and services going. Our team is reviewing the legislative intent of this code change as it applies to our contract

.

You can read the CAPT bulletin by clicking here.

We've inserted a couple of updates to our online story on Judge Patrick Marlette's ruling, now final, that Controller John Chiang has to reduce the pay for his employees and those of other constitutional officers and the BOE.

The decision boils down to the assertion that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the employer of the roughly 15,000 employees working for the BOE and the constitutional officers. Furthermore, the furlough order doesn't keep those departments from carrying our their constitutiional functions.

We're gathering comments now from academics, constititutional officers and we'd like to hear from state workers too, particularly those affected by today's decision. Shoot us an e-mail or call 916-321-1043.

Well, here's one that got by us. Contrary to what we wrote for today's State Worker column, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette has moved up the hearing concerning Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's lawsuit to force constitutional officers to furlough their employees.

The judge issued a tentative ruling this morning. The punchline:

"... the Court finds that the Governor's Executive Order S-16-08, directing two-day-per-month furloughs for state employees, applies to the civil service employees of the respondent and intervenors in this case."

We've written a quick story for online. We'll have more after today's 1:30 p.m. hearing.

Our new occasional feature, Court Files, will introduce lawsuits of interest to state workers. We highlight the case, link you to the file and show you where to track developments on your own.

• Click on the case number below to download the file. (155 pages)
• Check for subsequent filings on the Sacramento Superior Court's document viewing page. Plug the case number into the appropriate field, click the search button and then scroll down to see a list of documents filed.

Case No. 34-2009-00036067
Filed: 03/02/2009
Petitioner: CDF Firefighters
Respondent: State of California, Department of Personnel Administration

From the court filing:

On May 14, 2008, CDFF mailed a 4th level grievance to DPA regarding the assignment of Staff Battalion Chiefs (whose work is supposed to be primarily administrative, and who work an 84-hour shift) to do the work of Field Battalion Chiefs (who do, as the name suggests, primarily "field" work, and work a 72-hour shift) in violation of past practices secured under the MOU. This dispute involves the interpretation, application or enforcement of the provisions of the MOU.

On July 15, 2008, having received no response to the 4 level grievance identified as Exhibit 2, CDFF mailed to DPA, submitting the matter to arbitration and asking DPA to contact CDFF to begin the process of selecting an arbitrator.

On January 26, 2009, having received no response to the 4 level grievance ... or to the demand for arbitration ... CDFF mailed and faxed another letter to DPA, asking for a response and specifically requesting that whoever is handling the matter for DPA contact CDFF to proceed with the arbitration.

On February 17, 2009, having received no response to any of the prior correspondence concerning this grievance and request for arbitration, CDFF mailed and faxed yet another letter to DPA (enclosing the January 26, 2009 letter), requesting a response concerning CDFF's grievance and demand for arbitration, and warning that if CDFF did not receive a response within 10 days, it would file a petition to compel
arbitration.

Prior to sending this February 17, 2009 letter, CDFF Chief Counsel Gary Messing spoke with Dana Manning of the DPA Office of Labor Relations, to advise him that this letter was being sent. Mr. Manning requested that he be copied on the letter so that he could hand-deliver it to the DPA Legal Division. Mr. Manning was copied on the
letter.

Subsequent to delivering the February 17, 2009 letter to DPA, Mr. Messing again contacted Mr. Manning, and informed him that we still had not received a
response from anyone in DPA.

As of the drafting of this Petition, CDFF has not received any response to any of the letters ... In fact, CDFF has not received any response whatsoever from DPA regarding this matter.

The letters from the union to DPA start on PDF page 142. Union attorneys enter the fray at page 149.

IMAGE: yolo.courts.ca.gov

The California Association of Psychiatric Techicians returned to the bargaining table today and will meet with DPA again Wednesday.

Negotiators for the roughly 7,100 psych techs in Bargaining Unit 18, the magazine reports, have some goals:

The union reports in its magazine, Outreach, that

Furlough reductions and layoff protections will be on the top of their list of priorities, and continued support from coworkers back home will be crucial.

The magazine also said that,

"... in light of the new budget, DMH, DDS and the Receiver's Office were holding off on layoff procedures, although the Receiver's Office reported Psych Techs in adult facilities had received some surplus notices by mistake due to a CDCR mailing list glitch. CAPT has gotten reports of a few DJJ Psych Techs receiving surplus notices, but our reps have vowed to bring these issues to the bargaining table and demand layoff protections.

We were just thinking that it's been a while since we looked at the aftermath of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's layoff of part time workers and retired annuitants last summer. Some questions:

Have some folks been hired back?
What has the long-term impact of the layoffs been to operations?
Any talk of restoring lost positions now that we have a budget?

We want to hear from you, maybe for a story in the fiber and cyber Bee. Call us at 916-321-1043 or e-mail jortiz@sacbee.com. Of course, you're always welcome to comment here.

From Capitol Bureau colleague Jim Sanders:

The California Legislature avoided deep cuts to its base funding in the new state budget and stands to benefit by tens of millions of dollars in future years if the economy rebounds.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's proposal to require cuts of about 10 percent for the Assembly and Senate was shelved.

Closed-door negotiations produced an alternative that relies on voluntary rather than mandatory cuts to legislative spending ...

The deal provides new ammunition to critics who note that legislative employees, unlike other state workers, are not threatened with layoffs or targeted for pay cuts through furloughs.

Click here to read the rest of Jim's story.

IMAGES: www.assembly.ca.gov and www.senate.ca.gov

Attorneys for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and DPA Director Dave Gilb this afternoon filed a response in Sacramento Superior Court to Controller John Chiang's legal argument that constitutional officers don't have to comply with the governor's furlough order.

The governor last month sued Chiang to force him to furlough state workers in his department. The controller refused, as did five other constitutional officers (Republican Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner is staying out of it) and the independent Board of Equalization.

The sides square off in Judge Patrick Marlette's court room on Friday at 1:30 p.m.

Read the Schwarzenegger / DPA filing here. Pages 4 through 6 sum up Schwarzenegger's response to Chiang's Mar. 3 brief.

SEIU Local 1000 President Yvonne Walker has sent this letter to union members, urging that they vote for the tentative agreement the local reached last month with the state.

The letter, sent to The State Worker by a SEIU member, argues that a "no" vote will put the union at the mercy of Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who might then impose terms such as,

... $6.55 (per hour), layoffs, two furlough days per month, increased out-of-pocket costs for health care premiums, and permanent loss of holidays.

(Our understanding is that Schwarzenegger can't impose the federal minimum wage unless the state is without allocated money for payroll, such as when lawmakers fail to put a budget in place by the start of a fiscal year. Read pages 4 and 5 of White v. Davis for the legal reasoning. The governor would also have to win his lawsuit to force Controller John Chiang to cut payroll checks at the reduced rate. Sacramento Superior Court Judge Timothy Frawley has issued a tentative ruling in that case and should issue a final ruling any time.)

SEIU's tentative deal has implications for state workers beyond the 95,000 represented by Local 1000. Every other union at the bargaining table is probably asking themselves: Is the SEIU TA the floor or the ceiling? Can we do better, or should we consider the Local 1000 deal something to which we aspire?

And what if the rank-and-file rejects the deal? The union would have to go back to the bargaining table. Then what? Would the administration budge? Or would it take the hard line that Walker suggests? And how would other unions view an SEIU rank-and-file rejection? Would members in other bargaining units vote the same way on a similar deal?

On a related note, click here for our recent post on the LAO analysis of the Local 1000 deal.

The Association of California State Supervisors, which advocates for exempt state workers, has posted notes written by Senior Labor Rep Bonnie Morris from a meeting last Wednesday with DPA.

Before we continue, it's important to remember the context of what you're about to read: This was a meeting to talk about concerns of management employees, state workers who are not represented by a union.

Topics covered in the back-and-forth between ACSS and the administration include furlough policy, health care premiums, employee buyouts, business and travel expenses, holidays, classification and salary issues.

One of the questions that we regularly field is whether layoffs are still coming, now that lawmakers have passed the budget. ACSS asked the same question in its meet and confer:

ACSS: With the budget settled, do you anticipate there will still be a need for layoffs?

DPA: We are hopeful there won't be as many layoffs. We are hoping employees who received SROA notices Will move into postions that are not targeted elsewhere in state service. We hope the five budget-related propositions pass so this budget will be successfully completed. If the propositions do not pass, we will be in a worse situation, with more furloughs and layoffs.

You can link to the Morris notes from this page on the ACSS Web site. There's also an exempt employees furlough Q&A link on the upper left corner of the page.

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

Mar.5 Governor's office: Tomorrow is the last 'Furlough Friday'

The story headline was misleading. There are still furloughs, but now we chose when we want to take them."

Agreed, although you gotta understand that Ortiz is seriously worried about his own job. Misleading headlines can generate more traffic for him.

We respectfully disagree on both points. The headline is accurate: Friday was in fact the last time that the government will shut down statewide -- that's the most significant news because It's the most relevant to the general public. "Governor's office: No more furloughs after Friday," would have been inaccurate and misleading.

The headline could have read, "State workers to switch to self-directed furloughs," or something to that effect, but the significance would have been lost on anyone outside of the state workforce.

As to what drives traffic to this site, we believe that if the blog is timely, fair, relevant and accurate that it will be useful. Accomplish that and we believe the rest of that stuff takes care of itself.

SMUD and PG&E are elated with this news of "self directed" (or rather, self inflicted) furlough days, as the lights will still be on in state buildings every work day. So much for a logical approach at savings by one day with the lights off. No surprise though, the governor's entire approach is illogical, apathetic and detrimental.

Ummm.... wouldn't it save the state money if they furloughed everyone out on the same day? Think of all the electricity it would save?

We asked the governor's office about the savings achieved by closing facilities, since that was one of the arguments the administration made for shutting down two days each month. Why not just close one day each month and then let workers and management pick the second day? Here's what the governor's spokesman, Aaron McLear, said in an e-mail to The State Worker:

Uniform furlough days have the added benefit of saving the state on energy costs by closing down state facilities. But we are also trying to minimize the impact to our customers and trying to minimize the economic impact on local business dependent on providing services and products to government.

Jon--given that oversight of pharmaceuticals seems central to this article, did anyone check to see whether or not the Governor's investment portfolio included pharmaceuticals?

The governor's holdings, and those of other elected state workers, are listed on his Form 700 report to the Fair Political Practices Commission. The Bee will soon post his new filing on its Financial Disclosure Reports page.

We've seen the Mar. 2 report covering Schwarzenegger's 2008 holdings, and it doesn't appear that the governor has investments in pharmaceuticals. But even if he did, we're not sure what link one could draw between that and Marin taking speaking fees from drug companies.

Mar. 6 The State Worker: To furlough or not, still the question

Nice article, I bet Stacy Garrett never gets a "step increase" or promotion ever again. When you speak your mind, you get penalized. Just look what happened at John Garamendi's office. I hear he runs his office by himself from an old card table & a payphone on the wall.

We're grateful to Stacy for her candor because we know she spoke for many state workers. It's one thing for a Bee blogger/columnist/reporter to opine about what's it's like to work for the government -- or for critics to anonymously lob grenades via online comments -- and another for a state worker who does it every day to lend a pithy on-the-record quote. The latter usually is much more informed and interesting.

And if you think Garrett's quote in our Thursday column was something, check out her op-ed piece in last Sunday's Bee.

Amusing take about what Schwarzenegger's 2009-10 budget cuts will do to the Lt. Governor's office, by the way.

Mar. 6 LAO analyzes SEIU Local 1000 deal

Hey Jon, since it appears that you are now the Personnel Officer for the State; can you instruct the peons as to who is correct on the interpretation of the leave counting as hours worked for purposes of overtime? The union claims that only sick leave is excluded for purposes of counting hours worked for overtime; the SBX 3 8 say all leave. So which one is it?

We majored in journalism and political science in college, not contract law, so our opinion on this doesn't matter much. Here's what the LAO's Local 1000 tentative contract analysis says on PDF page 10:

Provisions to Reduce Use of Overtime Hours. Previously, various types of employee leave have been counted by departments as an hour worked for purposes of computing overtime, and this has increased state overtime costs. A trailer bill enacted as part of the recent budget package contains new requirements that no type of state employee leave or holiday shall be "considered as time worked by the employee for the purpose of computing cash compensation for overtime or compensating time off for overtime." These provisions were intended to reduce state costs for employee overtime. The Local 1000 MOUs contain various provisions on overtime, but allow enacted legislation to supersede "any and all MOU sections or past practices" that conflict with these enacted laws. Accordingly, the trailer bill provisions to reduce the state's use of overtime hours would remain in effect under the Local 1000 MOUs.

Stacy Garrett, a 26-year-old office assistant at DWR quoted in last Thursday's State Worker column, has written an opinion piece for today's fiber and cyber Bee. The headline is, "State pay cut: That belt-tightening pinches." Give it a read by clicking here.

IMAGE: sacbee.com

We were reading the fiber version of today's A1 story in The Bee about how it's taking longer for CHP dispatchers to answer 911 telephone calls, when these paragraphs caught our attention:

Some experts fear that the situation will continue to deteriorate. The source of the added concern is Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's state employee furlough plan. It went into effect in February, calling for most state employees, including dispatchers, to take two days off without pay each month through June 2010.

"If they're furloughing dispatchers, that's crazy," said Charles Cullen, outgoing president of the California chapter of the National Emergency Number Association and director of technical services for the Palo Alto Police Department. "You're lessening crucial services to the public. It doesn't make any sense at all, particularly in a system that is already overburdened."

Reporter Andy Furillo's story includes a comment from Assemblywoman Nora Torres, D-Pomona, who has asked the Schwarzenegger administration to exempt CHP dispatchers from his furlough order. The governor's spokesman, Aaron McLear, told Andy that the furloughs have had "no effect" on staffing levels at dispatch centers.

Click here to read the story.

The Legislative Analyst's Office has released its fiscal analysis of the state's tentative agreements with employee bargaining units represented by SEIU Local 1000. The LAO's Jason Dickerson tells The State Worker that it is being presented to the Legislature today.

Government code requires that the LAO report to lawmakers how union contracts will impact the state's finances.

Click here for MOU Fiscal Analysis: Bargaining Units 1, 3, 4, 11, 14, 15, 17, 20, and 21 (SEIU Local 1000)

The Bee's Kevin Yamamura reports that Rosario Marin has resigned as secretary of the State and Consumer Services Agency.

She submitted a four-sentence resignation letter, Kevin writes,

... after accepting tens of thousands of dollars in speaking fees in defiance of administration policy and possibly state law.

Marin faces an investigation by the Fair Political Practices Commission after declaring the speaking fees on income statements she must file as a public official.

Read the rest of the story here.

IMAGE: Rosario Marin / www.scsa.ca.gov

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's office minutes ago called us to break the news that tomorrow will be the last day that government statewide shuts down.

"I can announce that after Friday all state departments and agencies will be taking self-directed furloughs," said Aaron McLear, spokesman for the governor.

Let's be clear: All state workers, including those covered by the SEIU Local 1000 tentative agreement that calls for one furlough day per month from February of this year to June 2010, are going to take two furlough days this month. The second will be self-directed.

After this month, workers represented by SEIU will go to one-day-per-month self-directed furloughs. The governor's office will honor the agreement on the assumption that it will be ratified and passed by the Legislature.

Everyone else, unless their labor representatives work out different terms, will remain on self-directed, two-days-per-month furloughs.

(Clearly, this creates pressure on the other unions to bargain. We can't imagine that, say a hospital psychiatric technician in CAPT, the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, would be thrilled to take two furlough days while a custodian coworker represented by SEIU has a deal for just one.)

We asked McLear about how constitutional officer employees under SEIU contract would make up the furlough days that they've missed. He's checking and will get back to us.

As for those SEIU-covered employees who will have taken four furlough days in two months, McLear would only say that the state will "honor the terms of the SEIU tentative agreement," but he wouldn't get into the specifics of how that will happen.

The state has been dealing with a lot of moving parts in figuring out its furlough policy, particularly how to handle the fact that terms of the tentative SEIU agreement for one furlough day each month covers 95,000 state workers, almost half of the rank-and-file workforce.

We're cranking up a larger story for tomorrow. Watch for it.

The Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has let SEIU slide on millions of dollars in wage reimbursements for time taken by employees to attend to union business. It's not that the union refused to pay; the department simply hasn't billed for the money in nearly two years, according to Inspector General David R. Shaw.

Inspectors found found that the department's Office of Labor Relations failed to bill the union for leave that employees took off for union activities for nearly two years. More than $2 million remains unbilled.

You can read the inspector's 16-page report here. Thanks to blog user E.C. for calling this to our attention.

IMAGE: www.spb.ca.gov

Many businesses in the area are running "Furlough Friday" specials for state workers. Here are a couple that came our way:

Nor Cal Performance in West Sacramento will be giving away free and discounted oil changes on Friday and has the same promotion planned for Mar. 20.

The first 10 customers who present a state ID badge will get a free oil change. All state workers after that get the service, normally $39.95, for $9.95. There are extra charges for diesel, special oil for European cars, services that requires more than five quarts of oil or special oil filters. The business is limiting the discount to one per customer.

Empire Ranch Golf Club, Teal Bend Golf Club and Turkey Creek Golf Club are extending senior rates to state workers tomorrow. For example, present your ID badge at Teal Bend before noon and get the $39 dollar senior rate instead of paying the usual $50 fee. (After 12 the club regular charge goes down to $41, but the discount rate remains the same, so go early for bigger savings.)

Contact the golf courses for more details.

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

Feb. 27 Furloughs creating HR headaches at CalPERS

It's State Worker vs. The State these days. Arnold can be blamed for inciting such disrespect and hatred for State Workers. I work for one of those Evil constitutional offices. We are not furloughed, but man is the phone ringing off the hook with people trying to see if they can transfer here. We plan on taking the best of the best that want to come over to the dark side from other agencies if we can get away with it. We Win on 2 levels, the ones that get laid off are going to be the younger, brighter, more ambitious workers from the bottom 20%. We will scoop them up if we can.

Sounds like the Legislative Analyst's Office was right. This Jan. 30 report predicted that an uneven application of furloughs would create employee migration. Check out PDF page 7 of the analysis, "Cuts of a Similar Magnitude in Special Funds Personnel Costs."

Feb. 27 Furlough paychecks hit employees today

While my family is suffering from this big pay cut, governor appointed his friend with 6 figure salary. This is sixth one. where is justice! Where are so union leaders? We should all take sick day and go to Sacramento!

There is an undeniable irony to former Assemblywoman Sharon Runner's gubernatorial appointment to the Agricultural Labor Relations Board. The Lancaster Republican will make $128,109 per year as a board member, according to this report by our Capitol Bureau colleague Shane Goldmacher.

Jon-do a running total of the wasteful/questionable travel you & other press discover(in violation of a Governor Executive Order) & personal service contracts (like the DPA contract for the Governor's $450 per hr. lawyers)after the date prohibiting any new ones in the Executive Order...the math probably will exceed the projection for furlough savings....

An interesting idea. We'll see if we can make it happen.

Moving on ... The question of the percentage impact of two-day-per-month furloughs to a household where both wage earners work for the state has vexed blog users ever since Schwarzenegger ordered the unpaid days off in December. Here's one user's stab at explaining it:

Let's settle this whole math question once and for all!

If only one adult in a two-income household works for the state, (assuming they earn the same) the *household* would suffer a 5% loss in of income.

If both adults in that household work for the state, the *household* would get a "double hit" and would suffer a 10% total loss. Similarly, as in my case, if there is only one income for the household and he/she works for the state, that household, too, gets a 10% hit.

The most common mistake we've seen is thinking that if two state workers in a home lose 10 percent each that the total hit is 20 percent. This user makes a similar error by doubling the lost income but failing to double the remaining take home pay.

For the purpose of easy numbers, let's say that a state worker makes $1,000 per month and then loses 10 percent of his wages to furloughs. His pay reduced pay would be $900 (which is 90 percent of $1,000.) If his wife, say, also made $1,000 and lost 10 percent, she would would also be down $100, and also take home $900.

The "double hit" equals $200, but the percentage of income lost to the household is still 10 percent of the combined $2,000 earned before furlough.

Mar. 2 More details about furlough makeup days for SEIU Local 1000 workers
Mar. 3 Changes (again) to March furlough schedule

Today's State Worker Column on how the state has handled furlough policy sprang from your calls, e-mails and comment on these two posts. One sharp-eyed user alerted us to subtle but significant changes to the DPA Web site that were a key point in the piece. Thanks to everyone who helped out.

No one knows for sure right now what is happening with the furloughs. Don't believe what you hear from the union, DPA or the Gov's office. It changes from day to day. Sure makes the people running CA look incompetent. What am I saying? They are.

Somebody clarify for me--I THINK it's June 2012 by which time you have to use your banked furlough hours. It's June 2010 when the proposed new contract would expire.

That's right.

Once again, our bumbling governor has created a mess. A nightmare for state agencies trying to accomplish their mandates as decreed by state statutes. This is what comes of turning state employees into scapegoats instead of those elected to do a job taking responsibility. Dysfunction piled upon dysfunction, powered by Bully Arnold. What's next? With current logic, state employees will now be blamed for the drought. It just gets more insane.

Where is the Bee getting this information? Unless you got it from DPA, then you shouldn't be reporting it. I was just told by one of our managers that the furlough days are the 6th and the 20th per DPA. Stop putting this incorrect information out. It's bad enough that we're getting conflicting information from SEIU.

As noted in today's column, the furlough messages from DPA have shifted in the last week. It's quite possible that managers received a policy decision that had yet to be publicly announced.

And, yes, before we report on these matters, we check with multiple sources, including DPA.

Jon, could you tell us how SEIU's TA will affect planned layoffs at EDD? EDD's on DPA's list of agencies handing out layoff notices, but their employees are represented by SEIU. I'm assuming that notices issued to those employees will be rescinded once the TA is ratified?

Employees represented by Local 1000 can still be laid off under terms of the TA if their department, facility or entire office is shut down. But if only their position is eliminated, they can take a job within 10 percent of their current pay and within 50 miles of where they live.

But don't take our word for it. Click here for links of to the contract by bargaining unit and a DPA summary of the terms. The union's Web site has dedicated a page to the Master Contract articles and another page to contract terms specfic to each BU.

The Bee has refreshed the state worker pay database. Click here to access the latest data from the SCO.

Attorney General Jerry Brown's office has just sent us the court briefs filed today in response to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's lawsuit to force Controller John Chiang and the other constitutional officers to furlough their employees.

Brown is representing Chiang, who is named as the defendant and respondent. Brown and the other constitutional officers (except Republican Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner) are intervenors, as is the independent Board of Equalization.

The administration has until March 9 to respond. The hearing in Sacramento Superior Court is set for March 13. We'll cover all of it.

This link will take you to today's court filing by Brown.

10:03 p.m. note: The link to the Brown / Chiang documents has been fixed.

This won't come close to making things OK, but if you lose your job once Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger starts laying off state workers later this year, unemployment benefits have been increased by $25 per week, according to this report by Bee colleague Andrew McIntosh.

Bloomberg.com has this story that contends many public pensions are overstating expected returns and understating their future costs. The story includes references to CalPERS:

The nation's largest public pension fund, California Public Employees' Retirement System, has been reporting an expected rate of return of 7.75 percent for the past eight years, and 8 percent before that, according to spokesman Clark McKinley.

Its annual return during the decade from Dec. 31, 1998, to Dec. 31, 2008, has been 3.32 percent, and last year, when markets tanked, it lost 27 percent.

"It's pitiful, isn't it?" says Frederick "Shad" Rowe, a member of the Texas Pension Review Board, which monitors state and local government pension funds. "My experience has been that pension funds misfire from every direction. They overstate expected returns and understate future costs. The combination is debilitating over time."

Rowe, 62, is chairman of Greenbrier Partners, a private investment firm he founded in Dallas 24 years ago.

... Calpers's McKinley declined to comment on Rowe's views.

We asked CalPERS' spokeswoman Pat Macht to respond. Here's her e-mail:

Beware of the anti-pension ideologues who come out of the woodwork during market downturns. Like vultures, they prey on the highly charged and negative investment environment, looking for ways to convince you a temporary performance downturn will be typical for all time!

They know -- but don't tell you so -- that we set our rates based on a fiscal year investment return. They don't tell you that our assumed rate of return is made based on advice from a range of experts within CalPERS and within the industry and that it is regularly evaluated every two to three years in public session. They don't tell you what you would learn from a textbook on pension management: that some years investment returns are as expected; other years, they will be more than expected and yes, some years they will be less than expected.

They don't tell you that over the last 24 years, we have exceed our assumed rate of return 17 times, and eight of those years were more than double the 7 3/4 percent assumed rate of return.

(And here's an interesting fact: For five years after the Great Depression, there were multiple double digit return years.)

We will withstand the market swings, with our goal in mind: to achieve our assumed rate of return averaged over many, many decades. That's what we are designed to do. That's the math that matters.

Patricia K. Macht
Assistant Executive Officer
Office of Public Affairs

State workers, your last "Furlough Friday" is this week, contrary to what the Schwarzenegger administration told us earlier. After this Friday, all departments will begin self-directed furloughs.

Here's what it means for workers covered by SEIU Local 1000's tentative agreement:

You'll still have to take a second furlough day this month. The reason, we're now told, is that the Controller's Office payroll processing cutoff date hits before your deal can be ratified by members and OK'd by the Legislature.

But since you're covered by SEIU Local 1000's tentative agreement -- which calls for 17 furlough days in the 17 months that started February of this year -- you will work regular schedules at regular pay in April and May. That's to make good for the two extra furlough days you had to take in February and this month.

In June, assuming your contract takes effect, you'll start one-day-per-month self-directed furloughs, continuing through June 2010.

For everyone not represented by SEIU::

You're still subject to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Dec. 19 executive order that mandates two furlough days per month. After Friday, your furlough days also switch to self-directed scheduling.

Unless your union reaches an agreement to the contrary, or the courts overturn the furlough order, you'll continue to take two furlough days each month through June 2010.

And why didn't departments go to self-directed furloughing for all of March? Many had already set their work schedules through the first half of the month, and rejiggering them would have been inefficient, according to DPA.

DPA has updated its furlough policy Q & A page. We suggest to you check it for more details.

After posting our latest "Furlough Friday" item, several state workers called and e-mailed with essentially the same question expressed in this note:

Can you folks look into the tentative deal that DPA has struck with SEIU 1000 regarding the TA and how it will be applied retroactively to February 1, 2009? The rumor is that since the SEIU contract is retroactive and they negotiated a 8 hour furlough, that SEIU members will not have to take a furlough day in April.

An excellent question, and one that we should have thought to ask last week. Fortunately, there's always the next blog, so this morning we ran the question by Lynelle Jolley, DPA spokeswoman. Here's what she said in an e-mail:

Assuming the TA gets legislative approval and member ratification by the end of March, employees in SEIU units will have 4 furlough days toward their total of 17. For April and May, they wouldn't have to take any furlough days. Starting in June, they'd take one furlough day a month, through June 2010.

Thanks for the questions, everyone. We need you to help us make this blog useful to state workers.

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

Feb. 23 Date set for constitutional furlough lawsuit

Clarifying the constitutional and legal constraints and responsibilities of our elected officials is hardly a "moot point". If left unchallenged, future governors would assume far more power than they are rightfully due.

We certainly didn't mean to downplay the constitutional issue raised by the furlough order. We agree that the larger question is significant. That's why we qualified our comment: "In some ways, the lawsuit is a moot exercise, since Schwarzenegger reduced the constitutionals' personal services budgets by up to 10 percent."

We can't ignore the fact that even if the court rules against the governor, his line item budget reductions were a de facto furlough order -- or a virtual layoff mandate in the case of Lt. Governor John Garamendi's 21-person office.

Did DPA employees get furlough notices?

DPA observed the two "Furlough Fridays" last month. It also is on the list of departments with employees who have been designated "surplus."

Feb. 23 Republican gubernatorial candidates: Shrink state work force

Several blog users criticized former eBay CEO and gubernatorial hopeful Meg Whitman for her recent comments about trimming "headcount" in the state bureaucracy and that reducing the state workforce by 10 percent could be done without impact to services.

"Headcount", love that term, sounds like they have already chopped the heads off and now are counting what's laying arund (sic).

... Headcount? Nice way to dehumanize working families ...

So does a reporter ever question these statements? If she made this claim at a press conference did anyone challenge her to back it up? Don't you ask questions at a press conference?

We recounted Whitman's remarks from a Feb. 21 press conference taped by The Bee. After she said the state workforce could cut by 10 percent with no loss of service, Bee columnist and Capitol Bureau colleague Dan Walters asked her to expand on her budget cutting plans in greater detail. Whitman ignored the follow-up question.

The first thing people do when they become billionaires is forget what it's like to not be a billionaire. The second thing they do is run for Governor of California.

Feb. 24 Billwatch: Legislation seeks more spending accountability

This post drew out plenty of analysis of AB 400 , which would require departments each year to post on their Web sites how they've spent their money.

This is great and I think it can be done, but does not go far enough. Far too much can be lumped into "administration". It would be nice if there are more detailed categories included in the bill language such as executive staff compensation/benefits (salary, personal use of a state vehicle, free parking, etc.), contracting costs (number of people, pay, etc.) ...

This bill will only add more paperwork to the already failed system ...

... This seems like a project that will drain funding from services to facilitate a feel good program, and possibly something that was proposed to allow its author to claim he is a reformer and for gov't transparency ... I think all of this information already exists with the Dept. of Finance. It is called the State Budget.

And, as a state worker, I am all for it in principle as are, I'd imagine, most of the rank and file ... We'd love to see some accountability for the management decisions. Ah, but there's the rub. For the same ones who make the wasteful decisions are the ones who define the expenses, often in rather creative ways.

Our take: We love the concept, but the numbers would need to be understandable, searchable and easily analyzed by things such as vendor, good or service. The information also would need to sync with budget projections so that users can compare estimated expenses to monies actually spent. And the Web sites would have to dump the bureaucratic jargon to make the information comprehensible to the general public.

Feb. 25 Union request to stop Arizona layoffs denied; public workers vs. 'Joe and Sally Taxpayer'

So who exactly does Susan Mangiero consult for? You don't say. I don't live or work in Sacramento so her name is not familiar to me. This is important because her political and/or business biases do matter in what she writes about public pensions.

You can read about Mangiero's Connecticut-based company, Pension Governance Inc., by clicking here. Access her online bio here.

Feb. 25 Unions good for economy

This post spurred vigorous debate. Four small snippets of the back-and-forth:

Unions were a very important part of labor negotiations years ago. Now they hardly represent the will of their members. This contract they negotiated late is nonsense. Our current unions need to be fired and replaced ...

Some folks seem to think that unions WERE once a good idea and garnered some protections for workers but are now somehow obsolete. To them, I ask: just because the police have secured your neighborhood so there's been no crime for a year, do you think you don't need them anymore?

I'm a state attorney and member of the attorney's union. My union has done nothing for me ... Too often I have seen my union come to the aid of insubordinate and unproductive workers when management has the temerity to ask them to take on the same workload as everyone else.

By the time the state work force became unionized, I was in the management/supervisory rank ... I generally found that unions represented their members in a fair and impartial manner. I always found that I was able to take necessary disciplinary action against employees by diligently documenting performance or lack thereof ... Generally, the inability to address problem employees came about when supervisors and managers failed to do their job and instead acted in an arbitrary and subjective manner. Unions should not be blamed when this happens.

The Schwarzenegger administration is telling departments that they need to plan for "Furlough Fridays" on March 6 and March 20. This is a switch from an earlier plan to move to flexible furlough scheduling in March.

Here's the story behind the policy: A couple of weeks ago, managers heard that they would have flexibility to schedule furlough days beginning this month.

That was because SEIU Local 1000 had reached a tentative agreement that includes one furlough day each month. The administration expected the deal would be quickly ratified by members and OK'd by the Legislature so that its terms took effect in March.

Once that happened, the thinking went, it wouldn't practical to shut down government on the first and third Fridays. The 95,000 employees represented by the union make up a such a large part of the workforce that they can't work on a Friday while everyone else is off or vice versa.

Hence the notice that departments would move to self-directed furloughs in March.

It's now apparent that the SEIU contract ratification and the legislative sign-off will take a bit longer than expected, probably later than March 20. Since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's furlough order calls for two days off without pay per month, and since it doesn't look like SEIU will have its new deal done before the third Friday, departments will continue the furlough schedule used in February.

Once SEIU has its contract in place, the state will start flexible furloughs, the governor's office has told us. Workers under the SEIU contract will get credit for the two extra furlough days that they took.

If you're not covered by SEIU, your union will have to cut its own furlough deal.

In other words, as it stands right now, March furlough schedules will be the same as they were in February. Unless you're already on a self-directed furlough, you're off on Friday and you'll be off again on March 20. That includes workers covered by the tentative agreement struck last month by SEIU Local 1000.

From the LA Times:

Over the last two years, as California has slashed services and scrambled to pay bills, top administration officials have made free use of government expense accounts with little oversight and, in some cases, no documentation, The Times has found.

Together, they have spent tens of thousands of dollars on state-funded trips between Sacramento and the areas where they live, justifying the travel as necessary for state business. Some built weekend trips around one short meeting, and some charged the state to attend events with no apparent connection to their jobs.

Often their expense reports were approved by subordinates. Many of the costs were incurred after the governor issued an executive order a year ago that state agencies avoid all nonessential travel due to California's fiscal emergency.

Click here to read the piece by Times reporter Michael Rothfeld.

IMAGE: Hasslefreeclipart.com