The State Worker

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has appointed a former Cabinet secretary to the CalPERS board to help oversee how the pension fund is managing your retirement money.

Dan Dunmoyer will join the CalPERS board as the Schwarzenegger administration's insurance industry representative, the retirement system announced Thursday.

Dunmoyer, a Republican, is head of state legislative and regulatory affairs for the Farmers Insurance Companies and Zurich Financial Services in the United States.

He was a Schwarzenegger cabinet secretary, deputy chief of staff and senior policy development adviser in the governor's office between 2005 and 2008.

Dunmoyer replaces Marjorie Berte, who has served on CalPERS board since 2005.

Rob Feckner, CalPERS board president, said Dunmoyer's insurance industry and public service experience will be an asset to the pension fund and its members.

Dunmoyer was head of the Personal Insurance Federation of California between 1996 and 2005.  He's also been chief administrative officer for the Republican caucus of the Assembly, where he once managed a 60-member staff.

Several Bee and State Worker readers contacted me after we published a story Wednesday about the state wasting $580,000 to lease office space that went unused for four years.

That story cited a report by state auditor Elaine Howle, which described how the General Services and Corrections and Rehabilitation departments had wasted $580,000 on office space they leased but did not use for a variety of reasons.

"Who benefited?" you wondered.

State audits don't always mention names of private vendors or building owners -- and Howle's report did not mention it in this case, either.

We have your answer.

The space was rented  from a company called Hyundai Rio Vista Inc. in San Diego for space in a building located at 8880 Rio San Diego Drive.

A report released this month by the Department of General Services, the state's real estate manager, examines its office space needs in the region for the next 40 years.

The study -- click here to get it -- was done by by consultants Hellmuth, Obata and Kassabaum of San Francisco.

There's news in it for state workers: The report boldly suggests that the state may in "the near term" wish to demolish and redevelop two major state office complexes, the Bonderson Building (which houses the Water Resources Control Board) and the aging Food and Agriculture Annex.

Knocking down the existing buildings on those sites and replacing them with modern and energy-efficient facilities could make far better use of that real estate -- and add 600,000 extra square feet of space to the state's office space portfolio.

Another spot that offers 1 million square feet of possible space is the state printing plant property if that facility is relocated and demolished, the report said.

General Services says the report is the first major, long-range analysis of state office space needs in the Sacramento region since 1960. It even projects and examines those needs over the next 10, 25, and 40 year periods.

The report also identifies potential development spots that could accommodate future concentrations of state workers, like the Railyards area, Richards Boulevard and West Sacramento riverfront, thanks to their proximity to transit and other state offices.

DGS spokesman Eric Lamoureux says the department will use the report as a "living tool" online. It will be adjusted and modified over time as Sacramento Regional Transit expands light rail into certain areas and new city infrastructure is rolled out, he said.

If you only have a few minutes, click here for a quick summary of the larger report.

State Auditor Elaine Howle today updated a 2007 report in which she said that the rising cost of providing health and dental benefits to retired state workers represented a significant risk to state finances if legislators don't deal with the problem.

In her 2007 report, Howle's office estimated it will cost the state $48 billion to provide future post-employment medical and dental benefits to retired state workers.

California and many other state and local governments only budget enough money every year to pay premiums for retiree insurance, instead of setting aside funds to cover all future costs to the State.  This is known as "pay-as-you-go" funding.

This gives Howle's bean counters a case of financial chills.

Why?  The state must now estimate and report these future costs, or liabilities, in its financial statements as required by new accounting rules.

In its fiscal year 2007-08, the state paid only $1.25 billion of the $3.59 billion annual bill for retiree health and dental benefits. The $2.34 billion difference is a future liability.

In today's update,  Howle said the gap will rise to $4.71 billion for fiscal 2008-09.

Click here to read the full report.

The state auditor's big concern?  If the liability grows so large that it overshadows others in state  financial statements, it could affect California's credit rating.

A weaker credit rating could add to the state's budget woes by making it more expensive for the state to borrow when it issues bonds.

Howle argues this risk could  be reduced if the state starts setting aside more money now for these future bills.

The California Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility (CFFR) today put on the Web a list of nearly 5,000 retired state and municipal workers who are collecting $100,000 a year or more in pension money from the California Public Employees Retirement System.

The CFFR database of 4,818 names is available in a searchable format here.

Dubbed "The CalPERS $100,000 Pension Club," its home page features a list of the top 10 pensioners getting the most from CalPERS.

Bruce Malkenhorst, a municipal government retiree from Vernon in Southern California,heads the list with an annual pension of $499,674. For more on him, see this 2007 report in Forbes Magazine.

Donald Gerth, the former president of California State University, Sacramento, ranks third in the list with a cool $278,054 annual pension. ( Yes, that's his pension.)

"We feel it's time for transparency on this issue," said CFFR vice-president Marcia Fritz.
"In the current economic climate, it's important that taxpayers know what kind of pensions our public employees are receiving and what the budget implications will be."

CFFR was founded in 2007 by Keith Richman, a former LA County Republican assemblyman.

Richman says the foundation's sole purpose is to highlight  the skyrocketing costs of public employee retirements.

"If we don't do something soon there may be several government entities that go bankrupt, and those that don't are going to die from a thousand cuts in services,"  Richman said in his group's news release.  

CFFR says it obtained its list from CalPERS under the state's Public Records Act.

CFFR, a non-profit political organization, says it's committed to educating the public and key decision makers about California public employee retirement benefit issues. The group believes that managing pension and retiree health care benefits promised to public employees is "the most critical public finance issue of this decade."

Many state workers were upset when The Bee  first published a list of state worker salaries. Others celebrated the transparency effort.  It will be very interesting to see what kind of reaction CFFR gets with this effort.

Recent increases to the City of Sacramento's long-term parking meter rates near the Department of Housing and Community Development's headquarters have angered some state workers already grappling with unpaid furloughs.

Some HCD staffers are fuming after the daily maximum rose to $6 a day from $5.

That's a 20 percent increase.

A handful of HCD staffers at the department's 1800 3rd St. headquarters began to toy with fighting city hall.

In stepped Pepper Lewis, a steward at HCD for the SEIU Local 1000. 

Her advice:  "Transfer to the D.M.V on Broadway where parking costs $20 per month, they take it out of your check, and it takes a few pay cycles before that even gets deducted."

City of Sacramento parking meter manager Matt Eierman suggested in an email to the department that while some meter rate were increased, the rates on another 200 meters in in the city have been cut to $3 a day.

The new $3 meters are located on the 2000 (T Street), 2100 (U Street) & 2200 (V Street) blocks of 8th Street, which  Eierman said are close enough to  3rd & S Streets.

Never again, says Department of General Services Director Will Bush.

Bush has released a response to State Auditor Elaine Howle's report on a leasing deal - signed long before he joined the department - that saw DGS and the Department Corrections and Rehabilitation squander $580,000 on rented office space in San Diego that stayed vacant for four years.

"This is not the kind of efficiency in state government that everyone has a right to expect," Bush said in his statement, which is posted on the DGS Web site. 

"I am committed to improving our leasing program so that this never occurs again."

"I have directed our internal auditor to independently review the DGS leasing portfolio, our processes and procedures for inefficiencies and to recommend improvements to our systems to prevent taxpayer money from being wasted," Bush added.

Bush says that over the past few years, DGS has taken a number of what he described as "tangible steps" to improve the department's leasing programs:

• Hired 15 new space planners to reduce leasing workload backlog.
• Converted the older manual paper process for tracking leasing activities to an online system.
• Implemented a single intake office for all real estate move and change requests.
• Developed clear policies and procedures for disagreements with landlords including specific time periods for dispute escalation to management.
• Expanded the authority for the director of DGS to direct state agencies to use state-owned space, rather than leased space from the private sector.
  

State Auditor Elaine Howle today released a copy of her semiannual report to the Legislature that describes in agonizing detail the results of her investigations into waste and spending abuses by state employees.

Her latest report covers the period of July 1 through Dec. 31, 2008.

Look for my story in tomorrow's Bee about Howle's gem of a headliner: how General Services and the Department of Corrections and rehabilitation wasted $580,000 by leasing office space for four years that wasn't being used.

A second chapter tells how General Services wasted $3,000 by paying a private vendor for emergency preparedness training in Los Angeles, even though the California Highway Patrol provides the training free of charge.

But there's more. Howle's accounting gumshoes found several departments improperly paid state workers more than they were entitled to get:

- From October 2003 through March 2008, a Department of Fish and Game official improperly claimed $71,747 for commute and other expenses incurred near her home and headquarters. The employee said the expenses were approved.

- The State Compensation Insurance Fund paid an employee $8,314 for 427 hours that she did not work and that it had not charged against her leave balances.

- The Department of Justice paid an employee $648 that she did not earn and $497 for travel expenses that she did not incur.

Every day, hundreds of state workers working for dozens of departments, agencies or commissions conduct open bidding before awarding  six- or seven-figure state contracts.

Apparently, the California Legislature itself is not required to award any of its millions of dollars in contracts following competitive bidding.

Now, at least one of its members hopes that soon changes.

State workers should closely watch how the Legislature handles AB 641, a bill introduced Assemblyman Curt Hagman, R- Chino Hills.

Hagman thinks that requiring open bidding on all legislative contracts will eliminate waste, fraud and abuse in how the state's legislators award contracts, stamping out secrecy while ensuring openness and accountability.

The bill is backed by  the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association and the Associated Builders and Contractors of California. Not surprisingly, it has already received a frosty reception from the Assembly business and professions committee.

The committee's analysis of the bill?

A:  Low bids are not always a great idea for Capitol or legislative construction projects.

B:  An open bidding requirement, overseen by the Department of General Services as Hagman proposes, would subvert the independence of the Legislature, etc..

And that was before the bill even went to a hearing Tuesday morning. . .

The state's giant employee pension fund has turned to an old hand from the Senate and Assembly to become its top lobbyist.

Melanie Moreno has been named chief of CalPERS Office of Governmental Affairs.

Moreno will oversee the giant pension fund's staff of legislative analysts and be the chief legislative lobbyist  for CalPERS on all state and federal legislative issues.

Her job includes overseeing the fund's lobbyist  - and lobbying -  in Washington, D.C., as well as its dealings with agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Moreno starts her new job at CalPERS May 25./ She succeeds Wendy Nottsineh.

Since 2002, Moreno has been a senior consultant on health care issues for both houses of the state legislature.

 "Her experience in the Legislature will make her an especially effective advocate," according to CalPERS chief executive  Anne Stausboll.

Moreno was recently  principal consultant for the Senate, analyzing statewide policy impacts of legislation before Senate Committees on Health.  She did  the same job or the Assembly from 2002 to 2007.

In addition to a B.A. in sociology from California State University, Sacramento, Moreno also has two master's degrees (Social Welfare and Public Health) from the University of California, Berkeley.

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

Note: This blog back is our last post until we return from vacation on May 11. Our talented Bee Capitol Bureau colleagues will keep The State Worker fed while we're gone.

April 21 Donate $100K, eat with the governor; union spends $500K to defeat 1A

We took out some of the disparaging lines of this post to get to the interesting nut of the comment:

... nothing is simple with SEIU. Local 1000, big as it is, with 94,000 some odd members is only about 15% or so of the SEIU State Council. So bottom line, even though their MOU was at stake in Local 1000 the rest of the State Council voted to oppose Prop 1A.

Makes you wonder... Is SEIU too big to manage?

Here's one way to see Local 1000's numerical place in SEIU's California universe: If the union overall were a gallon of water, Local 1000's workers would be a bit more than a pint.

Arnold can't very well visibly kill his own agreement. But he WAS double crossed. It's so obvious. It is right there in front of you! So, now the word is out. Arnold doesn't want any Republicans to vote for it.

A popular rumor that as far as we can tell is without merit. We've asked around and no Republicans, even off the record, have said that this is part of the political calculus behind AB 964.

If I give arnold (sic) $100,000, will the threats of paying me federal minimum wage stop? Will I get my full time job back, my two lost holidays, per diem equal to the Legislature, and parity with other CA government attorneys? Isn't this how the Big Dogs roll? Woof.

It's how they roll on both sides of the aisle. Remember the hundreds of thousands of dollars former state Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland, took in for his anti-Prop. 11 campaign? If you've forgotten the details, stroll down memory lane with this blog post.

April 22 Read about the state workers who recently received raises

This post raised an interesting question: Are folks working in the Legislature really state workers? We've always thought they are ...

... state workers are very different than legislative workers...pay scales, civil service rules, and salary structures are all far too different. The headline is misleading as a result.

Again Jon, get your facts straight -- most state workers are forced to take two (2) upaid furlough days each month, most of which DOES NOT save the state any money and even COSTS THE STATE MONEY in those instances of federally or special funded agencies. Wouldn't it be easier to use the facts than to continually make your "data" up as you churn out each article?

We understand state workers' raw nerves over all things furlough. It's a stressful topic that we always try to approach with great care.

What prompted the comment, we assume, comes from the section we cited from a story by colleague Jim Sanders. (If it's in a gray box, it's not our words.)

However, we didn't read the phrase, "... state workers are required to take an unpaid furlough each month," as meaning one day. It's a reference to the policy. It would have been incorrect if it read, "... required to take an unpaid furlough day each month." Still, the phrase could have been more precise.

As to Jim's summary that the policy is in place "to save money," well, that is the stated reason. Whether the ultimate outcome is otherwise wasn't the point of his story.

April 22 Assembly official expects SEIU contract bill 'will get done'

This commenter criticized your humble blogger for failing to jump on the AB 964 rumors early enough:

Mr. Ortiz .. I am little shocked that you have not written about this issue. I know you see the writing on the wall. Why is the governor not being questioned about this. I think everyone can see what his intentions are and secretly have been ... Can you tell me why no one has asked the gov what his plans are regarding all the state workers contracts that are expired...does he plan to make all the state workers suffer through more furlough's since ballot initiative look doomed? Mr. Ortiz I respect what you do, but given the title of the column you write, why the silence with respect to the person who has all the power...the governor?

And another user was fed up with our "questionable morals" and "ability to dance around the truth," because, in the user's view, we posted unsubstantiated rumors:

... You cannot be trusted to tell the truth but you can be trusted to create non-stories to stir up peoples' emotions needlessly. Get counseling Jon. Or at least take a journalism class and learn how to accurately analyze the information before you publish it.

The legislative process is deliberative to the point of being glacial. Sometimes reporting goes at the same speed. And it should, particularly when the topic is volatile -- and the SEIU contract situation is one big emotional hot button.

We heard conflicting rumors for a couple of weeks about AB 964 (some first surfaced in comments on this blog), but getting anything on the record was extremely difficult. Sources would talk and then pull back. And no one was saying the same thing, so we didn't know what to think -- or report.

We did ask the administration for its position and reported it in this post. Ditto for Assembly Republican leader Mike Villines.

SEIU Local 1000 declined to talk to us about the bill.

As to expired contracts, we have reported several times about disputes between the administration and unions over how to treat so-called "evergreen" clauses with regard to furloughs and overtime. (Here's an example.)We assume (erroneously?) that blog users don't need or want for us to rewind those details in every post that addresses furloughs, pay or contracts.

The reports regarding the SEIU Bargining Unit Contracts being stalled in the Assembly Committees were very inaccurate.

We reported that the bill has moved more slowly through the Assembly than originally intended because Republicans weren't ready to move it quickly. We said it would move though committee to the Assembly floor and then probably wouldn't be voted on "for nearly a month." As of Friday, that was still true, from what we hear.

I thought the legislature passed the budget back in February for the rest of this fiscal year and next...therefore according the judge's ruling regarding minimum wages would not apply. Jon what are your thoughts?

Check the third item in this blog back post.

April 23 State worker rips Bass over raise rescission rationale

This post sparked an interesting and (mostly) civil debate about the power of unions in California state government. There were too many remarks to post them here, but we encourage you to click here to read the discussion.

See you in two weeks!

The Bee has an editorial in today's fiber and cyber editions, "SEIU wants it both ways on budget."

After noting that SEIU is spending money to defeat Prop 1A on the May 19 ballot, the editorial board writes,

Lawmakers should leave the union's contract in limbo until after the election. Legislative leaders and the governor should also make it clear that the contract will be torn up and negotiations restarted if Proposition 1A is defeated. After all, if Proposition 1A loses, it would be irresponsible for the state to ratify any contract that rests on the assumption of higher and more stable revenues.

Click here to read the entire editorial.

In case you missed it, we wanted to call your attention to Bee colleague Andy Furillo's story, "California prison officials propose releasing 8,000 inmates to cut costs."

From the report:

Schwarzenegger on Feb. 20 ordered an open-ended $400 million reduction in the corrections department's $10 billion budget, to help resolve a state budget deficit disaster that had totaled $40 billion.

Cate did not provide a line item on how his cost-cutting initiatives will add up to $400 million. He said he will send a package of bills over to the Legislature next week.

The package's approval is needed for the changes on parole, the time credits and the dollar-value adjustments on property crimes such as grand theft, which have not been changed since 1982.

The proposed parole changes would eliminate supervision for tens of thousands of lower-risk offenders and employ sanctions such as GPS monitoring in place of a return ticket to prison for offenders who violate the technical terms of their releases. They would cut the prison population by 4,000 by the end of the next fiscal year, Cate said.

Here's the question for state workers that hasn't been answered yet because the administration didn't present a specific list of cuts: What will this mean for CDCR jobs?

With the recent attention on staff salaries at the Legislature, Bee researcher Pete Basofin looked at what California's elected state workers make compared with lawmakers in other states.

His conclusion: "It turns out California lawmakers make the most -- by a large margin." Check out the details on Pete's blog, I-Tool Tips.

About 175 California Highway Patrol cadets will donate time and energy to three Sacramento area community projects on Saturday as part of their 27-week academy training. Click here to read CHP's media advisory about what the cadets will do for The March of Dimes, Sacramento Habitat for Humanity and Safetyville USA.

Board of Equalization employee and SEIU member Bobbi Smith sent this letter to Assembly Speaker Karen Bass and cc'd us. Smith gave us permission to post it here, unedited:

From: Smith, Bobbi

Sent: Thursday, April 23, 2009 1:49 PM

To: Assemblymember.Bass@assembly.ca.gov

Cc: Zamora, Jim; Perez, Edwin; Ortiz, Jon - Sacramento

Subject: Pay Increases for Legislative Staff

While I was happy to see the Legislative Staff salary increases rescinded, I was unhappy with the reasoning. This was purely a political reason, in support of the ballot initiatives.

In defense of the salary increase you stated that the Assembly has tightened its belt and streamlined it operations. All state departments have had their budgets cut within the past year and had to do the same. The constitutional offices had their personnel budgets further cut as retaliation for not participating in the Governor's furloughs.

While state employees represented by SEIU Local 1000 are having their salaries cut by 9.2%, until a new Memorandum of Understanding is crawling its way through the Assembly which would reduce their salary cuts to 4.62%, you are giving your staff pay increases. If there is money to give salaries increases to the Legislative staff, why are union represented employees having their pay cut? Why aren't the individual departments charged with finding their own cuts to avoid cutting employees' salaries?

Employees whose salaries are funded by the State should not be receiving salary increases under any circumstances if any State employees are having their salaries cut. You are sending a message to union represented employees that their hard work and sacrifices are not valued on the same level as other employees. This is the wrong message to be sending.

Bobbi Smith
President, DLC 782
SEIU Local 1000

IMAGE: Karen Bass / Sacramento Bee, Hector Amezcua, 2009

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

April 17 Here's how to figure out (sorta) the drop-dead dates for state payroll changes

My God, this is complicated...trying to follow the all the details is making me a little dizzy...

That's how everything is written in the State. I grimace everytime I have to fill out a stupid form and read the instructions for the form. The acronyms in everything kill me. CBID=Collective Bargining Identification. Why don't they just put "Bargining Unit #". Simple, easy to understand. Everything is so darn complicated and confusing.

We re-read the post and realized that we should have dumped the acronyms wherever possible. Reporting on state bureaucracy doesn't obligate us to write bureaucratically. We'll be on guard for this in the future.

April 17 How much furlough fights have cost the state; more about the SCIF lawsuit

I wonder if the state paid Kronick to work full time defending the state from its own lawyers --- who in turn are furloghed (sic) and can't defend the state against other lawsuits full time as part of their normal jobs. Follow that???

We asked DPA if its attorneys are subject to furlough. They are, but like all state employees, they can defer the time off as their work demands.

Last July (2008) 10,000 state workers had their employment terminated. That was the FIRST state employee transaction that GAS took. How soon some forget.

Or is it just more convenient to forget FACTS?

Executive Order S-09-08 didn't cut 10,000 part timers, retired annuitants and intermittent employees, which was the number the administration announced last year. As we reported a few weeks ago, it was more like 6,500. The numbers in this chart indicate that most of those jobs haven't come back.

... This is going to cost us tax payers, all of us ,to include State employees a lot more than $180,000 before it's all said and done.

We'll routinely report how much this package of litigation is costing California. We've also asked several unions how much they've spent. We'll report what they tell us -- or we'll report that they've declined to tell us.

Side note: We're told that some cases could continue beyond Schwarzenegger's term in office. That raises a question: Will the next governor continue to fight these battles?

April 20 SEIU labor contract stuck in Assembly ditch

This State Worker post took more comments than any other this week. Rants aside, the comments ranged from criticism of SEIU members for ratifying a concession-laden deal to analysis of why Republicans aren't quick to back a labor pact negotiated by their party's top official.

So nothing accomplished, and Arnold either is not negotiating in good faith or he is simply unable to reign in his party. Assembly Repub's seem amused to watch the State derail like a train in slow motion. Vote of no confidence in either case! This is bad for all parties involved. Moral and services suffer, as do the people of California whom State employees serve ...

"The motives and nature of the opposition to the bill remain unclear, but what will happen if the bill fails isn't. The union and DPA would have to reopen negotiations."

That's not what Local 1000 said would happen if the members failed to vote for ratification. If ratification failed we would see $6.55 an hour, 2 day furloughs (like we have now), increase out-of-pocket medical (like we have now), layoffs, permanent loss of two holidays (Does anyone think they are coming back?)

I trust my union so you must be misinformed.

There is no doubt that the union and the governor's representatives would have to renegotiate the SEIU deal if AB 964 fails. That's how the process works. Obviously, if Republicans were to kill the bill -- and no one has said to us on the record that's going to happen -- it wouldn't be because GOP lawmakers think the terms of the SEIU deal need to be more generous.

The moves that the governor can make unilaterally -- imposing the federal minimum wage, emergency furloughs -- have been topics of wide speculation and ongoing litigation. We'll just make a couple of points:

The governor's power to impose the federal minimum wage is tied to White v. Davis. The court said in that case that state workers' pay can be cut in the absence of money appropriated for wages in the state budget. So, when lawmakers deadlocked over the budget last summer, the door opened to temporarily cutting wages.

But now the state has money appropriated for wages through the 2009-10 fiscal year. It was part of the budget deal worked out in February. If the May 19 budget ballot measures fail and lawmakers have to reopen budget talks, will that mean cutting state pay to the federal minimum would be an option? Or would the fact that payroll money is set aside in the 2009-10 budget keep White v. Davis from kicking in?

I new (sic) this was coming, it's simple. The Gov. wants to be able to throw a fit and enforce layoffs and 2 day a month furloughs when he doenst (sic) get his way on the 19th. So he's stalling and so is his loser posse.

Many State Worker blog comments, e-mailers and callers have put forward this same conspiracy theory. We find it difficult to believe. The administration says it wants the deal done, and Democrats we've spoken with stop short of ascribing that level of cynicism to Schwarzenegger. Our assessment, as noted in today's State Worker column: This is business as usual for the Legislature.

April 21 CalSTRS responds to Sunday 'incentive awards' story

... Why a 2nd or 3rd string responded and not their PIO?

Sherry Reser, whose e-mail was the subject of the post, is the top media relations person for CalSTRS. She's not "2nd or 3rd string" for the fund.

This just out from CalPERS' Office of Public Affairs:

The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) Board of Administration today approved using $265 million in excess reserves from its self-funded preferred provider organization (PPO) plans to offset premiums and contributions paid by members and employers for two months. It is subject to approval of a technical change in State law.

The Board's action to use the multi-million dollar reserves to offset health premiums will mean an average savings of $134 over two months for 324,000 CalPERS members enrolled in its PPO plans, a total savings of more than $43 million over two months.

The decision also frees up nearly $131 million for the State of California, and more than $91 million for over 1,140 contracting agency employers - entities that have been struggling with budgetary shortfalls and revenue loss.

You can read the entire press release here.

The fund also announced this:

The CalPERS Board of Administration today approved a pilot program designed to improve health care quality, enhance service, and reduce costs. CalPERS will partner with Blue Shield of California, Catholic Healthcare West (CHW), and Hill Physicians Medical Group to implement the pilot starting January 2010.

The program will create an integrated health care model that aligns incentives among the health plan, hospital system, and medical group. These entities have also agreed to be at financial risk should the pilot's cost reduction goals fall short of expectations.

Click here for more details.

From the Bee's Capitol Bureau:

Assembly Speaker Karen Bass today said she would rescind pay raises she granted to more than 120 Assembly aides in midst of the state's fiscal crisis.

The move came a day after the raises were exposed by The Bee and other news outlets and less than a month before the May 19 special election, at which Bass, other legislative leaders and Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger will ask voters to extend tax increases to help ease the state budget deficit.

You can read The Bee's breaking news coverage about the pay hikes by clicking here. It includes a link to the story that started the controversy. Watch for a more detailed report tomorrow from colleague Jim Sanders.

The Assembly Appropriations Committee this morning passed AB 964, the bill that needs to clear the Legislature for SEIU Local 1000's new contract to take effect. The measure cleared with no Republican votes. We're hearing that it will go to the Assembly floor next week, but it's still not clear whether members will vote on it right away.

Dan Reeves, chief of staff for Assembly Appropriations Chairman Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, sent this e-mail on Monday. It's a response to our blog post, "SEIU labor contract stuck in Assembly ditch." With Reeves' permission, we're posting the unedited e-mail here:

Jon:

I wanted to respond to today's blog posting and clarify my comments to you yesterday. First, I fully anticipate that this MOU will get done, it's just a question of how quickly. I should have been much clearer on that point yesterday. Second, I don't speak for the Republicans and don't know what or how their Caucus thinks about this measure. My understanding and comment yesterday was simply that I hear they are considering withholding support for the measure until the outcome of the May 19th special election is determined. There is no ditch here in the Assembly. It's certainly my expectation that this House will in due course pass the MOU and state employees will not be used as political punching bags to distract us from resolving our budgetary crisis.

Thank you,

Dan Reeves

From Capitol Bureau colleague Jim Sanders' report in today's fiber and cyber Bee:

More than 120 Assembly aides were granted salary increases recently despite a rocky state economy and projections of a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall next year.

The pay hikes come at a time when most other state workers are required to take an unpaid furlough each month to save money.

Read the details in Jim's story by clicking here.

IMAGE: sacbee.com

Our Capitol Bureau colleague, Shane Goldmacher, has a couple of reports you should check out if you haven't already:

From Shane's A1 exclusive in today's Bee:

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is selling access to a pair of social soirees at his Brentwood mansion to deep-pocketed political donors willing to hand over at least $100,000 for his political fund.

Donors who cut six-figure checks will be able to sip cocktails with the celebrity governor and first lady Maria Shriver at their Southern California home this Thursday and dine again there early next month, according to the four-page fundraising invitation obtained by The Bee.

You can read that story here.

Then over on his blog, Capitol Alert, Shane has the details on SEIU's $500,000 deposit into the campaign to defeat Prop 1A.

Some Capitol insiders are telling us that the union's opposition to 1A is the reason that Republicans will hold up AB 964, the bill that cements SEIU Local 1000's new labor contract. The thinking from these people (who all work for Democrats, by the way), is that the Republicans see the union state council's 1A opposition as a double-cross of what all had agreed to during the bitter budget battle earlier this year.

(SEIU Local 1000, which represents 95,000 state workers, has been silent on 1A. Its members' interests are probably best served if the measure passes, since the bill raises taxes to relieve the state's cash-strapped coffers. But the local hasn't said anything, most likely to avoid crossing the union state council.)

As we reported Monday, it now looks like AB 964 will stall in the Assembly without the three Republican votes it needs to get the required two-thirds to pass.

IMAGE: Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver / December 2008, Sacramento Bee, Brian Baer

Yvonne Walker, president of SEIU Local 1000 issued a letter Monday that last week's furlough court win by California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges, and Hearing Officers in State Employment sets a "dangerous tone."

State Compensation Insurance Fund, the agency targeted in the lawsuit, employs about 500 CASE-covered workers directly impacted by the decision. Another 6,000 fund workers are represented by SEIU. The impact of San Francisco Superior Court Judge Peter Busch's ruling from the bench on their employment remains murky.

Here's the crux of the matter for SEIU: Its new contract calls for one furlough day per month, retroactive to February. That's a good deal, considering that everyone in state government is taking two, right?

Unless you're a member of the union working at State Fund. Then you're probably asking, "Why should I be in a contract that makes me take off one unpaid day each month when this court decision could mean I shouldn't be taking ANY days off?"

Walker's letter to State Fund employees responds to that question from several angles, but the overriding message is that to win, CASE undercut union representation at State Fund:

SCIF's so-called independence for decisions about furlough signals a dangerous tone and could do long term damage to the civil service protections enjoyed by SCIF employees.

We cannot afford to lose the civil service job protections and contract guarantees that will be lost should SCIF convince a court that they are not a state agency.

If SCIF is not a state agency, then SCIF employees are not state employees and they will loose the protections guaranteed under the entire Local 1000 contract

Other state unions, including CASE, have not been able to get the protections we won in our new contract.

You can read the Walker e-mail to State Fund employees by clicking this link.

Sherry Reser, spokeswoman for the California State Teachers' Retirement System, sent an e-mail our way in response to our Sunday news story, "CalPERS, CalSTRS award big bonuses despite loses." With her permission, we're posting the section of Reser's e-mail that discusses points about CalSTRS' she wished would have made it into the article:

1. We operate at a high degree of transparency. The Teachers' Retirement Board has a compensation committee, as you know, and provides full disclosure of incentive calculations and public discussion of compensation issues.
2. Investment decisions added value to the teachers fund. CalSTRS paid out less than $3 million last year in incentives, yet had about $2 billion added to the portfolio over the last 3 years based on the staff decisions.
3. This is a gripe about the article: Speaking of three years above, that's the rolling average considered in the incentives paid last year. That period included a portfolio return of more than 23%. Jon, this is an important fact and I really wish you had included it in the piece. The incentives were not just for FY 07-08 returns.

The Department of Social Services is hosting its 5th annual "Kids Day" from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Tuesday. The event on the Capitol's west side includes free dental screenings for children, resource booths and "gifts and prizes," according to this media advisory.

IMAGE: www.dss.cahwnet.gov

It looks like the Service Employees International Union Local 1000 contract bill is about to get stuck in the Assembly -- and may not get acted on for at least a month.

AB 964 is scheduled for a hearing on Wednesday in the Assembly Appropriations Committee, said Dan Reeves, chief of staff for Appropriations Chairman Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles. From there it will move to the Assembly floor for a vote.

But the bill needs four three Republican Assembly member votes to reach the two-thirds it needs to move on to the Senate.

"They don't have even one," Reeves told us this afternoon.

We spoke briefly to Assembly Republican Leader Mike Villines of Clovis today and asked whether his caucus opposed the deal. He said no, but that he is meeting with SEIU "in the next week or two ... These things take time."

Reeves and others we spoke with over the last few days figure that the Republicans may not be ready to vote on the bill until after the May 19 special election.

Rumors have swirled for the better part of a week that the contract is dead. Union executives and rank-and-file workers have called and e-mailed The State Worker to report that the bill is dead. Some said it won't get out of Appropriations. Others opined that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signaled to his party that, given the worsening state of the economy, that he is ready to walk away from a deal that took the administration and the union nearly a year to negotiate.

The governor's office and the Department of Personnel Administration both denied that accusation last week when we talked to them.

The motives and nature of the opposition to the bill remain unclear, but what will happen if the bill fails isn't. The union and DPA would have to reopen negotiations. Given the hard bargaining that went into the deal now in the Assembly, we would expect even tougher talks the next go-round.

Jim Zamora, spokesman for SEIU Local 1000, said that President Yvonne Walker declined to comment "at this time."

Mike Jimenez, California Correctional Peace Officers Association president, told the union's board last weekend that he will take a 90-day leave of absence, effective May 1.

Jimenez, who was re-elected to a second three-year term last fall, is having surgery, said CCPOA spokesman Lance Corcoran.

"It's not terminal. Mike's fine. It's no big deal," Corcoran said when reached by cell phone this morning. "Sometimes you have to take care of yourself before you can take care of others."

He did not specify why Jimenez is having the surgery.

Chuck Alexander, the union's executive vice president, will take over during Jimenez's absence, Corcoran said.

Bee Capitol Bureau photographer Hector Amezcua has a minute-long audio / visual piece from the CalTrans memorial at the Capitol last week. Click here to see the see a slide show and hear soundbites from the event.

It's a bit of info you probably never thought you'd need, but it's become a near-obsession for some state workers: Exactly when is the deadline each month for submitting payroll changes to the State Controller's Office?

The answer matters because timing is everything when you're dealing with the SCO and payroll, and with all of the furlough lawsuits and SEIU's pending labor contract in the Legislature, state workers' earnings could change quickly.

In general, the larger the number of employees whose payroll data needs to be changed, or the more complex the changes, the more time that the SCO needs to do the work.

For example, the 500 SCIFers in Bargaining Unit 2 impacted by this week's SCIF lawsuit decision need to hope that Judge Peter Busch signs a final ruling by Tuesday so that the SCO has time to make changes to its payroll records in time for the April check run on Wednesday, controller spokeswoman Hallye Jordan told us.

BUT, if the ruling affects all 8,000 workers at SCIF -- and there are questions about the scope of the ruling that still need to be answered -- the SCO will need to know that by the close of business Monday. Jordan said.

"That's assuming we don't need a pay letter from DPA," Jordan said. The SCO doesn't think that's the case with the SCIF matter, since the change restores pay in compliance with a court order.

The calendar plays a key role with the SEIU contract ratification process, too. Changing the pay of 90,000-plus state workers will be a massive undertaking (assuming the Legislature approves AB 964) that would take several days. AB 964 would have needed to approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor today to have a shot getting union members' furlough pay changed this month in accordance with their union MOU.

(By the way, Speaker Karen Bass's office told us Thursday that the bill is scheduled for an Assembly Appropriations hearing next week.)

To see the SCO's payroll calendar for 2009, click this link and scroll down to page 23. Go to the 14th column from the left that says "CUTOFF" at the top. That's the cutoff date for inputting changes to state payroll each month.

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

April 9 The State Worker: Furlough fight enters new phase

Remember, at best, you get what you pay for. What people have not been told is that California is 47th out of the 50 states in the number of state workers per capita. It is a fact. This is from U.S. Federal Labor Bureau statistics. So, when any state-related interaction is unsatisfactory to you, remember you are essentially paying for last-place service.

The blog user is referring to data we mentioned in this October blog post. You can click here to view comment on the data from the Center for Continuing Study of the California Economy.

April 14 Court files: Game warden sues State Personnel Board

Please explain why this particular gem is blog worthy?

We thought highlighting the court filing might spark discussion about state employee suspensions, the role of SPB in disciplining workers and whether the punishment was too severe. Workplace discipline is a topic that interests state workers. This post was one way to approach it.

It is nonsense like this that makes all state employees look so bad to public opinion. I am embarassed.

The state can come off poorly in these sorts of legal actions, too, as was the case in this lawsuit against DPA.

April 15 Information Office establishes new tech project policies

We mentioned that the redundantly titled Office of the Chief Information Officer took acronym use to a new level in recent policy announcements. One is called California Project Management Methodology (CA-PMM). Blog users JIWTOO (Jumped In With Their Own Observations):

Well all is not lost! There ARE items in ITPL-0901 that haven't been converted to acronyms! I don't understand why they don't call CA-PMM "CAP 'EM" (which would stand for California Capital Efficiency Methodology) - Oh yeah, that wouldn't fit their model since stating California Management implies Efficiency in any manner would be a stretch ...

This heavily acronymed post added a link to AAWM (An Announcement We Missed):

Add one more ITPL adding the NASCIO methodology and adopting the FEA as the standard EA. OMG! http://www.cio.ca.gov/Government/IT_Policy/ITPL.html

April 15 CASE wins SCIF furlough lawsuit

The news that CASE had prevailed in its furlough lawsuit prompted some state workers to congratulate the victors:

Congratulations CASE ... I wish I belonged to your union and department.

Others weren't so thrilled:

(M)ust be nice to be in the "ivory tower" and not get furloughed!!! What kind of cr*p is this?!?!!!!

Dummy Arnold and his DPA lackies (sic). Don't they check things out before they make knee jerk decisions? Obviously not.

The post assumes that the various branches and departments in California state government agree on furlough policy. But many state workers know that dissent often happens behind closed doors and then, once a decision is made, it's left to those who must carry it out to do so without complaint.

In what sense was this ruling unexpected? From the Bee's point of view? That's not saying much.

CASE attorney Patrick Whalen told us shortly before we posted the blog item that that he and other lawyers had expected Judge Peter Busch to hear arguments and then rule later. Instead, he ruled from the bench. We should have mentioned that in the post.

This comment lays out many of the issues that SCIF must now hammer out:

Will SCIF now reimburse each employee for the loss of pay? Will they include interest? What about the time? Will they try to force each employee to 'give back' the time by declaring used days as vacation or sick time? (I see a revolt if they even try that one). What about the SEIU employees who have been virtually forced into ratifying a contract that voluntarily takes one day furlough (assuming it passes)? Will they still take the one day? Will the SCIF / SEIU employees still be exempt? Surely they are exempt from the forced furlough, but now it's in their contract?

We asked the Department of Personnel Administration how much it's spent on legal services for the various court battles waged over Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's furlough order and the federal minimum wage battle with Controller John Chiang.

The numbers so far:

$134,504 paid to Kronick, Moskovitz, Tiedeman & Girard for its furlough lawsuit work. As of April 15, DPA had another $45,193 in bills from the firm.

The Gilb v. Chiang case was handled by DPA lawyers, "so no payments to outside counsel for that," administration spokeswoman Lynelle Jolley told us.

And while we're on the topic of furloughs, Jolley said that this section of the state Insurance Code was the basis for the governor's first furlough lawsuit loss:

Notwithstanding any provision of the Government Code or any other provision of law, the positions funded by the State Compensation Insurance Fund are exempt from any hiring freezes and staff cutbacks otherwise required by law.... (Insurance Code section 11873).

San Francisco Superior Court Judge Peter Busch viewed SCIF furloughs as a staff cutback, Jolley said. We'll know more in a few days when the judge issues his written final ruling in the case.

From today's SF Chronicle:

The University of California's huge and once very healthy retirement fund lost a third of its worth in 2008, shedding about $16 billion in value primarily because investments plummeted due to the recession.

That could spell more bad news for many UC employees, who, beginning next year, will have to contribute 2 percent of their salaries to the pension plan. It also spells trouble for the UC system, which in April 2010 will begin contributing 4 percent of its roughly $9 billion payroll to the pension fund and a greater percentage in future years.

You can read reporter Jim Doyle's story by clicking here.

Christiana Dominguez, the CSLEA attorney representing Fish & Game Warden Alan Weingarten in his lawsuit against the State Personnel Board, called and sent us an e-mail about our Wednesday blog post highlighting the case.

With her permission, we present the unedited e-mail here:

Mr. Ortiz,.

My name is Christiana Dominguez and I am Mr. Alan Weingarten's attorney. I was disheartened to see that you've posted information on Mr. Weingarten's pending petition for a writ of administrative mandate against the State Personnel Board and, more specifically as the real party in interest, the California Department of Fish and Game. While I recognize that once these documents are filed they become public records, I would have asked that you gather some more information - or wait until we complete our filings in the case - before posting selected details of the matter on The State Worker blog.

Mr. Weingarten is exercising his right to petition the court for a writ of administrative mandate for precisely the reason, I would suspect, that you chose to highlight the case: SPB's decision was chock full of shocking language that far exceeded the initial action against him and errs in both its finding of facts and conclusions of law.

Among the relevant facts the decision either omits or glosses over:

- The Department of Fish and Game has no policy directing what officers are to do if they contact minors in possession of alcohol. Wardens, unlike most beat cops, lack the same access to appropriate facilities in which to store evidence as they are in the field for most of their work day and work from their homes, which almost always double as their offices.

- The woman he transported that day asked Mr. Weingarten for a ride. He turned her down multiple times. She and her friends had been waived to shore after he observed them littering the local shoreline. The sun was setting. They had no personal floatation devices. They had a drug-store purchased raft unfit for safe voyage and were unlikely to reach the end of their journey with time enough for the woman in question to reach her car before it was locked in a parking lot overnight. After she claimed to have no money, no one to call to pick her and her two male friends up, and as she had no shoes in which to walk back to her car, he felt sorry for her and agreed to transport her to her vehicle.

- The woman filed a complaint many months later after she was facing a $400+ fine for littering along a public waterway. She filed her complaint and out of the three people cited that day she is the only one who got off without paying.

- As is not hard to predict, the woman's recollection of the phone call and Mr. Weingarten's are as different as night and day.

It's very easy, tempting even, to jump to conclusions based on the SPB's decision. Most of the commenters so far have done just that. But it's worth noting that the "details" of the adverse action are, again, the Board's summary (more precisely, the summary of one administrative law judge who apparently adopted an extreme and highly personalized view of my client with little regard for the facts presented at hearing) is different in character and tone from the Department's initial action - which was itself wrong already - and most importantly from the reality of what occurred.

-cd

Christiana Dominguez
Legal Counsel
California Statewide Law Enforcement Association

The Department of Personnel Administration made a boo-boo on the Web page we referenced Wednesday in this blog post.

The DPA site says that, "Related excluded classes employed at the Legislative Analyst's Office and the Bureau of State Audits will not be included in the related excluded classes impacted by this agreement."

The LAO's Jason Dickerson flagged us about the post. Turns out that the DPA summary should have said that Legislative Counsel Bureau's excluded employees aren't part of the group impacted by the tentative SEIU deal. The LAO shouldn't have been mentioned.

We contacted DPA. The summary page will be corrected today, spokeswoman Lynelle Jolley said.

A San Francisco Superior Court judge has ruled that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger shouldn't have furloughed state employees working for the State Compensation Insurance Fund.

The unexpected ruling from the bench by Judge Peter Busch came this morning after about 90 minutes of debate by attorneys for the Schwarzenegger administration and other representing California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment and three SCIF employees.

The lawsuit named Schwarzenegger, DPA Director Dave Gilb, Controller John Chiang and SCIF President Jan Frank. Attorneys for CASE and the employees successfully argued that since SCIF is financially and administratively independent, the furlough order shouldn't have included its 8,000 employees.

Frank submitted a brief that sided with the plaintiffs. In this e-mail to SCIF staff following the decision, Frank said, "This ruling raises a number of questions and we ask for your patience as we sort through the issues."

Department of Personnel spokeswoman Lynelle Jolley said the administration had no comment other than it would review the judge's decision.

UPDATE @ 2:40 p.m. SCIF spokeswoman Jennifer Vargen said that the implications of the ruling still need to be hammered out.

"The issue is extremely complex. At this point we don't know if there's going to be an appeal. There's a pending labor agreement.with SEIU. There are a lot of things to be worked out."

Patrick Whalen, one of the attorneys that represented SCIF legal staff, pointed out that the ruling only directly impacts the 500 state workers at SCIF who are in Bargaining Unit 2.

"The case has logical implications that apply to all SCIF employees," he said. "If I was a secretary and learned that my attorney wasn't going to have furloughs, I'd be asking, 'What about me?'"

Whalen said that the petition wasn't aimed at covering all SCIF employees, but it rests on Insurance Code provisions that apply to SCIF as a whole.

There's also some question whether the judge's final decision will be formally rendered in time for the Controller's Office to adjust its payroll apparatus for April, Whalen said. He thought the deadline is April 19.

We have a call in to the Controller to find out.

DPA has updated its summary of the collective bargaining agreement with SEIU Local 1000. The last item on the page addresses the impact of the contract on "related excluded classes" of state workers (minus managers and supervisors at the LAO and the BSA). We point this out because we've been receiving daily e-mails and phone calls from managers and supervisors wondering what will happen with their furlough schedules when the SEIU labor deal gets through the Legislature:

VI. Impact on Related Excluded Classes

• Related excluded and exempt employees shall be subject to the 1 day per month self-directed furlough and related decrease in take home pay, effective February 1, 2009. They will receive the increased meal and incidental reimbursement rate.


• Excluded and exempt employees will not receive the health care contribution increase.
• Related excluded classes employed at the Legislative Analyst's Office and the Bureau of State Audits will not be included in the related excluded classes impacted by this agreement.

Click here for a PDF download of the summary or click here to go to DPA's Web page (but be warned that the page may change again if the administration needs to revise it).

Buca di Beppo, the Las Vegas-based Italian restaurant chain, is offering a 20 percent discount to state workers through October.

Read the Buca press release with the details by clicking here..

IMAGE: Associated Press file photo / Sacramento Bee

The state bureaucracy's affection for acronyms is on full display in the latest announcement from the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO) about its Information Technology Policy Letters (ITPL) that make changes to the State Administrative Manual (SAM) and the Statewide Information Management Manual (SIMM).

Click here to read the OCIO's LAAIT (Latest Announcement About Information Technology).

Court files 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. (19 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.

34-2009-80000209

Filed: 04/02/2009

Petitioner: Alan Weingarten

Respondent: California State Personnel Board

Real Party in Interest: California Department of Fish and Game

Weingarten's attorneys argue that SPB acted "arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably, and in excess of its jurisdiction," when it upheld the Fish and Game warden's six month suspension.

The reasons for the suspension are summarized (and then explained in greater detail) in an SPB appeal decision from last year that is part of the court record:

Appellant is charged with an inexcusable neglect of duty, unlawful discrimination, discourteous treatment of other employees, and failure of good behavior which caused discredit to the appointing power for broadcasting a profane, discriminatory, and insulting comment over the Respondent's radio network about a female coworker, while he was engaged in an enforcement action, on September 9, 2006.

Appellant is also charged with unlawful discrimination, discourteous treatment of others, inexcusable neglect of duty, and failure of good behavior bringing discredit upon the appointing power for an incident on June 24, 2006. In that incident he left alcohol in the possession of minors, and transported a female minor who had been drinking alcohol to her vehicle and let her drive off without giving her a sobriety test. He did not notify dispatch that he was making the transport, did not include in his daily activity report that
he had made the transport, and, while making the transport, engaged in a mobile telephone conversation (loud enough for the female minor to hear) with a coworker in
which he told the coworker that he had a very pretty young woman who was wearing
nothing but a hot pink bikini in his truck with him. He then gave her the telephone and told her to talk to his coworker.

Weingarten's attorneys claim that SPB

... abused its discretion by imposing and sustaining such a severe and unconscionable punishment based upon Petitioner's conduct. ... abused its discretion because the proposed decision is not supported by the findings. ... abused its discretion in that Respondent has not proceeded in a manner required by law. ... has acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and unreasonably, and in excess of its jurisdiction and its conduct is not supported by fair and substantial reasons.

What does Weingarten want?

1. That a peremptory writ of mandate issue setting aside and vacating the BOARD'S decision and remanding the matter to the BOARD for the imposition of a penalty consistent with the weight of the evidence;
2. For reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to Government Code section 800;
3. For costs of suit incurred herein;
4. For such other and further relief the court deems just and proper.

The first four pages of the filing lay out Weingarten's petition to the court. The SPB decision on appealand details of the adverse action against Weingarten start at page 5. The last two pages document SPB's denial of Weingarten's rehearing request.

Was Weingarten's six-month suspension too severe?

Capitol Bureau colleague Kevin Yamamura has this story about the opposition building against Prop 1A, including the 700,000-member Service Employees International Union's California State Council.

What makes the council's position of interest to state workers, of course, is that the measure's defeat would spark more fiscal chaos for state government. And that could mean tougher talks at the bargaining table for state worker unions without a deal after the May 19 special election and, quite possibly, deeper cuts to state government jobs.

Kevin writes, "SEIU Local 1000, which represents 95,000 state employees, declined to comment. The state council is an SEIU umbrella organization that handles statewide political issues."

By contrast, last month American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees 2620, which represents about 5,000 state workers endorsed Prop 1A even though AFSCME international opposed it. We reported that split in this State Worker blog post.

What do you make of Local 1000's no comment?

Assemblyman Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena, has posted this video of his testimony for AB 53, a bill that would freeze pay raises and overtime for many state employees earning over $150,000 per year.

State Compensation Insurance Fund President Jan Frank has filed a brief in San Francisco Superior Court that argues that a judge there should hear arguments in the CASE / SCIF furlough lawsuit against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Many readers of this blog have criticized Frank for going along with furloughs for SCIF employees, since the agency receives no money from the General Fund and is run by an independent board. Her attorney, Ronald B. Turovsky, sums up Frank's reasoning in this paragraph:

The issues raised in this matter have not been addressed on the merits in any forum. Frank believes that it is imperative that they be resolved on the merits -- for the benefit of all parties. Frank also believes that the issues should be resolved on the merits as quickly as possible. With this in mind, Frank requests that this Court take into consideration which court is best positioned to resolve the matter on the merits and which court can do so most expeditiously.

The lawsuit contends that Schwarzenegger's furlough order shouldn't include SCIF employees. Along with Schwarzenegger, it names Frank, DPA Director Dave Gilb and Controller John Chiang as defendants.

You can view the 7-page court filing by clicking this link.

IMAGE: Jan Frank / scif.com

California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment (AKA CASE) and three State Compensation Insurance Fund employees have filed their argument that a San Francisco Superior Court Judge should hear their furlough lawsuit.

Whether Judge Peter Busch will hear the case against Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger rests on which side wins the "exclusive concurrent jurisdiction" argument. California law says that when two superior courts have jurisdiction over a matter and the parties are the same, that the first court to assume jurisdiction has "dibs" on subsequent related matters.

Schwarzenegger's legal team earlier this month filed its argument that the lawsuit belongs in Sacramento.

You can read the 10-page CASE rebuttal filing by clicking here.

The California Association of Psychiatric Technicians on Friday sent a contract negotiation update to its members. This summarizes what representatives are reporting from the bargaining table:

The state's offered our team a one-day furlough reduction, but no help on healthcare costs or on holiday and overtime cuts. The state's given these items to other groups, and we say Psych Techs deserve the same treatment.

You can read the CAPT report in this e-mailed flier to its members.

As we read the flier, and thought about what Bee Cap Bureau colleague Dan Walters' Sunday column, a few questions came to mind:

Are unions better off reaching a deal before the May 19 special election? If measures 1A through 1F fail, might the administration feel it has less negotiating wiggle room?

What will be the effective date of contracts from here on out? If a deal is negotiated in April but isn't ratified until May and OK'd by lawmakers in June, will the union get the same retroactive consideration given SEIU Local 1000? Would the provisions be applied backward to the month of the agreement?

Why is the administration holding back on a full Local 1000-type deal for CAPT?

IMAGE: Dan Walters / sacbee.com

Department of Parks and Recreation worker Jennifer Draa this morning got the keys to the $250,000 house in Lincoln that she won in a drawing. (The house comes with a $96,000 tax bill, she says.)

Read the story by Bee business reporter (and Home Front blogger) Jim Wasserman by clicking here.

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

April 8 Read Schwarzenegger team's argument in CASE / SCIF lawsuit

Quit bifurcating and create one state worker union. This will put the power in the members' hands again. ... I think we are being misrepresented and treated unequally. We are all public servants and deserve a unified representation.

Many state workers see it exactly the opposite. Just ask Peace Officers of California (wants to dump CSLEA), Environmental & Transportation Professionals in California Government (wants to leave SEIU), or folks leading the Local 1000 decertification push in Bargaining Unit 21.

April 8 More from constitutional offices about furlough policy

The povernator (sic) isn't furloughing state peace officers (CHP), he's furloughing the pathetic prison guards (CCPOA) who's (sic) union has given unions a bad name by turning their bargaining strength into strong arm tactics not unlike the Mafia ...

CAHP, which represents the state's Highway Patrol Officers, has a five-year contract that doesn't expire until next year. Furloughing them would require reopening the contract. CCPOA doesn't have a contract.

April 9 From the notebook: Constitutional furlough fight edition

So what happens when the SEIU contract gets signed by the Governor? The SCO's employees haven't been taking their furloughs and will owe the State at least six days (2 in Feb., 2 in Mar., 2 in Apl) and if the Governor doesn't sign the contract until AFTER May 19th, which I suspect he won't, they will owe another 2 days. That's over a week of furlough pay that needs to be paid in order to bring them in line with the rest of SEIU members who have been furloughing since February. The SCO and other constitutionals are hurting, not helping their employees by holding out on implementing the furloughs.

We've heard that some constitutional offices are considering a plan that would extend once-a-month furloughs past the June 2010 date to satisfy the SEIU contract's call for employee pay to be reduced the equivalent of 17 days in 17 months. And the Schwarzenegger administration has said that SEIU-covered workers who haven't taken a furlough day yet could catch up by taking two per month.

... one must ask "what was SEIU thinking?" Look, the legality of the furlough is in question. You have fighting within State service about whether to implement them and YOUR UNION that YOU pay 1.5% of your salary to represent YOU makes a deal with Arnold to cut your pay! Huh?

... Why isn't SEIU fighting the furlough?

One of the ironies in this unfolding drama has been SEIU's acceptance of a contract that includes a furlough day while at the same time pressing a court case that the governor's furlough is illegal. Shortly after Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette ruled that the governor's emergency powers include furloughs, the union settled. We took those two events in tandem as a measure of the union's assessment of the likelihood of winning the furlough fight on appeal.

We'll report back on what SEIU has to say about its furlough lawsuit, now with the 3rd District Court of Appeals.

April 9 Billwatch: Read the latest analysis of the SEIU Local 1000 contract

This post elicited two distinctly different takes on state employee overtime changes:

theprovision (sic) mentioned in this article is part of a bill (SBX3 8) which states that one does count any leave in computing overtime. This is a common sense approach as it really matches federal law in regards to overtime pay. Overtime should be based on hours worked. It is not appropriate for someone to call in sick during the work week or take a vacation day then come back to work and either cover a shift or work additional hours and assume that a person will get paid overtiime because one is claiming leave credits. Getting state costs down will benefit both the employees and the tax payer in the long run.

This is not what my contract reads. There for (sic) it means nothing to me ...

I would have to say it looks like breach of an employee contract to me. All you State employee bloggers read your contract, and let me no where it says you no longer get compensated for overtime and holiday pay if you use other time. This is one of the reasons I have always been on annual leave just for this very reason.The GAS has an approval rating lower than the BUSHY it might be time for TOTAL RECALL!

For the record, President George W. Bush's approval ratings fell below 30 percent toward the end of his administration, depending on the poll. Schwarzenegger's approval rating in March was 32 percent.

April 9 The State Worker: Furlough fight enters new phase

SEIU will claim they protected you all from layoffs and THAT was why they signed a contract that casts in stone that you will be subject to furlough. Meanwhile, for 15,000 of you anyway, your employer is still fighting the furlough.

WHAT... The Union agreed to the furlough but the employer is still fighting the furlough ... Anybody else see the irony here???

People, you are all missing the fact that when a contract is expired the employees can decertify the incumbent Union!! Within days of Unit 21 filing a valid petition SEIU settled for this garbage contract by agreeing to all Arnold really wanted in the first place, a one day furlough. The 2-day demand was cooked up while at the SEIU table to it could look like SEIU saved the day by agreeing to JUST 1 DAY. What a victory!!

BTW just how many layoffs has that SEIU job prevented exactly? Haven't heard of any layoffs... BECAUSE THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY!!!

We'll skip commenting on the speculation that the BU 21 severance move prodded Local 1000 to accept a contract with concessions. As to layoffs, the SROA notices are still in effect and layoff plans are very much alive, the Schwarzenegger administration has told us. The process takes at least 120 days from the date the layoff warnings go out.

The administration sent out 20,000 warnings on Feb. 17. The 120th day from that date is June 17.

The Schwarzenegger administration has rolled out an RSS feed for its Recovery Act Task Force Web site. Find the feeder by clicking here.

Why should state workers care? Well, the Web site will track federal money flowing into California government programs from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. State officials expect California will get $50 billion of the $787 billion ARRA will dole out in the next 18 months.

The governor on Thursday applied for about $5 billion of that moolah for state education programs. (The photo at left was taken during the press event marking the signing of the application).

IMAGE: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger takes a question during the ARRA application signing in his office on Thursday. CREDIT: Sacramento Bee, Hector Amezcua

The bill that approves the labor agreement between the Schwarzenegger administration and SEIU Local 1000 has some new analysis attached, including a section on overtime.

Note: The analysis states that the information about the agreement -- including its overtime provisions -- "was provided by DPA."

Overtime

The tentative agreement, dated February 13, 2009, exempts sick leave from being counted in the computation for overtime. In addition, the contract also explicitly states that should the Legislature enact any provision allowing the State to exclude leave from the computation of overtime, that provision, to the extent that it be in conflict with the MOU, would be controlling over and immediately supersede the provisions of the MOU without further action.

The Legislature subsequently enacted, and the Governor signed, SBX3 8 (Ducheny), Chapter 4, Statutes of 2009, which excludes all leave from being counted as time worked for the purpose of computing overtime.

Therefore, no leave may be used in computing overtime. For example, if an employee is required to work for 40 hours in a week before earning overtime, he or she must actually work 40 hours on the job before earning premium pay for overtime. Time spent on leave for sick leave, vacation, or any other type of leave may not be counted in the 40 hours of work needed to begin accruing overtime.

You can read the entire analysis by clicking this link.

Thanks to blog user JB for alerting us to the analysis.

Our State Worker column in today's fiber and cyber Bee highlights the next round of constitutional court fighting that's coming soon.

Here are a few notes from a telephone interview with Tom Dresslar, spokesman for Treasurer Bill Lockyer that helped inform what we wrote:

On furlough policy since Judge Patrick Marlette's ruling: We're status quo here. The Superior Court didn't officially enter its judgment until Friday. We're going to be appealing. As soon as we file that appeal, the court order will be stayed unless the administration gets some sort of extraordinary relief. Obviously we believe the Superior Court got it wrong. We're confident that we'll prevail on appeal.

On the pending SEIU Local 1000 agreement: On the legislative front, we've always said that we would implement a collectively bargained agreement. The Legislature still hasn't passed the agreement. We're still waiting for that.

On how the nearly 5 percent cut to the department's staffing budget will affect employees starting July 1: It's too early to share publicly how we would implement the budget cut.

On Schwarzenegger's relationship with his constitutional officer peers: The governor needs a constitutional amendment to force furloughs down the throats of constitutional officers. He's made it clear in the past that he views us as pests that get in the way of his agenda. If he wants to completely subjugate independently elected constitutional officers to his will, he'll need to convince the people of California to go along.

Controller John Chiang's office sent us an e-mail that went to SCO staff during the Wednesday lunch hour. In it, Chiang addresses the constitutional furlough fight that we wrote about in today's State Worker column.

He also talks about what will happen once lawmakers pass the SEIU Local 1000 deal:

Consistent with my position that every Californian must contribute to restoring the well-being of the State's financial health and because I feel strongly that there should not be a double standard - one for an organization's leaders and another for its workforce - my senior staff and I will also take one furlough day per month and reduce our respective salaries by a 4.6% upon ratification of the SEIU contract by the Legislature.

Click here to read the rest of the e-mail to SCO workers.

IMAGE: Chiang / sacbee.com, 2008

Our inquiries to the seven constitutional offices and the BOE about their furlough policy have yielded more responses. We told you yesterday that Attorney General Jerry Brown's deputy told DOJ employees they won't be furloughed this month. Now here's what ...

Public Instruction Superintendent spokeswoman Tina Woo Jung said: "We're in a holding pattern." No furloughs at the moment.

BOE spokeswoman Anita Gore said that with more litigation pending and SEIU's contract not yet approved by lawmakers, "there's no resolution to this issue." In other words, BOE has not furloughed its people yet.

Attorneys representing Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration have filed briefs in San Francisco Superior Court in a bid to get a pending furlough lawsuit thrown out.

As we previously reported, California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment and SCIF employees Glen Grossman, Mark Henderson and Geoffrey Sims contend that Schwarzenegger's furlough order shouldn't include workers at the quasi-public agency.

Whether Judge Peter Busch will hear the case rests on which side wins the "exclusive concurrent jurisdiction" argument. California law says that when two superior courts have jurisdiction over a matter and the parties are the same, that the first court to assume jurisdiction has "dibbs" on subsequent related matters.

Schwarzenegger's attorneys argue that exclusive concurrent jurisdiction applies here because Sacramento Superior Court has already heard other furlough lawsuits. CASE will argue in a reply brief, due Thursday, why the case is different and should be heard in San Francisco.

Bush has scheduled oral arguments for April 15.

Here are the latest San Francisco Superior Court filings from Schwarzenegger's side:

Click here for the administration's main brief.

This link opens to a filing of out-of-state cases that support Schwarzenegger's position.

And Schwarzenegger attorney David Tyra gives his account of furlough litigation handled by Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette. Read that document by clicking here.

IMAGE: ct.gov

The state Board of Equalization has won a national award for a program that gives free legal assistance to qualifying taxpayers.

The Federation of Tax Administrators recognized the BOE with the 2009 Leon Rothenberg Award for Taxpayer Service and Education.

Click here to read a press release about the BOE honor.

Chief Deputy Attorney General James Humes this morning sent this e-mail to all Department of Justice employees, explaining the DOJ's position on employee furloughs. After receiving it from a DOJ employee, we confirmed its authenticity with department Communications Director Scott Gerber.

>>> James Humes 4/7/2009 10:05 AM >>>

Colleagues: Many of you have been wondering whether DOJ employees will be
furloughed in April. Unfortunately, the answer is still uncertain because
things remain unresolved in the courts and the Legislature. But here's what
we know so far:

- Last Friday, the Superior Court finally entered a judgment in the lawsuit
filed by the Governor against the constitutional officers. Attorney General
Brown and the other constitutional officers will appeal this judgment in the
next couple of days. Filing the appeal will postpone the judgment's
effective date (meaning that no DOJ employee will be involuntarily
furloughed) unless the Governor obtains a special Court of Appeal order
requiring immediate implementation of the furloughs. Without such an order,
no one in the DOJ will be involuntarily furloughed and full pay checks will
be distributed at the end of the month.

- The Legislature has not yet ratified the SEIU contract. Until it does,
the terms of the proposed SEIU contract, which include a one-day-a-month
voluntary furlough, remain inapplicable. This means that SEIU employees
here in the DOJ will not be furloughed until the SEIU contract is ratified
or the Court of Appeal orders our employees to be furloughed.

- The Controller has stated that he cannot and will not reduce employees'
paychecks at the end of the month unless he is directed to do so (by court
order or by the Legislature's ratification of a bargaining contract) by the
middle of the month. Thus, unless the Court of Appeal orders furloughs to
be implemented or the Legislature ratifies the SEIU contract by April 15, no
DOJ employee will be furloughed in April and employees' will receive a full
paycheck at the end of the month.

Thank you again for your patience and positive attitudes as we continue to
resist involuntary furloughs. I know that the uncertainty surrounding these
furloughs is frustrating and distracting, but I will continue to pass on
relevant updates as we learn of them. Jim

Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette has issued his final ruling on constitutional officer furloughs. It affirms his Mar. 12 tentative ruling that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's furlough order applies to employees working under constitutional officers.

You can view the 6-page document here. And this link will take you to Marlette's order that Controller John Chiang apply Schwarzenegger's furlough order to SCO employees, those working for other constitutional officers and the BOE.

Despite Marlette's ruling, state workers continue to e-mail us with questions about whether employees in constitutionally independent departments will be furloughed. DPA spokeswoman Lynelle Jolley last week said the administration didn't know what the constitutionals are doing.

As promised, we've contacted folks who speak for State Controller John Chiang, Attorney General Jerry Brown, Secretary of State Debra Bowen, Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner, Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Lt. Gov. John Garamendi and the BOE.

While we're waiting to hear back from everyone, we thought it would be interesting to see how the number of union-represented employees stack up in each department, since SEIU Local 1000 workers have a one-day-per-month furlough provision in the contract now awaiting legislative action and the governor's signature.

What follows is a tally, by constitutional office and union representation, according to the Schwarzenegger administration's Mar. 9 court filing in the constitutional furlough lawsuit:

State Controller
SEIU - 916
CASE - 4
Total - 920

Attorney General
SEIU - 2,186
PECG - 2
CASE - 954
CAPS - 9
Total - 3,151

Secretary of State
SEIU - 374
CASE - 15
Total - 389

State Treasurer
SEIU - 153
CASE - 2
Total - 155

Superintendent of Public Instruction
SEIU - 2,199
PECG - 2
CASE - 14
Total - 2,215

Insurance Commissioner
SEIU - 685
CASE - 75
Total - 760

BOE
SEIU - 3,440
PECG - 1
CASE - 65
Total - 3,506

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

Mar. 27 Read the latest CalPERS memo on furlough policy

My question is how long is it going to take to get the (SEIU Local 1000) contract signed by the legislature and Governor?

The Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security last week passed AB 964, the bill that appropriates money for the SEIU Local 1000 contract. It's now with Assembly Appropriations and has yet to be assigned a hearing date. As for when the legislation will make it to the governor's desk, it's tough to say. The Legislature's recess this week certainly doesn't speed things up.

Mar. 27 Psych techs file premium pay grievance

This post launched a discussion among blog users about the binding nature of employment contracts:

If contracts are binding for AIG bonus's then contracts are binding in labor agreements. Or is it only "certain" contracts that we abide by these days?

The time has come to dissolve all these lucrative labor contracts, and start outsourcing work to competitive bidding. The comparison below to the AIG bonus contracts works, in that these union contracts were driven by the same underlying greed, and the costs fall squarely on the back of the tax payers.

Comparing AIG (Arrogance,Incompetence,Greed) contracts to state workers contacts is not the same thing at all. AIG contacts were for bonuses for millions of dollars.How much do most of the state workers make?

CAPT is arguing that the "evergreen" language in its expired contract means the old terms governing overtime accrual remain effective until a new deal is in place. The question is whether the bill passed by the Legislature and signed by the governor that changes overtime rules trumps that evergreen language. We'll see what the Public Employment Relations Board thinks of CAPT's unfair practice charge.

On a related note, New York Times reporters Mary Williams Walsh and Jonathan Glater recently noted that, "Contracts everywhere are under assault."

The depth of the recession and the use of taxpayer dollars to bail out companies have made it politically acceptable for overseers to tinker with employment agreements.

So federal and local governments are looking for ways to pare payouts, endangering the promises made before the financial storm to people like Wall Street traders, automobile workers and garbage collectors.

"We run roughshod over some contracts and not over others," said David A. Skeel, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania, about economic downturns. "Right now, employment contracts seem to be the type of contract that is viewed as eminently rewritable."

Read the rest of the Times piece by clicking here. Should state employment contracts be added to the list?

Mar. 29 Commission recommends IT consolidation; check out the report

Blog users last week criticized Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's plan to consolidate the state's IT with the State Office of the Chief Information Officer:

Until the DGS contracting methods are revised, this won't make any difference. It will definitely add indeterminant delays to getting goods and services for various agencies. Right now it already takes 3-6 months to get a needed piece of software. After this it will probably take a year. But on the positive side, when things go wrong, there will be (fewer) suspects to point fingers at.

On the one hand, this centralization will give us fewer rocks to look under for potential IT malfeasance but on the other hand, it also gives the money-men few places to expend their cover-up dollars.

April 3 Your April furlough update

You mention additonal lawsuits. Will any of these be heard by someone other than Arnold's puppet Marionette? If not, why waste any more time with judge rubber stamp?

A lawsuit aimed at excluding State Compensation Insurance Fund employees is in San Francisco Superior Court. CCPOA has a case pending in Alameda Superior Court. And several unions have appealed Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette's January decision in favor of Schwarzenegger's emergency furlough power. The case is now with the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Sacramento.

I find it interesting that there has (sic) been no articles written in the bee (sic) on how state employees contracts have been ignored and stepped on by DPA, the Legislature and Gas, and so far there has (sic) been no repercussions to either of them.

There are legitimate questions about the terms under which state employees are now working that must be settled by the courts. We have reported those issues in the vast majority of nearly 60 State Worker blog posts touching on legal matters. We've written more than 50 stories or columns in the last year that looked at various aspects of Schwarzenegger's furloughs, layoff warnings and order to cut state worker pay to the federal minimum wage.

As to whether the administration has illegally "ignored" or "stepped on" state worker contracts, the courts haven't seen it that way so far -- and we've reported that as well.

April 4 Managers, supervisors can take furlough time by the hour

Here's a conspiracy theory that we'd not heard:

Arnie never wanted more than 1 day of furlough. The whole 2 day furlough idea was cooked up by SEIU. Notice the 2 day furlough came up while SEIU was at the table during their marathon bargaining session in which they tire their team out over a period of days with no sleep until they will agree to anything? That way SEIU can"save you" by letting you choose the lesser of two evils, now they prancing about claiming victory. VICTORY, imagine that! The biggest take-away contract in State history and SEIU is claiming victory??!!

Mark my words. As soon as this de-certification election that is being run against SEIU is over (early next month), Arnold will give everybody the 1-day furlough. Then YOU tell ME if you think SEIU is a crooked Union!

So noted.

IMAGES: Assembly seal / www.assembly.ca.gov; PERB seal / www.perb.ca.gov; gavel / www.yolo.courts.ca.gov

With budget dollars so tight these days, California State Parks is reaching out for private donations to reforest public areas ravaged by fires in the last six years. "Join the Million Tree Challenge" aims to plant trees on about 1,800 acres of devastated land in Cuyamaca Rancho State Park near San Diego and Chino Hills State Park in San Bernardino County.

The campaign is accepting online donations at www.reforestcalifornia.com. The Web site also has tons of information about trees and the environment, how to volunteer for tree plantings and clean up events and an explanation of where donated money goes.

The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of Southern California and Stater Bros. Supermarkets, a SoCal grocery chain, also are sponsoring the effort.

Click here to read the State Parks' press release and click on this link for a Q&A sheet with details about the reforesting effort.

Board of Equalization Director Ramon J. Hirsig sent this e-mail Friday afternoon to all employees at the BOE's 450 N St. headquarters:

From: Executive Director

Sent: Friday, April 03, 2009 3:20 PM
To: +All HQ Employees
Subject: Building Update - April 3, 2009

Employees from the 8th and 9th floors who have been displaced due to the water event of March 22, 2009, will be returning to their normal work stations beginning Monday, April 6. DGS tells us the 8th floor will be ready for reoccupation on Monday. The 9th floor is scheduled to reopen to employees on Tuesday, April 7. Hygiene Tech, our consultant hygienist, has given verbal notice that the most recent test results on both floors have come back and are "unremarkable". ("Unremarkable" data means the levels of mold spores found indoors are not above and beyond what is or expected to be found outdoors, which is used as the background or control data for comparison purposes). Written reports will be posted to the Building Assessment web page when they become available.

Regarding the northwest stairwell, please take note of any signs that may be posted. The stairwell will be reopened for all purposes once DGS has completed their work.

As always, I thank you for your continued patience.

IMAGE: BOE headquarters / sacbee.com, 2005

The Star-Ledger of New Jersey ran an interesting piece on Friday that makes several points about furloughs, including how some businesses are using the economic downturn as an excuse to impose unpaid days off:

... Sneaky, copy-cat employers, using the recession for cover, are cutting workers' hours and slashing their pay, even if it won't make or break the bottom line, experts say.

In other words, they furlough because they can.

... According to a survey by Watson Wyatt Worldwide Inc., a global consulting firm, 11 percent of U.S. companies have implemented mandatory furloughs and another 10 percent have asked employees to voluntarily take unpaid time off. New Jersey businesses, small and large, are asking -- or commanding -- employees to take days or weeks off without pay.

... It's happening across the nation, in private and public sectors. California state workers are taking an additional two days off per month. Atlanta's city hall is closed on Fridays. Some factories are suspending production for a week.

In this sleepless economy, furloughs have become so widely accepted that non-union workers, fearing layoffs, accept the unpaid time off, few questions asked.

We read that last sentence and wondered, with most unions in contract talks with Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration, does that apply to many of California's state workers too?

IMAGE: Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger / Randall Benton, sacbee.com

Bids for the restarted 21st Century Project at the State Controller's Office are due tomorrow by noon.

The on-again, off-again, on-again project has been kicked around for many years by controllers who said that the state's employee payroll system needs modernization. Kathleen Connell failed twice, the first time because of projected cost overruns. A budget crisis prompted the Legislature to nix her second attempt.

The project came back to life three years ago under Connell's successor, Steve Wesley, with a $69 million contract to BearingPoint Inc. of McLean, Va., after three other bidders pulled out of the running.

Then Controller John Chiang canceled the contract in January. By then the state had paid BearingPoint $25 million for work performed before the controller ended the deal, citing missed work deadlines and other problems.

Now it's back. You can look at the BidSync Request For Proposal page by clicking here. (The site requires registration to go more deeply into the RFP.) Or see the entire 130-page RFP by Clicking here.

The Association of California State Supervisors reports on its blog that DPA has agreed to let excluded employees use their furlough time by the hour. The blog post also makes a parenthetical reference that ACSS expects to get the 2-day-per-month furloughs "reduced."

You can read the ACSS blog report by clicking here.

Last week The Bee gave us time to learn a bit about Web video. We used the opportunity to spend some time with the California Highway Patrol's Mounted Division, the five horses and six riders whose duties include securing Capitol Park. We narrated and Bee Capitol Bureau colleague Alan Laguardia shot and edited the footage. It's about 3 minutes long.

We've fielded quite a few e-mails this week asking for the latest news on the furlough front. Here's where things stand:

If your union doesn't have a current contract that has been passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, you're on his two-day-per-month furlough plan.

Right now that means if you work full time (except CHP officers and a few other exempted groups) plan on an April paycheck that will reflect 16 hours of unpaid time off, just like your March paycheck.

That includes SEIU Local 1000 workers. Although the rank-and-file recently ratified a deal that includes one furlough day per month instead of the governor's mandated two, the bill that funds the contract still needs approval by the Legislature and the governor. The bill, AB 964, was heard in committee for the first time this week.

No one knows how long it will take for lawmakers to get the measure to Schwarzenegger, but he would need to sign it by the middle of the month to give the Controller's Office time reset the payroll system for SEIU-covered workers. Since lawmakers are off next week, it's hard to imagine the legislation getting to Schwarzenegger's desk in time to accommodate the controller.

Once the governor signs AB 964, the SEIU contract's furlough terms would go back to February. If you're covered by the SEIU contract and racked up, say, six furlough days (two each for February, March and April), you could work three months (May, June and July) with no furlough days and receive full pay. After that, you would start taking off one unpaid day each month, DPA tells us.

But remember: Furlough days off are scheduled just like vacation days; it's up to you and your manager/supervisor to figure out a mutually agreeable time for you to be off work.

If you're not covered by the SEIU contract, you're taking two furlough days off this month, period. Even if your union works out an SEIU-type deal tomorrow, it's highly unlikely that a contract could be negotiated, ratified by members, passed by the Legislature and get to the governor's desk this month.

And now that the courts have affirmed the governor's power to mandate furloughs, several unions, including CAPS and CASE report that the administration hasn't offered a monthly one-day furlough during recent contract talks.

Managers? Supervisors? You're on your own. The Association of California State Supervisors hasn't had any luck getting furlough days cut down for exempt employees.

What if you work for constitutional officers or the BOE? Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette has ruled that you're subject to the governor's furlough.

That means that you have to make up any furlough days missed in February and March. The administration's position is that constitutional officers and the BOE should now be furloughing their employees. "But are (the constitutionals) furloughing?" DPA's Lynelle Jolley asked rhetorically during a Thursday telephone conversation with The State Worker. "We don't know."

We'll ask around and report what we find out.

Some state workers won't be taking time off for the furlough because their jobs don't allow it. In such instances, the unused hours away from work can be banked. You'll still see your pay trimmed as though you took the time off because the state calculates the hours off as they accrue each month, not when they're used.

Be sure to check DPA's furlough Q&A Web site for more information.

Legal action: That policy led CCPOA to file a lawsuit contending that their members are taking the pay hit but will never get their time off. Several unions are trying to stop the furloughs. SEIU, PECG, CAPS and CASE all have litigation in the courts. CASE is next up with a hearing set for April 15 in San Francisco Superior Court. Some unions have also filed furlough grievances with PERB.

The Assembly Committee on Public Employees, Retirement and Social Security on Wednesday passed AB 964, which appropriates funds for the SEIU Local 1000 contract.

It's now with the Assembly Appropriations Committee. No date set yet for that hearing, but you can check this link regularly to track where the bill has been, where it's going and when it's going there.

And when will the bill wind through the Legislature and get to the governor's desk for his signature? No one knows. Elected state workers tend to work at their own pace. And they're off next week, "which will slow it down a bit," DPA spokeswoman Lynelle Jolley told us.

The Schwarzenegger administration has fired up a new Web site, www.reportingtransparency.ca.gov, that links to economic interest statements and travel expense forms filled out by officials in the governor's office, all agency secretaries and undersecretaries and all department directors.

Schwarzenegger ordered the the forms posted online starting this month after reports surfaced that top administration officials may have abused their expense accounts and, in one instance, took tens of thousands of dollars in speaking fees in defiance of administration policy and possibly state law.

You can read the governor's press release about the new Web site by clicking here.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's furloughs include about 1,400 state employees who process disability claims at the Department of Social Services -- and it's costing the state millions of dollars in federal money, according to a report by Mike Zapler in the San Jose Mercury News:

Sending those employees home one day a month means the state will forgo about $10 million -- or 5 percent of the agency's $210 million annual budget -- from Washington, without saving state government any money. Meanwhile, it's taking the agency longer to process claims, delaying disability benefits at a time when such requests are soaring.

"There really is no reason to do this, it's a no-brainer," said Pete Spencer, the regional commissioner for the U.S. Social Security Administration, which oversees the disability claims program. "If the governor is saying he wants to take all the money the federal government is offering, this is one area he's not doing it."

Spencer wrote to the governor twice since November to explain the problem, and early last month received from Schwarzenegger what appeared to be a form letter in response.

"To solve a budget crisis that reached monumental proportions, I was forced to make some tough choices, including furloughing state employees," the governor wrote. The letter did not acknowledge that furloughing the disability agency's workers would not shave state expenses because all its costs are paid by the federal government.

Read the Zapler piece here.

BOE spokeswoman Anita Gore last night sent us this update in the soggy saga of the Board of Equalization HQ in Sacramento:

All 275 employees affected by the closure of the 8th and 9th floors of the 450 N Street Board of Equalization Headquarters Building, who are scheduled to work tomorrow, Thursday, April 2, will be back at work in alternate locations. All but 40 employees had already been called back to work.

The 8th and 9th floors remain closed. Information from the building's owner, Department of General Services, is that these floors should be repaired and ready to reoccupy next week. BOE's consultant hygienist will conduct testing and analyze the test results before employees are returned to their regular work areas.

A water event on March 22 caused flooding that lead to the closure of the 8th and 9th floors and the discovery of mold within the walls in locations on several floors of the building.

IMAGE: BOE headquarters / sacbee.com, 2005

The Secretary of State's office has processed California Public Emloyees Retirement System records as part of the government's archives. The information, some of it restricted to protect privacy, is now better organized and easier to search, according to this press release from Secretary of State Debra Bowen's office.

The Online Archive of California says this about the collection:

The record group consists of 15.5 cubic feet of textual records from the California Public Employee Retirement System covering the years 1899 to 1991 with the bulk of the records covering the 1950s to the 1990s. Memorandums, correspondence, and reports form the bulk of the material and demonstrate the PERS administration forming policy and making investment decisions.

Click here to see a brief history of the state's employee retirement system, specifics about how the archives are organized, what various files contain and contact information

Assemblyman Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, introduced a resolution on Tuesday that encourages Congress to repeal two Social Security laws that keep second-career civil service workers from collecting Social Security when they retire or when a spouse dies.

AJR 10 would support Rep. Howard Berman of North Hollywood, who has introduced House Resolution 235 and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who has introduced Senate Resolution 484, at the federal level to eliminate the public servant penalty.

Read the Torlakson release here.