California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment has filed its reply to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's argument that employees paid with money outside of the general fund should be furloughed and that the policy hasn't hurt government services. For those who want to view the matter on our Furlough Fight Timeline, it's (11) CASE v. Schwarzenegger, others, case no. RG09-453982.
CASE argues that the governor's position that furloughs haven't had a significant impact on operations at specially-funded agencies is backed by a series of "conclusory and incompetent" declarations by various government officials.
Read more about this key furlough lawsuit by clicking the following link.
From CASE's court filing:
But even as to the eight agencies from whom they have procured declarations, the declarations fail to demonstrate that operations have not been impacted. The declarations in question state the following:
"The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board's quality measures have continuously met federal standards for eighteen consecutive quarters." (Decl. Alberto Roldan.)
"Since the Implementation of furloughs, the Department of General Services Office of Administrative Hearings continues to fulfill its stated mission." (Decl. Noah Valadez.)
"Since the implementation of furloughs, the Division of Workers' Compensation has not experienced a significant impediment to fulfilling its stated mission." (Decl. Destie Overpeck.)
"Since the implementation of furloughs, the Department of Toxic Substances Control continues to carry out its stated mission." (Decl. Vicki Vandergriff.)
"Since the implementation of furloughs, the Department of General Services continues to carry out its stated mission." (Decl. Jose Aguirre.)
"Since the implementation of furloughs, the Department of Social Services has continued to meet its obligations to the general public and the State of California." (Decl. Richard Burton.)
"Since the implementation of furloughs, the Department of Industrial Relations has not experienced a significant impediment to fulfilling its stated mission." (Decl.Ann Rose.)
All of these declarations are conclusory and incompetent. None of the declarations provide any factual data to support the opinion and Petitioner therefore objects to the foregoing portions of the declarations as inadmissible evidence ... It is settled that if any opinion is not based upon facts otherwise proved, it will not support a finding for the proposition for which it is offered.
The CASE filing is enormous -- about 1,000 pages -- and well beyond our blog software's capacity to download it. Most of the pages are questions that union attorney Patrick Whalen submitted to most of the 60 or so defendants named in the lawsuit. Most of the questions went unanswered, however some questions about Bargaining Unit 2 overtime, retired annuitant hirings and some other questions did receive answers.
Whalen summarizes that information in the first 14 pages of his supplemental declaration. Here's how to find that section:
- Click here to go to the Alameda County Superior Court Web site,
- Enter RG09453982 in the search field.
- Click on "Register of Actions" on the right side of the page.
- Scroll down to the Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Reply filed on Nov. 9.
- Click either the Java or TIFF format for your download.
- Look for file no. 16273740. Whalen's summary of the interrogatory responses starts there.
The Author
About Comments
Reader comments on Sacbee.com are the opinions of the writer, not The Sacramento Bee. If you see an objectionable comment, click the "report abuse" button below it. We will delete comments containing inappropriate links, obscenities, hate speech, and personal attacks. Flagrant or repeat violators will be banned. See more about comments here.