The State Worker

Chronicling civil-service life for California state workers

January 13, 2010
View court document, e-mails behind CCPOA furlough flap

As Bee colleague Andrew McIntosh reports today in this story, Controller John Chiang plans to issue full pay to state correctional officers in the wake of Judge Frank Roesch's CCPOA furlough lawsuit decision.

After reading Andrew's story to get up to speed, click the following link for documents that lend more insight into the controversy.

Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Thumbnail image for Gavel.jpgRoesch's Dec. 29 writ in the CCPOA case. Key passage:

Perform all acts necessary to immediately and prospectively pay all employees in State Bargaining Unit 6, as well as correctional sergeants and lieutenants, their full salaries in cash or cash equivalent at the end of each pay period for all hours worked during each preceding pay period, without reduction, and at rates delineated for such classifications in the curent State of California Civil Service Pay Scales, as set and required by, ├Čnter alia, Govemment Code sections 19824 and 19826(b) and Labor Code sections 223 and 1171 et seq.

DPA Director Debbie Endsley's Monday letter to Chiang, sent to the controller after the administration heard that the SCO was preparing to pay correctional officers their full January wages. Key passages:

First, to the extent that you are relying on the Alameda Superior Court's Writ issued on December 29, 2009, your action to eliminate the negative pay differential for all these employees is beyond the terms of the writ. The writ doesn't invalid date furloughs, but only invalidates Self-Directedd furloughs where employees cannot use their furlough days within the month pay period. Furlough days taken off within the month pay period remain valid under the writ. To effectuateth is ruling ... lf you eliminate the negative differential for all Bargaining Unit 6 employees, correctional sergeants and lieutenants, your action is beyond the scope of the trial court's writ and will result in employees being paid for time not worked.

(O)n December 31, 2009, the Governor and DPA appealed the trial court's December 29,2OO9
writ. The filing of the appeal automatically stays the decision of the trial court. There has been no other decision from either the Superior Court or appellate court lifting this automatic stay. Accordingly you are acting in violation of the automatic stay by eliminating the negative pay differential associated with furloughs.

SCO Chief Counsel Richard Chivaro's Tuesday response to Endsley. Key passages:

(T)he writ directed this office to "immediately pay all employees in State Bargaining Unit 6, as well as correctional sergeants and lieutenants, their full salaries in cash or cash equivalent at the end of each pay period for all hours worked in the preceding pay period, without reduction, and at rates delineated for such classifications in the current State of California Civil Service Pay Scales ..." The statement, "without reduction" clearly requires the SCO to eliminate any negative pay differential and will pay the amount due for all hours worked. You concern that employees will be paid for time not worked is therefore misplaced ...

Although it is true that a Notice of Appeal was filed on December 31, 2009, that notice is defective. While a final judgment may be appealed, a writ of mandate without a judgment cannot ... Because the writ issued by the Alameda County Superior Court is not an appealable final judgment, the notice of appeal is inoperative, and the filing of that notice does not stay the operation of the writ. Finally, the failure to comply with the writ may unnecessarily subject the State to additional fines for contempt.

DPA attorneys are in court today to keep Chiang from carrying through with his plan. You'll know when we do what comes of the administration's efforts.

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.

What You Should Know About Comments on Sacbee.com

Sacbee.com is happy to provide a forum for reader interaction, discussion, feedback and reaction to our stories. However, we reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments or ban users who can't play nice. (See our full terms of service here.)

Here are some rules of the road:

• Keep your comments civil. Don't insult one another or the subjects of our articles. If you think a comment violates our guidelines click the "report abuse" button to notify the moderators. Responding to the comment will only encourage bad behavior.

• Don't use profanities, vulgarities or hate speech. This is a general interest news site. Sometimes, there are children present. Don't say anything in a way you wouldn't want your own child to hear.

• Do not attack other users; focus your comments on issues, not individuals.

• Stay on topic. Only post comments relevant to the article at hand. If you want to discuss an issue with a specific user, click on his profile name and send him a direct message.

• Do not copy and paste outside material into the comment box.

• Don't repeat the same comment over and over. We heard you the first time.

• Do not use the commenting system for advertising. That's spam and it isn't allowed.

• Don't use all capital letters. That's akin to yelling and not appreciated by the audience.

You should also know that The Sacramento Bee does not screen comments before they are posted. You are more likely to see inappropriate comments before our staff does, so we ask that you click the "report abuse" button to submit those comments for moderator review. You also may notify us via email at feedback@sacbee.com. Note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us the profile name of the user who made the comment. Remember, comment moderation is subjective. You may find some material objectionable that we won't and vice versa.

If you submit a comment, the user name of your account will appear along with it. Users cannot remove their own comments once they have submitted them, but you may ask our staff to retract one of your comments by sending an email to feedback@sacbee.com. Again, make sure you note the headline on which the comment is made and tell us your profile name.

hide comments
blog comments powered by Disqus


About The State Worker

Jon Ortiz The Author

Jon Ortiz launched The State Worker blog and a companion column in 2008 to cover state government from the perspective of California government employees. Every day he filters the news through a single question: "What does this mean for state workers?" Join Ortiz for updates and debate on state pay, benefits, pensions, contracts and jobs. Contact him at (916) 321-1043 and at jortiz@sacbee.com.

FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK

Now on the State Worker column

    [an error occurred while processing this directive]

State Pay Database

This database allows you to search the salaries of California's 300,000-plus state workers and view up to four years of their pay history.

Latest Capitol Alert headlines

    404 - Not Found - The Sacramento Bee, Sacramento, California

    404 Not Found

    Our apologies....

    We can't find the page you requested in this location.

    The story may have moved or expired.

    You may wish to:

  • » More on the Capitol Alert blog

Categories


May 2013

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31  

Monthly Archives