The State Worker

Blog back: The librarian, layoffs and liberals

2008-12-05T08:01:00Z

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

Dec. 1 Blog back: ... the 'trade' with Seattle

The State Librarian, Susan Hildreth, is an experienced library administrator. The fact she is leaving the top librarian post in the state is a sympton (sic) that other places have more to offer. In the last five years, the budget of the state library for journals that state workers use for their jobs has been cut 5 fold. Next year's budget will be worse.
Many California county law libraries now have bigger budgets than does the state library. So lawyers in state service now enter court with a professional disadvantage. The State Library, and some state agency libraries house and lend the materials that state workers need to carry out their daily jobs. Diminished information resources make it harder for state workers to do their jobs.

Apt points. An earlier Seattle Times story outlined the city's gleaming new library facilities and strong public support for the system. Also worth noting: Hildreth made $153,000 annually, according to state pay records. The Times reported that her successor in Seatte, Deborah Jacobs, made $178,000.

We asked Emily Heffter, the Seattle Times reporter who has been following the story, if she knew how much Hildreth's new job will pay. Heffter said that as of Monday the final terms had not been announced.

Dec. 2 Schwarzenegger: State now 'almost forced' into layoffs

What is he waiting for? Fire 50% of the state workforce NOW. We don't need 75% of what they do. Let the people keep their money. If you state workers don't like it, go get a job that actually generates revenue instead of relying on coercively extracted tax dollars from your fellow Californians.

As we noted a few weeks ago in our Thursday column, you could fire every single state employee paid with general fund money and still not completely close the budget gap. And we haven't seen any studies or audits supporting the assertion that "we don't need 75 percent" of what state workers do. Data, please.

Dec. 2 More details about possible state worker layoffs

Even if layoffs don't come to pass, it's likely that the next budget will have a more extensive furlough. For example, two or three days a month. Or a shift to a four-day workweek, a.k.a. four days a month furlough. With that in mind, plan ahead: Don't go overboard on your holiday partying and gift-giving. Cut back on spending and conserve your cash as 2009-2010 is going to be a very unpleasant fiscal year.

Our Bee business colleague and newbie Home Front blogger Dale Kasler on Tuesday wrote that the year-old economic recession is "shaping up as a long one." That means the state's tax revenues will take another beating next year and, according to some experts Dale has interviewed, maybe into 2010. Read his insightful Home Front post by clicking here.

Dec. 3 Still more about possible layoffs

This could also be Arnold's version of "The Shock Doctrine." According to author Naomi Klein repressive right-wing governments have a well established history of using crises and emergencies to push through radical economic changes that would be rejected by the populace under normal circumstance. Arnold has wanted to bust the public service unions and dismantle CalPERS for a long time. Now he can use the "shock and awe" of the present budget crisis to try and do so again.

An interesting take. We would extend that observation to left-leaning administrations, such as FDR's Depression-era public works programs and Social Security and LBJ's War on Poverty in the 1960s. Right wingers don't have a monopoly on pushing radical economic change in a time of crisis.

Jon - Did you even think to ask Ms. Jolley if she even has a "plan" to reduce the State workforce? Or do you agree that just whacking people indiscrimately (sic) is the best way to proceed? What amount of disruption in State operations does Ms. Jolley expect? What will be the criteria for laying people off? Performance Reviews? Seniority? What about contractors who get paid more then State workers? Will they be let go as well, or will we hire more of them? How many people let go does Ms. Jolley expect to never return to State service, resulting in an increase in costs of retraining later on? Are there any specifics at all?

We're working getting answers to those questions and more. In the interest of speed, we've put up information as we've learned it instead of holding back information until every jot and tittle is defined.

You asked, "Or do you agree that just whacking people indiscrimately (sic) is the best way to proceed?" Our answer: No.

Our sense as of this writing on Thursday afternoon is that layoff details haven't been hammered out. One frequent State Worker blog user sent an e-mail with this theory:

I think this threat can also be something towards the union to passive aggressively say (as opposed to saying anything to our faces or say "let's sit down together and work something out") we (the state) are not willing to negotiate for any increases, don't push us or we'll just cut some of your jobs.

Column extra: A 'rarely mentioned' class in CSLEA

2008-12-04T21:37:52Z

Our State Worker column today prompted this e-mail:

Rarely mentioned in this CSLEA bickering are the state's Emergency Planners and Emergency Managers. In California, our four seasons are officially Fire, Flood, Earthquake, and "to be determined." We put in long hours alongside the emergency personnel that seek to split our union.
First consider the pay ranges for FEMA Emergency Planners:

Emergency Management Program Specialist is 48,108.00 - 107,854.00 a year.

Emergency Response Planner $60,840.00 - $112,735.00 per year

Sr. Technological Hazards Program Specialist $86,715.00 - $112,735.00 per year

Supervisory Emergency Management Program Specialist $82,178.00 - $126,240.00 per year

Now look at what California pays:

EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR, $44,976 - $65,436 per year

SENIOR EMERGENCY SERVICES COORDINATOR $59,532 - $71,844 per year

Instead of raising the pay for these classes, and using an appropriate classification to supervise (like Senior Emergency Management Coordinator $72,288- $87,312), they use a non-represented class to supervise these planners:

PROGRAM MANAGER I, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES $62,460 - $75,444 per year

Oddly enough, few emergency planners are interested in promoting. It's not really a promotion when you give up your overtime and lose union representation. No real incentive to promote.

Please don't use my name in your articles.

The tone of the e-mail left us with the impression that the author was against sworn officers severing ties with CSLEA, but to be sure, we asked. The reply:

I am against the move. I think we will be left behind as yet another obscure group of unknown classes with even less political clout.... Emergency Management is a strange field, as there is no real formal training. If you learn the job and truly become knowledgeable in it, you possess a rare and valuable skill that can be worth over $100 an hour as a consultant. And that is another place we lose our people to. There is plenty of money for consultants, but yet nothing for salaries -- More outsourcing of employee jobs.

Billwatch: State may freeze pay for workers making more than $150K

2008-12-04T18:46:51Z

From today's San Diego Union-Tribune:

Fed up with large pay raises for executives of California's public universities, the chairman of the Assembly's higher-education committee (Anthony Portantino, D-Pasadena) introduced legislation yesterday that would freeze salaries of state employees who make more than $150,000 a year.

The measure specifically includes executives and other high-paid officials at the California State University system. It urges the University of California system - which enjoys constitutional autonomy - to impose the same restraints ...

While the proposed pay freeze was inspired by perceived excesses at UC and CSU, the Legislature itself has drawn criticism for giving generous raises to staff members despite the state's chronic budget troubles. Accordingly, Portantino said he considered it important to apply the legislation to as many highly paid state employees as possible.

As such, the freeze would extend to nearly all state agencies, state courts and appointees to boards and commissions.

It would bar until Jan. 1, 2012, any raises, bonuses or overtime pay for anyone making more than $150,000 a year while still employed in the same position or classification.

The bill would not apply to those covered by collective-bargaining agreements or who work at state prisons, which are subject to oversight by a federal receiver. The governor also could exclude anyone he deems necessary to protect public safety.

Portantino said he did not know how many employees would be affected or how much might be saved.

This link will take you to the U-T story. Click here to read the language of Portanino's bill, AB 53.

IMAGE: Anthony Portantino / Sacramento Bee

Possible conflict of interest at the UIAB revealed

2008-12-04T14:31:42Z

From today's story by Bee reporter Andrew McIntosh:

The Sacramento County District Attorney's Office and California attorney general are investigating whether members of the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board broke conflict-of-interest laws in 2005 when they voted to offer their own chairwoman a job in San Diego.

During a closed session on Halloween three years ago, the appeals board offered Cynthia K. Thornton a six-figure job as an unemployment insurance appeals administrative law judge, board minutes show.

Three members of that board, including former Democratic Assemblywoman Virginia Strom-Martin, voted to give Thornton the judgeship in San Diego, where she now earns $109,000 hearing claims from workers who say they were unfairly denied state unemployment benefits.

Read the entire story by clicking here. And if you missed it, check out the Nov. 27 State Worker column, "Nepotism poisons the workplace."

IMAGE: www.labor.ca.gov

Pennsylvania elected official trims staff in face of state's cash crunch

2008-12-04T08:01:00Z

The Associated Press led its Pennsylvania budget story Wednesday night with this:

The state's second round of spending cuts will mean no cost-of-living raises for thousands of state employees as Pennsylvania's financial outlook continues to unravel amid a deepening global financial plunge, Gov. Ed Rendell said Wednesday.

We were more interested in this part of the story:

Also Wednesday, some legislators pledged to give back their new cost-of-living raises, while newly sworn-in Lt. Gov. Joe Scarnati said he is laying off a dozen or so employees he is inheriting from Catherine Baker Knoll, who died last month.

Add Scarnati and those unnamed state workers in Pennsylvania to the Redding city council to the small but growing list of public officials leading by example in these tough times by cutting their own pay, staff or perks.

We're still waiting to add a California elected official (other than Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger) to the list ...

IMAGE: Pennsylvania Lt. Gov. Joe Scarnati / www.legis.state.pa.us

CalPERS / STRS quiz investors about climate risk considerations

2008-12-03T23:56:48Z

CalPERS, CalSTRS and five other leading institutional investors are sending out a survey to 500 asset managers to determine how they are evaluating climate concerns when looking at investment opportunities.

You can read the press release by clicking here.

Still more about possible layoffs

2008-12-03T18:47:47Z

We're continuing our education on the rules governing state worker layoffs and passing along information to you as we learn it.

To understand the steps of the state's layoff process, click here for a detailed chart and explainer on DPA's Web site.

Then there's this from Jason Dickerson, the guru of state worker stuff in at the LAO. He sent along the following language from the Government Code that would apply if the state enacts layoffs after reading our previous post and a question there about layoffs when most bargaining units don't have a current contract:

As for the question of expired contracts, recall that Government Code Section 3517.8(a) provides in part: "If a memorandum of understanding has expired, and the Governor and the recognized employee organization have not agreed to a new memorandum of understanding and have not reached an impasse in negotiations...the parties to the agreement shall continue to give effect to the provisions of the expired memorandum of understanding, including, but not limited to, all provisions that supersede existing law, any arbitration provisions, any no strike provisions, any agreements regarding matters covered in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 201) of Title 29 of the United States Code), and any provisions covering fair share fee deduction consistent with Section 3515.7."

Government Code Section 19997 provides that appointing powers (departments) may lay off employees "whenever it is necessary because of lack of work or funds, or whenever it is advisable in the interests of economy, to reduce the staff of any state agency." MOUs often contain layoff sections, but in general, their basic terms (departmental authority for layoffs) mirror this statutory provision.

"All layoff provisions and procedures established or agreed to...shall be subject to State Personnel Board review pursuant to Section 19816.2" of the code, according to Section 19997. Section 19816.2 provides that layoff procedures are "subject to review by the State Personnel Board for consistency with merit employment principles as provided for by Article VII of the California Constitution."

CLARIFICATION: Our post yesterday also referred to hearing from state workers who believe that the state must give them a 6-month notice before a layoff. DPA's Lynelle Jolley explained that the longer notice is a "surplus" notice, which is different from a layoff notice. Jolley also mentioned that the surplus notice period is 120 days, not six months.

We just wanted to set the record straight.

Redding city council leads by example -- sort of

2008-12-03T18:19:46Z

Redding's five-member city council on Tuesday night voted to give up its retirement health plan for council members but kept their pension plan in place. The city needs to make $3 million in budget cuts and faces an estimated $94 million in retiree health insurance costs over the next three decades.

The story on the Redding Record Searchlight's Web site, quotes Missy McArthur, who is new to the council: "I am anxious that the city council lead by example. We are probably going to be making some pretty tough decisions, and if we are going to be asking employees to come in at a different rate we should be willing to do the same."

As we noted in a Thursday column a few weeks ago, state employees would love to hear elected state workers in the Capitol say something like that.

A couple of other examples of sacrifice from Redding: A separate story published on Monday by Chico TV station KHSL, noted that the city manager and city attorney have both declined to take COLAs and have postponed their scheduled raises.

KHSL also reported, "As part of negotiations, the city has asked the eight labor unions to make similar changes to the health benefits for future retirees - having them pay the full premium instead of a 50 percent discounted rate. Service Employee International Union Local 1292 (SEIU) which represents administrative and service city employees, have agreed to those changes."

IMAGE: www.ci.redding.ca.us

SEIU offers plan to close California's money gap

2008-12-03T00:31:07Z

Our Cap Bureau colleague Kevin Yamamura blogs about the SEIU State Council's "dream plan," which, Kevin defines as a " ... dream in the politest of terms, as in it might happen in a parallel universe where Democrats don't need any Republican votes and federal dollars pour from the sky."

Click here to read his post on our companion blog, Capitol Alert.

More details about possible state worker layoffs

2008-12-02T22:43:14Z

As we reported earlier, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday said that the state's financial crisis is so severe that he is "almost forced" into laying off state workers.

We had some questions, so we contacted the Department of Personnel Administration spokeswoman Lynelle Jolley. She responded via e-mail:

Does the governor have the authority to lay off workers?

Yes, a Governor has this right.

I've seen the layoff language on the DPA Web site that requires a 30-day notice and that most union contracts require 60 days. Since most bargaining units don't have contracts right now, does the 60-day notice apply at all, or is 30 days all that is required?

We're still required to notify affected unions as well as employees, and to negotiate over a layoff's impact. Those notice periods can overlap; they're not sequential.

Some state workers who have e-mailed me insist that the notice period is more like 6 months.

The longer notice period you've heard about refers to the "surplus" notice employees get. That's a different type of notice that lets employees know that a layoff is coming and they might be affected.

In general, more employees receive surplus notices than actual layoff notices. The purpose of a surplus notice is to allow time for potentially affected employees to find a more secure job. (Surplus employees get hiring preference when departments fill open state jobs.)

(The State Worker notes that you can read about "surplus" and how the process works by clicking here.)

Has the state laid off workers before due to budget concerns?

The last time the State faced a major layoff threat was 2003. The 2003-04 budget eliminated 16,000 positions, many of which were unfilled in anticipation of this possibility, and cut $1.1 billion ($585 million of it was General Fund) from personnel. Leading up to adoption of that budget, the State issued thousands of surplus notices, which allowed most affected employees to move into jobs with more secure funding.

IMAGE: DPA

New study looks at how states handle retiree health care costs

2008-12-02T19:30:00Z

A New Center for State and Local Government Excellence report looks at how states are balancing retiree health care plans with their need to contain costs.

Key points:

State administrators say retiree health care benefits are central to recruitment, retention, and retirement timing goals.
Most states intend to keep financing retiree health care on a pay-as-you-go basis.

On the cost side:

17 states expect to introduce a plan to limit the subsidy for future retirees; three states say it is likely they will terminate subsidies for current retirees.
A large majority of states (including, we note, CalPERS in California) have introduced disease management programs. Most also have precertification procedures in place for inpatient hospitalizations, and conduct claims payer audits.
Sixteen states say they are likely to increase the years of service required for vesting in retiree health care.

Click here to read the 16-page report.

Schwarzenegger: State now 'almost forced' into layoffs

2008-12-02T15:00:31Z

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger on Monday afternoon said that the state's budget crisis is so severe that he is considering lay offs to ease California's cash crunch.

Here is a part of Schwarzenegger's transcribed remarks from a Los Angeles press conference in response to questions about the state's finances:

QUESTION: I guess it's a two-parter. What happens if California runs out of cash? You mentioned February, March, very soon. Secondly, you're going to meet with President-elect Obama tomorrow in Philadelphia. Will you ask him for an economic stimulus for California and do you think you're going to get it?

GOVERNOR: Well, first of all, let me just say that because we are now a month late, it's important to know that now we are anywhere between $1.5 billion to $2 billion deeper in the hole, because if we can get revenues earlier then we can go and fill that hole but now we have to make more cuts and raise more revenues because of that. So the legislators, I think, need to know that, because many times they disregard that fact. So every day now that we are delaying, it will mean more and more of a problem.

Number two, when we run out of cash, that means we cannot make the payments, which will have a tremendously horrible effect on our school system. I think always first of our children. I think that our children should not become a victim of all of this and so we should do everything that we can to always have enough money for our kids and for giving them health care and giving them education and those kinds of things. And then we cannot make other payments either.

I think the longer we wait the more we will have to lay off people from government. And I think because of the delay now, we are almost, I think, forced -- as a matter of fact, we are going to have a meeting as soon as I come back from Philadelphia about that, how many people we need now to lay off in order to make ends meet. So it gets worse very quickly. It's like an avalanche, that it gains momentum. And that's what we're in right now, so it's a real crisis.

You can read the entire transcript released by the governor's press office by clicking here.

Thanks to Cap Bureau colleague Shane Goldmacher for alerting us to this.

Blog back special edition: nepotism

2008-12-02T08:01:00Z

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

Last Thursday's column on nepotism at the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board drew strong comments online, over the phone and in e-mail. Here's a small slice of what you said:

Nov. 27 State Worker: Nepotism poisons the workplace

The problem is pervasive throughout all state departments, agencies, and commissions. Between the unqualified civil service cronies and relatives and the politically connected or campaign donor appointees (equally unqualified), is it any wonder the state is in a shambles. The middle management through executive ranks in state government is PACKED with chair warmers who do little more than show up and collect paychecks (some don't even do that- 4C status allows a full day's pay just for making a brief appearance). There is no fear of consequence or repercussion- it is a common and well-known practice. "Merit system"? not in this state.

The State Worker responds: One huge problem with nepotism is that it trades leadership credibility for favors. Once employees witness a single instance of nepotism, they will assume that every management decision is colored by personal relationships. We have yet to hear someone talk about "a little" nepotism in their workplace.

The low number of reported cases is attributed to an employee's fear of retribution, not ignorance of the complaint process. Even the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2007 will not protect employees from employers who opt to ruin an individual's career instead of addressing the issue. It is my opinion that the problem of nepotism will continue until our institutions are mandated to implement HR policies that will make nepotism an exception to the rule.

TSW: We wonder about the 300 UIAB folks who didn't respond to the auditor's survey. How many didn't chip in out of fear that they'd be outed and suffer retribution? (A point we didn't mention in Thursday's column: auditors required UIAB staff to disclose their work e-mail addresses as a way of authenticating responses and weeding out duplicates.)

On the other hand, how many didn't share their thoughts because they don't see a problem? And how many didn't respond or played down the issue because they are part of the problem?

One blog user had this frank assessment:

This is nothing new in any career field whether in the public or private sector. You would hope the gov't would be better about such a thing but when it comes down to it, people hire people they know or have a connection to. Basically you can get upset about the matter or accept reality and get to networking (kissing you know what and making friends). I've been both the victim and the benefactor... definitely preferred the latter.

TSW: Another blog user familiar with the BSA sent a couple of e-mails to us with these tidbits:

Following your mention of BSA Report 2007-041 "Report of Recommendations Not Fully Implemented After One Year", in Thursday's edition, the report has been moved to quick link section at the top of the BSA webpage. I can assure you the report had been relegated to obscurity long ago as I check the BSA website regularly.

While BSA staff are great and the do a good job for the most part, the BSA process is simply a feel good exercise in futility ...

Prior to your mention last week one had to search sequentially in the main body of reports to find it. 2007-041 was released in early 2008 and was far down the list and was not linked directly at the top of the page as it is now. Your story either caused it to be moved to a more visible location or it is a function of most popular hits that moved it to the top of the page. Either way nobody cared about 2007-041 until you mentioned it.

In my opinion, BSA wants and needs attention paid to their work in order for serious improvements to be made. So if you contact them BSA's response to you will be something along the lines of: "Thank God someone finally took note of our work."

TSW: We've been running this blog and writing the Thursday State Worker column for about four months. We're still learning the ins and outs of the state bureaucracy. As we do, with your help, we'll get better at telling state workers' stories. That's why we're here.

More about CSLEA and POC

2008-12-01T23:31:18Z

We've received several e-mails and phone calls from rank-and-file CSLEA members and officials since posting "Division surfaces in CSLEA ranks" last week.

We'll start with this chart from CSLEA GM and Chief Counsel Kasey Clark. It shows percentage wage increases for Special Agent/Park ranger/Fish and game Warden classifications.

We then spoke with Warden Jerry Karnow, one of the folks at Fish & Game seeking to sever the 2,700 or so sworn law enforcement officers from CSLEA, which has about 7,000 members in all. The essence of the argument for peeling off from CSLEA he says is to prevent non-sworn state employees from riding the coattails of sworn officers.

Bob Orange, POC's president, sent along an e-mail with links to various media accounts of the decline in the number of California game wardens. About the wage increase negotiated thorough CSLEA, he says,

... we have received a 25% pay raise in the last couple years, that is true. But what I am sure that what CSLEA did not tell you that this was on top of the starting $37,000 annual salary. Suddenly, that 25% salary increase doesn't seem quite as large anymore- especially when we are competing for sworn law enforcement officers statewide and requirements include college. That should provide some perspective.

And he provided a link to Warden Expose Update, a publication that advocates for the profession:

The reason for the establishment of the P.O.C. organization is somewhat explained on page 98 of the "Warden Expose Update" by Feather River Publishing, which is all of the newspapers in Plumas and Lassen Counties. This was in part 6 of a comprehensive investigative report by that media organization. I have included a link to that article below. I would be happy to provide you with a hard copy if you like. Please feel free to research the Warden Expose' for it includes many other media pieces. I think it is especially important to read then Assemblyman Cogdill's support letter which was signed by a super majority of the California Legislature which is on pages 6 & 7 of that same publication.

CalPERS' partners slash energy use

2008-12-01T19:30:00Z

CoStar Group, a commercial real estate research firm, notes that CalPERS' real estate investment partners reduced the energy consumption of their properties by 13 percent i 2007. You can read the details by clicking here.