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.

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

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.

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

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

You can read the press release by clicking here.

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."

"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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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 ...

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.

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.

Nov. 21 Local radio host Maiman on state workers, furloughs, pensions

There is a difference: We, the voters, can "fire" these State workers the next time they come up for reelection. We cannot do that with other State workers who we feel deserve it.

That said, I do believe the elected State workers should, as a symbol they "get it" turn in their State vehicles, State credit cards, and assume the costs we all must bear in order to maintain our employment.

There are counterpoints to this argument. If we hold down legislative wages and perks, elected state workers might be more vulnerable to influence-peddlers. Holding down pay and per diem might also keep some qualified people from seeking office because they wouldn't be able to support themselves or their families if they ran and won. And it's an important job; shouldn't the pay reflect that?

Nov. 25 SEIU says state 'refuses' to talk with union lawyers in the room, DPA responds

I would love to be elected to a State position for just one term. The first thing I would request would be an impartial audit of DPA. For toooo long the employees of this state have been beaten, backstabbed and broiled by DPA doing the bidding of whomever (sic) happens to be Governor. They have no pride, no morals, no heart, no empathy except for themselves. They believe and act like they are jury, judge and executioner! I for one think its time that the tide is turned on them so that they experience the type of suffering they deliver to State employees. That audit would reveal that they do not have the interest of the State at heart and I firmly believe the audit would call for wide spread reform and the dismissal of everyone in that department!

This seems a bit harsh. DPA folks are state workers, too, and they face many of the same pressures and problems confronting counterparts in other departments. Some have the thankless job of contract negotiations, which earns them the ire of many civil servants.

We have found DPA officials to be courteous, prompt and professional. Of course, we don't have to negotiate with them for our livelihood.

Nov. 25 Is Measure J the Prop 13 of pension reform?

Just because Orange County officials were too generous with themselves and county workers does not mean that the State of California has been wreckless (sic). Some other local agencies have also been too generous, but we need to focus on both sides of the problem. Non-government workers need reliable pensions too and we need to create a "CalPERS"-like organization to invest their and their employers' contributions so they grow and can sustain them with Social Security for as long as they live.

AB 2940 by Kevin de León, D-Los Angeles, would have allowed private individuals and private sector employers to set aside money in retirement accounts administered by CalPERS. The bill got stuck in committee and died.

Nov. 27 UPDATE: California librarian gets Seattle job

She was traded for a player to be named later and a set of the unabridged Encyclopedia Brittanica.

Here's the press release, followed by a link to a copy of transcript for the TV ad.

November 30, 2008

The online, print, and television ad campaign targets legislators and opinion leaders.

Read a transcript of the TV ad by clicking here.

How much do ad campaigns such as this one move the political needle in Sacramento? Will linking the Obama victory to California state politics resonate?

IMAGE: Sacramento Bee / Randall Benton