A timeline including documents when applicable for CCPOA's most recent negotiations with the State of California regarding Bargaining Unit 6's labor contract, 2001 - date.

• March 12, 2008 CCPOA files a "Request for Injunctive Relief" with the DPA, a demand to return to the bargaining table.
   
• CCPOA Legal Counsel Gregg Adam sends another letter to Dave Gilb, DPA Director onFebruary 29, 2008.
   
• February 22, 2008 CCPOA's Chuck Alexander writes a letter to Dave Gilb, DPA Director.
   
• On January 16, 2008, Suzanne Branine from CCPOA's Legal Counsel sent a letter to Paul Starkey, of the Labor Relations counsel for DPA.
   
• On January 14, 2008, CCPOA and the State engaged in a mandatory settlement conference at PERB. No settlement has been reached, and dates for a full hearing at PERB are being scheduled.
   
• On December 27, 2007, CCPOA writes DPA contending that the issuance of the complaint letter by PERB triggers the parties obligation to resume good faith bargaining in accordance with Government Code 3517.8. (To date, there has been no response from DPA to CCPOA's request to resume bargaining.)
   
• On December 14, 2007, CCPOA acts to deny the State's request for dismissal on the grounds that the entire last, best, and final cannot run for three (3) years - including the "economic parts."
   
• On December 13, 2007, the State withdraws the last two (2) years of "economics" in their last, best and final - and contends that the ULP is therefore rendered MOOT; and seeks a dismissal of the entire complaint.
   
• PERB renders a complaint letter on December 7, 2007, claiming that the State - by implementing terms and conditions for a three (3) year duration - acted contrary to Government Code Sections 3517, 3517.8, and 3519 (c).
   
• On September 25, 2007, CCPOA files an Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) over the State's bargaining tactics.
   
• On Sept. 18, 2007 DPA sends to CCPOA their LBF implementation plan. Accordingly over 40 sections of the MOU that were never even discussed previously are now eliminated. The State's initial 6 issues have now grown to over 40 issues. [DPA Memo & CCPOA Response]
   
• On Sept 17, 2007 CCPOA rejected the LBF, also an all or nothing package.
   
• On September 12, 2007 the State issues its "Last Best and Final package offer. It includes some very minor changes to its previous offer of August 22, 2007. [Last, Best & Final Offer, 09/12/07]
   
• Just prior to the end of California's 2006/2007 Legislative Session, CCPOA seeks to "roll" the entire MOU for one year while the parties engage in a cooling off period. The Governor promises to veto the bill if it passes and when it becomes clear we have enough votes to achieve passage and possibly a Veto override he engages an intense lobbying and media campaign against. The bill died in committee after the leadership altered it enough to make it only a pay raise bill, (not its original focus).
   
• August 29, 2007, CCPOA's General Assembly directs the bargaining team to seek responses from the State to a series of written questions concerning the latest package offer and to agree to accept the mutually acceptable sections of the MOU that the State has identified "roll-over." [DPA Q&A]
  
• CCPOA invites DPA Director David Gilb and CDCR Secretary Jim Tilton to attend its annual conference in Pechanga to address the General Assembly so they could present their latest offer directly to the Union's governing body and directly answer any questions the membership might have. Both declined to attend.
   
• August 22, 2007, after notice of CCPOA's withdrawal the State passes, via courier, yet another all or nothing package deal. 
   
• August 22, 2007, CCPOA withdraws from the mediation process and seeks to return to formal bargaining.
   
• CCPOA attempts to find common ground issues via the mediation process. The State, still insistent on the all or nothing package mentality refuses to sign in, or roll over sections both parties agree to roll over, including the Preamble and Articles of Recognition. The State refused to even identify the principles present in their room during the mediation process.
   
• In August of 2007 Arbitrator Brand finds in favor of the State on Pay-Arb II.
   
• June of 2007 PERB sends the parties to mediation.
   
• May 2007 the State moves for a declaration of 'Impasse" from PERB while publicly stating that all they want is mediation.
   
• In the Spring of 2007 DPA formally withdraws ifs previous offer and delivers by courier to CCPOA Headquarters a new entire package offer. Days later DPA Director Gilb joins the State's negotiators and meets with CCPOA's team at our headquarters to discuss the new package. The new offer is not substantially new and the financial aspect claims to maintain the "methodology" but in actuality it does not. DPA leaves after fewer than 20 minutes of discussion.
   
• November 15, 2006 Arbitrator Cohn finds in favor of CCPOA regarding the Law Enforcement methodology (Pay-Arb I). Formal bargaining on the MOU is recessed pending mutual settlement and implementation of the award. The parties agree to settle for a general salary increase of just over 3% and a 200 Million dollar cash award to be divided among CCPOA's Rank and File membership.
   
• Talks continue over the State's package proposal. Effort is to define terms, understand the objective, need and background for each of the substantial changes to well over a dozen sections of our MOU. The State rarely agrees to meet more than two days per week and when meetings are held, at the table negotiations are often very short. Total time spent in formal, at the table meetings is less than 24 hours during all of 2006.
   
• The following morning the parties meet to discuss the State's package. Talks terminated early and a hidden microphone is found under the table linens. The State was secretly recording while protesting open negotiations with observers. Meetings were being held at costly neutral locations in part to prevent antics of this kind by either side.
   
• Late July of 2006 the parties begin formal negotiations. Because of the unprecedented criticism in the Legislature and the media concerning the 2001-2006 MOU under Davis and the 2004 amendment under Schwarzenegger, CCPOA seeks recorded and open negotiations - the State objects. The initial bargaining sessions center on establishing ground rules. As the parties narrowed the issues and neared agreement on ground rules the State refused to sign, stating there was no need. At the end of the day on the last session over rules the State passed an entire package offer (over 300 pages) covering the entire MOU. 
   
• July 13, 2006 the Principles representing the Department of Personnel Administration and CCPOA met. The State expressed a desire to deal with six different issues for a successor MOU, and to start building trust between the parties. CCPOA presented five issues of concern at the meeting.
   
• On July 3, 2006 the State gives the CAHP an MOU rich with financial incentives and absent any "modest reforms." Absent a successor MOU and with discussions still in the preliminary stages CCPOA files for arbitration (Pay-Arb II) based on continuing the "Law Enforcement Methodology."
   
• Although several MOU's were due to expire in mid-2006, the State hires an outside negotiator and legal counsel strictly to conduct negotiations with CCPOA.
   
• During this same period, the Federal Court appoints a Receiver to take control of the CDCR's failing inmate health care system.
   
• In July 2005 CCPOA files for arbitration (Pay-Arb I) to enforce the pay formula achieved under the 2004 amendment. Although the discussions leading to the amendment were conducted solely with the Schwarzenegger Administration, he continued to blame the Davis Administration for the so-called "sweetheart" Unit 6 MOU.
   
• Launching a "Year of Reform" Governor Schwarzenegger attacks the State employees retirement system and attempts to limit labor unions ability to raise political action funds. His propositions fail. At the same time the Federal Court in the Madrid Case determines there is no basis to believe that the CCPOA MOU inhibits the Agency's ability to conduct its business.
   
• Annual population estimates were woefully below the actual rates. Already suffering from severe overcrowding, the Agency experiments with parole reform methods that only serve to compound the problem. California's population reaches epidemic proportions.
   
• In early 2005 the Agency, still facing budget deficits, closed the Basic Correctional Officer Academy for 10 months. Already experiencing a severe shortage of Correctional Peace Officers, this decision turned a bad situation into a crisis stemming from Officer vacancies that continues to this day.
   
• In July of 2004 CCPOA and the Schwarzenegger Administration agreed to amend the 2001-2004 MOU. The amendment gave back $108 million in Unit 6 salary by delaying scheduled pay increases while preserving the Law Enforcement Methodology with "continuous appropriation" language. Governor Schwarzenegger addressed the CCPOA Board of Directors thanking them for supporting the amendment.
   
• Early 2004 the Agency begins Statewide 16% position cuts of Unit 6 employees.
   
• As their criticism continued, many legislative Democrats signed a letter signaling they may refuse to fund the remaining term of the MOU in order to force us back to the table. CCPOA agrees to "off the record discussions" about a possible compromise.
   
• 2004 - with the State still facing deficits, Senators Speier and Romero take aim at the CCPOA MOU with critical attacks in the press.
   
• Governor Davis is recalled
   
• In 2003, faced with substantial budget deficit, the State sought to renegotiate all bargaining unit MOU's. CCPOA declined.
   
• CCPOA and the State agree reach agreement on an MOU with a 5 year term, retroactive to July 1, 2001. Includes a "Law Enforcement Methodology." For the term of the agreement the difference between CHP and CCPOA total compensation was to be maintained at $666.00.