Dpa
February 22, 2012
California’s top labor official quits
Amid government layoffs, budget cuts and looming contract talks, the state's top labor relations official is stepping down.
Ronald Yank told Department of Personnel Administration staff on Tuesday that he's leaving. The Brown administration, which hadn't named a successor to the key post as of late Tuesday afternoon, declined to make Yank available for an interview.
Department spokeswoman Lynelle Jolley said Yank is leaving "around the end of this month..."
LINK - SacBee.com
November 17, 2011
Statewide Agreement: PAII Conversion
Statewide Agreement between CCPOA and DPA:
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding reached by and between the parties at the conclusion of Meet and Confer negotations on November 10, 2011 regarding the conversion of Field PAII Specialist positions to PAII Supervisors...
November 17, 2011
Meet & Confer Requests and Updates: Week of November 17, 2011
Meet and Confer Requests for November 10, 2011:
- DJJ Activation of Low Core Male Unit at Ventura Youth Correctional Facility (VYCF)
View Document (.pdf format)
- Ventura Youth Correctional Facility Female Treatment Program
View Document (.pdf format)
Agreements for November 10 and 11, 2011:
- High Desert State Prison Gym Facility B Agreement
View Document (.pdf format)
- Statewide Agreement PAII Conversion
View Document (.pdf format)
November 10, 2011
Pay Letter: Supervisory PLP Memo
November 1, 2011 Memo from DPA
See the full document below...
October 18, 2011
Alternative Custody Statewide Agreement
This Agreement represents the full and complete understanding reached by and between the parties at the conclusion of Meet and Confer negotiations on October 12,2011, regarding the Implementation of the Alternative Custody Program (ACP). This Agreement becomes an addendum to the current State Bargaining Unit Six Memorandum of Understanding...
October 13, 2011
Realignment Agreement
Late last week, CCPOA and DPA concluded discussions about the impact on facility staffing that is anticipated due to AB109 and the corresponding reductions in inmate population. These discussions were "informal" in that if we could not reach an agreement, the State would/could make its staffing reductions via the layoff process. However, upon reaching a conceptual agreement, we formalized said discussions via the attached...
September 2, 2011
Supervisory Update: September 2, 2011
July 19, 2011
Supervisory Member Alert: CCPOA BTF Dental Update
Supervisory Vice President
July 18, 2011
Supervisory Update: July 18, 2011
June 16, 2011
Supervisory Update: June 16, 2011
June 3, 2011
Supervisory Update: June 3, 2011
Dear Supervisory Member:
We have received official notice from the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) on the proposed 1% cuts in CDCR as they pertain to supervisors. There are a number of supervisor positions included in these proposed cuts, with Avenal State Prison taking the largest hit by far. We are in the process of finalizing a team and a date to meet with the state at this time.
We also have received the states plan on the CDCR headquarter position reductions due to the budget constraints. While a great deal of these positions are vacant, there are in excess of 120 other positions included in the plan that are not. The area of lay off has been set by the state as Sacramento County and therefore there are supervisors at Folsom State Prison and CSP – Sacramento that have/will receive surplus notices as well as supervisors actually attached to these headquarters positions...
March 25, 2011
Sac Bee reports on changes to CCPOA tentative agreement
The state is ending contributions to a retirement fund for Bargaining Unit 6 employees, according to state officials, in exchange for a higher deferred pay raise and to maintain the current leave system for the 32,000 or so correctional and parole officers represented by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association.
Our earlier report, based on a letter to members by union Executive Vice President Chuck Alexander, said that the program, called POFF II (Peace Officer and Firefighter) would be temporarily suspended to help offset the state's cost to bring CCPOA members' health coverage even with the rest of the state work force. State payments into the fund -- an employer contribution equal to 2 percent of base salary -- were to resume in January 2014...
March 24, 2011
SacBee on recent state contracts and cost savings
Feelings are facts – and sometimes they're the most important facts when you're talking about resolving conflicts.
How else to explain the nearly three months – and unnecessary furlough days for 60,000 affected state workers – for six unions to reach new labor deals with Gov. Jerry Brown?
"These were very tough negotiations," said Brown's labor chief, Ron Yank. "There are still some hurt feelings. I understand it."
Brown brought in Yank, a former state labor lawyer, to get contracts with the groups that didn't reach deals with then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger...
LINK - SacBee.com
March 16, 2011
Correctional officers agree to new contract
California's Department of Personnel Administration and the union representing State correctional officers have reached agreement on a new contract that, if ratified, generates immediate budget savings by requiring correctional officers to pay a greater share of their pension cost and take a day of unpaid leave each month for a year.
The Legislature and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) must approve the agreement, which will run from April 1, 2011 to July 2, 2013. The last CCPOA contract expired in 2006. Negotiations for a new contract failed, and since 2007 the union has operated under imposed terms...
LINK - DPA.ca.gov
March 15, 2011
LA Times reports CCPOA reaches MOU with administration
California prison guards, who are represented by one of the largest and most politically powerful state-employee unions, have reached a contract agreement with Gov. Jerry Brown.
Neither the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. nor the governor's office would provide details of the long-awaited contract on Tuesday afternoon, but David Gay, a spokesman for the Department of Personnel Administration, confirmed a deal was struck early Tuesday morning.
The prison guards, who have a reputation for being among the best paid state employees, have been operating without a formal contract since reaching an impasse over wages and benefits with former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2006...
LINK - LATimes.com
January 7, 2011
Sac Bee Q&A with new DPA Director Ron Yank
The State Worker column in today's fiber and cyber Sacramento Bee looks at Gov. Jerry Brown's pick to head the Department of Personnel Administration, Ronald Yank.
We spoke with several sources in both labor and state government to get a sense of Yank's leadership style and history. We also spoke with him on the phone for about 15 minutes on Wednesday, shortly after the Brown administration officially announced Yank's appointment. The conversation was lively, engaging and frank. Here are some snippets of what he said...
LINK - SacBee.com
January 6, 2011
The State Worker: Three views of Brown’s labor boss
A gubernatorial appointment can be the political equivalent of a Rorschach test: Everyone sees it but assigns different meanings.
Take Gov. Jerry Brown's appointment of retired labor attorney Ronald Yank to direct the Department of Personnel Administration.
The position oversees labor negotiations covering roughly 200,000 state employees. DPA also handles labor disputes, such as the ongoing court fight over state worker furloughs...
LINK - SacBee.com
January 4, 2011
Ronald Yank will be Jerry Brown’s personnel director
The State Worker has learned that a labor attorney who has represented the state prison officers' union will be tapped by Gov. Jerry Brown to run the Department of Personnel Administration.
We'd heard buzz from Monday's inaugural festivities that Ronald Yank would be named to head the department, so we asked this morning. Lynelle Jolley, department spokeswoman, confirmed, but said she had no other details.
Yank's appointment, which could be announced today, sends a strong signal that Brown is eager to get a contract deal done with the California Correctional Peace Officers Association. Yank has represented CCPOA as an attorney with Carroll, Burdick & McDonough LLP...
LINK - SacBee.com
October 22, 2010
Memo from Chuck Alexander re: PML 2010-027 Furlough Program
Yesterday, the Department of Personnel Administration issued a new PMLto all Personnel Officers, which was forwarded to you by Perry Speth.
This PML states:
"Effective November 2, 2010 furloughs will be self directed. All State agencies and departments must ensure that employees take their three furlough days off within the pay period their total compensation is adjusted."
It is our belief that this is an attempt by DPAto convince the Appellate Court that all Unit 6 members are furloughed the same as those employees covered by the recent Supreme Court decision regarding furloughs. We are in the process of developing and submitting an information request seeking the CDCR plan that complies with this "new" furlough program...
October 12, 2010
CCPOA Memo re: DPA, Furloughs and Pension Contribution Issues
To: State Board of Directors
From: Chuck Alexander, CCPOA Executive Vice President
Date: October 11, 2010
Re: DPA, Furloughs and Pension Contribution Issues
The latest information regarding the just-passed state budget for Unit 6 members is as follows.
The budget bill authorizes the governor to impose furloughs or institute other cost-saving measures on employees in five bargaining units including CCPOA. This authorization was approved in order to attain the $600 million in employee compensation reductions as required by the budget...
September 22, 2010
Supervisory Update: September 22, 2010 (Various Issues)
Dear Supervisory Member,
Over the past week numerous meetings have been held in various forums to discuss supervisory issues.
On Thursday September 16th Steve Weiss, CCPOA Chief of Labor, Michael Smalley, CCPOA Benefit Trust and myself attended a meeting with two DPA Labor Relations employees. We initiated this meeting to request giving our SO6 and MO6 members the option of remaining with the CCPOA Benefit Trust for dental. I know for me personally it would save $60 a month. It may not work for everyone, but we believe we should have the option, just as other units that operate their own trusts have...
August 5, 2010
DPA Memo re: 2010 Furlough Program Effective August 2010
Per Executive Order S-12-10, DPA has adopted a Furlough Program effective August 1, 2010 for all State employees, except those in State agencies and departments identified below. Employees will have three furlough days on the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th Fridays of each pay period. The first furlough Friday is August 13, 2010. Salaries will be reduced to reflect the furlough days, but benefits will remain the same...
July 27, 2010
CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS BREAKDOWN BETWEEN CCPOA/ ADMINISTRATION
WEST SACRAMENTO - Renewed contract negotiations, which began July 13, 2010, between the California Correctional Peace Officers Association and Governor Schwarzenegger’s administration ended abruptly when the state virtually closed the door on more than $150 million in savings for taxpayers.
CCPOA negotiators were informed by DPA officials that their proposal was “dead on arrival” and the Governor has declined to entertain any further discussions with CCPOA...
July 16, 2010
RULING ON TRO - Endsley v. Chiang
July 16, 2010
Ruling on Intervention - Endsley v. Chiang
DEBBIE L. ENDSLEY, et al., v. JOHN CHIANG, et al., Case No. 2010-80000591:
The following shall constitute the Court's ruling on the ex parte applications for leave to intervene in this action filed by four state employee organizations, which was heard in Department 19 on Friday, July 16, 2010.
Plaintiffs Debbie L. Endsley, the Director of the California Department of Personnel Administration, and the Department, have filed a petition for writ of mandate or prohibition, and a complaint for declaratory relief, against defendants Office of the State Controller and the Controller, John Chiang...
July 14, 2010
CCPOA Case Update Memo to State Board
I have been asked to provide a brief status report regarding the major cases we have pending in various legal venues. This update covers only those issues being handled by CB&M. I will prepare an update for in-house cases and PERB's within the next few days.
Furloughs - As you are aware, we prevailed in Superior Court and are presently awaiting a decision from the Appellate Court. There is no time frame the Court is required to meet relative to issuing a decision...
January 1, 2010
General Layoff Information
CCPOA is working hard to obtain all the information on the proposed CDCR layoff as it becomes available. We have created this section of the website to provide you with the latest information we have received, and more importantly attempted to confirm.
In addition to having our legal team reviewing the entire layoff program that has been proposed, CCPOA is also doing everything it can to provide the Legislature and Administration with concrete examples of the impact the layoffs will have on both employees and public safety as a whole.
September 21, 2009
New CDCR, DPA appointments by Gov
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger today announced the following appointments:
Julie Chapman, 51, of Citrus Heights, has been appointed chief deputy director of policy at the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA). She has served DPA in the Labor Relations Division as deputy director since 2006, assistant chief from 2004 to 2006 and labor relations officer from 2000 to 2004. Prior to that, Chapman worked for the Department of Mental Health as a labor relations specialist from 1996 to 2000 and the Department of General Services as a labor relations analyst from 1994 to 1996. She was an associate personnel analyst for the Department of General Services from 1993 to 1994 and Department of Housing and Community Services from 1988 to 1992. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $114,024. Chapman is a Democrat.
Debbie Endsley, 51, of Placerville, has been appointed director of the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA). She has served DPA as chief deputy director since 2007, chief of the Benefits Division from 2004 to 2006 and deputy chief of the Benefits Division from 1998 to 2004. Prior to that, Endsley served the California Public Employees' Retirement System as a research analyst from 1995 to 1998 and the Department of Rehabilitation as an associate budget analyst from 1988 to 1995 and associate personnel analyst from 1984 to 1988. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $142,965. Endsley is a Republican.
Fernando Gonzalez, 52, of Tehachapi, has been appointed warden of the California Correctional Institution (CCI) for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). He has served at CCI as chief deputy warden since 2006, acting warden since 2007 and correctional administrator from 2005 to 2006. Prior to that, Gonzalez was a correctional administrator for CDCR from 2002 to 2004. He served at the California Men's Colony as correctional captain from 1996 to 2002, correctional counselor II-supervisor from 1993 to 1996, correctional lieutenant from 1990 to 1993, correctional counselor I from 1989 to 1990, correctional sergeant from 1986 to 1989 and correctional officer from 1981 to 1986. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $129,108. Gonzalez is a Democrat.
Michael Martel, 54, of Sacramento, has been appointed warden of Mule Creek State Prison (MCSP) for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). He has served MCSP as acting warden since 2008 and chief deputy warden since 2007. Prior to that, Martel was associate warden of CDCR headquarters then acting chief deputy warden of MCSP in 2007. He served the California State Prison, Sacramento as associate warden from 2006 to 2007, correctional captain from 2004 to 2006 and in 2000 and facility captain from 2001 to 2004. Martel served at CDCR headquarters as correctional lieutenant from 1998 to 2000 and as a labor relations specialist from 1996 to 1998. He was a correctional lieutenant at the California Medical Facility from 1990 to 1996, correctional sergeant at Folsom State Prison from 1986 to 1990 and correctional officer at San Quentin State Prison from 1981 to 1986. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $129,108. Martel is a Republican.
Socorro Salinas, 57, of Oakdale, has been appointed warden of the Deuel Vocational Institution (DVI) for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Since 2008, she has served as acting warden of DVI. Salinas served as chief deputy warden for the Sierra Conservation Center from 2007 to 2008, correctional administrator for San Quentin State Prison (SQ) from 2003 to 2007 and correctional counselor III with the Office of Substance Abuse Programs at the Northern California Women's Facility from 2002 to 2003. She served at California State Prison, Sacramento (SAC) as correctional captain from 2000 to 2002 and facility captain from 1995 to 2000. Salinas was a correctional lieutenant at Mule Creek State Prison and SAC from 1987 to 1995 and correctional sergeant for the Richard A. McGee Correctional Training Facility from 1985 to 1987. She served at SQ as a correctional sergeant from 1984 to 1985 and correctional officer from 1980 to 1984. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $129,108. Salinas is a Democrat.
Source: www.gov.ca.gov
July 6, 2009
Personnel Administration chief leaving in September
Dave Gilb will leave his post in September as head of the Department of Personnel Administration.
CalPERS' Board of Administration President Rob Feckner disclosed the news in joint memo with pension fund CEO Anne Stausboll to CalPERS staff. (Scroll down to "Board Member Update.") Gilb told his staff the news last week. He has worked in state government for 35 years.
He was planning to retire earlier, but stayed on to head up DPA at the request of the Schwarzenegger administration. His last day in the office will be Sept. 4, three days before he turns 60. In his retirement letter to the governor, Gilb said he wanted to retire to spend more time with his two young grandchildren…
LINK - SacBee.com
August 11, 2008
letter from John Chiang to DPA
Read the letter from John Chiang to DPA regarding the pay letter dated August 5th, 2008
August 6, 2008
Schwarzenegger Administration Details Exemptions to Pay Cuts
In a letter to Controller John Chiang (D), Department of Personnel Administration Director Dave Gilb spelled out which state employees should be exempted from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's (R) directive to cut state workers' pay to the federal minimum wage, the Los Angeles Times reports (Halper/Rothfeld, Los Angeles Times, 8/6).
Schwarzenegger administration officials say the move is intended to preserve the state's cash reserves to ensure that the state will be able to cover its expenses in September if lawmakers remain deadlocked over a state budget…
LINK - CaliforniaHealthLine.org
May 19, 2008
CCPOA Sends a Letter to Dave Gilb/DPA re: the State’s Agreement to Return to the Bargaining Table
Based on the letter from Ms Rodriquez of May 7, 2008 and DPA's commitments as represented by Mr. Smith at the recent PERB settlement conference, CCPOA understands the following...
April 3, 2008
Letter to the Editor: DPA discusses bargaining with CCPOA
The following is a "letter to the editor" submitted to Capitol Weekly by Julie Chapman, Deputy Director of DPA:
Your report (Capitol Weekly, March 27) describing attempts by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association to "force the state back to the bargaining table" conveys an impression that this administration has refused to bargain with CCPOA. In fact, we've been open to negotiating a new contract…
LINK - CapitolWeekly.net
March 27, 2008
Prison guards union seeks court action
California's prison guards union, which has been without a labor contract for 21 months, is going to court to force the state back to the bargaining table. The unusual legal maneuvering is an end-run around the Public Employment Relations Board, which earlier rejected an attempt by the California Correctional Peace Officers Association to get the state to resume negotiations. But the 30,500-member CCPOA said PERB's denial paved the way for the prison officers to seek other legal remedies, including a Superior Court suit. The geographic region of the suit has not yet been determined.
The state Department of Personnel Administration, which represents the governor in negotiating collective bargaining agreements with state employee unions, made its final offer to the union in September 2007 and does not plan to resume talks…
LINK - CapitolWeekly.net (Capitol Weekly)
March 6, 2008
Motion for Stay of Hearing
On March 6th 2008 the State sought to delay the PERB hearing on the LBFO set for April 16 and 17 in this MOTION FOR STAY OF HEARING.
The following excerpts clearly show the State's resistance to returning to the bargaining table by making the most unbelievable claims such as:
The State's fiscal crisis is not a change in circumstance that warrants renewed bargaining Because CCPOA has made no concessions and no movement to indicate that an agreement may be possible.
There exists no reasonable cause to conclude the statewide fiscal emergency constitutes a Change of circumstance breaking the current state of impasse and giving rise to a duty to bargain because there has been no concession nor any movement to indicate an agreement may be possible.
February 28, 2008
For Corrections, Next Year’s Layoffs May Be Steep
The proposed staff reductions of 5,854 "personnel years" for the 2008-09 fiscal year that begins July 1 are contingent on legislative approval of the governor's plan to release of 22,000 inmates statewide. The prisoner-release order - which applies to releases of "nonserious, nonviolent, and non sexual offenders" is still pending in legislature.
"To achieve the budget projections, there needs to be a significant reduction in staff," said Seth Unger, spokesman for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR). "We believe that many of these savings would be achieved by eliminating vacant positions and offering early retirements."
LINK - CapitolWeekly.net
February 25, 2008
President’s Message: 2-25-08 Update
Last week, CCPOA received a letter from DPA (Dave Gilb) dated February 15, 2008, in which he continues to deny any culpability for the status of labor relations between CCPOA and CDCR.
He tries to be clever in asserting "facts" that only show that he either:(I) has no knowledge whatsoever of his department's failed attempts to negotiate with CCPOA; or more likely that (2) he simply has no concept of words like truth, honesty, or good faith negotiations. He does make it abundantly clear however, that he doesn't believe he will ever be called to answer for his dealings with CCPOA. I won't use this forum, or my time to address all the false statements, but will respond to some of the more critical issues raised in his letter.
Make no mistake, it is Mr. Gilb and his Department that have placed the people of California in harm's way, if that is where we all collectively stand at this moment. His continuing efforts to evade any public review of the facts surrounding the negotiations between the State and CCPOA force the elevation of consequences. It is painfully obvious that they have no understanding of the resolve of this union, its leadership, or the members that we represent. Our position could not be any clearer.
When each and every CCPOA member puts on a badge, we swear an oath to the people of California to voluntarily give our lives to protect the life of a citizen, a coworker, and every inmate, no matter what crime he or she committed.
What would give them the impression that we would allow them to steal the past twenty years of effort by this member run union, without engaging them with every ounce of strength we can muster and every penny we can beg or borrow? How do they presume that we fear their threats more than serious injury or death?
Their threats of retaliatory or punitive actions will have no effect on our future decisions. Managers like that already make such threats every day to Unit 6 members working on the line. We are used to this type of behavior. A threat to hold CCPOA responsible for any job action we undertake means nothing, insofar as they are already seeking an author for legislation to destroy CCPOA and our members' rights under the Dills Act. The inference that CDCR or DPA will terminate our employment, or have us imprisoned, only strengthens our resolve to move forward with a vote.
The claim that a law or statute exists that specifically prohibits CCPOA and its members from engaging in a labor action that may include a strike is just plain false. There is case law that may favor that position, but the statement "we both know that a strike is unlawful" is further evidence of their chronic inability to tell the truth.
As we have previously stated, it's evident that the State knows the five members of the Public Employees Relations Board (PERB) are all Governor Schwarzenegger appointees. Such people are not likely to fairly adjudicate CCPOA's complaints. The deck has been stacked against us in the very forum where we would normally take labor management disputes. At a minimum, this forum (PERB) will take years to hear our issues if their current "speed" is any indication.
However, the probability of our success is not the prevailing factor in determining whether or not to take on this fight at PERB or in any other forum. Mr. Gilb and his sycophants' tactics require us to respond with unconventional methods when fundamental rights are under attack. Under no circumstance will CCPOA stand idly by and allow them to take away our right to collectively bargain. The legislation devised to implement their self-proclaimed "last, best and final offer" does precisely that and you, as members need to know that. The legislation strips the protections of the Dills Act from the members of Unit 6 and this Administration would have it done quietly and without the knowledge of our members and the people of California. We cannot permit that to occur.
CCPOA does not seek a job action of any kind. A job action appears to be the one ofthe few options still available, as the DP A and CDCR have systematically attempted to eliminate all other forums and methods available to us. We cannot let them take the rights of our members without fighting them every way we can.
Their actions allow no forum, and therefore no other options!
In the attached letter responding to Gilb's February 15 letter, we did challenge Mr. Gilb to what amounts to a "lie detector" test. We challenged him to agree to voluntarily appear before a committee of the whole of the Legislature to answer questions while under oath about the acts, by him, or his underlings on behalf of his department, while engaged in negotiations with CCPOA. We committed to make ourselves part of that same "hearing" in order for the public and the Legislature to hear the truth. CCPOA has no fear of the truth being revealed. [CCPOA response letter to DPA]
Unfortunately, Mr. Gilb and I both know that if such a hearing occurs, this Administrations behavior will not withstand the scrutiny. DP A and this Administration have never engaged in good faith negotiations with CCPOA. They never intended to get a MOU with CCPOA, and from the start they intended to destroy the rights of Unit 6 members. The truth will reveal this simple fact, which is the reason they have so diligently avoided bringing their tactics into the light of a public forum. It is time to bring all the facts into the open.
In my February 7 letter, I stated that their immediate return to good faith negotiation provided one path to avoid drastic action by CCPOA. They of course refused to take this path. In an effort to do everything possible to avoid job action, and because they will not negotiate fairly with CCPOA, what we are seeking, at this point, is a chance to show their conduct to the public in the fair and open forum described above. Rest assured Mr. Gilb, that we shall not stop until you are required to defend the deplorable tactics you have utilized during negotiations with CCPOA, while under oath, in a forum that is immune to the influence of you or this Administration.
Mike Jimenez, President
Documents:
Gilb's February 15 letter
CCPOA response letter to DPA - February 22
February 21, 2008
Governor Appoints New Staff to BPH and DPA
Arthur Anderson Jr., 60, of Roseville, has been appointed to the Board of Parole Hearings. Since 2000, he has been a law enforcement consultant for the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. From 2004 to 2007, Anderson served as assistant commissioner for field operations at the California Highway Patrol (CHP) and, from 2001 to 2004, was the chief of
the valley division for CHP. From 2000 to 2001, he was chief of the professional standards division at CHP and, from 1999 to 2000, was assistant chief of the Golden Gate division at CHP. Prior to that, Anderson was director of the California Office of Traffic Safety from 1993 to 1999. From 1974 to 1992, he served in various other positions with CHP including captain commander, lieutenant, sergeant and patrol officer. This position requires Senate confirmation and the compensation is $111,845. Anderson is a Republican.
Randy Fisher, 43, of Elk Grove, has been appointed senior labor relations officer for the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA). Since December 2007, he has been on limited term assignment as labor relations manager II at DPA. From 2004 to 2007, Fisher served as labor relations manager at the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and, from 2001 to 2004, was senior labor relations officer at DPA. Prior to that, he was labor relations manager I at the Department of Education from 1997 to 2001 and labor relations specialist at the Department of Food and Agriculture from 1995 to 1997. From 1993 to 1995, Fisher was labor relations analyst at the Department of Health Services and, from 1988 to 1993, was senior labor relations representative at the San Joaquin Public Employees Association. This position does not require Senate confirmation and the compensation is $90,060. Fisher is a Republican.
See the FULL LIST of appointments for February 20, 2008 at gov.ca.gov
February 12, 2008
Officials Tight-Lipped About No Pay Raise for Prison Guards
Lynelle Jolley, DPA spokeswoman, said the state needs to get an officers' contract signed. "We've tried bargaining, we've tried mediation - we'd try therapy if we thought the LAO would think it would help," Jolley said. Beyond that, Jolley said the DPA had no comment other than that "We stand by our offer (of a 5-percent raise)…"
LINK - FolsomTelegraph.com
February 7, 2008
MOU Letter “Labor Management Relations in Bargaining Unit 6”
Dear Mr. Gilb:
Since the implementation of the last, best and final offer (LBFO) began on September 18, 2007, labor relations in Bargaining Unit 6 could fairly be describes as abysmal. Management has begun to unilaterally force new post and bid systems .......
January 30, 2008
MOU Letter “Response to Request to Commence Post-Implementation Bargaining”
Dear Mr. Alexander and Mrs. Branine:
We have just reviewed your letters of December 12, 2007 and January 16, 2008 and must decline your request to commence post- implementation bargaining. We respectfully disagree that any of the events described in your letters constitutes a "change of circumstances" that revives bargaining.
January 18, 2008
MOU Letter “Reviewing and Analyzing”
Dear Messrs. Gilb, Tilton, Lear, and Monday:
On December 27, 2007, I sent you a letter requesting information pursuant to the Ralph C. Dills Act. THe information requested related to the actions taken by the State to implement the last, best and final offer......
January 16, 2008
MOU Letter “Request for Clarification Regarding Bargain in Good Faith”
Early this year, CCPOA and DPA met at PERB to attend a mandatory settlement conference. Although the case didn't settle, the parties did discuss the December 27, 2007, letter. During that discussion, DPA asked for clarification which was provided by CCPOA legal counsel in a letter to them (DPA) dated January 16, 2008. That letter is important in that it reiterated our position and followed up on the question we specifically asked during that meeting at PERB. The final paragraph of the letter from January 16 states:
If the State is not prepared to return to the bargaining table based on the terms outlined above, please advise me under what terms, if any, the State is prepared to return to the bargaining table.
January 1, 2008
President’s Message: “It’s a LIE!”
Dear Member:
It is with great sadness that we must inform you of the latest Administration LIE regarding our expired contract. If you haven't already seen the December 14, 2007, memo from the Department of Personnel Administration addressed to all Unit 6 employees, you soon will as the Department was ordered to disseminate it immediately. This memo, signed by D. Gilb and J. Tilton, would result in dishonesty charges and an allegation of "code of silence" if it were a report written by anyone of us.
IT's A LIE
If you read the two bullet points that are made by Secretary Tilton and Director Gilb, they would have you believe that the state has legal problems with " three years of it economic offer." Therein lays the LIE.
The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issued a complaint dated December 7, 2007, that is attached to this letter. In reading the complaint, at numeral 5 you will note the specific charge which Tilton and Gilb are lying about. It reads: by implementing terms and conditions for a three year duration, Respondent acted contrary to the provisions of Government Code sections 3517 and 3517.8, and thus violated Government Code sections 3519(c). No mention was made whatsoever about this charge being limited to "economic " issues or "offers" as Tilton and Gilb write. In fact, "terms and conditions" encompasses everything associated with a contract, not just the economic issues. This charge means that the State violated the law by imposing any and all of its last offer for more than the time allowed.
Included below are the specific code sections referenced in the PERB charge:
3517. The Governor, or his representative as may be properly designated by law, shall meet and confer in good faith regarding wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment with representatives of recognized employee organizations, and shall consider fully such presentations as are made by the employee organization on behalf of its members prior to arriving at a determination of policy or course of action.
"Meet and confer in good faith" means that the Governor or such representatives as the Governor may designate, and representatives of recognized employee organizations, shall have the mutual obligation personally to meet and confer promptly upon request by either party and continue for a reasonable period of time in order to exchange freely information, opinions, and proposals, and to endeavor to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation prior to the adoption by the state of its final budget for the ensuing year. The process should include adequate time for the resolution of impasses.
3517.8. (a) 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, subject to subdivision (b), 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.
(b) If the Governor and the recognized employee organization reach an impasse in negotiations for a new memorandum of understanding, the state employer may implement any or all of its last, best, and final offer. Any proposal in the state employer's last, best, and final offer that, if implemented, would conflict with existing statutes or require the expenditure of funds shall be presented to the Legislature for approval and, if approved, shall be controlling without further legislative action, notwithstanding Sections 3517.5, 3517.6, and 3517.7.. Implementation of the last, best, and final offer does not relieve the parties of the obligation to bargain in good faith and reach an agreement on a memorandum of understanding if any circumstances change, and does not waive any rights that the recognized employee organization has under this chapter.
3519.5. It shall be unlawful for an employee organization to:
(a) Cause or attempt to cause the state to violate Section 3519.
(b) Impose or threaten to impose reprisals on employees, to discriminate or threaten to discriminate against employees, or otherwise to interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees because of their exercise of rights guaranteed by this chapter.
(c) Refuse or fail to meet and confer in good faith with a state agency employer of any of the employees of which it is the recognized employee organization.
(d) Refuse to participate in good faith in the mediation procedure set forth in Section 3518.
As you can read in the code sections, Gilb and Tilton left out the portion regarding the PERB complaint as related to "terms and conditions" and made a point of rescinding the "economic" portion of the offer. This is nothing new from this Administration, remember the last contract and the concessions we made? This alone should convince you that there was never any intention on this Administration's part to reach a fair contract with us. We were never offered anything less than a three year all or nothing deal specifically in writing to us from DPA "a rejection of any part of a package proposal constitutes a rejection of the entire package proposal" (attached memo from DPA dated September 12, 2007), and now they claim that the economic portion has to be withdrawn due to a complaint initiated by CCPOA.
In closing their memo of lies, Tilton and Gilb write that the "complaint does not affect any of the other changes to policies or procedures cited in our September 18, 2007, correspondence. Therefore, the changes to various provisions, which include, but are not limited to, the grievance procedure, employee requested transfers, sick leave, and post and bid procedures will continue consistent with the State's implementation."
In other words, they are just going to take away the promised monies and go forward on taking away non economic items from the contract. They fail to tell you that they are taking away post and bid from the Youth Authority, or that the sick leave they are proposing is a standard that is less than current State law (which is why they need Legislative approval). They fail to tell you that they are, at least under the language given to us, able to transfer you anywhere and anytime they deem it necessary, or tell you that they can deny you State representation if you are sued by an inmate for doing your job. They leave out the change to the employee grievance process and don't mention the entire deletion of the section dealing with parole agent workload, and a host of other issues too numerous to point out here. However, they are trying real hard to get you to believe that if we don't get the promised monies from this year, it won't be their fault; after all they still claim to "hope" to reach a new agreement with CCPOA.
You can read the entire PERB complaint, (attached) and judge for yourself. We will file an official rebuttal with PERB and request that this charge be upheld and continue forward, as the State has NOT resolved this case by retaliating against us in rescinding only the monetary portion of the last best and final offer. It's quite ironic that the LAST, best and FINAL offer has changed multiple times since being issued, (DPA letter of September 12, 2007, is just one example) and that is exactly what happened at the negotiations table, which made it impossible to reach agreement.
- Mike Jimenez
Download the .pdf versions of these supporting documents:December 27, 2007
CCPOA writes to DPA concerning good faith bargain
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.)
December 27, 2007
CCPOA Demands a Return to the Bargaining Table
Dear Mr. Gilb
On December 7, 2007, the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issues an unfair practice complaint against the State alleging that the State cannot lawfully implement all three years of its last best and final offer (LBFO) which was imposed on Bargaining Unit 6 members effective September 18, 2007.
December 27, 2007
MOU Letter “Demand to Bargain in Good Faith”
Dear Mr. Gilb:
On December 7, 2007. the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) issued an unfair practice complaint against the State alleging that the State cannot lawfully implement all three years of its last best and final offer (LBFO) which was imposed on Bargaining Unit 6......
December 14, 2007
Chuck Alexander Memo 12-14-07
Yesterday, December 13th, 2007, we sent you a copy of the Department of Personnel Administration's (DPA) initial response letter to the public Employment Board (PERB). In this letter...
December 14, 2007
DPA Letter to EEs - Dated 12.14.07
SUBJECT: Status of Implemented Terms
In correspondence to you dated September 18, 2007, we informed you of our intention to implement certain terms and conditions of employment following the rejection of our final offer by CCPOA. In that correspondence we, informed you of our intention to implement all three years of the economics contained in that offer.
December 14, 2007
CCPOA Memo re: DPA Letter - Dated 12.14.07
State Board,
Yesterday, December 13,2007, we sent you a copy of the Department of Personnel Administration's (DPA) initial response letter to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). In this letter, DPA has withdrawn the second and third year "economic proposals" of its (State's) implemented package. The significance ofthis is quite obvious in that, as we predicted long ago, this Administration never intended to honor any multiyear year package including any pay increase to Unit 6. Also, with the current budget problems created by this Administration, it remains to be seen whether the pay promised to Unit 6 for this year will happen.
In reading the letter further, you will note that the State "agrees" with CCPOA's complaint regarding the "omission" of the vice presidents' leave (VPL) in the last best and final. As a result, this section ofthe LBF will presumably be honored by the State. That remains to be seen.
December 13, 2007
DPA Letter - Dated 12.13.07
Re: California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California, et al.
UPC No. SA-CE-1621-S
Request for Dismissal
Dear Mr. Smith:
The California Correctional Peace Officers' Association (CCPOA), in its Second Amended Unfair Practice Charge, alleged that the State engaged in a number of unfair practices. On December 7,2007, the Office of the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) agreed with CCPOA on two matters and issued a complaint against the State of California (State). (See, separate PERB letters, dated December 7,2007, Notice of Complaint and Partial Dismissal.)
December 13, 2007
DPA Letter - Dated 12.13.07
Re: California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California, et al.
UPC No. SA-CE-1621-S
Request for Dismissal
Dear Mr. Smith:
The California Correctional Peace Officers' Association (CCPOA), in its Second Amended Unfair Practice Charge, alleged that the State engaged in a number of unfair practices. On December 7,2007, the Office of the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) agreed with CCPOA on two matters and issued a complaint against the State of California (State). (See, separate PERB letters, dated December 7,2007, Notice of Complaint and Partial Dismissal.)
December 7, 2007
CCPOA vs. PERB - Official Complaint
It having been charged by Charging Party that Respondent engaged in unfair practices in violation of California Government Code section 3519, the General Counsel of the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), pursuant to California Government Code sections 3513(h), 3514.5 and 3541.3(i) and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 32640, issues this COMPLAINT on behalf of PERB and alleges:
December 7, 2007
PERB Partial Dismissal - Dated 12.07.07
Re: California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1621-S (Second Amended Charge)
PARTIAL DISMISSAL
Dear Mr. Adam:
The above-referenced unfair practice charge was filed on September 25,2007, and amended on October 2,2007. The California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) alleges that the State of California (Department of Personnel Administration) (State or DPA) violated the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act)...
December 7, 2007
PERB Complaint - Dated 12.07.07
Re: California Correctional Peace Officers Association v. State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
Unfair Practice Charge No. SA-CE-1621-S
Dear Parties:
The Office of the General Counsel has issued the enclosed COMPLAINT in the above-entitled matter. The Respondent is required to file an ANSWER within 20 calendar days from the date of service of the COMPLAINT, pursuant to PERB Regulation 32644. The required contents of the ANSWER are described in Regulation 32644(b). If you have not filed a Notice of Appearance form, one should be completed and returned with your ANSWER.
December 7, 2007
MOU Letter “Unfair Practice Charge”
Dear Parties:
The Office of the General Counsel has issued the enclosed COMPLAINT in the above-entitled matter. The Respondent is required to file an ANSWER within 20 calendar days from the date of service of the COMPLAINT.....
October 18, 2007
President’s Message: PERB Denies Relief Request
This afternoon CCPOA received notification from the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) that our request for PERB to file an injunction to halt the implementation of the State's last, best, and final offer was "denied without prejudice." The one sentence response further states that the PERB did not believe that sufficient grounds exist to warrant the filing for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA).
This comes as no surprise to CCPOA. We knew the threshold of "irreparable harm" was difficult to establish in this circumstance and anticipated this response. However, we were expecting a response that gave much more substantial information about the rationale of the Board in reaching their decision and also some indication of the course of action for addressing the merits of the Unfair Labor Practice (ULP) charges CCPOA filed. Neither were included, nor offered verbally upon contact with the Board. Upon reading the following document, please take note of the three Board members (listed at the bottom) who were responsible for rendering this decision. Their bios, taken directly from the PERB web page are included as well.
Notice that all three are appointees of Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and two of them have less than sixty days on the Board. Please also take note of the positions that each recently held before their appointment. It should help explain the brevity and rationale of the decision.
We will now have to wait for a hearing date to be set in front of PERB to address the merits, both individually and collectively, of the ULP that CCPOA filed against DPA. The law has specific requirements that need to be met when adjudicating the ULP and we are optimistic that future decisions, which will receive more public scrutiny, will be based on the spirit and intent of law and include acknowledgement of our legitimate complaint. Just remember, this is not a sprint, it's going to be a marathon. We still have a very, very long way to go before we win. PERB's decision was anticipated by us and does not equate to a setback.
As our past experiences have taught us, this Administration is more than willing to deal from the bottom of the deck whenever necessary to win. If money is on the table, we must also look for marked cards. Thus far, the impasse process has been an extension of the tactics and treatment shown by the Governor's representatives at the negotiating table.
We all have extensive experience with clever people who possess quick hands and occasionally, a good line of BS. Perhaps in the future the Administration will stop trying to be "clever" and really attempt to solve the understaffing and overcrowding crisis, be quick to extend a hand when help is needed, and keep the BS for fertilizer and use it to save the environment. At some point, hopefully, this Administration will realize that the attempts at distraction and deception only add to the ongoing disrespect they have shown the men and women who continue to work "the Toughest Beat in the State." We know in our hearts that Correctional Peace Officers are not second-class peace officers in any manner whatsoever. We know, and the citizens of California know, that the job we do is equal in stature to, and importance of, any other law enforcement agency in the nation. We protect the same children, schools, hospitals, bridges, government, society and way of life from those who would cause harm, like all the men and women who don a badge every day. None of us is expendable. Our friends, our families, our children, and the people we protect and serve need us to return home every day in the same condition we were in when we reported for duty. It's time this administration acknowledges what the citizens of California already know – we provide a vital service to the state. And we know, that despite what the Governor and his newspapers say, this conflict is not about money, it's not about power and it's not about control. IT'S ABOUT RESPECT! It's about this Administration continually blaming every failure of the system they created on the men and women who spend their lives on the line; for far too many hours, 24-7-365. It's about being honest; working hard and being able to provide for and take care of those we love. It's about spending time with our children and providing them more choices and opportunities than our generation enjoys.
None of our lives, hopes, dreams or memories is for sale. Nor are those that belong to our families. They are priceless. If something cannot be bought, it damn sure won't be taken, NOT ON MY WATCH, NOT WITHOUT A FIGHT!!! Be safe, stand tall, and stand together.
Mike Jimenez CCPOA State President
Injunctive Relief Request (.pdf Adobe Acrobat format)
PANEL MEMBERS FOR CCPOA v. DPA-Injunctive relief
(Emphasis added)
Sally M. McKeag:
On February 23, 2007, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger reappointed Sally M. McKeag to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). She has served in this capacity since March 2005. Having previously served as Chief Deputy Director of the California Employment Development Department from 2004 to 2005 and as deputy staff director for the Office of Governor-Elect Schwarzenegger from 2003 to 2004, she will continue her public service in the Schwarzenegger Administration as a Member of PERB. Her term ends on December 31, 2011. Sally returned to California after two years in Washington, D.C., working for the U.S. Department of Labor. Specifically, she was recruited to serve as Chief of Staff to the Employment and Training Administration Assistant Secretary. Prior to her employment at the Department of Labor, Sally served in a variety of capacities for the California State Senate and Governor Pete Wilson. Specifically, she served as Director of Public Affairs for the Senate Republican Caucus. Under Governor Wilson, she served as Deputy Director of Operations for the Department of Consumer Affairs, Acting Deputy Director of the Department of Fish and Game, and Director of Constituent Affairs.
Before coming to California to work for Governor Wilson, Sally served in the Reagan and Bush Administrations in Washington, D.C. She was the Director of the Executive Secretariat at the Environmental Protection Agency. She also served as Special Assistant to the Secretary of the Interior.
Karen Neuwald:
KAREN L. NEUWALD has enjoyed a 25-year career in state government service. Karen was appointed to the Public Employment Relations Board in July 2005, and was designated the Chair in August 2007. Prior to her appointment to the Board, she was the Chief of Governmental Affairs for the California Public Employees' Retirement System for two years. From November 1996 to July 2003, she served as the Assistant Director for Legislation, running the legislative program for the Department of General Services. For 11 years prior to DGS, Karen worked at the Department of Personnel Administration. She began her career at DPA working on policy and legal issues, and then spent six years directing DPA's legislative program. Karen had her entrée in state government in 1982 working as an analyst at the Legislative Analyst's Office. As a legislative analyst, she worked on budget matters related to employee compensation, collective bargaining, health care, and retirement issues. Karen is a graduate of the University of Oklahoma and the University of Texas, where she received a master's degree in public affairs.
Tiffany Rystrom:
Since 2001, she has been of counsel with the law firm Carroll, Burdick & McDonough. From 1983 to 2000, Rystrom was a partner in the law firm Franchetti & Rystrom, previously known as Franchetti & Franchetti. Previously, she served as a deputy attorney general for the California Attorney General's Office from 1980 to 1983 and a deputy district attorney for the Marin County District Attorney's Office from 1978 to 1979. Rystrom is a member of the California State Bar.
October 2, 2007
CCPOA Files Unfair Labor Practices Against DPA
Press Statement:
This afternoon, at the Public Employment Relations Board in Sacramento, CCPOA filed an "Unfair Labor Practices" complaint against the California Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) and a request for an injunction prohibiting DPA from implementing its "take it or leave it" Last, Best & Final Offer (LBFO).
CCPOA contends that DPA has committed numerous violations of law governing public employees, specifically, DPA's failure to bargain in good faith with CCPOA.
The charges leveled by CCPOA against DPA include:
- DPA's repeated failure to provide CCPOA with requested, relevant and necessary information needed to allow CCPOA to prepare for negotiations talks;
- DPA's refusal to answer questions posed by CCPOA negotiators;
- DPA's engagement of meaningless "surface bargaining" designed to create the appearance of good faith bargaining, while all along having no intent to bargain fairly with CCPOA;
- DPA's failure to bargain over proposed changes in mandatory subjects in the collective bargaining process;
- DPA's failure to adhere to established government code provisions (Dills Act) which prohibits DPA from imposing a 3-year LBFO on CCPOA;
- DPA's failure to follow the law which prohibits DPA from enacting additional take-aways outside its LBFO;
- DPA's discriminatory and interfering restrictions on protected employee activities;
- DPA's unlawful implementation of its LBFO without a determination of impasse by PERB.
This list should not, in any way, be construed as the complete list of complaints CCPOA has and will be filing against what we believe to be the unlawful actions of DPA as they relate to the entire collective bargaining process.
Please see the attached documents below and read for yourself how CCPOA continues fighting for its members.
September 12, 2007
Package Offer - Dated 09.12.07
The State of California (State) hereby makes the following last, best and final offer to CCPOA to settle and conclude negotiations over a successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
The State proposes a 3-year package offer which provides fiscal certainty for the State and guarantees specific and transparent pay increases to the members of Unit 6, the State's employees.
This offer is a formal offer and supersedes all others. This is a package offer which must be accepted or rejected in its entirety.
September 12, 2007
Letter from DPA - Dated 09.12.07
Dear Messrs. Adam, Jimenez, Weiss and Alexander:
On August 22, 2007, the State of California (State) provided a package offer to you. We received the California Peace Officer Associations (CCPOA's) rejection of this offer on September 5, 2007. Although we appreciate CCPOA's agreement to rollover language, CCPOA failed to address all of the sections identified on the summary sheet, and added other sections that were not a part of the respective sheet...
September 12, 2007
President’s Message: “Thank you Sir, may I please have another?”
By the time you have received, or perhaps had the time to read this message, you will have most likely heard that CCPOA has withdrawn from the mediation process. If you heard it from "the Boss", it was likely followed by "the State has once again made a generous financial offer and only requested modest language changes to the MOU."
You can make up your own mind about the "generosity" of the offer and the "modesty" of the language changes by reading the summary or the specific language of the State's all or nothing package proposal. A summary was provided to CCPOA by DPA and is available for review on the CCPOA website.
Or if you choose to do so, either before or after reading the State's package offer, you can read the following opinion from one person intimately engaged in all aspects of the negotiations process. As the Statewide President of CCPOA, my sole responsibility is to advocate on behalf of the members of Bargaining Unit 6. Therefore, I make no attempt to feign objectivity.
The following is an attempt at a brief and, admittedly, jaundiced review of the latest insult from the State to the men and women of CCPOA in the form of a piece of crap proposal.
We received the documents, approximately 350 pages, (I haven't counted) at CCPOA headquarters at about three o'clock on the afternoon of August 22, 2007. Ironically (note the sarcasm), we received calls from legislators and the media to comment on the proposal before it was delivered to CCPOA. This boorish tactic deserves to be trademarked by this administration.
This was approximately three hours after CCPOA notified the State mediator that we would no longer be participating in the mediation process. We withdrew from participation because we believe that the mediation process has been totally non-productive. Further meetings, absent good faith from the State, are meaningless as well. Our respective teams have only met face to face for ten minutes in the last four months.
The State team refused to sign a "sign in" sheet. They refused to identify the participants from their side. They (whomever they are) rejected, (through the mediator) without consideration, every proposal CCPOA brought forward. They refused to answer, or were non responsive, to questions about their proposals.
Are Future Meetings Meaningless?
Time has almost expired for moving an MOU through both houses of the Legislature before they adjourn on September 14th for the rest of the year. You may recall SB 621 by Senator Jackie Speier, signed into law by this Administration, that requires all MOUs to be in final format, with an analysis by the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO), and in the Legislator's hands for 10 (ten) days before any vote can be taken. Clearly the State timed their offer to allow the minimum amount of review and debate by the legislature.
In reading through the State's package offer you may notice that most of the sections with financial implications are inapplicable unless, and more importantly UNTIL, ratified by both houses of the Legislature and the membership of CCPOA. But if you take a look at the *DPA fiscal analysis* the State provided to CCPOA (and presumably the Legislature and the Media), the dollars are inflated to make things appear as if the State is willing to retroactively apply funds back to July 1, 2007 no matter when the MOU is approved. If the raises don't "take effect" until the MOU is ratified, then they are by definition not retroactive to July 1, 2007. This is just one more example of the dishonesty we constantly encounter, the disrespect this Administration shows our profession, and the disdain the State has for its employees.
The mediation process might have worked if we were negotiating with an employer who had a modicum of interest in having an MOU with their employees. It could have been meaningful had the employer engaged the negotiation process in good faith and with an eye towards the enormous task of filling the almost 4,000 rank and file Correctional Peace Officer vacancies. But as you can plainly see, they have no plan to fill the vacancies. They do however want to charge us for recruiting 3650 cadets at $2000.00 for a cost of $7.3 million) *DPA Fiscal Analysis*
This Administration continues to gauge the character of the men and women in our profession by the managers they chose to run the agency and its respective departments. I do not include Secretary Tilton in this category on the belief that he will demand justice for his employees.
As they have stated time and time again, this Administration really does believe that all of us would forsake our profession and forget where we came from for a few pieces of silver to put in our pockets. They are convinced, and use the media to try and convince others, that we are nothing more than selfish, greedy, money-grubbing guards.
They are certain the only item of concern to us is money. After all, they exchanged raises of 27% to 49% for middle and upper managers for their silence about the problems plaguing our department like critical overcrowding and dangerous staff shortages. Have you ever wondered why the managers aren't all screaming bloody murder about the crisis conditions in every institution? If so, please ask to see copies of the memos they have sent up the food chain demanding better conditions for the staff to work and the inmates to live. Ask for the memos demanding more staff to carry out the stated mission of rehabilitation. Forward us a copy of any that you find please. Don't be disappointed to find that promises were made and gifts were exchanged (or perhaps purchases made). If those requests do exist, that also serves us well.
Be Still My Heart, the Generosity
The first two pages of the summary of the State's package offer prominently display the economics to be considered. It appears that the Administration believes that we are all dullards, or maybe just shallow, in addition to greedy and won't look beyond the first two pages. We did, nonetheless, lets look at the economics:
The State's package offer has a 15% guaranteed (emphasis not added) pay raise broken down in 5% increments beginning on July 1, 2007, with another 5% on July 1, 2008, and the final 5% on July 1 2009. The package offer also includes a $2000.00 bonus for every soul you can convince to join you in the quagmire, Increases in shift differentials($ .50 to $ .75 and $ .75 to $1.00 per hour) and weekend differentials of ( $ .65 to $ .90 and $ .90 to $1.25 per hour on 07-01-07 and 07-01-08 respectively), uniform allowance ($530 to $730 on 07-01-07 and $730 to $880 on 07-01-08), mileage and travel, health benefit contributions, and a $500 per month-(currently $175)- recruitment incentive for San Quentin, CTF and SVSP (backdated to 07-01-07). The package offer also includes an annual bonus of $2400 to be an additional economic incentive at SVSP, CTF, HDSP, and CCC (excluding camps) backdated to 07-01-07.
Can you feel the love? Can it be that we are finally recognized and financially rewarded for the job we do? The CHP has got to be green with envy.
Well NOT EXACTLY!
Almost everything the Administration is offering to us with start dates that are unknown or just behind us was GIVEN to the CAHP last year on July 1. In most instances the CAHP is GIVEN more, but all of them began last July, except health benefit increases which began in January. Another difference is the Recruitment bonus, which is a 40 hour increase in vacation for the CAHP vs. the $2000 for us. By taking more vacation, Patrol Officers may just live long enough to enjoy life on the money we contribute to PERS. Working all the forced overtime certainly doesn't increase our chances of spending it.
But we can still look at the bright side, with all that money we must be right on par with the CAHP in pay. That must really piss them off.
Well NOT EXACTLY!
You see, the CAHP was GIVEN an additional 3.5% on July 3, 2006 for what is called "donning and doffing." This "stipend" is given to every member of BU 5 in addition to their regular pay for performing duties like vehicle inspections and putting on safety equipment regardless of their duty assignment. The 3.5% is one of the key elements of the CCPOA pay arbitration #2 that is pending a decision. In order to get any of the package offer, DPA is demanding that CCPOA drop all pending economic grievances and accept the future raises as payment in full. This includes any consideration of back pay for shift and weekend differentials, health benefits, uniform, donning and doffing, and any other economic items they collaboratively hid in an effort to avoid extending the benefit to us. The potential value may be in the thousands to every member of CCPOA. But it isn't a certainty by any means. Clearly there is a downside to consider.
If Not in the Mouth, Where Should I Look at a Gift Horse?
All in all, things could be worse. At least the Administration only wants "modest" reforms. As long as everyone has to eat them in some fashion, I guess CCPOA can eat some too. Surely the compromises in working conditions were taken from the CAHP too.
Well NOT EXACTLY!
In the *LAO analysis* of the BU 5 MOU there is no indication of any takeaways from the CAHP. The bargaining notes that we acquired in Pay Arbitration #1 don't show any indication of takeaways either. By all appearances, DPA walked into negotiations with the CAHP with their checkbook in one hand and their pen in the other. The takeaways that are being demanded from BU 6 are exclusive to CCPOA and the CDCR. That should help explain the capitalization of the word GIVEN when referring to the CAHP MOU.
The takeaways are far too many and the significance varies far to much to cover them all in this message and still hope to remain brief. But I want to highlight a few big ones. Some of the takeaways that DPA is demanding strike at the heart of our collective bargaining history and are designed, in our opinion, to destroy the morale of staff in BU 6. We feel that ultimately CCPOA is the target. There is another pension initiative on the horizon and the Governor is still trying to define his legacy. At the moment, it looks like he will have the distinction of being the Governor who screwed up public safety so bad that crime and punishment became the number one and two issues on his watch.
We have exposed his failings in the past, and we may do so in the future. Maybe he is trying to pay us back, maybe he is trying to pay us forward. Regardless, he wants every element of our current MOU that provides BU 6 members with a voice or with a choice.
Your Voice
The language that DPA is demanding in Section 27.01 will eliminate all local agreements including, but not limited to overtime procedures, holiday procedures, vacation bid procedures, sick call procedures, swap policies, post and bid agreements, vacancy plans, staffing agreements, etc., etc., etc., and any/all local policies or procedures that currently require negotiations prior to implementation. Please read this language very carefully. It gives every Warden, Superintendent or Administrator the ability to change any policy, procedure, or practice at their whim and waives any existing rights for you or CCPOA to complain.
Those sections of the MOU that aren't eliminated by specific reference are emasculated by the elimination of the grievance process. Apparently DPA has become the spot that lazy people go about 20 years before they retire. They don't like to work. When a member of BU 6 files a grievance, it results in work for them. If a grievance goes to arbitration, oh my gosh, that requires several days of work, possibly all in a row. Their answer, make it so almost nothing remains grievable. If anything remains, make it so confusing it is impossible to follow. Then make the penalty a loss to the grievant for not following every detail of the process at each and every level. That should clear up the backlog of arbitrations. It should also improve DPA's win/loss ratio.
Your Choice
Their package offer also reduces Post and Bid in the Adult Division to nothing more than words. Management can redirect you at anytime for any reason they want. Through additional exclusion of posts going up for bid, management should be able to have every weekend post on every watch reserved for that special someone. That isn't that offensive. Besides, you couldn't grieve it anyway.
In the DJJ, DPA refuses to even leave the words Post and Bid in the agreement. According to DJJ management, the Farrell consent decree mandates the elimination of post and bid and instead allows only shift and RDO bid. We searched through all of the individual plans but were unable to find any such directive. But we can't imagine why the management team would lie about something like this.
The transfer freeze arbitration that was recently won by CCPOA would be replaced with language that is something to the effect of "If you aren't willing to quit over it, why would I let you transfer. Besides, you can't grieve it anyway."
The sick leave language that DPA is demanding is beneath state law and will once again allow management to write you up for being pregnant, having cancer, having a sick child, spouse or family member, or for just being a bit sickly or accident prone on your own. If you are PIE, you will not be able to use sick leave for any reason whatsoever. You no longer have a choice to be sick and keep your job. In any case if you don't like how you are treated, it's too bad, because you can't grieve it anyway.
In paroles there will no longer be any restrictions on management to assign workload as they see fit. No points, no automatic overtime, no restrictions on what hours you are scheduled to work, and if any of the prior statements are incorrect, it doesn't matter because you can't grieve it anyway.
One last item worth mentioning is the decertified and unlawful Joint Apprenticeship Program that CDCR continues to indenture cadets into. DPA is demanding we quit saying it is decertified or unlawful because they are going to reduce costs to the departments by taking money from the most needy of the employees. While no rationale was ever offered for the need to be dishonest with new employees, it must have something to do with the thought, "If they can make it through the academy with no insurance, and then live on wages that are unlawfully lowered to make the Boss look good, they might make someone a good C/O. If they can't make it, its too bad, because they can't grieve it anyway."
The End of the rainbow
Though a 15% pay raise over a three year period is attractive, according to Government code section 19827.1, the CAHP is one of the agencies we must remain competitive with in order to attract and retain the quantity and quality of peace officers needed in the CDCR. It is impossible to imagine how the CDCR plans on overcoming the monumental hurdle of hiring enough officers to fill the vacancies.
If and when the implementation of this package offer occurs, recruitment of new staff will be more difficult than ever and retention of the same will be impossible. For some unknown reason, this Administration believes that the more miserable they make our jobs, and as a byproduct our lives, the more apt they are to be able to beat us into submission.
Lets face it. When you look at the proposal that is on the table today there is one and only one theme, PUNISHMENT!
It isn't about the legitimate needs of management to manage. It isn't about changes that need to be made in order to accomplish reform. It isn't about complying with consent decrees or court decisions. It isn't about milestones to be met in order to implement Assembly Bill 900. And it isn't about making an agreement that is consistent with a long-term plan to fill vacancies throughout the Correctional Peace Officer Series.
IT IS ABOUT THE EXACT OPPOSITE.
It is about changing the language in the sick leave section so the Administration can say that even CCPOA recognizes that all of its members are abusing sick leave. It is about changing post and bid so the administration can tell the Federal judges that with the recent changes to the MOU they should be able to manage the workforce better. It is about giving every warden and superintendent the ability to change local policies and/or procedures without consequence or conscience, even if that choice results in death. And it is about changing a grievance/complaint process so dramatically that there is no chance that management will ever have to worry about losing another arbitration again (like the one that cost them $200,000,000).
It is about beating us into submission so we will gladly accept blame for the dilapidated condition the prison system is in. It is about us being forced to accept that our lives, our families, our hopes and all our dreams are worth less than our counterparts in other law enforcement agencies. And most of all, it is about us hanging our heads and willingly accepting that all of the above is true. That is our punishment. Besides, you can't grieve it anyway.
With that it is time to close, and I'm well aware that I failed at the attempt at brevity. I have just one more request:
THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!!
Be Safe, have faith.
MJ
September 1, 2007
Chapter 3: “They said, He said, We said”
This latest MOU negotiations information update is based upon a series of correspondence between the Legislative leaders, Governor Schwarzenegger and CCPOA President Mike Jimenez.
As you will see, the Legislature expressed its concern about the direction of the contract negotiations between CCPOA and DPA. They also expressed reservations about the ability of the state to successfully implement the prison reform plan (AB 900) without the state having a better working relationship with its employees (CCPOA).
The governor responded, declaring "I have been following these negotiations closely and will continue to do so."
"Following?"
Does it sound a bit odd that our Governor, California's Chief Executive, is simply "following the negotiations?" Aren't leaders supposed to lead?
This curious quote is followed by a series of inaccurate statements and untruths designed to convince the Legislature that his office wants to bargain fairly with us. You can read the entire letter and decide for yourself.
The last letter included in this collection is the response memo from CCPOA President Mike Jimenez, addressed to the Legislative leaders, which identifies and highlights the inaccuracies and misinformation within the Governor's letter.
These letters are followed by four additional attached documents containing recent arbitration decisions where CCPOA was forced to file grievances against the state when the state failed to honor the terms of the most recent contract it entered into with CCPOA.
The state wants a new contract with us, but still refuses to follow the terms of the most recent agreement it made with us. Moreover, the state refuses to supply us with the details of all the take-aways they are seeking and instead have simply stated, "trust us."
Incidentally, there were no take-aways required of the highway patrol association during their contract negotiations, which lasted just twelve hours.
"Trust Us," they say.
Not likely.
Please see below for related attachments:
ltr_frm_Arnold.pdf
ltr_frm_Jimenez.pdf
ltr_Arb_transfers.pdf
ltr_frm_legislators.pdf
ltr_Arb_mileage.pdf
ltr_Arb_Ch_Pres_RTB.pdf
ltr_sups_an_CHP.pdf
ltr_Arb_bultin_brds.pdf
September 1, 2007
Chapter 2: “Negotiations”
On July 13, 2006 principals representing the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) and CCPOA met in an out of the way little restaurant, sat down to have a burger and discuss how the negotiation process might begin and per Dave Gilb "outline the issues to see where we need to go."
Dave Gilb, then recently appointed Director of the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA), shared with us that the State was mainly interested in making progress on six areas of our contract. He said, "We want to focus on very specific things in the MOU-not everything. We want to get an agreement to start building trust." He also said that the leadership of the CDCR felt that they were "unable to properly manage" with sections of the contract that spoke to sick leave, post and bid, grievances and the "entire agreement" (Section 27.01) section of the contract. He further broke the State's wish list into six fairly narrow items:
- Addressing sick leave "offenders"
- PIEs calling in sick after being hired for a shift causing triple costs for coverage of one post.
- More flexibility on post and bid
- Changing the DJJ staffing ratio to conform to staff increases in the Ferrall consent decree.
- Modifying 27.01 to allow management flexibility
- A more effective grievance process
Mr. Gilb also spoke about the need for some "technical clean-up" of language in the contract that was antiquated or no longer applicable in light of the change in the name and mission of the departments. Mr. Gilb made it a point to tell us that the Administration wanted to make a deal. He stated several times in several different ways that the Governor understood how critical the situation in the prison system had become. Declaration Of Emergency He also said that the Governor knew how much overtime was being forced and how many vacancies existed. Mr. Gilb said the Governor knew that real reform would cost a lot, but his commitment was to fix it.
Mr. Gilb only spoke briefly about pay, but indicated that our formula wasn't a big problem except for classifications at the high end of the pay scale (PAs, CC1s, CC2 Specialists, etc.) and asked if we would entertain a set dollar amount for all members, but still maintain the formula for top step Correctional Officer. His hook was neither accepted nor rejected, we weren't negotiating.
Taking our turn at sharing wish lists, we presented five items (coming in Chapter 3). Overall it was a reasonably cordial meeting, professionally conducted by all present, including Dennis Batchelder, the State's specially contracted Chief Negotiator. Job Bulletin The meeting closed with Mr. Gilb assuring us that he would demonstrate the need for his proposed changes, that he would "justify and defend" each and every proposed language change the State negotiators planned to present.
We departed with the customary exchanges of handshakes and contact information. CCPOA's Chief of Labor/Chief Negotiator, Steve Weiss made arrangement to resume negotiations later in the week.
Moving back in history a small bit let me tell you what preceded the quaint luncheon I've just recounted.
The very first negotiation session between the parties took place at CCPOA Headquarters on June 9, 2006.
The State team arrived and gathered in their appointed conference room. After a short period the Chief Negotiator for the State, Dennis Batchelder, (hired specifically to negotiate against CCPOA) Batchelder Hired knocked on the door to the main conference room and announced that his team was ready to bargain. For our part, team members had read and discussed each of the member questionnaires, studied the issues important to both sides and felt fully prepared. To demonstrate our organization's commitment to the process, achieving an equitable outcome and our collective support for the team, every Executive Council member of CCPOA was present. We also wanted the Batchelder consortium to know that we were perfectly willing to engage in the process if circumstances warranted.
We were also prepared to record negotiations, admittedly an unprecedented act. We had arranged video and audio equipment so the entirety of negotiations would be available for the Legislature, the courts, the media and the general public to review. We felt recording the meeting was appropriate in light of all the attention being drawn by the Governor's very recent declaration of "a crisis in the prison system." In fact, the Legislature had been directed to enter in to a "special session" to pass legislation to rescue the severely overcrowded system.
Once again we knew, no matter what kind of agreement was made, it would be CCPOA alone defending it to the world. It seemed that both audio and video records of the process would be an adequate answer for anyone willing to watch and/or listen to hours and hours of what tends to be mostly boring exchanges. Verification seemed appropriate, considering three of the State's negotiators had also participated in the (2004) amendment to our 2001-2006 MOU, which resulted in a bitter arbitration concerning our pay. CCPOA was victorious achieving a decision that resulted in a large cash settlement. (Pay Arb. #1) Certainly we are all familiar with the cliché, "Fool me once; shame on you, fool me twice; shame on me."
Why wouldn't we want to record the process of negotiating a new contract? If for no other reason, it would reduce any potential for damage to the employer/employee relationship borne from fighting over who said what, which proposal was put across the table last, how a formula works and what is included, and who was present on any given day. Consider that any time one our members are questioned about our acts or omissions, we are questioned while a tape is rolling. Many of us work under the constant vigil of a recording device.
Some of us have become victims of poor quality video, and a complete absence of audio, in the department's recordings. Despite any concerns we may have with being recorded, we still go to work and do the job that we are paid to do. Heroic and courageous acts are also recorded but are seldom seen by the public. One might think the management team would just accept our videotaping and consider it an aspect of the job. One would be horrifically wrong if they made that assumption.
We signed in, asked a few perfunctory questions and passed the State's negotiators and document acknowledging that they had full authority to negotiate all of the proposals presented in the State's "sunshine" package, which they refused to sign Authority to Bargain. Mr. Batchelder received a note from a member of his team. He immediately called a caucus (timeout) meeting with his team and they all exited the room. After fifteen or twenty minutes, Mr. Batchelder returned and asked Steve Weiss to step out of the conference room. Mr. Weiss returned and informed our team that "under no circumstances" would the State team return to the negotiating table with any recording devices present. Video Cameras In hindsight, this single dispute would reveal more about the DPA's motives, objectives, and tactics than we ever imagined.
It's the absence of an objective record that has allowed DPA to declare impasse without having a single proposal on the table. Because no records exist beyond handwritten notes, except for two days of transcription and our brief recording, the DPA is able, and more than willing, to deceive the world by saying they have done everything possible to make a deal.
Later, using the Governor's bully pulpit, with the media as his audience, Mr. Gilb knows that he will be able to portray us as greedy guards Billion $ Statement and won't be challenged by any of the "invited guests" or be affected by the truth. The Governor will remain a media darling and reporters will still jump at the opportunity to interview him. Any serious challenge to the Administration could jeopardize the chance of a lifetime for a reporter. Its all "he said/she said" anyhow. Because none of it was recorded and DPA's design will have been preserved.
Fast forward to late July 2006:
After meeting the week prior without success in our attempts to negotiate ground rules, we set negotiations for Sunday, July30th. The CCPOA team was seriously interested in moving negotiations along in hopes of having something for the Legislature to vote on before adjournment in early September. After all, there was a Special Session of the Legislature underway and we were in the eye of the storm.
We were also cautiously optimistic that Mr. Gilb was basically genuine in luncheon meeting when he said the Administration wanted to move forward on prison reform. This optimism wasn't based solely on Gilb's assurances though. In the widely publicized meetings between CCPOA and the Administration's Senior Staff, there were numerous discussions about the Governor's thoughts on rehabilitation, and the impossibility of accomplishing significant reform without the support of Bargaining Unit 6.
It now appears that some cost/benefit analysis was done and the Administration has decided the cost of reform wasn't worth the benefit of rehabilitating anyone. Besides, the Administration had apparently already developed a plan to carry out the first rule of ALL bureaucrats: HAVE SOMEONE ELSE TO BLAME! The Governor has made this an art form. With just a little prompting, he once again took aim at state employees.
Unaware they were again forming a plan to blame Correctional Peace Officers for all the failings of the overcrowded prison system, CCPOA's negotiating team worked hard (without recording) all week to achieve ground rules so the real issues of bargaining could begin. At about five o'clock on a hot Sunday afternoon, after CCPOA compromised on nearly every issue concerning ground rules, the state refused to sign them. After a week of debating, time, location, number of team members, travel costs, travel time, supervisory presence, room size, room costs, recording devices, transcribers, length of caucuses, length of workdays, what would and what wouldn't be negotiated, and everything else in between, Dennis Batchelder refused to sign ground rules.
Ground Rules They Passed Ground Rules We Passed
Mr. Batchelder then decided ground rules were unnecessary. Oddly, it was Batchelder who refused to negotiate with recording devices present, clearly an element of ground rules, but with cameras out of the room, rules aren't needed. In the interest of making a deal, we had softened on all the issues that Mr. Batchelder said were important for him to be able to move the State team towards a deal. CCPOA Executive Council members had stepped away from the negotiating table as an exercise in good faith to give the negotiating teams a chance to start working collaboratively in an environment apart from the pressures of press and politics.
Despite the hard work and anguish associated with early compromise, nothing had been accomplished. Then, to add insult to injury, Mr. Batchelder chose a rare Sunday session to drop a three-hundred-fifty-page package proposal State Package Offer on the table and add that the State was done for the day. With that, the State's negotiating team got up, collected their belongings and walked out of the room.
The next day's session, scheduled to begin at nine o'clock, signified what would soon become typical of the State's effort for future meetings: it started late and ended early. Our entire team was present on time, despite spending long hours the night before digesting the State's "package deal" and still seething over its actions the day before. It wasn't just the waste of an entire week's effort, nor was it the cavalier attitude displayed when the State team tossed down what they had to know was a completely unacceptable and reprehensible proposal and left the building. Even the collective effort by DPA staff to negotiate in bad faith, by itself, wasn't enough to provoke my response on that last day in July. All of the issues combined, when viewed in the context of the existing situation, created an explosion. The blast was fueled by the frustration of genuine effort and time wasted. The flames were fanned by the unmitigated gall of DPA to pick six issues we care about and make a mockery of them by burying them in three hundred fifty pages of garbage. And the fuse was ignited when Dennis Batchelder told us that the State expected us to pay half of the cost of the transcriber he hired.
Yes, there was a tirade and it went on for several minutes. The transcript is nothing we should be or are proud of. Certainly my mother would not be pleased to hear many of the words that flew from my mouth that morning. The State's total lack of concern about the dangers of overcrowding referenced in the Administration's Emergency Declaration became a catalyst for that mounting fury. My mind's eye could not dislodge the image of young children, friends and family members mourning the deaths of brave, honest men and women like Sgt. Birchfield, YCC Baker or Officer Gonzalez, all killed during my career by the cold deliberate and preventable inmate acts. These images haunt my sleep and keep me awake at night. The words of a father missing his child still rings in my ears constantly. That anyone, let alone the likes of Batchelder, Gilb or our current Governor, could imagine that those three-hundred-fifty-pages represented anything akin to a deal worth the sacrifice could only cause a more reasoned man than I more rage than I have the capacity to express.
I do not apologize for, nor do I justify my behavior that day. It is what it is, I said what I said, and I still feel what I felt. This is not the time for apologies. Promises were made, insults were exchanged and the business at hand has yet to be attended. But if an apology is what is needed to give the negotiators for the State what they need to begin anew in earnest, I can deliver as much. They should know up front that if any of them think it is OK to be cute, clever, or play games and recklessly endanger the lives of the men and women who walk our beat every day and night so the citizens of California can sleep safely, work and play without fear, I'll likely be apologizing again.
I do not fear apologies. I welcome the opportunity to express my passionate respect and appreciation for the membership of CCPOA, the professionalism and dedication they exhibit everyday as they perform a necessary and despicable job under the most adverse of circumstances. For years our union has been falsely credited with being the most powerful labor force in the State of California. If this were true, after 30 years, we would not still be trailing the meter maids of the State's highways in respect, working conditions and compensation. We would not still be burdened with the false public image of being the villains of law enforcement. We already work the toughest beat in the state; how much more punishment should our members endure for the failures of the last few generations of the Corrections Agency's leadership?
September 1, 2007
Chapter 1: “Are We Getting Anywhere in Mediation?”
By now most members of CCPOA should be aware that the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) has declared that negotiating with CCPOA over the terms and conditions of a new Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is futile. As such, DPA sent a request to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) to grant them a declaration of "impasse" and assign a mediator to assist with negotiations.
Their request was granted. A shocking turn of events in light of the fact that the presiding members of the board responsible for rendering the decision are all Gubernatorial appointees. I'll bet you'll never guess which Governor appointed them. Arnold Schwarzenegger appointed them all. He even has the authority to make temporary appointments to the Board. Theoretically, he could appoint someone for as little as one day, or even for just one decision. These might be difficult decisions to defend publicly, but in light of the current tone of mediation, nothing would be a surprise.
That ought to give you some idea of how the mediation process is moving along. We are proceeding in "negotiations" with the assistance of a PERB assigned mediator. At the onset, which has been the only time we actually sat in the same room with the state's team, the mediator informed us that he expected complete confidentiality from both parties while mediation is going on. Under most circumstances this might be understandable. But our MOU, if we manage to get the state to negotiate in good faith and reach agreement, will be subject to legislative hearings, judicial review, and intense media scrutiny of every detail of the final product.
Considering the attention the "prison crisis" has received in California, and CDCR's inability to stay under the radar, the thought of not commenting about the specifics of negotiations had never once crossed my mind. It has always been the expectation to be grilled about our MOU in every forum possible. But for now, we are expected to be quiet.
My comments about restricting external communications are not meant to criticize the mediator; it appears to be part of the process. But as it turns out, secrecy, or perhaps silence, seems to be exactly what the state representatives need to continue down their current path towards impasse. That is precisely where they have been headed from the onset of bargaining for our new MOU. That's why it doesn't make sense for CCPOA to remain silent, and that's why we haven't.
You may remember when we started bargaining, we brought in camcorders and audio equipment. We wanted to establish an objective record of the proceedings. We believed at that time, based on the way DPA had tried to swindle us on our pay in the 2001-2006 MOU, that they would play fast and loose with language, intent, and the substance of any agreement made. DPA refused to allow any recording of the process.
They said we "ambushed" them with the recording devices. We didn't, we had them out in the open. This is unlike the session when DPA hired a transcriber, who unbeknownst to the entire DPA team, ran a tiny microphone under the table and secretly recorded an entire negotiation session. They apologized repeatedly at the time. We have a letter that says they had no idea that she was recording. They felt so bad about it; they could hardly wait to use it as evidence in their request for impasse.
It didn't get any better after that incident. Every day of bargaining, DPA would show up less prepared than the day before. They were unable to answer even the most basic questions about their 300 plus page proposal. They weren't able to provide any information about what the background was to their proposals and they refused to bring anyone that could. Generally, after about an hour (or less) they would remove their team for a caucus, and then leave for the day. No real negotiations ever occurred. We have spent less than 24 hours bargaining. The last MOU took somewhere in the area of 1000 hours to finalize a deal. DPA has no intention of putting in that kind of effort.
As stated earlier, their intentions were obvious from the start. The mediation process that Dave Gilb swore would help things move along hasn't provided a single signature on a proposal. DPA wont even put their names on a "sign in sheet." It looks like they are just going to spend enough time and taxpayer money to make it look like they tried and then they will request a formal declaration of impasse. That's bargaining in bad faith. We could file an unfair labor practice charge against DPA, but that goes in front of PERB too. So we have a bit of a problem on our hands don't we?
Some of you may ask, "Why don't we just take the 18% pay raise they offered us and call it good?" The truth is they never offered us 18% in the first place. That's the story for the media and the legislature to consume. It's for the members' consumption as well. They want the media and Legislators to accept once and for all we are just a bunch of "greedy prison guards." They want the CCPOA membership to believe our negotiating team walked away from a great deal. Neither is true and neither will survive the disinfectant properties of daylight.
Over the next couple of weeks while there are no meetings with the mediator or the state planned, we are going to send you information about the status of negotiations. While we are going to maintain the level of confidentiality about the mediation process that we are required to, we think its important that you know what DPA is demanding from you.
We plan on providing you with the last proposals from our last meeting on March 29, 2007, (you can't really call it negotiations), with some analysis from CCPOA along with hyperlinks to the proposals and background information as well. It would be nice if DPA had exerted the effort to answer questions so we could give you the intent of their proposals, but instead we must guess about what is the truth beyond their written words. I will leave you to make up your own mind about how much your employer values and understands the difficulty, danger, and demands of the job that you do every day and night, 24-7-365.
You will also see how our employer has intentionally withheld pay and benefits from new staff while telling the Legislature, the media, and a federal judge how hard they are working to fill the vacancies. Talk about a "code of silence." Employers in the private sector face hefty fines and the possibility of criminal charges for this type of conduct. It appears that State employers are immune from criminal charges, but that doesn't mean there isn't a consequence and every single manager across the state has to be aware of that. DPA gave us a proposal to continue this inequitable practice. They expect us to agree to it. In fact, DPA is demanding we agree to it, without any compromise.
DPA expects us to waive state and federal law for future use of leave credits while we are injured, ill, or caring for one of our children. They want us to return to the days when "sick leave abuse" was what we got from the boss when we felt our worst or when our family needed us most. They want the ability to make us choose between the comfort, concern, and care of our family and ourselves and our financial security. Again, they have no compromise.
For those of us awaiting transfers, especially after CCPOA's victory in the recent arbitration decision there is more bad news. DPA has decided they shouldn't have to negotiate at the main table on this issue. Mr. Gilb couldn't possibly allow any leveling of the playing field. No, they have noticed CCPOA of their decision to negotiate on a statewide basis away from the main table. That way their ability to implement their last, best, and final offer on August 1, 2007, isn't hampered by their tactics of regressive bargaining on our master contract.
It isn't difficult to point out the obvious designs of management to continue the pattern of blaming the rank and file for all the failings of the department while enjoying significant pay raises and increased opportunities to make our jobs more difficult. They have proposals to allow every Warden to change the vacation or holiday policies and schedule in any fashion they desire without having to agree to, or honor, the new procedure for a week, a day or even an hour.
DPA is insisting that we waive our right to enforce staffing levels, workload agreements, post and bid agreements, and overtime procedures, along with many other employee rights whether guaranteed by law or not. DPA is set on eliminating all benefits associated with seniority by designing a grievance procedure that provides no enforcement by CCPOA or its members. The demand is one of absolute control and the return of management's ability to punish us without having the procedural safeguards we fought long and hard for.
And about that 18% pay raise DPA is allegedly offering, we must first all waive our rights to any back pay for wages or benefits for the current year, (potentially several thousand dollars) and then accept the new pay formula developed by DPA which cannot be enforced through their new grievance process (previously mentioned) for any amount over $250,000.00. That change alone would have reduced the $7,000.00 check we just received to $10.00 (ten dollars) each.
And in case anyone forgot, unless and until the Governor and the Legislature enact a budget that fully funds all expenditures out of the general fund, (like our MOU in 2004), any agreement we enter into would become void of additional pay and/or benefits. We would be forced to renegotiate. As long as the statute (and for that matter the Governor) that forced us back to the table in 2004 remains in place, long term contracts don't seem very wise.
Not to mention that by DPA's own projections for the next four years and new DPA formula, the CHP will get 28%-29% over the same time period they are allegedly offering us 18%. The CHP deal also has absolutely no takeaways, no retirement smoothing, no sick leave punishment, and no transfer freezes - just bushels and bushels of money. Lets be very clear, for us it's not just about money, but we all know that money is part of it.
The list just keeps going on and on. Rather than try to say it all in one letter, you will receive a new message with new information every few days for a couple of weeks. By the end of this week we hope to have an e-mail address set up for you to provide questions, comments or thoughts on DPA's proposals. We'll be happy to share your thoughts with the State team. We can remove identifiers from messages before delivery if you want, not that any retaliation might occur. After all, it is against the law for management to retaliate.
Be aware, some members of the public and most managers will see this as nothing more than complaining by a group of people, (all of us) who are used to getting our way. When this message lands in Dave Gilb's hands, rest assured that he will get it to one of Arnold's sycophant media trolls and they will try to make something out of it. That act of and by itself should tell everyone who reads this message what this fight is all about. It's about respect for men and women doing a tough job in an overcrowded negative environment, without enough staff, space, resources, equipment, or management support to get it done. It's about DPA and this Governor recognizing and acknowledging the effort that goes into the comfort and safety they feel when they go to bed each night. The CHP doesn't get it done all by themselves!
Thank you for helping us get information to you by providing us with an e-mail address for contact. You will receive the most updated information available, right from the horse's mouth, (so to speak). Feel free to share the information and also to respond when our public mailbox is set up.
We do have a plan for success, but it will need the support of our members. This is not a union of one; it's a union of 30,000 men and women working the toughest beat in California. In our minds and hearts it's our union, in the state of California, and across the nation it's THE UNION!
BE SAFE! TAKE CARE.
August 29, 2007
CCPOA seeks response from the State concerning August 2007 package
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]
July 10, 2007
Letter from Mike Jimenez, July 10 2007
Dear Speaker Nunez, Senator Perata, Assemblymember Villines and Senator Ackerman,
This letter is intended to respond to the letter from the Governor to you dated June 26, 2007, regarding the status of negotiations between the Governor's representative (DPA) and CCPOA.
The Governor states that "we've been negotiating with CCPOA for more...
June 28, 2007
Supervisors Attending Mediation Sessions
Dear Mr. Adam and Mr. Weiss:
At the initial mediation session on Thursday, June 21, 2007, during the mediators' instructions, the State representatives became aware that Robert Dean, a Correctional Lieutenant with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, was present at the mediation. Although the State cited its concerns to the mediators and requested that Mr. Dean not participate in the Unit 6 mediation process on behalf of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) because he is a supervisor, the State understands the union insisted that Mr. Dean be allowed to attend the mediation.
June 26, 2007
A Letter From Arnold June 26 2007
Dear Speaker Nunez, Senator Perala, Mr. Villines and Senator Ackerman,
Thank you for your letter regarding negotiations between my administration and the California Correctional Peace Officers' Association (CCPOA). I have been following these negotiations closely and will continue to do so.
As you know, we've been negotiating with CCPOA for more than a year, both in formal negotiations and infonnal discussions. We've explored alternatives and held frank conversations about our differences, leading us to place an offer on the table valued at more than $250 million per year which, over four years, would exceed $1 billion.
June 25, 2007
MOU Letter “Information Request Response”
Dear Mr. Weiss:
This correspondence provides information and documentation responsive to CCPOA's most recent Information Request. For CCPOA's convenience, the State had numbered the information requests and identified the States responses in italics.
June 23, 2007
Arbitration Proceedings DPA Case No. 06-06-0091
This arbitration arises between the California Correctional Peace officers Association (hereinafter CCPOA or the Union) and the State of California, Department of Corrections And Rehabilitation (hereinafter the State or Department or CDCR), pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement for State Bargaining Unit 6, under which Bonnie G. Bogue was selected as Arbitrator and under....
June 11, 2007
Arbitration Proceedings DPA Case No. 06-06-0299
This Arbitration arose pursuant to Agreement between the California Correctional Peace Officers Association Bargaining Unit 6, hereinafter referred to as the "Union, and the California
Department of Personnel Administration, hereinafter referred to as the "State", under which C.
ALLEN POOL was selected by the parties to serve as the Arbitrator. The Parties stipulated that the matter was properly before the Arbitrator and that his decision shall be final and binding.
The parties further stipulated that the interaction of Section 4.01 Management Rights and Section 27.0 1 Application and Duration, Entire Agreement imposes Dills Act obligations on the parties.
June 6, 2007
Arbitration Proceedings DPA Case No. 05-06-0422
This Arbitration arises pursuant to Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") between the CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION, hereinafter referred to as "CCPOA and/or "Union," and the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATIONS, hereinafter referred to as the "State" and/or "Department," under which ALEXANDER COHN was selected to serve as sole, impartial Arbitrator and whose decision shall be final and binding upon the parties.
Hearing was held on April 14, 2007, in Susanville, California. The parties...
May 27, 2007
Letter from Legislators, May 29 2007
The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor, State of California
State Capitol, First Floor
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:
We are wriling to express some reservations with the direction of the contract negotiations between the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) and encourage you to closely monitor the progress of lhcse negotiations.
On May 10,2007 DPA wrote a letter to the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) requesting a federal mediator andlor a declaration of impasse as a means to end the pending contract negotiations with CCPOA. PERB responded on May 17, 2007 by declaring an initial impasse and directing the parties to continue discussions...
May 11, 2007
MOU Letter “Seriousness to Reach an Agreement”
By Peter Hecht
Bee Capitol Bureau
-- After a year of failed negotiations with one of California's most powerful public employee unions, state officials said Thursday they will seek outside mediation to resolve a contract dispute for the state's 31,000 correctional officers.
May 10, 2007
MOU Form “Determination of Impasse”
A request for impasse determination must be filed with the appropriate regional office (see PERB Regulation 32075). A request which is not jointly filed must be served.....
June 3, 2006
Ex-state negotiator hired for labor talks with guards
By Andrew McIntosh -- Bee Staff Writer
Published 12:01 am PDT Saturday, June 3, 2006
Fearing it might be outgunned at the negotiating table by the union representing its prison guards, the state has hired one of its former senior labor negotiators to quarterback contract talks with the California Correctional Peace Officers Association.
The Department of Personnel Administration has hired the Batchelder Group Inc. of Gold River, a consulting firm owned by Dennis Batchelder, once the state's top labor negotiator in the 1980s and early 1990s.
September 1, 2003
Supervisory - Primary Benefits
SUMMMARY OF DPA PRIMARY BENEFITS FOR MANAGERS, SUPERVISORS, CONFIDENTIAL AND EXCLUDED EMPLOYEES ANNUAL LEAVE
(DPA Rule 599.752)
Employees newly appointed to excluded classifications shall be mandatorily enrolled in the Annual Leave Program (ALP). This applies to any person who is appointed, promoted, or transferred into a position that is excluded from collective bargaining, including managerial, supervisory, and confidential positions. Current excluded employees have the option to make a voluntary election into the ALP at any time.
As of January 1 of each year, an employee's annual leave credit balance shall not
July 1, 2003
Supervisory - Enhanced Benefits
DPA Personnel Management Liaisons (PML) Retirement Formula Change for Supervisors and Managers in Positions Affiliated with Bargaining Unit 6 PML 2006-011 and 3.0 @ 50 ONLY
(Updated 4/13/2011)
