California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment
California Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment
The following list of candidates has been certified by the CASE Election Committee as nominees for the 2008 CASE Elections.
The candidates' names are currently listed in alphabetical order. The order of the candidates on the official ballot will be determined by drawing lots. The drawing will occur on Saturday, September 20, 2008, at the CASE Board of Directors Meeting in Sacramento.
DIRECTOR AT LARGE:
Richard Clark
Administrative Law Judge II
General Services
Sacramento
Glen Grossman - Incumbent
Staff Counsel III
SCIF
Salinas
Erica Hahn
Administrative Law Judge II
CUIAB
Los Angeles
Sandra Hitt
ALJ I / Hearing Officer
Cal OSHA Appeals Board
West Covina
Jennifer Jadovitz - Incumbent
Deputy Attorney General III
DOJ
San Diego
William Kamizolas
Deputy Attorney IV
DOT
Los Angeles
Victoria Kolakowski
Administrative Law Judge II
CPUC
San Francisco
Paige Levy
Workers' Compensation Judge
DIR
Marina Del Rey
James "Scott" McNamara
Staff Counsel III
Dept. of Insurance
San Francisco
Nick Mostert
Staff Counsel
SCIF
Monterey Park
Christopher Parker
Tax Counsel
FTB
Sacramento
David Rice
Staff Counsel
CA Water Board
Sacramento
Stacy Schwartz - Incumbent
Deputy Attorney General III
DOJ
Los Angeles
Anthony Seferian - Incumbent
Deputy Attorney General III
DOJ
Sacramento
Geoffrey Sims - Incumbent
Staff Counsel III
SCIF
Fresno
Ralph Sivilla - Incumbent
Deputy Attorney General IV
DOJ
San Francisco
Dear CASE member at the Public Utilities Commission:
We wanted to alert you to a disturbing new legislative development that could impact your jobsite. AB 1973 (Ruskin) was introduced back in February, and initially contained some modifications to the appointment process, powers, and duties of the Commission. However, the bill was amended last Friday, and now contains a provision to change state law such that the Commission would be required to have its office in Sacramento, rather than San Francisco. In the final days of the legislative session, it is not unusual for all manner of surprising changes to be inserted into pending legislation. It is difficult to tell yet whether this particular proposal will succeed. CASE has already registered its strong opposition to the amendments with both the author as well as the Senate Appropriations Committee, which will likely hear the bill this week.
CASE believes that a mandatory relocation would be disruptive to our members and their families, and would also be extremely fiscally irresponsible, especially given the current budget situation. CASE will work to remove the language from AB 1973, and will keep you advised as to the status of this bill. A copy of the most recent version of AB 1973 can be viewed by selecting the link below, as is a copy of the letter sent in opposition of the bill.
If you have any specific questions about AB 1973, please contact CASE at info@calattorneys.org. We will respond to your questions as soon as possible.
As always, thank you for your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
Best regards,
The CASE Board of Directors
As you know, last week Governor Schwarzenegger, through the Department of Personnel Administration ("DPA"), filed a petition for writ of mandate in the Sacramento County Superior Court. The administration is seeking an order that would force the State Controller's Office to comply with Executive Order S-09-08, which would cut the pay of most members of Bargaining Unit 2 to $455 per week, $6.55 per hour, or nothing, depending on the individual employee's classification. Several days ago, CASE filed an application to intervene in this lawsuit. We are pleased to report that earlier today Judge Timothy Frawley of the Sacramento County Superior Court granted our request, and CASE has been added as a respondent/defendant to DPA's lawsuit. The representatives of several other bargaining units also sought and received permission to intervene in the lawsuit, setting the stage for significant opposition to the Governor's ill-conceived petition.
While CASE applauds Controller John Chiang's decision to refuse to comply with Governor Schwarzenegger's executive order, and agrees with the legal reasons he has set forth for doing so, we have an independent obligation to ensure that our members' interests, which in some cases may be different from those of the State Controller's Office and the other parties, are adequately represented in this matter. Our complaint in intervention is due on or before August 29, 2008. The pleadings filed to date in this matter may be viewed in our website.
Judge Frawley expedited review of this matter, and has set September 12, 2008, as the date for a hearing on a preliminary injunction and a permanent writ. Hallye Jordan, a spokesperson for the State Controller's Office, said, "[Controller Chiang] has said from day one that he will continue to pay state workers their full salaries unless there's a court order that he cannot." Because no injunction or writ was issued today, Controller Chiang is free to pay all state employees their full salaries at the end of the month.
In related news, CASE has confirmed with DPA that employees who receive health, dental, or vision insurance through the state will continue to be covered for a period of 60 to 90 days, whether or not the employee receives a paycheck. (In the event that a paycheck is withheld, all regularly-scheduled insurance payments that are normally deducted from the paycheck will simply be deducted from the retroactive payment received by the employee after the state budget is passed.) This also holds true for our members who have purchased CASE-sponsored supplemental life and/or long term disability insurance through The Standard.
This is an extremely fluid situation that continues to evolve rapidly. CASE will keep you informed as new information becomes available. If you have any specific questions or concerns, please feel free to contact the CASE office at info@calattorneys.org. We will respond to your questions as soon as possible.
As always, thank you for your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors
Executive Order S-09-08 has given rise to many questions of concern to State employees, and to CASE members in particular. Simply stated, the Governor's actions have taken the State and its workforce into uncharted financial, legal, and political territory. However, in response to the most frequently-asked questions, please note the following information:
Status of August Paychecks
As of today, State Controller John Chiang is stating that he will not comply with Executive Order S-09-08, and that all State employees will be paid their full salaries. (See http://www.sco.ca.gov/eo/pressbox/2008/07/pr08042.pdf.) Although the Governor has sent pay letters formally directing Controller Chiang temporarily cut the pay of approximately 180,000 State employees, Controller Chiang has refused to do so. (See http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/1135631.html.) Pay letters are rather routine instruments used to transmit updated salary and benefit information from the Department of Personnel Administration to the State Controller's Office. The letters have no effect in and of themselves, until the updated data is input by the Controller into the payroll system. As noted above, Controller Chiang is refusing to do so. Additionally, even though the Governor has stated that he will sue Controller Chiang to force him to comply with Executive Order S-09-08, no such legal action has been initiated as of this date and time. Additionally, we have verified with the Controller that individual Departments are not able to key in pay reductions to bypass the State Controller's internal audit system. Any such effort to do so would be flagged by the Controller's program and the transaction would not be processed.
Details of Pay Letters
The pay letters issued yesterday by Department of Personnel Director Dave Gilb provide for the following:
1) All Unit 2 attorneys (i.e. those in work week group SE) would be paid nothing, because they are exempt from the FLSA minimum wage protections;
2) All Unit 2 judges, hearing officers, DLC IIs, and any others in work week group E would be paid the equivalent of $455 per week, as the Governor apparently believes that is required by the FLSA;
3) All Unit 2 DLC Is and Graduate Legal Assistants would be paid minimum wage, i.e. $6.55 per hour.
The pay letter also purported to exempt entire departments from the effects of the overtime. The following departments were exempted:
California Highway Patrol
Department of Transportation
Agriculture Security and Emergency Response
Veterans Affairs
Department of Developmental Services
Department of Mental Health
Military
Office of Emergency Services
Department of Water Resources
Department of Forestry (CALFIRE)
Department of Parks and Recreation
California Conservation Corps
Office of Spill Prevention
Department of Fish and Game
The purported rationale for the exemption is that employees in these departments might work overtime, and under federal law they would then be entitled to their full salary plus any overtime. Regardless of the justification, however, the effect is that the Governor is trying to pick and choose who is exempt from the mandatory rule of White v. Davis upon which he purports to rely, and there does not appear to be any legal basis for any such exemptions.
Moreover, some departments which employ Unit 2 members have determined that they are exempt or will not comply with the executive order. For employees of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, receiver Clark Kelso has announced that the entire department is exempted from the order. In addition, the State Compensation Insurance Fund has informed its employees that they are exempt from the order.
Effects of Executive Order S-09-08 continues below:
Status of SB 1718
The Governor stated earlier today that he will refuse to sign any bills that reach his desk until the Legislature "passes a budget that [he] can sign." (See http://www.sacbee.com/749/story/1137846.html.) Accordingly, SB 1718, like most other bills, is in a holding pattern. Because the Assembly and Senate have the ability to pass bills and hold them at their desks until a budget agreement is reached, the effect of the Governor's actions in this regard is presently unclear.
Status of Retroactive CoBen Contribution Payment
CASE has confirmed with the State Controller's Office that Executive Order S-09-08 had no effect on AB 3043, which authorized increased State CoBen contributions retroactive to January 1, 2008. The lump sum payment covering the increased CoBen payments owed by the State for the January through June pay periods will still be paid to Unit 2 members. Specifically, the State Controller's Office has indicated that those members who receive health care coverage through the State should expect to receive a separate check or direct deposit covering these amounts in mid to late August.
Health, Dental, and Vision Benefits
According to the Department of Personnel Administration, all employees "will continue to be covered by the same health, dental and vision benefits regardless of [their] paycheck status." (See http://www.dpa.ca.gov/news/news/2008/20080731-01.htm.)
Unfair Labor Practice
The Public Employees Relations Board is moving forward with their investigation of our Unfair Labor Practice. As of today, Governor Schwarzenegger has not responded to our charges. At least two lawsuits and one other Unfair Labor Practice charge filed by another bargaining unit are also pending against the Governor.
Unilateral Changes In Working Conditions
One effect of Executive Order S-09-08 is that many departments are looking for ways to complete work left behind by people who lost their jobs, such as temporary employees or retired annuitants. These changes may affect CASE members, and will vary from requests from your department that have no impact to directions that may constitute an inappropriate, unilateral change in working conditions. CASE has already begun to meet and confer with some departments over these changes. However, it is important for all CASE members to immediately notify CASE if their department proposes or unilaterally imposes changes in working conditions that violate our memorandum of understanding with the State.
Emergency Loans
Golden 1 Credit Union (www.golden1.com), Cal Bear Credit Union (www.calbearcu.org), and others have indicated that State employees are eligible for special loans should the Governor force the Controller to comply with Executive Order S-09-08. Please contact your preferred financial institution directly if you wish to take advantage of these loans. Many institutions require that you establish a direct deposit account in advance in order to be eligible for special loan programs, so members should be proactive in contacting these institutions.
While it does not appear that any Unit 2 members face any imminent threat of a reduction in their paychecks, this is a rapidly-developing and evolving situation. CASE will keep you informed as more information becomes available. Please feel free to contact the CASE office at info@calattorneys.org with any specific questions or concerns.
As always, thank you for your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors
As you are no doubt aware, earlier today Governor Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-09-08, which terminated the services of all retired annuitants, permanent intermittent employees, seasonal employees, temporary work helpers, student assistants, and most individuals providing service under contract to the State of California. Executive Order S-09-08 also directed all State agencies and departments under Governor Schwarzenegger's direct control to take immediate action to cease and desist the hiring and promotions of most employees. Executive Order S-09-08 further called upon the Director of the Department of Finance and the Director of the Department of Personnel Administration to work with the State Controller's Office in order to pay the federal minimum wage to all non-exempt FLSA employees, and also to implement the holding of White v. Davis (2003) 30 Cal.4th 528. As you may know, White v. Davis stands in part for the proposition that, without a budget, the State has no authority to pay the salaries of its employees without "an applicable and available appropriation." Under such terms, non-exempt FLSA employees (generally hourly employees) would be paid the federal minimum wage, while exempt FLSA employees (generally salaried employees) would receive no payment at all. The vast majority of CASE members are exempt employees, who would not be entitled to any payment whatsoever.
CASE is extremely disappointed that Governor Schwarzenegger has chosen to ignore the advice of Controller John Chiang, Lieutenant Governor John Garamendi, Treasurer Bill Lockyer, Legislative Counsel Diane Boyer-Vine, and countless others in issuing Executive Order S-09-08. In response to Governor Schwarzenegger's action, CASE has filed Unfair Labor Practice charges against the Governor and the Department of Personnel Administration. Our charges allege that Governor Schwarzenegger has violated his duty to bargain in good faith, has willfully engaged in hostile and punitive actions designed to coerce CASE into agreeing to an unfavorable memorandum of understanding, has made unilateral changes in working conditions that have catastrophic effects on our members, and is in violation of Government Code section 3519. A copy of the Unfair Labor Practice charges brought by CASE may be viewed by selecting the link below. CASE is presently considering additional legal action in the Sacramento County Superior Court and the United States District Court. CASE leadership has also met with leaders in both houses of the California Legislature, and will continue to oppose Governor Schwarzenegger's ill-advised attempt to balance California's budget at the expense of its employees.
CASE has received many questions about the specific effects of Executive Order S-09-08. In light of Controller Chiang's declaration that he will not enforce Executive Order S-09-08, as well as the fact that the order appears to give independently-elected constitutional officers and some other departments discretion to implement the terms of the order, it is presently unclear whether and how Executive Order S-09-08 will actually affect the members of Bargaining Unit 2. However, based on the most recent information provided by Controller Chiang, you should still expect to receive your paycheck for the August 2008 pay period at the end of this month. (See Controller Chiang's press release: http://sco.ca.gov/eo/pressbox/2008/07/pr08042.pdf.) Of course, CASE will continue to monitor this situation and provide you with updated information as the situation develops. If you have specific questions or comments, please direct them to info@calattorneys.org. We will attempt to provide you with answers to your questions as soon as possible.
As always, thank you for support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors
Today CASE filed its opening brief in the appeal against Governor Schwarzenegger and the Department of Personnel Administration ("DPA"). As you will recall, CASE filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the Sacramento County Superior Court, alleging that the Governor and DPA had applied the Dills Act to Unit 2 in an unconstitutional manner by deliberately refusing to adhere to the like-pay-for-like-work concept inherent in the civil service system established by the California Constitution.
This filing represents the latest round of our ongoing battle with the State to address the compensation crisis facing the State's legal professionals. CASE's position is to press the State on every possible front, be it litigation, legislation, or negotiation. CASE is committed to obtaining relief for its members and ensuring that the State's legal infrastructure is not irrevocably damaged as a result of California's persistent failure to pay fair compensation.
Despite acknowledging that our administrative law judges are grossly underpaid as compared to their federal counterparts, and despite acknowledging that city and county attorneys receive significantly better salaries and benefits than its own attorneys, the State so far has refused to do anything about the problem. While this year's budget situation requires difficult decisions in every branch of government, CASE will continue to seek a solution to the structural problem so that our members can be fairly compensated for the valuable work they perform on behalf of the citizens of California.
The brief filed today can viewed by selecting the link below. The Governor's brief is due within 30 days.
As always, thank you for your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors
Dear CASE Member:
By now you are most likely aware of reports that Governor Schwarzenegger plans to sign an executive order on Monday that would, if signed, temporarily reduce pay for more than 200,000 state workers to the federal minimum wage of $6.55 per hour. (A copy of the Sacramento Bee article can be viewed by following the link below) Attempting to balance the State budget on the back of state employees is an unconscionable political tactic. Needless to say, CASE vigorously opposes any action the state may take that would delay or interfere with state employees' receiving the compensation to which they are entitled.
CASE has been in contact with officials at the Department of Personnel Administration, and has made it clear that we will take immediate action in all available forums should the proposed executive order be signed on Monday. The exact details of any order by the Governor won't be known unless and until an actual order is signed. Once those details are known, CASE will work vigorously to protect our members' rights. CASE will keep its members informed via global e-mail messages and through updates on our website (www.calattorneys.org) as this situation develops. If you have any specific questions, please direct them to info@calattorneys.org. We will attempt to answer questions as information becomes available.
As always, thank you for your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors
CASE will be conducting its annual election for the Board of Directors this fall. Seven even-year Director-at-Large seats will be up for election.
If you are considering becoming a candidate for CASE office this fall, please note the following important information regarding the nomination process and schedule:
August 29, 2008: Original nomination petitions due to the CASE Office by 5 p.m. (No facsimile or e-mail/PDF copies will be accepted.) Nomination petitions must have at least five (5) valid signatures from full CASE members in good standing. Signatures from fair share CASE members will not be accepted.
August 29, 2008: Last day for any candidate to withdraw from the election and not have his or her name appear on the ballot.
August 29, 2008: Last day for fair share fee payers to become full CASE members with voting privileges.
September 2, 2008: Certified list of eligible candidates to be published by the Elections Oversight Committee.
September 19, 2008: Optional candidate statements due at CASE Office by 5 p.m.
October 3, 2008: Ballots and candidate statements mailed to membership.
November 7, 2008: Ballots counted at CASE Office. (Note: Only ballots received by 5:00 p.m. on November 6, 2008, at the designated post office box will be counted. Ballots delivered to the CASE office or received at the post office box on or after November 7, 2008, shall not be counted.)
Nominations may be submitted anytime between now and Friday, August 29, 2008. To become a candidate for any of the open positions, you must submit a nomination petition or letter to the CASE office by August 29, 2008, declaring your interest along with the signatures of five (5) full CASE members in good standing. Your petition or letter must include your name, department, classification, home and work addresses, phone numbers, email address, and your signature. The five (5) active CASE members who support your nomination should each provide their name, department, classification, home and work address, phone numbers, email address, and their signature. Forms for declaring candidacies are available from the CASE office and/or the CASE website (www.calattorneys.org). A letter containing the above information will also suffice. Please note that fax filings will not be accepted.
Only active rank-and-file members of CASE who are in good standing are eligible to run for office. This includes all dues paying employees in Bargaining Unit 2, with the exception of those who are designated as retired annuitants, confidential, managers or supervisors; fair share fee payers are ineligible to run for office.
Candidates will be allowed to submit a campaign statement to CASE, which will be mailed along with ballots to all CASE members. The deadline for submitting this statement is Friday, September 19, 2008. Although limited to one side of a single 8½ x 11 sheet of paper, there is no word limit, so you can design the statement as you see fit. CASE reserves the right to reject or request modification of statements that contain libelous or inappropriate statements.
If you have any questions about the election, please feel free to contact the CASE office at (800) 699-6533, or email at elections@calattorneys.org.
Sincerely,
The CASE Elections Oversight Committee
We are pleased to announce the passage in the Legislature, and the Governor's signing of, AB 3043, which will increase the State's Consolidated Benefit (CoBen) contribution to health care insurance premiums, thereby increasing the take-home pay of most Unit 2 members. (Please note that there will be no change to the taxable cash paid to employees who do not receive their health and/or dental coverage through the State.)
The new State CoBen contributions will be as follows:
Party Code One - employee only: $439 per month (previously $365 per month)
Party Code Two - employee plus one dependent: $836 per month (previously $696 per month)
Party Code Three - employee plus two or more dependents: $1084 per month (previously $906 per month)
CASE has been working with the State Controller's Office to ensure that AB 3043 is implemented as soon as possible. We have been informed that the increased CoBen contributions will be reflected in payments made for the July 2008 payroll period. (Please see http://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd/empinfo/payday/index.shtml for payroll period dates.) Also, because AB 3043 is retroactive to January 1, 2008, Unit 2 members who receive their health care through the State will also receive a lump sum payment to account for the increased CoBen payments owed by the State for the January - June pay periods. If you receive your health care through the State, you should expect to receive a separate check covering these amounts sometime in August of 2008.
As always, thank you for your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors
Dear CASE Member:
California State Controller John Chiang has confirmed that even in the absence of a budget for the 2008-2009 fiscal year, his office will make payroll payments for the vast majority state employees, including members of Bargaining Unit 2. If you have any specific questions, please visit the Controller Chiang's web site (http://www.sco.ca.gov/eo/fiscalissues/payments.shtml#stateemployees#stateemployees), which details what payments can and cannot be made without a State budget.
Also, please note that effective tomorrow (July 1, 2008), the mileage reimbursement rate you may claim when traveling on approved State business will increase from 50.5 cents per mile to 58.5 cents per mile. Please make sure to use the new, increased rate when requesting reimbursement for any approved travel expenses incurred on or after July 1, 2008.
If you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact the CASE office. As always, thank you for your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors
The following update is part of our ongoing effort to keep you informed of events affecting the members of Bargaining Unit 2:
Bargaining
Bargaining between CASE and DPA continues. As reported earlier, CASE and DPA have tentatively agreed on many non-economic items. However, we still remain far apart on compensation, which has been - and continues to be - our single most important issue. As you can imagine, the current budget environment has done little to make this task any easier.
CASE has presented an economic offer to the State that addresses our salary concerns while at the same time acknowledging the present budget crisis. Unfortunately, DPA has rejected our offer and failed to make a meaningful counteroffer that begins to close the significant salary gap between CASE members and other legal professionals.
The CASE Board of Directors remains committed to improving salaries for all CASE members, and will continue to work toward meaningfully redressing the gross salary disparities faced by all members of Bargaining Unit 2.
Legislation Update: SB1718 and AB3043 - Please select link below to read update
Dills Act Litigation
The next step in CASE's litigation is an appeal of the Sacramento Superior Court's denial of our petition to the California Court of Appeal. We are currently waiting for the Sacramento Superior Court to certify the trial court record, which will trigger the due date for our opening appellate brief. CASE will notify all Unit 2 members when the appeal has been filed, and make the briefs available on the CASE website (www.calattorneys.org).
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the CASE office at info@calattorneys.org. As always, thank you for your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors
CASE is pleased to announce that Senator Don Perata, the President pro Tem of the California Senate, has introduced a bill on behalf of CASE to address the longstanding salary disparity facing our members. Senate Bill 1718 (Perata) would mandate a survey to establish the salaries for members of Unit 2. The survey for attorneys would include 20 other public sector legal employers, including the eight largest cities, the eight largest counties, and four statewide entities. For ALJs and other Unit 2 members, the salaries would be based on the average of federal ALJ and State Bar Court Judge salaries. The use of such a survey benefits the members of Bargaining Unit 2 and the State of California, as it allows salaries to be set in such a manner as to accurately and objectively reflect the equally valuable contributions that all CASE members.
This legislation opens another front for CASE to advance the interests of its members. As you are aware, CASE is pursuing an aggressive, multi-faceted strategy to attempt to address the inequities our members currently endure. In addition to demanding better compensation at the bargaining table, we are pursuing litigation challenging the state's long-term neglect of Unit 2. That litigation is now pending in the Third District Court of Appeal. As you will recall, Attorney General Jerry Brown entered the case as an amicus curiae in Superior Court, and argued that the salary crisis was forcing him to choose between his constitutional duty to enforce the law and his constitutional duty to adhere to the state civil service system.
CASE is extremely pleased to be working with a strong and well-respected author like Senator Perata, and will proceed with a coordinated approach to advancing SB 1718. As the bill progresses through the various stages of the legislative process, we will keep you informed via global e-mail updates. If you have any questions about SB 1718, please direct them to the CASE office by e-mail (info@calattorneys.org) or telephone (800-699-6533). We will respond to your questions as soon as possible.
As always, thank you for your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors
CASE is aware of the fact that the Sacramento Bee recently made available to its readers a searchable database(http://www.sacbee.com/1098/story/738462.html)
listing names, salaries, job titles, and agencies of most state employees. We share the concern expressed by our members. CASE is disappointed with, and strongly disapproves of, the Sacramento Bee's decision to make this personal information so easily available. Many CASE members prosecute or defend criminal matters, sit as judicial officers, or perform other duties that place them personally at risk during the course of their employment. The posting of individuals' names, rather than simply their job titles, places our members at greater risk of personal attacks, and does not further open review or discussion of public salary levels. Posting the individual salaries of major department heads and elected officials at the time of their hiring is not unusual; posting every state employee's name, title, department, and salary demonstrates a lack of concern for the personal safety of state employees, as well as the safety of their family members.
CASE understands that salary information of state employees is public, and has been available in various forms for some time. However, until now, CASE is unaware of any person or organization providing this information online, anonymously, and free of charge. Unfortunately, CASE is unaware of any legal process available to prevent the publication or maintenance of this database. CASE encourages its members who are concerned about the actions of the Sacramento Bee to contact Sacramento Bee editors Melanie Sill at (916) 321-1002 or msill@sacbee.com, and/or Armando Acuna at (916) 321-1250 or publiceditor@sacbee.com. Please copy your correspondence to CASE at info@calattorneys.org.
As always, thank you for your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
As noted in our last update, CASE is sponsoring a long term care insurance program. The open enrollment period for this program runs through April 30, 2008. In order to provide you with the information required to make an informed decision, CASE is making representatives from our insurance broker available to meet with you and answer any questions you may have. Please note the following dates and times:
San Francisco: Monday, March 10
11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. - Department of Justice: 455 Golden Gate, San Diego Room (Basement-level conference center)
Sacramento: Tuesday and Wednesday, March 11 and 12
11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. - Department of Justice: 1300 I Street, 10th Floor - Room #1042
Los Angeles: Wednesday and Thursday, March 19 and 20
11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. - Department of Justice: 300 South Spring Street, 5th Floor - North Press Room
San Diego: Monday and Tuesday, March 24 and 25
11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. - Department of Justice: 110 West "A" Street, 13th Floor Conference Room
Judy Kollack and Nancy Bond O'Neal will be available from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. at each of these locations. Please stop by for a short informational meeting. Following the meeting, one-on-one appointments will be available to answer your individual questions. If you responded to our original e-mail, you have already received materials and proposals via U.S. Mail. For those who have not yet received materials, it is crucial that you RSVP so that we can bring extra materials for your review.
Please RSVP by sending and email to nancy@nbondinsurance.com. If you would like your individual proposal sent to you before these sessions, please e-mail your name, date of birth, marital or domestic partner status (send the same for your spouse or domestic partner), and mailing address to Nancy Bond O'Neal. She will make sure you receive your information ahead of time.
Judy Kollack, the CASE Long Term Care Specialist for the MetLife program, will be leading the sessions. Judy and Nancy will be able to help people complete the applications, provide quotes, and answer your questions. It is important that if you have ever considered obtaining this coverage that you take advantage of the easier underwriting that is available ONLY until April 30th. After April 30th, you may still apply, but medical underwriting will be more stringent.
There will also be meetings held in Los Angeles with dates and times to be announced in the near future. If you have an interest in the CASE Long Term Care Insurance Program and your city was not listed above, please contact Nancy Bond directly to set up a personal appointment or to coordinate an onsite meeting.
Thank you,
The CASE Board of Directors
As part of an ongoing effort to keep you informed of events affecting members of Bargaining Unit 2, we respectfully submit the following update:
Bargaining
Bargaining between CASE and DPA continues. CASE and DPA have tentatively agreed on many non-economic items. However, the parties still remain far apart on compensation, which has been - and continues to be - our single most important issue. The CASE Bargaining Team has presented an offer to DPA that both addresses our salary concerns and acknowledges the present economic environment. Unfortunately, as of this date, DPA has not made a meaningful offer or counteroffer that even begins to close the significant salary gap between CASE members and other legal professionals. The CASE Board of Directors is absolutely committed to improving salaries for all CASE members, and will not accept any offer from DPA that does not meaningfully redress the gross salary disparities faced by all members of Bargaining Unit 2.
Litigation
The next step in CASE's litigation is an appeal of the Sacramento Superior Court's denial of our petition to the California Court of Appeal. We will notify our members when the appeal has been filed, and make our brief available on the CASE website.
Budget Crisis
Given the cuts proposed by the Governor, many departments are exploring ways to reduce costs. These vary from changes that have no impact on CASE members to potential layoffs of members. CASE has already begun to meet and confer with some departments over these issues. It is important for CASE members to notify CASE if their department proposes or unilaterally imposes changes in working conditions that violate the contract. Information regarding lay-offs and the Unit 2 contract can both be found on the CASE website. If you have any specific questions, please feel free to contact the CASE office at info@calattorneys.org.
CoBen Allowance
As reported previously, CASE and DPA have entered into a sideletter agreement that will provide, retroactive to January 1, 2008, increased CoBen contributions by the state. The new contribution amounts are as follows: Party Code One (employee only): $439; Party Code Two (employee + one dependent): $836; Party Code Three (employee + two or more dependents): $1084. We are working to ensure that the sideletter is implemented as soon as possible. All legislation is currently being affected by the Governor's declaration of a fiscal emergency. Once the agreement is approved and implemented, CASE members will be reimbursed for any out-of-pocket costs covered by the agreement.
Long Term Care Insurance
CASE is pleased to offer its members an opportunity to enroll in the MetLife long term care insurance program, which is provided as a membership benefit to all full CASE members. CASE members now have the option to choose between the CalPERS and MetLife long term care programs. The open enrollment period ends on April 30, 2008. More information is available by calling the CASE office (800-699-6533).
As always, we thank you for your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors
We have received several requests for information about the new CASE-sponsored MetLife Long Term Care Insurance Program. This is a supplemental long term care insurance program that is available to all full CASE members and their families. Please note the following information:
CASE members who apply between now and April 30, 2008, will enjoy a simplified underwriting process, with only 5 medical questions to answer. (No height or weight questions, no requirement to list prescription medications, no questions regarding alcohol or tobacco use, no telephone interview, and no face to face interview by the company.) During this time, family members will also enjoy a modified medical underwriting process, which is significantly less stringent than the normal underwriting process. The simplified and modified underwriting processes will not be available after April 30, 2008.
Because this is a sponsored plan, CASE members are eligible for several discounts, including a 5% group discount, a 15% discount if you are married or have a domestic partner, and a 30% discount if both spouses/domestic partners are covered. Please note that spouses, domestic partners, in-laws, parents, and grandparents may apply for coverage even if the CASE member does not.
MetLife defines domestic partners as two people who have registered as domestic partners with the state, OR who are 18 years or older, not married to anyone else, share the same residence and are not related by blood. Domestic partners get the full spousal discount of 30% if both apply and are accepted, or the 15% marital discount if only one domestic partner applies.
To get a MetLife Long Term Care Insurance quote, please send an e-mail to Nancy Bond (nancy@nbondinsurance.com) with the following information:
1. Your full name
2. Your birth date
3. Marital/Domestic Partner status
4. Your mailing address
5. Your spouse's/domestic partner's full name (if applicable)
6. Your spouse's/domestic partner's birth date (if applicable)
Nancy Bond will forward this information to Judy Kollak, the CASE long term care insurance specialist, who will contact you directly to help customize a plan designed specifically to meet your needs.
This program is available only to full CASE members. If you are presently a fair share member and would like to take advantage of the MetLife Long Term Care Insurance Program or any other membership benefit, please contact the CASE office at (800) 699-6533 and request a membership application.
As always, thank you for your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
Dear CASE Member:
With the arrival of the new year, the CASE Board of Directors and staff would like to extend their best wishes to all CASE members and their families. Over the past few weeks, we have received several requests for information regarding different subjects of interest to Unit 2 members. Please note the following information:
Bargaining Update
The CASE Bargaining Team is still in the process of negotiating with DPA for a successor contract. We had several bargaining sessions in November and December, and bargaining table dates have been set with DPA for January. We have made progress on non-economic issues, but remain far apart on our economic proposals. To deal with the current budget situation, CASE has made a long term offer to phase in equity adjustments for ALL members, along with cost of living increases to keep us from falling further behind. DPA has only made offers of minimal equity adjustments for a very small percentage of our membership, and one time cash payments for limited categories of CASE membership based on workplace location. These offers are unacceptable to CASE, and have been rejected. The CASE Bargaining Team will, however, continue to work toward addressing the gross inequities facing Unit 2 members including bargaining, lobbying and litigation.
Litigation Update
CASE is pursuing its appeal of the Sacramento County Superior Court's denial of our lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the State's application of the collective bargaining process to Bargaining Unit 2.
IRS Mileage Reimbursement Rate
CASE entered into a side letter agreement that tied the rate of mileage reimbursement available to Unit 2 members when using a privately-owned vehicle on State business to the Federal Standard Mileage Rate (FSMR). The 2008 FSMR has been raised to 50.5 cents per mile. (http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=176030,00.html.) Accordingly, all members of Unit 2 who use a privately-owned vehicle for State business may immediately claim the new reimbursement rate. If you encounter any problems receiving the new reimbursement rate for official travel that takes place after January 1, 2008, please notify the CASE office.
CoBen Allowance
CASE entered into a side letter agreement that raised the Consolidated Benefits (CoBen) contribution made by the State effective January 1, 2008. Because this side letter agreement involves additional expenditures by the State, it must be approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor. CASE is working to have this agreement enacted as soon as possible. Regardless of when this agreement is approved, because it is retroactive to January 1, 2008, any out-of-pocket expenditures made by Unit 2 members covered by this agreement will be reimbursed.
We will continue to post updates on the CASE website as information becomes available. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the CASE office at info@calattorneys.org, or by calling (800) 699-6533. As always, thank you for your continued support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
Sincerely,
The CASE Board of Directors
Oral arguments in our lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Dills Act as applied to Unit 2 were heard by Judge Gail Ohanesian in Sacramento Superior Court on Friday, November 30, and the court issued its decision on Monday, December 3. In short, we won on all of DPA's affirmative defenses but lost on the merits. However, there are a couple of important, positive points that came out of the ruling. Judge Ohanesian's order is available by selecting the link below.
First, the case was heard on the merits, so we do not have to expend any further energy (and probably several years) appealing and litigating issues such as venue and exhaustion of remedies; our appeal will be made directly to the California Court of Appeal on the merits. Second, based on the filings, the record on appeal will contain a great deal of evidence supporting our claim and very little supporting DPA's position. Finally, the fact that the court heard the case on the merits made it very clear to DPA that we have a legitimate theory underlying our claim.
The specific rulings made by the court were:
1.) Denied DPA's demurrer and found that our Amended Petition alleged different claims than the Original Petition. Based on the denial of the demurrer, the court held that the petition would be heard on its merits to decide whether the application of the Dills Act to Unit 2 was violating the civil service mandate embodied in Art. VII of the California Constitution.
2.) Rejected DPA's contention that our Amended Petition should be denied because of a failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
3.) Rejected DPA's contention that our Amended Petition was subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures of the MOU.
4.) Denied our Amended Petition on the merits finding insufficient evidence to show the application of the Dills Act to Unit 2 was unconstitutional.
Special thanks are in order to Attorney General Jerry Brown, Chief Deputy Attorney General James Humes, and all of the department heads who submitted declarations and evidence in support of our claims.
The next phase of our litigation will be our appeal on the merits. In addition to aggressively pursuing our appeal, we are continuing our efforts to address our longstanding pay inequities at the bargaining table.
As always, thank you for your support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
On Monday, California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. filed an amicus curiae brief in support of CASE in its legal action against the Governor and the Department of Personnel Administration challenging the constitutionality of the application of the Dills Act to Bargaining Unit 2. Copies of Attorney General Brown's amicus curiae brief and declaration are available by selecting the links below.
As always, thank you for your continued support of CASE and your colleagues in Bargaining Unit 2.
CASE has taken unprecedented steps toward redressing the gross inequities facing Unit 2 members. These steps have included: (1) enlisting the assistance of the longest serving Speaker of the California Assembly, Willie Brown, as a consultant to the CASE Bargaining Team; (2) retaining Professor David Lewin, an eminent, nationally-recognized expert on compensation and labor relations, as an expert witness for CASE; (3) filing a lawsuit in Sacramento Superior Court challenging the constitutionality of the State's application of the collective bargaining process to Unit 2, in which California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has obtained amicus status in support of CASE; (4) filing a declaratory relief action in Sacramento Superior Court seeking to clarify what ethical constraints, if any, exist regarding a strike; (5) filing an unfair labor charge for bargaining in bad faith; and (6) seeking the appointment of a mediator. The economic offer to Unit 2, and the manner in which the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA) is conducting negotiations, leaves no doubt that each of these unprecedented actions was absolutely necessary. Moreover, it is resoundingly clear that CASE must continue to pursue whatever means necessary in any available forum to redress the gross inequities facing Unit 2, or we risk the civil service system of legal professionals being dismantled and the second-class status of Unit 2 members becoming institutionalized.
CASE made an inherently fair and reasonable economic proposal that would give Unit 2 members: (1) annual unit-wide cost of living adjustments (COLAs); (2) 85/80% employer contributions for employee and dependents (COBen) health care premiums; (3) downward adjustments to pension contributions; and (4) salary parity for its members with their counterparts in the public sector in California. Specifically, for Unit 2 Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers, CASE proposed parity with State Bar Court Judges, and for Unit 2 attorneys, CASE proposed parity based on an average similar to the formula used to determine statewide base pay for CHP officers. The DPA counteroffer was disturbingly inadequate, as it ensured that every member of Unit 2 would be worse off economically than they are today. The DPA counteroffer provided for only one COLA - a full year into the MOU - and that COLA would only be given to less than half of the Bargaining Unit. The offer by the DPA would result in a savings of $31 million to the State when compared with the COLAs and health care contributions that the State has made available to other State employees. The DPA offer also completely ignored the enormous and ever increasing pay gaps for Unit 2 members. As previously reported to you, the DPA's 2007 salary survey grossly underreports the salary gaps for the legal professionals in Unit 2. The gross deficiencies and flawed methodology in the 2007 DPA survey are discussed in detail in Professor Lewin's declaration filed in support of ongoing litigation by CASE, which is available to you on the CASE website at www.calattorneys.org.
One of the key pressure points the DPA has traditionally used to leverage MOUs is to run down the clock on obtaining an MOU in time to have it approved and funded by the Legislature before it adjourns for the year, and then make a last-minute "take-it-or-leave-it" offer. The tactic can prove effective because, if the union refuses the last minute offer, then its members cannot possibly realize any economic relief until the next calendar year. While the DPA tactic was anticipated, what was unexpected is that DPA would fail to execute the tactic in a timely manner. DPA unexpectedly ordered the CASE Bargaining Team home on Tuesday August 28th, and cancelled the formal bargaining session that had been scheduled for Wednesday August 29th, despite being correctly informed by CASE that the session was necessary in order to have any chance to agree to an MOU that could be approved during the current Legislative session. The DPA then scheduled formal negotiations to resume on the afternoon of Thursday, August 30th. By the time the DPA arrived at the bargaining table at about 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, for the purpose of making its "take-it-or-leave-it" offer, it was too late to submit an MOU to the Legislature in order to have it considered in this legislative term.
As a "gesture of good faith," the DPA offered a side letter agreement to CASE the evening of Thursday, August 30th, that ensures that Unit 2 members will receive increased employer contributions for health care premiums. CASE accepted the side letter agreement with no strings attached. The side letter provides that effective January 1, 2008, Unit 2 members will receive employer CoBen contributions of 85% for employees and 80% for dependents (except those members who are subject to vesting of health care contributions for dependents). This gesture does not change the fact that the DPA has a long way to go before it will be negotiating with CASE in good faith for a successor MOU.
The only other State Bargaining Unit besides Unit 2 that is presently working without a contract is Bargaining Unit 6. The DPA is indicating that it has offered the correctional officers in Bargaining Unit 6 salary increases of 15%. The cost to the State of the current offer to CCPOA has been identified by the DPA as nearly $1 billion dollars. It is against this backdrop that the DPA informs CASE that the State cannot possibly incur around $300 million dollars in increased costs in order to provide Unit 2 with the same COLAs and health care contributions being received by other State employees, and to bring Unit 2 members into salary parity with their counterparts in public service in California. Any successor MOU for Unit 2 must meaningfully redress the gross salary disparities for Unit 2 members, as CASE leadership will not accept anything less. To do otherwise would be to institutionalize your low pay and shabby treatment for the remainder of your tenure in State service (and it will follow you into retirement as your low pay will serve as the basis for calculating your final base pay for retirement purposes).
CASE leadership is fully aware of the inordinate financial hardships and sacrifices our members face each and every day from the State continuing to ignore the untenable inequities in its treatment of Unit 2 members. However, CASE leadership understands that the time to stand up to the bullying of Unit 2 by the DPA is long overdue, which is why CASE leadership is steadfastly committed to pursuing an end to the inequities you face by any and all means available to us.
