Home    About Us    News & Events    Political    Elections    Links    Available Insurances

Articles

All Chapter Presidents        Memo to Wardens        Attempt To Be Heard   
CDC Director Terhune Responds Re: Uniforms    
New Lobbyist, Kathy Rees

October 15, 1999

TO ALL CHAPTER PRESIDENTS:

Please disseminate the following information to your members. The results of the 10-14-99 CCSO meeting with CDC Director Terhune are as follow:

1. The memorandum of December 17, 1998 (see enclosed) from Deputy Director Tristan to all wardens is and always has been in affect. Wardens were informed they had to stay within their institutional budget and some decided (purposely or not) to save money by cross covering and/or redirecting supervisors, which makes the 4.9 % cap invalid. By order of Director Terhune, institutions will immediately follow the order of the aforementioned memo from Mr. Tristan.
   
2. Block training for supervisors on state time causes shortages of on-duty supervisory personnel and will be immediately curtailed. A minimum number of supervisors will receive training simultaneously and only training that is required. We explained to Director Terhune it is folly for supervisors with numerous years in the department to take time from their facility only to be taught basic report writing by a correctional officer. This is an example but actually happens.
   
3. A response from the Director concerning uniforms is expected within 10 days.
   
4. Wardens will meet with Chapter Presidents at least monthly. (see senate bill 511 enclosed)
   
5. Overtime checks for supervisors will be paid on the 15^th of the month and no later.

If within two weeks, you have not seen a drastic improvement in cross coverage/redirection or the implementation of the other items mentioned in this memo, contact the CCSO office.

Chapter Presidents, who may be having problems with their fax machines, contact the CCSO office immediately, as we cannot reach some of you via fax.

Thank you,

Larry Cubbage
Administrative Assistant, CCSO

* * * * *

*   *   *   *   *

Date: December 17, 1998

To: Wardens

Subject: Institutional Vacancy Plans for Supervisors and Managers

It is incumbent upon every Warden to ensure that a baseline number of supervisors and managers are on duty for the purpose of providing the appropriate amount of supervision to staff as well as inmates. It is understood that vacancy plans for supervisors and managers vary from one institution to another based upon individual design and mission, making it extremely difficult to draft a standard policy that is specific enough to meet every institution’s needs.

Therefore, to ensure consistency in departmental policy relative to this matter, each Warden is requested to submit their institution’s vacancy plan for supervisors and managers to their respective Regional Administrator for review and approval by January 8, 1999. Wardens, in reviewing their respective institutional vacancy plans, must ensure that the average vacancy rate for Correctional Sergeants and Lieutenants does not exceed the mandated 4.9 percent. Additionally, Wardens must ensure that there is an adequate amount of permanent full time supervisory staff assigned on all watches.

It is my expectation that Wardens of institutions that do not have an established vacancy plan for supervisors and managers develop one for their respective institution. Wardens of institutions developing new vacancy plans for supervisors and managers are to adhere to the Regional Administrator review and approval process as stated above. (Note: If necessary, contact your respective Regional Administrator to coordinate a date of completion for newly developed vacancy plans.)

Regional Administrators shall review and ensure that consistent procedural practice regarding institutional vacancy plans for supervisors and managers has been established and implemented. Undue disparity shall be appropriately addr3essed and corrected under the direction of the Regional Administrators.

Additionally, Warden’s are instructed to ensure that overtime hiring practices for Correctional Sergeant’s and Lieutenant’s are comparable to those processes that pertain to rank and file employees. First and second level supervisors shall be assigned voluntary overtime by seniority except where precluded by operational needs of the Department or in emergency situations. Existing caps on voluntary overtime shall continue; where they do not exist, a monthly cap of eighty (80) hours shall be established and observed, except where precluded by operational needs of the Department or in emergency situations.

Each Warden shall ensure the establishment and implementation of a means by which supervisors may sign up for an overtime shift. The order of call for voluntary overtime shall normally be from the voluntary overtime roster. However, if the overtime assignment becomes available two (2) hours or less prior to the start time of the overtime assignment, the assignment will be offered to the most senior employee whose name appears on the voluntary overtime roster and who is currently on duty.

First and second level supervisors shall be assigned involuntary overtime on a rotating basis by inverse seniority except where precluded by operational needs of the Department or in emergency situations. The junior seventy percent (70%) of the supervisors assigned overtime in a particular classification shall only be assigned involuntary overtime twice during a monthly pay period before the senior remaining thirty percent (30%) of the supervisors are required to work involuntary overtime. If after the junior seventy percent (70%) have been worked twice in any monthly pay period and the senior thirty percent (30%) once in that same monthly pay period, then the junior seventy percent (70%) shall be required to work again. Supervisors will not be assigned involuntary overtime on their regular day off (RDO). Reasonable efforts to canvass on duty employee volunteers shall be made prior to implementation of the involuntary overtime process.

Regional Administrators are requested to report their findings and action plans to my office by January 22, 1999.

Should you have questions or concerns regarding this matter, please contact your respective Regional Administrator.

David Tristan
Deputy Director
Institutions Division

An Attempt To Be Heard

September 14, 1999

Gray Davis, Governor
State of California
Capitol Building
Sacramento, CA. 95814

Governor Davis,

In April 1998, Senator Bill Lockyer and you spoke at the California Correctional Supervisors Organization’s annual conference. At that time, the "Gray Davis for Governor" Campaign needed marketable support and funds, which CCSO supplied. The money we gave you was part of the seed money needed to launch your successful campaign for Governor. At that conference, you told me that you would support our efforts to get collective bargaining for correctional supervisors. Shortly before the election, the California Correctional Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) endorsed you and opposed Senator Lockyer. CCSO is proud to have supported both winning candidates.

However, after the landslide Democratic victory, the California State Legislature and your administration saw fit to deny CCSO members collective bargaining, which is our right under the Ralph C. Dills Act. AB 644 sponsored by CCSO and authored by Assemblyman Scott Wildman would have given correctional supervisors collective bargaining. But Assemblyman Wildman removed all language referencing collective bargaining from that bill. We are reasonably certain that this was the result of talks between the rank and file union (CCPOA) and the Department of Personnel Administration. Since this happened after two days of meetings between CCPOA and DPA, we assume that it was done as a "favor" to you. I hope that this is not how the Democratic Party shows their appreciation for our support. The Democratic Party should at least be able to deliver the rights guaranteed under the Ralph C. Dills Act. However, the opportunity for that is already past and there were two other bills introduced in the current session of the legislature that CCSO supported and that directly benefit Correctional Supervisors. Both of them are in your hands, having been passed by both houses of the legislature. It should be noted that the Appropriations Committees of both the Senate and Assembly have passed these bills. They represent another opportunity to show our membership that your administration wants to deal fairly with all State employees.

One of those bills was SB 321, which would have given a 10% differential between correctional supervisors and their subordinates. This bill has been amended to only require "…a review of the salaries of supervisors and managers in state service to identify classifications in which supervisors and managers are paid a salary that is less than 10% higher than the maximum step of the salary level of the highest paid state employee over whom the supervisor or manager has authority…" In other words, salary adjustments that everyone knows are decades overdue would be "put on hold" until the 2000/2001 legislative session. We are requesting that the necessary salary adjustments to separate the two classifications by at least 10 percent be implemented by July 1, 2000. One way to do this is the sign the other bill, SB 477, which was supposed to provide a 9 percent pay raise for excluded employees. The bill, which affects approximately 32,000 excluded employees and their families, has also been amended. It now would give "…a salary increase of 4% retroactive to July 1, 1999 and an additional increase of 4% as of July 1, 2000." This bill would put back the salary differential that was honored by every Governor prior to Jerry Brown. For CCSO, this is not about the money. This is about respect. Does this administration respect the job that supervisors perform? Will our subordinates see us as being valued by the Department of Corrections and Department of Personnel Administration?

Correctional Supervisors have to protect the public from some of the most unspeakably evil and twisted members of our society. They must direct, counsel, and discipline correctional officers who are empowered to use deadly force to control a violent and antisocial inmate population. Correctional supervisors will be held liable for their actions and those of their subordinates. Is it any wonder that the best and most experienced of our Correctional Officers do not want to promote to Correctional Sergeant? Why would they when the Department of Personnel Administration under every administration since Ronald Reagan have paid correctional supervisors little more that a Correctional Officer straight out of the academy? As it is now, newly promoted Correctional Sergeants make the same base salary as they did before they promoted. Many Sergeants make less than some of the Correctional Officers they supervise. Yet they are held responsible for the actions of those officers. How can they be expected to maintain discipline when the State of California obviously has little respect for the position of Correctional Supervisors?

I am asking you to sign SB 477 into law and direct the Department of Personnel Administration to give us these salary adjustments in addition to any salary and benefit improvements given to Unit 6. I hope that you can provide me with some reason to continue to believe that you value correctional supervisors.

Sincerely,

Richard L Tatum
State President
California Correctional Supervisors Organization, Inc.

Cc: Marty Morgenstern, Director, DPA
Cal Terhune, Director, CDC

Introduction of the Company:

Rees & Associates is a highly qualified, well respected legislative advocacy, government affairs firm which has earned a prestigious reputation in legislative and government affairs circles. The firm enjoys wide access to both parties and both houses of the Legislature. The firm's principal, Kathryn Rees, considered to be a senior member of the lobbying corps, is a well established lobbyist whose tenure has spanned two decades and four governors. The firm has represented an array of clients: professional associations, local governments, and corporate interests, and is known as one of Sacramento's top lobbying firms. Rees & Associates is a full service lobbying firm offering a complete array of government affairs services.

Rees & Associates have proven bi-partisan effectiveness. Lobbying on behalf of our clients before the Legislature and Executive Branch, the firm can represent clients solely on "big ticket" items or provide a "full scope" package. The firm is experienced in bill screening and monitoring, legislative testimony, coalition building, political grassroots network building, and political article writing. We specifically tailor our service plan to meet the unique needs and resources of each of our individual clients. A cornerstone to successful representation of clients is strong, reliable and timely communication.

Rees & Associates' extensive history and experience in Sacramento effectively positions clients as continuing major players within the Legislature and with key public officials. In addition, we manually screen each and every bill and bill amendment, as well as subscribe to a computerized legislative information service (LIRA) to ensure that we are continuously on top of our client’s issues.

Ms. Rees has been a lobbyist for over twenty-three years and founded Rees & Associates in 1983. In addition to the successful representation of clients before the Legislature and Executive Branch, she and her firm specialize in the development of grassroots political networks. She has represented a myriad of public and private clients. Her ability to work the legislative process, the budget process and obtain funding for clients is legendary. Ms. Rees has been recognized in numerous publications, including the California Journal, the Sacramento Bee, the Los Angeles Times, the San Diego Union, the Sacramento Business Journal, the Golden State Report, Political Pulse, California Medicine, Capitol Weekly, and Comstock's Magazine, as being one of Sacramento's most prominent, energetic, hard-working and effective lobbyists. Acknowledged as a tenured lobbyist and a leader among her peers, she was named the first woman president of the Institute of Governmental Advocates. She holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Political Science from the University of Washington, Seattle; a Master of Arts Degree in Public Administration from Governors State University, Illinois; and community college teaching and administrative credentials. She has served as faculty for the Public Policy/Legislative Seminars for the California Journal. She also sits on the board of the Sacramento Capitol Club as well as the board of the UC Davis Women’s Center for Health.

What a Lobbyist Does:

A lobbyist represents clients’ interests before the Legislature, the Executive Branch, and the Governor’s Office. Most of a lobbyist’s work is in connection with the approximately seven thousand bills that are introduced in each two-year legislative session.

The foundation of a successful lobbying firm is its unblinking attention to the details of the bills combined with effective communication. At Rees & Associates we screen every bill at the time it is introduced and every time it is amended. Bills which may affect a client’s interest are referred to the clients for analysis and a recommendation for action.

Significant bills require hours of meetings to ensure that our client’s position is well understood by committee staff as well as the voting legislators. While testimony at public hearings is easily the most visible part of our work, the outcome is most affected by the significant time already invested during the preceding weeks and months. A strong lobbying firm, such as ours, positions its client’s issues behind the scenes before the bill is heard publicly.

The Legislature moves according to its own timetable. That timetable is subject to frequent revision. Rees & Associates monitors the legislative committee hearing calendar on a daily basis. We advise our clients of hearing dates as they are scheduled (and sometimes rescheduled). On some occasions, testimony by the client is appropriate. As bills are acted upon, vote results are relayed to the client. Final bill dispositions, highlights of the legislative session, are forecasted and reported.