|
PRESIDENT'S NEWSLETTER
January 6, 2010
President’s Comments:
The 2009 year has
come and gone. 2010 will offer many tough challenges as did 2009. We
are starting to climb out of a recession, although the climb is a
lot tougher and slower than most thought.
Many changes have
occurred from a year ago. We are operating with less community
service officers. Deputies, Dispatchers, ID Techs, Criminalists,
Coroners, each one of us is working harder than the prior year due
to the old saying, “Doing more with less.” I think that is the
common theme, not only with the Sheriff’s Department and law
enforcement in general, but with the entire nation. Talking to
people in the private industry and it is the same. The world has
become somewhat “cut-throat,” in the sense that people are less
patient and will turn others over much faster than in years past. A
lot of that has to do with the financial dark cloud that has been
over our country for the last 20 months.
The FDSA has done
its part in 2009 to try and lessen that cloud by starting up many
different events for members, and the public we serve, to attend.
The FDSA BBQ’s kicked off in April 2009 and have been a hit with
all. Those will start back up in January to get us all coming back
together for a nice fellowship.
We started
different events at the FDSA building to invite the members back to
the building for reasons other than major meetings. I am trying to
encourage the interaction of all of us at the FDSA. It’s kind of
nice to see people outside of their uniform and not having 30
minutes to finish a meal and a conversation with your partner. There
will be more to come.
The Golf Tournament
and Baker to Vegas are good successes for the FDSA. We took a large
convoy of people to Sacramento to pay respects to our fallen
officers during California Peace Officer Memorial Week.
Participation is up in the Association all around. Many of you have
stepped up and given your precious time and energy to help out
without being asked. I really do appreciate that.
The FDSA met many
challenges on the labor front in 2009. The Mayor trying to make a
covert play for the County Islands in Metro Fresno. FDSA was
involved in this before the City of Fresno even knew we were. Little
battles on the PORAC front, to keep your pension intact are things
you may not even know are going on. I try to keep everyone up to
date when it comes to these things.
I look forward and
welcome the challenges of 2010. I think we as an Association are
ready for most anything to come our way. Please get a hold of me
anytime you need something. I am very accessible and have made that
my pledge to you as the member during my term. Communication is the
only way we get things done.
Stay Safe
-Eric
LOCAL ISSUES
County Islands
The FDSA held
public meetings at our building regarding the annexation issue on
Tuesday, December 8 and Wednesday December 9, 2010. We gave out some
really beneficial information to the citizens who live in the
islands. A lot of the information they were not aware of. The
outpouring of support for the Sheriff’s Department was very
humbling. These people say so many good things about all of you whom
they have had contact with.
I put together a
PowerPoint presentation to show a “Timeline,” on how all of this got
started, why we sent mailers out to the County Island residents, and
where this is going. I explained to the citizens how the FDSA is
committed to this cause and committed to having both sides, City and
County, take a position on annexation. I will again emphasize that
when talking the individual Supervisors they are against any type of
contracting and annexation of their county residents. Those who
don’t have County Island resident (Supervisor Larson and Supervisor
Case) are not in support of any City of Fresno take over of county
citizens or county land. They have a very interesting stance that
their small cities see the City of Fresno as a threat to their
well-being as well.
Retired Sheriff
Steve Magarian was in attendance at the meeting we held on Wednesday
December 9th at the FDSA. Sheriff Magarian said it well,
“Its time for the silent majority (county island folks) to speak out
to their elected Supervisor and tell them how you are not in favor
of the City annexing your property.” Sheriff Magarian went on to
discuss the proud tradition of service the Sheriff’s Department is
known for, not on only in Fresno County, but throughout the State.
The citizens were
very outspoken about the City of Fresno, and dislike of them. I
again stressed to them, this is not about FSO vs. FPD. Both
agencies provide law enforcement services to the citizens of Fresno
County. Line staff does not want to become in the middle of this
battle between essentially the Mayor and the County BOS. This is a
City of Fresno issue dealing with trying to grab control and gain
power from the County of Fresno. They understand that and support
our position and again they equate what we are doing, to the same
job we do protecting them each and every day. Quality of service
from every angle.
The meeting on the
December 15, 2009 was better than expected by the FDSA. I sent out a
quick blast to all of you regarding the meeting and what came out
from it. See below as I am attaching that letter on this newsletter;
I’m taking this
opportunity and updating all FDSA members on the recent activity
regarding the “Stop the Grab,” campaign we have been engaged in for
the last few months. This is the anti-annexation campaign the FDSA
started against the City of
Fresno to stop them
from attempting to annex any and all county islands within
metropolitan Fresno. FDSA has been very active in this since the
beginning of the year
and went public
with it in October 2009. Tuesday’s, 12-15-09, Board of Supervisor
meeting this issue was heard and discussed by the BOS, Sheriff, and
residents of the County Islands.
The City of Fresno
was invited to attend, as well as the Police Department. However
there was no representation for comment from either one. Not
surprising, since the City of Fresno and Mayor Swearengin have
essentially crawled into a hole since we started mailing to the
County Island residents explaining to them what is going on with the
Mayor’s covert attempt to annex them into the City of Fresno. The
Mayor did respond to our fact based mailing by using the Fresno Bee
as a way to convey her weak message of how the deputies are being
“Bullies,” toward her “supposed fact finding,” regarding the topic
of annexation. The Mayor furthered this by sending a three page
letter out denouncing the FDSA to the county island residents and
attacked us as a law enforcement group. All this did was upset a lot
of the residents. The Mayor has yet to address the topic of
annexation to the public.
The bottom line
that came out from the BOS meeting made a few points known to the
public and to the City of Fresno as to where the Sheriff and Board
of Supervisors stand on this issue.
Sheriff Mims took a
very strong position on this issue by telling the BOS and public she
will not contract with the City of Fresno, or any other entity for
police services, period. The Sheriff acknowledged what the public is
telling her; they love their Deputy Sheriffs and want no change. The
Sheriff stated she was elected to serve and protect those who put
her into office. Sheriff Mims received a round of applause from the
audience inside the board room. FDSA stands behind that position
given by the Sheriff.
Retired Sheriff
Magarian, who has been a supporter of what the FDSA has been doing,
spoke to the fact that he supports the County Island residents. He
urged the BOS that these residents have a right to vote for
annexation, and to let the City officials know once and for all what
the County of Fresno’s position is regarding this. Sheriff Magarian
received a round of applause from the audience in the board room.
There were several
county island residents who then spoke to this issue. These
residents went out on their own, polled their fellow neighbors to
find out what service they wanted. One-hundred percent of the people
polled through the residents said they do not want to be annexed
into the city of Fresno, nor do they want to change their police
service from their current Deputy Sheriffs to the City of Fresno
Police Department. This once again validates the study we had done
in the islands back in February, as well as all the comments coming
into the Stop the Grab website.
At the end of the
day, the consensus of the board of supervisors was the same. Three
main points were discussed and recorded by the board to be drafted
into a letter and set up a county policy regarding annexations. Here
is a general description of what the board decided on;
1.
Move
forward with a county policy that is sent to LAFCO taking a position
against any annexation in the county islands, regardless of the
island size. A vote of the people is needed before any annexation
occurs.
2.
Give
direction from the Chair of the Board and the Sheriff to find out
from the City of Fresno what their intentions are regarding
annexation and contracting police services. Open up discussion on
these issues.
3.
Finally, bring this back to the Board of Supervisors for final
approval of the above mention in written form. Again the strong
message sent to LAFCO from the County’s position, of No annexation
regardless of size without a vote of the people. That letter will
then be sent to the City of Fresno as well.
Overall the
position of the Board of Supervisors is a strong one. FDSA has put a
lot of time and energy into this issue specifically. The Board
listened to us, and emulated a lot of what we conveyed as concerns
of ours as a law enforcement organization in yesterday’s meeting.
This board proved they are true to their constituents when it comes
to public safety services. The board of supervisors realizes this is
a very sensitive issue and has no intention of turning over the
county islands over to the City of Fresno. The board of supervisors
values the opinion of the people who live in the county islands.
The City of
Fresno’s lack of public response to this issue of annexation leads
me to believe this is off the table for them. The response by the
Board of Supervisors in the meeting on Tuesday 12/15/09 leads me to
believe this is an issue that will not be entertained by them in
regards to annexation or contracting police services. The board did
make a strong statement that if police services are merged between
city and county, they will fall under the Sheriff, chief law
enforcement officer of the County. The Sheriff ultimately has to
accept a contract for anything to ever move forward.
The FDSA will be
continuing to monitor the issue of annexation and contract policing
from every angle so there are no surprises down the road. I want to
keep all members informed regarding this issue specifically.
FUNDRAISING
FDSA BBQ
We are dark for the
months of November and December for the winter holidays. We will be
starting back up in January 27, 2010.
FDSA Building
The month of
December has been proven again as a “rented building month,” for the
FDSA. Many events were held at the FDSA building during the month.
FDSA started it with hosting the local Chapter PORAC meeting. This
brought in about 40-50 members attending from the various Central
California Chapters. Hot Dogs with Santa, birthday parties, and
Christmas parties were some of the events held at the building
during the month along with the normal county departmental meetings
as well.
We had the first
UFC fight night held on January 2, 2010. This event was broadcasted
on all the television sets the FDSA has purchased through our
fundraising efforts. This was a very good turnout for the first
event held here at the building for one of these events. We look
forward for more to come.
FDSA APPAREL/ITEMS
FOR SALE
The FDSA has also
started selling “FDSA,” type apparel to our membership. The display
case is on the second floor of the FDSA building, with the price
list there as well. Tammy is going to be the person who will be
selling you the apparel. All checks will be made out to “FDSA.”
I will list below some of the items and the prices attached to
them.
******Photos will be included in the next Newsletter.
FDSA Polo Shirt
$25.00
FDSA t-shirt
S-XXL
$15.00 each
Black compression shirts
Tight fight and loose fit
$20.00 each
4 different styles of flex-fit hats
$18.00 each
Aprons
$18.00 each
Challenge Coins
$5.00
FDSA Mugs
$10.00
Air Support Unit Patch
$8.00
LABOR FRONT/BENEFITS
Bargaining with the
County Fresno
December 17th,
2009 we started our second meeting with the County of Fresno. As
part of the ground rules all matters regarding what is going on at
the bargaining table are confidential until both parties agree on a
deal, pending a ratification of the FDSA membership.
The sky is falling
across the State of California as most of you are aware of if you
have been following what is going on with government budgets
throughout the state of California. The City of Fresno is in a huge
budget deficit and going to be laying off quite a few civilian staff
from the police department. The County of Fresno has started its
mid-year budget review and the news is not to pretty as to where the
County and Sheriff stand on their current budgets. There will be
more to come on this once a number is determined as to a true
shortfall. I will keep you all informed on this issue.
Our next bargaining
meeting with the County is set for Friday, January 22nd
2010. We have sent a proposal into the County in hope of locking up
a contract. That will be taken to the board of supervisors on
January 12, 2010. There is a lot of work put into this process from
the members of the FDSA bargaining team. Not only research into
different trends in law enforcement, but meetings with the “players”
in the whole process to work through problems and deadlocks when it
comes to certain items.
Labor Beat
Labor Beat is a
monthly newsletter that is put out by our law firm Carroll, Burdick
and McDonough for its clients. This is read throughout the labor
world both in the public and private sector. I am attaching
different excerpts that apply to things in the public sector that
maybe of some interest to you.
Gary Messing Honored as "Superb"
Labor Lawyer in Sacramento
After
being selected for 2010 in Northern California Super Lawyers (top
5%), Best Lawyers America (top 1%-2%) and Best of the U.S. (top
1%-2%), Gary was ranked in the top four labor and employment lawyers
in the Sacramento area in the AVVO rankings. Out of the 890 lawyers
who practice labor and employment law in the greater Sacramento
area, Gary was one of only four who received a rating of “superb”.
Ninth Circuit holds that Employee is
entitled to a Full Evidentiary Hearing Regarding the Reasons for His
Layoff
By Jason Jasmine
Historically, civil service employees have not been entitled to a
full evidentiary hearing regarding the reasons for their layoff.
Rather, all that is typically contested is whether the layoff
provisions of any negotiated MOU or Personnel Code have been
followed. A recent Ninth Circuit decision, however, seems to have
expanded the rights of civil service employees impacted by layoffs.
Levine v. City of Alameda.
Levine
contended that his layoff was a pretext and he was being terminated
because the City Manager did not like him. According to the Court,
because Levine had a property interest in continued employment, he
was entitled to have a more limited (Skelly, or in the
federal context, Loudermill) hearing before his lay off to
allow him to present his side of the story. Failure to provide
Levine with such an opportunity was a violation of his due process
rights. The Ninth Circuit found the district court's remedy for the
violation – a full evidentiary hearing, with an impartial
third-party – appropriate. It is not clear that the Ninth Circuit
would have concluded a full evidentiary hearing with a neutral third
party was necessary but for the City's failure to provide Levine
with his pre-termination due process rights. However, this decision
clearly holds that a civil service employee is entitled to (at the
very least) a pre-termination hearing. If the employee is denied a
pre-termination hearing, then an appropriate remedy is a
post-termination full evidentiary hearing before a neutral third
party.
A troubling decision extending
POBAR’s one year statute of limitation
By Jennifer
Stoughton
On May 2,
2006, the plaintiff was notified that he was being charged with six
counts of misconduct. He was ultimately found guilty of counts 1, 2
and 4-6 and was terminated. In his lawsuit challenging his
termination, the court found that the plaintiff’s misconduct was
reported to a supervisor on October 4, 2004, but that 576 days
elapsed before he received notice of the charges (on May 4, 2006).
The court also found that the one year statute of limitations was
held in abeyance from May 17, 2005 through November 16, 2005 while
the charges were the subject of a pending criminal investigation.
The court concluded that since counts 4 and 5 (based on alleged
misuse of the Department’s computer systems) were discovered during
a March 1, 2005 internal audit, and count 6 (alleged false
statements during an internal department investigation) was
discovered during the course of a November 17, 2005 interview
concerning the allegations that formed the basis for count 2, they
were within POBR’s one-year statute of limitations. Crawford v.
City of Los Angeles (2009) 175 Cal.App.4th 249.
In so
finding, the court rejected the notion that counts 4 and 5 should
not have been tolled during the pendency of the criminal
investigation because they were not criminal in nature. The court
held that when an investigation involves both criminal and
noncriminal misconduct, POBR acts to toll all charges
(including the noncriminal allegations) pending the outcome of the
criminal investigation.
The court
also rejected the plaintiff’s contention that count 6 was barred
under the rule announced in Alameida v. State Personnel Board
(2004) 120 Cal.App.4th 46 (a case CBM prevailed on at the
court of appeal) that “dishonesty in denying an underlying charge
does not start a new limitations period for discipline under [POBRA].”
Alameida involved a correctional officer who was accused of
committing sexual offenses in September 1998 and was accused of
lying about that allegation in July 2000 after a criminal
investigation was dropped due to insufficient evidence. The
plaintiff was dismissed from employment within the one-year statute
of limitations as to the false allegation statement but was beyond
the statute of limitations as to the sexual offense allegation. The
court overturned the dismissal as time barred under POBR because it
found that to allow the dishonesty charge to survive when the time
period for the underlying offense had passed would defeat the
purpose of POBR’s one year statute of limitations.
Relying on
Alameida, the plaintiff asserted that count 6 was barred
because it involved allegations that the plaintiff lied during the
investigation into count 2. Because count 2 involved allegations
based on misconduct that the Department knew about as of October 5,
2004, the plaintiff reasoned that the statute of limitations for
count 6 should have been the same as count 2.
Although
the court did not go so far as to overrule Alameida as urged
by defendants, it did find that the facts of this case were
distinguishable because, given the application of the tolling during
the pendency of the criminal investigation, the statute of
limitations on count 2 had not expired as of November 17, 2005 when
plaintiff allegedly made the false statements. Thus, the court
concluded that the rule from Alameida is not applicable
because it only prohibited the reviving of an already expired
charge.
Although
the court was careful to distinguish Alameida and
specifically declined to overrule it, this decision does represent a
troubling extension of POBR’s one-year statute of limitations.
Essentially the court found that as long as charges of dishonesty
concerning a pending investigation are made within the statute of
limitations for the original investigation, the dishonesty charge
has its own statute of limitations that starts to run only when the
employer should have discovered the false statements. We intend to
keep a close eye on similar “extensions” of POBR’s statute of
limitations.
a
b
POBR’s one-year statute of
limitations does not apply to terminated officers
By Jennifer
Stoughton
In yet
another case involving an interpretation of POBR’s one-year statute
of limitation, the Second District Court of Appeal found that the
one-year statute of limitations only applies to protect public
safety officers. Therefore, it was tolled during the time period
that the plaintiff, who had been terminated based on other charges
for one year and then reinstated, was not considered a public safety
officer. It made no difference that he was later reinstated. The
Court also found that prior to his reinstatement, the plaintiff
refused to participate in any investigation and told the Department
to consider him unavailable. This also tolled the statute of
limitations period because Government Code section 3304(d)(5)
provides that the one-year statute of limitations does not apply
“[i]f the investigation involves an employee who is incapacitated or
is otherwise unavailable.” Melkonians v. Los Angeles County
Civil Service Commission (2009) 174 Cal.App.4th 1159.
a
POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE
POLITICAL FRONT
The Political
Action Committee has been somewhat slow during the month of
December. The FDSA attended a Christmas Party for Supervisor Phil
Larson at the Kerman Community Center held on Wednesday, December 9th,
2009. This event was a “meet and greet,” type of open house. There
was plenty of food and dessert for those who attended. This event
was well attended by many of Supervisor Larson’s supporters and
those who are interested in the issues Phil deals with. Phil Larson
is the “Water Man” for the County of Fresno and has a lot of
knowledge when it comes to the entire Westside water projects and
has much concern for water issues in Fresno County. Phil will be
addressing the FDSA on Wednesday, January 6, 2010.
FDSA PAC committee
sat down and interviewed Bob Whalen who is seeking the seat of the
29th District Assembly Seat. The seat is currently
occupied by Mike Villines who is going to be terming out in 2010.
Bob is currently seeking the support of the FDSA. To date there have
been no public agencies coming out in support of Bob. Bob currently
holds a council seat for the City of Clovis. Bob is also a Deputy
District Attorney for the County of Fresno.
Judy Case is
running for reelection as well for District 4 seat on the Fresno
County Board of Supervisors. Judy has been a board member for the
last 3 terms and is seeking her 4th term. Although Judy
and the FDSA have agreed to disagree on some issues, she nonetheless
is a supporter of law enforcement and public safety in Fresno
County. FDSA PAC committee has sat down with Judy and discussed
issues on her reelection to the Board of Supervisors. Judy will be
addressing the FDSA on Wednesday, January 06, 2010.
We received many
Christmas cards in the mail from a variety of local, state and
national politicians whom we have supported directly or through
PORAC. Nice to know these people do care enough to send a Christmas
card, thinking of the FDSA.
Pensions
I am going to start
incorporating this into my President Newsletter to keep all of you
up to date on the different issues surrounding public pensions not
only at the local level, but throughout the State of California.
Orange County is probably the lead when it comes to protecting
public pensions, just because their’s have been under attack for
quite some time. Orange County DSA President Wayne Quint attended an
FDSA meeting last year and gave a briefing as to what had been
happening in Orange County in regards to the County trying to take
them away.
Recently the City
of Fresno has been blasted for their pension system, which is a City
run and funded system. The City of Fresno also has a DROP (Deferred
Retirement Option Program) program which helps supplement one’s
retirement. The City is now talking about revamping their own
pension system to make it less stressful for the spending of
taxpayer dollars.
I am attaching some
articles for you to read in regards to what is happening throughout
the State. PORAC is the lead body on protecting all of our pensions.
They step in and offer support for any fight that starts to occur
between the jurisdiction and the agencies affected by this.
-------Here is an
Article from the local newspaper Orange County Register------
California's decades-long
obsession with public safety has tied the hands of budget-makers who
want to spend more on education and social services – and has given
power, influence and wealth to the state’s law enforcement
community.
This is the third of four
parts examining the consequences of our state's tough-on-crime
mindset.
In Part One, we showed how concerns over
public safety have given power and wealth to the state's law
enforcement community.
Last week,
in Part Two, we examined California’s prison
system. Although it is the most
expensive in the nation, it is plagued by outdated policies, severe
overcrowding and a high recidivism rate. Efforts to reform the
system are attacked as “soft on crime.”
To read the entire series go
to
ocregister.com/investigations.
This week we look at a benefit
– liberal pensions for public safety officers – that was handed out
without regard for the financial consequences and subsequently
became a financial disaster for many municipalities.
Some other states are also
wrestling with retirement costs. But California is the only one that
allows nearly all public safety workers to retire at age 50 with 90
percent of their salaries.
The Register found that
decisions to expand public safety pensions were backed by bad
financial assumptions, pushed by self-serving administrators and
buoyed by unproven arguments that the generous retirements were
needed to keep police and firefighters on the payroll.
"The attitude was, 'Hey, we
have a ton of money, let's give it away," said Marcia Fritz,
president of the Foundation for Fiscal Responsibility, a pension
reform group in Sacramento. "There weren't a lot of deep thinkers
there."
Public safety advocates insist
that financial concerns are overblown and the money is well spent.
"What are you going to pay ...
so you can sleep safely at night?" asked Ron Cottingham, president
of the Police Officers' Research Association of California.
A lot, as it turns out.
In the ten years since the
pension increase was adopted, payouts by the California Public
Employees' Retirement System have more than doubled, to $10.8
billion, while resources fell from an actuarial surplus of $32.8
billion to an actuarial unfunded liability of $35 billion in 2008.
CalPERS prefers a different
number for its unfunded liability – $30.3 billion – a calculation
that includes the market value of its assets. The state Legislative
Analyst has criticized CalPers for using conflicting figures –
obscuring the true cost of the pension.
Former legislators say they
were assured by CalPERS in 1999 that the state's share of the
liberalized pensions would reach $300 million at most. According to
CalPERS most recent numbers, the pensions are now costing the state
$3 billion a year.
Municipalities are not doing
much better.
The Orange County Employees'
Retirement System paid out $410.4 million for pensions in 2008,
compared to $139.6 million in 1999. Meanwhile, OCERS' unfunded
liability rose to $3.1 billion, from $85 million in 1999.
With so many police officers
and other public employees cashing in on the new pensions, local
governments have been forced to take out loans, raid reserves, cut
budgets for other necessities – or worse.
•The city of Vallejo filed
for Chapter 9 bankruptcy in May 2008, crushed by the
weight of employee salaries, pensions and overtime. The city is
working on a new spending plan they hope will guide it out of
bankruptcy.
•Buena Park, facing pension
costs of $6.7 million this year, borrowed $17 million to
bring down its yearly payments to the state retirement system.
•The tiny city of La Palma,
faced with pension costs of $1 million out of a $9 million general
fund, dug deep into its reserves and pulled out $3.8 million to
bring down its yearly payments.
•In the tourist town of Santa
Cruz, pensions contributed to a $9 million budget gap this year.
Officials said they would have to lay off city employees or cut pay
5 to 10 percent.
"The pensions are not
sustainable long term," said Santa Cruz finance director Jack
Dilles.
BAD FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS
How did California get into
the pension mess? Experts say it was one part good intentions,
one part bad luck, and one part public safety lobbying
gone awry.
The good intentions: The
pensions were "attaboys" intended to reward public employees
with tough and dangerous jobs.
The lobbying: Public safety
supporters argued the generous pensions were needed to keep good
officers and firefighters from going elsewhere.
The bad luck: The recession
dried up investments that were supposed to cover the cost of the new
retirements.
In at least one case, in the
city of Orange, council members were guided in their discussions by
a city manager who had served earlier as the fire chief and stood to
collect a pension of $162,312 a year under the new formula.
Former Councilman Mike Alvarez
said the city manager, David Rudat, never disclosed during the
discussions that he stood to benefit.
"He should have excused
himself," Alvarez said. "I'm surprised the city attorney didn't say
there's a potential conflict here."
Rudat, now retired, explained
that although he "orchestrated" the information that reached the
council, he made sure not to advise them on how to vote.
Now council members say Orange
could become insolvent if something isn't done. The city is
expecting its pension costs to soar to $23 million in three years
from $13 million. The city's annual general fund budget is $87.5
million.
"If we don't start addressing
this, the music is going to stop," said Councilman Denis Bilodeau.
"And it's not just us. Everybody is in the same boat."
But PORAC spokesman Cottingham
said public safety pensions have unfairly taken the brunt of the
public's frustration with the economy.
"What did the police and
firefighters do to cause the slump in the housing market?" he said.
"What did police and firefighters do to cause the recession? But how
quickly do they get blamed for it because of the pensions they
receive."
Added Wayne Quint, president
of the Association of Orange County Sheriff's Deputies, "The biggest
myth about (the pensions) is that powerful police unions tied up
public officials and their money."
STATE TROOPERS WERE FIRST
Former state Senator Deborah
Ortiz makes no apologies for bringing SB 400 to the floor on the
last day of the legislative session, Sept. 10, 1999. The bill
was originally written to increase the cost–of-living benefits for
survivors of teachers and other employees. It morphed into a law
raising the pension formulas for all state employees and public
safety workers.
Ortiz, D-Sacramento, said in
an interview that the statute was considered just another employee
contract negotiated between then-governor Gray Davis' staff and
labor unions. She said legislators typically ratified the agreements
without discussion.
"Trust me, if there had been
concerns, there would have been debate, and it wasn't because they
didn't have time to debate," Ortiz said.
As usual, the bill was
approved, allowing CHP troopers to collect nearly their entire
salaries at age 50, with 30 years of service.
The League of California
Cities, one of the most vocal groups in state politics, stood silent
on the pensions.
"That is the worst mistake we
have ever made," said Dwight Stenbakken, deputy executive director.
"The effects of that (pension) bill have been so profound in terms
of twisting our retirement system."
By August 24, 2000, a
follow-up bill by then-Assemblyman Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, gave
municipal governments such as Orange County authority to boost their
pensions.
In the fall of 2001 – just a
few weeks after terrorists steered jet planes into skyscrapers --
the Orange County sheriff's union and then-Sheriff Mike Carona
lobbied for the pension increase. Carona told supervisors it
would be tough to attract good people and retain others without the
"3 at 50" pension formula.
Former chief financial officer
Gary Burton remembered the sheriff's union going to each member of
the board of supervisors, saying that the increased pensions would
not cost the county because of large reserves in the fund.
Burton said he carried a
different message to the board members: "Guys, there's no such thing
as a free lunch. This thing is going to cost you money."
The financial warnings,
however, hit a wall of patriotism, said former supervisor Charles
Smith.
"At the time, the first
responders were the darlings of the American people, and they took
advantage of that," Smith said.
Earlier this month, Orange
County's chief financial officer predicted that the county will end
up spending 84 percent of its law enforcement payroll on pensions by
2014, up from 50 percent this year.
Local government officials
interviewed by The Register said they were misled by public safety
lobbying and representations by the $200-billion California Public
Employees' Retirement System that it would cover the costs of the
pension increases with surplus funds and investments.
Former Buena Park Councilman
Steve Berry, who spent 12 years on the panel, said he regrets voting
for the pension increase, but he fell victim to the argument
that all the good police officers would leave.
"There was no quantifying, no
study, just hearsay that was being handed out," Berry said. "They
threw out a lot of information that was unsubstantiated."
In the San Bernardino County
city of Montclair, Mayor Paul Eaton said he was confused by the
financial data.
"It was (a matter of) not
understanding what the heck we were doing," said Eaton. "We did it
and said, 'Whoa, what just happened?"
Montclair, a city of 38,000,
agreed in March 2005 to reduce the pensions for new police and fire
employees.
In Vallejo, Mayor Osby Davis
said the council got in over its head trying to satisfy the labor
unions.
"We were robbing from Peter to
pay Paul, and then Peter went broke and there was no one to rob,"
Davis said.
REJECTION AND REFORM
Not every California
municipality agreed to the pension increase
In Los Angeles County,
officials refused to liberalize the pensions with no real
repercussions. There was no exodus to other departments that offered
the benefit, no problems in recruiting.
"We don't lose a lot of
(people)," said Los Angeles County Sheriff's Sgt. Tracy Palmer, with
the department's personnel administration bureau. "And I've never
heard of (pensions) as a reason for leaving."
In fact, police recruiters in
Orange County and elsewhere say that most of the new hires are so
young, they are barely thinking about retirement, if at all.
"There's always been a
difficulty recruiting qualified police officers, but pensions have
nothing to do with it," said George Wright, head of the criminal
justice department at Santa Ana College, which is part of the
district that runs the Orange County Sheriff's Academy.
With municipalities waking up
to the consequences of the pensions, many are trying to change the
system.
Sixteen cities in San Diego
County are looking at lowering pensions for new hires. New public
safety workers would get 60 percent of their salaries at age 50 –
versus 90 percent under current law. General workers would have to
wait until age 60 for their 60 percent. The plan is being
scrutinized throughout the state.
Meanwhile, the Foundation for
Fiscal Responsibility is working on an initiative to reduce
retirement plans for new workers.
And Orange County, which got
hit with $1 billion in budget cuts this year, is attempting to take
back the public safety pensions and promote new, less-expensive
formulas.
In February 2008, the county
sued the deputy sheriff's union in a landmark effort to erase the
expensive "3 at 50" formula for police. The county argued that the
pension plan violated state law because retired public safety
employees were paid extra compensation for work they had already
done. The county also argued that the plan was illegal because it
spent general fund money without voter approval.
A trial court judge has
rejected the county's arguments – which even pension reformers say
are a long-shot. After spending $1.9 million in legal fees, the
county is reaching deeper into its pocket and taking its fight to
appellate court.
Meanwhile, Orange County
created a two-tier pension formula for non-public safety employees.
Under the plan, existing employees can keep their old benefits or
choose a hybrid plan that mixes a reduced pension with a defined
contribution component, similar to a 401 (k). New employees also
will get to choose between the two options.
It is unclear just how much
the plan will save and how many employees will sign up for it. Like
the lawsuit, the new plan is being watched statewide.
According to Orange County
Supervisor John Moorlach, there are few other options.
"There's always the Vallejo
strategy," he said.
Staff writer Jennifer
Muir contributed to this report.
INTER-DEPARTMENTAL
Court Movement
I attended a
meeting on Monday December 21, 2009 with Undersheriff Jones,
explaining to me a movement that was necessary to make in order to
stop a shortfall to the Fresno Sheriff’s Department. During the
meeting, US Jones explained to me he was going to be transferring
eleven (11) deputy sheriffs from the Patrol Division into Court
Services Bureau. The direction to move the eleven deputies was given
by Sheriff Mims.
The department’s
executive staff made the determination on which they would be
sending into the courts based on the seniority method we have been
using from the start of the movement of deputies from the courts to
the patrol training program.
To give you a
little background on what is happening on the State level with the
AOC (Administrator of the Courts). PORAC and our PORAC lobbyists
Aaron Read and Randy Perry have been in a fight with the AOC since
July regarding funding. The AOC had threatened to try and form its
own police force, as well as trying to take the entire Court
Security from the 58 Sheriffs and put it in the hands of Private
Security. Recently, one battle has been won by PORAC when the AOC
conceded to leaving the control of the courts in the hands of the 58
Sheriffs in each county in California. They would then all have
contracts to operate under. Also the AOC police force idea has
collapsed and died. The last update I received from Randy Perry was
trying to decimate the AOC by pulling the funding from their hands
and putting it back in the hands of the legislative body of the
California Government. This is an ongoing battle that PORAC is not
backing down from.
So there you have a
little background as to how we got to where we are today in regards
to the courts. Now you are wondering how this affects me, and am I
going to be transferred to the Court Service Unit to fill a vacancy?
The AOC in Fresno County has changed it’s position in the open
contract it has with the Department and is no longer going to be
paying for any Overtime to fill vacancies in the Court Services
Unit. Any and all overtime in regards to backfilling will be coming
from the Sheriff’s Budget. Overtime will not go away completely in
the courts, but needs to be scaled back significantly for the
Sheriff to meet budget. With the contract open and not signed by
both sides something like this can be enacted. As of now the AOC has
been holding back about 20% funding from a full payment to the
department, based on the argument of backfilling on overtime. Those
are the numbers you have seen or heard in media regarding the
Sheriff being over a million dollars in the red with her court
contract.
The FDSA has
recently signed off on the Deputy 1 & 2 for the Court Services Unit.
Although the language is still being worked out, this will then
allow the hiring of Deputy Sheriffs specifically assigned to the
Court Service Unit. This will stop the “ping-pong,”
effect on deputy
sheriffs who are assigned in patrol and sending back in the courts
to filling a budget hole. Stability is essential in the day to day
function in the Court Services Unit.
I believe a lot of
this could have been avoided if there was a little more management
when it came to budgeting for the courts and movement of deputies in
and out. This started roughly two years ago. If hiring continued at
the deputy sheriff level we would not be in this position as well.
Waiting for the FDSA to sign off on the Deputy 1 and 2 and not
hiring deputies to fill the position was not the best move in my
opinion.
I am here to answer
any questions, concerns, venting, whatever you may have for me
regarding this issue. Hang in there, things will get better sooner
than later for all of you.
State
Issues
I have added this
heading into my monthly President’s Report to just keep everyone
apprised of what is going on around the state. Here are a few items
that may be of some interest to our members. I breeze through the
different media channels daily to see what is going on in the
northern and southern regions of the state. Here are just a few
things that are happening around the state that may have an affect
here locally;
States battle over parole issue in killings
Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington said the
state would temporarily stop accepting parolees from Arkansas,
escalating the conflict between the states over a man believed to
have killed four police officers, days after his release from jail.
The man, Maurice Clemmons, 37, was shot to death by a Seattle police
officer on Tuesday after a two-day manhunt. Clemmons, who had a
lengthy criminal history in Arkansas, was granted clemency in 2000
by that state's governor at the time, Mike Huckabee.
Famous Miranda rights warning could get
rewrite
The Supreme Court seemed headed toward telling
police they must explicitly advise criminal suspects that their
lawyer can be present during any interrogation. The arguments in
front of the justices were the latest over how explicit the Miranda
warning rights have to be, as justices debated whether the warnings
police gave Kevin Dwayne Powell made clear to him that he could have
a lawyer present while being interrogated by police.
Governor's prison plan draws mixed reviews
Lawyers for California's prison inmates
supported Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's overall plan to reduce
overcrowding in the state's 33 prisons, but asked a federal court to
order state prison officials to meet strict deadlines to ensure they
shed nearly 40,000 inmates from the system over the next two years.
Meanwhile, the plan drew fire from Republican lawmakers and some
counties, including Santa Clara County, which is worried about the
impact of releasing state prison inmates into local jails.
Police officers killed by guns on duty up 24%
from last year
2009 was a particularly perilous year for police officers involved
in gun disputes, reports the Associated Press. The number killed in
the line of duty by gunfire increased 24 percent from 2008, say
preliminary statistics from the National Law Enforcement Officers
Memorial Fund. As of Saturday, 47 police officers had died
nationwide after being shot while on duty, up from 38 for the same
time in 2008, which was the lowest number of gunfire deaths since
1956. Experts are surprised by the number of officers who have been
targeted by gunmen. "There's an increasingly desperate population
out there," said Eugene O'Donnell, a professor of police studies
at John Jay College of Criminal Justice.
State picks broker to sell off buildings
California has picked a broker to sell $2
billion worth of real estate that the troubled state hopes will plug
some of its financial holes. CB Richard Ellis Group will sell 17
state office buildings in Los Angeles, Oakland, Sacramento, San
Francisco and Santa Rosa. After paying off bond obligations on the
buildings, the state hopes to net $660 million that will go directly
into the general fund to help offset the $20.7 billion deficit
projected through June 2011. "This is a way to free up cash that we
desperately need," said Jeffrey Young, a spokesman for the state
Department of General Services.
Police: Criminals are packing more heat
Criminals increasingly are choosing
high-powered firearms such as assault weapons, a new survey of 166
U.S. police agencies shows. Nearly 40% of the departments reported
an uptick in the use of assault weapons, according to the Police
Executive Research Forum, a law enforcement think tank. In addition,
half reported increases in the use of 9mm, .40-caliber and 10mm
handguns in crimes - among the same types of weapons that police
use.
CalPERS approves increase to pension fund
The CalPERS board approved a modest increase in the state's annual
contribution to the pension fund, setting aside protests from Gov.
Arnold Schwarzenegger's administration. Schwarzenegger wants the
state's payment to CalPERS to jump by at least $1 billion next year,
to begin paying down the fund's big investment losses. But because
the CalPERS board chose to raise the rate by only $200 million,
Schwarzenegger will now have to hash the issue out with the
Legislature, where the Democrats appear reluctant to go along with
the higher payment.
The perfect storm for a public safety crisis
"Criminals are packing more heat," proclaimed
a USA Today headline. The story - based on a survey by the Police
Executive Research Forum - confirmed the trend many law enforcement
professions have witnessed in recent years: Criminals are
increasingly choosing high-powered firearms as their weapons of
choice. Little did we know when we read that story the added
significance and urgency it would take on within the same week, when
the 2nd District Court of Appeals in Los Angeles overturned a 1998
California law that bans possession of body armor by anyone with a
violent felony conviction.
We have
requested that Attorney General Brown immediately appeal the 2nd
District Court's decision and will be carefully watching other cases
that affect law enforcement job safety - in what is already a
dangerous profession, we can't hand criminals the tools they need to
protect themselves while attacking our officers.
East Palo Alto cop killer sentenced to death
A San Mateo County jury recommended that
Alberto Alvarez face death for murdering East Palo Alto police
Officer Richard May in 2006. The same six men and six women who last
month found Alvarez guilty of first-degree murder with the special
circumstance that May was performing his police duties when killed
deliberated his penalty for nearly four days.
California to seek review of decision
overturning body-armor law
State Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown has come out against a recent appellate
court judgment overturning a law that bars violent felons from
possessing body armor. His office will petition the state Supreme
Court next month to review the decision, his office said. "We're
extremely happy that he decided to appeal that decision," said Paul
Weber, president of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the
union for LAPD officers. "We're talking about serious, hard-core
criminals. They're violent offenders, and they want to have a
tactical advantage over the police."
In
Closing
We always talk
about amongst law enforcement men and women that we “have to take
care of one another.” That is kind of a common theme among cops
across the nation. Anyone who works in the business knows what I am
talking about.
We hear things
about how we are treated like a family here at the Sheriff’s
Department. There are times I see that, and there are times I don’t.
Just really depends on the situation. Under the current
administration I think things have gotten better when it comes to
the way personnel are treated.
Having said all of
this, the Sheriff’s Department had an incident with one of our
deputies who was driving home from his graveyard shift on December
23, 2009 and falling asleep at the wheel. Many of us were on duty
when that happened and know how frightened we all were for this
deputy. In the end the vehicle finally came to stop with nobody
deputy or citizen getting hurt.
The events that
followed for this deputy were dark in a sense, and are events none
of us want to go through. I am not going to get into detail about
it, but I do want to reach out to a few of you who really showed me
on a personal level the type of people and deputy Sheriff you really
are.
Deputies Eric
Garringer, Juan Espinoza, and Sean Quinn. The three of you stepped
up in many different ways and took care of business above and beyond
what anyone expected you to do. My hat is off to all three of you
for what you did for our fellow deputy. Thank you on behalf of the
FDSA.
On a law
enforcement note, I want to send special thanks out to our CCRT Team
for their valiant efforts in the apprehension of Salvador Sanchez
who was a suspect in shooting at one of our deputies during a
pursuit in Area One. CCRT continues to be a special asset to the
Sheriff’s Department in the apprehension of criminals.
Take care and stay
safe,
-Eric |
