A MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT

https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-releases-full-guidance-package-ab-1506-implementation?print=true

I hope your new year is off to a great start! It’s been a busy start both locally and across our nation.

The Capitol Building in Washington D.C. was stormed on January 6th as a result of major social unrest tied to the presidential election and transition. The event ended with the death of a Capitol Police Officer. Officer Brian David Sicknick was on duty at the Capitol during a rally for former President Trump. This rally finished and the attendees eventually organized enough and walked to the US Capitol.

These rally attendees gathered and sieged the US Capital – breaking windows and doors. Using homemade weapons and/or weapons of opportunity at the event. During the siege, Capital Police Officer David Sicknick was struck in the head with a fire extinguisher while physically engaged with protestors trying to occupy the Capitol building. After being struck, Officer Sicknick returned to the Capitol Police Office. Once inside the office, he collapsed and never regained consciousness. Officer Sicknick died from his injuries the following day. He was a US Air Force Veteran and had been an officer with Capitol Police for 12 years.

Right now, there is a lot of tension and division in our nation. This trickles down to state and local government – and even further into our local agencies in some form or another. I see and hear it personally- and I also listen to many of you who call me to vent your frustrations about these issues. Most of the calls come from those in patrol, specialty units and dispatch. I take in your concerns and work to convey and resolve these matters with the Sheriff’s Administration. I urge you to continue to keep me informed of personnel matters that bother each and every one of you in the different workstations you occupy.

Fresno County Retirement Rates

The Fresno County Retirement Board is legally required to conduct periodic actuarial studies of the County’s retirement system. The retirement system’s funding status is evaluated every year, based on a June 30th effective date.

The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the solvency of the fund and determine the contributions required by plan members and the participating employer for the upcoming fiscal year.

Any action proposed by the Retirement Board that would impact the plan’s interest rate, or employee and employer contribution rates, must be provided to the Board of Supervisors for consideration at least 45 days prior to the beginning of the succeeding fiscal year.

Overall, with COVID-19 still with us and an unsteady economy we are doing okay on rates the employees will be paying. Some went up a hundredth of a percent and some went down the same.

Staffing and Hiring

Over the past two-three years, there’s been an increase in the hiring of deputy sheriffs and dispatchers. These are positions that are still filling current positions as we deal with post-recession, separations (termination, resignations, or medical) and through retirements.

We just did our first test for Communication Dispatcher using the Criticall program. This program is now being used by over 1800 agencies across the county for preemployment screening. This is a better clearing house for FSO to essentially see where the potential employee falls within the job. Basically, this gives applicants a better idea of what the job entails and if the candidate has the skills to achieve once hired. Our current dispatch vacancies are at 8 per Sheriff’s HR.

Deputy Sheriffs have a vacancy rate of 14 deputy sheriffs based on Sheriff’s HR. We have seen our latest group of new hires go from passing the FTO program and finally being deployed as a solo working deputy sheriff.

We are hoping to be able to hire even more dispatchers and deputy sheriffs in the near future to get back up to more reasonable levels.

As I wrap this newsletter, please know that no matter what you are dealing with, we are here for you and equipped with resources to help you navigate life and your career. We care about you as individuals and understand the past year has been a challenging time for many. Feel free to reach out anytime with any questions or concerns, my door is always open.

My best,
Eric

‍

Happy New Year! I hope 2021 is off to a great start! A new year brings the opportunity to reflect and regroup. We will be building upon the work we began during the pandemic- which will include meeting with county leaders to work toward a new contract. There will also be challenges at the State Capital during the year in regards to the conversation of police reform. FDSA will be front and center in those conversations with state legislators. We are looking forward to life getting back to normal later this year and also feeling optimistic about the COVID-19 vaccine that should soon be available to law enforcement officers.

Fresno Police Officer Dies of COVID-19

On December 28, 2020- longtime Fresno Police Officer Angel De La Fuente died of complications of COVID-19. It’s the first officer at the Fresno Police Department to die from the coronavirus. On behalf of the Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association- a donation of one thousand dollars was made to Officer De La Fuente’s family from our Peace Officer Memorial Fund. In addition- we are sending a large floral arrangement to his funeral. Fresno DSA is also offering any support to the Fresno Police Officer’s Association that they may need during this difficult time.

New Insurance Company Questions and Concerns

As most of you are aware, we have a new insurance carrier as of January 1, 2021. Our medical coverage is now under Anthem Blue Cross. Please refer back to some of my prior messages, October and November, to review why the switch was made.

Some of you have reported not receiving your insurance cards. The envelope they were sent in is NOT a large packet. It’s an envelope that could easily be overlooked. However, if you did not receive them, there is an easy process to replace them.

If you need your Anthem Member ID number- you can call DiBuduo and DeFendis at (559) 437-6750 to get this information. Once you have your ID number, you can use either their website www.anthem.com or mobile app Sydney Health to view a copy of your current ID card. You can also print duplicate copies of the card(s) anytime. And finally, there can be a request made to have the originals sent to you through Anthem. I would recommend speaking with someone to verify all the correct information. As always, please check your primary care physician to make sure it’s correct. If you have any alterations, you can call Anthem’s HMO member services at (800) 888-8288.

I have received some calls and inquiries about the change in benefits and coverage. We have notified members in various ways of the changes over the past few months. If you are not signed up on our FDSA website to receive important emails and notifications- please do so soon. I cannot stress this enough. This will keep you updated on pertinent information that impacts you and your family. The information for all of your benefits will

only be in the Member’s Only section of our website www.fresnodsa.org. To register select the link stating “login” in the top right corner, then select “Don’t have an account”. Again, I urge you to sign up for the website. Any information put out by the DSA will only be sent through the website. Communication is key to knowing what is going on with your hours, wages, and working conditions.

PORAC Executive Board Swearing-In

On November 19th, I was sworn in as one of the Region Two Executive Board members for PORAC. Each region has two representatives. My counterpart in Region Two is Randy Beintema (San Joaquin County DSA), who has over 35 years of experience involved with PORAC, specifically on the Executive Board. Randy is also currently the PORAC Secretary. I look forward to working with and learning from Randy.

Region Two, covers from Chico to Bakersfield. In this role, I will be listening to issues impacting each area and representing your best interests as law enforcement officers in the Central Valley. The Executive Board weighs in on the day-to-day decisions of the PORAC organization and the numerous issues going on throughout the State. Being part of the decision-making process on the state level, more than on the Board of Directors is an honor for the Fresno DSA. This board tackles legislative initiatives that attempt to take away law enforcement officer rights and works to improve the working conditions and benefits of those frontline officers who put their lives on the line to defend the communities they serve.

I want to thank you for ending 2020 strong and all of the hard work you put in last year to round out what was a challenging year on so many levels. From a line of duty death, to the historic Creek Fire, and finally COVID-19. Although we still are experiencing a surge in COVID-19 cases locally- I am encouraged by the hope this vaccination will bring to our country.

Stay the course, stay safe and keep your heads up.

My best,
Eric

‍

The 68th annual PORAÇ Conference of Members was set to be held at the Disneyland Resort in Anaheim in November. However, with the current state of the COVID-19 shut downs, and the Governor's tier system (especially in Southern California- where restrictions have never been lifted) PORAC had no choice, but to cancel the conference. However, the Executive Board and Board of Directors still met in a scaled down session to conduct business for the 77,000 plus members of our organization. For two full days, the PORAC Board met and discussed pertinent and pending business. Much of the conversation centered around legislative matters that are upcoming, as well as mapping out a plan for 2021.

Believe it or not, 2020 started out to be a smooth legislative year. But it quickly changed once the pandemic began.

Now entering nine months of the COVID-19 crisis, the result has been a 54-billion-dollar deficit, an economy in trouble, and high unemployment rates. It has also created a skyrocketing crime rate and tremendous hardship in many communities.

Sometimes national events can have a significant impact on law enforcement and the community- even when they take place across the country. This was the case when George Floyd died in Minneapolis. His death prompted protests and riots US. In addition-it added enormous unrest to PORAC's legislative challenges. In the wake of Floyd's death, critical discussions began all over the country about use of force, police brutality and creating a change in America. There's been a big push in many communities for police reform. PORAC also saw a major movement towards this over the last six months. Police reform would greatly impact how our members do their jobs.

While some states may be new to the conversations around deadly use of force, training, and police misconduct, PORAC has been a proactive leader in confronting these heated and controversial topics. The organization has also played an important role in this discussion at the state capitol over the past several years. Quite a few of my past President's Messages have addressed the critical work PORAC has been doing to stay on the forefront of this important issue.

Last year, through thoughtful research and discourse, PORAC worked with the Legislature and Governor on AB 392 by Assemblywoman Shirley Weber, as well as our sponsored bill, SB 230 by Senator Anna Caballero. Together, these two measures became a comprehensive bill package codifying the national standard on use of force and training that minimizes incidents of force. While also ensuring the safety of our officers who risk their own lives to protect those they serve. Although no one could have been fully prepared for the challenges of 2020, PORAC's collaborative work around use-of-force has laid a strong foundation in the Capitol and our voices were heard louder than ever before.

The closing of the 2019-20 two-year Legislative Session was on August 31st. Governor Newsom had until midnight on September 30th to sign or veto the multitude of bills that were sent to him. If he did not take action on a bill, it automatically became law without his signature.

Following Floyd's death, over 20 measures, mostly bills- with their former language completely gutted, were amended to address numerous elements of police reform.

Most of the bills were hastily written and were responses to the outcry of numerous social justice campaigns. The PORAC Board of Directors immediately convened and wholeheartedly discussed the direction of the country and the future of policing. The Board of Directors gave direction to begin meeting with legislators, legislative staff and the Governor's office. PORAC also got additional direction from its legal defense attorneys and PORAC's internal and external communications team. This was an attempt to draft amendment language to make the bills acceptable, without sacrificing the safety and well-being of our members and the public.

Thankfully, our concerns were heard and most of the measures did not pass through committee. They were either held by their authors, or vetoed by the Governor. In fact, of the 20 or so bills PORAC had concerns about- only two were signed by the Governor. This was due to the association leadership and PORAC board- who helped make this happen.

Although we would normally be breathing a sigh of relief for completing a successful session, we are keenly aware that nearly every bill that did not move this year- will likely be reintroduced in the new legislative session. In addition, PORAC knows that real change does not happen when we are just fighting poorly-written bills; rather, we must ensure that we are at the table when serious reform is discussed.

PORAC is working with stakeholders on developing our own legislation in an effort to bring real law enforcement experience, expertise, and ideas to the conversation around police reform and policy changes.

Happy Holidays

The holidays are upon us and although the pandemic has forced many of us to be temporarily separated by those we treasure-I am hopeful that 2021 will bring about an end to the crisis and a return to our normal everyday lives. I hope you find time this season to remember what we do have and feel even more grateful for the people who make our lives meaningful. Police work is stressful and policing during a pandemic is even more challenging. I hope you find time to enjoy a hobby or treat yourself to something special. Wishing you and yours a blessed season!

Truly,
Eric

POLICE REFORM BILLS VETOED BY GOVERNOR

SB 629 by Senator Mike McGuire (D-Healdsburg) - Active Oppose SB 629 (McGuire) would have prohibited peace officers from stopping “duly authorized” press from entering areas closed off by officers surrounding any emergency field command post, police line, or rolling closure at a demonstration, march, protest, or rally where individuals are engaged primarily in constitutionally protected activity. “Duly authorized" means all an individual has to do is show a business card or what looks like a professional camera as proof that they are the media, when, in fact, they could be a blogger or anyone else who purports to be a “reporter.” SB 629 (McGuire) would have also prohibited a peace officer from intentionally assaulting, interfering with, or obstructing a duly authorized representative who is gathering, receiving, or processing information for communication to the public.

SB 1220 by Senator Thomas Umberg (D-Santa Ana) - Neutral per amendments This bill would have required each prosecuting agency to maintain a Brady list and would have required any state or local law enforcement agency maintaining personnel records of peace officers and custodial officers to annually, to each prosecuting agency within its jurisdiction, and upon request to any prosecuting agency, provide a list of names and badge numbers of officers employed by the agency in the five years prior to providing the list who meet specified criteria, including, among other things, that the officer has had sustained findings for conduct of moral turpitude or group bias or that the officer is on probation for a criminal offense.

PORAC supports the idea of creating a statewide, uniform appeal or rebuttal process for peace officers who are on the Brady List or are being considered for placement on the list. However, prior to the most recent amendments, this measure did not meet the criteria PORAC felt was important to guarantee some type of due process for these peace officers. For example, PORAC supports a peace officer being given notice prior to being placed on a Brady List and the opportunity to rebut it. Senator Umberg and the sponsors of SB 1220 worked with PORAC on addressing these issues and we were able to reach amendments that removed our opposition on the bill.

AB 1299 by Assemblymember Rudy Salas (D-Bakersfield) - Support This measure closes the loophole wherein an officer with an allegation of serious misconduct can separate from a department and get re-hired at another agency; thereby, halting an investigation of that allegation and continuing to stay employed. AB 1299 (Salas) requires the employer receiving the allegation to complete the investigation and report their findings to POST. This will ensure any prospective employer the officer applies to will have the proper background information on that officer.

POLICE REFORM BILLS - FAILED PASSAGE

SB 731 by Senator Steven Bradford (D-Gardena) - Active Oppose SB 731 (Bradford) would have created a Decertification Program within the Commission on Peace Officer Standards & Training (POST) and established a Board within POST with the authority to revoke certificates with or without an officer having a sustained allegation. The new Board would have been made up of nine members - six of whom were public members, whose qualifications were directly related to officer misconduct, and three law enforcement management members. It was a stacked deck. There was no way an officer could get a fair hearing and Peace Officers' Bill of Rights (POBOR) protections were not included in this process. Furthermore, SB 731 would have eliminated an officer's and their agency's Qualified Immunity.

SB 776 by Senator Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley) - Neutral, per amendments Due to the legislative clock running out, SB 776 (Skinner) did not get a final concurrence vote on the Senate Floor and the bill officially died at midnight, August 31st. This bill would have expanded the reporting requirements for certain acts of police misconduct originally created in SB 1421 (Skinner). The measure had been amended to include most of PORAC's recommended changes. Concerns that were not addressed in the latest amendments related to the expansion of the definition of "use of force" and what is releasable under that definition. However, PORAC's biggest concerns regarding investigatory files being released in cases that were not sustained had been taken care of. Due to the author accepting most of the amendments, PORAC's Executive Committee voted to move to a neutral position on the measure.

AB 66 by Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego) - Active Oppose AB 66 (Gonzalez) was on the Senate Floor awaiting a vote and the Legislature simply ran out of time; therefore, the bill was held. AB 66 would have limited the use of “kinetic energy projectiles” and “chemical agents” during public acts of protest, marches, and other gatherings. While the language surrounding projectiles was limiting in nature, the bill, as written, would have outright banned the use of tear gas during these events. PORAC believes that if these events turn violent, then law enforcement must have various non lethal options at their disposal to quell the danger, including the use of teargas. We are working with Assemblymember Gonzalez on language to help with these scenarios.

AB 1022 by Assemblymember Chris Holden (D-Pasadena) - Active Oppose Last year, PORAC was a part of a working group that negotiated issues that made comprehensive changes in the area of use of force. In that legislation, we created a mandate that an officer intercede when they feel another officer is using excessive force. The new law also requires an officer to report what they believe to be excessive force to the department. AB 1022 not only addressed those issues again, but redefined excessive force. This legislation also stated that if an officer failed to intercede, they would be disciplined in the same matter as the officer who used the excessive force. Oftentimes, when an officer is not the first, or even second, person to arrive on the scene, they will observe actions being taken with a suspect without knowing what led up to the actions they are observing. For example, an officer may arrive at a scene and witness two or three officers wrestling or in a fight with a suspect on the ground. The arriving officer may not know that the suspect has a weapon, or has potentially used, or attempted to use, that weapon on the officers prior to their arrival on the scene. Without the arriving officer having full knowledge of the situation, that officer's intercedence could be dangerous to both the officers and the public.

Finally, this bill would have eliminated a national standard relating to "an objectively reasonable officer” and replaced that with a level of force that is not reasonably believed” or “reasonably perceived level of actual or threatened resistance.” These terms were not defined in the legislation and would have, again, changed the standard negotiated with the leadership of both houses last year.

AB 1652 by Assemblymember Buffy Wicks (D-Oakland) - Active Oppose This bill would have required each law enforcement agency to expand the agency's use of force policy to include clear and specific guidelines under which officers may use “kettling” or“corralling,” and prohibited officers from failing to wear, or intentionally acting to obscure or conceal information on, a badge while on duty. PORAC supported the language in AB 1652 that called for clear and specific guidelines by the department regarding the use of kettling or corralling. However, PORAC opposed the prohibition against an officer failing to wear a badge while handling protests. In many cases, an officer will be told to remove their badge and name tag when going into a protest or riot situation simply because those two items potentially become a dangerous handhold for individuals. In addition, oftentimes plain-clothed officers are placed into crowds to obtain information for potentials dangers or threats. Finally, and most importantly, this legislation would have imposed discipline on an officer for violations of this section. Under current law, discipline is imposed by the employing agency of that officer. PORAC is adamantly opposed to legislation that undermines management/labor relations and the disciplinary process.

AB 1709 by Assemblymember Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) - Active Oppose PORAC opposed this bill because it goes directly against the substantial agreements we negotiated last year on AB 392 (Weber) and SB 230 (Caballero) relating to use of force. Specifically, we had discussed the importance of stating, in law, the need for an officer to not desist in their efforts to make an arrest or define de-escalation tactics to include tactical repositioning.

PORAC has serious issues when we work with leadership of both houses, and individual members, to negotiate substantive amendments in this area of law, only to have a new bill introduced merely six months after AB 392 became law, which changes specific negotiated terms. Furthermore, PORAC takes umbrage with the fact that this bill was a gut and amend in a COVID-shortened legislative session, after a year of negotiation, and the author did not reach out or discuss this issue with us.

AB 2598 by Assemblymember Rob Bonta (D-Alameda) - Active Oppose This bill would have put into place a system wherein all law enforcement agencies would not be able to participate in a federal joint terrorism task force without prior approval from the governing body of that agency, or the Attorney General. The approval would have to be in a public session where the agency would have to explain, in that open session, what or who the task force is targeting and what technology they plan to use during the investigation, PRIOR to the actual investigation commencing. How could an agency possibly be successful in stopping terrorism when they will be forced to openly present the entire case and investigation plans prior to the investigation beginning?

Another issue is that the legislation required public posting of the investigatory plan and prior task force involvement on the local and the state Attorney General's websites. PORAC understands that the federal government created different rules than California as it relates to investigating terrorism after the attacks in New York in 2001; however, if California law enforcement agencies are to legitimately fight to stop terrorism in our state, informing the terrorists ahead of time of our investigations will hinder those efforts greatly; thereby, potentially endangering all Californians.

POLICE REFORM BILLS - SIGNED INTO LAW

Although PORAC chose to leave an Active Oppose position on the following bills, PORAC's remaining concerns were technical or clarifying in nature.

AB 1506 by Assemblymember Kevin McCarty (D-Sacramento) - Active Oppose This bill creates an Office of State Prosecutor within the Department of Justice (DOJ). In lieu of a District Attorney investigation, this new State Prosecutor would review all cases where an officer kills an “unarmed” individual. This part of the bill leaves some unanswered questions relating to the definition of unarmed. Furthermore, AB 1506 (McCarty) does not specifically address the Procedural Bill of Rights in the language. PORAC is currently working with the Attorney General's office to ensure officers have the due process rights afforded them during and after the Attorney General's investigation.

AB 1196 by Assemblymember Mike Gipson (D-Carson) - Active Oppose This bill bans the use of carotid restraint by officers. PORAC had concerns that the language, as drafted, did not provide law enforcement officers the ability to use the carotid restraint when their own life, or any other person, was at risk. We requested language be added to specify an officer can use these restraints if they reasonably fear they, or any other person, is in danger of great bodily injury or death. The author did not include this language because he felt it was already covered under current law. In fact, he submitted a letter to the official Assembly Journal so stating.

OTHER IMPORTANT MEASURES TO PORAC

AB 2068 Cottie Petrie-Norris (D-Laguna Beach) - Co-Sponsor, PASSED On Monday, May 4th, 2020, the California Peace Officers 'Memorial Foundation (CPOMF) would have hosted the 44th annual California Peace Officers ’Memorial Ceremony held at the California Peace Officers 'Memorial Monument in Sacramento on State Capitol grounds. The ceremony serves to formally enroll peace officers who have died in the line of duty the previous year, to pay tribute to the over 1,600 officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice since California became a state, and to honor the families left behind. Our law enforcement family continues to experience tremendous loss, and this ceremony helps honor those who laid down their life and ensure their legacy will live on. In addition to hosting the ceremony each year and maintaining the grounds in which the monument stands, CPOMF also subsidizes survivor support groups, and supports the families of our fallen heroes through our educational grants and financial assistance programs.

CPOMF is a nonprofit charitable organization that is fully funded through contributions. In 1999, a bill was passed to allow tax payers to make voluntary tax-free contributions directly to CPOMF on their personal state income tax returns. Under current law, the tax check-off, dedicated directly to CPOMF, has a sunset date of January 1, 2021. AB 2068 extends that date and ensures the continuation of the Peace Officers ’Memorial and Ceremony, as well as continue the successful programs within CPOMF that provide support and services in recognition of fallen peace officers and firefighters in California.

AB 2200 by Assemblymember Ash Kalra (D-San Jose) - Active Oppose, FAILED This bill would have prohibited the state from seeking a criminal conviction or sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin and allow a writ of habeas corpus to be prosecuted on the basis of that prohibition.

PORAC agreed with parts of the measure which stated that bias and racism have no place in the justice system. Bias is wrong, regardless of where it takes place; however, there are laws in place to remedy and correct the injustices of bias and discrimination. We believe that this bill would have not achieved its stated goals, but would have simply acted as a lever for criminals to continue to prey upon and make victims of the citizens of California. Furthermore, AB 2200 was extremely over-broad and the burden of proof for all of the sections by a defendant is a mere preponderance of the evidence. In addition, AB 2200 seemed to undermine our current Pitchess and Brady Rules by requiring agencies to compile and retain data on each officer within a department or other departments that the defense bar may deem relevant to their case.

AB 3070 by Assemblymember Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) - Active Oppose, PASSED This bill prohibits a party from using a peremptory challenge to remove a prospective juror on the basis of the prospective juror's race, ethnicity, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, national origin, or religious affiliation. AB 3070 also allows a party to object to the use of a peremptory challenge to raise the issue of improper bias based on these criteria. Upon objection, the bill requires the party exercising the challenge to state the reasons the peremptory challenge has been exercised.

PORAC fully supports the existing standards and processes put in place when choosing jurors for a case. These current and historical judicial discretions have been developed and accepted by state and federal courts to allow for a fair trial, free of purposeful bias and discrimination. Furthermore, in January of this year, the California Supreme Court announced they would be forming a working group to study and offer public participation in the issue of judicial discretion and peremptory challenges. PORAC felt it was premature to run legislation before the working group has come out with their findings and recommendations.

‍

Winter is approaching and we are now nine months into the continuing pandemic. Fresno County remains in Governor Gavin Newsom’s ‘red tier,” which means the county can partially open businesses. Right now, places like restaurants, gyms, hair salons, movie theaters and a host of other businesses can open at various capacities. Most are under 50 percent. However, we remain watchful of Fresno County COVID-19 numbers and the formula used by state officials- since our county seems to be at risk of dipping into the purple tier. At this point- testing needs to be improved. In short, not enough people are getting tested locally.

Vacation Signups

I hope all of you have been able to start signing up for your 2021 vacation weeks. Please take advantage of the time off to decompress from the daily grind and the stress of police work. Maintaining a good balance means enjoying moments of relaxation and rejuvenation.

Keep in mind when you are selecting your vacation weeks, they can be canceled by going through your chain of command, but they are not guaranteed to transfer to another week. Meaning, you can cancel, but nothing is guaranteed to capture a different week. This will depend on staffing in the area you work.

November 2020 Primary

The big presidential election is now behind us! Hopefully each of you were able to either make it to the polls or return your ballots to be counted!

One of the bigger initiatives on the ballot was Prop 20 – essentially reversing some of the Prop 47 and Prop 57 decriminalization measures in California. PORAC was a huge supporter of this proposition and sent our various notices out to law enforcement officers and families about its importance.

Insurance Trust

By now, you all should have received your open enrollment packets from the Insurance Trust. These have the information you and your family will need for our Anthem Blue Cross Plan, Delta Dental and MES Vision.

****IF YOU HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN INSURANCE PACKET PLEASE CALL THE FDSA OFFICE TO ENSURE WE GET ONE OUT TO YOU.****

Included in the insurance packets is information for you to sign up for the FDSA website. I can’t stress how important this information is moving forward. All of your insurance information will now be listed in the members only section of the website. This means you must register and create a user name and password in order to gain access.

Also in the packets- you will find the rate information from Anthem Blue Cross, which includes dental, vision and life rates for all active members. These rates include the negotiated county contribution rates that will be reflected in your paycheck starting December 14, 2020.

A majority of you will not see any difference in your benefits.

Those who do not wish to change their current coverage- will not need to do anything during open enrollment. The system is built to transition you from where you are now to where you will be on January 1.

I have attached my message from last month for those of you who did not see it, explaining how we changed carriers.

Since 1997, the FDSA/FSSA Insurance and Benefits Trust has used Blue Shield of California as its insurance carrier. The relationship has been longstanding with some ups and downs. There were years we had no rate increase, some where we had rate decreases, and others where we experienced rate increases. Due to the Affordable Healthcare Act, initiated by former President Obama- all private insurance plans had increases. This act used private insurance participants, and gave us all a tax hike for three years to get the program started. This increased the rates without any discretion for a several year period.

Our insurance plan is under and ERISA Trust. Meaning, we are not self-funded, but we operate under what the ERISA Trust document states.

Our health insurance rates come primarily from usage by its members. We negotiate rates with the carriers and also contributions from Fresno County for active employees.

The middle of 2019 and most of 2020 has turned out to be challenging for usage under our plan. Normally- we see percentages of usage no higher than 85%. This means carriers are still making 15% from us. Anything lower is more money for the carriers. However- it also provides us with a less risk rating, which makes our group more desirable for a better renewal year.

The high claims- during part of 2019 and 2020 were well over 100%. Two months were actually over 200%, meaning Blue Shield is not making any money. In fact, they are having to pay over and above to make sure bills are paid on their end. Based on our recent trend, it was apparent the renewal of our benefits would be a challenge.

Our current situation is figuring out how much we can offset the less than ideal rating.

Blue Shield offered a renewal of 24% to the total plan. No matter the benefit level you receive-it would be substantial out-of-pocket money. There’s no way to get around that cost at this time.

Therefore, the Insurance Trust directed our insurance broker, DiBuduo and DeFendis to shop other carriers. This essentially means moving our insurance away from Blue Shield.

The Trust asked for quotes providing the same benefit level, changing nothing. In addition- we asked for a fixed plan for retirees, to give them a more cost-effective option.

During the entire month of September- each insurance carrier bid on our contract. Blue Shield would not budget until the last minute, dropping down the renewal to 21.4%. This a non-starter for us.

After several meetings with two other carriers, your Insurance Trust has chosen to move our plan to Anthem Blue Cross for all of its members and their families. I have attached an abbreviated benefit level for all of you to see.

I will be putting out more information on rates in the next newsletter, along with how they will impact each of you. The information will also be posted to our website in the Members Only, benefits section.

Overall, the plan has risen 7 percent overall with the increase based on rates from Anthem Blue Cross. Please remember, our rates are directly based on experience and risk. This formulation dictates which direction either a rate increase or rate decrease has to the plan. In deciding what will work best for you and your family- please consider the annual cost and what is more suitable for you in terms of a PPO or HMO.

It’s been a very hectic few months with the Creek Fire, pandemic, election, shift signups and so much more. Despite this season of stress and change, we are finding countless reasons to be grateful. We were still able to host the 14th Annual FDSA Memorial Golf Tournament on October 23rd, and although different and socially distanced - it was a big success. Most other local organizations were forced to cancel fundraisers. However, since our tournament was held in late October- we were able to move forward with it. ALL of our corporate sponsors came through once again. As in years past- the tournament was sold out. In addition, we shared with all 216 golfers the purpose of the meaningful event. ALL proceeds go to our FDSA Peace Officer Memorial Fund. This tournament, we honored and paid tribute to our most recent fallen deputy, Jose Mora. His death was a harsh reminder that sometimes, invisible threats can also pose a painful reminder of what we must confront in the quest for justice. We miss Deputy Mora and will never forget him. This year, Margot Kim of ABC30 sang the National Anthem- which was a fitting and meaningful tribute to begin the day. As we plan next year’s event, we are already thinking about ways to expand and improve the tournament. Thank you to those of you who volunteered and helped make the event a memorable one.

Wishing you a wonderful Thanksgiving season and hoping it also has you counting many blessings!

My best to you and yours, Eric

‍

Greetings everyone! Hope this message finds you well. October is here and we are looking forward to fall bringing cooler temperatures and hopefully fires put out.

The Labor Day holiday is customarily the last official weekend of summer and traditionally the final weekend for our boating unit. However, this year- the weekend began with a raging wildfire that's now the largest in California history.

The Creek Fire was sparked in Fresno County and to date the cause remains under investigation. The blaze instantly sent many of our patrol deputies and detectives into lifesaving mode. Our teams were mobilized to help with everything from evacuations, to road and campground closures, residential patrols in order to prevent looting.

The weekend was especially frightening for more than 200 adults and children visiting Mammoth Pools in Madera County. A fun weekend nearly turned deadly- and a request for mutual aid deployed the National Guard to airlift mass crowds out of a circle of flames.

Thank you to all of you who rushed up to the Shaver Lake area to immediately work 12 plus hour shifts. Your work has been commended by mountain residents, other agencies and local political leaders. The duration has been exhausting and I am grateful for the wonderful compassionate service you have provided to the community. It's during disasters like that where Fresno County residents really rely on us to help them navigate what's a very difficult time for them. It's been hard seeing the tears, heartbreaking loss of homes and then having to tell residents they must still remain evacuated until it's safe and the infrastructure is in place for them to safely survey and digest the damage.
‍

Click the Button Below to Read More

‍

August has been a hot and smoky one in Fresno County. Perhaps- one of the only highlights this month has been the incredible sunrises and sunsets that were provided compliments of the unhealthy air quality. I hope those of you who work graveyards and swings had the opportunity to enjoy some of the fiery red beginnings and endings to each day. Unfortunately, criminals have taken no break and crime is continuing to rise. Calls for service are steady and the levels of crime no longer seem impacted by the ongoing pandemic.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU)

TCovid-19 continues to linger in Fresno County and statewide. Although there isn’t a complete quarantine/shutdown like we experienced in the spring – there is still enough to cause concern about what this will amount to in 6-12 months when the numbers are revealed in municipal and state budgets. Since this is a presidential election year, we aren’t really hearing too much in the way of complete doom. The markets are moving up in a direction of pre-pandemic numbers. Although travel is still curbed with international borders being off-limits- much of the air industry has been grounded which has had a ripple effect on the oil and energy industries as well. The term ripple effect is key when looking at actually what this shutdown is going to mean for us in the upcoming months and year.

This pandemic and lingering after effects raises concern for us, when engaging in contract negotiations with the County of Fresno. We resumed talks in July, as if we never skipped a beat for a new contract starting July 13 through November 1. During these discussions, many different scenarios were discussed by both sides. After three meetings, the County of Fresno offered no changes to our current contract, but agreed to add additional money for our health insurance starting December 14 through the entire calendar year. This offer followed talks of potential furloughs and taking a hard look at contract takeaways that would not have benefitted our members. After discussion with FDSA Board of Directors- it was unanimous that FDSA move forward with securing this offer for our members. Our legal counsel has also agreed based on the current climate and unusual circumstances- this is a fair extension for members since we are not giving up any pay or benefits. There is no loss of pay/benefits/working conditions, and in addition, we will be receiving additional funds to help off-set health insurance or any increases that may be coming with renewal. FDSA Board of Directors authorized the further extension of our contract taking effect from November 1, 2020 through October 31, 2021.

The benefits and securities that come with this contract provide stability for the time being. FDSA will now go through two budget hearings, with a secure contract intact. This means, we are off the table, as other groups are continuing to be out of contract or still at the negotiating table. Everything in our contract remains the same, nothing is frozen, nothing gets removed and health benefits contributions actually increase for all of us. If you go to the FDSA website, at www.fresnodsa.org you will find the Labor link that will take you to our MOU.

We will be sending out another survey after the first of the year to test what the members are looking for with a new labor contract moving forward in 2021.

RETIREMENT BOARD

Deputy John Robinson was elected to his second term on the Fresno County Retirement Employees Association (FCERA). This was made possible by all of you who placed your ballot in the mail or turned it in at the election’s office. This election was John’s re-election term for the next three years.

John has been a great addition to the FCERA board since his arrival in late 2017. Below are some of John’s accomplishments and decisions made since he has been there.

• I have been privileged to serve on the FCERA Board for one full term and have worked hard to make sure the decisions we make are done with the best interest of pension and its recipients in mind.
• I have assisted newly retired safety members to get there first check even though their paper work wasn’t turned in on time. My goal is to not allow a lapse in your paycheck from active to retirement.
• I was able to explain and elaborate on a few medical retirements which I believe helped clear up some questions the FCERA board had. I believe this helped get those safety members their well-deserved medical retirements.
• I participated in the asset allocation where we as a board decided to adopt a more aggressive portfolio. This should increase the funds in the retirement system more quickly. As of January 2020, the system had 4.5 billion. As of July 2020, the pension fund is up to 4.9 billion.
• I helped start the process for writing a policy regarding the follow up on medical retirements. This would check up on people that receive a medical retirement and make sure they don’t get a similar job then what they retired from or get a job performing duties that they are restricted from doing.
• I have answered several questions regarding the retirement system and how it works. So many of you have reached out over the last three years for questions regarding the pension and how the benefits work.
• I have advised FDSA Board on several issues regarding the retirement system. For example, the status of the retirement system, the percentage of funding, when we expect to be fully funded, and our inflation rate to name a few.
• Based on the chart below, effective July 1, 2020 most safety members will see a reduction in their payroll deductions for pensions and benefits.

Based on the above table, you are seeing a reduction in your rate, or a very minimal increase.

One reason, is based on the movement of our investment accounts. These accounts have been stagnant for many years. I, along with your FCERA Trustees, have made decisions that will allow returns on our money to flourish. One example during the last six months of 2019, after moving investments around, FCERA made over $370 million dollars ending the year with an over $5 billion dollar pension fund. This equates to the pension being over 82% funded.

I have proudly served all of you in 2018, 2019 and during these unprecedented times in 2020. I look forward to continuing as your safety trustee on the Fresno County Employees Retirement Association.

PRAYERS NEEDED fFOR DEPUTY PATRICK GEE

We have a deputy sheriff, Patrick Gee, who is in a fierce fight for his life right now- currently in the hospital. We’ve been told Patrick needs plasma for a chance to recover and survive. Anyone can donate who has either recovered from COVID-19 or has a blood type of O positive or negative. Also, universal blood donors with AB positive or negative can also donate. If you fall into any of these categories, please consider helping him to get well. If you do not meet the criteria, prayers are another way to help this family during this very difficult time. Patrick is a fighter – and we are thinking of him daily.

Truly,
Eric

‍

Happy summer to you all! What a busy season it has been! Between the opening up of businesses to a softer shutdown, and everything in between. Right now, everything from professional to school sports is up in the air- and the fall semester of school is starting in a distance learning setting. Among all the changes of the pandemic- we are patrolling the streets, investigating crime, keeping the Superior and Civil Courts safe, processing evidence, dispatching calls, and ensuring the day-to-day operations of the Sheriff’s Office continue to run like a fine-tuned machine. This time of year, staffing means balancing summer vacations and ensuring we all get the time off we need to decompress and unwind. Downtime is important in the stressful world of police work, and I hope you are all enjoying some great memory making-despite the evolving world and constant changes.

The labor front has been no different. The past month has been filled with various court rulings on a number of issues that impact the workplace. Supreme Court decisions have been handed down on pension, which I will address later in my article. We are still waiting for dismissal on an ongoing lawsuit against the FDSA. In addition, we are also waiting on the State Supreme Court to grant a review on the right of movement grievance we filed and were successful on back in 2015. With a difference of opinion between county counsel, FDSA and Sheriff’s Office – the varying decisions have taken the issue to the highest court in California to now make a final ruling.

VOTE NOW FOR THE RETIREMENT BOARD SEAT

Deputy John Robinson is running for re-election for his board position as your Safety Trustee for FCERA. John is in his third year and end of his current term. In 2017, John defeated the three-term sitting Trustee by just three votes. The landslide is proof every vote counts. This position is the direct link for members with safety retirement to the retirement board. John’s principles are simple. No unnecessary spending of your retirement dollars- including trips to foreign countries and across the United States. John stands for transparency for the members. During his term and current campaign, he has mailed out three postcards, outlining some of his accomplishments, along with his personal information for any and all of you to get in contact with him. John is an outstanding voice for safety as our Trustee.

PLEASE REMEMBER TO MARK YOUR BALLOT FOR JOHN ROBINSON AND MAIL IT BACK INTO THE ELECTIONS OFFICE. IF YOU ARE DOWNTOWN AND WANT TO DROP IT BY THEIR OFFICE- THAT IS PERMITTED AS WELL.

IMPROVING POLICE AND COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE

During the last PORAC board meeting on June 15, 2020 – PORAC elected to enact its Committee on Public Relations to deal with the anti-enforcement sentiment throughout California communities. Each region in PORAC needed a representative. FDSA is in Region 2, and it was decided that I would be representing the region on this committee. Since June 29, we have been meeting once a week via Zoom for two hours at a time putting in the work to get the message out. The committee has been named:

United for Positive Reform

This group has many stakeholders coming on board to carry the message. The mission statement is as follows:

“United for Positive Reform is a coalition of organizations and community members committed to establishing constructive relationships, finding common ground, and generating commonsense solutions for effective systemic change. Through education, communication, and collaboration, our mission is to promote a more transparent and accessible vision of law enforcement that supports public safety while including diverse voices and addressing the need for meaningful and sustainable reform.”

I encourage all of you to check out the website; www.united4positivereform.com

This is the time in our career, where we can organize and make our voices known to the public. This is going to be a long-winded process and something that each of us knows will not happen overnight. There are still demonstrations throughout our communities showing the anti-law enforcement sentiment. However, we are better than stooping to the level of some who are asking local lawmakers to defund our police. As crazy as it sounds, some jurisdictions are entertaining cuts and movement of money from law enforcement to other local services.

When I speak to our elected officials, I remind them the verb “Defund,” means exactly how it sounds – get rid of, stop, no more money, abolish, not necessary, do away with. The term has been at the forefront of discussions from activist groups and some national media outlets. In addition, some politicians around the country are also throwing around the idea of slashing funding for police services. The problem is with the word, defund is that it’s all rhetoric. It’s meaningless scare tactics by groups who want to put fear into the public, the silent majority and elected officials.

Our Fresno County Board of Supervisors have been clear on this issue. Defunding police is a non-starter for Fresno County. Due to this stance and bold statement, social justice groups have been and will be continuing to try and seek seats within the county to occupy.

Under the United for Positive Reform, we will bridge the gap, that some citizens feel is there. We want people to understand the job we provide to the public, at the same time understanding the cause and effects of this job as well. Nothing is easy, clear and cut, or absolute as we know. But with education, partnership and a willingness to learn, we in law enforcement, can encourage the public trust that they may have lost.

I will be updating this group as more is released throughout the upcoming months.

I also want to let you all know, some of the topics I discussed in my opening paragraph will be discussed in the upcoming months of my newsletters.

PENSION DECISION

Briefly on the Alameda Retirement decision. In summary, the courts ruled that, in fact, the California Rule is what it is. A promised benefit at the time of hire date is still guaranteed. One of the many

questions that remains is, did the high court rule that the benefits can be changed without anything going to the bargaining table, or by legislative pen swipes? Our lawyers at Messing, Adam and Jasmine are continuing to go through the decision to sift through the fine print. I have received various inquiries on the decision from both active and retired members of the DSA. The decision was extremely lengthy. The analysis given initially was very quick and off the cuff. Now the deep dive from many different firms will begin. As the analysis comes out, I will be sending updates to all of you outlining what this all means for ALL of us in the pension system.

In closing – please continue doing the jobs you all do, make sure you do take time away to recharge and reenergize yourselves. Do not ever hesitate to get in touch with me. I am here for all of you. I appreciate those of you who call and ask those questions or just call to catch up.

Stay safe and healthy everyone! Eric

July 2020 President's Message

Despite all the twists and turns of 2020- along with new workplace hazards-we are halfway through the year! The pandemic has redefined how quickly things can change and how instantaneously we must adapt to a health crisis that is evolving daily. It’s been difficult and challenging at times- but hopefully the adaptation and new reality will make us even stronger and more resilient. Opening businesses back up to the public was an encouraging sign. Being able to enjoy a meal at a restaurant, return to the gym and restart the economy was definitely a positive. However, the shutdowns may not be over and we may be continuing to cope with COVID-19 for a while. Although wearing masks is not ideal- especially on patrol, while collecting evidence, dispatching calls, etc.- we can and will work through it. The inconvenience is worth being healthy so we can continue to serve the public. The positive cases in the Fresno County Jail’s North Annex should be a reminder of the reality of the situation locally. The numbers are rising in institutions like jails and rest homes, but also throughout the community at large.

Unit 1 MOU

I would like to report some positive news regarding our Unit 1 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Although we had been negotiating for a successor MOU prior to March – once the pandemic began, all talks ended. In order to keep our working conditions in contract and all the terms and conditions of our MOU, the county and FDSA agreed to push out the expiration (July 12, 2020) to November 1, 2020. By doing this, County Labor and the FDSA Bargaining Team can have time to analyze the economy and how its recovering, while also navigating budget hearings to see where things fall into place financially. I do not like to be out of a labor contract at all. Although when you are out of a contract you are still guaranteed certain work protections, the fact that we had to stop bargaining can present a challenge for those conditions. We intend to start the bargaining process very soon, and see how economics plays into the county budget. I am happy to proudly say that our workforce showed up every day and did not try to police the community from their homes. Your effort and additional risk during the pandemic is appreciated by county leaders. During all of the civil unrest throughout the state, we sent 20 deputy sheriffs under the mutual aid system to the Bay Area. They were there for four days, serving in the San Francisco and Oakland area. We are proud of the representation to help our fellow law enforcement officers and enforce the laws to protect the first amendment right. However, during this process property was destroyed and crimes were happening. There will be more protesting in the future, until people feel their voice is heard. In Fresno, we have seen the professionalism from those wanting to share their feelings publicly- through signs, marches and peaceful gatherings. I cannot emphasize enough, that freedom of speech is not only the first amendment- but one that allows the US to be the home of the free. However, by giving us the right to free speech, does not give the right to break the law(s) at the same time. As law enforcement officers, our job is to maintain civility at all times. COVID-19 in the Workplace Avoiding COVID-19 when we work with the public can sometimes be difficult. The nature of our jobs is to respond to calls for service and assistance from our community. Sometimes we can stay away from crowds- but that is not always the

COVID-19 in the Workplace

Avoiding COVID-19 when we work with the public can sometimes be difficult. The nature of our jobs is to respond to calls for service and assistance from our community. Sometimes we can stay away from crowds- but that is not always the case. For deputies who work in the various courthouses it is a daily challenge. This week more than 500 inmates tested positive at the Fresno County Jail – a deputy who works in the courts was also positive. All of you in the court services unit (CSU), received an email regarding testing, exposure procedure, and filing a worker’s comp claim. FDSA agrees with the overall procedure the department has set up regarding the COVID exposure. The health guidance we are receiving is from the Fresno County Health Department and Dr. Rais Vohra, the health director. Although masks are not mandated for this agency, procedurally, we should be taking the necessary steps to ensure our health. I recommend continuing to follow the guidelines when it comes to mask wearing, using personal protective equipment (PPE)- when applicable, washing your hands, and social distancing. The more isolation, the better your chances are of not being exposed and ultimately not contracting the virus. Use that methodology on and off the job.

Masks

The FDSA is working with a vendor who is sending 25 masks next week for our personnel to try out. Please let me know if you would like to try one. If these get good reviews from those who sample them- we will look at supplying each of you with one. This is our way of helping you avoid exposure while on the job. These are adjustable and more durable than a hospital mask, and a lot less bulky and cumbersome than an N95. This virus is likely going to linger for the remainder of the year. Until there is a vaccine approved, we all have to continue working together to stay as healthy as possible. I appreciate all the work you all are doing at your various work sites. Continue pressing forward as this will pass.

- Eric

June 2020 President's Message

As we reopen parts of our economy, one can’t help but wonder what this two-month gap of such a standstill and devastating time for so many will look like fiscally as we move forward-as a county, state and nation. Right now- it’s too hard to predict as final budgets are not yet finalized. Our local leaders aren’t really sure, and our Fresno County CAO continues to say the sky is falling and the financial future is bleak. Although this isn’t the first time he has made such a prediction. One positive note- the stock market is back on the rise. Trading is happening, people are reinvesting and moving their current portfolio around. As far as financially- there seems to have been a spark, rather than a fear driven panic for Americans to resume planning for their future. The one common theme in all of this – hard working Americans really want to get back to work and somewhat of a normal life.

This agency and the people who work here- are truly front lines workers. We battled a positive case of Covid19 in our dispatch center. We recovered and pressed forward. We scrambled for PPE, as many people- both private and government agencies ran short and were not prepared for a pandemic. This agency showed that even through all of that, we come to work and serve the public. Many of you never stopped- arresting criminals, handling your cases, processing your crime scenes and evidence, dispatching calls and interacting with the public. Our profession has not stopped – a 24/7 operation cannot be put on hold. This fact has been reiterated once again through this pandemic.

In the coming months, you will start to see many people try to justify their existence as essential workers. “Essential workers,” is a term – commonly used by those trying to justify their existence in the workforce.

Every day- for as long as you have served in law enforcement- you have been a front line, boots on the ground, essential worker(s). It means being exposed each shift without PPE and performing a job because that’s what you signed up to do. There is a difference.

Those who work in the supply chain, are absolutely important to the economy. However, they don’t serve actual people, mostly face to face- each time they report to work. It’s a very long logistical chain that is used. The “fair,” way is to call it essential. You will never hear me say things like our county family, and we are all in this together. While we share the same employer and work together for the common good of our community- there is a stark difference in what we do as deputies, dispatchers, etc.

When this crisis called for everyone to shelter at home and-if possible, work from home- we still served in the streets, responded to emergencies- around the clock. Our jobs, by nature- are inherently dangerous. The coronavirus crisis added an additional airborne threat in dealing with the public.

As I stated earlier, the government was caught with little to no inventory on proper PPE for its essential workers. The reason why is laid out in this article. In short, government policy makers who denied the extra dollars over the years- to go towards other priorities, is where the chain links broke. This insightful article I read recently in The Wall Street Journal explains the issue more clearly. It’s titled, “Miscalculation at Every Level Left U.S. Unequipped to Fight Coronavirus,” A shortfall in masks lays bare the blunders by hospitals, manufacturers and the federal government.

The article is one of the best written and most honest I have read during this entire pandemic. The article described a hospital official trying to put on a mask and the elastic straps break. This was due to the breakdown of the mask straps- since it was from the 2009 H1N1 outbreak, also referred to as the swine flu. Although the outbreak was not declared a pandemic- government officials did not learn a valuable lesson from the crisis. Instead- as we started to bottom out of the recession, the approach was looking towards building up, and socking more profits away. Specifically, in the hospital industry – a bid to increase profit, resulted in slashing inventory of all supplies. Rather than bulk up after the swine flu, hospitals turned to inventory-tracking software to monitor stocks of protective gear and other supplies, replenishing only as needed.

Manufactures of these PPE supplies were also impacted during this time. Bulking up production, meant only to be left holding millions of extra items. None of the supplies were of interest to the American people. So, to create a profit they were sold overseas at a fraction of the cost.

The US government focused more on preparing for terrorism than for a pandemic. Despite the severe 2009 H1N1 Swine Flu, the government lacked a permanent budget to buy protective medical gear for its Strategic National Stockpile of supplies for health emergencies.

Hindsight is always twenty-twenty. Those who prepare are always ready. Those who are ready have prepared. Many of us in this profession have always been ready because we prepare. We don’t let complacently dictate our lives. We live each day as a privileged day to be on this earth.

Public Employers Have Additional Labor Relations Powers in an Emergency—Expect To See Positive and Negative Uses of Them

By Gregg Adam

We live in extraordinary times. None more so than our first responders, who bravely battle on the front lines of this global pandemic. Dramatic changes are likely to pervade all of our lives even when, to whatever degree, state and local emergency orders are lifted.

One change likely to impact everything from bargaining rights to pensions will be public entities exercising emergency powers in their employment relationship with employees. Public entities’ emergency powers are reflected in collective bargaining laws, which permit them to act first and bargain later during an emergency. They are also recognized in constitutional law, which suggests there are limited circumstances that permit public entities to violate contractual obligations in an emergency. Fortunately, both sets of laws significantly restrict public agencies’ ability to act unilaterally to affect long-term change. But that will not stop some from aggressively pursuing unilateral action as this public emergency deepens and lengthens.

Collective Bargaining During Emergencies

Most California-based peace officers’ collective bargaining rights arise under the Meyers-Milias- Brown Act, which can be found in Government Code section 3500 and subsequent provisions. Section 3504.5 provides that generally public agencies must provide advance notice to employee organizations of changes to matters within the scope of representation—typically changes to wages, hours or other working conditions. Subsection 3504.5(b), however, provides: “In cases of emergency when the governing body or the designated boards and commissions determine that an ordinance, rule, resolution, or regulation must be adopted immediately without prior notice or meeting with a recognized employee organization, the governing body or the boards and commissions shall provide notice and opportunity to meet at the earliest practicable time following the adoption of the ordinance, rule, resolution, or regulation.” In other words, in an emergency, a local public employer may act first and bargain later. This right is restricted. The agency must establish that the need for unilateral action is tied directly to the emergency at hand and cannot await normal bargaining processes. And even if it satisfies this standard, and acts unilaterally, the agency must then bargain “at the earliest practicable time.” Not some far off time in the future, but as soon as it is capable of bargaining. Typically, that should be a matter of days, not weeks.

Five weeks into California’s statewide Shelter in Place Order (at the time of writing), the reaction of public entities to this crisis and their use of section 3504.5(b) rights has been interesting. Many are acting unilaterally to help and support employees. For example, agencies have awarded first responders and other employees performing disaster relief work additional paid leave, or have suspended vacation accrual caps to prevent employees from losing vacation accruals. Some are engaging with employee unions—remotely, of course, by telephone or video-conference, our new way of bargaining—on safety issues, like quarantining or notice if positive COVID-19 cases occur, or benefits issues, like worker’s compensation presumptions or paid leave for employees sent home or ordered quarantined. Notably, however, employers’ actions carry an air of noblesse oblige about them since few have reduced these additional benefits to written agreements, even though they are negotiable items.

One suspects that public entities worry that entering into written agreements on such matters now will undermine their right to act unilaterally in the future. Presumably, such reservations are motivated by genuine fear that public employers may, if the economic consequences of the emergency become as severe as many are projecting, have to consider layoffs, furloughs and takeaways. The latest unemployment figures show more than 22 million Americans unemployed. Public employers seem to prefer to leave their option to take unilateral action as open as possible.

Unilateral Impairment of Contract Rights

Aside from collective bargaining, perhaps the bigger threat is presented by those who will encourage public entities to overreach and try to impair existing contractual obligations. That could mean attempts to change benefits under an existing MOU; more likely, it will produce another round of pension attacks.

Attacks on public employee pensions come, predictably, with every economic downturn. In 2018, your author argued Cal Fire Local 2881 v. Public Employees Retirement System (known as the “air time” case), which involved Jerry Brown’s Public Employee Pension Reform Act. Those “reforms” were premised on the “fiscal emergency” created by the 2008 Great Recession. Governor Brown argued that the legislature could act unilaterally to reduce certain existing pension benefits (in addition to creating new lower tiers of benefits) because of how severely the economic downturn, and the concurrent increase in pension contributions, impacted public finances. But because a booming economy had returned by the time the case was argued, those arguments seemed dated. The Supreme Court ultimately avoided the question of the State’s exercise of its emergency powers by ruling that the right to purchase pension credits at issue in the case was not a pension benefit and therefore was not protected by vested pension protections.

The economic impacts of the COVID-19 emergency appear more severe than even the 2008 Great Recession. Much will depend on how quickly the economy bounces back and whether the pandemic causes wholesale societal changes, as some predict. So expect anti-pension advocates to dust off what is called the “necessity” defense to justify impairing public employee pension rights. Fortunately, constitutional law sets a high bar on these efforts. All previous attempts to impair public employee pensions as a necessity in an emergency have failed.

The primary sources of the necessity defense are two United States Supreme Court cases some 40 years apart: the depression-era decision in Home Building & Loan Assn. v. Blaisdell in 1934 and U.S. Trust Co. of New York v. New York in 1977. Those cases recognized that in an emergency the federal Contract Clause was not an absolute bar to subsequent modification of a public entity’s own financial obligations.

This body of law was applied in California in 1979 in Sonoma County Org. of Public Employees v. County of Sonoma. There, after Proposition 13 was passed and dramatically reduced property tax revenues for public entities, the Legislature passed a law which nullified any local agency agreement to pay employees cost-of-living adjustments greater than those received by state employees. Drawing from both Blaisdell and U.S. Trust Co., the California Supreme Court crafted a four-part test which provides that a legislative enactment that impairs a private contract right is permissible only if it: (1) protects basic interests of society; (2) is justified by an emergency; (3) is appropriate for the emergency; and (4) is temporary and defers, but does not destroy, the vested contract rights. The California Supreme Court ruled that the legislation before it caused substantial impairment because a contractual salary increase would be “irretrievably lost.” Despite legislative analysis of a projected $7 billion loss in local property tax revenues at that time (about $25 billion in today’s money), the Court rejected the government’s claims of a fiscal emergency and that the legislation was necessary to “maintain essential services.” Impairment of contract is permitted due to fiscal exigencies only when “legislation was temporary and limited to the exigency which provoked the legislative response.”

Thus, while a public entity may in a bona fide emergency have a right to impair contract rights, courts use strict scrutiny to guard against it—the highest constitutional bar to clear. As Justice Harry Blackmun warned in U.S. Trust Co., even during an emergency, “[a] State is not completely free to consider impairing the obligations of its own contracts on a par with other policy alternatives.”

Thus, while Governors and others have frequently attempted to use “emergency” justifications to impair pension rights in the past. None have succeeded. Stay tuned for the next round of battles.

Finally – with all the civil unrest happening around the United States, we must rely on one another more than ever. This applies not only in this department- but in our profession. Law Enforcement is under attack. I am proud to say- this agency is full of good human beings who do not take their job lightly. Many of you are very skilled at de-escalating tense situations. Throughout my career, people who have demonstrated use of force (outside of our lawful scope) have been terminated. I am reminded recently of the message during the Easter Weekend from Sheriff Mims regarding the closure of Fresno County Parks due to Covid19. The message was simple, but clear- and I will paraphrase – nobody allowed in county parks. Also- removing people should not result in any use of force whatsoever. This is how we operate at this department. I commend all of you for the job you do and acting lawfully and within policy, especially when dealing with situations that can result in use of force or possibly death to the people we serve.

Stay safe and please keep watch over your partner.

Eric

May 2020 President's Message

‍

The month of April was busy with a lot of activity going on related to COVID19. There was a positive case in our dispatch center which caused some different planning when it came to FSO Dispatch. The strain has been with the exposures, dispatchers who were sent home due to that one positive test. Employees have been, and are still quarantined for 14 days. Some people may have symptoms, while some may not. But the precaution, following the recommendation of the County Health Doctor, is to 14-day quarantine in order to stop a complete outbreak. All employees and other agencies should have been told this is putting a strain on the radio and call takers. Any help is appreciated, just until we can get out of this and back to full operations.

This positive test came on the heels of Dispatcher Appreciation Week, so trying to backtrack the exposure was challenging. Nonetheless, we were able to get through this positive test with very little collateral damage. I applaud all the dispatchers who continued to serve the public during this time, and those who took the precautions not to infect their peers facing a possible exposure. Those who could really stepped up to the plate.

Working with Sheriff’s Management to deal with the positive test was seamless. Things seem to be back on track now. Lt Gilbert will be continuing to monitor the situation in dispatch until we are back to normal. Weekly deep cleaning and daily disinfecting will be ongoing in the center.

FDSA Elections

The FDSA Board of Directors, voted unanimously on a bylaw change regarding the number of board members serving on the FDSA Board of Directors. Currently, the bylaws state there are 13 board of director positions and four executive board positions. We have been holding some vacant positions since our last election due to promotions and retirement. The board has discussed reducing this number down to a more manageable level.

After much discussion, the board took a position to lower the number down to the recommendation of 9 board of directors and 4 executive board members. The official vote was made on Wednesday May 6th during the regularly scheduled FDSA Board Meeting.

By reducing the numbers, our board of directors will be in groups of three (3) when they are elected to their board seats. During this currently election, the only offices that will go out to the members will be for the two executive board seats, 1st Vice President (Currently held by Isaac Torres) and Secretary/Treasurer (Currently held by Jeff Shipman). This will be voted on soon by the membership.

FCERA Earning Statements

During the month of April is when Fresno County Employees Retirement Association puts out your yearly retirement benefit statement. Many of you called me due to some information that was pretty confusing put on your retirement statement. At first glance, it’s quite confusing, and is putting numbers that just don’t seem factual.

Some examples I saw were 44 year of service at age 70 pays you about $3,000 a month. Others were at 25 years of service you would have $7,000 a month. Obviously, these numbers are all over the board. I contacted our retirement association representative and FDSA Board member John Robinson to advise him of the issue. John looking into the reason why this is continuing to happen.

I have attached the graphs for all of you to be able to cross reference your age (at time of retirement), years of service (at time of retirement) which will give you the percentage on where you will be with those two numbers. Take the salary you make today and use it as a reference of what a scenario would look like (today) if you were to retire based age, years of service and salary. The pay will only get better from here depending where you are at in your career.

I want to clarify some mis information that is being talked about and is simply false. A couple members asked me specifically about PEPRA and why the FDSA voted on that. I was also asked why we got rid of a cost of living adjustment for PEPRA employees. Finally, is there a way to get rid of PEPRA altogether.

PEPRA – Public Employees’ Penson Reform Act took effect January 1, 2013. This was a reform act crafted by then California Governor Jerry Brown. This act changed the way retirement benefits are applied to public employees within the State of California. This act was worked on by Gov. Brown in all of 2012 and approved by California Legislators and became law 1/1/2013. The purpose of it was to get in front of a pension overhaul conversation that were intense during this time. Pension reform has always been funded by private billionaires. They persuade the ultra-conservative Republican lawmaker(s) throughout the state. Side-note: We actually saw these go through in San Diego and San Jose, however, after being litigated they were reversed back to a traditional defined benefit pension system.

Here are the employees who would fall under PEPRA:

• Any new hire who joined a public service retirement system in California after January 1, 2013, with no prior membership in another California public retirement system.

• Any employee who joined a public service retirement system in California prior to Jan 1, 2013, who, on or after Jan 1, 2013 is hired by another public service retirement employer following a break in service more than six-months.

• A new hire who joins a public retirement system for the first time on or after Jan 1, 2013, and who was a member of another California public retirement system prior to that date but who is not subject to reciprocity by that public retirement system.

All members who don’t fall into the above definitions above are considered classic members. Classic members will retain the existing benefit enrollment levels for future service with the same employer. That is PEPRA in a nutshell.

There were questions asked why the FDSA voted to allow this. The answer to that is NO PUBLIC AGENCY had a choice on this. This was passed through an ExecutiveType Order from the Governor’s Office and enacted by the California Legislator.

There is one component the FDSA opposed with the FCERA board regarding PEPRA - which was cost of living adjustments. There is a big misunderstanding that COLA increases were banished with PEPRA – that is completely false. CALPERS has Cost of Living adjustments built into their PEPRA plans. The 20 counties in the state who fall under 1937 Act Retirement Systems, had to decide independently if they would keep the COLA.

When this was being voted on by YOUR FCERA Board – FDSA asked our safety board representative and Chairman of FCERA at the time, Eulalio Gomez, to vote in favor of continuing the COLA’s for Fresno County Retirees who fall under PEPRA. This vote did not pass and the COLA was discontinued. This was disappointing that our own FCERA Board would not vote in favor of continuing the COLA. Will it ever come back or be reversed? That is never off the table, but accomplishing something like that and reversing it would be very difficult. The current makeup of the retirement board would not be in favor of doing something like this. I am currently discussing the idea with John Robinson and FCERA to see how to go about accomplishing this.

I have attached the table for PERPA pension, taken from the FCERA employee handbook. You can see based on the age, years of service, what the percentage will look like when it is your time to retire.

Again, we as the FDSA are here to represent the needs of our members. This doesn’t mean we can move mountains. However, take ideas, suggestions, and input from the members and as a board, we move forward with one clear message.

We look forward to some of the restrictions being lifted to allow us to gather back together as a department.

Truly,

Eric

General Members Retirement Table

Safety Members Retirement Table

April 2020 President's Message

‍

On January 9, 2020 during the PORAC Board of Directors meeting, President Brian

Marvel appointed me to the Peace Officer Standard and Training Advisory Committee

as a sitting member for PORAC. The POST Advisory Committee performs a key role as

part of the Commission’s team by providing a two-way communication link between the

Commission and organizations that share an interest in the Commission’s work. The

committee meets prior to each triannual Commission meeting to review and analyze

topics the Commission will later address. Advisory Committee members represent

associations and organizations within the California law enforcement community,

educators, and the public-at-large. Therefore, they provide valuable input on many

contemporary and evolving issues in law enforcement, helping the Commission and

POST better serve California's peace officers and the citizens they protect. Appointed

by the Commission for a term of three-years, Committee members receive no

compensation but are the stakeholders that give a considerable amount of input to the

Commissioners when decisions are rendered. I attended my first meeting on February

12, 2020 in San Diego. This was an eye-opening experience as to the discussions that

go on regarding POST training, and all the logistics that go into that. I look forward to

serving PORAC and all of you with this group and will be reporting back to the

membership regarding topics that were taken up during the committee. Decisions

rendered at the POST Commission will be reported back as well.

One topic of discussion during the February 12th meeting was the dispatch academy

and how a change is looking to be made in regards to attendance of this training. This

topic has been discussed a couple different times during meetings with Sheriff’s Admin

in regards to how we are sending people to the POST Dispatch Academy.

A proposal that was made by POST administration, was to require the dispatch

academy before the new hire (dispatcher) reports to their respective dispatch center.

There was a good discussion and much concern over making a change of that nature.

There were challenges addressed when making a change like this. The lack of

dispatcher candidates statewide makes this an issue right out of the gate. Followed by

the failure rates statewide for dispatcher’s going through the different dispatcher training

programs.

Suggestions coming from the discussion was staggering the training since it is 120

hours in segments. Maybe doing a week after a couple months of exposure, then

completing the remainder of it (80 hours) after the dispatcher has completed their

respective training program. There are a variety of ways it can be broken down as far as

the hours. I have reached out to our own dispatchers along with FPD dispatchers and

have asked for input on this issue so that I can be prepared at our next meeting in June

to represent our respective groups in this region. Unknown at this time what direction

this will go.

Update to the Pension System in California

I recently received a publication from PORAC President, Brian Marvel, from the coalition

Californians For Retirement Security which PORAC is a part of, and all of us have

contributed to the pension reform fund currently being held by PORAC. These are

interesting facts that are being represented by CALPERS – but are very consistent with

our Fresno County Employee Retirement Association (FCERA).

I get briefed quite often by Deputy John Robinson, who sits as a Trustee on the FCERA

board which oversees your pension system. John has been sitting on the FCERA board

for over two years. John’s tenure came around the same time as some of the newer

trustees. Many new decisions have been made since that time. The Pension Fund has

seen tremendous growth, even with increased retirements, which have spiked monthly

payroll to over $25 million.

Due to a variety of factors that include retirements, new hires, low inflation, thriving

markets on Wall Street, and a new investment strategy - I have listed below the amount

employees will be paying into their pension starting July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021.

See Table Below

Current Ave Rates %

July 1, 2020

General Tier 1 (0)

9.88%

9.88%

General Tier 2 (-0.21)

7.10%

6.89%

General Tier 3 (-0.01)

8.00%

7.99%

General Tier 4 (+0.15)

7.08%

7.23%

General Tier 5 (+0.13)

7.17%

7.30%

Safety Tier 1 (-0.78)

13.31%

12.53%

Safety Tier 2 (-0.24)

11.64%

11.40%

Safety Tier 4 (+0.14)

10.08%

10.22%

Safety Tier 5 (+0.04)

11.92%

11.96%

As you can see from the above table – the pension system is doing very well with very

little increase to employee cost, or even a reduction to the employees in some of the

groups.

BOTH CalPERS AND CalSTRS ARE IN SOUND FISCAL SHAPE

CalSTRS and CalPERS are strong. Their cash flow is positive and their funded status

is improving. CalPERS' market value reached $400 billion in January 2020, reaching

a new landmark and reflecting a doubling of the fund's portfolio from 10 years ago.

The fund's market value has grown by $27 billion in the last six months. That's more

than it grew in the entire fiscal year that ended June 30, 2019, when it gained $18

billion in value. CalSTRS has holdings of nearly $224 billion, also nearly double that of

10 years ago.

UNFUNDED LIABILITY IS ONLY ONE MEASUREMENT OF PENSION SYSTEM

HEALTH

Just looking at “unfunded liability” ignores important sources of system strength.

According to a recent UC Berkeley study, it serves “not only to exaggerate the

problems facing pension funds, but also provides a poor guide to addressing those

problems.” Yet some politicians cite “unfunded liabilities” when they’re looking for an

excuse to break their promise to police officers, firefighters, nurses, teachers,

librarians and other public employees.

Pension systems are long-term, perpetual entities. Like a home mortgage, there is a

long-term liability, but the bill is not due immediately. Pensions are pre-funded with

both employer and employee contributions, and the investment returns those

contributions generate. Like the rest of us, pension systems suffered during the Great

Recession, but now they’re rebounding.

PENSIONS PROVIDE MODEST RETIREMENT SECURITY FOR CALIFORNIA’S

PUBLIC SERVANTS

At CalPERS, the average pension for retirees is $35,748 per year. A new retiree who

just retired in fiscal year 2017-18 receives $40,596 per year. Overall, 63 percent of all

CalPERS retirees receive less than $3,000 a month. And only 3.6 percent of

CalPERS retirees receive pensions of $100,000 per year or more -- these retirees are

usually executives who hold seats in either city or county offices, or are physicians, or

are senior managers for fire and police departments.

Unlike the private sector, about 33 percent of CalPERS members and retirees don’t

participate in Social Security for benefits, so their CalPERS pension may be their sole

source of retirement income.

The average retirement age for all retirees is nearly age 60, while the average years

of service is more than 20.

TAXPAYERS DON’T PAY FOR THE BULK OF PENSIONS

Some people believe that taxpayers fund the total cost of public pensions. This is

not true. At CalPERS, the largest contribution comes from investment return dollars,

with additional, ongoing funding from employer and employee contributions.

Workers currently contribute up to 15.25 percent of their paychecks to help fund

their own pensions.

In other words, 71 cents out of every public employee pension dollar is funded by

CalPERS' own investment earnings and member contributions. In the fiscal year

ended June 2019, CalPERS paid out nearly $24.2 billion in pension benefits.

Public workers' contributions to our pension systems have been increasing. During

the last 20 years, contributions from public workers accounted for about 13 percent of

the system's benefit payments, while contributions from the state made up about 29

percent. The remaining payments have come from CalPERS' investment earnings.

In recent years, state workers have been moving closer to a 50/50 split in contributing

to their pensions along with their employers. The state's estimated contribution for the

present fiscal year is about $5.9 billion, according to Gov. Gavin Newsom's recent

budget proposal.

Pension “reforms” passed by a bipartisan majority in the Legislature and signed by

Governor Jerry Brown took effect in January 2013. These changes increased the

retirement age for new employees depending on their job, capped the annual payouts

at $132,120, eliminated numerous abuses of the system, and required workers who

were not contributing half of their retirement costs to pay more. CalPERS estimates it

will save between $42 billion and $55 billion over 30 years while CalSTRS pegged its

savings at $22.7 billion over 30 years from these changes.

The Pension discussion will continue to go on for a number of years. There are people

who don’t like the fact that public employees receive a pension after putting in years of

service to an agency. Groups like FDSA, PORAC, etc are the ones continuing to

identify and push back on these discussions ensuring the promises made at the

bargaining table are upheld at the term of retirement. Rest assured, at the end of your

career, you can expect this pension to be there for you and your family. We work hard

daily, to ensure this comes to fruition for you and your family and those promises are

upheld.

Any questions you may have regarding pensions, never hesitate to ask.

Take care and stay safe!

-Eric Schmidt

‍

Happy New Year 2020 to all of you. Things have started off on the right foot at the FDSA. Our website is up and running, along with the app that is compatible with both Apple and Android phones. This is the best and easiest way to stay connected with your hours, wages and working conditions. Those of you who are using it, if you see improvements that can be made please let us know so those improvements can be made. We will consult with the creator of the website and make this a user-friendly system that has little to no glitches moving forward.  I have also opened up the availability to sign up for the website up the chain of command so communication is seamless. This is important for member communication along with staying connected to the many community support events and partnerships we have throughout the Fresno community.

We have finally launched the flooring project at the FDSA. This project has been a few years in the planning process. We wanted to ensure the best product for years to come and limit member’s dues paying for the project. I am happy to say, this project will not be using any membership money to fund. Proceeds from Uptown Bar and Grill and some community donations will help fund this project! This flooring will transform the FDSA building and complete the final phase of the remodel phase that was started in 2010. I know this sounds like a long process (10 years) – but the FDSA Board of Directors direction was not to use any member dues to do this. From building rentals and other fundraising sources, we have built up our reserves to make the improvement.

I will be taking a by-law proposal to the FDSA Board of Directors to lower the Member Rate when renting the FDSA building for an event. Currently the rate is $350 to rent the building. I will be asking it to be lowered to $250 for a member event. Different factors play into the reduction, but I think it is warranted. My hope is this will get more member involvement and the ability to rent a building that is owned by your association. Many of you already do utilize it and have had several events here over the years.

Aflac for PORAC

Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association

Welcoming in the new year of 2020, our PORAC AFLAC agent, Jamie Amstutz will be available for all Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association Members:

Wednesday, February 19^th from 7:00 am and throughout the day between and for all briefings.

Location: Area 2 Substation – 5717 E. Shields, Fresno, CA

• All Association members are eligible for AFLAC benefits at PORAC rates.
• If you would like to set up a meeting at a specific time, please contact Jamie in advance.
• We now also have Online enrollment available through EVERWELL (Telephonic Enrollment with Jamie)
• Feel free to contact Jamie with any questions regarding claims, changes, signing up…

Jaime was at the FDSA during shift signups, but wanted to come back and make this available to all members. Lt. Curtice has opened up Area Two all day to host the AFLAC signups.  No need to RSVP – just show up!


Accident Advantage – Covers you and family for accidents, on or off the job!

• First visit increased to $125-$205 depending on provider (previous plans $120).
• Includes specific-sum injury benefits based upon severity, cash for major tests, physical therapy, ambulance, appliances, and more.
• Includes an annual wellness benefit of $60 once per Calendar year.
• NEW – Organized Sporting Activities Benefit. Adds 25% to total benefit, max of $1000 per year.
• NEW – Home Modification Benefit - $3,000
• Monthly premiums start at $26.91 – Option 3 or $30.94 – Option 4

AfLac Cancer Protection Assurance – Level 2 – Pays cash benefits at a time when needed most

• Receive $4,000 for the first occurrence of cancer, plus the benefit builds by an additional $500 per year prior to first occurrence.
• Covers children at no extra cost!
• Cash benefits for radiation, chemo, second-surgical opinions and much more.
• Wellness incentives $75, once per year for certain cancer screening tests.
• Monthly premiums start at $40.36

Critical Care Protection – Option 3  - Pays first occurrence, hospital & continuing care;

• Pays $7,500 upon the first incident (increase of $2,500), benefit builds by an additional $500 per year prior to first occurrence.

• Also pays a higher reoccurrence benefit for additional events (from $2,500 to $3,500)

• Added Tier 1 and Tier 2 Specified Heart Surgery Benefits
• ICU for any reason
• Monthly premiums are based upon age at enrollment, starting as low as $20.15
• (lower cost from previous plan, for enrollment prior to age 46)

Hospital Choice – Option 1 - Help close the gap on high deductibles, co-pays, and other unexpected costs:

• Flexible Hospitalization Confinement benefit, Rehabilitation, Short Stay and Emergency room benefits.

• Extended Benefits: Physician visit benefits, Labs and X-rays, Diagnostic and Imaging benefits, Ambulance

• Hospital and Surgical Care: Surgical benefits, Invasive Diagnostic Tests, Physician ICU, Daily Confinement and Second Surgical Opinion Benefits.

• Monthly premiums start at $47.97

Please feel free to contact Jamie Amstutz at 858-344-4331 with any questions you may have.  You may also email Jamie at jamie_amstutz@us.aflac.com

Download my app to easily connect with me on the go! Text Jamie Amstutz to 36260

Morgan Stanley will be at Area Two as well during the same time as Aflac. Heath Seltzer has attached a brief description of what he does and how he can help FDSA members with their future planning. Heath offers a variety of financial options for members who are ready to start investing into their future. If you haven’t thought about wealth management and planning for the future – it may be worth five minutes to discuss some options with Heath than can benefit you and your family.

Wealth planning. It all starts with one meeting.

Heath Seltzer & Kevin Wright are Financial Advisors at Morgan Stanley Wealth Management and provide Retirement Planning Services to 170+ police and fire families.   They provide complimentary retirement planning consultations and written Financial Plans to help each family map out their retirement spending including pension, deferred comp, IRA, and other investment accounts.  

Swing by anytime on 2/19/2020 between 7am – 10pm for a complimentary consultation to see if your retirement is on track.  Feel free to bring statements for a more in-depth discussion.  You can also email Heath/Kevin at heath.seltzer@morganstanley.com / kevin.wright@morganstanley.com to schedule a call or meeting.

‍

To view full President's Message  - Click Here

Main topics -

• Verdict in Jared Mullis Case
• 2019 Year End Close

‍

To view full President's Message  - Click Here

Main topics -

• Bargaining and Health Rates
• PORAC Conference of Members
• Website

Eric

‍

To view full President's Message  - Click Here

Main topics -

Open Enrollment begins November 1, 2019 and ends November 30, 2019.  All changes must be made prior to the close of Open Enrollment.  

Changes to FresnoSheriff.org email

The FDSA App is now available for download on your device.  This will come up as HQ App and is now available for you to review.

*Members must be registered on the fresnodsa.org website PRIOR to using the app.  Website login credentials are the same to login to the app.

iPhone user -

https://apps.apple.com/us/app/the-hq-app/id1475652199?ls=1

Android user -

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nep.hqapp

Stay Safe, Eric

‍

Passage of SB230

I have attached for all of you the passage Press Release of PORACs SB230 Use of Force bill. This has been a tireless effort by many of us in the law enforcement labor community. The endless amount of lobbying that has gone into this hasn’t even begun to be tabulated. This came down to two things: defeating the AB931 bill from last year – and creating our (law enforcement language) and be proactive with Use of Force.

A great thanks to Senator Ana Caballero and her staff for carrying this bill for law enforcement.  As you will see on the press release, this was a coalition effort. PORAC was leading the bill, but this took efforts from all of us in law enforcement to preserve what we have and enhance for the future.

I will have more as things transpire in 2020 when these two bills (AB392) and SB230 take effect.

Shift Signups Oct 16, 2019

Patrol shift signups are Wednesday October 16, 2019. We will get started at 0730 hours for those coming off the graveyard shift. Once the seniority gets ironed out, we will be sending out the seniority list for those signing up. If you are not signing up – again no need to worry. The current key assignments are located in the STAR page under Shift Signups 2020. Make sure you take a look and if there are any questions reach out to me, so I can get them answered as quickly as possible. Some of you have done so already and we have resolved some of those concerns/questions.

Vacation signups will come out shortly after signups for all of you in patrol. FDSA will be hosting the morning food and beverages during the shift signups. We will also have vendors there for any information regarding health insurance, AFLAC, Delta Dental, and Legal Shield.

Those of you who still may need to sign up for the FDSA Website - there will have a couple laptop computers at the FDSA that morning to do so. I look forward to seeing you all on Oct 16 for signups.

Bargaining

We have started bargaining with the County of Fresno for a successor MOU. I have received questions from some members if this process has started. I wanted to report out that we have started .  As soon as there is a tentative agreement, your board of directors will meet to discuss and call for the ratification meeting to occur. I appreciate your patience during this time, as it does become a pretty hectic ordeal between the multiple meetings that will occur during this process.

New Bills signed by Governor Newsom

Governor Gavin Newsom signed into law two bills that focus on improving protections for California’s public safety works and post-traumatic stress for first responders. The bills will add post-traumatic stress suffered on the job as an “injury” for worker’s compensation purposes and ensure emergency services remain under public management for appropriate and consistent response to emergency situations.

SB 542, the Trauma Treatment Act, by Senator Henry Stern (D-Canoga Park), will provide first responders with workers' compensation while they recover from their mental health scars. SB 542 will improve mental health awareness among firefighters and law enforcement officers by establishing a rebuttable presumption of injury for firefighters and law enforcement personnel in instances where they sustain occupational post-traumatic stress.

SB 438, Emergency Medical Services: dispatch, by Senator Robert Hertzberg (D-Van Nuys) will prohibit a public agency from outsourcing its local emergency dispatch services to a private, for-profit entity – except when pursuant to a joint powers or cooperative agreement. It also clarifies that a public safety agency maintains the authority to determine the appropriate deployment of emergency resources within the agency’s jurisdiction in order to provide the highest and best level of emergency response for the community it serves.

Until next month – Take care of one another.

Eric

‍

On August 19, 2019, Governor Newsom signed Assembly Bill 392 into law. This Bill, which relates to and regulates the use of deadly force by peace officers in California will not take effect until January 1, 2020. The minute the press started to put headlines out on this bill, I knew there were going to be problems of interpretation from the public, followed by confusion from FDSA members and cops in general. The original language, as I have shared with all of you in my prior messages, was actively opposed and actively lobbied against in Sacramento and in our location legislative districts. The original bill would have crippled law enforcement and officers would have been hurt or killed because of it.

There was substantial work by police labor organizations throughout California, including PORAC, the Los Angeles Police Protective League and the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. These organizations convinced the authors of AB 392 to make changes in the final language of AB392 to bring it into greater conformity with use of deadly force standards enunciated by the United States Supreme Court. Our belief is the final language within the Bill acknowledges the fact that many uses of lethal force arise in circumstances where life and death decisions have to be made in a fraction of a second.  

Although there will be more detailed analysis of the new law soon, for purposes of right now, this law changes the right of officers to use lethal force in the following major areas:

• Requires officers to evaluate each potentially deadly force situation to determine the availability of de-escalation tactics/techniques.

• Reminds officers that individuals with mental health, developmental or intellectual disabilities may be less likely to understand or comply with commands from peace officers, and precludes officers from using deadly force against a person who poses only a danger to himself/herself.  

• Permits the use of deadly force when death or serious bodily injury is “imminent,” which is when a reasonable officer would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity and apparent intent to cause death or serious bodily injury which must be confronted/addressed at that very moment.

• Permits the use of deadly force to apprehend a fleeing felon only when (a) the subject had committed a felony which resulted in death or serious bodily injury and (b) the officer reasonably believes that the subject will cause death or serious bodily injury to the officer or others unless immediately apprehended.
• Requires that the use of deadly force be based on the “totality of the circumstances” confronting the officer, which includes consideration of the officer’s own pre-shooting conduct and tactical decisions.

As you can see by the four above bullet points – we are doing these now. This is conformity to the ever changing world of law enforcement practices and procedures. Sometimes although we change policy and procedure to mold with the community, laws at times, should be tweaked to make our job easier and the rules we follow for the public.

This law also preserves some of the important and appropriate factors contained in previous statutory law and in Graham v. Connor for evaluating an officer’s use of force:

• It contains language that an officer need not retreat nor desist from making an arrest because of the resistance or threat of resistance of the person being arrested and permits use of force to effect an arrest, prevent escape, or overcome resistance.

• It requires that the analysis of deadly force encounters depend upon circumstances known or perceived by the officer at the time rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and with the understanding that officers may be forced to make quick judgments about the type and amount of force to use.

By far one of the most important portions is preservation of the two bullet points above. As more comes out on SB230 and more analysis of AB392 I will put out to all of you.

Senate Bill 230 (PORAC’s Bill), which requires law enforcement agencies to implement use of force policies consistent with the requirements of AB 392, and which requires POST to implement training courses consistent with the requirements of AB 392, has not yet passed out of the Senate. We anticipate that SB 230 will be been presented to the Governor for signature within the next few months.

I have attached an analysis also by Missy O’Linn. Attorney Mildred (Missy) O'Linn is a trial lawyer with over 30 years of experience defending law enforcement. She is a senior partner and co-team leader of the Police Defense Team with the Los Angeles-based law firm of Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Trester. Missy is a member of the distinguished American Board of Trial Advocates and has been repeatedly recognized as a Southern California Super Lawyer and as one of the Top Women Attorneys in Southern California.  

Missy is a former peace officer, FTO, defensive tactics instructor trainer, academy manager and accreditation manager, and served as the legal and technical advisor for the Law Enforcement Television Network. She currently serves on the Legal Affairs Committee and the Professional Development Committee for the Major County Sheriffs of America and the PoliceOne editorial advisory board, and has served on numerous CA POST committees, including the LEOKA and LD20 committees.

The awards Missy has received include 2005 Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs Association's recipient of the Award for Civilian Leadership; 2006 Meritorious Service Award from the City of Gretna, Louisiana Police Department for her assistance to law enforcement in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina; 2015 California POST Lifetime Achievement Award for Excellence in Law Enforcement Training; and 2016 induction into Safariland Training Group's "Monadnock Hall of Fame.

Analysis of AB 392 by Missy O’Linn

The bill amends California Penal Code § 835a (PC 835a), which regulates the use of force by peace officers in California.

Initially the legislative effort was drafted in a manner that was of grave concern in regard to the language and provisions that were proposed. Ultimately, as a result of enormous efforts by law enforcement labor organizations, associations and executive-level leaders, the law, as amended, simply does not “fill the bill” as inappropriately touted by law enforcement naysayers.

A section by subsection analysis provides clarity on some of the ramifications of the provisions of the amended statute as stated. Throughout the discussion of the amended statute, note that much of what has been enacted into law is merely what is contained in jury instructions, case law in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and arguments of counsel in federal civil rights litigation. The new language of PC 835a is substantively the Graham v. Connor (1989) Fourth Amendment and Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015) Fourteenth Amendment, and their progeny, “objectively reasonable” force standards.

The substance is that force must appear to be necessary under the totality of the circumstances as reasonably perceived by the officer – which is generally the equivalent of objective reasonableness. However, it is important to keep in mind that like any newly enacted consensus legislation, this statute is subject to judicial interpretation and thus, this battle is far from over.

“Sanctity of every human life”

PC 835a (1) states: “That the authority to use physical force, conferred on peace officers by this section, is a serious responsibility that shall be exercised judiciously and with respect for human rights and dignity and for the sanctity of every human life. The Legislature further finds and declares that every person has a right to be free from excessive use of force by officers acting under color of law.”

This section is merely a feel-good platitude. As an example of conflated language, this section is limited to “physical force.” In law enforcement, the term “physical force” is usually limited to hands-on physical force and does not include intermediate force options or weapons. This section generally codifies a concept that has been used in law enforcement policies and in litigation by plaintiffs for decades citing “the sanctity of human life” provision from the California Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST) Basic Academy Workbook Series, LD 20 on Use of Force. The plus side is that the language as amended makes it clear that the concern is for “sanctity of every human life” and thus this could be construed as a positive for law enforcement because it clarifies that officers, civilians and suspects’ lives are all part of the issue. In fact, that concept has always been true for law enforcement and, as stated, counters the commonly used tactic that omitted the “every” human life provision.

“When necessary in defense of human life”

PC 835a (2) states: “As set forth below, it is the intent of the Legislature that peace officers use deadly force only when necessary in defense of human life. In determining whether deadly force is necessary, officers shall evaluate each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case, and shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer.”

Here, the “when necessary in defense of human life” would be of concern standing alone because it would arguably impose an ultimate subjective correctness standard as opposed to a Graham v. Connor (1989, Fourth Amendment “seizure”) and Kingsley v. Hendrickson (2015, Fourteenth Amendment) objective reasonableness standard. However, because the additional provisions of the amendment define how the determination of “whether deadly force is necessary” will be made, the concern is generally alleviated, although now open for more debate. An evaluation of “each situation in light of the particular circumstances of each case” is the totality of the circumstances as reasonably perceived by the officer component – which is discussed further and defined below.

The amendment language that states, “shall use other available resources and techniques if reasonably safe and feasible to an objectively reasonable officer” is new California law. However, it is in reality merely a codification of the Ninth Circuit perspective on alternative force options. This provision will likely result in further debate, litigation and judicial interpretation about what was and was not reasonably available to officers or in 20/20 hindsight which force options were arguably safer in various circumstances. For those of us embroiled in this battle of explanation and justification on a regular basis, it is something that is already part of the evaluation of officers’ actions. “Other available options” is a question that we have been dealing with for over a decade. What needs to be made clear is that the time available and opportunities to consider, transition and utilize other resources, techniques, risks, force options and quantum of force may arguably preclude officers from finding the optimal solution to a force event. Thus, the requirement is for officers to find a reasonable way to do everything – not the best way to do anything.

“Use force consistent with law and agency policies”

PC 835a (3) states: “That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated carefully and thoroughly, in a manner that reflects the gravity of that authority and the serious consequences of the use of force by peace officers, in order to ensure that officers use force consistent with law and agency policies.”

This provision will likely be used to reinforce allegations of failure to properly investigate and discipline officers. Also, by including “consistent with … agency policy,” this in effect conflates agency “policy” to a legally recognized standard. Thus, it is even more important to avoid department policies that are more restrictive than legal standards. Otherwise, this is not a substantive change to use of force law.

“Perspective of a reasonable officer”

PC 835a (4) states: “That the decision by a peace officer to use force shall be evaluated from the perspective of a reasonable officer in the same situation, based on the totality of the circumstances known to or perceived by the officer at the time, rather than with the benefit of hindsight, and that the totality of the circumstances shall account for occasions when officers may be forced to make quick judgments about using force.”

The language of this portion of the amended statute is, in many respects a codification consistent with the Graham line of cases. This entire section is advantageous to the defense of officers and codifies beneficial provisions of case law.    

“Disability may affect their ability to understand or comply”

PC 835a (5) of the amended statute states: “That individuals with physical, mental health, developmental, or intellectual disabilities are significantly more likely to experience greater levels of physical force during police interactions, as their disability may affect their ability to understand or comply with commands from peace officers. It is estimated that individuals with disabilities are involved in between one-third and one-half of all fatal encounters with law enforcement.” This section states a fact that is well established and confirms the difficulty of dealing with such issues and it imposes no new requirements.

“Objectively reasonable force”

PC 835a (b) states: “Any peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a public offense may use objectively reasonable force to effect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance.” The amended portion of this section adds the word “objectively” and that is an improvement because it is explicitly consistent with Graham.

“Officer reasonably believes”

PC 835a (c) (1) states: “Notwithstanding subdivision (b), a peace officer is justified in using deadly force upon another person only when the officer reasonably believes, based on the totality of the circumstances, that such force is necessary for either of the following reasons: …”

This is generally paraphrased in a manner consistent with using deadly force under the Fourth Amendment standard of “objectively reasonable” under the totality of the circumstances.

The provisions under PC 835a (c) (1) (A) states that “such force is necessary for either of the following reasons: (A) To defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the officer or to another person.” This again creates a phrasing confusion between the words “imminent” and “immediate”. A careful review of Graham, Garner and their progeny use “immediate” not “imminent.” Both “immediate” and “imminent” appear in Garner, however, “imminent” is only used in footnote 15 in quoting an Indiana Court of Appeals decision.  However, arguably the use of these two words in this manner may be viewed as creating greater latitude for officers given that “immediate” means now and “imminent” means soon. Again, more opportunity for judicial intervention.

The provisions under PC 835a (c) (1) (B) states that “such force is necessary for either of the following reasons: (B) To apprehend a fleeing person for any felony that threatened or resulted in death or serious bodily injury, if the officer reasonably believes that the person will cause death or serious bodily injury to another unless immediately apprehended. Where feasible, a peace officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.” Note, here the drafters now use “immediate” rather than “imminent.” Next, the section uses the adjective “will” cause death or serious injury, rather than “may,” or a less rigid adjective. It is quite difficult to pre-determine what a subject “will” do. The fleeing felon rule (Garner) is generally interpreted as an imminent standard as to the suspect’s anticipated actions. The provision is generally comparable to the Model Penal Code’s more restrictive fleeing felon standard. The “where feasible” warnings provisions have been the clearly established law since, at least, Garner (1985) and are nothing new and already an issue of primary concern in reviewing use of deadly force in particular.

“Person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury”

PC 835a (2) provides: “A peace officer shall not use deadly force against a person based on the danger that person poses to themselves, if an objectively reasonable officer would believe the person does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or to another person.”

This section generally deals with responding to people threatening suicide and suicide-by-cop issues. I do not believe that this significantly changes the standard of care or the current law on use of force. This section will likely be used to reinforce the discussion in many circles currently about walking away from suicidal subjects who are only an imminent threat to themselves and avoiding lethal-force encounters that may result from trying to save those individuals from themselves.

“Tactical repositioning or other de-escalation tactics”

PC 835a (d) provides: “A peace officer who makes or attempts to make an arrest need not retreat or desist from their efforts by reason of the resistance or threatened resistance of the person being arrested. A peace officer shall not be deemed an aggressor or lose the right to self-defense by the use of objectively reasonable force in compliance with subdivisions (b) and (c) to effect the arrest or to prevent escape or to overcome resistance. For the purposes of this subdivision, “retreat” does not mean tactical repositioning or other de-escalation tactics.”

The amended language referring to tactical repositioning and de-escalation tactics is intended to place an additional burden on officers in my opinion. This is an attempt to conflate less than optimally perfect in 20/20 hindsight tactics or decision-making into excessive force. It does not affirmatively make that leap of turning negligence into an intentional tort (i.e., excessive force), but it probably cracks the door open a bit on that argument.

“Definitions”

PC 835a (e) provides: “For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:

(1) “Deadly force” means any use of force that creates a substantial risk of causing death or serious bodily injury, including, but not limited to, the discharge of a firearm.

(2) A threat of death or serious bodily injury is “imminent” when, based on the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable officer in the same situation would believe that a person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or serious bodily injury to the peace officer or another person. An imminent harm is not merely a fear of future harm, no matter how great the fear and no matter how great the likelihood of the harm, but is one that, from appearances, must be instantly confronted and addressed.

(3) “Totality of the circumstances” means all facts known to the peace officer at the time, including the conduct of the officer and the subject leading up to the use of deadly force."

The deadly force definition is the classic standard definition that officers are familiar with and thus generally a non-issue. Other than my own irritation over the confusion between the Garner and Graham “immediate” standard substantively (2) is relatively inconsequential.

Finally, in regard to the definition of totality of the circumstances under subpart (3), this provision is arguably a codification of the Ninth Circuit’s “provocation” theory that the U.S. Supreme Court rejected in the Mendez v. County of Los Angeles (2016) decision. However, between the Ninth Circuit re-addressing the issue on remand in Mendez as “proximate cause” and the Hayes v. County of San Diego (2013) decision on negligent tactics and decision-making, we have had to deal with these issues administratively and civilly prior to this amendment.

Thus, with the passage of this amendment it is highly foreseeable that there will be more questions asked, more debates, greater need for judicial interpretation and more discussion about whether there were other options available to an officer, in particular when deadly force was used. In my opinion, the language of section (d) above, referring to “retreat” does not mean tactical repositioning or other de-escalation tactics,” and the definition of the totality of the circumstances are primarily what we will be dealing with substantively in litigation.

Finally, it is important to understand what this amended law does not say. The language clearly does not mean that force must ultimately be necessary. Objectively reasonable force by definition must appear to be necessary. There are so many times that this distinction is absolutely critical in evaluating officers’ actions that the importance simply cannot be overstated. Additionally, while officers will be critically and strenuously second-guessed and interrogated about what alternatives were available to them, it is important to keep in mind that this amended statute does not require officers to find the best way to do anything. Caution should be used in policy language, administrative proceedings and training materials not to inadvertently expand that burden to finding the least intrusive alternative.

Stay safe out there.

Eric Schmidt

‍

Deputy John Erickson Recovers

A call for service on Tuesday, July 2, 2019 changed the lives of Deputy Sheriff John Erickson and his family forever. The events which took place that day, also greatly impacted Deputy Gary Davenport. Gary responded to the call with Erickson, engaged and immediately began caring for his injured deputy, until help arrived. Miraculously, a brave ride along, who was with Deputy Erickson that day, narrowly escaped bullets and followed the deputies instructions while ducking for cover. The area was remote and the armed suspect was firing repeatedly at them. Deputy Erickson was shot multiple times.

Before the deputies and ride along were faced with a barrage of bullets, the call and shift seemed routine. Deputy Erickson and Davenport were responding to a call in the area of Tollhouse in an attempt to solve a quarrel among neighbors. However, it was a day the suspect didn’t care about law and order. The suspect not only fired at the deputies, he also left Erickson’s patrol truck riddled with bullet holes. It was a blatant disregard for him and law enforcement in general. The neighbor quarrel was overshadowed by the efforts to kill a deputy sheriff.

Deputy Erickson was rescued from the scene by patrol deputies who put together a downed officer rescue. Under pressure and difficult terrain, deputies carried him for yards until they were able to get him to safety. Deputy Erickson was loaded in CHP H40 and flown to CRMC for care in the trauma unit.

Many sheriff’s personnel rushed to the hospital to support Erickson and his concerned family. It was a moment filled with nervousness and anxiety. We all felt it that day. Worry, hope, sadness, and tremendous gratefulness that Erickson’s life was spared.

The initial prognosis given to Sheriff Mims and Erickson’s family was a broken right leg. However, when doctors were able to take a closer look, they discovered internal damage. During an intricate surgery, that lasted about seven hours, surgeons repaired his broken leg and removed bullet fragments from his large intestine and liver. He also suffered a small amount of damage to his vertebrate, that was repaired.

Deputy Erickson is a survivor and a fighter and his valiant spirit has been shown over the past weeks. He was released from the hospital after nine days to recover at home with his family.

It’s been an emotional time, filled with laughter, tears, reminiscing and joy.

Please accept my heartfelt thanks to everyone of you, who has contributed in a big or small way to helping Erickson and his family over the past weeks. From the California Highway Patrol’s H-40 crew who assisted with an 8 minute flight to CRMC that day, to each deputy and friend who stopped in the hospital to say hi and offer a hug. It has all meant so much. Every phone call, flower arrangement, bag of candy, and card has been special. It reminded us we are all a large family. No one is left behind or forgotten in this family.

A special thank you to Deputy Sheriff Patrick Hanson, who selflessly spent each night with John. Some of you were so gracious and wanted Deputy Erickson to feel supported and loved, that you cancelled or postponed vacations with your own family to be there for him. Thank you.

Many of you have stepped up to help with meals for the Erickson family. They are forever grateful for this gesture of love. Your visits are feeding his family and nurturing his soul. They remind him we care and we are here for him.

I also want to thank everyone onscene that day. Whether you were on the radio, in the air, at the hospital or assisting the Erickson family in some way over the past weeks- they are grateful and we are grateful.

POST Certificate information

Since we have many newer employees, below is a chart that reviews the requirements to obtain your POST Certificate at the Intermediate and Advanced levels.

I field a lot of questions about educational incentives, including dollars for Masters and Bachelor degrees.

If you look at the chart below, you will see how those are factored into to how you can ultimately expedite your POST incentive pay from the County of Fresno.

Remember this POST pay is compensable – meaning it is computed into your final compensation for pension purposes.

Currently as it stands the Intermediate POST pays 2.5% and Advanced POST pays 5%.

Intermediate Certificate Award Requirements

Applicants for the award of an Intermediate Certificate shall:

(1) Satisfy the requirements specified in Regulation section 9070(d) for all certificates.
(2) Possess or be eligible to possess the Basic Certificate for the current position
(3) Satisfy one of the following eligibility combinations:

Degree or Education Points*

Law Enforcement Experience

Training Points

Bachelor Degree

and

2 years

plus

0

Associate Degree

and

4 years

plus

0

45 Education Points

and

4 years

plus

45

30 Education Points

and

6 years

plus

30

15 Education Points

and

8 years

plus

15

Advanced Certificate Award Requirements

Applicants for the award of an Advanced Certificate shall:

(1) Satisfy the requirements specified in Regulation section 9070(d) for all certificates.
(2) Possess or be eligible to possess the Intermediate Certificate.
(3) Satisfy one of the following eligibility combinations:

Degree or Education Points*

Law Enforcement Experience

Training Points

Master Degree

and

4 years

plus

0

Bachelor Degree

and

6 years

plus

0

Associate Degree

and

9 years

plus

0

45 Education Points

and

9 years

plus

45

30 Education Points

and

12 years

plus

30

Before I close this message, I want to remind you of our upcoming golf tournament on October 18^th at Eagle Springs Golf Course. Already the annual event is sold out. This is our biggest fundraiser – that benefits the FDSA Peace Officer Memorial Fund. This fund supports families of the fallen and those injured in the line of duty. Over the past month, we have been reminded of our mission and our purpose- to serve our members, and assist each other. We are here always to help our law enforcement family and their families during difficult and tragic times.

Truly,

Eric

‍

Each April, the National Peace Officer Memorial Foundation begins the process of intricately engraving new names of fallen officers onto the marble walls of the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial. It is a solemn time, for each new name carved on the wall is another tragic story of an officer who made the ultimate sacrifice for their community. Those stories will always be remembered on this wall.

This year, the names of 371 fallen law enforcement officers will be added—158 of which are the names of officers we lost in the line of duty last year. Two hundred and thirteen are the names of officers who fell in years prior who are now being recognized.

On May 13, the names will be officially dedicated during the 31st Annual Candlelight Vigil. Those who can’t make it to Washington, DC to experience the Vigil in person can still honor a fallen law enforcement officer by lighting a Virtual Candle and leaving a personalized message.

After you light a virtual candle in honor of a special officer make sure to register to watch the Vigil webcast with your friends and family on May 13. The Vigil webcast will be available live on Monday, May 13, at 8:00 pm ET.

Help us honor the 900,000 law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line every day for the safety and protection of others.

Support for SB230

Paul Kelly, President San Jose POA and Rob Harris is President of Protect California.

A safe and respectful encounter. Every single time. California public safety officers have this goal in mind whenever they interact with a member of the public or respond to an emergency. Period. To continue to improve outcomes for officers and the community, we believe that the best path forward is to modernize police training, establish clear use of force standards, and create holistic policies to ensure neighborhood safety.

Currently, there are competing bills in the California Legislature focused on use of force. Only one of those bills is part of a comprehensive plan that will reduce uses of force and officer involved shooting incidents. The other is focused on further criminalizing split-second decisions made by public safety officers in crisis situations. One is based upon factual data and science with the goal of preventing as many tragic incidents as possible, while the other is based upon retribution and second guessing after a tragic incident has occurred.

We support Senate Bill 230, authored by Sen. Anna Caballero, D-Salinas, because this legislation is designed to reduce uses of force by mirroring policing best practices and training. It also modernizes California’s use of force law to fully comply with existing U.S. Supreme Court rulings on when force is legally allowed.

Creating good public policy begins with good data. The Washington Post’s fatal police shooting national database, started in 2015, is often cited as the authority for tracking the number of officer-involved shooting incidents. Nationally, between 2015 and 2018, the number of these incidents has remained stable at just under 1,000 each year.

To put these numbers in context, according to criminologist Justin Nix from the University of Nebraska Omaha, in 2015 there were 50 million occasions where officers engaged with the public. Of those 50 million occasions, 995 resulted in a fatal encounter. That is 0.00002 percent of interactions with the public.

In California specifically, there was a 40 percent decrease in fatal police shootings between 2015-2018. These incidents were tragic and many involved individuals experiencing a mental health crisis. Although this decrease is good news, we must strive to do more.

That is why we worked with Caballero on SB 230. It establishes a clear and enforceable standard for authorizing the use of force, standardizes use of force training and enacts evidence-based policies to minimize use of force in California. For example, SB 230 mandates that all law enforcement agencies adopt policies on de-escalation, mental health training and requirements that an officer intercede if they witness excessive force.

We can do more

Protect California, a non-profit organization, believes we can reduce dangerous encounters and improve the safety of our neighborhoods by taking a more holistic approach to crime reduction. Our plan addresses the root causes of crime by pulling virtually every public policy lever available to ensure positive outcomes between public safety officers and the communities they serve.

As a state, we must do more by:

• Creating economic and educational opportunities in communities disproportionately impacted by crime and poverty.
• Adequately funding the delivery of treatment and services for those diagnosed with mental illness.
• Equipping public safety officers with the necessary tools and training to safely respond to and manage dangerous situations and individuals with mental illness by adopting the rigorous training standards set forth in SB 230.

Policing is complicated. We should stop pretending that there’s one single solution to reduce police use of force incidents. If we address the root causes of crime, provide officers with high-quality training and enact strong policies, and reduce access to guns by violent criminals and the mentally ill, we will make California safer for everyone.

I Was Shot and My Partner Died. Here is Why I Oppose AB392

Julie Robertson is a Sacramento County Sheriff’s Deputy.

Bullets travel 2,500 feet per second. That doesn’t leave much time for police to debate various response scenarios and second-guess their decisions when confronted by deadly force.

But that’s precisely what Assembly Bill 392 would require. The lawmakers backing this misguided legislation are demanding that we do the impossible — or die trying. If we don’t, AB 392 threatens us with prison for making split-second decisions when lives are at risk. This is dangerous and unreasonable. I know from personal experience.

I’m a Sacramento County Sheriff’s deputy who survived a “split-second” encounter in which I was shot and my partner was killed. It happened fast, but it’s a nightmare that will haunt me for the rest of my life.

My partner and I had responded to a call about a disturbance at a local auto store, in which an unruly customer was causing trouble. When we arrived on scene, we approached the subject inside the store. There was no indication he was armed or had a weapon.

As we approached, he immediately backed up and began moving erratically, as though he were preparing to run. My partner headed toward the front door to block him, while I tried to stop him from the opposite side. Suddenly, there was a gun, followed almost immediately by a deafening boom as the suspect fired.

What followed was a terrifying and deadly firefight. The subject shot my partner in the head and back, then continued firing. I immediately returned fire and took action to defend my partner, the store’s employees and customers, and people in the neighboring stores. I was shot but kept fighting. Like every cop I know, I take my sworn oath to protect and serve seriously.

But under AB 392, my decision to stay and protect customers and other “innocents” could be challenged and second-guessed, with criminal prosecution a very real possibility for me. Why didn’t I retreat? That was clearly an option.

Perhaps the shooter would have simply left. Of course he might also have shot every other person in the store, then continued his deadly rampage in neighboring stores. I had seconds to decide without the luxury of hindsight, under deadly and chaotic circumstances in which people were dying.

AB 392 is Monday-morning-quarterbacking at its worst — legislation that second-guesses public safety decisions based on emotion rather than reality. Rather than helping police make better decisions by improving training and clarifying use-of-force policies, AB 392 takes a punitive approach that turns cops into criminals while eroding our fundamental right to defend ourselves.

By slowing police decision-making in deadly situations when split seconds count, AB 392 endangers the lives of police and the safety of the people and communities we protect. AB 392 pretends to be about reforming the system. Instead, what it really does is ask officers to protect the public with both hands tied behind their backs.

I have shared many articles about SB230 and opposition to AB392 over the last couple months. These two bills are some of the most important we have dealt with in our profession in many years. Its sad to think – that politicians with a political agenda are willing to forego the safety of the people who elect them. Their political bank accounts intimidate others in their party to just ‘go along,’ with the majority. We must organize and stand up against that.

I commend the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, who on April 9, took a position and adopted a resolution in favor of SB230 and opposition of AB392. Similarly, the Fresno City Council passed the same resolution on April 25. The hope is these two resolutions send the message to Sacramento - the Fresno region doesn’t agree with your political rhetoric in the leftist party. Their message is all cops are corrupt and commit homicides. I’m sorry, but if Assemblywoman Ms. Shirley Weber sat as an elected in our region – this association would create a special project to get her unseated and expose her real agenda.

I hope to see many of you at the Peace Officer Memorial in Courthouse Park – Noon May 2, 2019 honoring our fallen officers. Also remember the FDSA will host our annual Peace Officer Memorial Event at the FDSA that same day from 5:30pm-8:30pm. This is a time for family of our fallen and co-workers to come together in our own special remembrance.

Take care,

Eric

‍

Governor Newsom and the death penalty

Governor Gavin Newsom's recent executive order declaring a moratorium on the death penalty is a test of the boundaries of executive privilege. California Constitution Article 5, Section 1 states, "The supreme executive power of this State is vested in the Governor. The Governor shall see that the law is faithfully enforced." But does the governor have the authority not to enforce laws?

The governor's moratorium consists of three provisions. The first is a reprieve for all currently condemned inmates. Although the language of the written order does not include the word "temporary," the governor represented in his comments that he intends the reprieve to be for the term of his office. The second provision of the governor's order is to repeal California's lethal injection protocol. The third provision is the immediate closure of the execution chamber at San Quentin (the order refers to it as the "death chamber").

California Constitution Article 5 Section 8 grants the governor nearly unlimited authority to issue reprieves, pardons and commutations of sentenced persons. Using his constitutional authority, the governor could have taken more drastic measures. He could have made permanent and irrevocable orders of commutation or clemency for every person on death row. He could even have granted full pardons. But there are some limits to his authority. The governor cannot prospectively issue reprieves or pardons in future cases, so prosecutors are still able to pursue death sentences in court. To pardon or commute the sentence of a person who has two or more felony convictions, the governor requires a majority recommendation from the Supreme Court.

The governor's orders to "close" the execution chamber and repeal the execution protocol are more legally problematic. Nearly all currently effective death penalty statutes were enacted via ballot initiative, most recently by Proposition 66 in the 2016 election. FDSA had an active roll in helping with the passage of this Proposition. This was subsequent to Prop 62 in 2012 – again and active roll with the campaign.

Any change to those laws, which were enacted by voters, require more than a simple majority vote of the legislature or executive order. The language of each initiative generally calls for at least a two-thirds majority vote of the Legislature or a new ballot initiative. An amendment to Proposition 66 requires a three-fourths vote of the Legislature.

Proposition 66 added subsection (e) to Section 3604 of the Penal Code. That subsection requires the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to "maintain at all times the ability to execute such judgments." The governor's orders to repeal the execution protocol and "close" the execution chamber are in direct contradiction of that law.

Proposition 66 also provided broad standing for sentencing courts, district attorneys and victims of crime to enforce this provision. It added Penal Code Section 3604.1 which provides in subdivision (c), "If the Department [of Corrections and Rehabilitation] fails to perform any duty needed to enable it to execute a judgement, the court which rendered the judgement of death shall order it to perform that duty on its own motion, on motion of the District Attorney or Attorney General, or on motion of any victim of the crime as defined in article I, section 28, subdivision (c) of the Constitution."

Realistically, the governor's second two orders are without practical effect given the first order. "Closing" the execution chamber means what? Taking a gurney out of a room that has windows for viewing? Disassembling the unused gas chamber for a method of execution that the state no longer uses? Unless the governor directs the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to tear down the entire building in which the execution chamber is contained, the execution chamber remains there as a room with windows.

As for "repealing" the lethal injection protocol, the protocol is a regulation memorialized in writing that describes all the steps to be taken to perform an execution. It is a document that has been publicly published on the internet. "Repealing" it is without practical effect when the document is readily available and can just as quickly be reinstated as a regulation. This is particularly true now that the execution protocol is, due to Proposition 66, exempt from the public commentary requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act.

If the second and third items of the governor's executive order are, as some have argued, within the governor's authority, then the governor has absolute authority to declare or invalidate any law by executive order. He could, for example, unilaterally outlaw paper towels.

The concerns the governor articulated about the death penalty have long been part of the debate over capital punishment. But those issues were part of the public debate that occurred during the 2012 and 2016 elections. The voters weighed those considerations and chose to keep the death penalty. Prior to being elected, Gov. Newsom promised that although he does not support the death penalty, he would not interfere with the will of the voters. He has violated that promise by issuing an executive order that usurped the legislative authority of the voters.

At last count, there were 43 cop killers on death row in California. Granted, this is small percentage of the 740 convicted killers who currently are awaiting execution. The families are the ones left holding the burden and the wiping tears.  Co-workers and departments will always remember those officers killed at the hands of another. However, nobody pardoned our fellow cops from death as they each took their last breath.

This move by Governor Newsome has taken a complete shot across the bow of all law enforcement in California. Whether you believe in the death penalty or not – it is the law in this state. As law enforcement officers we have to follow the law – if not, there will be consequences. Governor Newsome needs to follow the law, specifically this law, what the will of California voters who elected to keep punishment by death in our state.  

The frightening part of all this, and the fear many of us will wonder - by essentially freezing executions, will this give criminals the green light to kill cops in California knowing there is life without parole under our current administration rather than punishment by death? We will continue to support groups like COPS and Crime Victims United – who urge the Governor to follow the law in California when it comes to capital punishment. The voters of California have spoken – not once but twice.

— Eric

‍

SB230 PORAC Legislation

I have attached the below a link to this newsletter, as well as two bills, as a single PDF for all you to review. Late 2018 PORAC was able to defeat AB930. Many of you remember the bill from my August 2018 newsletter. The intent of this bill was taking the use of force decision making away from cops throughout the State of California. Assemblywoman Shirley Weber (San Diego) essentially wants a free society — meaning no law enforcement unless it is needed by the People of the State. Her bill then named AB931 reflected a substantial change to PC 835a.

After PORAC was able to defeat the bill at the Capital, the clock was ticking to introduce our own bill to fix some outdated statutes and remain solvent with the citizens of California. Law enforcement must get in front and take an offensive position in order to essentially maintain peace officer status in regards to protecting PC 835a.

California law enforcement is engaging in an important effort to deal with the issue of our law enforcement officers' ability to use appropriate force when facing dangerous encounters. PORAC, along with nearly every law enforcement association in California, have introduced Senate Bill 230 by Senator Anna Caballero (D-Salinas). In addition to Senator Caballero, we have 17 legislators who have signed on to co-author our measure. You will see these names on the attached bill.

At the same time, Assembly member Shirley Weber (D-San Diego) has re-introduced her use-of-force bill from last year, which would criminalize an officer's split-second decisions if a judge or jury later deems the force was unwarranted or excessive. Assembly member Weber's bill is AB 392 and poses a serious threat to both our officers and the public. There is not a shadow of a doubt — Weber and all her co-authors are here to turn law enforcement officers into criminals. You will read in her introduced bill I have attached.

To begin this effort, PORAC is creating a Chapter Outreach Program for the month of March, wherein, all 14 chapter and association leaders set meetings with their legislative representatives to discuss these very important issues. Our team, which includes PORAC staff, Aaron Read & Associates, and our communications consultants, Fiona Hutton & Associates, will put together packets that will include the bills, our talking points, and position letters. Furthermore, if associations feel they need additional support with meetings, contact information, or materials, members of our team may be able to assist.

Fresno DSA is taking a position to conduct a full court press on our local delegation, and taking it a step further to assist other jurisdictions who need the support we can lend them. As I receive the materials from PORAC, I will be disseminating it out to the FDSA membership.

Update to SB1421

Fresno DSA filed a stay order (Temporary Restraining Order essentially) to block the many Public Records Request (PRA) being submitted since Jan 1, 2019. Again, as I mentioned in my previous newsletter, the bill was silent to the retroactivity of the information being requested. Many agencies were, along with the Sheriff's Office, being asked for documents relating to many employees who are no longer working here. As long as they were meeting the criteria set forth in the bill, the information was being asked for.

After consulting with our firm, Messing, Adam, and Jasmine — the decision was made to move forward with language requesting a stay order from Fresno Superior Court. The motion was filed on Friday, February 22, 2019. The court hearing was Thursday, February 28, 2019. At this hearing the stay order was granted by Judge J Hamilton. This is a glimpse of good news for the DSA and the agency itself.

As of the 28th, no records pre-Jan 1, 2019 can be released related to personnel in regards to use of force, dishonesty, sex harassment, and officer involved shootings. As we get more information in the future, I will pass on the information to the membership so everyone is updated to potential changes. The stay order is effect until September of 2019.

Please see the attachments below for SB230 and AB 392. I have also attached the petition for the TRO and order under the SB 1421 issue.

Thank you and please stay safe.

— Eric

Attachment: February 2019 President Message

‍

I have had inquiries from some of you in recent months regarding the salary reopener that is written in our current MOU. I have attached the language as a refresher;

One time reopener effective no sooner than July 2018:

Salary Comparison: County of Fresno top-Step Deputy Sheriff III will continually be compared to Top-Step of City of Fresno Police Officer through the term of the contract. If base salary for Deputy Sheriff III should go below that of a top step Police Officer, both parties agree they will meet and agree if changes or adjustments shall take place. This agreement is only for increases. If the salary were to decrease, there would be no reason to meet by either party. Any increases, if they should occur, both parties agree the salary will not exceed that of an addition 5%. Consideration will be given of recruitment and retention of Deputy Sheriffs at that time.

Having this language in our contract gives protections to the salaries of all personnel – and basing it off the classification of deputy sheriff vs police officer with the City of Fresno. The purpose of the language at the time of the finalizing of our contract, was to ensure protection since Fresno POA was at the bargaining table during the time we were concluding our negotiations with the County of Fresno. There was still an unknown, as to what Fresno POA would be finalizing with the City of Fresno. The intent of the above language, was to put specific salary language in our contract in an effort to protect what we had just negotiated for all of our salaries. Since Fresno POA was still negotiating a labor contract with the City of Fresno.

The Fresno County Board of Supervisors were clear in their message - they wanted the base salary of a top step deputy sheriff to be the same or more with that of a top step police officer who works at the City of Fresno.

Fresno POA negotiated a successful contract with the City of Fresno. However, that contract fell short of what Fresno DSA negotiated with the County of Fresno.

The salary increases were as follows;

City of Fresno: 2 year contract (June 2017 – June 2019) worth 3% and an increased step for senior officers.

County of Fresno: 2 ½ year contract (March 2017 – December 2019) worth 15% in salary enhancements. (5%, 5%, 5%)

The Fresno County Board of Supervisors recognized the County of Fresno was behind in salary when comparing with the City of Fresno. The BOS voted to authorize the increases, in an attempt to put us all on a level playing field when it came to recruitment specifically, and retention as well for the employees working in the trenches.

Since the passage of our current contract, we have had meetings with County Labor to monitor the salaries enhancements within our contract, and where they compare to the City of Fresno. Below is a salary comparison based on the current salaries of Deputy Sheriff III and Police Officer II.

Police Officer Top Step at their new step increase at the end of their contract will be $7290.00

Deputy Sheriff III top step at the end of FPOA contract and our last increase will be $7338.00

FDSA Board of Directors will be sending something out to all members in the coming months regarding bargaining with the County of Fresno. We will be looking for feedback from our membership in regards to bargaining. Your participation plays a key part in how we negotiate in 2019.

The Fresno POA’s labor contract expires July 30, 2019.

Fresno DSA’s labor contract expires December 15, 2019.

SB 1421 UpdateLast September, then-Governor Brown signed Senate Bill 1421 into law. SB 1421 provides that, effective January 1, 2019, certain police personnel records will now be available to members of the media and the public by request under the California Public Records Act. As expected, law enforcement departments throughout the state have received a wave of requests for records created prior to January 1, 2019. However, the law on its face does not provide for retroactivity.

As has been reported in the media, law enforcement unions in both Northern and Southern California have been filing actions to enjoin the release of police personnel records on a retroactive basis. For those actions that have already gone to hearing, the courts have granted temporary restraining orders to prevent pre-2019 records from being released until full litigation of the issue can occur. At least one city, Berkeley, is also taking the position that SB 1421 does not apply retroactively.

To date, the City of San Jose has received a substantial number of requests for SB 1421 records but has not yet taken a position on when or whether the City will provide retroactive records. We are observing the situation carefully and monitoring the City's response to SB 1421. At this time, the City Attorney's Office has not yet taken a position on the question of retroactivity. It is tracking developments in other cases.

We, too, await to see if a decision issues that will provide guidance on whether the law operates retroactively. That said, we are prepared to take action similar to that taken by our law enforcement brothers and sisters should the City decide it plans to release pre-2019 records before the courts interpret its obligation under the statute.

Your safety and your privacy matter to us and we take that very seriously when it comes to your personnel records. As more information arises from all of this, I will be updating the membership. Should you have any further questions please direct them to me, as I can get the answers for you.

Lt. Ron Hayes has been directed by the Sheriff to handle all such inquiries coming from the public. As those come in and as we get further into this SB 1421 issue there will be updates to how these are being processed. Please do not reach out directly to Lt. Hayes, as he will be directing folks to the FDSA.

Stay safe out there.

Eric Schmidt

‍

Reflection on 2017 – Good and Bad

Entering the new year of 2018 will host a variety of challenges for all of us at the Sheriff’s Office. Working together is the only way we are going to be able to accomplish them. Day after day, law enforcement officers are highlighted in the headlines for encounters ending fatally or unfavorably. For example, an officer in Georgia was recently lambasted in the media for having shot and killed a Georgia Tech student instead of using other, less lethal means to manage the situation. Of course, such stories don’t tell you all the details of what occurred or provide context to the procedures involved. Unfortunately, in a time of intense scrutiny of law enforcement, this negative press has become commonplace.

There is a large issue that links these unflattering narratives: The need for budgeting and funding law enforcement training and recruitment programs.

The expectations placed on law enforcement by politicians, the media and the public are high — and almost impossible to meet due to understaffing and the lack of resources available for officers to address all those demands. Take a look at staffing at the Sheriff’s Department. A band-aid on a wound needing stitches. Patrol division is running low, detective units are running low, dispatch is at critical levels, Crime Scene Techs are now having to backfill their own. We continue to operate by placing that band aid on a wound needing stitches.

We utilize great equipment at the Sheriff’s Office. Our fleet is top of the line with all new vehicles and very little old equipment. This is a result of a few long years of never purchasing cars and trucks to fulfill that need. This a welcome sign. Our firearms are up to date, we are working on a new CAD and report writing system that should be more efficient that what we currently operate. Dispatch has been overhauled and provided newer and better equipment. The quarters are still cramped, but that will come with time as well. So there is some silver lining in regards to the equipment give to each of you in the specific job assignment you are in.

Professional development is needed to advance in any career. Training is necessary to keep up with changes in technology and the latest proven leadership techniques. Law enforcement officers, like all other professionals, need to remain up to date in an ever-evolving world. They need training on the tools, strategies and procedures that will help them perform better, avoid negative outcomes and be more adept at handling their greatly expanded role in today’s society.

The U.S. Department of Justice’s Community Relations Services’ Guide to Critical Issues in Policinglists use of force, management of mass demonstrations and encounters with persons with mental illness as the prevalent issues in the field — all issues that the press has criticized law enforcement for handling inefficiently. For example, an Arizona officerwas recently heavily criticized for tackling an autistic teenager, not recognizing the boy’s condition prior to the takedown. According to the DOJ’s recommendations, in order to prevent such mishaps, departments need crisis intervention teams (CITs) with officers trained extensively in crisis-intervention techniques working alongside mental health workers. While an ideal solution, this is simply not realistic, as not all law enforcement agencies have the budgets and manpower to create and maintain these teams. All law enforcement agencies are struggling to hire and retain cops to provide front line service.

So, with all the studies and statistics showing a need for training, not to mention law enforcement’s own advocacy for it, how are states and local governments responding? Here in California, the answer is more rules imposed on law enforcement, rather than budgeting for resources.

Earlier this year, the Los Angeles Police Commission re-introduced de-escalation into the LAPD’s lexicon in its “solution” to prevent the rise in shootings and suicide by cop.

The Commission’s decision came after analyzing use-of-force incidents throughout 2016, in which they found that in 50% of the 46 cases reviewed, tactical errors such as forgetting a Taser or lack of communication between partners were the cause of uses of force. As seen in the Arizona and Georgia cases, such unintentional mistakes can result in huge consequences for the officer.

Tactical errors can be rectified with ongoing training and assessing which strategies are most effective. Communication from the agency to its personnel is critical in effecting these strategies to carry out what the expectation is. This expectation has to be something attainable and not thought of and thrown out to fill in the blank.

What politicians, policymakers and the media need to understand is that dealing with offenders in the heat of the moment is often dangerous and unpredictable, and may not allow for calm, gradual de-escalation tactics. Unrealistic expectations place officers in a precarious situation if their decision-making is impacted by concerns about the potential consequences of applying force. Even if it’s absolutely necessary, they know they could be demonized in the press, punished by their departments or targeted by the public. Support from your agency is critical to getting the message across. The support shown by our brothers/sisters across the street at the Fresno Police Department from their leadership is a prime example.

Lawmakers also need to address recruitment to keep up with the influx of criminals being released under realignment and Props 47 and 57. Prison reform legislation in California has resulted in the release or resentencing of nearly 5,000 people from state prisons to cut costs. With most released prematurely due to decriminalized offenses, law enforcement is faced with the burden of dealing with abundant repeat offenders. The 1994 Crime Bill, which funded the recruitment of 100,000 new officers nationwide, demonstrated that recruiting more officers can contribute to a decrease in crime nationally. Not surprisingly, other studies also show that increased recruitment efforts and effective management of those recruits can reduce crime rates overall.

Effective policing begins with well-managed, well-funded departments. The Trump administration’s lifting of Obama-era restrictions in the federal 1033 Program was a recent, welcome show of support for law enforcement, but we need the same amount of political and financial support for the training and recruitment of the officers who will be using that equipment.

New research from the Heritage Foundation, in its report Policing in America: Lessons from the Past, Opportunities for the Future, champions the need for more political backup of law enforcement. For the study, the foundation worked alongside federal, state and local law enforcement agencies to identify policing issues and proactively find solutions, including combating allegations of racism within departments and false narratives crafted by the media, as well as the need for improving police–community relations and SMART policing.

Everyone has a part to play in advancing the police profession and reducing uses of force.

State and local government need to use this data to inform themselves on the issues that we’re facing. The bottom line is that all of this pressure is coming from people who are simultaneously telling us how to do our jobs and taking away our resources to do so effectively. Without proper training or proactive recruitment efforts, they are setting officers up to fail.

There is a lot going on in the world of law enforcement. Having the leadership to lead us through all of this is imperative. We need to lean on those leaders, connected with the media and to get our message across loud and clear with the public. The public wants to feel safe. Making sure they understand that is the same mindset law enforcement has is crucial to cohesiveness.

PORAC Scholarship Filing Period

2018 PORAC Scholarship

Scholarship Application

The 2018 PORAC Scholarship Application is available now to download at porac.org.  

PORAC provides scholarships for applicants who are currently attending or will be registering for college. Children or dependents of active PORAC members, Retired Associate members and in-the-line-of-duty dependents or spouses, as well as medically retired members,are eligible.

Application Deadline Ends March 30th

I hope all of you had a safe and happy holiday season with friends and family. I look forward to continuing moving this organization forward, focused and in continuing on the right track.

Truly,

Eric

‍

Wishing you all a holiday season filled with great food, the presence of those near and dear and plenty of memories to treasure always!

PORAC President Elect, Brian Marvel of San Diego POA

The membership of PORAC elected a new President on Saturday morning, November 18, 2017 during the Conference of Members hosted in San Diego. San Diego POA President, Brian Marvel was overwhelmingly elected as the new President of PORAC. He brings a wealth of experience and knowledge to Sacramento - that he developed during his role as the President of San Diego POA.

Brian's accomplishments as leader of SDPOA were clear- to protect and enhance pay and benefits for all members. During his tenure, Brian was able to negotiate an epic 25-30% pay raise for his membership. He was also able to get a voter passed, revised pension plan reversed.

Brian has a clear vision for PORAC. He wants enhanced communication for members, enhanced training for members, and a larger footprint in the State and Federal Capitol. Brian will continue the work PORAC has been doing on a national platform and take us to the next level.

The Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association welcomes our new President of PORAC, Brain Marvel.

PORAC Insurance & Benefits - Disability Plan

The Insurance and Benefits Trust of the Peace Officers Research Association of California (Trust) has been providing disability coverage to the PORAC membership for over 50 years; longer than any law enforcement group in the state. The PORAC Disability Plans currently provide short and long-term protection to over 21,000 PORAC members, representing over 180 participating associations. Last year, our Disability Plans paid members over $7 million dollars in both short and long-term benefits.

Maintaining the financial stability and reserves necessary to meet both current and future benefit obligations of your members continues to be of paramount importance to the Trust. Over the past four years, the Trust and its long term insured partner have seen a marked increase in the number of claims going past two (2) years in addition to an increase number of claims being paid beyond five (5) years. In order to make sure we can cover these claims and the evolving trend we have dedicated reserves of over $18 million dollars to guarantee payment of these claims. We hope you understand and agree that these reserves provide the financial security and confidence for any of those current or future disabled Members that their benefits will be there for them and their families when needed, whether it be today or for the long term 10, 20, or 30 years.

After much discussion, analysis and lengthy negotiations, the Trustees have approved effective January 1, 2018, the following monthly, per member premium increases:

• Premier Plan will increase from $22.60 to $29.70 (FDSA Plan for all its members)
• Premier Plus Plan will increase from $25.80 to $34.00.

Over this last year, the California Department of Insurance (CDI) completed an in-depth analysis and investigation of self-funded long-term disability plans being offered to safety personnel (peace officers and firefighters). CDI did this in response to the passage of AB 1072. Commissioned, the CDI investigated these self-funded long-term disability plans to determine the adequacy of their funding in meeting benefit obligations to the members and to review the administrative practices of the plans. The Trust is pleased to report that CDI sent a letter, approving this Trust's financials (its reserves) and the administration of the PORAC Disability Plans.

Over $80 million dollars in benefits have been paid to disabled members. This is both good news and bad news. Good news in that the Disability Plans were there to assist members and their families financially during those difficult and sometimes tragic times. Bad news in that so many members and their families have had to experience such challenges.

The PORAC Disability Plans continue to be two of the most heavily utilized benefit plans by the membership, especially when you consider that employers increasingly contest workers compensation claims and industrial disability retirements.

As referenced above, the Disability Plans currently have in excess of $18 million in reserves for existing claims. To drive home the importance of these reserves, there are currently over 40 members that have been determined to be permanently and totally disabled from all occupations and have been on claim receiving benefits for over five (5) years. They are expected to continue to receive disability benefits until age 65. That is the true test of a long-term disability plan.

The Trustees have also approved some plan changes to be implemented January 1, 2018. Some of those plan changes are:

• Increase the Premier Plan's Maximum Monthly Benefit from $7,000 to $10,000.
• Increase the Premier Plus Plan's Maximum Monthly Benefit from $9,000 to $10,000.
• Eliminate the non-industrial COLA benefit.

Benefit Eligibility Waiting Period: During the first 60 days of Disability you are required to use any available personal leave pay you are eligible to receive from your employer. If after 15 days of Disability you are not eligible to receive any personal leave pay, your Maximum Monthly Benefit percentage during the first 60 days of Disability will be reduced: from 66 2/3% to 33/13% for members in the Premier Plan; from 70% to 35% for members in the Premier Plus Plan. Personal leave pay includes annual leave pay, sick pay, vacation pay, compensatory time pay, and donated amounts.

The Trustees are also developing a NEW Group Short Term Disability plan, the Silver Plan. This Plan is anticipated to meet the needs of some Associations looking for a less expensive plan while agreeing to a shorter benefit period. It is expected this Plan will be approved and available after January 1, 2018. Here are some of the highlights:

• Protects up to 66 2/3% of the first $15,000 monthly earnings to a Maximum Monthly Benefit of $10,000 Maximum Benefit Period is 24 months
• $65,000 Accidental Death Benefit; $50,000 Natural Death Benefit
• Monthly Cost: Under $19.00

The Trust would like to thank all of the PORAC Associations and their members for their continued support of the PORAC Disability Plans. We appreciate all the confidence and trust you have shown through your participation and we will continue to strive to maintain your trust.

RIPA - What is Coming to California Law Enforcement

I hope you are all prepared for what is to come in the world of California Law Enforcement. I used to tell people we are the cutting edge to law enforcement agencies in the United States. Now, however, we are not only cutting edge in technology and tactics - but we serve up agendas for those ultra-left-wing legislators who want to put the handcuff on cops. As you will read below - what is to come for us all.

Attorney General Becerra Announces Final Regulations to Implement Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA)

Regulations prescribe process for collecting data pertaining to law enforcement stops

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra today announce the regulations drafted by the California Department of Justice (DOJ) for the collection of data pertaining to law enforcement stops under Assembly Bill 953 (AB 953), the Racial and Identity Profiling Act (RIPA) of 2015, are now final. Beginning July 1, 2018, law enforcement agencies, starting with the nine largest agencies, will begin collecting stop data and reporting the information to the DOJ.

"Public safety is a job for all of us - our peace officers, of course, but a cooperative citizenry as well. Trust is the glue that makes the relationship between law enforcement and the community work," said Attorney General Becerra. "This new RIPA data collection and reporting process is meant to strengthen, and in some cases repair, that trust. The regulations are a product of collaboration among community leaders, law enforcement professionals and researchers in the public safety field. I thank everyone who participated in the formulation of these regulations."

"The California Police Chiefs Association has routinely proven to be a collaborative partner with various stakeholders throughout California in our efforts to increase public safety and enhance community trust in law enforcement," said Chief Edward Medrano, Co-Chair of the RIPA Advisory Board and President of the California Police Chiefs Association. "The Racial and Identity Profiling Act and the recently approved regulations is another tool to ensure our officers continue to provide fair and impartial policing to the communities we serve."

"Racial and identify profiling has created trauma across California and the passage of AB 953 in 2015 sent a clarion call to the public safety system that necessary change was upon us," said Reverend Ben McBride, Co-Chair of the RIPA Advisory Board and Co-Director of People Improving Communities through Organizing (PICO) CA. "The RIPA Board worked alongside the Department of Justice and those closest to the pain around these issues, creating regulations for how we collect the data. We now continue the sacred work of ensuring California is a state where all, despite of difference, are treated with respect and fairness under the law."

"We need to move beyond the rhetoric and the entrenched positions on this issue," said Assembly member Shirley Weber, the author of AB 953. "It's time for us to address bias in policing from a policymaking perspective. With these regulations we will have the comprehensive hard data necessary to understand the scope of the problem and to make practical decisions about how to reduce over-policing persons of color, a practice that wastes resources, engenders mistrust and compromises public safety."

The RIPA regulations give law enforcement agencies and their officers clear instruction regarding what data to report about stops, and the logistics of how and when to report this stop data. DOJ completed the regulations after thoroughly considering the oral and written commentary from hundreds of stakeholders, including the law enforcement community, academics, and community advocates. DOJ also reviewed stop data collection programs in other jurisdictions and conducted a field test to better understand the practical implications of this data collection.

The regulations require, among other things, that officers collect and transmit to the DOJ the following information:

• Date, time, duration, location and type of stop
• Reason for the stop
• Any actions taken by an officer during the stop
• Result of the stop
• The officer's perception of the gender, race/nationality, and approximate age of the person stopped, and whether the officer perceives that the person is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender
• Whether the person stopped has limited or no English fluency
• The officer's perception or knowledge that the person has a disability

The first round of data collection, starting with the largest law enforcement agencies, will begin on July 1, 2018.

The regulations, including a complete list of the information required to be reported for each stop, can be found online at www.oag.ca.gov/ab953/regulations.

BACKGROUND

The DOJ published the original proposed stop data regulations in December 2016, as required by AB 953, to specify the data that local and certain state law enforcement agencies will be required to collect and report to the DOJ on each stop by a law enforcement officer. After receiving hundreds of comments from stakeholders during an initial 45-day public comment period, the DOJ revised the regulations.

In August 2017, Attorney General Becerra posted revised proposed regulations and opened a 15-day public comment period for stakeholders to participate in the process.

Stakeholders that provided input include the RIPA Board; state and local law enforcement agencies and associations; civil rights groups; individuals representing the LGBTQ, immigrant, disability and youth rights communities; community organizations; and members of academia. PORAC represented us as one of the stakeholders. The Attorney General's Office appreciates and thanks all stakeholders who participated in this process.

Take care of yourselves and one another.

-Eric

‍

The retirement YOU work hard for needs to be protected. Please cast your ballot in support of the candidate who will work to back our interests!

VOTE FOR JOHN ROBINSON, FOR SAFETY RETIREMENT FCERA TRUSTEE

John Robinson has been a Fresno County Deputy Sheriff for 23 years, and he owned his own business for 6 years. His business grew so large that he had to choose the business or the Sheriff’s Department because he could not keep up with the demand of working 6 days a week at his business and 4 days a week at the Sheriff’s Office, so he chose to stay with the Sheriff’s Office.

John is fourth generation of law enforcement. He has a strong passion to take care of the people he works with or others in the same field. He believes that we should be taken care of after we put 20-30 years into this job. The jobs related to safety retirement are very stressful and demanding, on us and our families. This is why John is running for this seat. He wants to do what he can to ensure that we are taken care of after we put our time keeping our communities safe. John will work to see that the decisions that are made are in the best interest of the retirees, those soon to retire, and future retirees.

Vote John Robinson for Fresno County Employees’ Retirement Association

Review Granted of Decision that Law Enforcement Agencies Cannot Voluntarily Provide Brady Materials to the DA or Public Defender

A few months ago, I reported to you all about the controversial ruling in Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court of County of Los Angeles (Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department). This is regarding the sending of information unprovoked to the District Attorney’s Office without any inquiry from their office.

Unsurprisingly, the Supreme Court granted the Sheriff's Department's petition for review.  The extent of the court of appeal ruling surprised many of us. It prohibited employers of peace officers from voluntarily sharing any Brady information with prosecutors or public defenders outside of a full Pitchess process -- even if it involved a potential witness in a pending criminal prosecution. The court of appeal decision was a split 2-1 decision.Usually, after the losing party in the court of appeal petitions the Supreme Court for review, and answering and reply briefs are filed -- including any amicus curiae (friends of the court) letters supporting or opposing review -- the Court will rule within its statutory deadline, at times even extending its own deadline (as it is authorized to do).  Nonetheless, in this case, the Supreme Court granted review the day following the parties' last filing.The Supreme Court has asked the parties to brief only the question of whether the law enforcement agency may disclose the names of officers who are potential witnesses in a pending criminal prosecution or whether such disclosure may only occur if a court order issues following a properly filed Pitchess motion. This suggests that the Supreme Court does not necessarily disagree with the court of appeal's conclusion that departments cannot simply create lengthy Brady lists and voluntarily release them outside of the Pitchess process without regard to any specific pending criminal prosecution.

We will be participating in the amicus curiae on this case that Messing, Adam, & Jasmine will be writing and sending to the California Supreme Court – responding to their question to the Court of Appeals.

FDSA Memorial Golf Tournament Big Success

Early morning rain didn’t put a damper on the 11th Annual FDSA Memorial Golf Tournament on Friday, October 20th. The wind and showers cleared out, just in time for an incredible day on the rolling hills at Eagle Springs Golf Course.

We were able to accommodate 200 golfers for a sold out event! The day was filled with great raffle prizes, food and fun! Sportsman’s Warehouse brought out guns this year, and a lot of players shelled out many dollars investing in the chance to win a weapon! We have so many dedicated community partners who help make this tournament a successful one. All proceeds go to support families of fallen deputies in Fresno County and law enforcement officers around the state. In addition, we also send several deputies to Sacramento and Washington D.C. every year to honor the service and sacrifice of those killed in the line of duty. We are so grateful for those organizations and people- who year after year commit to the cause, which is so important to us. With each tragedy, and officer lost- we promise to never forget their lives and their deaths. The funds we raise ensure we can honor them in many ways for years to come.

“POBR,” Updated and Expanded to Interviews

Written by Jason Jasmine (Messing, Adam, &Jasmine)

The Fourth District Court of Appeal made a significant interpretation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act (“POBR”) (Gov. Code § 3300 et seq.) in the case of Santa Ana Police Officers Association v. City of Santa Ana, 2017 WL 2879796 (2017) that has the potential to impact many administrative investigations of peace officers. In the underlying case, the officers were surreptitiously recorded during an undercover raid of a marijuana dispensary and were investigated for allegedly inappropriate comments made while collecting and logging evidence.

After the initial interviews of two officers, the Department wanted to interview them a second time, and the POA claimed that the Department, pursuant to Government Code section 3303(g), was required to give the officers “a transcribed copy of any notes made by a stenographer or … any reports or complaints made by investigators or other persons except those which are deemed by the investigating agency to be confidential,” in addition to the recording of the first interview prior to the second interview. The Department refused to hand over the materials before the second interview, and the POA brought suit.

The trial court sustained the City’s demurrer without leave to amend. On appeal, the Court concluded that both the plain language of the statute and the decision in Pasadena Police Officers Association v. City of Pasadena, 51 Cal.3d 564, 572 (1990) required reversal of the trial court’s decision.

The Pasadena decision has historically stood for the proposition that an officer has no pre-interrogation discovery rights and that Government Code section 3303(g) requires a department to give an officer a recording of the first interview prior to the second interview. The Santa AnaCourt concluded that interpreting the Pasadena decision and the statute together, if an officer is entitled to the recording, the statute language renders the right to notes/reports/complaints coextensive with the right to the audio. This means that the officer is entitled to both the audio and the writings prior to any subsequent interview.

At first glance, the Santa Ana decision seems inconsistent with the Pasadena decision. However, the Pasadena decision really only says that an officer is not entitled to the notes/reports/complaints until after an interrogation. The Santa Ana court appears to reconcile Pasadena by interpreting it as meaning after the FIRST interrogation.

The Santa Ana decision has major implications for administrative interrogations of peace officers because usually a department does not conduct a second interview unless the officer is suspected of being dishonest in the first. Now, the officer (and his or her representative) may be able to see the investigator’s analysis and other witness statements before giving the second interview – which will significantly assist in a more meaningful defense for the officer. The decision will also impact investigations of firefighters under the Firefighter Bill of Rights Act, which has the same language as POBR in this regard.

We are joining forces with the Fresno Police Officer’s Association to show a movie called the Fallen Project. The goal is to show the public what happens when a law enforcement goes through a traumatic event on the job.

Tentative dates of the showing are going to be December 7th or December 14th. We will send out more details as the date approaches. Educating the community about our jobs is important and we are pleased to join forces with FPOA on this event.

Hope you are enjoying this season of cooler weather! As always, take care of yourselves and your partners.

-Eric

‍

Fall is upon us! The FDSA Memorial Golf Tournament is just a few weeks away and we are busy making last minute preparations for another successful event! The annual event is sold out and we have a rather extensive waiting list for those still wanting to play. We are trying to accommodate as many golfers as possible, while also ensuring rounds aren't too long. The course is in great condition for the tournament on October, 20, 2017 at Eagle Springs Golf Course.

2017/2018 Fresno County Budget Hearings

We are pleased to report that budget hearings lasted only one day this year. They were held on Monday, September, 18, 2017.

The daylong process was a huge contrast from prior years. The hearings went smoothly, in large part due to the cohesiveness and common goals of the current Board of Supervisors. The group is committed to working together with a priority to support public safety services in Fresno County.

Overall, the County of Fresno is operating a healthy and balanced budget. The over $3 billion dollar budget, funds 23 different departments and numerous programs within the county. This is a complex system. Some of our newer county leaders, like the new Auditor/Controller, Oscar Garcia, and a second year Chief Administrative Officer, Jean Rousseau- were able to see the process differently than years passed. This year the direction provided by the Board of Supervisors was clear and there were no snags or shenanigans.

Some highlights for the Fresno County Sheriff's Office include:

• A fully funded budget. This means the funding exceeding that of last fiscal year with good growth to support the increase.
• Seven million more dollars put aside for a new Area Two substation. This brings the total to $10 million dollars for this project.
• $1.7 million dollars assigned to the Sheriff's fleet.
• Seven additional deputy sheriffs positions funded in this budget
• All MOU enhancements fully funded with additional funds NOT existing monies.

The County of Fresno still has a lot of outstanding debt to repay or pay coming up for this year. This is the final year of payment for the Quinten Hall Jail Lawsuit settlement.

$2.6 million dollars had to be funded for the hiring of an additional 42 correctional officers.

Pension Obligation Bond money - nine million in funding will be used to make a final payment on one of the pension obligation bonds.

The general fund reserve was increased by seven million dollars this year as well.

I have provided details about these different debts for several reasons. As long as the economy remains stable, these funds will be available in the next year. One example is the $2.6 million dollars allotted to hire CO's. Next year, this could be used to hire of more deputy sheriff's, dispatchers, and support staff to help alleviate the shortage of manpower we are experiencing at the Fresno County Sheriff's Office. Currently, we are still 60 plus deputy sheriff positions down from where we really need to be. This Board of Supervisors is committed to bridging that gap and getting us back to the level of operations where we can reduce the overtime and ‘overworked status' of many employees here.

2018 Insurance Rates

Open enrollment for 2018 health insurance is from November 1st -30th, 2017. You will see not only a reduction in overall percentage from Blue Shield, but you will also see the county contribution increase as well. All of this equals more money in your pocket and less spent on health insurance (out of pocket bi-weekly by the member).

Other notable portfolio details include:

• Blue Shield waived a three percent Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax.
• Blue Shield gave a three percent overall reduction in rates due to the continuous improved experience of our group.
• The Fresno County contribution increase given to members reflects only 10 dollars per employee and 40 dollars for the employee plus dependents. These rates are all per pay period.
• Added to the plan is a new Hearing Aid rider. This provides up to $2000.00 in a hearing aid benefit on a 24 month basis. This cost of this benefit is under 1% percent. Many of you have asked for this addition over the years. Currently- all of our insurance plans only pay for a hearing test, but no money to cover the equipment- if a hearing aid is needed.
• Delta Dental – no change in benefits or no change in rates.

The 2018 rates attached reflect the three different plan options for all of you to see. These rates will include dental and life insurance as well.

Representatives from DiBudou and DeFendis will be at the FDSA on Thursday, October 26, 2017 from 8am-12pm to answer any questions you or your family members may have about our current health plan. Also they can answer any questions about changes that can be made, or how you or your family can benefit from the different plans.

You will see from the chart below- the rates continue to decline for members of the Insurance Trust. This is a direct reflection on the FDSA membership and how we are using, and not abusing our insurance plan. We have seen more people going to Urgent Care and utilizing the Teledoc service- than hospitals. These two things alone will reduce the billing amount – which provides lower cost renewal rates.

2018 Shift Signups

Shift signups will be Thursday, October 26, 2017, beginning at 8am at the Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association Office. We will have vendors from DiBudou and DeFendis, California Casualty and from AFLAC as well.

The key assignment list for 2018 will be posted soon on the Star 2.0 page for everyone to view. This list has been finalized by FDSA and the FSO – and we are on track to get people signed up, followed by vacation signups after that.

Those of you signing up for patrol this year will receive a specific time slot. As we have done in prior years- we will ensure the seniority list is accurate before this takes place. Once that occurs, you will be given a time to show up. Deputies who have worked at FSO less than three years will receive the same time block to show up and sign up as a group. Seniority will take place with your group as well.

Vacation signups will be conducted shortly after patrol signups to ensure proper planning for you and your family.

The goal of the agency in 2018 is to continue hiring deputy sheriffs to fill our vacancies and alleviate the staffing shortage. With hiring comes training and deployment. The process is not fast and isn't a turnkey either. This not only holds true for deputies, but all the rest of the job classifications we represent. I value our personnel in this department and the job you all do regardless of your assignment.

Take care of one another.

— Eric

‍

School is back in session in the Central Valley and this is always a busy season for us at the FDSA. The annual Peace Officer Memorial Golf Tournament is around the corner and we are proud to announce the event is SOLD OUT! 200 golfers will be teeing off around 8am at Eagle Springs Golf Course on October 20th! If you would like to volunteer to help or just hang out, feel free to join us that day for the biggest fundraiser of the year. As always- the proceeds assist families of fallen deputies and also provide opportunities for coworkers to honor those who paid the ultimate sacrifice in Sacramento and Washington DC.

Lexipol Policy

As you are aware, each member of the Fresno County Sheriff's Office is required to log on, review, and then acknowledge you have read the current Lexipol Policy.

This policy has been discussed and thoroughly reviewed by the FDSA and our legal counsel. A majority of the existing policy transferred over from FSO Policy directly to Lexipol. The purpose of the Lexipol Policy is a formalized way to provide up-to-date guidelines, procedures, and protocols for law enforcement agencies. The policy includes case law updates to provide the agency with the latest legal information- which is important for everyone in a law enforcement career.

During this two year process, FSO management and FDSA leaders have been meeting to review the policy. It has been a priority to ensure the language provided in the documents is transferred accurately, and that any additions are discussed and agreed to prior to being included in the policy. After careful review and several meetings with the Sheriff's administration, some portions of the policy were put on hold until we can get an agreement between FSO Management and FDSA. Most of the changes we made in the policy were grammatical, however- the language provided in a few instances, could have resulted in a different intent. Some interpretations could have been drawn, so we clarified these issues.

There are some policies you have not seen yet; such as grooming and personal communication devices. The reason being – in order to publish something new FDSA and FSO shall meet and agree on this change or addition. Ironically, you saw policy 1030, dealing with social media, published July 7th. This policy, one we have never had at FSO, by-passed the process of meeting, discussing and ultimately agreeing to publish. Many of you, from the time that rolled out contacted me with concerns. All of those concerns have been addressed with FSO Management.

On August 22, 2017 FSO Management depublished the policy so we would be able to further discuss and come up with resolution that both sides can live with. Once we have that agreement, you will be notified as the policy will be republished to the entire organization. I want to thank those of you reaching out to me with many of your comments and concerns. That helps tremendously in a somewhat sensitive policy such as that one.

Assembly Bill 119

Gov. Brown Signed A.B. 119 Providing California Public Employee Unions Enhanced Access to New Employees

On June 27, 2017, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bill 119 mandating that public employers within PERB's jurisdiction provide recognized labor representatives expanded access to newly-hired employees.  Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association is one of these groups. This enhanced access is accomplished by mandating that an employer shall provide the union representative access to new employee orientations and to employee contact information. Agencies must provide the union notice of any new employee orientation with at least 10 days advance notice.  The employer must also provide the name, job title, department, work location, work, home, personal cellular telephone number, personal email address, and home address of any new employee within 30 days of hire or by the first pay period of the month following hire and a list of that information for all employees in the bargaining unit at least every 120 days unless more frequent or more detailed lists are negotiated between the parties. Some of these items are currently being followed by FSO and the County of Fresno and some need to make their way in-line. The disclosure of contact information is expressly modeled after our Supreme Court's holding in County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 90, that the privacy clause of state constitution did not excuse the county from disclosing represented employees' contact information to the union.  The statute also adopts the privacy protections set forth in County of Los Angeles.

The legislation also establishes important bargaining obligations that unions should understand. Government Code Section 3557 provides that upon the request of either party, "the parties shall negotiate regarding the structure, time, and manner of the access of the exclusive representative to a new employee orientation. The failure to reach agreement on the structure, time, and manner of the access shall be subject to compulsory interest arbitration pursuant to this section."  Either party can request arbitration over unresolved access issues within 45 days after the first meeting between the parties or 60 days from the first request to negotiate.  

This legislation was enacted in anticipation of potential changes to or elimination of fair share procedures should the Supreme Court decide to hear another challenge to fair share. In Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association, the Court deadlocked 4-4, leaving in place a Ninth Circuit ruling upholding fair share procedures. Regardless of the fate of fair share, this new law provides labor organizations important new tools to increase their voluntary membership ranks and will equally benefit unions that do not have fair share procedures in place.  

Below are lists of some questions asked by PORAC prior to the bill being signed so there was as much clarity as possible when it came to what the rollout of the governor’s bill would be.

When do I need to begin complying with AB 119?  Now. Most bills take effect on January 1st. However, AB 119 is part of the “Budget Bill” (Cal. Const. , Art IV, §12) which means it takes effect immediately.

What does my agency need to do? AB 119 places an affirmative burden on public agencies to immediately begin doing three things (Gov. Code sections 3555-3559):

1. Providing 10 days’ advance notice of any new employee orientation (Gov. Code §3556);
2. Providing to the union the name, job title, department, work location, work, home, personal cellular telephone number, personal email address, and home address of any new employee within 30 days of hire or by the first pay period of the month following hire (Gov. Code §3558);
3. Providing to the union the information in #2 every 120 days for all employees (Gov. Code §3558).

If you haven’t already, then your agency should put into place procedures to comply with these three requirements.

AB 119 also has a requirement that, upon request, the parties bargain over the structure, time, and manner of access of the union to a new employee orientation. But again, this is only upon request.

How does the notice requirement work if my agency’s orientations are individualized and not in a group setting? The bill leaves such details for negotiation between the parties. Getting clarification on this issue might be one reason a public agency would want to request to bargain over these issues affirmatively, as opposed to waiting for a request from the union. But in the meantime, my advice is to comply by providing the union ten day’s advance notice of all orientations, even individualized employee orientations. This assumes that the individualized employee orientation is the only one conducted by the agency.  If the agency conducts a group orientation and also an individualized one, I think giving notice of the group orientation is sufficient.

What if my agency’s orientation is exclusively online, and conducted at the leisure of the employee? The bill expressly provides that online employee orientations are covered, but beyond that, the bill leaves details of compliance subject to negotiation between the parties.  Again, getting clarification on this might be one reason a public agency would want to request to bargain over these issues affirmatively. But until then, my advice is they comply by providing the ten day’s advance notice if you know the date of the online orientation.  What if the online orientation is done by the employee at his or her leisure?  For example, the employee is given a link and told to complete the orientation within a certain amount of time.  My advice is to try to comply as much as possible. In this example, you can notify the union that a new employee has been hired, that the employee has been told to complete online orientation, and remind the union that the employer is willing to meet and confer over further details upon request.

With respect to providing home addresses, email addresses, and telephone numbers, what about an employee’s right to privacy?

The bill makes mention that the provision of such information shall be consistent with the privacy requirements in County of Los Angeles v. Los Angeles County Employee Relations Com. (2013) 56 Cal.4th 905. In that case, the California Supreme Court held that under the MMBA, a union has a presumptive right to employee contact information such as home addresses and telephone numbers. (Notably, personal email addresses and personal cell phone numbers were not an issue in the Los Angeles case.) The Court also held that with respect to the right of privacy, the balancing of interests favors disclosure to the union. But the Court did allow that the balancing of interests may “in some cases, tip in favor of privacy when an individual employee objects and demands that home contact information be withheld.” So what’s the bottom line? I think that there can be an opt-out process put in place to prevent some of this information from being provided to the union if the employee objects. The op-out process, or at least some aspects of it, will likely be subject to negotiations with the union. It’s a delicate balance and an area where legal counsel should probably be consulted.

Bills Currently being followed closely by PORAC

• AB 748 (Ting) was introduced earlier this year relating to video and audio recordings of peace officers.  In its original form, it simply mandated that each agency or department must create body cam policies and make those policies public.  It posed no threat to law enforcement as it sailed through the Assembly.  It wasn’t until the bill was set to be heard in Senate Public Safety Committee that significant amendments were presented.  The sponsors - the California Newspaper Publishers Association, California Attorneys for Criminal Justice and California Public Defenders Association - are now seeking to make changes to the California Public Records Act (CPRA) that would be very harmful to all law enforcement, including creating a deadline of 120 days for the release of all video, regardless of whether there is still an active, on-going investigation, disallowing the use of redaction technology to obscure specific portions of a recording for law enforcement purposes, and prohibiting the use of biometric technology on a video.  AB 748 is in the Senate Rules Committee awaiting referral to the next committee.
  
  
• AB 284, as amended, McCarty. Attorney General: officer-involved shootings: independent review. Department of Justice: officer-involved shootings: report.
  
  
• Existing law authorizes a peace officer who has reasonable cause to believe that a person to be arrested has committed a public offense to use reasonable force to affect the arrest, to prevent escape, or to overcome resistance.
  
  
• Existing law requires each law enforcement agency to annually furnish to the Department of Justice, in a manner defined and prescribed by the Attorney General, a report of all instances when a peace officer employed by that agency is involved in any of specified incidents, including an incident involving the shooting of a civilian by a peace officer or an incident involving the shooting of a peace officer by a civilian.
  
  
• This bill would, contingent upon the appropriation of funding by the Legislature, require the Department of Justice to conduct a study of all or a sample of peace officer-involved shootings resulting in death or serious injury that occurred in California between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2016. The bill would require the department to prepare a written report describing its findings and recommendations and make the report available to the public.
  
  

I will continue to be a voice for all of you at the State level through our PORAC representation, which is the most, sought after and respected voice for law enforcement at the State Capital of California. Thank you to those of you who reach out to me on a consistent basis regarding these types of bills and offer your input. That is all taken back to our lobbyists and PORAC.

Upcoming Dates

Shift Signups:Tentative date for shift signups has been set for Wednesday, October 18, 2017 at around 8am. There will be more to come on this as we get closer. Those of you signing up, I wanted to give you the tentative date in which FDSA and FSO Management have discussed.

Open Enrollment:

Insurance open enrollment is scheduled for November 1 through November 30. We will be sending out a letter shortly to all the members explaining the rates and benefit changes for the upcoming 2018 plan year. The good news – your rates will be going down! This will be the third year in a row the FDSA health insurance rates are going down, meaning less cost to our employees and more money in your paychecks. I will have a thorough article next month explaining all of the FDSA insurance rates and benefits.

Take care of each other in whatever assignment you are in.

-Eric

‍

Summer is winding down and in a few short weeks- school will be back in session for many districts throughout the Central Valley. I hope you have had the chance to make some fun memories with family and friends.

Deputy Jared Mullis Facing Criminal Charges

The Fresno County District Attorney has filed criminal charges against Deputy Jared Mullis in the accidental shooting death of Sergeant Rod Lucas on October 31, 2016. The criminal complaint charges Mullis with involuntary manslaughter, along with a gun enhancement charge.

Alongside his attorney, Roger Wilson, Deputy Mullis made his first court appearance on Thursday, August 3rd in Fresno County Superior Court. He entered a plea of not guilty.

The charges have brought about strong feelings and opinions by many deputies and FDSA members. Nine months after the tragedy- Sgt. Lucas’ death continues to affect many who knew and worked with him. He was a highly respected law enforcement officer- and his death has left a void in the Special Investigations Division (SID), and beyond. As a representative of our association, I have been keeping in contact with Deputy Mullis and his legal team. He remains an FDSA member and has been provided legal representation through the Legal Defense Fund. Deputy Mullis remains devastated by what has happened. He opens his eyes each day to a very heavy burden. The events of that day changed many lives and created a lot of heartache for everyone involved.

As the case against Deputy Mullis moves through the legal system, I ask that you be mindful and considerate of everyone involved. This is a difficult and painful journey for both the Lucas and Mullis families.

Brady List Disclosures

For several years, the Brady list has been a hot topic among California law enforcement officers. Recently, there have been some new developments that I feel are important to share. The following is an article published from our legal team, Messing, Adam & Jasmine.

Public Safety Departments Cannot Voluntarily Share Brady Lists with DA's or Any Other Non-Department Persons

Law enforcement agencies cannot disclose the names or other identifying information of officers who are on Brady lists to any outside body, including prosecutorial agencies, absent compliance with the Pitchess process. This notable victory for peace officer privacy rights came this week in Ass'n for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs v. Superior Court of County of Los Angeles. Factual Background

Last year, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department ("LASD") Command Staff compiled a Brady list of nearly 300 deputies whose personnel files contained sustained allegations of misconduct allegedly involving moral turpitude or other bad acts relevant to impeachment. The Department intended to disclose the list to prosecutors who handle LASD investigations. Prosecutors could have then either filed their own Pitchess motions to discover the underlying misconduct or advised the defense of the disclosure. LASD sued to prevent the Department's voluntary disclosure of this Brady list to anyone outside of the LASD, absent complete compliance with the Pitchess statutes (Cal. Evidence Code, sections 1043 and 1045 and California Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8). Following a lengthy hearing, the trial court granted a preliminary injunction prohibiting disclosure of the list. But the trial court permitted LASD to voluntarily disclose information on officer misconduct if it believed that disclosure was necessary to comply with Brady v. Maryland(1963) 373 U.S. 83 (1963). Brady requires that the prosecution must turn over all exculpatory evidence to the defense. The court reasoned that the constitutional mandates of Brady supersede statutory obligations under Pitchess. Court of Appeal Holding A 2-1 majority of the Second District Court of Appeal agreed that injunctive relief was warranted to prevent the general disclosure of Brady list information on officers absent compliance with Pitchess. However, the court of appeal went further and rejected the trial court's view that law enforcement agencies may violate Pitchess if they believe that voluntarily disclosure of officer misconduct is necessary to comply with Brady. Thus, it ordered the trial court to strike from its injunction any language allowing disclosure of Brady list information to any individual outside of the LASD, even if the deputy is a witness in a pending criminal trial, "absent a properly filed, heard, and granted Pitchess motion, accompanied by a corresponding court order." What This Ruling Means for California Peace Officers This ruling reaffirms peace officer privacy rights under Penal Code sections 832.7 and 832.8 and bars public safety employers from proactively disclosing Brady information to prosecutors and defense counsel absent compliance with Pitchess. The employer may still maintain an internal Brady list -- it just cannot disclose it absent a court order. The court also found that transfer or other change in duties based upon placement on a BradyList does not implicate POBR absent evidence the action was for "punitive purposes."

If you have any questions about this alert, please contact Tylor Dominguez at 415.266.1809

Right to Discovery in Interrogations Explained (Expanded)

The Fourth District Court of Appeal made a significant interpretation of the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act ("POBR") (Gov. Code § 3300 et seq.) in the case of Santa Ana Police Officers Association v. City of Santa Ana, 2017 WL 2879796 (2017) that has the potential to impact many administrative investigations of peace officers. In the underlying case, the officers were surreptitiously recorded during an undercover raid of a marijuana dispensary and were investigated for allegedly inappropriate comments made while collecting and logging evidence. After the initial interviews of two officers, the Department wanted to interview them a second time, and the POA claimed that the Department, pursuant to Government Code section 3303(g), was required to give the officers "a transcribed copy of any notes made by a stenographer or ... any reports or complaints made by investigators or other persons except those which are deemed by the investigating agency to be confidential," in addition to the recording of the first interview prior to the second interview. The Department refused to hand over the materials before the second interview, and the POA brought suit. The trial court sustained the City's demurrer without leave to amend. On appeal, the Court concluded that both the plain language of the statute and the decision in Pasadena Police Officers Association v. City of Pasadena, 51 Cal.3d 564, 572 (1990)required reversal of the trial court's decision. The Pasadena decision has historically stood for the proposition that an officer has no pre-interrogation discovery rights and that Government Code section 3303(g) requires a department to give an officer a recording of the first interview prior to the second interview. The Santa Ana Court concluded that interpreting the Pasadena decision and the statute together, if an officer is entitled to the recording, the statute language renders the right to notes/reports/complaints coextensive with the right to the audio. This means that the officer is entitled to both the audio and the writings prior to any subsequent interview. At first glance, the Santa Ana decision seems inconsistent with the Pasadenadecision. However, the Pasadenadecision really only says that an officer is not entitled to the notes/reports/complaints until after an interrogation. The Santa Ana court appears to reconcile Pasadena by interpreting it as meaning after the FIRST interrogation. The Santa Ana decision has major implications for administrative interrogations of peace officers because usually a department does not conduct a second interview unless the officer is suspected of being dishonest in the first. Now, the officer (and his or her representative) may be able to see the investigator's analysis and other witness statements before giving the second interview - which will significantly assist in a more meaningful defense for the officer. The decision will also impact investigations of firefighters under the Firefighter Bill of Rights Act, which has the same language as POBR in this regard.

If you have any questions about this alert, please contact Gary Messing (gary@majlabor.com) or Lina Balciunas Cockrell (lina@majlabor.com) at 916.446.5297.

CABT (Coalition Against Big Trucks)

This is an update from the Coalition we (FDSA) through the lead of PORAC are involved with. I have been a representative from the Central Cal chapter dealing with this issue for our region. There will be updates on this CABT since the issue is rising again in Washington DC.

The House Appropriations Committee met recently to mark up the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development (THUD) appropriations bill where it was expected that bigger-truck proponents would offer an amendment to mandate longer double-trailer trucks, or Double 33s, nationwide. Similar efforts to allow heavier trucks lost momentum in the days leading up to the vote. Bigger-truck proponents were vigorously working the Hill and the longer-truck amendment in particular was building momentum. The CEOs of FedEx and UPS, joined by Amazon lobbyists, were meeting with Members up to the final days and hours to push the Double 33s amendment to committee approval. As of 30 minutes before the markup, we fully expected the longer double-trailer truck amendment to be filed. Despite the intense lobbying from these powerful companies, outreach from community leaders like you outweighed the push for Double 33s, and last night the bigger-truck amendments were not offered. Our coalition delivered an effective message about the negative impacts bigger trucks would have on highway safety and the nation’s infrastructure--and we prevailed. Thank you for all you have done to get us to this win--it was your calls, letters and emails that have made the difference in this campaign! We were victorious in this stage of a hard-fought campaign, but we are still far from the end. The THUD appropriations bill needs to go to the House floor. The same process also starts in the Senate as early as next week--you will recall in 2015 that the Senate Appropriations Committee decided by one vote to approve these longer doubles. While the vote is a setback for the other side, proponents show no signs of giving up--these truck size and weight increases are too important to their bottom line. They will not stop, but neither will we. I must emphasize again how vital your work is to this process. Without your expertise and commitment to keeping our roads safe and preserving our infrastructure, we would not be where we are right now. On behalf of motorists, taxpayers, and CABT staff, thank you. Please let me know if I can answer any questions, and I will continue to keep you updated. Thank you again for all you do for our communities.

Truly,

Eric

‍

Summer is officially here and we are experiencing the results of an incredibly wet winter. Overflowing rivers and waterways are extremely dangerous now. Although the public has been banned from recreation on the lower Kings River- the water is still drawing a few who are risking their lives- either as thrill seekers, or just unaware or careless citizens. These people grossly underestimate the power and deadly possibilities of the current until they find themselves in a dire situation. When you respond to these calls, please be cautious and extremely careful. Evaluate your options before jumping into the river without life saving equipment or resources. The danger is not limited to the public- it's a force that can overcome all of us.

One welcome benefit this summer that we haven't seen in a while- is a much anticipated pay hike. As of July 3, 2017, the first of three pay raises took effect. If you track law enforcement raises throughout the state this year, you will see the contract we negotiated provides substantial increases that most agencies aren't seeing.

However, please take note that every six months, between the county giving more towards your health care, and the next two pay raises, you will be seeing increases to your paycheck. We should have the new health insurance rates within the next 6-8 weeks for the 2018 enrollment year. There will be more to come on this topic later.

Illegal Fentanyl

This is quickly becoming a deadly danger that we need to be aware of no matter what assignment we work. Synthetically manufactured fentanyl is difficult to detect and has the same appearance as many other illicit drugs. Within the past few weeks the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has issued a nationwide alert to first responders about the accidental overdose risk of illegal fentanyl.

A year ago some of our deputies encountered this drug. Fortunately- they were not injured during the contact. Ingesting merely a few granules can be deadly. However, a reversal drug called Narcan – works to quickly counteract the drug’s effects. Narcan is widely used in a nasal spray form. It can be purchased at most pharmacies including CVS and Walgreens.

We have asked the sheriff's administration to consider providing this lifesaving tool to deputies.

Attached below is a letter formalizing our position to FSO management.

Captain Zanoni, June 16, 2017

The recent nationwide epidemic and potential exposure to Fresno County Sheriff Deputies has raised our level of concern about the deadly danger of illegal Fentanyl.

The DEA has recently published exposure findings that are concerning to us. The fatality rate in micro amounts is startling.

On Tuesday, June 13, ABC30 did a news piece illustrating the dangers to law enforcement officers. It even showed two officers who were exposed, but lived to tell about it. This story, along with our own interdepartmental bulletins on the dangers of illegal Fentanyl, has raised the concern of the FDSA.

The Narcan nasal spray, used to counteract the deadly effects, seems to be the most widely used for first responders when there is an exposure.

I would like to request the Sheriff’s Administration look into purchasing the Narcan nasal spray for all deputy sheriffs as a preventative measure. Narcan is widely available at pharmacies like CVS or the health department. Narcan is easily available to pharmacists.

I would like to meet and discuss how we can work together to provide this necessary lifesaving option for all of our deputies.

Truly,

Eric

**To date I have received a short response advising me our request is being worked on. I will update you all with more information to follow.

Bigs in Blue Campaign

The FDSA is partnering with Sheriff Mims to make a positive difference in our community by investing in elementary aged students in Fresno County. We are joining forces with Big Brothers/Big Sisters of Central California, who are asking deputy sheriffs to consider donating their time to a child who could use a friend and positive role model. The commitment is nominal and takes about an hour a week to make a lasting impact on a young boy or girl. This is a completely voluntary commitment.

During detective/patrol/CSU briefings over the next few weeks, representatives from Big Brothers and Big Sisters will be giving specifics about the program titled, Bigs in Blue. The goal is to partner law enforcement officers with local youth to build strong and trusting relationships. Ideally, we would like to get at least 10 deputy sheriff volunteers, but truly there is no limit.

Volunteers will be mentoring a child attending Madison Elementary School, which is located at Madison and Kearney Boulevard in Fresno County. The program will start at the beginning of the school year and volunteers will be asked to basically have lunch with the student who they mentor once a week.

The campaign is also being presented to FPOA and ClovisPOA with the same goal in mind.

Undersheriff Steve Wilkins said deputies, regardless of their assignment, will be able to participate in the program during on-duty hours, schedule permitting. No matter what shift you work- all deputies are welcome and encouraged to participate in the program. If you do not work a day shift, flex shifts will be accepted to accommodate the deputy’s time.

This is completely voluntary on the side of deputies, but a great opportunity to connect with the community we serve.

Movement Arbitration

As reported in the FDSA newsletter dated September 23, 2014, the FDSA filed a grievance on behalf of two deputy sheriffs who were being “forced-out” of their specialty/detective assignment without cause. Last year, this delayed shift signups about 30 days. To refresh your memory- I have included a portion of the message to remind you about the issue.

Excerpt from September 2014 President Message:

To date, there is a disagreement between the FDSA and Sheriff Mims (her Executive Staff) regarding movement within the department. Specifically, the issue of moving deputy sheriff’s from their current assignment in a detective/special assignment unit, to somewhere else in the department - that could be either Patrol Division or Court Service Unit- without cause and for no apparent reason.

Right now, there is not a rotation policy within the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office. Depending on whom you talk to and what day of the week you talk to them, some supervisors may feel they want deputies to stay in these units anywhere from no more than 3 years, to 5 years - - lately I have even heard 10 years.

History is our best source of knowledge as it relates to this situation.

Many deputies have dedicated their careers to certain units within the Sheriff’s Office because they are passionate at the job they do, work well with others, and are good at it. This is experience and knowledge that is hard to come by and not easy to replace. Some of these deputies are still working here, and do an incredible job in their assignment.

These issues arose with the Patrol Captain during the preparation of shift signups. There were a few detectives who were put on the patrol signup list, who did not ask to leave their current assignment. In addition, they have not received any unfavorable reviews and their performance is not an issue. When I posed the question as to why they are on the list, the answer varied from, “They have been there too long,” “We are moving people to help their careers,” “We need to give new people a chance at these positions.” Longevity within assignments varies, arbitrarily, from one supervisor to another.

The argument of opportunity doesn’t really come into play, since 90%+ of you move because you want to do something else in the department. We do not keep people from doing what they want. But, we also have those deputies who have put in for many assignments and have been denied every one of them. So the opportunity argument really is insignificant in this discussion.

This is the first time we have encountered this type of involuntary movement. Many of you have come to me over the years and have vented, if your supervisor(s) wants you to leave, or is demanding you transfer out. Normally we have been able to work out these types of issues with conversation and common sense.

Our proposed language to insert in the shift signup agreement helps protect deputies from being moved arbitrarily and without cause. Our suggested language is being declined and without even a discussion.

Last Tuesday, September 23, 2014 a Grievance was filed with the County of Fresno, to address this issue. The results are still pending. So, right now, we do not know when shift signups will take place. Vacation and shift signups are on hold until we can find common ground. I am hopeful that someone will talk to us to come up with a resolution since this is affecting many people in the patrol division. In my six years as your President, I have yet to have an issue come up, where the FDSA and Sheriff’s Administration were not able to work out the problem. That is the benefit of having working relationships with people day in and day out.

On April 17-18, 2015- the FDSA, along with our legal team, led by Gary Messing and assisted by Lina Balciunas-Cockell, began the arbitration hearing. The FSO Executive Staff was represented by County Counsel, Kathy Basham.

During the two day hearing, several witnesses were called to testify from both sides. The arbitrator, who was mutually agreed upon by both the FDSA and County of Fresno- heard the entire case from start to finish. Once the arbitration concluded, both parties had roughly 30 days to submit written closing arguments in to him. The arbitrator would then render a decision in the following 30 days.

The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the FDSA.

I am going to attach a summary of the last page where his ruling is handed down.

“In summary, based on the evidence the arbitrator’s finding is that the Department violated Government Code Section 3505 and Article 53 of the MOU, when it unilaterally changed the past practice of involuntary transferring the deputies from their special assignments based on criteria other than that of disciplinary issues, documented performance issues, layoff or disability retirement.”

DECISION

The Grievance is sustained

AWARD

1. The department shall cease and desist from involuntary transferring deputies from special assignments, unless the involuntary transfer is the result of discipline, documented performance issues, layoff or disability retirement.

2. The Department shall allow Deputies Isaac and Alstrom the opportunity to return to their special assignments in the Vice Intel Unit and the Ag Task Force, if they choose to do so, That election shall be made in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of this award.

One of the main points described by the Arbitrator includes the department violating the FDSA Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU. His decision sustained the Article in the MOU- determining it was violated by the department. It also gave the deputies the ability to go back to their original assignment.

On July 20, 2015 the Sheriff filed a writ in Fresno County Superior Court appealing the ruling by the mutually agreed upon Arbitrator.

On June 7, 2017 the arbitration ruling was heard in Fresno County Superior Court by the Honorable Samuel Dalesandro. Both sides presented brief discussions supporting their points and authorities.

To date, we have not received word of the decision. I have not discussed this case with Sheriff Mims in about two years. She elected to challenge the arbitrators ruling in this case. Once a decision is handed down- I will provide it to you.

As always, please remember we rely on each other. Take care of one another- in the field and in the office. I can’t emphasize that enough.

In addition- I would like to extend my gratitude to those supervisors who have taken the extra time to allow flexibility in the schedules of many deputies during the summer months. Many of us are working well over 40 hours a week, and that extra personal time is much appreciated. And to every member, we are safer when we all do our part to fill staffing positions during months when vacations are in abundance.

Truly-

Eric

‍

I want to thank you for allowing me to represent you for a fifth term as President of the Fresno Deputy Sheriff's Association.

During the past nine years, I have worked incredibly hard to provide every one of you with better wages and working conditions. I am honored to serve you in this leadership role.

I took office during a challenging and stressful era, as our entire country faced the toughest economic times in recent history. During the widespread recession, Fresno County sent out 88 layoff notices to deputies. Tireless negotiations and cooperation with the Board of Supervisors and Sheriff resulted in not a single deputy losing their job. In 2011, painful and unwanted recession related pay cuts were made to balance the county's deep budget deficit. However, our next contract not only resumed earning amounts to pre-recession rates- it exceeded them by 5.5 percent. Most recently, our latest contract provides a notable 16 percent pay raise over three years.

The new contract also has Fresno County contributing more toward insurance costs for FDSA members. In addition, we currently have lower insurance rates that we have experienced in years. As Chairman of the FDSA Insurance Benefits and Trust Board, I have worked hard to educate members about usage and ways to get our rates lower. Once our large claims and usage decreased, I was able to show these successful strides to our insurance providers to receive a significant drop in rates.

I have also spent countless hours meeting with various community leaders and elected officials to elevate the organization to become one of the premiere associations in Central California. The FDSA is now widely recognized as a law enforcement association that is engaged and leading the way in local police related issues affecting Fresno County and beyond.

A few highlights during my tenure include:

• Organizing and formalizing a Peace Officer Memorial Fund to honor fallen deputies and other law enforcement officers who die in the line of duty.
  
  
• Designating funds generated from the FDSA Annual Golf Tournament specifically to the Peace Officer Memorial Fund. Setting a personal goal of raising $100,000 specifically for this fund. Before being sworn into office, the tournament had a deficit of -$2,500. Last year, the account surpassed more than $100,000!
  
  
• Fending off the City of Fresno's former mayor when an attempt was made to takeover policing of county islands. Organizing a constant campaign to warn potentially affected residents of the motives and potential consequences. City leaders eventually abandoned this plan.
  
  
• Firmly committing to honoring fallen officers every year at state and national memorial events. Since 2009, the FDSA has randomly selected 10 members to attend the Sacramento ceremony. Travel and lodging costs are paid to attend the event. In addition, two members are chosen through a lottery to travel to Washington DC to attend national remembrance events.
  
  
• Balancing the FDSA budget each year with a surplus rollover. Additionally, establishing a system of checks and balances and transparency by initiating annual audits of both the FDSA and Insurance Trust accounts.
  
  

I am grateful for the confidence you have had in me throughout the years.

Although we may not cross paths often, please remember I am always available, to discuss any issue or concern you may have, at any time. This is my commitment to each member of this organization.

Thank you so much for your continued support. I'm so grateful and humbled to serve in this capacity.

Eric

Cop Killer to be Released

By Michele Hanisee

Despite objections from countless law enforcement organizations, Voltaire Williams who is serving a life sentence for his critical role in the 1985 assassination of LAPD Detective Thomas Williams (no relation) was granted parole on May 2nd, by a three-person panel from the Board of Parole Hearings.

Voltaire Williams, who has spent the last 32 years in prison after being convicted of conspiracy to murder Detective Williams will now be released on parole. The decision, made after Governor Jerry Brown requested the Parole Board to reconsider an October, 2016 grant of parole for Williams, reinforces the fact that the Parole Board is determined to release life sentence inmates regardless of their dangerousness to society.

Inmate Williams was a key participant in what has been described as one of the worst murder plots in Los Angeles history; the killing of LAPD Detective Thomas Williams to prevent him from testifying in an upcoming criminal case. Inmate Williams was supposed to shoot Detective Williams himself. When the person who had hired him decided to commit the murder on his own, Williams chose not to inform authorities. Detective Williams was picking up his six-year-old son Ryan from church school when the shooter opened fired with a Mac-10 assault rifle. Williams barely had time to tell his son to duck before he was struck by the hail of bullets that also penetrated classroom walls.

Governor Brown asked the Parole Board to reconsider the earlier parole grant, citing Williams's minimization of his role in the crime and his lack of appreciation of the magnitude of the crime and its effect upon the community. Deputy District Attorney Lawrence Morrison highlighted these concerns before the Parole Board, as well as the inmate's lengthy history of lying to prior parole panels on key points of his actions during the conspiracy. Morrison further pointed out to the Parole Board, Williams' failure to acknowledge his active involvement in two separate conspiracies to murder, and the board's reliance on incomplete psychology reports predicting a low risk of future violence.

None of this mattered to the Parole Board, which operates behind prison walls outside the eye of the public. It is clear that in their minds, when an inmate has served a certain portion of their sentence they should be released, and any future harm they cause can be dealt with via a new prosecution. A rubber stamp could hardly do worse.

=======================================================

I found an interesting article that was published by the San Francisco Chronicle on May 31, 2017. You will find the similarities of some language within the article. Obviously some of the major difference is the San Francisco DSA is more "fixed post," with the courts and jail operations. San Francisco Police Department handles all the law enforcement within the county. San Francisco is one of the unique city/counties in California.

The point of the article is to show the staffing shortages that have been and are currently occurring throughout the State of California. Salary and benefit packages are a huge driving force these days into where new recruits will land a job.

The Sheriff makes the decision to who will be working and when. The DSA will just be able to create a happy medium with an order to ensure safe working conditions. The Sheriff is making a decision until she can get the problem under control. She is calling for ALL HANDS ON DECK!!

SF sheriff orders mandatory overtime due to staffing shortage

-SF Chronicle

The San Francisco Sheriff's Department jail population has been on the decline in recent years, but there still aren't enough deputies to work in the county's jails without authorizing overtime.

In fact, staff shortages have forced Sheriff Vicki Hennessy to order her 840 sworn deputies to work mandatory overtime until September, according to a May 19 memo titled "Declaration of Emergency" that was obtained by the San Francisco Examiner.

The memo, which Hennessy acknowledged last week in a phone interview, states that every deputy must work 12 hours of overtime and managers must work eight per pay period so that minimal staffing levels can be met because of the "extreme staffing shortage."

Fully staffed, the department would have 915 deputies.

Hennessy said that in the past, volunteers have come forward to fill the gap when there are expected staffing shortages, such as during the holidays or over the summer.

"I am ordering them to work, if not [we'll] learn what will happen if they don't," she said, adding that this is the first time the department has had to mandate overtime since she was elected sheriff in 2015.

But she has had to cancel some deputies' days off during winter holidays.

The order will stand until Sept. 8, but Hennessy expects by next summer to hire deputies for the dozens of unfilled sworn full-time positions.

"Next summer we're going to be in a much better place," she said. "For now, we're struggling."

The order is due to a lack of new hires in recent years, and will cost The City a pretty penny. In fact, the department's budget asks for overtime increased by 22 percent compared to last year, according to the Budget Analyst's Office.

In the current fiscal year 2016-17, the department budgeted for $12 million, but they overspent and overtime reached a total of $23 million, which is 22 percent higher than the previous fiscal year's overtime cost of $19 million.

Those extra funds — $11 million — were repurposed from unspent salaries and other funds because of vacant positions.

The San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs' Association did not return a call for comment.

The issue of overtime spending has been a problem at least the past eight years, mostly because of a freeze in new academy classes following the recession. Since then, the empty positions have been filled with an escalating overtime budget.

"Since fiscal year 2013-14, sheriff overtime expenditures have increased by approximately $13.6 million, or 130 percent," according to the budget analyst report.

A Nice Gesture From Our California Federal Delegation

Following the celebration of National Police Week, which honors the men and women who serve and protect our communities, Congressman Jerry McNerney (CA-09) announced that he is leading efforts to urge the Postmaster General to establish a semi-postal stamp that would honor fallen law enforcement officers and direct the stamp's proceeds toward a program benefiting their families.

"Every day, law enforcement officers across the country put their lives on the line in service to the American people," said Congressman McNerney. "While they don't ask for recognition or praise, we owe them a great deal for the safety and security they provide. Any officer that gives his or her life in the line of duty is a tragedy for their families and for the community. This stamp would not only pay tribute to these brave men and women, but the proceeds from this purchase would go toward helping their families in these tragic situations."

In a letter to the Postmaster General – which was endorsed by the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), the Peace Officers Research Association of California and the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO) – Congressman McNerney points to the success and benefits of similar stamps that were specifically designed to contribute to causes such as breast cancer research and saving vanishing species, which have collectively raised more than $87 million.

"In addition to establishing this much-deserved acknowledgment for our fallen law enforcement officers, issuing this stamp would help the families they leave behind while also encouraging the use of the United States Postal Service," said Congressman McNerney.

Additional signatories on the letter include Representatives Debbie Dingell (MI-12), Grace Napolitano (CA-32), Mike Thompson (CA-05), Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan (D-N. Marianas), Richard Nolan (MN-08), John B. Larson (CT-01), Salud Carbajal (CA-24), and Betty McCollum (MN-04).

Stay safe and continue to protect one another out there during these hot summer months.

– Eric

‍

Deputy Sheriff Allen Passmore

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 we honored Deputy Sheriff Allen Passmore for his 50 years of life at a wonderful service given by Pastor Fred Leonard from Mountain View Community Church. Allen was memorialized by friends Quinton Hawkins, Damon Bagley and Justin Gainer.

Many of you may not have known Allen at the Sheriff's Office. Below I have attached the eulogy read at this funeral by Sheriff Margaret Mims. Allen's wife, Vicki, wanted to share this with those of you at the Fresno County Sheriff's Office.

Allen Keith Passmore was born on March 23, 1967 to Reverend Kenneth and Mickie Passmore in Sanger, California. While growing up in Sanger, his favorite pastimes, and his most mischievous moments, were hanging out with his older brother David, riding their bikes in the ditch banks and orchards. Allen attended school in Sanger and graduated from Sanger High School in 1985. In high school, he played football, but what he was really proud of was that he was first chair trumpet in the high school band. During his childhood, he did not necessarily know he wanted to be a police officer, but he knew he had a passion for helping people. He got his first dirt bike in the 8th grade and basically fell in love with the sport of racing them.

Allen's love of racing led him to opening his own racetrack in Huron, California after going before the City Council and presenting his business plan. After his track opened, it became a prominent racetrack due to his business smarts and enthusiasm. When that came to a close, his passion for helping people was renewed and he decided to become a police officer. He worked multiple jobs while putting himself through the police academy at night and graduating in 1993.

Allen's first law enforcement opportunity was with the Hanford Police Department, where he served for just less than three years. He started with the Fresno Sheriff's Office in January 1996 and was so excited to be a deputy. His assignments with FSO included patrol, the SWAT team, the Boating Unit, and the Mounted Unit with his partner Sunny, who was part of today's incoming procession. He was promoted to Deputy IV in 2002 and served as a Detective throughout Fresno County and in the Court Services Unit. He received a Life Saving Medal in 1998 while serving on the Boating Unit. Allen and another deputy, using a river rescue boat, were able to retrieve the victim from the swift and dangerous waters below the Pine Flat Dam. He assisted in administering CPR and getting the victim's heart beating again; the victim made a full recovery.

Allen enjoyed spending time with his wife Vicki, son Nicholas, and family and friends, as well as his animals. He loved backyard barbecues, riding street bikes with his friends, watching movies, singing karaoke, attending and hosting progressive dinners, times on the deck at the cabin, and playing board games with Vicki and Nicholas. He never met an Eighties song he didn't want to turn up. His story-telling skills were legendary; when he would start a story, the catch would begin as a minnow; by the end of the story, it would be a shark. He was an avid supporter of the Green Bay Packers since childhood, even during the tough years. He finally realized his dream of buying his Harley Davidson last year.

The loss of Allen will be felt by his family daily. He would call his parents every morning, prepare Vicki and Nicholas's lunches with handwritten notes, and watch Nicholas play sports. He took special pride in seeing Nicholas play his trumpet from high school. A special memory Vicki will carry with her is dancing with Allen in the backyard under the stars to Air Supply. When Vicki and Allen took their vows, they not only meant them at the time, but they practiced them on a daily basis. They shared happy times, they laughed, they cried, and through life's challenges, supported each other and put their vows to the test and came out more loving and more secure. The night before his passing, Allen blessed Vicki with a perfect date night with their closest friends. There is a beautiful picture to forever capture that memory.

There's no doubt that Allen loved Vicki, but the true love is his son Nicholas. Allen was so prideful of Nicholas, who he would lovingly refer to as Junior. His support of Nicholas's sports and academics was endless, and he could be seen on the sidelines as well as behind the scenes, providing Nicholas every opportunity to reach his dreams.

For Allen's family and friends, the loss is tremendous, but Allen, rest well in Heaven, for we will be together again.

Deputy found guilty in 2015 Calif. televised beating; mistrial for two others

I wanted to update you all on an incident that occurred with San Bernardino deputies in 2015, as I had a few inquiries recently if I knew any resolution on this case. Just so happens, this case was taken to trial recently and a sheriff's deputy in San Bernardino was convicted of assault for his role in the beating of a suspect following a chase on horseback in 2015.

Deputy Charles Foster, 35, faces up to three years in prison at an April 28 sentencing after a jury found him guilty of assault by a police officer, San Bernardino County District Attorney's Office spokesman Christopher Lee said. Lee added that the jury agreed on Foster's guilt in the incident, but was deadlocked, 8-4, on the same charges against Michael Phelps, 31, and Nicholas Downey, 34, two other deputies involved. Prosecutors have not decided whether to retry Phelps and Downey.

Many of you may or may not remember, this was a case involving a suspect, Francis Pusok, who took deputies on over a three hour chase, on foot, vehicle, and ended with him on a horse in the mountains of San Bernardino.

The incident, on April 9, 2015, began with deputies arriving at a home to serve a search warrant in an identity theft case. Francis Pusok, who was present at the scene but not a suspect, although he had been arrested several times previously, fled at the sight of deputies. A three-hour chase across the county's desert, which involved Pusok escaping on a stolen motorcycle and later a stolen horse, ended with a confrontation with officers. Video from a live television report from a hovering helicopter showed Pusok being beaten by the officers.

Deputies were inserted by helicopter to make the final arrest and the significant use of force was captured by a news helicopter flying above the incident at about the 8000' mark – filming the entire incident that left a black eye on law enforcement.

Pusok had made threats to kill the next deputy he encountered. However, when he was finally arrested he was in the prone position and obviously surrendering to the three deputies on scene. Rather, than making the arrest – the three deputies proceeded to punch and kick Pusok repeatedly before more deputies (ten more) arrived on scene to make the final arrest in handcuffs.

Pusok received a $650,000 settlement from the county after the incident. His trial, on charges including evading a police officer, resisting arrest, stealing an animal, cruelty to an animal and being under the influence of drugs, and vehicle theft, is scheduled to start in May.

Frontal Assault on the Vested Pension Rights

The First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco issued a highly controversial decision in Marin Association of Public Employees v. Marin County Employees' Retirement Association. The Court ruled that an employer may reduce pension benefits, before retirement, so long as the pension benefit remains "reasonable." The Court offers no guidelines for what is a reasonable change and what is an unreasonable one.

The decision is an undisguised, frontal assault on the so-called "California Rule" which has long-protected vested pension rights. Anti-pension advocates are prematurely seizing on this ruling as a "game changer."

Our law firm, Messing, Adam and Jasmine, who also represents Marin County's firefighters and managers in this specific case.

The facts are simple. Since the landmark Ventura case in 1997, the Marin County Employees' Retirement Association (MCERA) has included standby pay; administrative response pay, call-back pay and "cash in lieu" pay as "compensation earnable" under Government Code section 31461. Both employees and the County employer paid contributions based upon the inclusion of these premiums.

After the Legislature passed the California Public Employees' Pension Reform Act of 2013 (PEPRA), however, MCERA determined that it would no longer include those premiums as compensation earnable for both existing and new employees.

Multiple Marin County labor unions filed suit. Everyone accepts that pension benefits may be reduced, or even eliminated, for new employees, before they begin work. However, a massive body of California decisions going back at least four decades has universally held that pension benefits for existing employees cannot be changed once they start work unless the pension plan specifically allows for such change. Relying on this unbroken line of cases, the Marin unions argued that MCERA could not discontinue the inclusion of the various premiums as compensation earnable for classic employees.

The Court of Appeal disagreed. Dispensing with the arguments made by MCERA and the California Attorney General's Office (which intervened to defend PEPRA), the Court of Appeal ploughed a new furrow and concluded that public employee pensions may be modified, before retirement, so long as the pension benefit remains "reasonable."

The Court disputed what is perhaps the central tenet of vested pension law: that if a change in the pension system results in a disadvantage to employees; it "must be accompanied by comparable new advantages." It delved into whether, when the California Supreme Court used the word "must," it really meant "must." The Court concluded that the Supreme Court meant only "should." And since "should" really just means "ought to," it violates no legal right for the pension promise to be broken so long as the pension remains reasonable.

The Marin unions took their next steps, which included asking the California Supreme Court to review the case and provide guidance. This seems appropriate given the Court of Appeal's break with precedent, and reconfiguration of what has been a settled body of law. Just last year, a different panel of the First District Court of Appeal in Protect Our Benefits v. City and County of San Francisco held just the opposite in declaring that a charter amendment which eliminated a supplemental cost of living adjustment for retirees was unconstitutional. That panel restated the rule that if a change in the pension system results in a disadvantage to employees, it "must be accompanied by comparable new advantages."

I have received many calls in the recent weeks from those of you who have read other articles on this case and have asked if we should be concerned with it. The simple answer is yes we should. The longer explanation though, is we are far from panic mode in regards to this case – only because it's in Marin County as it stands today and it will be heard by the California Supreme Court. There will be more to come in regards to this case specific and specifically to this issue. As I receive any further information I will update all of you as to its content.

Take care of yourselves and one another.

-Eric

‍

Happy Spring! The flowers are blooming and grass is tall and green all over the Central Valley!

I hope you are all drying out after a wet winter. Now, with an abundance of water, we can anticipate a busy summer with overflowing waterways within Fresno County. Undoubtedly, we can expect to answer a lot of calls near rivers and lakes as temperatures rise and recreation increases.

In this month's President's Message, I have included several articles that are pertinent and important for every employee who works at the Fresno County Sheriff's Office. The first article, taken from “The Labor Beat,” published by our firm Messing, Adam & Jasmine, addresses issues related to whether personal emails and text messages can be used or subpoenaed as part of various investigations or inquiries. The matter has been addressed by the California courts, and you should be aware of the current ruling.

To Send or Not to Send: Personal Accounts May Succumb to the CPRA

The California Supreme Court, in yesterday's ruling in City of San Jose et al. v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, held that communication about public business on a personal account may be subject to the disclosure requirements under the California Public Records Act ("CPRA").  Any public employee's personal records can become the target of a CPRA request and, therefore, be affected by this ruling.

In response to a CPRA request by Petitioner, the City of San Jose disclosed communications made using City phone numbers and email accounts, but not emails from individuals' personal accounts or texts from personal phone numbers. The City argued that personal accounts do not fall within the purview of the CPRA.

On appeal, the high court had to decide whether writings (including emails, text messages, and other electronic platforms) that concerned public business were within CPRA's reach even though they were sent or received on a non-governmental account. The Court rationalized that the CPRA's policy implications and statutory language answer this question in the affirmative. The Court recognized that not all employment-related activity occurs from 9-5 in the confines of an office. The type of account used to prepare or transmit messages is not determinative of whether or not the writing must be disclosed.

Whether a writing is related to public business, however, will be up for debate. The Courts will look at several factors, such as the content, the context or purpose for which it was written, the intended audience, and whether the writing was prepared by an employee acting or purporting to act within the scope of his/her employment. "For example, depending on the context, an email to a spouse complaining 'my co-worker is an idiot' would likely not be a public record;" further, "primarily personal [communications] containing no more than incidental mentions of agency business, generally [also] will not" qualify for disclosure.

Overall, public employees must be cognizant of business-related messages sent from personal cell phones and or email accounts, as they could be subject to disclosure.

This article has been circulating amongst the ranks at the PORAC level and has been echoing a lot of what we have been discussing for the past few years. The author has outlined much of what we have been talking about for quite some time. This topic has brought about much discussion from many law enforcement association leaders across the state, as well as discussion amongst elected local and state leaders.

The following article highlights a problem that has been prevalent across the nation over the past few years. There are several effects of having fewer people willing to join the law enforcement profession. This article illustrates some of the fallout from a police officer shortage.

Police Shortage Across the Nation

Written by: Safia Samee Ali, NBC News

Law enforcement: It's a tough job but somebody's got to do it. But what happens when no one wants to be that somebody?

Numerous police departments around the country are desperately losing manpower with decreasing numbers of officers and recruits. Law enforcement is becoming less of a desirable career choice due to diminishing pay, high risk, and of course a recent bad rap — a trend that could put public safety at risk, say policing experts.

The current shortage afflicts police forces from large metropolitan hubs to rural towns.

"Departments are struggling to find not only interested, but interested and qualified, candidates to join the force," said Jim Burch, vice president of the Police Foundation. "With everything happening around policing from salary to criticism, the question many people are asking is 'is it worth it?'"

Police Departments Compete With Better Paying, More Flexible Jobs

The economy has seen an uptick in recent years with 2.24 million new jobs added in 2016 and an unemployment rate below 5 percent — and years of continued economic expansion.

Good news for many — just not police departments.

"Every time the economy gets better, the police have a problem recruiting," said Nelson Lim, executive director of the Fels Institute of Government at the University of Pennsylvania. "It's like clockwork."

A blossoming job market means more career choices, said Darrel Stephens, executive director of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. Police departments can't always keep up with perks other professions in the private sector may offer, he said. "Salary and benefits have declined in many departments," he said.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics puts the growth rate for "Police and Detectives" as "slower than average" at 4 percent with the average growth rate at 7 percent for other professions. The bottom tenth-percentile for an officer's salary is $33,430, according to 2015 federal data.

"It's not an 8-5 job with weekends off," Stephens said. "The lifestyle is difficult for a lot of people."

The younger generation is looking for "work-life balance and flexibility, but officers work nights, they work holidays," he said.

Data on the extent of the shortage is limited to individual departments. There is no national, centralized data on police recruits or department numbers, said Lim. "The only way to find out is when individual departments release information. Otherwise nobody collects this information," he added.

The Roswell Police Department in New Mexico has been dealing with staff shortages for the last five years, said spokesman Todd Wildermuth. Roswell's police force, with a starting salary of $44,553, is currently down 20 percent from the allocated headcount, he said. The police force has been below its maximum headcount for years now, Mayor Dennis Kintigh said.

The Roswell Police Department, located 100 miles from the Texas border, competes with oil and gas jobs that might be more lucrative, he said.

Applying to be an officer requires several layers of "certifications, testing, and training," he said. Dissuading factors for some, he said.

Plus the job is also more vulnerable, said Donald DeLucca, president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. "Last year some horrific things happened to police officers," he said.

He's referring to law enforcement fatalities, which were at their highest in five years in 2016, with 135 officers killed in the line of duty, according to the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund (NLEOMF).

Twenty-one were the result of ambush-style attacks, the highest in more than two decades, according to NLEOMF.

"Forty-two percent of officers reported that 'they nearly always or often have serious concerns about their safety,'" regardless of what level of danger an officer has come across in their career, according to the Pew Research Center.

Officers are frequently asked to defuse all kinds of dangerous situations, many that fall out of their jurisdiction, said DeLucca. "We're asked to do so much," he said. Not only "are we policing but we also act as de facto social services in many situations," he said.

Negative Narrative around Policing

Adding to the difficulties of recruiting officers are the numerous high-profile incidences — such as in Ferguson, Missouri, Chicago, and Baltimore — where police use of force touched off massive community unrest.

Confidence in police was at a 22-year low in 2015 — inching only minimally higher last year, according to a Gallup poll.

"If so many agencies are struggling with staffing, the issue goes beyond compensation and benefits," Burch said. "It is a difficult time to be a police officer with the increased amount of criticism and negativity surrounding the profession," he said.

"It's a thankless job, and it's become more so recently," said Roseville, Michigan, Police Chief James Berlin. He's been aggressively recruiting for a short-staffed force for the last two years. "You'll be criticized and degraded, and many people think 'who wants to do that?'" Berlin said.

While there is no definitive correlation to attitudes towards policing and the numbers, Michigan law enforcement has lost more than 300 officers from the job since 2012, according to the Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards.

But those isolated acts make it more important to take your time in finding the right person, he said. "Maybe the officers in those situations shouldn't have been hired to begin with," Berlin said.

"Policing now calls for the best," said DeLucca. "We've got to get it right more than ever."

"Let's get the most qualified people hired … that will naturally reduce these types of incidents," said Edward Medrano, incoming president of the California Police Chiefs Association. It's not always that there aren't enough applicants, it's getting harder to find the right applicants, he said.

What Does this Mean for Public Safety?

There is no "quantifiable relationship between number of police officers and crime," said Arthur Lurigio, a criminology professor at Loyola University in Chicago "Nonetheless, if the number of experienced police officers and detectives decreases and are replaced by less-seasoned personnel, that could lead to less effective policing and therefore more disorder and crime," he said.

For a city of a little over a million, San Jose, California has a police force of only 800 officers, said Officer Albert Morales, a San Jose Police Department spokesman. "The force has not been able to keep up with the growth in population," he said. In fact, the city was down almost 50 officers since the same time last year, he said.

While the city has not hit any crime-infested breaking point, the pattern is certainly a common one in both small and big departments alike, he said.

The first sign that something is wrong is when "response times start getting longer and longer," Burch said. And when that reaches a dire level, public safety could be at risk, he said.

"If the situation becomes that extreme, police leadership will say it's no longer safe for officers to go into a situation because they don't have any backup," he said.

While Burch says this hasn't happened yet, the public should recognize that this is an important job that needs to be properly manned.

For many officers it goes beyond numbers or risk, Morales said. "Becoming an officer is more than a job, it's a calling," he said.

Looking ahead toward summer and the 4th of July- we were not selected in the lottery to have a fireworks stand. Hopefully next year we will have better luck!

Take care of yourself and take care of the ones you work with.

All my best,

Eric

‍

Hope you enjoying the wide variety of weather we've been receiving over the past few months! 2017 has brought us showers, sun, floods and now we are finally drying out. Those patrolling the west side have had the opportunity to even monitor a levee that is teetering on the brink of overflowing.

TELADOC Benefit Advantages

I wanted to recap the TELADOC benefit we received during the insurance negotiations with Blue Shield for the current plan this year. I talked about it briefly in one of the prior President's Messages, and wanted to recap it for all of you. This is an enhanced benefit that we saw no out-of-pocket cost on. Already I've received feedback from a few members who have used the benefit and many of those- including myself, have signed up for it via the IPhone/Android Application. So far, the reviews have been all positive.

Blue Shield launched this program to its customers this plan year, with no cost to our plan. Teladoc’s board-certified doctors are available 24/7, 365 days a year to resolve many health related problems one may have during a non-emergency medical issue. This is accomplished through phone or video consultations.

The primary purpose and usage of Teladoc is when you are considering a trip to the emergency room or urgent care for a non-emergency. For example, if you are on vacation, a business trip, away from home, or need a short-term prescription refill.

Teladoc doctors can treat many medical conditions including;

• Cold and flu symptoms
• Allergies
• Bronchitis
• Urinary tract infection
• Respiratory infection
• Sinus problems
• And many more!

Teledoc doctors are all practicing PCP’s, pediatricians, and family physicians. They have an average of 15 years of experience and are all board certified and licensed. Each one is credentialed every three years.

• To set up YOUR specific Teladoc account contact Teladoc at
• Teladoc.com/BSC
• 1-800-Teladoc (835-2362)
• membersupport@teladoc.com
• Facebook.com/Teladoc

You will continue to see us remind you about this benefit and why it's a low cost, worthwhile and convenient option. Not only is it a $5 co-pay, it will also greatly reduce our overall exposure on the insurance plan. This will allow us the flexibility of future out-of-pocket costs on our health insurance.

Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association ratifies new MOU

By Anthony Gomez – FDSA 2nd Vice President

On February 9th, 2017 the Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association ratified a substantial, groundbreaking new contract with the County of Fresno. This deal came about after many years of modest contract increases and even a painful decrease, which included furloughs and salary reductions at the onset of the Great Recession. Led by Chief Negotiator Gary Messing and FDSA President Eric Schmidt, the association was able to strike a deal that was flush with improvements and lacking any takeaways for the membership.

Prior to entering into formal negotiations with the County of Fresno, the FDSA Board polled its membership to determine the most pressing wants/needs throughout each job classification. As a result of this poll, emphasis was placed on salary improvements, but other realistic requests were also considered. The FDSA also utilized compensation surveys to compare the various classifications in the Association with those in comparable jurisdictions. A forensic audit of the County’s finances was conducted in order to determine their fiscal health. Armed with this information, Gary Messing and Eric Schmidt began extensive conversations over a period of several months leading up to formal negotiations.

Meanwhile, Eric Schmidt has been attending every Board of Supervisors meeting for the last nine years in order to show an ongoing presence and to stay abreast of important topics being discussed. Along those lines, the FDSA Political Action Committee endorsed and campaigned for candidates it believed would place an emphasis on public safety. Eric also continued to build upon an already strong relationship with the County of Fresno Director of Personnel Services, Paul Nerland. Over time, Eric and Paul had numerous conversations, but quickly agreed that the FDSA should be acknowledged for many years of cooperation during hard times. Paul recognized that the FDSA always led the way for other bargaining units as an example of collaboration.

Prior to ratification of the contract that benefitted the entire Association, President Schmidt was able to convince the County that the wage disparity between Fresno County Sheriff’s Office Dispatchers and their counterparts in other agencies could no longer be ignored. After a salary compensation study was completed, the county agreed to immediately grant a 10% salary increase to all Dispatchers in the FDSA in order to address retention and recruitment in the communications center, which has endured a drastic reduction in staffing levels. This salary increase at the Dispatcher level is on top of the additional benefits gained in the new contract for the entire Association.

The newly ratified MOU spans a time frame of almost three years and concludes in December of 2019. The MOU bestows improvements to all classifications in the bargaining unit which includes Deputy Sheriffs, Dispatchers, Deputy Coroners, Identification Technicians, Community Service Officers, Crime Lab Personnel, and the Rangemaster. The prominent feature of this MOU is that all members will receive a 5% salary increase in July of 2017, another 5% salary increase in July of 2018, and a final 5% salary increase in July of 2019. Compounding these increases results in an almost 16% salary increase over the life of the contract.

Over the course of the contract term, health insurance contributions from the County of Fresno to each member will increase from $243 bi-weekly to $298 bi-weekly for member-only health plans. For members with dependent coverage, the health insurance contributions increase from $333 bi-weekly to $448 bi-weekly. This equates to an increased benefit of $120 per month for members without dependent coverage and $250 for members with dependent coverage.

The FDSA Insurance Trust is personally managed by its own members and is separate from the Fresno County various health plans that are offered. The FDSA Insurance Trust recently negotiated two consecutive years of reductions to their health plans which resulted in a total savings of about 10% across the board for all health plan options. Factoring in the increased contributions by the county, combined with additional anticipated health plan cost savings in future years, some members could realize a net of zero dollars deducted for their health insurance premiums.

Other benefits outlined in this MOU are increases to uniform allowances for Deputy Sheriffs and Community Service Officers that gradually go from an annual sum of $500 today to an annual sum of $1000 in January of 2019. Additionally, all other classifications in the bargaining unit (except Dispatchers) will now also enjoy an annual uniform allowance for the first time; $250 in January of 2018, increasing to $350 in January of 2019. Pilots and Tactical Flight Officers in the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office Air Support Unit will see their incentive pay more than double. Pilot bi-weekly incentive pay will increase from $300 to $750 while Tactical Flight Officer bi-weekly incentive pay will increase from $200 to $400. Graveyard shift differential pay will gradually be fully restored to the 8% that it was prior to the Great Recession, rather than the 4% that it is today.

The agreed upon MOU also contains protections for current and future salary disparities among the various classifications within the bargaining unit by way of contract reopeners. The first contract reopener calls for a salary study to be conducted for Community Service Officers, Deputy Coroners, Crime Lab Personnel, and Identification Technicians. The costs of the studies are to be shared between the FDSA and the County of Fresno. The studies will compare the salaries of the aforementioned classifications in Fresno County to those in other agreed upon jurisdictions.

There is also a separate contract reopener specifically intended to address any potential salary disparity for Deputy Sheriffs. The reopener calls for a continuous comparison between the salary of a top-step Fresno County Deputy Sheriff III and that of a top-step Fresno City Police Officer II (an equivalent rank comparison). Should the salary of a Fresno City Police Officer II surpass that of a Fresno County Deputy Sheriff III, the FDSA and the County will negotiate for additional increases. This important consideration is intended to address retention and recruitment in the Deputy Sheriff Classification. Additional reopeners were included to study the impact of Productive Time, the County’s “Return to Work” Program which streamlines the worker’s compensation process, and future considerations of Detective Incentive Pay.

Depending on which classification one belongs to, the total compensation of this package ranges anywhere from 20%-35% worth of enhancements. The FDSA anticipates this MOU being applied up the ranks within the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office so that other bargaining units can reap the benefits of all the work that has been expended over more than a year. The Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association Board, along with Messing, Adam & Jasmine, are very proud to be able to bring forth this contract to the membership. The bargaining team of Gary Messing, Eric Schmidt, Isaac Torres, Anthony Gomez, and Kelly Mayfield worked tirelessly to achieve this result and all are pleased with the outcome for the Association.

Thank you

I would like to thank each and every one of you for listening to the presentation and details about the new MOU. Thank you for your thoughtful questions and constructive praise and criticism. Although some may never understand, the negotiation process is extremely grueling and not for the faint of heart. It is a long process that is incredibly stressful. For those who are willing to consider taking a seat at the bargaining table, please think about being on our negotiating team. It's definitely an opportunity that provides invaluable insight into the process and battle for better wages and working conditions.

Stay safe out there.

My best,

Eric

‍

The new year is off to a very good trend thanks to a series of significant storms that swept through the Central Valley. In just one month, the rainfall totals have us climbing out of extreme drought status! They also provided some beautiful snowy views for those who patrol or have visited the mountain areas of Fresno County.

The Battle Against Pension Reform

With each passing day- it becomes clearer that the war on pension is going to continue until a decision is handed down by a higher court. It seems the recent ruling by some of the Court of Appeals justices is complicating the matter as to what is a “promised benefit” and what is “perceived” as one.

I have attached an article that gives insight to further attacks on the public pension system. This article was written by Reporter Ed Mendel. He covered the Capitol in Sacramento for nearly three decades, most recently for the San Diego Union-Tribune.

Although this is a CALPERS/CALSTRS publication article, it’s relevant and important. Consider this- every public pension, (whether it’s CALPERS, 1937 Act, or private pension through one of the five cities within California), is being attacked. One case in particular is in Marin County – a 1937 Act County. The case is currently being reviewed by the California Supreme Court. Our law firm, Messing, Adam & Jasmine is the primary counsel on this case and it patiently waiting for the ability to argue their points in front of the justices.

The article is very well written and gives a quick snapshot into what we have all been concerned about for many years.

Since the latest recession in 2008- some have blamed public employees for the stock market crash and unbalanced government budgets.

It remains unclear what effects this could mean for those who have been promised these benefits. It’s created a lot of uncertainty and no definite answers.

For the last 50 years, pension has never been contentious at the bargaining table. This is true for both safety and non-safety employees.

For Safety members in Fresno County and throughout the state, public safety pensions have been a historical recruitment tool. Now- this is not to infer pension have never been manipulated from their onset – in relation to the benefits they provide. But the pension system, has had a strong foundation.

From purely a bargaining standpoint – this significant lifetime benefit will be looked at and analyzed as much as a ‘uniform allowance’ has in the past. Opponents of public pensions are waiting – or even demanding intense scrutiny of this system.

Another ruling says pension set at hire can be cut

A second appeals court panel has unanimously ruled that the public pension offered at hire can be cut without an offsetting new benefit, broadening support for what pension reformers call a “game changer” if the state Supreme Court agrees.

The new ruling on Dec. 30 in a state firefighters suit on pension-boosting “airtime” purchases made several references to a groundbreaking ruling last summer in a Marin County pension “spiking” suit.

“The law is quite clear that they are entitled only to a ‘reasonable’ pension, not one providing fixed or definite benefits immune from modification or elimination by the governing body,” wrote Justice Martin Jenkins.

The two appeals court rulings are contrary to previous rulings known as the “California rule”: The pension offered at hire becomes a vested right, protected by contract law, that can only be cut if offset by a comparable new benefit, erasing any savings.

Most pension reforms are limited to new hires (who are not yet vested), taking decades to yield significant savings. To get major savings, some reformers want to cut the pensions of existing workers, protecting what’s already earned but reducing future pension earnings.

A key to the California rule is a 1955 Supreme Court ruling (Allen v. City of Long Beach)that “reasonable” pension changes should be related to the theory and “successful operation” of a pension system and any disadvantage “should be accompanied by comparable new advantages.”

The Marin appellate ruling argued in detail that “should” have comparable new advantages, which is only advisory, had somehow become a mandatory “must” have comparable new advantages in the series of California rule cases.

“We agree with this conclusion reached by our colleagues,” Jenkins wrote.

Unions argued in the Marin and firefighters suits that the California rule prevented the bans on “airtime” and “spiking” for existing workers in a pension reform enacted four years ago by Gov. Brown and the Legislature.

Cal Fire Local 2881 (formerly known as CDF Firefighters) sued the California Public Employees Retirement System to resume employee airtime purchases, citing CalPERS’ own publication saying vested pension rights begin when members start work.

“Public employees obtain a vested right to the provisions of the applicable retirement law that exists during the course of their public employment. Promised benefits may be increased during employment, but not decreased, absent the employees’ consent,” said the CalPERS publication.

Critics of the California rule argue that if the employee’s job and pay can be cut, why can’t the pension legally regarded as “deferred compensation” be cut? The brief 1955 Allen ruling gives no rationale for a “comparable new advantage.”

The CalPERS response to the firefighters said the pension system could not resume airtime purchases without a determination that the ban is unconstitutional. The trial court held airtime “was not a vested right,” said CalPERS, “and even if it were, the Legislature could eliminate it.”

Legislation sponsored by the California Professional Firefighters and the Service Employees International Union (AB 719 in 2003) allowed employees in CalPERS to increase their pensions by purchasing up to five years of additional service credit, the maximum allowed by federal tax law.

The program intended to have no cost to employers was informally called “airtime” because no work was performed for the service credit. Airtime yielded a lifetime monthly retirement payment, with no risk of investment losses, based on the earnings forecast assumed by CalPERS at the time of purchase.

The earnings forecast was 8.25 percent a year when the program began in 2003, but had dropped to 7.5 percent by the time the program ended in 2012. The CalPERS board acted last month to gradually drop the earnings forecast to 7 percent over the next eight years.

“It’s a tremendous investment,” Dan Pellissier, president of California Pension Reform, a former gubernatorial and legislative aide who purchased airtime, said in 2012. “I think all of the investment advisers say it’s a no-brainer.”

As it turned out, airtime was an even better deal than the purchasers thought. The trial court ruling in the firefighters suit said CalPERS discovered some time after April 2010 that it had been charging purchasers less than the actual cost of airtime.

The CalPERS “Review of Additional Retirement Service Credits” study said in effect “that in selling Airtime to state employees CalPERS was selling $1.00 worth of benefits for between $0.72 and $0.89,” wrote Alameda County Superior Court Judge Evelio Grillo.

The study was not available from CalPERS last week. A CalPERS spokeswoman said about 61,217 members purchased airtime from Jan. 1, 2004, when the program began through Dec. 31, 2012, when it ended.

There was no significant increase or rush to purchase airtime between the passage of the reform legislation in October 2012 and when the ban took effect at the end of that year, the spokeswoman said. There were 363 airtime purchases in October, 376 in November and 386 in December.

CalPERS members could pay the full cost of airtime with a lump sum or select a payment plan of up to 15 years. Interest was charged on the unpaid balance at the current “crediting rate,” which was 6 percent compounded annually in 2003.

The elimination of airtime was part of Brown’s 12-point pension reform plan issued in 2011.

“Pensions are intended to provide retirement stability for time actually worked,” said Brown’s point No. 10. “Employers, and ultimately taxpayers, should not bear the burden of guaranteeing the additional employee investment risk that comes with airtime purchases.”

The ruling in the Marin suit allows the county, with no offsetting new benefit, to impose the spiking ban in the 2012 reform legislation that prevents existing workers from continuing to boost pensions with standby pay, call-back pay, and other things.

The state Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal of the Marin ruling. But the high court will wait until an appeals court rules on three similar spiking ban suits consolidated from Alameda, Contra Costa, and Merced counties.

Last month, yet another three-justice appeals court panel upheld a denial of a claim by San Joaquin County correctional officers that the 2012 pension reform prevented an end to county payments toward their cost-of-living adjustments until 2018.

This appeals court ruling included lengthy quotes from the Marin ruling about how the 2012 pension reform was a response to a pension funding “crisis” that will force cuts in local government services and layoffs if not corrected.

“We express no view about the Marin Assn. court’s interpretation of precedent regarding the validity of changes to retirement benefits,” said a footnote in the San Joaquin ruling. “We merely agree with its account of the historical backdrop animating recent pension reform legislation in California.”

Bargaining with County of Fresno Update

We are continuing talks with the County of Fresno in order for both sides to reach an agreement for a successor MOU. These discussions started informally in May of 2016, when we reached out to the County Labor Manager, Paul Nerland to open discussions.

To date, we have met on seven separate occasions, to try and reach a compromise on a successor Memorandum of Understanding or MOU. Discussions initially progressed and then regressed.

One of the highlights of these discussions has been having county officials acknowledge the 2015 salary survey conducted regarding the dispatcher classification. The discussions resulted in an immediate 10% equity adjustment, based on one of the re-openers from our last contact. The adjustment will still need to be increased another 7-10% to be solvent, but the 10% for the dispatchers here was a very successful addition to their job specs.

The FDSA is constantly reminding the Board of Supervisors of the shortfalls in salary and benefits this organization faces compared to others we have surveyed.

Thank you for your patience. Negotiating benefits can be a time consuming, tedious and stressful process.

Once an agreement is reached by the FDSA bargaining team and County of Fresno- it will then be brought to the membership for ratification.

I will continue to work on behalf of every FDSA member, for fair and equitable benefits and working conditions.

Truly,

Eric

‍

Wishing you all the best health and happiness in 2017! Happy New Year!

I hope you had a safe and happy holiday season.

The start of a new chapter brings a sense of renewed energy and desire to reach new goals!

At the FDSA, January is also a time to reflect on those fallen officers who were killed in the Line of Duty in 2016.

During Police Week in May, at events in Sacramento and Washington DC, we will honor all fallen law enforcement officers and their family.

These are the fallen officers in the State of California in 2016:

• Deputy Scott Ballantyne – Tulare County Sheriff’s Office EOW: February 10, 2016
• Officer Nathan Taylor – California Highway Patrol EOW: March 13, 2016
• Officer Michael Katherman – San Jose Police Department EOW: June 14, 2016
• Officer Jonathan “JD” Guzman – San Diego Police Department EOW: July 28, 2016
• Deputy Sergeant Steve Owen – Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office EOW: October 5, 2016
• Officer Lesley Zerebny – Palm Springs Police Department EOW: October 8, 2016
• Officer Jose Vega – Palm Springs Police Department EOW: October 8, 2016
• Deputy Jack Hopkins – Modoc County Sheriff’s Office EOW: October 19, 2016
• Deputy Sergeant Alfonso Lopez – Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Office EOW: October 24, 2016
• Deputy Sergeant Rod Lucas – Fresno County Sheriff’s Office EOW: October 31, 2016
• Deputy Dennis Wallace – Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Office EOW: November 13, 2016

Prop 66 (Death Penalty Reform Act)

The FDSA has taken an active role in death penalty reform and efforts to end the death penalty in California.

In 2012, we took a position- in conjunction with PORAC, to help with the No on 34 campaign. This measure was intended to abolish the death penalty in California. At that time, there were 43 ‘cop killers,’ on death row. Many of the victim’s families had also reached out for help in fighting this proposition. Fortunately, No on 34 was victorious. The fix moving forward was reform.

This past year (2016), the reform act was put on the ballot. Fortunately, the voters passed it. However, a result of this State Proposition being certified- was an immediate lawsuit and the California Supreme Court taking the matter up for review.

I have attached an article written by Michele Hanisee. She is the President of LA County District Attorneys. The 58 elected District Attorneys in California were the ones leading the charge on this reform act. Michele writes a great overview article that sums up what really happened here.

Prop. 66 lawsuit is an insult to California voters

By Michele Hanisee is President of the Association of Los Angeles Deputy District Attorneys.

So much for respecting the will of the voters.

The moment the final ballot count proved that voters had enacted Prop. 66 - the death penalty reform initiative - opponents rushed to court to block the initiative.  Although the legal challenge is limited to just a few clauses of Prop. 66, the Supreme Court has just announced that implementation of all parts of the initiative will be stayed pending their review of the lawsuit.

Prop. 66 preserved the death penalty for the most heinous criminals by enacting critically needed reforms to the system. The ADDA and our public safety partners worked hard to promote it and secure its passage.  At the same time they passed Prop. 66, voters rejected a competing initiative that would have eliminated the death penalty and allowed criminals who kill cops or rape and murder children to live out their lives in prison.

The opponents of Prop. 66 falsely claim that Prop. 66 would disrupt the courts, cost more money and limit the ability to appeal.  In fact, it does the exact opposite. Among other things, it will require that a defendant who is sentenced to death be appointed a lawyer at the time of sentence, meaning the defendant's appeal will be heard sooner. It will require appeals be heard within five years. And it will also allow the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to reduce the cost of housing death-row inmates.

Having failed to convince the voters, death penalty opponents have resorted to the courts to try to thwart the will of the voters.  It is cruelly ironic that the opponents are using the same tactics they use in death penalty appeals - frivolous legal challenges in court - to prevent implementation of the initiative that would have reduced the number of frivolous legal challenges in court.  The same opponents who claim in one breath that the reforms of Prop. 66 won't work, also complain in their motion that "It will also make it more likely, and more immediate, for persons sentenced to death to face their executions."

The basic concept of democracy seems most lost on those who claim to be fighting for due process.  Death penalty opponents refuse to accept that the citizens of California voted not just to keep the death penalty but also to reform the appellate court system and ensure the death penalty is carried out in a timely manner.

The Supreme Court's decision to issue a blanket stay without hearing from the proponents of Prop. 66 is disappointing, but it is, at this point, nothing more than a minor setback. Rest assured the ADDA will vigorously support the effort to defeat this frivolous lawsuit.

Update to Bargaining

FDSA continues to bargain with the County of Fresno for a successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). Since the last update, we have had four meetings with Fresno County Labor relations. We have worked out a deal for an immediate equity adjustment for our Communication Dispatchers who average about 17% below those surveyed by Fresno County.

We have also reached some common ground on health insurance for all those covered under the Insurance Trust.

As a reminder, ALL county employees saw a $50 per pay period adjustment to what the County of Fresno contributes to their health insurance.

During the December 6th board meeting, Supervisor Henry Perea asked why FDSA was not getting this bump. CAO Jean Rousseau explained that FDSA and other FSO groups were in negotiations with the county and that can all be handled at the bargaining table.

I have been extremely vocal on this issue. Back in October, the Board of Supervisors made it clear that all county employees would be receiving this increase, to make out- of- pocket health costs less. Since then, the Board asked labor relations to meet with the FDSA and work this out. On January 10th, this will be going to the Board for approval. At that time, I hope to be able to report what the increase will be for FDSA members, as well as dispatchers.

The remainder of the discussions have been for the hours, wages, and working conditions on the successor MOU. We have been dealing directly with labor relations on these issues and I hope to have a resolution very soon.

Update on New Area Two Substation

I would like to share with you, the progress of this new Area Two Substation. It will be located on the southwest corner of Harvey and Armstrong (Belmont/Armstrong).

The process started in early September. A working group was set up to discuss design and compatibility at the new facility. The staff at Lance-Kashian Company is leading the project, along with their architect. Recently, I was able to view the blueprints along with computer generated drawings of what the substation will look like, and it’s impressive to say the least.

At this point, elevations are being finalized. Although this building will serve as the Area Two substation, there are two large warehouse style buildings. These will accommodate vehicle storage and moving the entire fleet operation to this location. There will be a fuel station for both county workers and FSO employees.

The design is laid out on 6.3 acres. The substation size alone is roughly 22,000 square feet.

Right now, we do not have a ground breaking date. Financing options still must be worked out between Fresno County, the Sheriff and Lance-Kashian Company.

As more information becomes available, I will be passing on the exciting news with you.

I hope everyone is looking forward to 2017. Be safe out there.

All my Best,

Eric

‍

I'd like to begin by wishing you all a wonderful holiday season filled with joy! I hope you are enjoying fun festivities with family and friends and making a lot of great memories!

As 2016 comes to a close, we are already setting goals at the FDSA for 2017.

One thing we are so glad to have finally completed are shift signups.

Below I have attached the staffing side letter of agreement for patrol that is tied into signups for the 2017 New Year. This took many hours of collaboration and work between FDSA and Captain Gularte to come up with a mutually agreeable direction in staffing.

I would like to remind all FDSA members – it is Sheriff Mims goal to have all beats filled with two deputies in each beat, in each area. Based on the direction we are headed, I hope to reach that goal within the next few years.

Vacation signups should have been handed out as well. Those will be filled as we have in prior years.

CSU vacations – an issue that has been brought up regarding the CSU vacations, related specifically to the Court Holidays. As discussed in prior years, if on those court holidays the training put on during those days is not mandated, you would be allowed to take time off. However, if training is mandated, CSU staff would still be allowed to take the remainder of the week off– with the exception of that training day specifically.

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR

FRESNO DEPUTY SHERIFF’S ASSOCIATION – UNIT 1

MOU Term: December 19, 2016 – December 18, 2017

Coverage for Patrol Staffing In Conjunction with 2017 Shift Signups

• Area 1 and Area 4 will staff each shift (Watch 1, 2, & 3) at recession-level staffing for purposes of Mandatory Overtime shifts. This means there shall be no less than four deputies on each shift in each of those two areas.
• Area 2 and Area 3 shall staff Watch 1 at a preferred level of 5 deputy sheriffs.
• Area 3 shall staff Watch 2 and Watch 3 at a preferred level of 5 deputy sheriffs.
• Area 2 shall staff Watch 2 and Watch 3 at a preferred of 6 deputy sheriffs. However when an MOT is triggered by a vacancy, and there is no VOT replacement, the shift shall use the K9 deputy to eliminate the MOT; or the shift Sergeant can take that particular shift staffing down to five deputies on a case by case basis triggered only because of a lack of staffing and trying to cancel an MOT shift. Deputies will continue to fill the vacant shifts as we have been doing using the Workforce Telestaff picklist if a vacancy occurs. Workforce Telestaff will utilize the MOT/VOT picklist as we have in prior years.
• Canine (K-9) Deputies will not count toward staffing levels unless it can result in eliminating a Mandatory Overtime shift during the assigned shift.
• Supervisors shall make every effort to move people around to help eliminate an MOT shift only, even if that means moving areas. This shall occur for the shift that has the MOT. All other vacancies shall be filled using the current VOT way of filling shifts under the Workforce Telestaff system.
• These changes will go into effect on December 19, 2016; however, the Sheriff and the Deputy Sheriff’s Association agree to meet prior to December 18, 2017, to discuss the effectiveness of this agreement.
• Contract policing shall remain the same it has for the past years due to the same funding in those contracts. i.e. Mello Roos, San Joaquin, Fig Garden, Central Unified, and any other School District Policing or Special Event Contracts. These contracts do not count towards preferred staffing.

Update on Bargaining with County of Fresno

In October of 2015, a new County Administrative Officer was hired by the Board of Supervisors to replace retiring CAO John Navarrette. The FDSA had a great working relationship with Navarrette and a lot of mutual respect. Jean Rousseau was hired to take his place. Rousseau was previously the CAO for Tulare County.

Jean came into the County of Fresno with an accountant perspective. I met with Jean and we discussed the history of the FDSA and the working relationship with the County of Fresno. Jean seemed ready to work with our organization.

At the beginning of 2016 – the FDSA was asked if we were interested in a one-year extension on our MOU. Our answer was a clear and firm, "No."

Months later we continue to bargain with the County of Fresno. We are not only dealing with a new CAO- but also a new labor negotiator. There have been some challenges during this leadership transition. We hope our new leaders are willing to reach a compromise and have a clear understanding about the importance of public safety within Fresno County.

I will continue to update you as we push forward on this front. I would like to remind you, I have the best interest of this organization in mind always and the groups we represent. I have been and will continue to explain to anyone about the job each and every one of you does for this department. I am extremely proud and honored to be put in a position to advocate on behalf of you.

UPDATED on Marin County Retirement System

An informative four hour discussion/presentation was given at the recent PORAC conference about the Marin County Retirement System. This case is being handled by Gregg Adam who is a partner in Messing, Adam & Jasmine –which is the law firm of the FDSA. Gregg has had this case from the onset and has argued it through the Court of Appeals. Recently a ruling came down stating that a 'promised benefit' may not, in fact- be that. The decision is vague and opened up to much interpretation. A request was made to the US Supreme Court to review the ruling and make a decision about the language handed down by the Court of Appeals Judge.

I have been following these court proceedings closely because they may eventually have a serious effect on our retirement system in Fresno County.

Marin County is a 1937 Act Retirement System, which is exactly like Fresno County.

I have attached a recent article published from the LA Times, which speculates the fallouts of this case. Also, some facts are given as well.

California's top court will review major public pension ruling

The California Supreme Court decided Tuesday to review a ruling that would give state and local government’s new authority to cut public employee pensions.

The court, meeting in closed session, unanimously accepted labor unions’ appeal of a decision that said government pensions were not “immutable” and could be trimmed.

But the court will not review further arguments in the case until a court of appeal resolves another pending pension dispute. That could take months.

The case now before the state high court was decided in August by a three-judge panel of the 1st District Court of Appeal in San Francisco.

The other pension case, which raises similar issues, is pending before a different panel of judges in the same court. That panel has not yet scheduled a hearing on it.

The court of appeal’s August ruling amounted to a major change in California pensions law, scholars said.

For decades, California courts have ruled that state and local employees were entitled to the pension that was in place on the day they were hired. Pensions could be cut for current employees only if an equivalent benefit were added, making it difficult for governments to cut costs.

If upheld, the ruling could be a vehicle for reducing a shortfall of hundreds of billions of dollars in public pensions in California. Other states grappling with pension debt also could follow California’s lead.

The court agreed to take the case in a brief order that did not reveal the justices’ thoughts. A decision in the case is likely to be issued in several months.

The ruling stemmed from a pension reform law passed in 2012 by state legislators. The law cut pensions and raised retirement ages for new employees and banned “pension spiking” for existing workers.

Pension spiking has allowed some workers to get larger pensions by inflating their pay during the period in which retirement is based — usually at the end of their careers.

Employees have done this by cashing in years of accumulated vacation or sick pay or volunteering for extra duties just before retirement. The practice in some cases has given employees pensions that exceeded their regular salary.

The Marin County retirement system, relying on the new law, decided that pay for various on-call duties and for waiving health insurance could no longer be counted toward pensions.

Unions objected. They said many employees had been counting on the long-promised benefit and may even have accepted their jobs because of it.

In a ruling written by Justice James A. Richman, appointed by former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the appeals court said the Legislature can alter pension formulas for active employees and reduce their anticipated retirement benefits.

“While a public employee does have a ‘vested right’ to a pension, that right is only to a ‘reasonable’ pension — not an immutable entitlement to the most optimal formula of calculating the pension,” wrote Richman, joined by Justices J. Anthony Kline and Marla J. Miller, both Gov. Jerry Brown appointees.

A trial judge in the other pension case, brought by employees of Contra Costa, Alameda and Merced counties, upheld the anti-spiking provisions but allowed some employees to count pay for regular and required on-call duties toward their pensions.

Written arguments in that case were completed months ago, and the panel’s failure to schedule a hearing prompted speculation that it was waiting for the California Supreme Court to decide the Marin County dispute before ruling.

Instead, the state high court’s order amounted to a “you go first” message, said Arthur Liou, an attorney who represents unions in both pension cases.

He said the Supreme Court may have decided to wait for a decision in the second case because the justices assumed they would have to review it later anyway.

“Maybe the court wants to hear and resolve all the issues together,” Liou said, noting that both cases raise similar issues.

Update from Victoria Sanders- Employee Assistance Program (EAP)

The holiday season is an exciting time for most people, but with that excitement comes a variety of stressors, namely: having too much to do and not enough time, and too many things to buy without enough money. That sort of stress can do a number on our relationships with others and on our emotional self. Add on to that being a member of law enforcement, with the current climate in our communities, and the stress level is off the charts.

Therapy is often considered a “dirty word” in the vast majorities of communities, often being considered a “last resort” or “for crazy people.” Let me reassure all of you that therapy is more than just something for people who have mental illness, it can be used to help reduce stress, improve communication in relationships, improve coping skills, and generally learn how to cope with life’s every day and unique stressors. Ideally, therapy occurs before there is a crisis, and can be used more to avert difficulties. Once they have occurred, we are certainly available, but preventative measures are often the most effective and “easiest” to manage. Therapy can be short term (just a few sessions), or longer term, depending on the need.

The Fresno County Sheriff’s Department has partnered with our agency, VMS Family Counseling Services, to provide you with cost-free counseling sessions for any employee of the department, as well as any of your dependents. This counseling is completely confidential, and the Department is not notified of who is being seen. If you, or someone in your family, could benefit from services, please contact Victoria Sanders at 559-573-4194, to schedule an appointment with one of our therapists. Victoria is also available to answer any questions that you may have regarding therapy or our therapeutic services. We do have morning, afternoon, and evening appointments available in order to accommodate your schedules. We look forward to providing support to you, your family, and your colleagues, and wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

‍

Remembering Sergeant Rod Lucas

The past few weeks have been incredibly painful for many of you- following the unexpected death of Sgt. Rod Lucas. We are working to help his wife and children through these difficult days in any way we can. The FDSA set up a GoFundMe following his death and we are continuing to accept contributions that will go directly to his wife. This is a way we can offer assistance and help to immediately relieve any financial burden during this very heartbreaking time.

We hope that the critical incident debrief was helpful to those who were involved in the incident that tragically ended Sgt. Lucas’ life. We know, from past experience, that healing will take time. For those who still need to talk things out, please know that counselors are available to assist you in dealing with the emotions and pain.

This loss has touched many in this department and the community. Rod was respected in every area of the county where he policed. He was a strong leader on the Search and Rescue team and did great work as part of the Narcotics team. In addition, he was looked up to by many who met him through his passion for Jiu-Jitsu. He was a mentor to many in his hometown of Tranquility and made a difference in the lives of countless people. This loss has affected so many people in such a profound way.

2017 Health Insurance

The FDSA/FSSA Insurance and Benefit trust has concluded the health insurance bargaining for the upcoming 2017 plan year. This was a productive year for our group. We had the opportunity to talk with several different carriers about what they would be willing to offer our group for our health plan. Ultimately- we again selected Blue Shield of California. They, by far, beat the rates of other carriers for the benefits we as a group wanted to maintain.

Due to the success with our dental plan, Delta Dental came in with a rate pass for the next two years. Our success was based on offering options last year to the membership between the PPO dental plan and the DHMO dental plan.

For years, our dental plan was high usage, ranging between 105-125%. This caused our rates to inch up each year, causing us to move the plan around between companies like Delta, Met Life, etc.

Overall, the plan was reduced by 4% from the rates last year. This is great news, especially considering the County of Fresno is dealing with increases to their health plan of over 15%.

One of the additions is TELADOC. This is a new program Blue Shield is excited to launch to all of its customers. Teladoc’s U.S. board-certified doctors are available 24/7, 365 days a year to resolve many problems one may have during a non-emergency medical issue. This is accomplished through phone or video consults.

The primary purpose and usage of Teladoc is when you are considering a trip to the emergency room or urgent care for a non-emergency. For example, if you are on vacation, a business trip, away from home, or need a short-term prescription refill.

Teladoc doctors can treat many medical conditions including;

• Cold and flu symptoms
• Allergies
• Bronchitis
• Urinary tract infection
• Respiratory infection
• Sinus problems
• And many more!

Teledoc doctors are all practicing PCP’s, pediatricians, and family physicians. They have an average of 15 years’ experience and are all board certified and licensed. Each one is credentialed every three years.

To set up YOUR specific Teladoc account contact Teladoc at:

• Teladoc.com/BSC
• 1-800-Teladoc (835-2362)
• membersupport@teladoc.com
• Facebook.com/Teladoc

You will continue to see us push this benefit out for our members to take advantage of and really save money when doing so. Not only is it a $5 co-pay, it will greatly reduce our exposure on the insurance plan overall. This will allow us the flexibility of future out- of- pocket costs on our health insurance.

Below is the open enrollment letter that our broker Dibuduo & Defendis has sent out to all of you. However, if any of you missed it, please review it and see what the open enrollment consists of.

It is as follows:

Welcome! You have now entered the 2017 Online Open Enrollment Site for Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s/Fresno Sheriff’s Sergeants Association. Open Enrollment begins November 1, 2016 and ends November 30, 2016. All changes must be made prior to the close of Open Enrollment.

Open Enrollment is the only time during the year you can make a plan change. It is also the only time you can enroll yourself or dependents that have previously declined coverage, unless there is a qualifying event such as marriage, birth, adoption, or loss of coverage.

The FDSA/FSSA Insurance Benefit Trust has just completed the annual review of our Blue Shield of CA Medical/Vision/Life and AD&D plans and the Delta Dental of CA plans. After months of negotiations, we were able to again reduce the current premiums for the HMO $0, PPO $500/$1000 and the PPO HSA $2250/$2600/$4500 with no benefit changes. The total medical plan rate reduction is 4% under last year’s premiums. The IBTF worked hard this year with the carriers, specifically Blue Shield of CA to accomplish a rate reduction, especially when most plans are going up in cost. The Vision and Life and AD&D plans received a rate pass.

This year we were able to add a better vision benefit for next to nothing in cost. You will now be able to have lenses and frames or contacts every 12 months rather than every 24 months. The allowance on frames has been increased to $150 from $100 on the previous plan.

Blue Shield has added TELADOC to all three plans. This is a new and convenient way to access quality care via teleconference. The copay is $5 and that gets you a 30 minute visit using your phone or computer. Doctors are available 24/7/365 to resolve many of your non-emergency medical issues. This is really meant to drive down ER and Urgent Care costs when one just needs to discuss something with a doctor or is in need of a prescription, etc. There will be more information coming out about this very soon.

We received a rate pass with a two-year rate guarantee through 12/31/18 for our Delta Dental of CA plans with no changes to the benefits.

All Open Enrollment information is on this site for your review. Please proceed to view this important information as you will want to review the benefit designs and make the decision that best meets your needs.

Any questions/help, please call or email Katherine Sierze at DiBuduo & DeFendis 559.437.6750, ksierze@dibu.com

Monitoring the Marin County Pension Battle

As you know, Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP (representing Marin County Fire Department Firefighters' Association and Marin County Management Employees Association), in coordination with co-counsel Leonard Carder (representing Marin Association of Public Employees), and Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld (representing Service Employees International Union Local 1021, CTW, CLC) has petitioned the California Supreme Court (Case No. S237460) for review of the disastrous opinion from the First District Court of Appeal in Marin Association of Public Employees, et al. v. Marin County Employees' Retirement Association, et al., California First District Court of Appeal, Case No. A139610. As of Monday, October 24, 2016, the briefing on the Petition is complete, and we await the high court's decision on whether or not to grant review. As you know, this is an important case, and support has been strong. Petitioners have been fortunate to receive letters from numerous amicus curiae advocating review and supporting depublication of the First District's opinion.  In order to keep track of everything, Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP has created a link to all the briefs and letters on its website, which can be accessed through the link below or by visiting the News & Recent Developments page at MAJlabor.com. We have received 24 letters of support to date, filed by unions representing millions of employees in California and nationwide.  Letters continue to come in.  Needless to say, we will keep you posted as this case moves forward. If you have any questions about the case, please do not hesitate to contact Gregg Adam at gregg@majlabor.com.  

2017 Shift Signups

We continue to work with Sheriff Mims and her administration to come up with conditions surrounding shift signups and staffing. The FDSA is determined to keep staffing levels either at the current level or above. The conditions on the streets warrant more staffing. We have made some changes to the key slots to allow the push of more staff on graveyard shift in Area Two specifically.

We have also made changes to bring up daily beat lineups in several areas. This is not an easy task. Even though the Sheriff would ultimately like two deputies in each beat in each area, the funding must also be present for this to happen. We will continue to work with Sheriff Mims to accomplish this goal.

***Update*** I am pleased to announced we have reached a deal for shift signups. They will be held on Monday, November 14, 2016 at the FDSA. Those of you who are signing up will receive an email with a time slot. The conditions of signups will be published in the next newsletter.

Thank you for your patience.

Also, I would like to thank those who reached out to offer anything needed to help in the moments following Sgt. Lucas’ death. You are wonderful people and many of you have great hearts of compassion and service. Please know how grateful I am for your gestures and how you come together during difficult moments.

Take care and again, thank you for taking care of one another.

Always,

Eric

‍

Bargaining Talks Underway with Fresno County

I want to report to the membership that we have started bargaining with the County of Fresno – officially on August 31, 2016. The Executive Board of the FDSA, along with our labor negotiator, Gary Messing met with county representatives to discuss the ground rules needed for bargaining, along with goals for the successor memorandum of understanding or MOU.

Shift Signups and Mandatory Overtime

We have started negotiations with the Sheriff’s administration for the key assignments for 2017 shifts within the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office. This year, we have 109 deputiessigning up for the key slot shifts, compared to 87 last year and 84 in 2014. Although hiring isn’t going as fast as we all would like to see- we are making progress.

There are a total of 131 patrol key slots that need to be filled overall in patrol this year. There will be a gap of 22 shifts, which will cause some to be filled on overtime (OT).

Over the last year, I have discussed the current OT and the mandatory overtime (MOT) policy with many of you. I have heard a variety of comments, both good and bad about how the policy impacts you. The most common theme I have heard is that you do not want to work shorthanded and prefer hiring additional deputies to fill the gaps. I agree with all of you. In fact, I haven’t found one person who says they like MOT shifts. However, we also have a large workforce who does not want to come to work with one or two deputies covering an entire area. There are many deputies who remember working under those exhausting and grueling conditions. These ‘short shifts’ ended under the direction of former Sheriff Richard Pierce- following the death of Deputy Erik Telen.

The Fresno County Board of Supervisors is committed to giving Sheriff Mims the funding she needs to continue to hire new employees (in all areas of the department) along with provide funding to continue filling the vacancies we have from resignations or retirements.

I have listened loud and clear to the message of discontent about MOT. I am trying to find a middle ground in an attempt to curb that someway in order to minimize the impacts of people being ordered in.

We still have our MOT/VOT policy that was drafted and agreed to back in 2007 and then an addendum in 2010.

We drafted the side letter agreement in July 2016 that expired on October 1, 2016 calling for levels of staffing to go to preferred levels (minimum numbers). This level is four deputies in each area during each shift. This agreement was in anticipation of the Parlier Police Department take over, but also allowed us to give the deputies a little bit of a break. Remember, some of the areas were at preferred staffing of 5 and 6. Based on the number of deputies at the time – we were bleeding and working our people ragged.

In discussions with Captain Gularte regarding the key assignments for 2017 – we (FDSA) have developed a plan to maintain preferred staffing level in all four areas. Trying to keep our deputies safe with sufficient staffing, and still able to service the public. The language is still pending at this time with Sheriff’s Administration. However, I am optimistic we will find middle ground. I want to thank each of you who have taken the time to call and talk or meet and talk to me about different ideas we can do to get the biggest bang for our buck with staffing. I do not have all the answers, and it’s refreshing to hear it from all of you as well. The engine runs best when running on all eight cylinders!

There are ways to eliminate MOT shifts, but there has to be cooperation from everyone to accomplish this goal. Cooperation needs to come from supervisors monitoring Telestaff, deputies looking at Telestaff to find MOTs- and noticing when they come up- offering to work. It would also require cooperation from the Sheriff’s Administration to continuing raising the bar on keeping staffing above the minimums.

I want to thank deputies assigned to the Court Services Unit for continuing to sign up for shifts at CRMC, football games, and other recreation type details that come up. By everyone helping to staff different details- it allows us as an agency and organization to deliver the utmost service the public needs and deserves.

I am confident that working as a team, we can overcome these challenges to accomplish a goal that suits a majority of you, if not all.

Marin County Pension Case: Up to the Supreme Court Now

By Gregg Adam, Messing, Adam &Jasmine

Read below as an update to what is going on with the Marin County Pension Case. I sent the initial decision from the appellate court to all of you back in June 2016. As these come up I will continue to get them to you as this does have ripple effects on our pension system at Fresno County.

We alerted our clients to the recent decision in Marin Association of Public Employees v. Marin County Employees Retirement Association by the First District Court of Appeal in San Francisco.  The decision is a frontal attack on the vested rights doctrine.

Here is briefly what happened leading up to and in this case: In 1997, the Supreme Court decided in Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs’ Association v. Board of Retirement that pursuant to the County Employees’ Retirement Law (under which 20 California counties have set up pension systems) all compensation except overtime had to be treated as pensionable.  After Ventura, the Marin County Employees’ Retirement Association (“MCERA”), like many other county retirement boards, took the position that multiple premiums had to be treated as pensionable compensation (or “compensation earnable” as Government Code section 31461 calls it).  So for many years, standby pay, administrative response pay, call-back pay, cash-in-lieu of healthcare, and fringe benefits were included as pensionable.

That changed when the California Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (“PEPRA”) was passed.  After PEPRA came into effect, MCERA changed its rules and stopped including the premiums described above as pensionable. Various unions sued.  The trial court refused to find any part of PEPRA unconstitutional.

On appeal, the unions argued that under sixty years of California Supreme Court interpretation of the vested rights doctrine, and dozens of court of appeal cases following it, any disadvantageous change in current employee pension benefits had to be offset by a comparable advantage.

The appellate panel rejected conventional wisdom on what California vested rights law requires and offered a quite astonishing attack on public employee pensions and “pension spiking,” describing state and local government pension liabilities as a “ticking time bomb.”  The first five pages of the opinion is highly partisan stuff.  Later in the opinion, the panel concludes that the inclusion of the premiums can be eliminated, without any legal consequences.  It then attempts to neuter vested rights law, asserting that public employee pensions can be freely reduced so long as they are not destroyed.  Legal commentators and pension critics are describing the case as a game-changer.  It is a call to arms for unions to get this devastating decision reviewed before public agencies seek to undo pension promises to their employees.

We hope that the word of the Court of Appeal is not the last word. To that end, yesterday, along with our colleagues at the Leonard Carder and Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld law firms, we filed a Petition for Review with the California Supreme Court asking it to review this highly controversial ruling.

We expect amicus curiae from many fronts will weigh in on whether or not review should be granted and whether or not the Court of Appeal got it right.

Palm Springs Police Officers Killed

The past few days have been heartbreaking to hear details about the two Palm Springs police officers killed while at a domestic call. 35 year veteran, Officer Jose “Gil” Vega had just submitted paperwork to retire in December. He was also a father of eight who didn’t plan to work Saturday, October 8th, but had picked up an overtime shift. Officer Lesley Zerebny returned to work early to help out after giving birth to a little girl, who is just four months old. She had been a police officer for a year and half- when investigators say Zerebny, 27 and Vega, 63, were gunned down. The police chief of the desert community described the devastation of watching Zerebny’s husband, a Riverside County Sheriff’s Deputy, kiss her goodbye on her forehead.

The suspect, 26 year old John Felix was arrested after a 12 hour standoff. He has a long criminal past.

We are keeping the families and colleagues of the fallen in our thoughts and prayers. In addition, the FDSA has also sent a contribution to their families to help them get through this difficult time.

This tragedy is a reminder of the unpredictability of patrolling the streets.

Stay safe out there.

Truly,

Eric

‍

September has started off with a terrible reminder of the dangers in law enforcement. Saturday, the 3rd began with a stunning shooting in the jail that critically injured two Fresno County correctional officers. This is the first such incident in the jail, and we are working to help everyone involved. FDSA worked around the clock to support the families of Juanita Davila and Toamalama Scanlan during this difficult time. We have provided food and drinks to the families at Community Regional Medical Center. We also opened the FDSA building to other correctional officers and deputies who wanted to join together, talk, decompress and have a bite to eat. During this tragic time, we have been blessed with donations of food and drinks from several outlying law enforcement agencies and members of the community. Hours after the shooting, District Attorney, Lisa Smittcamp had lunch brought in and countless other groups, and police unions have stopped by to bring food, desserts and simply offer comfort.

Thank you will never be enough for these gestures of love to the families, and co-workers of these officers.

The kindness has also been extended both locally and nationwide. We have been receiving financial donations from near and far, for the families of Davila and Scanlan. Davila is a mother of two and grandmother of three. Scanlan is a husband and father of six. Both families have a long road ahead, and we hope these contributions can alleviate some of the pressure of keeping things going on the homefront, as they recover.

I would like to also thank those FDSA members, retirees, and jail employees who immediately stepped in to staff the FDSA building and help with putting out food, filling drink bins and everything else necessary to keep the building open from 6am until 10pm. Your gracious service has been tremendously appreciated.  

November Election

The November general election is just two months away. The two Board of Supervisors candidates the FDSA supported both won during the primary on June 7, 2016. This means there will be an automatic win for them in upcoming general election.

Supervisors-elect Nathan Magsig and Sal Quintero both finished high in their respective districts. I have been meeting with both regularly, as they prepare to serve the residents in Fresno County. Both have been inquiring about county government operations and public safety services within Fresno County. Already, there has been a lot of information sharing. I am pleased to see they are committed to hearing our perspective and learning about their goals.

Our (FDSA) focus for the November election will be to support PORAC in the state initiatives that are on the ballot. One of the important ones for us is the NO on 62/Yes on 66 campaigns - dealing with the death penalty.

No on Prop 62, Yes on Prop 66/Californians to Mend, Not End, the Death Penalty is leading the support campaign for Proposition 66.

YES on 66

This campaign is a continuation of the NO on 34 measure we supported in November of 2012, when the death penalty was on the brink of being abolished. Here is a brief recap from my article in March of 2016 regarding the issue.

“In 2012, Proposition 34 was initiated to abolish the death penalty in California.

The FDSA was against Prop 34, along with PORAC and many other public safety groups. We hosted one of a dozen statewide press conferences outlining our concerns with this measure. Our position was simple – 47 cop killers were sitting on death row- of the 700 waiting for their fate to be determined. While many of the other inmates on death row are responsible for inhumane and unspeakable crimes- we are especially concerned about those cold blooded killers who have taken the lives of law enforcement officers.  

Prop 34 was defeated- in the sense that the public did not want to abolish the California death penalty. Now, the remedy is to fix it.”

The remedy is Proposition 66 – put together by the District Attorneys Association. Funding has primarily come from law enforcement groups throughout the State of California. Millions of dollars of tax payer dollars could be saved each year, by fixing the broken death penalty system. This money could be far better put to use on improvements to public safety, instead of housing, securing and feeding these killers.

During the NO on 34 campaign in 2012- of the over 700 inmates on death row- 47 were “cop killers.” Today there are 39 “cop killers,” still sitting there. The voters spoke at the ballot box in 2012, so now is the time to fix this problem. Below is a summary of what the ballot initiative is going to focus on:

• Changes procedures governing state court appeals and petitions challenging death penalty convictions and sentences.
• Designates superior court for initial petitions and limits successive petitions.
• Establishes time frame for state court death penalty review.Requires appointed attorneys who take noncapital appeals to accept death penalty appeals.
• Exempts prison officials from existing regulation process for developing execution methods.
• Authorizes death row inmate transfers among California prisons.
• Increases portion of condemned inmates’ wages that may be applied to victim restitution.
• States other voter approved measures related to death penalty are void if this measure receives more affirmative votes.

The No on 62 campaign is tied hand in hand with the Yes on 66. To be clear, we support death penalty reform NOT the abolishment of the death penalty completely. The yes on 62 campaign in being ran primarily by the ACLU/NAACP who want to abolish the death penalty completely.

The stance from law enforcement is the deterrent factor of the death penalty provides additional protection of officers. We believe there is a direct correlation with mindset of criminals, when the public is aware they are eligible for capital punishment if an officer is killed in the line of duty. Currently, a first degree murder charge against a law enforcement officer holds a special circumstance to allow for sentencing to death.

A new study in California revealed that the cost of the death penalty has been over $4 billion dollars since 1978. Since 1976, only 13 people have been put to death in California, compared to close to 700 in the State of Texas. The study considered pre-trial and trial costs, costs of automatic appeals, state habeas corpus petitions, costs of federal habeas corpus appeals, and the costs of incarceration on death row. (Alarcon & Mitchell, 2011).

Below is an article that was published in the Los Angeles Times on June 5, 2012. It is about the sentencing of Earl Ellis Green- a man who was found guilty in the senseless execution style killing of Officer Ryan Bonaminio in November 2010.

Riverside jurors ordered the death penalty Tuesday for Earl Ellis Green, who was convicted of fatally shooting Riverside Police Officer Ryan Bonaminio at point-blank range as the officer pleaded for his life.

After 3 1/2 hours of deliberations, the panel returned the decision, agreeing with prosecutors who argued that the penalty should fit the crime. The 46-year-old convicted felon, who was on parole at the time of the November 2010 killing, smiled as the jury announced the verdict, witnesses said.

"We are pleased with this verdict and the hard work done by this jury," Dist. Atty. Paul Zellerbach said. "This case is a perfect example — the murder of a peace officer in the line of duty — why we need the death penalty and why it needs to be carried out."

He said the death penalty was supported by the facts: "The officer was already rendered pretty much helpless, unconscious and defenseless when he was executed with his own gun."

Despite the guilty verdict and death penalty decision by the jury, Bonaminio's family said that nothing will bring back the officer, who was killed in a church parking lot after Green led Bonaminio on a foot chase through Riverside's Fairmount Park.

Green, who remains in custody with no bail, is scheduled to return to the Hall of Justice in Riverside on June 25 to be sentenced by Judge Jean Leonard. He was found guilty last month of first-degree murder with special circumstances that made him subject to the death penalty.

During the trial, defense attorneys acknowledged that Green fired the shots that killed Bonaminio, but sought a conviction on a lesser charge that would not carry the death penalty.

Stephen J. McQueen, a homeless man who volunteered at the church, told the jury he saw the shooting unfold as he smoked a cigarette in the parking lot. Bonaminio, hands up, told the killer, "Don't do it. Don't do it," McQueen testified.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Michael Hestrin said during the trial that Green's first two shots missed the officer. Green then walked up to Bonaminio, who was on his knees, and fired at the back of the officer's head from a foot or so away, Hestrin said.

"His life and blood poured out of him," Hestrin told the jury. "He died there, on the cold and dirty asphalt."

Another pertinent illustration appeared in the NBC Bay Area News in 2010. It was published after the sentencing of Alberto Alvarez, who was punished to death for the killing of Officer Richard May.

A San Mateo County Superior Court judge sentenced  26-year-old Alberto Alvarez to death by lethal injection for killing East  Palo Alto police Officer Richard May in 2006.

"The circumstances of the murder were particularly savage and brutal," Judge Craig Parsons said before imposing the sentence. "Death is warranted."

Alvarez's case will be automatically appealed to the state Supreme Court, as is every death penalty case in California.  Legal experts say the appeals will take at least 25 years.

Scott Peterson was the last person to be sentenced to death in San Mateo County Superior Court after he was found guilty in 2004 of murdering his wife Laci and their unborn child.

Alvarez, who was found guilty in November of first-degree murder with the special circumstance of killing a peace officer for the execution-style shooting of May, showed no emotion and declined to make a statement at this morning's sentencing.

Had Judge Craig Parsons not condemned Alvarez to death, he would have faced life in prison without the chance of parole.

May was killed the afternoon of Jan. 7, 2006, after he responded to a report of a fight at a taqueria on University Avenue in East Palo Alto.

He had followed Alvarez from the area of the taqueria to nearby Weeks Street, where the two exchanged gunfire. May was hit and fell to the ground.

Alvarez then fired two additional shots at May, including a fatal shot to the head.

When testifying in the trial, Alvarez claimed he shot May in self-defense.

Parsons ordered Alvarez to be transferred to death row at San Quentin State Prison within 10 days.

Alvarez's defense attorney Eric Liberman said outside the courtroom that his client "seems to be holding up all right."

"He's always been remorseful for the hurt and damage he's inflicted," Liberman said. "The very night this happened, he called people and expressed he had done something that would alter his life forever."

May's wife Diana May said after the sentencing that she doesn't believe Alvarez has ever shown any remorse.

"I don't think he is capable of feeling what a normal person does," she said. "He doesn't have a conscience."

May's stepfather Frank Merrill said he hopes Alvarez will "take responsibility for what he's done."

"Unfortunately his death will be humane, unlike May who had to look down the barrel of a gun," Merrill said.

"This is a message in San Mateo County that when you execute a police officer, you get the maximum punishment," prosecuting attorney Steve Wagstaffe said.

I hope these articles illustrate the brutal and senseless killings of law enforcement officers in the State of California. The district attorneys who tirelessly work to get these convictions have put countless hours into these cases. Their push to seek death as a punishment must be respected by the public for these convicted people. There will be more to come regarding these two initiatives, but this provides you with an overview.

Please stay safe in your job assignments and take care of one another.

Truly,

-Eric

‍

This summer has been a sobering reminder of the deadly dangers of law enforcement and the growing movement against officers in some communities.

The recent tragic events that unfolded in Dallas and Baton Rouge targeting of police officers has been a sad reality of the new threat facing those in uniform across the nation. The unpredictable ambush attacks show us that some of the very citizens, who we are sworn to protect and serve, can be the unforeseeable dangers, armed with not only ammunition, but a plan that’s well plotted out.

During times like this, we also see the best in people. The “Thin Blue Line” rally last weekend in Woodward Park was a gesture of gratitude by those who support and appreciate law enforcement in the Central Valley. In the last months, our substations have been blanketed with huge signs from community members showing their support of deputies. Many citizens have also been stopping those on patrol to thank them for their service- or buying them a coffee. The kindness has even prompted some Fresno County residents to ask to pray with and for deputies. These moments remind us that we live in a great community, where a large majority of the people we serve care about the challenges we face each day and our constant efforts to keep them safe.

The risks in this profession are high. The statistics throughout the nation remind us that a police officer is killed in the line of duty every 63 hours.

We pray for the families of the officers killed in Dallas and Baton Rouge. Their painful reality is just now beginning to set in. We already know that each shift provides no guarantees. These are sobering reminders. Dangers are real and often times, unknown until it’s too late. Thank you for the work you all do and continue to keep one another safe and secure.

Dallas

One of the tragic side effects of a high profile mass attack is that the perpetrators can end up getting more attention than the victims. This was the case in Orlando, and also with the ambush attack in Dallas.

Much of media coverage dominates the question many wonder…how could someone carry out such horrific deeds? They must be insane; it cannot be a “rational” action. Many would agree the alleged Dallas gunman, Micah Johnson, had several deep seeded issues.

According to the Washington Times, ‘The shooter who killed five Dallas police officers and wounded others last week wrote messages on the wall in his own blood and openly laughed at responding officers shortly before he was killed, the city’s police chief said Sunday, adding that investigators still are working to determine exactly what those messages mean.’

Dallas Police Chief David Brown told CNN’s “State of the Union” that Micah Johnson, who opened fire during a Black Lives Matter protest Thursday night and said he intended to kill white police officers, scrawled phrases on the wall of the building from which he carried out his attack.

“This killer obviously had some delusion,” Chief Brown said. “At the scene where he was killed, he wrote some lettering in blood on the walls, which leads us to believe he was wounded on the way up the stairwell to the second floor of the El Centro building, where we detonated the device to end the standoff. There was more lettering written in his own blood. We are trying to decipher that.”

Mr. Brown said the initials “RB” were written in blood in the wall, along with other lettering. He said authorities still are working to determine what those messages mean.

The police chief also said Johnson, 25, intended to carry out other attacks, including using homemade bombs to target police officers in what he viewed as payback for their unfair treatment of black Americans.

“We’re convinced this suspect had other plans and thought that what he was doing was righteous,” Chief Brown said.

Chief Brown also defended his decision to use a bomb-carrying robot to kill Johnson and end the violence. He said he felt he had little choice after negotiations with the shooter — who would only talk to a black police negotiator — went nowhere.

“He was just basically lying to us, playing games, singing, asking how many did he get, saying he wanted to kill some more and there were bombs there,” ChiefBrown said. “There was no progress on the negotiation.”

The chief also said he personally approved using the robot to end the incident and added, “I’ll do it again if presented with the same circumstances.

Let us pray these same circumstances never present themselves again. Unfortunately, at the rate we’re going, that seems sadly unlikely.

FIREARMS LEGISLATION 2016

Each year, I field calls from both active and retired FDSA members about different firearms legislation that come up for legislative reform, abolishment, or enactment.

PORAC and our lobbyists from Aaron Read and Associates, consistently battle the laws that would directly affect both active and retired law enforcement in a negative way. About four years ago, there was a big movement to drive home the fact, that just because you are a former law enforcement officer, your training and skills can still be used, if necessary- in a bad situation.

PORAC’s stance, and the direction from the PORAC Board of Directors, has been to include our law enforcement retirees into the conversation regarding these different firearms laws/legislation. Although, we continually fight for ALL active & retired law enforcement officers, we are often reminded by the legislators in the Assembly and Senate - when we remove our badges, and retire, we are considered civilians. So we can add retirees when we can to certain legislation to ensure we still keep the once officer, now retired safe and protected.

Below are some highlights from 2016. Please review the highlighted sections in regarding to active and retired law enforcement.

SIGNED BY GOVERNOR

AB 1135 (Levine) – Firearms: assault weapons.

This bill redefines “assault weapon” to include a firearm with a detachable magazine that can be removed readily with the use of a tool.

This bill requires that owners of these newly defined “assault weapons,” prior to January 1, 2017, to register the firearm online at DOJ. There will be a fee of up to, but no more than, $15 to register the firearm.

AB 1511 (Santiago) – Firearms: lending.

This bill specifies that the infrequent loan of a firearm may only be made to family members.

“Family members” is defined as spouses/registered domestic partners, parents, children, siblings, grandparents, grandchildren; whether related by blood, adoption or a step-relation.

Under current law an “infrequent loan” for purposes of handguns is defined as “less than six transactions per calendar year.” An infrequent loan for purposes of firearms, other than handguns, is defined as “occasional and without regularity.”

AB 1695 (Bonta) – Firearms: false reports of stolen firearms.

Expands the existing misdemeanor of making a false report to law enforcement to include that a firearm has been lost or stolen.

Institutes a ten year ban on owning a firearm for those convicted of making a false report.

SB 880 (Hall) – Firearms: assault weapons.

Same language as AB 1135

SB 1235 (De Leon) – Ammunition.

This bill creates a new regulatory framework for the purchase and sale of ammunition in California.

This bill mandates that all ammunition must be purchased through an “ammunition vendor.”

Requires all persons purchasing ammunition from an ammunition vendor be cleared through the Department of Justice Automated Firearm System (DOJ AFS).

States that all active and retired peace officers are not subject to the ammunition purchase requirements.

SB 1446 (Hancock) – Firearms: magazine capacity.

Prohibits the possession of large capacity-magazines (more than ten rounds).

Makes it an infraction, commencing July 1, 2017 for any person who possesses a large-capacity magazine. Punishable as follows:

First offense - $100

Second offense - $250

Third or subsequent offense - $500

Requires a person who legally possesses a large capacity magazine prior to July 1, 2017 to dispose of that magazine by any of the following means:

Remove the large-capacity magazine from the state;

Prior to July 1, 2017, sell the large-capacity magazine to a licensed firearms dealer

Destroy the large-capacity magazine

Surrender the large-capacity magazine to a law enforcement agency for destruction.

This bill exempts all active and retired peace officers.

VETOED BY GOVERNOR

***Please pay close attention to how Governor Brown is continuing to tie our hands to hold criminals accountable and limit justice for victims.***

AB 1176 (Cooper) – Theft: firearms.

Would reverse Proposition 47 to make theft of a firearm “grand theft,” punishable as a felony.

AB 1673 (Gipson) – Firearms: unfinished frame or receiver.

Expands the definition of “firearm” to include the frame or receiver of the weapon that is designed and clearly identifiable as a component of a functional weapon.

Includes “unfinished frames and receivers” and treats them the same way a finished receiver is treated.

Requires background checks in order for the unfinished parts to be sold and prohibits them from being possessed by individuals on the prohibited list.

Requires mandatory serial number application.

AB 1674 (Santiago) – Firearms: transfers.

Prohibits any person from making an application to purchase more than one long gun within any 30 day period.

AB 2607 (Ting) – Firearm restraining orders.

Expands the individuals who are eligible to petition for a gun violence restraining order (GVRO).

Allows an employer, co-worker, mental health worker, an employee of a secondary or post-secondary school to file a petition requesting that the court issue an ex parte GVRO enjoining a person from owning, possessing or purchasing a firearm or ammunition.

SB 894 (Jackson) – Firearms: lost or stolen: reports.

Requires that owners and possessors of firearms report the theft or loss of a firearm to local law enforcement within five days of the time they knew or reasonable should have known that the firearm had been stolen or lost.

Last week, we debuted our newly designed FDSA T-shirts and baseball caps. They both have the ‘thin blue line’ flag on them and are available at the FDSA headquarters. The hats are digital camo with the flag and already very popular items. If you would like to see them, just log on to our website www.fresnodsa.org

Again, thank you for your tireless work, having each other’s back and staying positive during some discouraging nationwide trends.

Truly,

Eric

‍

Bargaining Rumors

The FDSA has not started talks with the County of Fresno about a successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for members of Unit 1.

However, in preparation for the bargaining process, we utilized “Survey Monkey” to see what the top priorities are for FDSA members. Thank you each of you who took part in the process- the results will be useful and utilized throughout the process.  

As always, the FDSA is diligent when bargaining and will bring the last, best and final offer to the FDSA Board of Directors for initial approval. Then, the membership will have the final ratification of the MOU. Please be patient with the process. Sometimes it is grueling and long. A meeting will be held once we reach the point of ratifying the contract.  

For those unfamiliar with the process, or in need of a refresher, the FDSA Board of Directors gives the first approval on what we consider an “agreement.” The FDSA Board is the bargaining team for the FDSA. We utilize our law firm, Messing, Adam, & Jasmine- as our chief negotiator at the actual bargaining table. However, the Board is briefed after each session about how things are going, and what direction they would like to take as we move ahead with getting a deal.

In 2011, we changed this procedure, taking FDSA bargaining team from a small committee of people to the full FDSA Board of Directors. Our current procedure is that elected board members will be voting either yes or no on the successor MOU, before bringing it to our membership.

Oakland Police Department

I have attached an article from CNN to provide information about what is happening to law enforcement within the City of Oakland.

As many of you may be aware, Oakland PD has been under a federal decree for the past 13 years, as terms of a settlement over a police misconduct case.

The article below points out many problems within Oakland PD. The newly elected Oakland Mayor has tried to make some positive changes over the last several weeks – with no result.  

CNN NewsBy Catherine E. Shoichet, Steve Almasy and Mayra CuevasJune 20, 2016 11:12AM

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/19/us/oakland-police-scandals/

3 Chiefs in 9 days: Scandals plague police in Oakland, California

Mayor Libby Schaaf's harsh words made her frustration clear.

"I am here to run a police department," she said, "not a frat house."

Schaaf's city, Oakland, California, has cycled through three police chiefs in less than two weeks as the department faces a rapidly spiraling controversy that shows no signs of slowing.

The shakeup started with a sex scandal. And as she stepped to the podium Friday, Schaaf told reporters she had more bad news to share.

The latest twist: an investigation into racist text messages.

That, Schaaf said, made her decide to hold off on appointing another interim top cop.

"I feel that this is an appropriate time to place civilian oversight over this police department," she said, "and to send a very clear message about how serious we are, of not tolerating misconduct, unethical behavior, and to root out what is clearly a toxic, macho culture.

Since June 9, three police chiefs have been fired or resigned.

The police union didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. And authorities have been tight-lipped about the changes at the helm. Schaaf told reporters she's constrained by California laws that stop her from speaking out on personnel issues.

"I have not been able to share the full story, because I may not under state law," the mayor said. With the beleaguered department of 745 officers in a city of more than 400,000 people now under civilian control, here's what we know so far about the allegations it's facing:

Allegation: Sex scandal involved a number of officers

It all started last fall with an officer's suicide. Officials say an investigation into his death uncovered disturbing allegations.

Within months, an 18-year-old alleged she had sex with him, as well as with a number of other officers from the Oakland Police Department and officers from nearby jurisdictions.

The 18-year-old, who describes herself as a former prostitute and goes by the pseudonym Celeste Guac, told CNN's Nick Valencia on Sunday that she has a message for people following the controversial case.

"There's people saying that I wanted this to happen, that I screwed over all these cops on purpose, that it was me who put it out there and stuff," she said. "As long as people know that I didn't want this to happen."

It all started, she said, when she was 17 years old and became romantically involved with an officer who saved her from her pimp. That officer, she said, introduced her to other cops who became customers.

Details are still emerging about the case, and no charges have been filed.

A group of demonstrators protested outside police headquarters in Oakland on Friday. Two climbed flagpoles to hang a banner that read: "OPD guilty of: human trafficking and statutory rape." The mayor has slammed the situation, while providing few details.

"We continue to be disgusted and outraged by the idea that anyone could abuse an underage victim of sexual exploitation -- particularly those who have sworn to uphold the law and protect our communities," Schaaf said last week. "We are sickened to think anyone could even know of such abuse and not bring that information forward."

Allegation: Officers sent racist text messages

When Schaaf announced the investigation into racist text messages, she said she couldn't specify how many officers sent them, what they said or when the messages were sent.

"We do think it's relevant to share that the text messages were sent by African-American officers, but they are wholly inappropriate and not acceptable from anyone who wears the badge of the Oakland Police Department," she said. "This investigation should be concluded within a matter of days, perhaps a week or two, and I will not share any additional information, because I do not want to compromise our ability to seek the maximum punishment available for these alleged acts."

One officer already has been placed on leave in connection with the investigation, she said.

We are hell-bent on rooting out this disgusting culture and holding those accountable responsible for their misdeeds.

Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf

The mayor said the number of officers involved in the racist text messages scandal was not as widespread as the sex scandal. The two scandals aren't related, she said.

She laughed when a reporter asked if any other police officials would be let go.

"I'm hoping to not have to fire anyone else anytime soon, but we will continue to take this matter extremely seriously," she said.

Feds already monitor department

This isn't the first time police in Oakland have come under scrutiny. The department has been under federal monitoring since 2003 as part of a settlement in a police misconduct case.

A visibly disheartened Schaaf said Friday that the police department has made progress and that it was a shame many good officers were being tainted by the scandals.

"The good men and women of the Oakland Police Department do not deserve to have their good work, their progress in making this city safer and implementing progressive reforms, marred by this scandal," she said. "I want to assure the citizens of Oakland that we are hell-bent on rooting out this disgusting culture and holding those accountable responsible for their misdeeds."

Without a police chief at the helm, Oakland City Administrator Sabrina Landreth will be responsible for administrative and personnel decisions, the mayor said. Oakland police commanders will make operations decisions.

But more oversight might be necessary; Oakland City Councilman Noel Gallo told CNN affiliate KRON. "We may have to go to complete federal oversight of our police department," he said.

City Council President Lynette Gibson McElhaney told CNN affiliate KGO that she's trying to keep the mounting allegations in perspective.

"I still believe the vast majority of our officers serve with integrity and honor in a very difficult climate," she said. "For me, it's been difficult to think, how do we recruit at a time like this?"

Preferred Staffing Lowered

Last week, I sent out the message to FDSA members that we are taking the preferred staffing numbers back to the recession levels. The move is due to complete burn out from our deputies. The Mandatory Overtime or MOT, will be filled to maintain safety to those patrolling the streets. Voluntary Overtime, or VOT will be allowed to keep us above preferred levels if that is what the deputies wish to work. Once our trainees complete their training program, and we continue to hire additional deputies, Captain Gularte and I will re-evaluate staffing levels to bring them back up. Our hope is we can have a change by the first part of October, or near shift change at minimum. I  appreciate the work you all are doing – in each of the assignments you have within this organization. We all have to work together to serve the public.

Below is the letter sent to the membership last week.

June 28, 2016

FDSA Membership,

During our last FDSA Board meeting, June 1, 2016, we discussed at length, taking over Parlier Police Department’s law enforcement responsibilities – while we are continuing to have a rise of MOT in our own patrol shifts. This is continuing to put a strain on our deputies. Adding the extra work load - will just enhance this strain.

FDSA Board voted to do the following (See language below) if/when we take over the police duties within the City of Parlier.

COVERAGE FOR PARLIER STAFFING

In recognition of the increased workload that may be necessitated by the Fresno Sheriff’s Office imminent assumption, of patrol duties in the City of Parlier, the undersigned agree to the following:

• All four Areas and each shift will return to recession staffing levels for purposes of Mandatory Overtime shifts.  This means that there shall be no less than four deputies on each shift in each area.
  • Contract policing will continue to be filled outside of the count of four – meaning those shifts will still be filled on MOT if there is not a VOT to fill, and there are four deputies already in the area.
• K9 deputies will count toward staffing levels only if that results in eliminating a Mandatory Overtime shift.  
• These changes will go into effect on July 4, 2016, with a review and meet and confer – involving the Sheriff and the DSA – beginning October 1, 2016.
• All other shifts will remain the same as far as staffing for Voluntary Overtime shifts to help each area and each shift try and stay above the four deputy minimum.

Example: There will be a four deputy minimum for Area 2 Watch 2, but the schedule can include 6 or 7 deputy shifts based on the current staffing agreement approved in October 2015 between FDSA and Sheriff.  Any shifts above the four preferred will be available for Voluntary Overtime signup and deputies will see that availability via Telestaff.  

Based on continuous staffing concerns and the volume of MOT everyone is working, we have agreed with Sheriff’s Management to start this “Recession Level,” preferred staffing sooner, rather than waiting to see what the Parlier Police Department’s future holds.  

We feel this will ease some of the burden when filling these MOT shifts, while still providing as much safety as possible to the deputies. Sheriff’s Management and FDSA will reconvene on this issue come October 1, 2016 to discuss impacts, see where staffing is, and decide if this agreement should be continued or terminated.

In the meantime, continue to sign up for VOT shifts in the areas with the vacancies.

Thank you for all your hard work and service to the public. We are all in this together to provide the best service to the public we all serve.

Be safe and take care of one another out there.

Eric

‍

Remembering Service and Sacrifice

To commemorate Peace Officer Memorial month, several Fresno County Sheriff's Deputies attended events honoring fallen officers locally, statewide and nationally. This year, two deputies made the trip to the nation's capital.

Deputy Edward Mayo attended all three events in May. During the Courthouse Park ceremony he was part of the Honor Guard as the Sheriff's Office bagpiper.

He wrote about the Washington DC Peace Officer Memorial event held on Sunday, May 15, 2016. The following are his memoirs:

In 2016, I was fortunate to be able to attend not only the Fresno County, State of California, and National Peace Officers Ceremonies. Each ceremony and the events surrounding them are held annually to commemorate those that have lost their lives in the line of duty.

The Fresno County Peace Officers Memorial Ceremony is attended by family members of the fallen whose names are etched on the granite walls in Courthouse Park. In 2016 no names were added to the Fresno County Peace Officers Memorial. Hundreds of law enforcement personnel from multiple local Law Enforcement Agencies attended this event to recognize those whose lives were taken while protecting the communities in the County of Fresno.

The California State Peace Officers Memorial Ceremony was held in Sacramento on Monday, May 2. Four names of Officers who died in 2015 and one from the recent past were added to the California Memorial this year. On Sunday evening, May 1, a candlelight vigil was held at the California Memorial. A group of bagpipers led a procession of Law Enforcement Officers, families and friends from the hosting hotel through the streets of Sacramento to the Memorial walls.

The National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Ceremony is held annually on May 15, a day dedicated in 1962 to recognize those law enforcement officers who have lost their lives in the line of duty for the safety and protection of others. National Police Week coincides with National Peace Officer Memorial Day. Several events are held throughout the week in and around Washington D.C. to pay homage to those that had their lives taken in the line of duty.

From the moment we arrived, the size and scope of this event became clear. Agencies from all across the United States sent groups of Officers and Deputies to Washington D.C. Many agencies brought motorcycles and other vehicles to the D.C. area to show their respects. Marked units and motorcycles from as far away as California, Arizona, Idaho, Colorado, Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, and countless other states could be seen as you walked from location to location.

On Friday night, May 13, we attended the candlelight vigil. This event was held on the National Mall near the U.S. Capitol. The sheer magnitude of this event cannot be described in words alone. Thousands of people stood silently in the cool evening air while dignitaries spoke, pipers played, speakers shared their stories, and singers paid their tributes.

Brenda Donner, the National President of Concerns of Police Survivors (C.O.P.S.), was the Keynote Speaker. As she spoke, candles were lit in honor of the 252 Law Enforcement Officers whose lives were added to the National Memorial in 2016. It started with a single candle being lit and the flame being passed along from candle to candle until the entire area was awash in candle light. The single flames spread across the crowd bringing everyone together in remembrance of the lives that were lost.

On Saturday, May 14, pipers from across the nation played as they marched to the National Peace Officers Memorial. Honor Guards and uniformed personnel from various agencies quietly paid their respects as the parade wound through the streets of Washington D.C. Also in the parade were several antique and vintage vehicles from various Law Enforcement Agencies throughout the country. A ceremony was held at the National Memorial by the Fraternal Order of Police after the parade.

National Peace Officer Memorial Day falls on May 15 every year. The ceremony this year was held on the steps of the Capitol building. As far as you could see in any direction you looked, uniformed personnel and Honor Guard members stood in quiet remembrance of the men and women who were enshrined on the National Peace Officers Memorial.

The camaraderie and brotherhood we felt during these events was something everyone in Law Enforcement should be able to experience. From the local ceremony held in Courthouse Park in Fresno, through the State Ceremony in Sacramento, to the multiple events in Washington D.C., the sense of community and belonging only grew stronger. With every show of support, we were met with people who knew why we were there. Not once was there a time when there wasn’t a sense of purpose.

Along the walls of the National Peace Officers Memorial people stood in quiet remembrance and looked upon the name, or names, of those they were there to pay respect to. Couples held hands. Parents hugged their children. Families grieved their loss. People left tokens to show their support and love near the names of those they had lost. Agency patches, lapel pins, photographs, single flowers, ribbons, even bottles of a Loved One’s beverage of choice were left to honor those being remembered. Large wreaths, personal stories, and even patrol car doors signed by friends and co-workers lined the area above the Memorial.

Countless ways to remember and pay homage to those that have fallen could be seen. People wore shirts with names, badge numbers, and agencies of their comrades. Every badge we saw was covered with a black swathe.

We heard stories of how people visiting Washington D.C. with no prior knowledge of the events of National Police Week would ask an Officer or Deputy to pose for a photograph. Stories of people from across the nation and from other countries thanking us for the job we do and expressing their condolences for the losses suffered. We met a man who asked us to sign the hood of his Camaro along with hundreds of other people to show support. He said this was the sixth hood he has had people sign, each going to a fallen Officer commemorated in the graphic on the paint.

These memorials, and countless others, are held annually in remembrance of those we have lost. If you have not yet experienced any of these events, take the time next year to pay your respects locally or on the State or National level. Each Ceremony is a humbling reminder of the sacrifices our brothers and sisters have made while protecting the communities we all serve.

I really want to thank the FDSA for the continuous support they give the fallen officers in the State of California and the co-workers of our own fallen deputies. I will forever be grateful for what they do.

Victory for San Jose Police Officers

Officers battling pension reform in one Bay Area city are making major headway in their efforts to halt this movement.

In 2012, voters approved Measure B, which would have crippled the pension system within the City of San Jose.

Since then, San Jose POA has challenged the Measure calling it “misleading to the voters,” and a breach of contract. SJPOA has been victorious in court by overturning the measure. The final step was taken by San Jose City Council- to reverse the damages and effects the measure would have to both retirees and active employees.

This measure was led by then- City of San Jose Mayor, Chuck Reed. He is also leading the charge behind a statewide pension initiative planned for the 2018 ballot. The article below, taken from the San Jose Mercury News, illustrates the positive results when government and labor work together to reach common ground, so extreme measures do not have to be taken.

San Jose: Council takes final step to repeal Measure B

City leaders took a final vote Tuesday to nullify Measure B, the divisive pension reform initiative aimed at curbing runaway city retirement costs that critics say led to an exodus of City Hall employees and police officers.

The council approved the action Tuesday in a 10-1 vote, to the praise of union leaders who said it represents a new chapter for the city.

"Measure B should have never been on the ballot in the first place," said Gregg Adam, an attorney for the San Jose Police Officers' Association.

Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio was opposed.

"Voters overwhelmingly passed pension reform," he said, "and voters should be the ones to change it."

Former Councilman Pete Constant, who along with Oliverio had supported Measure B, agreed and criticized the council's vote as a backroom deal meant to confuse and mislead voters.

"I truly believe this council is trying to keep the public in the dark about what these actions really mean," Constant said.

Constant, along with the Silicon Valley Taxpayers Association and businessman Charles Munger, Jr., have legally challenged the city's quest to repeal Measure B through a court proceeding. After reaching settlements with the city's 11 employee unions last year, the City Council asked a judge to overturn the pension reform measure on a technicality -- that city leaders didn't bargain fully with unions before putting the measure out to voters. The city plans to replace it with ordinances to implement the settlement it reached with unions.

Santa Clara County Superior Court Judge Beth McGowen in two separate rulings sided with the city by denying Constant's push to intervene in the process. Voters in November will vote on provisions to prevent future pension increases, but not the settlement itself -- a point Constant says hasn't been clearly communicated by Mayor Sam Liccardo, who championed pension reform in 2012.

Constant and his group filed an appeal earlier this month, as well as court papers challenging McGowen's decision and asking for a new trial. Another hearing is set for May 17.

But the city didn't wait for another court hearing to take action Tuesday to declare the resolution that put Measure B on the ballot "null and void due to a procedural defect." The council placed the action on Tuesday's agenda late Friday afternoon -- forgoing the standard 10-day notice required by the city's "sunshine" ordinance.

Although it's a ceremonial step prompted by McGowen's court order, it reflects the final step in overturning Measure B.

Adam said Constant's appeal has "no merit" and he's confident another judge will side with the city and unions.

"They just want to prevent us from moving forward," Adam said.

2016 Primary Elections

We are all greatly impacted by the choices made by the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. Please remember to cast your ballot on Tuesday, June 7th, 2016.

The FDSA has interviewed each of the candidates vying to take the open seats in District 5 and District 3.

We are supporting Nathan Magsig for District 5. He is running for the elected position currently occupied by Debbie Poochigian. Nathan is a proven advocate for law enforcement and will take Fresno County to the next level.

The FDSA is also backing Sal Quintero, to replace our friend and outgoing Supervisor Henry R. Perea. The District 3 seat will be vacated by Perea- who is seeking the office of Mayor for the City of Fresno.

For our members who live in the City of Fresno – Supervisor Perea is a candidate who has the vision and experience to accomplish great things for Fresno. He is an out of the box thinker, who weighs all options- and isn't afraid to try new and innovative ideas. However, he also has a bit of old school ingrained in him, which creates a nice balance.

As summer approaches, and temperatures and sometimes tempers rise, please remember we are all in this together. Take care of your beat, your partners and the community we serve.

Truly,

Eric

‍

Fighting 'Fishing Expeditions' and Protecting Personnel Files
In my February message, I briefed you on SB 1286, introduced by Senator Leno. This bill is aimed at attacking law enforcement by making currently confidential personnel files public, and more easily accessible. The bill is rather unnecessary because under existing law, police personnel files in can be made accessible in appropriate cases, with safeguards in place. Under this bill, “fishing expeditions,” by criminal defendants and their attorneys would be allowed. Not only would this further erode the low morale of officers statewide, it would cripple the trust the public has in its law enforcement communities. State law protects all public employees by ensuring the disciplinary process is not a public spectacle.

California’s existing Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights (POBAR) is designed to protect officers from unreasonable investigation and persecution. This was signed into law by then Governor Brown in 1977. The law provides that peace officer personnel records and records pertaining to complaints against them are private. These records are confidential and disclosable only through discover procedures by the defense. The exceptions that allow records to be disclosed for investigations or proceedings (concerning peace officer conduct) are those requested by a grand jury, DA’s office, or Attorney General’s Office.

Those who are promoting the SB 1286 agenda would upend a carefully crafted mechanism that existing law allows- accessing peace officer personnel files. We know the current procedure as a “Pitchess Motion,” which requires a judge to determine if personnel records are relevant to a pending case and whether they should be disclosed. The Legislature set up the current system specifically to limit these deep probes into officers’ personnel files by criminal defendants.

Today, we have the ACLU and Senator Mark Leno who are pushing legislation that would greatly expand the exceptions. They are pushing for access which would apply to investigations or proceedings conducted by civilian review agencies, the inspector general, personnel boards, police and civil service commissions, city councils, board of supervisors and other agencies. This would make police personnel records publically available and records relating to sustained complaints against them.

Ironically, just last year, Senator Leno was the author of SB178. This bill not only barred police access to electronic devices of suspects without a court order, but- it went beyond the US Supreme Court ruling of Riley v. California by severely restricting when and how police would be able to access those devices. Senator Leno was asked why SB 178 was necessary and his response was, “In Sacramento, privacy is not a partisan issue, it’s a constitutional issue.”

We cannot support these types of attempts by career politicians such as Senator Leno. We find Senator Leno and the ACLU cheering for Apple as they refuse to unlock the cell phone of a terrorist in San Bernardino who murdered 14 innocent people, yet advocate to strip the privacy from those who are sworn to protect the citizens of California.

FDSA and PORAC are tirelessly lobbying against the passage of SB 1286. We cannot let your exposure be a spectacle to those being held accountable under the State constitution.

I will continue to keep all of you updated on the developing interests of this bill.Peace Officer Memorial 2016

I would like to remind all of you about the 2016 Peace Officer Memorial ceremony held on Thursday, May 5th in Courthouse Park. This is a meaningful way to remember our local law enforcement officers who have who died in the line of duty- and those who died this past year throughout California. Lunch will be served immediately following the ceremony.

The Fresno County Board of Supervisors honored Peace Officer Memorial week during their April 26thboard meeting. This annual acknowledgment by county leaders recognizes the service and sacrifice of those fallen deputies who have died in service to the people of Fresno County.

Also on May 5th, the FDSA will be hosting an event to honor the families of our fallen deputies. The 5thannual event will be held at the FDSA building. All Sheriff Personnel are invited to attend, along with those generous sponsors who support our Peace Officer Memorial Fund.

This event also serves to thank those who graciously donate to the FDSA Peace Officer Memorial Golf Tournament. The event is supported by the FDSA and Brenda D. Lavell of 3 Sisters Ranch. She has been a huge supporter of our cause from the time we started the Peace Officer Memorial Fund.

This year, ten deputies were selected to attend the Peace Officer Memorial in Sacramento. I hope the candlelight vigil was an experience you will remember, and want to attend in future years. It is very important for our organization to support the families of the fallen officers who have been killed in the line of duty- this year and every year before.

Health Insurance Update

I wanted to give everyone an update as to how our health insurance is performing. We made some changes to the 2016 plan year. During the last board meeting on April 6, 2016, I updated the FDSA Board of Directors and membership about our current performance.

Just to remind our members, in 2015 we had a great year based on a low “experience,” with Blue Shield. This coupled with an increase from the County of Fresno toward our contribution; we ended up with roughly a 9% plan decrease. This helped lower our rate and ultimately reduced membership health care costs.

The amount of increase or decrease in our health care plan depends on a variety of issues. First, is an increase in county contributions- to offset our total out-of-pocket cost. Second, is an increase or decrease in our usage. Historically, we want to be around a 75% usage- to ensure we have an easy, on par, renewal. Once we start exceeding that will almost be an increase for the upcoming plan year. Anything below that will help us reduce cost and put more money back into the members’ pocket.

The Insurance and Benefits Trust (IBTF) also introduced a high deductible plan to our menu of options. This is in addition to the basic PPO and HMO plans currently offered.

Please remember, the ‘out of control costs’ that we must pay are those associated with the Affordable Care Act. These costs have now impacted our plan significantly- to the tune of currently about 18% of costs we incur.

Our insurance broker, Dibuduo and Defendis is continuing to share information and options with us about our health plan. They are giving us details about costs and any programs we can take advantage of to help lower overall costs of the plan. Their performance over the years, and during the impacts of Obamacare has been extremely important to reduce the cost of the insurance plan.

In Conclusion
The month of May is an important one for this organization and the Sheriff’s Office. Not only do we honor those officers killed in the line of duty during Peace Officer Memorial week – we honor two of our own who paid the ultimate price protecting the citizens of Fresno County. Deputy Dennis Phelps and Deputy Josh Lancaster lost their lives almost a year apart. Take the time to remember, say a prayer and never forget these men who donned the same uniform as all of us here.

Take care of one another wherever your job assignment is.

Eric

‍

Death Penalty Initiative

As many of you know, PORAC is part of a growing list of various law enforcement and safety related groups who are supporting efforts to quality a ballot initiative designed to correct flaws in the death penalty system in California. The group pushing for a united effort includes: elected District Attorneys, law enforcement groups, DA associations, firefighters associations and private donors.

PORAC did a lot of the research before getting behind this movement. About three years ago, the decision was made by the leadership of PORAC to work toward a death penalty reform measure that would be taken to the voters of California. Since the pension initiative has taken a backseat during this election cycle, we have partnered with the above groups to see if the public is willing to fix this broken system.

In 2012, Proposition 34 was initiated to abolish the death penalty in California.

The FDSA was against Prop 34, along with PORAC and many other public safety groups. We hosted one of a dozen statewide press conferences outlining our concerns with this measure. Our position was simple – 47 cop killers were sitting on death row- of the 700 waiting for their fate to be determined. While many of the other inmates on death row are responsible for inhumane and unspeakable crimes- we are especially concerned about those cold blooded killers who have taken the lives of law enforcement officers.

Prop 34 was defeated- in the sense that the public did not want to abolish the California death penalty. Now, the remedy is to fix it.

This death penalty initiative is gaining a lot of support from many people. However, we are tasked with gathering signatures to offset costs of putting this on the ballot. Each signature we receive reduces the amount of money that would be paid to qualify the measure onto the ballot. We had signature cards that some of you may have signed.

Below I have outlined the key points on what this ballot initiative would do to the death penalty in California.

The initiative would:

• Expand the pool of available defense attorneys.
  
  
• Require that a defendant who is sentenced to death is appointed a lawyer at the time of sentence, rather than waiting for years just to get a lawyer.
  
  
• Allows the Department of Corrections to house condemned inmates in less costly housing with fewer special privileges.
  
  
• Requires that condemned inmates work and pay restitution to victims.
  
  
• Allows CDCR to enact an execution protocol without having to reply to every question or suggestion by any citizen who sends them a letter.
  
  
• Gives the California Supreme Court oversight over the state agency that manages death penalty appeals.
  
  

We encourage all of our members to learn more about this important measure. I will keep you up to date as to the status, once it qualifies for the November 2016 ballot.

Fair Share Fees

Over the last six to eight months, there have been many recent developments in the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association. A year ago, the case was scheduled to be heard in The Supreme Court. The heart of the case is “fair share fees,” a long standing issue/law regarding unions and agency fees. This case took some time to understand, because as it relates to the FDSA- we don’t generally deal with “agency/service fees” often. However, Article17 of our MOU deals with this issue specifically. Fair share fees are commonplace within groups such as California Teachers Association, SEIU, Nurses, etc. Law enforcement labor unions generally have a full complement of people involved in their respective associations.

Although the Friedrichs case would not have an immediate, direct impact to law enforcement labor or the FDSA in general- the potential “tsunami” effect for all labor groups would have been devastating.

Over the years, we have dealt with many different ballot initiatives, including Prop 75 and 76. These measures were intended to do away with our political action accounts. More recently, Prop 32 is a move to make it more difficult for labor groups to collect political action money. These accounts are important to ensure our voice is heard, and our message is sent directly to the law and policy makers.

Many of the benefits that we have, such as our pension, collective bargaining, POBAR rights, Myers, Millas, Brown Act – are a result of people agreeing, the courts weighing in, and allowing us to organize for the purpose of making workplaces better. Without organized labor, none of this would be possible to achieve or maintain.

The following in an article from The Labor Beat, put out by our law firm Messing, Adam &Jasmine about fair share/service fees in relation to the Friedrichs case and an overall outlook on what a decision would do if it was not in favor of labor. It includes the history of this case and the most recent developments.

Most Recent Attack on Agency Fee or Fair Share Agreements

Posted on November 17, 2015

Among the most closely watched cases on the 2015-2016 term of the United States Supreme Court docket this year will be Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association. This is a challenge by a group of California teachers to the principle that they are required to contribute financially to the labor union that represents them, bargains for their increased wages and benefits, and files grievances on their behalf. The teachers behind the lawsuit are non-union employees represented by the California Teachers’ Association (“CTA”) whose contributions are commonly known as “fair share” or “agency” fees. The teachers that object to these fees seek a categorical rule eliminating the option for public employers to agree to fair share fees and ask the Court to reject almost forty years of precedent – and more than fifty years of consistent practice in California. They are supported by multiple so-called Right-to-Work proponents, whose goal is the decimation of the labor movement in the United States.

A recent study by the Economic Policy Institute concluded that, on average, the elimination of agency fee provisions results in a reduction in labor union bargaining strength and a commensurate 9% reduction in pay as compared to labor unions operating in states where agency fee laws exist.

This is clearly a critical case.

Messing Adam & Jasmine LLP brought together a coalition of unions and umbrella organizations representing peace officers, firefighters, and supporting public safety employees in communities throughout California, New York state and across the Nation, representing over a half million public safety employees. Working with Stanford Law School Professor, Pamela Karlan and her team at the law school’s Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, the coalition filed its amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in support of Respondent CTA on November 12, 2015.

Oral argument in the case is expected to be early next year with a decision likely right at the end of the Court’s 2015-2016 term in June.

U.S. Supreme Court Likely to Outlaw Fair Share Fees

Posted on January 11, 2016

Oral argument was heard today by the United States Supreme Court in Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association.  Rebecca Friedrichs is an objector challenging the right of unions to collect agency or fair share fees from non-members as a contribution towards the cost of negotiating labor agreements.  She argues that paying fair share fees violates her First Amendment rights.

If Friedrichs is successful, agency fees will be prohibited.  Public employment will effectively become “right to work” across the nation.  This will encourage “free riders” who do not pay dues but reap almost all of the benefits of membership.  Studies from other states show that eliminating fair share fees will reduce public employee membership rates and wages.

We filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the Teachers’ Union on behalf of a Public Safety Coalition of almost half a million employees.

The transcript from today’s hearing and initial reports from those who attended suggest that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Friedrichs and set in motion a series of sweeping attacks on organized labor in the public sector.

Today’s oral argument has been reported widely, including by the New York Times.

We will provide further updates when a decision is released.

Consequences for Friedrichs after Scalia’s Death

Posted on February 17, 2016

Of most interest to public sector labor unions after Justice Antonin Scalia’s recent death is its impact on Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association, where the plaintiffs seek to prohibit the collection of agency fees and overturn Abood v. City of Detroit. Friedrichs was argued on January 11, and experts predicted a 5-4 ruling to ban agency fees. Justice Scalia’s death means he cannot be part of the ruling in the case, regardless of his intended vote. That leaves the case seemingly at a 4-4 tie.

So what happens next?

Two main schools of thought are emerging about Friedrichs:

1. A non-majority (4-4) decision will issue, meaning that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals decision to reject Friedrichs’ challenge will stand. (Some have speculated that Justice Roberts might rule against Friedrichs based on stare decisis, i.e., the doctrine of precedent.)

2. The Court, through the Chief Justice, John Roberts, will order the case reargued once a new Justice is confirmed. With the near-universal expectation being that no new justice will be confirmed until after the next president is sworn in, it is conceivable that the case may not be reargued until late 2017.

Many commentators opined initially that scenario #1 was likeliest. But commentators are now increasingly projecting that, given the importance of the case, scenario #2 is likelier. That means the case will turn on who wins the presidential race. A Republican win will probably produce a conservative justice and a vote to overturn Abood; a Democratic win a liberal justice and a vote to affirm it.

While President Obama said he will name a replacement in due time, Republican congressmen and women have already pledged to block any Obama nominee. Within an hour after Scalia’s death was announced, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell pledged the vacancy will not be filled until a new president is in office, saying that “the American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice.” But Democratic commentators have pointed out that the American people have spoken, when they elected Obama – twice – and that as president, he has a job to do, which includes filling vacancies on the Supreme Court. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid countered that “the President can and should send the Senate a nominee right away. With so many important issues pending before the Supreme Court, the Senate has a responsibility to fill vacancies as soon as possible. It would be unprecedented in recent history for the Supreme Court to go a year with a vacant seat. Failing to fill this vacancy would be a shameful abdication of one of the Senate’s most essential Constitutional responsibilities.” But Republicans may be coming around and willing to consider nominees President Obama proposes, if only not to appear obstructionist in an election year.

Scalia’s untimely death creates great uncertainty as to when his seat will be filled, how Friedrichs will be decided, and whether or not the question of the validity of agency fees will be decided any time soon.

Friedrichs: Public Sector Labor Unions Can Continue to Collect Fair Share Fees

Posted on March 29, 2016

In an unexpectedly short and swift ruling that issued today, the United States Supreme Court preserved the right of public sector labor unions to collect fair share fees.  In a one-sentence, 4-4 ruling, the Court left in place a 9th Circuit ruling in Friedrichs v. California Teachers’ Association that relied on the 1979 Supreme Court decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, which approved fair share fees.

This means that unions will still be able to make non-members contribute to the cost of negotiating better wages and benefits.

The ghost in the room was recently deceased Justice Antonin Scalia, who would have been the deciding vote to overturn Abood and outlaw fair share fees.

The reality is that this issue will probably be decided by the November election.  A Republican victory is likely to see a Supreme Court nominee opposed to Abood and vice-versa if there is a Democratic win.

For now, public sector labor unions that collect fair share fees would be wise not to completely disregard the possibility of additional litigation over this issue.

With Sincere Thanks

I want to thank all of the FDSA members who reached out and assisted in some way during the passing of Deputy Mike Trevino. Several hundred attended his funeral services and the reception was also very well attended. The Trevino family was very grateful and humbled by the love and support from many of you. They also asked that I convey a special note of thanks from their family to the FDSA- for the support provided following Deputy Trevino’s death.

Fraternally,

-Eric

‍

Hope this month is off to a great start! We have been very busy at the FDSA working on several projects and planning for events taking place in the next few months. Looking ahead, those who were selected in our annual drawing to attend Peace Officer Memorial events this year in the nation’s capital are Ed Mayo and Tim Van Houwelingen. Several others were also randomly picked to attend statewide memorial events in Sacramento.New Bills
The deadline for the Legislature to submit new bills for 2016 was on Friday, February 18th. Many inquiries have been made about Senate Bill 1286, introduced by Senator Mark Leno from San Francisco.  

The bill amends sections 1043 and 1045 of the Evidence Code (Pitchess), Section 3304.5 of the Government Code (POBR), and Sections 832.5 and 832.7 of the Penal Code (Personnel Records).  PORAC has been in contact with Aaron Read’s office, Ed Fishman (Legal Defense Administrator), and Alison Berry Wilkinson. They are currently working on an analysis and bullet points to educate and inform you. They can also be used for you to share with others.

If the bill is passed, this is an outline of what it would allow.

“Allow the public to access records related to sustained charges of serious misconduct, including sexual assault, racial or identity profiling, illegal search or seizure, job-related dishonesty, or legal violation of the rights of a member of the public, among others;

“Allow the public to access records relating to any use of force that causes or is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury;

“Allow people who file complaints alleging misconduct to access basic information related to the complaint, including whether the complaint was sustained, the factual findings, and any discipline imposed or corrective actions taken;

“Allow localities to determine if they would like to hold public hearings and administrative appeals based on allegations of peace officer misconduct;

“Allow law enforcement records to be withheld if a court determines that a privacy interest outweighs the public’s interest in disclosure, or if there is a showing of a significant danger to an officer or another person.”

This bill would be devastating to police officer’s privacy rights and confidentiality. It would also be a tough bill to fight during these difficult times. PORAC and our lobbyists are on top of this legislation that would cripple POBAR.

I will keep the FDSA membership informed on the developments of this matter. Tulare County Sheriff Plane Crash

The Fresno Bee, By Lewis Griswold

More than 1,000 people attended the funeral Saturday of James Chavez, a pilot for the Tulare County Sheriff’s Department whose law enforcement plane crashed Feb. 10 near Springville, killing him and sheriff’s Deputy Scott Ballantyne.

The light sport aircraft designed for law enforcement use caught fire after hitting the ground, but the cause of the crash remains under investigation.

Glad Tidings Church in Hanford, where the capacity is listed at 999 people, was filled to overflowing as mourners watched a procession of uniformed law enforcement and military.

At Armona Cemetery following the church service, military honors, including a gun volley, taps, bagpipes and a helicopter flyby, took place.

At the church, Sheriff Mike Boudreaux eulogized Mr. Chavez, 45, who is survived by his wife, Melissa “Missy” Chavez; a daughter, Jayleen, 10; and a son, Josiah, 6.

“James was a civilian pilot, but I’ve got to tell you, for the men and women of the department, he was a deputy sheriff,” Boudreaux said.

The fatal plane crash prompted hundreds of letters from the community and phone calls of concern and condolences from top elected officials statewide and law enforcement leaders, he said.

Boudreaux said Mr. Chavez would sometimes fly over his home.

“He would … tilt his wings and I would wave back,” he said. “I just thought it was the best thing ever.”

At a law enforcement conference in Washington, D.C., the attendees held a moment of silence in honor of Mr. Chavez and Deputy Ballantyne, and the same happened at the World Ag Expo in Tulare, he said.

Their names will be added to the Peace Officers Memorial in Visalia, he said.

Mr. Chavez was a safety-conscious pilot who helped officers on the ground.

“James did nothing but express his love for the job,” Boudreaux said. “He loved chasing bad guys.”

Mr. Chavez was born in Stockton and graduated from St. Mary’s High School. He graduated from California State University, Fresno, with a degree in geography.

He had played the violin since age 8 and performed with the Kings Symphony Orchestra for several seasons.

He served as an officer in both the Navy and Army.

In 1993, he was a maintenance officer on the USS Abraham Lincoln. But he wanted to be a pilot.

In 2005, he transferred to the Army National Guard and became a Blackhawk helicopter pilot, amassing more than 900 hours.

He was humble in every way. He didn’t drop names or awards.

Pastor Rick McCullough

In 2010-11, he served as company commander for the 640th Aviation Support Battalion and flew Blackhawk missions.

Mr. Chavez, who attained the rank of major, earned a Bronze Star and combat badge.

His colleagues admired him, said Col. David Uyematsu.

“I loved his amazing personality,” Uyematsu said. “He would crack a joke now and then – it was a breath of fresh air.”

One of Mr. Chavez’s assignments was to lead a company of 250 soldiers to Iraq to provide aircraft maintenance support to 300 helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft.

“He took a thankless job and did it well,” he said.

His quest to become a pilot took 10 years, Uyematsu said: “Man, that guy was persistent.”

Pastor Rick McCullough said Mr. Chavez was a blessing to others.

“He was humble in every way,” McCullough said. “He didn’t drop names or awards.”

James Chavez’s logged flight hours in Blackhawk helicopter

Mr. Chavez was active in ministries at Glad Tidings and liked to help young people.

“I ran into some trouble when I was in high school,” Brittany Smith of Fresno said following the church service. “He actually spoke to me quite often and helped kind of get me back on track and helped kind of get my life straight … James was a very big part of making sure that I was straightened out and had my life straight. Now I’ve got a family and I’m going to school.”

He was sometimes a door greeter at church, said church member Emily Oliveira.

“He’d say, ‘Oh my day is complete now, I’ve met all of you’ – me, my mother-in-law, my niece,” she said. “He was always a good friend.”Honoring Deputy Sheriff Scott Ballantyne
California Attorney General Kamala Harris attended the funeral Monday of Tulare County Sheriff’s Deputy Scott Ballantyne, who was killed Feb. 10 when the department’s airplane crashed near Springville, killing him and pilot James Chavez.

“On behalf of the state of California law enforcement family, our thoughts and prayers are with you during this extremely difficult and tragic time,” Harris said to the large crowd gathered at First Assembly of God Church.

“Please know that the California Department of Justice and the state’s entire law enforcement community are here for you as you mourn the loss of your colleague and family member.”

The cause of crash is under investigation.

Deputy Ballantyne, 52, grew up in Visalia and was hired as a sheriff’s trainee in 1989.

In his career, he served as detentions officer and patrol officer, worked in the crime lab and as a bailiff before being hired as the spotter for Sheriff One, the light sport aircraft used to find suspects from the air.

“He died doing what he loved to do,” Sheriff Mike Boudreaux said.

Boudreaux said after the plane crash, he went to the Visalia home of Deputy Ballantyne’s mother, Jean Ballantyne, to break the news.

“I knocked on the door,” he said. “She answered the door politely and said, ‘I don’t want to hear what you have to say.

“She explained she already knew in her heart. ... Not because anyone had already told her – she said because of mother’s intuition.”

She later told Boudreaux her son as a child was “obedient and content.”

Boudreaux said he believed it because years ago he worked in the jail and on patrol with Deputy Ballantyne.

“There was nothing upsetting him or making him mad or where he would get in an outrage,” Boudreaux said.

Several years ago, Deputy Ballantyne was hospitalized with a life-threatening illness, so Boudreaux went to visit him in the hospital.

“All he could think about was getting back on his feet and going back to work,” Boudreaux said.

Deputy Ballantyne’s name will be added to the Peace Officer Memorial in Visalia, and memorials in Sacramento and Washington, D.C., Boudreaux said.

As the tactical officer on Sheriff One, Deputy Ballantyne and Chavez found a lost 3-year-old and a person with Alzheimer’s, and interrupted burglaries in progress.

“He would proudly tell you that Sheriff One assisted in an average of three felony apprehension per week,” said Sgt. Michele Price.

While in the air near the Kern County line, Deputy Ballantyne spotted dozens of greenhouses in a remote area and took photos because it seemed suspicious. The find led to 12,300 marijuana plants and 33 arrests “all just because Scott had a hunch,” Price said.

Bailiff Tracy Mellow said Deputy Ballantyne was quick to arrive when called for assistance.

“If you knew Scott was coming to be your backup, you’d breathe a sigh of relief,” Mellow said. “That man had your back. I believe everyone who ever worked with Scott can attest to that.”

Deputy Ballantyne wanted the Sheriff One job and when he was offered the position, “his face was lit up like I’ve never seen it before,” Mellow said. “He had a smile from ear to ear. … I knew he was the perfect candidate for that position. I knew he would be great.”

Deputy Ballantyne’s father, the late Lt. Col. Stanley Ballantyne, served in South Korea, then Iran as an Army adviser to the Shah of Iran. The family lived there for two and a half years when Deputy Ballantyne was younger than 5.

He graduated from Redwood High School and attended College of the Sequoias and Fresno State.

Chaplain Kevin Mizner said Deputy Ballantyne learned to ride a unicycle in his youth, delivered pizza in his teens, worked on cars as a young man and liked most animals. Recently, he took in a Chihuahua he named Weird Willie.

Dispatcher Jim Reeves said Deputy Ballantyne would show video he had taken from the air, including one where he tracked a vehicle fleeing an illegal cockfighting operation.

“He was really enthusiastic about his job, always telling us about the capabilities of the aircraft,” Reeves said.

Retired dispatcher Enda Perkins said Deputy Ballantyne once visited as she was struggling with a coffee maker that had quit working. He arrived the next day with a professional-grade Farmers Brothers coffee maker.

“He said, ‘The only thing worse than a tired dispatcher is a tired dispatcher with no coffee,’ ” Perkins said.

At Visalia Cemetery, the ceremony included a flyby of law enforcement helicopters from Kern County, gun volley, bagpipes, color guard and presentation of the casket flag to Deputy Ballantyne’s mother.

Closing Message
Please protect one another out there in whatever assignment you are doing. Remember we are only good as one.

-Eric

‍

The beginning of 2016 has definitely started off with many wild and unpredictable changes. From the recent homicide trend in our county, to the numerous storms saturating us, and the political changes happening within the past 30 days.

Detectives have been very busy working to solve four double homicides in Fresno County this month. At this time, all 8 remain unsolved.

The Fresno County Board of Supervisors is about to see a change, following the January 19th announcement by Supervisor with Debbie Poochigian that she will not be seeking re-election in District 5.

This is the letter Supervisor Poochigian sent to the community:

District 5 Board of Supervisor Seat

January 19, 2016Dear Family, Friends, and Constituents of District 5After four decades of work in the local, state and federal political arena, I have decided not to seek re-election to a third term as District 5 representative on the Fresno County Board of Supervisors. I do not make this choice lightly as I love serving and enjoy tackling big issues that affect our lives.It has been a high honor to serve the constituents of my district and all of the residents of Fresno County for the past seven years. I was born in Fresno County and was blessed to be raised on a farm in a family that valued hard work, common sense, and the importance of being involved in civic life. I learned so much about county government and public service from my father, highly respected five-term supervisor Deran Koligian. I also had the opportunity to be involved with state and federal political issues and campaigns and worked alongside my husband, Chuck, who had a distinguished career in the Legislature.When I joined the Board in 2009, Fresno County was in economic crisis. Working with a board majority and leadership team that clearly understood the challenge, we were able to implement tough decisions that set us on the right course. We took our responsibilities seriously, streamlined government, and restored fiscal integrity. I am very proud of our accomplishments.There is still important work to be done. In the next 11 months, I will continue to work hard, focus my energy on issues about which I am passionate, ask tough questions, act as a fiscal watchdog, advocate for strong ethical standards that guide county policymaking, and provide high-quality constituent services.I have thoroughly enjoyed the job and thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve. No one knows what the future holds, but I will leave the door open for future challenges. Thank you for your friendship, encouragement, and support over the years.

Cordially yours,Deborah A. Poochigian

Poochigian's Record with FDSA

Debbie worked intensely with the FDSA when layoff notices were issued to many of you during the recession. She was instrumental, along with former CAO John Navarettee in looking for every dollar available to increase the Sheriff’s budget. Based on those efforts, we did not lay off one sworn deputy sheriff.

Debbie has always been an advocate to adding back positions we lost during the recession (103 unfilled positions total). This rebuild started in the 2014/2015 budget where ten positions were added back. During her time as chairman in 2015/2016, an additional seven positions were added.

Dating back to 2009, Debbie has been a proponent for the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office . She was by our side when Mayor Ashley Swearengin began looking into incorporating county islands into the City of Fresno. She was a voice alongside the FDSA – always proclaiming the voters have a voice and are pleased with the service they receive from Fresno County Sheriff's Deputies.

Over the years Debbie has been an ally with the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office and our law enforcement needs. A conservative supervisor we would generally find common ground with.

Thank you Debbie for your service to Fresno County and to the citizens in District 5. Good luck to your future ventures.

Pension Reform Update

Update on the current Pension Reform ballot initiative everyone has been anticipating for the November 2016 ballot. Below I am listing statements from former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and former San Diego Mayor Carl DeMaio regarding their current efforts.

The following statement is offered by Carl DeMaio and Chuck Reed:

"After conversations with members of their coalition and key donors, we have decided to re-file at least one of our pension reform measures later this year for the November 2018 ballot.  By then we will know the outcome of a key court case that might limit the public employee unions' capacity to spend 'unlimited' resources against pension reform."

"Every year we delay serious pension reform public employers make more unsustainable promises to new employees and public retirement debts grow.  We need pension reform to protect our education system and vital public services from these fast growing burdens. Although our polling today shows continued strong public support for pension reform, we believe 2018 will provide an even better environment for substantial reform as rising retirement costs further squeeze their schools and local agencies budgets."

Nonetheless, this is exciting news for labor that it appears we will be without a battle during this election year. We will, however, continue to fight for our promised benefit in the coming years unfortunately.

These two people, Reed and DeMaio will be waiting the outcome on a couple different court cases to see which direction they will be heading in the coming years. FDSA with the assistance of PORAC will be monitoring these pension battles without fail in the upcoming years.

This is a very positive update as many of your know I have been discussing this pension battle for about a year now in my President Messages to all of you. Once I have concrete word these will not be on the ballot I will be updating each of you.

Governor Brown’s Budget Speech

Gov. Jerry Brown, charting a cautious course in his State of the State address, warned Thursday of a future economic downturn and urged lawmakers to restrain spending despite state budget surpluses.

Brown took credit for raising the minimum wage, expanding health care coverage and increasing funding for schools. But he pointedly offered no new policy proposals, casting an agenda focused on “how we pay for the commitments we already have.”

The address came amid turmoil in the United States stock market, with fears about the Chinese economy and the plummeting price of oil.

Brown depicted the world as “profoundly uncertain” and California’s budget, which relies heavily on income tax revenue, as especially volatile.

“If we are to minimize the zigzag of spend, cut, spend that this tax system inevitably produces,” he said, “we must build a very large reserve.”

The annual speech opens a pivotal year for Brown, before focus shifts to the 2018 election to succeed him. The fourth-term Democrat enters the second year of his final term with relatively high public approval ratings and about $24 million in his campaign war chest, money that will allow him to factor heavily in ballot measure campaigns in November.

Brown, 77, gave no indication of how he might insert himself into those campaigns, only joking that he could fund a ballot initiative to change term limits to allow him to seek a fifth term.

His focus on the budget was so singular that Dan Schnur, director of the Jesse M. Unruh Institute of Politics at the University of Southern California, said, “It looks like somebody switched his budget address with his State of the State text.

“What Brown learned over his years, in between administrations, is the importance of focus,” Schnur said. “He has a very small number of very important goals that he wants to accomplish, and rather than presenting a laundry list of 1,000 different things, he focused almost completely on what he wants the Legislature to do this year, which is to restrain itself.”

Brown has taken criticism in recent years for the unevenness of California’s economic recovery, with the state’s poverty rate the highest in the nation when adjusted for the cost of living. He insisted Thursday that he has enacted laws and programs to help the poorest Californians, while depicting income inequality as the result of globalization and other forces beyond the state’s control.

In his 20-minute speech, Brown resisted calls by legislative Democrats to spend more. Faulting the state for setting aside only a “token” amount to pay for billions of dollars in pensions and future retiree health benefits, Brown said it is a “moral obligation” to address that liability before making new commitments.

The speech served to underscore ongoing tension between Brown and more liberal Democrats about how much to spend on social service programs. Brown and the Democratic-controlled Legislature are in the opening rounds of this year’s budget talks.

While praising Brown for his “very clear-eyed focus on maintaining California’s fiscal stability,” Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León said, “We also believe that we need to make much-needed targeted investments in human capital for those who have been left behind with the resurgence of the economy.”

The Los Angeles Democrat said, “We’ve got to make certain investments in the long run that will lift people out of poverty so they can become income earners and contribute to the state coffers.”

Assembly Speaker Toni Atkins, D-San Diego, noted that Brown “typically emphasizes austerity.”

“The Assembly’s responsible approach to budgeting,” she said, “allows us to consider posterity, too.”

In his State of the State address last year, Brown announced an initiative to reduce petroleum use in motor vehicles by as much as 50 percent within 15 years and to increase to one-half from one-third the proportion of electricity California derives from renewable sources. Brown and the Legislature enacted the renewable electricity mandate, but legislation to require petroleum reductions failed amid intense opposition from oil interests and moderate Democrats in the Assembly.

Brown, a longtime champion of environmental causes, said little about climate change or two major infrastructure projects he is laboring to push forward: California’s $68 billion high-speed rail system and a $15.5 billion plan to divert water around the Delta to the south.

Brown’s office pointed reporters to a new promotional video for the Delta project, while Brown renewed his call for a multibillion-dollar mix of taxes, fees and other revenue to fund road repairs throughout the state.

“Ideology and politics stand in the way,” he said, “but one way or another the roads must be fixed.”

Increasing taxes would require at least some Republican support, and GOP lawmakers have proved resistant.

Senate Republican leader Jean Fuller of Bakersfield said that in a year in which California enjoys unprecedented revenue, “it seems a little premature to fix the newest problems with new taxes.”

The state’s financial condition has rebounded since Brown took office and confronted a staggering budget deficit in 2011. Amid economic recovery, Brown this month issued a $170.6 billion state spending plan that includes billions of dollars in new funding for schools while rejecting calls for more robust, permanent spending increases in social service programs.

“A slowdown in China or turmoil in Iraq or Syria or virtually anywhere can send the stock market reeling and put California jobs and state revenues in jeopardy,” Brown said.

Barbara O’Connor, a political analyst and retired communications professor at Sacramento State, said that message is salient for Californians who are “looking at their 401(k)s this week, and they’re going … what happened?”

She said, “He has the right messages, he frames the issues correctly, and that’s why he’s the most popular politician in California.”

Brown, who oversaw dramatic service reductions when he took office, complained that without sufficient reserves, previous deficits required painful cuts to schools, child care services, courts and other programs.

He said, “I don’t want to make those mistakes again.

Stay safe all of you and take care of your partner wherever you work.

Always,

Eric

‍

Happy New Year!!

I hope all of you had a safe and happy holiday season.

The start of a new year always provides many with a sense of renewed energy and inspiration to reach those resolutions.

At the FDSA, January is also a time to reflect on the fallen officers who were killed in the Line of Duty in 2015. In May of 2016, during Police Week in Sacramento and Washington DC, we will honor their families and their memory.

These are the fallen officers in the State of California in 2015:

• Officer Michael Johnson – San Jose Police Department EOW: March 24, 2015
• Officer David Nelson – Bakersfield Police Department EOW: June 26, 2015
• Sergeant Scott Lunger – Hayward Police Department EOW: July 22, 2015
• Officer Bryce Haynes – San Bernardino Police Department EOW November 5, 2015

Promotions to Deputy Sheriff IV

Congratulations to those of you selected on the recent list for promotion to the Deputy Sheriff IV. In June of 2015, many of you tested for these positions. In July of 2015, we received the decision on the grievance related to movement filed by the FDSA in September of 2014. The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the FDSA on the grievance we initiated.

Recapping the three reasons to move a deputy from their special assignment are;

• Performance
• Attrition/Retirement
• Voluntary

After this decision, Deputy Sheriff IV promotions were halted. The Sheriff felt that with the arbitrator’s decision she would lose her discretion to move personnel in these positions. Currently, the Sheriff is appealing the ruling in Superior Court. In the meantime, we still have the Deputy Sheriff IV list that is active and ready to promote from within. Starting in about September, we (Sheriff and FDSA) tried to work out an agreement on promotions and reassignments. To date, we have yet to come to any mutually agreeable terms with Sheriff Mims, and her appeal is continuing.

During the interim, the FDSA and Sheriff Mims came to an agreement that was memorialized in a side letter agreement to allow promotions of the Deputy Sheriff IV’s to go forward, but neither party, Sheriff or FDSA, is giving up each other’s legal positions. Below is the language both sides agreed to in the interim to allow the promotions of deputies to the Deputy Sheriff IV position.

Sheriff,

Here is our suggested language.

FDSA realizes you are not waiving your right to continue through the court process of the Arbitration ruling. Nor are we (FDSA) waiving our position or defenses in that case.

This document should mediate that in the interim.

SIDELETTER AGREEMENT

FRESNO DEPUTY SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION (FDSA) UNIT 1 EMPLOYEES

The County of Fresno and FDSA agree to the following purpose and goals for the position of Deputy Sheriff IV.

Over the past few years due to budget constraints, the opportunity to promote Deputy Sheriff IV’s has been restricted. Approval has now been given to promote Deputy IV’s and we have an opportunity to put into place a thoughtful efficient Deputy IV deployment plan. The goal is to identify and designate Deputy IV positions in the Fresno County Sheriff-Coroner’s Office Specialty units and in patrol. The purpose is to place Deputy IV’s in places that will mirror Sergeants and allow them to act in a lead capacity over lower level officers and act as a supervisor in the absence of a Sergeant and will allow them to develop their responsibilities in a well-structured reasoned manner based on departmental needs.

As we move toward this goal it is with the understanding that as we identify the Deputy Sheriff IV positions, movement into the positions will be on a case by case basis. The promotions will be based on the person in accordance with Civil Service rules. It is also understood that it will take some time to fully realize the completion of the deployment to reach the goal. To allow the maximum flexibility and as we work toward the goal, some promoted deputies may remain in place in their current Deputy III positions as a Deputy IV and some may be assigned to a new position depending on current investigations, training and replacement considerations.

San Bernardino Shooting at Inland Regional Medical Center

I wanted to put this article in this edition to show the leadership shown by Chief Burguan of the San Bernardino Police Department during the recent terror attack that occurred on US soil, in California, from people linked to the ISIS Terror Group. Reading this article, showed that in times of critical stress true leaders emerge – and lead people.

An example of LeadershipLos Angeles Times

By Phil Willon

As police officers kicked open doors in the Inland Regional Center in the search for the armed assailants who just massacred 14 county employees, San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan was outside scanning the terrain for a safe place to coordinate the sweeping emergency response.

He found it a block away — an abandoned house with a dirt yard and boarded-up windows, one of many pocking the streets of this hollowed-out city. Within minutes, police, fire and other emergency agency commanders huddled inside, out of gunshot range.

It was a no-nonsense move by a city police chief who has been praised for his cool-headed response in the chaotic aftermath of the worse terrorist attack on U.S. soil since Sept. 11.

When standing before television news cameras, Burguan’s cleanly-shaven crown and thick, linebacker frame punctuated his blunt, straightforward accounts of the manhunt and the rapidly-developing investigation.

“He was quite effective in giving out whatever information he could, calming the public and discouraging any other lunatics from committing acts of backlash,’’ said Brian Levin, a former New York City police officer and terrorism expert teaching at Cal State San Bernardino. “The response, of all the agencies, was a national model for first responder actions regarding terrorist attacks.”

Burguan knew the nation was watching, and that San Bernardino was on edge. He held three news conferences on the day of the attack. He didn’t dodge questions but also knew some leads could not be made public.

“I believe in transparency,” Burguan, 45, said. “My philosophy has always been that if I can tell you, I’m going to tell you. And if I can’t tell you, I’m going to say I can’t tell you.”

Burguan also took to Twitter to provide instant updates and knock down rumors: “Suspects are down, one officer wounded. Details still unfolding,” he tweeted shortly after the assailants were killed in a gunbattle with police.

On Friday, he was at home and sending out a series of tweets explaining why a UPSstation was evacuated after a delivery driver spotted a package addressed to one of the killers. “Item was safe, posed no threat.” Moments later, he watched, amazed, as his tweet popped up on a television news broadcast.

“The power of social media,” Burguan said.

Burguan, named chief two years ago after two decades as a San Bernardino officer, is uneasy with the attention, sensitive to the lives lost and those maimed in the terrorist attack and the long list of agencies, including the FBI and San Bernardino Sheriff’s Department, involved in the case.

His pride, however, is difficult to hide.

“We knew the response was good, we knew people were very, very happy that we hunted down these guys and caught them very quickly, ’’ he said. “There’s no doubt that these guys were going to do something else. They had an arsenal on them. They were going to continue fighting.”

Burguan, a former football star at Bloomington Christian High School, just outside of Rialto, was 21 when he joined the San Bernardino Police Department in 1992. It was near the height of the crack epidemic, when gunfire echoed around the city almost every night and the homicide rate was double what it is today. He worked the night shift and went to night school, eventually earning undergraduate and master’s degrees at the University of Redlands.

San Bernardino was a different city then. Lumbering C-141 Starlifters still flew out of Norton Air Force Base. There were two malls in town and a hopping restaurant row. Burguan, living on a traffic officer’s salary, failed to qualify for a loan when he tried to buy a home up near Cal State San Bernardino.

“I watched the decline. I’ve watched businesses leave, and I saw Norton close,” he said.

This once-proud blue-collar city has been hamstrung by years of bankruptcy, poverty and noxious politics. Since 2009, the police force has been cut by 100 officers. The anti-gang and other crime prevention programs “are a shell” of what they used to be, he said. There is a proposal to beef up the agency over the next five years, but it is before a federal bankruptcy judge awaiting approval.

“We’re largely a reactive agency. I hate to say it, but that’s the truth of the matter,” Burguan said. “Our response times are not good. And the irony is, people are praising us for our response to this incident.”

On Wednesday morning, as Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik burst into the Inland Regional Center during a party for county health workers and opened gunfire, Burguan was three miles away at San Bernardino City Hall for a meeting with department heads.

Burguan’s cellphone lit up with a call, but was on silent. It was from one of his captains.

“I ignored the call, twice,” the chief said. “Then he texted me – “911.”

The first San Bernardino officer arrived on the scene within four minutes of the first 911 call, and Burguan pulled up minutes later. Police cars and ambulances clogged Waterman Avenue, and teams of officers were evacuating the complex and going office to office searching for gunman.

Witnesses, panicked and fleeing to safety, gave varied accounts of the shooting. They described two, maybe three shooters, and possibly a getaway driver in a black SUV. They were described as white or Latino males, armed with assault rifles.

“Someone came out of the building [and] said, ‘I think it may be [a] co-worker. This Farook guy,” Burguan said. “He was at the party with us, and he left.”

Burguan was with San Bernardino County Sheriff John McMahon and David Bowdich, assistant director in charge of the FBI office in Los Angeles, in a mobile command trailer in the afternoon when police radios lit up with chatter from a police pursuit of Farook and Malik. Their rented SUV was being tailed from their Redlands home into San Bernardino when they opened fire on police.

“I will tell you that’s a heart-wrenching moment when you’re listening to your officers in a gunbattle,” he said. “You hear that an officer had been hit, and your heart just stops.”

The officer, who sustained a leg wound, already is out of the hospital. Farook and Malik were killed in the firefight.

Riverside Police Chief Sergio Diaz credited the successful manhunt and efforts to prevent any additional loss of life to the effective cooperation between all the law enforcement agencies, which can be an issue in other jurisdictions.

“In Jarrod’s particular case, he embodied professionalism,” Diaz said. “The idea that there’s no egos there, that you sacrifice your ego for the mission.”

When evidence mounted of the assailants’ possible links to terrorist organizations, Burguan said he had no issue with allowing the FBI to take command. He recalls Bowdich joking with him, saying “It’s not like in the movies when the FBI charges in and says, ‘We’re in charge.’ “

“They brought worldwide resources into this investigation,” he said.

Meantime, San Bernardino remains on edge. Burguan said he’s committed to increasing police patrols throughout the city in the near future, despite the cost, to assure residents that they are safe. And though he appreciates all the goodwill, he knows it won’t last forever and his job won’t get any easier.

Just last month, one of his officers was killed by a suspected drunk driver after dropping off an arrestee at the county jail. And earlier this year, when a 2014 video surfaced showing an officer using enough force to allegedly dislocate the elbow of a handcuffed suspect in a car theft case, Burguan quickly put out a statement vowing to investigate the incident. He assured residents that he was aware of the scrutiny police agencies are facing nationwide.

Terrance Stone, who founded the Young Visionaries gang intervention program, said the police agency is slowly recovering from a “real rocky relationship” with residents in many neighborhoods, especially among African Americans. Police officials have made a concerted effort to salve those wounds from years ago, and the officers’ quick action to hunt down the two terrorists, will only add to that goodwill, Stone said.

“They have to keep that up. One bad incident will change everything, and [they’ll] be back to square one,” Stone said. “This is San Bernardino, not Beverly Hills.”

Burguan said he’s well aware of that, half-jokingly adding that “next week they’ll go back to being mad at me.” But, he said, this past week the San Bernardino Police Department showed the world what it’s capable of, and that’s something to build on.

“No question, we’ve been through a turbulent time,” he said. “But this is my home.”

Take care of one another and be safe out there.

-Eric

‍

In a few short weeks, scorching summer temperatures ended and suddenly cold weather arrived! We have even been treated with several storms bringing us much needed rain! I hope each and every one of you has had the opportunity to enjoy the holiday season with family and friends!

9th Annual FDSA Golf Tournament

I am so happy to report; the 9th Annual Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association Memorial Tournament on Friday, October 23 was a huge success! The event was held at Eagle Springs Golf Course and was the best tournament yet!! This year, it was a “mega-style,” event- with 200 golfers playing the four man scramble style tournament. Sponsorships were up, along with the number of players. We even had a waiting list of players who wanted to sign up after the tourney was sold out!! Due to the overwhelming response, we are working to accommodate more players and sponsorships next year. We are also considering the possibility of two flights. This year, we got a lot of great ideas that we plan to implement next year to help ‘grow’ the tournament. We also had a wide range of raffle prizes and we sold more raffle tickets than ever before! Thank you to every person who played a part in making the day memorable, fun and successful!  

Every single dollar raised through the tournament goes into the FDSA Peace Officer Memorial Fund. The single day event is the largest revenue generator for the fund each year. Other events that also contribute to the fund include the FDSA Phantom Fireworks stand, along with the monthly BBQ’s.  

The Peace Officer Memorial fund provides assistance to those families facing the devastation of a loved one being killed in the line of duty. We immediately offer any support necessary to local families when they are dealing with intense grief and hardship. In addition, we also reach out to other statewide law enforcement agencies/families to help when they are dealing with these tragedies.

This fund is also used to remember those law enforcement officers who have made the ultimate sacrifice. During Peace Officer Memorial Week – we send ten members to Sacramento. Those selected are chosen at random through a raffle. The members attend the Candlelight Vigil Sunday evening and the Peace Officer Ceremony the following day. In addition, we also send two members to Washington D.C. each year. These members fly to the nation’s capital to honor our fallen Fresno County Deputies. We also help support our local Fresno County Peace Officer Foundation, by providing a donation to assist with the costs of the annual ceremony held in Fresno County Courthouse Park. This event honors those law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty in Fresno County.

A very important part of our mission at the FDSA, is to honor our fallen deputies and remember the families left to continue on- despite a big void. We also feel it is appropriate to extend a hand and gesture of love to neighboring agencies when they are facing these tragedies.

63rd Annual PORAC Conference of Members

The PORAC Annual Conference of Members was held at the Portola Plaza Hotel in Monterey, on November 20 through November 22, 2015.

During the Board of Directors, several topics were discussed and several training sessions were held during the conference.

President Mike Durant was unanimously re-elected as the PORAC President. He is serving his second term leading this great organization. Durant held the position of Vice President for seven years, until he was elected to President in 2013. He took the top spot after outgoing president, Ron Cottingham retired.  

Marcelo Blanco was also re-elected as Treasurer of PORAC for his third term. Marcelo is a sergeant for the Upland Police Department. Blanco has reined in the budget over the last few years and manages the money of PORAC, as if it were his own hard earned cash.  

A few of the main topics covered during the conference include issues pertinent to PORAC and matters which are concerns in the future.  

Pension initiatives were a big topic of discussion at the conference. Our Sacramento Lobbyists, Aaron Reed and Randy Perry updated the Board of Directors and members in attendance on the latest efforts to push this measure to the ballot box. To date, we have seen no less than 3 separate initiatives filed by former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, former San Diego Council Member Carl DeMaio and their accomplices against public employees. Whether these initiatives move forward this year or are held over for the next year, PORAC will be better prepared to take on these fights to protect all of our vested benefits.

PORAC, along with many other state organizations- will continue to push back against Reed and DeMaio and their efforts to get pension reform on a ballot initiative this year. Even if this were to happen, PORAC and public agencies across this state cannot let our guard down and must continue to be aware of the forces against us who are relentless. There is no doubt in the minds of PORAC leaders and our advocates, that similar initiatives will be headed our way by these Reed and DeMaio in the coming years.  

Reed and Perry have navigated PORAC through some of the toughest legislation in recent years coming out of Sacramento. Legislators continue to reach out to PORAC for issues related to public safety, and to discuss conceptual ideas, proposed legislation, or language amendments of current legislation.

They monitor each bill relating to public safety as it is going through the legislature. As these bills move through, or are killed- PORAC is constantly updated of the status. President Durant is aware of things that need to be done by PORAC, with the help of Reed and Perry. Many times, the Board of Directors is asked to reach out to our local delegation to educate or inquire about issues pertaining to legislation. These lobbyists are the most respected and trusted advocates in Sacramento.

Two years ago, PORAC changed our advocacy firm in Washington D.C. to Steptoe and Johnson. PORAC has repeatedly been raising our name identification- not only among our congressional delegation in California, but also with many committees responsible for providing federal law enforcement funding.

PORAC travels to Washington DC during two separate, three day lobbying trips a year. The purpose is to meet with our delegation and different committee members dealing with law enforcement issues firsthand. Body Worn Cameras and various funding mechanisms were some of the agenda items for 2015.

Darryl Nirenberg along with Jason Abel and Eva Rigamonti, of Steptoe and Johnson, do an outstanding job for PORAC coordinating meetings and providing PORAC with the most current legislative program. These advocates and their firm have elevated PORAC to a much higher level at the nation’s capital. Representatives and Senators, along with many committee members are contacting PORAC for our input on federal policies related to public safety.

PORAC Membership and Legal Defense Fund Grows

We were also informed at conference that PORAC’s recruitment and retention is steadily climbing. Currently 66,000 members and 915 Associations belong to PORAC. Twenty new member originations joined PORAC throughout the year of 2015.

PORAC’s Legal Defense Fund continues to grow in size and strength- by leaps and bounds. This growth is seen in the number of members, the amount of money in reserves, and the quality of services being provided to you, the members.

Law Enforcement, day in and day out, is battling to keep the hard earned benefits that we have negotiated over the years. The battle is made more difficult by other labor groups (of lessor significance) continuing to try to lure PORAC members away with promises of more services and coverage for less expense. The truth really becomes – they deliver nothing for the expense.

Legal Defense Fund Chairman, Fred Rowbotham reported at conference PORAC LDF’s membership is now at 105,588 members, and 1,115 associations. The fund has over $16 million in assets. LDF is the line between you keeping your benefits or losing them all.

PORAC Benefits Update

PORAC’s Insurance Benefits Trust Fund (Short/Long Term Disability) and (Life Insurance Programs) are what the FDSA benefits from through its membership. PORAC also provides health insurance to many members of the organization. However, you must be a PERS agency to take advantage of that benefit. Since we are a 1937 Retirement County, unfortunately- we don’t qualify for the different health insurance plans.

In February of 2014, PORAC’s IBTF rolled out a major change to the IBTF’s Disability Plan. The Long Term Disability (LTD) went from a single policy, to now, two separate policies. We now have a one-year, self-funded Short Term Disability Plan that wraps into a fully insured LTD Plan insured by Standard Insurance of Oregon.

The change strengthens our plans ability to meet the member’s need for continued income- in the event they become ill or injured either on or off duty. The IBTF Trustees enhanced the Death Benefit by increasing Short Term Disability and fully insured Life Insurance Benefit to a total of $70,000 lump sum benefit. It also reduced the waiting period from five years to two years on the self-funded, $50,000 Natural Causes Death Benefit.

IBTF reported the assets vs payouts were continuing at strong pace, which puts the fund in a good positions for renewals on the variety of programs offered, such as health insurance, both STD/LTD programs, Life Insurance, and Home and Auto Insurance.

Please stop by the FDSA or email me if you are interested in exploring any of these programs. The Life Insurance along with Home and Auto Insurance are very competitive programs that PORAC members can take full advantage of with little to no hassle.

This conference was attended by over 1,000 members of PORAC. As FDSA President, I attend quarterly meetings for PORAC and sit on the Fiscal Management Committee (answering to the Treasurer) along with sitting as Region II Peace Officer Memorial Committee (answering to the President of PORAC).   Deputy Kelly Mayfield also attended conference this year. He was asked by PORAC to be the Region II Sergeant at Arms during the conference.

Any questions you have about PORAC, or how to get involved- please feel free to contact me. You can also contact the Central Cal PORAC Chapter President, Anthony Gomez as well.

Be safe out there. I am wishing you all a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!

Always,

Eric

‍

In my August message to the members, I briefed you on the recent failure of the pension initiative put together by Chuck Reed and Carl DeMaio. You may recall, once Attorney General, Kamala Harris reviewed the title and summary, she basically determined it was a misrepresentation to the voters. The latest, August 2015 rejection by the Attorney General, is the second time Harris dismissed these efforts of Reed/DeMaio attempting to take pensions from public employees and retirees. A thorough explanation of the issue is below authored by Aaron Reed our PORAC lobbyist who has been working tirelessly on this issue alongside the PORAC leadership.  

PORAC Talking Points on Reed/DeMaio Retirement Security Attacks

Former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and ex-San Diego Councilmember Carl DeMaio can best be labeled as ‘stubbornly wrong.’

After failing twice to qualify ballot measures that unfairly and illegally undermine constitutionally protected and negotiated retirements of law enforcement officers – as well all other public employees – they are submitting two more ballot measures that are equally punitive, and make devastating changes to employees’ pensions and healthcare benefits. Their initiatives will be certified for circulation around December 1, 2015.

PORAC has been instrumental in turning back the ill-conceived Reed/DeMaio efforts in the past. However, the retirement security of law enforcement officers continues to be at risk. The problem is worsened if Reed and DeMaio qualify their initiative and garner the support of wealthy Wall Street benefactors willing to fund a costly and misleading campaign.

Protecting the contractual rights of legislated and negotiated benefits of our brave men and women in the face of mean-spirited and unworkable initiatives remains our top priority.

Reed and DeMaio are banking their own futures on successfully passing any initiative that steals the future security of public employees. While they are just plain wrong and bullheaded in their efforts, we need to be educating our members on the continuing threat.

Below are talking points to share with our PORAC membership; please note that some arguments are repeated because they apply to both measures.

Measure 1: Elimination of Defined Benefit Retirement

This initiative attacks the core promise made to law enforcement that after a career of dangerous service to our communities, you will have a retirement check you can rely on – a defined benefit.

This initiative eliminates the defined benefit and is both an extreme and punitive measure that will hurt law enforcement officers and their families.

• It eliminates defined benefit retirement for ALL new public employees hired after January 1, 2019.
  
  
• The measure is so poorly written that it implies a retirement benefit will be there for retired law enforcement officers, but does not require employers to provide new employees with any retirement at all – does anyone want to trust future politicians with providing adequate retiree benefits for law enforcement?
  
  
• It penalizes employees who change jobs. If any PORAC member moves from one Department to another, they lose their pension.
  
  
• For years, officers have forgone higher salaries in favor of the promise of a reasonable retirement. The Reed/DeMaio elimination of defined benefit retirement plans also includes removing virtually any assurance of retirement whatsoever, and creates a hindrance to recruitment that would be incredibly difficult to overcome. And creates serious safety concerns in our communities.
  
  
• New employees will lose their pensions and be forced to work side-by-side with other workers, while receiving less retirement, or no retirement at all.
  
  

This initiative takes away death and disability benefits for police, firefighters and other workers killed in the line of duty.

• It cleverly and dishonestly states that the measure “shall not be interpreted to modify or limit” death and disability benefits, but it eliminates the basis on which these benefits are provided. Once defined benefit pensions are eliminated, it is impossible to provide current death and disability benefits to police, firefighters and others injured or killed on the job.
  
  
• Officer death and disability benefits were put in place to protect the public. Peace officers and firefighters cannot do their job in an environment where they hesitate to act. The Legislature recognized the inherent dangers of law enforcement decades ago and enacted protections to ensure that first responders, and their families, would be cared for if they are killed in the line of duty. This initiative deletes most of those protections.
  
  

This initiative is poorly drafted and will have unintended negative consequences.

• It closes pension plans to new employees and prohibits employers from paying the costs of closing these plans.
  
  
• Once new hires are put into a new plan, the existing plans, lacking new membership, will skyrocket in cost, and those costs will have to be paid by employees and employers.
  
  
• This initiative jeopardizes the sustainability of our state’s multi-billion dollar pension funds, thrusting public employees into financial uncertainty.
  
  
• It allows voters to reinstate defined benefit plans, increase retirement benefits or increase employer payments to pensions to more than 50% of retirement costs. This will force costly elections across California and politicize the provision of retirement benefits.
  
  
• These decisions should be negotiated at the bargaining table, not in costly and misleading campaigns.
  
  

This initiative is unnecessary.

• The average public employee pension is only $2,784 a month and the average teacher pension is $3,639 a month.
  
  
• Most peace officers do not receive Social Security. Elimination of public safety pensions upends the financial future for officers who dedicate their careers protecting our communities.
  
  
• Public employees currently contribute as much as half, and oftentimes more than half, of the cost of retirement from their paychecks.
  
  
• Studies show that public employee retirees injected almost $20 billion into California’s economy, generating over $30 billion in economic activity for businesses.
  
  

Measure 2: Capping Retirement and Cutting Pay

This initiative undercuts new police officers and new deputy sheriffs.

• It caps retirement contributions, forcing new public employee pay cuts of between 7-39%.
  
  
• The initiative limits employer contributions towards retirement for new employees to 11% for miscellaneous employees and 13% for safety employees. Included in this maximum are payments for deferred compensation, retiree health care, prefunding retiree health care, defined benefit retirement and defined contribution retirement.
  
  
• A new California Highway Patrol (CHP) Officer’s starting salary is $6,250 a month. This initiative will force a cut in every new CHP officer’s salary of 39%. This is a cut of $2,437.50.
  
  
• New state employees would have their salaries reduced by 21.8%. Every new law enforcement officer would experience a significant pay cut under this initiative.
  
  

This initiative punishes cops who change jobs and will hurt recruitment and retention.

• If cops, investigators or teachers move to a new Department, they jeopardize their pension.
  
  
• For years, officers have forgone higher salaries in favor of the promise of a reasonable retirement. The elimination of defined benefit retirement plans, and guaranteeing virtually any assurance of retirement whatsoever, creates a hindrance to recruitment that would be incredibly difficult to overcome.
  
  
• New employees will lose their pensions and be forced to work side-by-side with other workers, while receiving less retirement, or no retirement at all.
  
  

This measure takes away current death and disability benefits for law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty, a dishonest and inept effort that is insulting to every PORAC member.

• The initiative states that the measure “shall not be interpreted to modify or limit” death and disability benefits, but it eliminates the basis on which these benefits are provided. Once defined benefit pensions are eliminated, it is impossible to provide current death and disability benefits to police, firefighters and others injured or killed on the job.
  
  
• Officer death and disability benefits were put in place to protect the public by letting courageous officers know that when they go into a dangerous situation, they have the peace of mind that their own families will be protected if they perish.
  
  

This initiative is unnecessary.

A direct and honest message from PORAC has resonated in the previous situations when Reed and DeMaio tried blaming PORAC members and other public employees for economic ills that were clearly not of their making – stop the blame game.

We have issues of real concern that need to be addressed and these initiatives that are designed to keep Reed and DeMaio relevant have been rejected in the past because they are spiteful, poorly-written, bad public policy, and dangerous for our communities.

We have already participated in extraordinary retirement reforms that were initiated by the Governor, Legislature and cooperative public employees. Let’s resolve remaining issues at the bargaining table and move on.

Bilingual Pay

The issue of bilingual pay has been an item the FDSA initiated with the Sheriff’s administration for about a year and a half now. In early 2014, several members inquired about how to receive bilingual pay, since it is a condition of the MOU. (Attached is Article 7 of MOU)

ARTICLE 7 - BILINGUAL SKILL PAY

Any employee that has been certified by the Department of Personnel Services to receive Bilingual Skill Pay shall be paid in the amount of $23.08 per pay period. Fresno County Salary Resolution Section 533 shall govern, with exception of 533.12.

Upon further review of this section of the MOU, I found it very self-explanatory however, not very detailed. I contacted County Personnel Services Director, Beth Bandy to inquire if we could get this for qualified FDSA members. I was most interested in finding out about the certification process and requirements as defined in the article.

Bandy came back a few weeks later and explained that Unit 1 doesn’t really have any restrictions when it comes to this incentive. Fresno County’s position with FDSA has been to not put a number on maximum number of members who would qualify for incentive pay due to the nature of our jobs (law enforcement) and the multilingual public that we must communicate with daily. Bandy said this is a “no brainer” and should be easy to take institute. The Department needs to give the test. She said that she would have no problem if 100 people overnight qualified and gained this incentive – since it is important in the line of work we do.

I contacted Personnel Lieutenant, John Zanoni and explained the issue. I also told him about my conversation with Bandy, and our desire to get this benefit for members who qualify for it. About six months later, Lieutenant Zanoni got back to me, and said all the Department needs to do is give the test.

I communicated this to those of you who reached out and asked how to attain bilingual pay. Basically, Fresno County is going to authorize the amount of people we submit, for those who qualify after the test has been given. The County will just need to approve whichever test the Department decides to give. The County made it very clear to the Sheriff’s Office – come up with a test, we will certify it, and you can administer it for a pass/fail so members can be compensated for using their bilingual skill.

An announcement flyer went out in March of 2015, advertising for those who wish to obtain bilingual pay submit your name for the testing process.

To date – there has been no test. I have been told each time I inquire, that it is a few weeks out. I know many of you are using the second language without any compensation. Thank you for helping out your partners, and the public by providing this service. I will continue to ask about this test, until it is provided.

Deputy Sheriff IV

I want to address the issue of the status of the Deputy Sheriff IV positions that many members tested for back in June 2015. The test was taken by quite a few who qualified to take it. Since the test was given, no action has been taken to give the in-grade promotion.

The main issue holding this promotion up is movement of Deputy Sheriff IVs and creating specific Deputy Sheriff IV positions for specific specialty units and patrol. The Sheriff has sent this request to Fresno County Labor Relations - in an attempt to get an agreement with FDSA on both issues. I have had two meetings with Labor Relations regarding this issue. I am hopeful we can get an agreement on this very soon. I wish this request would have been made prior to taking the test and leaving many of you in wondering about the status of the test and promotions.  I will update you as I learn new information.

As always, we will meet with the Sheriff and/or the County whenever there are issues regarding hours, wages and working conditions.

I am attaching a portion of the job spec regarding Deputy Sheriff IV.

DEPUTY SHERIFF IV

DEFINITION:

Under general supervision, performs specialized law enforcement work; may act in a lead capacity over lower level officers; and performs related work as required.

DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS:

The Sheriff's Office, under the administration of an elected Sheriff, is responsible for the enforcement of all public safety laws within the County of Fresno. In addition, the Sheriff’s Office is responsible for the detention of incarcerated inmates as required by state, federal, and case law and applicable regulations.

The Deputy Sheriff IV classification is the advanced experienced level in the Deputy Sheriff classification series. The Deputy Sheriff IV performs assignments primarily oriented to specialized law enforcement activities such as detectives, special investigations, administration, school resource, community relations, intelligence, planning and research, internal affairs, warrant-fugitive, civil, court services, specialty units, and/or patrol functions which may include acting as a patrol training officer over lower level officers, or acting as a field supervisor in the absence of a patrol sergeant. Deputy Sheriff IV differs from Sheriff's Sergeant, in that incumbents of the latter classification have full first-line supervisory responsibilities or perform technical law enforcement duties.

During these discussions with Labor Relations, I have maintained the position that Sheriff Mims can promote whoever is on the list to Deputy Sheriff IV. She does not need to meet and agree with FDSA. Labor Relations representatives understand this, however, it seems to be the position of the Sheriff that she wants allocation of the positions per unit and wants the right to move Deputy IVs.

As more talks take place and a resolution is determined, I will update you as to where we are with these positions.

‍

As fall approaches, many annual issues are negotiated and then presented to the FDSA membership.

Health insurance benefits information, (outlined below) was sent to all of you on Thursday, October 1, 2015. We are looking forward to providing members with a new option for health insurance. I look forward to seeing many of you at these informational meetings outlining all of your healthcare choices. The dates and times are listed below, and the location will be at the FDSA.

We also have shift signups tentatively set for October 21st. There have been many back and forth discussions between the FDSA and the Patrol Captain. We are trying to provide a selection for you to choose from that will allow sufficient staffing, vacancies, overtime and days off. Overtime will not being going away with signups. So, we will try and mitigate the circumstances the best we can through creative solutions.

Vacation signups should be coming out shortly after shift signups are complete. We will again be blacking out the week of Christmas, allowing only for one person in the area to sign up. Once we get the FMLA/CFRA requests in, FDSA and Area Commander/Patrol Captain will meet to go over staffing for allowing the extra week. Again, as we have in the past- this will be based on seniority.

Insurance Trust Informational Letter

Over the past year, the Insurance and Benefits Trustees have been working with our brokers from DiBuduo/DeFendis to review and analyze the health insurance we provide to our membership.

During the last few renewals, many factors have affected the insurance rates we are paying as a Trust. These factors include, but are not limited to: The Affordable Care Act, large claims, and high usage.

Throughout the year, our brokers from DiBuduo/DeFendis have been working very diligently to bring our rates down. The goal has been to make them more affordable, while still maintaining good coverage to our members and their families.

The trustees have met and decided to offer a third option to our health plan, along with another option for dental coverage.

Overall, I am happy to report that our rates are reduced, in general, because of a great year of experience we had as a group.

We are staying with our dental carrier, Delta Dental, for another year. However, we are going to offer a DHMO, type of coverage, for those who are interested.

Below is a list of the options the members will have.

• PPO no change to coverage, PPO Dental no change to coverage
  
  
• HMO no change to coverage, PPO Dental no change to coverage
  
  
• PPO no change to coverage, DMHO Dental
  
  
• HMO no change to coverage, DHMO Dental
  
  
• PPO with a Health Savings Account and higher deductible, PPO Dental
  
  
• PPO with a Health Savings Account and higher deductible, DHMO Dental
  
  

Overall, there will be a reduction to out-of-pocket expenses you are paying now. The higher deductible PPO offers some significant savings to the members, while keeping your benefit coverage the same, with actually a better overall maximum out-of-pocket.

We would like to explain our benefits more in depth. DiBuduo/ DeFendis has set up times to explain this to all members who would like more information or have questions.

The times are as follows:

• Wednesday October 7, 2015 from 11:00am - 1:00pm
  
  
• Wednesday, October 14, 2015 from 11:00am – 1:00pm
  
  
• Wednesday, October 21, 2015 from 7:00am – 1:00pm
  
  

On these dates, rate sheets will be available, along with an explanation of benefits.

These meetings will all be held at the FDSA.

These will also be posted on the FDSA website, www.fresnodsa.org under the health benefit tab.

You can also call Katherine of DiBuduo/DeFendis directly, for information and inquiries.

Also, I am always available to answer any questions you have about insurance. Insurance Trust members are also well versed on benefits. Current members are: Isaac Torres, Anthony Gomez, Sarah Davis, Ryan Gilbert and James Bewley.

Pension Reform Update

As I updated you a couple months ago, the latest efforts from Chuck Reed and Carl Da Maio in putting together a pension reform ballot initiative has come under scrutiny by Attorney General, Kamala Harris. This was evident when she submitted her Title and Summary of this initiative. Their most recent tactic included a plan to mislead voters into taking defined benefit pensions away from public workers – specifically to our members, and Police and Fire.

DeMaio and Reed were hoping to put a public pension overhaul before California voters next year. They will soon file two new initiatives they say will get around a political obstacle that has blocked previous measures. Below are excerpts from a few different articles written about what both Reed and DeMaio are attempting to do to your pensions.

Carl DeMaio, a former San Diego city councilman who is spearheading the initiative effort along with former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed, wouldn’t disclose details about the new proposals, but indicated in a they would take “a totally different approach” than a measure his group filed over the summer.

The idea, according to DeMaio, was to see whether Democratic Attorney General Kamala Harris used what they consider “poison pill” language to describe the new measures as she has three previous pension change proposals since 2011. If she does, DeMaio believes, “we think she’ll be giving us the evidence we need” to successfully sue Harris for unfairly skewing her description of pension initiatives.

The attorney general’s office writes the short title and summary of all ballot initiative proposals. The language is important because it appears on petition materials used to qualify them for the ballot, often shaping voters’ first impression of an initiative’s contents. Perhaps even more important, the wording affects potential contributors’ willingness to underwrite a campaign.

Unions, which strongly oppose the Reed/DeMaio effort, note that the campaign has virtually no funding yet. Labor spokesman Steve Maviglio recently ridiculed an online drive to gather volunteer signature gatherers as “nothing more than a way to boost the finances of DeMaio’s political committee.”

“This is the gang that couldn’t shoot straight,” Maviglio said Friday, in reference to former pension measure attempts. “They’ve messed this up so many times, we have complete confidence they’ll do it again.”

Harris, who is running for U.S. Senate, has been accused of employing poll-tested language about previous pension measures to make them as politically unpalatable as possible. In 2014, Reed took Harris to court, alleging she described a pension measure he proposed with “false and misleading words and phrases which argue for the measure’s defeat, is argumentative, and creates prejudice against the measure, rather than merely informing voters of its chief purposes and points ...”

The courts ruled against Reed. Harris’ representatives have said throughout that she has fairly characterized the pension measures that came across her desk. They say claims of bias are commonly leveled at attorneys general writing titles and summaries.

Reed and DeMaio took similar stock of Harris’ analysis of their measure this year, noting that she used similar language to describe their proposal to require voters approve increases to public pensions and other local and state government retirement benefits.

Harris said the proposal “eliminates constitutional protections” for current employees, including those in “K-12 schools, higher education, hospitals, and police protection” and would lead to “significant effects – savings and costs – on state and local governments.”

DeMaio this week accused Harris of “collusion” with labor unions to keep the proposal off the ballot. If the same thing happens to the new proposals, he said, “She’s going to have to explain to California voters why she’s using poll-tested lines. And that will really look bad in an election season.”

Racial Profiling Bill AB 953 Signed by Governor Brown

Assembly Bill 953 authored by Dr. Shirley Weber out of San Diego was signed by Governor Brown on Friday, October 2, 2015. PORAC and our lobbyists have been a vocal voice about not supporting any bill with so many uncertainties. Once again this bill comes with no funding from the State of California for the law enforcement agencies in California.

Shirley Weber is the same Assemblywoman who is spearheading body camera policy statewide, AB 69. (This is now a two-year bill, and is still unknown what will result). Obviously, the signing of this bill (AB 953) , led by NAACP activists, will now give Weber the momentum for her efforts to get AB 69 passed.

I am attaching an article written by Patrick McGreevy from The LA Times explaining what the consequences are of AB 953.

Jerry Brown on Saturday signed bills aimed at reducing racial profiling and the use of excessive force by law enforcement officers, problems that have been elevated into a national debate by recent incidents across the country.

One of the bills, AB 953, requires police officers to collect data on the people they stop, including perceived race and ethnicity, the reason for the encounter and the outcome.

In addition, the governor signed a requirement that law enforcement agencies provide annual reports with details on all cases in which officers are involved in uses of force that result in serious injury or death.

Those and others bills signed by the governor will "strengthen criminal justice in California," according to a statement by the governor's office.

The state attorney general’s office will determine how the reporting will be done and how the data will be stored, under AB 619.

Assemblywoman Shirley N. Weber (D-San Diego) introduced the bills in response to “the deaths of unarmed black men and other people of color by police,” which she said “have forced us to confront some ugly truths about the persistence of racial bias in law enforcement.”Weber thanked Brown in a statement, citing his work in civil rights issues in the past.

“AB 953 will be the state’s first step toward not only understanding the problem of racial profiling, but also toward formulating policies to reduce the practice and its devastating consequences," Weber said. "California is going in a new direction on this issue; hopefully, this will set an example for other states."

The new law will help restore trust in law enforcement by the community, according to Patrisse Cullors, founder of the civil rights group Dignity and Power Now.

“Our communities have lived experiences with biased policing -- ranging from racial profiling, to excessive, and sometimes lethal, use of force. This inevitably breeds distrust in law enforcement, which in turn undermines the safety of all Californians,” Cullors said.

The governor also signed a bill that requires police agencies that have officers wear cameras on their uniforms to follow rules on storing and using the video collected so it is not mishandled.

That measure, AB 69, was introduced by Assemblyman Freddie Rodriguez (D-Pomona).

The racial profiling bill has drawn vigils by dozens of activists from groups including the Communities United Coalition, supporters of the "Black Lives Matter" movement, outside Brown's office in recent days. That movement began with the fatal shooting of an African-American man by a white police officer in Ferguson, Missouri in August 2014.

Jerron Jordan, an activist with the group LA Voice-PICO, welcomed Brown's action.

"These are historic times we are living in," he said. "I applaud the efforts of all of those who worked tirelessly to pass this bill and especially to the families who lost loved ones due to police violence. I am glad that our Governor had the moral courage to sign our bill.”

Take care of one another and stay safe wherever this job may take you in our organization and the different assignments we all do.

Truly,

Eric

‍

For several years, I have been informing our membership about statewide pension reform and the looming threat that has sparked much discussion and debate. The issue is set to be taken voters who cast ballots in the presidential/general election of November 2016.

Some critics have attacked public safety pensions, claiming they are “lucrative, over the top and not affordable.” The ongoing argument is pension versus salary for public employees. Public employees fall under bargaining units who organize and negotiate with the various cities and counties for hourly wages and working conditions. Salaries are among the biggest scrutinized topics, following health benefits and pension.

One perspective that has been a common thought in the past and present, is that government employees choose to make less in their salaries- for the benefit of security down the road when they retire.

For example, an engineer working for CAL Trans typically does not make what an engineer working in the private sector earns. The CAL Trans engineer is likely working for the benefit and security later in life when he/she retires and has a vested pension to fall back on. Although, many government workers may take home less during their careers, it is deferred into a pension plan.

Law enforcement is completely different. The job and benefits should be as well. There is not a private sector job that is as dangerous and unforgiving as this profession. I have conveyed this many times to our elected officials when there are times of lean budget years. Privatization is possible for most everything in this County with the exception of law enforcement, specifically deputy sheriffs.

However, those of us in law enforcement still have to deal with organizing and bargaining for hours, wages, and working conditions. We still, at times, are treated like government workers. When this happens in Fresno County, I remind our local policymakers that there are no replacements for our positions.

Unfortunately, our pensions too often, fall into that same ‘government worker’ category when it comes to economics. Defined benefit pensions that FDSA members have, is negotiated to ensure, in consideration of the stress and risk to life, that we are able to retire sooner than the Cal Trans engineer that I referenced earlier.

When big business million and billionaires come into the picture and talk about anti-government and anti-pensions, their biggest motivation is to reduce taxes, which ultimately makes them richer than they already are.

Over the years, there have many attempts to silence our voice. Two examples are in 2005, the Proposition 75 initiative, and the NO on Proposition 32 initiative in 2012. Both failed because once the public finds out the truth about what these billionaires are trying to accomplish- they are defeated.

PORAC has been part of a coalition in Sacramento for many years, where large labor organizations such as CTA (California Teachers Association, CNA (California Nurses Association), SEIU (Service Employees International Union), and others come together to get a unified message out to voters about the misconceptions regarding all of these attempts to strip your pension and ultimately, livelihood.

The group putting the ballot initiative together is led by two former mayors- Chuck Reed of San Jose and Carl DeMaio of San Diego, both of whom put pension initiatives together in their individual cities and were successful in their efforts. They are now behind the latest push and funded by billionaires.

The pension reform in San Jose, known as Measure B, is now completely watered down and labor has spent a ton of money to reverse it in court. In San Diego, the same thing has occurred. Now, Reid and DeMaio are attempting to change pension for all of California, which will have drastic effects on PERS, the 1937 Act Retirement Systems (Fresno County) and the five charter cities who administer their own City retirement systems. These include Fresno, Long Beach, San Jose, San Diego and Los Angeles.

Pension reform advocates still need to collect 600,000 signatures throughout California for this item to be taken to voters.

On August 10, 2015, the Attorney General issued her Title and Summary regarding this ballot initiative. She determined the initiatives authors were deceptive in how they titled and described the initiative to voters. During our August PORAC Board meeting, she reminded us that, “it is my job to call balls and strikes.”

I am attaching an article about the Title Summary put out by Attorney General Kamala Harris about this ballot initiative. Those in the business of this expertise have agreed this article sums up exactly what was and is being sold by Reed and DeMaio.

Daniel Borenstein: Kamala Harris is right about Chuck Reed's latest pension initiative

Former San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed claims his latest pension reform initiative would not reduce the future benefits of current public employees. Attorney General Kamala Harris says it could -- and she's right.

Last week, Harris released the initiative summary that would appear on the ballot if backers collect sufficient signatures. She began by saying it "eliminates the constitutional protections for vested pension and retiree health care benefits for current public employees."

That contradicts how Reed and former San Diego Councilman Carl DeMaio portrayed the measure when they unveiled it in June. They said they wanted to avoid an attack on California's vested rights doctrine protecting the rate at which current employees accrue pension benefits.

On Monday, DeMaio still maintained that "nothing in our initiative changes the vested benefits for existing employees." Reed echoed that: "We don't believe the initiative affects current employees."

But it does, as an excellent legal analysis by McGeorge Law School Professor Clark Kelso makes clear. The analysis was prepared for labor leaders fighting the initiative, but its conclusion was supported by four top pension attorneys who did not want to speak publicly.

No retirement law experts have defended Reed and DeMaio's position. They now have two options if they plan to start the signature-gathering phase: They could challenge Harris' ballot wording in court, and almost certainly lose. Or they could embrace it and accurately promote the initiative as one that would truly reform California's public employee pension system.

But they shouldn't continue to falsely pitch the measure.

At issue are public employees' protections for pension accrual rates. Take for example most California public safety workers. Each year that they work, their future pensions increase by 3 percent of final salary. After 30 years, their starting pensions are 90 percent of that salary.

But what if the employer cannot afford such generous benefits? A private-sector company could reduce the rate of future accruals. It could tell workers that they can keep the 3 percent credit for each year already worked, but going forward they will earn pension benefits at a rate of, say, 2 percent a year.

However, once a California public employee starts working, that accrual rate can never be reduced. The state Supreme Court issued a series of rulings, the most recent in 1991, that reductions would violate the contract clauses of the state and federal constitutions.

Amy Monahan, University of Minnesota law professor, has sharply criticized the "California Rule." California courts, she writes, have "established one of the most protective legal approaches for public employee pension benefits of any state in the country."

Reed and DeMaio claimed their initiative would not change the California Rule. They said they were only trying to alter the rules for new employees by making those pensions subject to voter approval, and for current employees by requiring ballot approval for future increases.

But, actually, one part of the initiative would amend the state Constitution to give voters the right through an initiative or referendum to reduce the future pension accrual rate for current employees. This could be applied statewide or in each local government jurisdiction.

Thus, if the initiative passed and withstood court challenge, voters could eliminate current workers' vested rights protections under the California Rule.

In an earlier column on the measure, I missed the significance of this section. Harris' ballot summary prompted my re-examination.

Reed and DeMaio could take the lemons Harris handed them and make the proverbial lemonade. They certainly should stop demonizing her for making a politically calculated move to please union supporters as she prepares her U.S. Senate campaign.

Rather than running from the wording of their initiative, they could embrace it. Government employers -- in this case, voters -- should be able to scale back future pension accruals if they're too costly.

To be clear, no one should reduce benefits workers already earned. The issue here is the accrual rate for future labor.

As the Little Hoover Commission, a state bipartisan watchdog group, presciently wrote in 2011, pensions will strangle funding for needed public services unless officials reduce future accruals for current workers.

The initiative could let voters do that. But Reed and DeMaio should be honest about it, or abandon the measure.

Daniel Borenstein is a Contra Costa Times columnist and editorial writer. Contact him at 925-943-8248 or dborenstein@bayareanewsgroup.com. Follow him at Twitter.com/borensteindan.

I hope this provides you with some knowledge as to what lies ahead.  The FDSA along with PORAC are gearing up for what undoubtedly will be one of the biggest battles we have ever taken on.  I will keep all of you informed of the latest developments on this ballot initiative.

‍

I would like to begin this message by expressing my gratitude to everyone who helped at the fireworks stand or supported it. We had a record breaking year of sales, and I want to give a big thanks to all of the volunteers who helped and the families who came out to buy their fireworks from the FDSA stand. The proceeds all go to our Peace Officer Memorial Fund. Next year, we go back into the fireworks lottery again for another two-year eligibility and location.

Also, a reminder, due to several conflicts the FDSA General Board/Membership meetings in August and September has been changed. Below are the correct dates which will be followed up by reminder emails.

• Wednesday August 19, 2015
• Wednesday September 9, 2015

Movement Arbitration

As I reported to you in my newsletter dated September 23, 2014, the FDSA filed a grievance on behalf of two deputy sheriffs who were being “forced-out,” of their specialty/detective assignment without cause. If you remember last year, this delayed shift signups about 30 days. To refresh your memory, I have included a portion of the message to remind you about the issue.

Excerpt from September 2014 President Message:

To date, there is a disagreement between the FDSA and Sheriff Mims (her Executive Staff) regarding movement within the department. Specifically, the issue of moving deputy sheriff’s from their current assignment in a detective/special assignment unit, to somewhere else in the department - that could be either Patrol Division or Court Service Unit- without cause and for no apparent reason.

Right now, there is not a rotation policy within the Fresno County Sheriff’s Office. Depending on whom you talk to and what day of the week you talk to them, some supervisors may feel they want deputies to stay in these units anywhere from no more than 3 years, to 5 years - - lately I have even heard 10 years.

History is our best source of knowledge as it relates to this situation.

Many deputies have dedicated their careers to certain units within the Sheriff’s Office because they are passionate at the job they do, work well with others, and are good at it. This is experience and knowledge that is hard to come by and not easy to replace. Some of these deputies are still working here, and do an incredible job in their assignment.

These issues arose with the Patrol Captain during the preparation of shift signups. There were a few detectives who were put on the patrol signup list, who did not ask to leave their current assignment. In addition, they have not received any unfavorable reviews and their performance is not an issue. When I posed the question as to why they are on the list, the answer varied from, “They have been there too long,” “We are moving people to help their careers,” “We need to give new people a chance at these positions.” Longevity within assignments varies, arbitrarily, from one supervisor to another.

The argument of opportunity doesn’t really come into play, since 90%+ of you move because you want to do something else in the department. We do not keep people from doing what they want. But, we also have those deputies who have put in for many assignments and have been denied every one of them. So the opportunity argument really is insignificant in this discussion.

This is the first time we have encountered this type of involuntary movement. Many of you have come to me over the years and have vented, if your supervisor(s) wants you to leave, or is demanding you transfer out. Normally we have been able to work out these types of issues with conversation and common sense.

Our proposed language to insert in the shift signup agreement helps protect deputies from being moved arbitrarily and without cause. Our suggested language is being declined and without even a discussion.

Last Tuesday, September 23, 2014 a Grievance was filed with the County of Fresno, to address this issue. The results are still pending. So, right now, we do not know when shift signups will take place. Vacation and shift signups are on hold until we can find common ground. I am hopeful that someone will talk to us to come up with a resolution since this is affecting many people in the patrol division. In my six years as your President, I have yet to have an issue come up, where the FDSA and Sheriff’s Administration were not able to work out the problem. That is the benefit of having working relationships with people day in and day out.

Although we never reached an agreement with the FSO Executive Management on the conditions of signups (after much review of the shifts and the way the department was structured for RDOs and area selections), we opted to allow just the shift selection to take place. We had to balance the need of members to know RDO’s for the upcoming year, and plan their lives around them. We made this decision in the spirit of cooperation and to try and encourage talks and ultimately- the settling of the grievance. Unfortunately, it did neither.

On April 17 and April 18 2015, the FDSA, along with our legal team, led by Gary Messing and assisted by Lina Balciunas-Cockell, began the arbitration hearing. The FSO Executive Staff was represented by County Counsel, Kathy Basham.

Over 2 days, several witnesses were called to testify from both sides. The arbitrator, who was mutually agreed upon by both the FDSA and County of Fresno- heard the entire case from start to finish. Once the arbitration concluded, both parties had roughly 30 days to submit written closing arguments into him. The arbitrator would then render a decision in the following 30 days.

The Arbitrator ruled in favor of the FDSA.

I am going to attach a summary of the last page where his ruling is handed down.

“In summary, based on the evidence the arbitrator’s finding is that the Department violated Government Code Section 3505 and Article 53 of the MOU, when it unilaterally changed the past practice of involuntary transferring the deputies from their special assignments based on criteria other than that of disciplinary issues, documented performance issues, layoff or disability retirement.”

DECISION

The Grievance is sustained

AWARD

1. The department shall cease and desist from involuntary transferring deputies from special assignments, unless the involuntary transfer is the result of discipline, documented performance issues, layoff or disability retirement.

2. The Department shall allow Deputies Isaac and Alstrom the opportunity to return to their special assignments in the Vice Intel Unit and the Ag Task Force, if they choose to do so. That election shall be made in writing within thirty (30) days from the date of this award.

One of the main points described by the Arbitrator includes the department violating the FDSA Memorandum of Understanding, or MOU. His decision sustained the Article in the MOU- determining it was violated by the department. It also gave the deputies the ability to go back to their original assignment.

On July 20, 2015 the Sheriff filed a writ in Fresno County Superior Court appealing the ruling by the mutually agreed upon Arbitrator.

To date, I have had one discussion with Sheriff Mims regarding the Arbitration. During the conversation she told me, “Well you guys won, so I have to decide if we are going to fight/appeal that decision. I am not quite sure yet.” I have had no conversations with anyone from her management staff about what the impacts are and how we move forward.

Had the ruling not been in our favor, I am certain the FDSA would have been labeled ‘whiners and complainers’ if we appealed the ruling.

I am disappointed in the way the arbitration and decision has been handled by the Sheriff’s Office. Sadly, in addition to the lack of respect for the decision- some administration are misrepresenting the truth, making false statements about the ruling, and making up blatant lies about this process and results. It really is too bad that rumors and false statements have to come into play in something that still could have been handled without all of the proceedings we all went through to get the same result, which is what our position was in the beginning.

This action will only create a division between the FDSA and the Sheriff’s management. I still believe this was taken too far, due to a lack of communication that should have been addressed in-house. For years prior to last, we came to an agreement on things like this. Agree to disagree, but when the MOU is violated, labor has the right to throw the penalty flag - - and the penalty was upheld.

The FDSA has been very respectful during this entire process, and just because a ruling went our way doesn’t mean you point fingers and rub people’s noses in it. This is all business – period – and all a process within government.

Since taking this position in August of 2008, I have maintained the mission and philosophy that the FDSA will talk to anyone, anywhere about any issue- anytime. I have proven this from Sacramento, to Washington DC and all throughout Fresno County.

I have and will continue to extend the invitation to the Sheriff and her top staff - to meet and discuss any issue, anytime and try and resolve things, face to face.

Please stay safe out there. I hope everyone has been able to enjoy time with their family and friends during the summer, and those who were fortunate enough to get vacation time during the summer have taken full advantage of. I know we have all been working a lot, but remember at the end – we can only take care of one another.

Truly,

Eric

‍

Summer is here! We are happy to again have the opportunity to fundraise by selling fireworks- at the same great location on the southwest corner of Barstow and Blackstone. We will be through the 4th of July- all day, until we either sell out, or run out of customers! Please, remind your friends and family members buy their fireworks from us. All proceeds go to the FDSA Peace Officer Memorial Fund.

This fund is not only to assist in the event of a local death in the line of duty- we also reach out to every family in the state of California whose experienced a death that was in the line of duty. We could still use some help at the fireworks to fill shifts. If you are available, you can call the FDSA office to arrange a time slot to volunteer. Also, this is a great time to support the organization, meet some of your co-workers you don’t know, or catch up with others you do! Thanks again for all your support.

Budget Hearings 2015

A month prior to budget hearings this year, I sat down to brainstorm and reminded myself of the positives. The Fresno County Sheriff’s Office was being funded nearly $11 million dollars more than the last fiscal year. A majority of this money is being allocated to the custody/jail portion of the department. However, there is money allocated to fund new deputy sheriff positions, along with five upper management positions Sheriff Mims has been advocating for- for about the last five or six budget cycles.

The board allocated an additional seven deputy sheriff positions into this fiscal year’s budget. Last year, they agreed to hire a total of 8, with two (2) additional positions being funding by the AOC (Administrator of Courts). Overall, 10 additional deputies were allocated for fiscal year 2014/2015.

During budget hearings, Sheriff Mims provided a stat to the Board of Supervisors – that in the last fiscal year, we hired 38 deputy sheriffs. However, 34 left the agency for a variety of reasons.  So, currently, we are roughly 4 positions ahead of where we were last year. Then, you incorporate the 33 deputy sheriff vacancies we have as of today. Not a promising forecast for filling positions.

As I always do, I talk about recruitment and retention issues with Board Members. The fact that we get people applying for the FSO, starting the process and then removing themselves from it- because they found another job in another jurisdiction. This is not helping us close the gap. This “dropout dilemma” occurs most often in hiring deputy sheriffs and dispatchers.

At the beginning of the year, I began discussing this issue with different board members and discussing a successful way police agencies throughout California are recruiting, great, quality cadets who are at the top of their class- by offering a recruitment “signing bonus.” This would be a great way to draw excellent law enforcement officers to the FSO. This one- time bonus has to be competitive though – ranging from $5,000 to $10,000. Many agencies are doing it because of a shortage of recruitments and the positions that need to be filled.

The Board of Supervisors made an effort at the end of last year to look at our contract and offer retention money for the Deputy Sheriff series. This equaled 1.8% starting in December 2014 and reoccurring each December through the end of the MOU (December 2016).

At budget hearings, I thanked the BOS for this gesture. We are grateful for retention money and their commitment to keeping people employed here. However, the overall picture is similar to putting a band aid on a bleeding wound – it’s only a temporary fix.  

At the end of budget hearings, we received the necessary funding for running at the pace we are now and the Sheriff was also authorized to hire 33 more deputy sheriff’s during this fiscal year.

Some things that still need to be considered and possibly streamlined include the hiring process in Fresno County. It is lengthy and takes quite some time. Pay and benefit packages have to be increased, with the priority being where we have the retention issue (which are currently deputy sheriff and dispatch series). Once that is addressed- then we can truly go back to rebuilding the enforcement side of the agency.

There are many positions that can be brought back to assist the entire agency when it comes to efficiency. Report writing CSO’s that we use to employ made a huge difference for the deputies working the areas. CSO’s who were assigned to area detectives throughout the agency were invaluable in helping alleviate all that goes on within those positions. Hiring more Crime Scene Technicians is going to be in high demand in the very near future. This position is critical when connecting evidence to the crime, investigation and ultimately leading to a conviction. Our crime scene techs are stretched thin and when a big case pops up, like anything else, the little stuff get put aside. The entire spectrum of the enforcement side of the office needs to be re-examined.

An idea Sheriff Mims mentioned during budget hearings was having POST come in and conduct a line staff and workload study. I think that will formulate on paper what we all already know here at the agency - we are understaffed and over utilized.

Many things are in play still, even after the close of budget hearings. I will be updating you more as the time comes where things may change for the betterment of our jobs.

Rebuilding an Agency

Those of you who have been here for a decade or longer will remember the luxuries we used to have in regards to resources we could reach out to for help – to assist all of us in keeping the public safe.

Many may recall the days of having more staff that allowed us to be more proactive as a police agency. These include units like having OSS, multiple narcotic teams, mounted unit, large area detective units, Cops in Schools, contract city deputies, etc.

The recession of 2008-2012 truly stripped us at the FSO of the luxuries we had. There are many factors why once we lost these positions in mass numbers, and why they will only be added back a little at a time. Pension, recruitment, and pay have all contributed to rising costs and a shrinking workforce at the FSO. The only true contract we have that pays for salary and benefits is with the AOC (Administrator of the Courts) which funds the Court Services Unit at the Sheriff’s Office. Obviously, this is an imperative part of the FSO – because just like the thin blue line of justice on the streets, there is also great danger that lies with moving inmates from the jail to the courts- where they are in a custody setting that is less controlled. Our deputies and CSO staff do an outstanding job at this task –keeping the Fresno County Courthouse safe and secure.

The contract with the AOC keeps us whole inside of the Fresno County Courthouse. But, some lingering questions remain… like how do we start to climb numbers in patrol? How do we ensure sufficient backup and support while the deputies are in the field?

I think we are at the triage level right now and should focus on trying to fill the vacancies we have. Once those are filled, the next step is: when do we begin to get back to the days of doubling up our beats and getting back to proactive law enforcement? Is there a plan to rebuild? That is the poignant question that really needs to be asked and analyzed. Where should our resources be deployed?

I want suggestions from all of you on where you believe the priorities need to be focused in regards to the rebuild of the FSO. Although POST will come do a study, the true subject matter experts are already working here, doing the job for the people of the County. I am always working on having our voice heard and open to ideas that will make this place a premiere law enforcement agency.

Have a wonderful 4th of July. I hope you are enjoying the summer with family and friends!

Truly,

Eric

‍

I would like to begin by thanking each of you who came to our FDSA Open House. The event was very well attended. It was an evening filled with fellowship and great food. Several family members of fallen deputies attended and said they appreciated the chance to catch up with everyone. I think the annual event is a great reminder to the families that we care about them and continue to honor their loved one.

An announcement was made at the event by Brenda D. Lavell, of Three Sisters Ranch. She hosted the event, and, in addition, gave a 25 thousand dollar scholarship for continuing education to any spouse of a fallen deputy who would like to return to college or get training for a new career. Brenda has been a generous sponsor each year in our annual golf tournament and has helped each year in putting together the Open House. She puts together a food and dessert spread suited to meet every taste. Also, her assistant Shelli Armstrong works tirelessly to handle everything from establishing a color scheme, to décor and putting together all the fine details. The events are always very classy and memorable. I would like to thank them for their continued support of the FDSA and our annual memorial events.

Officers Victims More Often?

It seems like more often, I am reading about police officers throughout the United States who are becoming victims of violent crimes. The sad reality is we will never have a year where there is not a police officer assault or death. Nationwide, we have to strive to be under 100 deaths for the United States. Its a tragic number. The manner of most police officer deaths are by violent crime, specifically ambush killed by gunfire attacks.

Recently, in San Diego, another officer was shot and wounded while on duty.

I have attached the following article, taken from the San Diego Union Tribune. It is a good illustration that shows the mindset of survival that this injured officer displayed that day. It also describes the courageous acts of another fellow officer to save her life.

San Diego Officer Shot

A San Diego police officer was shot in her upper chest at a Kearny Mesa interchange Sunday morning, and rushed by a fellow officer to nearby Sharp Memorial Hospital.

The suspect was shot dead, and police later learned his car might be linked to a series of

shootings aimed at buildings in that area, including the Kearny Mesa headquarters of the San Diego Gas & Electric Company.

"Right now she is in good spirits, she sustained one injury, one gunshot wound," San Diego police Chief Shelley Zimmerman said during a briefing at Sharp Memorial, two hours after the shootings.

According to investigators, San Diego police officers attempted to make a traffic stop on a high Speed vehicle on the southbound 163 south of the 805. The vehicle exited at Genesee and continued on Surface streets.

Officers lost sight of the vehicle but continued to search the area. A short time later they found the vehicle unoccupied near Annrae Street and Mesa College Drive.

A few minutes later they observed the suspect and attempted to detain him. The suspect produced a handgun and opened fire. One officer was shot and 2 other officers returned fire, killing the suspect.

The wounded police officer was loaded into a squad car and taken to the Sharps emergency room by a fellow officer.

The police chief said her injured officer has been with the department for five years.

The wounded officer was going through a medical procedure, two hours after the shooting, and was talking and smiling, said police officers in a hospital waiting room.

Police later learned the Jeep matched a vehicle connected to a case of shooting vandalism cases on Kearny Mesa, including two such incidents at the SDGE headquarters building, a quarter mile away from the shooting scene, April 17 and May . Several other businesses in the area had been hit by gunfire, and SDGE had posted a 10,000 reward for information about the shooter.

Recruitment and Retention Discussions

The buzz word lately for police agencies is Recruitment/Retention. This has been discussed on the local and state level for at least the last -12 months. We are seeing it at the local level, yet the concern is on the State level as well.

The recession hit a lot of police sheriff departments hard. Some lost live body, working officers. Some just left the positions vacant and others just managed to get by. Fresno County leaders decided to save money and not hire deputies for over four years. During this time several deputies retired and those positions were left unfilled. The lack of hiring, coupled with concessions that had to be made, so there wasn't a budget shortfall was a harsh reality.

Climbing out of the recession has been one thing- a long, tedious process. Now, this strain on recruitment has been combined with other issues like PEPRA, body cameras, and the rising costs of health care. There is a potential tipping point ahead that many are unaware of, including the public.

The recruitment of qualified candidates to become law enforcement officers is becoming more and more competitive. Pay, benefits and hiring bonuses are being solicited by departments across the state in an attempt to land the best recruits.

Working Conditions

Many of you have told me you are frustrated with the working conditions here. At times, I feel the same way. However, I must prioritize and then respond to issues- in order of importance. cannot be reactive or veer off trail. Lately, many of you have noticed my presence at your work stations or in your units. I am trying to figure out the root of where the problems lie and why moral is dropping in patrol. Is it the volume of work? Is it lack of manpower? Is it your equipment? Is it public sentiment? These are the things I am looking at as I work to figure out what is going on. My overall concern is if we are a displeased workforce, we will not be providing the level of service we need to- in dealing with the public. We need to have a good attitude when we handle calls and interact with the community.

My job as your President is to push to hire, retain, and build on our pay and benefits package. The task involves remaining steadfast, and at times being vocal. Lately, much of my time has been occupied protecting the rights of members covered under Peace Officer Bill of Rights.

The article below was sent to me from the staff at PORAC. It really gives a complete picture of what is going on in California Law Enforcement.

Why we need more police

You wouldn't know it by watching news about police-community conflict, or tracking state legislation on the use of force by law enforcement. But California's biggest problem when it comes to policing remains the same:

There isn't enough of it.

Issues of police misconduct are serious, as stories from the racist police texts in San Francisco to the shooting of an unarmed homeless man in L. make plain. But underlying these issues is the fact that California lacks the manpower necessary for the smart, effective policing of our diverse, complicated communities.

California has long been distinguished by its sparse policing, with small police departments unable to keep pace with population growth in vast cities. But in recent years, police shortages around the state have become significantly worse. In San Diego, the police department has 300 fewer officers than a decade ago, and half the current force of 1,800-plus officers is eligible for retirement by 2017. The Fresno Police Department has seen a decline of more than 100 officers over the past decade. Los Angeles, after years of work mostly associated with former Chief Bill Bratton, reached its goal of 10,000 officers two years ago — and then immediately started slipping, as it struggled to find enough qualified people to replace retiring and departing officers.

In Oakland, with its notoriously high robbery rates, the police force has lost nearly a quarter of its sworn officers since 2009. And San Jose may offer the bleakest picture for police staffing. That sprawling city of 1 million people now has fewer than 1,000 street-ready officers; some projections show the number dropping below 900 by the middle of next year.

The impacts of such declines are seen in more than slower response times and in departments' inability to investigate crimes like burglary. Cops also have less time to develop deep

relationships within the neighborhoods they cover. Breakdowns in police-community relations are an inevitable result.

Nearly as many reasons are given for this decline as there are cops. Tight budgets during the recession. A surge in retirements of Baby Boomer officers. The difficulty of finding enough qualified candidates. Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that lured away military personnel who might have been cops. The bigger salaries available to cops who work in the growing private Security Sector.

The pool of qualified applicants out there is utterly dismal,Salinas Police Chief Kelly McMillin told the Washington Post last year. We've lost 25 percent of our sworn staff since the recession, in a department that was desperately understaffed at our highest, facing a community plagued by violence.” The result, the chief said: just 11 officers patrolled the city of 154,000 on the average day shift. Its one of the lowest ratios in California, and therefore the lowest ratio in the country, because nobody has fewer cops than California.”

In California, there is another factor. The high salaries and generous pension benefits of police make employing cops an exceptionally expensive endeavor; the costs of retiree benefits in California cities are crowding out other local services.

Of course, some might ask: With the historic decline in crime, who needs police?

That question is answered powerfully by Jill Leovy, a Los Angeles Times reporter, in her new book, Ghettoside.” In a different spin on Black Lives Matter,Leovy shows how we have too little enforcement of the law, particularly where black men live, with the failure to punish murderers creating impunity” that produces more violence.

There is a strong connection, she writes, between this failure and the complaints about police abuses. The perceived harshness of American criminal justice and its fundamental weakness are in reality two sides of a coin, the former a kind of poor compensation for the latter. Like the schoolyard bully, our criminal justice system harasses people on small pretexts but is exposed as a coward before murder. It hauls masses of black men through its machinery but fails to protect them from bodily injury and death. It is at once oppressive and inadequate.

In this context, the 20-plus state legislative proposals to put more restrictions on cops — body cameras, changes in prosecution of deadly force cases — amount to treating symptoms of the policing disease, not its root causes. Far more urgent is the challenging work of rebuilding California’s police departments so we have enough good cops on the beat, with the time and resources to focus on the fundamental work of preventing violence.

Update on AB66

President Mike Durant, Randy Perry and Aaron Read have been working every day, --yes, weekends too, - for more than 2 weeks to keep AB 66 (Assemblywoman Weber) from being amended to remove the good amendment we got in Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee to allow an officer to review all video tapes prior to giving a statement or doing a written report. She wanted to delete that amendment from the bill. While we heard over the weekend that it would likely become a two year bill, we did not want to put that out Since it is always subject to change at the last minute....But, we can now report that it has become a two year bill and will not move out of the Assembly Appropriations Committee tomorrow.

AB 66 will remain alive and can be taken up next January in the Appropriations Committee again. Also, Dr. Weber has the rest of this year to find another bill to gut and amend should she decide to do so.

The next step for PORAC will be to decide whether to try and move forward this year with our own bills) making changes to POBOR, the CPRA (Calif Public Records Act) and other policy recommendations.

‍

***Please remember to joins us for the 4th Annual FDSA Peace Officer Memorial Open House. It’s this Thursday, May 7, 2015 from 5:30pm-8:00pm at the FDSA. This is the time for us to reflect, remember and honor the deputy sheriff’s from our own agency who have died in the line of duty. There will be family members of our fallen deputies there as well. This is a great time to reconnect and let these loved ones know that we will never forget the sacrifices that were made by their husband, son, father, or brother.

Golden Handshake

Many of you have inquired over the last few weeks about a “5 year Golden Handshake.” This is NOT anything the County of Fresno is talking about, nor is this anything the County of Fresno would entertain as a benefit to encourage an employee to leave early and receive a full pension behind that departure (retirement).

The issue of “Golden Handshake,” lies completely in the fact that, if the County of Fresno were to agree to this (give an employee even one year time of what we would consider a “Golden Handshake”) that money paid into the Fresno County Pension System would need to come from somewhere, (i.e. Fresno County Budget). The County of Fresno would still need to pay the full benefit into the system. The fund is solvent based on the actuarial report as it deals with percentage, age and dollar figures.

The discussion of a “Golden Handshake” did come up at the end of the 2014 from Supervisor Judy Case. The discussion, however, was not in favor of this benefit. The discussion centered around deleting the language out of the Fresno County Charter completely because of how much this benefit would cost the County of Fresno.

When I have had the opportunity over the years to discuss the topic, I have told members of the Board of Supervisors that the cost to the County of Fresno is high, but the cost to be paid, would be that of pension only, not salary and health benefits of the employee. The counter to that is, ‘Yes, you are correct, but we would still need to hire someone for the position and pay the full salary and benefit package on top of what we already pay into the retirement system.’

I have tried to get the County to understand that a “Golden Handshake” shouldn’t be frowned upon entirely. The people the County would like to get out of the retirement system are those in the Tier One pension system. As it stands now, these are the most costly pensions. By paying the benefit and offering a “Golden Handshake,” it would allow that person out, and bring in a new employee, under Tier V (PEPRA), with a much lower pension cost.

For the County, this idea presents a multitude of issues that range from people leaving in droves to early departures creating an additional workload for other employees left to pick up the slack. Hiring, training and investing in a full-time non-probationary worker is also a concern some Board of Supervisors had with this scenario.

So, while the “Golden Handshake” is still technically on the books for the County of Fresno- as it stands now, the County of Fresno is not interested in making this an option for any of their employees.

Recovery of Lost Retirement Funds

On April 15th, 2015, Fresno County Retirement Association (FCERA) decided against making roughly 6,750 retirees pick up the bill for a $3.4 million overpayment.

In November of 2014, FCERA stopped the “bonus benefit,” just months before it was supposed to stop. At the time, FCERA refused to require the retirees to pay the money back. The extra money ranged from $2.50 to $150 per month. The money was supposed to have stopped in May of 2014, but for some unclear reason- it ran through November of 2014.

Fresno County officials, specifically CAO John Navarrette, asked the retirement board to consider having the retirees reimburse the retirement system for the overpayment, since those are where the funds were paid out from. Basically, the CAO felt if the retirees don’t reimburse the overpayment, the current Fresno County employees will have to foot the bill. The retirement board took the position to not ask retirees to pay the overpayment. So, only choice left to fill this gap is to have current employees pick up the reimbursement.

I spoke to our safety representative on the retirement board, Eulalio Gomez. Eulalio and I spoke prior to this action on April 15, and my conversation to him was to do what you can to keep current employees from shouldering the cost of this overpayment. Unfortunately, Eulalio did the opposite, and actually made the motion for the action item. The day after this decision was made, I received four calls from members all expressing displeasure about the action.

Eulalio and I disagree on this issue. I also voiced the FDSA’s position about a month prior- conveying the message that current employees should not be assessed for a mistake FCERA made in the overpayments. Eulalio dismissed our position, saying this $3.5 million is a drop in the bucket for the retirement fund. He contends this money may never be seen or realized by the current employees.

Eulalio explained the way the fund will be reported out is through the unfunded liability that FCERA already has reporting requirements on. He said $3.5 within a fund with over $4 billion in assets, and a debt service of $700 million means that $3.5 will probably never be noticed.

I explained to Eulalio, that $3.5 million is ‘real dollars’ and FCERA showed that when issuing the checks to retirees. So paying it back cannot be assumed that the amount isn’t real money. Plus, the perception and message that sends to current working people is the wrong message. FCERA has now pitted current working employees against those who are retired. This retirement board and FCERA body, should not be doing this. Dismissing a stance taken by our organization is wrong, as well- since according to Eulalio, the FDSA was the only group who contacted anyone on FCERA to voice concern about this money.

Nobody wants to punish the retirees, I mean after all they have put their time as hard working county employees. Whether this money is paid back now or three years from now - as long as it gets back into the fund is really what matters. If an employee is affected 5 cents or 5 dollars the message is the same. A FCERA accounting error will get shouldered by the current employees of this county. As your representative I cannot stand by and allow that happen without voicing our disapproval and also reporting the outcome to the membership.

AB 66 Body Worn Camera Legislation

-Written by Randy Perry – Aaron Read and Associates (PORAC’s Sacramento Lobbyist)

As you know, body cameras are one of the hottest issues in the Capitol right now.  Our team has been working with President Durant and LDF Administrator Ed Fishman for months, and we discuss this subject numerous times per day.  There are currently half a dozen bills relating to body cameras that have been introduced in the Legislature and we have had discussions with the authors of all of those bills.  President Durant asked us to provide a brief update on the fight against AB 66 by Assembly member Weber (D- San Diego) dealing with body cameras and officers’ review of the video.

The original version of the bill called for setting up a Task Force to determine the appropriate policies and procedures that should be used by agencies implementing body-worn camera programs.  During that time, PORAC created a subcommittee of the Board of Directors to formulate a position on the issues surrounding BWCs.  In addition, Ed Fishman gathered numerous attorneys at PORAC’s headquarters to assist in drafting language supporting PORAC’s position on the issue.

The Weber bill was then amended to list numerous mandatory policies and procedures for agencies implementing a BWC program, including stating that an officer shall not review his or her BWC video prior to making a statement or writing a report on all arrests.  We lobbied every member of the Assembly Public Safety Committee and testified in opposition to the bill.  Many of PORAC’s concerns were raised by members of the committee during the hearing.  Because of that, the author committed to continue working with PORAC to address those concerns.  With that commitment, members allowed the bill to move on to the 2nd committee, Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection.

The next set of amendments to AB 66 made many of the mandatory policies and procedures permissive.  However, the bill still prohibited officers from reviewing the video prior to writing their report, but added language stating that an officer could review the video after writing their initial report and gave them the ability to amend their report, should there be discrepancies between their original report and the video.  PORAC remained opposed to the bill as amended.

We immediately began meeting with members of the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.  On Monday, the bill was amended again to deal with some of PORAC’s major concerns, such as adding language making policies and procedures around BWCs a meet and confer item.  Also, they removed the language mandating officers Mirandize all witnesses whom they videotape.    The author added language that the act of an officer amending their original report could not be used as the sole reason for placing that officer on a Brady list.  The final amendment they took was to limit the prohibition on an officer reviewing to incidents of “serious use of force” and defined what that means.

We have met with all members and consultants of the Privacy Committee at least twice in the last week and have made it very clear that PORAC remains strongly opposed to AB 66 as amended.  A special hearing of the Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee will be held tomorrow after the adjournment of Assembly Floor session.  PORAC needs six of the eleven members to hold the bill in committee.  Tomorrow is the deadline for bills to get out of policy committee if they are fiscal, and this bill is.

After meeting with all of the members, we have successfully raised doubt in a majority of them.  We have asked the Chair of the committee and all of its members to hold the bill in committee and allow PORAC to continue negotiations with the author’s office.

Yesterday, LAPD’s Police Commission approved their BWC policies and procedures negotiated by LAPPL, the Department and the city’s Inspector General.  Their language states that an officer shall ALWAYS review their body camera footage prior to making a statement or writing a report.  The timing of this approval has been very helpful.

First thing this morning, we spoke with LA’s Inspector General and asked if he would consider traveling to Sacramento tomorrow and testifying before the committee.  He stated that he would.

Again, our goal is to have the committee hold AB 66 and not put the bill up for a vote.  We will update all of you as this strategy unfolds over the next 24 hours.

• Aaron and Randy Thursday April 30, 2015

AB 66 (Weber, D-San Diego) regarding Body-Worn Cameras (BWCs) was heard in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protections Committee today.  President Durant and our ARA team were there.   President Durant was the only rank-and-file law enforcement association leader in the room.  He has participated in all the conversations with all the members.  It was great to have him with us for this important hearing.

We have vigorously lobbied this bill since it was introduced and have achieved several amendments.

The bill has been amended four times prior to today.  PORAC has remained actively opposed, particularly to the section prohibiting officers from reviewing the body camera footage prior to writing a report on incidents involving “serious use of force.”

Based on our strong opposition and discussion with members, we believed we had the votes necessary to kill the bill today.  That was demonstrated vividly when many members of the committee asked pointed questions and many of the Democrats stated that they could not vote for it.  We spoke to all four of the Republican members prior to the committee and knew they would not be in support.

After it became clear that Assembly member Weber did not have the sufficient number of votes to pass the bill, the chairman, Assemblyman Mike Gatto (D-Glendale), who supported our position on reviewing camera footage prior to writing a report, as well as other amendments that we had discussed, called a five minute recess and convened a meeting across the hall that included both supporters and opponents.  We discussed our position and what was important to PORAC.  Many changes were agreed to; however, we were unhappy with an amendment that said review of the camera footage would be left to local control and therefore each local agency could decide on their own.  We wanted an affirmative statement in the bill allowing officers to review the footage, thus removing our need to have to negotiate with 400 cities and 58 counties over that issue.

After much debate, the committee resumed and a second vote was taken.  There were still insufficient votes to pass the bill, which lead to another recess, this time in the committee room with the chairman ordering that the doors be locked by the Sergeants so that no one could leave until the issue was resolved.

We then had a series of private meetings with the chairman, members of the committee, and the author, Assemblywoman Weber.  In the end, our amendment was accepted, allowing officers to review the tape, with a carve out for those agencies who have current policies in place that may not allow it.  Therefore, with the exception of grandfathering a few agencies, such as Oakland and Richmond, the policy in statute, going forward will be that officers will have the right to review the tape.  That language will be in the bill and will not have to be negotiated.

The committee resumed again and another roll call was taken.  This time it received the requisite number of votes necessary to pass.  The final vote was 6 to 0, with 5 members abstaining (all four of the Republican members and Democrat Jim Cooper – a career deputy sheriff, now retired).  Jim Cooper was an all-star in the hearing.  He asked pointed questions and brought into play his 30 years of being a street cop.  We applaud our friends Assembly members Matt Debabneh, Evan Low,  Ian Calderon and the Chair Mike Gatto for great help in making this a better bill.

The roll call was as follows:

Ayes – Gatto (Chair), Calderon, Chau, Dababneh, Gordon and Low.

Abstentions – Wilk (Vice Chair), Baker, Chang, Cooper and Dahle.

There are a number of other amendments relating to tightening access to filming under the California Public Records Act, strengthening protections for informants, tightening provisions dealing with filming in private homes, etc.  We will send you a copy of the amended bill.

The FDSA will have a copy of this bill when it is complete and will share with those who are interested.

Again, take care of one another. Try to stay as positive as you can during these times of a lot of work and not a lot of people. I am here for all of you.

Always,

-Eric

‍

The month of March has brought some change to the FDSA as well as tragedy with a line of duty death in the State of California. I have attached an article written on San Jose Police Officer Michael Johnson.

We will be introducing some new apparel in the month of April for FDSA members to purchase. We hope you like the products and the prices will be very affordable.

Reorganization of Carroll, Burdick, McDonough

Since late 2001, the Fresno Deputy Sheriff’s Association has employed the firm of Carroll, Burdick, and McDonough, commonly referred to as CB&M, as our corporate counsel, labor negotiator, and legal defense representative. The partner in the firm who has been our corporate attorney is Gary Messing, supported by his associate, Jason Jasmine.

Over the last few years, Gary has informally discussed with me the labor side of CB&M breaking away from the CB&M firm- to set up what would be CB&M dealing with labor law only.

Carroll, Burdick and McDonough are an international law firm with offices in Sacramento, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Beijing, Hong Kong, and Bollinger (Germany). The firm has evolved over the years. It began primarily as a labor/employment litigation firm, to now largely an international business firm, dealing with many things not relevant to labor specific. You can go to their website at www.cbmlaw.com to see a list of the types of law they specialize in.

Gary Messing met with me on Thursday, March 12, 2015 to advise me/FDSA that he and two other of the labor partners, Gregg Adam and Jason Jasmine will be taking the labor side of CB&M and forming the firm, Messing, Adam, & Jasmine, LLP. The split from CB&M is seamless and amicable - whereas the clients will see no change. In fact, the Sacramento and San Francisco offices will be staying the same along with the more than 10 labor attorneys and support staff that comes with it. This is simply a name change to point us specifically to labor/employment litigation.

Gary made it pretty clear - continuing labor through CB&M is going to drive up costs too much for a labor organization such as FDSA. Carving the labor side out and dealing specifically with labor/employment law only- rather than the international business side, will drive fees down and/or stabilize them for all of the labor organizations they deal with.  

I wanted to let the entire membership know of this change since I am putting Gary Messing on our agenda April 8th to lay this entire transition out to the Board of Directors and any members who want to hear what is going on.

Initially, when Gary explained the situation, this change was going to occur in about 60 days. However, all of their client information and paperwork needed to be completed by April 6. Therefore, the transition needed to take place sooner, specifically for LDF (Legal Defense).

Again, I want to emphasize -- there will be no change in the way we go about doing business. The one most notable change the FDSA will see will be lower attorney fees and costs associated with the creation of the new firm. Costs will now be controlled much easier by Gary, Greg and Jason.

Also -- to date, no clients on the labor side who are represented by CB&M have had any  issues with this transition. Some of the bigger clients CB&M represents under the labor/employment law include, San Jose POA, CCPOA, and CDF Firefighters. All of these associations, along with all of the smaller associations, have embraced this move.  

Any members who have any questions regarding this move can contact me directly or any of the FDSA Board of Directors. Again, Gary will be here on Wednesday, April 8th to discuss the transition at the beginning of the board meeting.  

San Jose Police Officer Death

On Tuesday, March, 24th, a SJPD officer was killed in the line of duty. The following is an article from the San Jose Mercury News about one group- shaken, once again by the tragedy of losing a fellow officer.  

SAN JOSE -- The night Officer Michael Johnson was gunned down, the San Jose Police Department knew one group of officers in particular should find out before it hit the news: his police academy class of 2001.

These were people who were already changed forever when their classmate, Jeffrey Fontana was killed during a traffic stop just weeks after graduation. Now this. "They are probably the closest-knit officers in the department," said Officer James Gonzales of the Police Officers Association. Johnson's Tuesday evening death "took what is almost an immeasurable bond and multiplied it to infinity."

Throughout the past 14 years this group has formed a tight connection through triumph and turmoil at the SJPD -- from the days when San Jose was known as the safest big city in America to a modern era fraught with pay cuts and pension debates, layoffs and low morale.

Of the 35 members of the class of 2001, class members count 19 remaining on the force. Of those who left, most found jobs at other police agencies and some have retired on medical disability after being hurt so badly on the job they couldn't return. In many ways, this class has come to define a generation of San Jose police officers.

No matter where they landed, many of these men and women gathered for Fontana's every vigil and anniversary, treated Fontana's mother and younger brother as their own, and struggled with loss and fear for years.

So when Johnson was killed on Tuesday night, the bond brought them together again.

David Solis, 38, left the SJPD last summer to work at the Menlo Park Police Department. He was on duty at the jail when his cellphone started pinging with messages from his 2001 classmates.

"I told my boss, and he said, 'go,'" Solis said Friday. "I drove from Menlo Park to San Jose, in uniform in my patrol car. I got there and stayed there until the scene was secure, almost at 4 a.m. It was like being at a funeral without being at a funeral. It was horrible."

And it was too eerily familiar. "It seemed like deja vu," he said. "This can't be happening."

As word quickly spread through the ranks of the SJPD, some 40 officers -- many of whom had just finished their day shifts -- volunteered to cover midnight beats as resources shifted to the crime scene.

Johnson, 38, who grew up in San Jose like many of his classmates, was a specialist for the San Jose Police Department, a sharpshooter who won numerous trophies for his skills at police Olympic games. He was one of the first deployed for "hot calls" like the one Tuesday at dusk, when a 911 call came in saying a man was suicidal and had a gun. The man, Scott Dunham, 57, was threatening to kill his wife if she didn't leave their condominium on Senter Road. It's the kind of dicey and dangerous call police officers respond to all the time.

As Johnson carefully approached with his AR15 rifle, Dunham, who was partially hidden behind a solid-front balcony, fired. Johnson fell to the ground. He never fired a shot. Another officer, Douglas Potwora, immediately returned fire. The walled balcony made it difficult to determine if Dunham was hit or fled, so through the night and into the dawn, Johnson's fellow officers secured the area and sent robots and flash grenades into the condo until Dunham was found dead right where Potwora shot him.

Former academy classmate Mike Ruybal , who left the SJPD in 2012 for another agency on the Peninsula, was at home with his wife and children when one of his classmates called with the tragic news. Soon, another 2001 alum arrived. They listened to the scanner and watched the news, spotting a couple of their former classmates working the grim crime scene, knowing that their buddy -- the quiet guy with the quick smile and love for firearms and jiujitsu -- was gone.

The TV news captured the solemn procession of officers escorting Johnson's body through the city streets to the coroner's office.

"It was tough," Ruybal said. "It's rekindling for all of us what we went through with Jeffrey Fontana."

Johnson became the 12th officer in San Jose police history to be killed in the line of duty. Fontana was the 11th.

Fontana, 23, had finished his six months of academy training and four months on the streets with a field training officer when, working the midnight shift alone two weeks later, he turned his lights on to pull over DeShawn Campbell. Campbell made a couple of right turns before pulling into a cul-de-sac in the quiet neighborhood of Almaden, then gunned down the rookie.

Officer Tony Vizzusi, who trains new recruits at the SJPD police academy, was one of Fontana's best friends. He helped carry his coffin into the funeral at St. Pius Catholic Church in Redwood City. Every year, he goes deer hunting with Fontana's younger brother and shares memories around the campfire.

"It's an unfortunate bond. A lot of people in that class grew up real quick," said Vizzusi, whose father and three uncles were part of the San Jose force. "It makes you evaluate what you're doing with your life. You have to make some serious commitments as to whether you still want to do this job. The class had to wrestle with that moment."

One of the classmates, who had been on the scene after Fontana's death, wasn't sure he'd stay.

"He saw him lying there. That really affected him. There were times he wasn't sure and people were unsure if he could continue," Ruybal said. "He pulled through and had a strong career."

But a second tragedy? "I was with him yesterday. I can see this is affecting him a lot. He's having a hard time."

In the weeks after Fontana's death, Vizzusi remembers "making a plain old car stop and shaking like a leaf. Over time I found a way to work through that and, thousands of stops later, I'm not shaking. But I have to make sure I'm safe."

It's still tough for Steve Donahue, too, the first of the class to be promoted to sergeant.

"Even to this day, if I make a car stop and the guy makes a couple of right turns, my heart starts to pound and I'm more alert and sense a little more danger," Donohue said. "That's exactly what happened to Jeff, a bunch of right turns and he got him in acul-de-sac. I'd be lying if I said it didn't affect me."

Early on, Fontana's death made classmate Mark Hernandez "much more timid in how I did things. Do I want to stop this person? Should I have someone with me? It's dark and no one's around."

In the fall of 2013, Hernandez suffered injuries so serious when he was hit on his motorcycle responding to a crime -- including broken ribs and scapula -- that classmates said they wouldn't blame him if he never came back. But he did.

This class of 2001, 31 men and four women, started their careers at a storied time for the San Jose Police Department. After 9/11, patriotism and respect for officers in uniform soared. The police department and its academy became one of the most respected and sought after in the state, hiring only the top applicants. Rarely did anyone leave for another job in those years.

After the recession hit in 2008 and the pensions of law enforcement officers became a focus of budget woes, battles began between the police union and city officials. Ever since, officers have been resigning by the dozens.

"Officers who intended to work with the SJPD for the duration of their careers, they would have maintained working here with pay cuts and tough negotiations," said Raul Peralez, who joined the force in 2007 and left in January when he was elected to the San Jose City Council. He wants to help ease tensions and rebuild the department. "But the straw that broke the camel's back was the environment -- the painful feeling of a lack of respect in just being an employee in San Jose. It wasn't just your employer, the city council and mayor, but also now the citizens that were turning against you."

This week, politics were set aside as officers turned toward each other to comfort and grieve. Tuesday night, Jeffrey Fontana's mother, Sandy, rushed to the home of Johnson's mother.

"I needed to offer them support and maybe a little guidance," Sandy Fontana said, "and let them know that they're not alone."

In the days after Johnson's death, as American flags fly throughout the city at half-staff, makeshift memorials of balloons and flowers and well wishes have sprung up. It helps, said Sgt. Donohue.

"I'm thinking, there are some people out there that still care about us, that appreciate the sacrifices we make and that we lost a family member," Donohue said. "When you see the flowers, or someone at Starbucks says, 'I'm sorry for your loss and thank you for what you do' and buys us a cup of coffee, it strikes that core within us, that I am doing the right thing. I am doing something good."

Donohue and Vizzusi are organizing a gathering for the class the night before Johnson's funeral, which will take place Thursday at SAP Center. Some are flying in from out of state to join the dinner and remember the classmates they lost.

At Fontana's funeral, they all sat together. They're not sure if they will this time. They are halfway through their careers now. They know it is not just their loss. The entire force is grieving. So is the community, hundreds of whom attended a vigil Friday night in the City Hall plaza.

But this class of 2001 carries a special distinction, an onerous burden that weighs ever more heavily now.

"It's hard to explain," Donohue said. "For the last 14 years, people have known our group as Jeffrey Fontana's class. That's kind of how they defined us. I don't know what it's going to be now."

Uniform Committee

The uniform committee met on February 8, 2015 in an effort to meet and discuss different options for the evolution of our equipment and clothing. FDSA Board Member Scott Plann, who runs the uniform committee for the FDSA attended the meeting and reported back some of the information that I wanted to share with the membership.

Many of you asked about ball caps for the Fresno County Sheriff's Office. The Sheriff has ruled no ball caps. However, there is some interest to research all available hats for law enforcement use and approach it as safety minded to cover neck/ears for skin cancer/sun protection.

The current beanies were approved back in 2009. The Uniform Committee wants to look at a black fleece with a subdued badge/FSO emblem embroidered on it rather than the current knit watch cap with a bright yellow target on the front.

There have been a lot of rumors floating around that the Sheriff is going to mandate a Class A coat when wearing the class A uniform. Sheriff Mims has stated if a Class A coat is made a requirement, it will be for E-staff only and optional for Sergeants and Deputies.

Vest (outside carrier) –

Two examples are the current Detective vest carrier and current K9 vest carrier. We have requested one be set up for a demo use. We are still waiting on an answer back on the request for that. The Uniform committee wants to know how that vest would translate into the custody side of the Sheriff’s Department in regards to the stab vest panels.

An idea was that if we cannot agree on a vest carrier, we would like to have it approved to replace the current mesh raid vest. It would be issued with new armor and worn for call-outs or taking vehicles in for service, etc.  This would not be our first choice.

Next, is the issue of what  type of shirt to wear under the outside carrier, instead of the current uniform shirts, wicking shirts, polo shirts from 5.11 or Propper shirts. We will look into these options. Also, along with the vest is the holster and duty weapon, along with the draw to clear the vest. A few options include a drop down belt loop and thigh holster with one or two legs straps.

If you want a new jacket or to replace one,  a new OD Sheriff green, 5.11 fleece jacket with patches, star patch and name tape runs around  $100-$120. This is cheaper than the current approved jacket. It is also warmer and can be used as a liner for rain gear.

In the coming months, we will be discussing uniform options. If you have any other suggestions, please direct them to Scott Plann. He can address them and also share them at the next committee meeting.

Hope your spring is off to a great start! We have a lot coming up in the next few months. I want to remind you all that Peace Officer Memorial in Fresno County will be on Thursday, May 7th 2015 at 12pm, Courthouse Park.

Following that event will be the luncheon. Later that evening at the FDSA will be our 4th annual open house recognizing our fallen deputies, their families, and all of you as co-workers. We hope to see many of you there who are able to attend this event.

-Eric

‍

Tribute to our Partners

A year ago to the exact day they died on duty- hundreds of family members, friends, and law enforcement officers gathered under a pole barn at the Selma Swap Meet. With the sound of traffic in the background, three miles of Highway 99 was dedicated to CHP Officers, Brian M. Law and Juan J. Gonzalez. On February 17, 2014, Officers Law and Gonzalez were riding together and handling a routine call in the area of northbound Highway 99 and Manning Ave. A radio call came out of a distressed citizen involved in a crash on Southbound Highway 99 near Bethel Ave. Officers Law and Gonzalez rushed to the scene.Investigators say as they approached the area, a pedestrian stepped onto the highway. Officer Gonzalez was driving and swerved to avoid a collision with the pedestrian. The CHP Crown Victoria lost traction, flipped onto its top and ended up crashing and coming to a stop at the highway exit sign and guardrail at southbound Highway 99 and Sierra Avenue. Both Officer Law and Officer Gonzalez were killed instantly. This May, we will honor both of these officers in Fresno, Sacramento and Washington DC. Their names will be etched in stone and raised in bronze –lasting forever.The memorial signs will serve as a reminder to those who travel on both southbound and northbound Highway 99- of the sacrifices these dedicated officers made to keep the roads safer.Officials who spoke at the dedication said they hope each driver who passes through the Central Valley will take a moment to look down at their speed and remember the importance of driving safely. They also hope motorists will remember the families of the fallen who are suffering the true pain of this sacrifice. As Sheriff’s Deputies, often times we work closely with the California Highway Patrol. We share a common job assignment: to patrol rural roads and cover long distances. We assist each other often, whether it’s a normal backup, or a needed pickup at 10,000 feet. This agency (CHP) is there for us and we are grateful. Therefore, we have been there for them, and will continue to remember Officers Law and Gonzalez. Patrol Vehicles

Over the past few weeks, several members have reached out to me inquiring about the status of the current take-home patrol vehicles. Apparently, some members were hearing rumors about the Fresno County Board of Supervisors allegedly trying to take the program away from the Sheriff. This is untrue and I want to quash these false claims. As it currently stands, the take-home patrol vehicle program is in the FDSA MOU. Within the article, it outlines how the program is supposed to run. This MOU, along with Department Order #1192, provides the conditions of the program through the department. I believe the confusion lies in what took place at a Board of Supervisors meeting on February 10, 2015. There was an agenda item the Sheriff submitted to purchase thirty (30) additional marked patrol vehicles. The money from this was from an overage payment collected from Prop 172 monies (state public safety sales tax). The overage amounted to roughly $1.2 million. At the board meeting, a few Supervisors asked the Sheriff the status of the vehicle replacement plan or the depreciation plan. The Sheriff told the BOS she would be submitting the plan 30 to 90 days after the authorization to purchase was given. After a lengthy discussion and many different viewpoints aired- the BOS opted to delay the purchase until the replacement plan was presented to them. The delay in purchasing vehicles is a completely separate issue from the take-home car program. The next step in purchasing the cars is for the Sheriff to present a replacement vehicle program plan, at which time, the BOS will review.Op-Ed in Sacramento Bee by PORAC President Michael Durant

It’s budget time in Sacramento, and that means another round of pension bashing from critics seeking to crack the modest nest egg of California’s working families. The budget picture shows the state’s economy in recovery, and the state’s two largest pension funds performing far above the annual rate of return from their actuaries. But even this turnaround isn’t quieting those who seek to undermine retirement security by pointing to so-called “unfunded liabilities” of the state’s pension plans. Unfunded liabilities — the statistic that pension bashers typically use for their false hysteria — are cyclical, and better measured as a percentage than a dollar basis. Pension critics are willfully ignoring cyclical variations and the long-term nature of pension funding, seeking an opportunity to turn more public dollars over to their Wall Street cronies. The fact is, the biggest downturn in unfunded liability was due to the fiasco caused by irresponsible Wall Street bankers gaming the system. And today, thanks to the economic turnaround, the funded status of retirement funds today (on a percentage basis) is better than it was in 1980.Pension critics say the modest rate of return set by the state’s two largest pension funds is unrealistic. A simple glance at actual data indicates the estimates of the professional actuaries at these multi-billion dollar pension systems are a lot more accurate than the host of ivory tower pension critics who have been crying wolf for the past few years. Pension plans are designed to be funded over the long-term. Variations in funded status are expected and over time the highs and lows of the market even out. Earlier this month, the state’s two largest pension plans – the Public Employee Retirement System (CalPERS) and Teachers Retirement System (CalSTRS) announced the return on their investments for the year – a whopping 18.4 percent. That's higher than last year's return rate of 16.2 percent. The gains increased the fund's three-year average to 10.4 percent. Its target return rate, set by the CalPERS board, is 7.5 percent.Most of the inflated liability numbers we are seeing are remnants of the Great Recession working its way through the pension system. Since then, employers and employees have increased their contributions to the pension systems, and the stock market has rebounded, boosting the investment portfolios of the large public pension systems. Gov. Jerry Brown has said he wants to address the issue of post-retirement public benefits during the next round of collective bargaining with public employees. Nobody is more interested in retirement security than the working families who earn and receive those benefits. As we have time and time again, public employees will sit down with negotiators from the administration and work together, in good faith, to further fortify our retirement systems. But Gov. Brown understands what the pension hawks don’t: Any changes made to the current system should be based on a thoughtful understanding of facts instead of a misinformed debate drummed up by activists seeking to willfully misguide the public into reacting so they can line the pockets of Wall Street investors.Public pensions are the only source of retirement for 30 percent of public employees since they do not receive Social Security. Pension plans also play a vital role in decreasing poverty among older Americans, according to the National Institute for Retirement Security.Concerns about pensions pray on our fears about the overall state of the economy, and economic security for our future. It is encouraging that more and more of our leaders are starting to address the fact that, even in recovery, the American economy is not working for everyone. The gap between the rich and the poor continues to grow, and millions of Californians are struggling to make ends meet. We are wrestling with global forces that are pushing down wages as demands for state services continues to grow, as does the retirement-age population. Amid these national and global economic trends, we should all be increasingly concerned about retirement security, and what it will mean for our state and our nation as a generation of Baby Boomers continue to hit retirement age. Retirement security will be an increasingly important issue as we prepare for the largest-ever population of retired Californians. Instead of pitting groups of low and middle-class Californians against each other, we should all be engaged in a thoughtful discussion about how to ensure retirement security continues to be part of the California dream.I would like to extend an invitation to all of you to join me on Thursday, April 30th 2015, from 5:30 to 8pm, at our 4th Annual Peace Officer Memorial Open House. The event is held each year to come together with the families of the fallen deputies to remember their sacrifice and legacy. The sponsors who contribute to our memorial fund are also invited to attend. The evening will be filled with fellowship, food and drinks. I hope you can be there.Stay safe, Eric