FOP Lodge 44 for Corrections Regular Meeting Lodge 2, 7pm
Monday, August 23, 2010
FOP Lodge 44 for Corrections Regular Meeting Lodge 2, 7pm
FOP Lodge #2, Located at: 12851 N. 19th Ave. Phoenix, Arizona
Contact Labor Services 602-677-7822
Check this calendar for updates!
Collective Bargaining News
Bill Gives Public Workers Clout Measure Forcing States to Grant Collective-Bargaining Rights Nears Vote in Senate By KRIS MAHER The Wall Street Journal
The Senate is moving closer to passing legislation that would require states to grant public-safety employees, including police, firefighters and emergency medical workers, the right to collectively bargain over hours and wages.
The bill, known as the Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act, would mainly affect about 20 states that don't grant collective-bargaining rights statewide for public-safety workers or that prohibit such bargaining. State and municipal associations, as well as business groups, oppose it, saying it will lead to higher labor costs and taxes, at a time of budget deficits.
The bill, backed by at least six Republicans in the Senate, prohibits strikes and leaves to states' discretion whether to engage in collective bargaining in several areas, including health benefits and pensions.
If the legislation passes and states choose not to grant the minimum collective-bargaining rights outlined in the bill, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, which oversees labor-management relations for federal employees, would step in and implement collective-bargaining rights for these workers.
The House passed a version of the bill in 2007. If enacted, the legislation would be a significant victory for unions, which are smarting over the failure of Democrats to pass a separate, broader bill that would have made it easier for unions to organize workers, especially in the private sector, where union membership has been in decline for years.
The public-safety bargaining bill was first introduced in the mid-1990s. Union officials say they now have their best shot to pass it, but that time could run out if Democrats don't act soon and go on to lose several Senate seats in November
More public-sector workers belonged to a union than private-sector workers last year for the first time ever. The Senate bill was originally introduced in the current Congress by Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.) and the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D., Mass). In May, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) tried to attach the bill to a $59 billion supplemental disaster-relief and war-spending bill that ultimately passed.
Jim Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, said that effort failed because of procedural reasons. "It's a possibility…in the next couple of weeks," it could advance as a freestanding bill or an amendment to another bill, he said.
If the bill becomes law, state and municipal associations expect legal challenges, saying the legislation might violate states' constitutional rights. "If states and localities have chosen not to go in the direction of collective bargaining, that should be their right to do so," said Neil Bomberg, a lobbyist for the National League of Cities. Currently, 15 states don't grant collective-bargaining rights to public-safety workers on a statewide basis, two states, Virginia and North Carolina, prohibit such workers from bargaining, and four states allow collective bargaining for firefighters but not for police.
Mr. Bomberg said the National League of Cities is "neutral" on collective bargaining, but that the bill would be "a huge problem" for cash-strapped municipalities to hire staff or contract with collective-bargaining experts to negotiate with unions.
Police and firefighter unions are the biggest advocates of the legislation. "A year after this law passes most of these executives who are fighting it won't be able to remember what they were scared of," said Jim Pasco, executive director of the 325,000-member National Fraternal Order of Police. He said unions wouldn't be able to negotiate wages and benefits that governments couldn't afford.
Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, said certain cities allow firefighters to bargain collectively through local ordinances in states like Tennessee that don't guarantee bargaining rights statewide. "When you actually peel back the onion on this bill it's really not all that frightening," he said. Mr. Schaitberger said the bill would enable about 80,000 of the union's 300,000 members to bargain contracts with public employers for the first time.
Keith Cheatham, vice president of government affairs for the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, said businesses feared the bill could increase taxes. "State and local governments in Virginia don't want it, and the business sector in Virginia doesn't want it," he said.
Republican Sen. Mike Johanns of Nebraska called the bill "reasonable." "For several years now, we've seen the benefit of a similar policy in Nebraska which prevents public employees from going on strike while helping to establish reasonable compensation ranges."
The other Republican co-sponsors in the Senate are Scott Brown of Massachusetts, Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska
House Passes Bill
US House of Representatives Passes Collective Bargaining Bill
The United States House of Representatives has passed the Public Safety Employer-Employee Safety Act. By a vote of 239-182 The House included HR 413 in the supplemental appropriations act.
The Bill now proceeds to the Senate who will take it up after the July 4th recess. It is vital that FOP Lodges around this country make contact with your Senators and tell them we need for their votes.
Many of our Brothers and Sisters enjoy the right to bargain with their employers but as you know many do not have this basic right that has been afforded to the private sector for the past 75 years. It is time for the Congress to pass this Bill and allow Police Officers to have the same rights as every other American.
It is imperative that we keep up the pressure on our Members of Congress and I especially want to thank the House Leadership for their efforts in moving this bill. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has been a stalwart for law enforcement and firefighters for many years and he along with Speaker Pelosi have kept their commitment to us in moving this bill.
Leader Hoyer has always supported our efforts and he has shown true leadership in seeing that this bill has moved in a Congress that has been bogged down all session.
Now is the time for all FOP members to be heard. We must make contact and we must let our Senators know that this bill will only enhance our ability to perform and will not as our opponents say turn over the police departments to the “Big Labor Leaders”.
The scare tactics of the National Right to Work Foundation and other groups must be countered with facts.
1. This Bill prohibits Strikes and concerted work actions. 2. The Bill calls for states to pass their own laws. 3. It provides a method of resolving differences in the bargaining process.
I urge all State Presidents and Trustees to make sure we get the word out to our members to make those calls today.
FOP Lodge 44 for Corrections in conjunction with the FOP ADC Labor Council was proud to provide “Basic Representation, Discipline and Grievance” as a block of training on Saturday, June 26, 2010. Any interested members should contact me by e-mail or phone to add their names to the next training.
The training is approximately five (5) hours including a lunch break and will be provided at no cost to those FOP ADC Labor Council members that signed up in advance. This training is provided to members that desire to be Complex and Unit Representatives as well as interested members from Security and Parole to establish a consistent professional format for responding to discipline issued with a grievance for employees in ADC.
This block of training covers the laws and legal opinions on which the foundation of due process is established. It provides a review of grievance training provided by the Arizona Labor Council and some aspects of the National training block on union representation.
After a lecture and work book session, each participant will review the materials provided in their training binder which will include: • A CD for transfer of forms and ADC Department Orders and Directors Instructions to the members own personal computers • ‘Hard copies’ of ADC and Lodge 44 forms • Recruitment materials • Pertinent Department Orders and Directors Instructions for quick review ‘on the job’ • Sample successfully completed grievances • FOP pens, highlighters and note pads
Grievance formats, appropriate language and the reasoning behind the approach will all be part of the training block; formalized ‘end statements’ and the structure of the actual grievance will be discussed at length.
Actual grievances successfully completed will be reviewed and time permitting, the participants will have broken into groups and conducted actual grievances. Lunch per dium (approximately $6.00) will be provided to participants by Lodge 44. Mileage may be extended to current Representatives.
An advanced block of training in “Investigations, Discipline and Grievance” has been developed. This training will cover AIU and internal investigations, the representation thereof and an in depth discipline grievance block. Members that want to help their fellow member Officers and employees, desire to see ADC function better for its employees or just find a way to ‘give back’ will find representation a no cost way to ‘give back’ just a little. Great personal satisfaction and professional advancement can be found in the interaction with the ADC Administration and assisting employees to the successful resolution of grievance issues.
Current Representatives who have not taken the structured course are encouraged to attend. Join our team of representatives and help FOP, your Labor Council and ADC all at the same time.
Stephen R. Vandegrift, Labor Services, FOP ADC Labor Council Secretary/Treasurer, Lodge 44
contact 602-677-7822
May '10 Meet & Confer
MEET & CONFER MEETINGS – MAY 26, 2010
Purpose of Meetings As a reminder, these meetings are authorized by Executive Order and are designed to enhance communications between ADC and your organizations. Attendees are encouraged to express thoughts, ideas, concerns and questions in a professional manner. Minutes from this meeting will be posted to the ADC Intranet within the week.
COTA Presentations by QEO and OEO Policy permits your ability to present information to COTA cadets in accordance with an approved lesson plan about your organization. Each organization is allotted equal time. Your job is to objectively impart information regarding your organization to interested cadets, not criticize the department. Active recruitment of cadets is prohibited at the academy – recruiting is authorized once the cadet graduates and reports to their assigned prison.
BUDGET CRISIS Performance Pay The 2.75% performance pay for state employees will cease in June. Alternative options discussed by the Legislature included a Reduction in Force (RIF) and/or a 5% across the board pay cut for all employees.
Furlough Program Division Director Krause provided information regarding the administration of the furlough program via a PowerPoint presentation which will be available on the Intranet later this week. The program is required by HB2003 and includes all funding sources. Only CO I, CO II and DC Investigator III positions are exempt from the furloughs, while some other classifications will furlough on alternate dates. Management will select the alternate dates to ensure adequate shift coverage. Only the Director may revoke a furlough and it will be rescheduled. All employees will sign an acknowledgement form and are prohibited from performing any work on a furlough day. The power point will be available on the intranet and will be presented at all prisons.
Q - Why are CO’s on a TWA required to take a furlough day? A – The exemption pertains to job classifications performing duties related to the direct security and custodial care of inmates. Employees are placed on TWA status due to a medical issue which prevents them from performing the full duties of their position. Because they are not fully performing all duties, they no longer qualify for the exemption. Once released to full duty by their physician, they will regain their exempt status. Q – Why can’t supervisors choose their day off? A – Management is required to ensure adequate shift coverage. The Wardens are working on plans which are due in two weeks that reflects a collaborative effort to ensure adequate supervisory coverage. Q – Are employees on Military Leave required to furlough? A – The DI will be revised. Employees on military leave will participate in the furlough program on the mandatory furlough days. Q – How were exempted classifications determined and why were cadets (CO I’s) included when the Sergeants who conduct their training will be furloughed? A - It was a very lengthy process. ADOA did not initially understand that our operation is 24/7. The CO I’s were included due to the need to staff the new 4K beds. The training schedule is strict and furloughing the cadets/closing down the academies would ultimately increase costs. Q – Will employees on paid industrial leave be furloughed? A – Payment to employees on industrial leave is also in law and research will be required as to which law applies. Further clarification will be forthcoming. Proposition 100 The proposition passed and in essence will generate one billion dollars per year for three years. This means the state has avoided one billion dollars in cuts next fiscal year. Had it not passed, ADC would have been faced with an additional 63 million in cuts resulting in unit closures and approximately 1600-1700 layoffs. Q – If the tax fails to generate the funding as expected, will we face more cuts in the future? A – ADC worked hard last year to restrict the number of actual RIF’s and unlike some other agencies; employees were notified in advance in accordance with Personnel Rules. Every effort was taken to reassign them if at all possible. The 15 RIF’s were the result of the automation of some functions. The funding for the automation of functions was approved contingent upon the number of positions being reduced.
As for the future, we’ve done an outstanding job of cutting costs and limiting hiring, but we must watch this closely. Requests to fill vacancies will continue to require detailed justifications which will be scrutinized by management.
PRIVATIZATION ISSUES Concession Agreement 3-10-9-2-0…does anyone know what that means? Yes, it’s the number of prisons identified for privatization throughout various stages of the legislative session. ADC, in good faith, did proceed with the RFI as directed, but ultimately withstood the attempt at privatization. Arizona is one of the highest consumers of private beds with 22% of our population in private prisons. While ADC has been reasonably successful placing minimum and medium custody inmates in private beds, the Department will continue to oppose privatizing close custody, maximum security and death row inmates.
Health Services RFP The RFP for the privatization of Health Services is still ongoing. The RFP was opened May 24, 2010 and consists of five areas: Medical and Nursing; Mental Health; Pharmacy; 3rd Party Administration; Dental. It is a violation of procurement code to discuss the responses. An evaluation team will review the responses and provide the Director with a detailed analysis of their findings. We will then present the findings to the JLBC in an Executive Session, but it is ultimately ADC’s decision to make an award based upon the responsiveness of the proposals and compliance with the legislation. This will probably be a 60 day process.
RFP for 5,000 Private Prison Beds – Minimum and Medium Custody These beds must be located in Arizona and are limited to minimum and medium security inmates. Vendors may submit quotes in 500 or 1,000 bed increments. The submissions are due on May 28, 2010. The review requirements and Executive Session presentation to the JLBC remain the same. This too, will probably be a 60 day process.
Out-of-State Private Prison Contracts As the current contracts expire, the inmates are being returned to Arizona. Inmates housed in Colorado returned to Arizona in March. By May 28, 2010 all inmates in the CCA Oklahoma facility have been returned to Arizona. The second contract in Oklahoma will expire in September. Offender Operations and the Classification unit have successfully relocated 20,000 inmates during the last year. Some of this was the result of the realignment making Tucson the Health hub and Lewis the Protective Segregation facility.
4,000 NEW STATE BEDS Activation There is no funding for the new beds until July 1, 2010. ADC managed to identify sufficient funding to partially staff the new units pending full activation. The buildings are being manned in an effort to minimize issues resulting from lack of use. Staffing We are actively recruiting to fill the new positions. Lateral transfer requests will be honored to the extent possible; however, existing units cannot be stripped of staff and existing positions vacated. We will manage the transfers and refilling of vacant positions.
POLICY COMPLIANCE Flex Time & Leave Balances Management maintains the right to approve when time is flexed/used; however, we must adhere to FLSA rules and be consistent in the application of our policies. If issues arise, to the extent possible, try to resolve them at the complex level. This will aid in the timely resolution of complaints as records and information is maintained locally.
LEGISLATIVE AGENDA AND OUTCOMES Consecutive Sentences A bill was passed mandating sex offenders serve consecutive sentences before the state seeks civil commitment. Wireless Devices Possession of wireless devices is now a class 5 felony and ADC will pursue prosecution of violators, be they inmates, visitors, staff or contractors. Sexually Violent Predators The only bill not supported would have allowed the circumstances surrounding previous sentences to be used to determine Sexually Violent Predator status regardless of a plea agreement and the final charge/sentence. Secondary Employment The law originated in 1901 and was amended. It’s been updated and as long as the secondary job does not have the appearance of impropriety it will be allowed. Request for secondary employment must be submitted in accordance with policy and approved through the chain-of-command.
ADMINISTRATIVE LEAVE POLICY REVISED As a result of a records request, it was determined that between 5/2008 and 5/2010, 172 employees were placed on administrative leave for various reasons. Approximately half of these cases were related to issues beyond the employee’s control, such as exposure to chicken pox, or road closures due to snow, etc. The remaining cases fell into one of two categories, either pending disposition due to a felony charge(s) or the misconduct was deemed a high risk to security. These two categories totaled thousands of hours during that period, valued at several hundred thousand dollars. A new DI has been published which limits the use of Administrative Leave. Employees can be reassigned to other units, shifts and schedules while investigations are being completed.
WEEKLY INTEL REPORT This report tracks 10 -11 major security issues by institution. It is proving to be a valuable tool to track trends and indicators. It will be available on the Intranet once minor input issues are corrected.
REQUESTS FOR COPIES OF INVESTIGATIONS Public Records Requests A request for information pursuant to A.R.S. 38-1101, does require that the disciplinary investigative report be provided to an employee within 3 business days after the request is received by the employer. I am aware of two recent requests made pursuant to this particular statute; one employee was dismissed from state service, the other received an 80 hour suspension. The Department received these requests from the State Personnel Board who forwarded the information to the Attorney General's Office who then forwarded the documents to the Department's Employee Relations Unit in accordance with standard protocol. As a result of this circuitous route, the receipt of the request for the copy of the investigation was delayed. In the future, when requesting information covered under A.R.S. 38-1101, pursuant to D.O. 601.09 the employee must request the investigation from the Inspector General's Office 1831 W. Jefferson, Phoenix 85007 or glauchner@azcorrections.gov. If the request is made by an attorney and not the employee then it will need to be accompanied by a release so that the Department is not violating any privacy concerns to which the employee may be entitled. Upon receipt of the request the investigative report will be reproduced and sent through legal services to the employee and/or his or her attorney. This will ensure requests are received timely and further ensure information is received by the requestor within statutory time frames.
STAFF ROTATION History This issue has been evolving for more than a year. A review of a series of significant incidents occurring in May 2009 revealed a pattern of compliance issues and staff complacency. In July 2009 a multidisciplinary team consisting of more than 60 staff from all cross sections of the agency was convened. Their goal was to establish a process to institute a fair and consistent rotation schedule. Their workshops resulted in the modification of DO 512. Implementation Affected employees were advised in writing in November 2009 that “to the extent possible”, shift and RDO’s would not be changed. The implementation was intentionally delayed until after the holidays to limit the impact to employees with scheduled leave/plans. The first round of rotations consisting of 642 employees was completed during the first quarter of 2010. Of the 642 employees rotated, only 10 did not maintain their shift. A report by complex is available for review on the Intranet. While employees can’t grieve shifts/RDO’s, the manner in which changes are administered can be grieved. Decisions must not be arbitrary or capricious. Employees should attempt to resolve complaints/issues at the lowest level. A revision of the policy has been issued instructing employees to first attempt to resolve the issue with the Complex Warden. Florence/Eyman Geographical Stipend Current Florence/Eyman employees voluntarily rotating within Florence/Eyman will retain the stipend; this is not a reason not to rotate. Q – If RDO’s do change, what is the process to request changes? A – The DI addresses this issue. They should submit their request and be placed at the top of the list. Q – Will previously approved/scheduled annual leave be honored at the new assignment? A – It should be honored -- manipulation of the process will not be tolerated. Q – What if an employee currently has a memo requesting a shift or RDO change submitted? Will it be honored at the new unit? A – There appears to be conflicting information in the applicable DO/DI’s. Clarification will be forthcoming. Q – Will staff assigned to specialty posts retain their specialty post at the new unit? A – That is not the intent. If properly managed, rotations will enable staff to work different custody levels, physical plants, shifts and specialty assignments. The end result will be well-rounded experienced employees capable of working in multiple environments. Q – Will graveyard shift return to 4/10 schedule? A – No, funding is not available to cover the overtime
HOSPITAL SECURITY COVERAGE Contracts ADC is attempting to establish new contracts under the AHCCCS rates with several hospitals. We are working toward establishing secure wards in order to cluster the inmates and maximize efficiency. Additionally, we hope to create a cadre of experienced officers who are familiar with hospital protocols/routines, as this will provide consistency in coverage. Employees must remain professional and are not to argue with hospital staff. Staff Toilet Usage Employees should use the public/visitor restrooms.
POLICY CHANGES Computers are available for staff to review policy changes. We do not have the manpower to relieve officers. A formalized plan is being developed. Your input to the Warden is welcome and will be presented following the Warden’s meeting in June 2010.
EMPLOYEE AWARDS ADC will conduct an employee awards ceremony at COTA in October. The previous administration’s awards for Life Saving, Meritorious Service, Employee of the Year and CO of the Year were inadequate. Recipients of these awards are encouraged to submit verification/documentation of the award and a proper replacement will be issued.
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS Q – Will uniforms for maintenance staff still be provided? A – Yes Q – Can we get additional training for maintenance, electrical safety, lock and key and safety training for refrigerants? A - We have trained several maintenance staff as locksmiths. We will continue this program as funding permits. I have tasked Shelly Sonberg to work with Training to determine if there are other opportunities for staff. Q – RUSH is advising recruits to request hardship transfers. Is this acceptable? A – This information has not been validated. However, as a recruiting strategy, it would not be appropriate to advise a recruit to apply for a hardship transfer upon arriving at their first duty assignment. Q – Why aren’t existing rosters being utilized? A - It is not our intent to completely exhaust the list. The promotional lists are assembled in an effort to ensure promotional coverage is available to all institutions statewide. Because there are numerous steps and so many candidates for each of the classifications there is no viable way to wait to open testing until the list is exhausted without ensuring there is always a qualified candidate available when a position opens. Q - Why can’t Supervisors work 2-3 days on shift? A - This is just the opposite of most of the complaints that have been received from around the state. We drastically reduced the number of operations supervisor positions last year and most Wardens are running their vacancies in the few remaining ones. This causes shift supervisors to also oversee operations. We may convene a multi-disciplinary team to review posting issues. Forward your suggestions. Q – Rynning unit is consistently down 8-12 staff due to cross leveling, yet we are still running normal operations. This is a staff safety issue. Why can’t we feed in the cells when this happens? A – DD Patton will look into this issue, but we can’t operate general population yards like lockdown units. Also, it has been suggested that we evaluate reassigning TWA’s away from the maximum units. This is something that will be considered in the posting analysis.
AZ FOP President to Washington, D.C.
National & Arizona F.O.P. attends U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder’s Law Enforcement Roundtable on AZ SB 1070
On June 8, 2010, Arizona State Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan G. Soller was called to Washington D.C. by the U.S. Department of Justice and U.S. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. to join in a roundtable discussion on the Arizona Immigration Law Senate Bill 1070, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. U.S. Attorney General Holder invited the National Fraternal Order of Police and the Arizona State Fraternal Order of Police to attend a roundtable discussion with the staff of the U.S. Department of Justice and other professional law enforcement organizations. This meeting was attended by; National Fraternal Order of Police, Arizona Fraternal Order of Police, Major City Chiefs Association, Women in Federal Law Enforcement, National Troopers Coalition, National Sheriffs Association, National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives, National Association of Police Organizations, International Association of Police Chiefs, Police Executive Research Forum, Major County Sheriffs Association, and the Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association.
This roundtable discussed the new Arizona Immigration Law Senate Bill 1070, the Support Our Law Enforcement and Safe Neighborhoods Act. Arizona State Fraternal Order of Police President Soller spoke on the bill, but cautioned that this bill was not a fix all bill and was only a tool in the fight to stop illegal immigration. He advised U.S. Attorney General Holder that this bill does nothing to stop the flow of illegal drugs, human smuggling, or stopping criminals from crossing our borders and that we need the federal government to do more to close the holes in our border security. He also urged the U.S. Department of Justice to partner with state, county, and local law enforcement agencies and officers to deal with the illegal immigration problems facing our country. By working together we can pool our resources, reduce the costs, and more effectively deal with this national problem.
President Soller advised U.S. Attorney General Holder how the law enforcement community is outraged by the statement and accusations that law enforcement officers would resort to racial profiling and insinuating that Arizona’s professional law enforcement officers would participate in racial profiling. Also that law enforcement officers don’t understand the concept of reasonable suspicion. Arizona’s law enforcement officers know all too well the laws pertaining to racial profiling. We have been under the microscope in the past and have proven repeatedly that the law enforcement officers in Arizona DO NOT and WILL NOT profile any nationality, race, religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation. We are professionals who know and abide by laws.
The training Arizona law enforcement officers need is not determining reasonable suspicion or preventing racial profiling, but rather Federal 287(G) training from ICE. We need a clear direction on what proper documentation is, how to recognize forged documentation, the proper questioning format, and how to complete the proper ICE forms. This is a very unique and detailed training that cannot be taught in a 60 to 90 minute video. Officers in the field need the proper training and tools to ensure accuracy when enforcing this new law and protect them from baseless lawsuits. We urged U.S. Attorney General Holder to ensure that officers in Arizona would receive the proper Federal immigration training.
The Fraternal Order of Police is still extremely concerned about the potential cost of enforcing this new law. No one knows what those costs are going to be, but we all know the burden will be carried by the local law enforcement cities and towns. Unfortunately, the cost could be overwhelming to our local cities and towns who are already struggling with tight budgets and less officers on the streets. This unfunded mandate will put a great burden on the cities and towns and we urge the Federal Government to team up with us to help offset the cost of enforcing this new law. We also urged the Department of Justice to allow the Border Patrol and Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to partner with our agencies and officers to ensure we have a comprehensive and strategic approach to enforcing the new Arizona immigration law.
Finally, we advised U.S. Attorney General Holder that Arizona law enforcements job is to enforce the laws passed by our state legislators and signed by our governor. The Arizona law enforcement agencies, officers, and community will find a way to make Arizona SB1070 work, but really need the support of his office and the Department of Justice.
4-29-2010 - F.O.P. Legislative News
Once again, 100% Fraternal Order of Police Success at the Legislature!!!
We appreciate the hard work and professionalism of our FOP legislative committee and our lobbyists; Don Isaacson and Norm Moore. Working together, we have achieved complete success on our 2010 FOP legislative agenda. To underscore the FOP’s success, it’s important to note that only a single “no” vote was recorded as our bills moved through the Senate and House. The Governor signed our bills and they will become law on July 29, 2010.
As a result of the FOP’s efforts, the due process rights of law enforcement officers in Arizona have been improved. In addition, the CORP Reverse DROP program has been extended and the ability to purchase previous service time has been expanded.
As usual, the legislature and the governor have been very supportive of our FOP bills. In lobbying our bills, we also gained the support of the Arizona Chiefs of Police Association, the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office and many others who signed on in favor of our bills.
Norm Moore, who was the Chief Clerk for the House of Representatives from 1992 to 2009, joined Don Isaacson's law firm and now helps represents the FOP at the legislature. Of special significance, in the late hours of the legislative session, the legislature honored Norm by passing House Concurrent Resolution 2071, giving him the honorary title of "Chief Clerk Emeritus."
The FOP is privileged to have Norm Moore on our legislative team. This is just a brief update of our FOP legislation. Many other bills were passed this session and I will provide more information to you about those bills over the next few days.
FOP Bill: SB-1325 polygraph examinations; interviews; law enforcement As background, ARS 38-1101 is the law that provides due process rights for law enforcement officers during administrative investigations. The FOP has been making improvements to this law for many years. This year, SB1325, sponsored by Senator Linda Gray, made several important changes to our law enforcement due process rights. Provisions • States that statutory guidelines apply to employer interviews of law enforcement officers or probation officers if the law enforcement officer or probation officer reasonably believes the investigation could result in a dismissal, demotion or suspension. Previously, only the agency could invoke the provisions of ARS 38-1101. • Specifies that if a representative from the same agency of the law enforcement officer is not reasonably available to be present during the interview, with the employer’s permission, the representative may be from the law enforcement officer’s professional membership organization. • Specifies that the written notice informing the law enforcement officer or probation officer of the specific nature of the investigation contain the following: o Alleged facts that are the basis of the investigation. o Copies of all complaints that are reasonably available which contain the alleged facts, except for copies of complaints that involve matters pursuant to federal laws under the jurisdiction of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. • Specifies that all data and reports from a polygraph examination of a law enforcement officer or probation officer are confidential and may only be used for the purposes of employment, certification or reactivation of certification or the administrative matter for which a polygraph was administered, including other ancillary matters. • Requires the data and reports from a polygraph examination of a law enforcement officer or probation officer be destroyed, as soon as practicable, three years after the date of appointment or employment but not more than 90 days after that date, except for a pre-employment polygraph in which an applicant was not hired or in the case of an active investigation or an appeal. • Modifies the definition of disciplinary action to mean the dismissal, demotion or suspension for more than 16 hours (reduced from 24 hours) of a law enforcement officer or probation officer that is authorized by statute, charter or ordinance and that is subject to a hearing or other procedure by a local merit board, a civil service board, an administrative law judge or a hearing officer.
FOP Bill – SB1124; CORP; reverse DROP; extension In 2006, the FOP requested that a DROP program be implemented for Corrections and Detention Officers. The legislature approved a reverse DROP program; however, the law also included a sunset date of June 30, 2011. This year, we asked the Legislature and the Governor to extend the CORP reverse DROP program to June 30, 2016. Senator Al Melvin, who is a strong supporter of Corrections employees, sponsored the bill. Provisions • Extends the date of the reverse deferred retirement option plan (DROP) offered to members of the correction officer retirement plan (CORP) until June 30, 2016. • Additional Provisions The Department of Corrections approached us later in the session and requested permission to add an amendment to our bill which would, for one year, allow the CORP local board to designate positions that would be eligible for participation in the Corrections Officer Retirement Program. As session law, this provision will permit the Department of Corrections and Juvenile Department of Corrections to fill non-designated positions with CORP employees if the employee is currently employed in a specified designated position and has at least five years of credited service under the plan.
FOP Amendment to HB2067 PSPRS; omnibus During the session, we received information from members of Lodge 77 in San Luis and Lodge 28 in Sierra Vista describing an unfair situation created by specific language in the statutes governing buying back prior service for time spent working at another agency in Arizona, if that agency did not participate in PSPRS. Basically, a few members were unable to redeem the time they spent working for an agency in Arizona while other officers were able to buy back prior service for time spent working for out-of-state agencies. Amendment Provision • Expands the redemption of prior service to include services to political subdivision of Arizona.
Jim Mann, Executive Director Fraternal Order of Police Arizona Labor Council
Prison Privatization on 'Hold'
We were right from the beginning… The turmoil over privatization ended exactly like we thought it would. The repeal was included in the budget HB/SB2006, seventh special session, because it just wasn’t feasible.
Jim Mann, Executive Director Fraternal Order of Police Arizona Labor Council
Safford Prison will not be privatized By Diane Saunders Staff Writer Published on Thursday, April 15, 2010 10:08 AM MST
The Arizona State Prison-Safford will not be taken over by a private company because Arizona's Prison Concession Agreement law was repealed.
This law allowed the privatization of Arizona prisons that do not house maximum-security or close custody inmates. This meant only the Safford prison, which includes the Fort Grant Unit, and the Arizona State Prison-Douglas were considered for privatization, according to a letter to Arizona Department of Corrections employees from Charles Ryan, director of the ADOC.
The ADOC issued a request for information Feb. 1 to determine if any private companies were interested in taking over one or both of the prisons.
"Based upon the responses to the RFI, ADC concluded that privatization was not feasible," Ryan said in his letter.
The law was recently repealed, however, by the Arizona Legislature. The repeal was signed into law March 18 by Gov. Jan Brewer. The repeal becomes effective June 15, Ryan's letter states.
"Had the law not been repealed (ADOC) would have advocated against moving forward with the request for proposal process," Ryan said in his letter.
Q&A from ADOA on Furlough Days & Pay Reductions
Many members and state employees in general have questions about the recently passed budget, including salary reductions and furlough days.
We hope ADOA has answered most of your questions. The FOP ADC Labor Council looks forward to a ‘meet and confer’ with Director Ryan for clarification as we move forward. Some question about the status of Corrections Officers as 24/7 positions and the Department’s possible alternative methods of reducing equitably to meet the State’s needs remain.
STATE OF ARIZONA MANDATORY FURLOUGH PROGRAM QUESTIONS & ANSWERS
Agencies are strongly encouraged to contact the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA) Human Resources Division at 602-542-7290 to discuss any questions they may have regarding the mandatory furlough program. GENERAL 1. What is a furlough? A furlough is time off without pay. A furlough does not involve a change in employment status. A furlough day equals 8 hours for full-time employees and is pro-rated for parttime employees. 2. What authority does the State have to implement mandatory furloughs? HB2003 of the Seventh Special Session requires mandatory furloughs for both covered and uncovered employees. 3. What agencies are required to participate in the mandatory furlough program? All state agencies, boards and commissions are required to participate in the mandatory furlough program, except those specifically exempted by the legislation and agency functions or services exempted by the Department of Administration. 4. Does the mandatory furlough program only affect General Fund positions? No. Positions and programs are affected equally, regardless of funding source. 5. Are employees of the offices of elected officers impacted by the furloughs? Yes, but not in the same way. The appropriations to the offices of elected officers will be reduced by an amount equivalent to a 2.3% reduction (mandatory furlough). The elected officials will determine how the reduction will be applied, including using vacancy savings, salary reductions and furloughs. 6. How long will the furlough last? The mandatory furlough program is currently scheduled through FY2012. 7. When should agencies notify affected employees about the furlough days? Agencies should communicate with employees as soon as details are known. 8. Can employees grieve the furlough schedule? No. The mandatory furlough program is not grievable or appealable. Furlough Q & A – March 22, 2010 Page 3 of 12 STATE DESIGNATED FURLOUGH DAYS 9. How many days will employees be placed on leave without pay (LWOP) due to this mandatory furlough program? The number of furlough days required by the mandatory furlough program is six furlough days in FY2011 and six furlough days in FY2012. 10. What are the state designated furlough days? The state designated furlough days are: FY2011 FY2012 July 23, 2010 July 22, 2011 August 20, 2010 August 19, 2011 September 17, 2010 September 16, 2011 November 26, 2010 November 25, 2011 December 23, 2010 December 23, 2011 June 10, 2011 June 15, 2012 11. Why does HB2003 indicate that employees will be furloughed one day in FY2010 yet the response to Question #9 indicates that there are no required furlough days in FY2010? Due to the effective date of HB2003, mandatory furloughs for employees will not begin until FY2011. It is important to note that although employees will not be mandated under this legislation to take one furlough day in FY2010, agency budgets will be reduced. The agency budget reduction represents an amount equivalent to one furlough day in FY2010. 12. Since an agency’s budget will be reduced in FY2010 as noted above, what options does an agency have to accommodate the reduction with very little time remaining in the fiscal year? An agency will need to determine how it can accommodate these budget reductions, including using vacancy savings, furloughs or non-personnel related cuts. If an agency is considering an agency directed furlough as an option for FY2010, the agency must obtain approval from ADOA prior to implementation. Please note that in order to realize savings in FY2010, any agency directed furloughs must occur on or before June 11, 2010. Program requirements can be found on the ADOA Human Resources website at www.hr.az.gov/HR_Professional or by calling 602-542-7290. 13. Can an office close on the state designated furlough days? Yes. Agencies should communicate any scheduled office closures to their customers, suppliers and stakeholders. ADOA will provide templates and guidance for communicating office closures to the public. 14. If employees are hired after some or all of the state designated furlough days have passed, will the employees still be subject to the mandatory furloughs? Employees subject to the mandatory furlough program will be required to participate in any remaining state designated furlough days that occur after their hire date. Furlough Q & A – March 22, 2010 Page 4 of 12 15. What can an agency do if an employee is scheduled to attend a conference, training or similar event on a state designated furlough day? If an employee is scheduled for an event that conflicts with the state designated furlough day and the agency is unable to reschedule it, the agency must contact ADOA to request approval to schedule an alternate furlough day for the affected employee(s). 16. Does an agency need to notify ADOA if it is going to participate in the mandatory furlough program and all of the employees within the agency will be furloughed on the state designated furlough days? No, if an agency does not submit a request for exemption from the mandatory furlough program, or request a pay reduction in lieu of the mandatory furlough program, or request alternate furlough days, it is understood that all employees within the agency will be furloughed on the state designated furlough days. EXEMPTIONS 17. Are there any exceptions or exemptions to the mandatory furlough program? All state agencies, boards and commissions are required to participate in the mandatory furlough program, except those specifically exempted by the legislation and agency functions or services exempted by the Department of Administration. Agency directors may request ADOA to approve alternate furlough days instead of the state designated furlough days, to approve a pay reduction program in lieu of state designated furlough days, or to approve an exemption from the mandatory furlough program for specific employees considered absolutely essential for the proper performance and oversight of essential functions or services under certain circumstances. 18. How will ADOA develop a list of governmental unit functions or services that will be exempt from the mandatory furlough program? If an agency believes it has a function(s) or service(s) requiring continuous operations throughout the entire week or workweek that would be significantly and negatively affected by the implementation of a mandatory furlough program, the agency shall submit the “Request for Furlough Exemption” form to the ADOA Human Resources Division no later than April 2, 2010 for review and consideration for exemption. The request should be submitted electronically to humanresources@azdoa.gov. Agencies shall consider the option of implementing an alternate furlough plan prior to requesting approval of an exemption from the furlough program (refer to Questions 21 – 26). The Human Resources Division will only review exemption requests in which a mandatory furlough program would negatively impact the operations due to 1) the critical nature of the services delivered, such as direct public safety activities, direct care of patients, residents, inmates, detainees or other similar service populations, or 2) other compelling demands for a unit’s functions or service. In addition, only those employees considered absolutely essential for the proper performance and oversight of the functions or services will be considered. The Human Resources Division will compile a final list of services including job classifications and employees that will be exempt from the mandatory furlough program. Furlough Q & A – March 22, 2010 Page 5 of 12 19. If an agency received approval for some of its functions or services to be exempt from the mandatory furlough program, when the agency hires new employees to perform or oversee those functions or services, does the agency need to obtain approval from ADOA to exempt each new employee from the mandatory furlough program? This process is currently under review. Additional details will be forthcoming. 20. If an agency received approval for some of its functions or services to be exempt from the mandatory furlough program, when an employee who performs or oversees those functions or services separates from the agency or transfers to another function within the agency, does the agency need to notify ADOA? This process is currently under review. Additional details will be forthcoming. ALTERNATE FURLOUGH DAYS 21. What if some or all of the employees in an agency that is not exempt from the mandatory furlough program cannot participate in the state designated furlough days? The intent of having the same furlough day for all state agencies is to maximize utility savings and minimize customer inconvenience. If an agency cannot close its offices on the state designated furlough days published by ADOA without imposing a substantial hardship on or adversely impacting the health or safety of the citizens of the State, or because doing so would substantially impact the ability of the office to meet its legal obligations, the agency shall submit an alternative furlough plan using the “Request for Alternate Furlough Days” form to the ADOA Human Resources Division no later than April 16, 2010 for review and approval. The request should be submitted electronically to humanresources@azdoa.gov. The agency will be required to provide an alternate furlough plan that requires employees to take six furlough days in FY2011 and six days in FY2012. 22. What if an agency is able to close its offices on four or five of the state designated furlough days, but needs to request alternate furlough days for the remaining mandatory furlough days? Please contact the ADOA Human Resources Division at 542-7290. 23. If an agency has received approval from ADOA to have some or all of its employees participate in alternate furlough days, does an agency have the discretion in scheduling alternate furlough days for its employees? Yes. However, agencies shall consider the intent of the legislature that employees take no more than one furlough day a month, and agencies should make every effort to schedule the alternate furlough day during the same pay period or month as the state designated furlough day. 24. Can employees schedule an alternate furlough day on a recognized paid holiday? No. Employees may not schedule a furlough on the same day as a paid holiday. Furlough Q & A – March 22, 2010 Page 6 of 12 25. Can employees that are participating in an alternate furlough day schedule their furlough days consecutively? It is the intent of the legislature that employees take no more than one furlough day a month. 26. If circumstances within an agency change and the agency is unable to close one or more of its offices on the state designated furlough days, can an agency request approval from ADOA to participate in an alternate furlough program? If an agency cannot close its offices on the state designated furlough days published by ADOA without imposing a substantial hardship on or adversely impacting the health or safety of the citizens of the State, or because doing so would substantially impact the ability of the office to meet its legal obligations, the agency shall submit an alternative furlough plan using the “Request for Alternate Furlough Days” form to the ADOA Human Resources Division for review and approval. The request should be submitted electronically to humanresources@azdoa.gov. PAY REDUCTION IN LIEU OF FURLOUGH 27. What is a pay reduction program in lieu of mandatory furlough program? If an agency decides to reduce employee pay by an amount, which when totaled, equals the savings generated by the state designated furlough days instead of participating in the mandatory furlough program, the agency shall submit a pay reduction plan using the “Request for Pay Reduction” form to the ADOA Human Resources Division by April 16, 2010 for review and approval. The request should be submitted electronically to humanresources@azdoa.gov. ADOA will only approve requests in which the agency establishes, to the satisfaction of the ADOA Director, that the agency’s implementation of state designated furlough days would not be in the best interests of the State and that an equivalent pay reduction program is more appropriate. AGENCY FURLOUGH PROGRAM 28. If an agency’s budget reductions require further reductions in personnel expenses, can an agency schedule more furlough days than the days required under the mandatory furlough program? Yes, HB2003 states that the furlough days required under the mandatory furlough program are in addition to any other furlough program implemented by the agency. 29. What authority does an agency have to implement additional furlough days beyond the state designated furlough days published by ADOA? ADOA implemented a program to allow agencies to schedule employee furloughs. This program is authorized by Laws 2009, Third Special Session, Chapter 7 and HB2003 of the Seventh Special Session. Furlough Q & A – March 22, 2010 Page 7 of 12 30. Does an agency need approval to implement additional furlough days? Yes, an agency must obtain approval from ADOA of its agency designated furlough days before implementation. Program requirements can be found on the ADOA Human Resources Division website at www.hr.az.gov/HR_Professional. 31. What are the parameters that an agency must follow when defining the scope of its agency furlough program? The parameters for administering furloughs for uncovered employees are at the discretion of the agency director. For covered employees, an agency may conduct the furlough agency-wide, by unit, geographic location, fund and/or classification or classification series. WORK SCHEDULES 32. When employees take a furlough day(s), will they be expected to make up the hours or work additional hours during their regular work days? No. When a furlough day is taken, employees cannot “add” hours to other days in that work week. 33. If employees work a compressed work schedule (e.g. 9 days/80 hours) and the mandatory furlough day occurs on the employees’ regular day off, can the regular day off be considered the furlough day? No, furlough days must be taken during regularly scheduled work days regardless of work schedule. At the discretion of the agency and based on operational needs, employees’ current compressed work schedules may need to be suspended and reverted to a standard 5-day, 8-hour work week. 34. Why are employees required to take state designated furlough days instead of allowing employees to pick their own days? First, by designating days on a statewide basis, citizens will know and can predict what days State services will or will not be available. Second, there are management issues that arise during weeks in which employees are on mandatory furloughs, including additional precautions that must be taken to ensure that the State remains in compliance with the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Third, administering the furloughs will create challenges for each agency, and those challenges are far more difficult to manage if all employees choose their own furlough days. Fourth, there are some additional savings that will be realized by shutting down state services entirely on a single day, where possible, that would not be captured by having alternate furloughs throughout the state workforce. 35. Can an employee be expected to work for the State while on furlough? No. To the contrary, an employee must not work for the State while on furlough. 36. Is a furloughed employee on call or on standby? No, a furloughed employee is not considered to be on call or on standby. However, an employee may be required by the agency to work on a state designated furlough day. In such cases, an alternate furlough day must be scheduled. Furlough Q & A – March 22, 2010 Page 8 of 12 CLASSIFICATION/COMPENSATION 37. While on furlough, can employees perform the duties of their State position elsewhere (e.g. telecommuting)? No. When an employee is furloughed, no state work is permitted. Work includes checking email, voice mail and using any electronic devices to check status of open items. 38. Can employees volunteer to work for the State while on furlough (or any other day)? No, employees cannot volunteer in their current role without being paid. 39. Will FLSA-exempt employees lose their exemption for any workweek in which they are furloughed for less than the full work week? With some exceptions, FLSA-exempt employees will lose their exemption for any workweek in which they are furloughed for less than the full work week. The loss of the exemption applies only to that particular work week. During the furlough work week only, employees are entitled to compensation for every hour worked, and for time and a half for any hours worked over forty. In addition, any exempt or non-exempt employee may not work or be on paid leave any more than 32 hours in the week in which a mandatory furlough day occurs and pay is reduced. During the furlough week, all employees (FLSA-exempt and non-exempt) must be paid for each hour worked. Thus, if an employee works more than 32 hours during the furlough week the anticipated personal services cost savings will be lost. 40. How should furloughed employees timesheets be completed? The pay code of leave without pay (640) and the attendance code for state designated mandatory furlough days (FM) should be used for each furlough day. Employees subject to additional agency designated furlough days should use the attendance code “FR”. 41. Will a pay reduction in lieu of a state designated furlough day affect an employee’s base pay? During the pay period in which a state designated furlough day is scheduled, employees participating in a pay reduction program will experience a reduction in their rate of pay such that when totaled equal the savings generated by the furlough day. 42. Can an employee's pay be increased in order to offset the pay reduction in lieu of a state designated furlough day? No, an employee's pay may not be increased to offset the reduction. Furlough Q & A – March 22, 2010 Page 9 of 12 43. How is the salary of a new employee determined as a result of any pay reduction? The salary of a new employee is based on the employee's classification and grade. A new employee’s salary must be within the salary range of the employee’s grade. If the employee is hired by an agency that has received approval to implement pay reductions in lieu of mandatory furloughs, the new employee would be subject to the same pay reductions as other employees in the hiring agency. LEAVE 44. What happens if employees request leave for a furlough day? A furlough day is not a work day, so an employee may not take paid leave on a furlough day, just as an employee cannot take paid leave on any other day the employee is not scheduled to work. If an employee is on FMLA or military leave during a scheduled furlough, the employee’s leave balance shall not be charged for the furlough day, nor shall the furlough day count against the employee’s FMLA or military leave entitlement. An agency shall change any paid leave, including military leave or Family Medical Leave Act Leave, in progress to unpaid leave (leave without pay). 45. Will employees continue to receive leave accruals during a furlough? Employees will continue to receive leave accruals if the employee is in pay status at least one-half of the employee’s regularly scheduled hours in a pay period. 46. Can employees substitute paid leave (annual, sick, compensatory) for a period of furlough? No. Employees may not substitute paid leave for a period of furlough. 47. What impact will furloughs have if an employee is receiving donated leave? Donated annual leave may continue, but may not substitute for an employee’s furlough day. 48. If an employee is on paid administrative leave at the time of a scheduled mandatory furlough day, should an agency place the employee on furlough on that day? Yes. 49. Since a state designated furlough day may be before or after a holiday do employees still receive holiday pay? Yes. Furlough Q & A – March 22, 2010 Page 10 of 12 UNEMPLOYMENT 50. Are employees eligible for unemployment compensation while participating in the mandatory furlough program? An employee on furlough may be eligible for unemployment compensation; however, eligibility for unemployment compensation is determined by the Arizona Department of Economic Security (DES). For Unemployment Insurance Benefits available on line, please visit http://www.azui.com/. Employees may also contact the Unemployment Insurance call center: Phoenix area: (602) 364-2722 Tucson: (520) 791-2722 Tucson (toll-free): 1-877-600-2722 RETIREMENT 51. Will the mandatory furlough program impact employees’ retirement contributions and payable benefits? ASRS provided the following response regarding this question: A member’s retirement in the Defined Benefit Plan is determined by a formula that takes into account average annual salary, years of service, and a graded multiplier that increases with years of service. Furloughs and salary reductions may impact the formula because the highest 36 consecutive months of salary over the last 120 months are used in the calculation. Employees with retirement questions should contact the appropriate retirement system directly. Both ASRS and PSPRS have issued information relating to the effects on retirement benefits that may be caused by furloughs. ARIZONA STATE RETIREMENT SYSTEM (ASRS) 3300 North Central Ave. 13th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85012 Phoenix: (602) 240-2000 Tucson: (520) 628-5107 Outside Metro Phoenix & Tucson: (800) 621-3778 TDFD (Hearing Impaired): (602) 240-5333 Website: http://www.azasrs.gov/ PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL RETIREMENT SYSTEM (PSPRS) ELECTED OFFICIALS RETIREMENT PLAN (EORP) CORRECTIONS OFFICERS RETIREMENT PLAN (CORP) 3010 E. Camelback Road #200 Phoenix, AZ 85016 In Phoenix: (602) 255-5575 Website: http://www.psprs.com/ Furlough Q & A – March 22, 2010 Page 11 of 12 52. May employees purchase the unpaid furlough days through the ASRS Service Purchase Program? ASRS provided the following response regarding this question: Because contributions to the Plan are a percentage of compensation, and paid equally by the employer and employee, there cannot be additional funds deposited into the Plan that are not based on compensation actually paid. The ASRS structure and the reasons for this are laid out in state statute, so we are unable to make exceptions, even in cases of furloughs. Employees with retirement questions should contact the appropriate retirement system directly. PAYROLL 53. What impact will the furlough days have if employees currently have child support or spousal support pay deductions? A furlough would not relieve the State from its obligation to deduct from pay any fixed amounts ordered by a court. If the employee is not receiving enough pay to cover the support deduction, the employee may still have an obligation to pay the deduction per the terms of the court order. 54. What impact will the furlough days have if employees currently have creditor garnishments or student loans being taken out of their pay? Creditor garnishments and student loans are calculated as a percentage of disposable income. If pay is reduced, the garnishment deduction will be less. This will lengthen the repayment of the debt. 55. What impact will furloughs have if an employee currently has tax levies being deducted from the employee’s pay? Percentage levies are calculated as a percentage of disposable income. If pay is reduced, the levy deduction will be reduced. This will lengthen the repayment of the debt. 56. If an employee donated annual leave, and then receives notification of the furlough, can the employee revoke the donation? Once an employee donates annual leave, the employee may not rescind the donation. However, the Personnel Rules provide that unused leave shall be returned to contributors on a pro-rata basis. 57. If an employee donated to SECC and has a payroll deduction for it, and then receives notification of a furlough, can the employee stop the SECC deduction? Yes. Employees may cancel their SECC contributions at any time by completing a GAO- 73 “Authorization to Start or Stop a Voluntary Deduction” found online at: http://www.gao.az.gov/onlineforms and provide it to their agency payroll office. Furlough Q & A – March 22, 2010 Page 12 of 12 58. If an employee is currently a member of a union, can the employee discontinue the deduction of dues? Yes, employees wishing to discontinue union dues deductions must complete a GAO-73 “Authorization to Start or Stop a Voluntary Deduction” found online at: http://www.gao.az.gov/onlineforms and provide it to their agency payroll office. BENEFITS Employees with benefit-related questions should contact their agency's Human Resources/Benefits Liaison, or the ADOA Benefit Services Division at (602) 542-5008 for more specific information relating to the effects on benefits caused by furloughs. 59. What impact will the mandatory furlough program have on an employee's health, dental and vision insurance? There is no impact to an employee’s health, dental or vision insurance. 60. What impact will the mandatory furlough program have on an employee's life insurance? There is no impact to an employee’s life insurance. 61. What impact will the mandatory furlough program have on an employee's disability insurance? The calculation for disability benefits is calculated on bi-weekly earnings, so the disability benefits may be reduced based earnings in the pay period at the time of disability. 62. What impact will the mandatory furlough program have on an employee's flexible spending accounts? There is no impact to the employee’s flexible spending accounts (FSAs). The contributions to the medical and dependent care FSAs remain the same. An employee can elect to reduce the dependent care annual election if there is a change to daycare expenses but no reduction in the annual medical election is permitted. 63. Does the mandatory furlough program enable an employee to make changes to the employee's benefit elections due to a qualified life event? This process is currently under review. Additional details will be forthcoming.
Executive Board for FOP ADC Labor Council
Bothers and Sisters,
The FOP ADC Labor Council was formed to satisfy meet and confer policy and provide a collective bargaining unit for the ADC Corrections members of the FOP. We know that true collective bargaining will someday soon be a reality with the passage of the FOP sponsored ‘Public Safety Employer/Employee Cooperation Act’ working its way though Congress now.
The by-laws of the ADC Labor Council require open meetings and the yearly nomination of Executive Board members to represent its members.
2010 ADC Labor Council Executive Board:
Meetings start at 6pm at FOP Lodge #2, Located at: 12851 N. 19th Ave. Phoenix, Arizona
Please check Schedule for meeting dates.
Our monthly FOP for Corrections meeting held every fourth Monday of each month at 7PM at above location.
The current Executive Board:
Fraternal Order of Police Arizona Department of Corrections Labor Council
Director: Melissa Wallace, CO III Email: spittinl@live.com Work: 928-289-9551 Ext4218 (Winslow) Vice-Chair: Corey Kuykendall, Sgt. Email: FOPvp-Lodge62@cox.net Cell: 520-576-8711 (Tucson) Secretary: Linda Delles, Sgt. Email: lymrith@q.com Cell: 602-206-7772 (Lewis) Treasurer: Robert Calhoun, CO II Email: ccalhoun8@cox.net Cell: 602-680-9105 (Perryville) Labor Trustee: Leroy Potteiger, CO II Email: lpotteiger@azcorrectins.gov hm 520-494-0285 (Florence) Labor Trustee: Matthew Van Der Noord, CO II Email: hm 623-332-2539 (Lewis) Labor Trustee: Ferroll Givens, CO II Email: ferrollgivens@gmail.com Cell: 480-246-4412 (Eyman) Labor Trustee: Dennis Johnson, Sgt. Email: desertcomptek@roadrunner.com (Yuma) Labor Trustee: Stephanie Infante, CCO Email: sinfante@azcorrections.gov hm 623-810-4133 (Community Corrections) Labor Services: Stephen Vandegrift, Lt. retired Email: sectreas44@yahoo.com Cell: 602-677-7822 (Phoenix-State wide)
Law Firm - Yen, Pilch, Komadina & Flemming, P.C. Call the YPKF office at Toll free: 1-800-489-2585 Phone: 1-602-241-0474 E-Mail: komadina@ypklaw.com
F.O.P. Lobbying Firm
Please welcome Norm Moore to our FOP team at the State Capitol. Our FOP lobbying firm is now called Isaacson and Moore.
House clerk given retirement party 300 honor his 33 years at Capitol
The Arizona Republic .
In an era of term limits, quick turnover and stair-stepping politicians, Norm Moore is an institution.
After serving 30 years in the Arizona House of Representatives, Moore is wrapping up his duties as clerk of the House. For the past 17 years, he has served as chief clerk, overseeing the House's legislative process, tracking bills, logging statistics and dispensing advice.
Another, unofficial, part of his job has been to stock the heavily visited candy counter in the Clerk's Office, a fact that has been noted by many a Capitol regular.
Moore, 54, first arrived at the House in fall 1976, when he was hired as a page. That marked the start of a string of 33 years of serving in the House, interrupted only by three years away for law school. Not as impressive a string as the home-sellout record of his beloved Nebraska Cornhusker football team (47 years), but exceptional in the churning world of the state Capitol.
Last week, his staff borrowed a page from lawmakers' playbooks and tapped lobbyists to help stage a going-away fete for Moore, whose retirement is effective Dec. 31. The event drew close to 300 people, from Gov. Jan Brewer to past and current legislators to staffers who have worked with Moore over three decades.
"You're like an extended family," Moore told the crowd. "You are part of my family."
He recalled the historic events that have marked his tenure: Sandbagging the Capitol against floodwaters, living through the impeachment of Ev Mecham, watching the AzScam political-corruption scandal unfold.
Moore won't go far from the Capitol: He plans to return as early as next month as a lobbyist, working with veteran lobbyist Don Isaacson.
So beloved is Moore, Isaacson said, that he was unable to pry him away from the Capitol in the 1990s.
The chief of staff to then-House Speaker Jane Hull called him off, Isaacson recalled, warning him that if he took Moore, then an assistant clerk, that Isaacson would never be welcome at the House. Isaacson backed down, Moore remained and eventually became chief clerk.
His send-off ceremony was marked by a top 10 list Moore's "real" reasons for leaving the House, and capped off with a goodbye ditty from Secretary of State Ken Bennett and former lawmaker Rusty Bowers, set to the tune of "Bad, Bad, Leroy Brown."
"The one, the only Norman Moore/
Finest man on the whole House floor/
Keeping all the trains on time/
Retiring on the state's last dime!"
AZ Court Win for FOP/ALC
Arizona F.O.P. ALC attorneys at Yen, Pilch, Komadina, and Flemming (YPKF) win a landmark Arizona Supreme Court decision.
Arizona F.O.P. ALC attorneys at Yen, Pilch, Komadina, and Flemming (YPKF) win a landmark Arizona Supreme Court decision. Carol Pilch and Neil Landeen of the YPKF law firm won yesterday in the Arizona Supreme Court. In Lake v. City of Phoenix, the Supreme Court, after years of litigation, held that our client, a Phoenix Police sergeant, was entitled to “meta data,” imbedded computer information, which might show whether his supervisors improperly backdated his performance evaluations in order to deny him a promotion.
Not only is the decision a landmark one in Arizona, it is a landmark case nationwide and is expected to make government more transparent and accountable all across the United States.
Fourteen years ago we set up the FOP/Arizona Labor Council to secure, enforce and create additional rights for law enforcement officers. We wanted you to know that nearly a decade and a half later, we’re still doing it—it’s still working.
Kudos to Carol Pilch and Neil Landeen. Not all lawyers ever get a chance to try and change the law. Fewer still actually succeed. Ours do.
Best regards to all,
Bob Yen
Ariz. Supreme Court rules electronic data is public record by Jim Walsh - Oct. 30, 2009 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic
In a major public-records victory, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Thursday that government agencies must release hidden data embedded in electronic documents that provides greater insight into the actions of government agencies. The court found that electronic records are no different than paper records and must be released to the public in their native form. The Arizona ruling is among the first appellate-court decisions to address the question and could set a precedent on public-records laws nationally. "I think this goes a long way toward accessibility and openness," said Caroline Pilch, an attorney for Phoenix police Sgt. David Lake, who sued the city to obtain the electronic records. Metadata is embedded in electronic records and can reveal such information as who authored a report, when it was written and how it was revised. The data also can include a code of other information that would not be listed on printed records but can be used to reveal trends. Newspaper reports have used the data to reveal that banks in Atlanta were rejecting loans for Blacks at a higher rate than Whites and that predatory teachers in Florida were protected by a system that allowed them to move from school to school, according to a brief filed by Stephen K. Doig, an Arizona State University journalism professor. "It would be illogical, and contrary to the policy of openness underlying the public-records law, to conclude that public entities can withhold information embedded in an electronic document, such as the date of creation, while they would be required to produce the same information if it were written manually on a paper public record," Justice W. Scott Bales wrote in the unanimous ruling. The decision overturns a 2-1 Arizona Court of Appeals ruling that found metadata is not a public record. As the result of Thursday's unanimous ruling, Lake will now learn whether documents were created and backdated to justify his failure to pass a probationary period as a sergeant in 2005, Pilch said. Lake was demoted to officer but eventually promoted to sergeant a year ago, she said. The delayed promotion potentially could have cost Lake thousands of dollars in pay. "When you strip it all away, however a record is kept, that's the public record," said Dan Barr, an attorney for the First Amendment Coalition, which filed a friend-of-the-court brief in support of Pilch's position. "The law doesn't change as technology changes. The application of the law is the same," he said. City Attorney Gary Verburg said the ruling updates an old statute and recognizes that technology has changed how people communicate. He said Phoenix thought it had complied with Lake's public-records request by providing a print copy and didn't want to go through the extra work of retrieving electronic records. "It wasn't like we were trying to hide anything," Verburg said. David Bodney, an attorney for The Arizona Republic, said the ruling should allow reporters or anyone else to obtain public records on a compact disc much faster and for a fraction of the cost of printed documents. He said Phoenix has refused to hand over electronic documents and the ruling should overturn that policy. "It should allow reporters to maintain their watchdog role and allow the public to stay informed in an electronic age," Bodney said. In the future, computer technicians may be required to redact such personal information as Social Security numbers that are exempt from the public-records law, he said. The ruling also recognizes that even public records can be withheld if the state can make a case that privacy, confidentiality or the best interests of the state outweigh disclosure. That provision would allow municipalities to reject requests that are overly broad and burdensome, Verburg said.
Networking
Networking Since 1915 – It Won’t ‘Fix’ Itself
Now it’s called ‘networking’, but when the FOP started it was simply talking to your fellow Officers. That’s how it started in 1915 and that is still how it’s done. We can change the name to networking, but it is really just talking about the same subjects, finding employees with the same interest in those subjects, and working together to influence those subjects. Since we spend one third of our time at the job in ADC, those subjects invariably are connected with ADC.
The basic premise of the FOP, or any union for that matter, is to simply make things better at work, to improve working conditions. The FOP provides a framework for that networking to influence our working conditions. That is why the FOP is called a ‘grass roots’ organization; it starts with a single Officer who observes a problem, seeks out others to discuss that common problem and find a solution.
ADC is full of employees that complain of the problems they discover or see every day, but only a few employees provide solutions. The idea then is to connect the many who observe the problems with the few who have ideas for solutions. Then the problems with possible solutions must be brought to the management at ADC. Very often, management has already identified the problem and is working on solutions. Now we simply need to keep the problem ‘center stage’ until a solution is worked out and implemented.
The FOP ADC Labor Council’s role is simple. It provides a mechanism to evaluate the problems discovered and ascertain if they are local issues or are experienced at all, or a majority, of the Complexes. It further provides the employees with a means by which the problems and possible solutions can be kept ‘center stage’ at management levels, both locally and in Central Office. This provides the employees the opportunity to have a direct impact and influence the decision making process.
This is how it works in the ‘trenches’; employees report problems verbally and in writing to their Unit or Complex representative. Employees can assist the process by speaking to their fellow shift, getting input from others who have also identified a problem. The Unit Representative seeks out the input from other shifts to establish if this is a common problem among all shifts at the Unit. The Complex Representative ascertains if the problem exists at all Units. Once the parameters of the problem are established and possible solutions provided, the Complex Representative, with the assistance of the Labor Council, takes the issue to the Complex Warden. If the problem has been reported statewide, then the Labor Council takes the issue to the Directors Office.
Many employees have stated that because of their assignment or personal obligations, they simply cannot make it to a FOP or Labor Council meeting for two hours a month. Those employees seem to be missing the point of a ‘grass roots’ organization. The ‘meeting’ is really happening on your shift as you discuss problems and solutions with your fellow members. The ‘meeting’ continues as you and other members take these issues to the Unit and Complex Representatives who in turn, report it to the Labor Council.
Many employees would find the formal meeting once a month a bit mundane, dealing with the same issues of running a corporation over and over again. Some people must volunteer their time to put the framework in place and keep it active, but every member does not need to attend every formal meeting if they are doing their part on the job, meeting with fellow members to seek out ways to improve working conditions, to make the job better.
The money you pay to the FOP goes to pay for your own law firm, your lobbyists and P.R. firm. You must provide the problems and possible solutions for your money to work for you. ‘Grass roots’ means right there on the job, meeting and working with fellow members, volunteers and elected officials of the FOP and FOP ADC Labor Council for a common end. For the member in the ‘trenches’ it really doesn’t take any extra time because it all takes place on the job; that’s where the problem exists, is identified, solutions discussed and brought forward. Even volunteers as Unit and Complex representatives are working on job related issues that should be addressed on the job time.
You’ve all heard the old saying ‘Are you part of the problem or part of the solution?’ Stop complaining and start networking! It won’t cost you any more money or time to start using the framework that we have provided and be part of the solution.
We know there is a lot to ‘fix’ in ADC, but if we don’t get started, it won’t ‘fix’ itself!
Updated! FOP Legislative News
The FOP has a proud tradition of doing the 'hard' work behind the scenes in the legislature that continues to improve the working conditions of public safety employees. While other employee organizations are 'noisily' talking about making a difference, the FOP, year after year, quietly continues to prove their commitment to their members.
I have stated repeatedly that in the legislature is where we as Officers and employees will see true improvement in our working conditions. Next years legislative agenda is already 'in the works' thanks to the hard work of Jim Mann and the ALC; working for a better future for us!
Stephen R. Vandegrift, Labor Services, FOP ADC Labor Council Secretary/Treasurer, Lodge 44
Updated! F.O.P. Legislative News
F.O.P. Due Process Bill Signed by the Governor 7/15/2009
After months of work, the F.O.P.'s bill to improve the law enforcement due process statute has been signed by the Governor.
On July 1, 2009, the Arizona Legislature passed SB1062, the FOP’s Due Process bill. The bill was signed by the Governor on July 13, 2009 and will become law on September 30th. Of special note, the legislature passed our bill out of both the Senate and the House without a single member of the legislature voting against it. You can watch the House video of the hearing here (move the slider to show the hearing at 1:39 into the hearing). As a side note, the video is interesting because it shows some of the political maneuvering present in the last days of the session.
SB1062 makes improvements in the law enforcement disciplinary process, specifically, in three areas: (1.) Specifies that at the conclusion of an interview in which an employer reasonably believes could result in dismissal, demotion or suspension of the law enforcement officer, the officer is entitled to the following: o A period of time to consult with the officer’s representative. o A statement not to exceed five minutes, addressing specific facts or policies that are related to the interview. (2.) Only allows an employer, except where a statute or ordinance makes the administrative evidentiary hearing the final administrative determination, to amend, modify, reject or reverse a decision made by a hearing officer, administrative law judge or appeals board after a hearing if the following occur: • The officer and employer were equally allowed to call and examine witnesses, cross-examine witnesses, provide documentary evidence and otherwise fully participate in the hearing. • The decision was arbitrary or without reasonable justification. (3.) Prohibits an employer from including any information about an investigation in the portion of the personnel file of an officer that is available for public inspection and copying until one of the following occurs: • The investigation is complete. • The employer has discontinued the investigation. • Specifies that if the officer has timely appealed a disciplinary action, the investigation is not complete until the conclusion of the appeal process. History A.R.S. Section 38-1101 outlines the rights of law enforcement officers regarding interviews the employer reasonably believes could result in dismissal, demotion or suspension. Specifically, officers are allowed to request to have a representative present during the interview. The officer must be permitted reasonable breaks of limited duration for telephonic or in person consultation with others who are immediately available. Additionally, before the commencement of an interview, the employer must provide the officer with a written notice informing the officer of the following: 1) the specific nature of the investigation, 2) the officer’s status in the investigation and 3) all known allegations of misconduct.
A disciplinary action is the dismissal, demotion or suspension for more than 24 hours of an officer that is authorized by statute, charter or ordinance. Disciplinary actions are subject to appeals hearings or other procedures by a local merit board, a civil service board, an administrative law judge (ALJ) or a hearing officer. Employers may amend, modify, reject or reverse the decision of a hearing officer, ALJ or board, but the employer must state the reasons for the amendment, modification, rejection or reversal.
Jim Mann, Executive Director Fraternal Order of Police
Representation and Investigations
Call First
Every ADC employee should be able to determine whether or not they have been involved in a significant incident at work. If a Supervisor asks you to write a report, the incident will be reviewed and that means it is significant. Copies of reports like these should be retained by the employee, along with any documentation, key logs, journals etc., which might be pertinent.
Any time an employee receives a Supervisors Complaint or Notice of Administrative Investigation, they should immediately notify their FOP Representative. That representative or Labor Services will assist the employee in the preparation of a response, provide insight on the ramifications of the investigation and provide policy expertise. Employees have three (3) days to respond to a Supervisors Complaint. Your FOP Representative may also assist you as an observer, or help obtain one if desired, for any AIU Investigation. At the very least, the employee should tape record any AIU Investigation, and your local FOP Representative and Labor Services will arrange for you to have a recorder.
Many investigations result in disciplinary action by the Department. When employees are served with discipline, they should again advise their FOP representative or Labor Services immediately. All discipline will become part of your permanent employment record with the State. PACE entries, a Notice of Necessity to Improve and verbal counseling are not considered discipline. All discipline should be reviewed by Labor Services for appropriate grievance action. Even though you may have admitted to any infraction, the severity of the penalties imposed may be grieved if inappropriate.
Part of what you pay member dues for is the member services in the work place. Those services locally include representation in Deputy Warden and Wardens meetings and assistance with PACE and discipline grievances.
FOP Representation
Unit Representatives
Question – “Why aren’t there FOP representatives on each shift?”
Of course, that is the ultimate goal. We had our training in "Basic Representation, Discipline and Grievance" last month, expanding the number of local members providing representation. We currently have most complexes covered with a Complex Representative and are actively seeking members to step up and be Unit Representatives. Most Complex Representatives also act as their respective Unit Representative.
Any member willing to 'step up' and be a Unit Representative would be provided training at no cost and a support system. Unit Representatives interface with their respective Deputy Wardens and assist the Complex Representative. Unit Representatives would be expected to cultivate a working relationship with their Deputy Warden, attend Officer/Deputy Warden meetings as provided by policy, and attempt to 'head off' or correct grievance and discipline issues by working informally with the Deputy Warden before they become formalized.
Unit Representatives would work ‘hand in hand’ with Labor Services and at times the ALC to provide assistance with grievance issues, responding to discipline and providing ‘observers’ to comply with AIU investigations policy. These representatives would also play an important role in member recruitment. One of their biggest responsibilities would be to provide a manner in which individual employees could get questions or issues answered by the administration as well as bringing forward issues that impact the staff in general. Their ‘working relationship’ with the Deputy Wardens provides the means by which both solutions and problems can be advanced through the chain of command.
The advantages of being a Unit Representative are straight forward. As we have seen in the past, Officers that are Visitation or Canine often seem to have a ‘leg up’ in advancing their careers. That is simply because they have become more familiar with a more diverse part of the Departments policies and procedures and have become comfortable working with the administration. Unit Representatives, simply by the nature of their position, would become more familiar with a wider variety of policies and procedures, have worked directly with the administration on solutions, and would have displayed a desire to be integral and beneficial to the Department.
Once members have ‘stepped up’ to the responsibility of representing their units, members to provide input, advice and interface with those Unit Representatives will be needed on each shift, to provide a smooth flow of information, both for problem solving and distributing the success stories of the unions members. Then, as members promote and retire from positions, a large ‘pool’ of prospective members is in place to ‘move up’ in the representation chain, all the way to the Executive Board of the FOP ADC Labor Council.
Every step of the way, from local representation to participating in collective bargaining agreements, the FOP and ALC will provide training, expertise and leadership at no cost to the participating members.
Members interested in exploring the possibility of being a FOP Unit Representative should contact Labor Services and their local Complex Representative.
Stephen R. Vandegrift, Labor Services FOP ADC Labor Council sectreas44@yahoo.com 602-677-7822
Employee Discipline
FOP ADC Labor Council Submits Due Process Proposal (ADC LC News)
The following due process proposal has been submitted to Director Ryan.
The FOP ADC Labor Council believes that the support observer program as described in DI 221 is the employer’s best defense against accusations of unfair treatment by the employees. This support observer provides a witness against accusations of abusive language, coercion, inappropriate questioning techniques or any other accusations of wrongdoing by the Department’s investigative or administrative personnel.
As written in DI 221, there are so many restrictions that an undue burden is placed on the employee that desires a support observer. Most investigative interviews are conducted with such short notice to the employee that prior arrangements can not be made for the support observer.
To ensure that the Department is viewed as completely fair and transparent when conducting investigations that might result in discipline to the employee, the addition of representatives from the Qualifying and Other Employee Organizations should be added to DI 225, DO 601 and any other pertinent policies. These representatives should be:
Employees who are members of a recognized employee organization may request a representative from that organization. Representatives shall not be attorneys. Representatives shall not be paid employees of the employee organization. Representatives shall not have been terminated from State service or resigned from State service while under investigation or in lieu of discipline.
Employee representatives are already allowed throughout the Grievance process. The addition of employee representatives at all levels of the discipline process serves to show the Department as completely fair and transparent when disciplining its employees and that discipline is the ‘measure’ of last resort by the Department in correcting an employee’s behavior. By allowing the active participation of employee representatives throughout the discipline process the number of complaints brought to the State Personnel Board for review should be substantially reduced.
Corrections is the final result of the criminal justice system and those corrections employees are no less public safety and law enforcement personnel than the other employees in the criminal justice system. The FOP ADC Labor Council believes firmly that the due process rights of corrections employees should be virtually the same as those extended to police and other public safety employees across the nation. Honesty and integrity are imbedded in the obligation taken by members of the FOP and without it, our motto, which translated means ‘Law is a Safeguard of Freedom’ is meaningless.
Director Ryan has already addressed these proposals with initial responses. • No representatives shall be allowed during the fact finding. • No representatives shall be allowed during one-on-one verbal corrective action by supervisory or administrative staff.
Our position has never been intended to become involved in the fact finding. That is an exclusive function of the employer and we agree completely.
We will continue to pursue expanded due process and will make the following points:
2. DI #221 makes no reference or consideration to representatives from the QEO (Qualifying Employee Organization) or OEO (Other Employee organization). a. DI #206 section 3.8.4 and section 6.8.4 expressly provides for representation from the QEO and OEO. b. It is the position of the FOP ADC Labor Council that DI #221, DO #601, DO #508 and any other applicable DI or DO should be updated and integrate employee representation from the QEO and OEO. c. Information from other law enforcement organizations in other states that fully utilize employee representatives has shown that properly applied, employee representation can significantly improve communication with administration and reduce the need for employee discipline and employee grievance.
• The ‘Employee Observer’ program shall be enhanced and expanded with the inclusion of employee representatives.
Washington D.C.
U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy calls the National F.O.P. the premiere L/E Organization in the Country
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) attended the National Fraternal Order of Police’s Day on Capitol Hill meeting. In attendance were F.O.P. members from across the country that came to Washington D. C. to meet their U.S. Representatives and Senators and push the National F.O.P. political law enforcement legislative agenda. Senator Leahy during his speech thanked the National F.O.P. for their hard work on the passage of the “Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant Act of 2008.” This bill will reauthorize the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant program. This program was scheduled to end in fiscal year 2009, through fiscal 2012. This grant program will help law enforcement agencies purchase lifesaving bullet resistant vest for law enforcement officer across the country. Senator Leahy praised the F.O.P. leadership for its role in getting this bill passed in both the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate. Senator Leahy told the entire body that is was the F.O.P. and their hard work that made the passage of this bill possible. The Vest Partnership Grant Program has so far helped departments across the country that could not afford it purchase over 800,000 bullet resistant vests for their officers. Senator Leahy also thanked the National F.O.P. for their leadership role in getting the funding for the Edward J. Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (Byrne-JAG) program, the Office for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) hiring program, as well as other direct assistance to state and local law enforcement which can be found in the conference report on H.R. 1, the "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act." Senator Leahy along with the representatives and senators from Arizona all praised the National F.O.P. in fight to get these programs funded. Senator Leahy called the Fraternal Order of Police the premier law enforcement labor and legislative organization in the country and the strongest voice for law enforcement on Capitol Hill. Senator Leahy told the members of the F.O.P. in attendance that he only has one plaque hanging in his office; that plaque is the only one out of the hundreds he has that he cherishes enough to hang in his office, the Fraternal Order of Police plaque he received for his commitment to fighting for law enforcement on Capitol Hill. No other organization, law enforcement or otherwise, has the credibility and respect that the Fraternal Order of Police has at the nation’s capital. The F.O.P. is the voice of law enforcement. Senator Leahy ended with a call for the Fraternal Order of Police to carry on the fight to represent the law enforcement officers of our great country. He got a standing ovation by the members and National F.O.P. President Chuck Canterbury presented the F.O.P.’s 2009 Presidential Inauguration Badge to Senator Leahy.
FOP Associates Scholarship
The Arizona State Fraternal Order of Police Associates is a nonprofit fraternal organization which donates to numerous harities annually. The Associates are comprised of civilian members of law enforcement agencies and citizens of the community who are dedicated to the men and women of the Fraternal Order of Police who protect us day in and day out. The Associate State Lodge offers a scholarship in monies up to $500.00 for children or grandchildren of Fraternal Order of Police members, Auxiliary and Associate members.
Listed below are the Requirements and Application Process:
FOPALC's Claim for Overtime Pay for DOC Correctional Officers
October 18, 2007
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Terry Goddard Arizona Attorney General 1275 W. Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Dora B. Schriro, Director Arizona Department of Corrections 1601 W. Jefferson Phoenix, Arizona 85007
RE: Claim for Overtime Pay for DOC Correctional Officers III
Dear Attorney General Goddard and Director Schriro:
This claim is made pursuant to A.R.S. § 12.821.01 on behalf of the following Correctional Officer IIIs with the Arizona Department of Corrections (hereinafter “Officers”): Domingo D. Moreno, Robert W. Stevwing, Jr., Martin Huizar, Alberto Almanza, Sr., Laura Pyle, Regina M. Hudson, Andrew G. Engleman, Gloria M. MacArthur, Michele L. Sundwall, Keith L. Connell, Felipe M. Solis, Geraldine Wilcox Cook, Ramon Silva, Deborah L. Wilbur, and Esiquiel Aguilar, Jr..
This claim is for overtime pay calculated at the rate of time and one-half for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours in any one work week during the period beginning March 22, 2006, and into the future. As judicially authorized in Andrew S. Arena v. Superior Court, 163 Ariz. 423 (1990), this claim is also brought on behalf of all similarly-situated Officers employed by the State of Arizona, Department of Corrections (hereinafter “DOC”).
The basis of this claim is A.R.S. § 23-392 which provides in relevant part:
A. Any person engaged in law enforcement activities shall be compensated for each hour worked in excess of forty hours in one work week at the option of such employer at the following rates:
One and one-half times the regular rate at which such person is employed or one and one-half hours of compensatory time off for each hour worked if by the person’s job classification, overtime compensation is mandated by federal law.
If by the person’s job classification federal law does not mandate overtime compensation, the person shall receive the regular rate of pay or compensatory leave on an hour for hour basis.
B. For the purposes of this section, a “person engaged in law enforcement activities” means a law enforcement officer as defined by section 38-1001, a peace officer is defined by section 41-1701, or any security personnel responsible for controlling or maintaining custody of inmates in correctional institutions maintained by the State or a County, City or Town. The term “person engaged in law enforcement activities” shall not include any such person employed in a bonafide executive or administrative capacity as defined by the employer.
The Department of Corrections has not paid overtime as required by § 23‑392. Specifically, although the DOC has required the Officers to work 8.5 hour shifts or 42.5 hours per workweek, it has not paid these officers overtime pay for all hours in excess of 40 hours. Although thirty minutes of each 8.5 hour workday was ostensibly for an uninterrupted meal break, these officers, because of their work duties and work loads, did not have uninterrupted meal breaks. The full 8.5 hours per work day was therefore primarily and predominantly spent for the benefit of the Department of Corrections. These officers should have received overtime compensation for 2.5 hours per work week paid at the rate of one and one-half times their regular rates of pay. Prendergast v. City of Tempe, 143 Ariz. 14, 691 P.2d 726 (App. 1984).
This claim also seeks damages pursuant to A.R.S. § 23-351(C)(3) which requires that “overtime or exception pay shall be paid no later than 16 days after the end of the most recent pay period.” A.R.S. § 23-355 further provides: “If an employer in violation of the provisions of this chapter, shall fail to pay wages due any employee, such employee may recover in a civil action against an employer or former employer an amount which is treble the amount of the unpaid wages.”
In any such action to recover wages and treble damages, the Officers are entitled to recover all of their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees. Velarde v. PACE Membership Warehouse, Inc., 105 F.3d 1313 (9 th Cir. 1997).
Finally, these Officers also seek pre-judgment interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum pursuant to A.R.S. § 44-1201, on all wages determined to be due and owing.
Because the information necessary to calculate the exact amount of wages and damages owed to each of the Officers is in possession of the Department of Corrections, it is impossible to state the exact amount due all of the Officers. Nevertheless, for purposes of this claim letter and in order to satisfy A.R.S. § 12-821.01, the specific amount for which these claims can be settled is $6,425,000.00. This figure was arrived at by estimating the Officers’ base pay rate at $20.00 per hour and therefore using an overtime rate of $30.00 per hour.
A class grievance was filed by these officers on March 22, 2007. Since March 22, 2006 (one year prior to the date of the grievance) to the present date, there have been approximately 75 workweeks. When the 75 workweeks of this claim period is multiplied by the estimated approximately 250 similarly situated Officers statewide, and that figure is multiplied times 2.5 hours of overtime for each employee per week and that figure is multiplied by the overtime rate, we arrive at a base overtime arrearage of $1,406.250.00. When trebled, that figure becomes $4,218,750.00. Interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum as provided by the statute was calculated at approximately $600,000.00. Attorneys’ fees of 33-1/3 percent ($1,606,250.00) were added to this figure. The total approximate value of the claim is therefore $ 6,425,000.00.
If you would like to discuss a proper resolution of this case, we would certainly be happy to do so. Otherwise, if we have not received your response or otherwise resolved this matter within 60 days from the date of this claim, we intend to file suit on behalf of the Officers and all other similarly-situated Officers seeking the full measure of damages as they exist at the time of judgment.
This letter also cautions that any reprisals against the named plaintiffs or other Officers for asserting their rights to wages is unlawful and will not be tolerated.
Sincerely,
Robert E. Yen REY:ib
FOP's 2007 Legislative Success
With one exception. all of our 2007 Legislative Agenda items were passed by the legislature and signed into law.
2007 Arizona F.O.P. Legislative Agenda
Labor and Employment
As a result of our success in making changes to the Due Process statutes in 2005, we will continue to comply with our 2005 agreement with employers to delay FOP Due Process legislation for one more year.
The two year delay was intended to allow employers time to make voluntary adjustments and prove that they can treat law enforcement employees fairly in due process situations without additional legislation.
Success - SB1006 public records; confidentiality (FOP BILL previously SB1223) - passed the House and Senate and has been signed into law by the Governor. The provisions of SB1006 will be enacted September 19, 2007 .
Previously, the statues only allowed peace officers, justices, judges, commissioners, public defenders, code enforcement officers and prosecutors to remove residential addresses and telephone numbers from certain public records.
SB1006 expanded the list of persons eligible to redact information to include; law enforcement civilians, corrections and detention employees, national guard members acting in support of a law enforcement agency, probation officers, members of the Board of Executive Clemency, a person who is protected under an order of protection or injunction against harassment and firefighters assigned to the Arizona Counter-Terrorism Center in the Department of Public Safety.
Previously, peace officers were required to file a new affidavit and obtain a new court order when new public records were created. SB1006 allows an eligible person to use the previously approved court order filing number to redact new records rather than have to go through the entire affidavit and court order process (by which time the new records had been released and often ended up on the Internet).
Currently, all full time employees covered by PSPRS, EORP and ASRS have an ordinary disability benefit. Within CORP, dispatchers have an ordinary disability benefit, however, corrections officers do not. The cost to provide an ordinary disability benefit to corrections officers has been calculated at 2.4 million dollars.
The F.O.P.’s proposed ordinary disability was approved as part of the budget negotiations, however, the provision was approved with a delayed enactment. Implementation will become effective 1 year after the retirement system is 100% funded, but no earlier than June 30, 2010.
Withdrawn - HB2585 private retiree health insurance; subsidy(PROPOSED FOP BILL)Provide an additional Health Insurance Subsidy benefit for retirees who chose NOT to participate in health insurance options offered by their employer or the ASRS Retiree Health Insurance Program.
Compensation issues (Budget Process)
Success - Support budget legislation to address CORP salary compression issues (ADC Budget Issue).
$3 million for ADOC Supervisor Pay Increase
Success - Support substantial salary improvements for all State employees and work toward achieving market level compensation (State Employee Compensation Budget Issue).
$88.3 million to provide an across the board state employee salary increase of 3 percent, effective July 1, 2007. An additional 0.25 percent of the increase is added for performance pay.
$27.2 million for the employer to absorb the state health insurance increase.
$19.2 million for the employer to absorb the ASRS retirement rate increase.
Specifies that $2 million appropriated from the DPS sworn officer salary adjustments is to be used for Officer I, II and III classifications. Allows $672,900 appropriated from the Parity Compensation Fund for sworn officer salary adjustments to be distributed as determined by the department.
Legislation Update
To: F.O.P. Discussion Group From: Jim Mann, Arizona Labor Council Subject: Legislation Update - SB1006 (County Records; Confidentiality)
Update: F.O.P. Records Redaction Bill Signed by Governor
Over the past decade, the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police has sought and received changes to statutes governing the public’s access to records containing law enforcement personal information.
This session, the Fraternal Order of Police sought a further change in SB1006 (County Records; Confidentiality) to expand the list of persons who may request that their personal identifying information, including home address and telephone numbers, be redacted from county recorder, county assessor and county treasurer records. Under SB1006, law enforcement support staff, adult or juvenile corrections officers, corrections support staff, probation officers, parole board members, National Guard members acting in support of a law enforcement agency, and firefighters assigned to the Arizona Counterterrorism Center in the Arizona Dept. of Public Safety, may request that their personal information be redacted. This protection is currently available to peace officers, judges, commissioners, prosecutors, public defenders, domestic violence victims and code enforcement officers.
SB1006 was signed by the Governor on April 27, 2007 and will become law 90 days after the legislative session ends.
THE FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE IS THE BEST KNOWN AND MOST RESPECTED NAME IN LAW ENFORCEMENT
The Grand Lodge Fraternal Order of Police represents more than 318,000 law enforcement officers in every region of the country. We are not only the oldest and largest law enforcement labor organization, but also the most widely recognized and respected.
The FOP’s Labor Services Office keeps the FOP at the fore front in labor issues and keeps labor at the top of the list when it comes to what the FOP is involved in nationally. Out of the 75 largest cities in the US the FOP represents 27 and that number continues to grow. The FOP has a Labor Services Department staffed with some of the top labor professionals in the country. This staff has over 100 years of experience used to assist our members everyday with labor questions, helping all the lodges with their labor needs.
A recent review of the twelve major law enforcement groups in the news during 2004 showed that the Fraternal Order of Police remains the most frequently mentioned organization for the fourth straight year. The review was conducted using Lexis-Nexis ™, and examined twelve different organizations representing rank-and-file officers and law enforcement executives at the Federal, State and local levels from 1 January to 31 December 2004. During this period, the Fraternal Order of Police was cited in over 4,200 different articles. The next closest organization, the International Association of Chiefs of Police, was mentioned in just over 800 articles.
In addition to being the most well-known and widely cited law enforcement organization in the U.S. media, the Fraternal Order of Police is also the number one voice of law enforcement on Capitol Hill and the most influential and visible voice for law enforcement in Washington, D.C.
At the core of the National Legislative Program is the Steve Young Memorial Law Enforcement Legislative Advocacy Center, the F.O.P.’s permanent headquarters located on Capitol Hill. The F.O.P. maintains a very high profile as the premier voice of police officers nationwide with a full-time professional staff engaged in the day-to-day activities of Congress and the Administration.
F.O.P. leaders frequently testify before Congress on legislation of critical importance to law enforcement officers. Decision-makers in the Administration often consult the collective experience of the F.O.P. in crafting national law enforcement policy. No other law enforcement organization is as widely consulted by the Federal government or the media for our views on law enforcement issues.
