Arizona F.O.P Endorses Senator McCain McCain called “a leader of integrity, character and courage”
PHOENIX, AZ. – In a unanimous vote, the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police has endorsed Senator John McCain in his 2010 reelection bid. The announcement was made during today’s statewide meeting at F.O.P. Lodge 2 in north Phoenix.
“Senator John McCain is a leader of integrity, character and courage whose record of supporting Arizona’s law enforcement community is unmatched,” said Arizona Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Soller. “Like our members, Sen. McCain sees issues from the perspective of someone who has been on the front lines. He is the leader we need to keep our nation and communities safe. On behalf of our more than 6,500 members statewide, the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police is proud to support Sen. John McCain for re-election to the United States Senate.”
“Senator John McCain has a clear record of support for the men and women who put their lives on the line every day,” said Lou Manganiello, President of Phoenix Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 2. “We are proud to support Sen. McCain who is a champion for those who protect and serve our country at home and overseas. He understands our challenges, appreciates our sacrifice and fights for us every day. Sen. McCain is just the kind of leader we need in Washington in these tough times.”
“Arizona’s law enforcement officers have committed their lives to a cause greater than their own self-interest, and I am deeply honored by their support,” said Sen. John McCain. “I have always been committed to ensuring our law enforcement professionals, who sacrifice so much for so many, have the resources and support to complete their vital mission of protecting and serving our communities. I look forward to our continued work together to keep Arizona safe and secure.”
The Arizona F.O.P. represents more than 6,500 member officers in the state. It serves as the voice of those who dedicate their lives to protecting and serving our communities.
Hayworth, McCain split police endorsements by Kevin Tripp/KTAR (February 22nd, 2010 @ 12:29pm)
Dueling police endorsements for Sen. John McCain and former Congressman J.D. Hayworth, who is challenging McCain in the Republican primary.
The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, which represents thousands of police officers, threw its support Monday to Hayworth.
The candidate said he and the police union share strong opposition to one hot-button issue. "Illegal immigration is a flashpoint in the city of Phoenix -- which sadly seems to take on so many aspects of a sanctuary city-- and really stands in the way of these law enforcement professionals doing their job," said Hayworth.
The Arizona Fraternal Order of Police threw its support behind McCain.
"Senator John McCain is a leader of integrity, character, and courage, whose record of supporting Arizona's law enforcement community is unmatched," said Arizona Fraternal Order of Police President Bryan Soller in a press release.
Meanwhile, two past presidents and six past board members of PLEA endorsed McCain. PLEA past presidents Jake Jacobsen and Terry Sills said in a joint statement, "Senator McCain helped lead the fight to secure the critically important radio band frequencies for law enforcement when others were lobbying to sell them to for-profit companies. It was Senator McCain who helped secure legislation to prevent Internet access to personal information of those in public safety. Many police officers are veterans and Senator McCain has worked diligently to improve benefits and services for those who not only served our country in the military but now protect their fellow citizens in law enforcement."
Hayworth, who has the support of current PLEA President Mark Spencer, said illegal immigration is not the only concern of police officers.
"As I have sat down with the leadership and the rank-and-file of Phoenix law enforcement, really it is all said in that description of their profession -- they are about law enforcement, enforcing all of the laws."
Gov. Brewer picks a side, endorses McCain’s reelection bid Reported by: Deborah Stocks PHOENIX -- Governor Jan Brewer has reportedly chosen a side in the upcoming Senate race between Sen. John McCain and opponent J.D. Hayworth.
The statement apparently came during Governor Brewer's comments in Tucson late last week.
Brewer joins a Valley police group who also endorsed McCain's reelection bid on Saturday.
The Arizona Fraternal Order of Police said in a news release the organization reached a unanimous vote at Saturday's statewide meeting held in Phoenix.
McCain is seeking his fifth term in the U.S. Senate.
"We are proud to support Sen. McCain who is a champion for those who protect and serve our country at home and overseas," said Lou Manganiello, President of Phoenix Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 2. "He understands our challenges, appreciates our sacrifice and fights for us every day."
The Arizona F.O.P. represents more than 6,500 member officers in the state.
FOP for Corrections Schedule
Coming Events Scheduled Dates & Times
Monday, March 22, 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!
Local News
Firefighters, police unions OK cut in pay of 3.2% Move would save jobs, $16 mil by Michael Ferraresi - Feb. 11, 2010 12:00 AM The Arizona Republic .
The union representing most Phoenix firefighters agreed tentatively Wednesday to a 3.2 percent salary cut, and the city's primary police union said it supported the same deal, to save a combined $16 million annually over two years to spare public-safety jobs.
City leaders announced the concessions one day after they estimated that a food tax that goes into effect in April would save as many as 180 sworn public-safety jobs slated to be cut through the city's $140 million proposed budget cuts through fiscal year 2011. If approved, the union concessions would save an additional 110 police and fire jobs.
City Manager David Cavazos said any agreements would still have to be ratified by union members but added that if the 3.2 percent wage reduction were adopted by all seven employee-bargaining units, it could save the city a combined $32 million a year.
"That is a huge number because if everybody in the city does that, we're going to have a very significant savings over what we currently have," he said. "And we are working very hard with all the other employee groups and the general consensus is that we have a very good feeling everyone will step up."
Mark Spencer, president of the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association - which represents 2,571 of the city's roughly 3,400 sworn officers - said his board agreed in principle with the salary reductions. A final deal has not yet been worked out with PLEA.
The United Phoenix Firefighters Association signed its agreement Wednesday after working for weeks on how to save money with furlough days over the next two years to save most of the six engines and 144 jobs originally slated to be cut.
Fire union President Pete Gorraiz said he expected members to ratify the salary cuts.
"They've already expressed to me their willingness and desire to make concessions to save engines," Gorraiz said.
Spencer and union board members rallied Wednesday with union leaders and neighborhood activists from Citizens For Phoenix to support the city's 2 percent food tax. He said PLEA's agreement marked a step toward refining contract negotiations to make the concessions to prevent officers from being laid off.
"It's easy to say you agree with (citizens') philosophies, but it's another thing to see it applied," Spencer said. "We don't know what that will look like until we get a little bit further into negotiations."
PLEA agreed to the concessions as it coped with losing more than 130 of its members last month, which union leaders characterized as typical as members shift to the ebb and flow of members trying to penny-pinch in a stagnant economy.
As more officers joined the Fraternal Order of Police, the union's rival said it was poised to challenge PLEA for the rights to negotiate the city's police contract in future years.
Since 1975, PLEA has served as the official bargaining unit for police. The union negotiated a 7.1 percent salary hike two years ago, allowing officers to start at more than $50,000 for the first time.
Spencer said his rival's claims about challenging his union for the rights to negotiate the city's police contract had come up in the past but never materialized.
"This is nothing new," said Spencer, who was re-elected last summer as PLEA president after he and the current board ran unopposed.
But others said the 130 members who left in January marked a lack of confidence in Spencer and the union's leadership.
Lou Manganiello, president of the Phoenix lodge for the Fraternal Order of Police, said his organization signed 85 members last month - mostly disgruntled PLEA members who fled to the rival union after PLEA's biannual drop period. He and other unions like the Phoenix Sergeants and Lieutenants Association believe it reflects younger officers' frustration with union politics or who simply want to pay less for legal representation.
"In the past couple of years, we've gone away from this being the bingo hall," said Manganiello, who became a Phoenix police officer 13 years ago.
Manganiello said his group would consider pushing a vote of police officers to determine whether the majority of the city's officers would prefer FOP to negotiate their contracts.
"If that does happen, we will be totally ready and prepared," he said. "We don't have enough people in place (right now) to have this done properly for the members."
PLEA members generally pay about $65 a month for legal services.
The FOP offers a similar job-insurance service at $35 a month.
Arizona budget cuts would eliminate more Corrections Corporation of America contracts Phoenix Business Journal - by Brandon Gee
Arizona's $4.6 billion budget deficit through fiscal 2011 is reaching across state lines. Nashville-based Corrections Corp. of America (NYSE:CXW) announced Thursday that proposed budget cuts by Arizona state government may eliminate contracts totaling $56.5 million in revenue.
The nation’s largest private prison operator houses Arizona inmates at facilities in Colorado and Oklahoma. But budgets proposed by both Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer and the Arizona Legislature would phase out the use of out-of-state beds.
If the prisoners are moved, CCA will likely close both a 752-bed prison in Walsenburg, Colo. and a 2,160-bed in Watonga, Okla.
“Although we are disappointed with the proposed budgets’ initiative to eliminate utilization of out-of-state prison capacity, we understand our partner’s fiscal concerns in a very difficult budgetary environment,” Corrections Corp. CEO Damon Hininger said in the news release.
Hininger went on to say that the company hopes to win a contract for the construction and management of 5,000 prison beds in the state. CCA already owns and operates six prisons in Arizona, which primarily house immigrant detainees and prisoners from other states such as California.
Earlier this month, Corrections Corp. announced the loss of a federal contract to house inmates at its 2,304-bed California City Correctional Center to a competitor. The contract would have been worth $553 million over 10 years. That loss was partially offset by the renewal of a contract worth $306.5 million to house a population primarily made up of immigrant detainees in New Mexico.
In December, CCA announced that it would close a Minnesota prison due to declining populations from the states of Minnesota and Washington.
In an interview with the Nashville Business Journal late last year, Hininger said the budget woes of state governments would pose a short-term challenge to the company. However, he said prospects were good for the long-term as issues such as overcrowding and the cost of constructing new prisons would encourage governments to consider private sector partnerships.
Analyst T.C. Robillard of Signal Hill Capital Group in Baltimore, noted that only 8 percent of the nation’s prisons are privately managed.
“There’s clearly a lot of runway in terms of growth,” he said.
At 11 a.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, Corrections Corp. shares were down $2.26 to $20.39.
Brandon Gee is a reporter for the Nashville Business Journal
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
ADC Cuts
Police group criticizes corrections budget cuts By Linda Stein, The Daily Courier Friday, January 08, 2010
Layoffs of officers who work with juvenile offenders hurt those children and society as a whole, according to the Arizona Fraternal Order of Police.
More than 200 staff members at the Arizona Department of Corrections facilities lost their jobs as of last Friday, putting about 460 children at risk, according to F.O.P. Executive Director Jim Mann. The F.O.P. urged Gov. Jan Brewer and the state Legislature to reverse those job cuts to keep the public safe.
The ADJC saw its budget cut by $5.3 million and will close its facility in Buckeye and two housing units, one in Phoenix and one in Tucson.
While the budget crisis requires "difficult decisions," firing those who "prevent children from starting a life of crime is unfathomable," Mann said.
Asked about where the budget ax should fall instead, Mann said that was up to the Legislature but added, "They have to put public safety first. They have a duty to maintain the public safety." Rather than making across-the-board cuts, the lawmakers should consider the impact of their decisions on public safety, he said.
"The role of juvenile corrections is somewhat different than adult corrections where you're putting them in and keeping them separate from society," said Mann. "There are some intervention issues. For many of these children, it's the first time they're getting help. Juvenile Corrections is a very large mental health provider for juveniles in custody. Many of the children - who get sentenced for a variety of reasons, like drug problems - many of them are there because they have a mental illness. There needs to be some intervention. If we can get the children some kind of treatment before they get out in society, they won't continue a life of crime."
Space to treat juveniles should not determine whether they get help or are prematurely released, he said.
"We are all committed to managing this crisis so that the public is safe and juvenile offenders are appropriately supervised and assisted in becoming productive adults," said Laura Dillingham, a spokeswoman for the ADJC. The department "remains committed to safer communities through successful youth."
A spokesman for the governor was unavailable for comment Thursday.
Kansas Corrections Face Similar 'Woes'
Kansas Corrections Budget Cuts would Spell Disaster, Parole Officers Say 12/30/2009
Wichita, KS – A lawyer representing Kansas parole officers said Tuesday they are "greatly concerned" about talk of possible budget cuts that would gut supervision of offenders.
The parole officers, many of whom work out of Wichita offices, are not only worried about losing their jobs, said Sean McCauley, a lawyer representing Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 64.
"The FOP steadfastly maintains that any elimination of the current supervision of parolees would have a disastrous impact on public safety in the state of Kansas," McCauley said in a statement to The Eagle. The FOP represents parole officers working for the Kansas Department of Corrections.
Under possible cuts, "You're having more people supervised by less individuals," risking public safety, McCauley said in an interview.
McCauley said the statement is a response to an Eagle story Sunday in which state officials said that a possible 5 percent budget cut would force the Department of Corrections to lay off 125 people or about 85 percent of its parole staff, which currently helps monitor about 6,000 offenders after they are released from state prisons.
The remaining parole officers would have to limit their work to monitoring parolees at a high risk of re-offending.
Under the potential cuts, drug testing of parolees, visits to offenders' homes and GPS monitoring would be cut back.
"These offenders have been convicted of crimes involving gang activity, sex offenses such as child molestation and rape, as well as extremely violent offenses and, if not properly supervised, they would have a greater propensity to return to criminal activity once released from prison," the statement said.
This is the second state budget cycle in a row in which the Department of Corrections has brought up the possibility of eliminating parole supervision, the statement said.
The latest discussion of drastic cuts could be "a result of political maneuvering during a vigorous budget debate," the statement said, adding that the FOP is confident that an alternative to cutting parole supervision could be found.
Parole officers fear that "they're seen as expendable" and don't understand why there aren't other options, McCauley said.
Gov. Mark Parkinson said last week that he opposes more budget cuts to the corrections system; corrections cuts have already limited parole supervision and jeopardized public safety, he said.
But in the midst of an unprecedented budget crisis, most state departments are having to propose how they would cope with a 5 percent cut.
For the Department of Corrections, a 5 percent cut would equate to about $10.6 million, corrections Secretary Roger Werholtz said in Sunday's article. To cut spending by that much, the only two options would be releasing inmates early from prison or cutting the parole budget, Werholtz said.
Because he doesn't have the authority to release prisoners early, Werholtz said, cutting parole supervision is the only viable option.
Asked to respond to the FOP statement, Department of Corrections spokesman Bill Miskell said: "We agree with the FOP that a dramatic reduction in the level of parole services would adversely impact public safety. We don't agree with all the details contained in their release," including that parole supervision would be eliminated, Miskell said.
The potential cuts "are certainly not things that we want to do," he said.
Under state layoff procedures, staff with more seniority would have "first preference for not getting laid off," he said.
So the remaining staff "would not necessarily be the least experienced," he said.
"Would the remaining staff be overworked? You bet."
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!"
ADC Budget Cuts
December 28, 2009 AZ: Budget cuts will not affect prisons By Diane Saunders Staff Writer The across-the-board budget cuts ordered by Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer will not impact Arizona’s state prisons. “The 7.5 percent (budget cut) will not apply to the Arizona Department of Corrections,” ADOC spokesman Barrett Marson said. Brewer called for the budget cuts Dec. 21 to help the state overcome a $1.5 billion budget shortfall. In October, state agencies submitted reports on how they could achieve a 15-percent budget reduction. ADOC Director Charles L. Ryan wrote that deep cuts at the department could be achieved by releasing more than 13,000 prison inmates and taking other measures — including the closure of the Fort Grant Unit of the Arizona State Prison-Safford. He cautioned that releasing thousands of inmates is a complex matter that would first require rewriting the state’s criminal codes. Rewriting the criminal codes requires action by the Arizona Legislature, Ryan said in his report. In the Dec. 21 meeting with her cabinet, Brewer also ordered that all nonviolent criminal aliens be turned over to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as ICE. Marson said 300 to 400 of the state’s approximately 41,000 prison inmates fall into this category. These inmates are scattered throughout the state prison system and could include a few inmates at the Safford prison. DOC officials are still determining where the illegal aliens are housed, Marson said. http://www.eacourier.com/articles/2009/12/27/news/doc4b32a084d0739224901458.prt http://realcostofprisons.org/blog/archives/2009/12/az_budget_cuts.html
15% Reductions
AZ Governor to move forward on 15% reductions
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Arizona Legislature moved forward with legislation to give the Governor the legal authority to make the necessary cuts in state agencies to reduce the state’s budget for 2010. The Governor has not signed the bill yet, but states she intends to do so.
These are the steps that ADC employees have been worried about. Director Ryan put out a summary of the needed cuts to ADC should a 15% reduction be required. Most employees are familiar with the document prepared by Director Ryan’s office and the large number of Complexes and Units that might be impacted.
A number of positions will undergo RIF’s and there is also the distinct possibility that pay cuts of 5% may accompany them. Director Ryan has strongly opposed these cuts but may have little choice in the matter. He has been trying to prepare his department for the cuts and position it to have the least impact, however, a 15% reduction with more expected next fiscal year will be more than difficult to absorb.
The Governor had a Cabinet meeting on Monday, December 21, 2009, and stated,
“Now, I want to thank the Legislature for its efforts last week to trim approximately $200 million more from the budget deficit. This represents a 7.5 percent cut across-the-board. Because we are half way through the budget year, this will mean a 15 percent cut for most state agencies.
You’ll recall that several months ago, I ordered you, as state agency directors, to prepare and publish 15 percent cut plans so that the Legislature and the general public would know what a 15 percent cut would mean in terms of service delivery.
Thanks to its actions last week, the Legislature has given me legal authority to implement those plans and other proposals. The bill they passed is not perfect and I recognize that it creates hardship for many of you and the people you serve. But I do intend to sign the bill inthe next several days. We must take action.”
The Governor went on to address the agency Directors present.
“With that, Directors, I ask you to finalize your implementation plans with my budget office immediately.”
Most ADC employees were caught ‘off guard’ by the proposed 5% payroll reductions on top of the proposed 15% reductions that have been previously discussed. It is not clear yet if Corrections Officers and other employees will have their pay reduced, but the possibility is clear. The Governor addressed Mr. Raber of ADOA directly.
“Mr. Raber, I ask you and your DOA staff to begin immediately the rulemaking process to implement the 5 percent pay cut authorized in those bills.”
One way the state will try to reduce expenses is to try to return non-violent illegal aliens to the custody of the federal government. The federal government has not been willing in the past to accept these inmates. The federal prison system has no ‘extra’ bed space and has not sufficiently expanded its ICE retention facilities.
Mr. Raber said, “I am ordering the Arizona Department of Corrections to return to the custody of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) -- as soon as possible -- all non-violent criminal aliens as is allowed under existing law.
The cost of incarcerating these criminal aliens is NOT Arizona’s responsibility. By federal law, the cost of their incarceration is the responsibility of the FEDERAL government.
However, the federal government is refusing to adequately fund this program.”
The complete Governor’s Cabinet Address is posted on her state web site. She also states a commitment to privatization of any field of government that would significantly and positively affect the states budget.
Some ADC employees may have their positions changed to Community Corrections as the state tries to reduce the inmate prison bed population by placement of more ‘minimum’ custody inmates in the community.
Arizona citizens have had little input into these decisions but are likely to become more vocal as their communities are impacted. The closure of prison complexes and units will not go un-noticed in outlying areas that rely heavily on ADC for jobs and tax revenues. The placement of more convicted criminals in communities versus state prisons may also cause some ‘push back’ by the public.
While some corrections unions have been focused on the privatization of the prison system, The Fraternal Order of Police has always been opposed to privatization of corrections and has focused on the possible position losses that accompany budget reductions. While in meetings with the Governors staff, the actual jobs have been the focus of FOP for Corrections.
Simply cutting positions and reducing wages ‘across the board’ is a short term ‘fix’ and the consequences to future tax revenues and unemployment numbers may be significant. A reexamination of positions, the qualifications, expectations and salary to reduce the number of positions simply ‘cut’ while reducing the overall expense to the state may be time consuming but would have long range benefits.
The unanswered question is ‘What will the state do next year to close the fiscal shortfall?’
Sale of Prisons
Sale of state prisons running into wall of opposition By Jim Small - Published: December 14, 2009 at 7:45 am
When lawmakers chose April Fool’s Day as the deadline to submit a plan to privatize the state’s prison system, they unwittingly telegraphed just how dubious the plan was.
First, the whole idea of putting state prisons under private control was a difficult sell to the public. Then there was a question about how many of the state’s 10 prisons to auction off. After that, several of the largest private prison operators made it clear that they weren’t interested in buying the prisons.
But now it’s clear that the $100 million asking price for the prisons was the most specious aspect. The plan from the beginning was part of the Legislature’s scramble to fill a gap in the state’s budget and thus avoid Gov. Jan Brewer’s proposed sales-tax increase.
Last month, the Joint Legislative Budget Committee announced the $100 million was not feasible.
“I think it was a number that (lawmakers) felt comfortable with and what they wanted to be able to get up front,” said Grant Nulle, the director of fiscal policy for the House of Representatives. “I think it’s speculative at this point.”
Rep. John Kavanagh, a Fountain Hills Republican, said the number was developed after he spoke with representatives from several private prison firms and could be achieved by privatizing three prisons. Kavanagh is the driving force behind the privatization proposal.
The plan was pitched as an upfront payment the private companies would make to take over existing prisons. But that doesn’t tell the whole story. The $100 million also includes a loan of sorts from the prison companies, which would be asked to advance the state a portion of the money that they expect to save during the contract period.
The most frequently cited reason for privatization is that a business can run a prison more efficiently than the state. According to the law that allows privatization, the state would split any savings equally with the prison company. But to achieve an upfront payment of $100 million, the company would have to calculate how much money would be saved during life of the contract, then pay a portion to the state when the contract is signed.
“That’s how you get so much upfront,” Kavanagh said.
The idea to sell off the prisons is also drawing criticism from outside the state, partly because it includes transferring ownership of several maximum security units and the state’s death row.
Andrew Strong, who runs the Texas-based private-prison watchdog Web site Private Prison Watch, said ceding operation of the state’s most dangerous inmates to private companies is bad public policy.
“States owe it to their general public to follow through with the punishment that is administered instead of avoiding the responsibility altogether and placing it in the hands of less-qualified personnel because of a faulty budget plan,” he said. “The blanket selling off of one of the state’s highest responsibilities is not only cowardly but a slap in the face to anyone who pays taxes in Arizona.”
Kavanagh, though, defends the proposal as both good policy and necessary, considering the state’s gaping budget holes. Detractors are interested merely in protecting the status quo, he said.
“Everybody’s protecting their turf, and a lot of statements are being made more for protection, as opposed to evidence-based opinion,” he said.
He also pointed out that the privatization authorized by the state budget won’t result in the entire system’s being turned into private prisons — at least not now.
Instead, Kavanagh said the plan is to privatize two or three of the prisons. While an earlier version of the privatization language named specific prisons, the final version gives authority to consider nine of the 10 state prisons for privatization, but it doesn’t mandate they all be offered up.
Still, Kavanagh said lawmakers should consider selling more if selling the first batch is successful.
But the privatization presents political challenges, as well.
Opponents are lining up for a fight, including the head of the state Department of Corrections.
Charles Ryan, the interim director of the department, said the agency isn’t opposed to using private prisons for Arizona inmates, but it doesn’t like the idea of turning over its facilities to for-profit prison companies.
“I don’t think that is a viable public policy to pursue and implement,” he said. There is, he added, “no history in the United States of privatizing maximum-security prisons.” Ryan said the only private holding of maximum-security prisoners is in detention centers, to which all prisoners go before they are sent to what he calls “full, functioning prisons.” All prisoners are initially considered maximum-security when they enter the system until corrections staff can determine how to classify them.
Kavanagh said Ryan is wrong. A search on the Internet, Kavanagh said, showed 15 or 20 private prisons that house maximum-security inmates.
According to the Association of Private Correctional and Treatment Organizations, there are 20 private prisons that house high-risk inmates; 15 of them are detention centers or intake facilities. The rest house multiple security levels of inmates.
Even lawmakers who otherwise support privatizing government functions are wary about turning over control of the prisons.
“There are functions that are just the government’s responsibility,” said Sen. Russell Pearce, a Mesa Republican.
Pearce said Arizonans will resist turning over control of state prisons to a private entity.
“One of the cornerstones to success is public confidence. I think it’s difficult (for privatization) to pass the headline test,” he said.
Privatizing the complex that includes death row would be unprecedented, said Dr. Travis Pratt, a professor at Arizona State University’s School of Criminology and Criminal Justice.
“This is huge,” he said. “This outpaces anything we’ve ever seen.”
The magnitude of the privatization also presents problems for prison companies, said Strong, who runs a Web site that monitors private prisons. And it will be difficult to make money from the facilities because it costs a lot of money to incarcerate high-risk and maximum-security inmates.
“Private prison corporations, much like any other corporation, have an unyielding desire to make money,” Strong said.
He said private prisons tend to hire inexperienced guards because they are less expensive, which makes the firms better suited to manage facilities with lower-risk inmates. Many private prisons nationwide house such low-security inmates as drug offenders and drunk drivers.
“I am confident that there are no existing private prison companies that could provide sufficient security measures to house death row inmates,” Strong said.
Kavanagh doesn’t buy the critics’ arguments. “Nobody has yet to tell my why somebody whose paycheck is cut by a private company versus the government can’t do as good a job supervising a prisoner,” he said. “I think most of the people who claim that the private employee can’t do as good a job are the same people who, when they’re really ill, shun the public hospitals and go to private ones. I guess it doesn’t apply to medicine, but it does to corrections? No one’s been able to explain that to me.”
Private prison companies also refused to explain it to the Arizona Capitol Times.
A spokeswoman for Corrections Corp. of America, the nation’s largest private prison company, said it was “very questionable” whether the company would seek to take over a state prison.
Representatives for Corrections Corp. of America refused to comment further because a legislative panel is still considering what kind of information to request from private prison companies.
Similarly, spokespeople for Management & Training Corporation and The GEO Group, two other prominent private prison firms, would not answer questions about Arizona’s decision to explore privatizing its facilities.
Ensuring the continued employment of state corrections officers presents another roadblock.
Tixoc Muñoz, president of the corrections officers’ union, said officers wouldn’t be guaranteed jobs. Those who do find work with a private company wouldn’t be covered by state personnel rules or benefit from its retirement system.
“We believe public safety should not be done by profiteers,” Muñoz said. “If privatization were the solution to the problem, we should privatize the House and the Senate.”
Of course, the debate over whether the state’s prisons should be privatized assumes private prison businesses will be interested in taking over Arizona’s large prison complexes. Last month, the AP reported there was little interest among the firms.
Kavanagh, though, said he thinks private companies will step forward and bid on some of the state’s prisons.
Even if parts of the system are privatized, there may not be any resolution to the debate over whether private firms should oversee high-risk inmates. In a Nov. 19 executive session meeting, the Joint Committee on Capital Review explored parceling out to private companies low-security units within larger complexes.
That presents a problem for the Corrections Department, Ryan said, because it would disrupt the day-to-day operations of the facilities and may, in fact, gobble up any efficiencies and cost-savings.
Each prison complex contains multiple units, but many of the services provided to each unit — administration, supplies and vehicle maintenance, to name a few — are centralized.
Breaking up a facility like the Eyman complex, which has two maximum-security units, a close-custody unit and two medium-security units, would require finding a way to provide those services to the private portion of the prison.
“My concern is it will require us to duplicate efforts and services,” Ryan said. “Does that sound efficient?”
It would also nullify existing service contracts with private companies, including food service, which could cost the state more.
Kavanagh said lawmakers are obligated to find ways out of the budget crisis without raising taxes. And that means selling prisons, if necessary.
“It’s our responsibility to get the best service for the best price. It’s about quality and cost, and not about parochialism and protectionism,” he said.
ADC Payroll Impact
IOUs instead of checks for state employees? Howard Fischer, Capitol Media Services
December 7, 2009 - 7:44PM
State and university employees could wind up with IOUs in their pay envelopes instead of checks in February if the planned sale of state buildings hits a snag, state Treasurer Dean Martin warned Monday.
And that could leave workers with a piece of paper that won't help them buy food for their families, pay the mortgage or heat their homes.
Martin told legislators that by the end of January the state will have borrowed about $1.1 billion to pay its bills. The total amount Martin has available, both internally and from Bank of America, is $1.2 billion.
But the state is obligated to make a payment of about $325 million to public schools on Feb. 1.
What's supposed to happen around the third or fourth week of January, Martin said, is the state will sell off - at least in title only - a dozen state buildings in exchange for at least $737 million. Martin said that will provide enough operating capital to keep the state going and, more important, to ensure that the payroll checks and bill payments that are sent out are good.
"Should that not happen, should there be a hiccup, a sneeze, something, anything gets lost in the mail, we will not be able to make the February school payment," Martin said. "There's just not enough cash. The credit cards are maxed out, you're at your limit."
That leaves him only one legal option for paying those to whom the state owes money: IOUs.
"They'll get a note saying, 'We'll give you the money on this date,' up to 90 days" in the future.
The state would be obligated to pay interest. But Martin said it likely would be the same discounted annual rate he got from Bank of America for the state's line of credit: about three-fourths of a percent.
"The bigger issue is what that does to the economy," he said. "You put 30,000 state employees without paychecks, the trickle effect throughout the economy, what that does to the vendors, it needs to be avoided."
California issued IOUs earlier this year while it was trying to get its finances in order.
The banks did cash those - for a while. But Martin said the chances of banks honoring the IOUs here are minimal, as the state already is borrowing just to cover the checks it already is writing.
The treasurer's warnings came as lawmakers sought some answers about the state's finances.
Legislators know that the current anticipated deficit for this year stands at about $1.6 billion, even with the spending changes made last month, because sales tax collections have been so much weaker than a year earlier as consumers buy less and construction is slowed. And Richard Stavneak, staff director of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, said the state is on track for a $3 billion gap between revenues and spending next year.
What they wanted to know was how the state manages its finances while trying to come up with a fix.
Stavneak said the temporary sales tax hike being pushed by Gov. Jan Brewer won't do much, if anything, to help the current mess.
He said that levy could bring in up to $950 million a year. But if an election isn't conducted until March, it might not be until May or even June before the increased collections show up in the treasury; the fiscal year ends June 30.
That leaves the state struggling to pay its bills in the interim.
Lawmakers approved a plan earlier this year to sell off state buildings for upfront cash and then lease them back. The plan is more akin to a mortgage, with investors buying shares in that $737 million debt in exchange for some rate of return over the next 20 years.
In the interim, Martin has obtained a $700 million line of credit from Bank of America. He also has access to about $500 million from various internal accounts, money that doesn't belong to the treasury.
And when that's gone?
"You send out the IOUs," he said.
Martin said he probably can finesse the debt if it looks like the sale of the buildings will take place within a few days after the school payment is due. But if there's some legal or other impediment to completing the sale, he can only send out IOUs.
"That's what the statutes require," he said.
There is another legal option: Delay the payment to schools. Martin said though, that would require legislative action.
But he said that's not a solution, as the schools then would have to borrow money themselves - and agree to pay interest - to meet their payroll and other obligations until the state finally came up with the cash it owes.
"Essentially what you would be doing is shifting the state's borrowing off to the schools," Martin said. He said that, from a political perspective, lawmakers likely would agree to pay any interest costs the schools incurred.
CCA Eyes Property
Private prisons continue to make the news as they ‘jockey’ for position in out state. The citizens of Arizona should never loose site of the end game – once private prison bed space is utilized, the state stops investing in its own prison infrastructure; building more bed space. As the initial private prison contracts run out, private prisons may dictate to the state the ‘new’ cost of bed space, knowing full well the state can not fund the building of tens of thousands of beds.
The initial savings of using private prison beds will eventually cost the state dearly in both direct costs to incarcerate and professional corrections.
Arizona, from the time it was a territory, has been a leader in Corrections technology. Private prisons will eventually threaten the lawful human treatment of prisoners and prisoner treatment programs with the replacement of quality trained professionals with unqualified ‘day labor’ guards. The cost of facilities to house prisoners remains static, so the only cost savings can be in the employment of low cost labor, returning Arizona’s corrections to a nineteenth century ‘prison camp’ mentality ripe with abuse just to save money.
Arizona’s citizens should never loose sight of the fact that incarcerated individuals were citizens as well; as such, how we as citizens treat the incarcerated directly reflects our values and principles as a people.
Stephen R. Vandegrift, Labor Services, FOP ADC Labor Council
>>> BILL LAMOREAUX 12/2/2009 2:45 PM >>> Prison company pursuing project
By Janet DelTufo, Assistant Editor
Corrections Corporation of America (CCA) continues to eye property in Forepaugh for a prison project while waiting for the release of an official 5,000-bed RFP (request for proposal) from the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC).
It is unknown exactly when the RFP will be released to potential bidders, although the contract is scheduled to be awarded in June 2010. According to ADC officials, the RFP is currently awaiting approval from the Arizona State Legislature*s Joint Budget Legislative Committee.
House Bill 2010 was signed into law this past September and called for ADC to go out and find 5,000 beds. The beds can be split up and given to more than one bidder if necessary.
If CCA and the Town of Wickenburg find a way to make the Forepaugh property work, which consists of 78-acres of town-owned property and additional privately owned adjacent property, CCA would like to build a correctional facility and begin with about 2,600 beds.
CCA representatives have had meetings with members of the Wickenburg Economic Development Partnership and recently hosted a 21-person tour of their Saguaro Correctional Facility in Eloy. CCA officials will now spend some time in Wickenburg meeting with a number of additional groups.
*We will have discussions with a wide array of individuals in the Wickenburg area, and there will be forums for individuals to ask questions,* said CCA Senior Director Brad Wiggins. *We will have presentations and forums because we want to see if we are a good fit for Wickenburg.*
CCA has a number of sites around the state in mind for this project, but the Forepaugh area remains of interest to the company. Wiggins said CCA regards Wickenburg as a place where a family can find and maintain a strong quality of life.
*We regard Wickenburg as an area where our employees would want to work and raise their children,* Wiggins said. *We think we would have an outstanding workforce to draw from within the local and regional area.*
Wiggins said that CCA is taking a two-front approach to the Wickenburg-Forepaugh project: outreach and due-diligence.
He said CCA was continuing to work with local leadership in the education process, regarding what it means to have a corrections facility in the community. Wiggins said CCA was still working with local leaders in determining how to most effectively get its message out to the community.
*We are in the process of creating a partnership with Wickenburg*s local leaders and showing them the quality of our operations,* Wiggins said. *As this happens, the trust and respect of the community can be gained.*
CCA plans to meet with a number of groups during the second week of December. During this time, it will also be looking into how the Forepaugh property can be made available to the corporation, what is needed as far as infrastructure, and what the overall costs will be to build a correctional facility in Forepaugh.
Copyright * 2009 Wickenburg Sun. All rights reserved
Private Prison Project
"...the 5,000-bed unit is only phase one of the development..."
The Tribune-News, Holbrook Proposed Prison Could Be Huge Project For Winslow November 20th, 2009 By Sam Conner
Winslow could reap huge benefits if the plans of Ruby Wash Properties, LLC develop according to plans expressed by their representatives. One phase of those plans was on the agenda of the Winslow Planning and Zoning Commission Tuesday. Attorney Robert Thompson, representing the company, said on Tuesday that the company plans to build a 5,000-bed prison facility in Winslow if the company is awarded a contract for constructing and operating the facility by the state, which has said that the contract would be awarded by June 30, 2010. Thompson said that once the contract has been obtained, the company would begin construction as quickly as possible. The area is already properly zoned and the permits required were expected to be acquired by Tuesday. Thompson said that the staff working for the City of Winslow was a great team to work with, and were totally cooperative and willing to go beyond the call of duty to see that the project is ready to go. He was highly complimentary about City Manager Jim Ferguson, Attorney Dale Patton and Planner Paul Ferris and, in fact, the entire city staff. In addition to the proper zoning and permits from the city, Thompson said that the company has agreed to donate 30 to 35 acres to the city for wastewater treatment. The city currently has to pipe from south of the BNSF Railroad to the wastewater plant, and this donation should ease that problem. The company will also donate a site for a police and fire substation at a road leading to the facilities from Highway 87. The city has agreed to allow use of the airport for transportation of prisoners. This, according to Thompson, was a key to the facility, as it is perfect for the safe handling of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and federal prisoners. Thompson said that the 5,000-bed unit is only phase one of the development the company plans in the area. Two more units are planned for a total of 12,000 prison beds in the next two phases of the development. He said that there may also be an ICE processing unit constructed. The entire area of the proposed development contains some 900 acres located south of the Winslow-Lindberg Airport, north and to some extent east of the Arizona State Prison and west of State Route 87. According to Thompson, phase one of the projects is expected to cost approximately $350 million and employ some 1,000 people, not including those who work during the construction of the facilities. Those added jobs and residents would be a huge benefit to the city, and there would likely be many more jobs and businesses needed to keep the facility and new residents accommodated. The facilities would house state prisoners who are currently farmed out to other states, prisoners from other states and ICE prisoners. Arizona currently has 4,490 prisoners serving their time in other states, and locating them in Arizona should lower the cost of incarceration. The lack of adequate prison space is a factor in most states, and the federal system is operating at 136 percent of capacity, which means it, too, is overcrowded. After Thompson spoke about the project, and several speakers from the audience spoke both for and against the project, the commission voted to approve the conditional use permit with no conditions or annual reviews.
Director Melissa Wallace, FOP ADC Labor Council, received some disturbing news last week. By Thursday, November 19, 2009, she had participated in a Winslow City Council Zoning and Planning Hearing. The only questions allowed were, however, limited to planning and zoning.
The zoning hearing confirmed that a 26,000 bed new private prison was being built right next to ASPC Winslow. The new private prison will be just north of ASPC Winslow and south of the city of Winslow. Ground has already been broken to start construction, with an estimated opening of the first 5000 beds by 2012.
15,000 beds are earmarked for ICE, with the remainder hopefully taking advantage of Arizona’s ever increasing prison population. The Winslow airport has a runway sufficient to land jets used by the federal government to transport ICE and other federal inmates. Improvements to the airport may be the city of Winslow’s responsibility.
Wallace has serious reservations about just how such a large project had come so far in the development with little or no public knowledge. Apparently this has been in development for the past two years. The project is under the name Ruby Ridge, LLC and does not appear to be part of any of the large private prison corporations well known throughout the nation.
Upon contacting Director Ryan of the Arizona Department of Corrections, Ryan seemed to have little or no knowledge that a project of this magnitude, 26,000 private prison beds, was being built on property adjoining an Arizona Prison Complex.
Director Wallace and Stephen Vandegrift, Labor Services of the FOP ADC Labor Council, met with Scott Smith, Director, Legislative Affairs for Governor Brewer, on Friday, November 20, 2009. Smith stated he and the Governor’s Office had no prior knowledge of this expansive private prison. Smith was concerned that a project of this size and scope would have had to have quite a few public hearing on the matter. The dates and notice for such public hearing will be reviewed for compliance with local and state laws.
Many questions remain. • Impact on the aquifer. This aquifer is utilized not only by local citizens of Winslow and the surrounding ranches, but also by both the Hopi and Navajo Nations. The private prison operation will have more than five acres of waste water treatment ponds. • Impact on local infrastructure. Infrastructure includes the potable water system, waste water treatment, local roads and highways as well as the local airport. Questions still remain on the city of Winslow’s area of financial responsibility. The 26,000 private beds will also mean a substantial increase in residential needs and the infrastructure to accommodate such expansion. • Impact on the environment. It remains unclear what, if any, type of environmental impact studies were concluded by the EPA or the state of Arizona. • Emergency services. Winslow is a small community and it is unclear what the proposed emergency response plans will encompass. Hospital availability and bed space, EMT’s and local police and fire departments would be stressed beyond capacity during any prison riot or medical quarantine.
The Ruby Ridge project hopes to keep wages for private prison guards approximately one dollar under ADC wages, however there are no benefits other than stock options for employees to purchase and put towards retirement. Sick leave, generous vacation leave, health and dental coverage as well as life insurance, short term and long term disability all make employment with the state of Arizona more attractive.
The concern for ADC employees as well as all state employees is the current fiscal problems facing Arizona. Facing a possible 15% reduction in force to help balance the states budget is an ever increasing possibility. Ruby Ridge LLC may be counting on that to provide trained prison staff in the near future.
Director Wallace represented the concerns of the FOP for Corrections at the local zoning and planning hearing. The FOP ADC Labor Council will continue its investigation into the lack ofpublic hearings and the corporate financing for this private prison project. The FOP for Corrections moved quickly to address this project with the Governor’s Office and keep ADC Director Ryan informed. Wallace provided Director Ryan with copies of the projects schematics, infrastructure drawings, engineering plans and statistics.
Although other ADC employee organizations were aware of the project, representatives from AZCOPS, AZCPOA and ACA were absent at the zoning and planning public hearing. As our investigation evolves, we will keep our membership advised.
November 10th, 2009 Goto comments Leave a comment Arizona’s plan to turn over its prisons to private companies in exchange for a $100 million upfront payment is having trouble getting off the drawing board, with the plan behind schedule and private prison operators showing little, if any, interest.
The privatization effort is required under a law enacted last summer as lawmakers struggled to close a huge budget shortfall. It directs the state to award a contract to one or more private companies to run an unspecified number of prisons for $100 million.
It emerged as Republican lawmakers cast about for alternatives to Republican Gov. Jan Brewer’s proposal to increase the sales tax to avoid deep cuts to state program.
An official who worked on the law told The Associated Press that the $100 million figure was based on hope, not certainty.
The prison concession provision doesn’t specify which or how many of the state’s 10 prison complexes would be included, what would happen to current state employees or the length of a contract. An early version specified a term of 50 years and identified three prisons with approximately 11,000 beds.
The Yuma prison complex was excluded from the law at the insistence of a Yuma legislator.State officials were supposed to provide an initial batch of information to potential bidders on Oct. 1, but missed the deadline. But even without that, there appears to be little interest among private-prison companies.
Corrections Corp. of America, the nation’s largest private prison company, “is not focused on that,” said Louise Grant, a CCA vice president. Grant said CCA is interested in pursuing traditional private-prison deals with states and would review any Arizona request. However, “it’s very questionable whether or not we would participate,” she said.
Another operator, Boca Raton, Fla.-based GEO Group, declined to comment, citing corporate policy. A third, Management & Training Corp. of Centerville, Utah, issued a noncommittal response.
Arizona is among many states that contract with private companies to house state inmates, but officials and industry observers say the large upfront payment request may be unprecedented.
“That is such a new idea. The model hasn’t been done,” said Leonard Gilroy, a Reason Foundation official who champions privatization of government services. Gilroy questioned whether Arizona’s plan would be attractive enough for potential bidders in the industry.
“It’s sort of like ’we want you to do an operational contract and loan us $100 million,”’ Gilroy said. “I don’t know if there’s enough there to sweeten the pot for the private sector.”
Democratic legislators have questioned whether the state should turn control of violent maximum-security offenders, including murderers on death row, to private operators. Little is known about how the plan would be implemented, including whether it would include the Eyman prison complex in Florence that includes death row.
Citing procurement confidentiality, state officials declined to release a draft of the document they plan to send to bidders.
Corrections Director Chuck Ryan declined multiple requests for an interview in recent weeks. But he told legislators during a May hearing that it was “very concerning” to consider privatizing a major prison complex that houses nearly all death row inmates and 1,000 other dangerous inmates.
Privatizing death row involves taking a chance, Ryan said. “It won’t stand the headline test in my opinion.”
A leader of a union representing prison guards criticized the plan and suggested that public safety could be at risk.
“They’re trying to replace us with lower-paid guards, to handle sex offenders, murders, rapists, inmates with very volatile gang connections,” said J. “J-Rod” Rodriguez, vice president of the Arizona Correctional Peace Officers Association.
Senate Appropriations Chairman Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, said during the May hearing that the prisons concession had been proposed by House Republicans during budget negotiations and was based on “very good numbers” from an investment firm.
However, a top House Republican aide said lawmakers and legislative aides came up with the idea as a way “to monetize state assets,” such as Indiana and Chicago have done with toll highways.
“Well, Arizona doesn’t have toll roads and there aren’t a lot of assets that can be monetized. That was sort of the genesis of the idea,” said Grant Nulle, House director of fiscal policy.
There was no research by an investment firm or anybody else, Nulle said. And the $100 million payment appears unlikely.
“Based on preliminary feedback, we may find it difficult to generate an upfront payment of this magnitude,” legislative budget director Richard Stavneak wrote in an Oct. 22 memo.
Even if the state does receive good bids, it will take most of the fiscal year to try to implement the idea, so lawmakers shouldn’t count on getting the money in time to help close the current budget’s shortfall, Stavneak said in a recent interview.
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.
Prison Privatization
TO: Arizona Department of Corrections FOP members FROM: Jim Mann, Executive Director, FOP Arizona Labor Council SUBJECT: Prison Privatization
Over the past few months, I've met with legislators, appropriations committee members, experienced legislative budget analysts and even private prison operators to discuss, in detail, the prison privatization concept included in the current budget. After every conversation, I came to the same conclusion; the state is unlikely to realize the projected budget savings necessary to adopt large scale prison privatization. In my opinion, the concept of transferring existing prisons to a private operator is simply unworkable. Just imagine the costs and problems associated with a private prison operator attempting to hire and train enough staff to take over a large prison. Even if some current employees were induced to take a job with the private prison operator, those employees would be unhappy and resentful. Hardly the attitude any business would like its employees to have as it begins a new and untested operation.
Most surprising was that some large private prison operators agreed that it was unlikely the budget savings concept of transferring existing large prisons to a private operator would be achievable. In my conversations with private prison operators, I was informed that private prison operators are more likely to support a legislative concept which provides for private prison operators building new prison facilities and then, as prison population grows, contracting with the state to house more inmates - which, frankly, is how private prisons do business now.
Importantly, I spoke with Senator Russell Pearce a couple of weeks ago. I told Senator Pearce that, in my opinion, the prison privatization concept, as described in the current budget, was unworkable and was unlikely to produce the expected budget savings. Senator Pearce agreed and told me he didn't think prison privatization would happen either. Senator Pearce described how the prison privatization item came to be included in the budget. The item was initially submitted for consideration by a budget analyst. Senator Pearce told me that even though he and others did not believe the prison privatization concept had much of a chance of succeeding, the analyst's prison privatization item was kept in the budget because, otherwise, the legislature would have had to find another $100 million to cut from somewhere else.
With all that said, we cannot predict whether or not a private prison operator will submit a bid to take over a large state prison operation. However, from all the discussions I've had, it remains my opinion, large scale prison privatization is unlikely to occur in the near future - if at all.
Frankly, this prison privatization controversy may be the least of our problems if the budget shortfall continues to increase. All state agencies should expect to be adversely impacted during the next round of budget negotiations. I also suspect, all cities and counties will be adversely impacted by shared revenue sweeps.
We will continue our legislative efforts to protect your future when the next round of budget negotiations begin.
Read the below article and you will find a nugget of very important information about the prison privatization controversy. In this article, Richard Stavneak, director of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, suggests that prison privatization, as included in the current budget, may not happen. In the Arizona Guardian article, I've highlighted the most important sentence. The Arizona Guardian is one of the most informed political news sources at the state capitol.
Fraternally,
Jim Mann, Executive Director Fraternal Order of Police Arizona Labor Council (602) 421-8759 jcmann@fop.net
Budget 'sinkhole' getting worse, lawmakers contemplate deep cuts Thursday, 22 October 2009 17:57 By Patti Epler The Arizona Guardian
The state's budget woes continue to grow with the shortfall in the current-year spending plan now as high as $2 billion, budget experts say. But things could be looking up, relatively speaking, for FY 2011 with revenues finally starting to grow again, economists on the Finance Advisory Committee said Thursday. Still, the growing deficit for FY 2010 was like a dash of political cold water in the face of lawmakers attending the meeting. "It makes the need for a special session even more urgent," said Rep. John Kavanagh, a Fountain Hills Republican who chairs the House Appropriations Committee. Kavanagh, who called the budget hole more of a "sinkhole," said he sees a clear need "to cut government big time." And he pegged the cuts at about the 15 percent reductions state agencies have been sending to Gov. Jan Brewer at her request. Those scenarios, aimed at filling what was thought to be a $1.5 billion budget deficit, have been described as draconian and devastating by various agencies. They warn of dire consequences including laying off a third of the state's Highway Patrol officers and letting thousands of offenders out of prison. Kavanagh, a former cop, said he wouldn't agree to reducing state troopers or letting inmates go free. But he acknowledged protecting public safety might mean even deeper cuts for other agencies. "There is just no money left to run this government," he said, adding that some government programs might have to be eliminated. "Maybe we can't afford all-day kindergarten when we can't pay for oxygen tanks for disabled citizens," Kavanagh said. Economists on the panel -- cautiously -- painted an economic picture that is generally looking up, and they declared the recession over. But they described a slow climb from a deep bottom and an economy that probably won't be healthy again until 2014. The key, they said, is providing new jobs that will attract new residents. Still, the FAC is anticipating a 7.8 percent growth in state revenue for FY 2011 over FY 2010. They pointed out that means revenue that is still far below the boom years of 2007. And "it's just going to take us back to '09 levels and that's back to what was a pretty bad year," said Richard Stavneak, director of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee. But sales and income tax collections seem to have stabilized and Stavneak said retail sales are expected to increase. Job losses, which have topped 300,000 in Arizona since December 2008, also seem to be slowing, according to the Department of Commerce. The updated $2 billion budget shortfall for FY 2010 is based on several factors, including a $478 million deficit being carried over from FY 2009, $483 million in vetoes by Brewer and $698 million in reduced revenue for FY 2010 based on the October forecast. Additionally, Stavneak said, new caseload projections for AHCCCS and the Department of Health Services amount to about $135 million. Another $100 million that had been factored into the budget for a prison concession agreement likely won't materialize until next year, if at all, and $50 million in savings from rooting out fraud in AHCCCS also isn't coming through, he said. Budget officials still think the state could glean $735 million from the sale/leaseback of state buildings so it's still on the books, he said. "There's been some skepticism about whether that would generate that dollar figure," Stavneak said. "At this point, there is a market and some indications that we would get that. But time will tell." He also noted that the governor's budget staff pegs the 2010 deficit at $1.75 billion now and advised lawmakers to consider the shortfall to be a range between $1.75 billion and $2 billion. Despite a projected uptick in revenue, the deficit for FY 2011 is projected to be $3.3 billion because the state is currently relying on federal stimulus money, fund sweeps and other one-time sources of cash to shore up the budget. Stavneak told lawmakers that any new revenue sources or budget cuts they put in place for 2010 would also carry through for 2011, reducing that deficit by the same amount. So any permanent fixes they come up with to resolve this year's deficit will also help resolve next year's, he said. Kavanagh said he is still in favor of asking voters to approve Brewer's proposal for a three-year, 1-cent sales tax increase. That has been estimated to bring in about $1 billion a year. Kavanagh also wants to tap funds that have been off limits to the Legislature since the Voter Protection Act, Proposition 105, was passed in 1998. Those include billions of dollars for education, health care, state land conservation, Clean Elections and early childhood development. Cities and towns also will see substantially reduced revenue under the state's urban revenue-sharing system which makes money available to Arizona's 90 incorporated cities and towns. JLBC projects a drop in the revenue-sharing fund of about $155 million for FY 2010-11, which city officials called a "staggering decline" from the current fiscal year's amount of $269 million. In the last two years, revenue-sharing to cities will have dropped by 35 percent, the League of Arizona Cities and Towns said in a press release late Thursday. That's in addition to large drops in sales tax collections many local governments are seeing, said Ken Strobeck, executive director of the League. "This is devastating news for cities and towns across the state," Strobeck said in a prepared statement, noting that state revenue-sharing is as much as 40 percent of a city's general fund and is spent largely for police and fire services. "This kind of reduction is going to hit local communities very hard," he said.
Deep Cuts
State agencies see deep cuts to programs, service
by Casey Newton - Oct. 16, 2009 12:00 PM The Arizona Republic State agencies heads say they would have to cut programs, lay off employees and reduce services in budget scenarios released Friday. The scenarios were submitted last week to Gov. Jan Brewer, who asked state agencies to submit proposals on how they would reduce their budgets by an additional 15 percent. The state faces a $1.5 billion deficit in the current fiscal year and expects a shortfall next year that could be twice as large. Brewer has said the reports are not plans or proposals. She directed agencies to prepare the reports to show how services could be affected if lawmakers insist on a cuts-only approach to closing the projected shortfall for the current fiscal year. The proposals are in the outline stage, and so far they are not actively being considered by the governor or the Legislature. But the bleak picture painted by many agencies in their proposals could serve as political leverage for Brewer, who is seeking to refer to the ballot a measure to temporarily increase sales taxes by one cent. Brewer's budget director, Eileen Klein, told agency directors that it wasn't realistic to expect that the necessary savings could be found in “across-the-budget reductions” because of cuts previously made. That meant agencies would have to prioritize services “based on what is most essential and what the voters or courts have mandated,” Klein told directors in a Sept. 18 letter. Some of the scenarios include:
Department of Corrections Thousands of violent offenders will see early release if state agencies are required to reduce their budgets by an additional 15 percent, according to the Arizona Department of Corrections. The reduction would force the department to reduce its budget by $153 million, an outcome that would lead to: • Early release of 13,000 prisoners. • Reducing the mandatory time served for the most serious felonies to 50 percent. • Closing Arizona State Prison Complex-Douglas, as well as prisons in Globe, Fort Grant and St. Johns. • Layoffs of 1,500 employees. Charles Ryan, director of the department, expressed deep reservations about implementing the cuts. “Rewriting the criminal code and releasing thousands of prisoners is neither realistic nor in the best interest of public safety,” Ryan wrote in his letter. “Releasing thousands of prisoners because of the budget deficit will place the public at risk and is akin to turning our back on the law-abiding citizens of Arizona.” Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System More than 46,000 children would lose health insurance coverage if AHCCCS were forced to reduce its budget by 15 percent. The department would achieve most of those cuts — about $47 million — by eliminating its KidsCare program, which currently covers 46,957 children of low-income families in the state. According to the department's letter the governor, Arizona had the fifth-highest rate of uninsured children in the nation for 2008. If the KidsCare program were eliminated, AHCCCS officials estimated that Arizona would move to the third-highest rate in the nation and would have more than 18 percent of children under age 18 uninsured. The letter also cited studies by the Kaiser Family Foundation indicating that uninsured children lead to lower school attendance, less success in school and reduced cognitive development. Department of Public Safety A 15 percent reduction would lead to $40.8 million in cuts and the loss of as many as 570 law enforcement jobs — the equivalent of the entire Tempe Police Department. At a minimum, a 15 percent reduction would leave the department's staffing at 1999 levels. Arizona's population has grown 39 percent since then. “The enclosed reduction options would be devastating to the department, to public safety, and to our employees,” DPS Director Roger Vanderpool wrote in a letter to the governor. The Fraternal Order of Police chapter that represents DPS officers said public safety would be harmed significantly were the cuts implemented. Response times could suffer, officials said, particularly in rural Arizona. “Can you imagine being a citizen calling 911 for help, and being told the closest officer we can get to you is an hour away?” said John Ortolano, president FOP's Grand Canyon State Lodge. “I can't imagine being someone on the other end of the phone. Their jaw would hit the floor.” Ortolano said the reductions, when combined with existing vacancies, would leave DPS without roughly one-third of the 775 officers who patrol state highways.
Department of Environmental Quality Harmful pollutants in the state's air and water systems could go unmonitored, according to the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. The department would be forced to cut its budget by $13 million, and director Benjamin Grumbles warned of the following possible consequences of staff reductions: • Fewer or delayed air-quality data analysis, risking “untimely discovery of unhealthful levels of air pollution." •With the loss of an engineering specialist, the increased likelihood of public exposure to asbestos building materials. •With reduced inspections staff, increased noncompliance in landfills and bio-hazardous medical waste treatment facilities. •Reduced monitoring of pesticides entering the water systems in Arizona. Grumbles did not provide specifics on the number of layoffs. Universities The state universities - Arizona State University, University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University - have already lost $231 million, or 21 percent, of their state funding this year. University officials estimate a 15 percent cut would equal an additional $135 million. The Arizona Board of Regents president laid out several possible blows: • Students could see their tuition soar. • Hundreds of university employees could lose their jobs. • Students with merit-based scholarships could find themselves empty-handed. A midyear tuition hike is not off the table if the budget situation gets bad enough, Regents President Ernest Calderón said in his letter sent Friday. “We'd have to look at everything,” he said. Calderón said in his letter that this was equivalent to $1,300 in additional annual tuition charges per student or the elimination of 2,200 jobs. A 15 percent cut also nearly equates to $140 million in merit-based scholarships given to almost 28,000 students every year. Calderón said he is "pretty sure" the ASU West and ASU Polytechnic campuses would stay open, but they would not be immune from systemwide cuts. K-12 At the K-12 level, Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne said that taking 15 percent out of the Department of Education's budget, including general fund and non-general funds available, would mean another $25.1 million in cuts. • Schools would have to reduce the number of campus police officers because the cuts would erase $5.2 million in state funds for the officers. • Schools also would reduce some of its programs. The cuts could mean $4.8 million for dropout and drug-prevention programs, and $1.3 million in preschool funding, including money to help parents become better readers so they can help their children learn. • Other cuts would include about $6 million each for special-education student vouchers and English-language immersion and a cut to the department that licenses teachers and investigates complaints against them. The Department of Education already has cut $17 million from its budget during the past two school years. Horne said the agency has not filled vacated positions and is moving some employees from state-paid jobs into positions funded by federal grants. The budget year that begins in July 2011 could be the worst so far, he said. The Associated Press contributed to this report. Republic reporters Anne Ryman and Pat Kossan also contributed.
15% ADC Reduction
The Real Cost
As all ADC employees try to digest the release of the proposed action from the Director’s Office, called an exercise, to absorb a 15% budget shortfall for ADC, tempers and emotions are running high. Employees must not take their emotional response out on the Director, Governor or legislators as they attempt to explore ways to temporarily balance the states budget.
Any contact or comments to the Director, Governor or legislators, whether by e-mail, phone or letter, should remain respectful and professional. Recent name calling, ‘finger pointing’ and otherwise negative communications to the legislative branch and the Governor’s Office have been most unhelpful in resolving the budget dilemma facing Arizona. The last thing ADC employees should want to project is a negative image of Corrections professionals.
Only a Proposal
As for the exercise released by Director Ryan, it is only that, a possible proposal. No Complexes or Units are being closed and no employee positions are experiencing a RIF right now!
Every ADC employee should very carefully read this proposal and carefully weigh the consequences.
Many believe this is only a high stakes political ‘poker game’ being played out, but rest assured, the budget shortfalls are very real. As the nations and states economy continues to contract, so does the accompanying tax revenue.
Already the media is discussing the possible impact of such reductions on the Department of Public Safety. The DPS Director released a similar proposal outlining the impact of 15% cuts at DPS to employee organizations of that agency last week with the accompanying statistics so that the organizations could intelligently discuss the ramifications with legislators and the media. The public must be engaged in this discussion of reductions to law enforcement agencies.
Negative Impact
The proposal released by Director Ryan would have a serious negative impact on several municipalities and counties already struggling to ‘make ends meet’ with their own revenue shortfalls. ADC is the largest employer in these areas and the resulting unemployment, homeforeclosures and loss of local taxes would be disastrous. The end result would be even further job losses and the resulting home foreclosures as local governments are forced to layoff or reduce their own workforce due to a shrinking tax base, including law enforcement and other local emergency responders.
No one disputes the negative impact to overall public safety should a 15% reduction take place. Releasing thousands of convicted felons into the public while reducing law enforcementat the same time could result in significant increases in crime statistics. The real citizens involved in these increased crime statistics are often the forgotten end result. There are also the accompanying increased costs in insurance and medical expenses to consider. The impact to shrinking and ‘stretched thin’ first responders could overwhelm local agencies.
Inside the Prisons
The impact on the safety and welfare of employees and prisoners of ADC, should a 15% reduction take place, would be less apparent to the public, but none the less disastrous. Reducing the number of employees results in the direct reduction of inmate programs which employees must supervise. Inmate programs include education, work and even general recreation. As the number of employees decreases to supervise increasing numbers of inmates, to provide safety and security, the number of programs and the corresponding risks are reduced. Significant reductions in inmate programs would result in prisoners spending more idle time simply in their cells to become frustrated. That would result in increased staff assaults and possible prison unrest, which the shrinking numbers of ADC employees would find more and more difficult to manage.
In the end, a 15% reduction to ADC could result in a significant risk to public safety, further reductions in tax revenues, increased unemployment and home foreclosures and a physically dangerous environment for both the employees and prisoners of ADC.
The real question is whether the 15% reduction to temporarily balance the budget is worth the real cost to the citizens of Arizona?
National Health Care
UPDATE ON HEALTH CARE REFORM LEGISLATION
As Health Care Reform legislation is beginning to take shape in multiple committees in both Houses of Congress, the only area of concern which could significantly affect FOP members is the “High Cost Insurance Excise Tax,” which is part of the bill currently being considered before the Senate Committee on Finance. • The current draft includes an excise tax of 40% percent on insurance companies and plan administrators for any employer-sponsored health coverage that is above the threshold of $8,000 for singles and $21,000 for family plans beginning in 2013. The threshold is indexed to the Consumer Price Index for Urban Consumers, as determined by the Department of Labor beginning in 2014, plus one percent (CPI+1). o The CPI+1 index is well below the inflation rate of Health Premiums in recent years. Estimates by the Joint Committee on Taxation have more than a quarter of all family and individual healthcare plans by 2015 falling under the tax. o In the case of a self insured group, the excise tax would be paid by the plan administrator (The law enforcement agency or local government). o The threshold amount for plans that cover employees engaged in high risk professions, including law enforcement, is increased by $1,850 for individual coverage and $5,000 for family coverage. Beginning in 2013 the threshold for law enforcement officers would be $9,850 for an individual and $26,000 for families. (The threshold is also increased similarly for retirees, but there is no double dipping.) • Even though the proposed excise tax is levied on the insurance companies and not law enforcement officers, the cost of the tax is likely to be passed on to our members in increased cost, less coverage, or a combination of both. • There is no taxation of employer provided benefits on the individual, but employers are required to provide the amount of the benefit on the W-2.
The “High Cost Insurance Excise Tax,” has so far only been considered before the Senate Committee on Finance. The House Committees on Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and Labor, as well as the Senate Committee on Health Education and Labor have not included this provision.
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) originally planned on offering an amendment during the Senate Committee’s on Finance’s markup to scale the tax back, but instead he may offer it on the Senate floor. Also, one hundred and fifty seven (157) House Democrats signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi indicating opposition to the “High Cost Insurance Excise Tax.”
The FOP is concerned with any provisions in Health Care Reform legislation which could negatively impact our members. Other labor and public safety organizations that have come out or are working against the Excise tax include: the International Association of Fire Fighters, the National Education Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, United Mine Workers of America, and American Federation of Teachers.
FOP ADC Labor Council Meeting
For General Distribution
Schedule for Saturday, September 26, 2009
The FOP ADC Labor Council will have an Executive Board Meeting and General Member Meeting starting at 2 pm (1400) in the small conference room.
The address is: FOP Lodge #2, Located at: 12851 N. 19th Ave. Phoenix, Arizona
The Lodge is just south of Cactus Rd. on 19th Ave. Members can exit I 17 (Black Canyon Freeway) at Cactus and head east to 19th Ave.
The agenda for the ADC Labor Council will include but is not limited to: • Meet and Confer meeting and minutes • Prison privatization • Staff rotation • Labor Council expansion (recruitment progress) • Planning session
Member Meeting
This meeting is open to all members of the FOP Lodges 44 and 62 that pay by direct deduct or other means and is on the ALC roster.
Membership is required to attend the meeting and names will be verified against the current roster.
Roberts Rules of Order will be utilized and enforced as in any FOP meeting.
Any member in good standing may speak on any agenda item and enter motions.
Director Melissa Wallace presiding.
H.B. 2010 and FOP
Brothers, Sisters and ADC Employees,
We have a responsibility to deal with the ‘here and now’, the present, while keeping a keen eye on the future.
The Arizona legislators have a responsibility to solve the budget crisis. The State is billions of dollars – that’s billions with a capital B – in the red! The legislature must look at anything and everything to save taxpayers money. That is why the RFI, request for information, for privatizing some or all of the prison system was in the bill signed by the Governor.
The Bill – H.B. 2010
There is also a 5% cut in State employees (amendment to the bill by Sen. Jack Harper), not just any employees, but 5% from each agency. There is a further possibility of a 15-20% further budget reduction to each State agency next fiscal year.
There is a possibility that the law could be modified for State agencies that simply could not function with a 5% reduction in employees, but any changes in the law must be carried out by the February 1st deadline.
Our Position
The FOP’s position: Incarceration of criminals should not be a for-profit activity. It's a public safety government function.
Public safety remains our number one goal. The professional Correctional POST certified Officers of ADC maintain public safety while providing a safe and healthy environment for inmate education and work programs. Private prisons, by themselves, cannot reach the long range criminal justice goals of the State of Arizona and provide for public safety at the acceptable level the public has come to expect.
The FOP for Corrections has a plan moving forward that includes:
• Determining and discussing the financial impact to local communities should local prison complexes be privatized o Lowered wages means lower local spending at local merchants o Higher foreclosure rates o Lower tax revenues
• Work with the Department and the legislators to ensure the public and the legislators are knowledgeable about the possible ramifications to further cuts to ADC o The previous administration cut positions from ADC o ADC is currently below design staffing requirements o Further employee reductions adversely impact public safety o Further cuts reduce inmate programs and adversely influence inmate behavior o Cuts may adversely impact inmate welfare, safety and health
• Ensure the public and the legislators understand the long term ramifications to contract prisons o Show statistically the adverse impact on other states o The state will fall behind in prison bed construction o Without the states own beds it may be forced to pay higher contracts in the future o Inmate programs will be reduced o Inmate safety and welfare impacted
• Ensure the public and the legislators understand the short term ramifications to prison privatization o All current contractual obligation will be renegotiated o Those contracts may increase substantially o Impact to the states financial interests – foreclosures, lost revenue, decreased spending, increased unemployment o impact to the families of the incarcerated o COTA training costs lost
These are only some of the issues we will be moving forward on. It is our position that the overall adverse impact to the State will be out weighed by any short term financial gains.
Just as the FOP has done on employee issues within ADC, we will work with the administration and the legislators to advocate new and innovative solutions to the problems facing the states prison system. Simple cuts may seem reasonable at first glance, but do not serve the States long term needs or goals.
The Future
ADC has placed some low custody inmates in private prison beds both in and out of state before. There is no reason for the legislature not to consider some new construction of low custody private beds within Arizona to replace those we were contracting out of state. In this manner, all construction and employment revenues generated stay in Arizona. However, the state must maintain enough prison space to house all its own inmates in any emergency situation.
State Senator Jack Harper, upon whose insistence the 5% employee reduction amendment was added, recently stated that the requirement for employee cuts could be modified next session. If necessary, we must prepare to support such a modification in cooperation with the Director. ADC may be close to meeting the reduction requirement, however, it is unlikely ADC could withstand any further employee cuts without jeopardizing public safety, employee safety and inmate safety.
Finger pointing, name calling and targeting elected officials are unhelpful at best. Impugning the integrity of elected officials is counter productive and may be outright damaging to the goals of corrections employees - if the AZCOPS rhetoric has not already done so.
Elected officials are responsible for finding the solution and we must work with them in the best interest of our members. The elected officials were placed in their positions by voters. We must engage the legislature in professional discussion without partisan rancor. A lesson AZCOPS has not learned.
The taxpayers have invested a great deal of time and money in training the professional employees of ADC and building the facilities of the Department of Corrections in their communities. These are our communities as well. The taxpayers cannot afford to lose the investment they have in ADC. Let’s work together to find solutions.
We must represent your interests within the system. We are employees of the system. We must work with the system to find solutions.
The Budget - Buildings and Privatization
Facts, Not Rhetoric
We need to talk about the facts, not the rhetoric. I am very concerned by some of the web site postings and comments that are being generated by un-informed individuals.
The facts:
The good news is that a budget is done. Local towns and cites will not be adversely impacted by the Vehicle License Tax sweep that was vetoed by the Governor. The State does need to raise a lot of revenue.
One Bill passed contains a plan that involves selling State buildings then renting them back. This plan shouldn’t impact employees; it is just a paper transaction. This is a common budget maneuver. This plan is like selling your house and renting it back. You would get all of the money you sold it for up front and only have to pay a small amount back each month for rent.
“Not later that June 30, 2010, the department of administration shall enter into one or more lease-purchase agreements through the sale and simultaneous lease-purchase of a state department of corrections facility or any other state owned facility.”
"Governor Jan Brewer Thursday signed a portion of the state budget that includes a controversial provision that calls for the state to sell selected public properties as it tries to generate some fast cash.”
“Under the provision, the state will attempt to sell the government properties and lease them back for periods of up to 20 years. Deals that would generate the targeted $735 million in revenue would mean state lease payments totaling $60 million to $70 million a year, according to budget analysts.”
Selling the buildings has NOTHING to do with employees. Again, this is a common budget maneuver.
However, the same Bill has proposals in it that many in Corrections are commenting on. Let’s face it, the State contracted out (privatized) food services many years ago. In the near future, much of the health care system may undergo the same; ADC already has a large number of contract (privatized) medical employees.
Keep in mind that the State already has some privatized beds in use, and many of the interstate compact beds were private. After some issues last year, ADC had many of those ‘private’ prison population inmates returned to Arizona. It should not surprise anyone if the State is interested in building those private beds here in Arizona to keep the jobs and revenues here instead of in some other state. There will be some more privatized prison beds here in Arizona in the future and that may be a good thing as a cost containment effort.
The real concern is current facilities. The Bill calls for information from the department of administration to ADC, there is a ‘request for information for the purpose of identifying the feasibility’ of privatizing prisons with set expectations for monies for the state. This study is due by October 1, 2009.
“Additionally, approval of Thursday's budget bill means the state will attempt to sell the rights to operate some of its prisons. Private, for-profit prison operators will bid for the right to manage selected facilities, but the state would maintain ownership. State officials expect to raise as much as $100 million through the prison-concessions arrangement.”
Nothing in this Bill calls for lay-offs at ADC!
No one should call for ADC employees to ‘use up their sick leave’ or ‘start looking for another job’. Those types of comments are not only misinformed and misguided, but counterproductive. ADC management has spent a great deal of energy informing the legislators of the negative aspects of privatization. There are many facets of such a proposal that must be considered but no such proposal exists yet!
Many State Representatives and Senators must still wrestle with the ‘down side’: • Maintaining prison security to state standards • Inmate health and welfare • Inmate education and work programs • The morality of ‘for profit’ companies incarcerating citizens
Local towns and cities have yet to weigh in on the feasibility of any such proposal. The costto local economies may be greater than any expected returns in revenue to the Capital. Legislators and any for profit group that wishes to entertain such a proposal must also consider the ‘pool of possible employees’ that will be drawn on. ADC already has a difficult time finding enough appropriate employees for corrections.
Any for profit entity must also consider the availability of employees at a substantially lower rate of pay. These employees may be acceptable at a somewhat lowered standard than ADC, but basically the same pool of availability. Employees receiving a much lower rate of compensation could not afford to travel long distances to work and most ADC facilities are positioned in rural Arizona.
ADC employees ask ‘then what should I do?’
Many employees remember when ADC was a show place of modern corrections facilities. Our COTA graduates were a sought after commodity by other states.
Now is the time to remember just who your employer really is; the Legislators. Show the legislators that they can and should be proud of the modern professional Corrections Officers that maintain the security and custody of Arizona’s offenders. • Maintain your uniform standards to the highest possible level • Follow all ADC policies and written orders to the letter • Ensure the public sees you as an integral and important professional part of the criminal justice system
If the public and the legislators actually see you and consider you an integral part of a professional law enforcement agency, ADC, that both the public and the legislators are proud of, your job will be safe.
There is no proposal to privatize any ADC facility yet. Criticizing the legislators for trying to find solutions for the taxpayers of Arizona is unhelpful at best. The legislators should know that we recognize that some privatization in the future may be necessary, but that we do not support the privatization of any of ADC’s current facilities.
We must show the public and the legislators that ADC is already a well run, fiscally prudent and professionally staffed department. Any move to privatize any part of ADC would be a gamble with the public’s safety and the security and welfare of the inmate population we maintain.
Stephen R. Vandegrift Labor Service FOP ADC Labor Council
The Governor signed HB2010, the Criminal Justice budget bill, averting a situation in which DPS most likely would have shut down this month.
The remainder of the budget is still being punted back and forth like a deflated football in a strange, never ending, game...
While I can say that we are relieved that hundreds of DPS officers and their families won't be forced to struggle along without paychecks, and happy that we can cancel the idea to raise money to help them out, we are distressed that this "budget process" allowed several provisions to pass without significant stakeholder discussion.
Read a summary of the budget bill here... Note: one portion of the legislature's summary is incorrect - see below.
The criminal justice budget bill, includes a provision to initiate the process of privatization of prisons. The manner in which this idea was brought forth is sure to cause ADC employees to question their long-term job security and increase corrections staff turnover. Not to mention, we firmly believe incarceration of violent and dangerous prisoners is a government responsibility... not a for-profit activity. As the RFP privatization process is initiated, we will keep you updated.
The positive portion of the bill for corrections employees is that it saves $29 million in prisoner heath care costs which will relieve some funding pressure within ADC.
It is my opinion, some of the items included in this budget process are more about ideology than cost savings. For example, new dispatchers have lost the ability to enter a 25 year retirement plan. Frankly, placing new dispatchers into ASRS is not a cost savings. In fact, both the employer and the new hire employee will pay more in retirement contributions, while receiving a less beneficial retirement benefit. I believe the dispatcher job is one of the most important and stressful jobs in law enforcement. In my opinion, the best dispatcher candidates can only be recruited with the assurance that the pay and benefits will be enough to compensate them for the type of work they will be required to perform. Dispatchers don't carry a gun, but we all know they save lives - sometimes ours. We look forward to the day dispatchers have the retirement benefits they deserve.
Another provision changes the definition of salaries used to calculate retirement benefits for PSPRS members. The summary incorrectly makes it seem that the provision only relates to DPS officers. In fact, the provision applies to all members of the PSPRS retirement system.
Basically, the intent of the legislation is to prevent off duty job compensation to be included in retirement. I would suggest that the very few of you who work under such an arrangement, should make sure the portion of those payments normally paid toward retirement contributions is included in your pay. I feel it would be inappropriate for the agency to retain the significant retirement contributions collected from the third party, or reduce the hourly rate paid by the third party. The money belongs to the officer working the job. Below is the language of the provision, effective immediately:
"...compensation does not include, for the purpose of computing retirement benefits, payments made directly or indirectly by the employer to the employee for work performed for a third party on a contracted basis or any other type of agreement under which the third party pays or reimburses the employer for the work performed by the employee for that third party, except for third party contracts between public agencies for law enforcement, training, wildfire and emergency management activities."
The budget stand-off between the Legislature and the Governor is not over. The signing of the criminal justice bill is just one more step and it sounds like all sides are still far apart. It is the prediction of many, the budget issue will keep coming back even if an agreement is reached between the players. In fact, some of the observers at the legislature, including me, think the legislature will be called back to negotiate further budget cuts.
Preparation for negotiating the "next" budget is already underway. Expect the "next" budget negotiations to be even more brutal.
Fraternally,
Jim Mann, Executive Director Fraternal Order of Police Arizona Labor Council
Governor signs H. B. 2010
The bill we have all been worried about has been signed into law by the Governor. Everyone should carefully read the pertinent parts of this bill and understand that any privatization is still some way off and feasibility studies must still be conducted and reviewed.
Please go to the Governors web site and read House Bill 2010 for yourself.
The bill privatizes health services for inmate care – see ADC Health Care Services page25.
“Prison and other state owned facilities – lease purchase financing agreement” on page 26
“Not later that June 30, 2010, the department of administration shall enter into one or more lease-purchase agreements through the sale and simultaneous lease-purchase of a state department of corrections facility or any other state owned facility.”
Under “prison operations: private vendor: concession agreement retroactivity”
From the department of administration to ADC, there is a ‘request for information for thepurpose of identifying the feasibility’ of privatizing prisons with set expectations for monies for the state. This study is due by October 1, 2009.
FOP Top Priority
FOP Top Priority Introduced in the Senate: Gregg and Kennedy Introduce FOP ' s Collective Bargaining Bill
FOP NEWS: Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, hailed the introduction of S. 1611 , the "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act," and repeated his earlier claim that he was all but certain the bill would be enacted this Congress.
"This is not an assertion we make lightly, but we laid the groundwork for success last Congress," said Canterbury. "President Obama was a strong supporter of the bill and, as a candidate, pledged that he would sign it into law."
The bill , introduced by Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), would recognize the right of public safety employees to form and join unions, and bargain collectively with their employers. Last Congress identical legislation passed the House in July 2007 on an overwhelming 314-97 vote. Additionally, the legislation won a strong majority in the Senate during a procedural motion, though efforts to move the bill were ultimately stalled by parliamentary tactics.
The bill was introduced in the House earlier this year as H.R. 413 and currently has 133 cosponsors.
"Public safety employees--police officers and firefighters--are virtually the only class of workers left in the nation today who are denied the fundamental right to bargain collectively with their employers over wages, hours, and working conditions. We're going to change that soon," Canterbury said. "Together with our partners at the International Association of Fire Fighters, we will get this bill passed and signed into law before the end of this Congress."
F.O.P. Legislative Update!
Retired Officers can carry concealed without a permit in Arizona 8/1/2009
With proper credentials, retired Law Enforcement Officers are now allowed to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. In fact, the new law allows a person who has "honorably served" for 10 years to carry concealed without a permit.
Senate Bill 1042 was signed into law on July 13, 2009 and was effective immediately. The bill specifically states that the person must possess a photo ID from a law enforcement agency that states that the officer has "served for more than 10 consecutive years." This limitation may not allow a retired officer to carry concealed until a new ID card is obtained.
I want to make it clear that we do not know if a "retired" ID card will suffice unless it clearly states the officer has honorably served for more than 10 years. Senator Pearce told me that the legislative intent was to allow current retired ID cards to be sufficient. To be prudent, we would suggest obtaining a new retired ID card. We have seen one ID card that used the term "honorably served." That card was in the possession of Senator Pearce.
The bill also has a provision for out-of-state retired officers, who now reside in Arizona, to obtain an ID card in order to meet the requirement. The law states the Sheriff shall issue the ID card.
The new Law... A PERSON WHO HAS HONORABLY SERVED AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE UNITED STATES FOR AT LEAST TEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS AND WHO POSSESSES A PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT STATES THE PERSON HAS SERVED FOR AT LEAST TEN CONSECUTIVE YEARS AS A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER IN THE UNITEDSTATES. ON REQUEST, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY THAT MOST RECENTLY EMPLOYED THE PERSON OR, IF THE PERSON WAS EMPLOYED OUTSIDE OF THIS STATE, THE SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY IN WHICH THE PERSON RESIDES SHALL ISSUE A PHOTOGRAPHIC IDENTIFICATION THAT VERIFIES THE PERSON MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF THIS PARAGRAPH.
The bill also; • Allows a sheriff to authorize members of his volunteer posse who have received AZPOST-approved firearms training to carry a deadly weapon without a CCW while on duty. • States that the following people do not commit misconduct involving weapons while carrying a concealed weapon without a CCW on their person in specified circumstances: • Community correctional officers, detention officers, special investigators and correctional officers of the Department of Juvenile Corrections. • An authorized member of a sheriff’s volunteer posse who meets specified criteria. • A person who has honorably served as a law enforcement officer in the U.S. for at least 10 consecutive years who can provide photographic evidence of this service. • Increases the penalty from a Class 3 to a Class 2 felony for committing misconduct involving weapons while using, possessing or exercising control over a deadly weapon in furtherance of any act of terrorism or having reason to know that it will be used to facilitate any act of terrorism. • Exempts AZPOST certified full authority peace officers who volunteer in a law enforcement agency’s reserve program from the firearms safety training program required to obtain a CCW.
Jim Mann, Executive Director Fraternal Order of Police Arizona Labor Council (602) 421-8759 jcmann@fop.net
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
ADC LC Works with Warden
PV Complex Representative Works for Resolution
The recent death of Inmate Powell was both disturbing and a shock to the whole Department; the eyes of the nation are now focused on Perryville and the Arizona Department of Corrections.
On 6-3-09, Vice-President Bob Calhoun had a meeting with Warden Schroeder where several pressing issues were discussed, but the main topic was the death of Ms. Powell and the ongoing investigation.
It was learned that there was more than one incident being investigated, the first happened a week prior and the other a week after. This past week, Representative Calhoun has been assisting anyone who has asked for help regardless of association.
Warden Schroeder has pledged that all staff members involved will be treated fairly and all mitigating circumstances will be taken into consideration. What we must accept is the fact that mistakes were made and there must be accountability. In some cases policy was not followed, but even where policy was followed, some staff failed to document the incident.
As a condition of our employment we are required to cooperate with the investigation, but when questioned sometimes there is a tendency to attempt to answer the questions in such a manner that that it appears policy was followed even when it was not.
If policy was not followed, just be truthful; tell what happened and why it happened. The only way misguided policy will be changed is if it can be established it does not work in all cases, and adjustments had to be made due to circumstance.
Bob Calhoun pledged his full support to the Warden and that of the FOP. We must also be ready to take our lumps, undocumented mistakes are going to have their consequences, documented mistakes provide the ability to explain and allow for the benefit of doubt.
We must all pull together and support our Brothers and Sisters but moreover, support our leadership, so the difficult decisions can be made, policies rewritten, and prevent having to repeat mistakes in the future.
Bob Calhoun Vice-President Lodge 44 Trustee, ADC Labor Council
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
Issues Inside
Inappropriate Touching
Female staff at Lewis Complex have reported that inmates ‘go out of their way’ to place their hands on female staff members hands and arms. I have shown the female staff members that I work with exactly what has been shown to me; how the inmates at Lewis complex are touching them. The female staff I work with were upset and said ‘point blank’ that they would not stand for this if it ever happened to them, to the point that if they feel threaten, they will defend them self’s accordingly.
I have spoken with a few Disciplinary Sergeants about the inmate’s caressing female officer’s arms/hands and taking liberty with the female staff in general. They all agree the Department ‘dropped the ball’ when it came to this issue when reviewing the disciplinary system. I know that Arizona law considers that any unwanted touching or physical contact by any person can be considered sexual assault or sexual harassment. There is a charge for sexual abuse which is a 27B, but this is not appropriate for this issue. This is something that will be brought to the Director’s attention.
This action, under Department Policy, would consider this type of touching, by male inmates to female staff, as unauthorized physical contact, which falls under 36B under the disciplinary system.
36B Violation of any published Department or Institution Rule.
This will have to do for now until the Director has the opportunity to review this and possibly add sexual harassment/sexual assault of staff as part of the disciplinary system.
G. Camacho, Trustee, ADC Labor Council
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.
In Congress
FOP Top Priority Introduced in the House Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, hailed the introduction of H.R. 413, the "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act," and repeated his earlier claim that he was "all but certain" that the bill would be enacted before the end of 2009. "This is not an assertion we make lightly, but we laid the groundwork for success last Congress," said Canterbury. "President-elect Obama was a strong supporter of the bill and, as a candidate, pledged that he would sign it into law." The bill, H.R. 413, was introduced by Representatives Dale Kildee (D-MI) and John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN). The legislation, which recognizes the right of public safety employees to form and join unions, and bargain collectively with their employers, passed the House in July 2007 on an overwhelming 314-97 vote. The legislation also won a strong majority in the Senate during a procedural motion, though efforts to move the bill were ultimately stalled by parliamentary tactics. "Public safety employees—police officers and firefighters—are virtually the only class of workers left in the nation today who are denied the fundamental right to bargain collectively with their employers over wages, hours, and working conditions. We're going to change that this year," Canterbury said. "Together with our partners at the International Association of Fire Fighters, we will get this bill passed and signed into law before the end of 2009." Support H.R. 413, the "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act" This legislation, which would guarantee the right of public safety employees to bargain collectively with their employers over hours, wages and conditions of employment, was introduced by U.S. Representatives Dale Kildee (D-MI) and John J. Duncan, Jr. (R-TN) in the first week of Congress. The Senate companion bill has not yet been introduced.
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
Collective Bargaining Bill Introduced in the US Senate
Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, hailed the introduction of S. 2123, the "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act," describing it as one of the top priorities for the organization.
"Public safety employees—police officers and firefighters—are virtually the only class of workers left in the nation today who are denied the fundamental right to bargain collectively with their employers over wages, hours, and working conditions," said Canterbury.
The bill was introduced yesterday by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA), the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP). In addition to Senator Kennedy, there were nineteen other cosponsors—eight (8) Democrats, nine (9) Republicans, and two (2) independents. The legislation, which is the companion measure to H.R. 980 that passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming 314-97 vote, recognizes the right of public safety employees to form and join unions, and bargain collectively with their employers. States with collective bargaining statutes will be exempt, and strikes and lockouts will be prohibited under the provisions of the bill.
"Law enforcement officers take their sworn oaths and their commitment to the protection of the public very seriously," Canterbury said. "We do not engage in work stoppages or slowdowns. Threats to public safety are not used as bargaining chips by police or firefighters. But without collective bargaining rights, these critical employees—these dedicated men and women—have no avenue to influence important decisions affecting their jobs and livelihoods. That's just not right."
Canterbury pledged the strong support of the FOP for the legislation, saying, "The 'Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act' will put police officers and firefighters on an equal footing with other employees—they'll finally be able to bargain collectively for wages, hours, and conditions of employment."
The Fraternal Order of Police is the largest law enforcement labor organization in the United States, with more than 325,000 members.
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.
Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, hailed the introduction of S. 2123, the "Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act," describing it as one of the top priorities for the organization.
