request for impasse determination/ appointment of mediator - The ...

REQUEST FOR IMPASSE DETERMINATION/
APPOINTMENT OF MEDIATOR
INSTRUCTIONS: A request for impasse determination must be filed with the appropriate regional oftice (see PERB Regulation 32075). A
requesrwh¡chisnotjointiyfiledmrsìbeservedontlreotlrerpartyærequire.dbyñ.egulation32792@). Proofofservicemustaccompanythe
request. Attach additional shees ifmore space is
l. The employer of thè employees in the esøblished unit is an employer within the meaning of the
l--lEducational Employment Relations Act (EER.A)(GowCode sections 3540-3549.3).
[-.-l Higher Education Employer-Employee Relations Act (HEERA)(Govt Code sections.3560-3599).
2. EMPLOYER (Name, address and telephone number)
State of Califomia, Department of Personnel Administration
3. EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATIVE (Name, address and
telephone number)
Califomia Conectional Peace Officers Association
.-- í'¡-, ..-
"ri -'l
j'lì
:'-)
-f
-'.
.r .-\f,
t"l
f-
r)-,
t 5 I 5 S Street, North Building, Suite 400
Sacramento. CA 958 l4
¡ 916 \ 324-0476
Agent to be contacted: Julie Chapman
755 Riverpoint Drìve, Suite 200
West Sacramento. CA 95605
1_916 ) 372-6060 -g¡1.
Agento be contacted: Miko Jimenez
Title: Deputy Director of Labor Relatìons
Address and telephone, if different:
Tilt-. Q+-fa DraaìÁent l-l-ÞôÀ
Address and ælephone, ifdifferent:
4. DESCRIPTION OFESTABLISHED UNIT
APPROKMATE NTJMBER OF EMPLOYEES IN THE
Shall Include:
Bargainìng Unit 6 represented by Califomia Correctional Peace
Officers Association.
UNIT:
Est.29,580
Shall Exclude:
DATE EXCLUSIVE REPRESENTATTVE WAS
RECOGNIZED OR CERTIFIED: February 1982
7. .TYPE OF DISPUTE
l--l ,niriut conracr l7l sur.rrro, cont urr [-l Reopene(s) in Eisting contract l-l er.rc orLuvor
l--l other (describe)
PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Date exclusive representativds initial proposals present€d to the public: July 3, 2006
Date employe/s ¡nitial proposals presented to tlre public: April I 3, 2006
Los Angeles Regional OfÌice
3530 Wilshire Blvd., Suiæ 1435
Los Angeles, CA 9001G2334
(213) 736-3t27
PERB-Isl0 (0?ol)
Sacramento Regional Office
l03l lshSteet
Sacramento. cA 958144174
(916)322-3198
San Francisco Regional Offtce
1330 Broadway, Suite 1532
Oakland, CA 9461 2-25 la
(sl0) 622-t016
(continued on reverse)
i . )
l. .:.
li.'/
Er:
lia i
lr
ii
j¡
ì

9. HISTORY OF NEGOTIATIONSA4EET AND CONFER
Date offirst negotiationsession: June 9, 2006
Approximate ¡oøl number of hours spent in negotiations to date:
Total number ofnegotiating sessions to date: 24 sessions
IO. STATUS OF NEGOTIATÍONS/MEET AND CONFER
Date impasse was declared by a partylparties
pursuanto PERB Regulation 32792(a): - ADril I 3 & 20' 2007
Number of issues on which the parties
have reached tentative agreement: None
5 I incl. Caucus
Total number ofun¡esolved issues which
remain in dispute: All
Issues which remain in disPute:
All
Issues on which tentative agreement has been reached:
No tentative asreements have been reached.
II. STATEMENTOFFACTS
provide a clear and concise description ofthe negotiations which have occuned, including the extent to which the parties have made counterproposals
and have discussed the issues which remain in dispute. Ideniifo the facts which indic¿te that future meetings without the assistance
of a mediator would be futile.
See attached.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the statements herein are true to the best ofmy knowledge and belief,
NAME OF REQUESTING PARTY: -Julie Chapman
SIGNATURE OF ATJTHOzuZED REPRESENTATIVE:
Tirle: Dir., Labor Administration Daæ: May 10,2007
NAME OF REQUESTING PARTY:
SIGNATURE OF AUTHOzuZED REPRESENTATIVE
Tide
Date:
PERB- l 5 lo (02101 )

11. STATEMENT OF FACTS
In accordance with the Ralph C. Dills Act (Dills Act), "after a reasonable period
of time" of failing to reach agreement, a"party may request the [Public Employee Relations
Board (pERB)l board to appãint a mediatãr." (Govt Cóae ç 3518t) ln exercise of the rights
conferred by the Dills Act, the State of Califomia, Department of Personnel Administration on
behalf of the Governor (State) submits the following facts and allegations that establish that
further meetings between the State and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association
(CCPOA) *outd be futile in the absence of such a mediator. As such, the State, consistent with
ih. oiltr Act, requests that PERB assign a mediator from the Federal Mediation and Conciliation
Service2 to assisf the parties in moving past what both sides have recognized as futile
negotiations. In the alternative, the State requests that PERB declare impasse based upon the
demonstrated futility of negotiations.
As has been well documented and much publicized, the priion system is in a state
of crisis. Negotiating a successor contract between the State and CCPOA is therefore a matter of
critical impoñance *d,rtg.nry. The purpose of the State's foregoing requests is to bring the
parties together in a way that will serve to alleviate rather than contribute to this present crisis.
itr ttrr intérest of the safety and well-being of the public, the CCPOA, the State and its
employees, the parties must work together in all arenas to resolve this crisis.
After almost a year of attempting to negotiate a new contract, negotiations have
concluded unsuccessfully. Allhough the parties might disagree on what to call it, they have
demonstrated that they agree that aãditional bargaining would be a continued exercise in futility.
The State is hopeful túatbCpOA will support this request to PERB for relief from further
futility.
A. Introduction
1. The parties have been attempting to negotiate a successor Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) for nearly ayear. They have attended at least twenty-four (24) main'
table bargaining sessions and the State has presented multiple conceptual and specific language
proposalJ. CCÞO4 has not presented a single substantive proposal, although it has considered
and consistently rejected the State's proposals.
Z. On April 13,2007, CCPOA, through its President Mike Jimenez, declated
impasse and terminated bargaining. In an unprecedented move, CCPOA directed the State to
submit its nearly one billion dollar contract proposal directly to union's membership for
ratification rather than engage in productive negotiations in an attempt to reach an agreement. A
true and correct copy of CtÞOa;s April 13, 2007 letter is attached hereto as Exhibit 1 and is
incorporated herein by reference.
I Section 35l B reads, in relevant part, "If after a reasonable period of time, the Governor and the recognized
employee organization fail to reaàh agreement, the Governor and the recognized employee organization may agree
,rpón ti," appiintment of a mediator mutually agreeable to the parties , ot either party may request the [PERB] board
to appoint a mediator." [emphasis added]
, The State requests a Federal mediator in light of the import of this contract negotiation, the current prison crisis,
ongoing pedeål court monitoring, and the ñeed to have guidance and assistance from an individual unaffiliated and
disconnected fiom the actual parties to the contract at issue.

3. It is apparent from CCPOA's approach to the bargaining of this successor
MOU (detailed below) and its April 13, 2007 letter that further meetings between the parties
would be futile. ln fact, in this letter, CCPOA has admitted and asserted that the "entire
[bargaining] process" has "chilled." Moreover, CCPOA concsdes that "it seems that each time
[the parties] get together, fthe parties] grow further apart." (Exhibit 1)
4. CCPOA's unsatisfactory solution to the present impasse was to "eliminate
any fuither unhealthy interactions" by "permit[ing] [the State] to send out [its] proposal for a
vote to the membership." CCPOA's statements alone indicate that further meetings are a futile
exercise. CCPOA has washed its hands of this bargaining process and has chosen not to
negotiate a successor MOU with the State. More specifically, CCPOA has unilaterally declared
that bargaining is over and demanded that the State, if it desires a contract, to present it to the
members outside of the bargaining context. (Exhibit 1)
5. The parties are undeniably at an impasse and require the immediate
assistance of PERB. At a minimum, the parties, in light of the complete and utter breakdown of
negotiations, require assistance of a mediator as contemplated by the Dills Act.
B. The Memorandum of Understanding Between The Parties
6. Consistent with the Dills Act, the parties entered into an MOU with a term
of July 1, 2001 through JuIy 2,2006. Pursuanto the Dills Act, the parties have continued to
give effect to the provisions of the now expired MOU while meeting and conferring to reach a
successor MOU.
C. History of Proposals and Counterproposals
State's Offers and Enhancements
. July 30,2006 The State presented an initial Z-year package offer, which
included specific contract language proposals, the majority of
which were non-substantive modifications.
. Augu st 14,2006 The State provided additional proposed contract language that
supplemented the July 30'2006package offer. CCPOA was
offered increases in base pay that maintained a tie to the
California Association of Highway Patrolmen (CAHP) and health
benefits. The State provided the specific language of its entire
agreementlmanagement rights and grievance and arbitration
proposals.
. September 13,2006 The State provided additional economic proposals in response to
discussions with CCPOA about high vacancy rates and
recruitment efforts. To that end, the State offered to double the
current recruitment and retention amounts and to implement a
$500 bonus for those employees who recruit new correctional
officers.

October 18,2006
March 22,2007
To address some of CCPOA's comments, the State modified two
proposals: release time bank and post and bid.
ln response to CCPOA's repeated requests for conceptual
proposals (as opposed to the actual contract language the State
had provided), the Director of DPA, Dave Gilb, presented Chuck
Alexander, CCPOA Vice President, a conceptual 3-year offer
without corresponding contract language proposals. The State
verbally expressed that a -yeat option was also available'
The 3-year conceptual offer increased the term of the agreement
and contemplated an additional year of pay increases. Moreover,
the State quadrupled the value of its new recruit proposal from
$500 to $2000. In addition, the State presented three new
economic offers. The total value to CCPOA significantly
increased from the State's 2-yeat July 30, 2006 offer.
The conceptual offer also contemplated the same management
reforms as previously and repeatedly articulated by the State.
These reforms enable CDCR the flexibility it needs to effectively,
efficiently, and safely operate the State's prisons.
It must also be noted that the State made considerable concessions
to its original management rights/entire agreement proposal and
specifically withdrew the portion that permitted CDCR to bargain
only matters of State-wide impact'
March 29,2007
April6 and11,2007
With literally a day's notice, CCPOA requested to resume main
table bargaining. The Director of DPA attended bargaining for
the first time in order to convey the seriousness of the State's
offer and to explain the modifications and enhancements to the 3-
year conceptual offer. The CCPOA President's obstructionist
behavior prevented the Director of DPA from actually articulating
the parameters of the 3-year offer and precluded him from even
addressing the 4-year oPtion.
Finally, the State completed its closing conceptual offer by
presenting CCPOA the 4-yeat option, thereby.increasing the
value of the State's offer to almost one billion dollars.

CCPOA' s Counter-Proposals and Contributions to Bargaining
. October 12,2006
. October 18.2006
At bargaining, CCPOA, through its President, made its first
.,counterproposal,'by merely suggesting that current release time
bank contract language be rolled over.
During bargaining, CCPOA, through its President, made a second
"counterproposal" which, agaín, consisted merely of rolling over
the post and bid language of the MOU'
At this same session, CCPOA's President soundly rejected the
State,s revised release time bank proposal by ripping it into pieces
and tossing it on the negotiation table, thereby reviving his initial
"counterproposal" that the current release time bank language
continue.
. March29,2007
Apn|2,2007
April 13 &.20,2007
At the parties' f,rnal bargaining session, CCPOA rejected the
State's 3-year conceptual offer and indicated that the State was
wasting its time.
ln a letter, CCPOA's President confirmed that the State was
wasting its time and suggested that this letter (which consisted of
nothing more than complaints and continued accusations against
the State) be considered a counter proposal.
By letters, CCPOA terminated bargaining, conceded impasse, and
directed the State to take its proposal to the membership for
ratification.
D. Evidence in Support of ImPasse
7, Sunshine Activities. On or about April 13, 2006, the State "sunshined"
four pages of good faith proposals in anticipation of the expiration of the MOU and the
beginning of bargaining. Fròm the outset, CCPOA demonstrated the futility of attempting to
balgainu n"* contract. For instance, CCPOA did not sunshine its initial meet and confer
proposals until on or about July 3, 2006, one day after the MOU expired. Furthermore, and in
itark contrast to the good faith proposals advanced by the State, CCPOA sunshined 38 pages of
what was later charaóþrizedas "shit" by CCPOA's President during a July 18, 2006 bargaining
session. In other words, CCPOA did not sunshine meaningful proposals. Instead, CCPOA
viewed its sunshine as an opportunity to accuse the Administration, the Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and DPA of perpetrating lies and deceit, which has been
a constant refrain of CCPOA's throughout this tortured bargaining process'
8. Video "Ambush." Formal negotiations started off poorly, on or about
June 9, 2006,when CCPOA, in another unprecedented move, ambushed the State negotiating
team (who had agreed to negotiate at CCPOA's o\iln headquarters) with video cameras rolling to
tape the negotiations.

g. Inabilit)¡ to Agree on Ground Rules. The parties, for the entire nine
months of formal bargaining, have been unsuccessful in coming to an agreement on what should
be one least contentious aspect of bargaining - ground rules.
10. The State's Opening Package Offer. On or about July 30, 2006, the State
passed apackageoffer with supporting proposed contract language for a new MOU. Over time,
âs demonstrated in section C above, the State has supplemented, modiflred and enhanced its
offers.
11. CCPOA's Response to the State's Opening Offer. From the very
beginning of this bargaining process, CCPOA has colorfully communicated its response to the
Stãte's offers and has exhibited an utter disregard for the State. On or about July 31, 2006, while
in bargaining, CCPOA's President launched into a profane tirade that effectively rejected the
State's offer:
Let me make it real clear. We've got20 days to get this done and
you gave me this bullshit yesterday, which ain't consistent with
any fucking thing I have been told as of this point in time ' ' ' '
l4:12-l6l
*{< *
I am sick of being lied to . . . Somebody's going to get their
fucking shit together or we're going to call this to a screeching halt
today. I'm wasting fucking money sitting here doing these
negotiations . . . and all you want to do is play games. 14:20-251
* {.1,1.
You told me you had six fucking issues. I've got 150 pages here for six
fucking issues' Fucking garbage in there, nothing but' [5:1-3]
{.**
There's bullshit in here. Now, I'd like to meet the asshole who put
that together. [5:8-9]
**x
Okay, I'm not playing anymore. Go tell your boss, fuck him' You
can tell the Governor, fuck him. You can tell fthe Secretary] the
same goddamn thing. 16:17-201
A tr.ue and correct copy of the transcript of the proceedings on July 3t,2006 is attached as
Exhibit 2 and incorporated herein by reference.

lZ. Irrelevant and Obstructionist Information Requèsts. Another
demonstration of the tttitity of bargaining with CCPOA is the abuse of information requests.
CCpOA has protracted meáningfufnegotiation by asking, either at the table or as "information
requests," reãundant and often irrelevant questions about the State's proposals' Despite the fact
thát the information and documentation requested had little, if anything, to do with the State's
proposals, the State nonetheless responded by providing a voluminous amount of documentation
and information. CCpOA has simply used the information provided as the basis for asking even
more irrelevant questions and further detaying fruitful negotiations.
13. Continued Obstructionist Information Requests. CCPOA has even gone
so far as to ask fo, inforr*tion .àgarding the State's deliberative process knowing that such
information is legally exempt nom ¿isctosure.(See Govt Code $ 6254Gr)') Moreover, CCPOA
has indicated in writing thaf such legally impermissible questions "will continue." A true and
correct copy of CCpoÁ's November 13, 2006letter is attached as Exhibit 3 and is incorporated
herein by reference.
14. CCPOA's Refusal to Bargain. At the commencement of the November
14,2006 bargaining session, CCPOA citing dissatisfaction with the State's responses to
information r"qu.rír, refused to negotiate fufher. Although the State offered to discuss other
substantive proposals in an effort to maintain negotiations, CCPOA confirmed on multiple
occasions that they were in fact refusing to bargain. ln attempt to resume negotiations, the State,
in a subsequent leiter on Novemb er 30,2006, asked CCPOA to reconsider its position. CCPOA
failed responded to the State's request.
15.
thereafter, CCpOA utt.*pt"O to Aiuert attention away from its refusal to bargain by demanding
to alter the parties practicè of meeting at neutral site and splitting the cost. Specifically, CCPOA
sought to change the location of negoliations and demanded that the State bear the entire cost of
any neutral site.
16. Nearly Four Month Delay in Bareaining. As a result of lhe
foregoing, the
parties did not meet to negotiate after Novembet 14,2006 until March 29,2007 '
1'l
". The
parties however, u*uy frorn the main table, dedicated a portion of December 2006 and January
2007 to discuss the iápact, meaning, and implementation of a recent salary arbitration decision.
In stark contrast to CCþOA', uppt*"h to mãin table negotiations, CCPOA has been readily
available and engaged in meaningful discussion at numerous meetings conducted to implement
the arbitration award.
18. CCPOA's Insistence on Conceptual Proposals Only. After the State's
initial detailed propo.u¡ und throughout the ensuing negotiations, CCPOA complained bitterly
about the State's voluminous propõsed contract language and requested that the parties discuss
..concepts,,
rather than specifiõ lur,guug.. In accordance with ccPoA's request, onMatch22,
20}6,the State presenteã its next package offer as a "conceptual" proposal; all previous
proposals incluåing detailed contract language were withdrawn. As detailed below, after
i"tèi,rittg the conceptual proposals asked for, CCPOA terminated bargaining'

19. The State's Enhanced Conceptual Package Offer. During a meeting on
March 22,2007,between Dave Gilb, Director of the DPA, and CCPOA Vice President Chuck
Alexander, Mr. Gilb presented CCPOA with the State's conceptual offer, which included
significant pay raises o ver a3-year period for Unit 6 employees. Mr. Gilb reiterated that in
addition to other modifications, there would be major revisions to the grievance and arbitration
procedure as well as the entire agreement clause. Based upon CCPOA's assertions, the State left
ihis meeting with the belief that CCPOA was interested in further formal discussions and was
.rr.ourug.d that an agreement could be reached in the near future. A true and correct copy of the
March iZ, ZO0l proposal is attached as Exhibit 4 and incorporated herein by reference.
20. State's Closing Offer- A Waste of Time. On March 29,2007, the State, at
CCÞOA's request, reconvened main table bargaining so that the State could present the March
22,2007 revised package offer and to indicate, at this late date in bargaining, the parameters of a
successor MOU from the State's perspective. The State presented a serious offer and was misled
into believing that future bargaining sessions would result in negotiated contract language
consistent with the State's conceptual proposal. As Mr. Gilb attempted to explain the concepts
of the package, CCPOA's President (who DPA had been informed would notbe present)
repeatådly intemrpted and told the Director of DPA that he was "wasting [his] time." Unable to
complete his presãnhtion (despite numerous requests to do so) and after having been informed
-CCPOA
that viewed the exercise as a waste of time, Mr. Gilb was forced to leave the proposal
on the tabie for CCPOA and unable to share ihe -year option. Negotiations stalled once again.
21. CC On
April 2, 2007,CCPOA's President wrote that "[a]s long as DPA chooses to engage in the
obvious gamesmanship the current offer exudes, we can do nothing but sit back and watch as
valuableiime slips away." Inexplicably, CCPOA concluded the letter by stating, "[i]f it helps,
please consider ihis [letier] a counterproposal." A true and correct copy of CCPOA's ApnlZ,
2007 letter is attached as Exhibit 5 and incorporated herein by reference.
ZZ. The State lnvites CCPOA to Bargain. Despite the hostile tone of
CCPOA's letter, ttre Søte¡n ttòpes of bridging the seemingly cavemous gap between the parties,
wrote back the following day to set up a mutually agreeable time and place for the next meetings.
CCPOA failed to respond.
23. Amended Conceptual Offer Includes 4-year Option. On April 6, 2007,
having heard nothing from CCPOA, the State clarified its package by formally proposing the 4-
y"u, Jption which iniluded other arenas in which to seek increased compensation. A true and
to*"ri copy of the State's April 6, 2007 package offer is attached as Exhibit 6 and incorporated
herein by reference.
24. CCPOA's Response: More Information Requests. In response, on April
6,2007,CCPOA r.ttt y.t *other "information request" consisting of four addifional pages of
questions, many of which have already been addressed. CCPOA specifically conditioned its
tèt r- to main table bargaining on receipt of all of the information requested. Moreover,
CCPOA's President uguitt d"-onstrated CCPOA's hostility towards the State and the futility of
fuither bargaining by áccusing the State of dishonesty and alleging that the State is "feigning"
concern øi its emplôyees. A1rue and correct copy of CCPoA's April 6, 2007 letter is attached
as Exhibit 7 and incorporated herein by reference.

ZS. CCpOA's Clear Rejection. Throughout negotiations, CCPOA alleged that
it requires voluminour *¿ irr.t"vant information/documentation in order for it to understand the
State's packages and proposals. CCPOA argues it has been precluded from making any
affirmative or countei proposals because CCfOe.¡ust does not understand what the State is
proposing. The State'å few proposals are not complicated or difficult to understand. It is not
that CCpOA does not understand what the State seeks; it simply disagtees with what the State
has been proposing for almost an entire year. Moreover, ccPoA has made its rejection of the
State's proposal clear in both word and deed.
26. The State's Invitation to Barqain. Despite CCPOA's obvious desire not to
bargain with the Stat", th" State followed up telephonically on at least two occasions regarding
its õutstanding request to return to the table. CCPOA did not respond.
27 . The State's Request for Productive Negotiations. On April 1I,2007,the
StaterespondedtoCCP@ndenceandvoiceditsconcernsregardingthe
motivation behind the most recent round of information requests. The State reiterated its interest
in, and commitment to, negotiating a successor MOU, but shared its grave concern that
continuing to bargain with-an un*ittit g participant wo1!d be futile. The State concluded by
stating, ..[t]he State remains hopeful tnJCCpOA will display a more professional attitude that
contributes to a productive rather than a futile contract negotiation." A true and correct copy of
the State, s Aprii 1J , zaal letter is attached as Exhibit 8 and incorporated herein by reference'
Zg. CCpOA Terminates Bargainine. In response to the S.tate's request for
productive, not futile, *tttt".t
CCpOA, on April 13, 2007,unilaterally terminated
""g"tt"tions,
targaining completeþ, extricateitheir negotiating team from the bargaining process' and
directed the State to pásent its April 6,2007 -yeat proposal directly to the membership for a
vote. CCpOA has súggested an untenable procãss whereby the State is forced to present its
proposal to CCpoA's-Executive Council ut d to work within the confines of CCPoA's Bylaws
ànd Standard operating procedures in what can only be characterized as a vain attempt to secure
a successor MOU directly with the membership. A true and correct copy of ccPoA's April 13,
2007 letter is attached as Exhibit I, supra'
29. utual A week after
terminatingbu,gui,,i',g@elreiteratedtheCCPoAPresident'sdirectionto ,1
,-, - C--L
the State that it,.rhouiá mke its case to [the] membership." In addition and for the very first
time, CCPOA alleged that they have "mult¡I. ptopotals that [they] have not yet passed' ' '"
Nonetheless, CCPOA concludes "[u]nfortunately, thus far, we have no confidence that an
agreement can be reached with the State's present proposal as the framework for negotiations"
and reserved their right to put their atleged propotilt ón the table. The State's shares CCPOA's
lack of confidence r"itrr r"rp."t to the uuility oith. parties to reach an agreement' A true and
correct copy of CCpOA's Àpril 20, 2007 letter is attached as Exhibit 9 and incorporated herein
by reference.
30. Barsainine is Futile. From the date of its sunshine through CCPOA's
final letter of Apnl z0Ñ, Ccpo|has constantly accused the state of dishonesty and has
emphasized th; CCPOA has no trust whatsoever in the Administration, CDCR or DPA' These
futile negotiations were the inevitable result of cCPoA's unwillingness and inability to bargain
a successor MOU with the State.

E. Conclusion
31. The facts set forth above amply demonstrate that the parties have been
engaging in futile negotiations and are at impasse. At a minimum, the parties are in immediate
need of a mediator. ñresently, the parties *ã no closer to an agreementhan they were when
-fo,
they started the negotiatiorr, this important MOU in June 2006. In fact, they are further apart
- as acknowledged by both parties. See Exhibit I andT '
32. The State has presented multiple proposals both in the form of concepts
and specif,rc contract language. Moieover, the State, on numerous of occasions, has enhanced
and modified its proporutr *ittt a specific eye toward narrowing the gap of disagreement
between the partíes. CCPOA, on tñe other irand, has chosen not to provide new proposals and
has only countered that current language be retained. ln reality, CCPOA has explicitly or
impliciily rejected each of the State's package offers. As such, the parties have considered each
other,s piopôsals and counter proporulr. Nõnetheless, the parties have reached a point in their
negotiaiions where continued discussion would be futile'
33. As noted above, the present prison crisis demands immediate attention
from the State, the CCPOA and PERB. Ráaching agreement on a successor MOU is of
paramount importance. The State and CCPOA must work collaboratively and must have their
important relationship govemed by an equitable and effective MOU. They need assistance in
making such a relationship and MOU realities'
34. Therefore, the State prays that PERB exercise its authority to appoint a
Federal mediator pursuant to Government Code $ 3518 immediately to assist the parties in
reaching a successor MoU. To send the parties back to the bargaining table without such relief,
in this time of crisis, only guarantees that no successor MOU will be reached. In the altemative,
the State, based upon the continued futility of negotiations, requests that PERB declare impasse'
9

t
2
a
J
CASE NAME:
PROOF OF SERVICE
RE UUE S T F OR ME DIATI O N/IMPASS E
/1
I
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
i3
T4
15
T6
17
18
T9
20
2l
22
I, RICHARELL AMES, declare:
I am employed in the County of Sacramento, California. I am over the age of 18 years' and
not a party to thè within action. My business address is 15 15 S Street, North Building Suite 400,
Sacramento, California 95814-7243. I am readily familiar with my employer's business practice for
collection and processing of correspondence for UPS, U.S. Mail, Fax Transmission and/or Personal
Service.
On May 10,2001,I caused the following documents to be served:
STATE'S REQUEST FOR MEDIATION/IMPASSE DECLARATION
on the parties listed as follows:
XXXX
via personal service - via representative of CAPITOL COURIER.
Mike Jimenez, President
California Correcti onal Peace Officers As so ciation
755 Riverpoint Drive, Suite 200
West Sacrãmento, CA 95605-1634
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is
true and correct.
Executed on May I0,2007, at Sacramento, California.
zuCHARELL AMES
23
24
25
26
27
28

EXHIBIT 1

Ap r. I J. ^ilj | 4: +urhl No.'[537 P. 2
C¡ftfurü¡Ccrrrffmd
ÍçtAfus
AsxÈÉiæ
CCPOA
ZS lWcryoiut D¿, *. 2tt' *rt
sÁscñ-.dot Çll Étld5-l|ffi . lCt6l Tffi
Afilt3,?NI
IulieChryffiîn
húyDíresitr
OWsún€ú ofPermd
Âdministudim
Døh,fú. GtErnm,
ThÍE lEffi is in reepmse fo Fur lctter ddresûed b nÊ ddÊat^â[rit ll,2ÑI -
DcspiÞ ytr in+¡Scnac rhú yuu sp *cmitfrd O æg'f¡din' a s*cerÊE MOII,' ¡ru
cfuwisfusb¡fitytobewtottycffil belier Jorür o|aio Prtdcf,úl]', yw mrtyw
asscrtíms - wti¡ü clcãfy hÉ sffiy - se nor viprcæd wiñ g¡.Gd sÐisim ty fuso
wih Y/ilrtrn pu trve been ¡egoüaÉn$
Yoû misdÊeds ø difuy
Posúlyim g¡nq
ofud OGOA md iF mcmbcrs wG ttrn tu oÐ
We u& Ít a poím not to lic to or m-ntqB vihib ¡u mab it a poil b Dd ell ûÊ
wbtÊ ürúL lff,u arËplay¡ng ag@c, ifs wE- Yøbùviri¡ redde¡s md
rmeoessæíty e'¡rrnge¡¡ our mbøo: l¡ver.
The fir* decøhq in yuur leitq as wrdl as ru hsú¡ fu ¡un atffiS b pütrty OCFOA
ae a*runilliagputoipaf 8d - -+tridmmimæqus¡f cñddt(mVorr
opûnion) m fte o[hion's goodÊifb infrqrtirru' Yø ¡t¡úe fhat }Ðhrrc giYtn OCPOA
totdms ínftrrrmríouP duiag &o cüße of nggdidiffi.
Yon d ìfr. B*atdder, haye in ftd gieeü subsûd¡at domim b CmOÀ h
Iifle inñona]im- Laú ¡ær ¡ou pr€tøþ¡l ovcr 300 (üneeffi) pegps qftrÐffits c
ftc bøgaiûin8 úrblc" Yø sd ú fu tùle d ti*ne¡l a¡ we ffi, yÀile Mr, Bafådder
m¡we¡rd w questímt ebø fu Minwift fu ctud+ ät stJB ril¡aû it sryrr'
æd at rms wüæ it ncro.' thoúe rror& ru$hrrc dÊcpcr md møcpoftuud
neuiqgto ¡,ru üE' C@OÀ Dcryite ùe yþhffs dotmeø*n, pharc ¡æt b
povidc *vohrnÍmus i¡fom¡im-"
O1/Li/20O7 FRI 15:56 IT[,/RI l{0 E153]

Apr. n3. 2007 4:48PM il0.1537 P. 3
niloc rccaft5r, we eccqfud ]fr. GIb shffipsts, bofh writt.n úd vlrtel, lhs úc ldg¡t
oft wæ a ¡pw dç ævísed onrq. EE wrofr üd DPA @y wilffiævs iF preriru
partnge oftr nl att ¡eted popoeats in ftÉr dirÊfy: Tb acæmy ntuc of for¡r
rcrpæ ¡ccn¡ b mcm prbelierc hst yeer's dmem ftrm lts bûsis of¡rwæw.
terímc oftr." As sûh, fr seúÉd hg¡cat t u, lú* tüe infucim usedø ev&p hc
yeds prqomls midrt æ ¿iøiæf û@fu ifudm úliæit to tfuvdop ytur eilrI€ut
'leYiserl offitr
- fre shdomeærl
Yø atm puvitr úiúy ryæifio firctt dffi b ffis of úe leielffie d fu ndi¿
Ew ø peû4e rùy ir it, ûæ yru uc wblc c uwílling þ trwide úc idorm¿im
andfulssuçÊdb scdcltc fuiinfuinnfirfu tcgi¡lûG dfte mrdi4 bud?
fu CCFOå. Exesrrive AüIncil Is it becoæ yru aeyiseal pdbed iE ltc æ ss F'u
priqpadcage?
Ärc ¡uu wuied ffi fu læi¡hre alte meilirwÍll dimætr th* pu oftt does't
mairrl¡in fte 1$66fr ¡eldisdÍp wift BII 5? .A¡e ful woriert about ecrutÍny intc pur
agrpeuoü witt BU 5, æd túe tuc fimt iryd ltseitr?
Or ;s ÍÊ fu ¡mujusú fu't cæ eoorgþ úo bofu yourretfwith im¡gini.g lüËlmoúing
coditios fø fu rnqr ¡ud çm¡a wfu wú.2+7-365 in üF O)CR? Ræadless' )ott
hrrc Ëíþd to proyi¡b ifulm b u¡ rclrive to lüis iffi.
Ym qmac affi fu gÃsvwedfr we æguesÞü ryeæ to demñæ tlr*t yu
erercisod æ rtilígæc wùalsocw FiG b vrilÍqg ]m ruæt Yor bare pqæed tH
asi¡gle¡rrccess frr griEeæ¡e¡ohlnwmld be m iryuftÐcrú overtùe fouM
e-r* todgy. Dcry¡ûe bunilg artnowløgpe ftc 7flÌr ucsoûrtd ufuius, Ot
qluËúiffi infrís arerwt¡p b elre üdwe wrre rrúingwifr lbc ss,öa inftmøim.
Wetùmgfuibatqrigfir ¡tí8r o¡¡6mgÉFoce'ûeü lffi *¡.g'd âlbs formûv€üeilt
mmag]effit
Sdty, ¡m aæucatimf,txt @OAwæ
cüIlod ftis eafiæpoccs*
m fday md ûugræd" nAnfinims t¡q
On rrel#ilú, ¡run vaüal ruæ ofimoccuce in thehiúlø nictopüme €Flm¿s
6p r¡ean;$lce$ We ¡sqw#üúo ¡ee Ího wdtþ offiacú frßúÊ Ecryiceltd ¡,múired-
\Fe rpqpeæ{ arqct ûom fu trw¡ber wìh inftrndm ôout $üo gile hÊrqúd
iñuctiæ úd who lef tr in ltc mml to sßf qp. Wc rdcal ñr GqflEE ofüo QltÊ WH
find pyaccuesm *oftruÍw d'uryoftsdmf ¡ru fuË u rt fu tins o prute
lb€û to be ftlse. You sc lnmnþ ¡w H+ rct þ yun wurdE
h tid"t oflte afaeucøÍd, i¡ ¡cprns ltd eaßhrimc w gÉbgsee¡ we gruw firfu
+qt Acoq¿¡ngty, sfoæ 1,w. feef so úmgfy tbd fu SFnÊrGitJr ofym oftrod pr
1xruived tagilim# rr¡¡nageiln€ft d, fu OæOA fuiyc C,outil b¡s fuid0d to
ffi uy ffi dealfry iroæiæ urt pcmit ¡uu!o tead out ¡w trttpocst fu
O1/I.aOOT FRI 15:56
tff,,/BI NO t153I

Apr. 13. 20074:48P[{ No.1537 P. 4
¿ vub of tte CFC}A umberúþ We h¡ve m Íffiim of ¡H¡ying frrffiÍEe c
^W:rvúngfu ryøiaÍry¡rocrs. To mytnmledgg re hare ngyrrbe€ü ôud b
fuve âgrgúitr bfld fåifr tr4didiw. We aren't abqü b sffi ùútrg so trnw-
Ys. scÉm b bdict E rtd ¡ru tavc bm ffiigb d qa wirh atl wy d
retevd ¡trfr'rudfun, Yóu b¡r'e also ouohdcd üdm mderhm mcü fufudim yuu
povidc to u' ¡orr witl wer Þrrú ffil diswssiffi wift AmOÁ, d
-' .* wr uc mfy
tying b dd¡y ud ffi fæ ¡n&lÍysing ¡orr rcnmr ud gÊofõEs oftr. Ifwüú
you t¡y Ís trúy indicuive of ¡'wtctieß, wc tqËÊ Jw b mær ftr*¡d wie ÉÊ C@OA
Exocnúive ConncÍfs oftr.
To be dsq wE ae req¡ircd b frIbr¡me pocemaf rnqlc rfi* ac orrtin d in m B¡¡
lffi md Sødd QeæiagÈocodæs. fu fir¡f i,sa¡nçsedMOupæsenmmbtu
æOA Bof,d ofDirecffia fot|ffilla we ue [eviry e BOD netting æ Afil?,4 &25
inSsmú.
PlÊas prüviab -yrur cræDt popmk rarm+tç¿ fu imetim iD fu M(XI, wiü stikpæ
drffiines stryfog Éntgeg, wiftoü chæeiqg tu nemiug cÍÉL d prqûe 50
oryies ø lE d qf. Ws ao¡nqluerl b fui[t¡te frís ryorffiJ.
Plæ bcpçrrad m eiltcr ¡ftcrnom b mab a gesffifi'm and æsnm ftItor'-4
çlefrím$ üre wilt prwide 1nu úc recseerylimc b do so. Iffu CGOA BOD bdir;ws
ftA ¡ruu årE a8 siwË üd gErcrus ra ¡rm,@ tte rúÍficdi@ IrorÆss cold cmtintp
foew:¡rd with úc rmainatcr of tte pocefuel úÐû Dilnrid€d t yo md uodÍfeü ¡s
neoessry by frÊ BOD d üeoedÍner
Ptcæe rmdertuú tH wc ue vcry scdds díü ftic ofta We ue-deepty coicÊrnod lh4
fficrrH¿¡nr will rn¡kc rdicffutb owrwoúqtdaffifu lhe fieüleupæedí¡Itynsc
dÍtrcnlr Ifourmcninrcrs viev ywr oftr a¡ ftvorùþ as puüavepqtrEypdif wc couH
s the s'tt¡rfg of yreitg in sh qd€f.
Sidüly, I wuld rúÉr rot ryeculæe úost úe directkn the eriEi¡g cttd* wþüId hord
¡f fu tilt d ft nembtrs viem yqn oftr æ n fuûult Îfuy n¡y t¡ke isilÊ wifL fu
rusrEt ofjob proæc-fün¡ iE crdc b rypcasc e frderd out lby nay Êcl rhd úiE
oftr wil ofy p-eccrbate ÍË cmrrr dryml wnúlEg cmd¡É@s underlhcg[ise of
rcgainiag rffing"'r.".'r'idhta ffmowr, tey ray rfæiib túat Íuçad¡g üe salry
eArmbeireen u¡ ad otüer lp enftrcemæ æenciec is ah¡ge Sql btclflûù,
Who hûcns? WHle üæ mry be difrø[ @icr b ¡dl b ru mbæ
¡loumayberÍgþ
dr in ru fø¿,
Yo nay acOatly f,íd ftú tte rat ûat fle f,c so rn€dy ûon r¡þrkilg úe ffi
oysc¡oçded æd û'Eß¡q'&ú ds in ftÊ coruúy M iüsy flG rdy b move fuça¡d
wilh e newftu¡l'tu* ø tb n¡orr"agemr¡t ææ o¿ væ in úc rfFíññrtvË ñr J|oNr
oftr
O1/L3/2OOT RI 15:56 tft/RI ¡m E153I

8e r. 13. 20074:49Pfi#
P!Ér¡e'rtûWfntPt6>3T¿f0Jbrifimæüetinsdplæefùe
- ;ng td l€t ter tEffi rrtd tinÊ fr¡üe ø.M ?ha 25r n nrs ttufrr yw-
:
If you d ffi ¡nñ*rn{ißE abou a''rrr¡tñng rtc domcm-múæ to qcct ûm fùo
BOD @.Cru'çÊ AIErædcr, ptea¡e dm't caü uwriÞ nrc-
Good hrlr,
w#{ç¿,/
StæÈesi&æ
CCPOA
\-'¿
I
'
I
I
I
I
I
¡
01/L]/2OOZ FRI 15:56
Irf,,/RI Ì$O E15¡l

EXHIBIT 2

IN RE:
NEGOTTATIONS BETWEEN THE
CALIFORNTA CORRECTIONAL PEACE
OFFTCERS ASSOCTATION ANd THE
STATE OF CALIFORNÏA
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
PAGES 1 THROUGH 7
SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNÏA
MONDAY, .ÏULY 3!, 2006
z
v)
il
D
\
Reported by Dixie L . Cooksey, CSR No 4375
PRLS ,Job No. 1-08-3391-48

TRANSCRTpT OF PROCEEDINCS 7 /31/2006
1
2
In
Attendance
3
4
5
6
x
For the State of California:
Dennis Batchel-der
Laura Powell
'l'r_m v r- rqa
Marl-ene Schult z
Agatha Fernandez -Bea1l-
Brigio Hanson
Duncan Fall-on
Diane Navarro
9
10
11
L2
13
I4
15
1,6
L7
18
L9
For the Cal
As soc iat ion
i fornia Correc t ional Peace Officers
Mike Jimenez
Marty Warren
Karen Morey
Kevin Raymond
Steve Weiss
Brenda Gibbons
Sheri Ghideli
Chuck Alexander
Chris Trott
Gilbert ciI
Scott Johnson
Marci Nishimoto
Carl 'foachim
Chuck Nelton
Sandi Campbell
St.ephen V'Ialker
Louie Adams
Daryl- Lee
20
2L
22
F -l-^-. ^ F
Lct-J\-Ërr ct- L
TRANSCRTPT OF PROCEEDINGS,
2L0 Richards Boulevard, SacramenLo, CalifoÈnia,
23
z+
on Monday , July 3L, 2006, ât 2:28 p.m., before
Dixie L. Cooksey, Certified Shorthand Reporter in and
25
for
t.he State
of California.
www. paulson reporti ng.com

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDTNCS 7 /31/2006
1
2
SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA
MONDAY, JULY 34, 2006, 2:28 p.m.
3
4
* * *
5
^
7
I
MR. BATCHELDER: Okav. Go ahead.
MR. JIMENEZ: Let me start with, we don't have
any ground rules? All right. Then we ain't
negotiat.ing,
right?
10
11
L2
l-3
1,4
15
!6
MR. BATCHELDER: No, not necessarily, Mike. We
just haven't agreed to anyt.hing. Vüe certainly can do
that.
MR. JTMENEZ: AII right, then we ain't fucking
negotiat.ing. Let me make it cl-ear.
MR. BATCHELDER: Atl right.
MR. JIMENEZ: Have we agreed on who is paying
T7
for
her?
18
t9
20
2L
22
23
MR. BATCHELDER: We have where \^/e Ief t it
was you guys proposed t.hat. we pay f or her.
MR. ,-TIMENEZ: All riqht. Let me make it clear.
I ain't paying one red cent for her.
MR. BATCHELDER: Do you want. transcripts?
MR. JTMENEZ: NOPC.
. A
¿=
MR. BATCHELDER: You don't
want transcripts?
25
MR. ,Jf MENEZ: No.
You're relieved.
www. pau I son report¡ ng.com

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINCS 7 /31/2006
1
MR. BATCHELDER: We1l, wait a minute. You want
ôz
r-n nra¡aa¡l -'iLhO11t a C0111.t ¡epO1.tef?
3
4
MR. JIMENEZ: Yeah, f'rì good with that-
MR. BATCHELDER: Okay. You guys proposed a
5
6
court
reporter.
MR. JIMENEZ: No, I proposed video cameras. I
7
I
9
compromised. on every goddamned t.hing you wanted on those
ground ru1es, and you came here yesterday and play a
game and don't want to negotiate with us. I'm sick of
10
this
shit
11
I2
.LJ
MR. BATCHELDER: That's not Lrue.
MR. JIMENEZ: Let me make ít real clear- Werve
got 20 days to have this done, and you g'ave me this
I4
15
I6
bullshit yesterday, which ain't consist.ent with any
fucking t.hing Irve been told as of thís point in t.ime
from anybody in your leadership that Irve worked with.
I7
Can vou hear
that?
18
I9
THE REPORTER: Yes, sir.
MR. BATCHELDER: That's
not
MR. 'JIMENEZ: I'm sick of being lied to,
2L
22
23
. A
z+
25
Dennis. Now, somebody's going to get their fucking shit
together or werre going to cal-l this to a screeching
halt today. Itm wasting fucking money sitting here
doing these negotiations, or trying to do negotiations,
and you-a1l want to play g'ames.
www. pau I son reporti ng.com

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 7 /31/2006
1
a
3
You told me you had six fucking issues- Trve
got 150 pages here for six fucking issues. Fucking
garbage in there, nothing but.
4
MR. BATCHELDER: All
ríght.
5
6
MR. ,JIMENEZ : And not one thing that the
Governor tol_d me was important to you people. Not one
thing that Dave Gilb told me was important to you
.J
9
10
people. There's bullshit in here. Now, I'd like to
meet the asshole that put that together.
MR. BATCHELDER: All right. What do you want
11
us to
do?
L2
13
I4
15
L6
I1
18
t9
¿v
2L
22
23
. A
z.+
25
MR. JIMENEZ: I want you to teII me what the
fuck we're gionna do. Look, íf we negotíated 24 hours a
d"y, 7 d.ays a week, beLween now and the 20th, w€ canrL
go over the bullshit t.hat you've put on the tab1e, let
alone what' s important to uS . Okay? I tm t.ired of being
l-ied to. I gave you everything you wanted on the
fucking ground ru1es. Yesterday you wouldn't sign them.
MR. BATCHELDER: That's not true, Mike-
MR. JIMENEZ: What did you wanL that you didn't
get ?
MR. BATCHELDER: Look, I will give You
MR. JIMENEZ : Vlhat did you wanL that you didn' t
get ?
MR. BATCHELDER: There are issues we still had
www. pau I son re porti n g.com

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINCS 7 /31/2006
1
2
3
4
5
6
outstanding.
MR. JIMENEZ: What are theY?
MR. BATCHELDER: You guys came back with, for
example, you wanted. everybody in Barter unit 6 to be
able to attend. Okay? We can't agree to that'
MR. JIMENEZ: No, yotl couldn't agree to
supervi sors .
MR. BATCHELDER: That's correct, buL, you know,
9
10
11
L2
13
t4
1-5
we will allow I mean, yott've got a group here, this
is f ine if that,s what you want to go forward wit.h- But
what we can't agree to You is to l-et
MR. JIMENEZ: Dennis, Irm through playing' If
you don't wanl a deaI, 1eL's call ít. like it is and get
t.he f uck out of here.
MALE VOICE: You keep changing your mind'
T6
MR. BATCHELDER: No, that's
not true.
L7
18
L9
20
2L
22
MR. JIMENEZ : Okay. T rm not playing anymore '
Go te]I your boss, fuck him. You can te]l the Governor,
f uck him. You can tel-1 (unintelligible) the same
goddamn thing
MR. BATCHELDER: Okay. All- right . Let r s
caucus.
23
24
25
(The proceedings
adjourned at 2:3L p-m.)
* * *
www. pau lson rePort¡ ng.com

TRANSCRTPT OF PROCEEDINCS 7 /31/2006
1
REPORTER ' S CERTTFICATION
a
z
3
4
I, Dixie L. Cooksey, Certif íed Short.hand Reporter in
and for the State of California, do hereby certify:
5
6
That. the foregoing proceeding was taken before me at
t.he time and place herein set forth; that the
R
9
10
1t_
proceedings were reported stenographically by me and
l-ater transcribed into typewriting under my direction;
that t.he foregoing j-s a true record of the proceedings
taken at t.hat time.
t2
13
I4
IN WfTNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name:
August I, 2006.
15
1-6
t7
l_8
t9
437 5
zv
21,
22
23
z.t
25
www. pau I son reporti n g.com

É o Tg
z gmx

able 6:5
Adams 2:18
adjourned 6:23
Agatha2:6
agree 6:5,6,11
agreed 3: 11
,16
ahead 3:6
ain't 3:8,13,21 4:14
Alexander 2:14
allow 6:9
alone 5: l6
anybody 4: I 6
anymore 6:17
anything 3:1 I
asshole 5:9
Association l:4 2:9
attend 6:5
Attendance 2:l
August 7: l4
A 7:19
correct 6:8
Correctional
court 4:2,5
CSR l:24 7:19
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 7 I3LI2OO6
l:3 2:9
D
Daryl 2: l9
Dave 5:7
day 5: 14
days 4:135:14
deal 6:13
Dennis 2:44:216:12
Diane2:7
direction 7:9
Dixie l:24 2:247:3,19
d,oing4:24
done 4: l3
Duncan 2:7
E
B
every 4:7
back 6:3
everybody 6:4
Barter 6:4
everything 5:17
Batchelder 2:43:6,10
example 6:4
3:15,18,22,24 4:1,4
F'
4:ll,l9 5:4,10,79,22
5:256:3,8,76,21
before 2:237:6
being 4:205:16
between l:3 5:14
boss 6: I 8
Boalevard2:'22
Brenda 2: l3
Brigio 2:6
bullshit 4: 145:8.15
Fallon 2:7
Fernandez-B eall 2:6
fine 6:10
foregoing 7:6,10
forthT:7
forward 6:10
from 4: 16
fuck 5: 13 6:14,18,19
fucking 3:13 4:15,21
4:23 5:1,2,2,18
California | :3,4,1 4 2'.3
2:9,22,25 3:l 7:4 game4:.9
call4:22 6:13
games4:25
came 4:86:3
garbage 5:3
cameras 4:6
gave4:13 5:17
Campbell2:17 Ghideli 2:13
Carl2:16
Gibbons 2:13
caucus 6:22
Gil2:15
cent 3:21
Gitb 5:7
certainly 3:11 Gilbert 2: l5
CERTIFICATION
give 5:22
7:l
go 3:65:156:10,18
Certified 2:247:3
goddamn 6:20
certily 7:4
goddamned 4:7
changing 6:15
going4:21,22
Chris 2:14
gonna 5: l3
Chuck 2:14,17 good 4:3
clear 3:14,204:12
Governor 5:66:18
compromised 4:7 ground 3:84:85:18
consistent 4:14 group 6:9
Cooksey l:24 2:247:3
guys 3: 194:46:3
Page B
H N S
halt4:23
name 7:13
Sacramento l:14 2:22
Hanson 2:6
Navarro 2:7
3:1
hear 4:17
necessarily 3: I 0 same 6: l9
her 3:l'l ,19,21 negotiate 4:9 Sandi 2: l7
him 6:18,19
negotiated 5: I 3 Schultz 2:5
hours 5:13
negotiating 3:9,14 Scott 2: l5
negotiations l:3 4:24 screeching 4:22
I
4:24
setT'.7
important 5:6,7,16 Nelton 2:17
Sheri 2: l3
issues 5:1,2,25 Nishimoto 2:16 shit 4: 10,2 I
Nope 3:23
Shorthand 2:247:3
nothing 5:3
sick 4:9,20
Jimenez 2:103:7,13
sign 5: l8
3:16,20,23,25 4:3,6 o
sir 4: 18
4:12,205:5,12,20,23Officers
l:4 2:9 sitting 4:23
6:2,6,12,17 Okay 3:64:45:166:5
six 5:1,2
Joachim 2:16
6:17,21
somebody's 4:21
Job l:25
one 3:215:5,6
start 3:7
Johnson 2:15 out 6: l4
State l:4 2:3,257:4
July l:15 2:233:2
outstanding 6: I stenographically 7:8
just 3: I I
over 5:15
Stephen 2:18
Steve 2:12
K
still 5:25
Karen 2: l1
pages 1:135:2
subscribed 7: l3
keep 6:15
pay 3:19
supervisors 6:7
Kevin 2: l2
paying 3:16,21
know 6:8
Peace 7:32:9
T
people 5:6,8 table 5:15
placeT:7
taken 2:227:6,11
L l:24 2:247:3,19
play 4:8,25
tell 5:126:18,18,19
later 7:9
playing 6:12,17 their 4:21
Laura2:4
point 4: l5
thing4:1,15:5,7 6:20
leadership 4: l6 Powell2:4
through l:13 6:12
Lee2:19
PRI,S l:25
Tim 2:5
left 3: 18
proceed 4:2
time 4:I57:7
,ll
let3:7,14,20 4:125:15
proceeding 7:6 tired 5:16
6:11
proceedings l:12 2:21 today 4:23
let's 6:13,21
6:237:8,10
together 4:225:9
lied 4:205:17
proposed 3:194:4,6
told4:15:1,6,7
like 5:86:
l3
put 5:9,15
transcribed 7:9
Look5:13,22 p.m2:23 3:26:23
TRANSCRIPT l:12
Louie 2:18
2:21
R
transcripts 3:22,24
M
Raymond 2:12 Trott2:14
make3:14,20 4:12 RE l:2
true4:ll 5:196:16
MALE 6:15
real4'.12
7:10
Marci 2: l6
record 7:10
trying4:24
Marlene 2:5
red 3:21
typewriting 7:9
Marty 2:l I
relieved 3:25
mean 6:9
reported l:24 7:8
meet 5:9
reporter 2:244:2,5,18
under 7:9
Mike 2: l0 3: l0 5: l9 r5
unintelligible 6:19
mind 6:15
REPORTER'S 7:l Unit 6:4
V
money 4:23
5:4,106:21
video 4:6
Morey 2:11
rules 3:84:85: l8 Yirga2:5
VOICE 6:15
minute 4:1
Richards 2:22
Monday l:15 2:233:2
right 3:8,9,13,15,20
www. pa ulson reporting.com

TRANSCRTPT OF PROCEEDINGS 7/3U2006
wait 4:1
Walker 2:18
want3:22,24:7,9,25
5:10,12,20,23 6'.10
6:13
wanted 4:75:176:4
Warren 2:1 I
wasting 4:23
week 5:14
Weiss 2:12
Well4:l
were 7:8
we're 4'.225:13
We've 4:12
WHEREOFT:13
WITNESS 7:13
worked 4: l6
wouldn't 5:18
Y
Yeah 4:3
yesterday4:8,14 5:18
you-all4:25
I l:13 7:14
108-339148 1:25
1505:2
,,
,;252.2 n
2:316.'23
204:13
20th 5:14
2006 l:15 2:233:2
7:14
2102:22
245:13
31 l:15 2:233:2
4375l:247:19
6 6:4
6
7
7 l:13 5:14
www, pa ulson report¡ng.com

EXHIBIT 3

CCPOA
755 Riverpoint Dr,, Ste. 200 . West Sacramento, CA 95605_1634 . (916) 372_6060
November 13,2006
Dennis R. Batchelder
The Batchelder Group
4354 Town Center Blvd., Suite I 14-12
El Dorado Hills, CA95762
RE: Recent Negotiation sessions and Related correspondence
Dear Mr. Batchelder:
Your letter of November I has been shared with the CCpoA negotiating team. your
view that our recent correspondence relating to daily negotiatioãs "misîþtes', and/or
"mischaracterizes" the events at the table oi that oui accounts are nothing more than
position pieces is more snobbish than it is accurate or interesting. To declarJ such views
and at the same time attempto gain the high_er moral ground by refusing to offer, as you
put it, correction or response is indicative of the u"ry kind of tehavior"thatlegets your
laments.
Dennis, when we meet, you rarely have much more to offer than the following clichés:
"It is what it is,"'_t-,?yr what it says," "the language speaks for itself,,, ..management
needs more flexibility" and "what we are hearing is ihat you don't like it, so offer us a
counter'" If you choose to négotiate in a uu"uuir, you ,än be assured tfrat ttre process
will suck.
You offer us "presenters" like Mr. Warner and Ms. Kalvelage supposedly to impress
upon our team the "need" to gut long standing basic provisioñs of oìr v.ó.u. such
Parole
as
Agent caseload, Post and BidI the Appiication and Duration clause (Afücle 27)
and then when we ge-t a bit,probative you shut down discussion with statements like the
one contained the Nov.8ú letter: "...CCPOA does not have an unfettered right to
inforrnation." You open a door, invite us in, then give us the boot when we avail
ourselves of the accommodations, and still you expect-us to be gracious guests. If
your
it,s
party - Cry if you want to.
Our questions about your deliberative process are perfectly appropriate and will continue.
Many of the propo_sals you have presented orrer ayná*ir rt unge and in our view
represent an M.O'U. that is completely unenforceable with little worth enforcement.
Your'þresenters" (once termed "experts" Iater re-titled afler their visits) .""1d;;il;;;
us even a hint, let alone a compelling cause as to why we oughto consiáer such a gutting
ofour conhact.

It was you who offered "collaborative" negotiations. Dictionaries are available free online,
you might check the defrnition of the word during one of your late night browsing
sessions. We weren't privy to any of the more than 4-inch thick stack of proposals you
passed as an "entire package". Apparently your idea of collaboration allows you to write
the terms and expect us to write the check. 'We have a somewhat different view.
You speak in your letter about our "disservice,... to fail to acknowledge when the State
and CCPOA are working together ..." in reference to collaborative efforts away from this
table as if that somehow relates to your conduct in this forum. You claim your proposals
are representative of what the Department's managers need. You cannot or will not
explain why or show a compelling reason, and that leaves us no choice but to probe the
deliberative process (a door you opened by offering "experts" and "collaboration").
We reduce the day's events to writing because your side has belabored the issue of
"transparency" fôr more than 3 years. When we tried video recording, you walked out.
We offered audio recording; you refused. We offered to allow media representatives in
on the process and you refused. We allowed you to experiment with court reporting and
found surreptitious tape-recording was taking place. 'We graciously allowed you to feign
a lack of knowledge, but your accusatory tone the day before when you repeatedly asked
if we were recording, and the microphone we found the next day hidden under the
tablecloth belie suspicious behavior on your part. Twice now, you have accused us in
writing of "misstating" and 'imischaractenzing," but you refuse to allow video recording.
Your client claims to want fair, progressive and transparent negotiations, but your actions
sorely test our willing suspension of disbelief.
You have repeatedly denied a need for ground rules as you task the State's rather
expensive attorney with the menial chore of being the scorekeeoer for minor breaches of
table manners. You should learn to hide your hypocrisy with greater care. Call us on
creating "position pieces" and then take cheap shots at decorum as if yours is beyond
reproach. You have hallway conversations that tradition has always held are off the
record discussions and then conspiratorially scamper back to your breakout room to jot
down notes fbr the record. Then you write us a letter whimpering about our lack of trust
and respect for you and the people you service
Perhaps you do not understand the nature of the business for which our members are
engaged. 'We are Correctional Peace Offîcers. We representhe largest Peace Officer
organization in the State of California, but more importantly we work with the worst
people our society has to offer, well over 300,000 of them, and we are but a tènth their
number. Vy'e are understaffed, overcrowded (in the case of Paroles, overloaded), undertrained,
poorly equipped, and compensated at a lesser rate than of the other large State,
County or Cify Peace Officer Agencies.
Our members are assaulted on average nine times a dqy. We are beaten, stabbed, and
have urine, feces, blood, sperln or the entire cocktail thrown in our faces by people the
highest ranking managers of this Agency embrace as "customers" and "clients." We then
are subjected to a harsh and biased review of our conduct immediately following the
insult of your client's nasty client. We work in gang infested, disease ridden, roacli and
rodent populated, dilapidated prisons. Parole Agents carry caseloads too heavy to allow
any real supervision, often alone in some of the most dangerous ghettos in the State. We
suffer the highest divorce rate in the nation, which only breeds pmotional and financial
hardship. V/e risk bringing home to our families disease and infestations such as crabs.

!
hepatitis, HIV, scabies, tuberculosis and multi-drug resistant staphylococcus infections.
Our members must constantly be on alert, both on and off duty as we are even attacked in
our own driveways; such are the benefits of our profession. Consider this while tending
the wounds you suffer from yet another rough day at the office or as you bank a sixfigure
salary earned enduring our cell phones ringing at inopportune times. Just how
high up the food chain does one have to evolve before being permitted to be so easily
offended?
Most sincerely,
CCPOA - State Board Member

EXHIBIT 4

2006 t2007 N EcoTtATt o NS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S CONGEPTUAL PROPOSAL
. cALtFoRNTA coRREcroNAL pEAJgoFFrcERs AssocrATroN (ccpoA)
) Bargaining Unit 6
Revised Package Offer
March 22,2007
Over the last several months, the State of California and CCPOA have participated in formal negotiations
to reach agreement on a successor Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), arbitrated íssues related to
salary and benefits, collaborated regarding implementation of the arbitrator's award and attempted
informally to improve Labor Management relations.
ln light of the foregoing, the State hereby withdraws its previous package offer and all related proposals
in their entirety. Consistent with the Ralph C. Dills Act, in the spirit of good faith and with an eye toward
improved Labor Management relations, the State proposes the following revised package offer.
ÏERM OF MOU
¡ Effective upon ratification of the parties and expiration on June 30, 2010.
SALARY-
2006t2007
' .
'
No fudher salary increases beyond what was already provided by the January 18,2007
arbitration decision.
2007t2008
The State proposes the continuation of a total compensation formula.. The negotiated language and
details of the formula, however, must be transparent to ensure that the State and the Legislature
have a clear understanding of future fiscal impact associated with a successor MOU.
. Effective July 1, 2007, all Unit 6 employees shall receive a general salary increase based on the
formula.
2008/2009
. Effective July 1,2Q08, all Unit 6 employeeshall receive a general salary increase based on the
formula.
2009-2010
o Effective July 1, 2009, all Unit 6 employeeshall receive a general salary increase based on the
formula.
)
Effective August 1, 2009, the formula expires.

COMPENSATION ITEMS IN DISPUTE
CCPOA presently is seeking to arbitrate additional compensation issues. Specifically, CCPOA seeks a
determination that the salary formula requires the State to pay CCPOA the same as the California
Jighway Patrol (CHP), Unit 5, with respect to pre and post shift activities, shift diflerential, uniform
allowance, health benefits, and recruit bonus.
At this point, the fiscal impact of an arbitration decision on these matters is uncertain. To avoid such
fiscal uncertainty and in an efforto secure a successor MOU, the State is prepared to address all of the
disputed items in the successor MOU as detailed below rather than through arbitration. As such, the
economic proposals contained herein contemplate CCPOA's withdrawal of arbitration, DPA No. 06-06-
0399/CCPOA No. 19101, and upon reaching agreement on all other terms identified in this Revised
Package Offer. ln the absence of such a withdrawal, the State will be forced to reevaluate the
economics of this Revised Package Offer, as the State is not in a position to offer the additional
compensation in each of the five areas identified below and simultaneously proceed with arbitrating the
very same five items in dispute.
Pre-Post Work Activities
o Unit 6 already receives compensation of 2.5% for pre and post work activities. The CHP receives
3.5%. The difference between what the CHP and Unit 6 receives is 1%. The State will provide
this 1% to Correctional Officers and Youth Correctional Officers by adding 1o/o to the general
salary increase (GSl) for fiscal year 200712008. There would be no such adjustments for any
other Unit 6 classifications,
they do not engage in a comparable amount of pre and post work
activities as the COs|Y'COs.
Shift Differential*
r
Effective July 1,2007*, increase Night Shift differential from $ .50 to $ .75 per hour and Weekend
Shift differential from $ .65 to $ .90 per hour.
. Effective July 1, 2008, increase Night Shift differential from $ .75 to $1.00 per hour and Weekend
Shift differential from $ .90 to $1.25 per hour.
Uniform Allowance*
. Effective July 1 , 2007 , increase the uniform allowance from $530 to $730 per year.
. Effective July 1, 2008, increase the uniform allowance from $730 to $880 per year.
Health Benefits*
. 200612007 - The State proposes to increase the health benefit contribution to the 200785/80
flat
dollar equivalent. This increase would be effective the first pay period following ratification of the
new MOU by the union membership and Legislative approval. There would be no retroactivity of
the health benefit increase.
o 200712008 - Effective January 1, 2008, increase the health benefit contribution to the flat dollar
equivalent of the 200885/80
rates.
. 200812009 - Effective January 1, 2009, increase the health benefit contribution to the flat dollar
,, equivalent of the 200985/80
rates.
.t
. 200912010 - Effective January 1, 2010, increase the health benefit contribution to the flat dollar
equivalent of the 201085/80
rates.
2

New Recruit Bonus*
i
. Create a new pilot program that provides $2000 bonus payment(s) to current Unit 6 employees
who recruit new CorreðtionalOfficers who graduate from the CDCR academy.
o There is no cap on the number of recruit bonuses a Unit 6 employee can receive.
BUSINESS AN D TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT*
o Increase reimbursement to the same level as the Federal Standard Mileage Rate (FSMR).
RECRUITMENT INCENTIVE*
o Increase the amount of the recruitment incentive from $175 per month to $350 per month for San
Quentin, Correctional Training Facility, and Salinas Valley State Prisons.
The State hereby withdraws its previous proposal that contemplated a waiver of emptoyee rights
under the Ralph C. Dills Act and proposes the following which will balance the State's need to
manage the prison system, while preserving all bargaining rights of Unit 6 and establishing an
improved process for resolving employee grievances:
GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURE
Modify language to simplify grievance and arbitration, which would include the creation of a
singular process rather than the current system which is comprised of regular arbitration, 5-day
arbitration, immediate arbitration, pre-scheduled arbitration, and mini-arbitration.
Clarify arbitrator selection and authority, the kinds of grievances that are subject to arbitration,
definitions, time limits and consequences of untimely responses, and the substance and scope of
grievance descriptions. Address bifurcation of issues, timelines for the submission of briefs and
decisions and agreement not to abuse process.
r
Currently there are approximately 700+ pending arbitrations. Both parties need reliefrom this
unmanageable backlog. lt is imperative that the partieseek a prompt and efficient means of
resolving the vast majority of these pending arbitrations.
E NTI RE AG RE EM ENT/I M PACT BARGAI N I NG/MANAG EM ENT RIG HTS
Affirm existing language and emphasize that there is no obligation to negotiate or meet and
confer on matters already bargained and covered in the successor MOU.
Unzip all side agreements. Notwithstanding the unzipping of such agreements, the partieshall
acknowledge their continuing mutual responsibility to abide by stipulations and orders resulting
from coutt oversight in Madrid, Farrell, Coleman, and Plata. The partieshallfurther
acknowledge that nothing in the successor MOU is intended to modify or avoid the parties'
obligations pursuant to such stipulations and court orders. Establish that future agreements shall
only be incorporated
become an addendum to the successor MOU upon written mutual
agreement of both parties. Moreover, establish a process to ensure such agreements meet the
requirements of SB 621. Any previous or future side agreements not mutually incorporated into
the successor MOU shall constitute institutional operational guidelines.
Establish clearly that entire agreement (zipper clause), obligation to bargain (impact bargainíng),
and management rights shall be applied pursuant to the written language of the successor MOU.

SICK LEAVE
. Establish that sick leave shall not be counted as time worked for purposes of overtime.
j o Remove language preventing management from controlling sick leave abuse.
. In order to avoid having the State pay over three (3) times the amount for a single shift, limit
permanent intermittent employee's ability to call in sick leave at the last minute.
UNION LEAVE TIME
o Establish an annual donation and use cap of 35,000 hours of release time bank.
r
Permit Chapter Presidents to utilize the aforementioned 35,000 hour Release Time bank instead
of official business/state release time.
POST & BID
. For Adult, exclud employees assigned to Security Squads, Medical Units, and Transportation
from the determination of the State's 30%.
. Modify Division of Juvenile Justice language in light of the "Farrell" remedial plan and provide shift
and regular day off assignments by seniority.
. Clarify CDCR's ability to re-assign temporarily employees to satisfy shorterm needs.
EMPLOYEE REQUESTED TRANSFERS
¡ In light of vacancy issues, modify language to address the problem of transfers among institutions
and facilities.
CYA STAFFINGMARD POPULATION
o Modify language in light of the "Farrell" remedial plan.
JOt NT APPRENTICESH¡P TRAINI NG COMMITTEE (JAC)
. In response to CCPOA's expressed interest in a cooperative approach to training, the State
proposes to establish a Joint Labor Management Apprenticeship Training Committee.
GENERAL CLEANUP
. Modify existing language to reflecthe Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
reorganization.
¡ Delete inapplicable or duplicative language.
* All economic items are effective the first of the month after ratification of the union membership and
., approval of the Legistature in the 200712008 Legislative session, but no soonerthan July 1,2007, and
is subject to agreement on actual contract language.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
UN¡T6.R,ANK&FILE
3 year - lncremental Increases
sl;r;4f¿'dz"råiiiffi fu+i
iìi¿t^¡
:-.;;,¡jå'*¡riiir4lils-H-nì
i ri.i
.rårÌrà
.1.1.i r.1;
Pay Increases are based upon Arbitrator's inte¡pretátion of the Law Enforcernent Methôdolqgy
Formula as described in the current",MOu
Báse Säfary Increase* , :1,
.r. : ,''1',,.i.í;à;
lie-a lth B enefits:8 5/80 (Sa m e a5. U n ¡fr 5),t, :, Ã.r. r, i,,,rqgîf:
1i
',:.:i.i.r:r.,r.â:,:,
:::..:a:j:
: :!íj:tl'j:l: :
ìa:.ì,,::;,,r:i.,[;I,r] : .
1:2V
z:v
1|2
1i,3',-8.t.
ti;&,:::..
4719
10,0i
r23:
Úhiform Allowance, (Líke Unit bjt .',,
Rearuit¡nent & Retention Differential,
Såtinas vátiev, Sän rì^uentin, ctFi ,,'
NêW,neCruit,Bontìs
,-'¡,';;" ,,¡;,i;
' .:i11:Ì1: :.i¡ . :,'.:,rr'-il: ;i. i.;11i 1.i¡;l;:l:;:,:,
,:,, .T,OïALl,RAryK :& rl
:::a
;Ét
':1'Ã:lì'....
l,;;.,,
Y.i: ::, ,: : :
oì:,1,_ .;i,:,r;:
'::Þ,;,- :.r r'
s
.i' " ;.r-iiÌ.lill,, ili
{¡lït i
í!!:
I
$r
6
STATE REFORMS:

EXHIBIT 5

C.diftornia Correctional
Peace Officers
Association
CCPOA
c. cvA PE.j.cE oFFlCt^5
T H E T O U C H E S T
BEAT 1N THE STATE
755 Riverpoint Dr., Ste. 200 . West Sacramento, CA 95605-1634 ' (916) 372-6060
APa 3 2007
@,Th
Dave Gilb, Director
Department of Personnel Administration
1515 "S" Street, North Building, Room 400
Sacramento, CA 95841
April 2, 2007
Re: 200612007 Negotiations on March 29,2007
This letter is intended to document the discussion held at the California Correctional
Peace Officers Association (CCPOA) headquarters on March 29,2007. These
discussions were pursuant to a "revised package offer" from the Department of
Personnel Administration (DPA) that was to be presented as a "serious offer designed
to obtain an agreement with CCPOA.' You personally began the presentat¡on for all the
rank and file executives of CCPOA. lf you disagree with any depiction of events, please
reply immediately.
ln the presentation of your salary offer, you made it very clear that your offer was not
designed to maintain the existing salary relationship between Bargaining Unit 5 (BU5)
and BU6. You stated that your offer would increase the separation in total
compensation and offered no explanatíon other than "that'S our offer."
Additionally, when asked about a portion of your proposal that specifically excluded all
classifications except for Correctional Otficers and Youth Correctional Officers you
stated that you did not believe that other classifications were entitled to those monies
because they didn't perform any work that would entitle them to it. When asked by J. L.
Adame if this raise would be available for Youth Correctional Counselors, you stated
that you didn't believe so, but you weren't sure whathey did or why it should apply to
that classification. When I asked you if all members of BU5 got this additional money
regardless of job duties, you responded "yes."
At that point I informed you that you were wasting your time. You are well aware that in
the Californìa Depañment of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) we are running
about 5000 vacancies. Any increased separation between BU6 and all other law
enforcement organizations who seek the same candidates only adds to the difficulty in
recruiting to fill the vacancies. You make no attempt to explain why BU6 should accept
less pay or allow more take-aways from employee rights than BUS. lf you believe that
the members of BU6 deserve less pay and sub par terms and conditions of
employment than BU5, we have a SERIOUS problem.

Dave Gilb April 2, 2007
You stated that you have 30 years of experience in negotiations. lt's a shame that you
aren't even aware of the job classifications that make up the Bargaining Unit you are
negotiating with. lf you believe that offer was a positive move towards an agreement,
you are sorely mistaken.
You seem to forget we made an agreement in 2OO4 with this Administration (and you)
that was violated as soon as the ink was dry on the agreement. We are still iitigating
your refusal to honor that agreement. You remain totally unapologetic for the actionl of
the Agency or the Administration
their failure to abide by that agreement. Your
pt'oposal makes no mention of correcting that dispute, nor does yóur proposal express
any interest
doing so.
CCPOA has not tried to hide the fact that trust, in dealing with your department or our
own employing Agency, ís critical. Your offer has done nothing but compound the
distrust that existed before you made your presentatíon.
The fact that you provided members of the Legislature with inflated dollar
amounts, on charts that are different than those provided to GCpoA,
demonstrates the lack of seriousness and total absence of sincerity in your most
recent offer.
lf this is an indícation of what this Administration calls "good faith negotiations," we have
enormous gaps to bridge in a very shortime. We will have a very difficult time trying to
create an agreement once we have an understanding of the issues we agree to fíx and
how to go about fíxing them. As long as DPA chooses to engage in the obvious
gamesmanship the current offer exudes, we can do nothing but sit back and watch as
valuable time slips away. This window of opportunity will close very soon.
CCPOA remains very interested
making an agreement. We have no interest in a bad
agreement. We do not believe a bad agreement helps fillvacancies, create a more
positive work environment or provides the necessary foundation for the front line work
force to build any element of reform upon. We want the changes that this Governor
promised on his first days in office. However, under no circumstances should you
mistake our interest in reform of the California prison system as a sign of weakness.
Nor should you expect CCPOA, the members of BU6 or the current MOU to accepthe
responsibility for where we are today.
We remain available for you when you are through playingames. We will work nights,
weekends and/or holidays in an efforto bring this to a rapid conclusion. In spite of the
insulthat you called an offer, we both know the problems in the prison system won't
heal themselves. When you got hurt feelings and walked out, you showed your
department's commitment to reform. In the realworld, when Correctional Officers get
their feelings hurt, they can't just pack up and go home.

Dave Gilb
April2,2007
Pagç!
lf you intend to continue to offer us substantially less financially than you gave to BUS,
and you continue to demand substantially more in take-aways in terms and conditions
of employment, you will please pardon our: skepticism over your seriousness. lf you
expect CCPOA to accept less and give more on the BU6 MOU when compared to the
BU5 MOU, you need to at least start with a damn good explanation as to why.
Pleas excuse the editorial appearance of this letter. lf it helps, please consider this a
counterproposal. We remain ready, willing and able whenever you are.
Mike Jimênez
State President
California Correctional
Peace Officers Association

PROOF OF SERVICE
l, Debbie Rollins, declare:
I am over the age of 1B years and not a party to the within actíon. I am an employee of
the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, 755 Riverpoint Drive, Suite 200,
West Sacramento, CA 95605-1634.
On April 3,2007,1 served the within document(s):
Letter dated April 2, 2O0T,regarding the 2006i2007 Negotiation Session held on March
29,2007
l1
l1
lxl
By Mail: I caused such document(s), in sealed envelope(s) with postage
thereon fully prepaid, to be placed in the United States mail at West
Sacramento, California, to those addressed below.
By Facsimile: I caused the above name document(s) to be transmitted via
facsimíle to the facsimile number(s) listed below.
By Personal Delivery: I caused such envelope to be delivered by hand to the
office(s) of addressee(s).
Dave Gilb, Director
Department of Personnel Adm inistration
1515 "S" Street, North Building, Room 400
Sacramento, CA 95841
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that thís
declaration was executed by me on:
Date: April 3, 2007
=&lr¿¡,3rtr , ,
Debbie Rollins

EXHIBIT 6

I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA \ ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, GovemoT
NEPARTM ENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
)OR RELATIONS DIVISION
-.T5'S'' STREET, NORTH BUILDING, SUITE 4OO
SAoRAMENIO. CA 95814-7243
April6, 2007
Mr. Mike Jimenez
State President
California Correctional Peace Officers Associatíon
755 Rlverpolnt Dr., Suite 200
West Sacramento, CA 95841
Dear Mr. Jimenez:
As you are well aware, over the last several mo4ths, the State of California (State) and CCPOA
have participated in formal negotiations to reach agreement on a successor Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), arbitrated issues related to salary and benefits, collaborated regarding
implementation of the arbitrator's award and attempted informallyto improve Labor
Management relations. Most recently, on March 29,2007, the State met with CCPOA and
reconvened main table bargaining to discuss the March 22, 2007, revised package offer which
was presented by the Director of the Department of Personnel Administration (DPA), Mr. Dave
Gitb.
As CCPOA has been informed on multiple occasions, including the opening comments made by
the Director, his presence at the bargaining table was to present a package offer which
indicated the parameters of a successor MOU from the State's perspective. The Director was
presenting to CCPOA a serious offer and the State fully expected that there would be future
negotlation sessions to work out the details of the negotiated language.
In that the State was unable to continue its presentation, we could not formally communicate
that a -year term is available for consideration, as previously discussed with you and CCPOA's
Vice President, Chuck Alexander. The 4-year option is detailed in the attached offer.
During the brief meeting on March 29,2007, CCPOA presented some questions regarding one
particular item of the State's offer, Pre-Post Work Activities. Based upon the dialogue and
questions raised, the State has modified its offer to include all classifications in Unit 6.
On April 2,2007, you wrote a letter to the Director with CCPOA's depiction of events of the
March 29,2007 meeting. Per your request, this letter confirms that the State does not agree
with CCPOA's depiction of such events. In an effort to move forward, however, the State will
not address the issues point by point. The State must address the closing of your letter In which
you requested that your letter of April 2,200T be considered a "counter-proposal" (without
identifying a single element of a purported counter-propbsal). Although the State does not
consider your correspondence to be a counter proposal, and in light of the fact that the meeting
of March 29,2007 ended prematurely, the State ls combining the previous 3-year package offer
with the verbal -year package offer into the attached package offer.
l

Mr. Jimenez
April6, 2007
Page 2
The 4-year option includes' another year of the general salary increases based upon the "9666'
formula, increases for health benefits, a mechanism to resolve the on-going dispute over prepost
work activíties and modification to the retirement formula for new employees hired on or
afterJuly 1,2007.
In an efforto dispel any confusion regarding how the State has calculated the "9666" formula
projections, the "$666" formula calculation for July 1,2007 is attached.
The State continues to desire to negotiate a successor MOU and believes that the 3 or 4 year
options are fair, generous and serious offers which are good for our employees, your members.
I will continue to work with Chuck Alexander to discuss the available dates and locations for
such negotiations. ln the mean time, please feelfree to contact me or Labor Relations Officer,
Kristine Rodrigues at (916) 323-7998 if you have any questions.
Chapman
puty Director
Attachments
cc: State's Negotiation Team
Chuck Alexander. CCPOA

2006t2007 N EGOTTATTONS
STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S CONGEPTUAL PROPOSAL
TO
GALIFORNIA CORREGTIONAL PEACE OFF|GERS ASSOCTATTON (cCpOA)
Bargaining Unit 6
Package Offer
April6, 2007
The State of California (State) herby amends its offer of March 22,2007 by adding a 4-yeat option. This
4th-year option includes another year of general salary increases based upon the "$666" formula,
another year of increases for health benefits, and modifies the retirement formula for new employees
hired on or after July 1,20Q7.
Amendments have also been made to some of the 3-year options based upon CCPOA's verbal and
written comments regarding the March 22,2007 offer,
TERM OF MOU
. Effective upon ratification of the parties and expiration on June 30, 2010.
4-Year Option
¡ Effective upon ratification of the parties and expiration on June 30, 2011.
SALARY*
2006t2007
r
No further safary increases beyond what was already provided by the January 18,2007
arbitration decision.
200712008
The State-proposes the contínuation of the "$666' total compensation formula. The negotiated
language and details of the formula, however, must be transparent to ensure that the State and the
Legislature have a clear understanding of future fiscal impact associated with a successor MOU.
¡ Effective July 1, 2007, all Unit 6 empfoyeeshall receive a general salary increase based on the
formula.
2008/2009
o Effective July 1, 2008, all Unit 6 employeeshall receive a general salary increase based on the
formula.
2009-2010
r
Effective July 1, 2009, all Unit 6 employeeshall receive a general salary increase based on the
formula and the formula shall expire in its entirety on July 2, 2009.

4.Year Option
201012011
. Effective July 1, 2010, all Unit 6 employeeshall receive a general salary increase based on the
formul and the formula shall expire in its entirety on July 2,2010.
COMPENSATION ITEMS IN DISPUTE
CCPOA presently is seeking to arbitrate additional compensation issues. Specifically, CCPOA seeks a
determination that the salary formula requires the State to pay CCPOA the same as the California
Highway Patrol (CHP), Unit 5, with respecto pre and post shift activities, shift differential, uniform
allowance, health benefits, and recruit bonus.
At this point, the fiscal impact of an arbitration decision on these matters is uncertain. To avoid such
fiscal uncertainty and in an effort to secure a successor MOU, the State is prepared to address all of the
disputed items in the successor MOU as detailed below rather than through arbitration.
The economic proposals contained herein contemplate (1) CCPOA's withdrawal of arbitration DPA No.
06-06-0399/CCPOA No. 19101 in its entirety or a withdrawal of all issues except pre and post shift
activity compensation, as described in more detail below, and (2) CCPOA's agreement on all other terms
identified in this April 6, 2007 amended Package Offer. ln the absence of such a withdrawal (entire or all
but pre and post shift activity compensation), the State will be forced to reevaluate the economics of this
Package Offer, as the State is not in a position to offer the additional compensation in each of the areas
identified below and simultaneously proceed with arbitrating some or all of those items as well.
@*
r
Unit 6 already receives compensation of 2.5% for pre and post work activities. The CHP receives
3.5%, The difference between what the CHP and Unit 6 receives is 1%. The State will provide
1% to Unit 6 employees by adding 1% to the general salary increase (GSl) for fiscal year
200712008. (The 3-year option contemplates CCPOA's withdrawal of arbitration DPA No. 06-06.
0399/CCPOA No. 19101 in its entirety).
4-Year Option
r
In anticipation of CCPOA continuing to dispute the issue of pre and post work activity
compensation, as a part of the 4th year option, CCPOA may continue to arbitrate the single issue
of Pre and Post Work Activity Compensation of DPA No. 06-06-0399/CCPOA No. 19101, To the
extenthat an arbitrator awards compensation in excess of the I % that the State is already
proposing to pay in the previous bullet point, such additional compensation will be added to the
general salary increase in fiscal year 201012011.
Shift Differential*
lncreases in shift differential are consistent with the interpretation of the arbitrator's award dated
November 18, 2006 and resolve the current shift ditferential dispute as identified in the pending
arbitration of DPA No. 06-06-0399/CCPOA No. 19101.
. Effective July 1, 2007*, increase Night Shift differential from $ .50 to $ .75 per hour and Weekend
Shift differentialfrom $ .65 to $ .90 per hour.

. Effective July 1, 2008, increase Night Shíft differential from $ .75 to $1.00 per hour and Weekend
Shift differential from $ .90 to $1.25 per hour.
Increases in uniform allowance are consistent with the interpretation of the arbitrator's award dated
November 18, 2006 and resolve the current uniform allowance dispute as identified in the pending
arbitration of DPA No. 06-06-0399/CCPOA No. 19101.
r
Effective July 1 , 2007, increase the unlform allowance from $530 to $730 per year.
. Effective July 1, 2008, increase the uniform allowance from $730 to $880 per year.
þ!!h
Benefilg*
Increases in health benefit contribution rates are consistent with the interpretation of the arbitrator's
award dated November 18, 2006 and resolve the current health benefit dispute as identified in the
pending arbitration of DPA No. 06-06-0399/CCPOA No' 19101.
t 200612007 - The State proposes to increase the health benefit contribution to the 200785/80
flat
dollar equivalent. This increase would be effective the first pay period following ratification of the
new MOU by the union membershþ and Legislative approval. There would be no retroactivity of
the health benefit increase.
, Z00T1200B - Effective January 1, 2008, increase the health benefit contribution to the flat dollar
equivalent of the 200885/80
rates.
c
20081200g - Effective January 1, 2009, increase the health benefit contribution to the flat dollar
equivalent of the 200985/80 rates'
, 200g12010 - Effective January 1,2010, increase the health benefit contribution to the flat dollar
equivalent of the 201085/80
rates'
4-Year Option
o 201012011 - Effective January 1 , 2011, íncrease the health benefit contribution to the flat dollar
equivalent of the 201185/80
rates.
New Becruit Bonus*
In recognition of the State's desire to fiÍl vacant positions; the establishment of the New Recruit
Bonus is consistent with and exceeds the interpretation of the arbitrator's award of November 18,
2006 and resolves the current recruit bonus dispute as identified in the pending arbitration of DPA
No, 06-06-0399/CCPOA No. 19101
. Create a new pilot program that provides $2000 bonus payment(s) to current Unit 6 employees
who recruít new CorrectionalOfficersfYouth Correctional Officers who graduate from the CDCR
academY.
r
There is no cap on the number of recruit bonuses a Unit 6 employee can receive.
BUSINESS AND TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENTe
Increase relmbursement to the same level as the Federal Standard Mileage Rate (FSMR).

:
RECRUITMENT I NGENTIVE*
. lncrease the amount of the recruitment incentive from $175 per month to $350 per month for San
Quentin, Correctional Training Facility, and Salinas Valley State Prisons.
RETIREMENT (4th-year option only)
. Modify the retirement formula to be based upon the híghest consecutive three years of State
service for new employees hired on or after July 1, 2007.
The State hereby withdraws its previous proposal that contemplated a waiver of employee rlghts
under the Ralph C. Dills Act and proposes the following which will balance the State's need to
manage the prison system, while preserving all bargaining rights of Unit 6 and establishing an
improved process for resolving employee grlevances:
GRIEVANCE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURE
. Modify language to simplify grievance and arbitration, which would include the creation of a
síngular process rather than the current system which is comprised of regular arbitration, 5-day
arbitration, immediate arbitration, pre-scheduled arbitration, and mini-arbitration.
. Clarify arbitrator selection and authority, the kinds of grievances that are subjecto arbitration,
definitions, time limits and consequences of untimely responses, and the substance and scope of
grievance descriptions. Address bifurcation of issues, timelines for the submission of briefs and
decisions and agreement not to abuse process.
¡ Currently there are approximately 700+ pending arbitrations. Both parties need relief from this
unmanageable backlog. lt is imperative that the partie seek a prompt and efficient means of
resolving the vast majority of these pending arbitrations.
ENTIRE AGREEMENT/IMPAGT BARGAINING/MANAGEMENT RIGHTS
Affirm existing language and emphasize that there is no obligation to negotiate or meet and
confer on matters already bargained and covered in the successor MOU.
Unzip all side agreements. Notwithstanding the unzipping of such agreements, the partíeshall
acknowledge their continuing mutual responsibility to abide by stipulations and orders resulting
from court oversight in Madrid, Farrell, Coleman, and Plata. The parties shall further
acknowledge that nothing in the successor MOU is intended to modify or avoíd the parties'
obligations pursuant to such stipulations and court orders. Establish that future agreements shall
only be incorporated
become an addendum to the successor MOU upon written mutual
agreement of both parties. Moreover, establish a process to ensure such agreements meet the
requirements of SB 621. Any previous or future side agreements not mutually incorporated into
the successor MOU shall constitute institutional operational guidelines.
Establish clearly that entire agreement (zipper clause), obligation to bargain (impact bargainíng),
and management rights shafl be applied pursuant to the written language of the successor MOU.

SICK LEAVE
¡ Establish that sick leave shatl not be counted as time worked for purposes of overtime.
. Remove language preventing management from controlling sick leave abuse.
r
In order to avoid having the State pay over three (3) times the amount for a single shift, limit
permanent intermittent employee's ability to call in sick leave at the last minute.
UNION LEAVE TIME
Establish an annual donation and use cap of 35,000 hours of release time bank.
r
Permit Chapter Presidents to utilize the aforementioned 35,000 hour Release Time bank instead
of official business/state release time.
POST & BID
. For Adult, exclud employees assigned to SecuriÇ Squads, Medical Units, and Transportation
from the determination of the State's 30%.
¡ Modify Division of Juvenile Justice language in light of the "Fanell" remedial plan and provide shift
and regular day off assignments by seniority.
r
Clarify CDCR's ability to re-assign temporarily employees to satisfy short term needs.
EMPLOYEE REQUESTED TRANSFERS
r
ln light of vacancy issues, modify language to address the problem of transfers among institutions
and facilities.
CYA STAFFI NGiWARD POPULATION
. Modify language in light qf the "Farrell". remedial plan.
J Ol NT AP PRENTTC ESHI P TRATNT NG COMMTTTEE (JAC)
r
In response to CCPOA's expressed interest in a cooperative approach to training, the State
proposes to establish a Joint Labor Management Apprenticeship Training Committee.
GENERAL CLEANUP
. Modify existing language to reflecthe Department of Gonections and Rehabilitation
reorganization.
¡ Delete inapplicable or duplicative language.
n All economic items are effective the fìrst of the month after ratification of the union membership and
approval of the Legislature in the 20Q712008 Legislative session, but no sooner than July 1, 2007, and
is subject to agreement on actual contract language.

SUMMAR¡ OF PROPOSAL
UNIT6-RANK&FILE
4yeat - Incremental Increases
ffi -*i-0_,9.m&,a;9^effi
F"tr&0þ'*-s_løÈHsäP.flffi
P#äaþS;¡ä[-_diffi
Pay increases are based upon Arbitratofs interpretation of the Law Enforcement Methodology
Formula as described in the current MOU.
'' i..,' 214
127
', '134
negnnB"ÇEþ'{t*€stedi(Sþþ,e,rgsunits.}¡ j¡ : . ?Or*
29 ,,-3?-riiii,rl;Ì1 36
.-.:.,:).t r: ',;ii'íf::iì;';i:i.
: . .::¿jÍ.:rr:i
.'..: 11
''.::À.rì
'.1....,... t. p,..
.;.',.i"lii;!,
¿t .:,!1:r-. :..,.,:
::.i:j:iij.
;. .ti.,,,, ç
.5
| 1!.i:ttit:¿Íi:.:.1.
È(r:::i:j;:.
.
¡¡e*RÊç'ffiÈbnìié'ii1 iìi;;t ':,,,,.,
r ,:,' r ,;,l:ri+iiiii
i;:.;;:.;,.
,::ril .:.;'iri:i i:,.,i i.. j::. Jr:
j.):': , :
6,..i.ji,:.iiì. .iÍjr :¡r::.,¿..,;r::.,...rrjj..rì.-.;.::r.;r_:. ':",:'l',.t'¡'ii$illiiiirii
,.',.Ëi'
,',': : rOiiil,ì,,,ì
STATE REFORMS:
. Sick Leave: Shall not count as hours worked for Overtime. Elimínate the State paying 3 times for 1 shift when Pl's catl in sick. Control
abuse.
. Grievance/Arbitration Procedures: Modifr7 language to simpliff into a singular process eliminating the current 5 separate arbitration
processes. Clariff arbitrator selection and authority, the kind of grievances subject to arbitration and time limits and consequences of
untimely responses. Address the current 700 pending arbitrations.
. Entire Agreement/lmpact Bargaining/Management Rights: Unzip all side agreements. Establish any future agreements shall be
incorporated or become an addendum only with mutual written agreement of both parties and pursuanto SB 621. Affirm existing
language re: no obligation to negotiate or meet and confer on matters already bargained and covered in the successor MOU. Clearly
establish that the entire agreement (zipper clause), oblígation to bargain (impact bargaíning), and management rights shall be applied
pursuant to the written language of the new MOU.
. Union Leave Time: Establish an annua! RTB cap of 35,000 hours. Permit Chapter Presidents to utilize RTB instead of state paid time.
. Post & Bid: Security Squads, Medical Units, and Transportation excluded from determination of the State's 30%. Modify DJJ language to
allow compliance with the "Farrell" remedial Plan. Clariff CDCR's ability to re-assign temporarily employees to satisff short term needs-
- Employee Requested Transfers: In light of vacancy issues, modiñ/ language to address the problem of transfers among institutions and
facilities.
. DJJ StaffingMard Population: Modiff language to allow compliance with the "Farrell" remedial plan
. Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee (JAC): CCPOA expressed interest in a cooperative approach to training, State is proposing
to establish a Joint Labor Management Apprenticeship Training Committee.
. Retirement The State proposes that the retirement formula for any employee hired on or after July 1, 2007, be based upon the highest
consecutive three years of state seruice.
'Amount calctllaled on formula projections (0708=8.2o/o,08/09=4.0%, Ogt104.2%,10t11=3.9%), plus 1% for additional compensation for pre and post sh¡f work activ¡ties.

Unit 5 and 6 Total Gompensation Comparison
Keeping $666 Difference
5,959'
6,144
*'
is rolled lnto the base and effective l/1/02
41512007
4:44PM
Fltness P
5+ years $100 g+ years 9130

EXHIBIT 7

o. tUU I b:02PM
No, 1485 P 2
CCPOA
755 Riverpolnt Dr., 9tc. ?00 r We¡t Srcrün.nto, CA 98605-1ó3{ t (CL6) J72.660
Julie Chapman
Deputy DÍrector
Departrnent of
Personnel Administration
April6,2007
Dear Ms. Chapmarç
we received your co¡Tcspondence dated April 6,2007, at2:4spM be e-qail this
aftsrnoon. Thís conesp_ol!*o i: lry*r¡f¡ ro'*t.*ó-ontr to uotrt iy r"tt.tääi.d
2,2007,
April
an.d lour discussions with Chuck Alexander,'CCpOe Executive Vice presídont,
regarding the schedulÍng of future negotiation dates.
The attached information r-equest is presented as eprecursor to futrue negotiations
the stste
thaf
neods to filt in order to have intelligent *ä f*ia"ídiscussions
package
over the
offçr" ,,revised
the Staûe hn¡ made. This inftrmrtion request was in ttte
process
arneiopmcnt
prior to utt YYttreyised
package offer" we ¡eìeivcd today a"¿, us
not be
si.tt,
considered
slrould
inclusive of all questiorts
exbaustíve by any means. Based
multiPle
on your
assurflnçes o_f the package being a Fsorious offer,""this-information.lôuU
readily
U,
available for distríbution to CCpOA
We sre prepared to negotiete aroutd the ctocþ all weekend
prepared
if nocescary, lf you rre
to negotfate and h¡ve the requeatod lnform¡tion ¡vtilrble for
revlew.
CCpoA
we
to
anxioueþ ewaít your returb to the baryaining tsbre.
Regalding your desoription of the events of our ivfarch 29, 2007 meeting,
ststed you
which'you
would notrespond.to poln! by point. Instead, yåu chose to rerioiãiã tert¿in
Igi"ttJY i¡ferencç. Ygur analysie is incon€ct at best, and perhaps dishonest
Since
in
DPA
reality,
has refused ø allow vÍdeo recordings, rufuo iuiltoirigs (unress
the
ù&;;
direotiou
and ar
of DPA), or neutrar obsewers nori t¡" r,esir-tut*, ðr d"
will both i""r;J;oblic, we
be lefr with our own versions as to what oocuñed, Your ræroî*rot
refi¡sals
,ürt
are quite obvious thouglr.
It is necesslry to respond to yoru inferences that are totally inapcuratÊ. In the fhst
sentence of the third paragrap! of yow rettø you state in irrt, ,,In that thc state
unable
was
to continue its preseniation," Your imitication Áiåiirr onty rcæon t¡u ö,ut.
unablc
**
tro continue is because-Mr.-Cit! gotlp aud walked oít. NonritUrturr¿ing tÌtr
that
rr"t
Mr. Gilb was unaware of a[ the ctaisÍnöauons that ccpoA represents, Mr.
feelings
Gilbs,
were all that ¡endered the St¿te '\¡nable
to continue its presentation.,,
nÁ./OÊ/2nn7 FÞT 14.1n rnYlDY ÀT^ orooì

HPf. 0. lt)\)| b:(]2PM
No,i4B5 P 3
Apparently, bæed on y9T NEw and again ,,revised package offer,,' Mr. Gilb has a
newfound awareness of the classifio4íõns that CCPóA r.presrnts. By making ttris
rec,ognition
Td
by including ALL c!åssíficafions in you new salary órro, *ã aho by
Teo.s ¡o thanses_tg yoru salary chalt" you have rcãuced your salary offer to all
Bargaining Unit (BU) 6 membeis. This.ii not progress. ' .
If this was done in enor, perhaps you should.stop tying to,þlay the game,,and actua¡y
takç the time to develop and prcsent the "seriod off.¡itttut you claim is available.
AdditÍonally'
ry! claim the State is p:epared to ofrer a fourth year option to your
pacl'$e offbr." This ,rrevised
mwt be in an cinfu to reconcile the diffçrent 4iart, thaí were given
to CCPOA" the-Legislaturc and the media. CCPoA's interest
a fourth y"ar is
conespond
only to
to the deal given to BU 5. The offer made by DPA amounts to a five-year
deal and artificially inflates the cost of the ovorall agrerioint, AgaÍn, tii* ir not progress.
The aftached chart in the DPA conespondenoe that cxplains how DpA is going to
maintain the $666.00 cqn be nimmari'zed with oni stat'ement, ,,As soon as DpA removes
all increases ftom the BU 5 oompensatíon packalr,*r *iägive BU e wtrateve, is ¡eft,,,
HÍdden within yoq oryI of a four-yeT o_ptioo is the very significant change ro
retirement
the
system for all employeei hiredgn o¡ affr:r ¡uri i,'zoo7. was this ohnnge
l$uue¿ from BU 5 for-their four.yeæ deal? How is this Ur¡lti*t iauu goi"gïoãsist ín
liti"g the best and brÍgttest candidates to fill trr" **ly s,oõo
that ourrently
tnuotttõ"ruãaju**.i.,
exist in the CDCR?
Yolu statedesire üo leggtiate a succossor MOU and your offers that you consider ..fair,
generous and seríous¡" w$ch are good for yow employees, o,u me*b..s, i, only
overehadowed by the reality of yoL aft€mpt to rewiitittrr irrtory of the
the
negotiations and
serioushortpomings of yoru offer whËn gívrn sídrîy side comparison to
the
BU 5. By
way, your failure 19
include all compensation for BU 5 to the chart yoú prouiaed
pay
for
com,parison
indícative of the dishouest approach we have encountered from DpA
9*iog.tþt entirety of the 2006'2007 uegotíations. YÑ ruieor¿ concern for or¡r
is
members
touching, quite tardy and *oru *rr""ãssary, but nonethéiess touching.
In closing- we offer the.following thought from Woodrow Wilson, ,úNothing
pretenso
chills
líke exposwe,"
California Conectional
Peace Officers Assocíation
04/06/2007 FRI 16:10 ITX/RI N0 81ZSt

No, 1485 P. 4
755 Rf verpolnt Dr,, Ste, 200 . Weet Saffamento. CA 95605-1694 . 1916) JZ2_6060
Dave Gilb, Director
Departme nt of Personnel Administration
1515 "S" Street, North Building, Room 400
Sacramento, CA 95841
.April6, 2007
Re: Information Request
þ .luly 2006, almost one year ago, the Caflfornlq Department of Corrections and
Rehabllltatlon (CDCR) prómlseti"that tney wouiO proüiã" ue the rationale behind
the state'e
each
proposals,
of
ahd what factore piompted'the state to seek théie particular
changes to the Memorandum of UnderétanOíng tMòUj.
In keeping with this, and in an efforto understand the entirety
proposals'
of the state,s conceptual
'?evfeed
and in accordance with the_Ralph C, Dills Act, and in responsé to your
p-ackage offeP dated April 6, zooi, pleaeð pròvlde the california conectional
Peace officers Aeeocratron (ccÞoniwith ttrå roliowinj information:
r f, copy of all agreements reaohqd under MOU Section 27 .O1in the pasthree
years that you believe must bo "unzipped'in order to facilitate tne iOcR,s ablllty
to operate or that have impeded youi'abirity to operate.
' Copies of all previous agreements thst you do not intond to incorporate into a
successor Mou as referenced in your Entire Agreoment proposai.
speclflcaaes where the CDCR has attempted to correct or mânage slck leave
?þ!se, and hae been prevented from doinçj so by the language of t-he current
MOU..Also,.provlde all documentation anð procåssee that CDCR did use to
oorect or attempt to correct any behavior nèceeeitating any such changes.
S.pecifi.c examples in the last three yoars where the state paid threo timsg for one
shlft when a Permanent Intgrmitteni Employee (PlE) òalled in síck as welt as
specÍflc locatlons of these Incldents.
The total number of posts and speoific post deecriptlons at each
Institution that would be exclude'd from iho state's'soø post and bid.
@',
04/06/2007 FRI 16:10 tTIlRX N0 B1ZSl

'qpr,, 6, 2001 5:02PM
No. 1485 P. 5
Informatlonal Noflce
April 0,2007
Number and responsibility of security squad positions identified by institution.
Nurnber of medical unit positions and specific post descriptions identified at
lnetitution.
each
Nuryler.of transportation assignments and specific post descriptions identified
each
at
Institution,
All documents submitted to the Department of Finanoe, (DoF) and/or the
,Lgg.h]qtl!! Anatyst's office. (LAo), br any other ent¡ù, oràteo'¡n support ot ttre
unlt 5 Mou. This request irìdudâs any summary documentJ prepälãd ty
Dep-artment
tre
of PereoñnelAdmlnletrattón @pA) lñ conàoeraildn di lJgrlåtiu"
ratification of the Unit S MOU.
The total number of outstanding grievances in unit 6 along with a brief
descrlptlon of the iesue.
.9:ti:: glllqlïances where rhe CDCR/DPA railed to respond in a timery
lashiofì as preecrlbed In the language of the current Mou.
Regarding your propoealto ellmlnate elck leave ae houre worked for overtirne:
The total number of involuntary overtime hours worked for
ye?rs
the last three
for each Unit 6 classificãtion broken down Uv init¡tui¡ön rñãlo¡.
region.
The total number of involuntary overtime hours worksd in conJuncgon wlth
the employeBs regular days ofi for each Unit 6 classif¡cat¡on lñ tne laet
three years broken down by institution and/oregion.
The number of correctlve actlons along with a description of the issue
!ak9n agaillt Unit 6 employees relateã to refusing ¡nïofuntary óvór,t¡m.
for the last three years.
The. specific.posts that the state proposes to re-assign --'v.'
for '-' "shorterm neede,,
eaoh institution.
at
The state's plan to etfec{ivety eliminate the worklosd from each of these
temporarily diverted posítionê,
The state.'a Emergenoy Response Plan modificstions to accommodate theee
ternporarlly re-asslgned posts at each Insiltuflon.

Ap r. 0, t\)U | ):02PM
No.i485 P 6
fnformaflonal Noüce
Aprll S, 2007
All examplee where the Divlslon of,Juvenile Juetice (DJJ) post
in the
and
current
bid
Mou prevents
language
compliancá ù¡tñìñålçIrreil" Remediat plan.
Ïhe stsffino/¡vara_population packages that would
of language
neceesltate
in
the modifioations
the cürrent Mou to ;lbw c¿;pl¡rñråi¡th
Plan.
the *Farre¡,, Remedtal
Details of the cDCR's speciflc efforts to resolve
three yeÊr8.
the vacancy issues
These
over the last
oetä¡ls àtrouilinclude effortspectflc
retention,
to
and
recruitment,
staff development at each Institution'i¡rat
vscancy
has
rates in excess of over 5%.
"ididËä
A cornplete set of rules, regulatione and/or policlee
whlch
which govern
a BUB the process
member appõals
by
ã oéc¡siôn riai iéettiois
hle/her rights
treñ rro,.,.,
ar
äi"iåleins
1lg,rrs-v leveipããce officer. ns we¡r gs
backgrou nd
arr regufatory
a nd aüttroriqi citeJ iãi yo ur apprenti., pióg ram.
'dll applicable rules, regulations, and standardslhat you
the unit
consider part
6 Apprenticesñrp
of
Asreemenr (BUe-Mou sääiön-ã,'oîöirl,
+ c%nP-19t9^q9t-ot {t rules, regulations, and decisions
the fn accordance
BU6 M9.u.g:qtion
with
a.oblr) ro.' tËi;;r¡ ÃÉpr"nticeehip
committee
sub
(sÐ that referènoes the current circumstances 'vYe
Apprentlceshiprogram.
of v'
The breakdown by area at each Inetitution for the ratio of apprentices
Journev persons
to
and, the minutee,f;'"r ãñtr"ätiné
wae
*nárãäi}ääcisron
mads to establish each ratlon ¡n acóó'rOäñre w¡tfr Section'g.og trlr
f n llght of the srbitratron deoision by Arexandelpoh¡ (ccpoA AR# 1 g2g2),
gc.PqA is.requesting the actuai o-ottar uaÌüã oi bdinìontn[
that shoutd
compensetion
have been
irems
in place on the datee
informatlon
[!te¡. Þi.".u provlde
on the
the
ettachåd blant

AP {. b. 'lt)l) | b:03PM
No. 1485 P 1
lnformationql Nofloe
Aprll 6,2007
4
*::-*tT_s.11"_f 9 y19nt,n lopoeat co n ce rn i n s 1 s, 01 (Sa I a ri es ), c c poA is
:^f::$g;,ll tl p, t l{: :red' d a'rea, tn s aðru äi ui I iü u.lì,ãî'üü i ;JÅñty
::T* L'*¡ ?3 J I lT1!y FI_q : l g, I d. T i,js, a n o ¡ u st r il r.,; nres; niéã' Ël."¡
l"i::?ll1s^.^:îr1î::: j.j_?-19-rnhgunitFiveán.í-eff sa¡n¡,ilún¡isùËö; " ot,o
Iatest p ropoea I P|ea se p rovidã tn e Tnøimäiilìîü tñääffi.''Ëjbiilü:# pä:
oharts,
Attached Sample Charts:
#6- July 3, 2006
#7- July 1, 20A7
#8- Juty 1,2009
#9- July l, 2009
#10-Juty 1,ZO1O
The lteme listed on the sample charts aro included ae total
upon previous
oompensâ¡on based
and proposed agreements with BU5 and BUó. - --"
Thank you In advance for your cooperatlon.
SJW:mr
Corr¡¡ÞlApr[\Aprtf I Infio Rq¡t
/
Slncerely,
. / 1
/ /,,þÞ
Steve Weiss
Chief of Labor
California Correcflonal
Peace Officere Aseociatíon
cc:
CCPOA Executive Councif
CCPOA Negotíating Team
04/06/2007 Fnr 16:10 fTTlPT Nn altnr

DPA Calcuta
No.1485
F ..¡sicat Fltñæ;
Poet Retirement Adf uetment
lgllday inEu
þtat Dtfferenõõ inT
Bare Pay - Monthly Base pay as reporÍed by the state
Retirtment
controlrers office.
offset to Base eonlllrte dottar *iount
cí ,:nsatç
tl-, state must increase
for
the Employees Base pay
the Employees Reiirement
to
Conhibution.
P\,yrlcnl Fitne¡s pny - p., fo, enyrìcaf Fitness.
sentorlty Pay - A percentage of Base pay, based upon
Edueational
the Employees
Pay -APetcentage
seniority,
of Base Pay, baseã
Employeo
upãi,rrc Employee
contribution
meeting the
to
criteiia set
Re-tlru*unt - forth ín the Mou,
The u*ouni the Employee contributes to pERS
item becomes a negative
for
in
retirement.
the argebraic
This line
equation, as the Emproyee pays it.
to Retiiem;;¡ iË;
,:Tr:iiåïcontrÍbutlon
*;il rh; õ,iroi* conriuute, ro pERS on beharr of the Emproyee
Retirement Rellef - The percentage the Employer adds to Base Pay
Contribution.
to compensate for tho Employees Retirement
ili'ïiÏffiÏåljä-ient
(sennte BIII 4se) -An increase oî t%over rinal year
compensation given ro rhe
PoFF II -A supplemental Retirement plan, generated by
Holiday
dÍverfing previous
In
general
LIeu - Previous
salary increases,
paíd break tÍrne converted t;
Pald
additional holiday
Breaks (to incrude
time.
Lunch Break) - Time paid for Emproyee b¡eaks.
,ï':i#,ÎJowanc'e (to Include drv cllanhst : rt;;;un, e¡urn to tiu Emproyee for unirormaintenance and
Doffing & Donnlng--A' percentage of Base Pay given
Ernployer
to the Employee
Pald He¡lthcire -
for the dofüng & donning
TË
of
arnount¡rrc
safety
É,iprovr,
Total
piy*
cornpeneatlon -
on behalf of the Employee
The
for
totality
Healthcare.
of the dollar uulu,
Total
ormónurly
Difference
compensation
ln
given
compensstioi -
to the Ernployee,
frtr sstual dollar value in monthl'y tot ioorprnsation between Bargaining
U¡ ¡ive and Six,
04/06/2007 FRI 16:10 tTXlRX N0 SIZSl

14B5-P
qctirement
OffsetiõEæ
gENfoR PAY
g¡lQentrlbuilõn
emptoyãicoñäiËffi¡
8% over $g6g
1.5% over $Seg
Poet Retirement AdJuetment 870 Increase
Holidailñ l-¡eu
BFaks lluncn erea
unltornill¡õwaïielO
I Compeñeãriõñ
Base Pay - Monthly Rase Pay as repofted by the state controllers
Iletirement
offÌce,
offsst to Base (RoB) - Th. dollur amount t¡e state must inøease the Employees Base pay
,' Ðensate for the Employees
to
Retirement Contribution,
r ,slcal Fitness pay - pay for physical Fit¡css.
senlorlty Pay - A percentage of Base pa¡ based upon the Emproyees
Educatlonal
seniority.
Pay -APercentage
of Bast P:I, basci upon the
Employee
Ë*!toy., *rrtiïg
contribution
the criteria set fortrr
to
in the
Roilrenent -
Mou,
The uro*ithe Employee cont i¡Jis
item becomes
to pERS for ¡etirement.
a negatíve
This tine
ín tle argebraic equation, as the Employee pays
Employer
it.
contrtbution to Retlioment The amount -- the ---- e*itoir, ----r-v'' v. óo,itiuures
vv¡'e'v*Lvù to | pERs on beharf
for retiremgnt.
of the Emptoyee
Retirement Reltef - The percenlage the Employer adds to Base pay to compensate
ContríbutÍon.
for the Employees Retirement
Post Reúinement AdJuctment (senate Blll 439) - An ìncreæ e of B%over final year
Employee
compensation
upon
given
retirement.
ro the
POF'F II -A supplemental Retirement plan, generated by diverting previous general
Holldav In Lieu - salary increases,
Previous paid break time ðonverted tó additÍonal
Pqld
holiday time,
Breat.' (to incrude Lunch Break) - Time paid for Eiployee
unlform
breaks.
Altowance (to tnclude dry cleanlng) I tt. amount given to the Employee
dry
for
cleaning,
uniform maintenance and
Doffing & Donning - A peroentage of Base Pay given to the Employee for
equipment.
the doffing & donning of safety
Employer Paid Healthcane - Thc amountfhe Employer pays on
Total
beharf of the
compensation -
Employee for Healthcare,
The totality of the dollar uurue or*ånthly
T
' compensation
Difference
given
in compensntion -
to the Employee,
The actual dollar value in monthiy totairo*prnsation
L.. ,s'Five and
between
Six,
Bargaining
04/06/2007 FRI 16:10 tTXlRX N0 Blzst

¡rp(. 0. tuu I
Calculatione Ãctnal Ju 2005
o. 1485-P.1
ttc
cal Fltnesg
SENIOR PÄY
employeegñtr¡burto;
Poet Refl rement Adjustment
POFF II
oliday In Lteu
l.õ% over
8% increase
retlrement
niform Allowa
n9 & Donn
Em ptoygr pãl¡¡Tãã¡ihcars
lotal Dlfference tn
Bare Pay - Monthry Base pay as reportod by the state controrters office.
Retirement off¡ef to B¡se tiogl - tt u aotlar amount the state must increasc the Employees Base pay to
Tmp:ny]e
for the Employees Retirement Conrribution,
_'hysical Fitnes¡ pay - pay for physical Fitness.
senlorlty Pay - A percentage of Baso pay, based upon the Employees
Educatlonat
soniority,
Pay - A Porcontage of Base' Pa¡ base'd upon thu Employee meeting the
MOU.
criteria set forth in the
Employee contributlon to Retirement - The amount the Employeo contributes to pERS
line item for rotirement,
becomes
This
a negative in the argebraic equation, as the Employee
Employer
pays it,
confribution to Retlrutn.it rrlu utitounì'ütã Ë*pr"yer contributes to pERS
Employee
on beharf
for retiremenl
of thE
Retirement Reltef - The poroentagê the Employer adds to Base pay to compensato for
Retirement
the Ernployees
Contribution.
Post Rotlrement ÄdJustment (senaÉe Blll 439) - An inçrease of 8% over v- fìnal year
Employee
oompensation gíven
upon rotirement,
""e¡ r ù
to the
PoFF II - A supplemental Retirement plan, generated by divortíng previous general
Holtday In
salary
Lleu - inoreases.
Previous paid break tímc ðonverte¿ tå al¿¡t¡onal holiday time,
Pald Break¡ (to rncrude Lunch Break) - Time paid for Eiptoyee
unlform
breaks,
Allowance (to Include dry cleanlng) I tt" given to the Employee
and
for
dry "rount
uniform maintenance
cleaning,
Dofling & Donnlng * A percentage of Baso Pay given to the Employee for the dofting
equipment.
& donning of safety
Employer Psld Healthcnre - The amountfhç Employor pays on behalf of the
Totql
Employee
comPenrntion - for Healthoarc,
-''tal The totalitv of the dotlar uurur or*å"iü;;ä;ff;iren
Dlffersnce in compensation -
ro rhe Employee,
The abtual dollar uuiuäìn monthly
.drgaining
total oompensation between
Units Five and Six.
04/06/2007 FRI 16:10 ITX/RX N0 S12Sl

Hp (, b. luu
t- b:03P
Calcu latione Actual
o.
Lrt ^
Ju ne
1485-P.
RetiremenToffeffiEãeã
I Fltnees
SENIOR PA
0% over $883
Poet Retirement AdJustment
8% increase
Holldqy In Lieu
Psid Ereafs (Lun;t a
Doffl¡g & Donñ
Total Otference lñG
Bace Pay - Monthly Base pay as reported by the stete controllers offïse
Retlrement offset to Baco (RoB) - rht dollar amount the st¿te must inçrease the Employees Base p+y
compensate for to
the Employees Retiremont Contribution,
:hyslcal Fitness pay - pay flor physical pitness,
ieniorlty Pay - A peroentage of Base pay, based upon the Emproyees
Educ¡tionaf
seniority.
Pay - A Percentage of BassPuy, basei upon the Employee rneeting the qitsria
MOU.
sef fo¡,th in the
Employee contributlon to Retirement - Ths amount the Employec sontributes to pERS
line for retirement,
item beoomes
This
a negative in the algebraic equation, as
Employer
the Emproyee pays
confrlbutlon
it,
to Retir...ît rhe amouniütr-rjrp¡.vor oontributes to pERS
Employee
on behalf of
for the
retirement.
Retlremont Relief - The percentage the Employer adds to Bæe pay to compensate
-Y"'rv"vÉr for the Emptoyeos
Retirement Contribution.
Po¡t Retlrement Adjuctment (senate Bilt 439) - An increase of B% over fînal yçar compensation
Employee
givon
upon retirement.
ro the
PoFF II - A supplomenfal Retirement plan, generatod by divqrting prevÍous general
Holiday
salary,increases,
In Lleu -
Ùs¡s+¡r
Previous paid
'rr¡ereu'üçr'
breakìime oonvefted tð addítionel holiday
P_aidtime,
Breskß (to inerude_Lunch Break) - Time puiJfb, E*itoyru b¡eaks.
Unlform Allowance (to inctude dry cleaning) - rhe *ount given to the Employee
and
for
dry
uniform
cleaning.
maintenance
Dofflng & Donning - A percentage of Base Pay given to the Employee for the doftïng
equipment.
& donning of safety
Employer Paid HealÉhcqre - Thc amountfh-e Employer pays on behalf
Totaf
of the Employee
comFensatlon - for Healthcare,
'
The totality of the dollar value ormånthly cornponsation given
fal Dlfference
to the
in
Employee,
compen¡ation - rhe actual dollar value in monthly total oompensation
.,lits Five
betrveen
and
Bargaining
Six.
04/06/2007 FRI 16:10 ITX/RX N0 slZSl

nP r, 0. ll)\) l- b:04P o. 14B
5-P, 1"
UI
Fir
Offeot to Bãge
:thyslcal FIIñeBe
qENIOR PAY
8% over $863
Poet Refirement AdJ uotment
totalotffere@
Base Pay - Monthly Base pay as repofted by the State controilers offìce.
Retlrement ofrset to Base (RoB) - The ¿ottar urountthe state must increass the Emptoyees Base pay
compensate
to
for the Employees Retirçment Contribution.
ryrlcal Fltniec pay - pay for physical Fitness,
$enlority Plv_-o percenmge of Base pa¡ bæod upon the Emproyees seniority.
Educatlonrl Pay - A Percentage of BasePe¡ basei upon the Ernptoyee meeting tho oritçria
MOU.
set forth in the
Employee contribution to Retlre¡nent - The amount the Employee contributes to pERs for retirement,
line This
item becomes a negative in the algebraic oquatíon, as the Employee pays
Emplover
it.
contrlbution to Retlr*rint the amouni titã-Èrpl"yer contributss ro pERS on behalf
Employee
of the
for reti¡ement,
Retlrernent Relief - The percentage the Employer adds to Bæe pay to qompensate for the
Retirement
Employees
Contribution,
Post Rçtlrement Adjustment (senate Bill439) -An inoreas e of SYoover final year compensation given
Employee upon
to the
retirement.
PoFF' II * A supplemenral Retiroment plan, genorated by diverting previoue genoral salary
Holiday In
inoroases.
Lleu - Previous paid breakiime converted to additionãt'holiduy
Pald
ñ*r,
Breals (to Incrude Lunch Break) - Time paid for Ernployoo brcaks,
uniform Allowance (to Includo dry cteanlng) - The **ount given to the Ernployss for
and
uniform maintenanos
dry cleaning,
Dofllng & Donnlng -A peroontage of Base Pay given to the Employee for the doffìng & donning
equipment,
of safoty
Employer Pnld Heslthcare - Thc arnount the Employer pays on behalf of the Employeo
lbtal compencatlon--
for Heatthcare.
The totalify of the dollar ur¡uu orrónthly oompensation
1¡l
given
Difference
to the Employee,
In compen¡qtlon - Ths actuÈl doltar value in monthÛ total coåpensation
.¡'its
between
Five
Bargaining
and Six,
04/06/2007 FRI 16:10 ITXIRX N0 S1ZS]

Ap r., 6. 2007- 5;04
Poet Retlrement AdJuetment
1.5% over $863
Hollday tn Lleu
Total Diffffi
Baee Pay - Monthly Base pay as reported by the st¿te controllers offlce.
Retlrement offset to Base (RoB) - The oollar amount the State must inorease the Employeos Base pay
compensate
to
for the Employees Retirernent Contribution,
Phylical Fitness psy - pay for physioal Fitness.
senlorlfy Poy - A percontagç of Base pay, based upon the Employees seniority.
Educatlonal Pay -A Percentage of Base Pa¡ basei upon the È*þtoyuu meetíng the oriteria set forth in rhe
MOU,
Employee contrlbutlon to Retirement - The anount the Employee contributes to pERS flor retirement.
This line item beoomes a negativo in the atgebraic equation, as the Employee pays
Employer
it.
contributlon to Retlrement The amouni ths Eiployrr rontr¡lutu, tä pens on behalf of the
Employee for retirement.
Retiremont Rellef - The percentege the Employer adds to Base Pay to compensate for the Emptoyees
Retiremont Contri bution.
Post Retirement AdJustment (senate Blll 439) - An increæe of B% over frnal year compensation given
the
to
Employee upon retirement.
loFF II -A supplemental Retirement plan, genereted by diverting previous goneral salary inoreases,
Holldav rn Lleu - Previous paid break time óonverted tó additionãl'notiduy ärr,
Paid Break¡ (to Include Lunch Break) - Time paid for Ernproyee b¡eaks.
Unlform Allowance (to lnctude dry cteanlng) I the urount given to the Employoe for uniform
maíntenance and dry cleaning.
Dofling & Donning - A percentage of Base Pay given to the Employee for the doflìng & donning of
equipment.
safety
Emptoyer Paid Henlthcare - The amount the Employer pays on behalf of the Employoe
Total
for Heatthcaro,
compenration - The totalÍty of the dollar uulur ormonthly compensation given
Total
to
Dlff€rence
the Emptoyee,
in compensstion -
'BargaÍning
The actual dollar value in montrtr'/totat ,oåpunrution between
Units Five and Six.
04/06/2007 FRI 16:10 ITXIRX N0 812S]

lt)\) l- ) : 04 P
van
o. 1485-P.
t Offset to Baee
Fitne¡e
SENIOR PAY
Poet Retirement Adf uetment
1,60/over $863
6% lncreaee
retlrement
Pald Breake il-r¡ncrr eroafrl
Unlform Allowanc
Employer pafd Heatthããlã
Total D¡fference ln
Base Pay - Monthly Base pay as roported by the state conûollers office.
Retirement Offset to Bnse (ROB)- The dollar amount the State must inçrease the Ernployees Base pay to
rpensate for the Employees Retirement Conribution.
- -.yslcal Fitne¡s Psy - Pay for physical Fifiress,
se_nlorlty Pay -A percentage of'BaEe ps¡ based upon the Employeeseniority.
Educstlonal Pay -A Porcentage of Base Pa¡ based upon the Employee *çting the criteria set forth in the MOU.
Employoo contributíon to Retlre¡nent - The arouni the Employee contributes to pERS for retirement. This line
item becomes a negative in thc algebraic equatÍon, as the Employee pays ít,
Employer Contributlon fo Retirement The amounttre Employer öontriUutes to PERS on behalf of the Employee
for retirement,
Retlrement Relief - The percentage the Employer adds to Base Pay to compensato for the Employees Retirement
Contribution.
Post Retirement AdJustment (Senate Blll 439) - An inøease of 8% ovcr final year compensation given to the
Employee upon retirement.
lOFf
II - A supplementat Retirement plan, generated by diverting previous general salary increases,
Holiday In Lleu - Previous paid break time converted to additional holiday time.
Paid Break¡ (to Include Lunch Break) - Time paíd for Employoe breaks.
Uniform Allowance (to include dty clerning) - The amount jinun to thc Employee for uniform maintenance and
dry cleaning.
Dofflng & Donning - A percentage of Base Pay given to the Employee for the dofüng & donning of safety
equipment.
Employer Paid Healthcaro - The amounthe Employer pays on behalf of the Employee for Healthcare.
Total Compensation^- The
'
totality of the dollar value of mónthly compensation given to the Employee.
rl Dlfforence in Compencation - The actual dollar valuç in monttrl-y total compensation betwçen Bargaining
.--.,is Five and Six.
04/06/2007 FRI 16:10 tTXlRX No 81281

Ap r- b, 'lt)ïl- 5:04
- l
o,
1485-P, 1
Eq4t Offset to Baee
lcal Fltness
SENIOR PA
EducatfonEl
87o over 9863
Post Retl remEnt Adj ustment
Hollday lñIieu
r Paid Healthcare
Total Dlfference in
Base Pay - Monthly Base pay as repofted by tho state controilers office.
Retlroment off¡et to Base (RoB)- The ¿ottar amount ths strtç must increase the Employoes Base pay
oompensate
to
for the Ernployoos Retirement Conhibution.
.'hyclcrl F'itness psy - pay for physical Fitness.
se_niority rll - A percentago of Base pay, based upon the Employees ssniority.
Educstfonal Pay -A Percentage of BasoPa¡ busei upon ttre Èmþtoyce meetíng ths criteria set forth in the
MOU.
Ernployee confrlbutlon to Retirement - The amount the Emptoyee contributes to pERS for rotirement.
line item This
becomes a negative in the algebraio equation, as the Employee pays
Employer
it.
contribution to Retlrumiot '
Ths amount ítt#rployer conhibutes to pBRS on behalf of the
Employee for retircment.
Retirement Retlef - The percontage the Ernployer adds to Base pay to oompensate for the Employees
Reti rement Contribution.
Port RetlremsntAdiustment (senrte Bltl 439) -An increase of B% ovçr final year compçnsation given
the Employee
to
upon retírement.
l-oII
II - A supplemental Retirement plan, generated by díverting provÍous general
Iloliday
salary inçreases.
In Llou - Previous paíd breakìime converred tó additioná'hotiduy tîrr,
Paid Breskf (to lnctude Lunch Break) - Time paid for Emptoyuu breaks,
unlform Allowance (to Includo dry cllantng) .. the *rount giuen to the Employee for uniform meintenance
and dry oleaning.
Dofflng & Donning -A percentago of Base Pay given to the Employee for the doffing & donning
equipment.
of snfety
Employer Paid Healthcare -The amountthç Employor pays on behalf of the Employee
Tot¡l for
cornpensation -The Healthcare,
total¡ty of the dollar uáur or*å"t¡rv
Total
ro*pilr,il;,ten
Dlfferenco
to the Employee.
In compen¡¡tlon - The aotual dollar value in monthly total compensation
,argaining
between
Units Five and Six,
04/06/2007 F'RI 16: l0 rTx,/Rr Nn nlln I

u, tvvt l:v+TtYl No, 14B5 P, 16
DPA Galculatione Actual J 1,2009
Ret¡rement Relief
8% over $863
Poet REtlrernent Adj uetment 2% increaee
retirement
Pald BreakC fLr¡nch
Uniform Aflowanc
fotal O¡
er Paid Heeltheare
Base Pay -. Monthly Base pay as reported by the state controllers office.
Rotlrement off¡et to Bare (RoB) - The dollar amount the state must increass the Employees Base pay to
Physlcat Fitness Pay - pay for physical Fitness,
seniorlty Pay - A peroentage of Base pay, based upon the Employeeseniority,
Educatlonal Pay - A Percentage of Base Pa¡ based upon the È^ployru meeting the criteria set forth in the
Employee Contrlbutton to Retirement - The amouni the Employee contribut6 to pnRS for retirement,
Etnployer Contributlon to Retirement The amount the Employer contibutes to pERS on behalf of the
Retlrement Relief -The percentage the Employer adds to Base Pay to compensate for the Employees
Poet Retlrement Adjuetment (Senate uiu l-foi - An increase of 8% over final yesr compensation given to
PoFF II -A supplemental Retirement plnn, generated by diverting previous general salary in*eases.
Holiday In Lieu - Previous paid break time óonverted tó additioná'noliday ti-me,
P¡ld Breekr (to include Luuch Break) - Time paid for Employee breaks.
Uniform Allowance (to Include dry cleaning) lfne urno*t ginrn t" tf," Emþloyee for uniform
Doffing & Donnlng - A percentage of Base Pay given to the Employee for the'doffing & donning of safefy
Employer Psld Healthcare - The amounthe Èmployer pays on behalf of the Employee for Healthcare,
Totnl conrpensation - The totality of the dollar vÃlus of mónthly compensation ginrn to the Employee.
Totql Dlfference in Compensation - The actual dollar value in monthly total compensation befween
04/06/2007 FRI 16:10 ITX/RX N0 81ZBl

tuv I Tiurl
CEfculatlone Actusl Ju
1/AÃ_p
l'fV )
¿¡'
I
,
'ftu
8% over $863
Poet Retlrement AdJustment
l.õ% over $883
Total DlfferÊnce in Com
Bare Pay - Monthly Base pay as repoÉed by the Stato controlters office.
Retlrement Offsoto Base (RoB).-The dollar amount the Stats must ¡nqrease tho Employees Base pay
to oompensate for the Employees Retirement contribution,
Phyrlcal Fltneg¡ Pay - pay for physioat Fitness.
senlorlty Pay -A percentage of Base pa¡ based upon the Employees seniorlty,
Educational Pay - A Porcentage of Base Pa¡ based upon the Èmployee meeting the eriteria set forth in
the MOU. ,
Employee Contrlbutlon to Retirement - Thc amount the Employee contríbutes to pERS for retircment.
This Iine item becomes a ncgative in ths algebraic equation, urìn, Emptoyoe pays it,
Employer Contrlbutlon to Retirement Tñe atnouni tho Employer contributei t'o pÈns on bchalf of the
RäÎrtittsrtfrfrittfTin: pÊrcenrase tho Emproyer adds to Base pay ro compensate for tho Emptoyees
Retirçment Contribution,
Post ReflrcmentAdjustment (Senate Bill 439) -An increasp of 8% over finalyear compensation given
to the Employee upon retirement.
PoFF II - A supplemental Rotirement plan, genorated by diverting previous general salary inqeases.
Holldoy In Lieu - Prcvious paid broak time conv€rted to additional holiday time,
Pald Bro¡ks (to Include Lunch Brenk) - Tíme paid for Employee breaks.
Uniform Allowance (to include d17 cleanlng) - The u*ount givon to thc Employss for uniform
maintenance and dry cleaning,
Doffing & Donning - A percentage of Baso Pay given to the Employee for the dofüng & donning of
safety equipment.
Enployer Pald HealthcarË - The atnount the Employer pays on behalf of the Employee for Hoalthcare,
Total Compensatlon - The totality of the dollar value of rnonthly oompensation given t,o the Employee,
rbtal Difference ln conpensatlon - The actual dollar vatue in monthly totat oomponsation between
Bargaining Units Five and Six,
04/06/2007 FRI 16:10 tTXlRX N0 81281

EXHIBIT 8

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
--_++
DEPARTM ENT OF PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION
LABOR RELATIONS DIVISION
1515 "S" STREET, NORTH BUILDING, SUÍTE 4OO
s ^ ^RAMENTO.
CA 95814-7243
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Goyemor
April 11,2007
Mr. Mike Jimenez
State President
California Correctional Peace Officers Association
755 Riverpoint Dr., Suite 200
West Sacramento. CA 95841
Dear Mr. Jimenez:
This letteresponds to your letter to me and to Steve Weiss' letter to Dave Gilb, both dated
April 6, 2007.
You mention that CCPOA needs, as a "precursod'to future negotiations, responses to four
pages of information requests "in order to have intelligent and fruitful discussions" with the State
regarding its most recent package offer. You afso indicate that additional requests may be
forthcoming. The State has afready provided voluminous information and documentation to
CCPOA throughout the course of negotiations. Regardfess of the amount of information
provided, however, nothing appears to have enabled "fruitfu|'discussions with the State.
Although the State is reviewing CCPOA's most recent set of information requests, and will
respond in accordance with its legal obligations,
this juncture the State cannot help but
question CCPOA's motivation for making these contínuous requests. We believe you are well
aware of the answers to some of these questions, the most obvious being "the total number of
outstandingrievances
Unit 6 along with a brief description of the issue" and "copies of all
grievances where the CDCR/DPA failed to respond in a timely fashion as prescribed in the
language of the current MOU." These grievances were initiated and fonvarded to management
by your organization and all responses to these grievances are sent to the CCPOA
representative; therefore this information is readily available to you. The State is concerned that
CCPOA's information requests are designed merely to delay and frustrate the negotiation of a
successor MOU.
On a related note, your repeated false accusation that DPA ordered a hidden recording device
at a negotiatíng session is offensive and unprofessional. You have been provided with both
verbal and written assurances that no one on the State's negotiating team had any knowledge
of nor did anyone direct the court repofter to use such technology. The State trusts that you will
discontinue making such false and harmful accusations.
With respect to the State's economic proposals, there is nothing "hidden" abouthe State's
enhanced package offer. The retirement change you reference was noted clearly and
conspicuously
multiple documents that were provided to CCPOA.

Mr. Mike Jimenez
April 1 1, 2007
Page 2
In closing, the reason our last negotiation session concluded prematurely is that you repeatedly
stated that the State was wasting its time explaíning its most recent package offer. We are noi
interested
wasting time and remain committed tonegotiating a successor MOU. However, it
must be noted that negotiating with an apparently unwilling participant casts doubt on the
Union's good faith intentions. The State remains hopeful that CCPOA will display a more
professional attitude that contributes to a productive rather than a futile contract negotíation.
Sin
d^w
puty Director
nt of Personnel Administration
State Negotiation Team

E,XHIBIT 9

[ffi
ATT[]HNTYS
AT IAW
H0LL. BUHI]IIK & MC[0N0UGH ttP
April 20,2007
44 MONTGOMEBY, SUITE 40O
sAN FRANCtSC0. CA S4104-4606
4l 5.S8S.5900
FAX4rE.sBe.osrz
WATNUTBEEK
SACHAMENÏO
LOS ANGEIES
www.cbmlaw. com
Gregg Mclean Adam
Direct Dial: 415.7 43.2534
gadam@cbmlaw.com
BY E-M¿.IL, FACSIMILE &REGULAR MAIL
David Gilb
Director
Department of Personnel Administration
1515 S Street, North Building, Suite 400
Sacramento, CA 95814
Dennis R. Batchelder
The Batchelder Group
4354 Town Center Blvd., Suite ll4-12
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762
Gentlemen:
Re: Unit 6 Negotiations
File No. 032814
As you know, CCPOA received the State's revised contract proposal at the
meeting on March 29,2007 as documen-ted (albeit differently) by each side's recent
coffespondence. That proposal was amended on April 6 to add an "optional fourth year."
CCPOA remains gravely concerned that the State is reluctant to engage in the
type of meaningful discussion and dialogue necessary to address the innumerable
problems impacting a prison system at crisis point. We cannot help but conclude that the
State speaks with two tongues: 'With one, it informs representatives of the Legislature that
its proposal will maintain the $666 differential with Unit 5; with another, it passes a
proposal that-by the State's own admission-does not maintain the differential, and sets
back perilously efforts to address the chronic vacancy problems in Unit 6. (Feeding
columnists invective blaming the Union for the system's woes aids our forward progïess
not one iota either.)
CCPOA is also concerned at the State's unwillingness to provide meaningful
responses to information requests from CCPOA. Julie Chapman took the position in an
cBM-SF\SF352679.1
@1EEtt.',a2

David Gilb/Dennis R: Batchelder
Unit 6 Negotiations
Page 2
April 1I,2007 letter that CCPOA's request for grievance information was over
burdensome. However, as demonstrated by Mr. Gilb's quote in Daniel Weinhaub's April
19,2007 article in the Sacramento Bee entitled, "'Who is in Control Inside Prisons? It's
negotiable," the State is more than willing to make all of this information available for its
sycophantic political hacks.
Mr. Jimenezwrote to Chief of Labor, Julie Chapman, on April 13,2007,
offering to take the State's proposal to our Board and membership. His reasoning was
that if the State and Agency Secretary believe this proposal is fair and absolutely
necessary to the betterment of CDCR, the State should take its case to our membership.
Without speculating on why, CCPOA has received no response to the offer. If
the State has any intention of coming to CCPOA's Board meeting per CCPOA's offer,
Chuck Alexander should be informed by no later than noon on Monday, April 23,2007.
CCPOA has multiple proposals for a successor memorandum of
understanding that we have not yet passed across the table. In the interests of trying to
move negotiations forward, we have held our proposals in abeyance, while attempting to
proceed just using the State's proposals to see if it is possible to reach agreement on a
faster track of negotiations that if we put forth all of our proposals at this time.
cBM-SF\SF3s2679.1

David Gilb/Dennis R. Batchelder
Unit 6 Negotiations
Page 3
Unfortunately, thus far, we have no confidence that an agreement can be
reached with the State's present proposal as the framework for negotiations. We reserve
the right to put all of our proposals on the table.
Very truly yours,
McDONOUGH rrp
GMA:
cc: Michael L. Jimenez, President, CCPOA Via Regular and E-Mail
Charles L. Alexander, Jr., State Executive V.P., CCPOA Via Regular and E-Mail
Steve Weiss, Chief of Labor, CCPOA Via Regular and E-Mail
CBM-SF\SF352679.1