Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Election 2010
It looks like we will have another contested election for the SBCPAA presidency. Stay tuned here for periodic updates.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
PLANS FOR THE SECOND TERM
Here is what I plan to do if elected to a second term as SBCPAA President
1. Work toward achieving economic parity with deputies at the County Counsel's Office. Parity in pay and parity in benefits. This is our continuing long term goal. We will make it so in better economic times. We have made progress in this regard, but that progress is glacial; in better times, we will seek more progress.
2. Continue cementing relationships with the Board of Supervisors and their staffs through meetings and use of PAC funds, anchored in our start with supervisor-elect Neil Derry.
3. Continue outreach efforts with the three departments we serve. Primary among them will be caseloads for public defenders. Working conditions will also be a major component of this effort.
4. Seek pay parity for all our members.
5. Continue our aggressive defense of all members involved in labor-management disputes through expansion of the number of labor representatives. Increase their availability and discourage the County offices from the “Friday afternoon surprise.”
6. Explore expanding our union, drawing all the attorneys for this County under our umbrella.
7. Explore scaling dues so that younger members pay less dues because they have smaller salaries.
1. Work toward achieving economic parity with deputies at the County Counsel's Office. Parity in pay and parity in benefits. This is our continuing long term goal. We will make it so in better economic times. We have made progress in this regard, but that progress is glacial; in better times, we will seek more progress.
2. Continue cementing relationships with the Board of Supervisors and their staffs through meetings and use of PAC funds, anchored in our start with supervisor-elect Neil Derry.
3. Continue outreach efforts with the three departments we serve. Primary among them will be caseloads for public defenders. Working conditions will also be a major component of this effort.
4. Seek pay parity for all our members.
5. Continue our aggressive defense of all members involved in labor-management disputes through expansion of the number of labor representatives. Increase their availability and discourage the County offices from the “Friday afternoon surprise.”
6. Explore expanding our union, drawing all the attorneys for this County under our umbrella.
7. Explore scaling dues so that younger members pay less dues because they have smaller salaries.
Time, Talent, Temperament & Other Thoughts
Time
My opponent clearly believes in his ability to lead this union, as do some of you. But where’s the record? What has he done for you in the past? What tells you that this is more than a high risk gamble?
Moreover, what makes you think he has the time for union problems now he has been transferred to the lead position in the Central DA gang unit? Cheryl Kersey had a superhuman work ethic, and she was swamped by her deadly serious caseload without being the head of a union!
I, on the other hand, have run this union. I have the sort of position that lends itself to time shifting to meet on union issues. I also have the work ethic that permits me to meet with Doreen Boxer one day, and a frightened young union member late that night.
Talent
I have constantly sought out the talent in all three units to work on Union issues: the finest and most aggressive lawyers to serve as union representatives, a C.P.A. to serve as union Treasurer, good lawyers from the DA, the PD, and Child Support to serve as negotiating team members. I do not know if Mr. Epstein will be able to draw a similar array of talent to his administration, given the brusque manner in which he has previously treated them.
Temperament
I have also listened to these people because I do not have all the answers. I have also heard. I have considered proposals from all quarters, including Fontana. Despite what my opponent wants you think, I have solicited information from all. As a board, we have reached consensus on most issues. Indeed, even though my opponent wants you to think we are fractured, I can only remember one vote that was not unanimous.
My opponent has also raised other issues. Here's what I think about them.
Student Loan Forgiveness
I see Student Loan Forgiveness as something more than a public defender issue. I see it as an issue for all our lawyers.
I ran up $110, 000 in student loans because I chose to go to a private, Jesuit law school. I paid for that decision between 1984 and 2005. I understand what it is like to try to pay off loans on a public attorney’s salary. (And I can tell you, paying them off on a salary much smaller than any you now take home.)
I am always alert to the opportunity for student loan forgiveness, whether it is through the federal government, the state government, or the County’s government.
In July 2007, with DDA Kurt Rowley’s help, I wrote United States Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer in support of the federal John Justice student loan forgiveness bill.
In September 2008, I met with PD Doreen Boxer and discussed student loan forgiveness through the County for union attorneys.
But, as always, these proposals are subject to funding. Where’s the money going to come from, especially here in an economic downturn? When things are better, and they will be, a student loan forgiveness program will be at the forefront of my administration’s concerns.
Prior Contract Lawyers
I understand that deputies who were previously contract lawyers have concerns regarding how their “time” with the County is measured.
In Spring 2007, the sitting Board listened to DPD Rick Smolin express them. That Board asked Smolin to gather more information and report back in June 2007 with the information they needed to act. Had we gotten that information, the Board probably would have asked our lawyer to do an analysis.
He did not, for various reasons, return until April 2008. I told Mr. Smolin then that the Board would get to it after a new contract was settled for the entire membership. I do not believe that the issue is “closed.” I will resolve it during a second term.
Picking and Choosing By-laws to follow
My opponent drills me for failing to follow this or that by-law. I just wish he knew the term he was elected to serve. When he tells you that he was elected in January 2008, as he does in his letter introducing his blog, his lack of attention to detail is obvious: he was elected in November 2007 for a term that began on December 1, 2007. (By law 3.03(a))
Quite clearly, my opponent wants to pick and choose what by-laws he will follow and those he won’t.
If I am elected to a second term, the Board and I will run the association in accord with the by laws former President Geoff Goss and present PAC chairman Jim Secord set up. I expect that we will solicit a parliamentarian to assure that this happens.
My opponent clearly believes in his ability to lead this union, as do some of you. But where’s the record? What has he done for you in the past? What tells you that this is more than a high risk gamble?
Moreover, what makes you think he has the time for union problems now he has been transferred to the lead position in the Central DA gang unit? Cheryl Kersey had a superhuman work ethic, and she was swamped by her deadly serious caseload without being the head of a union!
I, on the other hand, have run this union. I have the sort of position that lends itself to time shifting to meet on union issues. I also have the work ethic that permits me to meet with Doreen Boxer one day, and a frightened young union member late that night.
Talent
I have constantly sought out the talent in all three units to work on Union issues: the finest and most aggressive lawyers to serve as union representatives, a C.P.A. to serve as union Treasurer, good lawyers from the DA, the PD, and Child Support to serve as negotiating team members. I do not know if Mr. Epstein will be able to draw a similar array of talent to his administration, given the brusque manner in which he has previously treated them.
Temperament
I have also listened to these people because I do not have all the answers. I have also heard. I have considered proposals from all quarters, including Fontana. Despite what my opponent wants you think, I have solicited information from all. As a board, we have reached consensus on most issues. Indeed, even though my opponent wants you to think we are fractured, I can only remember one vote that was not unanimous.
My opponent has also raised other issues. Here's what I think about them.
Student Loan Forgiveness
I see Student Loan Forgiveness as something more than a public defender issue. I see it as an issue for all our lawyers.
I ran up $110, 000 in student loans because I chose to go to a private, Jesuit law school. I paid for that decision between 1984 and 2005. I understand what it is like to try to pay off loans on a public attorney’s salary. (And I can tell you, paying them off on a salary much smaller than any you now take home.)
I am always alert to the opportunity for student loan forgiveness, whether it is through the federal government, the state government, or the County’s government.
In July 2007, with DDA Kurt Rowley’s help, I wrote United States Senators Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer in support of the federal John Justice student loan forgiveness bill.
In September 2008, I met with PD Doreen Boxer and discussed student loan forgiveness through the County for union attorneys.
But, as always, these proposals are subject to funding. Where’s the money going to come from, especially here in an economic downturn? When things are better, and they will be, a student loan forgiveness program will be at the forefront of my administration’s concerns.
Prior Contract Lawyers
I understand that deputies who were previously contract lawyers have concerns regarding how their “time” with the County is measured.
In Spring 2007, the sitting Board listened to DPD Rick Smolin express them. That Board asked Smolin to gather more information and report back in June 2007 with the information they needed to act. Had we gotten that information, the Board probably would have asked our lawyer to do an analysis.
He did not, for various reasons, return until April 2008. I told Mr. Smolin then that the Board would get to it after a new contract was settled for the entire membership. I do not believe that the issue is “closed.” I will resolve it during a second term.
Picking and Choosing By-laws to follow
My opponent drills me for failing to follow this or that by-law. I just wish he knew the term he was elected to serve. When he tells you that he was elected in January 2008, as he does in his letter introducing his blog, his lack of attention to detail is obvious: he was elected in November 2007 for a term that began on December 1, 2007. (By law 3.03(a))
Quite clearly, my opponent wants to pick and choose what by-laws he will follow and those he won’t.
If I am elected to a second term, the Board and I will run the association in accord with the by laws former President Geoff Goss and present PAC chairman Jim Secord set up. I expect that we will solicit a parliamentarian to assure that this happens.
ADDING A FEW FACTS - HOW YOUR NEGOTIATING TEAM WAS FORMED
Over at my opponent’s blog, he accuses me of various leadership inadequacies. Unfortunately, once again, he has charged off in an offensive direction without anchoring his argument in the facts.
Negotiating Team:
· On January 31, 2007, I told the membership that we were recruiting for the coming negotiating team. I received only a few nibbles from Child Support attorneys, and none from the Fontana DA’s Office. I was anticipating a long and nasty negotiation, and I wanted to get started as quickly as possible. The response was disappointing.
· In April 2007, I discussed the composition of the Negotiating Team with the Board members, with an eye toward assembling a team behind DDA Mike Fermin, a prior negotiator on our behalf. In June 2007, Fermin was promoted out of our union.
· In August 2007, in response to my pushing, then-SBCPAA Treasurer Bill Drake put forward two DPD names. I begged those DPDs to join. One showed interest but was busy; the other ignored my pleas.
· In the ensuing months, I organized and discussed Negotiating Committee membership with both the out-going Board and the in-coming Board (which included Mr. Epstein and his campaign manager, Mr. Schaller). The possibility of obtaining an outside “professional negotiator” was discussed and rejected. We determined as a Board to utilize Marianne Reinhold, our long-term attorney, as the chief negotiator for SBCPAA.
· In early November 2007, I sent a list of some 20 proposed nominees for the Negotiating Committee to the Board. On November 13, we held a meeting and the composition of the negotiating committee was discussed.
During these discussions, both Mr. Schaller and Mr. Epstein made suggestions. A member of the Fontana DA’s Office was suggested to lead the negotiations. That person and I have a long-standing friendship. I went to talk to him. He said he neither had the time nor patience to deal with the County.
Epstein and Schaller also suggested taking one of their colleagues in Fontana off the Negotiating Team proper, and making her an alternate. We did that too.
A “boot camp” for negotiators was set up for December 1, a Saturday. Board members were invited. To his credit, Mr. Schaller was there. Mr. Epstein was not.
· On November 28, 2007, a Board meeting to discuss negotiations was open to all members.
· On December 1, 2007, we held the boot camp for negotiators, and the Negotiating Committee chose its chairman and other officers. At the boot camp, the Committee determined to open negotiations as quick as possible in light of the bad real estate market affecting the County budget as soon as July 1, 2008.
· On December 5, 2007, we held another Board meeting regarding negotiations. In December 2007, members of the Negotiating Committee survey the membership and paid for a salary survey comparing salaries and benefits with various counties to which we are adjacent or population-comparable.
· On January 16, 2008, I told the membership that that day was “Opening Day” for contract negotiations. I told everyone who would listen that periodic updates on negotiations would be available through my home e-mail address.
· Between January and June, negotiating committee members were constantly available to Board members for updates and information. Once a tentative contract offer was reached, those negotiating team members explained the contract proposal to anyone who wished to listen. They put together a PowerPoint explanation of the contract. Members attended and then voted.
At least one member of this union was swayed by what the Negotiating Team members presented, because on June 12, 2008, my opponent told them:
Subject: Thank You
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:44:11 -0400
From: mceps@aol.com
I wanted to say thank you to the negotiation committee members for their time and effort during the negotiation process. It appeared to be a long and sometimes frustrating process, but you stuck with it and achieved a good contract for the membership.
I will admit that at the beginning of tonight's meeting, I had a lot of concerns regarding portions of the contract. It was initially my intentions to vote no. However, after hearing your detailed explanation of the contact and doing my own analysis, I agreed that this was a good contract to send to the membership. Again, I wanted to thank you for all your time and effort.
My opponent’s current ill-informed complaints about the negotiating process do not comport with the history of how this team came to be. Selective invocation of by-laws does nothing because his comments are laced with factual inaccuracies.
Forensic Accounting
My opponent suggests that a “forensic accounting” of the County budget would have been handy. This is silly and would have been needlessly expensive. The County was not hiding money in Barbados!
The County’s position was that they had x-amount of money to spend on all our proposals.
An adroit combination of PAC funds, political support, and my talks with Board of Supervisors staff members forced the County to increase its initial offer to us to levels that ultimately were acceptable to all Negotiating Committee members, all Board members, and about 85% of the membership by vote.
Caseload Comparisons
Caseload comparisons were done. (The only caseloads that are severely out of whack are the deputy public defenders’.) They were discussed with the County, and my opponent knows that. DPD Suzy Israel was in charge of that issue for the negotiating committee. The County deemed “caseload limits” beyond the parameters of contract negotiations.
As I pointed out to the DPDs, I have had a meeting with Doreen Boxer. Your crushing caseloads are an issue where we agree with her proposals for additional DPDs to reduce your caseload burden. If I am re-elected, we will continue to keep the pressure on the Board of Supervisors to improve your working conditions.
Salary Surveys
Extensive salary surveys were done. First, I obtained and distributed a 2006 salary survey done for another bargaining unit. Then, attorney Reinhold’s colleague put together an updated and refreshed salary survey. Finally, Lance Cantos, a C.P.A., and Dan Silverman "crunched the numbers" on salaries and benefits for the negotiating committee, the Board, and the membership.
Once again, my opponent is either uninformed or does not wish to be. Is this what you want in a union president?
Negotiating Team:
· On January 31, 2007, I told the membership that we were recruiting for the coming negotiating team. I received only a few nibbles from Child Support attorneys, and none from the Fontana DA’s Office. I was anticipating a long and nasty negotiation, and I wanted to get started as quickly as possible. The response was disappointing.
· In April 2007, I discussed the composition of the Negotiating Team with the Board members, with an eye toward assembling a team behind DDA Mike Fermin, a prior negotiator on our behalf. In June 2007, Fermin was promoted out of our union.
· In August 2007, in response to my pushing, then-SBCPAA Treasurer Bill Drake put forward two DPD names. I begged those DPDs to join. One showed interest but was busy; the other ignored my pleas.
· In the ensuing months, I organized and discussed Negotiating Committee membership with both the out-going Board and the in-coming Board (which included Mr. Epstein and his campaign manager, Mr. Schaller). The possibility of obtaining an outside “professional negotiator” was discussed and rejected. We determined as a Board to utilize Marianne Reinhold, our long-term attorney, as the chief negotiator for SBCPAA.
· In early November 2007, I sent a list of some 20 proposed nominees for the Negotiating Committee to the Board. On November 13, we held a meeting and the composition of the negotiating committee was discussed.
During these discussions, both Mr. Schaller and Mr. Epstein made suggestions. A member of the Fontana DA’s Office was suggested to lead the negotiations. That person and I have a long-standing friendship. I went to talk to him. He said he neither had the time nor patience to deal with the County.
Epstein and Schaller also suggested taking one of their colleagues in Fontana off the Negotiating Team proper, and making her an alternate. We did that too.
A “boot camp” for negotiators was set up for December 1, a Saturday. Board members were invited. To his credit, Mr. Schaller was there. Mr. Epstein was not.
· On November 28, 2007, a Board meeting to discuss negotiations was open to all members.
· On December 1, 2007, we held the boot camp for negotiators, and the Negotiating Committee chose its chairman and other officers. At the boot camp, the Committee determined to open negotiations as quick as possible in light of the bad real estate market affecting the County budget as soon as July 1, 2008.
· On December 5, 2007, we held another Board meeting regarding negotiations. In December 2007, members of the Negotiating Committee survey the membership and paid for a salary survey comparing salaries and benefits with various counties to which we are adjacent or population-comparable.
· On January 16, 2008, I told the membership that that day was “Opening Day” for contract negotiations. I told everyone who would listen that periodic updates on negotiations would be available through my home e-mail address.
· Between January and June, negotiating committee members were constantly available to Board members for updates and information. Once a tentative contract offer was reached, those negotiating team members explained the contract proposal to anyone who wished to listen. They put together a PowerPoint explanation of the contract. Members attended and then voted.
At least one member of this union was swayed by what the Negotiating Team members presented, because on June 12, 2008, my opponent told them:
Subject: Thank You
Date: Thu, 12 Jun 2008 01:44:11 -0400
From: mceps@aol.com
I wanted to say thank you to the negotiation committee members for their time and effort during the negotiation process. It appeared to be a long and sometimes frustrating process, but you stuck with it and achieved a good contract for the membership.
I will admit that at the beginning of tonight's meeting, I had a lot of concerns regarding portions of the contract. It was initially my intentions to vote no. However, after hearing your detailed explanation of the contact and doing my own analysis, I agreed that this was a good contract to send to the membership. Again, I wanted to thank you for all your time and effort.
My opponent’s current ill-informed complaints about the negotiating process do not comport with the history of how this team came to be. Selective invocation of by-laws does nothing because his comments are laced with factual inaccuracies.
Forensic Accounting
My opponent suggests that a “forensic accounting” of the County budget would have been handy. This is silly and would have been needlessly expensive. The County was not hiding money in Barbados!
The County’s position was that they had x-amount of money to spend on all our proposals.
An adroit combination of PAC funds, political support, and my talks with Board of Supervisors staff members forced the County to increase its initial offer to us to levels that ultimately were acceptable to all Negotiating Committee members, all Board members, and about 85% of the membership by vote.
Caseload Comparisons
Caseload comparisons were done. (The only caseloads that are severely out of whack are the deputy public defenders’.) They were discussed with the County, and my opponent knows that. DPD Suzy Israel was in charge of that issue for the negotiating committee. The County deemed “caseload limits” beyond the parameters of contract negotiations.
As I pointed out to the DPDs, I have had a meeting with Doreen Boxer. Your crushing caseloads are an issue where we agree with her proposals for additional DPDs to reduce your caseload burden. If I am re-elected, we will continue to keep the pressure on the Board of Supervisors to improve your working conditions.
Salary Surveys
Extensive salary surveys were done. First, I obtained and distributed a 2006 salary survey done for another bargaining unit. Then, attorney Reinhold’s colleague put together an updated and refreshed salary survey. Finally, Lance Cantos, a C.P.A., and Dan Silverman "crunched the numbers" on salaries and benefits for the negotiating committee, the Board, and the membership.
Once again, my opponent is either uninformed or does not wish to be. Is this what you want in a union president?
WHAT I HAVE DONE IN THE TEN YEARS CARY EPSTEIN HAS BEEN A LAWYER
Mr. Epstein told you that he is a ten year California lawyer. Let’s compare his experience at the DA’s Offices in Victorville and Fontana with what I did in those same 10 years.
· Led, with DDAs Sharon Caldwell, Ron Webster, Tom Colclough, and Reza Sadeghi, the longest special grand jury investigation into County government and gained special insights how the County government functions politically and bureaucratically. (August 1998-August 1999.)
· Ran the District Attorney’s Appellate Services Unit, supervised 3 lawyers, and mentored countless law clerks and young attorneys. Crafted various legal positions that took root in California case law. Appeared nearly all superior courts in the County of San Bernardino (1998-2004, 2007-to present.)
· Appeared nationally on “60 Minutes II” to discuss California’s Three Strikes Law.
· Was co-“Prosecutor of the Year” in 2002.
· Served on the CDAA Board of Directors (2003-2004).
· Suffered through an unlawful suspension and illegal termination (2004-2005). Spent 50 weeks separated without pay from my Office. Beat the County in a protracted civil service hearing. Obtained a settlement in the ensuing federal civil rights suit.
· Served as a labor rep to protect members of the union who might suffer a similar fate as I had. (2005-2008)
· Served as president of the association to pay it back for standing by me when I needed it. (2006-present)
I think you will agree that these experiences uniquely qualify me to understand the concerns of all of our membership.
· Led, with DDAs Sharon Caldwell, Ron Webster, Tom Colclough, and Reza Sadeghi, the longest special grand jury investigation into County government and gained special insights how the County government functions politically and bureaucratically. (August 1998-August 1999.)
· Ran the District Attorney’s Appellate Services Unit, supervised 3 lawyers, and mentored countless law clerks and young attorneys. Crafted various legal positions that took root in California case law. Appeared nearly all superior courts in the County of San Bernardino (1998-2004, 2007-to present.)
· Appeared nationally on “60 Minutes II” to discuss California’s Three Strikes Law.
· Was co-“Prosecutor of the Year” in 2002.
· Served on the CDAA Board of Directors (2003-2004).
· Suffered through an unlawful suspension and illegal termination (2004-2005). Spent 50 weeks separated without pay from my Office. Beat the County in a protracted civil service hearing. Obtained a settlement in the ensuing federal civil rights suit.
· Served as a labor rep to protect members of the union who might suffer a similar fate as I had. (2005-2008)
· Served as president of the association to pay it back for standing by me when I needed it. (2006-present)
I think you will agree that these experiences uniquely qualify me to understand the concerns of all of our membership.
WEBSITE WOES
Mr. Epstein blames the lack of a functioning website on me. I am concerned that we do not have a functioning website yet. During most of my term, the Board and I relied on members of this association to jump- start the website. We were told things that did not come to pass. I was as disappointed as my opponent.
However, I did not consider it a burning priority because I had assembled an effective team of Board members, Labor representatives, and Negotiating team members to get the word out. I had also repeatedly proffered our telephone numbers and my own home e-mail site. Anyone who had a problem could call me at work, and many did call on matters not discussed with my opponent.
The Board assigned the website project to Mr. Epstein in early Summer 2008. Since that time, the Board of Directors has reviewed proposals he has obtained. The Board has sent him back to the drawing board to firm up the proposal he is presently pushing, to seek other website proposals, and to tighten up the contract with his provider before we presume to spend several thousand dollars on a website.
The current hold up, by the way, is Mr. Epstein’s inability to draw up a contract that will protect the members’ money, should Mr. Epstein’s favorite vendor’s promises become evanescent in the future. He seemed astonished that we -- a group of lawyers -- would expect them to sign a contract over a website!
Several weeks ago, my opponent finally proffered a contract proposal. I made corrections to protect our money and asked him to in put them. Two weeks ago, he returned my corrections to me and asked me to do it.
I guess he’d prefer to “blog” against me than produce for you.
However, I did not consider it a burning priority because I had assembled an effective team of Board members, Labor representatives, and Negotiating team members to get the word out. I had also repeatedly proffered our telephone numbers and my own home e-mail site. Anyone who had a problem could call me at work, and many did call on matters not discussed with my opponent.
The Board assigned the website project to Mr. Epstein in early Summer 2008. Since that time, the Board of Directors has reviewed proposals he has obtained. The Board has sent him back to the drawing board to firm up the proposal he is presently pushing, to seek other website proposals, and to tighten up the contract with his provider before we presume to spend several thousand dollars on a website.
The current hold up, by the way, is Mr. Epstein’s inability to draw up a contract that will protect the members’ money, should Mr. Epstein’s favorite vendor’s promises become evanescent in the future. He seemed astonished that we -- a group of lawyers -- would expect them to sign a contract over a website!
Several weeks ago, my opponent finally proffered a contract proposal. I made corrections to protect our money and asked him to in put them. Two weeks ago, he returned my corrections to me and asked me to do it.
I guess he’d prefer to “blog” against me than produce for you.
FIRST ELECTION NEWS & NOTES
First Election Note
Apparently, my opponent wishes to blame the first election mess on me, because I was “not prepared” for it. Fascinating. His facts are skewed once again.
The Secretary of the union has borne primary responsibility for Elections since this union was formed. Tracy Bartell, the former secretary, can tell you what she did to prepare for elections and organize them in accord with the By-Laws.
Before June 26, 2008, I started urging the Secretary to prepare for the Fall Elections. Throughout July and August, she and I discussed preparation of the ballot envelopes. Those ballot envelopes were delivered to her the morning of September 14, 2008. I expected her to vet them for security features and By-law compliance before she mailed them out on September 19, 2008. They were out of my hands at that point, six days before they were mailed.
First Election Note
Although nominating petitions were due and delivered to the Secretary on August 25, 2008, I first discovered that I had an opponent on September 10, 2008, some 16 days later.
Why the potential for problems in a race between two energetic and aggressive candidates was not brought to the Board of Directors as soon as possible, I do not know.
I do know that the opportunity to secure the ballots and ensure the accuracy of a first count was lost.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
