Apologies for the confusion caused by posting the first draft of this letter prematurely. The letter was originally intended for only psychologists working in the adult institutions of CDCR. It was decided to broaden the scope of that based on the interest expressed by social workers and those working in CDCR and DMH with inmates who were are not working only in the adult institutions.

There is a substantial number of psychologists and social workers of CDCR and DMH working with the state's inmate population who are opposed to the confirmation of Sharon Aungst as Chief Deputy Secretary. The following is a letter that you may wish to sign, ONLY IF you do not have plans yourself to send a letter of opposition to her confirmation. Your own personal letter would be preferable, of course, and this letter may serve as a template you may wish to use as a resource for your own letter.

If you wish to be a signatory to this letter, please provide your full name, degree, and institution at which you work.

THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY SENT IN THEIR INFORMATION NEED NOT DO SO AGAIN, UNLESS THEY WISH TO BE DELETED FROM THE SIGNATORY LIST.

Please remember, this letter is suitable ONLY for psychologists and social workers who work in CDCR or DMH since it is about Sharon Aungst in CDCR and her commitment to include MFTs as clinical staff working with inmates.

Dr. Backlund will coordinate the names and send the letter with your name and information attached to the state senators on the Senate Rules Committee who will be conducting the confirmation hearing on Wednesday, January 13th.

Here is his email address if you would like to be a signatory - please remember to include the relevant information above. There will not be a lot of time for verification of the information, or contacting you if you leave something out.

backlund@scientist.com

January 8, 2010

The Honorable Darrell Steinberg [the other members of the Rules Committee will be added separately]
Senate President pro Tem
Chair, Senate Rules Committee
State Capitol , Room 205
Sacramento, CA 95814

Dear Senator Steinberg [ or N.]:

We are licensed mental health clinicians employed by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and the California Department of Mental Health (DMH). Among our other duties, most of us who are signatories to this letter provide direct mental health care services to incarcerated men and women suffering from serious mental disorders as our primary work. As both highly trained specialists in the science of psychology and as citizen taxpayers of California, we are committed to providing the highest quality and most cost-effective care, diagnostic assessments and evaluations, and treatment and discharge planning services available to us in order to improve recidivism rates, decrease morbidity and mortality associated with suicide, lower the violence potential from untreated mental illness in inmates in our overcrowded state prisons and associated state hospitals and among our parolees, and do our part to sustain our shared mission of ensuring the safety and security of the people of this state, the free staff and volunteers in our facilities, and the inmates and parolees committed to the state's custody.

Ms. Sharon Aungst has been nominated for appointment as Chief Deputy Secretary of the Division of Correctional Health Care Services for CDCR by Governor Schwarzenegger.

We oppose her confirmation.

Early in her appointment, she indicated to us that she was disinclined to include licensed marriage and family therapists (MFTs) as members of the interdisciplinary mental health teams in our facilities, particularly within CDCR. She has since clarified her position and has publicly stated she is fully committed to the employment of MFTs as primary clinical service providers, beginning in the state's adult prisons.

Marriage and family therapists are practitioners whose specialty is, as the license name implies, statutorily limited to the arena of interpersonal relationships primarily within families. This is an important clinical sub-specialty of psychology, but one that has very limited utility within the Mental Health Services Delivery System (MHSDS) as it exists under the federal order of US District Judge Lawrence Karlton. It would be a great step backward for this state to employ persons who are not licensed for, and do not have the training and experience to provide, both the extensive and intensive psychological services demanded by that federal order in the highly complex and challenging environment presented by our prisons and hospitals.

Ms. Aungst is well aware that MFTs do not have the education, training, or experience remotely comparable to that of licensed clinical social workers and psychologists, and yet insists MFTs will be capable of providing the kinds of services the Coleman v. Schwarzenegger order requires. She is wrong, is irresponsible in advocating such a sweeping expansion in the scope of practice of MFTs without commensurate education and training, and is using the mentally ill inmates and parolees as a means to further the agenda of the MFTs and MFT organizations that support her. Employing MFTs as additional clinical staff will add needless costs to an already overburdened budget. If the intent is that they eventually replace psychologists and clinical social workers in direct service provision positions for the purpose of cost savings, the state will no doubt be at higher risk for much higher long-term costs when suicide morbidity and mortality rates begin to rise once again, when diagnosis, assessment, and treatment of mental illness deteriorates in a manner unacceptable to the federal court, and when increased supervisory personnel will be needed to oversee the clinical work of these marriage and family therapists.

It is unfathomable to us that while currently employed psychologists and clinical social workers are being furloughed three days each month, Ms. Aungst intends to begin hiring MFTs. Ms. Aungst has stated that hiring MFTs would be particularly helpful in the women's prisons because of their expertise in family issues. Working with women inmates and their families with a focus on family dynamics is a worthy endeavor but is certainly peripheral to the core services needed by the overwhelming majority of mentally ill inmates presently included in the MHSDS. Without a doubt, Ms. Aungst's argument is a subterfuge for her real intent to substitute lower cost and lesser trained clinical staff for higher cost better trained psychologists and clinical social workers while hoping she and her superiors can close out their term of appointment prior to the next gubernatorial election without another major federal lawsuit.

California and CDCR does not need and cannot afford a Chief Deputy Secretary like Ms. Aungst who is committed to undermining the fragile quality of care in our institutions even while we as a state struggle to improve that care to the minimum standard mandated by the United States Constitution. Ms. Aungst's vision for including MFTs in the provision of mental health services to inmates and parolees is penny-wise and pound-foolish and will ensure California does not emerge from exceptionally costly federal court scrutiny.

Thank you for your kind attention.

The labor contract for Service Employees International Union Local 1000 has stalled in the state Assembly, reports Jon Ortiz on the State Worker blog.
The bill is scheduled for a hearing in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on Wednesday. But the real challenge will be the floor, where the contract needs GOP votes to pass -- and doesn't have Republican support. Rumors have swirled for the better part of a week that the contract is dead. Union executives and rank-and-file workers have called and e-mailed The State Worker to report that the bill is dead. Some said it won't get out of Appropriations. Others opined that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has signaled to his party that, given the worsening state of the economy, that he is ready to walk away from a deal that took the administration and the union nearly a year to negotiate...

Dear AFSCME Brothers and Sisters,
The negotiating team for AFSCME Local 2620 met with the state again on March 24, 2009. We did not reach an agreement nor did we make much progress. Many of you have asked us to reach an agreement consistent with another union. Our team has been forthright in appraising the state of the need for fair and equitable treatment. Unfortunately, the state does not seem to see it that way. They have informed us they are under no obligation to offer us the same provisions as any other union. We have made it very clear that we will not accept any agreement without them! ....

Union Fights Contracting Out
AFSCME Local 2620 continues to file challenges with the State Personnel Board on all contracts where bargaining unit 19 work is being performed by contractors. Recently the Executive Officer of the State Personnel board ruled that the following departments must cease the contracts for the following departments and occupations:...

Dear AFSCME Brothers and Sisters,
By now most of you have heard that the last mandated set furlough day is March 6th. The wage reduction equal to two-furlough days per month will continue until we reach an agreement with the state and it is ratified by the legislature. The difference is that offices will remain open five days per week, and all employees will be able to determine which days to take as furlough time off. We are pleased with this change and see it as a small concession that allows you to make some decisions for yourself. We hope it signals a change in the states attitude toward our workforce. I guess one can always hope...

Read related information at these links:

- Summary of Governor's Proposed Budget Adjustments

- Budget Action Bulletin

- Governors Proposal Fact Sheet

- Keeping Californians in Their Homes

- Employment Stimulus for California

- Unprecedented Decisions in an Extraordinary Situation

- Closing the Budget Gap- Again

Read related information at the links below:

- State employee lawyers petition federal court to hear pay cut dispute

- Dan Walters: Democrats' shift could crack budget impasse

- It may all come down to a whole lot of borrowing - again

- State Worker Salaries: 11 Days of Savings

- Legislative counsel: Governor can't make state controller cut pay

- Chiang Responds to Governor's Proposal to Pay Minimum Wage to State Workers

- Breaking News Alert: Schwarzenegger plans to cut state worker pay to cope with late budget

- PM Alert: Whither the retired part-timers

AFSCME Local 2620 kicked off the bargaining for our next contract on June 11, 2008. Our team submitted 45 proposals to the state representing significant contract improvements in the areas of Alternate Work Schedules, Allowances and Reimbursements, Education and Training, and Caseload /Workload issues. Our AFSCME Local 2620 Negotiating Team was present for the kick-off session and will be present for many of the subsequent sessions when general proposals are being submitted, or state responses are being received. However, this year we are doing things a bit differently.

In years past the negotiating team, comprised of representatives from nine (9) occupational groups, two Vice-Presidents, and the President, attended every bargaining session. This time we have formed teams from each of the occupational and discipline specific groups AFSCME Local 2620 represents. For example, in years past the Social Services Consultants were represented at the bargaining table by the Social Workers Occupational Committee Chair. These two classifications are really very different, including the job they actually perform. This year a team of Social Services Consultants will come to the table to present proposals specific to their needs. The same is true of some of our other smaller groups, such as Health Education Consultants, Speech Pathologists and Audiologists, Physical Therapists, Adoptions Specialists, Behavior Specialists, Physicians Assistants, and many more. We have a specific schedule we will follow which you can access by clicking on Tentative Negotiations Schedule. We will provide you with an update after each session.

We fully anticipate bargaining will go on for quite some time, as we are adamant that we must see significant improvements in our contract. Other unions are reporting that the state is rejecting even the smallest of monetary improvements such as $15.00 for as few as 100 people. Given the severity and extent of the fiscal crisis the state has presented to the legislature and to the public, the states unilateral rejection of monetary proposals is to be expected. It is reasonable to say we will face the same challenges as we attempt to negotiate fair market salaries for our workers. We believe the salaries must be discussed as the state must be made fully aware of the monetary disparity between the private sector and their own workforce. Salary improvement proposals will be presented by each of the discipline specific groups and will vary based on what each group has determined will bring their classification to a fair market rate. Again, it should be said the state is taking a very hard line on proposals with any cost associated.

Go to Tentative Negotiations Schedule to see when your group’s proposals are being heard. We will post any schedule changes on the website should the need arise.

In Unity,

Nancy Swindell, President

Mr. James Conwell MSW, a clinical social worker at California Substance Abuse Treatment Program (SATF) in Corcoran has been an advocate for not only his inmate clients but also all Health and Social Service Employees within CDCR. He is a Union Steward of AFSCME Local 2620 Bargaining Unit 19 who gives his time, energy, and ideas to improve the working conditions for workers and provide effective treatment and interventions for clients.

With that said, we at SATF State Prison would like the opportunity to show our support to Mr. Conwell as he recently was diagnosed with vascular bleeding for which he has undergone brain surgery. Given that he will need time off from work to heal and has depleted his vacation, sick and holiday time, a Catastrophic Time Bank (CTB) has been approved for him. Any donations of time to his CTB would be greatly appreciated by James and his family.

Thank you in advance for your attention, cares and donations from friends at SATF SP.

Sincerely,

Gail Penny LCSW

AFSCME BU 19 Steward

Clinical Social Worker at SATF

Catastrophic Time Bank Request

Catastrophic Time Bank Authorization

January 11, 2008

Dear AFSCME Brothers and Sisters in DMH, DDS, and CDVA,

The union recently reached a tentative agreement with the State for the Pharmacist I and the Clinical Dietician classifications in DMH, DDS, and CDVA. These are the same classifications that received salary increases in CDCR as a result of the PLATA federal court order. A letter is being mailed to our members in these classifications along with a ballot which will allow them to vote on whether or not to accept the terms of proposed agreement.

This agreement comes as the result of three separate bargaining sessions. In October of 2007 the union was called to the bargaining table by the State to discuss the PLATA classes. At that time the union was offered a salary equal to 18% below that being paid to the Pharmacist I and the Clinical Dietician classes in CDCR. The union returned to the bargaining table in November, with a counter offer of full parity for these classifications as well as salary increases for similar or related classifications in our bargaining unit. In January the State called the union back to the table. The State submitted a proposal to the union which increases the maximum of the salary range of the Pharmacist 1 and the Clinical Dietician to 10% below CDCR effective January 1, 2008 and 5% below CDCR effective January 1, 2009. The proposed salary schedule can be viewed below.

It was made clear to the Union that if we did not accept the terms of the tentative agreement the offer would be pulled back by the State and the money would come off from the table. We would then return to the offer of a salary 18% below CDCR. Given the State of the State and the current fiscal crisis, the Union took an action to secure a salary advancement opportunity for the Pharmacist I and Clinical Dietician classifications that will eventually bring these classifications up to 95% of the salary being paid to the same classifications in CDCR.

The Leadership of AFSCME 2620 is committed to providing our members the opportunity to participate in the decisions of the union. After consulting with the Occupational Committee Chairs for the Pharmacists and the Dieticians, it was decided by these leaders that you, the members, should be allowed to decide for yourself whether to accept the assurance of the proposed salary advancement or decline the offer with the hope you will receive a more substantial offer from the State. In compliance with our Constitution and in keeping with the focus of this administration, we are allowing you the opportunity to make this determination for yourself. By reaching a tentative agreement with the State, we are able to put this proposal before you, the members, for your vote.

What does a yes vote mean? A yes vote will secure the proposed salary range for the Pharmacist I and the Clinical Dietician classifications in DMH, DDS, and CDVA. The salary range will increase the maximum of the class to 90% of that being paid in CDCR effective January 1, 2008, and 95% of that being paid in CDCR effective January 1, 2009.

What does a no vote mean? A no vote means the money for the salary increases will be pulled back by the State and the union will return to the bargaining table to discuss the States prior proposal of a salary 18% less than that being paid in CDCR.

The Governor recently announced deep cuts in every State Department. California is facing a fourteen billion dollar deficit which some fiscal analysts are saying could grow to as high as eighteen billion by 2009. No matter how deserving our members may be of a substantial salary increase and no matter how far below the market rates our members are presently being paid, it is simply not reasonable to believe there will be more money coming our way in the near future. I urge you to carefully consider your decision on this matter as the agreement reached between the union and State will allow you, the Pharmacists and Dieticians, to continue to receive salary improvements during years when others likely will not. Also, when making your decision, remember that the salaries being paid in CDCR are the result of a court order and therefore considered by some to be a windfall. No matter what the reason or the cause, the salaries would not be what they are today had it not been for federal government intervention. We would not be offered the salaries proposed in this agreement had it not been for the special circumstances surrounding the PLATA case.

In Solidarity,

Nancy Swindell
President, AFSCME Local 2620

Click here to view the Salary Schedule (in PDF format).

This bill would approve the addenda to memoranda of understanding entered into by the state employer and State Bargaining Units 1, 3, 8, 18, 19, and 20 that require the expenditure of funds, as specified. The bill would further approve provisions of the addenda that require the expenditure of funds, and would appropriate $26,516,000 from the General Fund and other unallocated nongovernmental cost funds for those purposes. The bill would provide that those provisions shall not take effect unless the funds are specifically appropriated by the Legislature or already exist within available appropriations, and would allow the reopening of negotiations if the Legislature does not approve or fully fund any addendum.

This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

This is the bill underlying the raises within 5% for certain mental health classifications within DMH, DDS, and DVA.

The tentative Agreement reached between the State and AFSCME 2620 regarding the raises for Coleman related mental health care classes has been ratified by the members with an overwhelming vote of 361 for and 8 against.

Read the full story here.

AFSCME 2620 has reached a tentative agreement with the State regarding the implementation of the Coleman Court order of June 28, 2007. The agreement will be sent out to the affected members for ratification by vote.

Read the full story here.

Read President Nancy Swindell's letter on Coleman Raises

Click here to view the August Newsletter. Please note that Adobe Acrobat is required to view this newsletter.

We've added a new section to keep you posted on the legislative bills we are following. Click the item "Bills Being Followed" on the menu on your left to view these bills.

COUNCIL 62 LOCAL 3412 is offering T-Shirt sales to help fund the Martin Luther King Memorial Fund. For more details, view the order form (Adobe Acrobat required).

On June 28, Judge Karlton ordered salaries at DMH to be increased to 95% of those paid at CDCR. The actual classifications include psychologists, social workers, and rehabilitation therapists.

There are - and will be for some time to come - many unanswered questions about how this order will be implemented. In the coming weeks, we will meet with the state as it prepares a “pay letter” to implement the order. Because this is a court order, we cannot accept or reject it - but we can and will make our voice heard in response.

Like the salary increase ordered by Judge Henderson in the Plata case, which covers medical staff in CDCR, Judge Karlton's order waives many sections of state law governing salary placement. The state will surely use the waivers to its advantage to minimize the financial impact of the order - a penny-pinching evasion that would once again come at the expense of a long-term solution.

Read the full story here.

6/28/2007 - Read the latest on the Coleman Court case.

We've added a Press Release section and a In the News section to the site.

Judge orders state to provide plan for equal pay to DMH clinicians

AFSCME 2620 representatives President Nancy Swindell, Business Agent Pam Manwiller, and Council 57 Executive Director George Popyack attended Monday's Federal Court hearing on the class-action suit which argues that inmates are being denied their constitutional right to receive mental health treatment while incarcerated. At issue is the mass exodus of mental health and health care professionals from state mental health hospitals to jobs in the prison system.

Though it was not our case to argue on behalf of our members, we filed an Amicus brief which gave us standing on the matter. Our attorney was present and prepared to respond to any questions the court might have about our position.

On Wednesday, Judge Karlton ordered the state to submit a plan that would require that psychiatrists, psychologists, licensed clinical social workers, and psychiatric technicians who care for mentally ill prisoners at DMH hospitals receive raises to match the salaries of their counterparts in the CDCR. The order, issued yesterday, requires that the state submit its plan within 30 days.

This is an important milestone - reached in no small part because of the many of you who have joined us in protest outside DMH locations, especially this past Monday. Now our task is to ensure that the state responds with raises that bring pay equity throughout all facilities. We are in the process of analyzing all of the aspects of the judge's order. Over the next 30 days, we need to stay vigilant to ensure that instead of looking for loopholes, the state finally meets its responsibility to provide equal pay.

DPA negotiations: despite bullying and threats, the 2620 stood strong

President Nancy Swindell, Chief Negotiator Pam Manwiller, and Council 57 Executive Director George Popyack also met with the DPA on Monday to discuss the state's offer to increase salaries paid to Psychologists, Social Workers, and Recreation Therapists, in DMH, DDS, and VA to 18% below the salaries being paid to the same classifications in CDCR. We didn't waver from the stance that you, our members, directed. We stood firm for full salary parity. Pam Manwiller was clear in stating the -18% would not solve the state's problem of mass transfers to CDCR.

The state negotiator said the offer on the table was the administration's final position, to force Pam to say we would not move on the offer. Pam was clear in stating we are representing the views and positions directed by our members. The State then informed BU 19 they would move to file “impasse papers.”

The meeting had ended. As the AFSCME 2620 representatives were leaving, the state threatened to withdraw the 4/1/2007 effective date, and to pull the offer off the table altogether. This was viewed as a desperate action by the state to get BU 19 to agree to their inadequate salary offer.

We followed the direction given us by you, our members, based on meetings and extensive dialogue statewide. We stood firm for full salary parity and would not yield to the state's antics and threats.

Click on the Newsletter link and select May 2007 to read it online
(including supplemental material available online only)

VIEW THE PRESS RELEASE HERE

VIEW THE VIDEO HERE