Prison Guards’ Labor Pact to Be Examined

SACRAMENTO —  Senate Majority Leader Richard Polanco said Wednesday he’ll convene legislative hearings on the lucrative labor pact that Gov. Gray Davis signed with the state prison guards union, one of Davis’ largest campaign contributors.

Newly emerging details of the labor agreement indicate that in addition to a salary increase of about one-third by 2006, the guards will receive a wealth of benefits, including the right to retire at age 50 and receive as much as 90% of their latest salary.

Polanco (D-Los Angeles) said the contract cannot be rescinded, but he said he thinks lawmakers should scrutinize the details and perhaps change aspects of it as part of budget negotiations.

The California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. is one of Davis’ most generous political benefactors. It contributed $251,000 to Davis in March, two months after he signed the labor deal.

Polanco said Wednesday that although the Legislature overwhelmingly ratified the agreement in January, details were not available at the time and are only now becoming public.

In fact, he said, only a handful of officials and others have seen what are essentially bootleg copies of the contract.

“The sad thing is we didn’t have this information when the Legislature ratified the agreement,” Polanco said. “It is a horrible process to have to vote to ratify and not have the full analysis.”

The contract, nearly 400 pages long, grants California prison guards pay parity with the California Highway Patrol and five major police departments, including Los Angeles Police and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s departments. A confidential analysis by the union estimates that by 2006, veteran correctional officers will be paid $73,428 a year--and possibly more. That’s nearly 34% more than their current wage, and would cost taxpayers roughly $700 million a year.

Another significant provision guarantees that beginning in 2006, the state’s 26,000 correctional officers will be entitled to retire at age 50 and receive as much as 90% of their pay in lifetime pensions. An analysis by the California Public Employees Retirement System placed the price tag at $22.5 million a year in today’s dollars.

Besides pay, the contract gives the union more say over working conditions, and limits wardens’ ability to oversee abuse by officers of sick leave and overtime, two issues that have added to the California Department of Corrections’ current $277-million cost overrun.

Davis’ chief political strategist, Garry South, dismissed the notion of a back-room deal.

“This is not some sweetheart deal cut in the dead of night,” South said. He noted that lawmakers were nearly unanimous in their support and that the state long has aimed at increasing the status of prison guards.

Union President Don Novey could not be reached.

Polanco, who heads a budget subcommittee that oversees the prison system, plans to delve into the contract in a hearing Friday, and hopes to blunt some of the contract’s language through the budget process. Given the governor’s line-item veto authority, however, Davis will have final say over any budget language dealing with corrections.

“This is a very, very powerful, influential union,” Polanco said. “You can’t blame Novey. But you can blame the administration and the Legislature for allowing it.”

Davis administration officials defended the contract, contending that prison workers have hard jobs. Several requirements imposed by past administrations, aimed at limiting state costs, were eliminated because administration officials agreed with union negotiators that they were demeaning.

“I stand behind this contract,” said Mary Morgenstern, Davis’ director of the Department of Personnel Administration. “I will admit to trying to be empathetic, to trying to give them decent working conditions, in part because of the belief that felons will be treated more fairly.”

Based on a variety of sources and analysis, several provisions in the contract stood out:

* The state agreed to eliminate a requirement that officers take physical fitness tests to collect extra pay for being fit. Officers viewed the so-called “Jumping for Bucks” test as demeaning. Instead of taking agility, strength or endurance tests, officers now can have a doctor perform a physical exam and provide a note vouching that they are fit, Morgenstern said.

* Physical fitness pay will double to $130 per month for veteran officers. Newly hired officers will be entitled to $65 per month in fitness pay. Assuming that 26,000 members receive the benefit, the cost could be $20 million a year.

* The state will place $5 million into a “Work and Family Fund,” to study policies related to “child care, elder care, family leave, flexibility in the workplace and a variety of other family-friendly programs and policies.” Union and management representatives will administer the program.

* The Department of Corrections, which has a 12% vacancy rate, will hire enough officers to lower the vacancy rate to 5%.

In his revised budget released earlier this week, Davis proposed giving the Department of Corrections an additional $204 million, pushing the department’s annual budget to $5 billion. Department officials recently told lawmakers that the department had incurred $277 million in unexpected costs, even though the inmate population has declined to 156,000 from a high of 162,000.