Public Eye: Sacramento County CEO’s refurnishing includes shoe polisher
PUBLISHED FRIDAY, JAN. 06, 2012

It looks like Sacramento County’s new CEO has taken a shine to his job.

Two weeks ago, we reported in Public Eye that after four months as the county’s chief executive officer, Brad Hudson had run up expenses of $21,000 to purchase a $7,300 “Lexington model” desk, a fancy executive chair, “Diva” series conference chairs and other new furniture.

At the time, Hudson explained that he wanted “something that was appropriate for the work that we do. It’s not extravagant. I just want people to feel like they can come in.”

Since that report, however, new information has come to light over an additional item for which he billed Sacramento County.

Last year, Hudson purchased a $78 shoe polisher with “lamb wool buffers,” records show.

Can’t he afford to pay for his own shoeshines?

Turns out, he probably can. That’s because he is collecting a $200,000 annual retirement benefit from the city of Riverside, along with his new Sacramento County CEO salary of $258,000 plus benefits.

He’s able to collect a pension and a salary because Sacramento County has a different retirement plan than Riverside, which is part of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, officials say.

He couldn’t get the same deal with the city of Sacramento, which is covered by CalPERS. “If he were to work for a CalPERS employer, he would have to reinstate – meaning his pension would end,” said CalPERS spokesman Brad Pacheco.

Hudson retired as city manager in Riverside at age 53, with 25 years of government service. Hudson could earn a second pension when he leaves Sacramento County. His contract calls for Sacramento County to match up to $9,000 of his annual contributions to the county’s retirement plan.

Asked about the purchase, Hudson asserted it’s for managers spending more time in the field. “It seemed like providing a way to dust off their shoes when they returned was a small price to pay.”

So where is Sacramento County making money? Depends on whom you ask.

For example, to get a copy of a document from the Sacramento County clerk/recorder, you must pay $12 for the first page and $2 for each additional page. The cost of having an employee make a copy at FedEx Office: 12 cents a page.

A Pasadena public records firm says the county ought to charge less than FedEx. In a lawsuit filed in Superior Court, California Public Records Research Inc. argues that the county’s inflated copy fees violate state law.

Clerk/recorder documents fall under a state law allowing the office to recover direct and indirect costs for copies.

In a written statement, Chief Deputy Clerk/Recorder Donna Allred said: “Our fees are established to recover the total cost for providing services, including staff time.” No profit is made, she said.

But the Pasadena firm argues that the county’s costs amount to no more than 10 cents a page. It’s asking the court to set that as the fee and order the county to pay back those it overcharged.

– Brad Branan

Tentative agreement was reached on several sections.  Copies were signed by both parties.

The County then presented a “package” deal for tentative agreement.  The term package means that either all parts are agreed upon or all parts get rejected.  This, in essence, is where we’re getting to the bargaining point.

-Major highlights of the package:
-Mention of furloughs dropped
-2% pay cut for 13 pay periods still there
-No COLAs, past or for term of contract
-term of contract 2 years starting July 1, 2011
-County can suspend the $25/pay period Retiree Health Plan payments unilaterally

These are the major points.  There were also some language changes to several sections.  Discussion and possible VOTE will be held Dec 13th at the General Membership Meeting.

The rest of the negotiation meeting time was spent by the negotiations team crafting a counter “package” proposal.  Discussion and possible VOTE on this will also be done at the General Membership Meeting.

NOTE: We are now to the stage in negotiating where we, the negotiations team, need member input as to direction of negotiations and what items in the contract can be dropped, kept or negotiated.  This is where the membership needs to show up and be heard at the membership meetings.  Furloughs, COLAs, pay cuts, work terms will all be discussed and VOTED upon.  If you have ANY interest in the terms of your employment NOW is the time to be heard.

NOTEPLUS: Voting will occur at the General Membership Meeting.  These votes WILL determine direction of negotiations and acceptance/denial of County offers.  To be eligible to vote you must be a dues paying member of the Union.  This is a standard practice with all unions.  Also when it’s time to vote on the final contract only dues paying members will be allowed to vote.  Applications will be available at the meeting to sign up to become dues paying members.

Spread the word to your fellow 028’ers about the above and the General Membership Meeting.  Post at work if possible.

Meeting Dates

General Membership Meeting
Dec 13th, 530-730 or later at 9601 Keifer Blvd

Negotiations Meetings
Dec 15th, Jan 5th, Jan 11th @ 830-130

Computer Professionals Update Act seeks to remove overtime pay for IT pros
By Toni Bowers
December 2, 2011, 9:53 AM PST
Takeaway: A bill is currently making its way through the United States Senate that effectively eliminates overtime pay for IT professionals.

There was a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate last week that seeks to modify the Fair Labor Standards Act’s (FLSA) computer employee exemption, effectively eliminating overtime pay for IT professionals. The Computer Professionals Update Act (”CPU”/S. 1747) was introduced in the Senate by Senator Kay Hagan (D-NC) and cosponsors Senators Johnny Isakson (R-GA), Mike Enzi (R-WY), and Michael Bennet (D-CO).

Under current law, an employee qualifies for the exemption if his “primary duty” consists of:

The application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users to determine hardware, software or system functional specifications;
The design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications;
The design, documentation, testing, creation or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or
A combination of the aforementioned duties, the performance of which requires the same level of skills.
In effect, S. 1747 would remove overtime protection and compensation for virtually any worker directly employed in information technology. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions. National Advocates for Employee Rights is working with coalition partners to oppose the legislation. The bill can be found at:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112s1747is/pdf/BILLS-112s1747is.pdf.

-Negotiation team did a final review of the County’s proposal for a contract, all 13 articles, and our response.  See attached document.

-Several team members had been tasked to look at other contracts for items that may have been missed.  Some of these items are already given to us or in a County Code but it’s better to have it stated in the contract to avoid confusion.  Following are items for possible inclusion into our contract proposal:

1) County must inform UPEC about class studies and outcome
2) Savings clause - if part of contract is ruled illegal, rest of contract is still legal
3) Mileage for private car usage
4) Transit subsidy
5) Anti-glare coating for computer glasses
6) Performance evaluations cannot be used for disciplinary actions
7) Clarification of education reimbursement to cover certification tests for MCSE, CCNA, etc
8) Paid time to attend training, seminars, etc
9) Paid time off for promotional exams
10) Language about letters of reprimand
11) Language about desk files (files supervisors keep about workers)
12) Purchase of Additional Retirement Credit
13) Me too clause for better retirement benefits (if someone else gets something so do we)
14) Reimbursement for use of private cars when called back in

Most of the above are found in other contracts so the County has approved these things for other units.

Consolidation of this language into our contract will take place over the next few weeks. 

Next meeting is October 11th, Keifer location at 530
-this is a general member meeting in which we’ll be going over final contract proposal to present to County

Oct 13 is our next negotiations meeting with the County