Former Assemblyman Roger Niello’s initiative to rollback public pension benefits “will end up in the scrapheap of politically-motivated failures,” said Dave Low, chairman of Californians for Retirement Security, in a statement released by the union coalition Tuesday evening.

As reported by Bee colleague Paresh Dave on Tuesday, Niello has decided he won’t pursue collecting signatures to put his public pension rollback initiative on the ballot, although the secretary of state has said that he can begin working to place it before voters.

Niello, a Fair Oaks Republican who has said he’s considering a run at statewide office, said with a special election on taxes later this year looking more and more remote, there’s no urgency to make sure “pension reform” goes up for a vote.

The union coalition followed the news with a statement from Low that hit The State Worker’s e-mail inbox at 9:01 p.m. Tuesday night:

Imagine what Low will say if backers of a pension rollback plan actually start collecting signatures or if a measure actually gets on the ballot. (Niello says he might tweak his plan for a vote next year.)

If everyone remembers correctly, Niello’s  proposal was to cut pension benefits for state workers, raise minimum retirement ages and eliminate overtime, unused sick leave and other pay beyond base pay in calculating retirement benefits has been approved to gather signatures to get on the ballot.

Authored by former Central Valley Republican Assemblyman Roger Niello of Fair Oaks, the proposal would have been a constitutional amendment.

Had Mr. Niello’s proposal  been adopted, it would have set retirement ages at 62 for persons who are or will be public employees and would have limited pensions to 60 percent of the employee’s highest average base wage for three consecutive years.

It would also have required public employees to match the public agency pension contribution. Public workers would have had to to be on the payroll fulltime for five consecutive years to receive a pension. The proposal also reached to the heart of current pension plans by giving public agencies full discretion to modify pensions, and prevents pension changes through contract or collective bargaining.

In their analysis, the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst and the governor’s Director of Finance say that if passed, the initiative might have resulted in major reductions in state and local defined benefit pension contributions — potentially totaling billions of dollars per year (as measured in today’s dollars) — over the long run. These reductions would have been offset to an unknown extent by increases in other compensation costs for some public employees, depending on labor market conditions and future decisions made by governmental entities, they say.

Mr. Niello and his supporters would have had to collect signatures of 807,615 registered voters – the number equal to 8 percent of the total votes cast for governor in the 2010 gubernatorial election – in order to qualify it for the ballot. The signatures must be collected by Oct. 20.

Former Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s team is slamming back at at National Enquirer story published today which quotes a source identified as the Sacramento Hyatt Regency “head of hotel security” charging the former governor used taxpayer-funded security details to engage in inappropriate behavior.

UPDATE ONE: They’re not the only ones raising questions about the Enquirer “scoop.” Sacramento Hyatt general manager Ulrich Samietz told the Chronicle in an email that “we do not have any records” of William Taylor — the man who claims in the Enquirer to be the hotel’s former security chief — ever being employed there. “We are not familiar” with Taylor, he wrote. He also dismisses the story: “As far as Governor Schwarzenegger is concerned, he was always respectful to our associates during his stays here.”

UPDATE TWO: RadarOnLine.com, which is owned by American Media Inc. — parent company of the Enquirer — is reporting a “bombshell exclusive” that California Attorney General Kamala Harris has launched an “inquiry” into the story. We’ve confirmed from multiple sources that’s false — no such investigation exists.

The Enquirer story is among the frenzy of tabloid reporting in the wake of Schwarzenegger’s recent admission that he had an out-of-wedlock child with a former longtime member of his household staff.

The Enquirer story quotes “veteran law enforcement officer” identified as William Taylor, who says he passed a polygraph test about his allegations.

Taylor told the Enquirer that on three occasions, California Highway Patrol officers in Schwarzenegger’s security detail driving black Ford Crown sedans arrived at the Sacramento Hyatt and escorted young “scantily clad” women to the governor’s penthouse suite.

Schwarzenegger’s team released statements from his legal counsel, Hollywood powerhouse attorney Martin Singer, who calls the story “totally and completely false.” Additionally, statements from two retired CHP officers who served on his security detail were also released and strongly dispute the story.

Here’s the full response from attorney Singer:

“Today’s story from the National Enquirer is totally and completely false. Unfortunately, the media’s relentless desire for new information has some outlets running stories that are made up by paying sources that have zero credibility. My client stated from the beginning that he takes full responsibility for his actions and deserves the public and media criticism. This does not entitle some in the media to be totally irresponsible.”

Here’s the full statement from retired CHP Sargeant Mark Hammond:

“I can say without a shadow of a doubt as a supervisor of his protective detail that at no time did I see Governor Schwarzenegger say or do anything that could be deemed inappropriate, and I was at his side for 7 years. As a supervisor, if anything had occurred, I would have been notified, even if it was technically off the record on his private time.

And here’s the statement from retired CHP officer Manny Trevino:

“I was an officer on Governor Schwarzenegger’s protective detail for 7 years. During that time, I was at his side in California and abroad, and I can report that the claims in the National Enquirer regarding allegations about the Governor’s detail covering for him during any illicit activity are completely untrue. In all the time I worked with him, I never witnessed the Governor acting in a less than honorable manner. I also never heard any other officer discuss any such claims. Governor Schwarzenegger always treated the officers on his detail with respect, and we had nothing but respect for him in return.”

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=89690#ixzz1NQc4EnjG

By Jack Dolan and Carol J. Williams, Los Angeles Times
May 25, 2011

Reporting from Sacramento and Los Angeles — California’s effort to shift tens of thousands of inmates out of its chronically overcrowded prisons to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court order could be undone by the state’s tough sentencing laws, persistent recidivism and recurring budget crises, analysts say.

More than 33,000 offenders must be moved out of the prisons under the high court’s Monday decision, which upheld an earlier ruling that conditions in the teeming facilities cause preventable deaths and amount to cruel and unusual punishment.

But without sweeping policy changes, the state will still send high numbers of offenders to prison under “three-strikes” sentencing laws, put about 70% of parolees back behind bars for violations within three years of their release and keep ambitious prison construction plans on hold for lack of money, according to experts and inmates’ advocates.

“I think … eventually we will have the same problem,” said Michael Bien, whose law firm launched a 1990 case addressing poor mental healthcare in California prisons that ultimately led to Monday’s ruling.

More than 40,000 prisoners, about one in four, are serving extended sentences for second and third offenses that are punished more severely under the three-strikes law than the crimes would warrant as a first offense, according to state corrections records.

With many sentenced to at least 25 years, the state has created a long-term population problem, said Michael Romano, head of a Stanford Law School program focused on the three-strikes law.

“The most egregious part of the three-strikes law, and what is contributing to the prison overcrowding and financial strains, are the people serving life for minor crimes,” Romano said.

Gov. Jerry Brown’s plan to ease crowding would move inmates convicted of low-level and nonviolent crimes into the custody of county officials. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimated that as many as 32,500 such inmates could be transferred in time to meet the court’s two-year deadline.

But Brown’s plan requires the state to pay local officials hundreds of millions of dollars to help them cope with the influx, and the money would come from tax increases or extensions that are politically controversial.

So far, there’s no guarantee the state will come up with the money or would continue to provide it indefinitely, although Brown wants a constitutional guarantee that Sacramento could not cut funding to the counties.

Even if Brown finds a way to implement his plan, experts say, the prisons could still become overcrowded. Some inmates are serving life sentences for stealing a $2 pair of socks or $20 work gloves, Romano said.

Loyola Law School professor Laurie Levenson, a former federal prosecutor and veteran criminal law scholar, points to the high recidivism rate and past cuts in funding for prison rehabilitation and education programs as a formula for continued — even worse — crowding.

“We have to stop the insanity of sending nonviolent drug offenders and low-level theft offenders to prison for life,” Levenson said. “Nobody is saying we should let murderers out…. We have to stop the revolving door of parolees being returned for minor violations.”

Compounding the situation is Jessica’s Law, the 2006 initiative barring sex offenders from living within 2,000 feet of schools or parks, making it difficult for California’s 92,000 released sex offenders to comply with that parole condition, especially in large cities.

In 2009, the most recent year for which the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation has statistics, almost 85,000 parolees were sent back to prison, most of them for two- and three-month sentences. That forced the state to erect three-tier bunks in sports halls, where parole violators spend their terms in the company of hardened criminals and without access to the minimal educational and rehabilitative programs that the corrections system retains after years of budget cuts.

With the average number of parolees in California at 127,383 on any given day, the state’s overcrowding problem is bound to reemerge unless substantial changes are made to sentencing laws, parole conditions and in-prison rehabilitation programs, Levenson said.

Drug counseling and education have been severely hampered by overcrowding that has spilled into gymnasiums and meeting rooms.

“There’s no space and no money” for those programs, Bien said.

As state officials struggle to comply with the courts, the debate over who goes to prison is likely to spark heated exchanges in Sacramento, just as it did among members of the high court.

Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that California sends an unusually large percentage of paroled inmates back to prison on technicalities. Testimony in the lower courts suggested the prisons are breeding grounds for more crime.

In his dissent to Monday’s 5-4 decision, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said sending more inmates to prison has led to lower crime rates in California and elsewhere. From 1992 to 2009, the violent crime rate dropped by 58% in California, he said. Nationwide, the violent crime rate fell by 43% during the same period.

Releasing inmates early — as some officials say may be necessary in California to meet the courts’ demands — will lead to an increase in crime, Alito said.

Click here to visit the LA Times

A sharply divided Supreme Court Monday affirmed a controversial prisoner reduction plan forced on California prison administrators that requires the state to reduce its inmate population by tens-of-thousands to ease overcrowding.

The 5-4 decision authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, a California native, is a wholesale acceptance of a ruling by a special three-judge panel tasked with resolving chronic overcrowding in the state’s penal system. The February 2009 decision orders California to reduce its prison population that has at times run nearly double its capacity. Approximately 37,000 to 46,000inmates will have to be released in order for the state to comply with the ruling.

“After years of litigation, it became apparent that a remedy for the constitutional violations would not be effective absent a reduction in the prison system population,” Kennedy wrote in an opinion joined by the court’s more liberal members. In an unusual occurrence, the opinion included an appendix showing three pictures of the overcrowded facilities.

Critics of California’s prison system contend the cells are so overrun with inmates that proper care has been obliterated. Kennedy cites examples of prisoners with mental or physical health needs having to wait months for inadequate care. He cites one example of an inmate who was held for nearly 24 hours in a cage and standing in a pool of his own urine. Others died while seeking medical attention that was seemingly delayed because of the backlog of cases.

“If a prison deprives prisoners of basic sustenance, including adequate medical care, the courts have a responsibility to remedy the resulting Eighth Amendment violation,” Kennedy declared noting the Constitution’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

The ruling gives the state some flexibility when it comes to how it goes about reducing its prison population even suggesting that three judge panel that originally issued the order could extend a two-year compliance order if it felt the state was making progress in its efforts to reduce the inmate population to 137.5 percent of capacity.

While Kennedy recognized the “grave concern” of releasing prisoners in large numbers he nonetheless supported the premise that the state’s prisons have simply become too overcrowded.

“Absent compliance through new construction, out-of-state transfers, or other means … the state will be required to release some number of prisoners before their full sentences have been served.”

Justice Antonin Scalia fired away in a dissent joined by Justice Clarence Thomas, calling the ruling a judicial travesty. “Today the court affirms what is perhaps the most radical injunction issued by a court in our nation’s history: an order requiring California to release the staggering number of 46,000 convicted criminals.”

Scalia, who read part of his dissent from the bench, expressed concern that the ruling upholds the idea that judges can institute their policy preferences in place of elected lawmakers and that the reach of the decision is simply too broad.

“It is also worth noting the peculiarity that the vast majority of inmates most generously rewarded by the release order — the 46,000 whose incarceration will be ended — do not form part of any aggrieved class even under the Court’s expansive notion of constitutional violation,” Scalia wrote in dissent. “Most of them will not be prisoners with medical conditions or severe mental illness; and many will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym.”

Chief Justice John Roberts joined a separate dissent written by Justice Samuel Alito that also questioned the wisdom of giving federal judges the authority to run state penal systems. Their dissent also faulted the majority for not taking into greater consideration the recent progress of state officials to improve prison conditions and the concerns about public safety.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/23/supreme-court-rules-california-free-tens-thousands-inmates/#ixzz1NCrV8PI2

Mike Jimenez should be very happy about this decision. I’d like to see him lie at the convention explaining it was a strategy, etc… Remember, he stops at nothing to get his way. He’ll probably be celebrating at Hooters tonight in Sac if you want to drop by and give him a thanks.

Also, remember this article: http://unit6times.com/wordpress/2011/03/prison-officers-crime-victims-and-the-prospects-of-sentencing-reform/

May 20, 2011, Mr. Jon Ortiz of the Sac Bee posted on The State Worker blog site that the rumors about  Mike Jimenez, president of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, retiring are false. If Unit6times.com remembers correctly, this was not a “Rumor.” In fact, Mike Jimenez personally told a member during the last convention that he was stepping down soon in favor of retirement. Unit6times.com wasn’t surprised to read about Mike Jimenez’s announcement because he has a habit of pushing disinformation or telling those what they want to hear. Denying the membership transparency and denying members the truth is what he does best.

According to Jon Ortiz’s posting, Mike Jimenez stated he would be seeking re-election at the union’s Aug. 17 convention. Wow, who would have thunk it? After all, why would Mike Jimenez step down from a position that entitles him to a free meal ticket. Jimenez has turned the president position into a life style of the rich and famous. He has a driver, a car, a house, no schedule, free food, clothing, free legal, and an unlimited AMEX card amongst other things. If he were to officially announce he was stepping down, Unit6times.com would suggest to Mike Jimenez a double dose of psychotropic medication or if he is off the medication to give his psychiatrist a call. The perks he has created as a president are just too good to let go.

During this interview, Mike Jimenez explained that he considered retiring after “struggles to control his diabetes, a messy divorce and professional stress had driven him into a “dark period.”

Is Mike Jimenez really serious? Really, a dark period? What did Mike Jimenez lose that drove him into this “Dark period?” After all, Mike Jimenez’s Screw Arnold stunt/campaign resulted with the membership entering a “Dark period.” No member had any control over what was happening to their individual lives as a result of pay loss. Not to mention the black eye bargaining unit 6 received from his Neanderthal like antics.

Meanwhile, Mike Jimenez claims his dark period came from sickness, stress, and divorce. I’m glad he didn’t mention money loss because he didn’t lose a single dime. Moreover, If Unit6times.com recalls, Mike Jimenez created the “Messy divorce” and he used Executive Committee members, CCPOA’s legal staff, and Don Perata in an attempt to financial ruin his wife. This was subsequent to Mike Jimenez’s sexual trysts with CCPOA’s hired lobbyists. Remember, one of those trysts resulted in the 12-million dollar Correctional USA lawsuit. Now, lets talk about stress! CCPOA’s “Dark period” continues, as Mike Jimenez and the EC is driving our organization into financial ruin. CCPOA Headquarters, which was once free and clear is being prospected for collateral to appeal the judgement following the loss of the CUSA case. The HQs building is just one of many other assets being considered as collateral to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Meanwhile, Mike’s legal friends get rich profiting from cases created by Mike Jimenez and his associates. How could this happen considering the amount of dues money taken from us all each and every month? Well, it boils down to lack of transparency and lack of regulation over the amount of spending by CCPOA’s elite. It boils down to the BOD not regulating the President or his EC.

The Sac Bee post reads; “He took an extended medical leave of absence in 2009, fueling rumors that he was just hanging onto the office until he could retire.” If I recall the Sac Bee article correctly, Mike Jimenez, was reported to be out based upon Carpel Tunnel Syndrome? Yet, during that time, Mike Jimenez attended every state meeting to maliciously attack anyone that he thought was “Plotting” against him, to include the entire retiree chapter! Most that were following Mike Jimenez’s career could never figure out how one could be off on workers compensation when he hadn’t been performing any peace officer or negotiation duties in the first place. How does one receive compensation from the state and still able to attend CCPOA business, which the state already has him off on Union Paid Leave (UPL)? Also, Mike Jimenez was attending golf outings during that same time period in Pebble Beach, California. At any rate, we’ll never know. It becomes another union mystery. Although, in certain circles it is believed the “Work injury” was for the purpose of not having to lose any pay from the mandated furloughs, as those on Workers Comp were deemed exempt. Those of you that are not aware, Mike Jimenez receives pay from CCPOA and pay from CDCR on top of all those other goodies.

Mr. Jimenez tells Jon Ortiz and the world that his personal clouds have lifted. The union has a contract for the first time in five years. His personal life has settled down. Some weight loss and medication has helped get his diabetes under control. He says; ”I’m feeling much different now,” he said. “My health is good. My spirits are high. I’m looking ahead and moving forward.” Does anyone see bargaining unit 6 members moving forward? How many parole agents feel as though the clouds have lifted for them? Hell, we lost a great deal after 5-years of watching Mike Jimenez tell us he wasn’t going to shave or get a hair cut until he got us a contract. Unit6times.com reports that Mike’s hair stunt was a classy move. Unit6times.com is happy he did eventually have that mop cleaned and cut. He  did the entire organization a favor by losing the Geico caveman appearance. As for “Clouds lifting,” we’re all happy for you buddy, too bad the members don’t have all those freebies you enjoy! Hell, we’re lucky to receive a t-shirt these days.

After reading Jon Ortiz’s post, I can’t help to think that more than likely the Board of Directors (BOD) will probably re-elect Mike Jimenez out of fear. The individual member might say; ” Fear of what?” In short, the fear by local chapter presidents is that if they don’t vote for Mike Jimenez and he wins, the individual chapter they govern will suffer the wrath of Mike Jimenez’s Peace Officer’s Association (MJPOA). Meaning, they won’t get assistance from any resources at CCPOA HQs, which would include funding or legal/legislative help. In turn, this lack of cooperation from HQs reflects on the chapter president’s ability to get things accomplished locally. The final result, the members could turn on their own president resulting with her/him being unseated during the next election cycle, usually by a candidate loyal to Mike Jimenez. As a member, I hope this fear is dismissed and replaced with courage.

At the top of the website I have listed two candidates, whom have announced their run for the presidency. Unit6times.com will provide a page for anyone seeking this office. Please take the time to know these candidates. Feel free to write them or phone them because they need your support.

Read more: http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_state_worker/2011/05/mike-jimenez-ccpoa.html#ixzz1N6BehRNL

Gov. Jerry Brown’s revised budget plan axes 5,500 positions from state government and kills or combines more than three dozen boards, commissions, offices and task forces, but the blade won’t fall particularly heavily on Sacramento – if at all.

Although two-thirds of the job losses would hit the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, it has unfilled positions in its budget to absorb some cuts. About 200 to 300 at-risk jobs are positions in its Sacramento headquarters, Corrections Secretary Matt Cate said.

Dissolving boards may clean up the state’s organizational chart, but the task can be politically vexing and saves relatively little cash.

“This isn’t where the big money is. These are smaller pots of money,” said Michael Shires, a Pepperdine University political scientist. “And some of these boards tend to have fairly powerful members with connections.”

It’s no surprise that Brown wants to cut staffing for the state’s massive prison and parole department. With some 65,000 employees next year, 160,000 inmates and a $13 billion budget, corrections is the state general fund’s biggest single departmental expense.

The staff cut assumes that the state will shift responsibility for tens of thousands of inmates to local government as Brown’s budget envisions, starting July 1.

“Our plan is to go full force toward realignment as soon as possible,” Cate said.

That would give corrections a running start on shedding about 3,600 jobs, many of them correctional officer slots left vacant for the past few years.

The realignment assumes the public would vote for a five-year extension of current tax rates on sales and vehicles and a four-year extension of income tax rates. The sales and vehicle money would go to local governments to pay for their new responsibilities.

Republicans so far have refused to support the plan.

Brown’s budget also would ax 43 state commissions, boards and offices that he says have either outlived their usefulness or whose work can be done more efficiently.

The $82.7 million in savings won’t come close to eliminating the state’s $9.6 billion general fund deficit, but it could score symbolic points for the Democratic governor.

Getting rid of those government organs can be politically tricky, however.

The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board that Brown wants to dissolve pays its members $128,109 a year. Six of the seven current members are former legislators.

Another on Brown’s list, the state Medical Assistance Commission, negotiates Medi-Cal contracts with hospitals.

It pays its seven members $56,095 a year plus their travel expenses. The Democrat-controlled Senate Health Committee last month killed a measure by Sen. Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark, to eliminate the commission.

Its current members include the mother of former Sen. Dean Florez, the former chief of staff to former Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez and Vicki Marti, wife of former Schwarzenegger chief of staff Susan Kennedy.

Brown also targets the California Postsecondary Education Commission, which coordinates planning for the state’s public colleges and university systems. Its 16 members are named by the governor, the Senate, the Assembly and the university systems. They aren’t paid a salary but receive $50 per diem for attending meetings.

Other organizations on the chopping block will probably stir constituency protests, such as Commission on the Status of Women (an advocate for women’s issues), the Managed Risk Medical Insurance Board (which deals with the the state’s Healthy Families program) and the Fair Employment and Housing Commission (which handles discrimination claims).

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/17/3631824/california-state-workforce-cuts.html#ixzz1Mi6Uvlb4

Sacramento – Governor Jerry Brown on Monday signed legislation to enact labor contracts for more than 50,000 prison guards, attorneys, engineers and other state workers that are expected to save more than $300 million a year.

Brown signed the bill just hours after it was approved by the state Assembly. The 54-17 vote Monday afternoon was the minimum needed for approval of SB151 and came despite objections from Republican lawmakers that the contracts should have saved even more money.

Supporters said the contracts boosted the amount state workers pay toward their retirement benefits, and that any salary increases were meant to offset those higher contributions. The contracts contained “significant employee concessions that will immediately save the state millions of dollars” and continue to do so in future years, said Assemblyman Warren Furutani, D-Lakewood.

Opponents said the contracts should have included even stronger pension reforms and not increased salaries. Raising salaries when the state faces a continuing budget gap and has not imposed major changes to reduce unfunded pension obligations is irresponsible, said Assemblyman Tim Donnelly, R-Twin Peaks.

The contracts, particularly the possibility of lump-sum payouts for unused vacation pay in the prison guards contract, demonstrated that Gov. Jerry Brown is making policy decisions based on what’s best for state employees, not what’s best for California taxpayers, said Assemblyman Allan Mansoor, R-Costa Mesa.

Furutani said the vacation payments were necessary because prisons must be staffed around the clock and the state would have to hire more guards to allow employees to take all the vacation time they earn.

The new contracts increase employee contributions to their pensions by anywhere from 2 percent to 5 percent of their total salary. That’s in line with increases in other contracts negotiated last year by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration.

The deals also effectively lower employee salaries through one unpaid day off per month for the next year, and make it harder for workers to “spike” their pensions with inflated compensation in their last year on the job. Pension amounts that previously were determined by the highest single year of compensation are now based on the average of their top three years.

While the pension changes in the contracts may not go as far as some want, Furutani said during debate on the Assembly floor that the bill “does some pension reform and that pension reform was done at the bargaining table.”

Because the bill was enacted as an urgency measure that could take effect immediately, it needed a two-thirds majority for approval, requiring support from two Republican lawmakers in each house. The bill drew exactly the number of votes needed, with Republican lawmakers Katcho Achadjian of San Luis Obispo and Paul Cook of Yucca Valley backing it in the Assembly.

The bill was approved previously in the Senate by a similarly slim margin. It now goes to the governor’s desk.

Click here to visit the source of this article.

The California Correctional Peace Officers Association said Saturday that its members have approved the union’s tentative agreement with Gov. Jerry Brown by a wide margin.

CCPOA spokesman JeVaughn Baker said 11,651 of the ballots cast, 85.6 percent, favored the contract. He said 1,960, or 14.4 percent, opposed the deal.

The union represents roughly 32,000 correctional and parole officers who have been working without a contract since 2006. In 2007, then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger imposed terms on the union after mediated talks broke down.

The CCPOA contract is one of six pacts contained in Senate Bill 151, which will go up for an Assembly floor vote next week. If it garners two-thirds of the lower chamber’s vote, the legislation will go to Brown and become binding with his signature. The Senate has already approved the bill.

– Jon Ortiz

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2011/05/15/3627685/correctional-officers-union-oks.html#ixzz1MR5GOtQt

Click here for to read the bill!

RIVERSIDE, Calif. (AP) — A man who was shot by police after killing his ex-girlfriend and another man at a Southern California home had a history of court clashes with the woman.

The Riverside Press-Enterprise says court records indicate that the woman had sought a permanent restraining order against Virgil Millon, who had sued her. She also notified him on Monday that she planned to sue him.

Neighbors say Millon was living in a garage across the street from a home he jointly owned with his ex, Arabella Bradford, and that they had been feuding over the house.

Police say on Tuesday, Millon killed Bradford and a male friend who were having a barbecue at the home. Millon was later shot in a police confrontation.

Riverside Police reported that according to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Office of Public and Employee Communications, Arabella Bradford was a Parole Agent I with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. She began her career with CDCR as a Youth Correctional Counselor on April 1, 1997.

Malvin Conley was a CDCR Correctional Officer at California Institution for Men in Chino. He began his career with CDCR on July 25, 1993. He worked at California State Prison-Los Angeles County in Lancaster before transferring to CIM on December 6, 2004, according to Riverside Police.

Virgil Millon was a lieutenant with CDCR’s Division of Juvenile Justice from April 10, 1987 to August 6, 2008. He began his career as a Youth Correctional Officer at the Heman G. Stark Youth Correctional Facility in Chino, according to police.

Anyone with information about the case is asked to call the Riverside Police Department’s Robbery/Homicide Unit at (951) 353-7134.

How small is the California prison population likely to become if Gov. Jerry Brown has his way? In three years, California’s prison population would be 20 percent smaller.

When we chatted on the phone on the issue last week (always an experience) Brown sounded more like his old self – a left-wing talk-show host of the 1990s rather than the tough-on-crime Oakland mayor and state attorney general who followed.

There are always two Jerry Browns. There’s the talk-show Brown who likened American incarceration rates to “absolute oppression.” A decade later, Attorney General Brown fought three federal judges who ordered California to release 37,000 to 58,000 inmates to relieve overcrowding, arguing that the judicial panel “does not recognize the imperatives of public safety, nor the challenges of incarcerating criminals, many of whom are deeply disturbed.”

Now as governor, he has signed a bill to transfer some 37,000 inmates – felons convicted of nonviolent, nonserious, non-sex crimes – to local jurisdictions over three years. The move should save boatloads of money, as jail beds cost about half the $50,000 annual tab per state prison inmate. “Low-level offenders” also could be diverted to community programs, parole or home detention. Critics call it a get-out-of-jail-free card.

For the 47,000 inmates serving fewer than 90 days last year (they violated parole or have served a chunk of their time in jail), the current system makes no sense. As Brown noted, “all these damn lawsuits” require expensive medical, dental and psych evaluations whenever inmates are admitted, even for short stays.

Brown also argued that the U.S. Supreme Court could issue a ruling “any day” that forces the state to release inmates to relieve overcrowding as per the three judges – an odd pronouncement from the state’s erstwhile lawyer. I think he’s wrong. Recent big bench decisions have steamrolled over federal judges’ intrusions into state justice policy.

As always happens, Brown is amazed that I don’t see that his plan is “conservative.” “This represents the best thinking of people in penology,” he explains – and an end to what he calls wasteful “$50,000 scholarships.”

On the short-timers, he is right, but he should have stopped there, and not attempted to throw all “low-level” felons to the counties as well. When Brown starts talking about incarceration rates in Europe and arguing that “local people” are more “in touch” with offenders, I think of San Francisco – the city that flew drug offenders to Tegucigalpa, Honduras, to help them evade federal immigration authorities in 2008. I think about the 40 crimes – including felony domestic violence, assaulting a police officer, solicitation for murder and human trafficking – left out of an earlier version of the bill.

Brown notes that local law enforcement supports the plan. Of course they do. They’re starving for money. Brown promises that there will be “no realignment unless money follows it.” (He doesn’t have the money yet because his tax-extension proposal didn’t qualify for the June ballot, but he’s working on it. )

In the last five years, changes in the parole system have reduced the number of state prison inmates by 11,000 in five years. Criminal Justice Legal Foundation President Michael Rushford sees a link between California’s tough sentencing system and its low crime rate. He predicts that the state’s next crime report “is going to be a little higher,” and next year, “a lot higher.”

Maybe Rushford’s wrong. Maybe he’s right. The question is, to paraphrase not Brown but Dirty Harry: Do you feel lucky?

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/05/07/INN21JB7OL.DTL#ixzz1LtJ36M5G