CSU stance on the minimum wage bullshit

Posted in CA Budget by SCHA-LA on July 3, 2010

CSU Employees Not Impacted By Governor’s Minimum Wage Order
(July 2, 2010) – In response to Governor Schwarzenegger’s directive today to cut the pay of state workers to the federal minimum wage until a budget is passed, the California State University announced that CSU employees will continue to receive their regular compensation.
“We want to let CSU employees know that we have received confirmation from the State Controller’s office that our employees’ compensation is not impacted by this order,” said CSU Chancellor Charles B. Reed. “Employees will receive their regular paychecks and can expect their normal compensation.” The CSU intends to pay its employees with alternative revenue sources other than state general funds if it becomes necessary.
Gov. Schwarzenegger has announced an order to cut the pay of about 200,000 state workers to the federal minimum wage of $7.25 an hour until a budget is signed. Payroll decisions for the first month of the fiscal year, which began on July 1, do not need to be made until July 20.

click on the link for the official Minimum Wage document

Tagged with: ,

Governor’s Proposed HIV Budget

Posted in CA Budget, hiv by SCHA-LA on June 22, 2010

Brief-State Budget Cuts #9 FY10-11 May Revise-061010-final to read the whole 3-page brief.

Highlights (or, rather, lowlights) include:

  • The budget includes the Governor’s January proposal to eliminate all ADAP support from county jails.
  • There is a proposed $32.7 million reduction to ADAP.
  • Eliminate full MediCal coverage for immigrants who have lawfully resided in the US less than five years.
  • Eliminate domestic and related services for IHSS recipients who have “less severe” impairments
  • Reduce the monthly SSI grant for an individual
  • Eliminate Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) and the California Food Assistance Program (CFAP)
  • The complete elimination of CalWORKs by October 1, 2010.

Tagged with: ,

CA May HIV Budget Revision Proposal

Posted in CA Budget by SCHA-LA on June 22, 2010

Click on the link to download the brief:  Brief-State Budget Cuts #9 FY10-11 May Revise-061010-final

Tagged with: ,

Q and A With Dr. Roland

Posted in CA Budget, hiv by SCHA-LA on May 13, 2010

Questions to Dr Roland:

5.6million allocation from HRSA. What is the breakdown again?

ADAP $4.7m

MAI $207k

Base $691.6k

“diversion communities” 9k

Are there any attempts to amend bill that would allow electronic reporting from other jurisdictions?

Not aware of any being prepared by author. That limitation is recognized. Very difficult for me to talk abt legislation when it is active.

Re CA care & prevention plans – what’s up?

CPG/OA Jointly developing integrated care & prevention plan. It’s really impossible to do good planning or programming with separate plans, but in terms of planning we need to do, we need to have a joint plan. Foremost charge of cpg.

Room for community input- but no details from michelle about what that means.

Tagged with: ,

update from State Office of AIDS

Posted in CA Budget, hiv by SCHA-LA on May 13, 2010

Michelle Roland’s update (State Office of AIDS)
May Revise:
Might come out at 11 instead of 1. As soon as she knows she’ll send out notifications. There is a lt more likely to be in the budget which will impact PWAs than just SOA programs.
Program Allocations:
Re: increased HRSA Part B award: we got $5.6mill. very specific abt alloc $4.7 to ADAP $307k to MAI and … (didn’t get it – sorry.)
CARE funding has been a distressing situation for us. Last year we sent out 2 sets of allocation tables. 1st made initial decisions about how to handle loss of general funds, but then got an increase (1 time supplement) and we don’t have that at this point, so we’re back to that same pot + a little bit of addl $ in base award.
There is 89% of resources compared to last year.
LA County minus LB had reduction to 89.2% of the current FY allocation.
Continuing to work with all allocation formulas as fast as possible to move to a straight formula… many subjective issues which come up with changing …
Hard to have less $ on top of less $
Main diff with MAI is that last year there were 2 counties which would have rcvd MAI but they didn’t b/c of not getting previous bridge funding and there might not be capacity to do reporting, but this year they weill get it. 19 counties instead of 17. The amt is bad. Current year – for entire state is $875k. next year $1mill for entire state. Tyring to figure out a balance of giving jurisdictions a reasonable, meaningful amount and trying to stretch to as many jurisdictions as possible.
This year we anticipate receiving $1m less from general funds. Good news is that when we were faced with this last year, with all the ehars and names-based changes, we had to terminate any contracts with any academic partners who were helping us with research. All OA staff entirely funded with CDC research funds. This year, though, we have to pass the reduction to the local jurisdictions. Used a 2-step capping strategy… hold-harmless factors…
Everyone is doing a great job getting data into our surveillance systems associated with ehars transition. We are still not a names-based state yet. Increased RW award shows this.
AB2541 re: electronic lab reporting issue. The state system is under development & getting ready to be piloted. We need to ensure that hiv will be part of this.
Some sort of matching system between office of corrections & office of aids. Able to leverage this to understand better what is happening with hiv+ inmates. Questions about reporting from those institutions.
Successfully completed ehars migration. Not been able to implement full functionality due to state issues.

Tagged with: ,

Budget Analysis Slides

Posted in CA Budget by SCHA-LA on January 14, 2010

Pres-State 2010 Budget Cuts Overview-011410 Julie Cross gave an excellent overview of what is going on with the budget, and the complex context in which we have to strategize.

Tagged with: ,

sign-on letter to preserve AIDS Drug Assistance Program in CA

Posted in CA Budget by SCHA-LA on November 20, 2009
All,I know that this will come as a surprise to a lot of you, but we haven’t had much of a chance to talk with the community about the forthcoming expected ADAP crisis in California yet. We have been pulling together materials and developing a brief so that we could alert the community with as much information as possible. Part of our response includes a planning community sign-on letter for the end of the month.

However, not all plans work according to our schedules and we have just been alerted that we need to produce the community sign-on letter and need to have as many organizations as possible sign on IMMEDIATELY.

I hope you will understand the urgency of this issue and the important of adding your name to the chorus now.


Craig A. Vincent-Jones
Executive Director
Los Angeles County Commission on HIV
3530 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1140
Los Angeles, CA 90010

TEL 213.639.6714
FAX 213.637.4748

Please read the sign-on letter below. At this point, we’re only signing organizations/groups. Have them confirm their names with Craig Vincent Jones ( or Dawn McClendon ( PLEASE DO THIS AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. TIME IS OF THE

November 19, 2009

The Honorable Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor of California
State Capitol Building
Sacramento, California 95814

RE: Full Funding for the AIDS Drug Assistance Program

Dear Governor Schwarzenegger:

We are writing to demand full funding for California’s AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP) in FY 2010-2011.

ADAP is the cornerstone of California’s public health effort to fight HIV/AIDS. Failure to fully fund the program will leave thousands of Californians at risk for more severe illness and even death. Underfunding could also cause a public health disaster and significantly limit the state’s ability to prevent new HIV infections. Reductions in ADAP will cost the state millions more in future health care dollars than any savings realized in the near term. Cuts in ADAP will also increase burdens on our already-taxed emergency rooms and other “safety net” providers who are not equipped to deal effectively with HIV and AIDS.

More than 34,000 low-income uninsured and underinsured Californians depend on ADAP for life-saving medications. Reduction in ADAP services will lead to advanced HIV disease, increased co-morbidities and even premature death for Californians living with HIV.

Medications provided by ADAP can help prevent transmission of HIV. People on effective treatment regimens can reduce their viral load (the amount of HIV detected in the blood) to undetectable levels which makes them less likely to transmit the virus to others. For every new HIV infection we prevent, the state saves an estimated $600,000
in lifetime treatment costs.

California cut essential life-saving state HIV/AIDS programs by some $85 million last year. The cuts vastly reduced the state’s capacity to prevent, treat and serve the estimated 160,000 Californians living with HIV/AIDS. Any cuts to ADAP will leave many living with HIV no access to life-saving drugs and Californians at risk vulnerable to a renewed spread of the virus.’

We urge you to show leadership in your FY 2010 -2011 budget proposal by fully funding ADAP. People wlth HIV and people at risk for HIV must not be asked to pay for state budget cuts with their health and their lives.


AIDS Emergency Fund
AIDS Legal Referral Panel
AIDS Project Los Angeles
AIDS Service Center
American Academy of HIV Medicine, California Chapter
Asian and Pacific Islander Wellness Center
Behavioral Health Services, Inc.
Black Coalition on AIDS
California Conference of Local AIDS Directors
California Positive Women’s Network
Center for AIDS Research, Educations, and Services of Sacramento
Charles Drew University of Medicine and Science HIV/AIDS Education and Outreach Projects
City of Los Angeles, AIDS Coordinator’s Office
City of Pasadena Public Health Department
Common Ground-The Westside Community Center
County of Los Angeles, Department of Public Health, Office of AIDS Programs and Policy
Desert AIDS Project
Face to Face/Sonoma County AIDS Network
Foothill AIDS Project
HIV ACCESS   Alameda County, CA
HIV Health Services Planning Council-San Francisco
HIV Health Services Planning Council-Sacramento
Immune Enhancement Project
Los Angeles County HIV Drug & Alcohol Task Force
Los Angeles County HIV Mental Health Task Force
Los Angeles County Commission on HIV
Leland House, Catholic Charities CYO
Lutheran Social Services of Northern California
Martin Luther King/Multi-Service Ambulatory Care Center – OASIS Clinic
Mental Health America of San Diego County
North County Health Services, Inc.
Northeast Valley Health Corporation
Positive Resource Center
Project Inform
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
San Francisco Community Clinic Consortium
Sonoma County Commission on AIDS
Sonoma County People with AIDS Advocacy Committee/Reconnect Action Committee
Strong Consulting
Van Ness Recovery House
Women Organized to Respond to Life-Threatening Disease

Tagged with: ,

Office of AIDS FY2009-10 Budget Implementation Plan

Posted in CA Budget, hiv by SCHA-LA on August 19, 2009

first 12 pages (summary) of 78.

Approximately $85 million General Fund (GF) was eliminated in FY2009-10. This is approximately half of the FY2008-09 GF. The total OA budget for FY2009-10 is $487.6 million. This includes $154 million in Federal Funds and $251 million in ADAP rebate funds (Special Fund).

Tagged with: ,

images from 08/11/09 protest against the hiv budget cuts

Posted in Activism, CA Budget, hiv by SCHA-LA on August 13, 2009
Tagged with: ,

can I talk about gay marriage?

Posted in CA Budget, hiv, lgbt, transgender by SCHA-LA on August 10, 2009

some thought off the top of my head after reading this article:

I am uncomfortable writing about this, because my wife and I got married and our marriage was upheld, so in a way I feel that I’ve lost the right to discuss this issue. I don’t want to come off as “ha ha! I got married and you can’t … but let’s move on”. Because I don’t feel that way. In fact, we have really had to – and continue to – soul-search about what it means that we are married now.

But if I had the right, I would say this:

It is unconscionable to pursue marriage in the state of California during this budget nightmare, which is hitting the most vulnerable folks in our various lesbian, gay, trans- communities very, very hard. And which isn’t going away or getting better.

Before the budget situation, I had qualms about centering marriage in the public gay & lesbian discourse because it took focus off of issues with real-world, on-the-ground ramifications (incarceration, the criminalization of poverty and poverty itself, HIV rates, homelessness etc. in our communities to name a few examples). Plus, there are the political and ethical issues which retain to marriage: propping up a sexist institution, inequality, assimilation, freedom etc., which, while all worthy of thought and discussion, don’t have the same material impact. And then there was my now-wife’s adamant insistence on political grounds that she would never get married. We were already domestic partners, and there are no real material benefits to marriage here in California. It’s not like I can sponsor her green card if she gets laid off just because we’re gay-married in California.

Of course it would be a different story all together if we were talking about federally recognized marriage with all of the rights and responsibilities it accrues. But we’re not. And since we’re not – I have to say that soliciting money to move forward with anti Prop 8 ballot initiatives now is wrong.

And social service organizations that serve the LGBT community are worried that there won’t be enough money for social services, especially after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger cut $52 million in AIDS services from the state budget last month.

Actually, it was $82 million, and remember that this budget isn’t going to hold. the state is expected to be $7 – $8 billion dollars in the hole at the start of the next fiscal year. Which will certainly mean more cuts to HIV – if there is anything left to cut.

If we really want to put our proverbial money where our mouths are, we could do well to remember that virtually all services for transfolks in California are funded through HIV money. As an “LGBT community” I think that we need to consider this when we are thinking about where to donate money.

And many of the non-HIV-specific cuts the state has enacted disproportionately impact HIV+ folks and the people most at risk for HIV infection or transmission. The cuts to HIV in the state include, in addition to care, HIV testing, prevention and education and risk reduction. Keep that in mind.

One of the reasons to press on with a ballot initiative in 2010 that the article lists is that they have been reaching out to new audiences. And by that, they say they are talking about communities of color, and communities in the central valley. I wonder what it looks like to those communities – both hard hit on many fronts – by the budget cuts. I would imagine that it would seem, at best, to be a campaign that is out of touch with the people of the state and their financial concerns. At worst, it looks like privileged gay and lesbian couples who don’t care about anyone’s issues besides their own.

I fear that both of those are true to an extent.

If I just got laid off (or, in my case, furloughed – which I already have) and I opened my mailbox to a solicitation for money for this issue, I’d be fucking furious! And I’m gay! Imagine how irritated someone might be who is on the fence about gay marriage, or who is willing to give this issue some thought. Anyone who has done the slightest bit of research knows that there are no real benefits which are going to accrue to CA gay marriage. Yet they are informed that a successful campaign will cost $50 million.

Even though they got the figure wrong in their article, stating that $52 million was being cut to HIV – how can anyone look at that, and compare $50 million to get this on the ballot and think that this makes sense right now? If they can raise $50 million and they throw it into an election – what does that say about what we think about our community: who we are, what our needs are, or what values we hold?

So why muddy the waters for the agencies which are going to go under – whether it’s HIV prevention, small community agencies or health clinics, or whatever – why make it harder for them to fund-raise? If we believe that gay marriage is an equal rights issue, just like any equal rights issue, than we must consider that the right to stay healthy, housed, or HIV-negative – the right to attend college, (or to know how to read, for that matter!), the right to be free, the right to be safe in one’s school or community (or family), the right to eat –  are also civil rights. And these rights are life-and-death for many people in our communities.

So please … let’s lift up the most hard-hit in our communities. Let’s figure out how to get our people healthy, safe, and strong – then we can all move forward together. And that will provide the strong foundation we need to build true community and strong coalitions and alliances.   And then we can (and must) debate on the issues around marriage itself.