SCHA-LA

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: ,

summary of motion

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

revised motion:

“Move that up to $300k of funding be utilized by OAPP at it’s discretion to provide stable housing for HIV+ persons & their families who would otherwise lose their current housing due to their inability to qualify for other credible programs.”

discussion:

“want to make sure that the neediest families get it first. Want to make sure that the money is used for housing and that it doesn’t get used somewhere else.”

“the word undocumented was taken out on purpose. We were told that we legally shouldn’t say that.”

“$1,329 per person is what it comes out to. Is this enough money to really help? Is OAPP the agency which can really make it happen with that little amount of money. I’ in support of making this happen. Also, I’m gonna get a lot of questions about where this money is coming from. I don’t see the city stepping in in a proactive way. I understand the pressure we can apply, but… they might not be proactive in this process. It’s a lot of questions.”

“I applaud OAPP for this. This motion is fraught with peril frankly. these folks are not gonna be kept in their current housing with this money. They are going to have to move out. If it’s stopgap and instant – is it THIS instant? as much as this is an issue of justice, I think this motion is problematic on a lot of issues and I move to postpone. And I will come back if we need to schedule an emergency meeting I will be there.”

“There was a second to the motion to postpone. This will require a majority vote. YES means consider at a future date. NO means vote today.” result:  MOTION NOT CARRIED.

Back to the motion at the top of this post:

“purely personal. This IS something we have to do today. We’re talking about people… we’re not talking about helping them AFTER they lost their housing. To engage them into case after that – the cost will be huge.”

“I want to help these people but I don’t think this is the way to do it. OAPP can do it with Net County Cost (NCC). I believe they can and will do so. It’s inappropriate to emotionally pull this money from we don’t know where”

people are talking too fast for me to accurately transcribe, so this is rough…

“I’m going to oppose this motion [because] it’s a very emotional issue – we all want a solution. This is a potentially illegal use of Ryan White dollars. This potentially highlights our ability to use RW  for undocumented [and what the fallout of that would be] Politically it creates a release valve and therefore doesn’t force the question on the original issue. I don’t like that outcome because it causes people to lose their housing, but it must be done to find a permanent solution.

There are 5 households who are being evicted in May, but more in June, July & August. Over the next 12 months there are 124 vulnerable households who could be removed involuntarily from their homes.

I would not say that this pot of money is stepping in to address that. I would say that this pot of money is there if it is needed.

We want to assist people in the Shelter Plus Care (S+C) program. Terry Goddard mentioned other programs which could be affected. We are only working on S+C issue. That’s all we’re talking about in this motion.

I am concerned that I don’t think that anyone here wants to vote to take away housing from someone. I can say that speaking from experience (referring to nutrition support drama last year). Caution us to pay attention to how we frame/phrase what we are doing.

It is implied that there may be other resources. If that is the case, we would like OAPP to spend other resources prior to using these funds – can we say that in the motion? We would like a demonstration that other resources have been exhausted?

We can say that this is funding of last resort. You would have to amend the motion.

Parliamentarian says that there might be “some implication” about who/what “last resort” means.

Motion to amend the motion seconded.

We have no authority to make a motion of net county cost.

co-chairs do not object to addition of this language.

Motion amended to include that language about ‘last resort’

If we don’t address this now it will cost more to the county in the end.

Regardless of how we vote today, this is a major public health issue. This is a canary in the coalmine. My suggestion is that we try to prioritize families with children first.

Sharon White (public comment): as a rep for SPA 6 (south LA) I heard some things about the MAI (Minority AIDS Initiative). I just want to know: how are there funds that are left over?

[public comment is not answered but it can be added to the agenda for P&P so it can be discussed]

this vote is outside of the conversation about actual allocations continuing in P&P subcommittee meetings.

NEW MOTION:

“Move that up to $300k of Ryan White funding be utilized by OAPP at it’s discretion to provide stable housing for HIV+ persons & their families who would otherwise lose their current housing due to their inability to qualify for other credible programs. Ryan White funding should only be used if other funding sources can’t be found or utilized.”

summary of the pre-vote comments: don’t pick on people who don’t vote the way you want them too. Everyone around the table is great.

watt – y

washington-hendricks – y

Villa –

sotomayor – y

simon – y

rivera – y

peterson – y

goddard – y

o’malley – y

o’brien – n

lopez – y

long – abs

liso – y

kochems – n

johnson – n

james – y

goodman – y

guigni – y

engeran-cordova – n

deaugustine – abs

ceja – y

butler – abs

ballesteros – y

avina – y

daly – y

braswell – y

yes = 17

no = 4

abstain – 4

PASSES

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: ,