Varpness.com

// July 10th, 2009 // 3 Comments » // Rejoinder

Even while a growing number of people in the Central Valley are becoming outraged over Senator Florez’ campaign to take CVRC employees’ salaries, there are still a few individuals that have some misguided ideas about the one-time salary adjustments that were issued a few weeks ago. While many parents and family members of CVRC clients are saying things like, “I am so sorry to see that this is happening to such a good agency,” and, “They deserved their bonuses,” others are still not so sure. Hopefully by the end of this article, we can all come to a better understanding of how regional centers work, and be better educated when sharing our ideas publicly.

It has been suggested that CVRC should have send the $500,000 in surplus funds to the State, alleging these were taxpayer funds. Again, this information is incorrect. The excess funds don’t belong to taxpayers any more than Senator Florez’ saving account funds belong to the taxpayers. The State made a contracted agreement to pay the privately owned CVRC a specific amount to perform their job, and while other regional centers in California failed to manage their money appropriately, CVRC made the necessary operations adjustments to provide their promised, contracted services within their budget. Other regional centers are actually having to go back to the State to request additional money, due to their irresponsible management of what they were paid. Senator Florez should consider contacting CVRC director Robert Riddick and the Board and asking them to provide insight and training on how to manage a regional center in a fiscally responsible manner. In a time when so many companies are failing, isn’t is refreshing to see one that does their job for the agree-upon price?

Another misconception a few people have is in regards to the State cutting dental, vision, and podiatry services to disabled adults. This was a decision that California lawmakers made, including Senator Dean Florez; so CVRC has no way of providing those services, even with the paltry $500,000 left over from the operations budget. Unfortunately, the CVRC operations budget is completely separate from their budget to provide services, so it is actually illegal for CVRC to use that $500,000 for anything other than operations, including payment of staff members who made sacrifices in order to stay within their means.

Finally, there is a great deal of ignorance concerning the Board of Directors for CVRC. They have been called imbeciles, lacking in foresight, and described in other negative and invalid ways. Two facts should help educate everyone with an opinion of the board members, and resolve this argument once and for all. The Board did not vote to give themselves any of the $500,000 in salary adjustments. They voted to award the money to case managers who have had to take on the workload of 17 vacant positions that have not been filled. They voted to award the money to employees who have not been allowed to claim any overtime pay, despite the fact that they have taken on much more responsibility with, before now, absolutely no additional compensation. The Board voted to award the money to people who did everything asked of them in order to fulfill their State contract without begging for more money. One uninformed individual said that the board members don’t know what clients and vendors are going through; yes they do. CVRC’s Board of Directors and committees are made up of clients, parents, vendors, and community leaders and absolutely know what clients and vendors are going through. This is not something being reported in local papers for some reason, but the Board and committees are actually comprised of the very vendors and clients that CVRC services. You cannot get much more ethical than this. The Board knows what vendors and clients are going through and they also know what CVRC employees are going through and have gone through in order to be fully responsible with the money taxpayers paid them to perform a valuable service to our community.

(Matthew Varpness is a local educator who hopes this article will help others come to ethical, sound conclusions based on logical thought.)

// July 9th, 2009 // 2 Comments » // Rejoinder

State Senate Majority Leader Dean Florez just issued a press release regarding the Board of Central Valley Regional Center’s decision to return the $500,000 salary increase for employees of CVRC. (See my previous article for more information.) Senator Florez says that he is “pleased to learn the Board… has acted promptly to reverse the distribution of half a million dollars in ‘leftover’ funds as pay bonuses in the midst of a budget crisis.” And he should be pleased; after all, this was something that Senator Florez became quite vocal about only a few days ago. But there are a few things regarding Sentor Florez’ press release that should concern everyone involved in this story, people in favor and opposed to the one-time salary adjustment alike.

When CVRC’s executive director Robert Riddick wrote to Senator Florez and informed the Senator that the Board had voted to return the funds, Mr. Riddick requested that the money be earmarked especially “for programs and services under the Department of Developmental Services.” Senator Florez should have been thrilled to hear this, and should have assured Riddick that the funds would be used in such a manner; he did not. Instead, Senator Florez said, “I will see what avenues are still available to make that happen.” In other words, there is no guarantee the money will be used for the disabled community at all, and if one were to look at Sacramento’s track record with management of the general funds, it won’t happen at all.

While we can appreciate the fact that Senator Florez offered to take a voluntary cut of 5% from his own salary a few months ago, it should be noted that the $500,000 in funds were already allocated to the operations of CVRC, have already been paid to the employees (in many cases, have already been spent), and such a return is not voluntary but forced by the Board under the pressure and threats of the California State government. This is not the same as Senator Dean Florez’ generous pay reduction. Telling CVRC to return the $500,000 in well-managed “leftover” funds is more like telling Senator Florez to return all of the salary he has “left over” after paying his mortgage, utilities, and gardeners. CVRC was responsible with their operations funds, as I’m sure Senator Florez is responsible with what he has been given.

At the risk of introducing an ad hominem argument, it should also be said that Senator Florez raised no concern with a proposal that passed and went into effect July 1st which cut dental, vision, and podiatry services to all adult Medi-Cal recipients, including those with developmental disabilities. Granted Senator Florez was not on the subcommittee which dealt with this proposal, but it is concerning that he would ignore such a huge cut to services, while complaining about the CVRC funds that were legally awarded to CVRC employees instead of being returned to him and his constituents. As State Senator Dean Florez prepares for his 2010 run as Lieutenant Governor of the State of California, I sincerely hope he is not using this issue to garner favor with California voters, being that corporate bonuses have been such a hot topic recently. The elimination of vital dental and vision care for the disabled community is a much more important issue, but thus far has received little or no attention from Senator Florez simply because it is not an issue being discussed in the public eye right now.

// July 9th, 2009 // 8 Comments » // Rejoinder

An Associated Press story broke on Tuesday regarding a one-time salary adjustment given to Central Valley Regional Center employees toiling in Fresno and surrounding areas. Unfortunately, due in part to this article’s misleading portrayal of the salary adjustment, along with concerned but ultimately ignorant individuals who have voiced their opinions regarding the adjustment, all 350 employees who were already issued their salary adjustments will be required to figure out a way to give it back.

The fallacy of the argument against the salary adjustments is based on the suggestion that these adjustments are, to quote the AP story, “taxpayer-funded bonuses even as the state’s fiscal crisis threatens the services they manage.” First, these are not bonuses, meaning they are not predicated on an employee’s performance or the company’s success in turning a profit. These are salary adjustments, in the same way that Associated Press writer Garance Burke expects to receive a salary adjustment over time to compensate for cost-of-living increases. Second, saying the adjustments are “taxpayer funded” is misleading and dishonest. CVRC was hired by the state to provide services to the mentally disabled community for a contracted amount, meaning the state has already allocated the funds to CVRC. No additional taxpayer money was required to pay these employees their one-time salary adjustments. The money was already paid to CVRC in order to perform a function, which they did completely and admirably.

You see, the difference between this private company completing the work and the state government is simple: if the government were in charge of CVRC, they would have gone over their budget and demanded additional funds from the taxpayers. CVRC completed the work, and had a little money left over, for which they were legally and ethically at liberty to do with as they pleased. In this case, CVRC opted to provide their employees a small, one-time salary adjustment to help compensate for the difficult economic times and cuts in the past. It is not a matter of the employees deserving the money or not, and to suggest that the employees of CVRC shouldn’t receive this money because is was “left over” is as silly as saying our state representatives shouldn’t be allowed to purchase a new car because they have money “left over” after they paid their mortgage and utility bills.

This leads us to the heart of the issue, and where many people may have gone logically astray. There is a problem growing in America, specifically in California, where people who make poor choices are rewarded, while people who make good choices are punished. We have seen this with the mortgage, bank, and auto manufacture bailouts so frequently this past year that all of us have become quite wary of it, and rightfully so. Naturally, a person hearing about the CVRC salary adjustments is inclined to lump this in with all of the other companies that gave their employees bonuses, even as they were receiving federal bailout funds. However, this is not the case with CVRC. This local company did not request nor receive additional federal or state money in order to remain solvent for another year. Central Valley Regional Center performed so fically responsibly, that there was money left over, even after all budgeted expenses and services were paid for. To complain about CVRC rewarding it’s employees is a slap in the face to those people who, instead of squandering money or figuring out how to play the system, acted in a forthright and responsible manner.

I realize though, some people won’t be swayed by the logic or ethics of this argument, so I’ll end with some hard facts concerning the $500,000 salary adjustments. Suppose CVRC were to give the money back to California, as was suggested by Chuck Genseal in the AP article, what do you think California would have done with that money? Reallocated it to more important state services? Used it to pay down the ungodly debt California has amassed? Given it as bonuses to their own employees? Who knows? And as likely as anything it would have simply disappeared as money in California has a tendency to do. But one thing is for certain, the state would realize CVRC is getting by with even less money than they were allocated, which means less money for CVRC next year. Does the disabled community really think this is a good thing? So what if the extra $500,000 were given to the 230,000 people with mental disabilities who receive services from CVRC? Well, this would mean those 230,000 individuals would enjoy another $2.17 of services each. That’s two dollars and seventeen cents. I’m not sure what Chuck Genseal of Madera expects his granddaughter with autism to receive for $2.17, but it wouldn’t be much.

Never mind the fact that most CVRC employees have spent hundreds, if not thousands of dollars each on extra expenses that were never reimbursed. These employees pay for their own pre-paid cellphones and use them everyday in order to communicate with care providers and arrange meeting schedules and services while on their way to appointments. The taxpayers do not pay for this. These employees make cookies and other treats with their families, on their own time, and deliver them to clients during holidays. The taxpayers do not pay for this. You see, the employees of CVRC are not state workers who sit atop fancy offices in Sacramento, pushing papers all day. These people are a part of our community, living and caring for people that many in our society look down upon and mistreat. Instead of bemoaning these salary adjustments, Chuck Genseal and others like him should be celebrating the fact that those individuals, who go well beyond what is asked of them in order to serve the disabled community, are receiving a little help for their own families during these difficult economic times.

Unfortunately, it has been announced today that those justified and ethical salary adjustments are going to be rescinded. So go ahead and score another one for the responsible people being punish, and the irresponsible people being rewarded, just like the banks, mortgage holders, and automobile manufacturers. Hollow victories are the worst, aren’t they?

(Matthew Varpness is a local educator who hopes this article might educate someone who reads it.)