While You Were on Duty: We Stopped SB 357 (Again)

A 24-hour fight in Sacramento ends with Senator Menjivar pulling the bill

by Barb Maynard, Consultant, AFSCME Local 685

Dear Sisters and Brothers,

While Local 685 members were on duty and catching some well-earned rest – and your union leadership was in Chicago representing you at the AFSCME International Convention – an intense fight was unfolding in Sacramento over your jobs, your rights, and the confidentiality of juvenile case files.

As your union's consultant, I was in the middle of that fight, working closely with President Curtis Chambers, our labor partners, and our legislative team as the situation changed hour by hour. Since many of you may not know exactly what happens behind the scenes when legislation threatens our members, I wanted to share what happened over the last 24 hours.

Yesterday, Senator Caroline Menjivar unveiled an eleventh-hour complete rewrite, known in Sacramento as a "gut and amend," of Senate Bill 357.

The original provisions we had been fighting were stripped from the bill. But in their place came a new threat: language granting broadly defined Department of Youth Development (DYD) "personnel" statutory access to highly confidential juvenile case files.

The problem was what the bill didn't say.

It did not adequately define who qualified as DYD "personnel." It did not contain sufficient safeguards governing background checks, training, need-to-know access, record security, or dissemination. Yet these files can contain extraordinarily sensitive information about youth, victims, witnesses, families, probation officers, and other justice-system personnel.

Just as importantly for Local 685 members, the legislation did not clearly prevent access to Probation records from becoming a pathway for DYD to gradually assume work currently performed by Probation employees.

We immediately went to work.

Curtis and I were in constant communication as we worked with our labor and legislative partners to analyze the new language, identify the threats to our members, and determine what protections would be necessary.

Working together with our Teamsters partners, we took an "Oppose Unless Amended" position and developed detailed amendments that would have:

• Required appropriate background checks, training, security, and need-to-know protections before accessing confidential records;

• Prevented records from being shared with outside organizations;

• Preserved Probation and court authority over placement, detention, and release decisions;

• Prevented access to Probation records from being used to transfer Probation duties to DYD; and

• Protected Probation positions, bargaining-unit work, and collective bargaining rights.

When those protections were not accepted, we prepared to take the fight directly to every member of the California State Assembly.

And Local 685 was not standing alone.

We were prepared to deliver an opposition letter backed by the combined strength of AFSCME Local 685, AFSCME Local 1967, the Supervising Deputy Probation Officers/Teamsters Local 986, AFSCME Council 36, AFSCME California, and Teamsters California.

Moments before that opposition letter was to be delivered to the Assembly, Senator Menjivar agreed to pull SB 357.

I want members to understand how that happened.

Throughout those 24 hours, Curtis and I were in constant contact, even as he represented Local 685 members at the AFSCME International Convention in Chicago. His frontline experience and detailed understanding of Probation were critical to identifying how seemingly technical legislative language could affect the actual work our members perform every day. That knowledge helped us craft amendments designed to protect both our members and the integrity of Probation.

This outcome would not have been possible without the detailed knowledge and experience of Local 685 President Curtis Chambers. Curtis remained in constant contact throughout the fight from Chicago, where he is representing Local 685 members at the AFSCME International Convention. His frontline experience was critical in identifying the problems in the proposed legislation and crafting amendments that protected our members and Probation.

This fight also reflects the leadership of the Local 685 Executive Board, which has remained unwavering in its commitment to protecting Local 685 members, your bargaining-unit work, and the future of the probation profession. That strong foundation allowed us to move quickly and decisively when this new threat emerged.

My role was to work with our team in Sacramento to turn that knowledge into legislative strategy and language and work with our labor partners to build the opposition necessary to stop the bill.

That is what strong union representation looks like behind the scenes.

It starts with members who know the work. It requires leadership that understands and listens to those members. It takes advocates who can translate that knowledge into action. And when the stakes are high, it requires labor organizations willing to stand together and use their collective strength.

SB 357 has been pulled. That is a significant victory.

But the larger fight to protect Probation, rebuild the Department, defend your bargaining-unit work, and ensure that reform includes the professionals who actually do this work continues.

For today, though, know this:

When the threat emerged, your union was ready. We stood together. And we stopped it.

In solidarity,

Barb Maynard

Consultant, AFSCME Local 685