Prison guards union shows its softer side

Is one of California’s most feared unions now playing nice?

That’s the question on many minds here as the capital confronts an overcrowding crisis that has the state’s system of 33 prisons operating at nearly twice its capacity.

Behind the scenes, the California Correctional Peace Officers Assn. -- the 30,000-strong prison guards union famous for punishing its political enemies and supporting tough-on-crime policies that keep the prisons full -- has been embracing its critics.

Union officials have opened up the organization to academics, pushed for new spending on alternatives to incarceration, and begun regular meetings with other unions.

Over the last three months, the union has convened a working group of inmate advocates, defense attorneys and politicians who support the kinds of shorter sentences that were long anathema to the union. Their goal: creating a sentencing reform bill that, with the union’s sway over lawmakers, could pass the Legislature this year.

According to notes obtained by The Times, the group’s proposal calls for a state sentencing commission that would seek to replace incarceration for nonviolent inmates with “community based punishment.”

By reaching out, the union is shaping the debate over the state’s prison crisis, and may be outmaneuvering the governor -- who has yet to win support for his own prison proposals -- and the federal courts, which are examining various parts of the prison system.

“The union is still the 800-pound gorilla in the prisons, but this is not your father’s union,” said state Sen. Gloria Romero (D-Los Angeles), who has worked with the union on legislation. “They are taking the prison crisis and reshaping not only the prison system in California but also reshaping themselves. The gorilla has moved.”

Still, even among those who have been the subject of this prison guard charm offensive, doubts run deep about the union’s sincerity.

Police chiefs, narcotics officers and district attorneys say the union’s new, seemingly progressive policies are merely a strategy for preserving its power. Others say the union is trying to appear cooperative in an effort to secure a new contract with the state, or avoid a possible takeover of the prisons by a federal judge who might remove job protections.

Mike Jimenez, union president, said in an interview with The Times that the union’s new openness to sentencing reform and enhanced rehabilitation represents a heartfelt response to the state’s prison crisis and to his own personal difficulties.

Disclosing few details, Jimenez said his 17-year-old son has been in trouble in connection with petty theft and drinking. The union leader also has discussed his son with other unions and in recent meetings on sentencing.

“I’ve been humbled,” Jimenez said. “I gotta believe in redemption. I gotta believe that you can convert.” Referring to the union, he added: “We’ve come to understand that what’s bad for inmates is bad for our members.”

Whatever its leader’s motives, the union has added cooperation to its political playbook.

Politically weak at its founding 50 years ago, the organization rose to prominence under Don Novey -- a onetime Folsom prison guard -- by using massive campaign contributions, support for crime victims, backroom deals and television ads to get its way. Its leaders have reveled in their outsider status, on occasion flying a skull-and-crossbones pirate flag over union headquarters.

On prison issues, the union dominates the Legislature; it can force through bills it likes and block others, critics say. Union-controlled political committees have given more than $5 million to legislators of both parties in the last 12 years.

The union’s legal team has often beaten the state in courts and at contract time. For example, it convinced a court this year that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger violated the law by transferring several hundred prisoners outside the state to reduce overcrowding. The state is appealing that decision.

Though the union’s contract with the state expired last year, its terms remain in effect. Guard pay is based on California Highway Patrol officers’ monthly salaries minus $666.

The deal gives the union such power over management of the prisons that a panel led by former Gov. George Deukmejian concluded it “has resulted in an unfair and unworkable tilt toward union influence.”

With the state’s prisons in crisis, the union’s hard-won influence over their operation may make it vulnerable.

A court-appointed special master is monitoring the union’s influence over correctional facilities. A federal receiver controls prison healthcare, and the state is under federal court pressure to ease overcrowding by June or face a possible cap on new admissions.

“I think the prison guards have been the victims of their own success,” said Dan Macallair, executive director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice and a longtime critic who has been meeting with the union. “Reality is hitting them in the face. And they run the risk that federal courts will nullify their contract if they’re perceived as an obstacle to having the system changed.”

Jimenez says his organization is not bending to pressure from the court. Union officers say the transformation began with the retirement of the autocratic Novey five years ago and his replacement by Jimenez, who has a more open style. Chuck Alexander, the executive vice president, said that when Novey was running the union, “the public had a ‘lock ‘em up and throw away the key attitude.’ Times have changed.”

Some observers say the union’s recent activity is an attempt to isolate the governor and increase the union’s leverage in stalled negotiations for a new contract.

Schwarzenegger has championed more spending on rehabilitation programs and prison construction, but has not managed to get his programs through a Legislature where, administration officials complain, the union holds sway.

By working with opponents to develop their own prison reform proposals, “we’ve called the governor’s bluff,” Alexander said.

“They’re taking the lead and trying to eliminate the administration from any role,” said San Mateo County Dist. Atty. Jim Fox, who has participated in recent discussions with the union. “They’re trying to put the governor in a box.”

Asked about the labor organization’s work, Bill Maile, a spokesman for the governor, said, “They’ve made some important recommendations, and we agree on many issues. We think it’s great they are engaged in finding solutions.”

The union, once wary of sharing internal information, participated in a study of prisons by the state’s Little Hoover Commission last year. When that process ended, Jimenez decided he wanted to keep the conversation going. He approached the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit based in New York that helps governments develop criminal and corrections policy.

Barb Tombs, a top institute official, flew out to facilitate meetings among guards union board members, inmate advocates, defense attorneys, legislative staff and other law enforcement groups.

“We are now thrust into this policy debate on how prisons are run,” said Lance Corcoran, a longtime union official who joined the talks. “ ... In order to continue to be a legitimate member of the public safety community, we are going to be measured by how successfully we can change individuals that everyone else was 100% unsuccessful with.”

The sessions produced language to establish a new sentencing commission. Sixteen states have active commissions. The California guards union says it will push the proposal in the Legislature.

The commission’s philosophy, according to documents, is that “incarceration should be reserved for the most violent or habitual offenders with community-based punishment imposed on all remaining offenders with the overriding goal of reducing future criminal activity and providing meaningful and effective rehabilitation.”

The commission’s recommendations would automatically become law unless blocked by the Legislature. That structure, participants say, was adopted so lawmakers could avoid voting on politically unpopular sentencing changes. Some worry that the union itself would inevitably control such a commission.

Jimenez says he has some problems with the sentencing commission proposal -- the proposed body seems too large, for example -- but he intends to support the compromise and to keep an open door.

joe.mathews@latimes.com