The State Worker

For the Governor:
(1) Do you abandon the claim that the judgment should be reversed because the trial court failed to stay the action based on the doctrine of exclusive concurrent jurisdiction?
(2) Do you abandon the claim that the furlough program is proper under Government Code section 19851? In other words, do you agree that this statute is irrelevant to the validity of the furlough program?
(3) Do you abandon the claim that the furlough program can be justified by the Governor's authority under article V, section 1 of the California Constitution?

For SEIU:
(1) Do you agree that Government Code section 19851 is irrelevant to the validity of the furlough program?
(2) Is your action against the 69 defendant state agencies named in the original petition or the 64 defendants named in the first amended petition?
(3) Do you concede that if a defendant state agency is the subject of an item of appropriation in the 2008 and 2009 Budget Acts, that defendant's participation in the furlough program is governed by Professional Engineers in California Government v. Schwarzenegger (2010) 50 Cal.4th 989?
(4) If your answer to Question (3) is No, do you concede that if a defendant is the subject of an item of appropriation in the 2008 and 2009 Budget Acts, and that defendant also has borrowable funds, that defendant's participation in the furlough program is governed by Professional Engineers?
(5) How is it to be determined or established that a defendant was in fact the recipient of borrowed special funds?

For the Governor and SEIU:
(1) If one or more of the defendants is the subject of an item of appropriation in the 2008 and 2009 Budget Acts, and receives funds from a continuing appropriation that is not mentioned in the Budget Acts, is that defendant's participation in the furlough program governed by Professional Engineers?
(2) How is it to be determined or established that a defendant receives funds from a continuing appropriation?
(3) What is your view of the conclusion of Veronica Chung-Ng, based on her declaration (AA 1434-1444), that only 29 of the defendants "receive a portion of their budgets from the General Fund" to "support [their] state operations"?
(4) The spreadsheet attached to the Chung-Ng declaration (AA 1440-1444) indicates that, with very few exceptions, the defendant state agencies compensate their employees with funds appropriated by the Legislature in the Budget Act or other 'borrowable" funds for purposes of "payroll." What is the significance, if any, of this fact for this action?
(5) Are the facts set forth in the spreadsheet inconsistent in any way with Ms. Chung-Ng's declaration?
(6) Can we infer from the record before us, and does it matter, whether defendant state agencies that have received "items of appropriation" under the Budget Acts compensate their employees exclusively with such funds?
(7) Our review of the 2008 and 2009 Budget Acts indicates that 59 of the 64 defendants named in the first amended petition have items of appropriation, as set forth in the attached appendix. Do you agree?
(8) What is your view as to how many of the agencies listed in Ms. Chung-Ng's declaration have "borrowable" funds?
(9) Do the recent decisions in California Medical Assn. v. Brown (2011) 193 Cal.App.4th 1449, California Attorneys, etc. v. Brown (2011) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ [2011 WL 1679049], and Union of American Physicians & Dentists v. Brown (2011) ___ Cal.App.4th ___ [2011 WL 1836662] have any relevance to this appeal?

IMAGE: www.yolocourts.ca.gov