City Attorney Casts Doubts on Extra Pay for Police

San Diego’s city attorney said Wednesday that he has “grave doubts” about whether the City Council can legally give police an additional raise for next fiscal year by gaining voter approval of an initiative calling for the salary increase.

City Atty. John Witt said that even if the council goes ahead with a November ballot initiative that would raise property taxes and increase the city’s budget for police, passage of such a referendum would probably not produce any revenue for the 1985-86 fiscal year, which begins July 1.

Witt made his comments to a reporter late Wednesday after three council members fired off memos asking Witt why he had not explained his misgivings to the council before it voted Tuesday to put the initiative on the November ballot.

In an emotional meeting Tuesday attended by more than 100 police officers, the council approved a 5.5% salary increase for police. Members of the 1,370-member Police Officers Assn. had threatened to strike if they didn’t receive a 5% raise on July 1 and a second 5% raise Jan. 1 to close the gap between San Diego police salaries and those in other major California cities.

The council members Tuesday stuck to their 5.5% raise, but in a 7-1 vote they offered a concession: They promised to put an initiative on the November ballot that, if approved, would benefit police salaries. Also, council members Mike Gotch and Gloria McColl vowed to scrutinize the 1985-86 budget during the next few weeks to find reserves that could be spent on police salaries.

The discussion Tuesday over ways to increase police salaries lasted about 10 minutes, during which time Witt listened but did not suggest that the council’s proposals might be illegal or impractical. After the meeting, Witt told reporters that he doubted the council could legally increase police salaries during budget hearings.

On Wednesday, McColl and Gotch sent a curt memo to Witt asking, “Why did you not bring this opinion to the attention of the council at the hearing?”

“It came as an absolute surprise to learn (there was a problem) from one of the media,” McColl said later. “And I would like to know that opinion while we make the vote--if there’s a problem with it . . . He’s sitting there, and it’s part of his job to guide us. I wish he’d made the statement before we took the vote.”

Also demanding more information was Councilman Bill Mitchell, who was out of the country for Tuesday’s meeting. By telephone Wednesday, Mitchell authorized a memo asking Witt to explain why police salaries could not be increased now, “since the budget has yet to be adopted and (fiscal year) ’86 (is) yet to commence.”

In an interview late Wednesday, Witt said he may have made a mistake and created “false expectations” among police officers and the council by not suggesting during the meeting that there were problems with the council’s action. But Witt said he still believes the council’s plans are wrong.

“I have grave doubts that at the end of the budget session, even if they found money, that they could have found a way of passing it on in terms of an increased salary (for police officers),” he said.

He noted that the council, even though it had not yet approved next fiscal year’s budget, had approved the salary ordinance for next year on Tuesday. That ordinance, once adopted, cannot be changed, Witt said. The council would not legally be able to adopt a new salary ordinance by July 1, when the fiscal year begins.

Although the council could approve an initiative that would increase police salaries by raising property taxes, such a referendum is “a very difficult process,” Witt said.

Under the requirements of the 1978 Jarvis-Gann initiative, which passed as Proposition 13, instituting a property tax requires a two-thirds vote. If a tax measure received that majority, the vote would have to be certified by the secretary of state and, “We’d still have to come up with the mechanism to collect the tax,” Witt said. “I don’t see that process coming to fruition for at least a year.”

Witt reiterated that he was sorry he hadn’t raised his objections during Tuesday’s hearing.

“Maybe I made an error in judgment in not saying ‘hold everything,’ at the end of the hearing,” the city attorney said. “It came up at the very end of a difficult, emotional hearing, and I made a judgment that I could correct it after the fact.”

Soon after the vote, Witt said he realized, “I left a lot of police officers with false expectations,” so he brought up the problems by telling two reporters.

Witt said he shares the blame for the confusion with the council. Council members’ decision to seek a referendum and find additional money for police salaries during budget hearings was “another example” of the council making an important decision without asking for legal advice, Witt said.