Dotted Line Leads D.A.s Into Trouble

Somewhere in Contract Law 101--maybe in the first hour of the first session--students are advised: Don’t sign a contract unless you’ve read it--much less the signature page of a contract if there’s no contract attached to it.

Attorneys, of course, know this.

Well, most attorneys.

The Deputy District Attorney Assn., the employee bargaining group that represents virtually all of the county’s 200 prosecutors, made that very error when signing, in December, 1986, what it assumed would be the terms of a salary and benefits contract between its members and San Diego County.

What the deputy district attorneys’ negotiators--attorneys themselves--signed was the signature page of a contract, even though the contract itself was not attached.

‘We Trusted Them’

“We trusted them,” Deputy Dist. Atty. Craig Rooten said of the negotiators who, he said, were to put the verbal terms of the contract into writing and later attach the document to the pre-signed signature page. “We agreed in principle on the language. The county (negotiators) were to prepare the final document.”

Signing what was essentially a blank page, Rooten said, was done to meet deadlines so the contract could be approved by the County Board of Supervisors in time to implement a pay raise. The contract was to cover the period from June, 1986, to December, 1988.

But, when the final, written contract was returned to the Deputy District Attorney Assn., the attorneys cried foul, claiming that some of the terms didn’t reflect what they thought were the terms to which they verbally agreed.

Among other issues, the prosecutors thought they and the county had agreed to return to the bargaining table in 1987 to negotiate salaries for 1988; the final version, as written by county negotiators, called for the Board of Supervisors to unilaterally set the salary table, based on a survey of what other prosecutors are paid in California. Other differences involved health benefits and the retirement plan.

The prosecutors sued the county for declaratory relief, asking that the written contract be rewritten to better reflect what were believed to be the verbal agreements.

Ruled for Prosecutors

The lawsuit finally went to trial last week, and Superior Court Judge James Milliken ruled for the prosecutors after three days of testimony by ordering certain parts of the contract rewritten-- allowing, among other things, for the two sides to negotiate salaries retroactively for 1988.

The county counsel’s office, acting as the attorney for the county’s negotiators, sees the overall issue somewhat differently.

Deputy County Counsel Laurel Gallaher-Tobar said a draft of the contract was available when the deputy district attorneys signed the blank signature page memorializing the agreement.

“We argued to the judge that the D.A. association should be held to the contract, since they had an opportunity to see it,” she said. “I thought that was a major issue. The court didn’t agree with me.”

So it’s back to the negotiating table to resolve issues of salary raises and health benefits that remained unresolved during 1988.

Meanwhile, negotiations on a 1989 contract are already at an impasse, and Judge Milliken told both sides he will be available for any more problems.

“And you can bet,” Rooten said, “we won’t be signing any blank signature pages this time.”