County Wins Ruling on Sheriff’s Review Panel

San Diego County officials were not required to meet with the Sheriff’s Department union before the county drafted an ordinance that sought to establish a citizen review board, a Superior Court judge ruled Tuesday.

Judge Wayne L. Peterson also denied a motion by the Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. for an injunction that would have prevented the County Board of Supervisors from moving forward with the ordinance to create a review panel to investigate claims of department wrongdoing.

Supervisors are set to vote March 12 on the ordinance. Voters last November approved the panel, which will be authorized to look into allegations of excessive force, illegal search and seizure, criminal conduct, false arrest, false reporting and other problems.

DSA attorneys had argued that county officials were required to meet and confer with the department’s rank-and-file because the review panel will have the power to affect the terms and conditions of employment. County attorneys disagreed, saying the mere creation of the panel had no effect on working conditions.

Peterson ruled that the ordinance itself “impinges only indirectly” on employment conditions and that the authority of supervisors to establish any ordinance relating to “public safety issues, and public safety is not a subject of meet and confer.”

As part of his ruling, Peterson said that, although county supervisors are free to put the review panel in place, “the manner in which the (panel) fulfills its charter may well cross the line that separates impingement from impaction.”

Since the ordinance has not reached final approval, Peterson said, arguments about how the panel will affect sheriff’s deputies are premature.

But he said the county should carefully consider how the duties and responsibilities entrusted to the panel will affect the deputies and their working conditions.

“After all,” he wrote, “the right to create the review board carries with it the responsibility to foster trust in everyone, particularly peace officers, that (it) will fulfill its purpose intelligently, fairly and dispassionately.”

DSA attorney James M. Gattey said he was puzzled by Peterson’s ruling and will ask for a clarification.

“I really am having a great deal of difficulty understanding what conclusions the court has drawn,” he said. Peterson “seems to have made a determination that the charter provision and proposed ordinance affects terms and conditions of employment. If that is the case, there has to be the opportunity to meet and confer.”

County attorney Valerie Tehan was not available for comment.