Close Vote Predicted on Police Contract : Labor: Many officers say proposed raise is too small. But besieged union officials warn that rejection today would allow council to impose one that offers less.

As Los Angeles police officers prepare to vote today on the city’s contract offer, opposition to the tentative pact appears widespread and the Police Protective League president who negotiated the deal acknowledges that the result is too close to call.

Critics have raised numerous objections to the pact, complaining in particular that the salary increase is inadequate and that changes in benefits are unacceptable. But union leaders, eager to put the two-year dispute behind them, say they wrested the best deal they could from the city.

The union has received a barrage of negative telephone calls in recent days and league leaders said they have been busy trying to dispel misperceptions about the work agreement.

“Some of the guys have so much anger built up that they are not going to listen,” union President Danny Staggs said. “They are even directing some of that anger at their own union.”

Staggs is the target of a recall campaign launched by Metro Division Officer Gary Morgan, who resigned from the union’s negotiating team this month to protest the contract agreement. If the contract is defeated, Morgan said, some officers have proposed a job action to pressure the city into a better deal.

The city’s negotiators are warning Police Department officers that it would be unwise to reject the offer because the city could impose a contract unilaterally.

“If they reject it, we’re back to where we were before and the council is probably going to declare an impasse in 30 seconds and they will get a contract they like even less than this one,” said Councilman Zev Yaroslavsky, who is a member of the city’s negotiating team.

“I think it’s time to put this behind us. The money isn’t there and it’s not going to get any better for the Police Protective League.”

The hard-fought, $40 million contract calls for a 3% raise on July 1 and another 3% on Sept. 1, 1995, but no retroactive pay for the two years police worked without a contract. Officers had pushed for the same 9% pay raise over four years that city utility workers received after last fall’s strike.

Other elements of the contract that are prompting debate among the rank and file include:

* The reassignment of some detectives to night and weekend shifts. Now, detectives are scheduled for day shifts, and earn overtime when they work nights. Those detectives who get the new schedules will be allowed to work four-day, 10-hour workweeks.

* Changes in compensation for officers who are injured while on duty. The new policy would reduce the take-home pay for officers who suffer injuries that are not deemed “sudden severe trauma.”

* An agreement to hash out in the coming year two city proposals: the elimination of defense representatives, who act as advocates for officers accused of wrongdoing, and a restructuring of the detective ranks to free up more officers for patrol duties.

Another point of controversy is a proposal that was omitted from the contract. The city had sought a 2% bonus for patrol officers to reward those who work in the trenches. The union opposed the city’s plan, arguing that the bonus would have reduced the raise given to all other officers.

The fate of the deal will be sealed at three ratification sessions today--9:30 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. at the Sports Arena and 1 p.m. at the Airtel Plaza Hotel in Van Nuys. Union leaders said they will announce the results Friday morning.

“I’m voting no,” said Rampart Division Officer James Breen, a 26-year veteran. “We’ve always gotten retroactive pay in the past and I’m not going to give it up now. This is a bad deal.”

A transcript of the union’s telephone machine messages reviewed by The Times showed a strong negative reaction to the contract.

“We think Danny Staggs has sold us out and we feel the league as a whole has just rolled over and let the city walk all over all of us and made a laughingstock out of our membership,” one officer said.

“I think this contract is a bunch of baloney and I hope that the league directors are looking for jobs because they’re going to need them,” another caller said. “Thanks, guys, for nothing.”

While acknowledging the opposition, Staggs remains hopeful that the league will win over a majority of the members by explaining what is contained in the proposed contract.

“There’s very mixed reaction out there,” Staggs said. “Once we explain the whole package and dispel the rumors, they understand that this is the best proposal that is going to be presented. We’re battling a rumor war.”

Staggs said he has been telling officers that the leadership negotiated the best possible deal, and has been warning them that a rejection of the contract could allow the city to impose a contract that would be less popular.

Staggs said he is discouraged by the opposition.

“It’s very disheartening for me,” said the 24-year LAPD veteran. “I feel like I’m doing the best job that I can under the circumstances. I’m keeping the best interests of the majority of the membership at heart. It hurts when someone says I should be recalled or should step down.”

The prolonged labor negotiations have been a tumultuous time for the Police Protective League, which is on its third president in two years.

In December, members voted out union President Dave Zeigler because they were dissatisfied with his performance in the negotiations. He was replaced by Staggs, whose brother, Ken, was ousted from the board of directors in an earlier shake-up.

Most recently, some officers opposed a decision by Staggs to remove billboards that depicted a carjacking. The billboards were erected to pressure the city, but were removed after a few days because Mayor Richard Riordan was so angered by them that he called off negotiations.