Block Made Secret Deal With Union

Just weeks before the November election, the late Sheriff Sherman Block signed a secret deal giving deputies accused of wrongdoing a break in the way complaints against them are settled.

The agreement with the powerful deputies’ union gave members the right to settle disciplinary disputes through binding arbitration, a process that deprives the sheriff of the right to appeal decisions he considers too lenient.

County officials now say the deal with the union, which only recently came to light, was illegal. The Assn. for Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs, which has long sought such an arrangement, disagrees and filed suit last week in Superior Court to force the county and Sheriff Lee Baca to abide by the agreement.

The Sept. 16 amendment to the union’s existing contract was finalized just days before the union’s board of directors--without consulting its members--voted to endorse Block’s reelection.

Block died Oct. 29, only days before the election.

“It’s our position that the agreement is unenforceable,” said county employee relations chief Kenneth Miller. “Such an amendment would have to go to the Board of Supervisors for ratification. Additionally, we believe it is contrary to the county charter.”

Deputies have the right to appeal disciplinary cases to the county’s Civil Service Commission. But if either party disagrees with the commission’s ruling, they can then take the case to court. The September agreement gave the deputies the option of going to binding arbitration instead of through the commission--a move some believe deprives the sheriff of the power to discipline his own deputies, since he loses his right to appeal.

“The fact that Block agreed to give away the crown jewel of management prerogative is astounding,” said one county insider. “If the employee feels he is going to get a favorable result from Civil Service, he goes to Civil Service. If the deputy feels he’ll get a better deal from arbitration, he’ll arbitrate. Management is bound by the employee’s choice.”

According to department sources, union leaders for years have been asking the sheriff to agree to arbitration. Finally in September, Block--facing a runoff election for the first time in his long political career--agreed to sit down with union representatives to hammer out a deal. At the sheriff’s direction, department personnel director Jeffrey Hauptman signed the resulting agreement.

Hauptman and Baca have declined to discuss the matter since it is now the subject of litigation. Union officials and members of Block’s campaign, meanwhile, deny that the sheriff took the action to win the union’s support.

“Block didn’t give anything away just for an endorsement,” said campaign Chairman Jay Grodin. “He wasn’t a fool. He wasn’t going to tie his hands. Whatever he did, he did because he believed it to be right.”

Former Assistant Sheriff Mike Graham said Block felt the deal was in the department’s best interest.

“The sheriff was never happy with the decisions of the Civil Service Commission,” Graham said. “With arbitration, it gives you the greater latitude of picking a hearing officer that is of the right mind. We thought it was a good deal.”

But one group of deputies has taken issue with the way the agreement came about.

“Binding arbitration might be the greatest thing since sliced bread,” said Deputy Scott McKenzie. “The union has been trying to get binding arbitration for years and they could never get it. All of a sudden when Block wanted the endorsement and was short of campaign funds, he agreed to the deal.”

Several months ago, McKenzie and three other deputies launched a recall campaign against the union board. Their top concern is the board’s decision to support Block without a vote of the union membership. “They just do what they want,” McKenzie said.

County officials said they were unaware of the agreement between Block and the union until December, when a deputy facing a 15-day suspension filed a request for arbitration. The request--which the union submitted the day Baca took office--was sent to the county Employee Relations Commission.

After reviewing the matter, Chief Administrative Officer David E. Janssen sent a letter to Hauptman on Dec. 16 informing him of his office’s decision not to honor the deputy’s request for arbitration.

“The agreement is unenforceable and nonbinding on county management,” Janssen wrote. “The terms and conditions of the agreement violate the county charter and usurp both the exclusive jurisdiction granted to the Civil Service Commission and the [Board of Supervisors’] authority to adopt Civil Service rule changes after a public hearing.”

In its lawsuit, the union counters that it and the sheriff over the years have entered into other “side letter” agreements without involving other county officials. The union “contends that [the agreement] and the past practice of the parties establishes that the binding arbitration provisions of the agreement are not matters of countywide impact . . . and further are not required to be approved and implemented by the county’s Board of Supervisors to be valid and enforceable.”