Deputy Sheriffs’ Contract Talks

* Re “Triple Threat Could Drain County Retirement Fund,” Dec. 9.

The article suggested that the county is on the horns of a dilemma, faced with a decision over whether to “give” Service Employees International Union (SEIU) members a Tier II retirement cost-of-living adjustment, or “give” the Ventura County Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn. a 3%-at-50 retirement formula.

In truth, no group should expect the county to “give” these benefits away. No group should reasonably expect a handout. Each of these items is a negotiable benefit and should be discussed with the county during contract talks.

The Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn. is in negotiations with the county for pay and benefits. If we negotiate a new retirement formula, its cost would be counted as part of our pay and benefit package. How it is paid for is a subject to be discussed at the negotiating table, not in the press. Likewise, a cost-of-living adjustment should be handled during contract negotiations and not be made the subject of a media campaign.

It is unfortunate that [SEIU leader Barry] Hammitt implied that the Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn. is keeping other county employees from obtaining a Tier II cost-of-living adjustment, and by doing so involved himself in the Deputy Sheriffs’ negotiations. Hammitt knows a cost-of-living adjustment has an associated cost that should be negotiated at the bargaining table.

In the late ‘70s, the members of the Deputy Sheriff’s Assn. opted to forego a salary increase to obtain the retirement cost-of-living hike that SEIU now seeks. At that time, SEIU and its leaders, including Hammitt, made a choice to take more salary instead. The deputy sheriffs paid for the retirement benefit because we cared about all of our members, including our retirees, and still do.

We are also concerned that, according to the Times article, representatives of the county chief administrator’s office have commented to the press on these issues and appear eager to broadcast a message of doom in the hope of pitting employee groups against each other and causing public alarm.

The fact is: The county retirement fund enjoys the largest surplus in its history at over $365 million. State law provides that those funds can be used for one purpose only--retirement benefits to county employees. Meanwhile, the county has used the excess as a means of avoiding its obligation to make annual retirement fund contributions.

With regard to the potential cost of pending litigation, in 1997 the Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn. proved before the California Supreme Court that the county Board of Retirement had been under-calculating the pension benefits of all county retirees for years. That ruling benefited all county workers. Even so, the association has been forced to bring additional legal action to compel the Board of Retirement to give the Supreme Court’s finding its full legal effect so that all eligible retirees receive their just benefits.

On more than one occasion, our representatives suggested to the county that reasonable, early resolution of that matter was possible and that such a resolution might be structured to include benefits for past, active and future county employees. Unfortunately, it appears the retirement board would rather delay any such resolution.

If the county is concerned about this matter, we would again encourage them to consider meeting with us to discuss a possible early resolution.

The Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn. is not unsympathetic to the needs of other county employees. But we will not sit idly by when anyone distorts the record, colors the truth or seeks to undermine our legitimate contract negotiations process.

GLEN KITZMANN

President, Ventura County

Deputy Sheriffs’ Assn.