Deputies’ Contract Dispute With County

Re: Deputies’ Contract Dispute

I feel compelled to write this letter to clarify some misrepresentations in the press and by county officials about our current contract dispute with the county of Ventura.

The deputy sheriff’s and district attorney investigators of Ventura County have been working without a contract for more than six months. Our last contract included a parity formula that was used as a way to measure total compensation against that of other local law enforcement agencies to bring it to the average--the middle of the road. When that contract was negotiated, both the county and our members saw it as a positive step that would enable county law enforcement to compete for the best candidates available and at the same time retain experienced officers in county service. At the expiration of that contract in December 2000, we finally reached wage and benefit parity for the very first time in our memory. We were at the average.

Since that contract was negotiated, many California law enforcement agencies have adopted a new retirement formula, commonly referred to as “3% at 50.” Half of the agencies in our local parity group have adopted this retirement formula, including Ventura Police Department, Oxnard Police Department and Santa Barbara Police Department, and others in the group are now negotiating for it, including Simi Valley Police Department, Los Angeles Police Department and L.A. County Sheriff’s Department. In short order, the California Highway Patrol adopted the formula, along with over 100 other law enforcement agencies statewide. Among those are Kern County, Amador County, Alpine County, formerly bankrupt Orange County and, most recently, Santa Cruz County.

Yes, during our efforts to reach a new contract agreement with the county of Ventura, we have tried to negotiate for this retirement formula. We didn’t set the standard, but it is in no one’s best interest to ignore it either. And all along we have suggested that the value of this benefit should be placed into our parity formula, just like every other pay or benefit item, to be used in calculating average compensation. After all, if you are trying to maintain the average, shouldn’t you include items of compensation other agencies are receiving?

All five members of the Board of Supervisors personally committed to us that they supported parity for the Sheriff’s Department. Is it too much then to ask them to honor that commitment?

Our public information campaign has been an effort to let residents know how the county’s inattention to our contract issues has caused deputies to leave for other agencies and will continue to do so. When the county loses trained officers and has to pay to train replacements, the simple fact is that it costs taxpayers a lot of money.

We have also questioned some of the financial information the county has provided to us. That is because they tell us one thing behind closed doors but tell the public something else. We began looking into the true financial picture of the county and some of the decisions the CEO and the supervisors have made. And yes, we have questioned their lack of leadership and failure to honor their commitments to us and to the public. Every citizen has the right to hold their elected representatives accountable.

When negotiations broke down because the county sought to undo our parity formula, take away previously negotiated benefits and force the Sheriff’s Department into an impossible recruitment and retention position, we requested binding arbitration to resolve the issues. The state law allowing for that remedy also prohibits police officers from exercising a right to strike. But instead of agreeing to a neutral arbitration, the county filed a lawsuit against us to prevent it, refusing to allow an independent arbitrator to help settle the dispute. Does that mean the county wants us to strike? We didn’t believe that before, but we are beginning to wonder.

All we are trying to do is maintain average pay and benefits. The reason Ventura County can take pride in its excellent reputation for public safety is because we have all made it a priority. If the CEO and Board of Supervisors want to change that priority, shouldn’t they ask the voters first? Most people wouldn’t choose to have a below-average level of public safety. Doesn’t it follow that they wouldn’t choose to have below-average deputies either?

Glen Kitzmann

President, Ventura County

Sheriff’s Assn.