Placer Superior Court finds Measure F invalid; Deputy Sheriffs' Association to appeal

Earlier this month, the Placer County Superior Court ruled in favor of Placer County in regard to Measure F within the lawsuit filed by the Placer County Deputy Sheriffs' Association (DSA). Both parties have been in negotiations since March 2018. The Placer County Board of Supervisors approved Ordinance 6104-B on Sept. 14, 2021, to impose the county's proposal of salary increases, amending incentive pay from percentage to flat amount and providing Tahoe Branch Assignment Pay for deputies who live within 50 driving miles of the Burton Creek Substation to offset housing costs in the Lake Tahoe area. The implemented proposal does not utilize the voter-approved Measure F (formerly part of the Placer County Code), which previously determined the maximum salaries of similar positions in Sacramento, Nevada and El Dorado counties to calculate the average of those salaries to set a salary at an equal level for compensation. The Superior Court issued a ruling May 2 affirming, "... The people passed Measure F by voter initiative without the authority to do so and divested the Board of Supervisors of its authority. Based on the applicable authority, the court concludes that this was an unconstitutional exercise of power, and Measure F was invalid at its inception. Respondent (Placer County) argues even if Measure F had been valid at its inception, it nonetheless has since been preempted by the Placer County Charter or by state law. The court agrees." "We are pleased that the court has affirmed our legal responsibility and authority to negotiate employee wages," Placer County Board Chair and District 3 Supervisor Jim Holmes said in a written statement provided by the county on May 15. "We hope this opens a fresh chapter in negotiations with the Deputy Sheriffs' Association, starting with a strong salary offer in recognition of the excellent work of our law enforcement professionals. Our goals remain for Placer County to be highly competitive for top law enforcement talent - with public safety as a critical priority." In an interview with the Auburn Journal, DSA Attorney David Mastagni said although it was anticipated, the association was disappointed in the ruling and would file an appeal. "We respectfully think the court is wrong on that point, and that if the power is able to be delegated to the voters through initiatives, the voters don't need the permission of the Board of Supervisors … in order to exercise initiative power," Mastagni said. "... We think that these are really important direct democracy rights of the citizens of the county, and so we're going to appeal that and ask the appellate court to take a look at it." Mastagni said the purpose of the appeal will be for the appellate court to provide clarity on what voters can and cannot do. Mastagni also confirmed an appeal would not prevent the parties from negotiating and reaching an agreement. "... The appeal of that issue does not prohibit us from being able to get a deal," Mastagni said. "It takes two sides to want to reach an agreement. The DSA sincerely wants to get a deal. They have this whole time." According to a county news release, Placer extended a last, best and final offer on May 12 to increase the DSA's wages by 9 percent, noting the offer is 3 percent over what deputies would have received with the Measure F formula. DSA President Travis Thornsberry said the offer is "a great start" but there are other components, such as contract language changes and standards, both parties still need to negotiate. "We would love to come to the table with the county and use that as a point to start from, but there's so many other things that have to be considered and proposals that are already on the table with the county that we would want to see encompassed into a total contract between the Deputy Sheriffs' Association and the county," he said in an interview with the Auburn Journal. Mastagni confirmed no decision has been made on whether the DSA will accept or decline the 9-percent offer. Thornsberry added the parties have had no discussions on the offer and what it entails, and several questions, including the status of other proposals made from both sides, need to be answered. The county's release notes the DSA has not joined it at the bargaining table in more than a year. Thornsberry said the DSA has been providing the county with dates, from the past year and for future opportunities, to continue negotiations but has been unable to due to scheduling conflicts. Thornsberry confirmed the hope is to return to the bargaining table at the first opportunity. "It's an opportunity for a fresh start," Thornsberry said. "It's an opportunity for … the county and the DSA to come together and take a fresh look at things and maybe that is just the catalyst that propels us forward to getting things moving and reaching a contract for our members." Mastagni said after the appeal has been filed, next steps in the lawsuit include the court scheduling a briefing and a date for oral arguments once it is ready to issue a ruling. Additionally, Mastagni said items raised in the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) complaint will be briefed in July and then the PERB Board will issue a ruling.