 |
Rialto
Police Department Pulled From The Brink Extinction
By:Dieter C. Dammeier
Lackie & Dammeier
On the night of September 13, 2005, the
Rialto City Council approved by a 4 to 1 vote a contract for police
services to be taken over by the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s
Department. This was done with the minimum 24 hours notice required to
hold a Special Council meeting. The next day, Sheriff’s personnel were
taking inventory of equipment and moving quickly to take over
operations. To many, including those within the Rialto Police
Department, it was a “done deal” and there was nothing left to do but
work on a smooth transition. Fortunately, a handful of officers,
supported by the vast majority of the membership of the Police
Association, decided to put up a fight. The Association President,
Andrew Pilcher, was an officer in Compton when the Los Angeles County
Sheriff’s Department took over that city and felt that his Association
(in Compton) did not strongly enough oppose that takeover. He was not
willing to see the same thing occur under his watch.
Rialto POA’s attorneys,
Lackie & Dammeier, took swift action to lay the groundwork for what
would be a six-month legal and political battle over the survival of the
Department. A Temporary Restraining Order was sought and obtained in
San Bernardino County Superior Court, immediately putting a halt to the
Sheriff’s takeover. Fortunately for the RPOA, the City Attorney, Robert
Owen, gave bad advice to the City in regard to its obligation to meet
and confer over contracting out police services. Superior Court Judge
Bob Krug agreed with Rialto POA’s position that the issue was subject to
the meet and confer requirements. Accordingly, a Preliminary Injunction
and later a Permanent Injunction was issued instructing the City to not
implement a Sheriff takeover until it had fully complied with its meet
and confer obligations. Given the meet and confer requirements, which
included Court ordered meet and confer sessions, an impasse fact finding
procedure, as well as, potential binding interest arbitration, this was
a significant delay for the City to implement its plan.
The legal battles were highly publicized in
the local media. Although delayed, the talk of Rialto focused on how
much longer the Police Department could survive. First the Temporary
Restraining Order was granted giving a few weeks, then a Preliminary
Injunction was granted allowing two more months and finally a Permanent
Injunction was obtained requiring the City to go through the lengthy
meet and confer procedures before a takeover could commence. The City’s
petitions to the Court of Appeal and even the California Supreme Court
were summarily rejected and the City was left with little choice but to
go through the meet and confer and subsequent procedures required by
law.
The City went through
the meet and confer process, maintaining its position that a Sheriff’s
takeover was unstoppable. City Council members in the local newspapers
remained adamant in their positions that the police department would be
disbanded. At first, the reason given was that it would save money.
When it was clearly shown that it would not be a money saver based on
the amount of personnel, the City then claimed that the crime rate had
increased and that the Sheriff’s Department could do a better job. When
the facts were shown that the crime rates had in fact decreased, the
City was shown to have been doing nothing more than union busting in its
effort to get rid of the Rialto Police Officers Association. The City
Administrator had also complained that too many lawsuits had been filed
by Rialto Police Officers against the City in his written reasons for
contracting out the Sheriff’s Department. With that admission, Lackie &
Dammeier also filed a retaliation lawsuit in Federal District Court
against the City alleging the disbanding of the police department was in
retaliation against officers protecting their rights and filing
litigation.
While the legal battles were continuing, the
RPOA geared up on the political front. RPOA PAC Chairman Glen Anderson
gathered up community support for the cause and designed political
strategy with political consultant Jim Freeman and this author to apply
political pressure to the City Council. Anderson and Freeman even made
a trip to Sacramento to garner support of state legislators who then
contacted City Council members over what was clearly painted to be union
busting.
Also taking place during the legal and
political fight, Lackie & Dammeier drafted a ballot initiative to place
the issue on the next ballot of whether the Council should have sole
authority to contract out police services without voter approval.
Rialto’s citizens assisted in gathering signatures for the initiative
and it was submitted to the City Clerk. Unfortunately, the City Clerk
supported the City Council’s effort and did everything in her power to
frustrate the ballot initiative. She deemed invalid most of the
signatures on the ballot initiative and claimed it could not proceed.
Lackie & Dammeier filed for injunctive relief in the Superior Court to
compel the City Clerk to validate the signatures. Days before the
hearing in Court on the issue, the City Clerk relented, but only after
receiving a letter from the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s
office explaining that her reasons for invalidating the signatures were
unlawful.
Recall petitions of two city council members
were drafted and served. Here too, the City Clerk attempted to stall or
otherwise interfere with the recall process, at one point refusing to
certify the recall petition for signature gathering. Again, Lackie &
Dammeier sought injunctive relief in the San Bernardino Superior Court
and days before the hearing, the City Clerk relented and certified the
recall petitions for signature gathering.
Another tactic used by the Police Association
was very frustrating to the City. The City in 2003, with the assistance
of the RPOA, passed a utility user’s tax which passed by only five votes
of the residents. Since the public was sold on the idea that the tax
would be for public safety, and given the City’s pursuit of disbanding
the police department, the RPOA felt the citizens should not have to
continue paying this tax. Accordingly, Lackie & Dammeier drafted a
ballot initiative repealing the utility user’s tax should the police
department be disbanded. Since this tax amounted to over 25% of the
City’s general fund, this elimination, which would have easily been
approved by the voters, would have been financially devastating to the
City.
Finally, on March 21,
2006, in the midst of seven lawsuits filed against the City, two recall
petitions, a referendum and two ballot initiatives, as well as the
public outcry, the City Council finally relented and reversed its
position. The City negotiated a new two-year MOU with the Police
Association calling for salary increases between 5% and 15% (depending
on rank). The MOU also calls for the Police Association to have
positions on the selection committee for the next police chief. As part
of the global agreement, the RPOA agreed to dismiss the litigation cases
in exchange for the City paying all of the Association’s legal expenses
it had incurred in fighting to maintain the Department, totaling
$118,000.
The RPOA should be proud
of its success in this case. This is the first case in California in
which a contract was entered (approved by City Council) into for police
services to be contracted out and the Association was able to reverse
the tide and come out triumphant. They could not have done it without
the support of fellow police associations from throughout the state and
PORAC who rallied behind Rialto POA in its time of need. |
