Supervisors Reject Labor Contract After State Takes $50 Million From O.C.

Orange County supervisors today voted down a proposed labor contract with the county's managers, citing concerns with rising compensation at a time when the state has taken away $50 million in funding.

The supervisors voted 4-1 in a special meeting Thursday, with Orange County Board Chairman Bill Campbell the plan's only supporter. Campbell said he understood the concerns of the other supervisors, but he earlier pledged to support the contract and wanted to keep his word.

The Orange County Managers Association, which represents about 1,000 members, negotiated the two-year contract in June, according to organization Executive Director Karen Davis. The county's managers started negotiations in October 2010 and have been working without a new deal since January, Davis said.

"We're disappointed," Davis told City News Service after the supervisors rejected the contract deal. "Our membership did vote on a contract that would have saved the county several million dollars over the term, so we're very disappointed, but it was not unexpected."

Supervisor John Moorlach said it was a "good agreement," but he said things changed when the state took away $50 million from the county.

"I was supportive of this at one time, but we've had a lot of things that happened in interim," Moorlach said, citing the state shortfall.

The county's managers agreed to pay their share—an average of 9 percent—of their pension contribution while the county would continue paying an average of 26 percent of it. In return, county officials agreed to give management performance-based pay raises and bonuses.

That troubled Supervisor Shawn Nelson and Moorlach, who fear that increased salaries would also boost the county's share of pension costs.

"We've been leading the state" in pension reform, Moorlach said, adding, "but we're still just nibbling at the edges."

Higher pension costs may force county officials to seek concessions in salaries, Moorlach said.

"If you really want to burn someone out, start paying them less," Moorlach said.

The question could become, "Do you want a big pension or do you want a paycheck?" Moorlach said.

Nelson said he also objected to part of the deal that would make layoffs based on seniority instead of performance.

Nelson is also concerned about performance-based pay raises when a county audit has shown problems with the process. Some county managers were given pay raises even though they blew deadlines for filing the paperwork, raising suspicions that some employees could game the system that way, although there's no evidence that has happened, Campbell said.

The deal had the potential to save the county $1.8 million, Campbell said.

Davis estimated the total savings at $5 million for the county.

Campbell directed county staff to continue negotiations with the association. The staff has already worked up a proposal that has enough votes on the board and Campbell was hopeful a new deal could be in place by December.

If a new deal is not in place by year's end, the county will have to pay 2.5 percent raises to managers who qualify based on performance, Campbell said.

Davis was less optimistic about a deal getting done by the end of the year.

"I doubt very much an agreement can be reached by the end of the year in that our last negotiations took six months," Davis said.

—City News Service