Threatened with litigation by the Solano County Deputy Sheriff's Association over its refusal to provide a negotiated retirement benefit, the County of Solano has agreed to sponsor legislation amending the Government Code to guarantee the "3% at 50" retirement formula to its district attorney investigators and supervising investigators.

During MOU negotiations in 2003, Solano County agreed to amend its contract with CalPERS to provide the "3% at 50" retirement formula to all eligible members of the DSA bargaining unit, including the district attorney investigators. The Board of Supervisors ratified the MOU with a provision promising the County would amend its PERS contract to provide the benefit.

By the spring of 2004, however, the County had learned it could not include the district attorney investigators in the contract amendment without moving all safety bargaining units to the “3% at 50” formula. The County refused to amend its contract with PERS and offered no alternative other than excluding the investigators from the agreed-upon benefit. The County amended its PERS contract to provide the benefit only to the deputy sheriffs and sergeants in the bargaining unit.

Board of Supervisors Refuses to Support Legislation

The County having failed to seek any alternative to execute its MOU obligations, the DSA proposed that the County sponsor legislation to reclassify the investigators as "local sheriffs" for purposes of the "3% at 50" benefit. Legislation is necessary because the Government Code segregates deputy sheriffs from other local safety classifications for purposes of retirement benefits. Deputy sheriffs are classified by statute as "local sheriffs" who can receive a separate, negotiated-for retirement benefit. District attorney investigators, on the other hand, are "county peace officers" who cannot receive a retirement benefit that is not provided to all safety classifications in the County. (See Govt. Code §§ 20432, 20436.)

A state senator agreed to sponsor the legislation, but only if the County Board of Supervisors would agree to support the bill. County representatives advised the DSA's negotiator, David French, the County would not sponsor the legislation, but would not oppose it either.

But when the DSA brought the matter before the Board of Supervisors, the Board voted 4-0 against supporting the legislation. Board members loudly proclaimed the investigators now did not deserve the benefit the Board already had agreed to provide when it ratified the MOU.

DSA Files Lawsuit to Compel 'Contract' Performance by the County

The Board's actions plainly violated the MOU because the County had agreed, in writing, to amend its Cal-PERS contract. The County bargaining team, advised by county counsel, did not object at the time to providing the benefit and did not claim legislation was necessary before the contract could be amended.

The DSA filed a petition for writ of mandate in Solano County Superior Court to enforce the MOU. Memoranda of understanding between a public employee bargaining unit and the employer are binding agreements once approved by a vote of the governing body of a jurisdiction; e.g., the Board of Supervisors. A petition for writ of mandate, not an action for breach of contract, is the appropriate mechanism to enforce an MOU when the employer's violation is not subject to the grievance process.

County Agrees to Sponsor Legislation

When the parties were nearly "on the steps of the courthouse," the County agreed to sponsor legislation to amend the Government Code for Solano County district attorney investigators. The Board of Supervisors passed a resolution rescinding the earlier vote and instructing the County’s lobbyist to carry the legislation to Sacramento.

Nechelle L. Snapp joined the Labor Department at Mastagni, Holstedt, Amick, Miller, Johnsen & Uhrhammer after serving for ten years as an active duty Air Force Judge Advocate.