On February 7, 2008, the AOCDS Board of Directors and I met with Acting Sheriff Jack Anderson. This meeting was at the request of the Acting Sheriff. His stated purpose was to greet the AOCDS Board of Directors in his new capacity.

When we met, the Acting Sheriff expressed his interest in re-establishing an open line of communication between the Association and the Office of the Sheriff, and the Department’s Command Staff, to discuss labor-management issues as they arise.

Acting Sheriff Anderson spoke about his vision of moving the Department forward. He talked about several issues including the current $7.7 million in projected budget cuts, the projected depletion of 14b (prop 172) revenue reserves by 2009, the implementation of the Office of Independent Review, the promotion process and the proposed expansion of the Musick Jail facility.

In briefly elaborating on the Musick facility expansion he told us that the expansion would create the need to hire an additional 700 deputies. He said that he expected the first phase of the expansion to become operational in about four years and that it would take several years after that for it to be fully operational, at which time he expected that the full complement of 700 deputies would be needed. He said that because of fiscal concerns he wanted to explore the use of non-sworn correctional officers in the Musick Facility. He told us that he was leaning toward a blend of sworn and non-sworn personnel, but hadn’t yet settled on his preference. He acknowledged that the lower standards and requirements for hiring non-sworn correctional officers would make the recruitment process easier. He said that he was going to begin moving forward with a study on this alternative staffing and invited AOCDS to participate in the study.

We briefly discussed some positives and negatives attached to the use of non-sworn personnel in the Musick expansion. The Board thanked the Acting Sheriff for his invitation to participate in the Department’s study, but declined to do so, stating that we believed that both the Department and Membership would be best served if we each conducted an independent study on alternative staffing. The Board acknowledged the current and anticipated fiscal constraints facing the Department, but pointed out that hiring non-sworn correctional officers might not be the panacea he sought. We said that the use of non-sworn jail employees had been discussed in the past and that we would be willing to discuss it in the future. We advised Acting Sheriff Anderson that a change such as he was exploring could only be done through negotiations. He responded by saying that “was not what (he) was thinking.” I answered, courteously, but firmly, that a change of this significance “could only be done at the table during open contract negotiations.”

We ended the discussion by agreeing to conduct independent research on the issue and possibly revisit it sometime in the future. However, the Board made it very clear that we would only discuss implementing such a change during a formal open contract negotiations process.

Needless to say, we were a little confused by the newspaper articles that subsequently appeared saying that the Acting Sheriff expected to implement his plan to use non-sworn employees in the jail in six months. That does not accurately reflect the conversation we had with the Acting Sheriff. We are also somewhat confused by the reports of his recent visits to roll call and his communications to the membership on the subject, which appear to be similar to the comments attributed to him in the press.

To avoid misunderstanding, the Association sent a letter to the County Executive Officer, Thomas Mauk, and the Acting Sheriff, making it very clear that the hiring of non-sworn personnel to replace our members in the jail system is subject to the meet and confer requirement of Government Code Section 3500, et seq. The California Supreme Court, citing numerous state and federal court cases, has explicitly upheld the requirement to meet and confer under circumstances such as these.

We have also told the CEO and the Acting Sheriff, verbally and in writing, that we have no interest in meeting and conferring on this issue at this time, which is our right under the MOU. Therefore, any effort to implement the use of non-sworn employees in the jail would violate our contract and the law. We would not expect the top law enforcement official in the County to violate the law.

We are left with the question: Why would an acting Sheriff attempt to push through such a significant change in Department operations without full research and scrutiny? At the very least, why not consider that in a short time, there will be a new Sheriff who may not agree with such a dramatic change. It makes little sense to me. But, I know one thing – I expect the head of any law enforcement agency here in Orange County to be well versed in, and a leader in, upholding the law.