ADDA participation in the political process

As we approach the elections of 2016, we would like to reiterate the reasons for the ADDA’s involvement in the political process and our criteria for involvement in various races and ballot initiatives.

Through our ADDA Political Action Committee (PAC), we take a proactive role in representing the interests of nearly 1,000 deputy district attorneys in Los Angeles County that we represent. We use the PAC to amplify your voices in the political process through candidate endorsements. We concentrate on candidates and issues that effect and influence our compensation, benefits, work environment and professional standards.  In order to best represent your interests, it is imperative that we remain informed and involved in the local, county, regional, state and national political processes as well as legislation that impacts our daily work life. Our PAC serves as our voice in that process and is a comprehensive resource on candidates and issues.

As a matter of policy, the ADDA will endorse candidates for the key LA County-wide offices: Judicial Officer, District Attorney, Board of Supervisors, Sheriff and Assessor.

Decisions on whether to endorse for Los Angeles City Attorney, California statewide offices and California legislature, or ballot initiatives are made on a case-by-case basis.

For judicial offices, the ADDA discourages multiple deputy district attorneys running in the same judicial race. The ADDA will consider endorsing the deputy district attorney who first files for a particular office.  Only in unusual circumstances will ADDA consider endorsing multiple deputy district attorneys in the same judicial race. In order for there to be multiple endorsements in a single race there must be a super majority vote of the ADDA board.

Our standardized process starts with a questionnaire presented to all candidates. The questionnaire covers a wide range of background information that gets to the character and personal integrity of the candidates.

For incumbents seeking re-election, we look closely at their voting records, past support and assistance on issues, bill/motion sponsorship or support, and an assessment of their commitment to public safety, officer safety, criminal justice and public employees.

Those candidates who return our questionnaire are invited to a screening interview with the ADDA’s Endorsement Committee to judge the qualifications of each candidate and the affect an endorsement would have on the ADDA membership.

We publish these guidelines ahead of the election season so our process of endorsements and involvement with political candidates is transparent and understood by our members, candidates, and the public.

We look forward to the elections of 2016, and will keep our membership informed of our participation in those elections. If you have questions or comments, please get in touch with an ADDA board member to learn more.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.

 

Board Meeting 5/19/15

Vice President Michele Hanisee, Treasurer James Evans, and Directors Eric Siddall, Craig Gold and Bobby Grace were present. Our Executive Director John Rees, Executive Assistant Juliana Konze, and General Counsel Richard Shinee were also present.  Executive Vice President John Harrold and Secretary Anthony Colannino both had excused absences. NEGOTIATIONS Our Contract Negotiation Team (CNT) continues to prepare for negotiations and had the great pleasure of conferring at length with one of our recently hired consultants, a County Human Resources subject expert, Cathy O’Brien. All I can say is that she is impressive, knowledgeable and the insights she shared were invaluable. In actuality, our Board— through the efforts of the CNT—has been engaged in earnest in informal/back channel dialog for Successor Salary MOU for several months at all levels of the County. Next week we anticipate that the CNT will meet with the County’s and the DA’s authorized representatives. WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT DDA Michael Fern has cleaned up our website and contacted other firms to bid on the next phase of our effort to modernize the site.  The Board decided to engage the services of 100eight (RadarBlue‘s WordPress collaborator), and we are hopeful that by the end of June we will see the fruit of their labor. Our web site is laadda.com. Please visit it frequently. If you are seeking contact information of any Officer or Director of the ADDA, please click on the “Contact Us” button on the top line. LEGAL PLAN The Board continued to advance the efforts to adopt a Legal Plan. Hopefully we will have something to present to your members in the near future. BYLAWS Both our General Counsel and Executive Director have recommended that we revisit our current Bylaws, in part because of the need to eliminate provisions apparently required by AFSCME Council 36, and mandated by the AFSCME Constitution. The Bylaw Revision Committee is comprised of Vice President Michele Hanisee, Executive Vice President John Harrold, Secretary Anthony Colannino, and myself. We will submit a draft to the Board for its review and consideration. POLITICAL ENDORSEMENT PROTOCOLS Director Bobby Grace will supply our Communications Consultants Englander, Knabe, Allen (EKA) with suggested proposals for our revised criteria for Endorsements. They will be making recommendations in order to help us create and manage appropriate protocols. Our Executive Director John Rees also has experience in this area and will participate in the process. This is such an important function of our effort to elevate our prestige and clout that the Board felt it deserved reflection and consideration by those with experience in such matters. When the new protocol is adopted, we will publish it to our members. PARKING LOTTERY Complaints were received about the “Lottery” regarding parking at the Hall of Justice. The Board is continuing to look into the matter. Frankly, I’m not sure there is anything we can do about it. Any suggestions, not just complaints, please contact me at president@laadda.com. MONDAY MEMO The addition of the DDA of the Month section at the outset of the ADDA Monday Memo is still being well received.  Please consider writing and submitting for publication concerning any topic or subject matter of interest to DDAs. We will submit your proposal to EKA. If accepted it will be disseminated to an audience that is much larger than this office. We invite you to participate in our effort to educate and stimulate all the players in our County with your ideas. If you know of someone who doesn’t receive Monday Memo, it is available on our website at laadda.com and we are happy to add their email address to our subscriber database. Just send me an email: president@laadda.com. PROMOTIONAL LISTS Finally, Assistant DA Pam Booth has informed me that they have requested that the Grade III and IV Promotional Lists remain open for the duration of this year. PROBLEMS Any complaints, any suggestions, any questions for the Administration, any rumors you want to confirm or deny? Any aspirations or projects that the ADDA can assist you in accomplishing to further the interests of your colleagues? If so, please let me know by sending me an email: president@laadda.com. Our DA Jackie Lacey and her Assistant DA Pam Booth have assured me that they are interested in working with your Association to resolve problems. They prefer to address rumors, clarify circumstances that may have been misunderstood, and resolve problems. I believe they have been relatively good at providing me quick answers or correcting misunderstandings. The next meeting of the Board will occur on Tuesday, June 16th, 2015, commencing at 6:00 p.m. Marc Debbaudt ADDA President

Board Meeting 4/21/15

DDA MICHAEL FERN

DDA Michael Fern, currently assigned to the Auto Insurance Fraud Division [AIFD] was appointed to both the Legislative Committee and the Website Enhancement Committee and that appointment was ratified by the Board. Welcome and thanks, Michael, for joining and participating in an effort to improve the lives of your colleagues.

Michael will be examining our website and making recommendations for improvement and will be working with EKA [Englander, Knabe and Allen] on that project. He will also be assisting Vice President Michele Hanisee, of Major Crimes, and John Colello, Assistant Head Deputy of Hardcore, on the ADDA’s effort to secure legislation addressing the security screening issue.

COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANT EKA

We heard extensively from two members of our new Communications Consultant Team, Eric Rose and Paul Haney of EKA [Englander, Knabe and Allen]. They are helping us build our brand, our clout and our prestige. We’ve received quite positive feedback on the Monday Memo news update and the Blogs which they prepare. There is more to come. We also had a good meeting with Supervisor Knabe and his staff thanks in part to EKA and Executive Vice President John Harrold, currently on leave pursuant to orders of the National Guard and handling criminal filings on behalf of the military as an Acting Attorney General.

MONDAY MEMO

If you are not aware, the Monday Memo’s circulation is much greater than our DDA membership. It goes out to the media and our law enforcement colleagues.  Our DA, Jackie Lacey, told me at Carolyn McNary’s Retirement Dinner, that she read, enjoyed and valued it. If you know anyone who would like to receive our Monday Memo, including DDAs who may not be receiving it, send us their name and email address and we will add them to our subscription database. They don’t have to be an ADDA member to receive it. Email me at president@laadda.com

DDA OF THE MONTH

We will be including a photo and the statement in support of our DDA of the Month recipients in futureMonday Memos.

DDA CAROLYN MCNARY

By the way, McNary’s dinner was wonderful. Her last assignment was Deputy in Charge of VIP in San Fernando where she served for many years. Her Master of Ceremonies, Nathan Bartos, a VIP Deputy in San Fernando, played an amazing video of people praising McNary. Nate’s humor was superb. I was struck by how many present expressed what those who knew Carolyn already felt, that she truly made a difference to the victims she worked for and for this Office. Her daughter and her husband gave quite moving speeches. It was a great night!

BLOGS

As for our Blogs, they have garnered some interest and the ADDA is always looking for a prosecutorial point-of-view, so if you have any ideas or even bullet points that are worth sharing, please contact us. You can email me at president@laadda.com and I will forward them to EKA.

SAFETY

We are considering issuing a Blog on incidents of violence in and around the workplace involving DDAs and others who work in the Criminal Justice system. At this time we are requesting your help in sending us any anecdotes or events or your thoughts on this matter. I will keep these matters confidential if requested. We intend that eventually our website will support anonymity and open discussions of this and other issues. Email me at president@laadda.com

As the ERCOM certified representatives of Deputy District Attorneys Grades I-IV in Los Angeles County, ADDA is committed to the safety of our members at home and at work. Thanks to your Vice-President Michele Hanisee’s efforts, we have begun to provide a service that safeguards your privacy and anonymity on the internet.  We are exploring all ways to increase and improve your security and we are open to ideas and participation by our members in this effort.

Legislation takes time, and our Vice-President Michele Hanisee is fully committed, as are DDAs Michael Fern and John Colello, and our Lobbyist, Tim Yaryan, in the ADDA’s effort to secure new laws permitting us to bypass security screening.

NEGOTIATIONS

We continued to discuss preparations for Negotiations. We’ve hired an additional consultant and our salary survey is nearly completed. Proposals are due in May with negotiations scheduled to begin in June for an MOU that expires in September. No County department has yet settled though several departments are currently engaged in formal negotiations.

LEGAL REPRESENTATION PLAN

At the next Board Meeting we will devote significant time to establishing our DFR [Duty of Fair Representation] which is our legal representation plan and policy. This will assist us in determining under what circumstances the ADDA will and will not represent DDAs and the extent of that representation.

GRIEVANCES

If you have a grievance, you may contact any Officer or Board member. See our website,http://laadda.com/ for contact information.  Or contact our General Counsel, Richard Shinee, of the Law Offices of Green & Shinee, directly at (818) 986-2440.

ENDORSEMENTS

We briefly discussed the need to evolve our endorsement protocols. Essentially, we need to determine when we will or will not support a DDA who chooses to run for office including the criteria that will assist us in making that decision; and whether we will or will not or who we will support when two or more DDAs run against each other. To this end we will consult with EKA for any guidance they can provide us. Additionally, in the future, we intend to communicate to our membership those DDAs seeking our endorsement and to solicit your feedback.

MEMBERSHIP

The Chairman of our Membership Outreach Committee, Director Craig Gold assigned to the Asset Forfeiture, informed the Board that our full membership now exceeds over 50% of the office. Full membership is approximately $10 more per month and entitles one to voting privileges and the ability to run for a position on the Board.

Full membership also includes an internet privacy service which many companies charge over $100 to provide. So membership is well worth the additional expense. The fees we collect from full membership fund our PAC and political outreach efforts to strengthen your voice in our County. Please consider filling out a membership application and contributing this nominal $10.00 amount. Your membership demonstrates support for the ADDA when we address the County concerning your desire for better wages and improvements in working conditions. Please support yourself by supporting the ADDA. The membership application can be downloaded at http://laadda.com/membership-application/

POST DISAFFILIATION

Recently the Blog located at http://losangelesdragnet.blogspot.com/ posted an entry entitled “Life After AFSCME – ADDA excels free from AFSCME.”  I wasn’t consulted on that article but I think it thoroughly captured the truth. As your current President I can confidently proclaim that we do indeed have a life after AFSCME and it is much better than having our funds drained by an organization that did little to nothing for us. I believe we have absolutely demonstrated so that we can and will function perfectly without them. Initially, I alone fielded the daily business of being a bargaining unit. That experience fully corroborated my suspicions that AFSCME was doing nothing for us on a daily or even weekly basis. They certainly weren’t working for us full time despite the $350,000.00 a year we paid them in dues. The only rough patch, if you want to call it that, involved getting access to our website. We now have full access to our website and that site will soon be fully updated and modernized.

Now, with our office set up, and with the wisdom of our General Counsel Richard Shinee, our Executive Director John Rees, our Executive Assistant Juliana Konze, our Lobbyist Tim Yaryan, our Communications Consultants EKA, our CPA, our soon to be hired accountant, our negotiation consultants, the drafter of our Compensation Survey (Barbara Maynard Consulting Services), our volunteer Officers and Directors, we are fully engaged in making the ADDA the best possible voice for the DDAs of this County. We are well on our way to elevating our political clout and radiating our public prestige. I am very confident that negotiations will demonstrate that we can do as well if not better than what was possible, if anything, by remaining with AFSCME! Please join as a full dues paying member to lend your voice to our efforts.

The next Board Meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, 5/19/15.

Marc Debbaudt
ADDA President

Board Meeting 2/17/15

The regularly scheduled Meeting of the ADDA Board of Directors occurred on Tuesday, 2/17/15.
The next regularly scheduled Board Meeting will occur on Monday, March 16th, 2015 commencing at 6:00 pm at the ADDA’s new offices located at 555 W. 5th Street, The Regus Business Center in the Gas Co. Building, on the 31st Floor, Conference Room, downtown Los Angeles. If you would like to attend, you must contact our secretary, Juliana Konze, in advance to arrange admittance due to security screening. She can be reached at (858) 869-3722 or by emailing secretaryadda@laadda.com. The ADDA will not reimburse for parking and parking in this building is expensive.
 
QUARTERLY MEMBERSHIP MEETING

The First Quarterly Meeting of the Membership as required by the Bylaws for 2015 will also occur on this date: 3/16/15 commencing at 6:00 pm at our new offices. If you would like to attend, you must RSVP by contacting our secretary, Juliana Konze, in advance to arrange admittance due to security screening. She can be reached at (858) 869-3722 or by emailing secretaryadda@laadda.com. The ADDA will not reimburse for parking and parking in this building is expensive.

PREPARATIONS FOR NEGOTIATIONS

The Board began the meeting by discussing preparations for upcoming contract/MOU negotiations currently scheduled for June. We have hired Barbara Maynard to conduct a comparative salary survey, something AFSCME promised us 10 months ago but never delivered. Ms. Maynard does this same service for the County Coalition of Unions and others and has a wealth of experience. Our Executive Director, John Rees, secured Ms. Maynard’s services on our behalf and is solving all ADDA operating issues. As our lead negotiator, Mr. Rees is actively engaged in assessing the current climate, making contact with the County and our Administration, and gearing us up. We are currently pursuing two distinct strategies, and we remain cautiously optimistic about our prospects. Frankly, I think we are pretty lucky to have Mr. Rees on board.

SECURITY SCREENING LEGISLATION

Vice President Michele Hanisee then informed us of the status of our efforts to obtain legislation to address bypassing security screening. She attended the last Public Safety meeting in Sacramento, and met Timothy Yaryan who chairs that working group. Mr. Yaryan is a well-respected, highly experienced, and effective lobbyist in Sacramento. The Board agreed to retain Mr. Yaryan as our lobbyist. His first efforts will involve assisting us in obtaining legislation concerning bypassing security screening. Ms. Hanisee will also contact all DDA organizations in the state to inquire about their issues if any with security screening and to seek their support, and possibly the support of the DA in each County. Our DA, Jackie Lacey, has pledged her support in our effort to secure legislation to address this matter of importance to all DDAs. Ms. Hanisee will, in the near future, write up a brief description of Mr. Yaryan’s qualifications and what he will do for the ADDA and will forward that to you in the near future.

TREASURER JAMES EVANS

Our Treasurer, James Evans, whose function for this Board often involves tedious and unending attention to financial details was thanked profusely by all the Directors for all his efforts in serving the ADDA. He will be attending training to access County payroll and accounting in order to directly add and delete members more expeditiously. He is conferring with our new CPA, Rita Villa, about the Hudson Audit and other matters. Soon we will be hiring a bookkeeper to assist in all these functions because it really is too much for a volunteer, even more reason James deserves our thanks.

COMMUNICATIONS FIRM

Director Eric Siddall has finalized the hiring or our new Public Relations/Communication firm. Very soon you will be receiving news updates entitled Monday Memo, and this is just the beginning. Eric will write up a brief description of this firm and some of our initial plans and forward it to you all in the near future.

WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT

Director Bobby Grace and Juliana Konze, our secretary, with the help of our new website and social media developer, Gary Clarke, have gained access to our website. Gary also participated in our Tuesday conference call with our new Communications Consultants. What we have learned is that the old website publishing system is outdated, and we are systematically migrating to a new system with greater functionality and larger applications. Soon we will have a Facebook and Twitter presence, a forum to share ideas, and a host of other convenient possibilities. Stay tuned.

ENDORSEMENTS

The ADDA endorsed DDA Debra Archuleta for Judge, and DDA Casey Higgins for City Council of San Dimas.

INCREASING MEMBERSHIP

Townhall Meetings continue throughout the County. The principal aim of these meetings is to increase membership. This is a key component of our effort to prepare for negotiations as full support of the ADDA’s efforts by all DDAs sends a powerful signal to both the DA Administration and the County. Membership is only .6% of salary and, we are told, is the lowest dues of any bargaining unit in this County. Full membership is only approximately $10 per month more than the minimal agency fee determined by the Hudson audit which determines the bargaining unit’s minimal operating costs. With that extra $10 the ADDA can engage in legislative efforts, like bypassing security screening, supporting candidates, like the Board of Supervisors who determine whether you get raises or not, etcetera. Also, with that extra $10 the ADDA will seek to protect your confidential information present on websites. This is a service for which some companies charge as much as $100 per year. So, full membership in the ADDA secures you the added protection of demanding that your confidential identifying information be removed. This service alone fully justifies the added nominal membership fee. Please join now and help us to help you.

If you can’t attend, please secure a membership application and an indemnity agreement re your confidential information and fill both out and drop them off.

LEGAL REPRESENTATION PLAN

Our General Counsel, Richard Shinee, updated the Board on pending grievances, etcetera, and also prepared a first draft of our Legal Plan, essentially what is called the DFR or Duty of Fair Representation. The Board will be reviewing that outline and possibly making some decisions concerning the DFR at the next regularly scheduled Board Meeting.

PROMOTIONAL LISTS

First, as I understand it, the County Department of Human Resources decides when to close the promotional list, not the DA Administration. I’m told that HR apparently bases its decision in part on the age of the list and the number of potential candidates who have become eligible during the existence of list.

The list remains open for 6 month intervals. The DA Administration can request to keep the list open or, I suppose, requests to close the list; but Human Resources makes the final decision.

Assistant District Attorney Pam Booth informed me:

1. The Administration’s recent request to extend the promotional list for Grade IVs was granted by Human Resources. Therefore, the DDA IV list will now expire in August. In other words, it remains open for another six months.

2. The DDA Grade III promotional list will expire in June.

As we approach the expiration date for the Grade III list, if someone reminds me I will talk to Pam again to learn whether the Administration will request an extension and whether an extension is granted.

Thanks again to Pam for providing the ADDA with this information for dissemination.

SO, WHY AREN’T YOU THE HIGHEST PAID PROSECUTORS IN THIS STATE?

Our DA Jackie Lacey has decided to “provide training to foreign governments under a new agreement with the U.S. State Department.” The Nation thinks we are the best! Our DA thinks we are the best! Why doesn’t this County think we are the best? As we approach negotiations it is important that we have all DDAs supporting the efforts of your certified bargaining unit to advance your interests. I can’t promise that the ADDA will achieve this goal in the next round of negotiation, but I believe that the DDAs in this office should be the highest paid prosecutors in this state and nation. Obviously this goal is likely to require multiple future contract negotiations over time. Let’s start now! Please join the ADDA now! Please help us to help you.

If you have any questions or concerns, you can contact any Officer or Director on the Board or call me at (818) 489-9603 or email me at president@laadda.com.

Marc Debbaudt
President
Association of Deputy District Attorneys

Legislation Calling for Independent Police Prosecutor is Unnecessary

By Marc Debbaudt

California Assembly Bill 86, which was introduced this year, seeks to remove District Attorney Offices from reviewing police shootings and deciding if criminal charges should be issued. This bill reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a prosecutor and the administration of justice.  It is bad public policy and, indeed, would undermine the pursuit of justice and threaten the safety of police officers and residents throughout California.

In the words of famed Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, “a prosecutor should seek justice” when making a decision to file charges.  Seeking justice does not mean filing charges when injustice would result. It does not mean filing charges to satisfy politics, public opinion or make a social statement. And it does not mean a District Attorney’s Office should abandon its role as gatekeeper of justice and pass the buck by filing charges to let the jury decide.

In the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, the Justice System Integrity Division evaluates each civilian death that results from interaction with police.  Their standard for filing charges is whether there is legally sufficient and admissible evidence to prove the defendant is guilty of the charged offenses. The filing prosecutor must conclude that a reasonable fact finder (either a judge or jury) would convict the defendant given the most plausible, reasonably foreseeable defense inherent in the prosecution evidence. This decision is then approved by the District Attorney. It is widely known among participants in the criminal justice system, if not the public, that: “To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.”  Heien v. North Carolina (2014) 574 US ___ , WL 7010684.

Unfortunately, AB 86 accepts the false notion that local District Attorneys cannot be entrusted with evaluating cases in which a civilian dies after interaction with the police.  Assemblyman Kevin McCarty, who authored the bill, claims “There is skepticism in the current process where local DA’s investigate cops they work most closely with.  To foster better transparency in the process, a common sense reform would be to have an independent review process by the Department of Justice to investigate police shootings where a civilian death occurs.”

Hogwash!

In the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office there are nearly 1000 deputy district attorneys. No one is investigating “cops they work most closely with.” That just doesn’t happen in my experience, and this office would not tolerate that kind of obvious bias.

Although the bill’s author claims he only seeks to ensure “the community trusts that fatalities are thoroughly reviewed” and is not seeking the prosecution of more officers, the reality of his goal is different.  The people who mistrust District Attorney reviews will be no more trusting of an independent prosecutor’s reviews unless officers are continually prosecuted.  These critics aren’t upset at the review process; they are upset that more police officers aren’t prosecuted.  One just has to listen to the news to hear countless demands in the aftermath of recent police shootings that the officers should be charged and that it should be left to the “jury to decide” if the action was criminal.

Events in Baltimore illustrate why prosecutions driven by public fervor are terrible public policy.  In announcing her decision to prosecute six officers a scant 24 hours after receiving the case reports,  Baltimore States Attorney Marilyn Mosby made clear she was reacting to perceived public pressure when she stated, “To the people of Baltimore and the demonstrators across America: I heard your call for no justice, no peace.”

Mosby’s decision to prosecute based upon public pressure has created dangerous conditions for law enforcement professionals.  Highly respected  Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony Batts told the City Council, “If I get out of my car and make a stop for a reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause but I make a mistake on it, will I be arrested? They pull up to a scene and another officer has done something that they don’t know, it may be illegal, will they be arrested for it? Those are things they are asking.”

As a result, Baltimore police have stopped actively policing.  Arrests in Baltimore have  dropped 50 percent in recent weeks, but not because crime is dropping.  In fact, with 38 homicides, this was the deadliest month in Baltimore in fifteen years.

The  Peace Officers Research Association of California got it right when they stated, “District Attorneys are elected by their counties to handle these types of investigations.  District Attorneys have made decisions for years, and have overseen difficult cases that have been scrutinized heavily by the media and public.  The concern that there would be a conflict of interest between a District Attorney and officers they may work with is unfounded.   District Attorneys routinely prosecute peace officers when they believe there is sufficient evidence to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.  It is a District Attorney’s ethical duty to ensure the fair administration of justice, without regard to who is being investigated.”

AB 86 is bad public policy, plain and simple. It will set in motion a chain of events where police know that their actions will be scrutinized by an “independent” prosecutor, a position created by political pressure to go after the police. This “independent prosecutor” won’t be independent at all but will face public pressure to charge, and instead of making the just decision up front whether to file or not, will instead choose to let a jury decide if an officer’s action was criminal.  The logical response is what we see by Baltimore police officers:  Avoid any situation that may remotely involve the potential of use of force and a potential subsequent prosecution.

Finally, the “skepticism” surrounding police shooting is not a problem that rises to the level of indicting the system and requiring fundamental change. Not to minimize the disturbing nature of legitimate police misconduct when it occurs, it is a statistical anomaly given the number of police officers and crimes they investigate every day, every year, across this nation. That the media sensationalizes the few examples, the actual numbers demonstrate that the system is working at virtual perfection and correcting itself when the anomalies occur. Creating an additional independent prosecutor bureaucracy to address anomalies does not cure the problem, but creates a new one on top of a system that is already operating at a high level of integrity. Nothing is solved, just politics and money thrown at an exaggerated problem creating a whole new opportunity for unexpected consequences and collateral damage.

The Assembly has put aside AB 86 for this year. Let’s hope the bill is killed forever. The proposed law is not just dangerous for police and residents, it’s unnecessary because the Attorney General already has the authority to investigate and prosecute any case in which they believe criminal conduct has occurred.

Marc Debbaudt is President of the Association of Deputy District Attorneys. The view and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of ADDA, which represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys.

Fuzzy Math Continues To Drive Public Pension Hysteria

Public employee pension systems are an integral part of recruiting and retaining high-performing public employees. They align the interests of the employer and the employee.  A pension allows attorneys to work for the county District Attorney despite the prospect of a higher income in private practice. Once hired, DDAs have an incentive to stay during the most productive years of their career; and at the end of that career, DDAs can leave the office rather than cling to the job because it is their only source of income.

Pensions are particularly important in public agencies such as Los Angeles County, where employees are not enrolled in Social Security. Instead, a pension is the sole source of guaranteed income during retirement.

A District Attorney’s Office with a 401k plan in lieu of a pension will be an office with short-term and higher-cost employees.  Future DDA’s, with neither Social Security nor a guaranteed pension will undoubtedly demand higher wages to pay bills and fund their retirement-or will leave for  higher or equivalent-paying jobs in which Social Security becomes a backup income stream.

We know from recent media accounts that John Arnold is planning a national PR campaign against pensions. While we wait for Chuck Reed and Carl DeMaio to release the initiative details after they finish huddling with the out-of-state handlers who will be funding their pension rollback scheme, we will use this blog to address and debunk some of the dishonest arguments that have been employed against public pensions.

Overstating the costs of public pensions is a staple of pension opponents.  It is sometimes done through outright lies, as seen by Chuck Reed who lied in the run-up to a 2012 pension initiative in San Jose.  When he was mayor of San Jose, Reed repeatedly and falsely claimed the initiative was needed because 2015 pension costs would soar $650 million; a state audit revealed the 2015 projected costs to only be $320 million.   (The actual 2015 costs ended up at $308 million.)  Caught red-handed overstating the pension costs by 100 percent, Reed defended his false and misleading continual use of the $650 million figure by simply proclaiming, “The figure is not overstated, the figure is just a number.”

Another way to overstate costs is to inflate the cost of employer contributions.  Pensions are funded by a combination of investment income and yearly mandatory contributions from employees and employers.  Since annual investment returns cannot be known in advance, pension funds use “assumed rates of return” to estimate investment income for each year, with the balance needed each year coming from contributions. Pension opponents routinely generate headline-grabbing pension contribution costs by using assumed rates of return that are drastically lower than the pension systems’ assumptions because  a lower assumed rate dramatically increases the employer contribution.

Yet another misleading tactic is to compare employer pension costs with prior years where the costs were unusually low. This is done by using as the comparison point a year in which the employer contribution was reduced or eliminated due to a “pension contribution holiday.”  Employers often reduce their contribution in years where higher assets are generated by stock market gains.  As outlined in a 2011 Paul Weber op-ed, using these artificially low contribution rates was a particular favorite of former Governor Schwarzenegger and his “special advisor,” David Crane. They often cited rates from the early 2000’s – which were lowered because of “pension holidays” funded by market gains in the late 1990’s as the comparison for then-current contribution rates.

The current controversy over the University of California system and the increase in tuition and costs, partly to fund employee pensions, is a notable example of how pension holidays end up affecting current operating budgets.  In 1990, the UC system began a 20-year contribution holiday and used money that should have been paid into the pension system to fund ongoing operating costs.  The result: funded status plunged from 156 percent in 1990 to 75 percent in 2010, when contributions resumed.  The funded status would have been 120 percent in 2010 had contributions been made, and today’s larger payments would have been unnecessary.

Most recently, pension opponents have invented an argument that ongoing pension costs are “crowding out” other government services.  In this narrative, every dollar spent to fund pensions is a dollar that could be used to hire more employees or provide more services.  The “crowd out” argument, whether using actual or inflated pension costs, ignores several facts, such as:  the municipal budgets are bouncing back from the lows of 2009; the CALPERS and CALSTRS studies have shown every $1 in pension payments generates $10.85 in economic activity; and that as a result of the Legislature’s 2012 pension reform, public employees are paying more for pensions, with new employees paying 50 percent of the costs.

When all else fails, opponents resort to the argument that public employees should not be exempt from the 401k scheme which, as we outlined in our last column, has failed in its goal to provide retirement income for Americans. This “race to the bottom” argument was the mainstay of a recent pension rollback initiative in Ventura County, where the slogan stated: “public employees should receive a retirement benefit that is no better than the citizens that pay for it.”   Or, as an OC Register columnist recently stated, public employees are simply the lucky ones who get a secure retirement; “Folks watching their 401(k) accounts disappear can attest to that.“

We will continue to use this column to update you on the attempt to roll back your pensions, and provide factual information to combat the fallacious arguments that will be used to advance the initiative.  Stay tuned.

Please read our previous blog titled “Your Pension is Under Attack” and if you want to learn more about pensions and get the facts, please visit a great website called Let’s Talk Pensions. It is run by Californians for Retirement Security, a coalition of more than 1.6 million Californians representing public employees and retirees.

The Association of Deputy District Attorneys (ADDA) is the collective bargaining agent and represents nearly 1,000 Deputy District Attorneys who work for the County of Los Angeles.