Who Checks the Arbitrator? Measure A Would Put LA County's Public Safety Payroll Beyond the Board's Reach

NAVARRO REPORT - On November 3, Los Angeles County voters will decide a question that rarely reaches a ballot: who has the final word when the county and its public safety unions cannot agree on pay. Measure A would replace the county's current power to impose its "best and final offer" with binding arbitration. Three people, none of them elected, would settle the dispute.

The charter amendment covers about 17,000 employees in 14 bargaining units, including sheriff's deputies, firefighters, lifeguards, district attorney investigators and medical examiners. That is roughly 17 percent of the county workforce. County salaries and benefits exceeded $23 billion last year, so the stakes are substantial.

Here is how the process would work. If talks reach an impasse, each side appoints one arbitrator, and the two choose a chair. If they deadlock, they strike names from a list of seven supplied by the State Mediation and Conciliation Service. Each side then submits a final offer on every open issue, and the panel picks one offer per issue. The decision stays confidential for 30 days, then becomes public and binding. Neither the Board of Supervisors nor the voters approve it. Strikes remain prohibited, and the two sides split the arbitration costs equally.

The ordinance calling the election directs the panel toward the offer that "most nearly conforms" to a list of factors. They include the county's financial condition and its ability to meet multi-year costs, cost of living, recruitment and retention, workload, comparable public pay and Government Finance Officers Association recommendations. Ability to pay is therefore one factor among several, not a ceiling.

Supporters make a serious case. Supervisor Kathryn Barger says a fair and efficient bargaining process is necessary to maintain competitive wages and benefits. Supervisor Lindsey Horvath notes that more than 20 California jurisdictions, including San Francisco and Sacramento counties, already use binding arbitration, and she argues it incentivizes both parties to reach a fair agreement. The unions say it takes politics out of the hardest contract questions. The Board voted 4-0 to place the measure on the ballot, with Supervisor Holly Mitchell abstaining.

The campaign money tells its own story. Through mid-September, the deputies' union had put in more than $2 million. The firefighters' union and other sworn and civilian public safety unions each contributed more than $1 million, and the lifeguard unions about $150,000. The California Association of Highway Patrolmen, whose members the measure does not cover, gave $250,000. No organized opposition has emerged, which means voters are hearing mostly one side.

The central problem is that no one has put a price on the outcome. The ordinance contains no fiscal estimate. NBC Los Angeles reports that the measure would not directly change county revenue and that arbitration itself could cost from tens of thousands of dollars to millions in administrative and legal expenses. The larger exposure lies in the awards. Joseph Nicchitta, the county's acting chief executive at the time, warned that because arbitrators "pick a winner," the result is no longer a compromise. He cautioned that awards not tied to budget policy could drive up operating costs, force workforce reductions and program cuts, increase unfunded pension liabilities and harm the county's credit ratings. He pointed to Vallejo and San Luis Obispo, where voters later repealed arbitration. Critics at the time blamed arbitration for contributing to Vallejo's 2008 bankruptcy, a claim that remains contested.

Mitchell raised the accountability point directly. Arbitrators are not elected, she said, and they are not required to weigh countywide priorities such as homeless services, health care and capital projects. That concern matters now. The county is managing federal funding cuts and wildfire recovery while a UCLA study, which the county disputes, puts sheriff and probation litigation costs at $1 billion over 12 years. A binding award would arrive without a public vote.

Voters can fairly ask for more transparency. First, will the 30-day confidential window be shortened so that supervisors and the public can see a decision's cost before it binds? Second, will the county publish a multi-year cost projection, including pension effects, for every award? The summaries of the measure I reviewed do not mention such a requirement. Third, does "ability to pay" carry real weight in practice, and will arbitrators have to explain how they applied it?

Measure A may prove reasonable. Deputies and firefighters cannot strike, and arbitration is common in public safety bargaining. But a decision of this size deserves more than a one-sided campaign. The real question is not whether public safety workers deserve fair pay. They do. It is who answers to the public when the bill arrives. Under Measure A, the answer is not the Board of Supervisors, and it is not the voters.

(Jose E. Navarro, MBA, is a San Diego–based financial controller, public finance analyst and founder of The Navarro Report. With more than 20 years of experience in public finance, nonprofit management and government contract compliance, he writes about government spending, transparency and public accountability.)