Police union pushes for contract negotiations

Almost nine months after the officers’ employment agreement expired, Costa Mesa’s police union is urging city officials to move contract negotiations forward even as it spars with a councilman who called a recent union decision “a slap in the face.”

The city’s contract with its police officers expired at the end of June. A year ago, officials of the Costa Mesa Police Assn. asked to begin negotiating a new four-year deal, according to emails reviewed by the Daily Pilot.

In October, the association submitted an opening offer that is awaiting a response from the City Council.

Under the proposal, officers would receive a 9% raise that would be offset by paying 9% of their base pay toward their pensions, a cost currently borne by the city.

The arrangement essentially would leave officers’ compensation flat but would boost the rate they earn when working overtime, according to the association.

Officers’ base salaries now range from $71,000 to $95,000, according to the city’s website.

The union’s proposal also offers to extend a stand-alone agreement under which officers paid 5% of their base pay toward retirement. That agreement, which started in 2010, ended in February, meaning police are no longer paying toward their pensions.

Extending the agreement in the union’s new contract proposal would bring officers’ total pension contribution to 14% of their pay, according to the union.

Before the side agreement expired, the city asked officers for an extension. The small union representing police management agreed, but the Costa Mesa Police Assn., which represents the rank-and-file, declined. Officers wanted to continue the agreement, but not without a larger contract, said Rob Dimel, the association’s president.

Councilman Gary Monahan responded during a council meeting this month by criticizing the police association for not continuing to pay the 5%.

Soon after, the association publicized that its opening offer in October included that payment.

“I think it’s very reasonable,” Dimel said.

But Monahan questioned why the association would include the 5% pension contribution in its overall contract proposal but not approve it by itself.

“I took it as a slap in the face,” he said Friday. “I took it as a power play.”

Dimel said the association hopes that nailing down a contract will help draw officers to the department as it tries to fill dozens of vacancies.

“We have to do something that’s going to stabilize us,” he said.

Even as they quarrel, the police association needs Monahan’s vote for any contract to be approved.

Two members of the City Council, Mayor Steve Mensinger and Mayor Pro Tem Jim Righeimer, are suing the police association, alleging that the union was part of a plot to illegally surveil and intimidate them during the 2012 election season. The association says its members had no knowledge of any illegal activity and argues that the lawsuit is an attempt to muzzle legitimate political speech.

The lawsuit means Mensinger and Righeimer must recuse themselves from any negotiations with the police association. A contract proposal would need three votes on the five-member council for approval, meaning that all three of the other members must vote for it.

Before former Councilwoman Wendy Leece was termed out of office last year, she accused Monahan of purposefully delaying negotiations with the police union.

Monahan, a political ally of Mensinger and Righeimer, said at the time that he wanted to wait until after the November election so the winner of Leece’s seat could vote on a new deal with him and Councilwoman Sandy Genis.

On Friday, Councilwoman Katrina Foley, who replaced Leece, said Monahan is still dragging his feet.

Monahan dismissed the accusations as political.

“Negotiations don’t go fast,” he said. “They never have; they never will.”

Monahan said the council is scheduled to discuss the contract proposal later this month.