- Elizabeth Larson
Supervisors accept agreement with deputies’ union; discuss no confidence vote on sheriff
LAKEPORT, Calif. – During a Tuesday discussion on the approval of a new memorandum of understanding with the county’s deputy sheriffs’ association, the Board of Supervisors decided to agendize a no confidence vote on the county’s sheriff.
The board’s consideration of a proposed no confidence vote on Sheriff Frank Rivero is tentatively scheduled for Tuesday, July 10, at 11 a.m.
On Tuesday afternoon, as a prelude to the no confidence matter arising, the board held a closed session to discuss an employee disciplinary appeal, and emerged to vote unanimously to reinstate Tom Andrews, who had been with the sheriff’s office for 20 years before Rivero terminated him last fall.
Supervisor Jeff Smith moved to accept a hearing officer’s full recommendation to give Andrews his job back, and make him whole for all lost rights, benefits, salary and retirement. Supervisor Anthony Farrington seconded, and the board voted 5-0.
The board then moved into a discussion of the new contract with the Lake County Deputy Sheriffs Association.
Deputy County Counsel Shanda Harry presented a brief discussion of the contract, which runs from July 1, 2011, to Dec. 31, 2013.
Key points include a 4 percent salary adjustment in exchange for employees paying their full retirement contribution, which is an additional 5 percent; field training officers and bilingual officers receive an additional 2.5 percent; an increase in the amount of pay for on-call duty status to $20 for weekdays and $25 for weekends or holidays; court appearances entitle deputies to a minimum of one hour credit at time and a half; and 40 hours of personal leave in exchange for a cost of living increase.
Board Chair Rob Brown acknowledged that a lot of work – on the part of the county and the association – had gone into the contract.
Association President Gary Frace was in the audience for the discussion, and Board Chair Rob Brown addressed Frace, telling him how much the board appreciated the deputies and their understanding and willingness to work with the county, while knowing the county didn’t have much it could give.
“I think we came to the best possible agreement,” Brown said, noting it was what they could do, not what they wanted to do.
Brown’s concern, he said, was “when we have our sheriff, your boss, on the radio trying to sabotage our efforts, and when we’re here acting in good faith.”
Brown had raised similar issues with Rivero’s statements about employee negotiations when the board approved a new memorandum of understanding with the correctional officers association June 5.
During the Tuesday discussion Brown accused Rivero of trying to harm the relationship – developed over many years – between the county and its deputies.
According to Brown, Rivero claimed in a radio broadcast that he had gone before the board to ask for a 2.5-percent salary increase for deputies, which Brown said never happened.
Rivero also stated on the radio that the county had refused to give a retirement contribution to the correctional officers, knowing full well that the correctional officers union had approved the contribution the day before his on-air statements, according to Brown.
Brown went further, saying many employees of the sheriff’s office had left because of Rivero. “They would have stayed even if the money was the same. They left because of him. And I know that to be a fact.”
The board also is facing a “mountain of lawsuits coming up” because of Rivero’s actions, Brown said.
Brown said he believed it’s likely that there had been more lawsuits and potential litigation during Rivero’s year and a half in office than had arisen from all of the county’s previous sheriffs combined, due in part to his retaliatory actions toward deputies.
They’ve also had to issue letters of apology to deputies due to what appeared to be retaliation on Rivero’s part, he said.
Rivero hasn’t been seen much in the office in recent months, although he did briefly appear at the courthouse Tuesday afternoon for a discussion on an urgency marijuana cultivation ordinance that was postponed because the fire marshal said the chambers had exceeded capacity.
Brown said Rivero costs the taxpayers a total of $153,850.08 a year – salary, retirement and benefits – for not showing up to do his job.
He also referenced Undersheriff Pat Turturici’s recent comments at board meetings in which Turturici stated he was running both the jail and the sheriff’s office.
The issues with Rivero’s performance, combined with Turturici’s comments “tells me that the sheriff is not doing his job,” Brown said.
Brown then passed the gavel to Supervisor Jeff Smith and made a motion to have a no confidence vote on Rivero, arising as a consequence from the negotiations with the deputies’ association. He asked that action be taken before the contract was approved.
While such a vote itself was not on the agenda, Brown pointed out that the board had held similar no confidence votes on state elected officials before in conjunction with agendized issues.
Supervisor Anthony Farrington asked County Counsel Anita Grant if they could take the action. Grant said only the memorandum of understanding was on the agenda.
Brown said he had spoke with counsel and thought they could have the vote.
“I’m confident that it’s within our rights to do that,” Brown said of the proposed action.
Brown made a new motion to approve the contract and to ask for a vote of no confidence, which was seconded by Supervisor Jim Comstock.
Despite recognizing the connection between the negotiations and the proposal, the rest of the board and Grant felt it would be better to bring the no confidence vote discussion back as its own agenda item.
“I understand wholeheartedly where Supervisor Brown is coming form. I appreciate his shining light on a number of these topics and very important issues” that the county had experienced over the last year, said Supervisor Anthony Farrington.
However, Farrington asked that it be separately agendized.
“Let’s do it,” said Brown.
Brown told his colleagues that the board previously had held a no confidence vote on the county’s state representatives over the Highland Springs Dam.
“That was another circumstance where there was a connection,” said Grant, adding that if the board felt there was a similar connection in this case that they could act. Brown maintained the connection was there.
“I would prefer it be its own item,” said Supervisor Denise Rushing.
Having it agendized will allow the sheriff to attend if he desires, said Farrington.
Brown amended his motion to approve the memorandum of understanding only, which was approved 5-0.
Email Elizabeth Larson at