CARE WORKERS WANT BOARD PROSECUTED.

Byline: Troy Anderson Staff Writer

Incensed that the Board of Supervisors plotted to kill an initiative that seeks to raise their salaries, representatives of Los Angeles County home-care workers sent a letter Friday to District Attorney Steve Cooley asking for criminal prosecution of the Board of Supervisors for violating the state's open-meeting law.

``They used secret meetings and back-room tactics to break the law and circumvent the will of the people of Los Angeles County,'' said Tyrone Freeman, chairman of the Committee to Protect Homecare for Seniors and People with Disabilities.

``I think there will be a public outcry over this issue. People are outraged. We hope, at the end of the day, the board will be held accountable and won't be able to continue to trample over our civil rights.''

District Attorney's Office spokeswoman Sandi Gibbons said the office's Public Integrity Division will review the matter to determine whether to open an official investigation.

``I don't think there was a Brown Act violation,'' said Bob Stern, director of the Center for Governmental Studies, which promotes open government. ``I just think it was outrageous the supervisors were trying to stop an initiative from being circulated. That is a real misuse of power.

``I've never heard of this before. It really makes me concerned about the games being played when these initiatives go to the board. It's very sad.''

In the letter requesting the investigation, attorney Steven Holguin wrote that the committee was urging Cooley to begin criminal action against supervisors who participated in closed sessions and telephone conversations involving the pay raise initiative, and to prevent further violations of the Brown Act by forcing the board to record its closed sessions.

Supervisor Gloria Molina said she welcomed the investigation.

``The district attorney should investigate the Brown Act violations that took place Dec. 19 when our county counsel conducted a series of phone calls to some board members that resulted in reversing a prior board directive,'' Molina said.

``This was done without notifying the public, as is required by the Brown Act.''

The home-care workers committee, which represents 82,149 home-care workers who help feed and bathe seniors and disabled people, has gathered 175,000 signatures to place a measure on the November ballot asking voters to raise their wages from $6.75 to $11.50 an hour, a pay hike that would cost the county $200 million.

The home-care workers have battled for years over the raises. Through the county Department of Public Social Services, the county pays 22 percent of their salaries while the state and federal government pick up the rest of the cost.

During a closed-door session Dec. 18, County Counsel Lloyd Pellman briefed the supervisors on a legal opinion by the law firm of O'Melveny & Myers about whether the initiative would be legal, according to minutes of the meeting.

After discussion, Pellman suggested that he not provide a title and ballot summary for the initiative ``in an effort to force the proponents to sue the county,'' according to the minutes.

Supervisors Molina, Don Knabe, Michael D. Antonovich and Yvonne Brathwaite Burke agreed that they wanted Pellman not to certify the measure, the minutes show.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky objected, based on the fact that the law requires Pellman to certify the initiative. He said Molina led the effort to direct Pellman not to certify the initiative.

Until Pellman signed off on the measure, the health-care workers could not circulate their petition, a move that would make it almost impossible for it to qualify for the Nov. 4 ballot.

By law, when a group launches an initiative, it must submit the text to the county registrar-recorder and the county counsel has 10 days to draft the title and ballot summary.

On Dec. 19, Pellman had second thoughts about refusing to certify the measure and called Yaroslavsky, concerned that the county could be sued on a civil rights action, Yaroslavsky said.

``I was of the opinion that if I did not fulfill my statutory duty as provided in the Election Code, especially considering the timing of the request for filing, that it would subject the county to considerable liability,'' Pellman said. ``And that potential had not been fully discussed with the board.''

So Pellman said he called each of the supervisors' offices to tell them he was going to certify the initiative.

``The Brown Act prohibits me from making phone calls to obtain commitment by elected officials of future actions by them,'' Pellman said, adding that his actions did not violate the Brown Act. ``I was informing the board of the action I was going to take and the reason for taking that action.''

In a Jan. 3 memo to Knabe, Molina questioned Pellman's decision, noting that he contacted the board members by telephone without posting a notice of a meeting, a move that she claimed violated the state's open meeting law.

``I am seriously concerned about the violation of process that took place and county counsel's ability to represent the board and our respective constituents in a fair and unbiased manner,'' Molina wrote.

She wrote that the supervisors voted Dec. 18 to direct Pellman not to prepare the ballot title and summary with the express knowledge that such action would likely elicit a lawsuit.

On Dec. 19, Pellman made a series of phone calls to board members that elicited support for reversing the board action, Molina wrote. In a Jan. 2 memo to Molina, Pellman wrote that he released the title and ballot summary.

``No matter how incompetent or incomplete the advice of county counsel was on the day the board voted on Dec. 18, the remedy for this mistake should have not included a circumvention of our protocol and a violation of the Brown Act,'' Molina wrote.

``The proper remedy could have included the chair of the board calling an emergency session, in person or via conference call, to re-cast our votes. The actions that took place silenced the constituencies of at least two board districts and compromised the other board members by exposing them to sanctions under the Brown Act. This conduct cannot be tolerated.''