I’ve been thinking for the past week that I should inform the county its citizens are not all supportive of the county negotiating in a way that is favorable to the new DCDDAA union.  This morning, the Bend Bulletin reported that closure of the county’s negotiation with the DCDDAA was imminent.  Time to act.  I didn’t have a lot of time, after all, writing letters to the county isn’t part of my job.  So, I wrote something quickly.  Here is the original letter that I delivered to the County Commissioners and the Chief Administrative Officer regarding their negotiations with the DCDDAA.

Luckily, the County’s administrative offices are just a few blocks away from my own.  I submitted this letter in person at the Deschutes County Administrative Office at 1 PM, as four separate copies, one for each commissioner and one for Chief Administrative Officer Dave Kanner.  I received a return call from Mr. Kanner near 4 PM.  He wanted to clear up some misunderstandings.  He explained first that the county was not responsible for the formation of the DCDDAA.  (I thought that my understanding of this point was already clear from the letter, but perhaps it was not.)  Dave further explained that the county had no choice but to negotiate with the union.  I figured as much (after all, how would unions have any power if employers could simply ignore them?), and thus, lacking any better understanding of union contract issues, I didn’t choose to debate him on any technical aspects of these points.

Then, he got down to the nitty gritty.  Dave puts it like this: The county has two options.  Negotiate with the union, or let the DCDDAA union bring the case to arbitration.  In arbitration, employers lose to union demands in 80% of cases, according to Mr. Kanner.  I suspect he wanted to imply that unions win their entire favored contract in 80% of such cases, but I didn’t ask for clarification on that point.  He was clear on this point: If the county did nothing, the case would be sent to arbitration, and the administrative law judge would likely give the county no say in how the “just case” provision is written.  He finally assured me that the county tried to get the “just cause” provision in the final, negotiated settlement to be written in the county’s favor.

This is the same person who said that Patrick Flaherty should be able to choose deputies based on “prosecutorial philosophy.”  So, I took his comment about writing a “just cause” clause in the county’s favor to mean the county’s lawyers wrote it setting a low bar for “cause” .  Another salient point that I gathered from Dave’s call is that the contract is finalized.  He said it would be made public soon.  Let’s hope that Dugan’s DDAs are not as good at employment contract law as they are at prosecuting innocent bystanders.

Here is the version of the letter that I sent to Gordon Black, president of Western Communications/the Bend Bulletin as a “letter to the editor.”  Gordon sent it to Erik Lukens, Editor of Editorials, who informed me that they don’t like to publish third party letters.  They want it to be addressed to the Bulletin and its readers.  I changed “colluded” to “negotiated” to reflect my conversation with Dave Kanner, and changed a few words so that it was written to the Bulletin and not to a third party.

From:   Chris Cappuccio
136 NW Greenwood Ave
Bend, OR 97701
(541)325-2560

To:     Bend Bulletin

Re:     Deschutes County Deputy District Attorney’s Association Contract Negotiations

As a concerned citizen and tax-paying member of Deschutes County, I feel the need to voice my opinion regarding the negotiation of a new contract with the Deschutes County Deputy District Attorney’s Association.  My specific attention is given to the “just cause” termination clause.

The Bend Bulletin has published an article today titled Agreement nears on attorney union; Deschutes deputy district attorneys may be close to deal with the county.  As the County is apparently near completion, I would urge you to reconsider providing a “just cause” clause in this negotiation.  Given the recent news regarding Patrick Flaherty’s notification provided to the deputy attorneys, establishment of this clause is likely the only true motivation for the formation of the union.

The DCDDAA is asking for protection that is not given to the vast majority of workers, Deputy District Attorneys or otherwise, throughout the State of Oregon.  Of course, as an “at-will” employment state, “just cause” protection is not a default option here.

It is standard practice when an elected official takes a public office, that he or she is able to choose his chief officers.  To hamstring the incoming District Attorney in his choice of deputies is clearly a move against the will of the voters who removed District Attorney Mike Dugan after 23 years of service.

In a previous Bend Bulletin article, Dave Kanner is quoted as saying that Patrick Flaherty should be able to choose deputies “based on their prosecutorial philosophy.” This is in accordance with Oregon law which provides for a District Attorney’s ability to appoint his deputies.  The public has voted for a change.  By giving the DCDDAA such a significant last-minute concession, you are putting the county itself at risk for ongoing financial consequences.  You ensure the county will be embroiled in high cost lawsuits from former deputies if they are terminated.  You ensure that tax-payer money will be diverted to these lawsuits, instead of being used for the services that we need on a daily basis.

Violating the spirit and the will of the decision of the voters and tax-payers in this county is not a decision to be taken lightly. We have asked for a change from the overreaching prosecutions well known from Mike Dugan’s decades of service.  We have asked for a new face, a new prosecutor to take the reigns. We have asked for fair treatment, for all members of the public to be treated equally.  We have asked for Justice, Not Politics to become the slogan of our prosecutor’s office.

Through statements made to the Bend Bulletin, Deputy DA Jody Vaughan would have the public believe that changes to the staffing at the DA’s office would stop the job of prosecutors.  While it is likely that some cases may be delayed for a short period of time, the work of the county prosecutor simply will not stop. To claim otherwise is an exercise in absurdity.

Mr. Dugan has started a carnival show by asking the Oregon Judicial Department to begin prosecuting cases on behalf of the Deschutes County District Attorney where the defense attorney is Mr. Flaherty’s wife. He is assuming that Mr. Flaherty is corrupt and biased towards clients of his wife.  This is an extraordinary claim to make.  I can only assume that it represents Mr. Dugan’s own reflection, sub-conscious or otherwise, on his own behavior and biases.

The next Bend Bulletin story regarding Jody Vaughan tells that she is worried about termination by Mr. Flaherty for prosecuting cases represented by his wife, a defense attorney.  I find this claim very hard to believe. Many attorneys on opposing sides are cordial, friendly, and work together on cases, even while representing opposite opinions. If this is truly a conflict of interest, then the deputies who are married to non-county attorneys should also step aside.  Yet they won’t, because this is a patently ridiculous position to take.

The public is better served by their officials following through on their pledges.  The County should let Patrick Flaherty follow through on his pledges.  I am not the only person who feels that the county’s negotiation with the DCDDAA is unnecessary and counterproductive.

The county should not tie the hands of the new District Attorney before he starts his job.

Chris Cappuccio