Supervisors Reject 4-Day Workweek for County Employees

Deciding that the confusion would not be worth the meager savings, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors on Thursday turned down a plan that would have imposed a four-day workweek on employees.

At a meeting filled with hand-wringing about the county’s continuing fiscal problems, Chief Administrative Officer Sally Reed warned the board that next year’s shortfall in the general fund budget could be as high as $900 million if the federal government approves a proposed welfare reform bill that shifts much of Washington’s responsibility to states and counties.

A four-day, 40-hour workweek for 16,000 county employees could have led to as much as $75 million in increased productivity but only about $2 million in “hard savings” from utility costs, building maintenance and other expenses.

The supervisors decided that the savings were not worth the inconvenience to the public of having many county offices closed on Fridays.

Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky pointed out that half of the 16,000 employees who would have been placed on the new schedule would have been welfare workers.

The result, he said, probably would have created confusion in welfare offices.

“I think it would be anarchy, at least chaos, with the staff and the public if you compressed all the work into 10-hour days,” he said. “There has to be more in it for me before I go along with it. This is one of those things that you have to do right the first time, especially in a public-intensive office like welfare.”

The compromise plan will have individual county departments determine whether the new workweek would be a viable option for their employees. A scaled-down plan might not be ready to be voted on before next year, county officials said.

Meanwhile, Reed told the board members that they would have to start early and present a unified front in dealing with the next year’s looming shortfall.

“There needs to be a strong consensus on the board in terms of general direction,” she said.

Reed added that at the moment, more cuts appear likely. “There doesn’t seem to be anything on the revenue side we can do,” she said. “It seems we’re limited to reductions.”

Further clouding the county’s financial situation, the board could lose $50 million in revenue that it has included in this year’s budget. A recent state Supreme Court ruling has called into question utility and business license taxes that were enacted without voter approval.

Overall, the county faces a potential $1.1-billion deficit next fiscal year when the general fund shortfall is combined with an expected gap in the health services budget. That is close to the $1.2-billion shortfall this fiscal year--the county’s worst ever.

This year’s deficit was pared only after supervisors approved deep cuts in virtually every county department and President Clinton presented the county with a $364-million check, which helped spare the county’s health system from some of the deepest cuts envisioned, though thousands of workers still are losing their jobs.

Illustrating the unsettled state of the county’s current budget, John Clarke, the executive officer of the Superior Courts, appeared before the board Tuesday asking for $41 million.

Clarke said that if the courts do not receive the money, the system will run out of funds by April, causing massive layoffs and courthouse closures.

“It is reprehensible that I have to come to you for money,” Clarke said, but “we’re in a very, very difficult position.”

The Superior Courts are funded jointly by the state and county--with the state responsible for 70% of the tab. But because of its own fiscal problems, the state has provided only about 30%, Clarke said.

When the court system needs money, it is required to ask the county for aid. If the county refuses, the court system may have no alternative but to sue the county, Clarke said.

The supervisors, faced with grim visions of the future all day long, were not receptive to Clarke’s request.

“If you pursue what you want us to do, you are going to bankrupt us,” Board Chairwoman Gloria Molina told him.

Clarke also declined the board’s suggestion that the auditor/controller’s office conduct a management audit of the department. He cited the independence of the judicial branch of government. “We stand ready to participate in any discussions short of an outside audit,” he said.

Later, however, Clarke said he would ask the Superior Court’s Board of Judges to consider paying for an outside management audit of the court system, as long as it is independent of executive and legislative bodies.

The Board of Supervisors delayed voting on the issue until next week. In the meantime, it took defensive action, directing the county counsel’s office to plan to file a lawsuit of its own against the state, seeking to force it to pay its share of costs for the court system.