LOS ANGELES - A prosecutor has sued the Association of Deputy District Attorneys, alleging that the bargaining representative for the county's deputy prosecutors illegally changed its bylaws and canceled October elections.
Peter A. Burke, assistant head deputy of the district attorney's auto insurance fraud division, accused the union of violating the California Corporations Code by calling off its annual leadership elections. He also claims that a membership vote to change the group's bylaws did not meet statutory requirements because not enough members participated. Burke v. Ipsen, BS117425 (L.A. Sup. Ct., filed Oct. 16, 2008). His petition, filed Dec. 5, requests injunctions requiring leadership elections and repealing the new bylaws.
"Unions are supposed to be democratically run organizations because they have significant powers in representing the rank-and-file in dealings with, in this case, the county and our management," Burke said. "With those duties, they also have duties to the membership, and they have to fulfill those duties."
Los Angeles County certified the association as a bargaining representative in March. Leaders said the group is currently bargaining for its first contract.
The flap is not the first controversy to face the group and its president, Steve Ipsen.
Ipsen, who challenged incumbent District Attorney Steve Cooley in a June election, has been accused of using the group to further his political ambitions. Some of that criticism came in recent years when he opposed aligning the prosecutors' group with the Service Employees International Union. He also got flak for taking out an election advertisement in 2003 critical of two sitting judges.
Burke's lawsuit stems from a change that Ipsen and other leaders proposed to the group's bylaws. The proposal altered the association's election cycle to align it with bargaining. Previously, elections were held annually; now, elections will be held within one year of a bargaining agreement or every three years. The new bylaws also allowed leaders to increase dues, which they raised from $30 annually to $50 or $75 monthly, depending on prosecutors' classifications.
Ipsen pitched the change as a way to improve the group's bargaining position, and said members approved the new bylaws by a large margin in October. After the vote, the group's leaders canceled the previously planned leadership elections.
Ipsen would not comment on Burke's specific allegations, but he said that the changes were meant to increase the group's bargaining clout. "Having no money and having an election would be a distraction from [getting] better pay for prosecutors," he said.
The association's senior vice president, Frank Tavelman, said that because the group took a vote of its members, it is in compliance with the Corporations Code.
"Unfortunately, Mr. Burke hasn't really shared his true motives with us or why he's doing what he's doing, when it's inimical to the collective bargaining interests of our members," Tavelman said. "So it's kind of hard for me to speculate - he's a supervisor within the office - why he's doing this, especially because he's taken no active role in the organization up until relatively recently."
Burke said that, as the son of a member of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, he is not acting as a pawn for management. He added that, though he had been considering running for treasurer of the group, that is not the reason for his lawsuit.
"The election is not about me. It's about due process," he said.
Burke first filed the suit in pro per just before the new bylaws were approved. He asked the court to require elections and to install him as treasurer. But Judge Pro Tem David Yaffe dismissed the suit.
Burke has since retained Christopher Katzenbach of Katzenbach & Khtikian in San Francisco to represent him. Los Angeles attorney Eugene Salute represented the association when Burke filed his first petition, but Ipsen said the group has not decided on its lawyers going forward.
The topic of the lawsuit may sound familiar to prosecutors. In 2002, Ipsen, Tavelman and two other prosecutors sued the association, claiming that it had unlawfully extended deadlines in its elections. They later withdrew the suit.
Ipsen's leadership has long been a source of discussion among prosecutors, and attention on the group has increased with its status as a bargaining unit. Many laud him for unionizing the deputies, but some also question his methods.
"There's really no oversight of Ipsen," said one deputy district attorney, commenting anonymously because he feared retribution. "If any information comes out, it's by mass e-mail by Ipsen. He controls everything."
Three other prosecutors declined to comment for attribution. Several other deputies did not return calls. Ipsen said oversight comes from the group's board and members.
"Ultimately, it's a thousand prosecutors that we answer to," he said. He added that the group maintains two Web sites and an e-mail service to communicate with members.
Deputy District Attorney Max Huntsman said that the current dispute may just be an instance of "growing pains" for the association. "I don't think there's any indication that the board isn't trying to do what they think is in the best interest of the D.A.s," he said.
He added, "I'm not as concerned as Peter is, but I do share his concern in the sense that everything that I'm aware of that he's asking for is appropriate.
"But do I think the sky is falling? No."
