Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Workers Comp topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council narrows TPA choice for sworn workers'comp after extended debate; votes 7-4 for Presidium recommendation
Summary
After public testimony and council debate, Los Angeles City Council voted 7-4 to follow the personnel department's recommendation to contract with Presidium for sworn employees' workers'comp administration, despite objections from the Police Protective League and a failed motion to extend existing contracts.
The Los Angeles City Council voted 7-4 to follow the personnel department's recommendation to award a workers'compensation third‑party administrator (TPA) contract to Presidium for sworn personnel after a lengthy public hearing and competing motions.
The council's personnel staff argued the Presidium staffing model would bring more professional claims adjusters, expanded case management and medical review that could reduce program costs. Bill Fujioka of the personnel department told the council the contract "can save up to $2,000,000 for this program, but we think a minimum of 1,500,000.0," and emphasized Presidium's heavier professional staffing and two nurses for case management.
Police union leaders and some council members warned the change risked disrupting service to injured officers. Tim Sands, director of the Los Angeles Police Protective League, said the league's main concern was continuity and service: "To switch from 1 third party administrator to another, in our opinion, would be like starting all over again." Sands urged keeping Firm Solutions, saying service had improved in the last year and that transferring roughly 6,000 pending work‑comp cases would be a logistical challenge.
Representatives for Presidium, including Harold Anderson, responded that prior large transitions gave the company relevant experience and that the technology used by both vendors was compatible. Anderson said the city could be "up and running, within the 45 day window." Fujioka added that an enhanced contract monitoring process and performance standards were in place to hold the winning contractor to service expectations.
Council debate focused on balancing potential savings against service risk. Supporters of the personnel recommendation noted survey results the department cited (majorities of firefighters reportedly satisfied with Presidium) and the projected cost savings; opponents, including members who spoke for the rank‑and‑file police, pointed to improved performance by Firm Solutions and urged caution or a temporary extension while a joint labor‑management study completed its work.
Procedural and roll call outcomes mirrored council divisions. A motion to extend the existing contracts for six months (moved by a council member who argued for buying time to get a broader study) failed on a 4‑7 vote. Councilmember Goldberg's motion to approve option A (personnel's recommendation) then passed 7‑4. The chair subsequently said the matter "will be before us one week from today," indicating a continuing procedural timeline.
The personnel department and council members indicated monitoring provisions and contractual penalties would be applied if performance fell short. Council members who opposed the immediate switch said they would watch service outcomes closely and supported an ability to change vendors if service quality declined.
Next steps: council records show the matter will return to the council one week after the vote for final steps related to contract award and second‑reading procedures.
