Board starts process to consider charter change affecting District Attorney staff; DA urges delay

The Alameda County Board of Supervisors on July 23 voted to begin the process of placing a charter amendment before voters that would change the county's treatment of certain positions in the District Attorney's Office.

Supervisor Lena Marquez moved to waive the balance of the first reading to trigger the county's required meet‑and‑confer process with affected bargaining units; the motion passed after debate with four ayes and one abstention/recusal noted by the chair. The action does not immediately change job classifications but starts formal labor and policy review.

The proposal would move some unclassified, at‑will DA employees into the classified civil service. HR Director Marguerite Desimora told the board the change would require meet‑and‑confer with five employee organizations and staff estimated there would not be time to complete that process before the ballot‑filing deadline for November. Desimora said, "When we're dealing with ambiguous language, that causes problems ... the union may think it's one thing, we may think it's another, so there has to be a meeting of the minds."

District Attorney Pamela Price urged the board to continue the item rather than advance the ordinance. "This is a major, shift in the governance of this county and will have an impact on our ability to provide public service to the residents of Alameda County for 100 years," Price said during public comment, adding the DA's office and its employees had not yet been engaged in sufficient dialogue.

County Counsel and HR staff warned of operational and budgetary consequences if grant‑funded or specialized positions moved unintentionally into classified service. County Counsel said moving employees automatically into the classified service "could have unintended consequences" because some positions are grant‑funded or tied to specific operational needs.

Board members framed three options: advance the ordinance to begin meet‑and‑confer and further study, send staff back for a structured study and stakeholder engagement, or reject the proposal. Supporters said advancing the item would "start the ball rolling" to achieve parity for employees who perform similar functions across departments; opponents said it was premature without fuller analysis and bargaining‑unit input.

The board recorded the motion to advance the first reading as approved; staff will notify affected bargaining units and return with the results of meet‑and‑confer. The board did not set a date for final action and several supervisors told colleagues they did not expect the change to reach the November ballot given the process timelines.

The next procedural steps are for HR to issue notices to the identified employee organizations and for staff to compile analyses of which classifications and programs would be affected. The board's action does not itself amend the charter; any final charter amendment would require further readings and, if approved by the board, would go to voters.