Court Rules Withdrawal of Private Security Contracts Renders Litigation Moot
Court Finds No Evidence Department of Mental Health Intends to Utilize Private Security at Napa State Hospital
As reported previously, on July 24, 2007, California Statewide Law Enforcement Association (CSLEA) filed suit against the Department of Mental Health (DMH) challenging contracts which authorize the use of private security companies to perform work at Napa State Hospital (NSH).
In order to address staffing shortages created by the State's failure to equitably compensate and to actively recruit and retain Hospital Police Officers (HPO), NSH Administration entered into contracts with two private security companies to perform work which has historically been adequately and competently performed by HPO's.
Pursuant to Article VII of the California Constitution, State agencies are generally, with few exceptions, prohibited from privately contracting for work that is capable of being performed by State civil service employees as it violates the merit system.
Shortly after the suit was filed, DMH withdrew the contracts which were the subject of the litigation. DMH then opposed the suit claiming the dispute was rendered moot as a result of the withdrawal of the contracts. CSLEA countered DMH had not evidenced an intention to refrain from entering in to similar contracts in the future and urged the court to rule on the legitimacy of DMH's authority to do so.
On October 25, 2007, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette agreed, by virtue of the withdrawal of the contracts, there was no present dispute for the court to resolve:
"The facts of this case demonstrate only that [DMH] made one attempt (through two contracts entered into on the same day) to enter into contracts with private entities for guard services, and that it took preliminary steps to put one of the contracts into effect until [CSLEA] challenged the legality of the contract. There is no evidence at this point that [DMH] has stated that it intends to enter into other, similar contracts, and no evidence that it might have a need to do so other than the allegations in the Amended Petition that there are vacant Hospital Police Officer positions at the Napa State Hospital. (See, e.g., Amended Petition, paragraph 15.) These facts fall short of compelling a conclusion that [DMH] intends to, and will, enter into more such contracts in the future. The Court therefore may only speculate at this point about whether such attempts at private contracting will recur."
The Court did emphasize, however, that CSLEA retains the right to challenge any future attempt by DMH to enter into similar contracts:
"Under the circumstances presented by this case, then, the Court could only issue a writ or declaration ordering [DMH] to follow the law in the future, something it is presumed to do in any case. (See, Evidence Code section 664.) As was the case with [CSLEA's] challenge to contracts that have expired or been terminated, this would be an idle act. [CSLEA], of course, retains the right and ability to assert all applicable remedies if [DMH] should enter into contracts in the future that petitioner contends violate Article VII. "
CSLEA and its Site Representatives at Napa State Hospital will monitor the situation to ensure DMH does not again attempt to illegally enter into such private contracts and will not hesitate to challenge such contracts should there be future attempts at implementation.
Court Finds No Evidence Department of Mental Health Intends to Utilize Private Security at Napa State Hospital
Source: Kasey Christopher Clark, General Manager/Chief Counsel
Date: 10/30/2007
In order to address staffing shortages created by the State's failure to equitably compensate and to actively recruit and retain Hospital Police Officers (HPO), NSH Administration entered into contracts with two private security companies to perform work which has historically been adequately and competently performed by HPO's.
Pursuant to Article VII of the California Constitution, State agencies are generally, with few exceptions, prohibited from privately contracting for work that is capable of being performed by State civil service employees as it violates the merit system.
Shortly after the suit was filed, DMH withdrew the contracts which were the subject of the litigation. DMH then opposed the suit claiming the dispute was rendered moot as a result of the withdrawal of the contracts. CSLEA countered DMH had not evidenced an intention to refrain from entering in to similar contracts in the future and urged the court to rule on the legitimacy of DMH's authority to do so.
On October 25, 2007, Sacramento Superior Court Judge Patrick Marlette agreed, by virtue of the withdrawal of the contracts, there was no present dispute for the court to resolve:
"The facts of this case demonstrate only that [DMH] made one attempt (through two contracts entered into on the same day) to enter into contracts with private entities for guard services, and that it took preliminary steps to put one of the contracts into effect until [CSLEA] challenged the legality of the contract. There is no evidence at this point that [DMH] has stated that it intends to enter into other, similar contracts, and no evidence that it might have a need to do so other than the allegations in the Amended Petition that there are vacant Hospital Police Officer positions at the Napa State Hospital. (See, e.g., Amended Petition, paragraph 15.) These facts fall short of compelling a conclusion that [DMH] intends to, and will, enter into more such contracts in the future. The Court therefore may only speculate at this point about whether such attempts at private contracting will recur."
The Court did emphasize, however, that CSLEA retains the right to challenge any future attempt by DMH to enter into similar contracts:
"Under the circumstances presented by this case, then, the Court could only issue a writ or declaration ordering [DMH] to follow the law in the future, something it is presumed to do in any case. (See, Evidence Code section 664.) As was the case with [CSLEA's] challenge to contracts that have expired or been terminated, this would be an idle act. [CSLEA], of course, retains the right and ability to assert all applicable remedies if [DMH] should enter into contracts in the future that petitioner contends violate Article VII. "
CSLEA and its Site Representatives at Napa State Hospital will monitor the situation to ensure DMH does not again attempt to illegally enter into such private contracts and will not hesitate to challenge such contracts should there be future attempts at implementation.
| contactus@cslea.com | (800) 551-1414 | 2029 H Street • Sacramento, CA 95811 |