The Legislature early Saturday ratified new contracts with several state employee unions, but not before some last-minute changes meant to control future costs.

The approval came amid charges that politically powerful unions got a windfall from Gov. Gray Davis just as he seeks their campaign contributions.

The Davis administration negotiated with the unions to win concessions that would help cut payroll costs, as called for in the budget the governor signed last month.

Most of the deals came in the last days of the legislative session, and lawmakers were asked to ratify them.

To get the savings -- accomplished by delaying employees' scheduled 5 percent pay increase -- Davis' Department of Personnel Administration made concessions in health benefits, vacation days, salary increases and payments into the retirement system.

Those future benefits were the target of intense scrutiny from lawmakers. On Friday, two of the most controversial contracts -- with state engineers and sworn officers such as park rangers -- were amended to allow the Legislature to review future pay increases.

Assemblyman Darrell Steinberg, D-Sacramento, said the contracts provided for open-ended pay raises that would be triggered by factors beyond the Legislature's control. The engineers were to be brought to parity with their counterparts at other public agencies -- a boost estimated at 25 percent or more over four years. The contract with the sworn officers called for them to get raises tied to those of the California Highway Patrol, which itself is in line for future salary increases.

With the change, Steinberg said, "they can only occur if the Legislature two years from now (or) three years from now reviews it, determines our fiscal condition and ratifies those increases. This is different than how it's ever been done before."

And at the last minute, the Legislature refused to consider the contract with the sworn officers. Members of the union could not be reached Saturday for comment.

Republicans said the Legislature does not have the power to amend the contracts negotiated by the executive branch, but Steinberg countered that it was not a real change.

"All we're doing is reserving our right to approve that portion of the agreement later," Steinberg said.

In any case, the tinkering with the contract with Professional Engineers in California Government didn't placate Republican lawmakers, who said that, overall, the deals still gave away too much in later years.

In return for giving up a 5 percent raise for one year, union members generally got a day off each month that can be redeemed for cash when they leave state service and a guarantee that the state will cover 80 percent or 85 percent of health care premiums.

The largest union, the California State Employees Association, and some others also won an agreement in which the state will cover their payments into the retirement system for one more year.

"This is a terrible deal," said Assemblyman John Campbell, R-Irvine. "This deal does a little bit now for huge, huge costs down the line and it's sold as a cost-saving measure."

On his own, the governor could have made the necessary reductions to the bureaucracy without the overhauled contracts, Campbell said. And he charged that the motivation for renegotiating the contracts was political.

"We shouldn't be approving any (contracts) right now negotiated by this governor, while he is approaching the same people relative to the recall," Campbell said. "It is a clear conflict of interest that we should not support."

In the boisterous last hours of the session, Democratic lawmakers called Campbell's claims outrageous and defended the deal with engineers as a way to make sure the state didn't lose a crucial segment of its work force to other public agencies.

The administration at first thought it might need Republican votes to give the contracts the two-thirds majorities required to put the changes into effect right away.

But now, it has concluded that the parts of the contract that will generate savings can be put into effect immediately without a two-thirds vote, because they don't involve expenditures and don't have to be ratified.

The Legislature approved another bill, AB 457, allowing some public employees to receive a sweetened early retirement known as a "golden handshake." If state, local or school officials determine that it would save money, the workers would be offered two years of service credit, two years of age, or both, if they retire before 2005.

Yet another bill that would have allowed public safety workers in state or local governments to retire with 100 percent of their pay went down to defeat in the Senate. SB 53, by Sen. Joe Dunn, D-Santa Ana, would have increased the highest possible pension from 90 percent. Dunn said it would have cost the same or less because workers would have to keep working for three more years to earn it.