Can’t we all just get along?
The attorney/client privilege prevents me from going into details, but in the last couple of weeks there seems to have been a rash of treatment by investigators assigned to Professional Standards Bureau directed toward officers that ranges from callous all the way to brutal. Let me also say that there are many in PSB who do treat officers with respect, but those who do not give the discipline system a bad name completely out of proportion to their numbers. We need a little understanding from both the investigators and the investigated.
Officers must understand that Internal Affairs has a job to do. State law requires that personnel complaints be investigated. Internal Affairs must understand that officers have rights. State law also requires that they must be recognized. But beyond the strict necessities required by law, there is also an expectation that investigations should be fair and aboveboard. Those who investigate and those who are being investigated should treat each other with respect.
Recent events have placed the spotlight on the LAPD disciplinary system and how officers have been treated. It is in all of our best interests to treat each other with respect, even in the sometimes acrimonious atmosphere that may surround the investigation of personnel complaints. The goal is to find the truth, and the truth can be found while still respecting the rights and duties of both sides of the investigation.
The League has tried to interest the Department in establishing a reasonable written protocol to reduce tensions in the investigative process by establishing some reasonable rules of engagement, but there has been no success. Similarly, the Police Commission and Inspector General will not exercise any influence in this area, and the superior court does not want to become involved in the daily task of running LAPD.
There is, however, another way. Both personnel complaint investigators and the accused officers are League members. Why can’t we agree among ourselves to treat one another with respect and establish some basic rules to reduce conflict? The rules would not be mandatory, but we would at least have some standards that all League members could strive to maintain in their mutual interest.
To this end, here are some reasonable rules, following principles that take into account the need to investigate misconduct balanced with the rights of the investigated. If we, as members of the same organization, agreed to follow these rules, 90 percent of the unnecessary conflict between Internal Affairs and accused officers could disappear.
Remember, investigators, IA is a limited tour. You will be going back into the mainstream of the Department, supervising those you investigated. Will you be welcome and respected?
Remember, accused officers, down the road in your career, you may well be in a position where you will have to investigate personnel complaints. Will accused officers cooperate with you and treat you with respect?
Treating others as you would like to be treated could go a long way toward answering these questions in the affirmative. Much of the following is taken from Department documents, so there should be little resistance by upper management.
Principles for fair play with IA
1. For almost 80 years, members of the LAPD have enjoyed, and often taken for granted, the protection of the Los Angeles City Charter, which was passed in 1935. The Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights was passed in 1978, and these two pieces of legislation strive to ensure that officer treatment under the discipline system will be fair. While a strong discipline system is necessary for the proper functioning of the Department, a fundamental part of that system must incorporate fairness to the officers involved as well as to the public that they serve.
2. The discipline system must be aboveboard and fair. As required by law and ethics, personnel investigations should be thorough and fair both to the public and to the officer. After the facts are in, the dispositions should be well thought out and equally fair, and it is important that the officer and the public believe this is true. Proper discipline stimulates harmony and consistency within an organization and facilitates the coordination of effort. It is lubrication for the machinery of Departmental organization. Officers must know that they will receive encouragement and approval for acting correctly, as well as just criticism and penalties for acting wrongly. To that end, the officer should have access to the documents concerning the investigation when defending himself or herself, to the widest latitude consistent with protecting the safety of confidential sources of information.
3. An important part of the disciplinary system is the right to representation. The Department and the League have long recognized this right and appreciated its effect on an officer’s favorable view of the necessity and value of the disciplinary system. With the exception of the usual provisions under Miranda in criminal investigations, investigators are not obligated to inform officers of their right to a representative. However, in the interest of saving time and appearing fair, it is a good practice to remind officers that they are entitled to a representative when they are called to make the interview appointment; this is especially true for new officers who might not know of their right to representation. An officer should never be told that he or she doesn’t need a representative, or that he or she doesn’t have a right to a representative. Investigators should strive within the necessities of the investigation to accommodate an employee’s right to representation.
4. Those who participate as employee representatives are to be given positive recognition for their key role in the disciplinary system, rather than being dissuaded or penalized in any way for their participation. Representatives should not be interfered with, restrained or discouraged when exercising their duties in representing an officer. That being said, the Department has an equal right to conduct a prompt and fair investigation, and a representative does not have the right to improperly interfere with that process.
5. It is important that personnel complaint investigations be promptly completed. The goal is to accomplish the interview within 10 days of the officer getting notice that he or she needs to contact the investigator. Typically, immediately upon receiving this notice, the officer should contact the League and obtain an attorney/representative. Personnel complaint investigators can facilitate the scheduling of a mutually convenient interview by dealing directly with the attorney/representative, because it is the investigator and the attorney who have the most complicated schedules. However, if there are indications that either the officer or the attorney/representative is not dealing in good faith, then an ordered interview at a specific date and time is appropriate, with instructions to the officer that he or she is responsible for bringing an available representative. Similarly, even when not operating out of bad faith, an attorney/representative may not be available for more than two weeks, and the investigator would have the option of forcing the interview at an earlier time if that is important to the investigation.
6. The location of the interview also sometimes becomes an issue. Generally, the goal when interviewing an officer is to have him or her feel at ease. Consequently, conducting the interview at a reasonable location of the officer’s choice should be considered. This may be the officer’s division, the attorney/representative’s office, the League or an Internal Affairs office location. Investigative demands may make a particular location preferable, but in the interest of appearing fair, the convenience of the investigator should be subordinate to the general rule of accommodating the officer’s preference. Again, if there are indications of bad faith in dealing with this issue by the officer or the attorney/representative, then a location may be selected and the officer ordered to appear at a specific date and time.
7. It should be recognized that the duties of a representative are listed in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and that MOU sections are to be complied with because they have the status of an LAPD Manual section. Article 10.2 of the MOU lists the representative’s duties as conducting a pre-interview consultation with the employee to ascertain if the employee understands the allegations and to be present during the interview for purposes of consultation, advice, clarification, ensuring that procedures are followed and ensuring that the employee’s rights are not violated. Interviews should start on time, but if the allegations or documents are not given to the officer or his or her representative in advance, there is an expectation that time will have to be taken for the representative to comply with the mandates of the MOU by consulting with the officer after receiving this information. If the allegations and documents to be used in the interview are provided to the officer in advance, it would be reasonable for the personnel complaint investigator to expect the officer to arrive at the interview prepared to start at the agreed-upon time.
8. The interview is not only a fact-finding process for the personnel complaint investigator, but also an opportunity for the officers to tell their side of the story and make a record for future proceedings. To that end, the officers and their representatives should be allowed to make that record. The officer or their representative should be allowed to read the League card, clarify questions, make objections, consult for purposes of advice and ask questions to bring out necessary information for the officer’s defense. Conversely, the officer or the representative may not interfere with or obstruct the personnel complaint investigator in conducting the interview. Both parties should be professional at all times during the disciplinary process.
A different concept
The above principles are based on a different concept: mutual respect. The Department has the power to abuse you, but that doesn’t make it right. Internal Affairs investigators can get away with treating you like dirt, but that doesn’t make it right. You can jack around the investigator by avoiding emails and other foot-dragging, but that doesn’t make it right.
All of these behaviors have one thing in common: They divide us as League members. We should stand together, and peer pressure should make us treat each other respectfully. When officers from either side of the discipline system abuse other officers, maybe the response should be, “How can you treat a fellow League member like that?” And if the response is not sufficient, let all of your fellow League members know.
Department management, the judicial system and the Police Commission cannot be relied upon to take action. Maybe it’s time for self-help.
The League’s loss is the Department’s gain
Paul Weber was promoted and has left the League as a director to assume the mantle of watch commander. I have worked with Paul since we were both defense reps 25 years ago. I have the greatest respect for him as a professional and as a fighter for the fair treatment of officers. There is no doubt that these attributes will work to the benefit of everyone on his watch.
Thank you, Paul, for everything that you have done for your fellow officers and everything you still will do.
Be legally careful out there.
