Thanks for the abuse
The League recently won a lawsuit appeal in the appellate court. The appellate court ruled that classifying a personnel complaint as “not resolved” was a punitive action by the Department. Because it was punitive, it gave the officer the right to challenge the classification in an appeal under the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act. This is not a happy ruling for the Department, but how did this come about?
Ironically, because of a pattern: a pattern of abuse. Why is it ironic? Because it was exactly this abuse that the Department was using against officers. Not resolved personnel complaints were being strung together to support sustaining other personnel complaints, or to justify other management actions, such as sending officers to RMEC or to block acceptance into specialized units.
It all started with the then-Police Commission’s obsession with convicting an officer of biased policing. Most biased policing investigations resulted in unfounded classifications. This, by the way, was consistent with other departments across the nation. Internal Affairs bowed to the pressure and the word went out that exonerated and unfounded biased policing complaints weren’t favored. Not resolved adjudications started coming down, and when local captains didn’t go along with the program, military endorsements from the bureau changed their recommendations from unfounded to not resolved adjudications, educating those commanding officers of the errors of their ways.
This caused officers who cared about their TEAMS to complain. There was, however, no remedy. The Department gets to do what the Department gets to do. Talking had no effect, so the League filed a lawsuit over the lack of a remedy. The ultimate result was the recognition by the appellate court that an appeal was legally required. Thank you, Department, for the abuse.
This isn’t anything new. In the 1930s, officers who didn’t go along with the program of paying for promotions or protecting vice activity could expect to be terminated by the brass without doing anything more than not going along with the program. The public got fed up with the corruption and a young lieutenant named William Parker wrote and got a City Charter section passed that guaranteed an officer a Board of Rights and representation before the Department could terminate them. From then on, charges against an officer had to be proven in an evidentiary hearing. Thank you, Department, for the abuse.
In 1976, the mistreatment of officers by the LAPD discipline system reached intolerable levels. Officers complained to the League, and the League responded by sponsoring legislation in Sacramento to address this problem. LAPD officers were sent to Sacramento to testify about the abuses in front of the legislature. Ultimately, the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act was passed giving officers statewide protections from unfair treatment and punishment. Thank you, Department, for the abuse.
In 1982, the Department refused to acknowledge that the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act applied to LAPD because Los Angeles was a charter city. Relying on this, Internal Affairs conducted an extensive investigation against the bomb squad who had numerous allegations made against them. In their zeal to convict the bomb squad officers, lengthy interviews from four to 11 hours were forced on the officers, including forcing an officer to submit to an interview at the officer’s home while a relative was dying (only to be interrupted by the relative’s actual death), searches of desks without the presence of the officers, and downgrading the officers without a hearing. The California Supreme Court noted all this and ruled in Bagget vs. Gates that, indeed, the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act did apply to the Los Angeles Police Department. The result was that finally, the Department was forced to recognize that this state law applied to LAPD. Thank you, Department, for the abuse.
In 2001, the Department convinced the public that because of the Rampart scandal, the Board of Rights system had to be changed despite 50 years of success. The City Charter was amended to take away an officer’s right to choose another on-duty officer to defend him or her in a Board of Rights. This required the League to find a way to fund officers with a representative at Boards of Rights. The League’s Legal Plan was created. The Legal Plan not only provided officers with a representative at Boards of Rights, but a representative that was an attorney. In addition, attorneys were provided for personnel complaint interviews and assistance with Skelly responses. Finally, suspension days were subject to reimbursement to protect officer’s families from hardship. Currently, 89 percent of League members belong to the Legal Plan. Thank you, Department, for the abuse.
In 2002, the Department sent an officer to a Board of Rights and downgraded him from his P- 3 advanced pay grade position. The officer was subsequently found not guilty of all charges at the Board of Rights, yet the Department refused to reinstate his rank. Once again, the League had to file a lawsuit. The result was an appellate court ruling in Brown vs. City of Los Angeles that stated that downgrades required a hearing, and that the Department was required to carry the burden of proof justifying the downgrade. Thank you, Department, for the abuse.
In 2010, the Department barred League attorneys from entering Board rooms to represent officers who were subpoenaed to testify at Boards of Rights on the grounds that the officers were just witnesses and not entitled to representation, even though some of those officers had charges pending against them for similar acts to the accused officer in whose Board they were testifying. Again, the League filed a lawsuit that resulted in a settlement allowing attorneys in to represent witness officers. In addition, the League supported legislation that amends the Public Safety Officers Procedural Bill of Rights Act to include representation rights for officers who may be considered only witnesses. It has passed the legislature and is now on the governor’s desk awaiting signature. Thank you, Department, for the abuse.
In 2013, the Department continued a pattern of bringing expert witnesses into Boards of Rights testifying that officers who had Brady issues were damaged goods and for risk management reasons should be terminated. Allegations of false statements or reports became administrative death sentences in the Department’s mind because of the Brady issue. The League supported legislation, which has been signed by the governor and passed into law, that states that the fact that an officer has a Brady issue or has been placed in a Brady system in itself cannot be used for purposes of adverse action against the officer. Thank you, Department, for the abuse.
When a policy, or other action, results in an officer’s being treated unfairly, the League first tries to talk to the Department to somehow resolve the issue. When this fails, the League moves to outside solutions such as court action, legislative action, or political action of some kind. There should be an easier way.
I have a brother, of whom I am extremely proud, that rose through the ranks of a state police department in the Midwest to what is the equivalent of an LAPD deputy chief. On my visits back to my home territory, I would good-naturedly threaten him with retiring from the west coast and coming into his state and organizing a union defense team to represent his officers. “Not a chance,” he would say. “Our officers wouldn’t see any need for you. We treat them fair.” He was absolutely right. I realized he had the secret to union busting. Treat them fair. What an effective and simple concept!
Given the Department’s track record, I don’t think the League needs to lose any sleep over worrying that the Department will figure out the secret to reducing a union’s power. But it would be nice if they did.
Links to various things in this article are at www.warningbells.com.
Be legally careful out there.
