Three Strikes and the Discipline System is Out
Or at least it should be. Then again, maybe a better metaphor would be three strikes and its life imprisonment away from us. A third LAPD captain is suing the Department alleging retaliation for failing to terminate an officer at a Board of Rights. Let’s recap this. There are now three separately filed lawsuits filed against the Department for the same thing. Three separate former Board of Rights members whose jobs under the City Charter are to provide an accused officer with a “full, fair, and impartial hearing before a Board of Rights” have had to sue because they believed they should follow the law and not bow to pressure to rubber stamp the Chief’s disciplinary decisions and as a result, they were retaliated against by the Department.
The City Charter established a Board of Rights in 1935 to protect officers from corruption. In the ‘30s, the mayor and other members of City government controlled the Department’s vice activities, sold LAPD promotions, and otherwise illegally influenced law enforcement activities. Honest officers who wouldn’t go along with the program were terminated. The Board of Rights system was created to provide checks and balances to the power of the Chief and politicians. It required a full, fair, and impartial hearing before an officer could be terminated.
When an officer is ordered to a Board of Rights by the Chief, the first stop is at the Internal Affairs Advocate section to draw a Board. All of the eligible captains and above on the Department each have their names inscribed on a round chip at the Advocate section. Those chips are placed into a tumbler from which the officer draws four names. The officer picks two out of the four to be the sworn members on his or her Board.
The chips in that tumbler are in effect the officer’s jury pool. And everyone in America knows that you don’t screw with the jury. Everyone except LAPD management, that is.
Remember that in April of this year, Captain A filed a lawsuit against the Chief and the City of Los Angeles where he said in his lawsuit that at a meeting of captains and above, where the Chief of Police was present, a deputy chief, speaking on behalf of the Chief of Police, told them that “when the Chief sends an officer to a BOR, he expects that officer to be terminated, and the commanding officers sitting on the Board of Rights do not have the authority to do anything different.” Captain A alleged that he was retaliated against when he did not terminate an officer at a Board of Rights as recommended by the Chief.
A couple of months later, Captain B filed a lawsuit. Captain B alleged that he did not terminate two officers that the Chief had sent to a Board with a recommendation of termination. A short time later, Captain B was ordered into a meeting with an assistant chief. The assistant chief told captain B that both he and the Chief of Police were “disappointed” in his decision not to terminate the officer. Captain B was sent to special “training” with the Chief in charge of Internal Affairs and the two officers were transferred to his command. At a later training day for command officers, Captain B said that “During his opening remarks, Chief Beck stated his ‘expectation’ that captains sitting on Boards were to terminate employees that he (the Chief) ordered to a Board for termination, or that such captains would have to answer to him.” Captain B believed he had been retaliated against by the Department for failing to terminate those officers.
Last week (as I write this), a third captain filed a Notice of Claim for a third lawsuit. Captain C stated in her papers that during a meeting with officers that held the rank of captain or above, where the Chief was present, an assistant chief, speaking on behalf of Chief Beck, told all command staff that “when we send someone to a BOR, we expect termination.” Another deputy chief also made it known to her that when an officer is sent to a BOR, termination was expected.
Captain C had reservations about this directive since she is required under the law to provide a fair and adequate hearing to all officers accused of misconduct before concluding that an officer should be terminated. Based on this, Captain C listened to the evidence in a Board of Rights to which she had been assigned and concluded that based on the evidence the officer should be suspended instead of terminated and she so ruled.
The reaction was swift. “Who the hell does she think she is?” she reported a second deputy chief said. Captain C was scheduled to meet with an assistant chief “because she had violated Chief Beck’s order to terminate all officers that are sent to a Board of Rights,” she stated in her papers.
Undaunted, Captain C had been assigned to another Board of Rights. After listening to the evidence, she ruled that the officer was not guilty. She was informed that the assistant chief wanted to see her about this ruling also. Captain C alleged that her decision to follow the law as written in the City Charter, rather than the orders of the Chief of Police, has impaired her chance for promotion.
We will follow the discovery and trials of these lawsuits as they unfold and report on their progress. The issues are vital to the interests of all officers, not just the three Board members mentioned above.
These Board members aren’t alone in their criticism of the fairness of the LAPD disciplinary system. Recall that an Internal Affairs investigator had become so frustrated with what she was seeing that she went to an open Police Commission meeting and on the record attacked the fairness of the process.
More recently, another 26-year sergeant felt compelled to speak to the Police Commission on the unfairness of the disciplinary system, as he knew it in connection with the detention of the actress in the Django Unchained incident.
Not to mention the League Directors who also addressed the City Council and the Police Commission about the fact that, in the words of League President Tyler Izen, “there is no confidence in a system viewed as inconsistent, unfair, and riddled by favoritism. No one feels safe when trying to do their jobs.”
There was also the Department’s investigation of the fairness of the system caused by the Dorner murders. Sixty officers requested that Risk Management review their cases because they believed that they were unfairly terminated. So far, there has been no word that any of them were right.
Then there was the 10,000 Volts survey participated in by hundreds of officers asked to comment on the discipline system. Rumors are that the report is done, but not released. Of more significance is that the Department is refusing to release the raw data upon which the report is supposed to be based. Both persons that participated in the survey and the League have asked for it, but it is not forthcoming. Wonder why? When the report is released, how much confidence can we have in it?
The only way to repair the disciplinary system is to open it up to inspection by both sides of the involved parties. When the Chief trains Board members, the League has to be there to monitor the training. Written rules have to be implemented to bar retaliation against Board members, standards have to exist for downgrades, civilian hearing officers should be in place for all administrative appeals to reduce command influence on decisions, there should be a protocol for personnel complaint interviews to insure equal and fair treatment of employees, discovery should be open and fair, and most of all, the Police Commission and the Chief of Police should be the conspicuous champions of fair treatment of officers insisting that the rules be followed.
Or, the League can just continue to file lawsuits, lobby government, sponsor corrective legislation, and publicly expose bias and unfair treatment. The League has proposed significant changes to the disciplinary system that can be used to make the system more fair and transparent. Our greatest hope is that the Police Commission will recognize their duty to not only protecting the public, but to protect their officers. One bright light has been Commander Girmala of ERG who has been meeting with the League and doing her best to understand our concerns and negotiate remedies.
In the meantime, the League will continue to demand reform of the disciplinary system on all fronts including the formulation and filing of another lawsuit based on fraud referred to by League Director Craig Lally in last month’s Thin Blue Line.
Be legally careful out there.
