Quoted Text

SCHENECTADY
Police discipline to be in public eye
Misconduct cases will be resolved in court setting
BY KATHLEEN MOORE Gazette Reporter

A conference room in the Police Department may look a lot like a courtroom next year.
Public Safety Commissioner Wayne Bennett envisions creating court-like public hearings to handle police discipline, as allowed by a Court of Appeals ruling issued Thursday.
    Bennett is planning the new system with Corporation Counsel John Polster and Mayor Gary McCarthy. Under the new process, he plans to hear disciplinary cases within 60 days of an officer being charged with misconduct. In the past, officers waited a year or more while on paid suspension.
    The process could be operational by next year, McCarthy said. Still, “I would hope we don’t have to use the process.”
    The Court of Appeals decision returns the city to a disciplinary system that has not been used for decades. With it comes a big change: an audience in the room.
    The city’s long-ago law on disciplinary hearings specifi es that they must be open to the public. That provision has been upheld by the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court.
    While the openness is unpopular with some of Schenectady’s police officers, Bennett has said open hearings could give the public more confidence in the department, just as open court sessions are intended to promote confidence in the justice system.
    “Give them an opportunity to see just how thorough these hearings can be,” he said.
    Without open hearings, Bennett said, the public might not believe that justice had been done.
    He has been stymied by problems with the secrecy of the unionnegotiated process for years. That process was struck down by Thursday’s decision, which said municipalities cannot negotiate discipline with the union.
    Under the previous system, city officials were not allowed to release details defending their disciplinary decisions. That hasn’t been easy, both in cases of leniency and termination.
    Bennett was forced to remain silent when a city councilwoman staunchly defended an officer who was fired for allegedly driving while intoxicated. The incident occurred off-duty, and the councilwoman argued that the offi cer should be given another chance. Bennett couldn’t explain why the arbitrator who heard the case did not agree.
    Likewise, when an offi cer was given only a 30-day suspension for an alleged off-duty drunken brawl, residents said it was an outrage — but they could not review the facts to determine whether the arbitrator had truly erred. The city eventually brought additional charges against that officer, and he was fi red.
    The arbitrator held closed hearings, at which officers brought their attorneys and, usually, boxes of paperwork.
    Bennett said the proceedings were much like a court case, and he expects to preside openly over similar hearings.
    “There will be motions made by opposing counsel,” he said.
    He wants the city attorneys to prosecute, while another attorney is assigned to help him handle the legal technicalities of a trial.
    “I think it’s advisable,” he said.
BENNETT’S EXPERIENCE
    But he may not need much help. Bennett has served on three-member hearing panels for state police disciplinary hearings, so he’s familiar with the process.
    “It’s not new ground for me,” he said.
    Some troopers have been exonerated under that system, while others were found guilty and punished. Those who believe they were treated wrongly can file an Article 78 proceeding with the courts to show that the evidence was improper or the punishment was too severe.
    But Bennett said the process won’t be a “kangaroo court,” as some officers have complained.
    “Due process will be provided,” he said.
    He also does not expect a public hearing to hurt the offi cers’ ability to work.
    The police union has opposed making hearings public on the argument that offi cers’ reputations would be damaged.
    Calls to attorney Michael Ravalli, who represents the union, were not returned. But in the past, union officials said officers might later encounter residents who ignore lawful orders because they no longer respect the particular offi cer.
    But Bennett noted that offi cers facing discipline in closed hearings have had their charges widely covered by the media anyway. And no one has been treated badly by residents later, he said.
    “That has not happened,” he said. “I haven’t heard of any problems.”
    But, he said, commanders could simply assign another officer to respond to an incident if a resident objected to the fi rst offi cer.
    And, he added, an open hearing could help officers who are found not guilty.
    “Certainly if the officer was exonerated, they’d have no reason to be concerned,” he said.
    Bennett also plans to use public hearings as a threat to push offi - cers to plead guilty without going through a trial. He plans to warn them that they might be embarrassed in a public hearing, and that they “can’t control what evidence comes out.” ......................................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r01301&AppName=1

The old system was problematic but this system has major problems.

1)  The Department has clearly demonstrated a willingness and ability to hold officers accountable.  Thus, the notion that you have to hold public hearings
in order to ensure accountability is an extremely weak argument.  And , should we be revamping a disciplinary process simply because a Council person
was upset because her relative was fired?  

2)  Very uncomfortable with a system which would use the threat of public embarrassment a a means of intimidating someone, making them reluctant to
assert their due process rights.

3)  This carries with it an opportunity for politics and personalities to enter into the process.  Not accussing anyone of wrongdoing, but, hypothetically -
Commissioner serves at discretion of Mayor, who in turn is endorsed by political parties.  If someone was either supportive or antagonistic to those
political parties (e.g., Conservative, Independence Party) - could that not contaminate the process?  

In the private sector when you violate a serious company rule you are just fired, so it could be worse than being embarrassed.

1. the public seeks accountability

2. a police officer IS public 'safety' thereby automatically making everything seen and heard completely appropriate

3. as for the 'tit for tat', I think if the public sees this more there would be a more 'rational' argument FOR the officer in a bad
situation.

IT'S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT THE OFFICER AS MUCH AS IT IS ABOUT OUR ELECTED WHO LEGISLATE LAWS EVERY TIME
THE PUBLIC CRIES "THEY NEED TO DO SOMETHING"...

there is WAAAAAAY to much pre-crime out there driven by politicians trying to 'get the vote', putting officers in a bad place,
are there bad apples OF COURSE, there always are, in ANY profession. unfortunately society has cease policing itself in a
personal way, giving up their ability to logically/reasonably make choices in a prudent fashion. Now we have raised up
a new personal discipline called "they need to do something" religion. Shame on us.

There's a reason I'm not a police officer.

let's remove the 'pen' from our all caring elected 'gods' and this wouldn't be such an issue....maybe they could find a better
podium than the, big daddy blood sucking leech podium, they are on now.

shadow - they were fired.  and employees were fired before this debate about discipline ever arose.

I disagree that every matter dealing witha public sector employee is fair game for public consumption.  The public does not have a right to that info, IMO.  They have a right to expect public sector employees abide by the rules and are held accountable when they don't.  Over the past several years - there is no reason to doubt that has occurred.  

And what if you wer a public sector employee - suppose you committed non-criminal act, a violation of workplace rules - you really think it is necessary for the public to have access to that info - in order for that conduct to be addressed?  

And this could cut the other way - again hypothetically, Commissioner serves at discretion of Mayor.  Yuo really think theer will not be attempts to use political influence to impact these decisions?  The initial process needed a massive overhaul but this is not the answer.  

You will hear the Gazette support it, but, what else would they say when they know it will help them sell papers.

No, you should really try the private sector. People are IMMEDIATELY fired without a hint of warning or 20 slaps on the wrist. You get DWI and you get fired. You get accused of a crime and you get fired. And computer programmers and waiters don't carry guns and have life-and-death power over the citizenry. The reason we are broke and look like the stupidest human in the nation is because we tolerate you and yours and your constant entitled misbehavior.

Yeah private sector is where nothing ever goes wrong.  BP Oil spill, stock market plummeting, housing market collapse, hedge fund frauds,  - all created by the private sector.

How about those employees at Enron - they did everything right and the company ruined their retirement savings.  Is that the kind fo private sector model you are referring to.

And, I earned every penny I received in the public sector and my military service.  

The main reason you look stupid is your childish behavior and use of vulgar and offensive language.

I doubt you could do the job.  Just sit back and judge evryone behind the safety of yoru computer monitor.  Loudmouth coward.
complain.  

And, FYI I worked in the private sector and never had a problem holding a job.  

You just whine and belly ache because your life didn't turn out the way you wanted and are looking for a scapegoat.

police officers are like 'deacons' in our civil society....the politicians are the cardinals

Quoted from senders

police officers are like 'deacons' in our civil society....the politicians are the cardinals

Deacons don't beat their parishioners bloody if they don't follow the Cardinals Laws.  Deacons don't kick down doors making sure Catholics are not using birth control.  The police will bust down your door, shoot your dog, just to make sure you are not smoking a weed.

I've been a defender of the police in this city for a long time, because I respect the difficult job they do, and am grateful for their service.

However I believe this is a good thing.  There should not be excessive protection for public servants just because they are public servants.  There are fair employment laws after all, right?

I guess my concern isn't so much that employment records belong in the public domain - but that the union contract and arbiters in the past have put the city in a difficult position when an officer really does need to go.

In the real world there are conditions of employment read and signed by the employee that spell out what offenses are a fireable offense, when you violate one of them you are removed from the workforce immediately. The union gets to file an appeal.

Quoted Text

SCHENECTADY
Cop discipline power still undecided
PBA takes case to state PERB; Bennett on hold
BY KATHLEEN MOORE Gazette Reporter

    The Court of Appeals has spoken, but the police union isn’t giving in yet.
    The union representing Schenectady police is now submitting briefs to the Public Employment Relations Board to argue that Schenectady’s public safety commissioner doesn’t really have the right to discipline police offi cers.
    Briefs are due by Jan. 18, and city officials are urging PERB to make a full decision as soon as possible next year. Until then, Public Safety Commissioner Wayne Bennett won’t take over police discipline.
    It’s a disappointment to city officials. Corporation Counsel John Polster had hoped PERB would simply say the Court of Appeals case decided the matter. But police union attorney Michael Ravalli plans to fight until the end — and he argues that he still has a chance to win.
    The argument is highly technical, regarding whether the city is governed in this issue by the Second Class Cities Law or the Optional City Government Law.
    The first law grants the commissioner the authority to discipline his employees. The second law gives all discipline authority to the Civil Service — which now directs cities to negotiate their discipline with police unions.
    The city opted into the second law in 1936, after being governed by the first law for decades.
    Ravalli will argue that the city gave up its chance at commissioner discipline when it opted into the second law, all those years ago.
    “Our argument is the Optional City Government Law controls,” Ravalli said.
    The city is arguing that the Second Class Cities Law — and its commissioner-discipline — still applies. The Optional law never mentions police or the commissioner, just general Civil Service employees.
    So the commissioner’s duties should continue as they were described in the Second Class Cities Law, Bennett said.
    “That’s our argument,” he said. “The Optional City Government Law isn’t inconsistent with the Second Class Cities Law.”
    Until a court decides which very old law goes into effect now, Ravalli said Bennett should start deciding discipline himself to avoid the cost and long delays in the current method.
    Ravalli said the negotiated method has been wrongly blamed for causing the cost and delays. He blamed the city for those problems.
    The current contract lets Bennett — or any other qualifi ed person — run the disciplinary hear- ings. But officers can appeal to an arbitrator, and city offi cials believe they will do so in every case. So they have picked a wellrespected arbitrator — Jeffrey Selchick — to hear each case, on the theory that an arbitrator is unlikely to overturn another arbitrator’s decision.
    So far, that has worked. None of Selchick’s decisions have been overturned.
COSTS TO CITY
    But the price was high. Offi cers have been paid to stay home from work for months — and in many cases, years — until their case was heard. Paying them and Selchick was pricey. The city spent $1.23 million to fi re seven offi cers in 2010.
    City officials said then that the price was worth it to get bad officers out and send a message to the rest of the force. They also argued that if they had instead let Bennett decide each case, the union would have appealed every termination and seven different arbitrators would have offered seven different opinions.
    That would lead to “inconsistent” discipline, Bennett said.
    But officers have questioned whether they would get a fair deal from the commissioner, who would likely have heard about the case before the hearing. Some officers have questioned whether he would be able to act as an impartial judge.
    They also prefer appealing their case to an arbitrator, who has the freedom to judge the evidence and decide whether it’s convincing and whether the alleged misdeed was bad enough to warrant punishment.
    Under the new system, offi cers would instead have to appeal to a judge, who would impose high standards. Among them: punishment is upheld unless it “shocks the conscience.” Determination of guilt is upheld unless it can be proven to be “arbitrary or capricious.” In other words, if there was a basis for finding the offi cer guilty, the judge must uphold the decision, even if the judge feels that he or she wouldn’t have been convinced by the evidence.
    Ravalli says there’s a way to compromise. He proposed letting Bennett hear the disciplinary cases, but with appeals going to arbitrators. That would be allowed under the current police contract.
    City officials have argued that it wouldn’t help, because offi cers would automatically appeal the commissioner’s decision.
    But Ravalli said the police union is different now, less willing to appeal and much less willing to pay for attorneys to support offi cers who have mountains of evidence against them. Union offi cials have changed their bylaws so that the union no longer automatically supports every offi cer accused of misdeeds.
    The big issue is the cost. According to the contract, the city and the PBA — the police union — split the cost of hiring an arbitrator for the appeal. That would reduce appeals, Ravalli said.
    “The PBA would have to make a financial decision based upon the merits of the case,” he said. “I don’t think every case would go to an arbitrator.”
    Bennett said he has no intention of starting his own disciplinary hearings until his authority is approved by a court. ..........................>>>>...........................>>>>.......................http://www.dailygazette.net/De.....r00901&AppName=1