|
minutes 10-27-99Page 26 of 48
<br />respond back to the Commission, to allow the Commission to know that we have taken action. But at the
<br />present time, because of the 92F Statute, which says that all disciplinary action is subject to personal
<br />privacy interest, especially County law enforcement police officers, you cannot divulge that personal
<br />information. That would be in violation of 92F Statute, with the exception of a discharge of an
<br />employee. Only after that employee has gone through the entire grievance process and arbitration
<br />process., then you can release that individual’s name. And so that’s the area we’re working on right now
<br />to determine, with Corporation Counsel’s assistance, whether or not that discipline can be mentioned to
<br />the Police Commission. But, I’ll entertain any questions if you have any.
<br />RAY: Okay. Mr. Martin.
<br />MARTIN: One, a brief one, if I may. You made mention early on in your statement about the make-up
<br />of the Commission being an entity outside of your own body.
<br />CORREA: That’s correct.
<br />MARTIN: Now, if this body is the one doing the investigation, shouldn’t you then have some variance
<br />from that 92F, that you mentioned, about keeping it confidential, because they’re the ones starting the
<br />investigation. They’re the ones proceeding with it, with their own investigator. Once it’s upheld or not,
<br />and if it is, and some disciplinary action is taken, I think there should be some rule, or something, that
<br />says okay, it’s not us doing it, it’s outside so therefore, they should have the ability to find out. Just to
<br />suffice, I think, what Mr. Wurdeman is saying.
<br />CORREA: Let me just say that the Charter states that the Police Commission shall review; consider,
<br />review complaints, and make a report to the Chief of Police. It doesn’t say that they shall discipline.
<br />MARTIN: Maybe a misstatement. The discipline would be part and parcel of the department. I’m not
<br />saying that the Commission would have that right. All I’m saying, if there were to be any disciplinary
<br />action taken, that they would be notified of it, and I don’t know in detail, but yes -
<br />CORREA: Yes, that’s the area that we’re working on right now. Because, in essence, when you look at
<br />the functions under the 92F, another agency can have the information, as long as it meets the necessary
<br />functions and duties of the agency. Then we are authorized to release that information. But if the duties
<br />and functions of the Police Commission do not meet the conditions of releasing that information, then
<br />we are actually prohibited by law, and we want to comply, and we want to meet the conditions of the
<br />Police Commission, but we want to also stand on legal grounds, so that we’re not subjected to any kind
<br />of civil liability, or any kind of illegal activity.
<br />WURDEMAN: But the citizen, who’s the one probably most interested in knowing what happened,
<br />under existing law, he never finds out.
<br />HERKES: Mr. Ray.
<br />RAY: Wait, let me finish with Mr. Martin.
<br />MARTIN: Thank you, sir. With that, and I direct it now to you, Mr. Wurdeman, by removing this
<br />passage, and I believe that’s what I’m hearing you say to do, is it not possible for us to put something in
<br />here that would now either make them, and I hate to say force them to do something, but work in
<br />conjunction with the Union, it’s rules, and the rules of the department too?
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 10-27-99.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|