|
minutes 12-08-99Page 16 of 31
<br />involved in the evaluation of the Chief. The Charter is written the way it is so that the Police Commission does not boss the
<br />Chief around on administrative matters, but the Police Commission has to be informed.
<br />Just to give a number of other examples: Where personnel are assigned, or changes of
<br />assignment that are made, are administrative matters. It’s not within the Police Commission’s powers to either direct the
<br />Chief to assign people to certain areas, or to criticize the Chief for making those kinds of assignments. But, the Police
<br />Commission can get a monthly report from the Police Chief as to what assignments have been made. These kinds of reports,
<br />or this kind of information, is actually something that a member of the public could request, and obtain, from the department.
<br />They may not be able to make the department compile statistics that don’t exist in a convenient form, but the Police
<br />Commission can certainly ask the department to compile these kinds of statistics.
<br />So, that’s my reading of where the line between interfering and inquiry lies. There is a gray area between administration and
<br />policy, and I think I’ve tried to pick examples that, to my way of thinking, are clearly on the side of administration. But, I
<br />think to say that inquiry is limited, I think, is wrong. But there are some areas which the Commission can’t inquire, and I
<br />think these are readily apparent to people. There are some forms of police work that are, by nature, confidential. You can’t
<br />inquire about ongoing investigations, use of confidential informants, that sort of thing, and I don’t think that they’re asking to
<br />do that. The matter of discipline, I think it’s clear that they have a right to receive a general report from the department as to
<br />what’s happened. Whether they have a right to receive a report on individual cases, in private session, I’m inclined, from my
<br />basic reading of the law that covers this now, is that they do have that right, but that is a gray area that, I think, is a matter of
<br />debate, currently in the Corporation Counsel’s Office, and would probably, if the Commission pressed that, would wind up in
<br />Court between the Police Union and the Commission.
<br />SCHEELE: One of the things I said about promulgates policies, procedures, and this is a letter from Corp Counsel to us about
<br />what we can do and not do - I said promulgates policies, procedures, rules, and regulations necessary for the organization and
<br />internal administration of the department, and reviews, analyzes, and revises same. That was one of our points that we were
<br />going to evaluate on, and what the Corp Counsel says in their letter to us is ‘in this regard, the Commission can ask the Chief
<br />about what he has done, or what he’s doing about the areas covered in this section, and make suggestions, but the
<br />Commission does not have the authority to require the Chief to follow its suggestions, or hold what the Chief may be doing
<br />against him by either disciplinary action or poor evaluation scores’. And, that’s kind of what they said in all of - So, yes, you
<br />can ask the questions but you can’t hold it against him if he hasn’t done certain things. So, my question, then, is how do you
<br />fire somebody if you can’t evaluate them, and have any disciplinary action. You can’t. I would see that he would have a case
<br />against us if we just fired him without any evaluation. Employees in the private sector are always going back and suing for
<br />being released without cause, or whatever, and that’s how I see this, too. But, every single one of these, there was four or five
<br />areas, and that’s exactly the same argument that Corp Counsel used each time. You can ask him the questions, but if you
<br />don’t like what he says, you can’t do anything about it and you can’t give him a poor evaluation for it. So, that’s why it’s
<br />been kind of hard, whether you wanted to consider firing somebody or not. And we’ve been fighting this battle for at least the
<br />last three years.
<br />RAY: Any other questions?
<br />SANTANGELO: Just a statement, Mr. Chairman. Since ya’ll have come here and met this Commission, and have a sense of
<br />its mood, and frankly, there are certain things that if you put accountability in the phrase, the public would probably be very
<br />open to supporting, maybe before you do leave, Sharon, and before the end of the year, this Commission might want to re-
<br />evaluate it recommendations for the Charter, and come back with something now. That’s all I would say. And have more
<br />dialogue with our lawyer because he’s very competent in this area.
<br />RAY: Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much. So, we’ll take all this under advisement and thanks for coming in. I
<br />think we understand better the recommendations that you made, and we’ll sit down with counsel and see what we can come
<br />up with, and have some dialogue.
<br />Let’s take just a three minute break and let the Ottersons then come on.
<br />RECESSED The Chairman called a recess at 6:26 p.m.
<br />RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 6:34 p.m.
<br />RAY: The meeting is reconvened. Jim Otterson is here to talk to us about he and his wife’s experience in Riverside,
<br />file://\\coh01\cohweb\council\charter_commission\minutes\minutes 12-08-99.html7/1/2011
<br />
<br />
|