Should our PBA reimburse LEOs suspended without pay?

LAPD union reimburses officers who are suspended without pay: The head of the civilian board that oversees the department questions whether the paybacks undercut disciplinary policies.

By Joel Rubin, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
May 21, 2008

Most Los Angeles police officers who are suspended without pay for misconduct rely on an unusual union-run insurance policy to reimburse them for lost wages.

The pool of money -- thought to be the only one of its kind in the country and unknown to many outside the department's rank and file has come under sudden scrutiny from police watchdogs concerned about its effect on how officers are punished.

Anthony Pacheco, president of the civilian board that oversees the Los Angeles Police Department, raised the issue at a public meeting Tuesday, questioning whether the paybacks undercut the LAPD's disciplinary policies.

He called on department officials to examine the union's practice and to present their findings to the commission in coming weeks.

"This can be problematic," he said in an interview, acknowledging that he only recently learned of the union's reimbursements. "Where the suspension without pay is intended to have a punitive effect, it would undermine this level of discipline."

Officials for the Los Angeles Police Protective League, which represents the department's roughly 9,300 rank-and-file officers, sternly defended the 7-year-old practice, saying it was needed to protect officers and their families from a department that historically has been quick to hand down harsh punishments.

"We are concerned that the commission is meddling and making inquiries into things that are union business," said Hank Hernandez, general counsel for the union.

More than 7,000 officers -- about 78% of union members -- pay $20 a month on top of their regular dues to be eligible for the reimbursements, Hernandez said.

Officers who opt not to appeal their suspensions to an independent review panel are repaid in full for up to 25 suspension days each year. The union provides officers who do challenge their suspensions with attorneys to represent them at the appeal hearings.

The union approves an average of five claims for reimbursement each week, said Hernandez, who declined to provide figures on how much money the union has paid out under the policy.

The union's decision in 2001 to provide the reimbursements and attorneys came at a time of fractured relations between the league and then-Police Chief Bernard C. Parks, who was widely criticized for what officers thought were too harsh and too frequent suspensions.

Union leaders said they launched the reimbursement program after Parks waged a successful campaign to change the City Charter to ban officers from representing their colleagues at appeal hearings.

Union officials said they believe the reimbursement program is the only one of its kind among police unions in the nation.

Under current Police Chief William J. Bratton and Deputy Chief Mark Perez, who is in charge of internal affairs, the LAPD has been slowly reforming its approach to discipline -- moving toward policies that emphasize retraining and counseling wayward officers as much as punishment.

Police Commissioner Alan Skobin dismissed concerns about the union's policy, saying the focus should be on the push to overhaul the larger discipline system, not the reimbursement program.

"Our goal should be to a have a process that officers have enough confidence and trust in that they don't feel they need to dig into their pockets to pay for this insurance," he said.

Skobin and Perez said they do not share Pacheco's concern that the union's reimbursements may water down the sting of a suspension. The punishment, they said, remains on the officer's record and can hold them back from promotions or pay raises.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, however, praised Pacheco for turning attention to the issue.

Peter Bibring, an attorney for the group, criticized the league's practice, saying it was tantamount to "turning unpaid suspensions into paid vacations." Bibring likened the reimbursements to the union's steadfast opposition to making discipline proceedings more open to the public.

"Police officers should have reasonable protections," he said. "But when a fair process identifies a bad apple, all the union is doing is fighting to make discipline secretive and ineffective. It hurts the majority of officers who are doing a fine job by weakening the public's faith in the department."


O.K. Here are my questions to Kaz and Mac?

Why don't we have an union-run insurance policy to reimburse us for lost wages?

Also, why can't all members get a montly financial statement?

There are very good reasons why we should NOT have "a union run insurance policy" for those that are place on administrative leave without pay.

One may try to argue that it creates a hardship for the deputy that is placed out of duty and that is understandable, as many should be able to empathize with that. One may also try to argue that there is a "presumption of innocence" in different types of internal cases, but that doesn't hold any water to the types of cases that we are specifically talking about here.

For the person that posted as "PBA Leadership Needed," you need to be more informed and better educated before you start questioning the leadership of the union. It sounds like LAPD's internal problems were being handled in a "heavy handed" way, which called for the union to take unprecedented measures to protect the membership. Lets not be too quick to compare and/or contrast their need to what you think may be our need.

First, this agency is anything but "heavy handed" when it comes to discipline. All you have to do is look around and do your homework with other agencies and you will find that this sheriff is more than fair. Second, and perhaps more importantly, this sheriff is not quick to put anyone out on "administrative leave without pay", unless they have been formally charged with a crime. There are many other agencies that will place you out of duty (w/o pay) once P.C. has been established in a criminal case, which occurs well before any charges are actually filed. Third, we need to remember that the cases we are talking about here are NOT I.A. (i.e. administrative investigations), but instead, they ARE criminal cases where at least P.C. has been well established and the S.A.'s Office has deemed it to be worthy of formal charges. We should also remember that the burden of proof needed in order adequately sustain the case, administratively, is "preponderance of the evidence," which is a much lower threshold than a criminal case that is ACTUALLY filed.

So, generally, by the time this sheriff takes the action of placing someone on "administrative leave without pay," the CRIMINAL investigation has progressed to a stage where we can safely say that there is at least P.C., if not "clear and convincing evidence" to support that a CRIME has taken place. And, while the person still enjoys having a "presumption of innocence" in a court of law, that presumption no longer exists internally speaking because the burden of proof needed administratively has been far exceeded, by virtue of the results in the criminal case investigation.

In conclusion, why should the PBA (and the membership) be supporting the idea of a "union run insurance policy" to help alleviate a level of discomfort created by one's own CRIMINAL acts? When was the last time this sheriff was viewed as being "heavy handed?" When was the last time this sheriff placed someone on "administrative leave without pay" and it was viewed as unnecessary and/or unwarranted? When was the last time this sheriff was viewed as anything less than "more than fair" when it came to internal discipline?

There are very good reasons why we should NOT have "a union run insurance policy" for those that are place on administrative leave without pay.

One may try to argue that it creates a hardship for the deputy that is placed out of duty and that is understandable, as many should be able to empathize with that. One may also try to argue that there is a "presumption of innocence" in different types of internal cases, but that doesn't hold any water to the types of cases that we are specifically talking about here.

For the person that posted as "PBA Leadership Needed," you need to be more informed and better educated before you start questioning the leadership of the union. It sounds like LAPD's internal problems were being handled in a "heavy handed" way, which called for the union to take unprecedented measures to protect the membership. Lets not be too quick to compare and/or contrast their need to what you think may be our need.

First, this agency is anything but "heavy handed" when it comes to discipline. All you have to do is look around and do your homework with other agencies and you will find that this sheriff is more than fair. Second, and perhaps more importantly, this sheriff is not quick to put anyone out on "administrative leave without pay", unless they have been formally charged with a crime. There are many other agencies that will place you out of duty (w/o pay) once P.C. has been established in a criminal case, which occurs well before any charges are actually filed. Third, we need to remember that the cases we are talking about here are NOT I.A. (i.e. administrative investigations), but instead, they ARE criminal cases where at least P.C. has been well established and the S.A.'s Office has deemed it to be worthy of formal charges. We should also remember that the burden of proof needed in order adequately sustain the case, administratively, is "preponderance of the evidence," which is a much lower threshold than a criminal case that is ACTUALLY filed.

So, generally, by the time this sheriff takes the action of placing someone on "administrative leave without pay," the CRIMINAL investigation has progressed to a stage where we can safely say that there is at least P.C., if not "clear and convincing evidence" to support that a CRIME has taken place. And, while the person still enjoys having a "presumption of innocence" in a court of law, that presumption no longer exists internally speaking because the burden of proof needed administratively has been far exceeded, by virtue of the results in the criminal case investigation.

In conclusion, why should the PBA (and the membership) be supporting the idea of a "union run insurance policy" to help alleviate a level of discomfort created by one's own CRIMINAL acts? When was the last time this sheriff was viewed as being "heavy handed?" When was the last time this sheriff placed someone on "administrative leave without pay" and it was viewed as unnecessary and/or unwarranted? When was the last time this sheriff was viewed as anything less than "more than fair" when it came to internal discipline?

Here, here!! That was actually one of the most thought out and well said rebuttals that I have ever read on this site. Thank you for reinforcing my belief that there actually are some people who read this site that can put together more than a few polysyllabic words and piece together a cohesive sentence.... There is hope for mankind.......

Here, here!! That was actually one of the most thought out and well said rebuttals that I have ever read on this site. Thank you for reinforcing my belief that there actually are some people who read this site that can put together more than a few polysyllabic words and piece together a cohesive sentence.... There is hope for mankind.......

Yes, I agree. Guest 6, GREAT POST!!!

I appreciate the feedback, and while I only post on occasion, I make every attempt to keep it positive and informative when I feel that I have something to offer. Those of you who know me, know that that is the way that I go about my life in general. There are some out there that disagree with me on different issues, and I not only respect it, but I welcome other's ideas because it often adds to the learning process.

To all those LEOAFFAIRS surfers, which I happen to only be able to do on occasion due to my own time constraints, take care. JP

I appreciate the feedback, and while I only post on occasion, I make every attempt to keep it positive and informative when I feel that I have something to offer. Those of you who know me, know that that is the way that I go about my life in general. There are some out there that disagree with me on different issues, and I not only respect it, but I welcome other's ideas because it often adds to the learning process.

To all those LEOAFFAIRS surfers, which I happen to only be able to do on occasion due to my own time constraints, take care. JP

Thanks, but I think you've missed the point completely. The point was not to say anything negative about the leadership of the sheriff's office, but rather the leadership of the PBA. Get it? You've totally missed the train and station.

The idea of not opening the financial records to all members as a sign of transparency is troubling. The story about LAPD's union using special extra dues to fund an insurance based benefit was to provoke discourse about the lack of financial accountability at our PBA. Their method of choosing certain member cases over others. Or their way certain agenda items are discussed and pursued over clearly more pressing and reasonable ones. Or if a long standing good member asks his PBA leaders to know where the monies go and what are the breakouts, the leaders at PBA have the temerity and audacity to say the one asking the questions is in the wrong and gets kicked out of the hall? Is it fair and proper for a certain few inner circle members to receive special benefits and pay in kind at the expense of our dues and fundraiser events?

Give me a break. Insurance to cover you in case you decide to get involved in a criminal act in the future. Grow up and understand that there are extreme consequences for committing a criminal act when employed as a cop either on or off duty. This me, me generation of hand out's and selfishness has their priorities backwards.

And as far as union books, leave it alone; the dead horse your are beating is just that, a dead horse...

Grow up, practice self-discipline, work with integrity and be loyal to your co-workers and employer as you are loyal and dedicated to your family and you won't need no "if I get in trouble" insurance. As long as its legal, moral, ethihcal and follows policy, you will be fine.

Now go back and put your clothes away that your mommy just folded and dinner is getting cold. (this last comment does not apply to all)

I don't think I've missed the point completely in your original post because all you have to do is go back to the first question posed. I didn't address the second question because the union is better suited and far more qualified to defend their position on their finances and expenditures.

I find your "personal jabs" to be somewhat humorous and don't give them all that much weight, but I'll address them nevertheless. First, it doesn't sound like you know me very well, if at all. Second, while PBSO has been very supportive of my continuing education, and others who have chosen to pursue theirs as well, I have not requested that they pay one dollar towards my law degree, and that has been and will continue to be by choice. Third, you challenge me to my LSAT score. I will gladly put my LSAT score and all other educational accomplishments up against yours, but all I'm sensing thus far is some jealousy on your part. Finally, if you're going to play the "personal attack routine", you should have the courage to take the issues (that you've identified in your second posting) up with me privately. Rank and/or position within this organization matters not to me if you want to have the courage to take me up on my offer and have a discussion. I, and others, would undoubtedly have more respect for you at the end of the day if you didn't hide behind this so-called shield of anonymity. I'm not at all difficult to find and I'm not going anywhere any time soon, and that holds true for when I'm done with school as well.

I welcome opposing ideas and differences of opinion, but personal attacks are not going to accomplish much of anything at the end of the day. If you want to make it "personal", lets do it privately, I'll even send you an invitation to the party.

And as far as union books, leave it alone; the dead horse your are beating is just that, a dead horse...



Why is this a dead horse? It is a serious issue which should be addressed. Every member of the PBA should be standing up at the meetings and screaming at the top of their lungs to have open access to where their monies are being spent. I have no problem paying my dues and I don't care if Kaz and his cronies have a few perks, but I deserve to KNOW where my money goes and how much those perks are costing. No member should have to fear retaliation for asking for a fair accounting from their union leadership, after all- this ain't the Teamsters.

O.K. Here are my questions to Kaz and Mac?

Why don't we have an union-run insurance policy to reimburse us for lost wages?

Also, why can't all members get a montly financial statement?


Soooo...... a part of my dues should pay money to bad cops?
Are you for real???

"PBA Leadership Needed" Sounds like the same person crying about the Permit Spot Checks. If you dont agree, he insults you. Go put on your big boy pants!

I must agree. I am NOT in favor of the Union paying for our suspension w/o pay. If we feel it is unfair, we have the right to appeal it as long as its more than a day or 2. Seems fair to me.
But i also must diasgree that the issue of the books should be a dead horse. Maybe if we join the FOP as well, THEIR lawyer will file suit to have the PBA books opened to the membership. :roll:

I cant understand why people think this is a dead horse. If kaz and his croenies are spending our money ligitimatly than why are we being refused a chance to see the books? A lot of money is payed to the union and we have a right to know how it is being spent. Somethin smells here and nothin is done than maybe we need to start looking into our legal rights? Has anyone talked to union reps in broward or any other counties?

I cant understand why people think this is a dead horse. If kaz and his croenies are spending our money ligitimatly than why are we being refused a chance to see the books? A lot of money is payed to the union and we have a right to know how it is being spent. Somethin smells here and nothin is done than maybe we need to start looking into our legal rights? Has anyone talked to union reps in broward or any other counties?

Did you ever hear the term "If you don't like it leave"?

You don't have to be a PBA member. Personally, I as a PBA member do not think he is doing a bad job. The two big things I get upset abut with the PBA are:

1. PBSO union Reps attendance at board meetings.
2. Please address the courthouse issue so we can carry inside (at least post in Code3 what steps are being taken).

I cant understand why people think this is a dead horse. If kaz and his croenies are spending our money ligitimatly than why are we being refused a chance to see the books? A lot of money is payed to the union and we have a right to know how it is being spent. Somethin smells here and nothin is done than maybe we need to start looking into our legal rights? Has anyone talked to union reps in broward or any other counties?

Did you ever hear the term "If you don't like it leave"?

You don't have to be a PBA member. Personally, I as a PBA member do not think he is doing a bad job. The two big things I get upset abut with the PBA are:

1. PBSO union Reps attendance at board meetings.
2. Please address the courthouse issue so we can carry inside (at least post in Code3 what steps are being taken).


If you don't like it leave? That is such a stupid thing to say. So, if you are happy about everything else on the job or the benefits at work in general, but have a legitimate issue of financial accountability at our PBA, then don't bother to change it or affect change, but rather just leave. You must be a sergeant or something (a joke around here, especially at district 1, just ask our queen XO) to be so bright or a close friend of the Kaz circle. Dumb, just a dumb thing to suggest.

We got all that we got because of our Sheriff, not because Kaz is such a great political force or skilled union negotiator. Far from it. He is a bull in a china shop. Headstrong. This is the guy who got many to appear in white t-shirts against Commissioner Greene, who commented about that being a racist approach, which was also a inaccurate comment to make. Although I totally disagree with her as a commissioner, practically about everything she does, and those comments she made were race betting, the fact is the PBA, I mean Kaz walked the PBA right into that that trap. It was embarassing and foolhardly, considering that Addie ain't going no where soon and we all need all the commissioners to support PBSO and our families in the future for the next budget cycles, especially since we are in these tax crisis times.

There are many many more Kaz blunters. Including the current pay plan and the last and current promotional process. Just to name a few. But, for people to openly say, well, if you don't like it leave. Unacceptable really.

Gentlemen and ladies it is time for a change. Kaz is way too confortable. Profitting too much from that position. Benefiting too much. I am sorry he lost a daughter. I am sorry for the grief he has felt, but this is not about that and is not apart of the considerations for the union, the majority of the members of PBA. Spending time with member problems and issues should be his top priority and that of our promotional process.

The PBA is a union for the people. Not a privileged few. Do you know any other member who was denied representation on a personnel issue or pay issue or transfer issue or selection issue. I know many. Too many times PBA, Kaz, and Mac said, we looked into it, there is nothing we can do. Or that is an issue we can address at a later date. Or just a right out comment it ain't going to happen. If you say why, then you get because that is the way it is. Really.? Meanwhile, Kaz is off to another trip, vacation, or business event.

I have seen kaz say to members who were with PBA way before it was a collective bargainning unit to leave the PBA hall because they asked a question that offended his very sensitive sensibilities. He yells, barks, and curses at anyone around him that even slightly disagrees with him, an idea of his, or his agenda. Ernie does most of the thinking for him on the important issues. Mac is just a puppet. I went to him with two open & close cases. Very easy. A phone call from Kaz to HR or a letter or email would have been it. Nope. Because the person I rep'd for was not liked by Kaz, by some, even though he was completely in the right, Mac told me that Kaz didn't see the issue.? Didn't see the issue?

It is time to take a vote of no confidence. If the PBSO members took a vote next week, do you have an idea what the results would be? I think most of you do too. I think most would say that the PBA would be better suited if we had another President. That our union would reach its full potential if we got a more sensible and down to earth leader. A guy or gal who doesn't play favorites and can be fair. We should send the results of a no confidence vote to the State PBA President asking for an emergency election. And demand for a release of the financial records. I am a PBA rep and I was denied a review of those records. My question is why. Why Mac. You know who I am. Why won't you publish the financials?????????????????????????????????

:roll:

Sounds like the last post comes with inside knowledge that is hard to dispute. We all know kaz has always been part of some click which has always been surrounded by who you know and open favortism. He is of average intelligence at best and that is why he resorts to loud mouth bullying behavior just like the few select people that are part of his click. The time has come for a vote of no confidance so that we can send him back to new york with all the rest of the yankees.

Any of us can simply contact the Florida "PERC" and file a complaint, but all I see is a bunch of talk on this site. Second, you can stop paying dues any time and still reap all of the benefits. Third, Kaz is elected not by the membership but by the rep's so how are you going to get a vote of no confidence. They laugh at you everytime someone brings vote of no confidence up because the clique knows that can't be broken since they are all underlings. Fourth, exercise your 1st amendment rights and contact the media with the expenditure whereabouts issues, nepotism hiring practices, unfair grievance support (the picking and choosing based on politics). Start with those issues and the story will tail spin out of control. You may be surprised who is getting paid money and for what reason. It may shock the public into a cry for action to be taken. I guarantee the media can get to the financial records and when the breakdowns are published, it'll be front page for a couple days...

Any of us can simply contact the Florida "PERC" and file a complaint, but all I see is a bunch of talk on this site. Second, you can stop paying dues any time and still reap all of the benefits. Third, Kaz is elected not by the membership but by the rep's so how are you going to get a vote of no confidence. They laugh at you everytime someone brings vote of no confidence up because the clique knows that can't be broken since they are all underlings. Fourth, exercise your 1st amendment rights and contact the media with the expenditure whereabouts issues, nepotism hiring practices, unfair grievance support (the picking and choosing based on politics). Start with those issues and the story will tail spin out of control. You may be surprised who is getting paid money and for what reason. It may shock the public into a cry for action to be taken. I guarantee the media can get to the financial records and when the breakdowns are published, it'll be front page for a couple days...


PERC:
http://perc.myflorida.com/Default.aspx

FL PBA:
http://www.flpba.org/webmail.php