STATE FOP BOARD
www.azfop.com
President, Bryan Soller
Vice President, John Ortolano
Secretary,Patrick Scherden
Treasurer, Kevin Clark
Sgt at Arms, Bob Randall
Chaplain, Tom Bradley
2nd VP, Nick Aussems
AZ LABOR COUNCIL
www.fopalc.com
ALC Executive Director
Jim Mann
Executive Committee
Tom Garrison
Chairman
James Sink
Arizona State F.O.P.
Labor Committee Appointee
John Ortolano
State Employee Rep.
Pam Edgerton
County Employee Rep.
Heather Redden
Municipal Employee Rep.
Lee Ann Brydges
At-Large Employees
Brandon Keefer
AZ State F.O.P. Appointee
|
 |
Read this newsletter online |
IN THIS ISSUE |
|
Arizona FOP Legislative Agenda |
|
WEP/GPO - The FOP's Effort to Repeal Unfair Tax Provision |
|
At the Dept of Corrections: A Stolen Election |
|
Real ID Rules |
|
Teamster Organizer Indicted |
 |
| I. Arizona FOP Legislation Update |
 FOP offering three bills for consideration by the Arizona Legislature
Jim Mann, Executive Director, FOP Arizona Labor Council, advises that our FOP legislative agenda is in place and proceeding.
In addition, Bryan Soller, Arizona State FOP President, initiated a process to introduce two other bills on behalf of the FOP. Both would require a person who is convicted of drug possession or DUI to reimburse the arresting agency for the costs for the arrest and lab exams (fees ranging from $100 to $500).
 FOP Due Process Bill : Peace officer hearings statute
This bill addresses four distinct areas of that law. Again, this does not impact those agencies that have agreements with their officers, but only those agencies who have no agreed-upon process in place with their officers.
1. Limit the use of Polygraph examinations in internal investigations
Although the use of polygraphs generally remains a controversial topic, their use in the hiring process for police officers is fairly common. This bill would not impact that at all. However, it would impact the use of polygraphs in investigating possible disciplinary actions.
Throughout the country, a number of approaches to polygraphs have arisen. In some states, polygraphs are simply forbidden. In others, their use is limited. This bill adopts a limited standard in providing that a law enforcement officer may be required to take a polygraph there are material differences between what the officer says and what other evidence shows. The classic example would be the situation where a complaining witness alleges an officer used excessive force, the officer says no excessive force was used, and there is no other evidence. In this case, there may be no other way than the polygraph to provide additional information on the controversy. The bill would allow for the officer to be tested by polygraph provided that the officer is provided with some sort of recording of the procedure.
2. Provide for Hearing officer “strikes”
In litigation, parties are given the opportunity to “strike” one judge, that is, to require that the assigned judge not hear the case and another judge is chosen. By allowing this to occur, parties have the ability to avoid at least one judge that they may know to be particularly hostile to persons in their position. That right was given to law enforcement officers in most cases before single hearing officers (as opposed to boards or panels, where there are multiple people hearing the case.) However, the right was not extended to officers in those situations where a jurisdiction only had one hearing officer available; that is, in those places, like the Officer of Administrative Hearings where there are many Administrative Law Judges to choose from the officer had the right, but in small jurisdictions where there was only a single judge, they were not given that ability.
Unfortunately, experience has shown that it is those smaller jurisdictions where this right may be the most needed. Frequently in a smaller jurisdiction, the sole hearing officer may well know or be related to the head of the employer agency. This bill merely extends the right to officers in the smaller agencies. It is anticipated that smaller jurisdictions will be able to handle these situations, which would be expected to be rare in any one jurisdiction, by intergovernmental agreements with neighboring jurisdictions to share hearing officers.
3. Burden of proof on employer
Because an officer has a valuable right in their occupation, courts have recognized that for the employer to take away that right, the employer has a burden of proving that some grounds exist to discipline an officer. Unfortunately, some jurisdictions have not accepted this settled law. The bill merely codifies the case law by confirming that the burden of proof on the employer.
4. Extend appeal rights for all suspensions, along with demotions and dismissals.
The rights in A.R.S. Section 38-1101 are not available for every discipline that an officer might be subject to. Some minor items may only call for a reprimand or warning of some kind; those have not been considered significant enough to bring in the rights needed in more serious cases, such as those that might result in dismissals or demotions.
The current law does not apply the rights to those cases where discipline is not likely to be as great as a forty hour suspension. It has been found, however, that even a one-day suspension has severe repercussions in an officer’s career. Such a suspension signals to future employers that something was amiss in the officer’s past. However, as the officer may not have been afforded the right to a hearing on those charges, the effect is to quite seriously and detrimentally harm an officer’s career without a chance to disprove the charges.
This bill corrects this by extending the rights to any suspension, along with demotions and dismissals.
B. HB 2058 (PSPRS; local boards; procedures):
HB 2058, concerns the operation of local retirement boards in the Public Safety Personnel Retirement System.
Currently, under PSPRS, an application for either a regular or disability retirement is first considered by a local board set up by the employer of the applicant. That local board makes a decision to approve or disapprove the application, which is forwarded to the Fund Manager. The Fund Manager then considers the local board decision and either approves or disapproves the retirement.
In most situations, this process works well. Unfortunately, in some jurisdictions, the local boards simply do not meet for long periods of time, putting an applicant for retirement under significant financial pressure until the board finally meets and forwards the application to the Fund Manager.
This bill would solve this issue by simply treating an application that has not been acted upon by the local board for sixty days as approved, allowing the Fund Manager to then act on the application by either finally approving or disapproving the application as it does today.
This bill will not affect the vast majority of retirement applications, which are acted upon within 60 days, but will allow applicants to know that there is some finite time in which their application will be acted upon.
The bill also makes some technical changes requested by PSPRS.
HB 2059 (PSPRS; health insurance subsidy; employer):
HB 2059, concerns the repeal of an erroneous enactment from 2004 regarding rural health subsidies.
In 2004, this law was changed, with a delayed effective date of June 30, 2008, to allow for a subsidy up to $25 toward the payment. Since that enactment, the subsidy and the method of payment has been determined to be unworkable, and created a conflict with an enactment in 2007.
To resolve this issue, the simplest solution is to repeal the 2004 legislation (along with the inconsistent 2007 legislation). Because the 2004 bill has not yet taken effect, this solution maintains the current status on this issue.
Fraternally,
Jim Mann, Executive Director
Fraternal Order of Police
Arizona Labor Council
|
|
| II, WEP/GPO - The FOP's Effort to Repeal Unfair Tax Provision |
 House Subcommittee Holds Hearing on WEP/GPO Repeal 01/16/2008
Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, welcomed the opportunity to highlight the organization's efforts to repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO) provision at a hearing held by the House Subcommittee on Social Security, but expressed some frustration that Congress has not scheduled a vote on any of the bills which address the manifest unfairness of the two provisions.
"Legislation repealing the WEP and GPO has more than three hundred cosponsors in the House and has thirty-four in the Senate," Canterbury said. "The issue has been the subject of six Congressional hearings since May 2003 and yet, despite all the support and attention, we have not been able to get a vote on the bill itself."
Canterbury submitted testimony to the Subcommittee today, which offered strong support for H.R. 82, the "Social Security Fairness Act," introduced by Representatives Howard K. Berman (D-CA) and Howard "Buck" McKeon (R-CA). Canterbury called on the Subcommittee Chairman, Representative Michael R. McNulty (D-NY), to schedule a vote on the bill in this session. Representative McNulty cosponsored the "Social Security Fairness Act" in the 107th, the 108th, and 109th Congresses and even signed two discharge petitions on the measure—one in the 108th and one in the 109th—despite being a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
"I know, Mr. Chairman, you have not yet cosponsored H.R. 82 in this Congress, but I also know you have several times in the past and I believe you still support the passage of this legislation," Canterbury said. "So let us hold a vote on the bill."
The Windfall Elimination Provision affects workers who spent some time in jobs not covered by Social Security and also worked other jobs where they paid Social Security taxes long enough to qualify for retirement benefits. The provision has a disproportionate effect on law enforcement officers, who retire earlier than most other public employees and are more likely to begin a second career after they leave law enforcement. Officers in this position are penalized and may have their Social Security benefit reduced by up to sixty (60%) percent.
"The WEP substantially reduces a benefit that workers had included and counted on when planning their retirement, and it substantially penalizes lower paid public employees with short careers or, like many retired law enforcement officers, those whose careers are evenly split inside and outside the Social Security system," Canterbury explained. "This is a loss of benefits to which they are entitled, not an adjustment for a 'windfall.' "
Like the WEP, the Government Pension Offset was adopted to shore up the finances of the Social Security trust fund. This "offset" law was aimed at cutting by two-thirds the benefit received by surviving spouses who also collect a government pension.
"Nine out of ten times," Canterbury said "this so-called 'offset' completely eliminates the spousal benefit even though the covered spouse paid Social Security taxes for many years, thereby earning the right to these benefits."
"The WEP and GPO provisions do not eliminate a windfall for workers, instead they have proved to be a windfall for the Federal government at the expense of public employees. That's not right and it's not fair," he said. "Congress should repeal this inequitable provisions and pass the 'Social Security Fairness Act.' "
The Fraternal Order of Police is the largest law enforcement labor organization in the United States, with more than 325,000 members.
H.R. 82/S. 206, the "Social Security Fairness Act" focused on the negative effects of the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offset provisions.
The text of the FOP's testimony can be found here: and the text of the witnesses which testified can be found here:
During the holiday recess, National President Chuck Canterbury sent a letter to the Chairman of the Social Security Subcommittee, Representative Michael R. McNulty (D-NY), urging him to take action on the bill. That letter can be found here:
|
|
| III. At the Dept of Corrections: A Stolen Election |
 How to steal an election...
|
|
| IV. National F.O.P. Update |
 FOP NEWS : REAL ID Regulations Issued; FOP President: “This is an Officer Safety Issue”
Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, welcomed the announcement of new regulations implementing the REAL ID Act, which were announced last week by Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
“For the FOP, this is very much an officer safety issue,” Canterbury explained. “Law enforcement officers need to have confidence that the documents presented to them to establish the identity of a given individual are accurate. Officers rely on these documents during traffic stops and other law enforcement actions to access information related to that individual’s criminal history. No police officer wants to be in the dark about the fact that he may have detained a wanted and violent criminal who has simply obtained false identification.”
The new rules implement Federal law by setting specific requirements for States to help combat identity fraud. New licenses can only be issued after an individual’s identity and proof of citizenship or legal status have been established and all new licenses must incorporate information and security features.
“This issue was a core finding of the 9/11 Commission finding,” Canterbury said. “As the implementation of the REAL ID Act goes forward, law enforcement will be able to better combat identity theft, our officers will be safer, and our homeland will be more secure.”
|
|
| V. F.O.P. in the News |
 Teamsters Union organizer indicted in FOP youth camp break-in
Former Teamsters organizer and Metro police Lt. Calvin Hullet and two others were arrested by Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) agents after a grand jury returned indictments charging them with breaking into a Tennessee youth camp run by the Fraternal Order of Police and installing video cameras.
Hullet, faces nine charges including burglary, vandalism, theft of services, conspiracy and resisting arrest. Also indicted were David Dickerson, 39, of Grand Saline, Texas, who faces many of the same charges, and Amber Renee Kitchen, 28, of Nashville, charged with conspiracy and trespassing.
A former Shelby County sheriff's deputy pleaded guilty in federal court in September to lying to agents investigating the break-in last July. In his plea, he said he had been contacted by a Teamsters official about obtaining and installing the surveillance equipment.
The deputy also said he received a Teamsters check to pay for the equipment. The Teamster official, according to the U.S. Attorney's office, broke into the camp with two other people and installed the equipment to record activities there.
Hullett was arrested and charged with aggravated burglary when he returned to the camp.
TBI agents then questioned Metro and Shelby County officers and raided Hullet's home and Teamsters union headquarters in Nashville.
TBI officials said then they had found a sophisticated operation at the camp, with cameras and a hard drive containing about 80 hours of video hidden near a cabin.
Hullet, on a police disability pension since 2006, became a key operative in the Teamsters effort to take over as the negotiating body for Nashville Metro police officers.
The Teamsters won the right to represent Metro officers in 2006, but lost an election last year after the FOP camp investigation.
The Teamsters tried to distance themselves from Hullet, who had been identified as a national organizer for the union.
Teamsters Local president Jimmy Neal acknowledged there had been "an ongoing dispute between the FOP and us" after the TBI raided the Teamster union offices.
One more note... The local Nashville Teamster Treasurer is a convicted felon. What crime was he convicted of? He hired a "hit man" to commit a murder.
Is there any question of why the FOP opposes Teamster type unions infiltrating law enforcement? |
|
|
|
