|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2004 :: SB 1342 - OPPOSE/UNLESS AMENDEDThe Honorable Jackie Speier State Capitol, Room 2032 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: SB 1342 OPPOSE/UNLESS AMENDED Dear Senator Speier: On behalf of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, I am writing to indicate our opposition to SB1342 (Romero and Speier) unless amended as discussed below. As introduced, SB1342, in part, establishes investigative, disclosure, and referral practices of the Office of the Inspector General. Penal Code § 6128 (c) as amended, states, "All identifying information, in any personal papers or correspondence from any person who initiated the investigation shall not be disclosed, except in those cases where the Inspector General determines that disclosure of the information is necessary in the interest of justice." This is simply too broad. It may well be that disclosure may be relevant and/or legally required to protect the due process rights of others. We suggest an amendment adding the phrase "or as otherwise required by law" at the end of the last sentence. This bill also elevates certain duties of the Office of Inspector General to that of employer. (Employee investigations, mandatory employee discipline, and oversight). For this reason, this bill should be amended to state expressly that the Office of Inspector General must follow the Public Safety Officers Procedural of Bill of Rights (Government Code § 3300 et seq.) and the Memorandum of Understanding negotiated between the state employer and employee organizations. To do otherwise, is blatantly unfair to the correctional peace officer and will lead to great confusion and inconsistency in the process. CCPOA is fully supportive of the goal of the Office of Inspector General to ensure efficiency and eliminate improper governmental conduct. Our members, however, deserve due process under the law. The bill further provides a mandatory minimum of employee discipline (30 day suspension) unless a deviation is explained in writing by the employer. We are in agreement with that as long as the Constitutional due process safeguards provided by Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975) 15 Cal.3d 194 and its progeny are followed. That is, in determining the appropriateness of the level of penalty in employee discipline, the process must encompass considerations of the length of state service, the severity of the misconduct, the likelihood of its reoccurrence, and the potential harm to the public. We do have an additional concern, though, that a schedule of sanctions will curtail settlements of appeals with the State Personnel Board. This will predictably result in more cases going to full evidentiary hearing with the State Personnel Board and the associated increased costs to each Department and the California State Personnel Board. Finally, we are concerned about deficient discovery rights for employees. The test should not be determined subjectively by the Inspector General alone (i.e., "IG determines to be relevant"). Rather, an objective standard (i.e., reasonably relevant or relied on by the employer in taking disciplinary action) is necessary to ensure mandatory due process rights for an employee. Such due process rights include notice and an opportunity to respond to all materials used by the Office of Inspector General and/or employer to reach a decision. With the Inspector General taking on "employer-type functions", whether directly or indirectly, it is important that employee due process and representational rights be maintained. We appreciate and welcome the author's interest in improving CDC and CYA. With the inclusion of our suggested amendments, we would be pleased to support this measure. Thank you for considering our views. Sincerely, Debra Heusel, Chair CCPOA Legislative Committee |
