|
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
May 24, 2004 :: SB 1731 - OPPOSEThe Honorable Gloria Romero State Capitol, Room 5051 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re:SB 1731 - OPPOSE Dear Senator Romero: On behalf of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, we are writing to inform you of our opposition to SB 1731 (Romero) relating to Personnel Investigations and Disclosure of Inmate Complaints against correctional peace officers. At issue, is section 9.09 (D) of the 2001-2006, Memorandum of Understanding between the State of California and Bargaining Unit Six. MOU section 9.09 (D) simply allows a correctional peace officer to immediately have notice of an inmate complaint against that officer which has been reduced to writing. There is, however, an exception to this right. Whenever the Department is conducting an investigation which necessitates surveillance, obtaining a search warrant, undercover operations, or a "sting", the employer need not inform the employee of the written complaint until the investigation is over. (MOU section 9.09 (E)). In other words, the due process right does not interfere with the ability of the Department of Corrections or Youth Authority to conduct an investigation. While CCPOA agrees that successful prosecution of Bargaining Unit Six employees who have engaged in misconduct is important to ensure the integrity of the California Department of Corrections and California Department of Youth Authority, it is not necessary to remove a key tool to enable a correctional peace officer to do his or her job. SB 1731 will make it more difficult for the correctional peace officer on the line. A correctional peace officer is constantly working with multiple inmates and is involved in multiple interactions on a daily basis. A correctional peace officer's authority is constantly challenged and manipulated by inmates. One frequent inmate tactic is to falsely accuse and attack the credibility of a correctional peace officer. A correctional peace officer needs credibility and integrity to maintain his or her authority with the inmates. It is crucial that a correctional peace officer know who may be trying to manipulate or undermine his authority at the time for at least two reasons. First, the correctional peace officer must be in a position to defend him or herself against the accusations while the matter can be recalled. Secondly, the correctional peace officer must take precautionary measures to prevent any perception of retaliation against the inmate accuser. It is our position that MOU section 9.09 (D) was bargained for in good faith by the Administration and the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, the two parties intimately familiar with the working conditions in a prison setting. This provision of our collective bargaining agreement has proven to work effectively in hundreds of cases and should not be interfered with outside of the collective bargaining process. In summary, SB 1731 will hurt professional correctional peace officers and make it more difficult to manage the prison population. Inmates should not be provided a manipulative tool to undermine the authority of the correctional peace officer. Even though MOU section 9.09 (E) provides four relevant exceptions enabling investigations to proceed without timely notice, SB 1731 seeks to eliminate timely notice to the CPO and hence make it more difficult for a CPO to defend against false allegations by inmates. This is simply unnecessary and unfair to the correctional peace officer. Given the dramatic effect SB 1731 has on eroding the authority of a correctional peace officer in a prison setting, we strongly oppose SB 1731. Sincerely, Debra Heusel, Chair CCPOA Legislative Committee |
