Pano when is it going to be time!!!!

[sadnopd]

I would love to know when are ya'll going to take a serious stand for the 5th floor punishing officers, via re-assignment. This is getting totally out of control.. This is a direct form of punshment.. I know Lt. Glasser that you have personally had to deal with this in the past and for that you have my respect..That being said, there has to be something done and we have to be heard!!!! We cannot allow the 5th floor to keep shi??ing in our mouths and taking it like a punk!!!

[Mike Glasser]

You should first appreciate what administrative re-assignment is, and is not. There are two schools of thought relative to administrative re-assignment.
One, to which the City ascribes, is that administrative re-assignment is not a punishment but is the prerogative of the City. You still receive your regular pay, to which you are entitled. Since you were never promised or guaranteed overtime, details, or a car, their loss is not truly a loss, since they were never part of your regular expected and promised earnings or wages. They are, for all intents and purposes, a privilege or benefit that the City giveth, and the City can taketh away. In addition, the circumstances surrounding the investigation or “offense” may be one where it becomes prudent to place the affected officer in a position that limits contact with the public and the majority of the department. This may be especially true in some “heater” cases or cases of extreme notoriety, where contact with the public may result in the officers getting into disputes or other contentious situations with the public. Essentially, the City’s position is that you serve at the discretion of the Superintendent of Police, and your assignment remains his decision, solely.

The Second school of thought, is that in spite of the fact that there is no guarantee of overtime, details, or a car, etc., the pattern and practice of the department in broadly sanctioning those “privileges” or benefits, makes their removal without “cause”, a form of discipline or punishment.

The next question then would be, “what is “cause”? “Cause” may be that the nature of the complaint makes it prudent to place the affected officer in a position that limits contact with the public and the majority of the department. For example, in a hypothetical case of an officer–involved shooting where the justification of the shooting was in dispute, it would not be wise to place the affected officer(s), back on the street where there is a strong likelihood of getting into a dispute with area citizens who recognize the officer(s). It would be better to have the officers working where they would not be subjected to the potential problems that rise from their notoriety, at least until the matter is resolved.

“Cause” may also be that the alleged offense is sufficiently egregious that the affected officer should be placed in a position to be carefully monitored and limit the opportunity for a repeat offense. You might say that everyone is innocent until proven guilty, but if the administration fails to recognize the potential for a repeat offense and places the affected officer in a position that affords another opportunity, and the offense is, in fact, repeated, the administration may be liable. Even more so than the first offense. The second time they knew or should have known better.

This may sound as though I approve of administrative re-assignment. Not necessarily, I’m just explaining it.

To me, re-assignment is only a problem when it is unreasonable. “Unreasonable” is when it is prolonged, protracted, or serves no legitimate purpose as I have described above. When it is not done under those specific conditions, what is then left, is just plain punishment. Now remember, there are also criminal investigations, which are not limited to 60 days. Those re-assignments may last considerably longer.

In State Civil Service, for example, re-assignment is generally supported by the Civil Service Board when it is temporary, and meets the reasoning of "cause" I described. “Temporary” is generally, when limited to the duration of the investigation, which as we all know is 60 days (other then criminal cases) or less. After that, or in the absence of “cause”, it is deemed punishment and is often reversed.

Now. With all that said, it is unlikely that there is any court that would compel the department to reverse an administrative re-assignment which is done for cause or is temporary (for the duration of the investigation). However, protracted or prolonged administrative reassignment may be contested. If a PANO member is the subject of a prolonged, protracted administrative re-assignment, and/or one done without Cause, and wishes to contest the matter in court, we will do so.

In some cases, meetings with the Administration have been successful in abbreviating some re-assignments. That, of course, is a better way than a long, expensive, and arduous lawsuit, where the affected officer remains in reassignment for the duration of the suit, anyway. We at PANO, will always seek to meet with the Administration and attempt to resolve these issues before seeking relief from the courts, but that will always remain an alternative in the extreme.

[John Marie]

Mike, relative to our conversations last Saturday in Baton Rouge, the term "administrative reassignment", has been bastardized by the present and previous administrations and the news media, and it immediately paints a suspicion of guilt or wrongdoing on the part of a police officer. It also causes the officers family undue stress, as the family is subjected to questions and inquiries from family members and friends. As far as being a necessary tool of the organization, I throughly agree, as I and many others, were "put on ice", during the Algiers investigation involving the murder of Officer Gregory Nupert in 1980. Back then, if an officer was involved in a shooting or controversial incident, he/she was "detailed" to the homicide division to assist with the investigation or "detailed"to their respective commander during the inquiry or investigation. The length of reassignment should only be enough time necessary to complete the investigation or inquiry and the officer involved should be restored to active duty as soon as possible if the incident justifiies or exonerates the officer. This whole perception of "administrative reassignment" can be totally eliminated by the police administration by having the Public Information Officer use the term detailed. There should be a unified effort to confront the Supperintendent and Deputy Chiefs on this issue, as it can be totally resolved by using different terms. I can guarantee you that the term administrative reassignment will never be used by my department. If and when the Sheriff or I am ever confronted through a news media inquiry, we will always be truthful, honest and extremely factual with the media and never go out of our way to embarass or disgrace one of our deputies during the course of an investigation or inquiry. If our investigation determines that an employee committed a departmental or criminal act, the incident will be handled accordingly and fair. Good luck Mike.

[Mike Glasser]

John,
I well recall the routine reaction of "detailing" officers to homicide if involved in a shooting. I also recall the "detailing" of officers to NCIC or the Record Room which was also used as a punishment. But I agree that although in effect, it was the same exact thing, the terms can be misleading and give the public a wrong impression of an implication of complicity or guilt that has never been established. Personally, the terms themselves are not as important to me as the context in which they are presented.

Because PIO or the Superintendent never expressly states that the reassignment is a routine procedure which has a number of reasonable and legitimate purposes, none of which is supposed to be punitive or an indication of guilt or conclusion of impropriety, the public is left with the impression that it is. I believe that sometimes, if not always, that is deliberate.

In those cases, the advocacy organizations representing the officer(s) become compelled to offer a balanced and supportive posture to the public and media. That sets the tone as an "US vs. THEM" situation. All this can be avoided with a NEUTRAL explanation of the department's routine procedures and a fair, equitable, and timely investigation. It seems that sometimes the department can't resist the opportunity to mollify one or more special interest groups at the affected officer(s)’ expense. It is one of the things that I hope to speak to the Superintendent about changing.