CARS HOMES JOBS

Schenectady can discipline its own cops

Sunday, October 28, 2012
Text Size: A | A

When you go to court, it doesn’t get much better than a clear, forceful, unanimous decision by the highest tribunal around. That’s what the city of Schenectady, and other municipalities in the state interested in disciplining their own police officers, got from the Court of Appeals Thursday. It’s great news for the municipalities and their taxpayers, who stand not only to get better police forces but to save time and money now wasted on errant officers.

Schenectady has had more than its share of those in recent years, but until now its hands have been tied in dealing with them. It was long thought that, under state Civil Service Law and the Taylor Act of 1968, police discipline was a matter for collective bargaining, which meant that most serious cases (such as drunken driving, leaving the scene of an accident, illegally taking time off, harassing or beating up wives or girlfriends — some of the specialties of Schenectady officers) would be decided not by city officials but outside arbitrators. The process was long and expensive, with the prospect of significant legal expenses and officers being paid to sit home for months waiting for a hearing. And because it allowed police unions to veto any arbitrators they didn’t like, it often resulted in arbitrators who would water down the municipality's disciplinary action or reject it altogether.

Since 2007, Schenectady has been one of the municipalities in the state challenging this process. It did so based on a 2006 Court of Appeals decision that sided with New York City, which had a local law giving disciplinary authority to the police commissioner that predated the Taylor Law. Schenectady Public Safety Commissioner Wayne Bennett wanted the same authority for himself, and claimed it based on the city charter’s reference to a public safety commissioner and to the Second Class Cities Law, which clearly gives a public safety commissioner the authority to discipline officers. Bennett also wanted any hearings to be public.

There was some doubt whether the city would prevail. Twice it was rebuffed. The first time was in 2008, when local judge Barry Kramer ruled, in the case at hand, that the hearings shouldn’t be public — and, although not asked, went beyond that to opine that the city didn’t have the right to discipline its own officers. The other time was last year, when the state Public Employment Relations Board, ignoring a state Appellate Division decision that said Kramer had “erred,” ruled that discipline had to be negotiated between the city and union.

Now the Court of Appeals has spoken in a case involving the town of Wallkill. It said that a municipality with “any general, special or local law” existing before the Taylor Law effect can assert disciplinary authority over its police force. That should be the last word on the subject.

 
Share story: print print email email facebook facebook reddit reddit

comments

October 28, 2012
8:56 a.m.
wmarincic says...

If it is the last word why does the Gazette continue to bring it up day after day after day?

October 28, 2012
3:54 p.m.
mezz3131 says...

Its the last word for the town of Wallkill, however, Schenectady's fate has yet to be determined. Although the two cases are similar this ruling should have no immediate effect on police discipline in the city of Schenectady. The city and PBA will have to go through the same process as the town of Wallkill for an ultimate determination. Also, contrary to popular belief, the city has always had the right to choose whomever they wish to be the public hearing officer. Which means the Commissioner could have presided over all the past hearings, but the city itself chose to pay for an arbitrator who acted in the capacity of a hearing officer. Your description of how an arbitrator is chosen is also wrong. Both the city and PBA are given a list in which they both have "veto powers" as you put it, and the least objectionable arbitrator to both sides is the one chosen. The system was constructed to be objective. In any case, it will be a while before we have the last word in Schenectady.

October 28, 2012
11:48 p.m.
ThePhilistine says...

The Gazette is creaming itself right now over this case. How many articles are needed for one story? Also have they forgotten about federal court? The Supreme Court is the only court that gets the last word.

October 29, 2012
11:48 a.m.
rjk1915 says...

Schenectady is allowed to do so. The important question is whether it will.

October 30, 2012
5:54 p.m.
wmarincic says...

Thats a whole lot of slander wouldn't you say counselor do you have proof to back it up???

Log-in to post a comment.
 

columnists & blogs


Log into Dailygazette.com

Forgot Password?

Subscribe

Username:
Password: