Focus on 'Trouble' Cops: Panel: NYPD Better Overseeing Its Own

Focus on 'Trouble' Cops
Panel: NYPD Better Overseeing Its Own

By REUVEN BLAU

The Commission to Combat Police Corruption has released a report recommending that the NYPD enhance communication between its Performance Monitoring Unit and other divisions to better supervise officers who have been charged with multiple complaints or disciplinary infractions.

RAYMOND W. KELLY: Unit offers needed scrutiny. Overall, the Commission concluded that the Performance Monitoring Unit (PMU) was working to help officers in need of added checks. "While there are some areas that could be further improved, the Commission now finds that overall PMU is monitoring problem officers in a more effective and timely manner than was observed in the Commission's past review," the 20-page report stated.

Found Few Guidelines

In 2001, the Commission examined the unit and found problems primarily involving the lack of communication and set operating guidelines.

The PMU, which was expanded by Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly, is staffed by a commanding officer, one Lieutenant, nine Sergeants, and three Police Officers. According to the latest Commission report, as of August 2005 the unit was monitoring 203 officers placed in the higher Level II and Level III supervision.

The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association has filed a suit against the PMU, charging that it violates the union's collective-bargaining agreement, which specifically states how officers can be disciplined by the NYPD. The complaint also contends that cops can be penalized and placed in the unit without merit.

A Manhattan Supreme Court Justice ruled in favor of the city, but the PBA has appealed that decision.

'Penalized Twice'

"It's a punishment on top of a punishment," argued PBA spokesman Al O'Leary. "It is basically unfair ... It has a very severe impact on cops' ability to move forward in their careers."

But Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly defended the unit, adding that aside from a few technical differences, the department "had no issues" with the Commission's report.

The Commission concluded that a stronger PMU "can significantly enhance the department's efforts to improve the performance of its officers and help direct the resources of the department to those most in need of additional supervision."

Mr. Kelly claimed that the unit was not designed to discipline officers, as the PBA has asserted. "This performance monitoring procedure is, I think, only common sense," he remarked April 10. "You have to have special procedures in place. People who have guns have a great deal of power."

Impedes Advancement

The Commission's report, however, noted that officers placed in the special unit typically face additional consequences. "The officer may be reassigned, have his tour changed, or he may be transferred," the report said. "An officer under Level II and III monitoring will generally not receive a promotion and may receive increased scrutiny from other units in the department."

The report only reviewed the officers placed in the two higher levels of scrutiny. Those officers are typically put there because they were involved in numerous use-of-force incidents, multiple disciplinary infractions, or for general substandard work performances.

To make the unit more effective, the Commission suggested that the PMU officers take more time to get additional background information on officers being monitored, update records, supervise reviews, and coordinate with other department units.

The report noted that officers placed in the unit often receive the same documented reviews from their supervisors indicating that they are performing their job appropriately and staying out of trouble and away from further complaints. In those cases, the PMU should take the initiative to directly contact the officers' supervisors to get more detailed information concerning their progress, the Commission suggested.

Must Get Tougher

Roughly 80 percent of the officers placed in the higher-level monitoring, the report noted, had favorable profiles detailing their work from their precinct supervisors while they were in the PMU. But the Commission contended the PMU has not done enough to help to further discipline the small group of officers who are given unfavorable reviews.

"For PMU to be effective, the Commission believes that a higher frequency of contact between PMU and the officer's command is necessary where the officer's profiles demonstrate conduct in need of correction," the report stated.

The Commission also recommended that the PMU work to regularly update the background paperwork for officers placed in the unit. According to the report, only 45 percent of the officers' files contained updated information from the last six months.

The PMU should also "increase its efforts to coordinate with Department's Advocate Office," the report contended. "Such coordination should include PMU input when DAO is deciding to propose a penalty for a monitored officer with a pending case."

Set Time Limits

In the previous report, the Commission noted that there was no specific time period for officers to remain in the monitoring unit. "As such, officers could linger on a monitoring list indefinitely without any improvement in performance or change in employment status," the latest report pointed out.

But the NYPD has since created clear procedural and substantive requirements for how long officers should be monitored. Now, officers in Level II are considered for removal after 12 to 18 months and officers in Level II are may be removed after a minimum of 24 months.

"PMU was generally not allowing officers to linger on monitoring lists for an unreasonable amount of time," the Commission said. Of the 203 officers reviewed, only 24 percent were watched for longer than the minimum period of time. Despite the Commission's backing, the PBA maintained the monitoring unit was superfluous and unfair. "It's an additional system of discipline that we don't believe should exist to begin with, whether there is good communication or bad communication," Mr. O'Leary contended.