Veto PBA's Bid For Negotiating Over Discipline

By REUVEN BLAU

Governor Spitzer April 18 vetoed his first bill, a measure that would have made the issue of disciplining city Police Officers a mandatory subject of collective bargaining.

GOVERNOR SPITZER: 'Work something out.'

The legislation was backed by the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association and other police unions. Brooklyn State Sen. Martin J. Golden introduced the bill after the state's highest court ruled last year that the PBA's demands pertaining to punishment procedures are prohibited subjects of contract negotiations. The Court of Appeals also concluded that state laws delegate disciplinary authority exclusively to government officials such as the police commissioner.

Spitzer's Objections

Governor Spitzer rejected the union-supported bill, which he said "both raises significant policy issues and has serious technical flaws."

Backers of the measure noted that the present law treats the issue in two different ways. For officers in New York City, Westchester County and Rockland County, as well as the New York State Police, negotiating disciplinary issues has been prohibited. In the rest of the state, that topic is a mandatory subject of bargaining.

MARTIN J. GOLDEN: Bill's prime sponsor.

Mr. Spitzer's veto message acknowledged that discrepancy. "Although I cannot support this bill in its present form, I agree that our current system ... makes little sense," he said. "I urge the police unions and municipal employers to work together to determine if there are alternative approaches that would be acceptable to both sides."

The Court of Appeals ruling and Mr. Spitzer's veto memo also noted that the Police Department is a "quasi-military" agency. "While the Taylor Law policy favoring collective bargaining is a strong one, so is the policy favoring the authority of public officials over the police," the court decision said. The court noted an 1888 ruling which emphasized the quasi-military nature of a police force, stating, "a question pertaining solely to the general government and discipline of the force ... must, from the nature of things, rest wholly in the discretion of the commissioners."

Mayor Among Foes

The bill, Mr. Spitzer noted, was opposed by the Superintendent of the State of Police, Mayor Bloomberg, the Westchester County Executive, the Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials, and the Association of Towns. They lobbied against the measure, arguing that it would allow for key disciplinary decisions to be made by people outside the chain of command of people who are responsible for public safety.

"In particular, in many instances impasses in negotiations over discipline would be subject to resolution in binding arbitration," Mr. Spitzer said. "In their view, this legislation will significantly disrupt their ability to maintain effective management of their police forces."

Mr. Spitzer noted that disciplinary issues are negotiable in many police forces throughout the state and that those departments operate efficiently and effectively. "Even if the policy arguments of the proponents are correct, however, this bill still cannot be approved because it has significant technical flaws," he added.

The measure, he noted, retroactively changes expired collective-bargaining agreements "which could lead to the re-opening of numerous disciplinary cases that have already been decided, all of which would have to be re-litigated."

The legislation is also designed to overturn last year's Court of Appeals decision, which ruled only on police disciplinary decisions. "But the bill instead broadly defines 'terms and conditions of employment' to cover both discipline and disciplinary procedures of all public employers," Mr. Spitzer said.

Tossed 48-Hour Rule

The Court of Appeals concluded in March 2006 that the PBA's 48-hour rule and several other union contract provisions are not mandatory subjects of collective bargaining.

The ruling upheld two lower-court decisions against the PBA in an appeal the union filed to keep the rule, which gives cops two days to confer with a union delegate or lawyer before being questioned by the NYPD's Internal Affairs Bureau.

The dispute over the 48-hour rule arose during the PBA's contract talks in 2000, when the city petitioned the state Public Employment Relations Board to have the rule declared a prohibited subject of collective bargaining.

The Court of Appeals concluded that the issue did not involve interpretation of the Taylor Law, which requires collective bargaining over all terms and conditions of employment.