Governor Vetoes Bill Letting Police Unions Bargain on Discipline
By TOMMY HALLISSEY

Governor Paterson vetoed a bill that would have cleared the way for a police union challenge to Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly's post-shooting Breathalyzer tests for the cops involved.

RAYMOND W. KELLY: His prerogative to discipline.

The bill, introduced in January, proposed to amend the Civil Service Law to allow negotiating discipline affecting public employees. It "would restore the Legislature's original intent to have matters pertaining to the discipline of any public employees, including police officers and firefighters, be mandatorily negotiable terms and conditions of employment," Brooklyn State Sen. Martin J. Golden wrote in support of the bill. "The express public policy of this State recognizes collective bargaining to be a fair and effective mechanism for the establishment of all terms and conditions of employment, including discipline, that is of vital importance to employers and employees alike."

Change Would 'Sow Confusion'

The Governor in his veto message cited a 2006 Court of Appeals ruling that barred collective bargaining on matters of discipline in New York City, Westchester County and Rockland County. "The significant defects in this bill compel me to veto it," he said. "First, the bill states that the terms and conditions of any current or expired collective-bargaining agreement or interest-arbitration award concerning discipline will be deemed valid and enforceable from the date any such agreement was first reached or such award first rendered." The Governor said this could allow officers to appeal past sanctions which happened before the bill was signed. "I believe it would be exceedingly unwise to place so many disciplinary actions under a cloud, and to sow such confusion, particularly in an area where ensuring appropriate discipline is of paramount importance."

City officials have long argued the importance of the Police Commissioner being able to impose discipline without having to negotiate with the unions. In an improper practice petition filed with the Board of Collective Bargaining, the unions claimed that the Breathalyzer test is a new policy and must be negotiated.

PBA 'Disappointed'

The Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, which objected to the discipline of a Detective whose blood alcohol level was above the legal limit, protested the veto. "We are disappointed the Governor chose to veto it," said Joseph Mancini, a spokesman for the union. "We believe the bill was correct. We will continue [to seek] to get discipline to be subject to collective bargaining."

The sobriety test for police shootings followed in the wake of the 2006 Sean Bell incident where the Detective who touched off the fatal confrontation admitted that as part of his undercover role he had a couple of drinks at the nightclub outside which the shooting took place.

Det. Ivan Davison was the first officer to fail the Breathalyzer after Commissioner Kelly instituted it last September. Mr. Davison, who blew a .09 — just above the limit for a motorist to be considered intoxicated — was hailed as a hero and reinstated after Commissioner Kelly concluded he acted admirably in trying to stop an assault.

Several police unions spoke out against the sobriety test in the wake of the July 13 shooting. "It will have a demoralizing effect on the department because the message that they are sending is if you're off-duty, get a description, call 911 and don't get involved any further, because you risk getting disciplined even if you're right," Detectives Endowment Association President Michael J. Palladino said after Det. Davison was reinstated.

This is not the first time this bill has been spiked. Governor Pataki vetoed it in 2006 and so did Governor Spitzer last year.