The topic in the small hearing room Thursday was police discipline and the battle lines were clear.
On one side were police administrators who think the system needs to be overhauled. On the other were police union representatives who object to key changes.
It’s not even a close call.
The system has given Denver some dreadful examples of light punishment for egregious behavior. The changes would go a long way toward reforming the disciplinary system.
At the Civil Service Commission hearing, union representatives argued that the modifications proposed are so monumental they would require a rewriting of the city charter.
Is that really where they want this to go? Changing the city charter would mean a ballot issue, which would bring lobbying on both sides.
It’s hard to imagine how anyone would want to go before voters and defend anything other than wholesale change. Keep in mind that this is the system that meted out indefensibly light punishments in the police shooting deaths of a mentally handicapped teenager in 2003 and an 64-year-old unarmed man who was lying in his own bed in 2004.
We’re talking of the killings of Paul Childs and Frank Lobato. The officer who shot Childs was suspended for five days, and the one who shot Lobato 50 days. The city paid settlements to the families of $1,325,000 and $900,000, respectively.
Changing the city police disciplinary policies might result in a lawsuit. From an economic standpoint, there’s an argument to be made that it would cost taxpayers less to defend a disciplinary overhaul in court than to pay one more settlement.
Part of the new system also would include a clearer set of conduct guidelines that police would know at the front end. Infractions would have presumptive penalties. The hope is that these clear expectations would encourage better conduct.
Currently, the city uses a “comparative discipline” system whereby the decisions of the past govern the discipline meted out in the future. The idea was to standardize punishment so everyone is treated the same.
Unfortunately, one size does not fit all.
Public Safety Manager Al LaCabe says the matrix system he is proposing sets guidelines, but also includes flexibility. Circumstances vary, he said, and there may be good reasons why one infraction should be treated differently than another.
Ultimately, the goal is to have a system that officers understand and respect but above all, engenders public confidence.
The city’s civil service commission likely will hold another hearing on the matter and then vote on whether to make the changes. We’re encouraged to see the issue getting the attention it deserves and we look forward to meaningful reform.
