City loses police ruling

Share on Facebook

Save

City officials Wednesday vowed to appeal a judge’s ruling derailing public police disciplinary hearings.

The ruling was handed down Wednesday morning by Acting Supreme Court Justice Barry Kramer. He ruled for the police union over the city, essentially putting a halt to the city’s new disciplinary process.

Public Safety Commissioner Wayne Bennett said discipline may revert to the old arbitrator-based process while the appeal is played out.

“This is a very, very important issue in this city for the taxpayers and the Police Department,” Bennett said. “We feel we are correct and we will see it through because we believe it to be that important.”

A decision is expected by the middle of next week as to which direction the hearings will go, Bennett said. Currently seven officers are facing termination. The city had hoped to hold the hearings and open them to the public beginning today.

The first officer was to be John Lewis, who has been suspended since early last year on repeated misdemeanor arrests.

Corporation Counsel L. John Van Norden said he believed Lewis would be the first to go forward under either plan because he has been out for so long.

Kramer’s decision Wednesday centered around which laws cover police discipline. The city argued that an older Second Class Cities Law was still in effect, bolstered by a recent appeals court decision.

But attorneys for the officers and the Police Benevolent Association argued a newer Civil Rights Law section 50a governs, mandating the hearings be closed to the public.

Kramer sided with the union, finding the Civil Rights Law supersedes the older Second Class Cities Law. Kramer also said the city has acted under the same provisions for years and a recent court case cited by the city does not apply.

“In my view the city cannot now disavow their long-standing adherence to collective bargaining provisions,” Kramer ruled.

Union attorney Michael Ravalli said afterward that the decision was the right one. “As the judge pointed out, what the city is really doing is a public relations campaign and that’s not fair to the police officers.”

Police union president Lt. Robert Hamilton could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Van Norden said he was disappointed in the decision but that the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court would be the next stop.

Similar issues are also before the state Public Employment Relations Board. The union challenged Bennett’s assumption of disciplinary authority. That is expected to go on despite Kramer’s ruling against several of the arguments for the disciplinary change.

court arguments

Both sides made their cases to Kramer before he rendered his decision.

Attorneys for the union and officers argued that state Civil Rights Law 50a supersedes any of the city’s arguments under another law, the Second Class Cities Law.

They also argued that the city did not give a reason to ignore that.

“The city of Schenectady thinks it would be a good public relations move to do so without even giving a compelling reason or even a valid reason,” attorney James Tuttle said.

But, in giving an impassioned plea for openness, Van Norden told Kramer transparency in a democracy is not only a valid reason, but a compelling one.

He likened closed hearings to the Soviet Union and other totalitarian states.

“These are police officers,” Van Norden said. “They carry guns. They can arrest us and use force against us. They have incredible authority and they have to be expected to act responsibly. When they don’t they need to be called out in public.”

The public needs to know, Van Norden said. “If they don’t know anything about it, they can’t ever evaluate that part of government.”

Lewis was to face possible termination last month, but that hearing was delayed after Kramer issued an order preventing the hearing from being open, pending his final ruling.

Lewis was arrested five times in a year. He is charged with threatening to kill his ex-wife and any man she is seen with, harassment and destruction of property. According to arrest papers, he had a number of alcohol-fueled disputes related to his deteriorating marriage, which ended last year. In December, he was also charged with DWI.

Officer Darren Lawrence faces termination on charges of misuse of alcohol while off-duty. He was to be the second officer to face a public hearing.

Lawrence is accused of drunken driving, crashing a vehicle and then beating his passenger in an attempt to keep the incident secret in October 2006. He is also accused of off-duty misbehavior that forced officers to remove him from a bar in October 2008.