Schenectady cop discipline may go public

The public may get to watch the next hearing to terminate a Schenectady police officer.

The Appellate Division of state Supreme Court ruled unanimously on Thursday that Schenectady has the right to conduct public disciplinary hearings of police officers.

Police union officials had strongly fought to keep those hearings secret and got state Supreme Court Judge Barry Kramer to issue an injuction stopping the city in 2009.

But the Appellate Division said Kramer “erred.” He should have dismissed the union’s complaint, the judges said.

“Simply put, Civil Rights Law 50-A neither speaks of, nor was intended to, prohibit public police disciplinary hearings,” the judges wrote. “Indeed, the City of Schenectady already has the right to conduct public police disciplinary hearings under Second Class Cities Law.”

They also said state law limiting access to police disciplinary records — which the union cited as a reason for keeping disciplinary hearings secret — was never intended to keep all matters secret.

Citing other court decisions, the judges wrote that the law “was intended to apply to situations where a party to an underlying criminal or civil action is seeking documents in a police officer’s personnel file, and was apparently designed to prevent ‘fishing expeditions’ to find material to use in cross-examination.”

The decision could be appealed. Police Benevolent Association attorney Michael Ravalli did not return calls seeking comment.

City Corporation Counsel L. John Van Norden said the city “mostly” won, but cautioned it wasn’t a complete victory. The judges refused to consider anything more than the narrow question of whether hearings should be open to the public.

They said that the Public Employment Relations Board must decide the bigger issue: whether the city has to negotiate its disciplinary process with the police union. Currently, the police contract includes provisions spelling out exactly how the city can discipline its officers — and public hearings aren’t on the list.

But a Court of Appeals decision from 2006 may allow the city to institute new disciplinary rules, such as public hearings, without the officers’ approval.

The city has been waiting for 28 months for PERB to rule on that question, which could then be appealed.

That means that the city could hold public hearings now, but might again be stopped if the union asked PERB to sign an injunction. However, that injunction could also be appealed.

Peters case

The decision has an immediate effect on one city police officer, Eric Peters. He is the only officer currently facing a termination hearing.

Public Safety Commissioner Wayne Bennett wants to open the doors when Peters’ hearing is held.

“Look, if you want to have increased transparency in the operations of the police department … this could go a long ways,” he said. Bennett has said open hearings could give the public more confidence in the department’s leadership, just as open court sessions are intended to promote confidence in the justice system.

Without open hearings, Bennett said, the public develops “a somewhat cynical attitude” about police discipline. “They have no knowledge of what the ruling is based on.”

When one officer was about to be fired last year, but was staunchly defended by a city councilwoman, city officials were prohibited from releasing any details to defend their decision.

Likewise, when one officer was given only a 30-day suspension last year for an alleged off-duty drunken brawl, residents said it was an outrage — but they could not review the facts to determine whether the city’s hearing officer had truly erred. The city eventually brought additional charges against that officer, and he was fired this year.

Firing — or keeping — officers without any public details is troubling, Van Norden said. “When someone has that much authority over the public, the public has a right to know what’s going on,” he said.

However, police have been more willing in recent years to arrest their own. That leads to some information being released through the court system.

Peters was arrested in March when police accused him of punching his fiance repeatedly in the face and holding her by the neck and hair to keep her from escaping. They were reported in a parked car outside their home at the time. She later said her bloody nose happened earlier in the day when she bumped heads with a friend while dancing.

Police interviewed witnesses who signed statements describing what they saw, but the woman did not sign a statement.

Bennett also thinks public hearings will convince many officers to accept discipline without insisting on what is essentially a trial. In that case, the discipline would remain secret.

hearing option

Officers can accept the discipline meted out by Bennett, or demand a hearing in which an arbitrator would make the disciplinary recommendation.

Officers would be more willing to waive the hearing if they knew all the details of their alleged misdeeds would be made public, Bennett said.

“I believe it encourages early resolution to cases, which gives management the right to dictate what the resolution will be,” Bennett said. Discipline would be faster and cost less, he said.

Some officers already agree to commissioner discipline. Two took that path this year after they were arrested in January. Jonathan Haigh was charged with DWI. Brendan Barrett was charged with falsely reporting a fight while off-duty.

After a three-week suspension, Barrett was allowed to return to work with a “last-chance” agreement, Bennett said. The agreement, which Barrett signed, says that he will be fired if he is ever found guilty of certain types of misconduct.

This week, Haigh signed a last-chance agreement as well. Haigh, who is accused of hitting a tree while driving drunk and then driving away from the scene, returned to work Thursday, Bennett said.

“We felt that he deserved a another chance,” Bennett said. “There’s certain information I can’t release. We felt comfortable retaining him.”

Major factors included the fact that neither officer had a disciplinary record and they didn’t hurt anyone, Bennett said.

But he said he wasn’t willing to give them a third chance.

“It’s OK to give people a second chance, but you have to make it abundantly clear it’s the last chance,” he said.