Bargaining in Blue, a monthly newsletter from Ballotpedia, analyzes recent police-related news and policy debates through the lens of police collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and police officer bills of rights within state statutes. These form the landscape within which police policy must be understood.
We provide in-depth context unavailable anywhere else by leveraging insights from Ballotpedia’s research and analysis of police CBAs in all 50 states and the top 100 largest cities by population, which is accessible through our police CBA dashboard.
In this month’s edition of Bargaining in Blue:
- On the beat: Retaliation or officer accountability? Whitehall, Ohio police union and department dispute over officer termination
- Around the table: Do CBA provisions on pre-disciplinary hearings and appeal processes protect officer rights or enable misconduct?
- Insights: Analysis of discipline and appeal provisions in police CBAs across the country and in Ohio’s major cities
Following up
Minneapolis City Council approves new police CBA
Last month we took a deep dive into the proposed police collective bargaining agreement in Minneapolis that went before the city council for approval. The CBA was supported by the mayor and police chief and opposed by Communities United Against Police Brutality (CUAPB). We analyzed and compared provisions of the CBA draft related to
- discipline,
- officer suspension,
- administrative authority of the police chief,
- officer records, and
- civilian investigators.
On July 18, the Minneapolis City Council voted 8-4 to approve the CBA. It is retroactively effective from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2025.
On the beat
Retaliation or officer accountability? Whitehall, Ohio police union and department dispute over officer termination
Discipline and officer appeal provisions in Whitehall’s police collective bargaining agreement (CBA) are at play in a dispute between the police department and union over the termination of a police officer.
The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) in Whitehall, Ohio, requested the mayor to investigate the termination of officer Enrique Ortega on July 5. The union claims that the officer was wrongfully terminated in retaliation for his involvement in a recent vote of no-confidence against the police chief. The department claims Ortega was fired because of unsafe, unprofessional, and harmful conduct.
Appeal directly to the mayor is step four of the officer grievance process in the police CBA between the city of Whitehall and the FOP.
The CBA requires a pre-disciplinary hearing before suspension, termination, or demotion. Public Safety Director Van Gregg held a hearing with Ortega on July 5 before issuing the decision to dismiss him.
The CBA also lays out a five-step grievance procedure going from informal grievance meetings in step one through third-party arbitration in step five. After the safety director issues a disciplinary decision, the CBA says that an appeal skips to step four of the grievance process, which is the first step that appeals outside of the police department.
If the grievant is not satisfied with the mayor’s decision they may proceed to third-party arbitration.
Police Chief Mike Crispen wrote, “We are expected to hold police accountable for professional behavior, effective policing, and respectful treatment of the community. Unfortunately, Officer Ortega has made it clear he is unwilling to adjust to these standards of policing.”
The union argued that the charges against Ortega were fabricated in retaliation to Ortega’s complaints and criticism about department leadership and policies. Ortega specifically complained to administrators about “arrest and enforcement quotas under threat of discipline” according to the union.
Ortega also served as the union’s grievance representative and previously assisted in conducting a department survey about morale and working conditions. The union used the survey to call for a vote of no-confidence against Chief Crispen in June.
Want to go deeper?
- See the Insights section below for relevant CBA dashboard queries and analysis
Around the table
Do provisions on pre-disciplinary hearings and appeal processes protect officer rights or enable misconduct?
Police CBAs commonly establish processes and requirements for police officer discipline and grievance or appeal of disciplinary actions. As seen in the Whitehall case, these can involve several steps, such as notice to officers, pre-disciplinary hearings, and the right to appeal disciplinary decisions, including through arbitration.
Law firm Simas & Associates LTD argued that pre-disciplinary hearings should be considered a part of employee due process rights. Pre-disciplinary hearings can also be referred to as Skelly hearings, named after the California Supreme Court case Skelly v. State Personnel Board (1975):
‘Hearing’ is actually misnomer. It is actually more appropriately described like a pre-disciplinary due process conference or meeting. A Skelly hearing ensures that an employee is informed of the allegations, has an opportunity to refute the allegations, and has an opportunity to mitigate the allegations or rehabilitate their standing with the employer prior to the imposition of any actual disciplinary action.
Police unions argue that CBAs should use discipline processes to give officers strong due process protections due to the nature of police work, according to Casey Tolan, Nelli Black, and Drew Griffin in a 2020 CNN article:
Police union leaders say the discipline rules they’ve won in contract negotiations are important to guarantee their members due process, and that officers deserve strong protections due to the danger and unpredictability of their jobs.
Darrel W. Stephens, the retired police chief of Charlotte-Mecklenburg, North Carolina, argued that officer appeals processes can undermine the purpose of disciplinary action:
The disciplinary appeal processes often weaken the purpose of discipline. Police executives’ disciplinary decisions are frequently overturned or reduced by review boards and arbitrators, undermining the impact of the discipline.
Reporters Noah Scheiber, Farah Stockman, and J. David Goodman argued in a 2021 New York Times article that police unions use closed-door appeal procedures to protect officers accused of misconduct:
[Police unions] aggressively protect the rights of members accused of misconduct, often in arbitration hearings that they have battled to keep behind closed doors. And they have also been remarkably effective at fending off broader change, using their political clout and influence to derail efforts to increase accountability.
Want to go deeper?
- Areas of inquiry and disagreement related to policing and police collective bargaining agreements (CBAs)
Insights
Key takeaways from Ballotpedia’s dashboard on CBA provisions regarding police disciplinary procedures
- Scope: the largest cities in Ohio;
- Topic: police officer disciplinary actions and procedures
CBAs and LEOBORs frequently include specific processes and requirements for police officer discipline. These include notification to officers, a right to union representation, pre-disciplinary hearings, appeal processes, and arbitration.
According to our Police CBA Dashboard:
- 71 of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. have police CBAs that specifically address disciplinary procedures
- 23 states and the District of Columbia have police CBAs that specifically disciplinary procedures
All four major cities in Ohio (Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, and Toledo) have disciplinary action and officer appeal details, including arbitration, in their police CBAs.
- Columbus and Toledo CBAs require pre-disciplinary hearings, similar to the Whitehall CBA.
- None of the CBAs in Ohio’s four largest cities include an appeal directly to the mayor before arbitration.
- Cincinnati and Cleveland CBAs include an appeal to the cities’ HR departments.
- Toledo and Columbus CBAs do not include an appeal step to someone outside the police department before arbitration.
Most Popular
Comments / 0