Page 38 - CLT062121

38 ■ JUNE 21, 2021 CLOSING ARGUMENT

EDITORIAL BOARD

Clarification Needed in

Connecticut Police Reforms

he Police Transparency and Accountability
Task Force, created by Connecticut’s 2020
Tpolice reform legislation, was tasked with a
number of issues to wrestle with and submit in its
final report due by the end of this year. One issue
concerned the certification an officer, either state
or municipal, must hold to be and remain an of-
ficer with arrest powers.
The certification is issued by a state entity, the
Police Standards and Training Council. POST-C,
as it’s called, can now revoke an officer’s certifica-
tion in its discretion, on concluding that an officer’s
behavior “undermines public confidence in law
enforcement.”
The first matter requiring clarification, on re- Zef art/Adobe Stock
vocation of certification, is whether the officer called on to do with the examples provided as
is automatically terminated from employment? guidance? Or apply the fairly well-developed ar-
There are a number of positions in large police de- bitral law around “just cause”? Should arbitrators
partments in the state where one can be employed be bound by the legislative statement requiring
without having arrest powers, such as records POST-C to view off-duty conduct as less serious
rooms, etc. Not so much in small departments, as on-duty conduct? Or retain the broadly held
which have tightly managed budgeted positions. arbitral view that off-duty bad conduct of a police
If an officer’s certification is revoked, and the of- officer is equivalent to on-duty bad conduct?
ficer is thereby “automatically” terminated from The police reform legislation provides an appeal
employment, can she still avail herself of her col- of a revocation by POST-C may be taken to Su-
lectively bargained right to due process? These perior Court, as it is considered an exhaustion of
rights are through the grievance procedure, which administrative remedies. Does that avenue nullify
ends with a final and binding determination by an the collectively bargained process and the strong
independent arbitrator. Is the arbitrator to deter- legislative and judicial preference for use of the ar-
mine whether POST-C’s revocation was for just bitration process to resolve labor disputes?
cause? If so, what standard of review should be Can labor and management negotiate a provi-
used? sion that a revocation by POST-C can be grieved?
The police reform legislation requires POST-C Or is that now added to the very narrow list of leg-
to use a clear and convincing standard. Arbitra- islatively deemed unlawful subjects of bargaining?
tors generally use a preponderance of the evidence We call on the task force and Legislature to avert
standard. Should the arbitrator apply the test of the inevitable outcome when these two parallel
whether the officer’s conduct undermined pub- paths collide, and provide clarification on these
lic confidence in law enforcement as POST-C is thorny issues. ■

CONNECTICUT
Law Tribune