Hospital Police Sergeant to Return to Work
For the past year, many Napa State Police Officers and Sergeants have been the target of a lengthy investigation surrounding erroneous CPR Certification cards that were issued in December of 2003. Although members reported to CAUSE that any error with respect to the cards was unintentional, the Department appeared determined to uncover a clandestine group of officers banded together to distribute counterfeit CPR cards in order to avoid annual training.
Ultimately, the Department accepted the fact the HPOs who received the cards were not aware of the error, and issued only minor reprimands to them. However, a Hospital Police Sergeant (a CAUSE and HPAC member) who also received one of the cards was dismissed based on the assertion that because of his position as a suprevisor, he must have been aware of the alleged counterfeiting scheme.
As often happens when a state agency lacks confidence in the strength of the evidence against an employee, the official Notice of Adverse Action included other charges designed to prejudice the case against him. Among the charges was an allegation of dishonesty for representations made by the HPS on his annual performance review noting he had completed the CPR certification. The Department neglected to mention in the Notice that (per Department policy) an employee’s signature merely indicates receipt of the review, not agreement with its contents. Further, the only reference to any training in the evaluation was merely a brief line with a box (checked off by a supervisor) indicating that training was current. No specific reference to CPR training was made in this area or anywhere in the entire evaluation in question. Nonetheless, despite the universally known impact a dishonesty charge can have on the career of a peace officer, the Department deemed this signature sufficient to justify such charges.
Beginning with the Skelly, i.e pre-disciplinary due process hearing, I represented the HPS. From the outset it became clear the charges against my client were not supported by the facts and that the ultimate penalty of dismissal was remarkably excessive. Throughout the investigation and at the Skelly my client's statements were forthright and honest with respect to his lack of knowledge of the source of the CPR card errors. Nevertheless, the Skelly officer upheld the dismissal and the matter was set for formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge with the State Personnel Board.
In preparation for the hearing I maintained regardless of how hard the Department attempted to twist the circumstances, it simply could not meet its burden of proof at hearing. However, even a successful case can take many months to make its way through the appeal process before an employee is returned to work, which can create an extreme financial hardship. Bearing this in mind, my client and I attempted to reach a settlement that would be to his benefit, and avoid a prolonged hearing.
Initially, the Department was willing to allow my client to return to work, but continued to assert he knew something about the ‘CPR card conspiracy’. My client remained firm he did not, and reiterated he had been completely honest throughout the investigation. I remained firm on this point as well during our negotiations. Finally, on the eve of the first day of hearing, the Department relented.
The most important aspect of the agreement reached in this matter is that my client returns to work as an Officer, rather than a Sergeant, making it likely that he will actually increase his salary through overtime, while reducing future scrutiny of this nature. Additionally, he will receive benefits not possible to achieve at hearing, including the assurance of being returned to work by the first of the year. Finally, my client is extremely pleased to rejoin the camaraderie of his fellow officers. Based on the calls and the over one inch thick package of letters of commendations and support, it is clear the feeling is mutual.
This Officer should be commended on his professionalism and integrity throughout the investigation and resolution of this matter. While the agreement still must be officially adopted by the State Personnel Board, the Department will return the officer to work pending SPB review. Every expectation is that the agreement will be adopted and approved without reservation.
Source: Linda M. Kelly, Legal Counsel
Date: 12/23/2004
For the past year, many Napa State Police Officers and Sergeants have been the target of a lengthy investigation surrounding erroneous CPR Certification cards that were issued in December of 2003. Although members reported to CAUSE that any error with respect to the cards was unintentional, the Department appeared determined to uncover a clandestine group of officers banded together to distribute counterfeit CPR cards in order to avoid annual training.
Ultimately, the Department accepted the fact the HPOs who received the cards were not aware of the error, and issued only minor reprimands to them. However, a Hospital Police Sergeant (a CAUSE and HPAC member) who also received one of the cards was dismissed based on the assertion that because of his position as a suprevisor, he must have been aware of the alleged counterfeiting scheme.
As often happens when a state agency lacks confidence in the strength of the evidence against an employee, the official Notice of Adverse Action included other charges designed to prejudice the case against him. Among the charges was an allegation of dishonesty for representations made by the HPS on his annual performance review noting he had completed the CPR certification. The Department neglected to mention in the Notice that (per Department policy) an employee’s signature merely indicates receipt of the review, not agreement with its contents. Further, the only reference to any training in the evaluation was merely a brief line with a box (checked off by a supervisor) indicating that training was current. No specific reference to CPR training was made in this area or anywhere in the entire evaluation in question. Nonetheless, despite the universally known impact a dishonesty charge can have on the career of a peace officer, the Department deemed this signature sufficient to justify such charges.
Beginning with the Skelly, i.e pre-disciplinary due process hearing, I represented the HPS. From the outset it became clear the charges against my client were not supported by the facts and that the ultimate penalty of dismissal was remarkably excessive. Throughout the investigation and at the Skelly my client's statements were forthright and honest with respect to his lack of knowledge of the source of the CPR card errors. Nevertheless, the Skelly officer upheld the dismissal and the matter was set for formal hearing before an Administrative Law Judge with the State Personnel Board.
In preparation for the hearing I maintained regardless of how hard the Department attempted to twist the circumstances, it simply could not meet its burden of proof at hearing. However, even a successful case can take many months to make its way through the appeal process before an employee is returned to work, which can create an extreme financial hardship. Bearing this in mind, my client and I attempted to reach a settlement that would be to his benefit, and avoid a prolonged hearing.
Initially, the Department was willing to allow my client to return to work, but continued to assert he knew something about the ‘CPR card conspiracy’. My client remained firm he did not, and reiterated he had been completely honest throughout the investigation. I remained firm on this point as well during our negotiations. Finally, on the eve of the first day of hearing, the Department relented.
The most important aspect of the agreement reached in this matter is that my client returns to work as an Officer, rather than a Sergeant, making it likely that he will actually increase his salary through overtime, while reducing future scrutiny of this nature. Additionally, he will receive benefits not possible to achieve at hearing, including the assurance of being returned to work by the first of the year. Finally, my client is extremely pleased to rejoin the camaraderie of his fellow officers. Based on the calls and the over one inch thick package of letters of commendations and support, it is clear the feeling is mutual.
This Officer should be commended on his professionalism and integrity throughout the investigation and resolution of this matter. While the agreement still must be officially adopted by the State Personnel Board, the Department will return the officer to work pending SPB review. Every expectation is that the agreement will be adopted and approved without reservation.
| contactus@cslea.com | (800) 551-1414 | 2029 H Street • Sacramento, CA 95811 |