Under our system he could receive a copy of the investigative file at the end of the discipline process after the chief had formally decided to sustain or deny Officer Farris complaint. Also, the POFG allowed officers who had complaints filed against them to get copies of the investigative file at the end of the process . That is a huge boon, since now those files are closed to officers. On issue 2 My complaint isn t, really, that you re locking into a process, but that you re locking into a bad process that s different from the one negotiated in public over ten months. Pass the POFG and we ll consent to locking into that.
Knee calls the review panel the eyes, ears and voice of the community.
Our complaint is that they are deaf, dumb and blind. This whole argument is irrelevant because meet and confer overrides state civil service law. In other words, the chief completely controls when the POFG process starts. Surely he won t act against the interests of a criminal investigation. Issue 4 the police monitor s model is based on the one in San Jose CA, with a review board crafted on to the end of the process as a kind of appeal.