EDITORS NOTE: Freelance reporter Charles Arasim contributed to this blog article regarding the Citizens Police Oversight Agency and locating the statistics reported herein. He is a citizen police oversight advocate, and as such was recognized by the Department of Justice when the Court Approved Settlement Agreement was negotiated. Mr. Arasim has scrutinized the process and usefulness of the Police Oversight Ordinance and Agency.

During the December 16, 2021 court hearing before Federal Judge James Browning on the Federal Monitor’s 14th Compliance Report, APD reported on the “rebuilding” of APD during the past 4 years by comparing APD staffing levels on December 7, 2017 to the December 6, 2021 staffing levels. Following are the statistics provided to the court:

DECEMBER 7, 2017 APD STAFFING LEVELS

Full Sworn Officer Count: 836

1 APD Chief
1 Assistant Chief
1 Deputy Chief
3 Majors
13 Commanders
33 Lieutenant
105 Sergeants
680 Patrol Officers

Note that the APD high command that worked directly out of the Chief’s Office in 2017 consisted of 6 sworn APD staff: APD Chief, Assistant Chief, Deputy Chief and 3 Majors. The positions of management positions of Lieutenants and Sergeants and the Patrol Officers are all allowed to join the police union covered by the police union contract.

DECEMBER 6, 2021 STAFFING LEVELS

Full Sworn Officer Count: 917

1 APD Chief
1 Superintendent Of Police Reform (Created 8 months ago)
1 Deputy Superintendent Of Police Reform (Recently created)
6 Deputy Chiefs (3 new Deputy potions created and added)
1 Chief of Staff
12 Commanders
14 Deputy Commanders
44 Lieutenants
113 Sergeants
2 Sworn CSA’s
731 Patrol Officers

Note that the APD high command that works directly out of the Chief’s Office in 2021 consists of 10 full time employees: the Chief, the Superintendent and Deputy Superintendent Of Police Reform, 6 Deputy Chiefs and one chief of staff. The positions of management positions of Lieutenants and Sergeants and the Patrol Officers are all allowed to join the police union covered by the police union contract.

TERMINATIONS, RETIREMENTS, RESIGNATIONS AND REPLACEMENTS

During the January 13, 2022 meeting of the Civilian Police Oversight Commission , Board member Eric Nixon requested information regarding APD staffing. The data request included the following:

New hires
Cadets in the APD Academy
Cadets graduating the Academy
Terminations
Retirements
Resignations

According to the January 13, 2021 minutes of the Civilian Police Oversight Board, Assistant United State Attorney Elizabeth Martinez from the Department of Justice provided the information. The information sent by the DOJ was “deemed too voluminous by board members”.

https://www.cabq.gov/cpoa/documents/finding-letters-for-january-13-2022_redacted.pdf

As a result, Civilian Police Oversight Agency staff was requested to distill the requested data into a visual report. The link to the information was provided to the board on January 26, 2022. Below is the link:

https://my.visme.co/view/8r0dxdnv-d3o26vovx867lgxw

Review of the minutes of the Civilian Police Oversight Board does not reveal why it was Assistant United State Attorney Elizabeth Martinez from the Department of Justice who provided the information. Requests for such information would normally be made to the City and then supplied by the city, yet the information came from the DOJ.

This is significate because the DOJ is suing the City. The question is how DOJ was made privy to the statistics. There is no indication why Citizen Police Oversight Board member Eric Nixon wanted with the statistics in the first place nor what they would be used for. Arguably the CPOA Board has no idea what the statistics mean nor how to apply and interpret them.

COMPARING 2017 STAFFING LEVELS TO 2021 STAFFING LEVELS

The APD Staffing level report slide presentation prepared by the Police Oversight Agency is dated January 21, 2021 and provides the following statistical information that was compiled by the APD human resources division:

A total of 101 sworn police officers joined the ranks of APD in 2021.

The APD Training Academy Commander reported 30 APD cadets in the 125-cadet class.

The APD Training Academy Commander reported Class Number 6 of the CNM community college had 12 lateral hires who graduated on February 3, 2021,

Total combined APD academy and CNM lateral hires that will be working with APD is 42. (NOTE: There is 1 additional Albquerquerqu Fire and Rescue Arson Investigator included in the 125 Academy Class.)

2017 TO 2021 TERMINATIONS, RETIREMENTS, RESIGNATIONS

The following terminations were reported by the Civilian Policed Oversight Board:

2017: 5
2018: 1
2019: 0
2020: 11
2021: 8

TOTAL: 25

The following retirements were reported by the Civilian Policed Oversight Board:

2017: 21
2018: 27
2019: 31
2020: 46
2021: 88

TOTAL: 213

The following resignations were reported by the Civilian Policed Oversight Board:

2017: 18
2018: 23
2019: 28
2020: 27
2021: 36

TOTAL: 132

2017 VERSUS 2021 APD PERSONNEL

The Police Oversight Agency Report dated January 21, 2021 compared the totals of APD sworn personal for the year 2017 to 2021 as follows:

APD Chief:

2017: 1
2021: 1

SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE REFORM

2017: 0
2021: 1 [Created in 2021]

DEPUTY CHIEFS

2017: 1
2021: 6

MAJORS:

2017: 3
2021: Potions abolished

COMMANDERS

2017: 13
2021: 12

DEPUTY COMMANDERS

2017: 0
2021: 14

LIEUTENANTS

2017: 33
2021: 44

SERGEANTS

2017: 105
2021: 113

PATROLMAN

2017: 680
2021: 731

CSA’s

2017: 0
2021: 2

TOTAL SWORN STAFFING

2017: 837
2021: 926

https://my.visme.co/view/8r0dxdnv-d3o26vovx867lgxw

COMPARING 2017 FIELD OFFICER STAFFING LEVELS WITH 2021 FIELD OFFICER STAFFING LEVELS

The APD Staffing report by the Police Oversight Agency also provides statistical information comparing APD area command levels for 2017 and 2021. Area residents and Albuquerque City Councilors are always concerned and ask questions about the number of field officers are assigned to their area commands. The total number of field officers assigned to each area command must be divided into 3 separate working shifts with the number assigned to each shift varying and depending on call volumes. Also, the number assigned to each shift is reduced by those officers that are on annual leave, sick leave, military service leave or in court. The statistics comparing the number of field officers in each area command for the years 2017 and 2021 are as follows:

FOOTHILLS AREA COMMAND

The Foothills Area Command is bordered by San Antonio NE to the north, the Sandia Foothills to the east, Kirtland Air Force Base to the south, and Eubank Boulevard to the west. This Command Area has some of the lowest crime rates in the City. Following is the field services staffing reported:

2017: 71
2021: 70

NORTHEAST AREA COMMAND

The Northeast Area Command is bordered by Albuquerque city limits to the north, Eubank Boulevard to the east, Interstate 40 to the south, and Interstate 25 to the west. This Area Command has a more recent history of increasing crime rates in the city, especially residential break-ins and robberies. Following is the staffing reported:

2017: 92
2021: 82

NORTHWEST AREA COMMAND

The Northwest Area Command is bordered by Albuquerque city limits to the west and north, the west bank of the Rio Grande to the east, and Interstate 40 to the south. This Command Area has some of the lowest crime rates in the City. Following is the field services staffing reported:

2017: 64
2021: 55

SOUTHEAST AREA COMMAND

The Southeast Area Command is bordered by Interstate 40 to the north, Eubank Boulevard to the east, Kirtland Air Force Base and Albuquerque city limits to the south, and Interstate 25 to the west. This Area Command has an extensive history of having the highest crime rates in the city. Following is the field services staffing reported:

2017: 116
2021: 94

SOUTHWEST AREA COMMAND

The Southwest Area Command is bordered by Interstate 40 the north, the Rio Grande to the east, the South Valley to the south, and Albuquerque city limits to the west. Following is the field services staffing reported:

2017: 75
2021: 65

VALLEY AREA COMMAND

The Valley Area Command is bordered by the Albuquerque city limits to the north and south, Interstate 25 to the east, and the Rio Grande, Los Ranchos de Albuquerque, and the North Valley to the west. This Area Command has an extensive history of having the second highest crime rates in the City. Following is the field services staffing reported

2017: 82
2021: 80

A link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2019/08/08/apd-staffing-levels-970-sworn-police-300-more-needed/

POLICE UNION NEGOTIATED PAY INCREASES

On February 4, it was reported the Keller’s administration negotiated a new police union contract making APD the best paid law enforcement agency in the region by increasing hourly wages and longevity pay.

Under the signed contract, APD’s starting wage is well above cities and law enforcement agencies of comparable size including Tucson, Arizona, $54,517, and El Paso, Texas, $47,011. The negotiated hourly pay increases are as follows:

2-to-4-year service pay goes from $60,320, yearly, or $29 hourly, to $68,411.20 yearly, or $32.89 hourly.

5-to-14-year service pay goes from $62,400, $30 hourly to $70,761 yearly, $34.02 hourly

15 or more years of service pay goes from $65,520, or $31.50 hourly to $74, 297 A YEAR or $35.72 hourly.

Sergeant pay goes from $72,800, or $35 hourly, to $82,533 a year, or $39.69 hourly.

Lieutenant pay goes from $83,200, or $40 hourly to $94,348 yearly or $45.36 hourly.

OVERTIME PAY

The union contract allows the management positions of sergeants and lieutenants to be union members. Under the union contract, sworn police are entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of time-and-one-half of their regular straight-time rate when they perform work in excess of forty (40) hours in any one workweek. Time worked over 40 hours per week is compensated at time and a half of the officer’s regular rate of pay, or in the form of “compensatory time.” There is no contract provision placing a cap on the amount of overtime any officer can be paid.

At the beginning of each calendar year, City Hall releases the top 250 wage earners for the previous year. The list of 250 top city hall wages earners is what is paid for the full calendar year of January 1, to December 31 of any given year. For the past 3 years, over 50% of the top 250 city hall wage earners have been APD sworn earning between $107,885.47 to $199,666.40 a year, two and at times 3 times their normal base pay.

In 2021, there were a total 109 sworn police officers on the list up through the rank of Lieutenant. This does not include sworn officers who are on the list and who have retired. There are a total of 27 Sergeants and 30 Lieutenants listed in the top 250 city wage earners for 2021 still working for APD. There are a total 52 sworn police officers in the ranks of Police Officer First Class, Senior Police Officer and Master Police Officer in the listing of the top 250 top city wage earners for 2021 who are still working for APD.

The link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/02/17/third-year-in-row-over-half-of-top-250-city-wage-earners-sworn-police-apd-police-union-contract-violates-federal-and-state-labor-laws-after-over-6-months-special-state-audit-has-not-reduced-apd/

NEGOTIATED LONGEVITY PAY

Under the union contract, longevity pay increases by 5% starting on July 1, 2022 at $2,730 per year with those who have 5 years of service and with incremental service years up to 17 years or more who will be paid $16,380. The negotiated longevity pay has an overlap of 3 fiscal years. The pay rate categories are as follows:

Fiscal year 2019 and 2020 longevity pay rates effective the first full pay period following July 1 are identical to fiscal year 2022. Fiscal year 2022 longevity pay scale bi-weekly annual amounts are as follows:

Beginning Year 5 through 5, $100 paid bi weekly, $2,600 annual amount
Beginning Year 6 through 6, $125 paid bi weekly $3,250 annual amount
Beginning Year 7 through 9, $225 paid bi weekly, $5,850 annual amount
Beginning Year 10 through 12, $300 paid bi weekly, $7,800, annual amount
Beginning Year 13 through 15, $350 paid bi weekly, $9,100 annual amount
Beginning Year 16 through 17, $450 paid bi weekly, $11,700 annual amount
Beginning Year 18 and above, $600 paid bi weekly, $15,600 annual amount

Fiscal year 2023 longevity pay scale bi-weekly annual amounts are:

Beginning Year 5 through 5, $105 paid bi weekly, $2,730 annual amount
Beginning Year 6 through 6, $131 paid bi weekly, $3,406 annual amount
Beginning Year 7 through 9, $236 paid bi weekly, $6,136 annual amount
Beginning Year 10 through 12, $315 paid bi weekly, $8,190 annual amount
Beginning Year 13 through 15, $368 paid bi weekly, $9,568 annual amount
Beginning Year 16 through 17, $473 paid bi weekly, $12,298 annual amount
Beginning Year 18 and above, $630 paid bi weekly, $16,380 annual amount

UNION REACTION TO UNION PAY INCREASE

Not at all surprising, Shaun Willoughby, president of the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association said he was “very happy with it” seeing as he was the one who negotiated the contract. Willoughby applauded the pay increases and said they would help in recruiting and retaining sworn officers and said:

“We had, I believe, over 175 officers … leave the department in 2021. We had 81 leave in 2020. … So we are definitely needing to continue to bring that competitive pay, and that competitive edge … so that we can compete in this region of the United States for the best and brightest that are interested in law enforcement.”

The link to the full Journal article is here

https://www.abqjournal.com/2467440/city-reaches-new-deal-with-police-union.html

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

On February 4, 2021 when the police union contract increasing hourly pay and longevity pay was reported on by the Albuquerque Journal an APD spokesman told the Journal “178 officers left in 2021 and 99 left in 2020.” This is not true.

Police Union President Shaun Willoughby applauded the pay increases and said they would help in recruiting and retaining sworn officers. Willoughby said:

“We had, I believe, over 175 officers … leave the department in 2021. We had 81 leave in 2020. … So we are definitely needing to continue to bring that competitive pay, and that competitive edge … so that we can compete in this region of the United States for the best and brightest that are interested in law enforcement.”

The APD spokesperson and Willoughby did not know what they were talking about when it came to the number of departures in 2020 and 2021 or they simply made up the information to embellish and garner sympathy from the public.

The statistics release by the Civilian Police Oversight Agency as provided by the Department of Justice dispute the numbers released by APD and Willoughby on departures. An APD spokesman said 99 left and Willoughby said 81 left in 2020. The Civilian Police Oversight Board reported 84 left in 2020. APD spokesman said 178 and Willoughby said 175 left in 2021. The Civilian Police Oversight Board reports 102 sworn left in 2021.

TURNOVER INDICATES NEW GENERATION OF SWORN POLICE BEING HIRED

The combined total number of terminations, retirements and resignations over the last 5 years is 370 sworn police who are gone and who have moved on. The significance of this number is dramatic. When you subtract the total 370 terminations, retirements, resignations from the total number of sworn of 837 in 2017 it results in 467 sworn police who remained. In other words, after 5 years there are 467 officers out of the current 926 sworn police in the year 2021 that have been with APD for at least 5 years or more. This translates into a 50.4% five-year turnover of experienced sworn police.

The lion’s share of the 50.4% turnover in APD sworn over the last 4 years are retirements for a total of 213. The “silver lining” to such a high turnover of experienced officers is twofold:

1. It indicates a new generation of APD Sworn police was recruited to get to the 926 number for 2021 and who were then trained in constitutional policing practices.

2. Experienced sworn police who have resisted the DOJ reforms or who helped create, did not stop or who contributed to the culture of aggression and the use of excessive force and deadly force have left but many still remain in 2021.

ACCURATE TURNOVER SINCE DOJ INVESTIGATIO UNKNOWN; IPRA REQUEST MADE

On April 10, 2014, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ), Civil Rights Division, submitted a scathing 46-page investigation report on an 18-month civil rights investigation of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD).

The investigation was conducted jointly by the DOJ’s Washington Office Civil Rights Division and the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico.

You can read the entire report here.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2014/04/10/apd_findings_4-10-14.pdf

The DOJ investigation included a comprehensive review of APD’s operations and the City’s oversight systems of APD. The DOJ investigation “determined that structural and systemic deficiencies — including insufficient oversight, inadequate training, and ineffective policies — contribute to the use of unreasonable force.”

Based on the investigation and the review of excessive use of force and deadly force cases, the DOJ found “reasonable cause to believe that APD engage[d] in a pattern or practice of use of excessive force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment … . and [the] investigation included a comprehensive review of APD’s operations and the City’s oversight systems.”

The investigative report found a pattern or practice of use of “deadly force” or “excessive use of force” and found a “culture of aggression” within APD.

No one knows for certain, other than the City and APD, the names and rankings of who were employed by APD on April 10, 2014 when the DOJ investigation was released. Comparing the rosters of sworn APD in 2014 to those employed to date will provide the real answer to the extent of APD turnover and the number of new hires over the last 7 years.

On February 22, a Request for an Inspection of Public (IPRA) was sent to the city making the following two requests:

For the month and year of April, 2014, please provide the Albuquerque Police Department roster listing all sworn police officers by name, rank and hourly pay OR for the month and year of April, 2014, City of Albuquerque payroll records or personnel records providing the names of all sworn police, their ranks and hourly pay.

For the month and year of February, 2022, please provide the Albuquerque Police Department roster listing all APD sworn police officers by name, rank and hourly pay OR for the month and year of February, 2022 City of Albuquerque payroll records or personnel records providing the names of all sworn police officers , their rank and hourly pay.

Under state law, the city still has time to respond to the request for public records and the information will be reported upon by this blog.

TRAINING UNDER THE CASA

It was on November 14, 2019 that a full 5 years expired since the city entered into the CASA with the DOJ. From review of all the Federal Monitor’s reports, the City and APD completed the following mandated reforms of training under the Court Approved Settlement Agreement:

1.The new “use of force” and “use of deadly force” policies were written, implemented and all APD sworn received training on the policies.

2. All sworn police officers received crisis management intervention training.

3. APD created a “Use of Force Review Board” that oversees all internal affairs investigations of use of force and deadly force.

4. “Constitutional policing” practices and methods, and mandatory crisis intervention techniques an de-escalation tactics with the mentally ill have been implemented at the APD police academy with all sworn police having received training.

7. APD adopted a new system to hold officers and supervisors accountable for all use of force incidents with personnel procedures implemented detailing how use of force cases are investigated.

8. APD revised and updated its policies on the mandatory use of lapel cameras by all sworn police officers.

COMPLIANCE LEVELS

Before the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) can be dismissed, APD must come into a 95% compliance in 3 compliance levels and sustain those levels for 2 years. Fast forward to November 12, 2021 and the 14th Independent Monitors Report . The Federal Monitor reported the 3 compliance levels as follows:

Primary Compliance: 100%
Secondary Compliance: 82%
Operational Compliance: 62 % (An increase 3% points)

Of the 3 compliance levels, Operational Compliance has always been the most important and most difficult to achieve for APD. Operational compliance is attained at the point that the adherence to policies is apparent in the day-to-day operation of the agency. Operational compliance is where line personnel are routinely held accountable for compliance, not by the monitoring staff, but by the sergeants, and sergeants are routinely held accountable for compliance by their lieutenants and command staff. In other words, the APD “owns” and enforces its policies.

It is being projected that the city and APD will not reach the level of compliance as required for a least another 4 years, if not more.

APD SERGEANTS AND LIEUTENANTS RESIST DOJ REFORMS

All sworn police have been give the training mandated by the CASA, yet the city is still struggling to implement the reforms. The question is why? The likely answer is that even with the mandated training of sworn accomplished under the settlement, the 50.4% turnover has not been enough to eliminate the APD management who helped create, did not stop or contributed to the “culture of aggression”.

In 2021, there were 113 Sergeants, 44 lieutenants, 14 Deputy Commanders and 12 Commanders all with all having 5 or more years of service with APD. Many were likely employed on November 14, 2014 in some capacity or another when the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA) was filed approving the 271 reforms and who were promoted after the report was released.

The Federal Monitor has found repeatedly it is APD sergeants and lieutenants who are resisting management’s implementation of the DOJ reforms. Sergeants and lieutenants are where the rubber hits the road when it comes implementation of the 271 reforms.

It was on November 1, 2019, Federal Court Appointed Monitor James Ginger in his Federal Monitors 10th audit report where the “Counter CASA effect” was fully identified. According to the Federal Monitor’s 10th report:

“Sergeants and lieutenants, at times, go to extreme lengths to excuse officer behaviors that clearly violate established and trained APD policy, using excuses, deflective verbiage, de minimis comments and unsupported assertions to avoid calling out subordinates’ failures to adhere to established policies and expected practice. Supervisors (sergeants) and mid-level managers (lieutenants) routinely ignore serious violations, fail to note minor infractions, and instead, consider a given case “complete”.

In his 11th Monitors report file on May 4, 2020, Ginger wrote:

[“APD personnel are] still failing to adhere to the requirements of the CASA found in past monitoring reports, including some instances moving beyond the epicenter of supervision to mid- and upper management levels of the organization. … some in APD’s command levels continue to exhibit behaviors that “build bulwarks” [or walls] preventing fair and objective discipline, including a process of attempting to delay and in some cases successfully delaying the oversight processes until the timelines for administering discipline had been exceeded. … “

APD HIGH COMMAND BIG PART OF THE PROBLEM

During the last 4 years, the APD high command that works directly out of the Chief’s Office went from 3 to 10 full time sworn staff. Those positions are Chief, Superintendent of Police Reform, Deputy Superintendent Of Police Reform, 6 Deputy Chiefs, 1 Chief of Staff. Although APD abolished the ranking of Major that existed 4 years ago, which there were only 4, it has created the new position of “Deputy Commanders” which there are 16.

Five of the 6 Deputy Chiefs, Joshua Brown (21 years) , Cecily Barker (17 years), Cori Lowe (16 years), Eric Garcia (21 years), J.J. Griego (20 years) came up through the APD ranks and have a combined 95 years of experience with APD. When you add the additional 24 years of experience APD Chief Harold Medina has with APD, the total years of experience of the 6 high command staff have with APD is 119 years.

Normally, it would be a cause for great celebration to know that 119 years of law enforcement experience is in charge of running APD. But it simply cannot be when it comes to APD that is under a federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The settlement mandates 271 reforms that was the result of an 18-month Department of Justice civil rights investigation that found a pattern of “excessive use of force” and “deadly force” and a “culture of aggression” within APD. Simply put, 6 of the 7 APD Chief’s executive staff contributed, should have been aware of or did not stop the culture of aggression within APD. Now the 6 are fully in charge of APD.

There is no doubt that APD Chief Harold Medina was and still is part of the problem with APD’s failure to implement the reforms. Medina has a nefarious past of first killing a 14-year boy banishing a BB gun in a church and years later gave the authorization use deadly force that resulted in APD’s killing of a veteran threatening suicide and having a psychotic episode. A jury verdict of $10 million was awarded in the killing of the veteran with the court finding that the veteran was only a danger to himself and not APD. What was truly amazing is that Medina actually promoted his nefarious past with the 2 officer involved shootings as making him qualified to be Chief in that he learned the lesson of the need for constitutional practices.

FINAL COMMENTARY

No doubt it is alarming to many that there are so many experienced sworn police leaving APD and there is a need to pay them more for retention. APD command and the union are seriously mistaken to think that an 8% pay increase phased in and a 5% increase in longevity pay is going to make any difference in retention of experienced officers. It will not and the hemorrhaging of sworn police leaving in droves still continues. Ten officers supposedly retired in January and many more are preparing for retirement in 2022.

In the long run and for the end game, the many personnel departures are probably good thing. Any sworn officer, including police union membership, and especially those who hold management positions now from the ranks of sergeant to Chief, and who are not committed to constitutional policing practices or feel they cannot adhere to them or who resist the DOJ reforms should probably move on.

A 100% turnover of APD sworn and command staff from the year 2014 when the federal court settlement was approved to the present, especially in the ranks of Sergeant all the way to the rank of APD Chief is likely required to achieve DOJ compliance levels. Such a turnover will likely once and for all eradicate the “culture of aggression” within APD and ensure constitutional policing practices and a 100% compliance of all the reforms. It’s too bad, because it did not have to be this way and it could have been totally avoided had the police union cooperated and supported the reforms instead of engaging in obstructionist tactics to undermine the reforms for the least 7 years

On February 25, President Joe Biden nominated U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson to the United State Supreme Court. She is the first Black woman selected to serve on the Supreme Court. The nomination to the Supreme Court is indeed historical in that she is being nominated to the highest court in the land that declared decades ago that her race was unworthy of citizenship and endorsed American segregation.

In making the nomination, President Biden delivered on his campaign promis made exactly 2 years ago to the date and he declared:

“I believe it’s time that we have a court that reflects the full talents and greatness of our nation. … Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson has a pragmatic understanding that the law must work for the American people. … She strives to be fair, to get it right, to do justice.”

Judge Jackson, 51, if confirmed by the Senate, will be the Supreme Court’s second African American member joining the conservative Judge Clarence Thomas, and she will be just the third in history. She would be only the 6th woman to serve on the court, but would join 3 others already there, including the first Latina, Justice Sonia Sotomayor. She replaces liberal Justice Stephen Breyer, 83, who is retiring at the end of the current term . She will not change the court’s 6-3 conservative majority.

Judge Jackson had this to say:

“I must begin these very brief remarks by thanking God for delivering me to this point in my professional journey. My life has been blessed beyond measure and I do know that one can only come this far by faith. Among my many blessings, and indeed the very first, is the fact that I was born in this great country. … The United States of America is the greatest beacon of hope and democracy the world has ever known. I was also blessed from my early days to have had a supportive and loving family. My mother and father, who have been married for 54 years, are at their home in Florida right now and I know that they could not be more proud.

I am humbled by the extraordinary honor of this nomination. If I’m fortunate enough to be confirmed as the next associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, I can only hope that my life and career, my love of this country and the Constitution, and my commitment to upholding the rule of law and the sacred principles upon which this great nation was founded, will inspire future generations of Americans.”

In her remarks, Jackson highlighted her family’s first-hand experience with the entirety of the legal system. Born in D.C. but raised in Miami, Jackson comes from an elite legal pedigree as a graduate of Harvard Law School but also has experience representing everyday Americans in the legal system as a federal public defender. In her family are judges and lawyers, an uncle who was Miami’s police chief and another who was imprisoned on drug charges. Jackson once worked as one of Justice Breyer’s law clerks early in her legal career. She would be the high court’s first former public defender. She attended Harvard as an undergraduate and for law school, and served on the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the agency that develops federal sentencing policy, before becoming a federal judge in 2013.

Links to quoted source material are here:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/25/politics/supreme-court-ketanji-brown-jackson/index.html

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/biden-nominates-judge-ketanji-brown-jackson-black-woman/story?id=83062953

https://apnews.com/article/Ketanji-Brown-Jackson-biden-supreme-court-nominee-32f77fe08d7cf64af95591668a0aaa41

CULTURE-WAR SHOWDOWNS TO BE DECIDED

On February 22, Bloomburg published on line an excellent article written by its “Politics and Equality” reporter Greg Stohr. The article is an excellent summation of the major cases the United State Supreme Court will be ruling upon in the next few months, all cases that US Supreme Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson will be ruling upon.

Below is the Bloomburg article followed by the link:

“The U.S. Supreme Court is aggressively filling its calendar with culture-war clashes, taking up fights over abortion, gay rights, guns, affirmative action and voting rights at the behest of conservative advocates looking to take advantage of a bench reshaped by former President Donald Trump.

With three Trump appointees giving it a 6-3 conservative majority, the court is putting aside objections that many of the cases don’t meet the traditional standards for review.

The newest case accepted on [February 22] could let some businesses refuse to take part in same-sex weddings. The court will hear an appeal from a web designer who opposes gay marriage on religious grounds and says the Constitution’s free-speech clause entitles her to an exemption from a Colorado anti-discrimination law. The court took the case even though officials haven’t tried to enforce the law against her.

Here’s what else is on the agenda, starting with six cases likely to be decided in the current term, scheduled to end in late June:

ABORTION

In the highest-profile case of its term, the court is considering overturning the landmark Roe v. Wade decision and letting states outlaw abortion.

During arguments Dec. 1, the court’s six conservatives all suggested they were likely to uphold a Mississippi ban after 15 weeks of pregnancy. And five signaled they were interested in going further and eliminating the constitutional right to abortion altogether.

The ruling will come in a term in which the justices have already allowed an unusual Texas law that uses private lawsuits to prohibit abortion after six weeks.

GUNS

The court is poised to issue its biggest Second Amendment ruling in more than a decade, potentially establishing a constitutional right to carry a handgun in public. Advocates are challenging a New York law that requires people to show a special reason to get a concealed-carry permit.
New York is one of eight states with laws that the National Rifle Association says prevent most people from legally carrying a handgun in public. Arguments Nov. 3 suggested the court might strike down the New York law while leaving room for states to bar weapons in sensitive places, such as courthouses and schools.

CLIMATE CHANGE

The court hears arguments next week on a bid by coal companies and Republican-led states to curb the Environmental Protection Agency’s authority to tackle climate change. The case could undercut President Joe Biden’s pledge to halve greenhouse gas emissions by the end of the decade.

The court accepted the case, which stems from litigation over a Trump-era rule, even though Biden’s EPA hasn’t yet proposed a plan to cut greenhouse emissions from the power plants at the center of the case.

IMMIGRATION

The Biden administration is trying to end a Trump policy that requires asylum applicants to remain in Mexico while their cases are being processed. The current administration was able to rescind the policy briefly before a Trump-appointed judge ordered it reinstated and a panel of three Republican-appointed judges affirmed.

That left the administration with little choice but to turn to the Supreme Court, even though the justices had already rejected the administration on an emergency basis. The court has said arguments will be during the last week of April.

SCHOOL TUITION

During arguments Dec. 8, the court’s conservative wing signaled it was poised to strengthen the rights of parents to use public dollars to pay tuition at religious schools. The case concerns a Maine program that covers the cost of private education in areas without public schools but bars use of the funds at institutions that promote religion.

PRAYING COACH

The court has agreed to hear an appeal from a football coach who lost his job at a public high school in Washington state after repeatedly praying alongside his players on the 50-yard line after games. The coach says the prayers were private religious expression while the school district says some students felt coerced into taking part.

The court hasn’t said when it will hear arguments. But the Jan. 14 decision to grant review gives the justices time to hear the case in April and rule this term.

AFFIRMATIVE ACTION

The court next term will use cases involving Harvard College and the University of North Carolina to consider abolishing the use of race in college admissions decisions. A group run by a longtime opponent of racial preferences is urging the court to overturn precedents that let universities consider race as a way to diversify their campuses.

Affirmative action is common at selective universities, though nine states including California and Florida ban race-conscious admissions at public institutions.

VOTING RIGHTS

In another case set for next term, the court will consider insulating states and local governments from claims that their voting maps discriminate against minority voters. The justices will review a ruling that said the Voting Rights Act required Alabama to include a second heavily Black district in its congressional map.

A divided high court blocked the ruling early this month, restoring a Republican-drawn map with just one majority-Black district out of seven for the November election.”

The link to the quoted Bloomberg article is here:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-22/supreme-court-docket-gets-busier-with-more-culture-war-showdowns

EDITOR’S DISCLAIMER: The political blog www.petedinelli.com was not compensated for publication of this announcement. The announcement is published as a public service to voters.

Philip “Phil” A. Snedeker, long-time law enforcement and criminal justice professional, announced his candidacy for Bernalillo County Sheriff. Snedeker will be running in the Democratic Primary election, which is June 7, 2022. Snedeker will bring his extensive and up to date law enforcement and criminal justice experience to the Bernalillo County Sheriff’s Office.

In making his announcement Phil Snedeker had this to say:

“Keeping the residents of Bernalillo County safe, by providing strong, proactive, purposeful law enforcement, coupled with aggressive crime-fighting strategies, will be the distinguishing characteristics of my administration.

I also strongly support the expansion of innovative crime reduction strategies, involving the use of treatment and programming to address chemical and alcohol dependency, and the expansion of services related to mental health interventions.

I’ve been fortunate in my career to see law enforcement from all sides. From the standpoint of an officer arresting someone; to operating a detention center while defendants are in custody; to overseeing the probation and parole system. Addressing the crime situation in our community needs a comprehensive approach from someone who truly understands how the whole system works.

As the administrator of the Sheriff’s Department, I pledge my support to the working men and women of the department, acknowledging their commitment and sacrifices to the law enforcement profession. Our officers will be committed to our community, will be engaged with our community, and will provide professional, constitutionally sound, transparent, and accountable law enforcement services, to our citizens.

I envision a Sheriff’s Department, of men and women, and our community, aligned in thought and purpose, distinguished by a commitment to public safety and the good of our community.”

A DEDICATED CAREER IN LAW ENFORCEMENT

PHIL SNEDEKER was raised in the southern New Mexico town of Silver City, attending local area schools. He graduated from Western New Mexico University, in Silver City, with a B.A. Degree in Social Science, and subsequently earned a M.A. Degree, in Educational Administration.

Snedeker has dedicated his 47-year career to public service, most recently serving for the State of New Mexico Probation and Parole Division. Snedeker began his career as a police officer with the Silver City Police Department while attending college. After graduating college, Snedeker served as a New Mexico State Police Officer for 10 years in the communities of Santa Fe, Farmington, and Tucumcari.

For the last 31 years, Snedeker served as a certified peace officer, as a probation and parole officer, and administrator, for the State of New Mexico, Albuquerque Regional Office, Probation and Parole Division. This included 13 years as the Divisional Administrator of the District Office in Los Lunas, NM and 15 years as a Divisional Administrator of the District Office and District Court Services Offices in Albuquerque.

Snedeker has dedicated his 47-year career to public service, most recently serving for the State of New Mexico Probation and Parole Division. Snedeker began his career as a police officer with the Silver City Police Department while attending college. After graduating college, Snedeker served as a New Mexico State Police Officer for 10 years in the communities of Santa Fe, Farmington, and Tucumcari.

Snedeker then ran, and was elected, Sheriff of Quay County, serving the communities of Tucumcari, San Jon, and Logan, in eastern New Mexico. In addition to being the chief executive of the Sheriff’s Department, Snedeker oversaw the operations of the county detention center.

For the last 31 years, Snedeker served as a certified peace officer, as a probation and parole officer, and administrator, for the State of New Mexico, Albuquerque Regional Office, Probation and Parole Division. This included 13 years as the Divisional Administrator of the District Office in Los Lunas, NM and 15 years as a Divisional Administrator of the District Office and District Court Services Offices in Albuquerque.

A PLATFORM COMMITTED TO KEEPING PEOPLE SAFE

PHIL SNEDEKERannounced the following as his major priorities once elected Bernalillo County Sherriff:

REDUCING CRIME

Crime reduction and suppression strategies will involve comprehensive and intensive, data analysis of public safety law enforcement activities, calls for service, arrest data, etc., resulting in the focused deployment of personnel and services, to specific areas and neighborhoods, based upon needs and levels of crime.

KEEPING OUR COMMUNITY SAFE

Law enforcement has its basis in providing for the safety and protection of the community and its citizens, undertaken in a constitutionally sound manner, consistent with standards reflecting professionalism and service.

EXCEPTIONAL POLICING

The proper recruitment, selection, training, development, and retention of professional law enforcement personnel, dedicated to the service of their community and its citizens, is the foundation of exceptional policing, and will be one of the distinguishing characteristics of our agency.

COMMUNITY POLICING & BUILDING TRUST AND CONFIDENCE

Community involvement and outreach, is the foundation of effective and successful policing. I fully endorse and will implement, community policing initiatives and programs, involving a strong police presence, designed to address the distinctive needs and problems of each neighborhood/area. These policing practices will result in the Sheriff’s Department enjoying the trust, confidence, and support of the communities it serves.

USING TECHNOLOGY

Our agency will ascribe to and employ current and modern methodology in our Law Enforcement activities. I am a proponent of, and fully support. the use of body cameras. Our Officers will be properly and continuously trained, will be properly equipped and enabled to perform their jobs, will have access to the latest technologies, training, and professional development, and will be fully supported, in the performance of their duties.

GET ILLEGAL FIREARMS OFF THE STREETS

Our agency will engage in focused initiatives, and aggressive enforcement operations, to reduce the unlawful purchase, presence, possession, sale, and use of illegal firearms. We will present strong, factually sound cases for prosecution, and work closely with State and Federal prosecutors, and Legislative representatives, advocating for increased penalties, and swift and severe consequences, for such criminal endeavors.

TRANSPARENCY & ACCOUNTABILITY

Consistent and comprehensive review, analysis, and evaluation of Departmental policy, procedure, and practice, coupled with meaningful dialogue, engagement and interaction, with the community, will be characteristic of our agency.

FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY

Our agency will be committed to responsible principles and practices of budgetary and fiscal management, ensuring the prudent expenditure of tax-payer monies.

SUPPORTING THE MEN & WOMEN WHO KEEP US SAFE

I endorse and will support the working men and women of our Department, acknowledging their commitment and sacrifices to the law enforcement profession. I will ensure that assigned areas of responsibility are adequately staffed, and that personnel are properly deployed, to ensure the goals and objectives of public service and safety, and ensure greater and improved investigation clearance rates.

The link to the Phil Snedeker For Sheriff campaign is here:

http://snedeker4sheriff.nationbuilder.com/

EDITORS NOTE: Freelance reporter Charles Arasim contributed to this blog article regarding the Citizens Police Oversight Agency. He is a citizen police oversight advocate, and as such was recognized by the Department of Justice when the Court Approved Settlement Agreement was negotiated. Mr. Arasim has scrutinized the process and usefulness of the Police Oversight Ordinance and Agency.

EVOLUTION OF CIVILIAN OVERSIGHT OF APD

It was in 1987, as a result of an excessive number of civil lawsuits and millions in civil judgements against the City and APD for excessive use of force and violations of civil rights that the first effort was made by the Albuquerque City Council to have civilian oversight and investigations of citizens’ complaints against sworn APD police officers. The city ordinance was sponsored by then Albuquerque City Councilor Pete Dinelli and took the form of Independent Review Officer or Independent Counsel. The ordinance was strenuously objected to by then Mayor Ken Schultz, then APD Chief Sam Baca and the Police union but passed on a 9-0 bipartisan vote. The very first Independent Review Officer was then former New Mexico Supreme Court Justice Bill Reardon. Over the years, civilian police oversight has evolved.

The Civilian Police Oversight Agency (CPOA) was established in 2014 after the City of Albuquerque amended its Police Oversight Ordinance. As a result, the new Police Oversight Ordinance replaced the former Police Oversight Commission (POC) with the new Police Oversight Board (POB) and the former Independent Review Office (IRO) with the new Civilian Police Oversight Agency.

The Civilian Police Oversight Agency is an independent agency of City Government, not part of either the City Administration or City Council that consists of a Police Oversight Board and an Administrative Office led by the Civilian Police Oversight Agency Executive Director.

The Civilian Police Oversight Agency receives, investigates and reviews complaints and commendations submitted by community members for/against the Albuquerque Police Department. The Civilian Police Oversight Agency also reviews Albuquerque Police Department policies, practices, and procedures, making recommendation to the Chief of Police.

https://www.cabq.gov/cpoa/civilian-police-oversight-agency-cpoa#:~:text=The%20Civilian%20Police%20Oversight%20Agency%20(CPOA)%20was%20established%20in%202014,amended%20its%20Police%20Oversight%20Ordinance.

https://www.cabq.gov/cpoa/documents/ordinance-3-2-20.pdf

https://www.cabq.gov/cpoa/documents/2020-board-policies-and-procedures.pdf

Ever since the creation of the Police Oversight Board and the Police Oversight Commission in 2014, both have been plagued by political turmoil, resignations and membership and staffing turnover. Both have been plagued with constant resistance from the Albuquerque Police Department management and all too often completely ignored by the APD Chief and executive staff as well as the Mayor and City Council.

Within the last year, the Albuquerque City Council began efforts to try and fix the Police Oversight Agency ordinance. On February 23, 2022, the Albuquerque City Council voted to defer all action on amending the Civilian Police Oversight Agency Ordinance for two weeks to allow consideration of other changes. The CPOA ordinance will be heard at the next regular meeting of the City Council on March 7, 2022. The blunt truth is that the Albquerquerqu City Council is attempting to to fix the unfixable.

THE CPOA AND THE DOJ

On November 14, 2014, the City of Albuquerque and the Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a Court Approve Settlement (CASA) mandating 271 reforms of the Albuquerque Police Department APD. The settlement was a result of a year’s long investigation of the APD and findings of “excessive use of force” and deadly for and a “culture of aggression.”

The link to the settlement is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/cpoa/documents/465-1-190730-2nd-amended-restated-casa.pdf

A major reform measures mandated the creation of a full time, professional Civilian Police Oversight Agency (CPOA) with a full time Director and investigators and with a 9-member, all-volunteer, civilian Police Oversight Board appointed by the city council. The CPOA board is ultimately responsible for investigations of police misconduct and making recommendations to the Chief of Police for disciplinary actions. The board also reviews investigations and examines APD policy and procedures.

The major goal of the Civilian Police Oversight Agency and its board is that it’s to be the outside entity watching over the APD department when the Federal Court Approved Settlement Agreement is finally dismissed and the Federal Court appointed Independent Federal Monitor is no longer necessary. As it stands, it will likely be another 5 years before the case can be dismissed primarily because of APD’s failures to implement the reforms and met the compliance levels mandated.

Since its inception, the CPOA and it’s all volunteer board has been in a constant state of turmoil. The turmoil has included sharp turnover of board members and understaffing at the agency. At one point there were only two investigators with the agency, leading to a dramatic decline in the number of cases they completed.

Interim director Diane McDermott has said the CPOA is now fully staffed with 6 investigators. Three of those investigators were recently hired and have not yet begun to take cases.

In addition to reviewing complaints, CPOA board members make policy recommendations. An APD spokesman said since April 2019, APD had received recommendations for 10 policy changes and revised two policies in response.

CPOA CHAIRMAN AND 3 BOARD MEMBERS RESIGN

On December 9, 2021, Eric Olivias, the Chairman Of Civilian Police Oversight Agency (CPOA) Board submitted his letter of resignation. In addition to Olivias resigning, two others CPOA Board member resigned within a 48-hour period and they are Tara Jaramillo-Prewitt and Geonie Ralph. A 3rd newly appointed CPOA Board member Richard Johnson who was appointed to the Board at the same time as Gionnne Ralph is reported have to have silently walked away from the CPOA Board on or about November 1, 2021.

The Olivia’s letter is a scathing indictment of the CPOA. The resignation comes less than 2 months after CPOA Executive Director Ed Harness resigned and less than one month after Superintendent Of Police Reform Sylvester Stanley announced his retirement at the end of December.

CPOA CHAIRMAN LETTER OF RESIGNATION

Below are pertinent portions Olivias letter of resignation. Because of the length of the resignation letter, capitalized and bold headlines were added for clarity to assist the reader.

[BADLY BROKEN PROCESS]

“First and foremost, let me state that I am not resigning for personal reasons, but rather because I believe this process is badly broken and many persons, policies, and politics have led to that breakdown. This is not a Civilian Police Oversight Board as it is titled, rather this Board is a Civilian Police Advisory Board. The Board has no oversight authority over APD, it can issue recommendations for discipline and policy, but all recommendations are non-binding and can be dismissed, as they often are, by the Chief of Police. No matter the evidence presented, the Board is able to have little effect on the actual operations of APD.”

[BOARD HAS TOO MANY RESPONSIBILITIES TO FUNCTION]

“The Board itself is tasked with far too many responsibilities. The City Council erred in assigning so many tasks and responsibilities to the Board and its members and then restricted its ability to function by limiting the number of committees that Board members may serve on. Further, the list of training required for Board members is far too ambitious for unpaid volunteers. This requirement skews the membership of the Board towards retirees and those who are independently wealthy, hardly a subset reflective of our diverse community. For example, the required Civilian Police Academy course occurs two times per week over the course of 3 months adding up to nearly 60 hours of training including topics such as the Horse Mounted Unit and Impact Investigations. These are important units of APD, no doubt, but is knowledge of them required for Board service? Hardly. To be a fully functional and well-informed member of this Board an individual needs approximately 20 hours a week minimum to devote to Board service.”

[CITIZENS VOLUNTEER BOARD LEADS TO FAILURE]

“The Board has members who cannot and do not devote the time required to serve, and it clearly shows. Some members come to meetings completely unprepared and have not reviewed materials or have only done a surface review. Recently I learned that one member who had been voting on cases for 6 months, only recently learned how to access case materials and findings letters after contacting agency staff. After spending months correcting faulty training records and regaining compliance on training requirements, just one member can set back the efforts of the Board immensely. Despite the obvious deliberate non-compliance of some members, many Board members refuse to hold those members responsible accountable. One member went so far as to say that CPOA staff should be checking in with new members on a weekly basis and another wondered whether access to a computer was a reason for non-compliance with training requirements. To be a member of this Board, some basic skills, self-accountability, and self-reliance must be had. If the Board can’t hold itself accountable, why would anyone entrust the Board with real power to hold APD accountable?”
…

[POORLY DESIGNED CITY COUNCIL PROCESSS]

“The City Council has designed a bad process. From the appointment process, to training, and of course the long list of responsibilities delegated to the Board, the Civilian Police Oversight Ordinance in Albuquerque is broken. Efforts are underway to nibble at the edges of the problem, but frankly the proposed amendments to the ordinance hit at the low hanging fruit and do nothing to give a meaningful role to Civilian Oversight of Police in Albuquerque. On numerous and repeated attempts to arrange meetings with City Councilors to discuss issues with the CPOAB several never even responded, of those that did respond and meet, 3 will no longer be on the Council at the end of this month. It is clear from meetings with councilors and even more clear from public statements, that many councilors do not understand the ordinance they wrote. In one recent meeting a Councilor went so far as to state that the members of the CPOAB, “hold the lives and livelihoods of officers in their hands.” This statement would be funny if it wasn’t so ignorant of how the process really works. Other Councilors have made similar statements indicating that they do not have a good understanding of how the CPOA Ordinance is written and how it works in practice. If City Councilors want a strong and effective Civilian Oversight process in Albuquerque, I would urge them to listen to those that know best including, but not limited to Board Members.”

[FEDERAL MONITOR, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, POLICE UNION PART OF PROBLEM]

“Despite serious issues within the Board, the greatest problems in this process lie within the parties of the CASA including the Monitor, the USDOJ, the APOA, and the City. While training records for the Board have been incomplete for nearly 2 years, only in [Independent Monitor’s Report 14] is the issue formally raised. In IMR-13 the issue was raised during informal meetings. Has the monitor really been doing its job if it took two years to note that training records were out of date? Moreover, the monitor has provided conflicting guidance. Criticizing the Board for spending too much time reviewing cases while in the next paragraph applauding the Board for catching serious deficiencies in an Agency investigation during its case review process. … Why has the monitor not held the City out of compliance for not filling Board positions and not publishing a clear and transparent process for how applicants will be screened and vetted? The City has promised action on this for years, none has been taken, yet the monitor is silent.”

[DOJ AND CITY ATTORNEY MEDDLING]

“The USDOJ meddles in Board business as it sees fit. When the Assistant US Attorney didn’t like an ill-informed statement that a new member made in a committee meeting, USDOJ rallied the City Attorney and others to its cause insisting that this was a sign of the Board being complacent, rather than looking to City Council as to how such a poorly informed and biased member was appointed to this Board in the first place. The assistant US Attorney has also made statements in support of the now departed Executive Director, while failing to recognize that the Board cannot comment on such matters given Personnel protections.”

“The City Attorney has also meddled in Board business despite the professed need for independence of the Board. The City Attorney has all but declared that the current training provided to the Board is inadequate. Without stating what about the training was/is inadequate, the City Attorney has convinced all the parties that the City Attorney is better suited to provide training to the Board, despite obvious issues with the independence of the Board. However, when the assistance of the City Attorney was requested to address APD not providing required CPA training to the Board by a more accessible virtual means during the pandemic, the response indicated that it would be inappropriate for the City Attorney to intervene on the Board’s behalf given its independent status. The City Attorney has provided inaccurate information to City Council on Board training compliance, despite being provided evidence to the contrary. On numerous occasions the City Attorney has lectured and belittled the Board and myself about its shortcomings and lack of priorities. This criticism came from one of the primary parties responsible for the compliance of the City of Albuquerque with the CASA, despite improvements in CASA compliance being stalled for the last 1.5 years.”

[GREATEST FAULT LIES WITH APD]

“Despite the many parties failing in their obligations in this process the greatest fault lies with the Albuquerque Police Department, mainly its Executive Leadership. Rather than appoint leaders with real experience in reforming a large police department the current mayoral administration chose a union endorsed insider.

More concerning is the bloat and constant turnover in APD command staff. When the current mayoral administration began their tenure they proclaimed that they were reforming the APD organizational chart. They accused the prior administration of having a bloated and top-heavy command that left the field short-handed. …. There are more deputy chiefs and chiefs of staff and deputy chiefs of staff than I care to mention.

Then there are public safety advisors, public safety liaisons, public information officers, and the list goes on and on. The current organizational structure makes the past administration look efficient by comparison. The solution to every problem has been to create and staff a new high-level, at-will position.”

… Nearly every week we learn that some high-level commander has been reassigned, retired, or resigned. The training academy, a perennial issue of concern in the monitor’s reports, has had 4 commanders in 4 years. Some commanders last a matter of months, others even less than that. How can an organization project stability and good function when nothing about it is stable or consistent? How can we hold field officers accountable when command staff changes on a whim and guidance from said command staff can change on a dime depending on who is in charge and what stimuli they are responding to.”

STONEWALLING IS ENGRAINED IN APD

“While the Board is charged with evaluating and making recommendations on APD Policy, APD has consistently stonewalled the Board on basic data requests. The Board has requested data on the expensive and untested Shotspotter program only to be given a letter assuring the Board that all procurement processes were followed (with no evidence) and a short briefing emphasizing that the program was too new to offer full statistics and analysis.

When you don’t have enough officers to respond to the actual calls in the system, why purchase a complicated and expensive system to generate even more (lower priority) calls? The Board has, on numerous occasions, requested data on the K9 unit. Given the high rate of injuries (to civilians and APD personnel) and frequent settlements, having the Board look at this unit and its policy would seem to be a no-brainer, yet APD has stonewalled for nearly a year. What is APD hiding, or are they just that bad at keeping records? The Board has also requested records on traffic stops including data on fines collected, injuries, shootings, etc. Once again, APD has stonewalled this request and avoided accountability. Lastly, despite years of reporting on overtime abuse at APD, spearheaded by a CPOA Investigation, little action has been taken to implement meaningful reforms to the APD Overtime process.”

APD IS BROKEN

“APD is broken. Not because of the brave and hardworking men and women who serve the community as field officers, detectives, and front-line supervisors, but because of a command staff focused on politics and micromanagement. There is no accountability for the organization as a whole.

The City Council seems convinced that throwing money at APD will solve all the problems. Despite the City Council budgeting the department for hundreds more officers each year, that goal has never been met. APD blames the national recruiting environment and no-one asks questions.

City Council buys APD a new helicopter, a new communication system, gadgets like ShotSpotter, and more, yet City Council never asks hard questions as to how violent crime rates continue to rise, recruitment struggles, and progress towards meeting the requirements of the CASA are non-existent.

I believe the answer to these good questions City Council refuses to ask is relatively simple: bad leadership. When officers don’t feel supported and valued and they see the churn and burn at the top, why would they not assume that they are expendable to the organization at the first sign of trouble? Yes the organization must discipline and remove bad officers, but it must also show that it is stable and supportive of those doing their jobs correctly and to the best of their ability. “

[NEED COMPETANT COMMANDERS]

“APD must install commanders that are competent and assure them some stability to implement and oversee changes. The APD Chief should be appointed to 6, 8, or even a 10-year term to give the department the stability it needs and to attract top-tier candidates interested in leading the department for the long-run, not just padding their PERA with a few high paying years. Lower-level commanders should also be afforded more job stability so that they can actually see-through reforms they implement. The APD budget must be scrutinized and funding for fancy gadgets and at-will positions must be trimmed back while emphasizing recruitment and retention of field officers and investigators.”

[REFORM ORDINANCE]

“The [Civilian Police Oversight Agency Board and Civilian Police Oversight Agency] CPOAB/CPOA Ordinance must be reformed to narrow the focus of the Board. The training requirements of the Board should be pared back, but front loaded. Before someone is allowed to vote on cases, they should be trained on the policies and processes that govern that review. The current training requirement of 6 months after appointment is akin to allowing an officer to join the force and begin patrolling the streets with a badge and a gun before being trained, we all think that would be crazy, but for CPOA Board Members that is exactly what we allow, if Board members ever complete their training in the first place. Board members should be compensated for their time with generous stipends tied to completing training and attending meetings. If this city wants a professional CPOAB, it should pay for it. Paying Board Members also helps to break down barriers to entry allowing a more diverse slate of membership. Board Members should be required to sponsor and attend community outreach events. Most importantly, the Board must be empowered to make binding decisions on policy and discipline. What is the point of Civilian Oversight if it is purely non-binding and advisory?”

[TONE DOWN THE RHETORIC]

“The last point I wish to make is that parties in this process need to step back and tone down the rhetoric. The process is so rife with finger pointing and backstabbing that I’m not sure any of the primary parties involved is actually interested in the stated goal of ensuring that Albuquerque has constitutional community policing. If the parties actually listened and tried to understand one-another it might become apparent that most of those involved want the same thing.

It is possible that many individuals involved in the process have made mistakes and many parts of this process are flawed. No one group is solely responsible for failures, yet each group takes great pride in blaming others. If the real goal is to achieve constitutional community policing for Albuquerque, shouldn’t the process involve adopting the best ideas and practices regardless of who came up with them? The parties need to move on from failures with constructive solutions instead of getting bogged down in assigning blame and scapegoating. I hope this reform process is successful, it needs to be, for the sake of our officers and our community.”

CPOA EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RESIGNS

It was on October 15 that CPOA Executive Director Ed Harness announced his resignation and left his job on November 15. In his resignation announcement, Harness gave a blistering condemnation of the board. Harness resigned because he had requested to be reappointed as executive director but instead the board opened the position to other applicants, a move he said was done without consulting stakeholders, the City Council, or the Department of Justice.

In his resignation announcement to the board, Harness said:

“[What is] most shameful is the fact that you didn’t even have enough respect to speak with any member of the CPOA staff – the people that do all the work to support your efforts. … This decision has permanently damaged the relationship between the agency and the board. … [Under my leadership the CPOA] has been restored to its rightful place as a meaningful oversight body … and has been applauded by the Department of Justice and the independent monitor] … You will set back the organization and its ability to maintain compliance with the [court approved settlement agreement] … because being executive director of the CPOA is not a plug-and-play position.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2438118/executive-director-of-police-oversight-agency-resigns.html

CITY COUNCIL ATTEMPTS TO FIX THE UNFIXABLE

On February 23, it was reported that the Albuquerque City Council was attempting to fix the Civilian Police Oversight Agency by making changes to the ordinance creating the agency.

City Councilor Brook Bassan, who sponsored the ordinance along with Councilors Pat Davis and Isaac Benton, said there are two significant changes that were being considered:

1. Reduce the board from nine members to seven and directing the agency to only investigate complaints concerning sworn officers, not civilian personnel.

2. Removed the directive that CPOA board members shall review and approve or amend findings of all agency investigations.

The CPOA is required to publish semiannual reports, however the 2021 data has yet to be made public. Interim CPOA director Diane McDermott said throughout last year there had been only 3 cases where investigators found policy violations, where the police chief differed, sending a letter of non-concurrance. McDermott added that the Chief Medina’s non-concurrances have increased in recent months. According to McDermott, this sometimes could be due to the department not wanting to hold an officer accountable but there could also be aggravating or mitigating factors that she is not aware of.

Interim CPOA director Diane McDermott, in response to the accusations made former chairman Eric Olivias that the agency was broken, said without the agency there is no process for citizens to lodge a complaint against an officer and get it investigated. McDermott said in Albuquerque the goal isn’t necessarily to discipline certain officers but to improve policing department wide and said:

“The department needs to be accountable for how it conducts its policing. … So it may not be that one officer, it may be the department’s failure on something.”

City Councilor Brook Basaan had this to say about the changes:

“I absolutely think these changes are going to make a significant improvement – at least I’m hopeful they will, … I think that just streamlining their case load based off of the requirements in the [Court Approved Settlement Agreement] will help minimize some of the burden and what was described as the setup of failure.”

Chantal Galloway, who is the new civilian volunteer chairperson of the CPOA Board, told federal judge James Browning at the February 9 on the 14th Federal Monitors Report, that CPOA has found itself as a “catch all for things deemed problematic,” and she told the Court:

“Oftentimes, we’re dedicating upwards of 60 to 80 hours per month to this process because we believe it’s important and that the community needs an outlet and a voice when it comes to policing in Albuquerque. It’s difficult to remain committed when our efforts are either dismissed or outright undermined by other members engaged in this process.”

CPOA board member Dr. William Kass, a retired Sandia Labs physicist, said the board is supposed to split its time between policy development and complaints, but in practice the complaints were eating up the majority of its attention. According to Kass:

“I think the power of the board lies in its ability to persuade APD to change policies or improve their training or become a better department. … I think that’s built by building relationships between the board, agency, APD and the community.”

The link to quoted news source material is here:

https://www.abqjournal.com/2472721/councilors-consider-changes-to-civilian-police-oversight-ordinance.html

COMMENTARY BY CHARLES ARASIM ON POLICE OVERSIGHT AGENCY

“It is obvious the City has failed in correcting APD structural and systemic deficiencies of insufficient oversight, inadequate training, and ineffective policies that contributed to the 2014 DOJ Investigative Report findings that APD engaged in a pattern and practice of excessive use of force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In the most recent report Independent Monitors Report, IMR-14, dated November 12, 2021, the Federal Monitor reviewed the CASA requirement that the city shall implement a civilian police oversight agency … that provides meaningful, independent review of all citizen complaints, serious uses of force, and officer involved shootings by APD and shall also review and recommend changes to APD policy and monitor long-term trends in APD’s use of force. The Federal Monitor reported the CPOA failed to meet the requirements and is in “non-operational compliance,” meaning the adherence to policies is not apparent in the day-to-today operation of the agency.

Seven years of existence has not resulted in quality, rigor, or consistency in processes by the Board or the Executive Director’s office when conducting civilian complaint investigations or review of APD findings in serious uses of force or officer involved shooting incidents.”

FINAL COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

After the passage of a full 7 years of the court approved settlement as well as the tumultuous history of the Citizen’s Police Oversight Commission that was mandated by the Court Approved Settlement Agreement, it has become painfully obvious that CPOA and its board of voluntary citizens has become so dysfunctional as to be irreparable and irrelevant. It is not at all likely any of changes or amendments to the CPOA ordinance will have any impact on any of the numerous problems identified Eric Olivas, the former Chairman Of Civilian Police Oversight Agency.

It is personalities and hidden agendas that make both the agency and the civilian volunteer board dysfunctional. Adding to the disfunction is more than a little politics thrown into the mix by the Mayor, the City Council, the Chief and his high command and union opposition to any and all kind of civilian oversight. The civilian board has never had any ability to to persuade APD to change policies or improve their training given the extent the Mayor and APD ignore it and undercut it.

The investigation of police misconduct cases and all use of force cases and serious bodily harm cases should be done by “civilian” personnel investigators not by Internal Affairs nor by the Citizens Police Oversight Agency or the Board. The function and responsibility for investigating police misconduct cases and violations of personnel policy and procedures by sworn police should be assumed by the Office of General Council in conjunction with the City Human Resources Department and the Office of Internal Audit where necessary. The Office of Independent Council would make findings and recommendations to the Chief of Police for implementation and imposition of disciplinary action.

A link to a related blog article is here:

https://www.petedinelli.com/2022/02/24/external-force-investigation-team-will-deal-with-660-apd-backlog-of-use-of-force-cases-efit-confirms-apd-unable-to-police-itself-abolish-apd-internal-affairs-and-civilian-police-oversight-allow/

EDITOR’S NOTE: Freelance reporter Charles Arasim contributed to this blog article regarding the Citizens Police Oversight Agency. He is a citizen police oversight advocate, and as such was recognized by the Department of Justice when the Court Approved Settlement Agreement was negotiated. Mr. Arasim has scrutinized the process and usefulness of the Police Oversight Ordinance and Agency.

On November 12, 2021 the Federal Court Appointed Monitor James Ginger filed with the Federal Court his 14th Independent Monitors Report. The report is the most critical and scathing to date as to the city’s intentional noncompliance and failure to investigate hundreds of police use of force cases. The report covers the time frame of February 1, 2021 to July 31, 2021. The link to review the entire 331-page report is here:

https://documents.cabq.gov/police/reports/department-of-justice/independent-monitors-fourteenth-report-nov-2021.pdf

According to the report:

“The most important issues affecting APD during the IMR-14 reporting period involve misconduct investigations, use of force investigations, the lack of progressive discipline when misconduct is found, and supervision and leadership.

All non-force-related misconduct investigations completed by APD … were found to be deficient. A total of 17 misconduct cases, 6 investigated by Internal Affairs and 9 area command investigations were reviewed, including two that were completed by outside agencies.

The only properly investigated case reviewed by the monitoring team this reporting period was completed by an outside agency. In two consecutive reporting periods, a virtual shut down of use of force investigations has occurred in Internal Affairs.

Only seven, or 3%, of the 216 Level 2 cases opened were closed. Only 1 of those 7 was completed within 90 days, or less than one-half of a percent. Only two of 91 Level 3 use of force cases opened during this period were completed by [Internal Affairs Force Division] IFD or 2%. Neither of the 2 cases were completed within the CASA required 90-day period.

A second backlog of 667 uninvestigated use of force cases … was reported. This second backlog is more than double the initial backlog APD dealt with from 2018-2020 and does not include any of the contemporary cases left uninvestigated by IAFD.

Approximately 83% of these cases are already time-barred for discipline in accordance with the Collective Bargaining Agreement [police union contract], should misconduct be found. Since its discovery, this backlog has been reduced from 667 cases to 660 cases as of October 25, 2021. At this rate of case productivity, we project that it will take APD 94 months to “clear” this second backlog, which, again, would ensure no disciplinary actions for policy violations in another 667 cases.”

PLAN TO TACKLE SEVERE BACKLOG OF CASES

On February 6, a second hearing was held on the 14th Independent Monitor’s Report where a plan was unveiled to tackle the 660-case backlog of uninvestigated level 2 and 3 use of force cases. Level 2 use of force is when an officer has to use force and the person is not injured. Level 3 includes anything that sends someone to the hospital or death, like officer-involved shootings. The Department of Justice has complained that APD doesn’t investigate use of force cases thoroughly and they are slow to look into cases.

APD wants the External Force Investigative Team established last year to help them out and sort through the cases. In other words, after 7 years of the CASA, the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) still can not do the job of policing itself. The City established the External Force Investigation Team to assist APD in conducting use of force investigations by APD officers, while also assisting APD with improving the quality of its use of force by police investigations. The EFIT team is supposed to be temporary to train APD Internal Affairs investigators on how to properly investigate uses of force instances by APD police officers.

APD is seeking the EFIT to expand its scope of work and tackle the backlog of cases that formed through the first half of 2021. Currently, APD has 25 sworn officers and civilians working on the EFIT. APD is working with EFIT, along with their own officers, to look at the backlog of cases. APD, the City, and the Department of Justice are in the process of negotiating the contract with the External Force Investigative Team. If it is approved, the contract would cover 2 years.

CREATION OF THE EXTERNAL FORCE INVESTGATION TEAM BY COURT ORDER FOR CITY TO AVOID CONTEMPT OF COURT

On Friday, December 4, 2020 during an all-day status conference hearing on the 12th Compliance Audit Report of the APD reforms mandated, it was revealed publicly for the first time that the City and the DOJ were negotiating a “stipulated order” for court approval that would create and External Force Investigations Team (EFIT).

During the hearing, Paul Killebrew, special counsel for the DOJ’s civil rights division, said that after the 12th Federal Monitor’s report was released on November 2, the DOJ and the City realized that something had to be done. If not agreed to by the city, the DOJ would have to take very aggressive action. Killebrew told Judge Browning:

“The city agreed the problems were serious and needed to be addressed … that’s significant. If we had gone to the city and the city disagreed with our picture of reality, and had they not been willing to address the problem we identified, I think we would be in a different posture … We might have needed to seek enforcement action over the city’s objections.”

During the December 4 status conference hearing, Special Counsel for the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division Paul Killebrew said:

“APD has proven over and over again its agility to avoid the requirements of the CASA.”

During the February 26 hearing to approve the stipulated order, Paul Killebrew told the court the motion was necessary because after 6 years the police department is still not holding officers accountable for using force that is out of policy. Killebrew told Judge Browning:

“…[W]hat we have is a city that has failed to comply with that court order over and over and over again. It not an option right now to do nothing. If we sit back and wait, using all the tools that we have already been using, I don’t know why we would expect things to change on their own. The sense of the United States when we received the monitor’s report was that additional interventions were required.

…

When we read [the Independent Monitor’s 12th report], we believed that there were likely grounds for contempt, and that we could probably make a good case for a receivership, at least as it regards serious force investigations. This is essentially something short of a receivership, but far more extensive than what is occurring now. What we’re talking about is having external folks assisting Albuquerque investigators in each investigation to ensure that those investigations identify out-of-policy force and to ensure that there is a strong factual record available so that policy violations can be identified and that officers can be held accountable. That is simply a nonnegotiable term of the consent decree. We must have officers held accountable for out-of-policy force, and after six years, we cannot wait for that to happen any longer.”

https://www.abqjournal.com/2363867/judge-signs-off-on-team-of-outside-investigators-to-help-apd.html

On February 26, 2021, the City of Albuquerque and the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) entered into a Stipulated Agreement filed with the United States District Court to stay a contempt of court proceeding against the city for willful violations of the Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The Stipulated Order established the External Force Investigation Team (EFIT).

On June 23, 2021, a contract was signed with the City, enabling EFIT to commence full operations on July 16, 2021. The 2021-2022 City of Albuquerque approved budget allocates $400,000 to APD for the Use of Force Review contract for its first year of operation. The city link to the budget is here:

https://documents.cabq.gov/budget/fy-22-proposed-budget.pdf

The EFIT is on call 24 hours a day, seven days a week. It is required to respond to all police use of force call outs within 1 hour of notification. All Use of Force (“UOF”) investigations undertaken by the EFIT must be completed within 60 days with an additional 30-day supervisory review period for a total of 90 days from start to finish. Pursuant to the Federal Court Order, EFIT must conduct joint investigations with APD Internal Affairs Force Division (“IAFD”) of all Level 2 and Level 3 Use Of Incidents . This includes all Tactical Deployments where there is APD police Use of Force is utilized. EFIT must also assist APD with training concerning the its Use of Force policies.

EXTERNAL FORCE INVESTIGATION TEAM’S SECOND QUARTERLY REPORT

On February 16, 2022, the External Force Investigation Team’s (EFIT) filed its Second Quarterly Report for the time period of October 16, 2021 to February 16, 2022. The report is 77 pages long with various court pleadings attached as exhibits. The link to the EFIT Second Quarterly Report is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/efit-second-quarterly-with-exhibits-02-16-22-stamped.pdf

EDITOR’S PRELMINARY COMMENTARY: The External Force Investigation Team report makes it abundantly clear that after a full 7 years of the CASA reforms, APD is still failing miserably to police itself and Internal Affairs is unable to keep up. It is a very bad state of affairs when an outside contracted group of professionals such as EFIT is needed to be brought in and paid to investigate use of force cases and assume a tremendous backlog of 660 use of force cases because APD unilaterally decided not to do the work. What is pathetic is that the EFIT is forced to train APD how to do such investigations, provide guidelines to APD sworn, teach APD sworn police how to conduct interviews, teach APD sworn how to gather evidence and complete use of force investigations, teach APD sworn how to fill out simple forms with basic contact information, deal with high turn over within Internal Affairs, deal with police union interference with police misconduct interviews, forced to offer incentive pay for Internal Affairs detectives to stay, required to go out on call outs with APD Internal Affairs Use of Force personnel and essentially hold their hand as use of force investigations are conducted, and insist on professionalism to the point telling APD personnel how to dress appropriately. All of these points are highlighted in the EFIT report and need to be kept in mind when the report is read.

Below is an edited, redacted and condensed version of the report. It contains the major highlights of the Second Quarterly Report, it adds sub-titles, deletes many confusing acronyms to assist the reader and performance measures and statistics are bolded for emphasis:

“The External Force Investigation Team known as the EFIT team, is currently providing on going mentoring of all Detectives/Investigators to include, but not limit, Use of Force scene investigative practices, interview, and written reporting of the UOF investigations.

The EFIT Executive Team worked with the APD Internal Affairs Force Division to establish a detailed Internal Affairs Investigation Process Narrative … that governs the response and investigative protocols to any Level 2 and 3 Use of Force cases. These documents are the basis for EFIT to evaluate the Internal Affairs Force Division.”

[USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATIONS OUT OF COMPLIANCE]

“As of this report, 15 out of the 141 (10.63%) of the Use of Force investigations closed by EFIT and APD Internal Affairs Force Division were found to be out of APD Use of Force policies. However, 48 out of the 141 (34.04%) of the UOF investigations closed by EFIT and [APD Internal Affairs Force Division] were found to be out of compliance when evaluated against the Process Narrative used to assess investigations. These violations range from

1. APD Internal Affairs Force Division failing to conduct required Use of Force meetings and/or interviews without EFIT’s attendance
2. APD Internal Affairs Force Division lack of written or incomplete investigative plans.
3. Failure to assign Use of Force investigations for extended periods of time.
4. Failure to upload and/or provide documents to EFIT and incomplete UOF scene investigations – to include documentation from witnesses and officers.”
… .

EIDITOR’S NOTE: The EFIT report outlines the steps that were taken to correct all 4 areas of violations.

EFIT opened joint investigations with IAFD on each incident. EFIT and APD Internal Affairs Force Division completed 141 investigations within the 90-day time period outlined in the Stipulated Order. … EFIT assumed 10 Use of Force investigations pursuant to … the Stipulated Order as those investigations became close to violating the stipulated timelines.”

[EFIT GOALS AND MANDATE]

“It is EFIT’s goal to teach, mentor and professionalize APD Internal Affairs Force Division so that when this assignment is completed, EFIT leaves the City with a sustainable division that investigates Use of Force incidents in a timely, objective and professional manner. … A major accomplishment in this reporting period, is that 7 APD Internal Affairs Force Division Detectives and 2 APD Internal Affairs Force Division Investigators were identified as attaining the requisite experience level to start transitioning the UOF Interview process from a joint EFIT and APD Internal Affairs Force Division interview, to conducting interviews without EFIT’s participation.”

[TRANFERS AFFECTING STAFFING]

“As of August 28, 2021, the Internal Affairs Force Division [was to be] be staffed with 25 Detectives. Currently, APD Internal Affairs Force Division has 11 civilian investigators and 20 sworn detectives, [for a total of 31]. [However] in recent discussions with the APD Internal Affairs Force Division Commander, EFIT discovered that by the end of February 2022, APD Internal Affairs Force Division will be at a total staffing level of 25 due to retirements, promotions, officers “bidding” or requesting another assignment out of APD Internal Affairs Force Division and back to Field Divisions and the loss of Investigators. … EFIT has concerns that these numbers fluctuate and retaining both sworn and civilian personnel is a constant concern as APD Internal Affairs Force Division again moves close to falling below required staffing levels. “

“… EFIT continues to express concern about retaining Investigators and Detectives in APD Internal Affairs Force Division. The two [administrators] in charge of the EFIT met several times with APD’s senior officers and counsel for the City regarding this issue. In addition to detectives transferring out of APD Internal Affairs Force Division … two civilian investigators after completing their IAFD training applied to transfer out of APD Internal Affairs Force Division to APD’s Organized Crime Task force without informing APD Internal Affairs Force Division Command Staff, including but not limited to, the Acting Superintendent of Reform.

Retaining trained APD Internal Affairs Force Division Detectives/Investigators, apart from the continued violations of the Process Narrative, is the EFIT Executive Team’s main concern related to the transition process of EFIT and APD Internal Affairs Force Division and Internal Affairs working totally independently. EFIT anticipated that this would be addressed to promote sustainability, adhering to the court mandated 25 personnel, and longevity during the Albuquerque Police Officers’ Association’s union contract process.”

[UNION CONTRACT PROVIDING INCENTIVE PAY]

“… The collective bargaining agreement signed by the City and the APOA on December 30, 2021, provides for APD Internal Affairs Force Division personnel the same incentive pay as their counterparts receive for remaining within the same area command or APD Internal Affairs Force Division and Internal Affairs. According to the union contract:

“An officer will receive $1,300.00 for each year served for the entire year in the same Area Command or the Internal Affairs Division, up to and capped at four years of continuous service or $5,200.00 per year.”

While EFIT believes this will be helpful, additional incentives must be explored by APD to ensure that highly trained and motivated teams remain within APD Internal Affairs Force Division.
…
EFIT recommended that Investigations be required to reimburse the City for training costs if they choose to leave Internal Affairs Force Division within a proscribed period of time … . In addition, senior APD command must communicate if any Internal Affairs Force Division member seeks to apply for another Division once such an application or notice is received.
…

[GOAL TO RETURN USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATIONS BACK TO APD]

“The DOJ and the City informed EFIT that its contract will be extended and a new Stipulated Agreement will be filed with the Court. Ultimately, the goal is for EFIT to return responsibility back to APD for Use of Force investigations.

The EFIT Executive Team worked to establish a detailed “Process Narrative” that governs the response protocols to Level 2 and 3 Use of Force cases. EFIT is constantly reviewing this document to ensure that it is serving the interests of EFIT’s mandate.

To that end, EFIT made several modifications as necessary. … The Process Narrative was disseminated to all IAFD Detectives/Investigators and EFIT Investigators. … This document establishes specific timelines and procedures to be followed for every Level 2 and Level 3 UOF investigation. All new IAFD Detectives/Investigators are provided the Process Narrative during the onboarding and internal training sessions.

Cases that are fully investigated by Internal Affairs Force Division and EFIT are reviewed by the EFIT Team Supervisor then forwarded to the Internal Affairs Force Division Sergeant for their review. The Internal Affairs Force Division Sergeant determines if the force is within ADP policy and forwards the case for an IAFD Command review. It is after the Command level that the EFIT Executive Team reviews the UOF determination and recommends closing a case.”

To date, EFIT disagreed on 4 Use Of Force classification determinations as to whether the Use Of Force is out of APD policy. Pursuant to the Stipulated Order these cases are discussed with APD (DOJ and IMT are notified). After these meetings and reconsideration by IAFD Command, these Use Of Force cases were ruled out of APD policy. Provisions were written into the Stipulated Order should EFIT need to assume full responsibility of an investigation or if EFIT disagrees with IAFD’s investigative findings.”

[USE OF FORCE CASES ASSUMED BY EFIT]

“Between October 25, 2021, and February 16, 2022, EFIT assumed 10 Use of Force investigations at various levels of completion … as these investigations became close to violating the stipulated timelines. Specifically, on January 10, 2022, EFIT assumed responsibility … and … the Stipulated Order to finish a Use of Force investigation. EFIT learned that an IAFD detective experienced an equipment malfunction and lost the evaluative narrative.

Given past poor communications issues internally with [Internal Affairs Force Division and externally with EFIT, and the fact that the investigation was in serious jeopardy of becoming time-barred, EFIT assumed the investigation. This case was completed by EFIT, but it also went through the Supervisor and Command review and was closed in 87 days on February 6, 2022.”

[INCREASED SUPERVSION NEEDED AT ALL LEVELS]

“EFIT continues to recommend increased supervision at all levels of APD Internal Affairs Force Division going forward to prevent the takeover of cases from occurring in the future. In addition, such supervision is necessary to ensure that APD Internal Affairs Force Division Detectives/Investigators are adhering to the procedures contained in the Process narrative. These issues are particularly acute at the Sergeant, Deputy Command and Command levels.

“First line Supervision is paramount to the success of APD Internal Affairs Force Division. These supervisors must take an active role with Detectives/Investigators under their command to know each Use of Force investigation and assist the Detectives/Investigators recognize the strengths and weaknesses of each investigation. By conducting case status meetings twice a week utilizing a robust investigative plan and reviewing OBRD prior to receiving the case for a supervisor review, these Use of Force cases will withstand EFIT’s scrutiny.

Without the first line supervisors taking this role, it will continue to prolong the EFIT oversight of IAFD. The EFIT Executive Team will continue to monitor these issues very closely going forward. Finally, the relevant documents governing EFIT also outline the process Internal Affairs Force Division and EFIT need to take if a Use Of Force might subject an APD officer to criminal liability. EFIT/IAFD have not made any referrals to the Multi-Agency Task Force during this reporting period. Closed UOF cases are presented to the FRB.”
… .

[MAJOR ACCOMPLISHMENT]

“The EFIT Executive Team is pleased to report that it established protocols … to begin to transition IAFD Detectives/Investigators to conduct interviews without EFIT’s direct supervision. Once a Detective/Investigator is identified by an EFIT Investigator, Supervisor, or Executive Team Member as attaining the requisite capabilities to conduct interviews without EFIT’s direct supervision, the EFIT Executive Team determines whether the IAFD Detective/Investigator may conduct interviews.
…
[TRANSFERING DETECTIVES TO INTERVIEW TRANSITION PROCESS]

“Beginning on January 17, 2022, to present, the EFIT Executive Team identified nine Detective(s)/Investigator(s) from Internal Affairs Force Division that will be moving into the Interview Transition Process. EFIT will continue to identify Detectives/Investigators who are eligible to enter the Interview Transition Process. If successful in this process, these Detectives/ Investigators/Detectives will become the first to conduct complete investigations without direct EFIT supervision of EFIT. Additionally, as of this report, these Detectives/Investigators completed interviews without EFIT’s oversight. EFIT’s evaluation of these interviews has been very positive to date and members of IAFD admitted into this process are complying with the aforementioned Interview Transition Policy, EFIT investigators reported a positive interaction.

The EFIT Executive Team continues to meet with all Area Commanders and many of the specialized unit Commanders, to explain the EFIT process, its protocols, and what their officers can expect upon EFIT responding to UOF incidents. Additionally, it was important for Commanders to freely relay concerns they are experiencing with the Use of Force investigative process. The EFIT Executive Team continues to conduct field visits and various Division briefings concerning EFIT, specifically any changes or modifications to the Process Narrative and relevant protocols.”

[LEVELS OF PROFESSIONALISM ESTABLISHED]

“… EFIT … accomplished several changes to the IAFD investigatory process and established a certain level of professionalism within the IAFD team. The EFIT Executive Team addressed a number of significant issues facing APD. Indeed, the Process Narrative and associated protocols were revised on more than one occasion as a result of updates required to address issues. …

When EFIT began, Internal Affairs Force Division was conducting interviews somewhat haphazardly in random locations. Detectives were asking leading questions and did not allow witnesses to state what happened by using open-ended questions. Essential critical listening skills were not present. There were interruptions of interviewees during their statements.

EFIT stressed the avoidance of leading questions and, for the most part, the Detectives/Investigators adhered to this standard with minor exceptions that are addressed with the Internal Affairs Force Division Detectives/Investigators. Internal Affairs Force Division Detectives/Investigators and the Officers under UOF investigations are now dressed appropriately and professionally.

Investigative reports are improving with each EFIT review and IAFD is now presented with high-quality reports for the Supervisory, Command, and FRB review. EFIT believed that it was imperative that the tone and tenor – in accordance with the seriousness of these investigations – was established at the outset. That professionalism continues to develop as EFIT moves forward.”

[INTERVIEW INTERRUPTIONS BY UNION REPRSENTATIVE]

“EFIT reported on the prior actions of the APOA where the union’s representatives interrupted interviews in clear contravention of the Collective Bargaining Contract. While EFIT, for the most part, did not experience these issues, unfortunately there were incidents where representatives interrupted interviews in an unprofessional manner. When such conduct was identified, EFIT Administrators met with the Union’s Attorney and the union Vice President and notified them that such conduct would not be tolerated in the future. The union attorney informed all participants that he would address these issues with the relevant APOA representatives and such conduct would immediately cease. …”

[INCOMPLETE FORMS]

“With regards to forms, there remains a continuing concern that admonitions and witness statements are incomplete from the Use of Force scene. Admonishments and witness statements are still taken by both Internal Affairs Force Division Detective/Investigators and field officers that lack much of the important witness’s biographical data, contact information and case information.

IAFD must ensure that if documentation is obtained by field officers documentation needs to be reviewed by IAFD for completeness. In addition, Supervisors must ensure that Detectives/Investigators complete the relevant forms. [EFIT has] recommended… and reviewed accepted forms and encourage the standardization of use within the Division to capture all the pertinent information needed for a law enforcement investigation.”
…
[USE OF FORCE INVESTIGATIONS OUT OF COMPLIANCE]

As the EFIT Executive team noted [above] out of the 141 (34.04%) of the UOF investigations closed by EFIT/IAFD were out of compliance when evaluated against the Process Narrative. It should be noted that 32 of these 48 investigations (66.66%) were out of compliance in part for lacking accurate and/or effective investigative plans. This is a fundamental failure at the IAFD supervisory level and is an impediment in transitioning IAFD UOF investigations back to APD without EFIT’s involvement. Where EFIT identifies those Detectives/Investigators that are found to be lacking in certain skill sets discussions are immediately held with IAFD Command to address the areas in need of improvement.

Some of the additional training is completed by additional mentoring by IAFD and/or EFIT. More intense training of Investigators/Detectives is conducted through IAFD remedial actions and in certain occasions those Detectives/Investigators in need are placed on a very structured Performance Improvement Plan.
…

While EFIT is not involved with misconduct investigations stemming from a Use Of Force investigation, the EFIT Executive Team observed that when closing out Use of Force cases, Internal Affairs Force Division often requests extensions for the misconduct investigations, which would authorize them to extend the investigation to 120 days. However, certain of these cases exceeded required timelines and are over 120 days. This issue was also raised by the Force Revie Board voting members, as Use of Force investigations are presented to the FRB while the misconduct case is still pending resolution. EFIT believes that misconduct investigations resulting from a Use of Force should be concurrent investigations with Use Of Force closures.
… .

[ON-SCENE ACCOUNTABILITY CHECK-LIST]

“EFIT recently discovered that Internal Affairs Force Division personnel present on-scene for tactical activations were haphazardly collecting the Special Operations Division (“SOD”) On-Scene Accountability Check-list. … This SOD On-Scene Accountability Checklist must be completed by the Tactical On-scene Sergeant and provided to Internal Affairs Force Division/EFIT. …

Specifically, this form lists everyone who is on scene, the force used and/or witnessed and must be collected prior to, or during the on-scene briefing. This is a roadmap to ensure that everyone is accounted for, admonished, photographed and all necessary protocols have been met and completed. Additionally, EFIT recommended a procedural change and Special Order be issued regarding an SOD Tactical Activation when assistance is required by an outside law enforcement agency at the direction of the APD SOD Tactical Commander and the assisting agency utilizes force. … .”

[NOTIFYING SWORN WHEN CASES CLOSED]

“During the December 16, 2021 hearing on the Federal Monitors 14th Report, the EFIT Administrator … advised the court that EFIT was told that officers utilizing force were never provided with a disposition letter after cases were closed by Internal Affairs Force Division. The EFIT Administrator found it unconscionable that an Officer would not know whether his use of force was found in or out of policy. A letter notifying the Officers was developed and approved by APD in November 2021, however, due to numerous administrative delays the letter was never sent to Officers. As a result of subsequent actions taken, APD Officers are now notified when force investigations are closed by Internal Affairs Force Division / EFIT and the findings of same.”

[USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS INVESTIGATED]

“EFIT constantly monitors the Use Of Force investigation case assignments to ensure that work is distributed evenly within Internal Affairs Force Division. On average each Detective/Investigator has 4 Use Of Force investigations. This issue is crucial to ensure that the applicable timelines are met. This issue becomes particularly acute as assignments are made between sworn officers and civilian investigators.

EFIT made a number of recommendations to facilitate this process that IAFD accepted and implemented regarding callouts and case distribution. EFIT is also working closely with the [Internal Affairs Force Division] /Deputy Commander … on many issues and recommendations including, but not limited to, call outs. It is only though this collaborative approach between [Internal Affairs Force Division] Command and EFIT, that the court-ordered mandate and eventual successful return of the IAFD investigatory function can revert back to the Department.
…

[“ON SCENE” CLEARANCE RATES AND USE OF FORCE INCIDENTS RESPONDED TO BY EFIT]

Since October 2021, EFIT kept statistics as to the amount of time “on-scene” during a UOF and EFIT is clearing the scenes in 54.20 minutes.

Since activating on July 16, 2021, EFIT responded to and/or are investigating 258 Use of Force Incidents
OF incidents including 6 Officer Involved Shootings.

Of the 258 Use Of Force incidents:

3 were classified as no Use of Force;
20 were classified as Level 1;
192 were classified as Level 2;
43 were classified as a Level 3 Use Of Force.

The majority of the UOF callouts emanate from the Southeast Area Command.

From September 1, 2021, to January 6, 2022, EFIT identified 14 Level 2 and Level 3 Use Of Force Cases that had Electronic Control Weapon applications 17 (half were closed by EFIT/[Internal Affairs Force Division]).

Three of the 7 close cases (5 total applications) 42.87 %, were determined to be out of APD policy. Of the 7 ECW UOF investigations still under various stages of investigation and/or supervisory review, misconduct investigations for the ECW (Electronic Control Weaponry) applications have been opened on 3 of these cases. EFIT recommends that this issue be reviewed in detail to determine the reason for the significant ECW applications that are deemed to be out of policy.

As of January 27, 2022, [Internal Affairs Force Division]/EFIT are averaging 55.90 days of investigative time per case. While this is higher than previously reported, it is still under the 60-day approved time frame mandated under the Stipulated Order. As EFIT noted in this report, [Internal Affairs Force Division] Detectives/Investigators on average have only four Use Of Force investigations.

EFIT identified three main issues as to why these investigations are not completed in an expediently manner:

First, is a perceived lack of urgency.
Second, time management skills are deficient and
Third, the lack of IAFD Supervisory involvement (discussed below).

Internal Affairs Force Division Supervisors must proactively meet with Detectives/Investigators under their command to ensure investigations are completed as expeditiously as possible and are not consistently hitting the end of the 60-day timeline. Additionally, IAFD Command staff must ensure that the supervisor review is completed within 15 days from receipt of the completed UOF investigation from the Detectives/Investigators. …

If Internal Affairs Force Division Supervisors are ensuring that the Detectives/Supervisors under their command are completing an accurate investigative plan and are consistently meeting with these Detectives/Investigators, there is absolutely no reason that APD Internal Affairs Force Division cannot shorten the current average of 24.51 days to a 15-day period …

It should be noted that EFIT is not advocating speed at the expense of a thorough and complete investigation. However, EFIT believes that it is possible to have a thorough and complete investigation in a timely manner. When EFIT provides direct guidance during a UOF investigation the total completion time is averaging 88.86 days. EFIT believes that with proper supervision by [Internal Affairs Force Division] these investigation and review timelines will decrease.”

[TIMELY COMPLETION OF INVESTIGATIONS]

EFIT is also concerned that the timely completion of investigations will cease upon transfer back to IAFD.

Each of EFIT’s three teams responded to a total of 246 UOF callouts with the Internal Affairs Force Division. This break downs is as follows:

Team 1 – 88 callouts;
Team 2 – 76 callouts; and
Team 3 – 82 callouts.

During this reporting period, EFIT/IAFD are averaging 5.38 UOF calls per week, this is significantly less than the last quarter reporting period. The IAFD/EFIT response time to the scene averages 24.85 minutes and is well under the protocols established in the relevant documents that established EFIT.

EFIT and [Internal Affairs Force Division] continue to conduct a weekly case status meeting and track cases at the 40, 60, 75, 85 and 90-day intervals.

These meetings identify concerns regarding investigative obstacles, case prioritization and allocation of resources. Any concerns are addressed with IAFD Detectives/Supervisors immediately and if necessary, with IAFD command at the conclusion of the meeting.

EFIT reviews cases at the 50-60 day and 85-90 day mark if a matter should be assumed due to timeline/investigative concerns.
… .

A Detective/Investigator must still attain a 95% proficiency rating for two consecutive terms before they are deemed proficient to conduct investigations outside of the presence of an EFIT investigator. The EFIT Executive Team also established protocols to ensure that IAFD continues to advance the investigatory process as outlined above.
… .

The link to the complete, unedited EFIT Second Quarterly Report with attached exhibits is here:

https://www.cabq.gov/police/documents/efit-second-quarterly-with-exhibits-02-16-22-stamped.pdf

MELTDOWON OF CIVILIAN POLICE OVERSIGHT AGENCY

A major reform measures mandated by the Court Approved Settlement Agree (CASA) is the creation of a full time, professional (CPOA) with a full time Director and investigators and with a 9-member, all-volunteer Civilian Police Oversight Board appointed by the city council. The CPOA board is ultimately responsible for investigations of police misconduct and making recommendations to the Chief of Police for disciplinary actions. Early December, 2021, it was reported that the Chairman of CPO resigned along with 3 others. The resignation came less than 2 months after the CPOA resigned and less than 1 month after the Superintendent Of Police Reform announced his retirement at the end of December. All 5 positions remain vacant.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Review of the EFIT second quarterly report indicates that it is making progress. However, there are any number of mandatory provisions under the Court Approved Settlement Agreement that makes it difficult for APD’s Internal Affairs to do its job. Those include:

APD management must now hold all subordinate police officers accountable for all levels of violations of standard operating procedures.

APD Police officers are required to intervene when they witness and are concerned about other officer’s use of force. “Old guard” police officers view it as a “snitch” program where officers turn on fellow officers.

Sworn police officers believing that many standard operating procedures should not be enforced as being too petty or serving no useful function.

The mandatory “paper work” associated with any degree of use of force is too cumbersome.

Mandatory notification to superiors for investigation by police officers who witness another officer’s “excessive use of force” or violations of CASA reforms.

CITIZENS POLICE OVERSIGHT

The Citizens Police Oversight Commission is in constant political turmoil and currently has 4 vacancies. It is also clear that Citizens Police Oversight Commission, for a all of its good intentions, is in a complete meltdown incapable of doing its job of police oversight and should be abolished as unworkable and unsustainable as voluntary commission.

APD has consistently shown over many years it cannot police itself which contributed to the “culture of aggression” found by the Department of Justice. The APD Internal Affairs Unit needs to be abolished along with the Citizens Police Oversight Board and their functions absorbed by the Office of the Inspector General. The EFIT should be made permanent and be a unit of the General Council’s office.

COMMENTARY BY CHARLES ARASIM ON POLICE OVERSIGHT AGENCY

“It is obvious the City has failed in correcting APD structural and systemic deficiencies of insufficient oversight, inadequate training, and ineffective policies that contributed to the 2014 DOJ Investigative Report findings that APD engaged in a pattern and practice of excessive use of force, including deadly force, in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

In the most recent report Independent Monitors Report, IMR-14, dated November 12, 2021, the Federal Monitor reviewed the CASA requirement that the city shall implement a civilian police oversight agency … that provides meaningful, independent review of all citizen complaints, serious uses of force, and officer involved shootings by APD and shall also review and recommend changes to APD policy and monitor long-term trends in APD’s use of force. The Federal Monitor reported the CPOA failed to meet the requirements and is in “non-operational compliance,” meaning the adherence to policies is not apparent in the day-to-today operation of the agency.

Seven years of existence has not resulted in quality, rigor, or consistency in processes by the Board or the Executive Director’s office when conducting civilian complaint investigations or review of APD findings in serious uses of force or officer involved shooting incidents.”

FINAL COMMENT

Simply put, APD is incapable of policing itself and APD’s Internal Affairs continues to fail miserably. Sworn police by their very nature and loyalty to each other look the other way when it comes to police misconduct. The Citizens Police Oversight Commission, although created with good intentions, is also a failure with an all citizen volunteer board members unwilling and likely incapable of working with each other. The Citizens Police Oversight Commission should also be abolished.

The investigation of police misconduct cases and all use of force cases and serious bodily harm cases should be done by “civilian” personnel investigators not by Internal Affairs nor by the Citizens Police Oversight Commission.

The function and responsibility for investigating police misconduct cases and violations of personnel policy and procedures by sworn police should be assumed by the Office of General Council in conjunction with the City Human Resources Department and the Office of Internal Audit where necessary. The Office of Independent Council would make findings and recommendations to the Chief of Police for implementation and imposition of disciplinary action.

It has been reported that on February 23, the Albuquerque City Council will be meeting to discuss the contract with the Albuquerque Police Union. That includes raises for officers.

https://www.krqe.com/news/albuquerque-metro/city-councilors-consider-albuquerque-police-union-bargaining-agreement/#:~:text=(KRQE)%20%E2%80%93%20Albuquerque%20city%20councilors,That%20includes%20raises%20for%20officers.&text=A%20new%20police%20officer%20would,pay%20to%20%2432.89%20per%20hour.

When it comes to any final vote to approve the collective bargaining contract Keller Administration negotiated with the APD Union, the council by amendment to the city council police union contract approval resolution, should vote YES to approve the pay provisions but vote NO and deny approval of the remaining terms of the contract.

By amendment to the resolution approving the union contract, the City Council can vote to approve the hourly pay raises but defer the approval of the remaining terms of the contract. The city council should instruct the Keller Administration to return to the bargaining table with the police union and negotiate a new contract and negotiate those terms that are in conflict with Federal and State law.

CONTRACT NEGOTIATED

On February 4, it was reported that the Keller’s administration had negotiated a new police union contract making APD the best paid law enforcement agency in the region by increasing hourly wages and longevity pay and creating a whole new category of “incentive pay”.

The police union contract containing the pay increases was signed on December 30, 2021 by Mayor Tim Keller, City Attorney Estaban Aguilar, City Clerk Ethan Watson and Police Union President Shaun Willoughby. The 48-page APOA police “Collective Bargaining Agreement” (CBA) is for 1 year and 6 months period. It is effective January 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023. The new CBA can be down loaded as a PDF file at this link:

https://www.cabq.gov/humanresources/documents/apoa-jul-9-2016.pdf/view

NEGOTIATED PAY AND OTHER TERMS

Under the signed contract, APD’s starting wage is well above cities and law enforcement agencies of comparable size including Tucson, Arizona, $54,517, and El Paso, Texas, $47,011. The negotiated hourly pay increases are as follows:

2 to 4 year service pay goes from $60,320, yearly, or $29 hourly, to $68,411.20 yearly, or $32.89 hourly.
5 to 14 year service pay going from $62,400, $30 hourly to $70,761 yearly, $34.02 hourly
15 or more years service pay going from $65,520, or $31.50 hourly TO $74, 297 A YEAR or $35.72 hourly.
Sargeant pay going from $72,800, or $35 hourly, to $82,533 a year, or $39.69 hourly.
Lieutenant pay goes from $83,200, or $40 hourly to $94,348 yearly or $45.36 hourly

Under the contract terms, longevity pay increases by 5% starting on July 1, the beginning of the new fiscal year starting at $2,730 per year with those who have 5 years of service and with incremental service years up to 17 years or more who will be paid $16,380.

Under the union contract, sworn police are entitled to overtime compensation at the rate of time-and-one-half of their regular straight-time rate when they perform work in excess of forty (40) hours in any one workweek. Time worked over 40 hours per week is compensated at time and a half of the officer’s regular rate of pay, or in the form of “compensatory time.” There is no contract provision placing a cap on the amount of overtime any officer can be paid.

The union contract allows the management positions of sergeants and lieutenants to be union members. The new union contract contains no accountability provisions under the Department of Justice Court Approved Settlement Agreement (CASA). The settlement reforms have been resisted and opposed by the police union.

NEW UNION CONTRACT ACTAULLY OLD EXPIRED CONTRACT

During the February 9, 2022 second hearing in Federal Court on the court Approved Settlement Agreement, APD Police Union attorney Fred Mower told Judge James Browning that the contract is not new but actually the previous contract containing the identical terms and conditions of the previous contract that expired on June 30, 2019. Mower insisted that only salary pay increases were negotiated.

The contract contains no “evergreen clause” which is a term that if a contract expires, and no new contract is negotiated to replace it, the terms of the expired contract continue until a new contract is negotiated. Evergreen clauses are required in government contracts.

POLICE UNION CONTRACT VIOLATES FEDERAL

On Friday, August 6, 2021, the New Mexico State Auditor’s long-awaited special audit report on overtime abuse by the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) was released. The 64-page audit was performed by the Albuquerque accounting firm Porch & Associates LLC. The audit covers the time period of January 1, 2018 to June 30, 2020. The link to the entire 64-page audit report is here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sIsbWAGpIC2mDFs8bsbQ1BhYDOSXH8Ig/view

According to the special Audit Report, it was the 7th audit performed on APD overtime practices since 2014. The audit includes the second term of previous Republican Richard Berry and the first 2 ½ years of Democrat Mayor Tim Keller’s 4-year term. The 6 prior audits resulted in 17 findings and recommendation made.

There was an absolute failure by APD command staff to carry out and implement the changes needed to solve the overtime problem. The released audit identified that certain APD police union contract terms and conditions are in violations of the Federal Labor Fair Standards act and that the police union contract has contributed significantly to the overtime pay abuse by rank-and-file police officers.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2021/08/16/state-auditor-brian-colon-foolish-saying-his-audit-on-apd-overtime-abuse-will-result-in-100-compliance-160-police-union-members-made-between-110000-to-200000-in-2019-and-2020-because-of-overt/

The New Mexico State Auditor’s Special Audit report made it clear that the APD police union contract violates the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Specifically, the Fair Labor Standards Act provides:

“Paid leave is not considered time worked for the purposes of computing overtime”.

The audit goes as far as saying terms of the union contract need to be negotiated and that the City can save thousands of dollars in overtime by insisting that the APOA police union and APD follow the Fair Labor Standards Act. The audit also said the City should not bargain away what is established by law.

The audit recommended that the City negotiate with the police union to remove the guaranteed overtime and replace it with actual time. Actual time would start when the officer leaves their home, or work assignment if after a normal shift, through the time they get home.

UNION CONTRACT VIOLATES NEW MEXICO STATE LAW

The Porch & Associates State Audit downplayed and essentially ignored the role of the APD Union membership of Sergeants and Lieutenants and the union contract in the entire overtime abuse scandal.

The New Mexico Public Employees Bargaining Act, Sections 10-7E-1 to 10-7E-26 H (NMSA 1978), governs the enforcement of the city’s collective bargaining agreement with the APD police union. Section 10-7E-5 provides for the rights of public employees and states in part:

“Public employees, other than management employees and confidential employees, may form, join or assist a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining … .”

The link to the statute is here:

https://www.pelrb.state.nm.us/statute.php

It is Section 1.3., page 3, of the police union contract that allows the management positions of APD sergeants and lieutenants to join the union as follows:

“The APOA is recognized as the Exclusive Representative for regular full time, non-probationary police officers through the rank of Lieutenants in the APD … .”

The argument has been made by the police union President Shaun Willoughby in open federal court that APD sergeants and lieutenants are not management positions. Union advocates argued that sergeants and lieutenants are “supervising coworkers” or colleagues who are part of rank and file that give commands and that provide leadership support functions, but they are not management. The argument is as bogus as it gets and does not eliminate the conflict of loyalties between management and employee relations.

The Police Union President Shaun Willoughby has also argued that sergeants and lieutenants could form their own union if they wanted to. Even if that were the case, there would be a clear separation of management to sworn police eliminating conflicts of interest.

The argument that sergeants and lieutenants are not management is contrary to basic management principals and best practices under labor law. The fact is sergeants and lieutenants are management responsible for oversight and disciplinary action of subordinates.

At one time, APD Captains, now named Commanders, were allowed to join the union. Their union membership, as is the case with sergeants and lieutenants, resulted in extreme conflicts of interest in carrying out management policies, and they were prohibited from joining the union.

The New Mexico Public Employees Bargaining Act, Sections 10-7E-1 to 10-7E-26 H (NMSA 1978), governs the enforcement of the city’s collective bargaining agreement with the APD police union. The link to the statute is here:

https://www.pelrb.state.nm.us/statute.php

As the union contract as written, it is in violation of New Mexico Public Employees Bargaining Act. Section 10-7E-5 entitled Rights of public employees provides as follows:

A. Public employees, OTHER THAN MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES and confidential employees may form, join or assist a labor organization for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives chosen by public employees without interference, restraint or coercion and shall have the right to refuse those activities. (Capitalization added for emphasis)

Simply put, the plain language of the statute makes it clear management are prohibited from joining unions. The new police union contract allowing the APD management positions of sergeants and lieutenants to be police union members clearly violates state law and is therefore void from the beginning and therefor unenforceable.

Under state labor law, management is not allowed to join unions. The union contract again allows APD management positions of sergeants and lieutenants to be police union members, violating state law. The police union is a party to the federal settlement case. The union has obstructed the implementation of the mandated reforms. The federal monitor has repeatedly found it is sergeants and lieutenants who are resisting management’s implementation of the DOJ reforms. Sergeants and lieutenants should have been removed from the bargaining unit and made at-will.

NO PROVISION CAPPING OVETIME PAY

It is the mandated overtime provisions of the union contract that has led to major controversy and scandal at times, including overtime time card fraud.

When you add overtime paid to the base hourly pay mandated under the contract, the net result is the sworn police can be paid twice or three times as much in base pay and well over $100,000 and upwards of $200,000 a year.

No effort was made to reduce the number of hours allowed for overtime a sworn officer can be paid nor limiting it to rank and file and not management who are at will. From a personnel management standpoint, excessive overtime can lead to serious burn out, reduce the alertness of an officer and endanger public safety. But the union only sees the dollar signs and could care less how much excessive overtime a cop works, just as long as they get paid for it.

During the last 10 years, the Albuquerque Police Department has consistently gone over its overtime budgets by millions. In fiscal year 2016, APD was funded for $9 million for over time but APD actually spent $13 million. A March, 2017 city internal audit of APD’s overtime spending found police officers “gaming the system” that allows them to accumulate excessive overtime at the expense of other city departments. A city internal audit report released in March, 2017 revealed that the Albuquerque Police Department spent over $3.9 million over its $9 million “overtime” budget.

https://www.petedinelli.com/2018/03/30/apd-overtime-pay-abuse-and-recruitment-tool/

NO EVERGREEN CLAUSE

The fact that there is no evergreen clause in the contract has proven problematic and was an issue considered by the Federal Court in the Court Approved Settlement Agreement. An evergreen clause is a term that if a contract expires, and no new contract is negotiated to replace it, the terms of the expired contract continue until a new contract is negotiated.

Federal Court Judge Browning raised the issue questioning if there was a binding police union contract and was relegated to do his own research on the matter and concluded the expired union contract terms were enforceable but noted the oversight. Despite how problematic it is, the contract still does not have an evergreen clause.

NO PROVSIONS TO DEAL WITH COURT APPROVED SETTLEMENT AND POLICE ACCOUNTABBILITY

The Keller administration failed to get concessions from the union on police misconduct accountability.

In his latest report, the federal monitor found 667 uninvestigated use-of-force cases. All non-force-related misconduct investigations completed by APD were found to be deficient. Approximately 83% of the cases were time-barred for discipline in accordance with the collective bargaining agreement should misconduct be found.

Three provisions that need to be included in the contract but opposed by the union are:

• The contract provision barring the city’s Civilian Police Oversight Agency (CPOA) board members from knowing the names of officers investigated by the agency. This provision undermines the purpose and intent of the CPOA to identify sworn officers who have a history of misconduct and who should be disciplined or terminated.

• The union contract requires that the name(s) of the person(s) who complained about them is/are disclosed to officers under investigation. This provision was in the old contract. Allowing identification of complainants who choose to remain anonymous discourages the filing of civilian complaints for fear of retaliation.

• Police oversight advocates, such as APD Forward, wanted to increase the amount of time for the city to complete police misconduct cases. Under the previous contract, 90 days for police misconduct investigations with an optional 30-day extension with the police chief’s approval, was provided. However, in practice, the 90 days is not sufficient.

COMMENTARY AND ANALYSIS

Under the city charter, it is the Chief Admirative Officer that has the exclusive authority over personnel matters. the personnel rules and regulations and primarily responsible for union negotiations. They Mayor is prohibited from becoming involved in personnel matters involving classified employees.

It is also clear that the Albuquerque City Council is not allowed to participate in any way in union contract negotiations. Notwithstanding, the City Council does have the authority to insist and require that certain city policy terms and conditions be included in all contracts. In particular, the city council could decree as a matter of city policy that management not be allowed to join unions and define what management is under the personnel rules and regulations.

The Albuquerque City Council plays a crucial oversight role of the Albuquerque Police Department (APD) including controlling its budget. Inherent in its authority when it comes to Albuquerque Police Department (APD) reforms, is to challenge the Administration and the APD command staff demanding compliance with the Department of Justice (DOJ) consent decree reforms.

From review of the police union contract, the Keller administration’s negotiated contract with the police union is lost opportunity to oversee the department and reform the Albuquerque Police Department and implement the DOJ reforms under the settlement. No doubt the union is ecstatic, given the fact that the Keller administration did exactly what it did four years ago. It caved into union demands, giving the union all the pay increases it demanded.

During the 2021 municipal elections for City Council, City Councilors Dan Lewis, Renee Grout and Louis Sanchez all proclaimed they would hold the Keller Administration accountable. The newly elected city council is now at a cross roads when it comes to their oversight authority of the Albuquerque Police Department and to the Keller Administration.

The City Council can simply act as a “rubber stamp” to the Keller Administration and approve the negotiated contract and all of its terms without question. If the City Council truly wants to hold the Keller Administration accountable, the city council should vote YES to approve the raises and vote NO to approve the remaining contract terms and order the Keller Administration back to bargaining table and negotiate a new police union contract that conforms with both state and federal law. The council should outline what terms it wants in the new contract as to who should be included in the bargaining unit, overtime pay and the police reform mandates.

Links to related blog articles are here:

Third Year In Row Over Half Of Top 250 City Wage Earners Sworn Police; APD Police Union Contract Violates Federal And State Labor Laws; After Over 6 Months, Special State Audit Has Not Reduced APD Overtime

City, APD Union Negotiate New Contract; Keller Squanders Another Opportunity For APD Police Reform; Hourly Pay Increased 8%; Longevity Pay Increased 5%; New “Incentive Pay” Created; Overtime Remains; Sergeants And Lieutenants Remain In Union; DOJ Accountability Provisions Excluded