LEGISLATIVE UPDATE FOR MARCH 2005

Senate boosts first responder funding in budget resolution, but cut additional cops funding

On March 17, the Senate voted on and passed the Fiscal 2006 Budget Resolution, S Con Res 18. During the debate, Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn) were able to win the adoption of an amendment calling for an additional $855 million in homeland security spending. The amendment would allocate an additional $565 million to first responders, and another $140 million would be used for community policing and local anti-drug programs. Although the budget resolution is nonbinding, the fact that it was adopted by 63-37 is a sign that the Senate is committed to bolstering homeland security funding.

The House of Representatives could prove to be a potential obstacle, however, for this additional first responder funding. On March 8, Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, Representative Christopher Cox (R-CA) wrote a letter to the House Budget Committee supporting the Bush administration’s proposed funding levels for first responders. House Democrats were unable to beef up first responder funding in the House budget resolution, H Con Res 95, which did not stray far from the President’s proposal.

That same afternoon, after voting to increase homeland security funding for first responders, the Senate voted down an amendment to the Budget Resolution offered by Senator Joseph Biden (D-DE) to revive the COPS Program. The amendment would have restored the $1 billion President Bush’s budget proposal cut from the funding for COPS Program. Senator Biden’s amendment would have restored the $1 billion in funding to the COPS Program, to allow the Department of Justice to fund the nearly 3,800 pending applications by law enforcement agencies nationwide who have requested COPS grants.

LAW ENFORCEMENT LABOR RIGHTS MAKE THEIR WAY

BACK ONTO THE CONGRESSIONAL TABLE

Public Safety Collective Bargaining

Congress has long recognized the benefits of a mutual working relationship between labor and management. Over the years, Congress has extended collective bargaining rights to public employees including letter carriers, postal clerks, public transit employees, and congressional employees. However, under federal and state laws, some public safety officers, law enforcement, corrections, and firefighters, are denied the basic rights of collective bargaining.

While many public safety agencies have benefited from a productive partnership between employers and employees, other agencies have not. Currently, many states do not provide public safety employees with the fundamental right to bargain with their employers. The “Public Safety Employer/Employee Cooperation Act” that was reintroduced in both Houses of Congress this March will provide collective bargaining rights for public safety officers employed by states and local governments, while prohibiting lockouts, strikes, sick-outs, etc. States that offer equal or greater collective bargaining rights would be exempt for this legislation.

On March 3, Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) re-introduced the “Public Safety Employer/Employee Cooperation Act of 2005,” S. 513. The bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions. In the House, Representative Dale Kildee (D-MI) introduced H.R. 1249, the companion bill to S. 513, on March 10, 2005. It is currently with the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Police Officer Bill of Rights

Throughout the country, many states lack coherent guidelines and procedures for police departments to follow to protect law enforcement officers’ due process rights. Sworn law enforcement officers are held to an extremely high standard of personal and professional conduct, due to the enormous responsibilities they are given. However, many officers are denied the same basic due process rights that citizens enjoy. In roughly half of the states in this country, officers enjoy some legal protections against false accusations and abusive conduct, but hundreds of thousands of officers have very limited due process and First Amendment rights and confront limitations on their exercise of those and other rights.

In addition, sometimes individuals, including other officers, are reluctant to file a complaint against an officer, perceiving correctly or incorrectly that management will not take the complaint seriously and conduct an inquiry. Often departments lack guidelines and procedures for handling and investigating complaints, thus raising doubts about officer accountability.

Representative Jim Ramstad (R-MN), recognizing the serious need for the implementation of standards and procedures to guide both state and local law enforcement agencies and law enforcement officers during internal investigations, administrative hearings, and evaluation of citizen complaints, re-introduced the “State and Local Law Enforcement Discipline, Accountability and Due Process Act,” H.R. 354. The legislation would provide those standards and procedures to direct police departments in developing and operating a fair and effective complaint process. The bill is currently with the House Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.

NAPO’s members have unanimously resolved to urge the enactment of this legislation. In consultation with attorneys representing law enforcement officers, NAPO has worked with other national police groups to support this legislation since it was introduced.

PRESIDENT BUSH MAKING MANDATORY COVERAGE

PART OF SOCIAL SECURITY DISCUSSION

As the debate on the President’s plan to reform Social Security advances, the threat of mandatory coverage for state and local government employees is becoming more real. According to a March 7, Boston Globe article the White House is discussing a proposal for mandatory Social Security in order to boost revenues for the ailing program. The proposal would end the exemption from Social Security taxes of future state and local public employees who otherwise would be contributing to public pension plans. However, the White House would exempt state and local workers currently not covered by Social Security from mandatory coverage.

Mandatory coverage for new government hires would solve about one-tenth of Social Security's projected deficit over the next 75 years but would do so by shifting billions of dollars from state and local governments to the federal government. This could threaten the financial stability of public employee retirement systems, as well as lead to tax increases and cuts in government services. Mandatory coverage also only extends the solvency of the ailing program by 2 years.

While governor of Texas, Bush went on record against forced coverage at least twice, signing a letter that opposed the measure that was sent to President Clinton and putting his signature on an anti-mandatory coverage resolution that had been passed by the state legislature. As President, it seems that Bush has changed his stance and is open to the possibility of backing mandatory coverage as a way to help finance the personal investment accounts that he wants to add to the system.

While NAPO does not have a stance for or against the addition of personal investment accounts to Social Security, it does stand firmly against mandatory coverage, as it will neither assist solvency nor ensure proper and fitting coverage for the law enforcement community.

LEGISLATION TO CURB DURATION OF FEDERAL CONSENT DECREES

Consent decrees are for remedying violations of rights and protecting the party who faces injury. They should not be used to further any policy extraneous to the protection of those rights or be expanded to apply to parties not involved in the litigation. State and local governments have often found their interests and judgments in managing their own affairs trampled on by the courts in the structuring of consent decrees.

There is a tendency for consent decrees to take on a life of their own and to last longer than the period of time necessary to fix the problem. Often this imposes heavy costs on the agencies involved, and it also affects the services they provide to the public. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO) realize the harmful affects of this tendency and introduced legislation to amend chapter 111 of title 28, United States Code, to limit the duration of Federal consent decrees to which state and local governments are party.

On March 1, 2005, Senator Alexander introduced the “Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act,” S. 489. With the support of 21 co-sponsors, it was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee. In the House, on March 10, Representative Blunt introduced H.R. 1229, the companion bill to S. 489. The bill is currently with the House Judiciary Committee with 16 co-sponsors.

BILL INTRODUCED TO ELIMINATE GPO AND WEP

On March 14, 2005, Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) and Susan Collins (R-ME) introduced the “Social Security Fairness Act,” S. 619, which would totally repeal both the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO). It is the companion bill to H.R. 147, which was introduced by Representative Howard “Buck” McKeon in the beginning of January. S. 619 is currently with the Senate Finance Committee, and H.R. 147 was referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.

NAPO supports the efforts of Senators Feinstein and Collins, as well as Congressman McKeon, in their work to repeal Title II of the Social Security Act. NAPO feels there must be some equity when lawmakers distinguish between pensions earned by someone in the private sector versus someone in the public sector.