Allegations of employee misconduct are not new, they are as old as civil service itself. Recently however, correctional managers are dealing with these reports in a manner which demonstrates their inefficiency, incompetence and inexcusable neglect of duty, any or all of which these managers will forgive of themselves while indicting subordinates for the same transgressions.
In times gone past, Wardens receiving reports of employee misconduct by supervisors against subordinates (it never works the other way around) would send these reports to either institutional investigators (ISU) or regional departmental investigators (OIA) to determine, through investigation, the veracity of the allegations, as per Chapter 3, Article 14 of the Departmental Operations Manual (DOM). In theory, the process was a valid step in the employee’s due process as, theoretically, it filtered out allegations which were unsustainable based on the available evidence. During the investigatory process, the accused would have an opportunity to present exculpatory evidence. Whether or not this evidence was well received by the investigators was largely a matter of politics. Recently however, all pretense of fairness and due process has been shed in favor of “Direct Adverse Action”.
In this, most recent, aberrational departure from the philosophy of due process, the Wardens at California’s State Prisons have embraced this terrorist tactic in adjudicating claims of misconduct by supervisors against subordinates. Claims that, oftentimes, are based on a personal dislike supported by nothing more than acerbic vitriol. It is only at the Skelley hearing, the last chance at due process prior to the implementation of the proposed adverse action, that any exculpatory evidence is allowed to be presented.
For many employees, this is the first semblance of an investigation that they receive, turning a simple hearing into a combination investigation/hearing, one in which the Peace Officer’s Procedural Bill Of Rights is, routinely, ignored because of this misuse of the Skelley proceeding.
Instead of taking up the time of cheaper wage earning investigators who should be doing the investigations, the Direct Adverse Actions consume an inordinate amount of the time of highly paid Chief Deputy Wardens in protracted investigational hearings that usually take hours to complete. It is only at this juncture that the unmeritorious nature of these charges are discovered. A nature that should have been discovered prior to the Skelley hearing, in a proper investigation wherein the Peace Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights is observed. The high rate of the failure to sustain the allegations in Direct Adverse Actions speak for itself.
For the Wardens who have adopted this misuse of an otherwise laudable proceeding, it is they who should be attending their own Skelley hearing. If the Wardens consider themselves to be victims of inept investigators who have failed in conducting proper investigations, including affording the accused an opportunity to present exculpatory evidence, then the malfeasant investigators should be seeking new employment for wasting everybody’s time. Unfortunately, as with all else with the Department of Corrections, politics will prevent correction of this abysmal corruption of the Skelley hearing process.
My advice to the Chief Deputy Wardens, employees and employee representatives who attend these hearings is that you should pack a lunch, it will be a long day.
In times gone past, Wardens receiving reports of employee misconduct by supervisors against subordinates (it never works the other way around) would send these reports to either institutional investigators (ISU) or regional departmental investigators (OIA) to determine, through investigation, the veracity of the allegations, as per Chapter 3, Article 14 of the Departmental Operations Manual (DOM). In theory, the process was a valid step in the employee’s due process as, theoretically, it filtered out allegations which were unsustainable based on the available evidence. During the investigatory process, the accused would have an opportunity to present exculpatory evidence. Whether or not this evidence was well received by the investigators was largely a matter of politics. Recently however, all pretense of fairness and due process has been shed in favor of “Direct Adverse Action”.
In this, most recent, aberrational departure from the philosophy of due process, the Wardens at California’s State Prisons have embraced this terrorist tactic in adjudicating claims of misconduct by supervisors against subordinates. Claims that, oftentimes, are based on a personal dislike supported by nothing more than acerbic vitriol. It is only at the Skelley hearing, the last chance at due process prior to the implementation of the proposed adverse action, that any exculpatory evidence is allowed to be presented.
For many employees, this is the first semblance of an investigation that they receive, turning a simple hearing into a combination investigation/hearing, one in which the Peace Officer’s Procedural Bill Of Rights is, routinely, ignored because of this misuse of the Skelley proceeding.
Instead of taking up the time of cheaper wage earning investigators who should be doing the investigations, the Direct Adverse Actions consume an inordinate amount of the time of highly paid Chief Deputy Wardens in protracted investigational hearings that usually take hours to complete. It is only at this juncture that the unmeritorious nature of these charges are discovered. A nature that should have been discovered prior to the Skelley hearing, in a proper investigation wherein the Peace Officer’s Procedural Bill of Rights is observed. The high rate of the failure to sustain the allegations in Direct Adverse Actions speak for itself.
For the Wardens who have adopted this misuse of an otherwise laudable proceeding, it is they who should be attending their own Skelley hearing. If the Wardens consider themselves to be victims of inept investigators who have failed in conducting proper investigations, including affording the accused an opportunity to present exculpatory evidence, then the malfeasant investigators should be seeking new employment for wasting everybody’s time. Unfortunately, as with all else with the Department of Corrections, politics will prevent correction of this abysmal corruption of the Skelley hearing process.
My advice to the Chief Deputy Wardens, employees and employee representatives who attend these hearings is that you should pack a lunch, it will be a long day.
The Blogmaster
No comments:
Post a Comment