Reach for the Straz?

All of us in Tampa have attended events at David Straz Center (formerly the Tampa Bay Performing Arts Center). It's a beacon of art, entertainment and music in the Tampa Bay Area.

Naturally, David Straz is a well known public figure. Using that clout, David Straz is putting in the bid to be Mayor of Tampa. Certainly an attractive choice considering he is a billionaire (like the President--and that's working out so great!) and has good business sense.

"Pull yourself up by the bootstraps" is his own philosophy even! [2] Considering the City of Tampa has 21% poverty rate and 16% of Tampa cannot access health insurance, according to the Census Quick Facts [4], perhaps not everyone in the City has the opportunity to pick themselves up by the bootstraps. In fact, the myth of meritocracy in an inequitable City is dangerous in the minds of many children of color and poor children of all stripes because it simply is often not achievable due to systemic barriers. Such rhetoric is actually dangerous enough to cause children and young adults to engage is risky behavior. [5]

See this excerpt from the Atlantic about "picking yourself up by the bootstraps.":

"“If you’re in an advantaged position in society, believing the system is fair and that everyone could just get ahead if they just tried hard enough doesn’t create any conflict for you … [you] can feel good about how [you] made it,” said Erin Godfrey, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor of applied psychology at New York University’s Steinhardt School. But for those marginalized by the system—economically, racially, and ethnically—believing the system is fair puts them in conflict with themselves and can have negative consequences."[5]

As if that wasn't scary enough, David the Rich also (unsurprisingly) voted for President Donald Trump in the 2016 election. He says he regrets this decision [2] and will not vote for him again in 2020 [1]. Actions speak louder than words, friend, besides that he has made many donations in his long life. It is true, sometimes he does donate to Democrats but in general, especially between 1998 to 2006, his largest donations go to the Republican Party [1]. 

Now, it is one thing to regret a vote. We all have, I am sure. I believe in making space for growth and that is the tenant's of restorative justice I preach so boldly. However, restorative justice isn't usually a process you develop when you decide to run for Mayor in a blue city and realize your problematic voting history will come to light. Aside from that, Straz would have to do years more worth of work in reparative work to undo the harm he supported. He was moved to vote for Trump in 2016. Let's remind the voting public of some of the soundbites of Trump's 2016 campaign:

"When Mexico sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending people that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing drugs. They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

 In February, former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke had offered some support for Trump's campaign:  "I think he deserves a close look by those who believe the era of political correctness needs to come to an end." When CNN’s Jake Tapper asked Trump whether he would disavow the support, Trump replied, "Just so you understand, I don't know anything about David Duke, OK?

"You know what else they say about my people? The polls, they say I have the most loyal people. Did you ever see that? Where I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters, okay? It’s like incredible."

During a town hall with MSNBC, moderator Chris Matthews asked Trump if there would be punishment for women who attempt to procure abortions after he hypothetically outlawed it: "The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment." Matthews asked him to clarify if he meant punishment for the woman seeking the abortion, and Trump responded, "Yes, there has to be some form." 

[6]

 That is only a small fragment of the abhorrent things that Trump said in 2016, before Straz casted his November 2016 vote. If he stood by and supported the misogyny, racism and xenophobia of Trump then, it is doubtful that he has reformed enough in the past two years to truly understand the full consequences of that. In order to verify, I thought I would review his platform.

Unfortunately, there isn't one. [3] Other than a notable name, what would Straz have to offer the City? Do not fall in love with celebrity--look at how that is working out in the White House.

Say No to Straz.

[1] https://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/William-March-David-Straz-exploring-run-for-mayor-backs-away-from-Trump_162291684

[2] http://floridapolitics.com/archives/277724-david-straz-comes-out-with-four-early-endorsements-for-tampa-mayor

[3] https://davidstrazformayor.com/about-david/

[4] https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/tampacityflorida

[5] https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2017/07/internalizing-the-myth-of-meritocracy/535035/

[6] https://www.pbs.org/weta/washingtonweek/blog-post/16-donald-trumps-most-controversial-statements

Democracy: Workplaces

For anyone that is interested, my viewpoint is that humans should have representative democracy at every level possible. From neighborhoods, to workplaces, to districts, to counties, etc. I believe that the more say we have, the more autonomy we can develop as a people and we can build a better word. Not a perfect world but a better world.

So, what about Democratic Workplaces? Surely, some philosophers smarter than I have come up with the same or a better idea but this is my idea.

WORKERS ARE THE SHAREHOLDERS 
In my vision, the workers are the shareholders and the only shareholders. This differs from the current structure. In the current structure, public companies can sell their stock to anyone with the money. As such, these random rich owners can buy a certain aEmount of the company's assets, and as such, they are the shareholders. Companies then work to the whim of building a profitable company for these distant shareholders of whom have no value to the actual company itself.

With this system, let's say you are given a certain percentage of stock shares for every 40th hour you work. Naturally, full-time employees would gain more stock than their part-time counterparts, in a more rapid succession, but everyone is valued equally. Since full-time employees put in more time, it is perfectly fair for them to accrue stock at a faster rate.

Because employees are the sole shareholders, the employees receive the dividends when and if the company profits. This is advantageous for many reasons. As an invested employee who is looking to maximize their earnings, everyone is more likely to work together to make money for the company. This means everyone will be equally invested in being productive employees, providing customer service and competitive, quality products. This is because employees will want the public to come to their business, so they can not only keep their jobs but make a profit together.

Once an employee resigns or is terminated, their shares are sold back to the company and they can cash out, allowing new employees to obtain the stock.

COMPANY CHARTERS
Company charters are sort of the Constitution of a corporation. In order to create an effective model of governance, each company would develop a charter that is created for and by the personnel, who are also the stakeholders. The charter would establish the groundwork of governance to provide guiding principles to all: such as a mission and vision statement, creation of managerial and leadership roles, the employee handbook, etc.

The charter would be a living document and reviewed at least once a year at conventions. During conventions, representatives from all over the company would be involved in crafting amendments and building a stronger, more time appropriate charter.

DEMOCRACY IN ACTION
The way democracy would work in the workplace would vary based on the size of the company. Let's say a company has 100 employees or less, in total. If that is the case, every employee would have a personal say in the operations of the company. In other words, every employee is equally a board of directors member. When decisions are being made, such as spending a certain dollar amount on advertising, bringing in a new consultant or remodeling the bathroom, it would have to be done election style, so all 100 (or less) employees can vote. Certain employees may be designated in specific roles based on expertise and that might make them more apt to suggest or propose items to be voted on in their area of expertise but anyone could do so. Instead of leaders, these experts would be looked at more of guides.

Once companies grow and get beyond 100 employees, it will become more difficult and cumbersome to have each individual in direct decision making. Instead, the model would go more into representative democracy which is more effective in larger quarters. Based on the charter, certain items might still be matters of direct democracy in which a decision of that magnitude might still have to be made by all employees.

Let's use Target Corporation as an example of a large corporation, so we can easily imagine what I'm talking about. Target has over 350,000 retail employees across the nation. That's a pretty large number. We're not even talking about corporate or distribution employees. There are 1,934 retail locations across the country. Let's imagine it this way:

Each store location would need to have representatives to serve the worker's total interests. Store employees would vote on representatives to serve as Worker Liaisons. With technology, it would be easy for people to participate in conventions no matter where they live. Let's say the charter requires that for every 100 employees in a location, there must be 2 representatives and that the representatives must be non-managers, full-time employees. They would have a set number of terms and an outline of responsibilities to their fellow store employees. A board of directors would also be elected (by the employees) and this board would create policies and procedures that are in-line with the company charter, mission and vision. The representatives that were elected by the store personnel would then vote on the actions, based on their understanding and interpretation of their fellow store employee's wishes. Examples of policies could be: human resources policies such as training, development, pay rates, benefits, termination policies; marketing protocols; philanthropic giving; everything from uniform appearance and scheduling requirements. In other words, the board of directors is like your company steering committee and the representatives are like the congress, taking to vote.

But also imagine a worker's initiative. In a worker's initiative, an employee of any type could launch a petition to steer the company in a different direction based on their imagination and goals, so long as their initiative is in line with the existing company charter. Any employee could be empowered to create this and then would take the lead on spreading it throughout their field location. Let's say the requirement is 60% of their fellow store employees must sign the petition for it to "pass". If that's the case, once it passes, it then moves through the entire company, through an electronic channel. If 60% of the company employees vote to approve it, then it would become policy and procedure. Let's put the example in real time:

Jim at Target Store 580 thinks that the company should utilize a new cleaner for the registers that is proven to have less chemicals and is more effective and even cheaper. Jim is just a regular cashier but is excited about the idea, so he launches the petition through an internal portal and his fellow employees are sold. 80% of store 580 votes in favor of this and as such, the petition is opened up to the entire company. Within a few months, Jim's passionate petition with facts and data listed gains traction and wins 60% of the company employees approval. As such, the board of directors is required to implement the new procedure within a reasonable amount of time. Now the company is utilizing this new cleaning supply, thanks to Jim's dedication and thoughtfulness.

Let's say Jim had not created the initiative but instead went to talk to one of the elected representatives, Kelly, about his idea. Kelly likes the idea and pitches it at the next governance meeting (let's say they happen monthly). Kelly enters a resolution to change the cleaning products at the store-level. The required number of representatives from across the company like her presentation and vote in favor. As such, the board of directors has been given direction to implement this procedural change.

This allows for two forms of representation and is all dependent, truly, on how passionate one is about their belief. In the first scenario, Jim was so confident in his idea he circumvented the elected representatives and went on his own: it was a risk because obtaining 60% approval of every Target employee is quite a feat. In the second scenario, Jim thinks its a good idea but would rather it go through the channels of representation. Kelly liked it and went with it and happened to be successful.

MANAGERS?
Yes, there would still be manager's, depending on the way the company's organizational chart is determined by the charter. Maintaining the Target example, the Guest Service area where the cashiers and customer service employees work would still have a Guest Services Manager to supervise, schedule, perform evaluations and administrative tasks. These tasks are necessary and not everyone has the leadership skills to monitor and run departments or stores. Remember, as shareholders, the goal is to be productive and profitable for everyone, so that means proper management and direction.

However, a charter could exist that allows employees to "demote" their manager if they're not happy with the performance. Whereas a department manager writes out employee evaluations, the employees of each department (and the whole store for store management) would evaluate their managers. If the managers score poorly, there could be protocol to remove them from their position. For example, let's say the Guest Service Manager receives a 20% approval rating in 2018. The company will provide the Guest Service Manager with training and leadership classes to build his skills and manage his team more efficiently. Let's say in 2019, he receives  25% approval rating. Better but still poor. The second step is to transfer the manager to a different Target store and provide more training: maybe a new environment will allow for better management. But let's say in 2020, at the new store, he still receives a 25% score. By this time, the company has discovered that he is just not an effective Guest Service Manager and he will now be moved back to a non-manager position for now.

Company's could determine this based on their charters that the worker's crafted, so smaller companies, for example, may have more intimate ways to evaluate employees.

WAGES AND BENEFITS
No, I don't believe in the model of everyone being paid an equal wage. I believe that wages should be, at minimum, a livable wage. However, employees of the company will ultimately decide the wages of each job classification based on their interpretation of it (in compliance with legal minimums). If Cashiers are paid $15.00, Customer Service Reps might be paid $18.00 and Guest Service Managers might be paid $25.00. But regardless of how employees are paid, everyone receives equal value in stock, so their dividends would be dependent on length of service (how many hours they've put in). 

Employees would have a say on benefits. Let's say that the addition or removal of benefits would require direct democracy no matter the company size because it is a decision that impacts everyone, both in the form of dividends and the form of compensation packages.

EXECUTIVE POSITIONS
No, I don't believe in the absence of executives/experts either. Not everyone is a marketing genius, a human resources expert, a real estate mogul or accounting guru. That's just a fact. People are allowed to be experts at things. It makes good sense for the shareholders (the employees) to ensure that qualified people are managing departments that bring the company success. Let's say Target had several executive positions: President, VP of Human Resources, VP of Marketing, VP of Finances, VP of Real Estate, VP of Procurement, VP of Operations, etc.

Perhaps the board of directors would recommend/nominate experts based on the minimum qualifications of the position, whether it be an active employee or someone from the outside. Each nominee presents their qualifications to the elected company representatives and as such, the representatives can vote on them. Every year, executives are evaluated by the representatives based on pre-determined metrics in the charter. Is the VP of Finances making good decisions based on our criteria? Is the VP of Human Resources utilizes the best technology to manage payroll and benefits? These are things that would be looked at, as the financial health of the company is everyone's business.

Naturally, the smaller the business is, the more involved everyone can be in a direct way. As companies grow, it makes sense to create governance that is sensible and representative. It makes it feasible and it makes it profitable. Profit doesn't have to be a dirty word anymore; because the worker's are obtaining the profit. It's not fat-cats sitting at the board of directors (they earn just as many shares based on a 40 hours of work as anyone else) that make all the decisions and keep the money. There's no wall street share. It's just simply for worker's, by worker's.

If the company isn't profitable, then the worker's will be the ones scrambling to create decisions: they'll oust poorly performing managers and executives, they'll demand new contractors in procurement and they'll vote new representatives to represent their region.

Would such a thing be perfect? Absolutely not. There's no such thing as perfect.

Non-profits would run similarly as far as governance but I suppose employee's couldn't be shareholders since they don't produce shares and profit (unless they do and I don't know about it). Nonetheless, perhaps, the score evener in that case would be more benefits or higher wages to make up for loss dividends and pensions.

Debate is welcome.

Tampa's Natural Castor Disaster

Former Police Chief Jane Castor has announced her bid to run for Mayor of Tampa on the 2019 ticket. She's certainly a tempting candidate. Tampa's first woman and first gay police chief, a 30 some year veteran of the police form and a staple in the community. But what does her legacy say about her work? In her own words, "it's up to the public to determine what kind of job I've done as Chief." [1]

Originally hired as a police officer in 1983, Castor elevated to the role of police chief in 2009 and held the role until 2015, when she retired from the position, amidst much controversy. [2]

It was a Tuesday night. 7:30 at night in the warmth of May in Tampa. A simple Knollwood Street home. Sleeping on the couch, 29 year old Jason Wescott is awoken to the sounds of his home being barged in by what may be intruders. Fearing for his safety, Wescott grabbed hold of his firearm but had not a moment to fire the gun.  [3]

"The officers have a split second to make a decision when faced with somebody who's armed," Castor said. A familiar line to anyone who's followed any story involving the police and shooting. [3]

Wescott's home wasn't broken into by your run of the mill intruder. Instead, it was the armed tactical police force, performing a raid based on a drug tip. Wescott was pronounced dead that evening and his partner, Israel Reyes, was arrested.  [3]

More alarmingly, Wescott only purchased the gun after the advice of the Tampa Police Department, under Castor. That's right--the same Tampa Police Department that later took his life "fearing for their lives" are the very reason Wescott had the gun in the first place. Months before, Wescott called the police fearful that someone was going to rob him and do him harm. A stranger partying at his house asked to borrow his phone and used it to message two other men, threatening to rob Wescott and possibly kill him. The police department's response: if anyone intrudes your home, grab a gun and shoot to kill. [3]

Someone did intrude his home. And he did attempt to shoot. But his intruder was the Tampa Police Department who shot to kill. [3]

Originally, the police spokes personnel told the public that a neighbor of Wescott's had complained about cannabis sales occurring out of the quiet Knollwood home. But that was a lie. In actuality, a paid police informant had made a series of purchases of cannabis from Wescott over the course of months, amounting to approximately $200. As a result of the informant's work, Wescott became a target to an intensive drug investigation.  [3]

At the scene of his death, there was, in fact, cannabis found. Exactly 0.2 grams which was approximately $2.00 worth. For $2.00, Wescott lost his life. As per usual, the State Attorney's Office did not prosecute and found the shooting to be justified. [3]

So did Chief Castor, "Mr. Wescott lost his life because he aimed a loaded firearm at police officers. You can take the entire marijuana [sic] issue out of the picture--if there's an indication that there is armed trafficking going on--someone selling narcotics [sic] while they are armed or have the ability to use a firearm--then the tactical response team will do the critical entry." [3]

The Times was unable to find any calls to police to neighbors to report any crime, which is where public records requests led to the information that a paid police informant had been used. [3] But why would the department lie about this and say a neighbor had been the initial reporter? Perhaps because informants had a bad reputation while under Castor. Rita Girven was one of the most notorious informants, so well-liked by the department that the Chief is seen posing with her in a selfie. Girven was responsible for up to 150 cases but was later found to be involved in a major corruption scandal so egregious that prosecutors may have had to drop charges against the 30 to 50 people she helped get into prison. Girven wasn't the only one in on the corruption; the corruption involved three other department personnel, all of whom eventually vacated their positions [4]

"The citations were a mistake," says the Mayoral candidate in 2018, just as she announces her bid. In 2015, the Department of Justice ran a scathing review of the department's stop and frisk policy that was implemented regarding biking in the City limits, popularly known as the biking while black report. [4] She says it's a mistake now but at the time she said the stop and frisk policy was a sound policy, "This is not a coincidence--many individuals receiving bike citations are involved in criminal activity." [5]

Eight out of ten, or 80%, of all bicycle related citations, ranging from riding the bike with hands removed from handlebars, wearing saggy clothing and/or bike light issues, were remitted to black residents, despite the fact that black residents only encompass 26% of the City's entire population. The amount of biking citations far exceeded those in comparable cities such as Jacksonville, Orlando, Miami, St. Petersburg and Orlando. [4]

Castor's department's racial disparity does not end at bicycling. Each year in her ranks, black residents accounted for more than half of the City's total arrests, despite only accounting for 26% of the City's population. In 2009, her department's arrests accounted for 53% black, dropping only one percent in 2010. It raised back up to 53% in 2010 and increased to 54% throughout the rest of her time up to 2015 as Chief. The problem still persists today but Castor had a role and responsibility as leader to stop these disparities and chose not to. [6]

The idea of voting in a marginalized candidate, one who lives at the intersection of gay and woman, may be appealing. But one should not be so starstruck when that candidate led a corrupt department, full of scandal, overpolicing of poor and marginalized communities and disparities in citations and arrests across the board. Castor should not slide in with our votes if she cannot atone for her wrongdoings.

We do not need a "it is a mistake" analysis. We do not need comments like, "Given the hindsight, we wouldn't have used [stop and frisk]."[4]

Lives were destroyed under her leadership and undoubtedly community activists called it out--it's a question of whether or not she listened thoroughly. Her legacy could have been different; she could have supported measures like restorative justice. She could have implemented robust implicit bias training and comprehensive cultural competency training for her staff. She could have enforced sound and steady body camera policies in a sense that hold the officers accountable but do not spy on the community. She could have worked to implement external review processes to work through the internal corruption in her department. But she did not.

Castor was a lead general in the war on drugs and a keyholder to maintaining marginalization of the poor and people of color among the community. Do we need more of the same in the Mayor's office or do we need an official who will challenge the status quo for the betterment of ALL the community? You get to decide at the ballot box in 2019.

[1] http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/the-shining-and-flawed-legacy-of-tampa-police-chief-jane-castor/2228928

[2] https://www.policefoundation.org/team_detail/chief-jane-castor/

[3] http://www.tampabay.com/news/publicsafety/crime/informer-not-neighbor-complaints-led-up-to-fatal-tampa-pot-raid/2187316

[4] http://www.tampabay.com/news/courts/criminal/informer-rita-girvens-coziness-with-tampa-police-could-become-liability/2183936

[5] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/04/18/in-florida-police-are-waging-a-war-on-black-bicycle-riders-investigators-say/

[6]http://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FSAC/UCR-Reports

Prosecutorial Conduct: Conviction Integrity Unit

The fact is the criminal justice system is extremely powerful in this nation. Surprisingly, at all levels of it's functionalities, it is seemingly absent appropriate, external oversight. This should scare you. Detractors of the conversation on police accountability often say things like "Well, if you just follow the law, you won't go to jail!" We know this to not be true--especially with the alarming rate of racial profiling, trans and queer antagonism, houseless targeting, among other biases enacted by the police.

State Attorney (sometimes referred to District Attorney) offices wield an incredible power over the people. At their whim, they can file charges and can determine the fate of human beings on the basis of their findings--even if they are not ethical in their processes. Alarmingly, most State Attorney's face no oversight from any external functions. Citizen journalist Haydee Oropesa discusses the new Hillsborough County State Attorney's campaign promise to enact a Conviction Integrity Unit on her YouTube channel and we recommend you take a moment to watch.

Conviction integrity units can make a huge impact on people's livelihood and lessen the power imbalance between the prosecutor and the people. The Innocence Project outlines some criteria they recommend for a successful, useful integrity unit.

Some of the items the Innocence Project discusses include, but are not limited to:

• Integrity units cooperate with defense attorney's, advocates and innocence/exoneration project organizations.
• The most successful units have been run by defense attorney's, who work full-time and have substantial oversight authority.
• In addition, an independent, external advisory board of attorney's exist to oversee operations.
• Prosecutors are prohibited from any involvement in investigating any cases in which they were involved with.
• The unit is transparent and publishes their findings publicly.
• The unit has the power to recommend State Attorney personnel training and policy development based on their findings in conviction cases.
  
  But do they work? According to the Huffington Post, there has been some strides and success stories.  

Although there are over 2,300 prosecutorial offices in the country, only 24 conviction integrity units exist, which is an extreme lack of oversight nationwide. In 2015, 150 people were exonerated from their convictions in total. Of those 150 exonerated, 58 received their exoneration due to properly implemented conviction integrity units, which accounts for 39% of all exoneration. Considering there are only a few conviction integrity unit bodies in the country, that is quite a substantial amount. 

At best, a prosecutor, being human, could make a mistake--and that mistake could be very costly to someone's life. At worst, misconduct, greed and power may cause a prosecutor to incriminate someone for the sole purpose of holding their ranks within their role as a prosecutor, flexing to the public and earning their salary and bonuses. According to business insider, since 1989, 1,761 people have been exonerated for wrongful convictions. Likely though, that doesn't account for the number of people whose appeals have been denied and who have never been met with any formal representation. Below is a graphic of the trend:

Control The Patrol: The Florida Law Enforcement Bill of Rights Has Got to Go

One of the most fundamental aspects of the United States Constitution is known as the Bill of Rights--the first ten amendments to the document. Accordingly, the Bill of Rights are held in the highest regard as granting us, as citizens of this country, inalienable rights. Such rights include the right to freedom of religion and expression, a fair and speedy trial and the right to representation in court.

Amazingly enough, Florida has enacted a special bill of rights--but not to their citizens--but rather a certain occupation within it's state. The Law Enforcement Bill of Rights is a comprehensive statute that enumerates several special protections to the police all across the state.

As police accountability activists, this bill of rights poses a number of problematic features which are inhibiting a true state of police accountability within our cities and counties.

If our police are doing their jobs up to par, ethically and within the parameters of truly serving and protecting, then why must they be afforded extra protections as signed into the law? How does it make sense that they are provided extra protections at the expense of the taxpaying citizens who provide them with their paychecks and operational revenue?

Below we are breaking down the law as it is, including our take on the most problematic aspects of the law. You can sign our petition which includes requesting the repeal of this law, among other provisions.


(1) RIGHTS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS AND CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS WHILE UNDER INVESTIGATION.—Whenever a law enforcement officer or correctional officer is under investigation and subject to interrogation by members of his or her agency for any reason that could lead to disciplinary action, suspension, demotion, or dismissal, the interrogation must be conducted under the following conditions:

(a) The interrogation shall be conducted at a reasonable hour, preferably at a time when the law enforcement officer or correctional officer is on duty, unless the seriousness of the investigation is of such a degree that immediate action is required.


The civilians are not afforded this opportunity--rather, the police can come to our home or place of work at any time if they have probable cause or warrant and question us with impunity. 


(b) The interrogation shall take place either at the office of the command of the investigating officer or at the office of the local precinct, police unit, or correctional unit in which the incident allegedly occurred, as designated by the investigating officer or agency.

(c) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation shall be informed of the rank, name, and command of the officer in charge of the investigation, the interrogating officer, and all persons present during the interrogation. All questions directed to the officer under interrogation shall be asked by or through one interrogator during any one investigative interrogation, unless specifically waived by the officer under investigation.

(d) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation must be informed of the nature of the investigation before any interrogation begins, and he or she must be informed of the names of all complainants. All identifiable witnesses shall be interviewed, whenever possible, prior to the beginning of the investigative interview of the accused officer. The complaint, all witness statements, including all other existing subject officer statements, and all other existing evidence, including, but not limited to, incident reports, GPS locator information, and audio or video recordings relating to the incident under investigation, must be provided to each officer who is the subject of the complaint before the beginning of any investigative interview of that officer. An officer, after being informed of the right to review witness statements, may voluntarily waive the provisions of this paragraph and provide a voluntary statement at any time.


This is just unnecessary! When we are under investigation for a crime, it is not likely that we will be afforded the opportunity to review all witness statements and video before we have to make our statements. In fact, often times, when we are investigated, we are sequestered away from that information. Allowing the police to review this evidence prior to making their formal statements only allows them to formulate a story of their own based on the evidence--and severely hinders the integrity of such investigation. Why would they need to be afforded this extra protection if they are not doing wrong on a regular basis?


(e) Interrogating sessions shall be for reasonable periods and shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary.

(f) The law enforcement officer or correctional officer under interrogation may not be subjected to offensive language or be threatened with transfer, dismissal, or disciplinary action. A promise or reward may not be made as an inducement to answer any questions.


Theoretically, this is not problematic--however, when you think about it, the police intimidate and threaten people they are interviewing--in fact, it is such a standard part of policing that it is integrated into media, such as in television shows like Law & Order. Why ought they not be subjected to the same intimidation tactics as we are?


(g) The formal interrogation of a law enforcement officer or correctional officer, including all recess periods, must be recorded on audio tape, or otherwise preserved in such a manner as to allow a transcript to be prepared, and there shall be no unrecorded questions or statements. Upon the request of the interrogated officer, a copy of any recording of the interrogation session must be made available to the interrogated officer no later than 72 hours, excluding holidays and weekends, following said interrogation.


We support recording the investigation but it is categorically unfair for them to be able to review their audio before the closure of the investigation. This allows them to re-collaborate their own story, which should not be necessary if they are complying with the law and departmental procedures.


(h) If the law enforcement officer or correctional officer under interrogation is under arrest, or is likely to be placed under arrest as a result of the interrogation, he or she shall be completely informed of all his or her rights before commencing the interrogation.

(i) At the request of any law enforcement officer or correctional officer under investigation, he or she has the right to be represented by counsel or any other representative of his or her choice, who shall be present at all times during the interrogation whenever the interrogation relates to the officer’s continued fitness for law enforcement or correctional service.

(j) Notwithstanding the rights and privileges provided by this part, this part does not limit the right of an agency to discipline or to pursue criminal charges against an officer.

(2) COMPLAINT REVIEW BOARDS.—A complaint review board shall be composed of three members: One member selected by the chief administrator of the agency or unit; one member selected by the aggrieved officer; and a third member to be selected by the other two members. Agencies or units having more than 100 law enforcement officers or correctional officers shall utilize a five-member board, with two members being selected by the administrator, two members being selected by the aggrieved officer, and the fifth member being selected by the other four members. The board members shall be law enforcement officers or correctional officers selected from any state, county, or municipal agency within the county. There shall be a board for law enforcement officers and a board for correctional officers whose members shall be from the same discipline as the aggrieved officer. The provisions of this subsection shall not apply to sheriffs or deputy sheriffs.


This provision is not okay--it pre-emptively prevents cities and counties from creating their own autonomous civilian review boards. We should be able to enforce review boards at a city and county level, advised by regular civilians and staffed with professional investigators of whom do not work for the police departments. Internal investigations are unlikely to yield results and we would like to see true civilian review boards that are autonomous, independent and transparent. Again we stress--if they are complying with all the laws and the departmental policies and truly protecting the civilians, then why do they need to be pre-empted from accountability?


(3) CIVIL SUITS BROUGHT BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS OR CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS.—Every law enforcement officer or correctional officer shall have the right to bring civil suit against any person, group of persons, or organization or corporation, or the head of such organization or corporation, for damages, either pecuniary or otherwise, suffered during the performance of the officer’s official duties, for abridgment of the officer’s civil rights arising out of the officer’s performance of official duties, or for filing a complaint against the officer which the person knew was false when it was filed. This section does not establish a separate civil action against the officer’s employing law enforcement agency for the investigation and processing of a complaint filed under this part.

(4)(a) NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION.—A dismissal, demotion, transfer, reassignment, or other personnel action that might result in loss of pay or benefits or that might otherwise be considered a punitive measure may not be taken against any law enforcement officer or correctional officer unless the law enforcement officer or correctional officer is notified of the action and the reason or reasons for the action before the effective date of the action.

(b) Notwithstanding s. 112.533(2), whenever a law enforcement officer or correctional officer is subject to disciplinary action consisting of suspension with loss of pay, demotion, or dismissal, the officer or the officer’s representative shall, upon request, be provided with a complete copy of the investigative file, including the final investigative report and all evidence, and with the opportunity to address the findings in the report with the employing law enforcement agency before imposing disciplinary action consisting of suspension with loss of pay, demotion, or dismissal. The contents of the complaint and investigation shall remain confidential until such time as the employing law enforcement agency makes a final determination whether or not to issue a notice of disciplinary action consisting of suspension with loss of pay, demotion, or dismissal. This paragraph does not provide law enforcement officers with a property interest or expectancy of continued employment, employment, or appointment as a law enforcement officer.


Determinations made in regard to the police officers employment should be made available to the public and viewable by all law enforcement agencies in the state before they offer employment to said officer.


(5) RETALIATION FOR EXERCISING RIGHTS.—No law enforcement officer or correctional officer shall be discharged; disciplined; demoted; denied promotion, transfer, or reassignment; or otherwise discriminated against in regard to his or her employment or appointment, or be threatened with any such treatment, by reason of his or her exercise of the rights granted by this part.

(6) LIMITATIONS PERIOD FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.—

(a) Except as provided in this subsection, disciplinary action, suspension, demotion, or dismissal may not be undertaken by an agency against a law enforcement officer or correctional officer for any act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct if the investigation of the allegation is not completed within 180 days after the date the agency receives notice of the allegation by a person authorized by the agency to initiate an investigation of the misconduct. If the agency determines that disciplinary action is appropriate, it shall complete its investigation and give notice in writing to the law enforcement officer or correctional officer of its intent to proceed with disciplinary action, along with a proposal of the specific action sought, including length of suspension, if applicable. Notice to the officer must be provided within 180 days after the date the agency received notice of the alleged misconduct, except as follows:

1. The running of the limitations period may be tolled for a period specified in a written waiver of the limitation by the law enforcement officer or correctional officer.

2. The running of the limitations period is tolled during the time that any criminal investigation or prosecution is pending in connection with the act, omission, or other allegation of misconduct.

3. If the investigation involves an officer who is incapacitated or otherwise unavailable, the running of the limitations period is tolled during the period of incapacitation or unavailability.

4. In a multijurisdictional investigation, the limitations period may be extended for a period of time reasonably necessary to facilitate the coordination of the agencies involved.

5. The running of the limitations period may be tolled for emergencies or natural disasters during the time period wherein the Governor has declared a state of emergency within the jurisdictional boundaries of the concerned agency.

6. The running of the limitations period is tolled during the time that the officer’s compliance hearing proceeding is continuing beginning with the filing of the notice of violation and a request for a hearing and ending with the written determination of the compliance review panel or upon the violation being remedied by the agency.

(b) An investigation against a law enforcement officer or correctional officer may be reopened, notwithstanding the limitations period for commencing disciplinary action, demotion, or dismissal, if:

1. Significant new evidence has been discovered that is likely to affect the outcome of the investigation.

2. The evidence could not have reasonably been discovered in the normal course of investigation or the evidence resulted from the predisciplinary response of the officer.

Any disciplinary action resulting from an investigation that is reopened pursuant to this paragraph must be completed within 90 days after the date the investigation is reopened.
-------------


According to this resource, the police bill of rights was enacted due to public outcries for police accountability. "The call for a special bill of rights for law enforcement officers started in the late 1960s and early 1970s in reaction to the public’s demand for greater police accountability. The concept behind the the LEO bill of rights followed Supreme Court rulings in the cases of Garrity v. New Jersey (1967) and Gardner vs. Broderick (1968)."

The Restorative Justice Coalition is calling for the repeal of this problematic law for the above listed reasons and some not included. We want community based solutions to police in every city and county across the state. This statute only inhibits the ability to create such accountability. We are asking everyone to sign our petition and continue to carry on the conversation about police accountability with friends, family members, civic and faith organizations, candidates for office and elected officials.

Here's some media about this problematic bill's impact:
"The unions seem more concerned about protecting officers who are very bad."

Across the country, dangerous officers remain protected by bill of rights.

Police officers use the statute to attempt to remain employed with agencies even after bad behavior.

Despite moral character violations--allegations of violence, drugs and forcible sex--Florida officers keep their badges.