Police Suggestion Union Rep

[Jack P]

Suggestion Title: Union Rep
Suggestion Description: A union rep. This idea was actually created by @Dekkrior but I believe this idea is something that would actually be useful. Like in real life, the purpose of a union rep would be to assist and guide you through if you're going through disciplinary actions or IA, as it is right now I believe command is technically acting as some sort of Union Rep, somebody in actual union rep would be different to actual command and wouldn't necessarily be related to command. Their entire purpose is to make sure people can feel like they have some sort of support system and guidance if they aren't sure what to do or how to do it.

Why should this be added?:
- A better support system for people under Investigation. Both witnin IA and other Disciplinary actions.
- Less stuff for command to deal with, when they are already super overloaded.

What negatives could this have?:
- More paperwork I presume?
- Needs to be planning and guidelines and rules to set up regarding the position/title.

What problem would this suggestion solve?: It would simply show a better support system for people who's not confident in what to do, or how to go about their current investigation and actually know what to do and where to go for help and guidance.

 

[Dekkrior]

Yeah it shouldn't be something that gives you direct answers or escaping IAs, but helping to find solutions and guidance absolutely. If it's smt y'all have already been working on then great, however it wouldn't really help if it was independent from PD because if it should be something actually helpful/useful you'd kinda need the experience within PD to be able to actually do something, unless you just generally know a lot about PD.

The powers of the role is probably the biggest discussion to dive into, because it matters into what and how the role can be mostly efficient and concerns about Confidentiality and so on. I know there is extremely strict rules about IA and Disciplinary Actions and who actually has actions to certain informations and allowed to go about certain informations. But I believe the role evidently would do wonders. Collier said they KINDA had something like this with Section Sergeants but it wasn't helpful for many people, but back then most cops was adults who wasn't that confused about things and generally things was just different to what it is now, and I think a role in this performative would absolutely be helpful.

Yeah, as far as IA goes, they would be discussing the situation with the accused officer to prepare them to discuss the situation. This wouldn't just be a how to answer correctly, but to get a clearer picture of the events from a non-adversarial position. This member representative would be present for, but not a deciding voice for IA decisions, unless the situation is clear cut enough that they see disciplinary action is clearly warranted and the behavior was purely inexcusable. (For example, tasing the mayor for dancing on the city hall balcony) They would be subject to the same confidentiality requirements as all members of IA, and breaching that confidentiality would result in disciplinary action in accordance with existing policy. The officer would be automatically entitled to this representative, however could opt out if they wish before they are granted access.

The purpose of this would be to both make sure the officer does not feel purely attacked and alone in the process (Which not all do, but some do) and help answer questions, and prepare them to give their statement to give a clear picture of their point of view, particularly with newer players.

I would also suggest that the representative be given a presence at the meeting to come to a verdict, although they would not have an official say. They would be there solely to advocate for and answer questions about the officer, as well as witness the conversation to ensure there is no conflict of interest like personal grudges or unrelated history.

The alternative there could be reps help IA defendants, and the union president would be present at decision hearings.

 

[Jack P]

Yeah, as far as IA goes, they would be discussing the situation with the accused officer to prepare them to discuss the situation. This wouldn't just be a how to answer correctly, but to get a clearer picture of the events from a non-adversarial position. This member representative would be present for, but not a deciding voice for IA decisions, unless the situation is clear cut enough that they see disciplinary action is clearly warranted and the behavior was purely inexcusable. (For example, tasing the mayor for dancing on the city hall balcony) They would be subject to the same confidentiality requirements as all members of IA, and breaching that confidentiality would result in disciplinary action in accordance with existing policy. The officer would be automatically entitled to this representative, however could opt out if they wish before they are granted access.

The purpose of this would be to both make sure the officer does not feel purely attacked and alone in the process (Which not all do, but some do) and help answer questions, and prepare them to give their statement to give a clear picture of their point of view, particularly with newer players.

I would also suggest that the representative be given a presence at the meeting to come to a verdict, although they would not have an official say. They would be there solely to advocate for and answer questions about the officer, as well as witness the conversation to ensure there is no conflict of interest like personal grudges or unrelated history.

The alternative there could be reps help IA defendants, and the union president would be present at decision hearings.

Yeah exactly, and i'm not sure they would have union members or anything in those meetings as they are pretty confidential, but I think it would be nice IF they were allowing the president at the very least to attend for the members just to be there to give knowledge for the people they represent. They would also be able to give better clarity to people on their punishment and why etc. Also being under serious confidentiality requirements.