According to an audit by the Justice Department's Office of Inspector General (OIG), more than 40,000 officers could be considered "virtual officers." This total is based on written estimates of time-savings due to the purchase of high-tech equipment and the hiring of civilian employees, thereby freeing sworn personnel to return to the street. This strategy is permissible under the COPS MORE program _ Making Officer Redeployment Effective. In applying for the grants, agencies estimate the number of officer-hours saved. That figure is then converted into the equivalent number of human officers. But, the audit found 52 instances in which the department could not show how newly acquired technology actually led to more officers on the street. 

The study also found evidence that 60 agencies used their federal funds to pay officers already on the force or to otherwise replace local funds. Eighty-three of 144 grantees reviewed either did not develop a good faith plan to retain officer positions or said that they would not retain the officers at the conclusion of the grant. The report from the OIG noted that, "If COPS positions are not retained beyond the conclusion of the grant, then

The audit also noted that 23 percent of the grantees examined had weaknesses in their community policing programs or were unable to adequately distinguish COPS activities from their pre-grant mode of operations. Over three-quarters of the grantees reviewed had not kept up with the program's required paperwork.

Since the program's inception in 1994, 11,300 law enforcement agencies have received $5 billion in aid. The audit identified $71 million in grants that "could be better used." The OIG cautioned that the study may not be representative of all grant recipients because the COPS office referred its "riskiest" grantees.

In one of the audits, Nassau County, New York, investigators found that the agency had received COPS grants to add 327 officers. Police staffing had actually decreased by 218 officers during the grant period. The drop was attributed to a department budget crisis and a lost lease at the department's training facility.

A study conducted by the Chicago Tribune newspaper last month suggested that COPS funding had produced only 40,680 additional sworn personnel. A COPS office administrator stated that it is a "challenge" for Clinton administration officials to erase the misperception that the 100,000 number reflects only new hires. 

Another COPS office spokesman noted that the agency had always maintained separate tallies: one for officers hired and another for officers funded. "The mission of this office is to fund 100,000 officers," the spokesman said. 

Passed in 1992, the law requires public employers to negotiate contracts with workers who are legally unionized. The statute contains a sunset provision of July 1, 1999. The recent session of the legislature twice voted to extend the law until 2005 but Governor Johnson vetoed the proposals. When the legislature met in special session, the lawmakers once again included the extension in the proposed state budget. Johnson vetoed the extension.

The lawsuit is based on a claim by state employees that they were at impasse in negotiations

Prior to the law's enactment, New Mexico operated under a system of permissive bargaining. Labor contracts existed in a half-dozen cities and a few counties. Other local governmental entities simply refused to bargain with employee unions. If the litigation fails, presumably contracts currently in force would remain valid but state and local governments would no longer be obligated to negotiate future contracts.

Lynch and his slate of delegates, called the Voice of the Blue Line, won all six of the union's top posts in a highly acrimonious election. Officers ousted a leadership that has been racked with scandal and had negotiated a contract that provided no pay hikes in its first two years. The latter issue became particularly contentious as crime declined and officers in suburban departments enjoyed substantial wage gains. The wage pass gave rise to a rally cry of "Zeros for Heroes."

In recent years the NYCPBA has seen

Despite convincing the state legislature to transfer interest arbitration to the state labor board and away from the New York City labor office, the membership chose a different direction. Officers cast 6,458 votes for Lynch. Savage, who became acting president last year upon the resignation of Lou Matarazzo, garnered 4,528 votes.

Officials of the Cleveland Police Patrolman's Association (CPPA), the bargaining agent for officers under the rank of sergeant, claimed that 80 percent of the city's 1,850 officers who were not working attended the rally. Protestors cheered when CPPA president Robert Beck addressed the crowd asking, "Are you tired of driving beat-up cars? Are you tired of being paid less? Do you believe you deserve more than Columbus? Cincinnati? Dayton? Toledo? How about Shaker Heights?"

Last month 35 officers filed a Fair Labor Standards Act lawsuit arguing that the city violated federal law by neglecting to include longevity and shift differentials in calculating overtime pay. The suit seeks back wages for the last three years and punitive damages from the city. The CPPA expects most of its 1,650 members to join the suit.

Supreme Court update

Also rejected was Wagner v. City of West Palm Beach, Florida, No. 98-1535, raising the question of whether a public employee's complaints to his employer about workplace safety are protected by the First Amendment. Lower courts refused legal relief to a police officer who claimed a department building was contaminated by asbestos. The officer subsequently lost his job. He sued, contending that his termination was in retaliation for his workplace

A recently filed matter seeking review is Baltimore City Police Department v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 3, No. 98-1802, requesting the court's guidance on the question of overtime compensation eligibility for police sergeants and lieutenants.

Cases of interest

HELD: In order to justify the awarding of a preliminary injunction, a party must demonstrate that it will suffer irreparable harm in the absence of the requested relief and that it is likely to succeed on the merits of the case. The trial court found that the department policy was sufficient to give rise to a finding of irreparable harm. However, in view of the fact that the department is not challenging part of the policy, a different conclusion must be reached. The notice and summary requirements do not appear to have the same chilling effect upon First Amendment rights as the initial policy. When confronted with a regulation that restricts the speech of government employees, a court must apply the Pickering balancing test. That test balances the interests of the employee as a citizen commenting upon matters of public concern against the interests

HELD: The parties agreed that Heinen's status as a merit employee created a property interest in his job that entitled him to due process as a condition precedent to any deprivation of that interest. The question then is what process Heinen was due. The essential requirements of procedural due process are notice and the opportunity to respond before being discharged. Before a tenured public employee may be terminated, a pre-termination hearing must be provided. The pre-termination hearing serves as an initial check against mistake in termination. The employee is entitled to oral or written notice of the employer's evidence and an opportunity to present his side of the case. Although the October 4 proceeding constituted what might best be characterized as a bare-bones approach to a pre-deprivation hearing, the court concludes that it satisfies the minimum constitutional requirements. Such pre-termination hearings need not be formal or adversarial. In any event, however, Heinen's reinstatement coupled with the second set of hearings constituted an adequate remedy for any initial pre-hearing deprivation that may have occurred. Affirmed for city dismissing suit. [Heinen v. Brewer, 171 F.3d 612 (8th Cir. 1999)]

HELD: The former deputy asserts that the trial court erred by finding that she was estopped from arguing that she did not commit the violations that led to her termination. In particular, she contends she did not violate the policy against untruthfulness. The civil service board determined that she had lied on several occasions. A Florida court reviewed this determination. Under federal law, a state court's upholding of an administrative finding has preclusive effect if the courts of the state are bound by the decision and the proceedings that produced the decision met the requirements of due process. Such is the case here. Federal court may not second-guess the previously determined factual decision of the state court. As to Maniccia's claim that she was treated differently because she was a woman, she must show that she was a member of a protected class, was subject to an adverse employment action, that her employer treated similarly situated male employees more favorably, and that she was qualified to do the job. The sheriff concedes all points except as to the question of whether she was treated less favorably than male

HELD: To succeed on a sexual harassment claim, a plaintiff must show: (1) that he belongs to a protected class; (2) that he was subject to unwelcome sexual harassment; (3) that the harassment was based on sex; (4) that the harassment affected a term, condition, or a privilege of employment; and (5) that the employer knew or should have known of the harassment and failed to take prompt and appropriate remedial action. Federal law also requires that a complaint be filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) within 300 days of one of the acts of harassment. In this case the record reflects that the only alleged harassing act that occurred within the 300-day period was a dispute over Klein using his foot to flush a toilet. He received a written reprimand for the behavior but that reprimand was not included in his permanent personnel file nor did it result in any reduction in salary. Klein contends this was an act of harassment, but the evidence simply does not support the claim. Thus, Klein has failed to meet the requirements of the law regarding filing with the EEOC. Even if his claims were timely, however, he failed to prove that the actions were so severe and pervasive as to create an abusive

HELD: The Alabama worker's compensation statute requires an employer to pay those amounts reasonably necessary for medical and surgical treatment and attention as well as crutches, artificial members, and "other apparatus as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment." The question presented in this case is whether a motor vehicle comes within the term "other apparatus." A review of case law from around the country reveals that courts in Pennsylvania, Colorado, South Carolina, Maryland, New York, and North Carolina have determined that the purchase price of a motor vehicle is not a reimbursable expense under their state's worker's compensation laws. Courts in Arizona, Iowa, Florida, Maine, and Mississippi have held that an employer may be required to pay the price of a motor vehicle under certain circumstances. Meanwhile, North Dakota and West Virginia have ruled that an employer must

HELD: Prior case law holds that the transfer of clerical duties to civilians in order to free police