The Bush candidacy was lobbied heavily by Oklahoma Governor Frank Keating, a former Special Agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Governor Keating told the FOP representatives that law enforcement issues demanded a conservative like Bush and "they would rue the day" they endorsed Gore.

Various FOP delegates expressed support of Bush as the candidate who would appoint conservative federal judges and maintain a zero tolerance position on terrorism. The latter concern apparently stems from President Bill Clinton's pardon of several Puerto Rican separatists who were responsible for a wave of bombings in the late 1970s and early 1980s. 

Other issues swaying the delegates reportedly included Gore's failure to support White House uniformed Secret Service employees in their try to gain bargaining rights, as well as the recent actions of the Department of Justice (DOJ) in bringing "pattern and practice" police misconduct suits against local departments. The FOP is the bargaining agent in at least two of the jurisdictions that have been sued - Pittsburgh and Columbus. The Columbus FOP lodge has joined with the city in aggressively fighting the DOJ suit in that community. 

In siding with the Texas governor, the group

In making the announcement Gallegos said, "The FOP believes that Governor Bush will be a President who will do what he says and will do right by the cop on the beat." He added, "The Fraternal Order of Police strongly believes that Governor Bush's genuine commitment to law enforcement and his crime-fighting record in Texas make him the best candidate for America's police officers." Gallegos noted that during the governor's tenure violent crime in Texas has decreased by 20 percent.

The trustees' rejection of the Executive Board's recommendation placed Gallegos in a peculiar position. In June, when announcing the recommendation of the Executive Board, Gallegos had said, "An objective review of the candidates' responses, follow-up interviews and analysis of their records clearly demonstrate that the election of Vice President Gore would best serve to further the legislative goals of the Fraternal Order of Police." However, true to the FOP's advertised assertion of being member controlled, the National President followed the majority will. 

In 1992 and 1996, the FOP, the nation's largest police labor group, sided with the Clinton-Gore ticket. The FOP endorsement of Bush carries political value but no economic reward. The national FOP does not make contributions to candidates. 

Gore has received the endorsement of the other major police labor organizations.

The bill, that has been several years working its way through the legislative process, mandates establishment of an arbitration panel in cases of impasse over police or fire fighter wages and benefits. The parties would submit last-best offers on each contested issue. The panel would then select the submissions that best comply with specified statutory factors, such as the employer's ability to pay, the rate of inflation, wages in comparable jurisdictions, and the peculiarities of the job. Any panel decision could be amended by the parties prior to it being made public.

The proposed law does not provide for arbitration of non-economic items, such as working condition disputes nor discipline and grievance actions.

Under the bill, each party to the negotiations will appoint a member of the arbitration panel and the two panel members will select a third person to serve as chair. If the two appointed members cannot

Passage of the measure brought an immediate retort from the League of California Cities: a threatened lawsuit. League officials claim the measure violates the state constitution because it removes control of 60 percent of a city's budget (e.g., personnel costs) and places it in the hands of non-elected arbitrators. Another critic, state Senator Ray Haynes, a Republican, said the measure "represents the destruction of representative democracy" because it removes the issue of expenditure of public funds from the hands of elected officials. 

Currently under California law police officers and fire fighters possess the right to join unions, present grievances, and bargain collectively. Public employers are required to bargain in good faith but mediation is the current remedy for impasse. However, twenty-three local jurisdictions already have binding arbitration under local procedures. These jurisdictions would not be affected by the proposal. 

Of the 76 officers who were killed during the first half of the year, 26 were shot to death while 24 died in automobile accidents. Six were struck by cars while outside their vehicles, five were killed in aircraft accidents, and four succumbed to job-

"These numbers are very troubling, especially at a time when the nation's overall crime rate has been on a steady decline," said NLEOMF Chairman Craig W. Floyd. "This is stark proof that no matter how great the danger, our police officers always put the safety of others above their own."

California and Georgia have experienced seven police deaths each, followed by Louisiana and NewYork with five deaths each. Maryland and Tennessee each have seen four officers killed.

The 49-year-old Jordan, a college graduate and former prison guard, gained national publicity in 1997 when New London officials rejected his application after he scored a 33 on the Wonderlic Personnel Test and Scholastic Level Exam, the equivalent of an IQ of 125. The score was well above the median of 21 suggested for police officers. The

Newspapers and television stations across the country carried the story. The incident earned Jordan an appearance on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno where the comedian suggested he take the test again but not study this time.

The federal appeals court noted that no constitutional right to be a police officer exists. Consequently, the municipality need only show a rational basis for its policy of exclusion. The city's policy passes this test because it has an interest in reducing employee turnover and lessening the cost of hiring and training police officers. "[I]t matters not whether the city's decision was correct so long as it was rational," the judicial panel said in a unanimous unsigned opinion.

"We said from the beginning of the suit that we were simply seeking fairness," said Steve Gebhart, president of the union local.

Similar suits are pending in other cities.

The newspaper reported last month that officer Dominic Yin was on a pace to earn nearly

How can this happen? Overtime, what else. In the case of officer Yin, he will earn $97,000 in city paid overtime. Yin had spent his time

Of course, the cost of living is high in the Bay Area.

Cases of interest

HELD: The plaintiffs argue that they were deprived of both a property interest and a liberty interest in continued employment without due process of law. As to the property interest, they

HELD: To prevail on his due process claim Curby must first establish that he enjoyed a property interest in his position as a law enforcement officer. Property interests are established by state law. Government employment amounts to a protected property interest when the employee has a legitimate expectation of continued employment. A review of Ohio statutes reveals that a person must satisfactorily complete a six-month probationary period before being finally appointed to a permanent position as a deputy marshal. Curby finished his probationary period but the village did not appoint him as a deputy marshal. Thus, he had no reasonable expectation of continued employment. Curby argues that the completion of the probationary period vested him as a permanent employee. This misreads the Ohio statute, however, and prior case law holds that a probationary employee who completes a probationary term but is not finally appointed has no reasonable expectation of continued employment. The statute merely requires that the appointment be made after the six-month probationary period ends, not within the six-month period. Curby also has no claim under federal law protecting the re-

HELD: The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution guarantees more than simply fair process. It also bars certain governmental actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them. The deceased officer's family argues that Peterson's actions in causing Neal's death were an abuse of executive powers so clearly unjustified as to be prohibited by the Fourteenth Amendment. The test of whether Peterson's actions were such an abuse of power is whether Peterson's actions towards Neal shocked the conscience in such a way as to violate the rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. Normally, where a government employee is afforded an opportunity to deliberate various alternatives prior to electing a course of action, the chosen action shall be deemed "conscience shocking" if the action was taken with deliberate indifference. However, in a rapidly evolving dangerous situation that precludes the luxury of calm and reflective deliberation, a government employee's actions shall shock the conscience only if the actor intended to cause harm.

HELD: The United States Supreme Court has recognized a right to intimate association. The court declares that the First Amendment protects certain kinds of highly personal relationships from unjustified interference by the state. The court, however, recognized that there exists a continuum of human relationships potentially protected by the freedom of intimate association. Extremely close relationships, such as family relationships and marriage, are generally afforded greater protection from government interference than are merely social ones. Similarly, there is a zone of privacy that creates a penumbra protected from governmental intrusion. In this case, while any sanctioned marital relationship between Wieland and Yochum would be constitutionally protected, their amorphous social relationship, although apparently intimate to some degree, is not entitled to the full scope of constitutional protection. The relationship may be entitled to some level of protection against unreasonable government interference but not at the same level as marriage. The issue in this case may be resolved by making an analogy to the First Amendment speech cases. In those cases, the court, upon finding existence of constitutionally protected speech, uses a balancing test to determine whether the public employee may be disciplined for his or her speech. A balancing test would appear appropriate here as well. Wieland has an associational interest in continuing his dating relationship with Yochum. On the other hand, the city's interest in maintaining the strict order and efficiency of its police department is high. Because the police department's function as a paramilitary organization is charged with maintaining public safety and order, they may be given more latitude in their decisions regarding discipline and personnel regulations than an ordinary government employer. Here, the city's determination of both the potential for disruption as a result of a forbidden activity as well as the employer's response to the perceived

HELD: Johnstone argues that he is entitled to reimbursement for the charges for which he was not convicted. Prior case law rejects the argument that an individual is entitled to a proportionate share of attorney's fees based on the percentage of the

HELD: The sheriff argues that the directive was merely a management decision enacted for budgetary reasons. He claims the order was lawful because it merely conformed to the plain language of the labor contract. The labor board found this argument irrelevant. Under Ohio law, acts that normally could be done validly may result in a finding of unlawful behavior when the acts interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of their lawful collective bargaining rights. The order and the accompanying statements were threatening in nature. The right to bargain collectively includes refusing to concede to proposals, to make counter-proposals, and to negotiate without being coerced when doing so. The labor board did not abuse its discretion when it found that the directive was enacted to punish the FOP if it did not agree to the holiday proposal. Unfair labor practice determination affirmed. [Hamilton County Sheriff v. State Employment Relations Board, 731 N.E.2d 1196 (Ohio App. 1999)]

HELD: Brooks argues that the civil service commission abused its discretion in terminating him based solely on his off-duty accident that occurred in Arizona. He argues that over his 23-year career he had already been disciplined for the prior driving infractions and that his professional record had been incident free for the last three years. Under Pennsylvania law an appellate court in reviewing a disciplinary action against a police officer must determine whether the charges brought against the officer are supported by the evidence, whether the penalty imposed is not otherwise prohibited by law, and whether the penalty is not arbitrary, discriminatory, or an abuse of discretion. Nothing in the record supports Brooks' contention that the termination was based solely on the off-duty accident. The commission specifically stated that it considered the accident but did not make that the basis for its decision. Rather, it considered the town's ongoing concerns as well as Brooks' past history. Brooks was terminated not for a single lapse of judgment but rather for a history of accidents that