The Intersection of Public Service and Employee Discipline
The discipline and dismissal of public employees, particularly those in sensitive roles such as correctional officers and law enforcement officers, frequently becomes a point of contention between government agencies, employee unions, and state legislation. This dynamic highlights the legal frameworks governing employment rights and public accountability.
A recent example of this tension emerged in Maryland, where Governor Larry Hogan publicly critiqued the state’s largest employee union for perceived difficulties in removing correctional employees who faced criminal charges, including offenses such as driving under the influence (DUI) and assault. Reports indicated that since 2013, over 200 employees of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services had been charged with various crimes—some as serious as having sexual relations with an inmate—yet allegedly remained in their positions. (WBAL, auto-plays).
In response, union officials countered that the impediments to dismissal were not rooted in the terms of the AFSCME contract, but rather in state law. This defense often implicates specific statutory protections afforded to these public safety personnel.
Understanding Bills of Rights for Public Safety Officers
The protections cited by union representatives frequently involve state-level legislation known as the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights (LEOBR) or similar statutes tailored for correctional staff, such as Maryland’s Correctional Officers Bill of Rights law. The latter is often considered a younger relative to the LEOBR that applies to police.
These LEOBR laws have a notable history, tracing their origins, in part, to the era following the Kerner Commission report on the civil unrest of the 1960s (Scott Greenfield). The purpose of these laws is generally to establish protocols for investigations and disciplinary actions against officers, aiming to prevent arbitrary treatment.
However, LEOBR provisions can lead to curious implications regarding transparency and accountability. For instance, Maryland’s LEOBR was noted for prohibiting the investigation of officers for certain types of misconduct until “the victim, their immediate family, or a direct witness swears out a complaint” (Daniel Martin at Popehat). Veteran legal counsel, such as Herbert Weiner, General Counsel to the Maryland State FOP Lodge, has defended the necessity of the state’s LEOBR (Al-Jazeera).
Legislative Efforts for Officer Privacy
Further illustrating the legal push for officer protection is a legislative trend seeking to shield the identities of officers involved in the use of force. In Pennsylvania, for example, members of the Fraternal Order of Police have actively supported legislation designed to prevent the disclosure of an officer’s identity in these situations. This legislation has received backing in Harrisburg from political figures, including Rep. Martina White (R-Philadelphia) and Sen. John Sabatina (D-Philadelphia) (Watchdog).
Moreover, the release of information concerning officers is sometimes governed by specific public records statutes, rather than simply being left to the discretion of local authorities. For instance, an informational release by the city of Tucson—which withheld the names of police officers involved in a prostitution investigation while releasing the names of civilians—was reportedly not an exercise of city discretion. Instead, it was done in compliance with a newspaper’s public records request, in conjunction with a state law that specifically shields police privacy, thereby creating a two-tiered system for information disclosure.
