Lanier Moves to Fire Reinstated Officers, Again
WTOP's Mark Segraves has the scoop that interim D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles has advised Police Chief Cathy Lanier that she may legally fire the 17 officers (though Segraves now says it was 20 officers -- that's first time we've seen that number) she was forced to rehire. Lanier has reportedly already begun the process of terminating the officers again, who were originally fired for violations ranging from lying to get time off to posting personal information about a Washington City Paper reporter on the internet.
The department was forced to rehire the officers this week after a court determined that the internal affairs unit failed to meet a 55-day deadline for final decisions on sanctions. The MPD has had a track record of missing such deadlines over the course of the past decade, though these particular deadlines came and went before current Chief Lanier was in her job.
The police union is, predictably, making noise about filing an unfair labor practice suit. But Lanier is smart to be aggressive in making this huge mistake go away. If the Attorney General has advised her that firing these officers again is defensible under the law, then she surely could not choose to keep disgraced officers on the force, who bring embarrassment to the department and lower morale. This decision will likely play out in the courts for some time to come, but in the court of public opinion, this was the only way for Lanier to play it.
UPDATE: Mayor Fenty's office has since put out a press release on the story. Quoted:
"We're talking about serious offenses," said Chief Lanier. "These cases raise profound issues of public safety in the District. We can't have officers testifying in court when their credibility can't be trusted."
"The Chief's action tells the public our officers will be honest and accountable as they perform their duties," said Mayor Adrian Fenty. "At the same time, we'll be sure to meet every relevant deadline in the future."
The full letter from Nickles to Lanier describing the legal reasoning behind the decision is below the jump.
May 23, 2008 Cathy L. Lanier, Chief of Police Metropolitan Police Department 300 Indiana Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001Dear Chief Lanier,
This letter is to follow up on our recent conversations and is in response to your concerns regarding the reinstatement of members previously fired by the Metropolitan Police Department. These members were determined to have engaged in egregious misconduct, rendering them unfit to serve as law enforcement officers. In subsequent administrative proceedings, these members were ordered reinstated notwithstanding the substantive misconduct in which they engaged. These reinstatements were ordered based upon technical and procedural violations related to the timing of the disciplinary process.
As an initial matter, I would note that the District’s personnel law and rules prohibit the dismissal of disciplinary actions in such circumstances. District Personnel Manual
§ 1601.8 specifically provides that:
A deciding official may not dismiss a proposed disciplinary action solely on the basis of error in the application of the agency’s procedures which did not cause substantial harm or prejudice to the employee’s rights.
Clearly, the arbitrary dismissal of a substantively sound termination case based merely on a missed deadline would violate this standard.
Notwithstanding this apparent conflict, these cases raise a more profound public safety issue. As we discussed, a law enforcement officer’s credibility is critical to successful criminal prosecutions, and the ability to testify credibly in criminal cases is an essential function of every police officer. Where an officer has engaged in misconduct that calls into question the officer’s credibility, that officer has irreparably impaired his or her ability to serve the criminal justice system. Such officers are thus unable to perform an essential police function.
I hope you find this information responsive to your request for an evaluation as to whether cause exists to bring inefficiency charges against these members. Should you need any additional information for your inquiry, please do not hesitate to let me know.
Sincerely,
Peter J. Nickles
Attorney General