STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS ... · 1 state of california commission on peace officer standards and training post commission meeting open session time:

1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COMMISSION ON

PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING

POST COMMISSION MEETING

OPEN SESSION

TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Thursday, June 22, 2017 PLACE: Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training 860 Stillwater Road, Suite 100 West Sacramento, California

REPORTER’S TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Reported by: Daniel P. Feldhaus California Certified Shorthand Reporter #6949 Registered Diplomate Reporter, Certified Realtime Reporter

Daniel P. Feldhaus, C.S.R., Inc. Certified Shorthand Reporters

8414 Yermo Way, Sacramento, California 95828 Telephone 916.682.9482 Fax 916.688.0723

[email protected]

Daniel P. Feldhaus, CSR, Inc. 916.682.9482

POST Commission Meeting, June 22, 2017

2

A P P E A R A N C E S

COMMISSION ON POST COMMISSIONERS PRESENT

JOYCE DUDLEY

(Chair of the Commission) Santa Barbara District Attorney

Santa Barbara County

RICK BRAZIEL (Vice Chair of the Commission)

Educator Humboldt State University

LAI LAI BUI Sergeant

Sacramento Police Department

ROBERT DOYLE Sheriff

Marin County Sheriff’s Department

LAREN LEICHLITER Sheriff

San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department

STEPHEN LINDLEY for XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General

Department of Justice

GEOFF LONG Public Member

(Chair, Finance Committee)

JETHROE MOORE II Public Member

JAMES O’ROURKE

Sergeant California Highway Patrol

WALTER VASQUEZ

Chief La Mesa Police Department



3


POST COMMISSION LEGAL COUNSEL

WILLIAM “TOBY” DARDEN Department of Justice

Office of the Attorney General

POST COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR

MARCELO BLANCO California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations

COMMISSION ON POST STAFF PRESENT

(participating staff)

MANUEL ALVAREZ, JR. Executive Director Executive Office

DAVID CORNEJO

Assistant Executive Director (Administrative Services Division)

Executive Office

SCOTT LOGGINS Assistant Executive Director

Standards and Evaluation Division

MARIA SANDOVAL Assistant Executive Director

Field Services Division

CATHERINE BACON-DAVIS Senior Information Systems Analyst Learning Technology Resources Bureau

RALPH BROWN Bureau Chief

Training Delivery and Compliance Bureau

DAVID CHENG Analyst

Training Program Services

HEIDI HERNANDEZ Executive Assistant Executive Office



4


COMMISSION ON POST STAFF PRESENT

(participating staff)

JIM KATAPODIS

Law Enforcement Consultant Basic Training Services

ANDREW MENDONSA

Senior Consultant Management Counseling Services Bureau

and POST IMPACT Team Member

JANNA MUNK Senior Consultant

Training Program Services

JAN MYYRA Acting Bureau Chief

Learning Technology Resources

CONNIE PAOLI Administrative Assistant II

Executive Office

Also Present

CASEY BOKAVICH Redding Police Department

Recipient, POST Excellence in Training (Individual Achievement)

EDWARD N. BONNER Sheriff (Retired)

Placer County Sheriff’s Department

JOE FARROW Commissioner

California Highway Patrol Recipient – POST Excellence in Training

(Organizational Achievement)



5


Also Present (continued)

DANIEL HAHN

Chief Roseville Police Department

(Welcoming Remarks)

DANIELLE K. LITTLE Estelle & Kennedy

(Counsel for Appellant Terence McCullough)

TERENCE McCULLOUGH Appellant

GORDON SIEVERT

Recipient – POST Excellence in Training (Lifetime Achievement)

VIRGINIA TOMEK

Recipient O.J. “Bud” Hawkins Exceptional Service Award



6

I N D E X Proceedings Page Call to Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Color Guard and Flag Salute . . . . . . . . . . 12 California Highway Patrol

Moment of Silence Honoring the Officers Who Lost Their Lives in the Line of Duty Since the Last Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Officer Keith Boyer Whittier Police Department

Officer Lucas Chellew California Highway Patrol

Deputy Michael Foley Alameda County Sheriff’s Department Deputy Jason Garner Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department

Community Service Officer Raschel Johnson Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department

Roll Call of Commission Members . . . . . . . . 13

Introduction of POST Advisory Committee Chair, POST Legal Counsel, and the Executive Director and New Commissioner . . 14, 15

Welcoming Address

Daniel Hahn, Chief Roseville Police Department . . . . . . . 16

Awards Presentations

2016 POST Excellence in Training Awards: Individual Achievement: Sergeant Casey Bokavich Redding Police Department . . . . . . . . 27



7

I N D E X Proceedings Page Awards Presentations 2016 POST Excellence in Training Awards: continued Organizational Achievement: California Highway Patrol Stress Resiliency Academy Program . . . . 29 Lifetime Achievement: Gordon Sievert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 O.J. “Bud” Hawkins Exceptional Service Award Virginia Tomek . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Commission Resolution: Ed Bonner, Sheriff, Placer County Sheriff’s Department . . . . . . . . . . 42 Public Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Executive Director Comments . . . . . . . . . . 48

Approval of Action Summaries and Minutes A. Approval of Action Summary and Minutes for the following meeting: February 23, 2017, Commission meeting . 56

Emerging Trends B. Emerging Trends 1. Reporting on Body-Worn Cameras in the Report Writing Process . . . . . . 56 2. Report on Agency Study on License-Plate Readers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64



8

I N D E X Proceedings Page Emerging Trends

B. Emerging Trends 3. Report on Plan for Continued IMPACT Team Reporting to the Commission . . . 72 Consent: C. Consent Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

1. Report on Course Certification Statistics from 1/01/17 to 4/30/17 2. Report on POST Reimbursable Program New Agency – Yuba County District Attorney’s Office Investigators 3. Report on 2015-16 Data Added to POST’s OpenData, a Website Promoting Transparency

4. Report on Procedural Justice . . . . . 77

5. Report on the Status of the Hybrid Academy Instructor Certification Course (AICC)

6. Report on Legislative Updates

Finance Committee

D. Financial Report from Finance Committee Meeting held February 22, 2017 - Finance Committee Chair Long . . . . . . . 93 Basic Training Bureau

E. Report on Proposed Changes to the Training and Testing Specifications for Peace Officer Basic Courses . . . . 96, 130 Training Program Services Bureau

F. Report on Request to Conduct a Pilot of of the Revisions to the Course Certification Process . . . . . . . . . . . 100



9

I N D E X Proceedings Page Commission Appeal Hearings G. Report on Appeal to Commission by Terence McCullough . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Committee Reports H. Advisory Committee, Advisory Committee Chair Blanco . . . . . . 184 Correspondence I. Correspondence sent to and from POST . . . 185 To POST from:

Donny Youngblood, President, California State Sheriffs’ Association, request the appointment of Steve Moore, Sheriff, San Joaquin County, as the replacement for Edward Bonner, Sheriff (ret.), Placer County, as the association's representative on the POST Advisory Committee

From POST to:

Jeff Piper, Chief, Whittier Police Department, expressing sympathy over the tragic on-duty death of Officer Keith Boyer

Joseph Farrow, Commissioner, California Highway Patrol, expressing sympathy over the tragic on-duty death of Officer Lucas Chellew

Greg Ahern, Sheriff, Alameda County Sheriff's Department, expressing sympathy over the tragic on-duty death of Deputy Michael Foley

Adam Christianson, Sheriff, Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, expressing sympathy over the tragic on-duty death of Deputy Jason Garner

Adam Christianson, Sheriff, Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department, expressing sympathy over the tragic on-duty death of Community Service Officer Raschel Johnson



10

I N D E X Proceedings Page Old Business J. Old Business –

Recurring Contracts . . . . . . . . . . . 186 Course Presentations . . . . . . . . . . . 186

New Business K. New Business -

Appointment of Replacement Representative To the Advisory Committee Request to appoint Steve Moore, Sheriff, San Joaquin County Sheriff’s Department As Replacement representative for CSSA for Edward Bonner (ret.), Placer County Sheriff’s Department . . . . . . . . . . . 187 Future Commission Dates L. Upcoming Commission Meeting Dates . . . . 188

Closed Session

M. Closed Executive Session . . . . . . . . . 188 1. Conference with Legal Counsel re Existing Litigation a. Knowledge and Intelligence Professional Programs v POST, Los Angeles Superior Court, Case #NC058217, #NC053503

b. Meniooh v State of California, N.D. Cal., Case #C-16-0715-CRB

c. Tamara Evans v POST, Sacramento County Superior Court, Case #34-2014-00164423; Eastern District of California, Case #2:15-cv-01951



11

I N D E X Proceedings Page Closed Session

M. Closed Executive Session . . . . . . . . . 188 2. Conference with Legal Counsel re Existing/Potential Litigation a. Matters before the EEOC Charge #555-2015-001150 and Charge #555-2016-00829

b. Soeten v San Diego Community College District, San Diego Superior Court Case #37-2016-00013974 3. Deliberations on the Appeal of Terence McCullough 4. Executive Director Performance Evaluation Report from closed executive session . . . . . . . . 189 Adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 190 Reporter’s Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191



12

Thursday, June 22, 2017, 9:31 a.m. 1

West Sacramento, California 2

3

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Good morning. 4

Please stand for the presentation of the colors by 5

the California Highway Patrol. 6

(The California Highway Patrol Color 7

Guard entered the meeting room and presented 8

our national flag and state flag.) 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Please join me in the 10

Pledge. 11

(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) 12

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Please remain standing for 13

a moment of silence in honoring the officers who lost 14

their lives in the line of duty since the last meeting: 15

Officer Keith Boyer of the Whittier Police 16

Department. 17

Officer Lucas Chellew of the California 18

Highway Patrol. 19

Deputy Michael Foley, Alameda County 20

Sheriff’s Department. 21

Deputy Jason Garner, Stanislaus County 22

Sheriff’s Department. 23

Community Service Officer Raschel Johnson, 24

Stanislaus County Sheriff’s Department. 25



13

And that one moment of silence, please. 1

(Moment of silence) 2

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you. 3

(The California Highway Patrol Color Guard 4

exited the meeting room.) 5

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Please join me in thanking 6

the California Highway Patrol. 7

(Applause) 8

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And please take your 9

seats. 10

Ms. Paoli, who I want to thank for always making 11

things run so smoothly, would you please take the roll? 12

MS. PAOLI: Braziel? 13

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Here. 14

MS. PAOLI: Bui? 15

COMMISSIONER BUI: Here. 16

MS. PAOLI: Chaplin? 17

(No response) 18

MS. PAOLI: DeLaRosa? 19

(No response) 20

MS. PAOLI: Doyle? 21

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Here. 22

MS. PAOLI: Dudley? 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Here. 24

MS. PAOLI: Hutchens? 25



14

(No response) 1

MS. PAOLI: Leichliter? 2

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Here. 3

MS. PAOLI: Lindley? 4

COMMISSIONER LINDLEY: Here. 5

MS. PAOLI: Long? 6

COMMISSIONER LONG: Here. 7

MS. PAOLI: Moore? 8

COMMISSIONER MOORE: Here. 9

MS. PAOLI: O’Rourke? 10

COMMISSIONER O’ROURKE: Here. 11

MS. PAOLI: Ramirez? 12

(No response) 13

MS. PAOLI: Smith? 14

(No response) 15

MS. PAOLI: Vasquez? 16

COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ: Here, ma’am. 17


I would like to introduce our newest commissioner, 19

James O’Rourke. 20

Commissioner O’Rourke is a sergeant with the 21

California Highway Patrol. 22

He asked me to leave 20 minutes for him to make a 23

thorough introduction. 24

(Laughter) 25



15

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: But I’m really sorry, I’m 1

just going to give you a couple of seconds. So tell us a 2

little bit about yourself. 3

COMMISSIONER O’ROURKE: Thank you, ma’am. 4

Yes, my name is James O’Rourke. I’ve been with the 5

CHP for about twenty years. I started in Oakland, and 6

came to the Capitol Protection section where I’ve worked 7

a number of assignments: from investigations, bike 8

patrols to SWAT team. And then currently, I’m our 9

supervisor/director for our association. 10

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Great. 11

COMMISSIONER O’ROURKE: So I’m anxious to get 12

started. Thank you. 13

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Well, welcome to the 14

Commission. It’s an awesome group of people with a great 15

purpose. And we’re glad you’re here. 16

Okay, and way down to my left is our POST Advisory 17

Committee Chair, Marcelo Blanco; to my immediate left is 18

Toby Darden, he’s our legal counsel; and to my right is 19

the Executive Director, Manny Alvarez. 20

Please join me in welcoming Chief Hahn, Roseville 21

Police Department, who will provide welcoming remarks. 22

Before you begin, Chief Hahn, I wanted to ask you 23

to please accept the Commission’s condolences on the 24

recent loss of Officer Bobby Siech. 25



16

CHIEF HAHN: Thank you. I appreciate that. 1

Thank you, Chair and Commission, for allowing me a 2

few minutes to speak to you. 3

Basically, this is asking for your consideration -- 4

future consideration maybe some discussions on the whole 5

recruitment, hiring, training process. And it kind of 6

came out of a discussion, myself and Mr. Alvarez had a 7

month or two ago, where he said it might be good for me 8

to come and speak to you about it. So I’ll just get 9

started. 10

I don’t think, over the last several years -- 11

probably my whole career, but since I’ve been really 12

paying attention over the last several years -- that I 13

have not heard a chief or a sheriff talk about or lament 14

about the problems of getting people hired -- the 15

background process, the training process, who we get, the 16

Millennials -- all those conversations that everybody at 17

this table has probably had with other people. 18

And so if you look at some of the research on the 19

generations, the newest generations don’t value some of 20

the same things, in the same ways that past generations 21

do. So shift work isn’t as attractive; they value more 22

family time. 23

And so the law-enforcement schedule and some of the 24

things that come along with law enforcement is not 25



17

as attractive to the newer generations as it was to the 1

older generations, based on the research. 2

But the one thing that the newer generations do have 3

in abundance, is wanting to find -- to get value out of 4

their job. And I think we have that in abundance in law 5

enforcement, but we have to market it more. 6

And so one of the things that we have tried to 7

overcome in the Roseville Police Department is how do we 8

get people hired that would be good police officers, that 9

might not be the traditional background-looking, the way 10

we want our traditional backgrounds to look. 11

I’ll just give you an example. We hired a young 12

man. Fox 40 did a large news segment on him, and there 13

was a little bit of discussion afterwards that wasn’t 14

as pleasant. But he had gotten arrested when he was 15

18 years old. A couple months after he turned 18, he got 16

arrested and convicted of multiple misdemeanors. 17

And by the time I came to meet him, he was 31 -- 18

somewhere around 31 years old. Never been in trouble 19

again. 20

The deputy that arrested him, he always, from the 21

beginning, said changed his life with the discussion that 22

he had from him. 23

And so when I first met him, I told him the mountain 24

for him to climb to become a cop is going to be pretty 25



18

impossible. But the only way you would be able to do it 1

is if we got to know you, and we got to know your heart 2

and knew that you were good for this profession; and that 3

that wasn’t you that happened at 18 years old, which was 4

multiple -- 13, 14, 15 years earlier. 5

And so he did, for about a year and a half, 6

volunteered with us, worked out with us, did community 7

service with the police department. And in a year and a 8

half, he was an awesome individual that we learned; and 9

we hired him. 10

He is one of the best police officers we have in 11

the police department now. But he would have not gotten 12

hired -- as a matter of fact, he applied for other 13

places. He would have never been hired because of what 14

happened when he was 18 years old. 15

Now, POST regulations allow for that. Obviously, we 16

hired him. 17

So my discussion is not really on that; it’s just, 18

you know, I think sometimes we need to open our minds; 19

and the only way we can do that is by getting to know 20

people. Because if I looked at him on paper, I wouldn’t 21

have hired him, either. 22

That brings me to the last part of the training. 23

So, as you know, in the Academy, you take the various 24

tests; and if you don’t pass it, you have one chance at 25



19

remediation. And if you don’t pass the remediation, 1

you’re removed from the academy. 2

And I think in this day and age, where we have 3

a hard enough time convincing people for multiple reasons 4

that law enforcement is the career for them, the more we 5

lose people that would be really good for our profession, 6

the more difficult it is to fill our ranks. 7

And so I had an officer -- just as an example -- 8

that was going through Academy, and he did not pass his 9

EVOC test. And so he went to remediation, and they timed 10

this remediation, and he missed it by one second; and so 11

they removed him from the academy. 12

So as soon as I learned that, I thought, well, of 13

course, he must have other problems, right, because they 14

kicked him out for one second. 15

So I went to the academy and talked to all the 16

staff; and they, word for word, said, “He is one of our 17

best recruits. We really hated to see him leave. We 18

hope you -- we are glad to hear that you are going to put 19

him back in the academy and he’ll be a great cop.” 20

And I’m thinking, this is somebody that would be a 21

great cop, yet we just kicked him out of the academy. 22

Now, some people, like him, would be willing to go 23

to another academy; but some people might go and find a 24

different career. 25



20

So just as an example, we sent him to another 1

academy right after that, a larger academy; and he 2

graduated the number-one recruit in the entire academy, 3

yet he was kicked out of the previous academy. No fault 4

of the staff of the academy, because that’s the rule: 5

If you don’t pass the remediation, you get kicked out. 6

So my ask is that we look at that on the things that 7

are learned, things like range and EVOC and not character 8

things, but things that people can learn with maybe 9

another week or another two weeks; that we provide some 10

leeway that they are not automatically kicked out after 11

just one retest. 12

For example, myself, I had never shot a gun in my 13

life before I went to the academy. Yet you’re standing 14

with people that have been in the Marines or the Army and 15

they’re blowing all their rounds through a hole about 16

that big; where my rounds were all over the place. I 17

mean, I passed but not with flying colors. So what if 18

I hadn’t? 19

And so some people might take a little bit longer to 20

gain those skills. 21

Obviously, we’d have to have a cutoff point at some 22

point. But just to give a little bit more consideration 23

because I am worried that we will lose extremely good 24

officers that are getting harder and harder to find for 25



21

many, many, many reasons. 1

And so that kind of concludes my short remarks, so 2

you can get on to your awards ceremony. But I appreciate 3

Manny inviting me to speak to the commissioners, and just 4

say what I’ve been seeing and hearing. 5

So thank you. 6

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Chief Hahn, I have a 7

question. 8

CHIEF HAHN: Sure. 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: You said he was one of the 10

best police officers. The first one you spoke of, the 11

one that had the misdemeanor convictions, what makes him 12

one of the best officers? 13

CHIEF HAHN: Well, I think the number-one thing is 14

what we talked about in our hiring interview is that when 15

he sees a young man like he was, doing some of the things 16

he was, he doesn’t just throw them away in his mind. He 17

looks at them as him. Because he says that from the very 18

beginning, that police officer saved his life and changed 19

his life, that talked to him, the way he dealt with him 20

that night, even though he arrested him. 21

So I think the number-one thing that makes him 22

a good officer is, his character and the fact that he is 23

willing to do the same for other people that that officer 24

did for him. And I think we lose if we automatically 25



22

throw those people out of the recruiting pool. I mean, I 1

was arrested when I was 16. 2

So I think we lose; because too many times we look 3

at people solely on paper; and so when they have those 4

sort of things, they’re done. 5

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you. And thank you 6

for coming to speak this morning. 7

CHIEF HAHN: Thank you. 8

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Chief, I have one 9

question. 10

CHIEF HAHN: Sure. 11

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Have you talked to other, 12

I’ll say the word, upper management, that have to deal 13

with the same thing of possibly losing good recruits over 14

one bad test or one bad shoot or one bad drive; and what 15

has their overall take been of what you’ve been talking 16

about? 17

CHIEF HAHN: I haven’t talked to any other chiefs or 18

sheriffs. I’ve heard there’s one or two other chiefs 19

that have the same issues. 20

I have talked to a lot of management that get 21

frustrated that good people get kicked out. And I think 22

there is a distinction between character issues that 23

people get kicked out versus learned skills. 24

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Right. 25



23

CHIEF HAHN: And so I know there is probably a lot 1

of resistance to that, like as if it is lowering 2

standards. But, in my opinion, it’s not lowering 3

standards because whatever benchmark you set, they still 4

have to pass it. It’s just, don’t make it the very next 5

remediation; that in the EVOC case, it was that same 6

day. There was like no training in between. It was the 7

very -- “Let’s take it again right now.” 8

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Well, that’s what I was 9

getting at. That test you have to retake, should you 10

have to take one, may be the next day when you’re taking 11

another test already. 12

CHIEF HAHN: Right, right. 13

Which is what -- he wasn’t taking another test, but 14

he took the original test, and then he immediately took 15

the remedial test. 16

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you, Chief Hahn. 17

Commissioner Braziel? 18

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Yes, I just want to 19

thank Daniel for coming here -- Chief Hahn for coming 20

here, because he has nailed the problem that we have been 21

struggling with for a long time. 22

We’ve had the conversations here is, how do we train 23

for success versus test for failure? We rely on tests 24

to fail people out versus training them to be successful. 25



24

And he absolutely just nailed that. That’s part of our 1

responsibility, is how do we figure out how to make that 2

happen. 3

And I’m sure we’ll have conversations later about 4

that; but how do we continue to move POST forward with 5

that customer service model versus a regulatory model. 6

So thank you for that. 7

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you for your 8

comments. 9

Yes, Commissioner Moore? 10

COMMISSIONER MOORE: I just want to -- along with 11

Rick -- ditto -- I’d like to thank Daniel for coming. 12

And we must understand that change is coming. There’s a 13

new generation coming up. And we need to be considerate 14

and understand that generation and not hold them to the 15

standards of the past generation. 16

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Well, clearly, all the 17

commissioners want to thank you for coming. 18

CHIEF HAHN: Thank you. I appreciate it. 19

(Applause) 20

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, in a moment, we are 21

going to begin with the presentation of the 2016 POST 22

Excellence in Training Awards and the O.J. “Bud” Hawkins 23

Award. 24

But going off-script for a moment, I came upon 25



25

a book; and it was written by August Vollmer, 1

V-O-L-L-M-E-R in 1936. And the quote was the following: 2

“The citizen expects police officers to have 3

the wisdom of Solomon, the courage of David, 4

the strength of Samson, the patience of Job, 5

the leadership of Moses, the kindness of the 6

Good Samaritan, the strategic training of 7

Alexander, the faith of Daniel, the diplomacy 8

of Lincoln, the tolerance of the Carpenter of 9

Nazareth; and finally, an intimate knowledge of 10

every branch of the natural, biological, and 11

social sciences.” 12

And I was amazed that was written in 1936; but I think it 13

does speak to several of our award members. They seem to 14

have all that and more. 15

So with that said, let’s get ready for the awards. 16

I want to thank everybody for coming, congratulate 17

the winners. 18

And at this time, I’d like to ask POST Executive 19

Director Alvarez to join me -- oh, sorry. Wrong script. 20

There we go. 21

Okay, so we’re going to head up there. 22

So good morning. I am the Santa Barbara County 23

District Attorney, Joyce Dudley; and I also have the 24

pleasure of chairing POST with these awesome 25



26

commissioners that I spoke about a few minutes ago. 1

Each year, the Commission recognizes individuals 2

in an organization that have greatly contributed to the 3

success and effectiveness of the law-enforcement 4

community. 5

On behalf of the entire Commission, it is my 6

pleasure to honor this year’s recipients who have 7

distinguished themselves by demonstrating a commitment 8

to exceptional service or excellence in training. 9

Assisting me today in the ceremony is Marcelo 10

Blanco -- there you are -- Chair of the Advisory 11

Committee; and Manny Alvarez, Executive Director of POST. 12

At this time, I would like to ask the award 13

recipients to come forward to be recognized. 14

While they’re coming forward, I’ll continue. 15

The POST Excellence in Training Awards were 16

established in 1994, to encourage innovation, quality, 17

and effectiveness of peace-officer training, and to 18

recognize the best of the best. 19

The categories of the POST Excellence in Training 20

Awards are individual achievement, organizational 21

achievement, and lifetime achievement. We will also be 22

presenting the POST O.J. “Bud” Hawkins Exceptional 23

Service Award. 24

The Commission is proud to offer these annual awards 25



27

that affirm California’s national reputation of being at 1

the forefront of law-enforcement training. 2

This year, there were ten nominees for the award 3

categories. The 14-member Advisory Committee reviewed 4

all submissions; and after a rigorous screening process, 5

provided their recommendations to the Commission for 6

approval. 7

In addition to the trophies that will be given to 8

the recipients today, their names will be inscribed on 9

a perpetual plaque located here at POST headquarters. 10

And so we’re going to begin with the Individual 11

Achievement Award. The recipient of the POST Excellence 12

in Training Individual Achievement Award for 2016 is 13

Sergeant Casey Bokavich, Redding Police Department. 14

(Applause) 15

MR. LOGGINS: Thank you, Commissioner Dudley. 16

Sergeant Casey Bokavich is a 27-year veteran 17

law-enforcement officer, having served with agencies in 18

the Bay Area before moving to the Redding PD. He is the 19

department training manager and serves as the supervisor 20

of the Force-Options Team, overseeing the POST training 21

simulator site. 22

In addition to service as a law-enforcement officer, 23

Officer Bokavich is a veteran instructor and supervisor 24

of the Defensive Tactics Program at the Butte College 25



28

Police Academy. He is also certified as a range master 1

as well as a police motorcycle instructor, and serves as 2

the POST Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 3

LEOKA, Committee, as well as on the motor officer 4

training and operations safety advisory group. 5

Sergeant Bokavich was nominated for his work 6

delivering force-options training to his local community. 7

As a direct result of his effort, the Redding PD has been 8

able to facilitate ongoing dialogue between the community 9

and law enforcement with respect to police use of force 10

and decision-making. 11

This is a tremendously critical challenge as well as 12

an opportunity for law enforcement as we move through the 13

21st century. Casey’s work and leadership has fostered a 14

climate of collaboration between law enforcement and the 15

public. Many members of his community have a newfound 16

respect and understanding for the law-enforcement 17

profession, as well as an appreciation for the challenges 18

peace officers face on a day-to-day basis. 19

This outreach by Sergeant Bokavich has been 20

instrumental in increasing the positive level of 21

collaboration, as well as dialogue between law 22

enforcement and community leaders. 23

His impact on community relations and law 24

enforcement has been recognized by agencies not only in 25



29

the region, not only in California, but throughout the 1

United States. 2

It is for these reasons that Sergeant Casey Bokavich 3

is the winner of the 2016 POST Excellence in Training 4

Award for Individual Achievement. 5

(Applause) 6

(Photograph taken of Commission Chair Dudley, 7

Executive Director Alvarez, Advisory Committee 8

Chair Marcelo Blanco, and Casey Bokavich) 9

MR. BOKAVICH: Thank you very much, everybody. I 10

know there’s a lot of people who I’ve got to thank, 11

starting with my wife and family -- 12

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Use the mike. 13

MR. BOKAVICH: I’m a sergeant. I’ve got a voice. 14

But, anyway, I just wanted to thank, because I’ve seen 15

so many of these where we don’t start with our family, 16

so thank you for being there for me. I appreciate that. 17

Thank you for all of my teammates at POST and all of 18

my previous instructors, so I could be here today. 19

It’s an honor that -- I can’t say much more. 20


(Applause) 22

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay. And the recipient 23

of the POST Excellence in Training Organizational 24

Achievement Award for 2016 is the California Highway 25



30

Patrol, Stress Resiliency Academy Program. 1

And we’re just so thrilled to have Joe Farrow here 2

with us today on behalf of the California Highway Patrol. 3

Commissioner Joe Farrow. 4

(Applause) 5

MR. LOGGINS: Law enforcement has always been one 6

of the most challenging professions in our society. The 7

expectations of contemporary peace officers have never 8

been higher, public scrutiny has never been more intense, 9

and the complexity of each officer’s daily assignment has 10

significantly increased. 11

As a result, the administration of law-enforcement 12

academies has become significantly more difficult than 13

in years past. Not only has recruitment of quality 14

candidates been a challenge; but training those 15

remarkable individuals who have answered this noble 16

calling has been a difficult endeavor for all of law 17

enforcement. 18

Historically, law-enforcement academies have 19

operated with a paramilitary high-stress environment to 20

acclimate students to the adversity they will inevitably 21

face. 22

While the emphasis on customer service has always 23

been at the forefront, the well-being of the officers 24

themselves often took a back seat. Recognizing this 25



31

critical investment in human capital that is the 1

foundation of every law-enforcement agency, the CHP took 2

the initiative to incorporate a new and creative process. 3

This new process not only emphasizes the importance of 4

public service, while also maintaining the rigors of 5

a paramilitary organization, but it reinforces the 6

importance of lifelong wellness as a primary component of 7

service delivery to the communities they will serve. 8

The CHP refers to this endeavor as “stress 9

resiliency,” and has incorporated it into the Basic 10

Academy to better prepare its cadets for the challenges 11

they will face, not only in the Basic Academy but 12

throughout the FTO program and the remainder of their 13

careers. At the heart of this process is the commitment 14

to the organization and academy staff to emphasize the 15

nobility of policing. 16

To accomplish this endeavor, the CHP begins the 17

academy with an orientation week where the students are 18

immersed in a stress resiliency curriculum that defines 19

the causes of stress, how stress manifests itself, and 20

solutions to mitigate those adverse effects they will 21

encounter during the course of their careers. 22

This orientation week culminates in a process where 23

the students participate in a ceremony where they are 24

asked to dedicate themselves to the commitment to the 25



32

profession they have chosen. While the students are 1

being addressed, the academy commander, the entire staff 2

of the academy have all stepped quietly behind them. At 3

the conclusion of the ceremony, the students are directed 4

to turn around so they can see the entire staff; and it 5

is emphasized they are now part of a team with the full 6

support of their profession and that they will never walk 7

alone. 8

The CHP Academy has found this to be a very critical 9

crossroad in the career of the students. It has reduced 10

the failure rate of cadets, it’s helped them create an 11

emotional connection between the students and the academy 12

staff, and helped them build upon what will be their 13

future careers, and helps facilitate that teamwork 14

construct that is so critical to law-enforcement 15

operations. 16

It also goes without saying, Commissioner Farrow, 17

we have two friends at POST, Shawn and Sam in the back, 18

they were a critical component of this, and we’d like 19

to thank them for their efforts towards this endeavor. 20

For these reasons, the CHP is the recipient of this 21

year’s POST Excellence in Training Award for 22

Organizational Achievement. 23

(Applause) 24




33


Chair Marcelo Blanco, and Commissioner Joe Farrow) 2

COMMISSIONER FARROW: Well, good morning, and thank 3

you. 4

And I accept this beautiful, beautiful award on 5

behalf of my staff that’s here today -- my Deputy 6

Commissioner, Warren Stanley; my Assistant Commissioner 7

Bill Siegl. 8

If you’d raise your hands. 9

The brainchild behind all of this is Sam Dickson, 10

Assistant Chief. Sam is back there. He’s embarrassed. 11

He’s probably mad at me for pointing them out. But Sam 12

Dickson, current Academy Commander James Mann, and his 13

two lieutenants, Jason Daughrity and Shawn Morris, and 14

my administrative lieutenant, Mike Alvarez are here 15

today. 16

They always remind me that I’m merely ceremonial and 17

that these are the ones that really do all the real work. 18

And it is a great program. 19

But I also want to thank the Commission. I want to 20

thank the chair for your hard work. 21

Certainly, this is a time that law enforcement is 22

transforming itself. And the hard work that’s done here 23

with this commission, each and every time that you meet, 24

is noticed by the recipients, it’s noticed by the 25



34

law-enforcement officers, and it’s noticed by our 1

communities. 2

So charge ahead, keep going forward. We appreciate 3

the hard work you do. And thank you very much for this 4

highest award. 5

Thank you. 6

(Applause) 7


The recipient of the POST Excellence in Training 9

Lifetime Achievement Award for 2015 is Gordon Sievert. 10

(Applause) 11

MR. LOGGINS: In our beautiful state of California, 12

there are approximately 90,000 peace officers, ranging 13

from the rank of officer, deputy, investigator, through 14

the ranks to sergeant, lieutenant -- at every command 15

level, chief of police, sheriff, or even the CHP 16

commissioner. Every one of them is a member of a very 17

prestigious group of individuals who made sacrifices for 18

a lifelong commitment to serve others. They have a 19

tremendous variety of assignments and responsibilities; 20

but they all have one unique and universal component: 21

The common denominator that stretches across the fabric 22

of the profession and that has impacted every one of 23

them. They were all recruits or candidates at one time 24

at the beginning of their careers; and they were all the 25



35

beneficiaries of a core group of professionals who 1

dedicate their careers to training others. 2

They’re members of a select fraternity, with 3

selfless dedication, who have dedicated themselves to a 4

higher calling of teaching and mentoring. 5

Today’s recipient of this award is one of those very 6

remarkable individuals. 7

Gorton Sievert is a 37-year law enforcement veteran 8

from the San Mateo Police Department. What he is being 9

recognized for today however is not his service as a cop; 10

but, rather, his service to others, as they prepare to 11

enter one of society’s most challenging and dangerous 12

professions. 13

He became involved in training law-enforcement 14

officers earlier in his career and has taught a vast 15

array of topics, from report-writing to firearms, to 16

defense tactics, to racial profiling, and many other 17

disciplines in between. 18

He also serves as a subject-matter expert, or SME, 19

for POST, helping to research emerging training needs 20

and to develop contemporary law-enforcement training 21

curricula. 22

However, with respect to training, his most 23

remarkable contribution is his service to this next 24

generation of law-enforcement officers, those who have 25



36

inherited this mantle of public safety for all of us. 1

Conservatively, it’s estimated he has trained over 2

600 new law-enforcement officers as a long-time training 3

coordinator for the South Bay Regional Public Safety 4

Training Center. 5

In addition, it’s estimated he has mentored an 6

additional 400 law-enforcement officers throughout the 7

entire region. 8

Statistically, on any given day, there are dozens, 9

if not more, of his protégés protecting our streets as 10

we speak today. A very remarkable accomplishment and a 11

legacy to honor. 12

For these reasons, Mr. Gordon Sievert is the 13

recipient of the POST Training in Excellence Award for 14

Lifetime Achievement. 15

(Applause) 16



Chair Marcelo Blanco, and Gordon Sievert) 19

MR. SIEVERT: I just happened to have prepared a 20

couple of words. 21

Good morning, Members of the Commission, friends, 22

family, and peers. 23

It’s a great honor to be recognized for one’s work. 24

I am both proud and humbled to be here today. I’m 25



37

sincerely appreciative of this recognition by the 1

Commission; and I thank you for recognizing me as a 2

recipient of the POST Excellence in Training Lifetime 3

Achievement Award. 4

I told my wife that I had achieved a Lifetime 5

Achievement Award; there was nothing else for me to do; 6

it was time for me to retire. She said “No. You have 7

two boys in college; and they need to have their tuition 8

paid for, for at least the next two years.” 9

I have been blessed with the privilege of doing 10

something that I love to do; and I’ve gotten paid to do 11

it. It doesn’t get any better than that. 12

It’s hard to believe I’ve been in the training game 13

so long. When I first started, my wife was pregnant 14

with our twin boys. I started teaching at the academy 15

in -- a long time ago. 16

Now, one of my twins are sporting beards that he 17

shaved off today in honor of this occasion. 18

One of them has a tattoo that he admits to; the 19

other one, I haven’t checked, but it’s there some place, 20

I’m sure. And they’re attending college. 21

And now let me get serious for a moment. 22

I’d be remiss if I didn’t acknowledge those who have 23

helped and guided me along the way. 24

First, my thanks to POST and the Commission, 25



38

not only for the award, but for the job you do keeping 1

California law enforcement at the forefront of 2

law-enforcement training. Without you, we would not have 3

that guiding light. 4

In addition to the Commission, I’d like to thank 5

South Bay Regional for giving me the opportunity to train 6

at the consortium. 7

To the San Mateo County Law Enforcement Training 8

Managers Association and the San Mateo County Chiefs and 9

Sheriffs Association, thank you for nominating me for 10

this prestigious award. 11

To the San Mateo Police Department, my appreciation 12

for starting me down the training path in 1982 when I 13

taught my first report-writing class. 14

Finally, no one gets to where they have gone without 15

somebody to hold onto; and in my life, that’s my wife, 16

Betsy, who is here today. And I thank you. 17

(Applause) 18

MR. SIEVERT: Again, thank you for this award. This 19

has been a very special day for me; and I shall always 20

cherish its memory. 21

Thank you again. 22

(Applause) 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Next time, you need to 24

leave room in the script for when I cry; okay? 25



39

“Pause, you get to cry now.” 1

Thank you. 2

Okay, the recipient of the POST O.J. “Bud” Hawkins 3

Exceptional Service Award for 2016 is Virginia Tomek. 4

(Applause) 5

MR. LOGGINS: Virginia Tomek is a veteran dispatcher 6

trainer and supervisor from the Oakland PD, where she 7

started her law-enforcement career in 1974. 8

What’s remarkable about Virginia is, she has taken 9

a lead role in the evolution of dispatcher training, 10

bringing it to a level of excellence recognized 11

throughout the state of California. 12

She has continually worked at helping develop the 13

job of dispatcher into the profession that it is today, 14

as well as the evolution of the profession that has been 15

significantly influenced by her hard work, her tenacity, 16

and her perseverance. 17

She had been involved in the development of training 18

courses for the Commission on POST for many years and has 19

been at the forefront of instructor development for 20

training for dispatchers. She is a well-respected 21

trailblazer in the critical dispatch discipline. In 22

fact, Virginia was the very first dispatcher to ever 23

complete the tremendously and excruciatingly difficult 24

POST Master Instructor Development Program. 25



40

Virginia is legendary for her dedication to helping 1

others. She selflessly offers her time and expertise, 2

not only for the betterment of the profession, but for 3

those who will follow in her footsteps. She is a 4

tireless advocate for excellence with respect to dispatch 5

training and has established a stellar legacy that will 6

last for many years to come. 7

As the E.F. Hutton commercial used to say, “When 8

dispatchers talk, cops listen.” When Virginia talks, 9

POST listens. 10

Her commitment to the development of others is 11

priceless; and her genuine dedication of the 12

law-enforcement profession is a reflection of the 13

character that exemplifies the best practices in the 14

tradition of public service. 15

This namesake of this prestigious award is Bud 16

Hawkins, who was a proverbial giant in the 17

law-enforcement profession and who left a legacy for all 18

of us to follow. This award in his honor is recognition 19

for an individual who has made a significant contribution 20

that reflects dedication, perseverance, and exceptional 21

service to improving the professionalism of California 22

law enforcement. And Virginia Tomek embodies that every 23

day with that same level of spirit of service. 24

And for these reasons, Virginia Tomek is the 25



41

recipient of the POST O.J. “Bud” Hawkins Exceptional 1

Service Award. 2

(Applause) 3



Chair Marcelo Blanco, and Virginia Tomek) 6

MS. TOMEK: Okay, as I was saying, I haven’t been 7

this nervous since the first day on the mike at Oakland. 8

I’ll make it short and sweet. 9

I’d like to thank the Commission. This is a 10

fabulous honor I never would have dreamt of. But I’d 11

also like to thank the POST staff, past and present, that 12

have actually given me opportunities that allowed me to 13

move down this path. And, obviously, my husband, who 14

takes care of the critters when I’m gone. And I’d like 15

to thank all the dispatchers that showed up. I really 16

appreciate it. 17

Thank you. 18

(Applause) 19

MR. LOGGINS: Ladies and gentlemen, this concludes 20

the 2016 POST Excellence in Training Awards. 21

Recipients, please return to the audience. 22

(Applause) 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Except, Recipients, please 24

don’t return to the audience. 25



42

Scott, everything else you said was perfect. 1

MR. LOGGINS: This will be our little secret. This 2

never happened. 3

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: No, never. I’m sure the 4

reporter didn’t catch any of that, either. 5



Chair Marcelo Blanco, and Award Recipients: 8

Casey Bokavich, Joe Farrow, Gordon Sievert, and 9

Virginia Tomek) 10

(Applause) 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: At this time, I would like 12

to ask POST Executive Director Alvarez to join me for a 13

special presentation. 14

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Thank you and good 15

morning. 16

If I could have Sheriff Ed Bonner please come up 17

front. 18

(Applause) 19

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Sheriff Bonner served 20

on the POST Advisory Committee for many years; and he 21

announced his retirement in between commission meetings, 22

so we were never able to present him with a resolution 23

before the group. He retired, actually, on the day of 24

the last commission meeting. 25



43

So I want to present a resolution to him. 1

I’ve already presented this to him in his office 2

with one significant typo. So I’d like to present it 3

before the Commission, once again. 4

And I’m going to read the whole thing, if I may, 5

because Sheriff Bonner’s career is very impressive and 6

his service to California I think needs to be noted 7

today. So please bear with me. 8

“In appreciation of Edward N. Bonner” -- it’s “N,” 9

for Neil, not “M.” 10

“Whereas Edward N. Bonner began his distinguished 11

law-enforcement career on February 11th, 1974, as a 12

deputy with the Placer County Sheriff’s Department; and 13

“Whereas Edward N. Bonner was subsequently promoted 14

to sergeant on November 24th, 1979, and transferred to 15

the North Lake Tahoe substation, where he was assigned to 16

patrol in investigations; in 1983, he assumed the role of 17

acting lieutenant; and on October 12th, 1985, he was 18

promoted to captain; 19

“Whereas Edward N. Bonner served as the North Lake 20

Tahoe substation commander for seven years; and in 1992 21

was promoted to undersheriff and returned to the Placer 22

County Sheriff’s Department in Auburn, California; 23

“Whereas Edward N. Bonner was elected sheriff by the 24

residents of Placer County on June 7th, 1994; and he took 25



44

office as the Sheriff of the Placer County Sheriff’s 1

Department on December 30th, 1994. 2

“Edward N. Bonner served as the sheriff of the 3

Placer County Sheriff’s Department from December 30th, 4

1994 until his retirement on February 25th, 2017. 5

“Edward N. Bonner served the residents of Placer 6

County and the State of California with great distinction 7

for over 43 years. 8

“Edward N. Bonner served as a sheriff for over 9

22 years; and at the time, was the longest 10

current-serving sheriff in the State of California at 11

the time of his retirement on February 25th, 2017. 12

“Edward N. Bonner served as president of the 13

California State Sheriffs’ Association in 2008. 14

“Edward N. Bonner served on the Advisory Committee 15

for the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards 16

from July 5th, 2005, until his retirement on 17

February 25th, 2017. 18

“Now, therefore, be it resolved that Sheriff 19

Edward N. Bonner has devoted his career to the 20

professionalism of California law enforcement through 21

his service as a peace officer for the Placer County 22

Sheriff’s Department; and as a leader in law enforcement, 23

he provided sage and insightful direction to POST. 24

“It is in the spirit of tremendous gratitude and 25



45

appreciation that the California Commission on Peace 1

Officer Standards and Training presents this resolution 2

and remains eternally thankful for all that you have 3

contributed, for all that you have accomplished.” 4

Thank you, Sheriff. 5

(Applause) 6



Chair Marcelo Blanco, and Edward Bonner) 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, we’re now going to 10

take a -- 11

MR. BONNER: Oh, whoa, whoa. Sit down, lady. 12

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Never mind. 13

(Laughter) 14

MR. BONNER: What are you going to do to me? Kick 15

me off the Commission? 16

Thank you for just that brief moment. 17

(Laughter) 18

MR. BONNER: Congratulations to the award winners 19

today. 20

One of the great things the Advisory Committee got 21

to do, was to review the documents that were sent in. 22

And I just can’t even begin to describe my appreciation 23

for your contributions to this great state. 24

Thank you, Commissioners, for the opportunity to 25



46

participate on the Advisory Committee. 1

The Advisory Committee members -- those that 2

are present, those that are not -- are some of the most 3

amazing people I’ve ever had the privilege to work with 4

in my career. I’m so fortunate. They have all enriched 5

my life, and I am grateful to them. 6

As the former longest-sitting sheriff, I pass that 7

mantle to my good friend, Bob Doyle from Marin County, 8

who now is the longest tenured sheriff in the state of 9

California. 10

And, Virginia, I want to just thank you 11

particularly. 12

1974 was a great year. But then also for me, a lot 13

of people take stuff home from the office; right? They 14

take paper or pen or something. I took a dispatcher 15

home; and we just celebrated our 40th anniversary last 16

weekend. 17

(Applause) 18

MR. BONNER: For all my blessings, I am so grateful. 19

Thank you very much to the Commission, and 20

particularly to my fellow Committee members. 21

And, Mr. Alvarez, thank you for doing this for me. 22

I appreciate it. 23

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Sure. 24

(Applause) 25



47

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I don’t know how one 1

politician could cut off another politician. 2

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Just one minute? 3

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, because you’re the 4

longest-sitting sheriff. 5

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, thank you. 6

In addition to Ed being a colleague, over the years, 7

Ed and I became great friends. And I remember, I was 8

appointed sheriff right after he was elected. And he was 9

the first sheriff to greet me and make me comfortable, 10

you know, in that setting. And we’ve become great 11

friends. 12

So I’m going to miss Ed, because Ed and I were sort 13

of part of the reasonable caucus of the California State 14

Sheriffs Association, so we’re one member short. 15

But Ed and I will still play golf together, go to 16

the Cal games together, and still be good friends. So 17

thank you. 18

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you, Commissioner 19

Doyle. 20

(Applause) 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, now, we’re going to 22

take a four-minute break and resume at 10:20. 23

(Recess from 10:15 a.m. to 10:24 a.m.) 24

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, thank you very much. 25



48

This is the time on the agenda for public comment. 1

This is the time set aside for members of the public to 2

comment on either items on the Commission agenda or 3

issues not on the agenda but pertaining to POST 4

Commission business. 5

Members of the public who wish to speak are asked to 6

limit their remarks to no more than five minutes each. 7

Please be advised that the Commission cannot take action 8

on items not on the agenda. 9

Is anybody interested in speaking? 10

(No response) 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Seeing no one step 12

forward, at this time, the Executive Director would like 13

to address the Commission. 14

Executive Director Alvarez? 15

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chair. 16

Good morning, Commissioners, and good morning to all 17

the members in the audience. Thank you for coming; and 18

welcome to those that have never been here before. 19

I’d like to address a few things. I don’t want to 20

address anything that’s already in the agenda, so I’m not 21

going to address course certifications, which I know is 22

a topic of discussion at the last Commission meeting, as 23

well as competitive contracts. I know those will be 24

discussed later on today. 25



49

I do want to give you a status update on two things 1

that are of interest to you that have come up in previous 2

commissions. 3

One, the POST org. analysis is well on its way. 4

It’s the org. study that you all helped us push through 5

last summer. It just got signed off on this week by the 6

state, so it is now approved; and we will move forward 7

with the vendor that has been selected for that. And we 8

hope that it’s going to be a six- to nine-month process. 9

Six months may be a little tight; but we hope that within 10

nine months we’ll be done with it. 11

At the conclusion of that study will be presentation 12

to the full Commission as to the results. That’s when it 13

will be finalized. 14

And I’d also like to talk about the testing process 15

at the academies. We talked about it at the last 16

Commission meeting, what we refer to as TMAS II. 17

As many of you know, we started the initiative 18

months and months ago with a pilot study; and then we 19

finalized it; and in February, it kicked off across the 20

state, where the new testing model is vignette style, 21

scenario-based. And we’ve gone from just under 30 tests, 22

to three tests. 23

So far, we’ve administered the RBC I test to 24

29 agencies, RBC II to 25 agencies, and the RBC III to 25



50

three agencies. 1

RBC I, we’ve had 1200 students pass. The average 2

score on the passing of that test is 87 percent. 3

Test II, about 884 students have taken and passed 4

that test thus far. Again, the average score on that is 5

87 percent. 6

Test III, we’ve only had 158 students take that thus 7

far; and the average score on that is 89 percent. 8

To give you an idea of the range of those test 9

scores, on RBC I, the lowest score thus far across the 10

state has been 73 percent; the highest, 96 percent. 11

RBC II, the lowest score in the state has been 12

66 percent; the highest, 96 percent. 13

The last test, RBC III, the lowest score has been 14

82 percent; the highest score has been 95 percent. 15

The areas where students continue to struggle, or 16

the students are struggling on, are not a surprise to 17

any of us. I think they’re the more complicated areas: 18

LD 39, Crimes against the Justice System; LD 15, Laws of 19

Arrest and Miranda; and LD 16, Search and Seizure and 20

Vehicle Searches. 21

So the results thus far, we’re very, very happy with 22

the way the test is moving along. 23

The one area that we are getting some constructive 24

criticism on, is the feedback that we are providing for 25



51

remediation. And we are working on that. We’ll have 1

hopefully a solution by September 1, in terms of what 2

we’re providing regarding the test results. 3

I would like to recognize the folks that have, for 4

many years, have been working on this project. It has 5

been a monumental effort, it continues to be a monumental 6

effort for them, and that is Diane Hrepich and Bob 7

Holmgren and their entire team. I just want to thank 8

them personally for their entire efforts. I don’t know 9

if they’re still in the room. But we really, really 10

appreciate what they have done and continue to do. 11

They have a test panel going on today, so I know 12

they probably had to cut out. 13

So those are the two updates. 14

I do want to tell you also about some of the things 15

that we’re going to be working on in the next six months. 16

I don’t want to go back in time as to what we’ve been 17

doing, but -- because I hope you’re up to speed on that. 18

But we are going to try to endeavor on a project to 19

refresh our subject-matter experts, just to make sure 20

that we’re not getting stale with some of our training 21

and contemporary ideas. We have different ways that we 22

think we can do that. We just started talking about it 23

in the last two weeks. So I think you’ll see more of 24

that. We’ve been talking about that at all of the 25



52

different associations, that we’re going to ask for 1

support from departments, to free up some of their people 2

to bring in new ideas and new blood, so to speak. 3

One of the other areas that I think we really need 4

to focus on is recruitment, retention, and growing our 5

own. 6

In terms of the recruitment, we continue to struggle 7

through recruit law-enforcement consultants. Our 8

workforce is made up of 30 to 40 percent former 9

law-enforcement personnel. We need those folks here. 10

Obviously, it is -- we need their technical skills in 11

terms of what law enforcement does and needs on a 12

day-to-day basis. It is very difficult for us to hire 13

folks because of the PERS issue. 14

We have some ideas to bring in more folks; but, 15

frankly, we don’t get a lot of candidates when we have 16

positions; and it’s because of that topic, the PERS 17

topic. 18

We’re also going to try to combine the positions 19

that we do have for law-enforcement consultants. We have 20

an LEC I and an LEC II position. That causes us to shift 21

things around and play a little bit of a -- I don’t want 22

to say shell game, but to move things around constantly 23

to deal with that issue. That is going to take some 24

time. We have to get approval from the state to combine 25



53

those two. 1

On the administrative side, we have no problem 2

recruiting folks. And we’ll put out a position, and 3

we’ll get 20 to 30 applicants, both internal and 4

external. But it’s just very hard to recruit a police 5

officer, a deputy sheriff mid-career or post-retirement. 6

And we do need those folks. 7

In terms of retention and growth, I think there’s 8

some opportunities for us, especially on the 9

administrative side, to help our people into higher-level 10

positions. One, they want that, to team them up with 11

some of our law-enforcement consultants to take the 12

burden off of the law-enforcement consultants; and 13

really, to be more a part of the team than they are now. 14

Not that they’re not, but I think there’s some 15

significant opportunities there to grow our own, put them 16

in higher-level positions, hopefully pay them more. And 17

that is a project that hopefully we’ll make some progress 18

on in the next six months. 19

The other thing we’re addressing is uniformity 20

across POST bureaus. It’s not just within one bureau, 21

it’s across POST. Bureaus do things differently. And 22

sometimes, you know, it’s the same project, and it just 23

gets done multiple ways. It’s something that we’re 24

struggling with and that we’re already moving forward to 25



54

deal with. 1

The other thing is, we’re moving the way we certify 2

courses to law-enforcement academies. It was being done 3

by the Training Delivery and Compliance Bureau. We 4

have moved that over to the bureau that does all the 5

academy stuff, the Basic Training Bureau. It’s very 6

popular within our own staff. It’s very popular 7

externally. It’s just been hard for us to do it from a 8

personnel standpoint. So that, we hope to kick off by 9

September 1st. We’ve already selected a person, and 10

they’re now in background that will be doing that out of 11

the Basic Training Bureau. 12

So that’s kind of where we’re going to go, hopefully 13

in the next six months. 14

I also just want to thank one group of individuals, 15

and that’s the POST staff that make this possible. 16

There’s a lot of moving parts to set up the room, to 17

set up the microphones, and make sure that everything 18

works well; but there’s also a lot of behind-the-scenes 19

stuff. I mentioned the org. study. You know, just to 20

get that approved, and get it approved before this 21

Commission meeting so that we can say, “Hey, it’s done” 22

takes some tweaking, some arm-twisting with the state. 23

We mentioned yesterday, one of the regulations that 24

you all asked us to change -- or that we changed, that 25



55

you changed as a commission, in terms of training 1

reimbursements, yesterday, we announced that it had not 2

been approved by the state. One of our personnel that 3

was working on that was constantly twisting arms, trying 4

to get it done; and it got approved yesterday. 5

So I want to thank all the POST staff for everything 6

they do to make this happen. And I know it’s stressful 7

for them, and everybody pulls a lot of weight to do it. 8

And lastly, I’d like to thank Mr. Darden, who 9

is standing to my left. We’ve had a number of issues 10

pop up since the last commission meeting. I venture to 11

say, five. I know four, for sure, significant issues 12

that we’ve had conference calls, meetings. 13

Toby has been here for those meetings. He’s just 14

provided us great counsel and guidance. 15

Toby is not in the building; but you wouldn’t know 16

it because when we reach out to Toby, he is always there 17

for us. 18

And, Toby, I just want to thank you personally for 19

everything you’ve done for us. So thank you. 20

MR. DARDEN: Thank you so much, Manny. It’s a 21

pleasure. 22

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: And, Madam Chair, that 23

concludes my opening comments. 24

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Well, on behalf of all 25



56

the commissioners, I want to commend you on your superb 1

leadership and your extraordinary staff. And I join you 2

in your comments about Mr. Darden. 3

MR. DARDEN: Thank you. 4

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: We very much appreciate 5

you. 6

Okay, so our first item is the approval of the 7

action summary meeting minutes from the February 23rd, 8

2017, meeting. 9

Is there a motion to approve the minutes? 10

COMMISSIONER BUI: Bui. Motion. 11

COMMISSIONER MOORE: Moore. Second. 12


Any discussion? 14

(No response) 15

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: All in favor? 16

(A chorus of “ayes” was heard.) 17

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any opposed? 18

(No response) 19

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: The motion passes. 20

Okay, now, we’re going to -- there’s going to be 21

some presentations. 22

This time, I’d like to call on POST Law Enforcement 23

Consultant Andrew Mendonsa to provide us with an update 24

on body-worn cameras in the report-writing process. 25



57

MR. MENDONSA: Good morning. 1

COMMISSION MEMBERS: Good morning. 2

MR. MENDONSA: Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of 3

the Committee. 4

I hope the Commission will indulge me in outlining 5

my basic argument for the importance of this topic before 6

diving a little more deeply into the work of the IMPACT 7

team itself. 8

In 1992, at Cambridge University, a political 9

philosopher and legal scholar named Ross Harrison argued 10

that there are two key premises regarding how governments 11

should make decisions. He said, in part, “States ought 12

to be purely rationale entities. All acts of states 13

should be justifiable; that is, should be such that they 14

can be supported by reason. In states, there should be 15

nothing private, personal, or arbitrary -- no whim, no 16

play. Everything which happens that is a state action, 17

should happen for a reason.” 18

“The second premise is to act rationally, is to act 19

for reasons; and to act for reasons is to act on the 20

basis of descriptions.” 21

For Harrison, everything that we do as members of 22

the government must have a reason. And those reasons, 23

if they are to be repeatable and just, must be based on 24

descriptions. Justice demands that we treat similar 25



58

cases in similar ways, with descriptions that are clear 1

and defensible. 2

To be fair, some agencies excel at these 3

descriptions, clearly identifying issues and developing 4

well thought-out and pragmatic and effective solutions to 5

challenge us within their communities. But in my 6

experience, this is also an area where many agencies 7

still struggle. 8

Some agencies rely too heavily on widely available 9

and published statistics; but as many administrators 10

realize, these frequently do not adequately describe the 11

whole picture. 12

As Laurie Hughey reminds us, “Not everything that 13

can be counted, counts.” 14

Some have difficulty identifying and describing 15

issues with enough specificity. They find themselves 16

without the ability to measure what matters or to explain 17

their decision-making to the public. 18

As stewards of public funds, agencies typically 19

understand that they have an obligation to implement 20

strategies that are both beneficial and cost effective, 21

focusing on what works in policing. 22

By researching different responses to intractable 23

problems and measuring their results, agencies are better 24

equipped to draw distinctions between merely assessing 25



59

output and creating outcomes that demonstrate actual 1

progress. 2

If nothing else, agencies must at least ensure that 3

interventions do not cause more problems than they solve; 4

what Joan McCord calls “cures that harm.” 5

Clear explanations are not only necessary for 6

rational decisions, they are two of the core foundations 7

of procedural justice. They’re central to demonstrate 8

both neutrality and trustworthy motives. By being 9

explicit in their thought process, agencies enhance their 10

transparency, accountability, and ultimately, their 11

legitimacy. 12

One way to think about addressing this challenge is 13

by encouraging agencies to consider looking at issues 14

from a scientific or research-centered point of view. 15

To be sure, evidence does not replace experience or 16

intuition, both of which are critical to what 17

law-enforcement agencies do. But often we find that 18

intuition is fallible and can only take us so far. By 19

relying on intuition and experience alone, we risk 20

missing important solutions that fall outside our 21

understanding or our expertise. 22

What I will discuss is just one way agencies might 23

implement evidence-based practices to answer operational 24

questions. 25



60

For the IMPACT team at POST, this is much about the 1

final results of the specific research as it is a proof 2

of concept. 3

This project is useful both from an emerging-issues 4

standpoint. Academies have already expressed interest 5

in using body-worn cameras within the academy settings; 6

and POST has already generated some preliminary 7

guidelines. It’s also a demonstration to agencies 8

interested in conducting their own research. 9

Ultimately, this is an opportunity for POST to 10

serve its mission of enhancing the professionalism of 11

California law enforcement by encouraging agencies 12

throughout the state to consider research as one 13

component in their broader decision-making. 14

The following is a small-scale research project 15

being undertaken by the IMPACT team here at POST. We 16

began with the following research question: Can the use 17

of body-worn cameras in academies influence the 18

efficiency or the fidelity of report-writing? 19

Our methodology is we will be using an academy class 20

to test the cameras. We’re in the process right now of 21

developing program-specific report-writing scenarios. 22

Once begun, voluntary participants will be split into 23

those with cameras and those without, in what is called 24

a randomized control trial. The research will take place 25



61

at the conclusion of the report-writing testing in the 1

academy for security and fairness. Program coordinators 2

will attempt to control for differences in age, 3

education, writing ability, and try to ensure that 4

cameras are the only variable. 5

The IMPACT team intends to test whether the use of 6

the cameras increases either the quality of reports 7

by looking at the average scores of the students, or the 8

efficiency of report-writing by having students keep 9

diaries of how much time they spend report-writing, or 10

both. 11

We will be using inductive reasoning to determine if 12

we’re able to draw broad conclusions from these specific 13

examples. 14

The design is mixed-method, meaning, we’ll be using 15

both qualitative and quantitative measures. 16

Methodologically, this is fairly simple. It’s one 17

of the reasons that we chose it. IMPACT is a fairly 18

small group at POST. We had to do something that we felt 19

like we were actually going to be able to accomplish. 20

The technology is additive with the control group still 21

being held to POST minimum standards. Nothing is being 22

taken away. 23

Once an academy is identified and a start date is 24

confirmed, we expect a minimum of five weeks for data 25



62

collection, and another 60 to 90 days at the conclusion 1

for statistical analysis and report findings. 2

We intend to use a public-private partnership and 3

leverage the expertise and resources of NYU researchers 4

through a nonprofit group called BetaGov. This is a 5

group that provides research support free of charge to 6

participating agencies. And their mission is to assist 7

organizations in implementing evidence-based practices 8

and policies. 9

Their model is to encourage and assist with many 10

small-scale studies in a wide variety of political and 11

social climates. This hopefully provides for broad 12

transferability, allowing different organizations to 13

benefit from the research, and further strengthening 14

conclusions of the individual research. 15

We expect costs are going to be relatively low. 16

We’re going to try and partner with body-worn camera 17

companies to see if we can get some of these to use in 18

the research. Other than that, costs are probably going 19

to just be limited to staff time. 20

Our outcomes, we’re hoping to answer at least a 21

preliminary question: If body-worn cameras are useful 22

and efficient in academies from a report-writing 23

standpoint? We hope to produce a white paper with our 24

findings that can be used by academies who may be 25



63

interested in introducing this technology into their 1

curriculum. 2

I expect we’ll probably have some follow-up 3

questions. I don’t know that we’ll be in a position 4

necessarily to follow these up; but certainly some 5

things that we’ve thought about are: Do the cameras 6

substantially change anything else about the 7

investigative process? For example, do officers rely 8

too heavily on the recording capability? The technology 9

is not going to identify deficiencies in their 10

interrogation. So if the officers are sort of expecting 11

the camera to pick up all of the information, are they 12

losing something? Is there something about sort of that 13

inherent curiosity that we expect from our officers that 14

gets lost? 15

Do the cameras have greater or lesser effect on 16

people, depending on officers’ demographics, either their 17

age, their education, their previous writing ability? 18

For example, do they help those struggling in 19

report-writing more than they help people who are already 20

proficient? 21

Do the cameras provide additional unexpected 22

training benefits and feedback? Does allowing the 23

officers to view their own behavior increase their 24

competence in subsequent training? 25



64

How do the students feel qualitatively about their 1

use and value? And what are the potential long-term 2

implications of students who use the camera, subsequently 3

go to agencies that either do or do not have a program? 4

So if, for example, an academy is interested in 5

instituting this, and they send their folks from their 6

academy to an agency that no longer has -- or does not 7

have body-worn cameras, are they going to find that 8

somebody who had the technology available to them is now 9

struggling at report-writing, now that they no longer 10

have it? So that’s a follow-up question we might have. 11

So that’s an example of some work that we intend to 12

do here at POST with the IMPACT Team. 13

I also wanted to discuss a little bit of field 14

research that’s currently being conducted in Vallejo. 15

Vallejo Police Department is looking at automated 16

license-plate readers. They’re also doing a randomized 17

control trial. This project provides a glimpse of the 18

types of questions research can answer, and more 19

importantly, the types of questions it creates. Field 20

research like this develops capability within the agency 21

itself and within the broader law-enforcement community 22

as a whole. 23

The City of Vallejo is a diverse community; and as 24

of 2016, it has the second highest violent crime rate in 25



65

California. They’re still suffering from the effects of 1

the municipal bankruptcy in 2008. 2

In response to high crime and lack of 3

resources, they have sought to be innovative in 4

problem-solving the issues facing their community. The 5

research team in Vallejo intends to approach problems 6

from a targeting, testing, and tracking model. Members 7

of the research team at the police department argue that 8

if resource-strained agencies like Vallejo, struggling 9

with violent crime, can embrace a culture of learning, it 10

can be done anywhere. 11

They have two basic research questions: 12

One, how does the ability to locate stolen vehicles 13

and make arrests with the system compare against the 14

control group? 15

And, two, how does the automated license-plate 16

reader technology affect officer behavior? 17

Some of the previous work they looked at was at 18

71 percent of agencies reported having automated 19

license-plate readers but arrest rates generally remained 20

low, at about 13 percent. 21

Early studies specific to the use of the readers 22

found that the use of the equipment was not always 23

associated with reductions in auto theft. 24

Their methodology, they’re also doing a randomized 25



66

control trial, they have cars out in the field in three 1

different conditions. One of the conditions is where 2

the officers will get an alert only on a stolen vehicle. 3

The second condition, officers will get an alert both on 4

stolen vehicles and wanted subjects. The third is where 5

the technology is actually still active but it’s not 6

alerting the officers. That’s their control group. 7

Preliminary results are preliminary. They’re still 8

halfway through the trial, to be fair. We had hoped to 9

have them come and talk about this a little bit more. 10

The sergeant who is running the program wasn’t available, 11

so I’m sort of standing in, in his stead. 12

We’ve had some conversations about what they’re 13

seeing so far. They have seen a reduction in 14

motor-vehicle theft calls. Counterintuitively, more 15

stolen vehicles were recovered in the treatment group. 16

So more stolen vehicles had been covered in the group 17

where it’s active; but more arrests have occurred in the 18

control group where it’s not active. They don’t yet 19

know; but one of the reasons they think that might be 20

occurring is because the technology is actually hitting 21

on parked cars as they’re driving around, so there’s 22

nobody around to arrest. Why the control group actually 23

has higher arrest rates is still to be determined. 24

One of the reasons they’re doing this is as a 25



67

cost-benefit analysis. So the automated license-plate 1

readers cost about $20,000 per car. And one of the 2

questions they had is if they intend this to help with 3

reductions in auto theft, is it going to have its 4

intended effect specific to their jurisdiction? 5

Some follow-up questions for research: 6

Do the officers become conditioned to their use and 7

the alerts over time? 8

Can the technology create new hotspots based upon 9

hits, either congregations of stolen vehicles or wanted 10

vehicles? 11

Does the technology affect officer behavior either 12

in mileage driven or complaints? 13

Can the use of the technology augment existing crime 14

analysis? 15

One of the things that I think they’re doing that’s 16

really interesting is, there’s no intent that this 17

replaces officer experience or intuition. So one of the 18

follow-up questions may be: Is there a difference in 19

officer experience and rates of recovery or hits? For 20

example, are more tenured officers better able to put the 21

technology where it’s most useful? So that’s one of the 22

things they’re hoping to look at. 23

One of the surprising findings they’ve had so far 24

is that preliminary information shows a lot of overlap 25



68

between their crime hotspots and the hits that they’re 1

getting out of the cars. 2

As a result of this, six additional agencies have 3

now started experimenting with randomized control trials 4

to test their own strategies for various things. 5

So with that, that’s all I have for the 6

presentation. I’m happy to answer any additional 7

questions or comments. 8

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you very much. 9

Questions? Comments? 10

COMMISSIONER MOORE: Well, I guess I have a question 11

on the part of the training part of the module in dealing 12

with report-writing, from the videos of the body cams, 13

the BWCs. Are they going to be trained to write the 14

reports off of what they’ve experienced? Say, in a 15

critical-shooting incident, will they first be trained 16

to write why they reacted the way they did, then review? 17

Or will they write the report off of what they see on 18

camera? 19

MR. MENDONSA: So we’re not addressing those issues 20

at all. This is a very, very small scale study where the 21

cadets are going to be given scenarios that POST creates. 22

They’re very low-level scenarios: They’re going to be 23

vandalisms, they’re going to be burglaries. These are 24

not critical-incident scenarios at all. 25



69


And that was Commissioner Moore. 2


It would help for the record, if when you speak, you 4

would say your name. 5

Thank you. 6

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Joyce introduced 7

me -- the Chair introduced me. 8

What may help, I think, in explaining this, is in 9

your description to us that you mentioned officers. So 10

I think there’s this -- people are transferring the study 11

being out in the field. 12

MR. MENDONSA: Gotcha. 13

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: So I think if we 14

called them recruits or cadets and stuck with that. So 15

we’re going to do this in an academy, just so everybody 16

knows that you’re actually scenario-based -- 17

MR. MENDONSA: Fair enough, yes. 18

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: -- and not testing 19

in the field. 20

MR. MENDONSA: Correct. This is not field-testing 21

in a sort of traditional law-enforcement sense. 22

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: And I’m assuming 23

that the outcome of this, is to -- you could then push 24

out to the academy group and say, “Listen, here’s some 25



70

observations we have if you use body-worn cameras in the 1

training center only.” 2

MR. MENDONSA: That’s correct. 3

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: With some 4

applicability to the field. 5

MR. MENDONSA: Right. And the intent is to -- if 6

agencies are, in fact, interested in incorporating these, 7

are there things that they need to know? Is this a tool 8

that perhaps helps cadets in the academy who are 9

struggling with their report-writing? Is this a tool 10

that is going to increase the amount of time that it 11

takes their cadets to write their reports? 12

And from that standpoint -- we’re not getting into 13

any issues about whether or not it’s appropriate to use 14

them surrounding a critical incident. That’s really, 15

really outside the scope of what we’re looking at; and 16

I don’t know that we’re going to be in a position -- we 17

certainly won’t be in a position from this research to 18

make a determination about that. 19


Braziel. 21

Commissioner Moore? 22

COMMISSIONER MOORE: Commissioner Moore again. 23

The question is, local departments, could we not 24

get actual field incidents and bring it in to use 25



71

for recruits’ training that would be more up-to-date and 1

more relevant. 2

MR. MENDONSA: Yes, so we looked at a wide variety 3

of options when we were sort of discussing this. And one 4

of the things that’s important about research is, you 5

need to control as many of the variables as you can. 6

That’s one of the reasons that we talked about doing this 7

in the academy setting, is we have a high degree of 8

control over what sort of scenarios they’re exposed to, 9

what the grading system is. 10

And so as many of those things that we can control, 11

it’s really important so that we can say at the end of 12

this, that whatever our intervention is, is the thing 13

that made the difference. 14

And so where that became complicated for us is if 15

you talk about getting out into any sort of field 16

situation, you don’t have a lot of control. You don’t 17

have scenarios that are exactly the same every time. You 18

don’t have field-training officers that are exactly the 19

same every time. 20

There’s also a whole wide variety of reasons of why, 21

from my perspective, it becomes problematic from a 22

research standpoint. It becomes problematic when you’re 23

doing this live in the field with officers. And so 24

that’s one of the reasons that we concentrated on staying 25



72

within the academies themselves. 1


Any other questions or comments? 3

(No response) 4

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, thank you for both 5

reports. 6

At this time, I’d also like to call upon POST 7

Senior Information Systems Analyst Catherine Bacon-Davis 8

to provide us with an update on how the IMPACT team will 9

continue to provide emerging-trend reports to the 10

Commission. 11

MS. BACON-DAVIS: Thank you. 12

Hello. So in the time since our presentation at 13

the February commission meeting, we have met to discuss 14

our plans going forward to identify and report to the 15

Commission on emerging trends. So today, I’d like to 16

run through the process we’ve identified and give you 17

the blueprint for how we’re going to approach this. 18

One item of discussion is the source -- our 19

information sources, how we’re going to find out about 20

emerging trends. 21

We looked at a Command College project for the 22

body-worn cameras and reporting issue. It came to our 23

attention that Vallejo was doing a field study on the 24

license-plate readers. We’re also going to be reaching 25



73

out to law-enforcement executives and professional 1

organizations, to see what emerging issues they’re 2

keeping their eyes on. Basic training academies and 3

other organizations that are maybe developing different 4

curriculum or training plans. 5

We’re looking at, again, research being conducted 6

by other jurisdictions out in the field, and training 7

organizations that aren’t necessarily law enforcement but 8

maybe have some new training methods that would be of 9

interest to POST or the Commission. 10

Our objective is to identify emerging trends that 11

may involve or have an impact on California law 12

enforcement or POST and the Commission, bring them to 13

you; and then determine next steps, as we have with 14

body-worn cameras and the Vallejo research. 15

What we plan to do is as a team of seven, we are 16

going to take rotating leads on each of these sources 17

of input, and report to the Commission at commission 18

meetings as a standing agenda item. 19

We will work as a team, though, to conduct all the 20

tasks related to that. That includes, we would contact 21

stakeholders and leaders and sources. We will identify 22

appropriate instruments for gathering data, such as 23

research groups, surveys, interviews, attendance at 24

conferences, or demonstrations, literature reviews, 25



74

et cetera. 1

As a team, we will analyze the data gathered and 2

prepare a concise report of our conclusions, recommend 3

next steps or recommended action by the Commission. 4

We will continue to report on ongoing trend 5

research, such as what we find from the body-worn cameras 6

and report-writing study, as well as identifying new 7

trends that we may need to pursue or want to pursue. 8

Interim updates may also be posted or provided as 9

requested by the Commission for review. 10

So for the upcoming Commission meetings: 11

In October 2017, we will be delivering a report 12

based on our research in emerging trends from the 13

executive and professional organizations in law 14

enforcement. 15

In February 2018, we will be looking at basic 16

training academies and the Command College projects to 17

identify emerging trends of interest. 18

June 2018, we will find another field research being 19

conducted and report on that. 20

And then in October of 2018, executive professional 21

organizations. 22

And that’s to bring the new issues to light and 23

start the discussion about the work we could do within 24

our scope as kind of a small team within POST; or if we 25



75

identify, as a result of our research, there’s a 1

recommendation for something bigger or broader, we could 2

have that discussion as well. 3

And so thank you for your time. 4

That is our blueprint, so thank you. 5

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you, Catherine. 6

Any questions or comments? 7

(No response) 8

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, thank you, both. 9

Did you have anything, Commissioner? Did I move too 10

quickly? 11

COMMISSIONER MOORE: We’ll wait. We’ll wait. 12

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: You sure? 13

COMMISSIONER MOORE: Yes. 14

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Please, Commissioner. 15

COMMISSIONER MOORE: I just had some things that I 16

wanted to turn over to them if it’s okay. 17

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Please. 18

COMMISSIONER MOORE: In my local community, I’ve 19

been working on a body-worn camera policy; and addressing 20

it from some community concerns, I’d like to turn that 21

information over to you at this time that we worked with 22

our department that I think is some stellar work that 23

we’re doing in Santa Clara County, as well as some 24

concerns dealing also with the license-plate reading 25



76

policies. I’ll turn that over. 1

And I’ll just save everything else for later. 2

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, thank you, 3

Commissioner Moore. 4

Anyone else? 5

COMMISSIONER BUI: Can I just say something real 6

quick? 7

I just want to make a comment. It’s not a question, 8

really. 9

Just kind of to piggyback on what Commissioner Moore 10

was talking about related to the community and their -- 11

and how they’re affected by body-worn cameras, and just 12

the POST training. I like that we are doing our own 13

research and we’re basing a lot of our training on 14

research and evidence. And I think that’s important for 15

the community to know that that’s how we’re developing 16

our training. That it’s not just anecdotal; that it’s 17

based on data and research that we’ve performed 18

ourselves. 19


Bui. 21

Anything else? 22

(No response) 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, thank you. 24

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Run, Andrew, run. 25



77

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, I’m just going to 1

give you a moment to look at the reports of what is 2

on the consent agenda, and ask you in a moment if there 3

is anything you’d like pulled. 4

Okay, would anyone like a report on any of the 5

consent agenda items? 6

COMMISSIONER LONG: Madam Chair? 7

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, Commissioner Long. 8

COMMISSIONER LONG: I would just like to hear -- on 9

the Procedural Justice report, I’d just like to hear kind 10

of a status report. I don’t know if -- I don’t think 11

it’s coming up later. But also, where we are in terms of 12

spending on the $5 million and how that’s going to be 13

laid out. 14

Also, is this -- I don’t know if this is the 15

appropriate time to talk about kind of the linkage 16

between the training that’s been going on and how it’s 17

going to be kind of infused in the basic academy, or if 18

we should talk about that later. And this is kind of in 19

light of the Legislature’s push to mandate everything, 20

frankly. And certainly Procedural Justice, they parked 21

the bill, but they’ll be back. 22

And is this the appropriate time to talk about that, 23

in terms of, you know, maybe the best defense here is a 24

good offense, and to try to make it clear how we’re going 25



78

to -- I mean, I attended some of the training for the 1

Procedural Justice. It was very good. But how we’re 2

going to make the linkage from that to basically infusing 3

into the academy; and how we’ll be able to maybe convince 4

a number of people in the Legislature who think that it 5

should be mandated for every officer, and so forth, and 6

what POST’s position will be on that. And then also, 7

how that 5 million bucks is unrolling, so that we could 8

make a valid claim for additional funding going forward. 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Commissioner Long, on 10

behalf of the Commission, I want to thank you for 11

attending that training. I think that’s terrific. It 12

always helps to have one of you in the room. 13

And now I will ask Bureau Chief Ralph Martin -- not 14

Martin -- Ralph Brown to respond. 15

Ralph Martin was the chief in Santa Maria who just 16

retired yesterday. 17

MR. BROWN: That’s why, as my dad would say, “You 18

can call me anything you want. Just don’t call me late 19

for dinner.” 20

With that, Dave Cornejo can speak to the aspect of 21

the expenditure side. 22

MR. CORNEJO: Okay, so in terms of what we’ve 23

actually spent, Commissioner Long; so we -- just in this 24

year -- because, obviously, the money just became 25



79

available this year -- we have already processed, just 1

in travel -- or reimbursements and other minor expenses, 2

we’ve already paid out about $150,000. And so there’s 3

a lot of initial outlay before it goes out to the field. 4

So we didn’t anticipate that this first year would be a 5

lot. 6

Once all of the instructors have gone through the 7

training, the two-day training, and it goes out to 8

the field, then you’re going to have much more of an 9

exponential increase in that amount. 10


COMMISSIONER LONG: But is there a plan for, you 12

know, how long that money will -- when will that 13

5 million go out over the next -- in ‘17-18, or will it 14

go out to the following year? 15

MR. CORNEJO: Okay, so there is budget-control 16

language in the ‘16-17 Act. It’s enabling language that 17

allows our department to either expend or encumber the 18

funds before June 30th of 2021; and our intent is 19

probably to spend the entire amount. 20

Please keep in mind, I believe this is a voluntary 21

program. 22

MR. BROWN: Correct. 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Before we go on, 24

Commissioner Long, any more questions about that? 25



80

COMMISSIONER LONG: No. 1


Bureau Chief Ralph Brown. 3

MR. BROWN: Okay, to address the last question 4

first, which is how do we mandate that, I guess it goes 5

back to an SLI’ism from leadership school, which is, how 6

do you get voluntary compliance from people. 7

And I think that the short answer here, is that from 8

the people that I talked to in the field, I don’t think 9

there are any oral boards taking place for promotional 10

exams that don’t include some dynamic of what is 11

procedural justice, implicit bias, and how does it affect 12

our department and our community. 13

And with that said, that, right there, is a driver 14

for people to attend the course. It’s personal 15

motivation. Much like community-oriented policing and 16

problem-solving was back in the nineteen-nineties, again, 17

it was not a mandate, but was recognized by the field as 18

a necessary benefit to change organizationally and 19

enhance training models. And that’s what we’re seeing 20

with procedural justice: It’s a voluntary compliance. 21

People want to attend because they see the benefit. 22

That’s why people are going to attend. 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Commissioner Long, 24

anything else? 25



81

COMMISSIONER LONG: I would guess the Legislature 1

would not be placated with that, and we’d probably be 2

back with a mandate. And I think for all those, we have 3

to determine whether or not a mandate is appropriate in 4

this case. And if not, to try to figure out a way to 5

communicate how effective this new kind of procedural 6

justice training could be if allowed to unfold in its 7

current way. 8

I don’t know, though, that, with all due respect, 9

that this is going to be that compelling in terms of the 10

legislators who want to make this mandatory. 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Great. 12

Commissioner Bui? 13

COMMISSIONER BUI: Bui here. 14

Correct me if I’m wrong, but it’s already been 15

infused into the academy curriculum; right? Or is it in 16

process? 17

MR. BROWN: That’s correct. 18

COMMISSIONER BUI: So they’ll be getting it right at 19

the beginning; correct? 20

MR. BROWN: That’s correct. So what we haven’t 21

touched on is that, what have we done thus far; right? 22

So we have met with internal and external 23

stakeholders to take the tenets of “Procedural Justice, 24

Implicit Bias,” and put them in the appropriate learning 25



82

domains in the academy. 1

So now when recruits come out of the academy today, 2

they’re going to be exposed to that. 3

In addition to that, they’re also going to have this 4

opportunity to take this eight-hour course down the road. 5

And a lot of agencies, I suspect, are going to include 6

that in their annual PSP or CPT training, advanced 7

officer training, that kind of thing. 8

We’re also adding that into the SLI, the Supervisory 9

Leadership Institute. So those dynamics are also going 10

into that program, as well as the required management 11

course. So it’s going to be infused into curricula that 12

is mandated by POST for people to take upon promotion. 13

So that will also be there. 14

COMMISSIONER LONG: And if I may just comment on 15

that? 16


COMMISSIONER LONG: I think infusion is the way to 18

go. And I think, having seen the coursework, and so 19

forth, it’s impressive. But I think it’s incumbent on 20

POST to, one, sell it, and show some kind of -- that it’s 21

actually happening, it’s actually there. 22

And I think to that end, sometimes I go back to a 23

theme I always like, which is third-party validaters. 24

Basically, someone to say -- other than us -- saying, 25



83

“Yeah, we’re really wonderful.” But third-party 1

validaters that say, “Yes, this stuff is really being 2

infused into the academy in these following ways.” And 3

it’s someone other than POST saying that we’re doing 4

wonderful things. 5

Because I think we should sell it and I think -- 6

I’m wary of mandating everything. But I think, again, 7

the best defense is a good offense here. And I think 8

we’re going to need to be a little more compelling in 9

our confidence in terms of whether this is being infused, 10

how it’s being infused, and whether some third-party 11

validater will be able to confirm that. 12

My own bias there. 13

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I think there are few 14

things as compelling right now in California than 15

procedural justice and officer-involved shootings. It’s 16

what we all hear about in the field all the time. 17

Yes, please? 18

ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR BLANCO: If I may, 19

Commissioner Long, just to add a little bit to what 20

you’re going in, as far as the infusion process. SLI -- 21

I attended SLI. So that would be one of those areas 22

where this would come in. I also attended the management 23

course in my recent promotion as a lieutenant, so that 24

would come in as well. 25



84

So I believe based on what POST is currently doing, 1

we are going to get beat over the head with this. And 2

it’s going to get drilled into us that this is where 3

we’re going and this is what needs to be done, especially 4

if it’s being done at the academy at the promotional 5

level and things of that nature. 6

So based on what’s being explained, I feel -- and 7

those trainings that I’ve attended -- that POST is 8

meeting that requirement, to make sure that the 9

information is being, you know, given to us. And, 10

obviously, it’s known that, hey, this is the direction 11

we’re heading. 12

COMMISSIONER BUI: Madam Chair, may I expand on 13

something? 14

I see that there’s a void, and I think that might be 15

what you’re talking about. We have our academy recruits 16

who are getting it, and then folks who want to promote 17

who are going to be getting it. But then we have this 18

huge chunk of, you know, front-line officers that aren’t 19

going to be mandated to get it; right? So there’s the 20

issue there. 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And I also want to thank 22

Commissioner Bui for also being at the training. I 23

really appreciate that. 24

COMMISSIONER BUI: Thank you. 25



85

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Commissioner Leichliter. 1

So, then my question would be, at some point, is it 2

going to be part of what you’re talking about? The 3

yearly training that all of us at line staff have to go 4

through as well, which is the CPR and all the driving and 5

all that, is it eventually going to become part of that, 6

that you guys are going to mandate? Which I think is 7

where Commissioner Long is going. And if it is, we need 8

to make sure that we put it out, so that everybody knows 9

that that is now part of the required curriculum for 10

every officer that gets it at some point, whether it’s 11

every two years, like the driving, or if it’s every year 12

that you get a refresher 30 minutes or 40 -- an hour, 13

whatever it takes of our required eight hours of 14

training. 15

MR. BROWN: Right. Good question. 16

The short answer is, we can do as much as we can 17

to infuse and immerse procedural justice in all these 18

different areas. So throughout an officer’s -- a 19

deputy’s lifetime in their career, they can be exposed 20

to all these dynamics on a repeated basis, which betters 21

the retention. 22

As far as the requirement goes, unless it is, A, 23

mandated by the agency head -- Cal Chiefs, Cal Sheriffs 24

can push that down from their end -- then it’s going to 25



86

have to come from the Legislature. 1

So what we’re hoping for, we’re hoping for voluntary 2

compliance here; right? We’re putting it out, we’re 3

selling how good it is, we’re selling how effective it 4

is. We’re trying to, anyway. 5

And so I think the field will benefit from having 6

the option to “You know what? It’s not mandated, so I’ve 7

already got a full load of training I’ve got to get done 8

this year, so maybe I can get it in next year.” 9

“Okay.” 10

Because everyone -- as the Commission knows, there’s 11

a tremendous amount of requirements that officers have to 12

be trained in on a regular basis. 13

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: That’s why I was asking 14

if it could be something like every other year or every 15

third year, like the training is, so that it’s not all 16

packed into what we’re trying to do. 17

MR. BROWN: Correct. Great. That would be the best 18

way to go. 19

Commissioner Long, if I can, with respect to your 20

third-party validation. You should know that we have 21

partnered with Stanford University, who was the driver 22

for the curricula development on this. And they are 23

currently extrapolating data from surveys of the 24

attendees of the course immediately after the course, 25



87

and then probably three to six months after the course, 1

with the questions: How effective was the training? If 2

there are any adjustments, where can we make them? How 3

beneficial is it to you and your department? 4

So when we get that data report from Stanford 5

University, we can certainly present that to the 6

Commission; and that will be your third-party validation. 7

COMMISSIONER LONG: Well, not to parse, but that 8

would be to the relatively small swath of people who have 9

taken a voluntary course, as opposed to instilling 10

confidence that this is being infused in the regular 11

academy. I think they’re two separate things. 12

You know, just to summarize, again, I think what 13

POST is trying to do here is the right thing. But I 14

think, basically, you prove you’re doing it and have a 15

third party validate that you’re doing it or already you 16

have it done, to you. And that’s my concern going 17

forward. 18

MR. BROWN: Understood. 19

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I appreciate it that 20

Executive Director Alvarez pushed out the “Did You Know? 21

Procedural Justice” video. I then sent it to the 22

Superintendent of Schools in Santa Barbara, as well as 23

the fire chief; and they both intend to use it, too. And 24

it’s very important in these “Did You Know?” videos when 25



88

we can get them to the community, and the community 1

understands procedural justice at the same time that law 2

enforcement does. 3

Any other comments about this? 4

MS. SANDOVAL: Director? 5

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes? 6

MS. SANDOVAL: Jan Myyra has some information that 7

I’d like to share with the Commission, that shows some 8

training we are trying to infuse for line level. 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And that was Maria 10

Sandoval. 11

MS. MYYRA: Good morning, Commission. 12

One of our plans is to take the mandate for 13

racial-profiling training and create an online course. 14

And the idea would be to infuse the procedural justice 15

information into that as well. So that is mandated every 16

five years, an officer has to take that. So that would 17

be an option, the line officer over years, to use that. 18


Do you have any questions about that? 20

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: May I add something, 21

Madam Chair? 22


EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Manny Alvarez. 24

In regards to your question, Commissioner Long, 25



89

about the academies and infusing it in the academies, 1

we did have a workshop to change the language in the 2

training materials for the academies. I don’t remember 3

the month, I think it was January or February of this 4

year. But we did include outside folks. It wasn’t just 5

POST staff that changed those materials. We included -- 6

and I may miss a few organizations, but the Museum of 7

Tolerance participated in the changes. LULAC, the NAACP. 8

We had an immigration-rights advocate present, and a 9

member of the Legislature. So there were folks from 10

outside of law enforcement that participated in that. 11

We’re not complete with that, but we did bring outside 12

folks that have different ideas, perhaps, than law 13

enforcement into that. 14

We are starting that endeavor also with the FTO 15

program. That’s kind of the next step. I think I’ve 16

been mentioning that. But we will be moving forward. 17

We’re -- I don’t want to say we’re early in the process, 18

but we started -- the course is finalized in September, 19

and it started to roll out in -- I think in March or 20

April, for the most part. So I think you’re going to see 21

more and more of it across the state as trainers are 22

trained up and students start going through the course. 23

So that’s why you see, we’ve only spent 150,000 of the 24

five hundred -- million. 25



90

It is a reimbursable course. So now when police 1

officers across the stating are going to the training, 2

you’re going to see those expenditures go up, as 3

Mr. Cornejo said, exponentially. So we’ll keep moving 4

forward. 5

It is a very popular program for us. We love it. 6

I think the community loves it. 7

Yes, the word is not out there yet because it’s just 8

kind of kicking off. 9

We were down in San Diego a couple of weeks ago, 10

and one of the chiefs had gone through some procedural 11

justice training at one of the universities, and had 12

asked us, it’s like, “Hey, have you guys ever thought 13

about doing something in this regard?” Which is a little 14

disheartening that he didn’t know POST is already doing 15

it, but it is just starting to roll out. 16


Anything else on procedural justice? 18

(No response) 19

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay. Before -- 20

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Commissioner 21

Braziel. 22

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I’m sorry, yes. 23


COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: I can’t help myself. 25



91

Commissioner Braziel. 1

May I just recommend maybe we just have regular 2

updates at our commission meetings that list out, here’s 3

how many academy -- how many folks have graduated from 4

the academy that took it, here’s how many took it 5

in-service, here’s how many took it at SLI. Once we 6

start seeing the reimbursements, we’ll know how many took 7

it voluntarily, so we can start showing the trends? 8

MR. BROWN: Yes, we sure can. 9

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: That may be helpful. 10

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: That would be great. 11

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: And then we discuss, 12

if we need to, do we rearrange CPT to force it faster. 13

But Commissioner Long is 100 percent right, we don’t 14

want to have this forced. We want to be able to say: 15

“Here’s all the things that are done. Here’s the data. 16

This is what we’re -- at least the numbers going 17

through.” Because I think you’ll see big numbers between 18

now and -- 19

MR. BROWN: Yes. 20

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: -- the next 21

commission meeting, of people going through it. 22

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Okay, fair enough. We 23

can do that. 24

MR. BROWN: If I can, on a closing note on that, as 25



92

a reminder, when we accepted the certification from our 1

partners at DOJ to start pushing this out to the field, 2

the players are Stockton Police Department, South Bay 3

Regional, and CSU Long Beach. And they will be the ones 4

that will be pushing it out to the field, and they’ll be 5

doing it in a very large way. 6

So, agreed, then the numbers will start going up by 7

the -- I’m sure by the fall of this year. Because they 8

have to ramp up, so… 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: It would be fair, before 10

Bureau Chief Brown leaves, is there anything else on any 11

other consent items? 12

Would anyone like any other consent item pulled? 13

(No response) 14


MR. BROWN: Yes, ma’am. 16

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Is there a motion to 17

approve the consent items? 18

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Move. Braziel. 19

COMMISSIONER LONG: Second. Long. 20


All in favor? 22


COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: All opposed? 24

(No response) 25



93


Okay, now, we’re going to get a Finance report. 2

Commissioner Long will now provide the Finance Committee 3

report, please. 4

FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIR LONG: Thank you, 5

Madam Chair. 6

The Finance Committee report can be very brief. 7

We had kind of a long discussion in full Commission and 8

in the Finance Committee in February. Basically, not 9

much has changed from the Governor’s budget. The 10

May Revision did not change much. 11

As we talked about in February, there appears to be 12

about a $13 million difference between the two budgets. 13

But when you account for the 5 million in Procedural 14

Justice we just talked about, you’re really looking at 15

more of an 8 and a half, 9 million dollar difference, 16

most of which, as we talked about in February, will be 17

made up by reimbursements -- reducing reimbursements. 18

Some of that will be offset, to some extent, by the 19

fact that there was an in-the-mirror vision of the 20

Governor’s budget. There was a $4 million shift from 21

training to reimbursements; so that will help alleviate 22

that problem, to some extent. 23

The other change in the May Revision was probably 24

the $1.8 million for the simulators, which was approved. 25



94

It was approved however only for one year as opposed to 1

two. And as we discussed in the Finance meeting, 2

although that’s not a big number, we may well have to go 3

back to the drawing board to figure out how to continue 4

funding this, as there is definitely a resistance to 5

using motor-vehicle account funds for this purpose. 6

The people who receive MVA funds zealously guard their 7

funding; and so it may be a difficult trough to go back 8

to. But for ‘17-18, the simulators are being funded. 9

I think as a result then, the two big issues going 10

forward, finance-wise, would be that the State Penalty 11

Assessment Fund will likely continue to decline. The 12

good news is that POST went from -- it used to be about a 13

24 percent historical piece of that fund, to more than 14

half of that fund. That’s the good news. 15

The bad news is getting a bigger piece of a 16

shrinking pie isn’t always all that encouraging. So 17

we’re going to have to keep moving forward on that. 18

The other thing that we received a good briefing on 19

from POST staff, was the contract enhancement project, 20

going forward. We talked about in February, trying to 21

find a way to incentivize innovation and creativity, 22

and to kind of increase a return on our investment – 23

on the contract investment. So how can we do that, 24

basically, to combat inertia in contracts? I think 25



95

inertia in contracting in the state is a very common 1

problem. How do you go back in and try to incentivize 2

people to do more innovation? 3

We received a good report from the staff. The key 4

will be in how we implement that going forward. What 5

kind of concrete steps will be taken? 6

I appreciate the fact that the staff seems to really 7

recognize the need to innovate and create and inspire 8

creativity, and to try to get back to the drawing board 9

a little bit to see what else could we do out there, 10

especially in areas of I.T. 11

So those are the two big areas we talked about. 12

I don’t believe there’s anything else. 13

Anyone? 14

Dave? 15

We received a number of outstanding PowerPoints from 16

Dave; but I don’t think there were any major changes from 17

February to report. 18

So going forward, we just have to keep an eye on 19

that Penalty Assessment Fund and how we’re going to 20

increase funding in the future. 21

MR. CORNEJO: That’s correct. 22

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I think Commissioner Long 23

was asking if you wanted to add to anything he said? 24

MR. CORNEJO: No. I think he covered it, 25



96

everything. So thank you very much for doing it, yes. 1

FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIR LONG: Since when don’t you 2

want to add something? 3

MR. CORNEJO: Can you believe it? I’m speechless. 4

FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIR LONG: Thank you very much, 5

Madam Chair. 6


Long. 8

Is there a motion to approve the report? 9

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Motion. Leichliter. 10

COMMISSIONER MOORE: Second. Moore. 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any discussion? 12

(No response) 13




(No response) 17


Okay, Item E is a Report on Regular Proposed Changes 19

to the Training and Testing Specifications for Peace 20

Officers Basic Course. 21

At this time, I’d like to call upon POST Law 22

Enforcement Consultant Jim Katapodis to provide an update 23

on what has been done with the use-of-force language in 24

Learning Domain 20. 25



97

At the last meeting, we asked POST staff to revisit 1

the proposed language. 2

Mr. Katapodis, please proceed. 3

MR. KATAPODIS: Thank you. 4

So at the last Commission meeting, there was a 5

question of the words “should” and “must.” 6

So Basic Training Bureau put together some language 7

in the training and testing specs for Use of Force, 8

Learning Domain 20. You had a discussion about that; and 9

it’s about the reports, and how officers write the 10

reports for use of force. 11

And the language we came up with was “Peace officers 12

use-of-force reports must include the facts and 13

circumstances the officer recalls that influenced their 14

decision to use force and the option chosen.” 15

And this information was sent out to our experts, 16

it was sent out to attorneys, we sent it out to members 17

of the ACLU, also the Public Defender in their Fresno 18

office. And they all believed that this language was 19

appropriate to add into Learning Domain 20; and this was 20

the only issue from the last Commission meeting. 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any questions about that? 22

(No response) 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I did a little bit of 24

research on my own to make sure that “must” and “shall,” 25



98

either one of those words could be used; and I determined 1

that they could, just based on my own research. Because 2

when I first heard the word “must,” I’m not used to, as 3

an attorney, hearing “must.” It’s “shall” or “should.” 4

But “must” will work. 5

Any other questions? 6

MR. KATAPODIS: And “must” is consistent in Learning 7

Domain 20, et al. There’s a lot of “musts” in there, and 8

there is no “shall.” 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay. Well, it must be 10

the law versus the regulation. 11

MR. KATAPODIS: It must be a good idea. 12

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: It must be that. 13

So anything else? 14

Yes, Commissioner Moore? 15

COMMISSIONER MOORE: I was just wondering, as part 16

of the subject-matter experts involved in this, will 17

we be able to use outside, as an example ACLU, to -- 18

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, there were 19

subject-matter experts. 20

MR. KATAPODIS: Yes. ACLU and Public Defender from 21

Fresno. 22

COMMISSIONER MOORE: Fresno? 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I think there was a 24

retired Public Defender, wasn’t it? 25



99

MR. KATAPODIS: Yes. 1

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, Commissioner Long? 2

COMMISSIONER LONG: And I would be remiss, without 3

thanking Scott and his folks working with me and us on 4

this thing over the last few months. I’m very satisfied 5

with the outcome. 6

It seems from what I understand from Scott and 7

his staff, that the subject-matter experts all are -- 8

not just the ACLU and the Public Defender but the 9

law-enforcement folks. And I really appreciate the 10

reach-out to kind of broaden -- it seems to me it’s 11

important to broaden that base of subject-matter experts 12

a little bit and get the defense bar and others involved. 13

And this is an interesting one because the defense bar 14

in this case would actually help out the prosecution. 15

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Commissioner Long, I 16

appreciate you bringing it to the Committee’s attention; 17

and also apparently the subject-matter experts also 18

appreciated it. 19

MR. KATAPODIS: They did. 20

COMMISSIONER LONG: Well, thanks, Scott. 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Anything else? 22

(No response) 23


Did the Advisory Committee have a discussion on this 25



100

item? 1

ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR BLANCO: We did. 2

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And? 3

ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR BLANCO: And we agree with 4

the recommendations proposed. 5

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Excellent. 6

Is there a motion to approve? 7

COMMISSIONER BUI: Motion. Bui. 8

COMMISSIONER LONG: Second. Long. 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And is there any further 10

discussion on that? 11

(No response) 12


(No response) 14


Item F is a Report on the Request to Conduct a Pilot 16

of the Revisions of the Course Certification Process. 17

At this time, I’d like to call on POST Law 18

Enforcement Consultant Janna Munk and Assistant Executive 19

Director Maria Sandoval to provide us this -- I guess it 20

would be the status of the Course Certification Project. 21

MS. MUNK: Good morning. Thank you for having us 22

here. 23

So I have some exciting news for you about the 24

Course Certification Review Project and a pilot proposal. 25



101

Today, I’m going to share with you our process that 1

we went through in the workshop to come up with our 2

ideas. 3

Assistant Executive Director Maria Sandoval is 4

going to talk to you about the things that we’re doing 5

currently to make change. And then last of all, I’m 6

going to share with you the new products we have and the 7

actual pilot. 8

Now, just to refresh your memory, the last time we 9

were here, in February, I shared with you the survey to 10

the field that we did. And we had over 400 results. 11

The top five considerations for us were: 12

Number 1, instructor resumé technology. 13

Number 2 and 4 were timeliness in terms of course 14

certification and course modification. 15

Number 3 was recourse -- no, number 3 was 16

consistency among consultants. 17

And 5 percent was recourse. 18

So we concentrate on those top five things. 19

Now, since we’ve had that update, I’ve had monthly 20

workshops with the field. We’ve had people representing 21

large agencies, small agencies, regional training 22

centers, academies, and some of the associations. I also 23

had regional consultants from the Training Delivery and 24

Compliance Bureau participate. And we had meetings in 25



102

between the workshops within POST; and participants were 1

almost from every bureau within POST. 2

Now, one of the things that we wanted to do was make 3

sure that we didn’t do quick fixes with this workshop. 4

We wanted to dig deep. And when you dig deep, you get 5

some conflict. We really had some heated discussions 6

over things. But that’s important, or else you don’t get 7

lasting change. 8

What we did with the workshops was, first of all, 9

work through the survey results in detail; and then we 10

invited retired Assistant Executive Director Mike 11

DiMiceli to come in and talk about the history of course 12

certification. And one of the things we learned that 13

was interesting is that course certification was 14

originally created as a mechanism to provide funds to 15

the field from POST for needed training. 16

That’s a pretty simple process. And, over time, we 17

started hanging all these other things on a very simple 18

process: Budget, regulations, instructor resumés -- 19

many requirements, without a lot of thought about: Is 20

this process prepared to handle all of these things, and 21

are we building infrastructure within POST to support 22

these things? 23

We covered best practices. We looked at some of 24

the POSTs in the western states. And shocking, in Utah, 25



103

they’re required to do 40 hours of CPT a year. Their 1

chiefs and sheriffs are required to certify every single 2

one of those hours. And if an officer misses it, they 3

get dinged for a year of their retirement and have to 4

make it up. We didn’t want that. 5

We also looked IADLEST in terms of the national 6

certification process. And the feeling was, on that, 7

that it was cost-prohibitive. The requirements were very 8

stringent; and our constituents really believe that we 9

have the gold standard of training, and they did not want 10

to adopt a national model where the training wasn’t 11

specific to their communities. 12

What we finally looked at and kind of drilled down 13

to was the nexus of where some of our conflict was, our 14

organizational priorities versus our stakeholder needs. 15

Organizationally, our POST mission statement says that, 16

“POST will strive to ensure that all California 17

law-enforcement agencies have access to high-quality, 18

cost-effective training for the development of the 19

skills, knowledge, ethics, and attitudes necessary for 20

achieving and maintaining professional excellence, 21

high-quality and cost-effective training.” And we 22

believe at POST, that we maintain that through the 23

course-certification process by collecting expanded 24

course outlines, so that there’s a level of detail, an 25



104

hourly description, and budgets. 1

It’s hard to believe that you’re actually capturing 2

quality training on a piece of paper. You have to sit in 3

a course to know whether or not it’s quality training. 4

So is what we’re collecting working for us, and is what 5

we’re collecting creating our conflict with the field in 6

terms of timeliness and consistency? 7

We had a lot of arguments. We had to adopt a 8

mascot, Hank, the horse, also known as “Hannibal” because 9

he wears a mask to keep him from biting other horses. 10

And there were a few of us who actually had to sit with 11

the mask to remind them not to bite anybody. It was 12

stinky. 13

Those kind of things are important, though, because 14

without dialogue, you don’t develop community or empathy 15

or understanding; and without dialogue, you don’t develop 16

common vision. 17

On the last day of the workshops, I gave everybody a 18

chance to talk about their process. And we got a lot of 19

very positive comments. Like, “I wish everybody could do 20

this.” “I finally understand why POST requires some of 21

the things that it does.” And one of the most telling 22

comments was one of the individuals said, “You know, I 23

felt like when we started, we were all these different 24

cars. We were little cars and we were buses and we were 25



105

18-wheelers; and we were all going at different speeds in 1

different directions; and it was chaos. And now I 2

finally feel like we’ve all merged on the freeway, we’re 3

heading in the right direction, together, the same speed, 4

and we know what we want to do.” And she is exactly 5

right, we’ve finally developed a common vision for what 6

we want from course certification, and we were able to 7

come up with some ideas. 8

Maria? 9

MS. SANDOVAL: One thing that I have to say before 10

I start, is that Janna -- this undertaking for Janna was 11

huge. And she went through a lot with us. It was like 12

herding cats. She had to deal with people who had their 13

own agendas and brought us all back on the same -- on the 14

same line every single time that we met. And I’m sure 15

that after every week, she was exhausted going home with 16

what she had to put together and deal with all of us. 17

But she is focused, she got us to this point; and I think 18

that what she has put together with everybody’s processes 19

in mind has culminated in this. 20

So some of the immediate changes that we did was, 21

as soon as Scott and I were promoted, I went to him 22

knowing that the Training Delivery and Compliance Bureau 23

was going to get an eleventh body. And so I went to 24

Scott; and I said, “Give me that person over in Basic 25



106

Training, and we will take the courses from you, from 1

Training Delivery and take them over to Basic Training, 2

develop that person. And like Manny said earlier, that 3

person is in backgrounds, get them up and running so that 4

everything that has to do with basic training belongs in 5

Basic Training. 6

So that was one of the immediate things that we were 7

able to do. Training Delivery is going to be relieved of 8

that huge task. 9

The other thing that I’m sure Commissioner Braziel 10

is going to be ecstatic about is, instructor resumés. 11

How many times have you had to fill out your own 12

resumé? 13

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Not quite as many as 14

Elmo Banning, but close. Many times. 15

MS. SANDOVAL: So what we’re doing is -- and this is 16

already in the works -- is hopefully by the fall, we’re 17

rolling out -- it’s almost like a depository for your 18

resumé. So once the resumé is in the system, if you’re 19

going to “New Presenter,” they can just download your 20

resumé instead of having you recreate it and rebuild it 21

time after time and time again. 22

We’re also looking at if you have another course to 23

add to your resumé, it’s automatically uploaded into that 24

database, so you don’t have to go back in there and 25



107

manipulate it. 1

And then also the training. We’re trying to train 2

all California -- or all of the consultants in Training 3

Delivery to be on the same page. What we’re looking for, 4

putting together some -- the training manuals so that 5

we all know what we’re doing; and it’s going to be 6

consistent statewide. 7

MS. MUNK: And we have Toby Darden coming next week 8

to give us some training on liability and our safety 9

guidelines. 10

So thank you, Toby. 11

MR. DARDEN: You’re welcome. 12

MS. MUNK: Thank you, Maria. 13

MS. SANDOVAL: Certainly, Janna. 14

MS. MUNK: Okay, here’s the exciting part. 15

What are our new products? What do we have going? 16

We would like to pilot, from July to December of 2017, 17

new budget guidelines. And instead of one certification 18

type, we’d like to break it down into two. 19

The current budget guidelines are the $100 trigger. 20

If an agency or presenter wants to charge more than $100 21

in tuition, they have to do a budget. The regional 22

consultant is responsible for reviewing and approving it. 23

Now, the $100 is regardless of whether it’s a day 24

course or it’s a 40-hour course or a two-week course; 25



108

and we collect it whether or not we have any skin in the 1

game, so to speak. 2

POST may not have any financial consideration in it; 3

but regardless, we still want them to submit a budget. 4

We don’t audit it, we don’t do any checks; we just ask 5

them to submit a budget. 6

What we’re proposing is that, as we move forward, we 7

have our budget requirements based on when we have most 8

control. When is POST contributing in some way 9

financially? 10

Plan n/a’s, we don’t contribute at all. So why are 11

we requiring a budget from people? 12

Plan IVs, we will requirement a budget when the 13

tuition exceeds $125 a day. Not $125 a course. $125 a 14

day. 15

How do we come to this amount? Well, basically 16

under discussion, it seemed unfair to have a straight 17

number, because courses vary so widely, from four hours 18

to 80 hours. And so we decided, all right, we’ll do 19

daily. And then I took a look at what we’re already 20

approving for Plan III’s and V’s, and ran costs across -- 21

like what they cost per day, and found that about 22

65 percent of them were captured at $125 per day. If we 23

apply that to our Plan IV’s, then potentially we could 24

eliminate doing 65 percent of the budgets we might have 25



109

been capturing previously. 1

It’s a more contemporary cost. The private sector 2

still makes in excess of that; but we feel it’s a fairer 3

amount. 4

Now, in terms of a regional consultant reviewing and 5

approving, they haven’t had a lot of training to review 6

and approve their budgets. And so we’re talking about 7

following a model that we do in Training Program 8

Services. We have an administrative staff person, Brenda 9

Lusk; and she does all of our contracts for us. She’s 10

trained to do the contracts. She has rubrics on 11

instructor payments. She knows what DGS will accept and 12

not accept. And so we have a great deal of consistency 13

and experience behind the contracts that are produced out 14

of TPS. 15

So the proposal is to train one or two people from 16

Training Delivery and Compliance to review and approve 17

the budgets instead of the regional consultants. 18

Course certification splits into two levels: 19

Certification I would lend itself towards ease and 20

speed of certification. 21

Course Certification II would lend itself to a 22

potentially higher level of training. 23

Certification I would require an expanded course 24

outline to the second level. No hourly distribution, and 25



110

allows for courses potentially not previously certified. 1

Courses that may qualify for a certification I would be 2

conferences. Instead of handling every presentation in 3

a conference as a course, we handle the conference as if 4

it is a course, and each presentation there would be part 5

of that course. 6

“One and done” which we’ve refused in the past, and 7

agency-specific courses. Minimum requirements would be a 8

training-needs assessment, a narrative course and scope, 9

expanded course outline to a minimum of a second level. 10

The agency may produce more if they like. Instructor 11

resumés and a budget if Plan IV, and exceeds $125 a day. 12

So this is something that we’re hoping would really 13

make our stakeholders a lot more satisfied with what -- 14

and meet their needs, be a little bit more flexible than 15

what we’ve been in the past. 16

Now, Certification II is where we’re going to try to 17

urge people to a higher level of training. All courses 18

qualify for a Certification II, and a Cert I course may 19

become a Certification II course if the agency presenter 20

decides they want to do that. The courses that are 21

required to be a Certification II are Plan III’s and V’s, 22

perishable skills, legislative mandates, and POST 23

templates. 24

Minimum requirements would be a training-needs 25



111

assessment, a narrative description of the course and 1

scope, minimum topics, which is especially important when 2

we’re dealing with legislative mandates. It ensures that 3

we’re meeting all the criteria of the legislative 4

mandate; learning objectives; and at least for a while, 5

we would accept expanded course outlines to the third 6

level. The reason being, this will be one of our biggest 7

challenges. We need time to train the field, we need 8

time to train our regional consultants, and we need time 9

to develop a support process to enable people to do good 10

learning objectives. 11

Learning activities, assessment tool activity, 12

instructor resumés, budget as required per the new 13

guidelines, and hourly distribution only when minimum 14

hours are mandated. 15

Are you in shock? 16

It’s so quiet. 17

We’re proposing to pilot this from July 2017 to 18

December of 2017. We want to pilot both Certification I 19

and II and the budget guidelines. 20

As a request for a certification would come in, we 21

would ask an agency, “Would you like to participate in 22

our pilot?” It would be voluntary on their part, and all 23

we would ask is that they will fill out a feedback survey 24

that would allow them to rate the process. 25



112

We can produce an assessment of this pilot by using 1

the feedback surveys, collecting metrics. We have the 2

ability to measure the times and how long it takes, how 3

many courses we actually produce and how long it takes. 4

And we can review all of the new courses for content: 5

Are we achieving what we want to with these new courses? 6

In the meantime, what we’d like to do is track our 7

regulation changes that would be required for what 8

we feel would be positive changes. That way, at the 9

February Commission meeting of 2018, we can come in and 10

update you on how the pilot went and make the regulation 11

change proposal simultaneously. 12

If the Commission agrees with us, they can approve 13

the regulation changes; and if we’re lucky, we will get 14

them through and completed by June of 2018. So we’ve 15

established a time-line. 16

Now, we’re requesting a pilot because we know that 17

we’re going to hit bumps in the road. All we can do is 18

make an informed proposal on what we’d like to change, 19

and then experiment with it with the field, and base it 20

on true metrics and feedback as to whether or not we have 21

a success. 22

Do you have any questions? 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, Commissioner Braziel? 24

MS. MUNK: Please. 25



113


Braziel. A couple things, if I may. 2

First, I’d like to recommend maybe you push the 3

pilot to June of ‘18, given that if we stop the pilot in 4

December, we come back and talk about it in February, and 5

then we get lost with the people who liked it but then we 6

didn’t get feedback, if that makes sense. 7

MS. MUNK: Okay. 8

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Because if you start 9

something, and people really like it, and then we take it 10

away from them because there hasn’t been any formal 11

decision yet, and then our pilot… 12

Does that make sense? 13

MS. MUNK: Absolutely. So continue the pilot even 14

as we do the update and make the regulation changes -- 15

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Correct, until we 16

can make the regulation changes -- 17

MS. MUNK: -- so we don’t take it away from them. 18

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: -- consider it a 19

pilot until we make it official. 20

MS. MUNK: That’s a great suggestion. 21

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Otherwise, we stop 22

if it makes -- then we weren’t teasing a good thing, and 23

then taking it away from them. 24

MS. MUNK: Yes. Yes, absolutely a great suggestion. 25



114

Thank you. 1

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: And then a couple 2

things came up yesterday in the Advisory Committee 3

meeting, I think that need to continue to be addressed 4

with this, as we start to look at our stakeholders, our 5

customers. One of them is -- and you may know the answer 6

now or you may not -- is we talked about when an agency 7

wants either to have a new course or their course is 8

deemed to no longer be in compliance, we tell them they 9

have to redo it -- we’re decertifying, redo it. And then 10

when the agency asks, “Hey, is there an agency out there? 11

I can take their course and put it here,” they’re told 12

no, because we treat it like intellectual property. But 13

when, in fact, when it’s public records. 14

My first question is, do we know why we do it that 15

way? 16

MS. MUNK: Well, let me -- that’s almost a hundred 17

percent right. There’s a little caveat there. 18

If we were asked for exemplars of other agencies’ 19

courses, we don’t normally just hand them over. We 20

either have permission from the agency to give them or 21

have the agency requesting it ask for permission. 22

If they want to use it, we will absolutely certify 23

it. We don’t reuse them if they have permission to use 24

it. We’ll certify it. We don’t refuse that. 25



115

MS. SANDOVAL: But you’re asking not to reinvent the 1

wheel? 2

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Correct. Because if 3

Agency A says, “Hey, can I look at someone else’s model?” 4

then we have to wait to talk to Agency B, and they say 5

no, then the final is sort of a PRA to get a copy of it 6

and then get it. 7

It doesn’t make sense to me that we, as the holder 8

of the certs -- we’ve approved the cert, we own it, it’s 9

ours, it’s POST’s. It no longer belongs to that agency 10

because we’ve approved it, from our perspective. 11

My thought is, don’t reinvent the wheel if it’s 12

working. Give it another agency. Let them change it if 13

they want to or need to. But just facilitate the 14

process; not just for speed, but for efficiency. 15

MS. MUNK: Absolutely. 16

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: And then we would 17

also know in POST, your staffs would know, that agency 18

there is really rocking it, they’ve really got a great 19

curriculum. That’s the one we really want to push out, 20

if somebody asks. 21

Just to help facilitate the process that we’re being 22

more consistent in that way. 23

MS. SANDOVAL: Once step further, though, I would 24

have to ask the question of, if I’m a private presenter 25



116

and I have my own course certified by POST; and somebody 1

else, in another part of the state, wants to use that 2

intellectual property, is it the same premise? I mean, 3

are we going to have to share that information? 4

And I’m not quite sure that private presenters are 5

going to want to do that; and I’m not quite sure where 6

we would stand on that as far as being able to give out 7

that information. 8

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Yes. And we’d have 9

to turn to Toby and say that we own it. And if I’m a 10

private citizen, I want a copy of -- say, I would like 11

to see your training curriculum for that class, am I 12

entitled to it? 13

MS. SANDOVAL: Right. 14

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: To me, that’s the 15

answer. If you have to give it to the public, we should 16

give it to another agency. 17

MS. MUNK: What I would like to share with you is, 18

we did have that discussion during the workshops. And 19

it would be nice for us to have a library of courses that 20

had been certified, so people could kind of grab and go 21

what they wanted, as well as more POST templates. 22

Because they love the POST templates. They download them 23

and certify them all the time. 24

The one thing that did come up -- and everyone said, 25



117

“Hey, we already share our certifications amongst 1

ourselves. We don’t have an issue with sharing them. 2

We don’t want to share them with private presenters, 3

though, because we don’t want them to make money off of 4

our courses.” 5

So I think, more importantly, out of respect for 6

private presenters, I understand their standing; but I 7

understand us not wanting to roll something over and have 8

them make funds off of it. 9

So I think that’s a great point. I think it’s not 10

a closed book on that. We’re still exploring it. And 11

I think we have to ask ourselves some hard questions and 12

maybe make some hard decisions in terms of, hey, once 13

it’s ours, it’s ours; and we’re going to share it. 14

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Let me ask Toby a 15

question. 16

If someone were to do a public records request for 17

any of these courses, would they get them? 18

MR. DARDEN: Well, now, I haven’t been asked to look 19

at this yet. So it would be difficult for me to give you 20

the best advice at the moment. 21

What you were talking about, though, Commissioner 22

Braziel, did cause me some concern. And what I’d like 23

to do is to talk to you and to staff off the record, and 24

then I can research the issue a little bit more closely 25



118

and come to a better reasoned conclusion. 1

One of my concerns is that there are -- there have 2

been some litigation matters that have to do with the 3

question of whether, you know, these courses belong to 4

the presenters, whether they belong to POST, what the 5

ability of the presenters or the instructors to take 6

these for their own use, and take them to other states or 7

to use them for their own personal profit. 8

And so I don’t feel comfortable giving you legal 9

advice on it yet; but it’s something that I think is 10

important, and that I do want to talk to you more and do 11

some research, and then I can come back to you with an 12

opinion. 13

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Perfect. 14

And I totally assume that would happen, that we’d 15

have to look at it and analyze it and see. Because it 16

goes back to DiMiceli and why did we do it -- how did we 17

get to where we are. It helps us decide where we’re 18

going in the future. 19

The second point I’d like to make -- or just a 20

request for information, or when you have a conversation 21

about it is, one of the things when you look at what’s 22

our mission is high-quality, cost-effective training. 23

And I think sometimes we value -- we make the 24

determination versus the consumer making the 25



119

determination on that. And it came up yesterday as -- 1

and I didn’t realize this until yesterday -- at the 2

Advisory board meeting, that when you get a certification 3

in one part of the state, you can’t go do that in another 4

part of -- the same class in another part of the state. 5

Was that an accurate understanding? So if I’ve been 6

certified to teach class in Northern California, and now 7

I get a request from someone in Southern California to 8

teach that same class, I then have to get it recerted in 9

Southern California, or get permission to give it in 10

Southern California? 11

I was confused on all of that. 12

MS. MUNK: The way it works -- yes. The way it 13

works now, is we certify it to, with a location attached 14

to it. So -- and normally, so you have to have a 15

certified presenter come in and say, “Hey, I want to 16

certify this course.” So what has happened is, you might 17

have a private presenter who can become a certified 18

private presenter. But when they certify their courses, 19

they have to identify a location. Because we want to 20

control where they’re doing the courses. So we don’t 21

shut down courses that may be in existence in an area 22

that officers need to do their duties, which we’ve had 23

that happen in one circumstance in our history. 24

So we ask them, “Hey, if you’re going to teach 25



120

somewhere else, you have to throw your course into 1

modification, if you’re somebody who is mobile like a 2

private presenter, and give us a location where we’re 3

going to go.” And then the regional consultant who has 4

that location, will make the approval on that. 5

Now, in terms of, if it’s an agency -- so a private 6

presenter may go to an agency or an instructor may go to 7

an agency and certify it with that agency, we’ll certify 8

to that agency. So it’s not certified to move around the 9

state. They may ask the agency -- another agency may 10

request them to present it in Southern California. So 11

then we would certify it to that second agency in 12

Southern California, because it’s not certified to the 13

presenter. So it’s like this game -- the instructors 14

are kind of moving around from agency to agency, as 15

opposed to carrying their own certification as a private 16

presenter. 17

Does that help? Does that clarify the question? 18

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I think -- we understand 19

that. The question is, why? 20

MS. MUNK: So the original -- my understanding is, 21

the original intention was that there are certainly areas 22

that there is not a lot of training available, and 23

there’s specific training available. And what’s most 24

important for POST, is that we ensure officers have 25



121

training available that allows them to do their job. 1

Now, we could potentially open up, say, four 2

Starbucks at an intersection -- if you want to liken it 3

to a commercial business -- and it dilutes the business 4

down so far, that you put maybe some of the original 5

coffee shops or Starbucks out of business. 6

We have had that happen one time, that I’m aware of, 7

where they shut down -- they opened up too many 832 PC 8

courses in an area and it shut down the presenters that 9

were already there, and we had to bring them back up 10

again. So that has been my understanding of why. 11

And maybe Maria can elaborate on that because she 12

has more history with it than I do. 13

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Maybe I’m misunderstanding 14

it. Let me ask, so Commissioner Braziel teaches a class 15

in Northern California -- teaches the exact same class, 16

with the exact same faculty in Southern California. So 17

explain to us why we have to have it recertified. 18

MS. SANDOVAL: You don’t have to have it 19

recertified; just has to have permission to travel to 20

locations. Because a lot of our presenters are regional 21

training centers; and therefore, we have built them out 22

to maintain training for a certain region. 23

If you start sending people in there, then it starts 24

diluting, like Janna was saying, their pool of people; 25



122

and then these individuals, “Well, okay, why are you 1

allowing this person to come in? You want us to have 2

this training.” 3

So it depends on what the training is and where 4

they’re going. 5

And what would happen to me is, if one of my private 6

presenters wanted to travel down south, I would get ahold 7

of the consultant down in the south area and say, “Can 8

this person come?” to make sure there’s not another 9

presenter down there that they would be stepping on their 10

toes. And they would get a hold of basically the person 11

who was requesting the training and find out what their 12

need was. Because we want to make sure there’s a need. 13

And then they would let me know; then we would go ahead 14

and approve it. 15

So if it’s just a location change, it’s very 16

low key, it’s not a big deal. But it’s saturation of 17

areas. And we want to make sure that if I have a course 18

down in Southern California that I’m working on and 19

somebody from Northern California comes down there, 20

that’s really not, quote, unquote, fair. It can be 21

changed as far as us revisiting that. 22

I think that Elmo brought that up yesterday in the 23

Advisory Committee, is that if I have a better course 24

and I’m taking it down south where there’s not such a 25



123

good course, well, I kind of need to know that as a POST 1

person, because I don’t want really bad training being 2

put out there. 3

So I don’t know. It’s different for private 4

presenters because most agency-based training doesn’t 5

migrate north or south, it stays where it is. 6

And I think that it would be hard pressed to find 7

any private presenter nowadays who could actually -- we 8

have so many good California cops, so they could probably 9

provide their own training even better than a private 10

presenter because they’ve been out of the game for a 11

while. But then again, there could be very specific 12

training. 13

So we need to kind of keep track on where these 14

people are going so they don’t step into somebody else’s 15

territory. And that’s been the history of it. 16

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Commissioner Braziel? 17

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Yes, it goes back to 18

facilitators versus regulators. And, you know, if you 19

put four Starbucks on a corner and one goes out of 20

business, then the supply wasn’t there -- the demand 21

wasn’t there. Supply exceeded demand. 22

And I think right now, all we’re hearing is our 23

supply is not meeting our demand. And so if someone 24

wants to take a course from one area and move it into 25



124

another, if people show up, that means there’s a demand. 1

If people don’t show up, there’s no demand and they’re 2

out. 3

So I think maybe we need to rethink our model of -- 4

because one of the things we’ve been talking about now 5

for several commission meetings is, how do we push more 6

training out to more locations, versus having people 7

travel to a single location. 8

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Absolutely. 9

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: So how to push that 10

out. So I think we need to look at that from that 11

perspective. 12

Because it’s all one big system. And you guys 13

have done a phenomenal job with this, by the way. But 14

it likens back to every time I go do -- I’ll use 15

San Bernardino as an example, because it’s a great 16

example of just great response to a terrorist event; but 17

every time I have to go do it, I’ve got to -- a different 18

group brings me in, I’ve got a new resumé -- thank you 19

very much -- because I have to fill out a new resumé -- 20

the same, exact course outlined. I just take “CSSA” off 21

and put “CPOA,” or whatever agency who wants to do it, 22

versus it’s certified. Whoever wants me to come in 23

shouldn’t have to recertify it or get permission, it’s 24

already out there; and they’re requesting it come down. 25



125

So I think we need to change our business model that 1

if we can put four Starbucks on a corner, we put four 2

Starbucks on a corner, instead of saying, “Oh, we might 3

put one of them out of business.” I think we need to 4

change that mindset and put more stuff out in the field. 5

And I think that improves our agility as well to get 6

contemporaneous -- or contemporary topics out there 7

faster, one, the course-certification process changes 8

that puts it out there faster. But, two, also being able 9

to flood a market in a need, we need to flood a market 10

with different trainings to accomplish what we need to 11

accomplish very quickly. 12

Kind of, like, it goes back to the Procedural 13

Justice. You know, if we push it out to a thousand 14

different venues, in a thousand different ways of 15

training and all met our needs, we might be able to train 16

a lot more people faster. 17

So I think just looking at our model as we go along 18

with this, these are great steps, by the way. I mean, 19

this is phenomenal that we’re doing this. But I think 20

we also can look at a bigger picture, as well as there 21

are other things out there that are kind of slowing us 22

down. 23

And it goes back to that mission, quality training. 24

MS. SANDOVAL: Sure. And I think that we would 25



126

need to bring in other stakeholders, like the regional 1

training centers, to find out if that would negatively 2

impact them as an entity. 3

So I think there’s a lot more that we would need to 4

look into at this point. 5

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Ms. Chair? 6

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, Commissioner Doyle? 7

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Doyle. I don’t know how often 8

that would happen. But if the customer is me, so what’s 9

the problem with me knowing about the provider that’s in 10

Southern California that I want to bring to my agency? 11

And so it would seem to me that we should be encouraging 12

that to satisfy the customer. And again, I don’t know 13

how often this oversaturation occurs; but I agree that 14

we need to look at that. 15

MS. MUNK: I believe that in terms of our POST 16

culture, it’s just a very far step away from what we 17

have been trying to preserve in the past, in looking at 18

basically a free-market economy; right? So let the best 19

product win. You know, let the competitive business 20

drive up the quality of the training that’s available. 21

Let the market set its own rates. You know, take some 22

of the stranglehold we have off of the dollar bills 23

that we’re setting out there and thinking that it’s 24

cost-effective. And it’s just a really big step for 25



127

our culture to take. And we’re starting with these -- 1

just the changes in budgets, with looking at different 2

metrics and models, with looking at different staffing 3

levels, we are starting down that road, but it’s going to 4

be -- organizational change is challenging, and it’s 5

going to take us some time. And your comments are very 6

well taken. 7

It’s not a -- it’s definitely not a closed 8

discussion. 9

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: No. And I think that’s 10

responsible, because there may be things that need to 11

be changed and other things that on closer examination 12

are relevant and need to stay the same. 13

MS. MUNK: Absolutely. I agree. 14

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And I hear your concern, 15

because if Commissioner Braziel is putting on a class, 16

they’ll say, “Gee, we’d really like Commissioner 17

Braziel,” and then all of a sudden the person who was 18

teaching in some area isn’t teaching the class or he 19

isn’t being used, and the RTC there really needs to make 20

sure their class is getting out or does still exist. 21

So yours concern is putting the businesses out. And 22

we want to be sure that the best class is there and 23

that’s your concern as well. So it’s a balance; and we 24

get it. 25



128

MS. MUNK: Thank you. 1

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Commissioner Braziel, 2

anything else on that? 3

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Nope. 4

That was a filibuster. I’m good. 5

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Anything else on that 6

issue? 7

(No response) 8

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And did you want to add 9

anything else? 10

(No response) 11

MS. SANDOVAL: Thank you for your time. 12

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Thank you. 13


Did the Advisory Committee have a discussion on this 15

item? 16

ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR BLANCO: We actually did. 17

We had some very lively dialogue on this item, as it’s 18

been brought up; and we brought up quite a few things 19

about Member Banning and his desires to move classes 20

around, as it’s been discussed today. 21

In concept, the Advisory Committee was very 22

supportive of the change and moving forward in this 23

direction; but just as it’s been brought up in this 24

meeting, there’s obviously other areas that we need to 25



129

look at. But overall, we felt that this was a great 1

stride in making all those other things happen down the 2

line. And we’re very supportive of it. 3


Any further discussion on this issue? 5

(No response) 6

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, I’ll take a motion. 7

All in favor? 8


MR. DARDEN: We should have a motion on the table 10

first to approve. 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Oh, that’s true. 12

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: I’ll move the item. 13

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Doyle. Second. 14


MR. DARDEN: And, Commissioner Braziel, did you also 16

have a proposed modification to the pilot dates? 17

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Yes. 18

MR. DARDEN: Did you want to include that as part of 19

the motion? 20

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: I’m sorry, I should 21

have put that in the motion. I propose we move the pilot 22

date out to -- it would be June of ’18, end of June of 23

‘18. 24

MR. DARDEN: Okay, and that motion has been moved 25



130

and seconded? 1

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yes, it has. 2

MR. DARDEN: By Doyle. 3


We’ve discussed it, moved. 5

Okay, and the motion passes -- both motions pass. 6

MR. DARDEN: All in favor? 7




(No response) 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, that motion passes. 12

It’s now five to 12:00. So we’ll take a five-minute 13

break and coming back at 12:00; and the aim is still to 14

get out at 1:30. 15

(Recess from 11:55 a.m. to 12:01 p.m.) 16

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: We need to go back for a 17

moment because someone forgot to ask for a vote on E. 18

I’m sure that was me. 19

So we need to take up issue Number E, which was 20

the -- 21

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: So moved. Doyle. 22


COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Second. Leichliter. 24

MS. PAOLI: We already had a motion and a second. 25



131

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: But what we didn’t have 1

was the question. 2

All in favor? 3



And apparently we did have the “All opposed.” 6

MR. DARDEN: You did have “All opposed.” 7

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: So we’re all set. 8

MR. DARDEN: You’re all set. 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Wonderful. 10

Okay, next, we will hear an appeal regarding POST 11

Regulations 1008 and 1011. 12

POST Counsel, Mr. William Darden, will now provide 13

direction on how the appeal will be heard. 14

MR. DARDEN: All right, so we’ve all become familiar 15

with the hearing process, as I know counsel has done one 16

of these before, so I don’t have to recite the Commission 17

appeal procedure. 18

We do have at least one new commissioner, so I’ll 19

briefly go over the process. 20

The appeals of situations like this, the Commission 21

is permitted to go forward under Commission Procedure 22

D-16(1), under the appeals process. Just to summarize, 23

it’s a relatively informal procedure. 24

The burden of proof is on the appellant to 25



132

demonstrate to the Commission that error was committed 1

by POST staff. 2

The appellant presents their appeal first, followed 3

by a presentation by POST staff. 4

The appellant’s representative is permitted to 5

reserve time to use in rebuttal if they wish to do so. 6

Staff is permitted to do that as well. 7

Each side has a maximum of 30 minutes. They can ask 8

for more if they need it. They don’t have to take 9

30 minutes; but the expected time is 30 minutes per side 10

for the presentation. 11

The formal rules of evidence don’t apply at the 12

proceeding. 13

The Commission normally considers the parties’ 14

submissions, and ascribe to these submissions the weight 15

that they believe the submissions are entitled to. 16

So there is no need to formally stipulate to the 17

introduction of evidence or formally move items into 18

evidence. But this is the opportunity for staff and for 19

the appellant to explain to the Commission, summarize 20

their arguments, summarize their relief that they are 21

requesting, and the reasons for the relief. 22

There was some new documentation, although the 23

Commission’s rules do request that items be delivered at 24

least 20 days -- business days -- prior to the hearing. 25



133

That’s so the documents can be included in the binders 1

for the commissioners; and the commissioners will have 2

time in advance of the hearing to consider them. 3

However, the Commission’s rules do allow submissions 4

of additional items, even at the hearing. 5

Today, the supplemental documents that were received 6

by POST staff about 6:00 p.m. yesterday, included a memo 7

dated June 15th from a Michael Smith, a lieutenant; a 8

letter from Mr. Gary Van Camp about Mr. McCullough; a 9

copy of People v. -- Superior Court -- Ortiz, a 10

California Court of Appeal case. And a copy of an 11

Attorney General Opinion, 8 Ops Cal. Atty. Gen. 293. 12

Those items have been delivered to the commissioners as 13

of this morning. 14

With that, would you like to reserve any time to use 15

in rebuttal? 16

MS. LITTLE: Yes, approximately ten minutes or so. 17

MR. DARDEN: Ten minutes? 18

Connie, would you keep track of the time; and when 19

she is at the 20-minute mark, if you would let her know? 20

MS. PAOLI: Yes. 21

MR. DARDEN: Scott, would you like to reserve time 22

in rebuttal? 23

MR. LOGGINS: Yes, sir. 24

MR. DARDEN: Okay, how much time would you like to 25



134

reserve? 1

MR. LOGGINS: I think ten minutes is sufficient for 2

rebuttal. 3

MR. DARDEN: All right. So, Connie, if you would 4

keep track of about the 20-minute mark for each of the 5

parties and let them know when their at it, so we can 6

keep track of 30 minutes. 7

With that, the appeal can proceed. 8

MS. LITTLE: Thank you very much. 9

My name is Attorney Danielle K. Little; and I’m with 10

the law firm of Estelle & Kennedy. We’re located in 11

Upland, California. And this is my client, Detective 12

Terence McCullough. He is employed by the California 13

Department of State Hospitals, the Office of Protective 14

Services, based out in Napa. 15

Just as a couple of procedural points, in his 16

declaration that he submitted -- and I don’t know if it 17

is possible -- it would be your Exhibit T, his 18

declaration -- is it possible to put on the screen 19

Exhibit T, page 2? And that would be a list of his 20

courses that he’s taken over the course his career. 21

And in addition, his declaration also indicated that 22

the letter that he sent to POST, where he requested the 23

POST Basic Certificate and the waiver under Penal Code 24

section 832.4, would be provided. However, I know POST 25



135

has received it because they’ve responded to it. But we 1

haven’t had -- we didn’t have a full copy of it before it 2

was sent out. So I would respectfully request that we 3

be able to either speak with Director Loggins to see if 4

he was able to recreate that and send a copy and submit 5

that for your consideration and review. 6

So this particular case is really interesting 7

because I think it involves a really interesting issue of 8

law. And the constitutional issues that it raises, raise 9

both equal-protection concerns and both due-process 10

concerns. And specifically, the equal-protection 11

concerns are: How does POST treat its peace officers if 12

they are in certain agencies? 13

And in this situation, Terence McCullough has 14

requested a waiver, because he works for a particular 15

agency that is considered a non-POST participating 16

agency. And he requested that waiver, and it was denied 17

by POST. And that is basically the subject of this 18

appeal. 19

Now, under the POST guidelines, peace officers have 20

to complete a requalification within six years of taking 21

their RBC. If they don’t, they have to take a full Basic 22

Course. But the issue in this particular case is, is the 23

six-year mark considered arbitrary or capricious? 24

Because in this situation, as POST concedes, if this 25



136

appeal is approved, Mr. McCullough will get a POST-based 1

certificate after eight years for work in an agency where 2

POST, at this time, is contending that there is no 3

oversight. 4

So the issue is, someone who has been a peace 5

officer since 2012, should he be denied a POST Basic 6

Certificate if he is beyond that two-year mark? And what 7

really is the reason for having that six-year mark? 8

Well, we know that POST actually established that 9

six-year mark in 1999 because instructors were finding 10

that peace officers who were going for training basically 11

were not up to par; that they were concerned about there 12

being a problem with stale learning. And there is a good 13

reason to say that we want to make sure that we don’t say 14

that you cannot be a peace officer out for 20 years or 15

30 years; that we want to make sure that you are up to 16

par in terms of your training. So they do have these 17

restrictions. 18

But here, that’s not the case. As you can see -- 19

and that’s why I wanted this to go on the board -- you 20

have a situation where you have a peace officer who has 21

actually worked for a peace officer -- or an agency, the 22

Department of State Health; and you can see that over 23

the course of the years, he’s taken courses which have 24

developed his skill-sets. So this isn’t a situation, 25



137

for instance, where this was a peace officer who obtained 1

an RBC and was unable to find employment which, given the 2

recession, we all know might have been a possibility. 3

This is a peace officer who has actually worked in an 4

agency, who performs the same duties as other peace 5

officers -- for county departments, local police 6

departments. He has taken diverse training, even outside 7

the particular areas of the mental-health system; and 8

now, he wants to be able to have the same rights as 9

those officers who would be in a local agency or a deputy 10

sheriff’s agency. 11

POST has a concern that it can’t -- or one of the 12

contentions is that it can’t independently verify his 13

employment status because DSH is a non-POST-participating 14

agency. And, again, this raises the issue about whether 15

or not that contention is considered arbitrary or 16

capricious. 17

If you have someone, for instance, who is in a 18

so-called non-participating agency, such as the State 19

Department of Health, all you would need to do, if that 20

person says, “I would like to get a POST Basic 21

Certificate,” is say, “Fine. Sign a release. Allow us 22

to speak to every person in your agency if we feel it 23

necessary; and we can confirm for ourselves what you’ve 24

done over the course of your employment, what your 25



138

discipline history, if anything, has been over the course 1

of that time.” 2

So I think that that concern that there is no way 3

to independently verify is not the case. And, again, as 4

you can see there, POST actually has access to all of the 5

courses that someone, such as Detective McCullough, has 6

taken over this period of time. 7

Another issue that arises, which also raises this 8

equal-protection claim, would be actually Exhibit E. 9

And this is when Bureau Chief Rodriguez explained why 10

Detective McCullough was ineligible. And one of the 11

arguments was that he is ineligible because the waiver 12

concerns out-of-state -- or out-of-state persons who want 13

to transfer into California. 14

And I think that actually is an interesting -- 15

raises an interesting issue because you can imagine a 16

situation, for instance, where you have an applicant 17

who is in a state, for instance, that doesn’t have the 18

stringent standards that California has. And I’m 19

thinking of some of our smaller states there. That 20

particular applicant has a vehicle to come to California 21

and get benefits that someone who has been a peace 22

officer, such as Terence McCullough, for years, does not 23

have. 24

So basically, you would allow an out-of-state person 25



139

to get more rights as opposed to someone who has worked 1

for an agency, who knows the California state laws. He 2

has testified -- and you can look at his declaration -- 3

he’s actually secured, I believe it’s over 50 years of 4

convictions. He’s testified before court. He has a 5

letter of recommendation. That’s one of the recent 6

exhibits that we submitted to you yesterday from a Deputy 7

District Attorney in Napa. 8

So that person, that’s from out of state, would have 9

a benefit that Terence McCullough would not have. 10

Another concern regarding whether or not 11

Mr. McCullough has ever worked in a participating agency, 12

I think it loses sight of the fact that he has worked at 13

all times as a peace officer. So one of the issues is 14

that everyone recognizes that it’s very difficult to 15

secure employment as a peace officer, especially during 16

the economic downturn that occurred. And so POST’s 17

position generally has been, “Well, we can’t consider 18

that. We’re not responsible for the economic downturn.” 19

So, you know, that’s fair. But, again, rules don’t 20

exist in a vacuum. One of the things that we want to 21

consider is that when we’re applying statutes or rules, 22

we want to look in the real-life circumstances in which 23

they exist. But even if you consider that one has to 24

look at whether or not, legally, that it would be fair. 25



140

So here, Detective McCullough took an RBC course, 1

and he passed it. He also took the requalification 2

course, and he passed it. And, again, it’s not a 3

situation whereas if he was -- you know, took these 4

courses and never obtained a position as a peace officer. 5

That’s simply not the case here. He has continuously 6

worked as a peace officer, and he’s taken diverse 7

courses. He has over 1200 hours of such courses, and 8

he’s investigated crimes, he’s -- you know, regarding 9

theft, fraud, traffic, including murder. So there’s 10

really no significant difference between what he’s done 11

and someone else who would be at another local agency. 12

And I think one of the issues that concerns -- one of the 13

concerning issues here is that if you would look -- if 14

you have it -- the Attorney General opinion. There’s an 15

Attorney General opinion that dates back to 1997. And 16

that actually was an opinion in which POST asked, at that 17

time Attorney General Dan Lungren, “If a police officer 18

or a deputy sheriff fails to complete the training 19

prescribed by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards 20

and Training, or obtains the Basic Certificate issued by 21

the Commission, what powers may such an officer 22

exercise?” 23

And one of the things that Dan Lungren reported back 24

to POST, was that the requirements of sections 832.3 and 25



141

832.4 are not conditions of employment but, rather, are 1

limitations placed upon the peace-officer powers. Thus, 2

officers who fail to meet the requirements still may 3

maintain their status as peace officers, although their 4

powers would change. 5

It goes on to say, “Even though a police officer or 6

a deputy sheriff has not received training or obtained 7

the Basic Certificate, he or she would nevertheless be 8

considered designated as a peace officer.” 9

So I presented that to POST, to indicate that even 10

the Attorney General recognizes that it doesn’t 11

necessarily matter where you’re serving. If you are a 12

peace officer, you are a peace officer. And so to try 13

to distinguish between the two, to deny opportunities 14

for laterals or transfers, that, I think, is something 15

that would be fundamentally unfair. 16

In addition to the Attorney General Opinion, one of 17

the cases that I cited in the brief was People v. Ortiz. 18

And that was a case that had to do with a criminal 19

defendant who was being held by the Department of State 20

Hospitals; and she was convicted of possession of 21

methamphetamine. And one of her claims there was, “Well, 22

you can’t convict me of this because I’m in the state 23

mental hospital system. I’m not a prisoner.” 24

And the Court of Appeals said, “That doesn’t matter, 25



142

because you are subject to the custody and control, you 1

still have to follow the rules of peace officers.” And 2

it goes on -- and the Court went on to explain that 3

officers who do work for DSH are, indeed, peace officers. 4

So now you have the Attorney General recognizing 5

this, and not making any distinctions between whether or 6

not it’s a local police officer versus a police officer 7

that works for DSH, as well as the Court. 8

And so that is why I think there’s a really 9

interesting equal-protection argument here. You want to 10

make sure that you have good officers. You don’t want to 11

take an officer, such as Detective McCullough, who has 12

experience dating back to 2012, and then require him to 13

take a full academy course, as if he’s never stepped foot 14

into peace-officer service. 15

Now, DSH divides itself into an investigator 16

section, as well as a non-POST section. So if he -- 17

Terence McCullough doesn’t get the relief that we’re 18

requesting here, you’re going to have this odd scenario 19

where you have somebody who has worked as a peace 20

officer, who even if he wants to lateral over, he would 21

still conceivably have to take a full academy course, 22

which, in the grand scheme of things, I think really 23

makes little sense. It’s in the same agency. He 24

conducts the same work, as I’ve often said during this 25



143

presentation. 1

And one of the other documents that I presented to 2

you, was actually a letter from Lieutenant Smith. This 3

was a memorandum that he recently provided; and it’s 4

dated June 15th, 2017. And this is Lieutenant Michael 5

Smith. He is the supervising special investigator, 6

Department of State Hospitals, Napa, for special 7

investigations. And one of the things that he places in 8

this memo, or he discusses, are the particular duties of 9

officers that work there; and they include the 10

enforcement of policies and procedures of hospital policy 11

department, investigate crimes, and prepare written 12

reports on violations, such as murder, rape, assault, 13

burglary, theft, patient escapes, et cetera. They also 14

make arrests, and they also testify in court. They also 15

enforce the California Vehicle Code statutes and hospital 16

parking regulations. They monitor patient, staff, and 17

visitor driving activities on hospital grounds. 18

So now, you have somebody who actually does work 19

for a technical POST-participating subagency within 20

DSH that’s explaining that the duties are the same -- 21

essentially, the same. 22

Another concern that POST has raised is that 23

the duties of DSH are limited merely to the custodial 24

enforcement within a hospital grounds. However, I 25



144

respectfully submit that the AG Opinion indicates 1

otherwise, as well as the regulations under 830.1, that 2

speak of geography. 3

Detective McCullough and all police officers who 4

work for DSH, their authority is not just limited to the 5

particular hospital in which they work. Again, their 6

authority, by statute, extends throughout the state, just 7

like any other peace officer. 8

Certainly the expectation, certainly, is that their 9

primary focus is at the hospital. But just like an 10

Upland police officer’s expectation is that he is going 11

to serve that particular city, he also has duties that 12

extend beyond. And there really is no functional 13

distinction, and certainly not one, I think, that POST 14

has actually submitted to indicate that there is one. 15

And even POST’s own regulations indicate that part 16

of their goal is to ensure standards and training for 17

all police officers. On its own Web site, and in the 18

statutes which establish POST as a regulatory body, it 19

does not specify that we are only concerned about 20

standards and training for county sheriffs or local 21

police officers. It’s all peace officers. And once POST 22

established itself that way, it has to have a compelling 23

reason to differentiate between those peace officers. 24

And again, I submit to you, that none have been presented 25



145

thus far. 1

I’m going to conclude shortly; but I just want to 2

say that, in conclusion, there’s really no reason to 3

differentiate, given Detective McCullough’s experience. 4

He certainly deserves the opportunity to advance, just 5

like any other peace officer. 6

And on that, I actually would submit. 7

If the Commission has any questions for me or for 8

Detective McCullough, he’d be willing to speak and happy 9

to do so. 10

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: It doesn’t appear that 11

there are any questions at the moment. 12

MS. LITTLE: Okay, thank you. 13

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you so much. 14

And is there anything from POST staff? 15

MR. LOGGINS: Yes. 16


I think we’re going to have you get up because it’s a 18

one-mike system. 19

Thank you. 20

And not that it’s necessary, but I’ll remind you 21

that you have 30 minutes. And I believe you’ve asked for 22

10 to be held, so you have 20 minutes. 23

MR. LOGGINS: That is correct. 24

Well, good morning, Madam Chair; and good morning, 25



146

Commissioners. 1

Thank you, Ms. Little, for your presentation. 2

Thank you, Mr. McCullough, for coming to our 3

meeting. 4

Let me preface this with the fact that nobody 5

admires or has a greater appreciation for any law 6

enforcement, regardless of what badge they wear, who 7

pays their salary, or what geographic location they work 8

for. We’re all one brotherhood. Law enforcement is 9

universal, and it’s certainly a noble profession. 10

However, nevertheless, the law is very specific with 11

respect to peace-officer authority. 12

Specifically, to address some of Ms. Little’s 13

remarks earlier, I’d like to add some clarifying 14

documentation that we respectfully disagree. 15

Specifically, with respect to the characterization 16

that there is no functional distinction, I think during 17

the course of my remarks, you’ll see there’s a very 18

robust level, a cascade of evidence that shows there are 19

some significant functional distinctions. 20

With respect to the Ortiz case, a cursory look 21

through that shows that, in fact, yes, the Court 22

recognized that DSH are, in fact, peace officers. 23

There’s nothing in that that specifically says they are 24

the same as 830.1 officers or that they perform any 25



147

general law-enforcement officer functions, regardless of 1

that capacity as well. 2

She also mentioned the fact that per the statute, 3

had mentioned the fact that DSH officers have the ability 4

to enforce the law throughout the entire state of 5

California. That language applies to dozens and dozens 6

of categories of peace officers. As a matter of fact, 7

pursuant to the Penal Code, any private citizen can make 8

an arrest anywhere in the State of California. So 9

there’s nothing significant with that. 10

I would like to point out, with respect to the 11

Attorney General’s Opinion, I respectfully disagree with 12

her characterization. And if I can actually draw your 13

attention to a specific line in it. 14

On the first page, I think what she failed to 15

address is, that Opinion specifically addressed peace 16

officers who are under the conditions of 832.4; not those 17

who are not general law-enforcement officers. And you 18

can actually see here, in the analysis from the Attorney 19

General, it says, “We are here concerned with police 20

officers and deputy sheriffs who are required to complete 21

a comprehensive course of training as prescribed by POST. 22

Two statutes are the focus of this Opinion.” And I’ll 23

later go on into those specific statutes as well. 24

I’ll bifurcate my comments into two particular 25



148

categories. 1

The first has to do with his request for a waiver 2

of the six-year rule. This is exclusively a matter of 3

whether Mr. McCullough is qualified for the exemptions 4

he requests, whether POST has the authority to deviate 5

from law to afford him such extraordinary privilege. 6

Privileges that have approximately 90,000 current peace 7

officers in the POST program have had to earn by means of 8

satisfying training, employment mandates. Not through 9

appeals, not through grievances, not through 10

circumventing a process that has ensured California 11

POST standards are the highest in the nation. 12

This appeal, again, has two components with respect 13

to 1008 and 1011 of the regulations. 14

Regarding the six-year rule that’s codified in 1008, 15

Mr. McCullough is clearly ineligible for this waiver. 16

We do agree on June 13th of 2009, he successfully passed 17

the RBC, or Regular Basic Course. 18

Pursuant to Regulation 1008, graduates of the RBC 19

have a three-year window of opportunity to be appointed 20

as a peace officer. This regulation is commonly referred 21

to as the “three-year rule.” 22

There’s a corollary rule, known as the “six-year 23

rule,” that was created by this Commission and approved 24

by an agenda item -- and she correctly stated -- back in 25



149

January 21 of 1999. 1

That rule articulates that the student must be 2

appointed as a peace officer within the remaining 3

six-year time frame. If the graduate is not appointed to 4

a peace-officer position with qualifying service within 5

six years, they must successfully complete the 6

appropriate full Basic Course. 7

Pursuant to Regulation 1008, “qualifying service” 8

specifies characteristics that he has not provided. 9

Regulation 1008 specifically argues that “qualifying 10

service” is defined as serving in a California 11

peace-officer position for which a POST Regular Basic 12

Course or SIBC specialized course was required. Quite 13

simply, Mr. McCullough does not meet this criteria. 14

This rule was created back in the nineteen-nineties 15

when a committee of POST subject-matter experts 16

identified a variety of disciplines and identified 17

substantial areas to show that people who had been out 18

of law enforcement for a significant amount of time 19

became stale. Those conditions -- or those 20

qualifications they had and those skills became perished, 21

which we later established in the Perishable Skills 22

Program. 23

It was for this reason that this Commission created 24

that six-year exception, codified in Regulation 1008, 25



150

requiring that an individual who passed an RBC or 1

obtained a Basic Course waiver but had never served in 2

the capacity of a California peace officer, must be hired 3

within that six-year time frame, regardless of when they 4

took that Basic Course. This regulation was created 5

specifically to address individuals with Mr. McCullough’s 6

circumstances. 7

Mr. McCullough has made numerous attempts to 8

rationalize experience in an attempt to persuade POST 9

staff that his assignment is the functional equivalent 10

of the general law-enforcement officers throughout the 11

state of California. This is a classic apples-to-oranges 12

comparison. 13

The law is very clear. It’s very specific. The 14

position Mr. McCullough currently holds requires 15

completion of the PC 832 course, not the RBC. 16

This fact is validated not only in the job 17

description of his own employer and through the state of 18

California, but as created by the Legislature in the 19

California Penal Code. 20

As a state agency, POST cannot deviate from 21

that which is regulation -- and this is codified in the 22

Government Code. 23

What’s particularly interesting is that 24

Mr. McCullough was very well aware of this regulation. 25



151

Now, he’s attempting to circumvent the regulation to 1

obtain an exemption. 2

According to his documents, he was hired as a state 3

hospitals police officer on August 31 of 2012; yet within 4

a year, he put himself through a requalification course. 5

So this begs the question of why did he attend a 6

136-hour course unnecessarily if he truly believed he was 7

exempt from regulatory requirements. 8

He also argues that his inability to obtain 9

employment in a POST-participating agency is due to the 10

economy. POST regulation does not exempt individuals 11

based on hardships or sympathy; it’s simply a matter of 12

law. Simply put, it’s a matter of qualifications: If 13

you’re not qualified, you’re not qualified for the 14

position you seek. 15

With respect to the Basic Certificate, 16

Mr. McCullough -- as not only a matter of regulation, but 17

this is a matter of law, and it’s specifically addressed 18

in the Penal Code -- it’s abundantly clear that POST 19

staff neither have the regulatory nor the legal authority 20

to grant him his request. 21

The California Penal Code clearly establishes those 22

peace officers who are, in fact, eligible for a Basic 23

Certificate. 24

Penal Code 13510(a) provides that the Commission 25



152

shall establish a certificate program for three 1

categories of peace officers: Those who are specified 2

in 13510, 13522, and the California Highway Patrol. 3

The Penal Code also specifies that, quote, “Persons 4

who are determined by the Commission to be eligible 5

peace officers may make application for the certificates, 6

provided they are employed by an agency which 7

participates in the Peace Officer Standards and Training 8

program.” 9

By law, only persons employed at one of these three 10

above-mentioned categories may be issued a POST Basic 11

Certificate. Mr. McCullough is not one of these 12

categories. 13

Further analysis of these three categories provides 14

further illustration. 15

The first section, 13510, specifies several 16

subcategories of peace officers, including county 17

sheriffs, city police officers, county coroners, and 18

district police officers, as well as several others. 19

Mr. McCullough is not appointed under any of these 20

categories. Instead, he’s been appointed under 21

section PC 830.38. 22

The second subcategory is specified in 13522. It 23

mentions the above-mentioned officers as well as those 24

who are part of the CSU system, the University of 25



153

California system. Again, Mr. McCullough is not employed 1

in any of these capacities. 2

The third category specifies a member of the 3

California Highway Patrol. Once more, Mr. McCullough is 4

not appointed as a California Highway Patrol officer. 5

He’s referenced Penal Code 832.4 to support his 6

argument that he is required to have a POST Basic 7

Certificate to continue serving as a peace officer. He 8

is absolutely incorrect. That particular statute 9

references several categories of peace officers who must 10

obtain the Basic Certificate; and this is the same 11

statute that was mentioned in the aforementioned Attorney 12

General Opinion. 13

It says the following: “Any undersheriff or deputy 14

sheriff of a county, any police officer of a city, and 15

any police officer of a district is responsible for the 16

prevention and detection of crime and the general 17

enforcement of the criminal laws of this state shall 18

obtain the Basic Certificate.” 19

Mr. McCullough belongs to none of these categories. 20

His authority resides in 830.38 rather than 830.1, which 21

is required to be eligible for a Basic Certificate and, 22

therefore, he’s not required to have one. 23

His class of peace officer, like thousands of other 24

peace officers who are not in the program, like the 25



154

Department of Corrections, absolutely can serve in his 1

current capacity without a POST Basic Certificate. 2

In his appeal, Mr. McCullough attempts to persuade 3

POST that his appointment under Penal Code 830.38 and 4

his duties performed as a state hospital officer are the 5

functional equivalent of those appointed under 830.1 by 6

his misunderstanding of the text in the statute and by 7

creatively highlighting certain language and ignoring 8

clarifying placement of punctuation in the statute. 9

Nothing could be further from the truth. And in further 10

analysis, the law clearly reflects that his premise is 11

grossly inaccurate. 12

As I mentioned a moment ago, Penal Code 830.1 13

clearly articulates the specific authority of certain 14

peace officers. In fact, the Legislature is so specific 15

that it’s created dozens of peace-officer categories, 16

each with its unique Penal Code. Mr. McCullough is one 17

of those individuals. 18

Contrary to his appeal, officers of the California 19

state hospital system have comparatively limited 20

jurisdiction. In fact, within the Penal Code for which 21

they are appointed, the text includes very stringent, 22

limiting language that references other law. 23

In the Penal Code for which he has his authority, 24

it specifies that state hospital peace officers are cops 25



155

for the purpose of performing their primary duty, 1

provided that the primary duty of the peace officer shall 2

be in the enforcement of the law set forth in Welfare and 3

Institutions Codes 4311, 4313, 4491, and 4493. 4

These additional statutes are extremely instructive. 5

Sections 4311 and 4491 reference that he has the 6

authority of preserving the peace in the hospital 7

buildings and grounds. 8

4313 and 4493 specify that they have the ability to 9

enforce rules and regulations of a hospital, preserve 10

peace and order on the premises thereof. 11

Even Mr. McCullough’s employer acknowledges that 12

it is a unique specialty law-enforcement agency. The 13

official State of California job specifications state 14

that they are distinguished from other peace-officer 15

classes by being regularly required to perform law-16

enforcement duties in close proximity to mentally-ill 17

inmates. Their duties include maintaining law and order 18

on the grounds; patrolling and protecting hospital 19

buildings; checking for unauthorized movement of 20

patients; and monitoring patient and visitor activities. 21

None of these mirror or are the functional 22

equivalent of a conventional law-enforcement officer. 23

Further reinforcing this fact, a year ago POST staff 24

met with his boss, the chief of the state hospital 25



156

system, to assist them in training -- providing training 1

to develop their own agency-specific academy. At that 2

time, even he admitted that their mission is far 3

different than that of a general law-enforcement officer. 4

The only time -- and it’s very rare when people 5

under his class do have the same, exact authority as a 6

conventional peace officer -- are in two specific 7

conditions: Whenever a state of emergency is proclaimed 8

or whenever the nation is in a state of war. 9

Even further, our own regulation created by this 10

Commission mandates that, quote, “At the time of the 11

application, an applicant shall be employed as a 12

full-time peace officer by a POST-participating agency.” 13

Mr. McCullough is not a POST-participating peace 14

officer. And even further, that same regulation, 15

1011(a)(4)(C), requires that applicants for general or 16

specialized category certificates must possess basic 17

training that has not yet expired. 18

As of May 26th, an audit of the last 10 years 19

reveals 53,000 students have passed the RBC, 31,000 are 20

currently working at the POST agency. That means 11,000 21

of them are currently not working. This phenomenon could 22

be for a variety of reasons: They simply decided to 23

retire, get another position, or in Mr. McCullough’s 24

case, because of the economic reasons. 25



157

Philosophically, if POST were to allow an individual 1

who does not meet the regulatory requirements to get a 2

POST Basic Certificate, in theory, this Commission would 3

be required to provide thousands of former RBC graduates 4

who also didn’t meet those same mandates but sought other 5

employment with a POST certificate. If this were to 6

happen, the prestige of having a Basic Certificate would 7

be significantly diminished, and POST would turn into a 8

simple diploma mill. 9

Ms. Little provided a litany of court cases in the 10

appeal document, none of which appear to have a 11

significant bearing or nexus on the cases at hand. The 12

courses reference such things as possession of meth on a 13

hospital ground, defining “prisoner status” for an 14

inmate, clarifying Peace Officer Bill of Rights for 15

employees, a color-blind law-enforcement applicant, 16

whether or not the right to fish is constitutionally 17

protected, and whether or not Sheriff Joe in the State of 18

Arizona can restrict a First Amendment right to read 19

“Playboy” on behalf of inmates. 20

The situation has nothing to do with the Fourteenth 21

Amendment; and any assertion that a property right has 22

been denied to Mr. McCullough is a stretch. 23

Nothing has been deprived by POST. POST peace 24

officers standards were established by the Legislature 25



158

for agencies who voluntarily joined the program. 1

Mr. McCullough is not a POST employee, nor has POST 2

prevented him from his opportunity to seek the necessary 3

training to gain the necessary employment. 4

The only case I can think of is another reference 5

case that was not brought up in the appeal, and that is 6

Skelly, which clarifies that due process with respect 7

to property interest applies to an employer-employee 8

relationship. To reiterate, POST is not Mr. McCullough’s 9

employer. 10

At this point, all the appropriate levels of appeal 11

have been afforded to Mr. McCullough. POST staff, have 12

invested a tremendous amount of time, money, and effort 13

to ensure that he has a modicum of due process with 14

respect to his particular case. 15

For that vast overabundance of reasons I’ve 16

discussed and presented, the Commission -- and I 17

respectfully request that the Commission upholds the 18

decision of POST staff and the Executive Director. 19

And with that, I thank you very much; and I’m open 20

to any questions you may have. 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any questions? 22

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: I have a couple 23

questions, if I may. 24

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, please. 25



159


Braziel. 2

So in her documents, we have the job posting put out 3

by state HR that lists 832 requirements, you must pass 4

certain trainings. It lists “peace officer.” It lists 5

to promote, you either have to be within the hospital 6

system or be a peace officer. Promotions. 7

How do you reconcile that state HR, basically, when 8

I read it, if that’s an accurate description at his point 9

in time of employment -- because I notice the date is an 10

old date on the HR document -- how do we reconcile that 11

state HR, based on those documents, looks like it’s a 12

peace-officer position from the POST regs? How did we -- 13

how you guys balance that? 14

MR. LOGGINS: The short truth is it was a clerical 15

error by their administrative staff. 16

Are you referencing to the point where it says they 17

have 830.1 authority? 18

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: No, I’m looking for 19

the job posting that basically says, “To qualify for a 20

job as a peace officer” -- or “a police officer with the 21

hospital system in the state.” It’s in Appendix K, if 22

I remember correctly, from Cal HR, hospital police 23

officer series, scope, definition of series, the 24

different requirements that says you have to be 25



160

832-trained. 1

How do we reconcile that state HR is -- basically 2

reading this, it looks like it’s a peace-officer position 3

from POST regs? 4

MR. LOGGINS: I think what you’re referencing -- 5

there’s two sections of 832 that police officers or 6

peace officers are appointed under. 7

832 is the overarching, vast Penal Code that 8

addresses all peace officers. Even if they’re not in 9

the POST agency, everybody has to go through 832 training 10

as prescribed by POST. 11

The secondary Penal Code, I believe it is 832.4 12

series, those are -- the full extent are the general 13

law-enforcement agencies -- the Sac PDs, the Sacramento 14

Sheriffs, La Mesas, and things of that effect. 15

So even though an agency is not part of the POST 16

participating program, they still have to go through the 17

PC 832 course. Those are legislative mandates. 18

The same thing, bounty hunters, for some reason, are 19

required by our Legislature to take a course that is 20

prescribed by POST, even though they’re clearly not peace 21

officers and have nothing to do with law enforcement. 22

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Okay, I’m not sure 23

that answered my question, but… 24

MR. LOGGINS: Dave, could you pull up “K”? 25



161

Was it Attachment K? 1

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Yes, it’s “K.” 2

MR. LOGGINS: I think Commissioner -- he wants the 3

section where it says they have to have Penal Code 832. 4

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Well, if you go 5

through -- here, let me scroll through with mine. I’m 6

sorry, my cursor is a little bit slower. 7

So I’m looking at the different languages in this. 8

First of all, if you start with -- let’s see, what 9

page -- mine is different. 10

So let’s go down -- so you’ve got -- let’s start 11

with -- just scroll down just a little bit more on this 12

one. 13

Stand by. Don’t go too fast because I’ve got 14

to keep up on mine. 15

MS. PAOLI: I’m sorry. 16

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: That’s all right. 17

I just can’t keep up. You’re just way too fast for me. 18

Can you go back up? Because I lost where I was. 19

Let’s start over. 20

Okay, that’s the first page; right? 21

MS. PAOLI: This is page 3. 22

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Oh, wait a second. 23

Mine doesn’t have that one. Wait a second, maybe we do. 24

Stand by. I apologize. 25



162

If we start with -- did you say 7? So 3 of 7 -- and 1

you’ve got minimum quals -- okay. 2

First, it talks about completion of training 3

requirements, 832. 4

MS. PAOLI: Right here, yes. 5

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Right there. So we 6

start with that. That’s the first reference. 7

“Satisfactory completion of training requirements of 8

Penal Code Section 832” -- and, actually, let me do this 9

for a second. 10

Can you go to the top of page 1? Let’s just start 11

there. And I’m just going to scroll down through it. 12

So when you look at it, you’ve got Cal HR, first of 13

all, it says, “Hospital police officer series.” So after 14

that, you’ve got the State of California advertising this 15

as a police officer. Then you go down, it’s got its 16

different ranks: Police sergeant, police lieutenant. 17

And this is the State of California doing this. 18

You’ve got the different level definitions. Then 19

when you get to page 3 of 7, in the highlighted section, 20

it’s got “must meet the requirements of 832.” 21

Then we scroll down -- and I’ll get you a page 22

number in a second -- where it lists sections for 23

backgrounds. 24

So if we go down to page -- it’s got to be 25



163

6 of 7 -- you’ve got “Citizenship Requirements,” “Felony 1

Disqualifiers,” all similar language to what you get in 2

the peace officer series for any municipal agency. 3

You’ve got medical and psychs as defined by 1031. 4

Is that the same medical and psych requirements for 5

a municipal agency? I’m not familiar with the medical 6

and psych requirements. 7

MR. LOGGINS: Yes, the overlying law is 1031 of the 8

California Government Code, so they are -- that is 9

applicable. 10

The more robust standards that we mandate pursuant 11

to our regulation are not applicable to them. 12

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: And what are those? 13

MR. LOGGINS: 1950 through 1954 series of our 14

regulations. In other words, they have to have the 15

background in order to be appointed as a peace officer. 16

1031 simply says you have to have a background to 17

make sure you’re suitable to be a peace officer. As far 18

as getting the mechanics and specifics of verifying 19

citizenship and things of that effect, I believe that’s 20

beyond the capacity for us to enforce on them because 21

I think some of our regulations are more robust than what 22

the Government Code requires. 23

MR. DARDEN: So, Mr. Loggins, as I -- do you mind, 24

Commissioner? 25



164

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Sure, that’s fine. 1

MR. DARDEN: As I understand the Commission’s 2

position, the Commission is not taking the position that 3

he is not a peace officer. Actually, of course, he is a 4

peace officer. 5

MR. LOGGINS: He certainly is, yes. 6

MR. DARDEN: But he’s appointed under a specific 7

section of the code that limits his duties to primary 8

responsibility for enforcement of certain Welfare and 9

Institutions Codes. 10


MR. DARDEN: And your position is that the 12

training that is required for that position, instead of 13

being the full Regular Basic Academy, that the only 14

required training is PC 832, which is either, what, 40 15

or 80 hours, depending -- 16


MR. DARDEN: Okay. 18

MR. LOGGINS: And that’s commensurate with the 19

mandates of the Penal Code. 20

MR. DARDEN: And while certain peace-officer 21

classifications in California are required by statute 22

to obtain a POST Basic Certificate in order to continue 23

to perform the powers and duties of a peace officer, that 24

this particular classification is not. 25



165

Is that the position of the Commission? 1

MR. LOGGINS: That is absolutely correct. 2

MR. DARDEN: Okay. 3

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Doyle. 4

Just a legal question. I mean, just because State 5

HR or a municipal agency advertises something as a police 6

officer when, in fact, it’s not an 830.1 or 2, doesn’t 7

make it so; correct? 8

MR. DARDEN: Right. And, in fact, this is one of 9

the things that’s referenced in the Attorney General 10

Opinion. An appointing power or employing authority can 11

hire somebody and call them a “peace officer.” That’s 12

not the question. 13

The question is whether or not those individuals can 14

exercise the powers of police officers and what powers 15

they could exercise and under what conditions, that’s the 16

question. 17

So -- 18

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: No, no, I get that. But I was 19

just -- Commissioner Braziel’s line of questioning was -- 20

and maybe I’m jumping the gun and was presuming that 21

because the state HR was calling this a police-officer 22

position, in fact, that’s what it was -- 23

MR. DARDEN: Correct. 24

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: -- even though it doesn’t meet 25



166

the test, is what I was trying to clarify. 1

MR. DARDEN: Right. No, I believe that the idea is 2

that the employer has designated this as a peace-officer 3

position. The position -- 4

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Police officer. 5

MR. DARDEN: A peace-officer position. It’s under 6

the section of the Penal Code that specifically applies 7

to state hospital peace officers. 8

That class of peace officers is a relatively limited 9

duty, as such, limited to the Welfare and Institutions 10

Code enforcement. And those individuals are peace 11

officers; but they’re only required to have the PC 832 12

training. They’re not required to have the full Regular 13

Basic Academy or the Specialized Investigators Basic; and 14

they are not required by state law to have a POST 15

certificate in order to continue to perform the powers 16

of a police officer. Whereas some job classifications 17

are, this was not. 18

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Sure. 19

COMMISSIONER BUI: Okay, a question. Bui. 20

So, this position doesn’t require the full hours. 21

However, he did complete the regular RBC; correct? 22

MR. LOGGINS: Yes, that is correct. 23

COMMISSIONER BUI: Even though the position didn’t 24

require that many hours, he still completed it? 25



167


COMMISSIONER BUI: Okay. 2

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Other questions? 3

Comments? 4

Yes? 5

COMMISSIONER LONG: And so while Commission staff 6

and its ruling is bound by the law and by the statutes 7

and rulings, our determination is not; correct? 8

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Say that again. 9

COMMISSIONER LONG: While the staff’s decision and 10

then the Executive Director’s decision to deny him the 11

exemption is bound appropriately and understandably by 12

the statutes and so forth; that being said, the 13

Commission’s determination is not; is that correct? 14

MR. DARDEN: The Commission is absolutely bound by 15

law and regulation in its -- the question is how it 16

applies the particular facts. 17

MR. LOGGINS: Madam Chair, we’ve been discussing a 18

lot of laws and Attorney General’s -- may I reference 19

another Attorney General Opinion? 20

This is not the first time this has been looked at. 21

I mean, this Commission looked at it 20 years ago and 22

made a decision to keep the current standards for the 23

Regular Basic Certificate. 24

And then Ms. Little brought forth an Attorney 25



168

General Opinion from 1997. This same incident was 1

investigated back in 1994, back when Gene Muehlhausen was 2

our executive director; and I believe Evelle Younger 3

might have been the Attorney General. 4

But the specific findings in that case -- it was a 5

similar situation, there was a law-enforcement agency 6

that was not mandated in the Penal Code as applicable. 7

And what they actually said was “because of the 8

limitations on the powers of these policemen” -- that 9

was how they used it back then -- “because of the 10

limitations of the powers of these policemen as set forth 11

above, they do not appear to attain the status of those 12

peace officers to whom sections 832.3 and 832.4 were 13

directed,” which are the same exact statutes we’re 14

addressing today. 15

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Do you want to say 16

something? 17

MR. DARDEN: Yes, I do have a question. 18

There was an issue that was raised by counsel to 19

the appellant about a request for some documentation or 20

information, and she asked for you to respond to that. 21

Are you familiar with that? 22

MR. LOGGINS: I’d have to -- if she could clarify 23

exactly what that is. Everything I had access to was put 24

on the public document. 25



169

MR. DARDEN: Okay, yes. There was a -- in fact, 1

could we ask the counsel -- I apologize; if this is okay 2

with the Commissioners, could we ask counsel for the 3

appellant to come up? Because there was a question about 4

some additional documentation that had been requested, 5

that was also in the declaration. 6

And then you also said something about -- a question 7

about whether you wanted to have that before you 8

submitted the matter, and yet you did submit the matter. 9

So I just want to make sure that we’re clear about that 10

documentation. 11

I do want to ask Mr. Loggins, though, when an 12

individual wants to apply for a certificate through the 13

Commission, there’s a certificate application process; 14

is that correct? 15


MR. DARDEN: And the individual must file a 17

certificate application for a -- in this case, for a POST 18

Basic Certificate? 19


MR. DARDEN: And I’ve got it as a POST 2-116. But 21

it’s a certificate that lays out your name, your 22

training, there’s attestation by your department head 23

that you met certain requirements; is that correct? 24




170

MR. DARDEN: Do you know whether or not any such 1

certification application was filed in this case? 2

MR. LOGGINS: Off the top of my head, at this point, 3

I do not. 4

MR. DARDEN: Counsel, did your client file a 5

certificate application of POST 2-116 requesting the 6

issuance of a Basic Certificate from the Commission? 7

MS. LITTLE: That is my understanding, that was the 8

August -- 9

MR. McCULLOUGH: I did not. 10

MR. DARDEN: You did not? 11

Okay, so what was the documentation then that you 12

were saying that you had requested but had not yet 13

received? 14

MS. LITTLE: It was in response. 15

So your exhibit, POST’s Exhibit G is the 16

October 4th, 2016, letter; and that is the denial of 17

Detective McCullough’s request. 18

Prior to that, Detective McCullough submitted a 19

package in which he was requesting relief in August. 20

I want to say it was around August 20th, 2016. So this 21

October 4th, 2016, letter is in response to that. 22

He, Detective McCullough, actually sent the 23

documentation; but we did not keep a complete, true and 24

correct copy of that. And that is what I wanted the 25



171

Commission to actually review. 1

MR. DARDEN: All right, so this was just some 2

documentation sent to POST staff -- 3

MS. LITTLE: Yes. 4

MR. DARDEN: -- in conjunction with his appeal. 5

But it wasn’t a formal application for a POST 6

certificate; correct? 7

MR. LOGGINS: Mr. Darden, I do have the answer to 8

that. Those are the attachments included in the agenda 9

item. The package that was provided to me by the 10

Executive Office was a hard copy, and those were 11

subsequently scanned, and are the documents that are in 12

that particular agenda item, in their entirety. 13

MR. DARDEN: All right, so are you satisfied, 14

Counsel? 15

Are you satisfied, Counsel, that you received all 16

the information you needed? 17

MS. LITTLE: Yes, I am. Yes. 18

MR. DARDEN: All right, sorry. 19

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Is there anything else for 20

Mr. Scott? 21

(No response) 22

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay. 23

Mr. McCullough or Ms. Little, do you wish to 24

readdress the Commission? 25



172

MS. LITTLE: Yes, I do. 1

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And if so, you have 2

ten minutes. 3

MS. LITTLE: Okay, thank you very much. 4

I actually just wanted to respond to a couple of 5

issues regarding the statutes. 6

I believe someone actually just mentioned, again, 7

that under -- that the employer has designated Detective 8

McCullough and peace officers with the agency of DSH as 9

peace officers, as if that could conceivably be some type 10

of arbitrary designation. 11

But I respectfully submit that that’s not the case. 12

The Penal Code indicates that Detective McCullough is a 13

peace officer. 14

If you look at my brief -- and it’s in your 15

papers -- I won’t refer it to you -- but Penal Code 16

section 830.38 provides that “Officers of a state 17

hospital, under the jurisdiction of the State Department 18

of State Hospitals or the State Department of 19

Developmental Services appointed pursuant to section 4313 20

or 4493 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, are peace 21

officers whose authority extends to anyplace else in the 22

state.” 23

And so the Legislature has determined that these are 24

peace officers. It’s not just a determination. 25



173

And pursuant to that, the hospital policy, from the 1

California Department of State Hospitals policy manual, 2

specifically explains that the arrest authority actually 3

is under Penal Code section 830.1. And that was 4

Exhibit L to Detective McCullough’s declaration. 5

One of the other things that I wanted to raise 6

specific to the statutes: One of the things that POST 7

has indicated is that you don’t want a situation where 8

there are rules and that people are trying to deviate 9

from rules. But certainly, as law-enforcement officers, 10

in some capacity, as we all are, you understand that the 11

issue isn’t that you’re attempting to deviate from those 12

rules. We all understand that rules do not exist in a 13

vacuum, and you have to apply rules in a fair way and 14

make sure that they comport with constitutional 15

principles. 16

You can’t just look at a statute and say, “This is 17

what the statute says. That’s the end of it,” if you 18

know that applying it in such a way that’s going to 19

create absurd results is going to happen. 20

One of the things that I would request that the 21

Commission consider, are the actual job descriptions for 22

the local police department, I believe from the City of 23

Martinez, as well as the County Sheriff’s Department 24

from the County of Napa, and compare that to the job 25



174

description that POST itself has actually submitted, as 1

well as my client; and compare those, side-by-side, and 2

make a factual determination as to whether or not there 3

is some type of substantive, meaningful difference. 4

And I would submit to the Commission that there is 5

no such difference. 6

Now, the other issue that I wanted to raise was that 7

POST is relying heavily on section -- Penal Code 832.4. 8

However, the reliance of that is specifically on only one 9

part of that statute. POST has only relied on 832.4(a). 10

However, our argument concerns Penal Code 832.4(b). And 11

that is on page 9 of my memorandum. And I’ve actually 12

included the entirety of that statute. And that statute 13

specifically says that “every peace officer listed in 14

subdivision (a) of section 830.1, except a sheriff or 15

an elected marshal or a deputy sheriff, et cetera, who 16

is employed after January 1, 1988, shall obtain the Basic 17

Certificate issued by the Commission on Peace Officer 18

Standards and Training in order to continue to exercise 19

the powers of a peace officer.” 20

There’s a specific reference to Penal Code 21

section 830.1. And what the statute, 830.1, specifically 22

states -- and it’s very long, I won’t read the entire 23

thing -- and, again, it’s on my brief on page 9 -- is 24

that any police officer employed in that capacity and 25



175

appointed by a chief, a director, or a chief executive 1

of a public safety agency or police officer of a 2

district, is a peace officer. Respectfully, it’s 3

multiple statutes. It’s even POST regulations that make 4

it very clear that this is a peace -- that he is a peace 5

officer. That these officers that are employed by DSH 6

are entitled to the same rights as other particular peace 7

officers. 8

MR. DARDEN: Counsel, can I ask, so are you taking 9

the position that all of the 830.38 appointed officers 10

of DSH are required to obtain a POST Basic Certificate? 11

MS. LITTLE: No, I’m not, no. But they have 12

the opportunity, if they want, because it’s a 13

non-participating agency, that they’re not required to do 14

so. But here, there has been a request for one. 15

MR. DARDEN: Are you reciting language in 832.4(b), 16

which says that the officers that are described in 17

830.1(a) shall obtain the Basic Certificate within a 18

year. And then 830.1 itself has specific designations 19

of officers; but that doesn’t include your client. He’s 20

under 830.38. So I’m just not sure I understood your 21

argument. I want to make sure the Commission understands 22

your argument. 23

MS. LITTLE: I actually respectfully disagree with 24

that. 25



176

MR. DARDEN: Okay. 1

MS. LITTLE: I think that the portion that I cited 2

actually encompasses even an officer that would be under 3

830.38. 4

MR. DARDEN: Okay. 5

MS. LITTLE: And those particular ones that I 6

actually cited, any police officer employed in that 7

capacity and appointed by a chief, a director, or chief 8

executive of a public safety agency. And respectfully, 9

I believe that the law-enforcement agency wing of DSH is 10

such an agency. 11

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I have a question. 12

Do you know why it is that only -- not only -- but 13

832 is what’s required and not a basic POST Certificate 14

to be a state hospital? 15

MS. LITTLE: Honestly, I don’t know. I could 16

certainly research more and find out the legislative 17

history. 18

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: No, no. I was just wondering 19

if you knew. 20

MS. LITTLE: But I don’t know, unfortunately. 21

Sorry, Commissioner. 22

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any other questions of 23

Ms. Little? 24

MS. LITTLE: I just wanted to make a -- do I have a 25



177

couple minutes? 1

There are a couple of other comments that were made 2

that, you know, POST doesn’t want to become a diploma 3

mill. And, again, I would direct your attention to the 4

actual qualifications of this particular applicant. 5

The goal of not wanting POST to become a diploma 6

mill is understood. Detective McCullough fully 7

understands that. But, again, if you look at what he has 8

done over the course of his career, he didn’t have to 9

take these courses. This is someone who, nevertheless, 10

decided to make sure that he is constantly enhancing his 11

skill-sets. He is not limiting -- even the courses that 12

he has taken are not even limited specifically to how to 13

deal with patients: They’re dealing with school 14

violence, they’re dealing with interrogation techniques, 15

they’re dealing with excessive force. They’re dealing 16

with a broad array of areas that any law-enforcement 17

agency ideally would want to have in all of their peace 18

officers. 19

So if he decided that he wanted to lateral over 20

to the investigative wing of DSH or to another county 21

department, I can’t imagine that such a county department 22

or a local agency would look at exactly what his 23

qualifications are and say, “You’re a rookie. You don’t 24

have the experiential base that we want.” And I think 25



178

that that is how you have to look at statutes. 1

Like, the law requires you -- this isn’t just, you 2

know -- I think the California Supreme Court, based on 3

the cases that I’ve cited under equal protection and due 4

process require you to look at what you have before it 5

and not apply rules in such a rigid fashion. 6

MR. DARDEN: Does he currently have an offer of 7

employment at any -- for any peace-officer position for 8

which a Basic Certificate is required? 9

MR. McCULLOUGH: No. 10

MR. DARDEN: Okay, thank you. 11

MS. LITTLE: Can he add -- 12

MR. DARDEN: Yes, of course. 13

MR. McCULLOUGH: I need a mike. 14

Good morning, and thank you for -- actually, no, 15

good afternoon. I apologize for this taking as long as 16

it has. Thank you for having me. Thank you for hearing 17

this appeal. 18

I know that this is convoluted, I know it’s 19

confusing, I know that there are several Penal Code 20

sections in play here, and it can get a little confusing. 21

Believe me, I have poured over the code sections myself. 22

I felt that it was a situation that had merit to 23

at least be examined, and thoroughly examined, and a 24

decision be made. 25



179

With regard to 830.38, a couple items. We have a 1

sister agency with DSH called DDS, Department of 2

Developmental Services. They are under the same 3

appointment code, 830.38, but they are a full POST- 4

participating agency. So I respectfully put that 5

forward to classify that appointment code as a non-POST 6

participating code is not true. We have a sister agency 7

under the same code that’s fully POST-participating. 8

To further my resumé and my training profile and to 9

explain why I have continued to take further training, 10

my agency, while it requires 832 to be a fully-sworn 11

police officer with powers anywhere in the state of 12

California, if, for example, you want to be a field 13

training officer at my agency, they require a POST FTO 14

course. If you want to be a firearms instructor, you 15

have to do a POST firearms instructor course. 16

I have done the POST FTO course. I’ve done the 17

POST firearms instructor course. Those were not for 18

the purpose of putting a certificate on the wall; they 19

were practically applied within my agency. I’m a 20

POST-certified FTO, and I’ve trained many people with 21

the block of investigations. 22

I know it’s confusing, I know it’s deep. I do 23

believe that it is a relevant and merit- -- it’s an 24

argument with merit. And I just wanted to present it to 25



180

you. 1

And thank you guys for hearing me this morning -- or 2

this afternoon. Gosh, it’s one o’clock. 3


Anything else from the commissioners? 5

(No response) 6

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, Mr. Loggins? 7

MR. LOGGINS: We respectfully disagree with 8

Mr. McCullough’s premise as well as Ms. Little’s. 9

The letter that was produced today, there was an 10

attestation from one of Mr. McCullough’s counterparts 11

we talked about. It’s the functional equivalent of an 12

830.1 officer. 13

Just to draw a comparison, in the attestation, he 14

actually referenced the City of Napa. 15

Looking at public domain records, the City of Napa 16

has 76,000 people pursuant to the 2010 census, 18 square 17

miles. An analysis of the California Attorney General 18

statistics for felony arrests, which was last available 19

for 2014, they made 893 arrests. 20

The letter drew comparison that they were doing 21

effectively the same thing as the California Highway 22

Patrol officers. California Highway Patrol covers 23

394,000 miles of road. 163,000 square miles. 24

To draw a comparison to Mr. McCullough’s agency, 25



181

according to the Assessor’s Office in the City of Napa, 1

it’s 138 acres, or two-tenths of a square mile, with 2

1225 patients. 3

I hate to get into which officers are better than 4

any other, because every officer who puts on a badge and 5

a gun certainly addresses a noble calling. But it 6

clearly is not that, which is the same as that of a 7

general law-enforcement officer. 8

Just to reiterate, POST has not deprived 9

Mr. McCullough of anything. The bottom line is if he 10

wants to follow through with it, he has plenty of 11

availability. There’s 39 operating academies in the 12

state of California, as we speak. 13

Last year, 4,000 of his counterparts graduated from 14

an academy. Simply put, if he wants to get a job with a 15

conventional POST-approved or POST-participating agency, 16

he’ll have to go to one of those academies and get a job 17

and go through the field training program, as most of the 18

90,000 peace officers in the state have done as well. 19

Our heart goes out to Mr. McCullough. Certainly 20

we’re mindful of the fact, there was an economic 21

downturn. My own agency laid off, I believe, 226 deputy 22

sheriffs. So we’re mindful of that. I have no reason 23

not to believe he had difficulty in gaining employment. 24

This is strictly a matter of has his skill-set 25



182

expired. And a skill-set is required to be demonstrated 1

by the capacity of passing a contemporary academy, 2

getting gainfully employed in an agency where you can 3

maintain that skill-set, and continue on with all the 4

POST-mandated training, not the elective training that 5

we’ve shown here, particularly those perishable skills 6

that are critical to make life-and-death decisions and 7

be safe on the roadways. 8


MS. LITTLE: Thank you. 10

MR. McCULLOUGH: May I add one more thing? 11

DSH has five campuses, it’s not just one hospital; 12

and we have the same 24 hours of perishable skill 13

training mandated within our agency that any other POST 14

agency does. Even though we’re non-POST, I have to do 15

arrest-and-control techniques, chemical agents, 24-hour 16

CPT every two years. We follow all those standards. 17


Yes? 19

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: A question. 20

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Commissioner Braziel. 21

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: There was reference 22

to the sister agency being a POST agency. Is that 23

accurate? And what’s the difference between the two 24

of -- 25



183

MR. LOGGINS: Off the top of my head, I’d have to 1

reference the Penal Code. There’s literally probably 2

30 or 40 different designations of peace officers. 3

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: No, I guess the 4

question was -- their sister agency, which they go back 5

and forth between, is a POST agency. 6

Is that agency a POST agency, is the question 7

I have. 8

MR. LOGGINS: With 600, I couldn’t tell you off the 9

off the top of my head, Commissioner. I’d actually have 10

to look at that. 11

I have no reason to disbelieve him. Having said 12

that, if there are a POST-participating agency, it’s 13

because the agency has voluntarily elected to join the 14

program and voluntarily elected to make sure every one 15

of their incumbent officers follows the mandates and 16

regulations prescribed by POST, which are extremely 17

robust and far above that which is mandated, the minimal 18

in the Penal Code. 19


MR. LOGGINS: Thank you. 21

MR. DARDEN: The matter submitted? 22

MS. LITTLE: Submitted. 23

MR. DARDEN: Okay, thank you. 24

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay. The Advisory 25



184

Committee Chair, Mr. Marcelo Blanco, will report on the 1

Advisory Committee meeting held yesterday. 2

ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR BLANCO: Well, we had 3

quite a lengthy meeting and a lot of good dialogue. A 4

lot of it was shared today with you as some of the items 5

that came up; so there wasn’t anything out of those items 6

that I would need to add in the report. 7

What is not included is, we elected a new chair, and 8

that’s Mr. Randy Waltz, who is sitting in the audience. 9

So he will be taking over at the next meeting; and a new 10

vice chair, which is Chief Spagnoli from Beverly Hills. 11

And that’s all I have. 12

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay. Are there any 13

questions for the Advisory Committee? 14

(No response) 15

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Do I have a motion to 16

accept the Advisory Committee report? 17

COMMISSIONER BUI: Bui. Motion. 18

COMMISSIONER MOORE: Moore. Second. 19

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, no further 20

discussion? 21

(No response) 22



COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And all opposed? 25



185

(No response) 1


Moving on to correspondence. 3

To POST from Donnie Youngblood, President, 4

California State Sheriff’s Association, requests the 5

appointment of Steve Moore, Sheriff, San Joaquin County 6

as the replacement for Edward Bonner, Sheriff, retired, 7

Placer County, as the association representative on the 8

POST Advisory Committee. 9

From POST to: 10

Jeff Piper, Chief, Whittier Police Department, 11

expressing sympathy over the tragic on-duty death of 12

Keith Boyer -- Officer Keith Boyer. 13

Joseph Farrow, Commissioner, California Highway 14

Patrol, expressing sympathy over the tragic on-duty death 15

of Officer Lucas Chellew. 16

Greg Ahern, Sheriff, Alameda County Sheriff’s 17

Department, expressing sympathy over the tragic on-duty 18

death of Deputy Michael Foley. 19

Adam Christianson, Sheriff, Stanislaus County, 20

Sheriff’s Department, expressing sympathy over the tragic 21

on-duty death of Deputy Jason Garner; and 22

Adam Christianson, Sheriff, Stanislaus County 23

Sheriff’s Department, expressing sympathy over the tragic 24

on-duty death of Community Service Officer Raschel 25



186

Johnson. 1

We will now have a report from Assistant Executive 2

Director Dave Cornejo. 3

MR. CORNEJO: Thank you, Madam Chair. 4

I’ll try to keep this brief. 5

As Commissioner Long mentioned, we had a discussion 6

at the Finance Committee yesterday. And POST proposed a 7

path forward on how we could increase competition and how 8

we can incentivize innovation and creativity in our 9

contracts. 10

POST plans to provide a written status report at the 11

next couple of meetings on that progress. 12

Thank you. 13

If there are any questions? 14

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And that was Old Business. 15

Anything else on that? 16

(No response) 17

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, we’ll have a report 18

from Executive Director Alvarez. 19

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Okay. At the last 20

Commission meeting, there was a lot of discussion about 21

how we do course reimbursement or training reimbursements 22

to agencies. As was mentioned yesterday, we sent out a 23

bulletin about a week and a half ago, extending our 24

reimbursable list to the end of the year. But what we 25



187

are doing, based on the comments from the commissioners 1

in February, we’re going to take a look at how we 2

reimburse courses. We’ve already had one series of 3

meetings. 4

Assistant Executive Director Scott Loggins is going 5

to spearhead this effort on coming up with a better way 6

or possibly some different ways to assist agencies with 7

training monies. 8

We think that some of the smaller agencies in rural 9

areas are mostly impacted by our budget constraints, and 10

we have various ideas on how to go about that. 11

We’ve set an internal deadline -- a soft deadline of 12

August 31st, to have a series of meetings and some ideas 13

to present to you all at the next commission meeting. 14

So I just wanted to let you know that we are taking 15

those topics under consideration. 16


Okay, as to New Business, the first and only item is 18

a motion to approve Sheriff Moore to the Advisory 19

Committee. 20

Do I have a motion to approve? 21


COMMISSIONER LINDLEY: Second. Lindley. 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And all in favor? 24




188


(No response) 2

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any further discussion? 3

(No response) 4


Okay. Now, moving onto the future dates. All of 6

these meetings will be in West Sacramento. 7

October 25th through 26th, 2017. 8

February 7th through February 8th, 2018. 9

June 20th and 21st, 2018. 10

October 17th through 18th, 2018. 11

Okay, we will now ask all the attendees to exit the 12

room, and we’ll reconvene in general session at the 13

conclusion of our closed session. 14

I’m going to ask Mr. Cornejo to stay, please. 15

(Recess from 1:11 p.m. to 1:12 p.m.) 16

(The Commission met in closed executive 17

session from 1:12 p.m. to 2:12 p.m.) 18

(Commission Chair Dudley left the meeting 19

room for the day.) 20

(The Commission returned to open session 21

at 2:12 p.m.) 22

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: So I don’t know the 23

exact language, but we’re now coming back out of closed 24

session, back into open session. 25



189

And can we get a report out from our counsel? 1

MR. DARDEN: Thank you. 2

So in closed session, we discussed legal matters. 3

There were two issues. 4

One involved the Executive Director. There was a 5

unanimous vote in closed session to approve an increase 6

to his salary effective September 5th, to where he would 7

be permitted then to go to the top step of the salary 8

range in effect at that time, as of September 5th. 9

There was a second vote on the deliberations of the 10

appeal of Mr. Terence McCullough. It was, again, a 11

unanimous vote to deny the appeal in its entirety. The 12

Chair has been delegated the authority to sign the 13

opinion, which will be prepared by regulation. 14

And that was it. 15

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Perfect. 16

Any additional comments? 17

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: No. 18

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: I’ll take a motion 19

to adjourn the meeting. 20


MR. DARDEN: Okay, all right, we’re adjourned. 22

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: We’re adjourned. 23

Thank you. 24

MR. BROWN: This meeting, this takes a lot of work 25



190

to put together; and I want to take a second and 1

acknowledge David Cheng, one of my employees, for doing 2

a great job of putting all this together. 3

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: So you have a name? 4

MR. BROWN: One of Connie’s -- 5

COMMISSIONER BUI: Good job, good job. Good job, 6

David. 7

MR. BROWN: So thank you very much. 8

COMMISSIONER LONG: Thanks, guys. 9

(The Commission meeting concluded at 2:14 p.m.) 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21



191

REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify:

That the foregoing proceedings were duly reported by

me at the time and place herein specified; and

That the proceedings were reported by me, a duly

certified shorthand reporter and a disinterested person,

and was thereafter transcribed into typewriting.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand on

July 3rd, 2017.

___________________________________ Daniel P. Feldhaus California CSR #6949 Registered Diplomate Reporter Certified Realtime Reporter

Documents

STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS ... · 1 state of california commission on peace officer standards and training post commission meeting open session time: