STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER … · 26/10/2017 · DAVID CHENG Analyst Training Program Services Bureau LARRY ELLSWORTH ... Case No. 2:15-cv-01951. c) People v

1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COMMISSION ON

PEACE OFFICER STANDARDS AND TRAINING

POST COMMISSION MEETING

OPEN SESSION

TIME: 9:30 a.m. DATE: Thursday, October 26, 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, October 26, 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

THOMAS CHAPLIN Chief

Walnut Creek Police Department

RICHARD DELAROSA Mayor

City of Colton

BARRY DONELAN Sergeant

Oakland Police Department

ROBERT DOYLE Sheriff

Marin County Sheriff’s Department

SANDRA HUTCHENS Sheriff-Coroner Orange County

LAREN LEICHLITER Deputy Sheriff

San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department

STEPHEN LINDLEY for XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General

Department of Justice



3


COMMISSION ON POST COMMISSIONERS PRESENT

continued

GEOFF LONG

Public Member (Chair, Finance Committee)

JOHN McMAHON

Sheriff San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department

JETHROE MOORE II Public Member

JAMES O’ROURKE

Sergeant California Highway Patrol

BATINE RAMIREZ Deputy Sheriff

Placer County Sheriff’s Department

LAURIE SMITH Sheriff

Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Department

WALTER VASQUEZ Chief

La Mesa Police Department

POST COMMISSION LEGAL COUNSEL

WILLIAM “TOBY” DARDEN Department of Justice

Office of the Attorney General

POST COMMISSION ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR

RANDALL WALTZ

California Association of Police Training Officers (CAPTO)



4


COMMISSION ON POST STAFF PRESENT

(participating staff)

MANUEL ALVAREZ, JR. Executive Director 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

ALLEN BENITEZ

Senior Consultant Training Program Services Bureau

PHILIP CAPORALE Bureau Chief

Standards, Evaluation & Research Bureau

DAVID CHENG Analyst

Training Program Services Bureau

LARRY ELLSWORTH Bureau Chief

Learning Technology Resources Bureau

JULIE GORWOOD Senior Consultant

Basic Training Bureau

CONNIE PAOLI Administrative Assistant II

Executive Office

JOE G. SAMPSON Senior Consultant

Management Counseling Services Bureau



5


COMMISSION ON POST STAFF PRESENT

(participating staff)

R.C. SMITH

Bureau Chief Basic Training Bureau

SHELLEY SPILBERG

Standards & Evaluations Manager Standards, Evaluation & Research Bureau

Also Present

JOHN CARLI

Chief Vacaville Police Department

(Opening Remarks)

MICHAEL HEARN Mission Consulting

ROSETTE NGUYEN

Mission Consulting



6

I N D E X Proceedings Page

Call to Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Color Guard and Flag Salute . . . . . . . . . . 13 Vacaville Police Department

Moment of Silence Honoring the Officers Who Lost Their Lives in the Line of Duty Since the Last Meeting . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 Deputy Robert Rumfelt Lake County Sheriff’s Department

Deputy Robert French Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department

Roll Call of Commission Members . . . . . . . . 14

Introduction of POST Advisory Committee Chair, POST Legal Counsel, and the Executive Director and New Commissioners . . 15, 17

Opening Remarks

John Carli, Chief Vacaville Police Department . . . . . . . 17

Public Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Executive Director Comments . . . . . . . . . . 25

Approval of Action Summaries and Minutes A. Approval of Action Summary and Minutes for the following meeting: Action Summary - June 22, 2017 . . . . . 32 Meeting Minutes – June 22, 2017 . . . . . 32



7


Emerging Trends B. Emerging Trends 1. Report on Emerging Trends at the Executive Level . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Consent: C. Consent Items . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

1. Report on POST Reimbursable Program New Agency - Baldwin Park Unified School District Police Department . . 108 2. Report on POST Reimbursable Program Obsolete Agency - Willows Police Department . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 3. Report on POST Reimbursable Program Obsolete Agency - Alameda/Contra Costa Transit Police Department . . . 108 4. Report on the Course Certification Statistics From 5/1/17 to 8/31/17 . . 108 5. Report on the Proposal to Remove First Aid Training From the POST Basic Academy Curriculum . . . . . . . 37 6. Report on the Basic Course Testing Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 7. Report on Graduate Level College Credit for Command College . . . . . . 55 8. Report on Status of the POST Organizational Analysis Project . . . 59 9. Report on POST Proposed Regulatory Actions/Status . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 10. Report on the Course Certification Pilot Project . . . . . . . . . . . . 108



8


Consent: C. Consent Items continued 11. Report on Principled Policing . . . . 69 12. Report on the Proposed Realignment of POST Reimbursement Plans . . . . . 85 13. Report on Revision to Regulation 1005, and Procedures D-14 - District Attorney Training . . . . . . . . . . 102 14. Report on Legislative Updates . . . . 108 15. Resolutions:

Diane Hrepich, Personnel Selection Consultant (Ret.), Standards Evaluation Research Bureau, POST . . . 113 Sandra Hutchens, Sheriff, Orange County Sheriff's Department, Commissioner (Retiring) . . . . . . . 119 Mike Durant, President, Peace Officer Research Association of California (PORAC) (Retiring) . . . . . . . . . . 123 Joseph Farrow, Commissioner (Former), California Highway Patrol . . . . . . 131 Laren Leichliter, Deputy, San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department, Commissioner (Retiring) . 127

Finance Committee

D. Financial Report from Finance Committee Meeting held October 25, 2017 - Finance Committee Chair Long . . . . . . . 132



9


Basic Training Bureau E. Report on Proposed Revisions to Commission Regulations 1001, 1005, 1008 and Procedures D-10 and D-11, Requalification and Basic Course Waiver Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Executive Office F. Report on POST Administrative Manual (PAM) Revision Project . . . . . . . . . . 164 G. Report on Proposed Changes to Regulation 1009: Academy Instructor Certificate Program (AICP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Management Counseling, Leadership Development Bureau H. Report on Proposed Revisions to Commission Regulation 1005 - Attending Supervisory and Management Course . . . . . . . . . . 166 Standards, Evaluations, and Research Bureau I. Report on Proposed Changes to Regulation 1953 - Peace Officer Selection Standards for Interim Police Chief . . . . . . . . . 167 J. Report on an Amendment of the Basic Courses Test Management and Security Protocols 2017, and Commission Regulations 1005, 1007, 1008, and 1052 . . 175 K. Report on Proposed Changes to Peace Officer and Public Safety Dispatcher Selection Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . 175



10

I N D E X Proceedings Page Training Delivery and Compliance Bureau L. Report on the Proposed Changes to Regulation 1011 - Professional Certificate Requirements for Supervisors and Managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176

Committee Reports M. Advisory Committee . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Correspondence N. Correspondence sent to and from POST . . . 177 From POST to:

Laurie Wood, Attorney, Southern Poverty Law Center, expressing sympathy over the untimely death of Sarah Viets, Subject Matter Expert, Southern Poverty Law Center Brian Martin, Sheriff, Lake County Sheriff's Department, expressing sympathy over the tragic on-duty death of Deputy Robert Rumfelt Scott Jones, Sheriff, Sacramento County Sheriff's Department, expressing sympathy over the tragic on-duty death of Deputy Robert French.

Old Business O. Old Business – None . . . . . . . . . . . . 178

New Business P. New Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178



11

I N D E X Proceedings Page Future Commission Dates Q. Upcoming Commission Meeting Dates . . . . 181

February 7 and 8, 2018 Westin, Los Angeles Airport, Los Angeles June 20 and 21, 2018 POST, West Sacramento October 17 and 18, 2018 POST, West Sacramento

Closed Session R. Closed Executive Session . . . . . . . . . 181 1. Conference with Legal Counsel Existing Litigation a) Knowledge and Intelligence Professional Programs v. POST Los Angeles Superior Court Case Nos. NC058217, NC053503, and related appeals, Second Appellate District, Case B266376 and B278820 b) Tamara Evans v. POST Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2014-00164423; Eastern District of California Case No. 2:15-cv-01951. c) People v. Garcia Santa Clara Superior Court Case No. CC800985 d) In re Claim of North Orange County Community College District, dated July 18, 2017.



12

I N D E X Proceedings Page Closed Session R. Closed Executive Session continued 2) Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing/Potential Litigation: a) Matters before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission: Charge #555-2015-001150 and Charge #555-2016-00829

Report from Closed Executive Session . . . . . . . . 182 Adjournment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Reporter’s Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183



13

Thursday, October 26, 2017, 9:35 a.m. 1

West Sacramento, California 2

3

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And now please stand for 4

the presentation of the colors by Vacaville Police 5

Department. 6

(Presentation of the Colors by the 7

Vacaville Police Department Color Guard.) 8

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And please remain standing 9

for the Pledge of Allegiance. 10

(The Pledge of Allegiance was recited.) 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Please remain standing for 12

a moment of silence, honoring the officers who lost their 13

lives in the line of duty since our last meeting: 14

Deputy Robert Rumfelt, Lake County Sheriff’s 15

Department. 16

Deputy Robert French, Sacramento County Sheriff’s 17

Department. 18

(Moment of silence) 19

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you. 20

Please join me in thanking the Vacaville Police 21

Department Color Guard. 22

(Applause) 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And please take your 24

seats. 25



14

As a reminder, please make sure to review the 1

commissioner roster to make any adjustments to your 2

contact information. 3

Please also sign the orange attendance sheet. 4

Lastly, lunch forms have been placed at each of your 5

seats. If you have preplaced an order, please review it 6

for any changes. If you’ve not filled out the order but 7

would like to, please fill in the form now. 8

Lunch has been priced at $10 each, the cost assessed 9

with the coverage of coffee, water, cookies and muffins 10

covered by the staff for the meeting yesterday and today. 11

Staff will be coming by to collect lunch orders and 12

money. Lunch is scheduled to arrive a little before 13

noon. 14

Okay, Ms. Paoli, will you take the roll call? 15

MS. PAOLI: Braziel. 16

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Here. 17

MS. PAOLI: Lai Lai Bui. 18

COMMISSIONER BUI: Here. 19

MS. PAOLI: Chaplin. 20

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: Here. 21

MS. PAOLI: DeLaRosa. 22

COMMISSIONER DELAROSA: Here. 23

MS. PAOLI: Donelan. 24

COMMISSIONER DONELAN: Here. 25



15

MS. PAOLI: Doyle. 1

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Here. 2

MS. PAOLI: Dudley. 3

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Here. 4

MS. PAOLI: Leichliter. 5

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Here. 6

MS. PAOLI: Lindley. 7

COMMISSIONER LINDLEY: Here. 8

MS. PAOLI: Long. 9

COMMISSIONER LONG: Here. 10

MS. PAOLI: McMahon. 11

COMMISSIONER MCMAHON: Here. 12

MS. PAOLI: Moore. 13

COMMISSIONER MOORE: Here. 14

MS. PAOLI: O’Rourke. 15

COMMISSIONER O’ROURKE: Here. 16

MS. PAOLI: Ramirez. 17

COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ: Here. 18

MS. PAOLI: Smith. 19

COMMISSIONER SMITH: Here. 20

MS. PAOLI: Vasquez. 21

COMMISSIONER VASQUEZ: Present. 22


Now, I’d like to introduce our newest commissioners, 24

Barry Donelan and John McMahon. 25



16

Commissioner Donelan is a sergeant with the Oakland 1

Police Department. 2

Where are you? 3

COMMISSIONER DONELAN: I’m right over here. 4

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Oh, there you are. You’re 5

blending. 6

COMMISSIONER DONELAN: Yes. 7

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And would you like to say 8

a little bit about yourself? 9

COMMISSIONER DONELAN: I’m with the Oakland Police 10

Department. I’ve been serving, actually, as the union 11

president there for the last six years. Served in 12

patrol, investigations, and currently hold the rank of 13

sergeant there. 14

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, thank you. 15

Commissioner McMahon is the Sheriff of 16

San Bernardino County. 17

And would you like to say a little bit about 18

yourself? 19

COMMISSIONER McMAHON: Good morning. 20

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Good morning. 21

COMMISSIONER McMAHON: Thanks for having me on this 22

board. I’m looking forward to it. 23

It has a fairly good-sized footprint in the training 24

world; and in our county, Regional Training Center 25



17

trained not only the folks in San Bernardino County, but 1

surrounding our county as well. So it’s my honor to be 2

here. 3


And to my left is POST Advisory Committee Chair 5

Randy Waltz. 6

This is your first meeting. 7

ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR WALTZ: Yes, it is. Thank 8

you. 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: You’re doing beautifully 10

so far. 11

And to my immediate left is the legal counsel, Toby 12

Darden. 13

Nice to see you again. 14

And to my right is POST Executive Director Manny 15

Alvarez, doing a fabulous job, I might add. 16

Now, please join me in welcoming Chief John Carli 17

of Vacaville Police Department who will provide welcoming 18

remarks. 19

Thank you, Chief. 20

CHIEF CARLI: Well, good morning. And thank you for 21

allowing me to come before you today. It’s really an 22

honor to spend this morning with you, with some opening 23

remarks. 24

A red-eye flight from Philadelphia last night, so a 25



18

few cups of coffee. But it’s East Coast time, so that 1

should help me, and be in my favor. 2

A few things that come to my mind when I had the 3

opportunity to think about what would I share to the 4

Commission and to those who are in attendance today; and 5

it started with a few questions, and that is, you know, 6

individually and why you’re here representing POST: 7

What do you want your legacy to be, when you think about 8

that personally and professionally, and when you think of 9

that as a commission for California POST? It’s an 10

awesome responsibility, and I think it’s one that we 11

often will think about, especially in our profession. 12

I also think about the idea of what it means to have 13

influence and how will we use our influence at a time 14

when it matters most? There is so much that we’re 15

focusing on today as a nation. 16

Two words that come to my mind also are this thought 17

of being consistent, but also changing. But I’ll get 18

back to that. 19

I want to take you back a year ago. It was the week 20

of July 4th, 2016. We celebrated America’s history on 21

one day; and yet the very next day, we’re struggling as 22

a nation, watching what occurred with one fatal shooting 23

in one state, to another fatal shooting in another state. 24

I can’t get that out of my mind because two days later, 25



19

it was Dallas. 1

I was actually on an airplane, flying back from the 2

East Coast. Live television, modern technology, flying 3

over the state of Texas. And, like so many of us, I was 4

overcome with emotion. There really was a sadness, a 5

righteous anger, a feeling that I just was trying to 6

come to grips with. And I started writing. 7

This country was feeling this earthquake, whether 8

it was in our profession, whether it was in our culture, 9

whether it was in our communities. And what I felt was 10

that there is a lot that still needed to be done; and 11

it caused me to begin to challenge myself as a leader. 12

The very next week, I was actually teaching for the 13

Napa Police Academy. It was Leadership, Professionalism, 14

and Ethics, LD 1 -- something very familiar to this POST 15

Commission, and for anyone who has learned what it means 16

to be a police officer in California. Maybe more so in 17

the modern age, because maybe back when I started, we 18

weren’t taught that particular LD, but we understand it 19

as leaders. 20

Strangely enough, that day was a unique day for me 21

because, you see, the next day I was turning 50. And 22

I received an urgent request that said, “Please meet 23

with the President of the United States. It’s urgent. 24

Tomorrow, can you be at the White House?” 25



20

So I thought, really -- I thought I had staff 1

punking me, thinking I could probably retire that day 2

because I was turning 50. I quickly realized that it 3

wasn’t and it was real; and I found myself in a four-hour 4

meeting with President Obama and other stakeholders from 5

around the country. Those from Minnesota, from 6

Louisiana -- mayors, governors. And I’ll tell you, I 7

don’t have anything in front of me today; but that day I 8

did. I had a notepad; and all I could do is write on the 9

top of that, “Why am I here?” What could I possibly add 10

to this conversation when I looked around the room in the 11

audience that I was in? 12

And as I listened over the hours, I realized: I 13

know why I’m here. It was clear. Not for what was wrong 14

in America, but for what was right in policing in places 15

of America, and what we can do and what I could share. 16

And so when the President asked what can I share, what do 17

I have to offer, I simply explained a few things from my 18

perspective from California. And that was, the three 19

things that were a clear take-away, that the audience 20

had not heard -- the stakeholders were very much roiled 21

with emotion -- was hiring, training, and engagement. 22

I told him, for me, one of the most responsible 23

areas that, as a chief, I could do, is to hire the right 24

people, that we have to focus on emotionally engaged and 25



21

equip them, they have to be educated. We have to look at 1

what we’re bringing into the profession and what we can 2

do. 3

But for you, I want you to know that we focused on 4

some time specific to training. You see, what I realize 5

is -- and it’s a story that I shared with him -- 6

is that not all training is the same. And there is a lot 7

that we can do as a profession. But this is what I 8

believe we do well in California. 9

But make no mistake about it, it wasn’t simply about 10

that; it was the fact that we also have a lot of programs 11

in California where we engage. We engage our communities 12

through technology, through social media, through 13

community policing practices, and the expectation of 14

leadership. 15

Well, it didn’t end there. But the reality is, is 16

I thought: What did this group need to hear from me? 17

It wasn’t about what we’re doing right; only, that was 18

the reason why I was there. 19

But here came the challenges: What can we do as 20

leaders in the profession, especially if we’re charged 21

with what we’re seeing across the nation and how we see 22

it in California? And I couldn’t help but share a few 23

thoughts, including: Why is it okay that in this country 24

today, that we don’t have a national standard? 25



22

For those of you as a commission, we think about 1

the standards that we have. But where do we fit as a 2

national standard? There is no one national standard. 3

Every state has its autonomy and rules; but the reality 4

is that we swear to an oath to the Constitution of one 5

nation. 6

I said, right or wrong, we don’t have an 7

accreditation that’s standardized that creates licensing. 8

There’s nothing that says that you’re certified as a 9

professional, as a licensed police officer. Maybe some 10

states do. It can actually be revoked in the State of 11

Arizona. 12

There is actually agencies today that don’t have 13

any advanced training beyond the position of a POST 14

commission within a state. 15

The City of New York, their training program today 16

is just two recruits that are paired up together on a 17

street corner. That’s not a standardized system that 18

allows for the very best of what we can do. 19

So the question is, is what will you use your 20

influence and leadership as a commission, looking at 21

the items other than the things that we’re dealing with 22

today, as leaders? 23

And I know what’s on your agenda: Items such as 24

Principled Policing today and how that fits in the 25



23

academy, and how that makes the workforce more relevant 1

in the future. And I charge each of you to think about 2

what it is that’s in our training; but also what we can 3

do as a state and what we do and what you do as a 4

commission to advance some of the policies and practices 5

that make us better because that’s the focus. 6

Make no mistake, I didn’t just say these things were 7

right and these things were wrong. I very much felt 8

passionate in that meeting, that there was a reason for 9

me to be there. And one of the things is, if we’re going 10

to have the conversation about how police can do better, 11

can be better, and we have good programs and we can 12

replicate what’s going on in good communities and not 13

just focus on the ones that are bad, we need to have the 14

conversation as a society about what we’re willing to 15

tolerate. We can’t have one conversation without the 16

other. And we don’t need those protests for us as 17

leaders to understand it. We need to silence some of 18

the emotion and allow the leadership to step up. 19

So those two words that I said at the beginning of 20

this were the idea of “consistency” and “change.” 21

Well, the third piece of that is the word in 22

between, and that’s “courage.” I believe that California 23

POST, in my tenure, has consistently looked for what is 24

the very best in what training should be, but the 25



24

willingness to adapt and to change. The challenge for 1

all of you is to have the courage to see what it can be 2

in the policies, but also the overall issue of what it 3

means to be a professional. Because there is all these 4

big things; and if we don’t begin to speak up on those 5

issues, we’ll be good at what we do, but there’s some 6

things that we can do that will be great as well. 7

So thank you. 8

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you, Chief. I 9

appreciate your words. 10

This is the time on the agenda for Public Comment. 11

This is the time set aside for members of the public 12

to comment on either items on the Commission agenda or 13

issues not on the agenda but pertaining to POST 14

Commission business. 15

Members of the public who wish to speak are asked 16

to limit their remarks to no more than five minutes. 17

Please be advised that the Commission cannot take any 18

action on items not on the agenda. 19

Is there anyone here that would like to address us? 20

(No response) 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Hearing no one, at this 22

time the Executive Director would like to address the 23

Commission. 24

Executive Director Alvarez. 25



25

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chair. 1

Welcome, everybody, back to POST; and welcome to 2

those that it’s their first time to POST. 3

I’m not going to go into the specifics of the agenda 4

items because I think they speak for themselves, and I 5

know we’re going to have a discussion and debate about 6

them. I hope you appreciate the fact that we are trying 7

to change and adapt and create flexibility for some of 8

our stakeholders, so I won’t go into those things. 9

But at the last commission meeting, I mentioned a 10

number of things that we were going to be working on in 11

between commission meetings. And I’d like to give you 12

an update on those. They’re more administrative things 13

within POST that we’re working on. 14

So at the last meeting, we talked -- or I spoke 15

briefly about recruitment, retention, and upward 16

mobility, and the issues that we’re having staffing POST. 17

We currently have about 10 percent of our positions 18

vacant, and we’re working diligently to staff them. And 19

we’re also working on developing processes to create 20

upward mobility for our staff. 21

So I’d just like to give you an idea of some of the 22

things that we’ve done since the last commission meeting. 23

So as of July -- and if I may say, before I even 24

start, we intend to roll this out to our staff on 25



26

Tuesday, in great detail. So I’m just going to hit just 1

some cursory points on them so I don’t get out in front 2

of our administrative folks when they roll it out on 3

Tuesday. 4

But as of July, we started participating in the 5

Cal HR statewide exam list for generalist 6

classifications. We weren’t able to do so before because 7

of the expense of it all. The State changed the rules 8

somewhat and allowed us to participate. So we’re now 9

participating in that statewide exam list. 10

To give you an idea, an SSM-1 position that we 11

recently posted, which is a front-line supervisor 12

position, we had over 60 candidates because of that 13

statewide list. And we think that, in the future, we’re 14

going to have even more candidates. 15

We have a recruiting booth at COPSWEST next week. 16

We have a number of our staff going there with brochures 17

and applications. And I believe we have some of those 18

brochures. If you would like to see them, we have them, 19

I believe, up here. 20

We designated an internal training manager in August 21

for our staff. 22

We established a standardized performance appraisal 23

process. This will include self-assessments, it will 24

ensure employees receive annual reviews, and it will 25



27

ensure job-duty statements are updated every year. 1

In September, we implemented what the State calls 2

“continuous exams” for bureau chiefs. So, previously, 3

you would get on the list, and we’d work off of a list 4

for a year or two. Now, that list is open. Constantly, 5

people are putting in, and the list is refreshing 6

essentially daily, or as we process those applications. 7

So we’re not working off lists that are a year or two 8

old. We did that already for our law-enforcement 9

consultants. We completed that project in March of this 10

year. They are also now on continuous exams. 11

We’ve drafted a voluntary transfer policy or process 12

for our staff to increase our capacity, to help with 13

staff development, and for aid in succession planning. 14

We also are instituting a career and hiring panel 15

to ensure fairness, objectivity, and selection of the 16

most qualified candidates when hiring and promoting 17

employees. 18

We had a quasi approach with our last promotion, 19

using that process; and we should finalize it by next 20

Tuesday. 21

We have a meeting next week with Cal HR executives 22

to discuss the LEC position that we have -- the law 23

enforcement consultant position -- specifically, to 24

enhance that job series. 25



28

I also spoke a little bit about uniformity across 1

POST bureaus and how different bureaus do things 2

differently within POST; and we’re trying to standardize 3

things. So in October, we started implementing 4

SharePoint so that we can collaborate across bureaus and 5

standardize forms. And we also completed a project on 6

workshop expenditures, to ensure that everybody in POST 7

is addressing workshops in the same way, and we’re 8

expensing them in the same ways. 9

I also spoke about the police academies and how we 10

certify courses at the police academies and that we are 11

going to move it over to the Basic Training Bureau, and 12

remove that from the responsibility of the Training 13

Delivery consultants; because there’s ten of them, and 14

there’s some disparity in how those things were being 15

done. And they’re also not the experts in the academy 16

structure or the courses. 17

So in July, we transitioned all RBC and SIBC courses 18

to the Basic Training Bureau. We hired an LEC for the 19

Basic Training Bureau in August to take over that 20

responsibility. 21

We still have to move over the modular courses, as 22

well as the 832 courses. We don’t have a time frame 23

for those, but we will be moving those over as well. 24

I also talked about subject-matter experts, and 25



29

using contemporary subject-matter experts and not the 1

same old folks, so to speak, subject-matter experts. 2

We are still working on that. We’re not as far as long 3

on that as we anticipated, but we will get to that. 4

So between now and the next commission meeting, 5

internally, what I expect that we’re going to be working 6

on and that will take a significant amount of our time, 7

is establishing operational budgets for each of our 8

bureaus. We have a soft internal deadline to get that 9

done between now and January. And I know we’re six 10

months into the year already, but it’s kind of a -- I 11

don’t want to say it’s a first-time approach for us, but 12

it’s something fairly new. At least fairly new to the 13

current staff. 14

We’re going to continue to address how we reimburse 15

courses. That is a constant discussion point. I know 16

there’s an agenda item on that. We have a video 17

conference on Monday with some of our presenters to 18

address some of those courses. And we’re also taking 19

various steps in how we review our contracts. We had 20

a lengthy discussion yesterday at the Finance Committee 21

meeting about how we review our contracts and our 22

approach. 23

Hopefully, if we can make it all happen between now 24

and the next February Commission meeting, as most of you 25



30

know, that is the point where we bring contracts to you 1

all for approval. So our goal is to have an internal 2

discussion with our executives and our bureau chiefs 3

about each and every contract, and whether that contract 4

is a worthy contract, whether we need to try to renew a 5

contract, whether we need to cut it back. And then put 6

it out for bid if we have time. Make sure that we have 7

a wide swath of entities and individuals that we’re 8

reaching out to, to bid on those contracts. Bring that 9

back to you all with the results, make a recommendation, 10

and tell you what we’ve done, and see if you approve 11

those contracts. 12

Before, the process was, we would come to you and 13

say, “We want a contract for a hundred thousand dollars 14

for such-and-such. We’ll go out and find a vendor, and 15

we’ll do that after the February meeting.” Our hope is 16

to bring that to you before, so you see what we’ve done, 17

and then you can either approve or disapprove the 18

contract. 19

I don’t know if we’re going to be able to get all 20

that done by now and February, because, as you know, 21

that process for receiving bids takes a while. But that 22

is our hope. 23

We’ve had a lot of work just in the last four months 24

with all this administrative stuff. And I want to thank 25



31

all the staff that have just been killing themselves, so 1

to speak, on all this stuff. I know it doesn’t come into 2

the agenda items; but they have worked so hard to make 3

it happen; and I really appreciate -- we all greatly 4

appreciate that. 5

Also, I want to thank a few of the bureau chiefs 6

that are out there. Some of these folks have stepped up 7

and taken cuts to their own programs, or taken steps 8

back with their own bureaus to help the greater good of 9

POST. I think those bureau chiefs know who they are, and 10

I appreciate them doing that as opposed to hunkering down 11

and building an empire. They’ve made some hard 12

decisions, so I appreciate that. 13

And, lastly, I hope you appreciate the agenda items. 14

They are strictly up for your decision-making. Some of 15

them are informational, and some of them can be modified. 16

Some of them you may not like. 17

As we spoke with our internal staff prior to sending 18

them to OAL, as long as it’s in the minutes, we can push 19

it through. So I appreciate the healthy debate on some 20

of those. 21

Thank you for the time, Madam Chair. 22

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you. Thank you, 23

Manny. 24

That is a very impressive list of accomplishments 25



32

already. And given the breadth and depth of the agenda 1

today, it’s very clear that you and your staff have 2

worked very, very hard. So thanks for all your Herculean 3

efforts. It’s terrific. 4

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: We thank you. 5

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, so our first item is 6

Approval of the Action Summary and Meeting Minutes from 7

June 22nd, 2017. 8

Are there any corrections to the minutes? 9

(No response) 10

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Discussion, questions? 11

(No response) 12

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Is there a motion to 13

approve the minutes? 14

COMMISSIONER BUI: Bui will make that motion to 15

approve. 16

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I need a second. 17

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Doyle. Second. 18

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any discussion or 19

questions? 20

(No response) 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Those in favor? 22

(A chorus of “ayes” was heard.) 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Opposed? 24

(No response) 25



33

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: The “ayes” have it, and 1

the motion passes. Thank you. 2

Okay, now, we have something on Emerging Trends. 3

At this time, I’d like to call on POST Senior 4

Information Systems Analyst Catherine Bacon-Davis to 5

provide us with an update on how the IMPACT Team will 6

continue to provide Emerging Trends reports to the 7

Commission. 8

Thank you. Good to see you. 9

MS. BACON-DAVIS: Good to see you, too. 10

Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair, 11

Commissioners. 12

For those of you who are new to the Commission, the 13

IMPACT Team at POST, IMPACT is “Investigating/Mitigating 14

Progressive and Critical Trends.” We are a group of 15

six, who look into the field and explore and find 16

emerging trends that we can then report back to the 17

Commission. 18

For this commission meeting, we went out to the 19

executive level. We spoke with representatives from 20

Cal Sheriffs and Chiefs, to ask them about what is going 21

on at their level as far as emerging trends are 22

concerned. 23

I spoke with Chief Eric Nuñez of Los Alamitos PD for 24

the California Police Chiefs Association. He informed me 25



34

that there is a police futuring group that, similar to 1

Command College, takes a five-, seven-, eight-year look 2

ahead at what’s emerging for executives. They also have 3

an evidence-based policing working group headed by Rod 4

Jones from San José PD. 5

And Chief Nuñez is chairing a group that will be 6

addressing the national narrative about law enforcement 7

and working in partnership with related entities and 8

interested stakeholders to help develop strategies for 9

helping that. 10

One of the emerging issues that -- well, one of the 11

issues that has been a constant, and it continues to be, 12

is recruiting. Specifically, background: finding 13

candidates who can pass the background. So that 14

continues to be a struggle, as well as retention: 15

holding onto officers who might go lateral to other 16

agencies for various reasons, geographic or cost of 17

living. 18

And also for succession planning. They’re working 19

on succession planning for seconds-in-command that will 20

put them in more -- give them more responsibility so they 21

can develop their skills. 22

I spoke with Cory Salzillo. He is the legislative 23

director for the California State Sheriffs’ Association. 24

He is their legislative director. 25



35

So his focus is on legislation, and particularly, 1

as he stated, the emerging trends that may result in 2

unfunded mandates, whether that be for training or for 3

just mandates that require resources, training, staff 4

time. So that would include things such as agencies 5

needing to release personnel records to the public, the 6

work involved there, use-of-force reports, racial 7

profiling. So they are paying attention to those. 8

And we spoke a bit about those unfunded mandates as 9

far as POST. And from both Cory and Chief Nuñez, they 10

made a very strong comment about POST and how important 11

POST is with all of their emerging issues, to help them 12

meet their needs. 13

And funding for POST is of concern to them; and 14

they were very interested in doing whatever they could 15

to help POST secure different or better or more funding. 16

And they just said that POST provides the accountability 17

and the promise made to the community; and it’s really a 18

strong partner for them. 19

And with that, I open it for questions. 20


Are there any questions for Ms. Bacon-Davis? 22

(No response) 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you so much. 24

MS. BACON-DAVIS: Thank you. 25



36

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, so we’re going to 1

be having presentations on the Consent Items 5, 7, 8, and 2

12. I’m sure those of you who have reviewed your agenda 3

beforehand, if there’s anything else -- any other consent 4

items that you want discussed, you can let me know ahead 5

of time or at the time that we’re going through them. 6

But we will, again, be discussing Items 5, 7, 8, and 12. 7

Commissioner Long, did you have something to say? 8

COMMISSIONER LONG: Well, I was going to say, do 9

you want to know now or do you want to take them in 10

seriatim? 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: No, if you have it now, 12

that would be terrific. 13

COMMISSIONER LONG: I would like just a brief 14

conversation about Number 11, Principled Policing. 15

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, so I will add 16

Number 11. 17

Anybody else have one you already know you want to 18

add? 19

COMMISSIONER LONG: And I have a question on 13, so 20

I’d like to ask for a little bit -- 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, let’s do 13, too. 22

COMMISSIONER LONG: If we could do 13, on the D.A. 23

investigators, yes. 24

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, then I’m adding 11 25



37

and 13. 1

Is there anything else? 2

(No response) 3

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, thank you, 4

Commissioner Long. 5

Let’s see. So we’re going to start then with 5, 6

which means we’ve quickly gone through 4. 7

All right, 5 would be a report on the proposal to 8

remove first-aid training from the Basic Training Academy 9

curriculum requirements. 10

And I’d like to call upon Law Enforcement Consultant 11

Julie Gorwood and Assistant Executive Director Maria 12

Sandoval to provide a presentation on this item. 13

Thank you. 14

Good to see you both. 15

MS. GORWOOD: Good morning, Madam Chairman and 16

Members of the Commission. Thank you for the opportunity 17

to provide this report. 18

In August, I was tasked with, to conduct a study to 19

determine if requiring public safety first-aid and CPR 20

training as a prerequisite to attending the Basic Academy 21

is feasible. 22

The study included a review of compliance with the 23

California Code of Regulations requirements, assessing a 24

potential modification to existing law and regulations 25



38

for a prerequisite approach, and an outline of the 1

consequences of both processes. 2

Based on my extensive research, there is no 3

specific language in POST regulations or the law that 4

prohibits the removal of LD 34 from the Basic Academy 5

and the potential of making it a prerequisite or a post 6

graduation requirement, such as jail operations are done 7

now. 8

Currently, the State Fire Marshal requires 9

first-aid/CPR training or higher as a prerequisite to 10

attending their Fire Academy. 11

Current law requires peace officers to have training 12

in public safety first-aid with a refresher course every 13

two years in accordance with the standards prescribed by 14

EMSA, which is the Emergency Medical Services Authority. 15

The initial hourly training requirement is a 16

minimum of 21 hours of instruction, and is currently 17

taught in the Basic Academy as Learning Domain Number 34. 18

The Penal Code, Health and Safety Code, and the 19

California Code of Regulations all govern first-aid 20

training for peace officers, with EMSA as the overall 21

authority to set statewide medical standards and 22

certification of courses. They alter curriculum after 23

review of best practices, which requires POST to modify 24

existing courses; and our new course would have to be 25



39

reviewed and approved by EMSA. 1

In summary, the Code of Regulations, Title 22, 2

requires regularly employed peace officers to complete 3

initial first-aid training of 21 hours within one year 4

of initial employment or prior to assumption of regular 5

duty. 6

The Health and Safety Code states that the peace 7

officers shall meet the training standards for first-aid 8

training prescribed by EMSA, and to complete the initial 9

training as soon as practical or within one year of 10

employment. 11

The Penal Code requires peace officers to meet the 12

training standards for first-aid training set by EMSA, 13

outlined in Title 22, and completed as a course of 14

training leading to a Basic Certificate issued by the 15

Commission. 16

In my research, I found three states in the country 17

that require first-aid/CPR training as a prerequisite to 18

attending their police academies. Those are Michigan, 19

Nebraska, and New Mexico. There are also two police 20

departments I found that already require first-aid/CPR 21

certification as a part of their hiring process. 22

There are other professions that are required to 23

obtain first-aid/CPR training, such as those who work or 24

run a licensed child-care center. They’re required to 25



40

have 15 hours of pediatric health and safety training 1

by an EMSA-approved vendor to obtain their license. 2

The removal of LD 34 from the Basic Course would 3

allow the existing 21 hours of minimum course content to 4

be replaced with other essential training topics such as 5

Principled Policing and Deescalation Training, as well 6

as Rifle Instruction. 7

Basic Training Bureau has been working to infuse 8

Principled Policing and Deescalation Training into 9

various existing learning domains, and through this 10

process, has arrived at the conclusion that there is 11

compelling need to create a stand-alone learning domain 12

for this topic. By creating this learning domain, POST 13

is trying to be proactive with infusion of Procedural 14

Justice before it is mandated. 15

Staff have also identified the need to add Rifle 16

Instruction to LD 35, Firearms course. POST recently 17

surveyed academies and agencies regarding the use of 18

patrol rifles, shotguns, and related training needs. 19

There were 221 respondents for police agencies. 20

Ninety-nine percent of those responding agencies stated 21

they use patrol rifles. Eighty-five percent stated they 22

use shotguns as well. Fifteen percent have replaced 23

their shotguns with less-lethal. And another 15 percent 24

of agencies have eliminated shotguns from patrol. 25



41

Ninety percent of responding academies stated that they 1

have received requests for rifle training to be included 2

in their academy instruction. A hundred percent of the 3

academies reported agencies with rifles in patrol 4

operations. 5

In the changing trends of equipment used in the 6

field, the addition of Rifle Instruction in LD 35 would 7

benefit all agencies. 8

There are more public safety first-aid courses 9

available in multiple formats and variable affordability 10

than there are 16-hour rifle courses, which have a 11

limited amount of offerings; and in some places, not 12

enough instructors or availability to teach it. 13

POST recommends the removal of LD 34 from the Basic 14

Course, and require it to be an academy prerequisite or 15

a post academy training requirement; replace the 21 hours 16

of minimum course content with a new learning domain for 17

Principled Policing and Deescalation Training, and to add 18

Rifle Instruction to LD 35, Firearms. 19

At this point, I can take any questions you might 20

have in regards to this topic; and we would appreciate 21

any feedback you might have. 22

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Commissioners, any 23

questions? 24

(No response) 25



42

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, Commissioner Chaplin. 1

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: Thank you, Madam Chair. 2

And thank you for the excellent work you put behind 3

that staff report and the information. 4

I have received unsolicited feedback from the field 5

on this matter; in fact, from a contract chief. So an 6

executive from a sheriff’s department. I want to 7

paraphrase what he shared with me regarding his concern 8

about this movement. 9

One of the best learning points of Learning 10

Domain 34 is for the students to understand what the role 11

of law enforcement is in performing first-aid. This is 12

lost when you allow it to be taught by an outside entity. 13

By incorporating all of the materials the students have 14

learned into the academy, the students get a better 15

understanding of the impact of narcotics, mental illness, 16

and shock on the body, and how it impacts our victims and 17

witnesses. 18

The POST LD gives us a standardized foundation 19

for all law-enforcement first-aid instruction. Our 20

instruction also meets the federal requirements for 21

training in communicable diseases under OSHA regulations, 22

again, cutting the follow-up on cost to police agencies. 23

With the changes in first-aid, it is not a wise decision 24

to transfer this to third-party groups. 25



43

Additionally, recruits seem to pay more attention in 1

class, at least in the academy setting, than your average 2

perhaps citizen or college student. This implies that 3

they are retaining more information and that it’s fairly 4

important that they do so in this subject matter. 5

So in listening to the conversation and the 6

presentation of what I’ve learned from colleagues in 7

the field, I think the intention to create space for 8

additional learning domains, especially involving 9

Principled Policing, Rifles, and whatever else we’re 10

going to put in there, is certainly noble and something 11

that we should do. The concern is whether or not 12

sacrificing LD 34 is the right move to make that happen. 13

Thank you. 14

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you, Commissioner 15

Chaplin. 16

This is on for information only; but if anybody else 17

has any additional feedback on that issue, I think it 18

would be a good time to discuss it. 19

Anyone else that wants to make any points about 20

that? 21

Mr. Waltz. 22

ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR WALTZ: Madam Chair, Randy 23

Waltz, Advisory Committee Chair. 24

We had some substantial discussion on this item at 25



44

our meeting yesterday afternoon; and concern was voiced 1

that this would have the potential of shifting the 2

responsibility of providing the first-aid/CPR course to 3

the hiring agencies, since that training requirement 4

still exists for the Basic Certificate. And it was 5

voiced that this would have a greater impact on smaller 6

agencies as the trickle-down effect is already being felt 7

more by the smaller agencies from reimbursement. 8

And that pretty much covers the conversations that 9

we had in the Advisory Committee. 10


Anything else? 12

Yes, Commissioner Long. 13

COMMISSIONER LONG: Just a quick question to the 14

presenters. 15

Have you identified, roughly, how you’d break down 16

the 21-hour shift between Rifles and Deescalation and 17

Principled Policing? Is there some type of a breakdown, 18

rough, at all? 19

MS. SANDOVAL: We’re looking at an eight-hour 20

Principled Policing stand-alone course, a four-hour 21

Deescalation, and then a 16-hour Rifle Course. 22

COMMISSIONER LONG: Thanks. 23

MS. SANDOVAL: One of the things that we’ve been 24

talking about with POST personnel, as well as the 25



45

Association of Academy Directors, is with the first-aid 1

and CPR, we constantly seem to be chasing our tails as 2

far as, like, the last one that we had to do, which was 3

the infusion of AEDs. We had to build a bridge course. 4

And it seems like we’re always trying to follow through 5

with what EMSA wants. It’s very difficult for us as a 6

group to try and keep up with those requirements. 7

I was looking at -- from some of the discussion 8

yesterday, I looked at one county in particular who was 9

concerned about disparaging maybe lower social-income 10

individuals away from the academy. And I looked at the 11

day-care worker salary in that particular area, and it’s 12

about $9.53 per hour for a day-care provider and they 13

have to come and maintain their CPR certification. The 14

same thing with the deputy sheriff in that same area, 15

they’re making $25 an hour. So I’m having a little bit 16

of difficulty trying to understand the money part of it. 17

My concern -- and, again, this is information, and 18

we’ll do whatever you guys want us to do -- is I am 19

concerned about trying to always maintain those 20

standards. And it seems that with, like, the fire 21

department coming in with EMT training, it takes us out 22

of the medical group. And what we’re trying to do at 23

POST, is be proactive. And with the infusion of 24

Principled Policing and the other requirements -- this 25



46

is not a required course, first-aid and CPR. So we were 1

trying to be proactive, and look at a way that we can 2

maybe substitute one for the other, where we’ll be 3

swapping out one for the other. 4

So however you want us to do, we would like 5

direction on this. We’ve put a lot of time and effort 6

into this; but if you feel like we’re chasing our tail 7

and this is not a good way to go, then that’s up to you. 8

We can also have people come to the academy as a 9

prerequisite prior to going into the academy, and 10

therefore it puts the onus on the recruit coming into 11

the academy; or during the academy; or prior to actually 12

walking in the first day of a department. 13

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I certainly have some 14

concern about a law-enforcement officer being out in 15

the street without having had this training. 16

Is one of the alternatives that either they present 17

that they have been to that training before they come 18

to the academy, and that we eliminate the possibility of 19

them doing it within the second year? 20

MS. SANDOVAL: Absolutely. 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay. 22

Yes. 23

COMMISSIONER MOORE: I was just thinking, as we look 24

to the future trends in policing, Deescalation Training 25



47

is going to be of utmost importance. I think as we bring 1

in new people through the system, Deescalation is 2

important, as well as first-aid. But there are other 3

avenues that they can get the training for first-aid 4

before, after, and during training to stay current. 5

I, myself, have to go through first-aid training on 6

my own. I do it with the Red Cross, which also puts me 7

out in the community to meet more people from the 8

community. And I think it would also give our cadets 9

more opportunity to be in the community, to meet other 10

community members in which they will be working. So 11

there’s a chance to build relationships as well. But I 12

would highly recommend that we look at Deescalation 13

Training to be the add-on. 14

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you, Commissioner. 15

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Chair? 16

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes. 17

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: You know, I agree, Commissioner 18

Dudley. However, you know, we’re a smaller agency. We 19

don’t have our own academy; and so some people go from 20

the street to a police academy, which would require 21

agencies to provide first-aid training before they’re 22

hired. So that would be difficult. 23

I like the idea of pre or post, and doing it after 24

they graduate from the academy. 25



48

MS. SANDOVAL: We have had some discussion with the 1

regional training community colleges, where they are 2

willing to actually have a course prior to or after, as 3

an add-on. So it would be just once they graduate, they 4

go right into first-aid/CPR training; and it would be 5

funded by FTEs versus agencies or out-of-pockets. 6

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Would that then avoid the 7

possibility of a law-enforcement officer not having the 8

training and being on the street? 9

MS. SANDOVAL: Correct. 10

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Anything else? 11

Yes, Commissioner Ramirez? 12

COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ: I was just going to say, to 13

be a paramedic, you have to have EMT first. To be an 14

EMT, you have to have first-aid. So I don’t understand 15

why these people can’t get the training prior, 16

especially -- I know we’re talking about financial. If 17

they don’t have the money, they usually can get some sort 18

of waiver for school. It kind of takes it off of us. 19

The rifle concern I think is a huge issue, too. 20

Because that would put a lot of pressure on agencies to 21

get the rifle training; and if they can get some in the 22

academy, it would really help offset a lot of the costs 23

for the smaller agencies. 24




49

Yes, Commissioner DeLaRosa. 1

COMMISSIONER DeLaROSA: Is there an increase or 2

decrease in cost to POST in shifting these two or three 3

training methods? Is there a cost? 4

MS. SANDOVAL: I don’t have that answer. However, 5

with us having to build out a bridge course recently 6

for the new EMSA requirements, again, we spent a lot 7

of manpower, SMEs coming into the building to try and 8

facilitate those courses. So I would just say yes. I 9

just don’t have a firm number for you. 10

But as far as swapping out first-aid compared to the 11

rifle training, I don’t know that answer. 12

COMMISSIONER DeLaROSA: Can we get that answer for 13

the next meeting -- 14

MS. SANDOVAL: Certainly. 15

COMMISSIONER DeLaROSA: -- of the fiscal impact, 16

either up or down? 17

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: We may even have it right 18

now. 19


EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: I have a partial 21

answer. 22

So what we’ve always tried to do, historically, 23

is maintain the academy at 664 hours of training. We 24

reimburse based on those 664 hours of training. So by 25



50

doing a swap like this, it will be a neutral cost for us. 1

There won’t be an added cost; but there will be some 2

costs associated with building out a Procedural Justice 3

course or a Deescalation Learning Domain. There will be 4

some costs. But in terms of reimbursements and overall 5

greater costs, it should be neutral. 6

Is that correct? 7

MS. SANDOVAL: I would think so, yes. 8

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Okay. 9

COMMISSIONER DeLaROSA: But you’ll get those impacts 10

on the next meeting, when you bring this back? 11

MS. SANDOVAL: I will have that for you. 12

COMMISSIONER DeLaROSA: Okay, and I’d like to 13

support Commissioner Moore’s Deescalation and Policing as 14

an added training method that it’s very important, not 15

only now, but in the future. 16

Thank you. 17


Anything else from any of the other commissioners? 19

(No response) 20

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I always hate admitting 21

my son is a firefighter; but my son is a firefighter. 22

And certainly, every firefighter does have to get that 23

training before they arrive, and I think it is 24

consistent. And we have day-care providers and a number 25



51

of other people to the list; we wouldn’t be unique in 1

expecting that in any way. 2

MS. SANDOVAL: Correct. 3


Yes, was there another comment? 5

Commissioner Chaplin. 6

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: Just a follow-up question to 7

the Executive Director. 8

You mentioned, I think, 664 hours. It’s interesting 9

because I think the question here asked, is whether or 10

not Learning Domain 34 should be removed. 11

The question is certainly not, should we advance 12

Principled Policing classes or Rifle classes, and are we 13

locked in at 664? Because I think what we could easily 14

do is lose sight of the instant question based on what 15

its replacement would be. And certainly nobody would 16

argue that we must advance our efforts in those areas. 17

So is this an ether/or question? 18

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: I think there 19

potentially are some creative ways to add additional 20

hours and be able to reimburse for those hours. Money 21

has driven those 664 hours, to a certain respect, because 22

that is what we reimburse departments for affiliated 23

students. I believe it’s, like, $5,500 per cadet. 24

Most departments, I think, were averaging 25



52

approximately 850 hours at each academy. Some academies 1

are well -- there’s several of them that are well over a 2

thousand hours. 3

Yesterday, we spoke about some academies providing 4

instruction on canine deployments, on use of radar -- you 5

name it -- and that adds hours. We don’t reimburse for 6

those. 7

There’s also a concern that we keep adding hours 8

and making the academy longer and longer -- a longer 9

experience for these folks. And that obviously costs 10

money to the departments who are having to pay their 11

salaries, and obviously costs to the academies to keep 12

adding stuff on for them. 13

So, I mean, there are some ways that can -- I mean, 14

if we throw some more money at them and say, “Hey, we’re 15

going to add another hundred hours and we’re going to 16

sweeten the pot by a thousand dollars per student,” I 17

mean, in theory, we could do that. I suspect we’d get 18

some pushback about saying, “You’re throwing more at us.” 19

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: Thank you. 20


Yes. 22

COMMISSIONER DONELAN: And, Madam Chair, I think 23

the vocation has real problems with hiring; and adding 24

another certification really makes it more of a challenge 25



53

to hire people. 1

The analogy to the fire department, I don’t think, 2

holds true. If you have an open fire test, and they’re 3

required to bring the certification, all of them will 4

have gone and gotten their EMT certificate, they would 5

have got their cooking courses done ahead of time, and 6

they’ll be there. 7

With us, our challenge is getting people even to 8

take the test. And I’m concerned we’re creating another 9

barrier to people actually joining the vocation, when 10

we’re already having the challenges that we have. 11


Donelan. 13

Anything else? 14


COMMISSIONER LONG: I’d just like to add one thing 16

to the mix, which is -- and I appreciate Chief Chaplin’s 17

remarks -- but I think we’re going to be looking at this 18

either way. I mean, I think there’s every reason to 19

believe that this stuff is going to be mandated by the 20

Legislature. I think that’s what’s coming down the pike. 21

And so I think it’s incumbent upon the Commission to 22

figure out how we’re going to make room for that type of 23

Deescalation and Principled Police training. Maybe it’s 24

not LD 34. But I would recommend and I would urge the 25



54

Commission and POST to stay on top of this. Because I 1

think it’s better for POST to drive this than the 2

Legislature, frankly. And I think you’re going to see 3

mandates like this coming down, whether they’ll be 4

successful this year or next year, it’s what we’re going 5

to see. So we need to be prepared for it. And the 6

discussion of what to move aside or whether to add to 7

the 664 is really crucial. But I would like to see POST 8

and the Commission, you know, drive this as opposed to 9

respond to it. 10


Anything else? 12

COMMISSIONER McMAHON: I would like to just add. 13

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, Commissioner McMahon. 14

COMMISSIONER McMAHON: Our academy is 920 hours, 15

currently; and our plan is not to take first-aid out of 16

it. We’re going to leave it in there because it’s in 17

addition to the 664 that’s the mandate from POST. So we 18

can fit it in. 19

The rifle training certainly is problematic for us 20

at this point because there just isn’t quite enough time. 21

But I think as we get more of these mandates from the 22

Legislature, I think it’s important to think about 23

extending the academy length and providing reimbursement 24

for that. 25



55

We do get some reimbursement from the college 1

because we’re sponsored through the college, so we do 2

get some FTEs, if you will. But I think it would be 3

important as we continue to increase the mandates in the 4

Basic Academy to provide some funding to extend that 5

academy to accomplish all that we need to accomplish. 6


McMahon. 8

Anything else? 9

(No response) 10

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, anything else? 11

(No response) 12

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: No? Thank you very much. 13

Okay, now on to Item 7. Item 7 is a report on 14

attendees of college-credit earning graduate-level 15

college credits for successfully completing Command 16

College. And I’d like to call upon Executive Director 17

Alvarez to tell us more about that. 18

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Thank you, Madam Chair. 19

And I’m going to kind of kick the can down the road, so 20

to speak, and put this on the agenda again in February. 21

The speaker for this is Dr. Fritzvold from the University 22

of San Diego; and he became ill a couple of days ago and 23

could not make it. And they want to be the ones to 24

present what they are doing in terms of their 25



56

relationship with students that graduate from Command 1

College. So I’ll kick the can down the road. 2

But in short, I think I mentioned to a few of you 3

that we had a series of meetings with the University of 4

San Diego. And, frankly, we’ll have it with any 5

university that wants to accredit Command College for 6

college credits. 7

So the University of San Diego, in July of this 8

year, got approval from their dean to accept Command 9

College graduates from 2009, forward, and provide them 10

with 12 graduate-level college credits for a master’s in 11

law-enforcement leadership. So what that will entail is, 12

for the students, it will be an arm’s-length transaction 13

between them and the university. They will provide their 14

record that they graduated from Command College. The 15

university will be tracking the instruction that we do 16

at Command College. They won’t have an input in it. 17

But the student -- or the graduate will supply, I believe 18

it’s $945 for the application fee. They will get 19

12 college credits, and they’ll have 19 more to go that 20

are done online with the capstone at the very end of the 21

year. 22

The courses that they’ll have to take online are: 23

organizational theory and change, organizational 24

leadership, communication for law-enforcement leaders, 25



57

conflict resolution and decision-making, community 1

assessment on organizations, community assessment on 2

crime and criminal justice, public safety law, budget 3

and finance for law-enforcement leaders, community 4

engagement, critical issues in public safety, and law 5

enforcement, and then the capstone. 6

When we started the discussions with them, there 7

was some back and forth as to whether they would have 8

an ability to influence us in how we do the Command 9

College. We told them we weren’t receptive to that 10

whatsoever; and then they came around and said, “Look, 11

we were happy with what you do at Command College” --12

they’ve been tracking it for a number of years -- “and 13

we’re going to go ahead and provide this.” 14

We said, as long as it’s between you and the 15

student, and if we have another university that 16

approaches us with the same proposal, we will do the 17

exact same thing. 18

So they’re going to come in in February and go over 19

what this master’s course is that they’re offering for 20

Command College students; and I hope they make it then. 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any questions about that 22

so far? 23

(No response) 24

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, so we’re expecting 25



58

the University of San Diego person at the February 1

meeting? 2

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Correct. They’re going 3

to say how they’re integrating the Command College 4

credits into their existing master’s program. 5


Anything else? 7

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: Yes. Just a quick 8

clarification. 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, Commissioner Chaplin. 10

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: Graduated in 2009, or started 11

the program in 2009? 12

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: I’m sure they have 13

exemptions and waivers. I don’t know. 14

I’ll tell you what it says. It says -- 15

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: This might sound personal; 16

and there’s a reason for that. 17

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: “Graduated from Command 18

College after 2009.” 19

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: I guess it’s not appropriate 20

to make a motion to… 21

We’ll talk next time. Thank you. 22

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: It is not. 23

Anything else? 24

(No response) 25



59

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, now, on to 1

Item Number 8. Item 8 is a report on the progress made 2

thus far in the Organizational Analysis Project. 3

I’d like to call upon Law Enforcement Consultant 4

Joe Sampson, Mr. Mike Hearn, and Ms. Rosette Nguyen of 5

Mission Consulting to provide a presentation on this 6

item. 7

And welcome, all of you. 8

MR. SAMPSON: Good morning. And thank you, 9

Madam Chair. 10

Good morning, Commissioners and guests. 11

We’d like to give you a brief update on the 12

Organizational Analysis Project that’s in progress right 13

now. 14

Some of you that have been on the Commission for 15

a little bit will remember back in June 2015 when you 16

approved the POST Strategic Plan. One of the things that 17

I thought was brilliant about our plan -- not because 18

I was the project manager, mind you -- but that we had a 19

implementation component to that plan. And essentially, 20

POST leadership has tied the projects and the work that 21

you’re hearing about going on at the organization, back 22

into objectives of the Strategic Plan. And I’m sure 23

you’ve had some report-outs on that. 24

With that thought in mind, this particular 25



60

Organizational Analysis Project was bid out. 1

Mission Consulting is here today to talk a little 2

bit about it. The lead for Mission Consulting is 3

Michael -- where are you? -- Michael Hearn; and our 4

project person, beside me today, is Rosette Nguyen. And 5

they will be doing most of the talking. 6

So, off we go. 7


MS. NGUYEN: Good morning, Madam Chair. Good 9

morning, Commissioners. My name is Rosette Nguyen. I’m 10

from Mission Consulting; and today I will talk to you 11

about the status of the Organizational Analysis Project, 12

including the project background, the project status, and 13

a look ahead. 14

So in June, you did get a very brief update by 15

Executive Director Alvarez. And at that time, we had 16

just started, so it was more a kind of a look-ahead 17

comment and description of the project. I’m going to go 18

into more detail right now. 19

The impetus for this project is the 2015 Strategic 20

Plan, specifically, the Objective B.3 recommended that 21

POST evaluate organizational systems, structures, and 22

processes, to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and 23

productivity. And that is why we are here today. 24

Mission Consulting was contracted, and we have been 25



61

in business for over 25 years. We are a business 1

management consulting firm right here in Sacramento. 2

The project time frame goes from June 2017 through 3

February -- and if -- and, as needed, March 2018. 4

We did, like I said before, talk about this project 5

at the June Commission meeting. In July, we had the 6

all-staff kickoff here. 7

And then our budget for the project is at $97,500, 8

with a cap of 780 hours, which goes by very fast. 9

In terms of the scope of the project, Mission 10

Consulting, we’re doing research and interviews. So 11

what does that really entail? So we are looking at 12

documents -- internal documents, some external documents, 13

documents that have been prepared by third parties, all 14

the way back to even 1999. There was a 1999 15

organizational study; and, of course, the 2015 Strategic 16

Plan that we’ve already talked about, that was also 17

developed and helped with a third party. 18

Interviews. We’ve done a lot of interviews. A lot 19

of interviews with commissioners, with external parties, 20

with staff. 21

External outreach. We’ve provided external 22

stakeholders opportunities to provide feedback through 23

a focus group, but also through an electronic survey. 24

So we have had contact with heads of stakeholder 25



62

organizations; we’ve had contact with sheriffs, police 1

chiefs, dispatchers, training presenters, academy 2

directors. All varieties of roles that play day-to-day 3

with POST in terms of getting POST’s mission objectives 4

accomplished. 5

In terms of comparison with other states, we are 6

contracted to reach out to up to four different states. 7

And the purpose of that is to really obtain from other 8

states, you know, what are their duties, what are their 9

responsibilities, what are their lessons learned, and 10

what best practices had they learned and applied? And, 11

really, what is applicable to California? Because 12

really, as you all know, California is such a different 13

state from any other states and also these four other 14

states that we are interviewing. 15

Evaluation of current external processes and work 16

flow. What does that mean? Really, we are looking at 17

documents, but also at every meeting that we have with 18

each bureau. So we have a total of the eight bureaus, 19

and we have meetings with them. But also some -- like, 20

for example, the Administrative Services Bureau, there 21

are unique activities done by different units. So we’re 22

meeting with them, too. And when we meet with them, we 23

always go through, at the beginning of the meeting, 24

basically how did we take in work and how does the work 25



63

flow through their staff members and their current 1

processes and their structure. 2

Review and analysis of existing mandated programs 3

and services, duplicative work, workload distribution. 4

So we are reviewing the Penal Codes and making sure that, 5

you know, the work that POST does -- and is it all 6

mandated? What’s mandated? What’s elective? And with 7

the goal of helping POST prioritize resources, time with 8

the budget that exists. 9

Duplicative work and workload distribution. We 10

always ask that question in both the electronic survey 11

and in all of our meetings of staff and of external 12

stakeholders. You know, if they are familiar and can 13

identify areas where there is duplicative work, so that 14

POST can be more efficient in making sure that less of 15

that is done. 16

And development and presentation of the final 17

report. So we will be synthesizing and analyzing all 18

of the information that we’ve received. And thus far, 19

we’ve had about -- we have about 90 percent of the data 20

collection completed. We’ll be synthesizing that; and 21

then also putting that information into a report that 22

will be presented. And I will talk about that in the 23

next few slides in terms of what to expect. 24

The team. So the Organizational Analysis Team 25



64

consists of three POST members and two Mission Consulting 1

staff members. On the POST side, we have Don Shingara, 2

bureau chief sponsor who is here today; Joe, who has 3

already spoken; Jennifer Imlay-Hardesty, who is right 4

behind me as well. And they have been very helpful in 5

supporting us as we move through the interviews, the 6

research, the meetings, the focus group. 7

And then there’s Mission Consulting, myself and 8

Michael. 9

Every slide that we have our name up there, whether 10

we’re talking to external stakeholders or staff, we 11

always put our contact information, including our mobile 12

phone numbers. 13

And as Executive Director Alvarez has expressed to 14

the commissioners, who were commissioners at that time, 15

back in the summer, in an e-mail saying, “This is what’s 16

happening. Please contact Michael and Rosette as 17

needed,” we’ve always included our e-mail and our cell 18

phone number, so we want to let you know that you’re 19

always welcome to contact us. 20

And then for the next few slides, we’re going to 21

talk about where we’re at and what we’re looking forward 22

to. 23

In terms of project status, I’ve had the real 24

sincere pleasure of meeting with the majority of you in 25



65

your home city and/or in Sacramento. That has been a 1

real pleasure for me. And just to note, that is not on 2

POST’s dime. 3

We’ve also conducted a focus group with Cal Chiefs, 4

Cal Sheriffs, CPOA, PORAC, CCHUG [phonetic], Cal D.A. 5

Investigators. We’ve conducted 30 in-person, one-on-one 6

interviews with staff. And just to note, all 118 staff 7

members have been given the opportunity to provide 8

feedback to us, whether through electronic survey or in 9

an in-person meeting. 10

So some of them are through 101 interviews. But all 11

staff have been and/or will be given the opportunity to 12

meet in a group meeting. 13

We have conducted six interbureau group meetings; 14

and that consists of basically attendees from different 15

bureaus who are either all supervisors or all 16

non-managers, so that they feel comfortable to speak 17

about where they’re at and what -- in terms of what role 18

they have. 19

And as I said before, we always have done 11 20

intrabureau group meetings so that each bureau has an 21

opportunity to talk about improvements within their own 22

bureau. 23

We’ve received electronic surveys from the staff and 24

external stakeholders. So that latter part there with 25



66

the external stakeholders, this is above and beyond the 1

original scope of work, because it was identified during 2

an interview that we should really be talking to external 3

stakeholders, not only representatives where their 4

executives of the organization are at the table, but also 5

with staff who are working day-to-day with POST staff 6

members. 7

We’ve reviewed and we plan to review POST laws, 8

regulations, policies, and procedures. 9

And then the four states we’re interviewing are 10

Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. I have also 11

looked at the organizational structures of other states’ 12

POSTs as well, and looked at various different states, 13

not just these four. But these are the four that we are 14

talking to. 15

And in terms of the scope of the project, we have 16

780 hours, as I mentioned. We have used approximately 17

half of that, and a little more than half remain for the 18

work that we have ahead, which I will be discussing right 19

now. 20

Like I say, we’ve collected quite a bit of the data. 21

But there’s just a couple more states who we need to 22

still reach -- still need them to contact us and call us 23

back, as well as one or two other meetings. But we will 24

have collected everything by mid-November. 25



67

And we are starting and will do most of the analysis 1

and validation of the findings in November and December. 2

It’s critical that we talk to external stakeholders and 3

staff, management, executives, staff, support staff. That 4

what we have as a finding is validated and does hold true 5

because we want, at the end, with the final report, that 6

the recommendations and findings are taken and that are 7

valid and doable for POST. 8

And then we’ll have draft findings and 9

recommendations presented to the Executive Office in 10

early January, and then to all staff in the latter part 11

of January, and then to the commissioners in February. 12

So with that, Joe and I are available for questions 13

right now. 14

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Questions? 15

COMMISSIONER HUTCHENS: I have a question. 16


COMMISSIONER HUTCHENS: And not to take away from 18

the thunder of your final report; but I’m just curious 19

if you found anything to the level of POST in the other 20

states, in terms of structure and focus on regulations 21

for law enforcement? 22

MS. NGUYEN: So, we have reached out to the other 23

states starting in September; and I’ve left voice mails, 24

sending e-mails at least three or four times. And the 25



68

only state that’s actually reached out back to us and 1

given us information is Washington. And so I’m still 2

waiting to hear back from Oregon, Arizona, and Nevada. 3

And in Washington, it is very interesting; and one 4

of my questions for all the states that I have planned 5

is, you know, of the things that you do and other things 6

that work really well and the lesson learned and the best 7

practices, what do you think is applicable to California? 8

And so there are quite a few things that I think 9

Washington does very well in terms of having a very 10

simple set of courses, academies, campuses. 11

But I ask -- you know, we ask the question, is it 12

applicable to California? 13

So I don’t have a lot of -- that’s why we’re still 14

waiting until mid-November for them to call us back. But 15

I do have a few e-mails and voice mails left with them. 16

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Ms. Nguyen, let me make 17

a suggestion. 18

First of all, they should be calling you back, and 19

it’s wrong that they’re not calling you back. But you 20

might want to talk to Executive Director Alvarez, and 21

maybe one of us calling a colleague in one of those 22

states may make that difference for you. 23

MS. NGUYEN: Yes. And I have had some help already. 24

But additional help would be, of course, very much 25



69

appreciated. 1

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Well, if you would work 2

through Executive Director Alvarez, he’ll know which of 3

us to reach out to; and we’d be glad to do it. 4

MS. NGUYEN: Thank you so much. 5

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Other questions? 6

(No response) 7

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Well, many of us did have 8

the pleasure of being interviewed by you; and it was a 9

great experience. And I appreciate the work that you’re 10

doing, and all the commissioners do. 11

Anything else? 12

MS. NGUYEN: Thank you. 13


MR. SAMPSON: Thank you. 15

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, we are going to take 16

a ten-minute break now, which means that we will start up 17

again at five to 11:00. Please be on time. 18

Thank you. 19

(Recess from 10:45 a.m. to 10:55 a.m.) 20


And Commissioner Long asked that we pull 11, the 22

report on Principled Policing. 23

And if I could ask the bureau chief, R.C. Smith, who 24

will make that report. 25



70

R.C. SMITH: Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of 1

the Commission. It’s kind of nice to come back up when 2

everybody has had a chance to be relieved and refreshed 3

from the break. 4

The purpose of this report is to update the 5

Commission on efforts that POST has been making to 6

advance the concepts of Principled Policing, Procedural 7

Justice, and Implicit Bias across the board in different 8

POST courses and programs. 9

In 2015, the President’s Task Force on 21st Century 10

Policing stressed, and I quote, that “Law-enforcement 11

agencies should adopt Procedural Justice as the guiding 12

principle for internal and external policies and 13

practices, to guide their interactions with rank-and-file 14

officers and with the citizens they serve; and the need 15

for expanded and more effective training has become 16

critical.” 17

Well, POST took this direction and these 18

recommendations to heart. And working in collaboration 19

with the Attorney General’s office, Stanford University’s 20

SPARQ Center -- the Social Psychological Answers to 21

Real-World Questions -- and the Stockton and Oakland 22

Police Departments, we developed a course on Principled 23

Policing for in-service officers that focuses on the 24

four core tenets of Procedural Justice. Those four 25



71

tenets being: respect, treating people with dignity; 1

neutrality, making decisions fairly and objectively; 2

voice, giving people a chance to tell their side of the 3

story; and trust, acting in a way that encourages 4

community members to believe that they will be treated 5

with goodwill. 6

In support of this, in July of 2016, the State 7

Department of Finance authorized an appropriation of 8

$5 million for POST to use to continue the development 9

and presentation of these training programs. And these 10

funds are available for encumbrance and expenditure 11

through June of 2021. 12

Just a quick financial update on that. 13

In fiscal year 2016-17, a total of $151,000 from 14

these funds was spent. I do not have the current fiscal 15

year’s expenditures to date because of the State’s 16

transition to the new Fi$Cal accounting system. I will 17

hopefully have them soon. 18

But we do expect that the expenditures will increase 19

exponentially with the expansion of the program, as we 20

get a stronger cadré of instructors trained up and more 21

agencies are certified to put on this course. 22

So a little bit about the course. It’s an 23

eight-hour course on Principled Policing; and it’s 24

designed to help officers overcome the barriers to 25



72

neutral policing and build these relationships of trust 1

that we’re talking about. 2

It’s constructed in five modules: 3

The first module discusses the interactive nature of 4

Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, Implicit Bias, and their 5

goals. 6

The second one talks about expectations: Community 7

expectations and law-enforcement expectations, and their 8

connection to Legitimacy. 9

The third focus is on Procedural Justice. 10

The fourth dives into historical and generational 11

effects of policing, recognizing that the police officer 12

today is policing on the shoulders of the history of 13

multiple generations of policing that preceded them, both 14

good and bad. 15

And the fifth goes into Implicit Bias. Now, there 16

have been concerns as we’ve been putting out the course 17

on the Implicit Bias module of a lack of consistency. 18

So one of the things that we’re in the process of doing, 19

is working with Dr. Jennifer Eberhardt with the Stanford 20

SPARQ Center, to develop a series of videos. Because 21

Dr. Eberhardt is really, truly the expert in this area. 22

And she puts on a wonderful course; but she can’t be 23

there to teach every class. So we’re putting together a 24

series of videotapes of Dr. Eberhardt that are designed 25



73

specifically to be facilitated. So we’ll get the best 1

of both worlds for that module. We will have the 2

consistency and the ability to dive into the nuances of 3

Implicit Bias that Dr. Eberhardt can present, along with 4

the value of an in-class facilitated interaction. 5

There are currently 13 presenters statewide that 6

are certified to put on this course; and there’s an 7

additional five agencies that are in the certification 8

process. 9

And since the time I finalized the report that you 10

have in your agenda, the numbers have increased because 11

we have to submit the report, obviously, early. So we 12

now have a total of 1,640 students who have completed 13

this course to date. 14

To develop the cadré of instructors, we have a 15

16-hour Train-the-Trainer course. It’s designed to 16

enable officers to gain the necessary skills and 17

knowledge to effectively present these concepts. They 18

are nuanced and they are complex. 19

There are currently four presenters certified to 20

offer this course; and we have now had a total of 21

221 graduates who are now certified to instruct the 22

course statewide. 23

In support of the course, we also have several other 24

components in place. 25



74

We have a facilitators assessment workshop; and this 1

is intended for instructors who have already through the 2

Train-the-Trainer course, to further refine their ability 3

and the skill to facilitate, like I said, the nuances of 4

the course in presenting the five modules. 5

Additionally, we have a mentoring program. And 6

the mentors are trainers who were involved in the 7

development of the course and currently facilitate the 8

Train-the-Trainer course. And they are available to 9

provide one-on-one coaching and mentoring for a 10

department and their instructors, in assisting them in 11

supporting the presentation of the course. 12

Additional support of the program: We’re working 13

at finalizing a contract with the Stanford SPARQ Center 14

to further expand and develop their Policing and Implicit 15

Bias Tool-kit Web site. This is the information and 16

materials that provide resources to improve the 17

instructor’s ability to present the course and the course 18

materials. 19

Additionally, beyond this course, I think at the 20

last Commission meeting, you had the opportunity to see 21

the “Did You Know? Procedural Justice” video produced by 22

POST. I don’t know if at that time it had already had 23

done so, but it has received two Emmy Awards. Very 24

excellent video. 25



75

It has been viewed on the POST Web site 5,562 times. 1

But the real important piece is, it has been downloaded 2

567 times. So that means that agencies are downloading 3

this and they’re showing it internally. And there’s no 4

way to quantify how broad that reach is; but I would 5

suggest we can infer that it’s significant. 6

Our Learning Technology Resources Bureau is also in 7

the process of developing an additional “Did You Know?” 8

video that’s going to look at Principled Policing 9

specifically in how it develops and builds trust and 10

increase in law enforcement’s ability to serve refugee 11

communities. And that’s in progress right now. 12

We’re looking at strategic communications. Many in 13

this room may remember the old “Verbal Judo”; and that 14

transitioned and evolved to “Tactical Communications.” 15

Well, strategic communications is kind of Verbal Judo, 16

you know, 3.0, so to speak. And we’re looking at, this 17

is a consistent, with the principles of Procedural 18

Justice; and it’s more specific tools -- less conceptual 19

and more specific tools that officers can directly apply 20

in assisting them in communicating and gaining voluntary 21

compliance in professional interactions with the 22

community. 23

We’re looking at ways that we can further introduce 24

these concepts of strategic communications from the Basic 25



76

Course academy and FTO, all the way through Supervisory 1

and Management Courses. 2

Speaking of the Basic Academy, next month, we will 3

hold the second in a series of workshops that we’re 4

conducting with different subject-matter experts as well 5

as key stakeholders, such as the NAACP, the ACLU, and 6

LULAC -- the League of United Latin American Citizens -- 7

as well as the Museum of Tolerance. And this is looking 8

at the specific learning domains in the Basic Academy, 9

and how to better infuse Procedural Justice concepts 10

throughout the Basic Course, to ensure that our new 11

recruits really get immunized. 12

And as you heard earlier in the first-aid 13

presentation, we are also looking at ways that we can 14

build options to have a stand-alone introductory 15

component of Procedural Justice, in which -- you know, 16

that would be the inoculation. And then this infusion 17

through the rest of the learning domains would be the 18

booster shot, so to speak. 19

We’re also working at the Public Safety Dispatch 20

Basic Course to also look at a similar infusion. 21

In the spring of this coming year, the Supervisory 22

Course is going to have a similar workshop with, again, 23

key stakeholders to look at how we can infuse Principled 24

Policing and Procedural Justice in the Supervisory 25



77

course. 1

And these concepts have already been well-integrated 2

in the Executive Development course. They’re woven 3

throughout and specifically detailed in two class 4

sessions: One, Contemporary Organizational Issues -- 5

this is taught by Jackie Gomez Whitely, the former chief 6

of police for the cities of Cypress and Alhambra; and 7

she has been certified through our Train-the-Trainer 8

program -- as well as the Ethics and Values portion, 9

where they specifically get into the fragility of trust. 10

And this is taught by Art Cribbs, who is a former 11

television journalist, pastor, and a long-time Executive 12

Development instructor. 13

Lastly, we’re taking Principled Policing; and we’re 14

implementing it as an evaluative component in our 15

management studies. External legitimacy between an 16

agency and the community begins internally, with a 17

commitment by leadership to adhere to the tenets of 18

Principled Justice -- Procedural Justice within the 19

organization. It’s basically, you know, if you model 20

Procedural Justice in how you teach those you work with 21

and those who work for you, they’re more inclined to go 22

out into the community and, in turn, serve in that 23

capacity. 24

So in our management studies, we’re making an 25



78

evaluative component to assist agencies in looking 1

internally how they can better model those principles. 2

That’s my overview; and I’m happy to entertain any 3

questions or comments. 4



COMMISSIONER LONG: How long -- you know, the 7

1640 or 1650 officers -- I’m sure somebody here knows 8

what the context of that is -- like, how many officers 9

are there in the state; and how long would it take with 10

our current infrastructure to run everyone through an 11

eight-hour course? 12

R.C. SMITH: Well, that infrastructure is increasing 13

rapidly. Again, I feel like we’ve just come out of the 14

starting blocks on this, now that we’re getting a 15

stronger cadré of instructors available and a stronger 16

number of agencies that have been certified. Of course, 17

I really expect those to increase exponentially. 18

We anticipate this fiscal year there would be 19

approximately 48 course offerings. If you figure that 20

maybe the average course is incurring 30 students -- 21

I’m terrible at math in my head -- and that gives you a 22

sense there. 23

We are also looking at this fiscal year of 24

approximately 16 additional offerings of the Train-the-25



79

Trainer course. So, again, I think that by next fiscal 1

year, we’re going to see a very rapid exponential 2

increase in the number of students going through. 3

COMMISSIONER LONG: Have you tracked at all -- 4

R.C. SMITH: And I -- 5

COMMISSIONER LONG: I’m sorry. I’m sorry, I 6

interrupted. 7

R.C. SMITH: No, go ahead, please. 8

COMMISSIONER LONG: Have you tracked at all like 9

who the 1640 -- do we have some idea -- are they 10

disproportionately from different agencies or different 11

parts of the state, or sheriff’s departments or police 12

departments or, you know, Stockton PD sent their whole 13

gang? Do we have some idea of how that breaks out? 14

R.C. SMITH: There’s been a number of agencies that 15

have been very committed to it. 16

Clearly, both the Stockton and Oakland Police 17

Departments, they were our pioneers. They were the 18

pilots. So they are going to have a greater percentage 19

of their officers trained. 20

And, in fact, just an anecdotal response at a 21

different program I was at, I was speaking to a sergeant 22

with the Stockton Police Department who happens to be one 23

of their instructors. And I was asking him how it was 24

going in their agency and how it was being accepted; and 25



80

he had some very positive reports. But, really, the 1

great example he gave me, he said that their officers are 2

starting to come back, and they’ll come back after a 3

scene or a particular interaction they’ve handled, and 4

they’ll come back to the sergeant and say, “Hey, Sarge, 5

I really PJ’ed the heck out of that person.” It’s 6

becoming part of the banter in the agency, which to me 7

is a very positive sign of how it’s being accepted and 8

how it’s being employed within the agency. 9

COMMISSIONER LONG: I think, Commissioner Braziel, 10

I think you asked in the last meeting for some type of 11

updates on who has gone through the training. I would 12

certainly defer to you guys in law enforcement to talk 13

about how best might we keep a handle on who is going 14

through the training, and kind of what the breakdown is 15

statewide, I guess. 16

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: You kind of leave 17

that to POST as far as who is going through it. But I 18

share with you that if we don’t drive this train faster, 19

it’s going to be driven for us. 20

COMMISSIONER LONG: Yes. 21

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: How many? R.C., how 22

many? 1600? 23

R.C. SMITH: 1640. 24

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Yes, that’s -- if 25



81

you combine the two agencies that are vested, that’s 1

probably where they’re at. And you get a significant 2

number that have -- I mean, you’ve got LA Sheriff’s is 3

ten times that amount by themselves. 4

R.C. SMITH: Right. 5

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: So we’re not even 6

out of the starting blocks, from my perspective. We’re 7

just kind of still tinkering around with it. And if 8

we’re not careful, it’s going to come back to haunt us 9

that we haven’t been more aggressive in pushing the 10

courses out and/or getting them into CPT or something. 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes? 12

COMMISSIONER BUI: I have a comment. 13


COMMISSIONER BUI: I think, from the line level, 15

it’s important for these officers to be able to actually 16

absorb the content. 17

I was given an opportunity to sit in on that 18

Principled Policing Train-the-Trainer course and listened 19

to the Stanford professor speak. Charles Evans and I 20

spoke about this. The content was just so academic and 21

cerebral, that it was hard for me to absorb; and I think 22

that you guys are already starting to modify that 23

content, and including that in that video she was making; 24

right? So I would hope that you present that or preview 25



82

it with, like, a line-level audience, to see if they can 1

actually understand it before we actually push it out and 2

make it part of the curriculum. 3


Anything else? 5

Yes, Commissioner Ramirez? 6

COMMISSIONER RAMIREZ: I just want to make a comment 7

about the video that, you know, POST did such a good job 8

on it. The one thing that I recommended to our 9

department was, you know, when applicants come in and 10

they do an essay before they actually come for their 11

interview -- and the essay is usually on leadership or 12

something like that -- so my suggestion was, show them 13

the video, then have them write a paper on it. And you 14

kind of get the -- you can wash some of those things out 15

before they even walk in the door. So that was just a 16

comment I wanted to make on that. 17


Anything else? 19

(No response) 20

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I have just a couple of 21

comments, okay. 22

I think the concept of infusion is critical, 23

especially in this area. So I very much appreciate the 24

fact that you’re looking towards infusing it throughout 25



83

the curriculum. 1

And the other piece is, I have put it on the Santa 2

Barbara County District Attorney Web site, the “Did You 3

Know?” and the people in the community are seeing it, 4

so beyond law enforcement; and I think it’s having an 5

effect on people in the community as well. So it really 6

is having a wide effect. And it is a fantastic video. 7


COMMISSIONER LONG: Well, I was just going to say, 9

as I said earlier, I think that this is coming down the 10

pike and will be mandated at some point. And I think 11

that -- I think we need to be prepared, one, to talk 12

about, as Commissioner Braziel said: What’s the plan 13

for getting this beyond this 1,600? How can we do this 14

exponentially? Is it even possible? And what would it 15

take, and how would we do it? 16

And then just finally, this thing that I think the 17

AG’s office put this out some time ago; but I’ve shown 18

this to a number of people, I’d come back to the whole 19

notion of some type of third-party validation. POST is 20

doing some good stuff and some interesting stuff. When 21

you even have a little pamphlet like this to show people, 22

it shuts a lot of people up, it blows a lot of people 23

away. 24

I would like to see more of an effort -- and maybe 25



84

we can do an update of this from SPARQ or something like 1

this -- but the number of people that have come to me to 2

talk about -- say, in the Legislature and others -- and 3

they say, “What’s POST doing on this? Da, da, da,” I 4

can pull something like this out, and show, you know, 5

Eberhardt’s in here, and you’ve got some statistics and 6

some surveys; it’s very effective. 7

I think we need to keep an eye on ongoing 8

third-party validation. If there’s some type of update 9

we could do of this to have on hand, I think it would 10

serve us well in the Legislature and in the 11

Administration and with other interest groups. 12

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Commissioner Long, just 13

for the record, what is the document you held up? 14

COMMISSIONER LONG: This is -- and I think the 15

DOJ might have done that -- was behind this, largely. 16

But it’s “Principled Policing, Procedural Justice, 17

Implicit Bias Training.” And it kind of goes through the 18

early iteration of what POST has done. 19

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay. 20

COMMISSIONER LONG: And it’s got a number of -- 21

it’s short; but it also shows that there’s some creative 22

thinking going on, that actual work is going on, there’s 23

a response, there’s surveys and so forth, and there’s 24

contact numbers. 25



85


R.C. SMITH: I certainly appreciate all the feedback 2

from the Commission. It’s all very well taken. 3

Just a point, getting into the numbers, from the 4

time I finalized this report to have it properly noticed 5

to the public, between then, when I finalized the report, 6

and now, there was a 400 -- so the original report had a 7

student completion rate of 1,249. So there were 8

basically 400 additional students in that short period of 9

time. So that is what I’m getting at is, there’s being 10

an exponential increase in the number of students as 11

we’re building capacity to push it out further. 12


Anything else on this item? 14

(No response) 15

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you so much. 16

R.C. SMITH: Thank you. 17

COMMISSIONER LONG: Thank you. 18

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Now, moving on to Item 12. 19

Item 12 is a report on the proposed realignment of the 20

current POST training reimbursement plans. 21

I’d like to call upon Assistant Executive Director 22

Scott Loggins to provide a presentation on this item. 23

MR. LOGGINS: Good morning, Madam Chair. 24

Good morning, Commissioners. 25



86

Madam Chair, if I may, can I make a quick point that 1

would help illustrate some of the true numbers for the 2

people we’re training with regard to Procedural Justice? 3

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Please. 4

MR. LOGGINS: Specifically, to address Commissioner 5

Long’s questions. 6

This is more so than simply the 1,600. Starting 7

last year, we infused this throughout the entirety of the 8

Basic Academy, and we’re infusing it through the entire 9

fabric of everything that we teach. So even though the 10

vast majority of cops are not immediately getting the 11

full 16 hours of training or eight hours of training, the 12

fact that we’re infusing it in all of our legacy courses 13

means that a lot more cops are getting that training. 14

As an example, we push out between three and five 15

thousand students in the RBC every year, which means, 16

through attrition, we’re probably adding another 17

2,500 peace officers in the state of California. So if 18

you factor in those numbers on a year-by-year basis, 19

and also given the fact, through attrition, we have a 20

considerable number of people that inevitably get 21

promoted to sergeant, and upwards into the management 22

levels, they are compelled to take specific courses which 23

we’re infusing Procedural Justice concepts; I think, 24

conservatively, it’s realistic to come into play that 25



87

probably 50,000-plus of the 90,000 cops in the state of 1

California will have at least touched upon this training 2

or have been exposed to it within a matter of just a few 3

years. 4

So we are making more headway than just simply the 5

raw numbers of 1,600. I hope that helps further 6

illustrate the work that we’re definitely trying to do. 7


Commissioner Long, any questions on that? 9

COMMISSIONER LONG: No. 10


MR. LOGGINS: Very well. Thank you for your time 12

this morning. 13

On to the actual -- the matter at hand, we’re here 14

to talk about our plan to realign some of the 15

reimbursement plans within the programs we do. 16

As with many of you that are in local government, 17

the Commission on POST is facing some significant fiscal 18

challenges as we sit here today. 19

A lot of these challenges are often cyclical in 20

nature: they go up and down with the economy. This is 21

nothing new to the majority of you and our stakeholders. 22

We’ve all experienced the necessity of having to reduce 23

our expenditures commensurate with the funding that’s 24

come in. 25



88

Tightening the belt in times of severe fiscal crisis 1

is nothing new, and it’s just simply the way of doing 2

business when you’re in government and you’re tied to 3

whatever funding source you get. 4

Beginning in 2014, POST implemented several 5

temporary budget-reduction measures in the form of 6

bulletins that are listed in attachments to the agenda 7

item that you see today. We’ve continued these 8

budget-reduction plans, essentially kicking the can down 9

the road, with a suspension of reimbursement, a 10

suspension of backfill for the better part of five years 11

for almost every one of our courses, except for those 12

that are associated with a mandate, either regulatory 13

mandate or a legislative mandate, or one of our legacy 14

courses. 15

This most recent bulletin that we issued with a 16

budget-reduction measure is scheduled to expire 17

January 1, 2018, which is coming up pretty quickly. 18

In today’s environment, unlike prior cycles, or 19

even decades, this current ongoing pattern has shown a 20

steady period of decline in revenues due to circumstances 21

that are beyond this commission’s control, and has 22

created a new sense of urgency for us to get some 23

stability with regard to our expenditures, to make sure 24

they’re commensurate with the revenues that we’re 25



89

receiving. 1

Just last year -- or, actually, in this current 2

year, fiscal year 2017-18, we realized an approximate 3

21 percent reduction in our funding to our allocated 4

budget. 5

Further exacerbating it is the fact that the actual 6

revenues that we anticipated failed to meet our 7

schedules. So that actual 21 percent reduction is 8

significantly higher, perhaps almost double of that. 9

Making ends meet in California to serve a cadré of 10

90,000 cops -- almost 100,000 cops, has created a new 11

normal for us, essentially doing more with a whole heck 12

of a lot less. 13

So essentially, as I mentioned, where we’re kicking 14

the can down the road, as our Executive Director 15

referenced in his opening remarks, has created a new 16

sense of urgency for us to more efficiently manage our 17

expenditures to make sure that we can provide that 18

necessary critical training, while perhaps setting aside 19

some of those elective courses until times are better 20

economically or we can find alternative funding sources. 21

As we stand today, this commission has created five 22

different plans for reimbursement. You’re all well aware 23

of them, Plans I through V. Some of them are extremely 24

generous. They pay for per diem, travel, and tuition. 25



90

Some are less generous, and only pay for a modicum of 1

that. And then we also have what we call a “Plan NA,” 2

which doesn’t pay for anything. 3

Since each one of these courses was developed 4

independently and certified at different times in POST 5

history, there’s a vast array of differences between the 6

plans. A lot of these plans that were giving the more 7

generous levels reimbursement were done in times when 8

we had a significant amount of revenue coming in. 9

It wasn’t too long ago that this agency had almost 10

$31 million in reserve. Fast-forward to where we are 11

today, we’re nowhere near that. In fact, we’re in 12

deficit; and we’re desperately trying to make sure we 13

can make our ends meet, to make sure we properly serve 14

our stakeholders. 15

One of the attempts we are doing to get a better 16

grasp -- get a better sense of stability with regard 17

our budget, is to address the significant variation in 18

reimbursement plans and to closely monitor our 19

expenditures as we move forward. 20

This realignment plan that you’ve seen in the agenda 21

item is simply consistent with our current practices. 22

As we speak today, POST consultants regularly adjust 23

plans accordingly in order to meet their consumer needs 24

and make sure it falls within our budget. 25



91

The only difference we’re doing today is we’re 1

looking at the entirety of the plans, all 3,900 of our 2

courses, so that we can share that there’s some 3

consistency, some sense of normalcy, and make sure it’s 4

a fair and equitable distribution of the monies; so that 5

that training that’s necessary follow the proverbial 6

“boots on the ground” is met. 7

Given the fact that there’s tremendous variables 8

that -- again, there’s a high sense of urgency. We need 9

to absolutely do this as we speak. 10

Quite frankly, this is our perfect opportunity to 11

capitalize on this opportunity and take better control 12

of our finances. There’s a perception that we are 13

arbitrarily scrubbing down reimbursement and making 14

decisions on the fly. Believe me, this is taken with 15

a great amount of discussion, a great amount of 16

concentration; and we’re mindful of the fact that this 17

will have an adverse impact on some of our presenters 18

who present very good, very meaningful training, but 19

nevertheless, it’s training that is elective in nature 20

and not mandatory. This is also simply adhering to the 21

specific direction that we’ve gotten from the 22

Legislature. When they created POST back in the late 23

fifties and developed Penal Codes to address it, they 24

specified in the appropriate Penal Code that this 25



92

commission will allocate monies at intervals specified 1

by the Commission to each county, city, and district for 2

which we have authority, in an amount determined by the 3

Commission pursuant to standards set forth in its 4

regulations. 5

In support of that, this commission actually created 6

a regulatory act specifically to address reimbursement. 7

And it specifically states, “Reimbursement is based upon 8

fund availability as approved by the Commission and 9

subject to available funds.” 10

This realignment process that we’re moving forward 11

with is simply an allocation of reimbursement monies to 12

ensure that we’re capable of providing the best possible 13

return on the investment for our stakeholders, get a 14

better sense of stability with regard to outgoing 15

expenditures, to make sure our books are clean, and 16

so that we can serve the needs of those 90,000-plus 17

law-enforcement officers who are pushing beat cars 24/7. 18

We’ve had a significant amount of discussion with a 19

number of our stakeholders, the members of the Executive 20

Office and some of our bureau chiefs have gone around the 21

state and met with your counterparts: The chiefs of 22

police, the labor organizations, the sheriffs. And we’ve 23

bent their ear. And the common theme they’ve told us 24

is, they’re mindful of the fact that we are encountering 25



93

budget challenges; and they want those proverbial “boots 1

on the ground,” the first responders, to get that 2

necessary training. 3

At the top of their list are those things that are 4

required by law; the top of the list are those things 5

that are required by regulation; and the top of that 6

list are things that they deem to be mission-essential 7

for our law-enforcement professionals to do the job that 8

they do each and every day. 9

With that, I’d be more than glad to entertain any 10

questions you may have. 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any questions? 12

COMMISSIONER HUTCHENS: I just have a comment. 13


COMMISSIONER HUTCHENS: Great report. 15

And while I think it’s very prudent for us to, if 16

you will, look at our own house, clean our own house, as 17

I think was mentioned yesterday, things change over time. 18

You know, needs for training changed over time, times 19

change. However, I think that we do need to keep -- as 20

the Governor’s commission, I think we need to keep the 21

Governor’s office informed as to at some point, if 22

mandates continue and we have to discontinue necessary 23

training -- or not discontinue, or agencies are -- we’re 24

relying on agencies to provide it and they may or may not 25



94

be able to afford it, particularly the smaller agencies, 1

it’s going to have a negative impact on law enforcement 2

in this state. 3

So I would just ask -- I’m leaving the Commission; 4

but I would ask the Commission just to keep that in mind. 5

I think this is the right course of action, don’t get me 6

wrong. I think we always have to take a look at what 7

we’ve been providing, what we need to continue to 8

provide, and make sure we’re on solid ground on what we 9

have out there, what we’re reimbursing for. 10

But I do -- I can’t leave without saying I have some 11

concern when the funding goes away; and particularly at 12

this time, when many, many more demands are being placed 13

on law enforcement, and there’s much concern about much 14

relationships between law enforcement and the community. 15

And we all know that training is so important to 16

maintaining not only the trust, but the efficiency of our 17

law enforcement. 18

MR. LOGGINS: I appreciate those comments. 19

We had a considerable amount of discussion here. 20

And as you know from running a large organization, you’ve 21

encountered budget cuts like this as well. You know, in 22

the law enforcement sector, when you’re encountering a 23

deficit, there’s only so much money you can save on paper 24

clips or a new copier lease or driving a car another 25



95

10,000 miles to get more out of that particular lease. 1

There comes a time where you just simply have to cut 2

service delivery; and this is our service delivery. 3

And it’s difficult, because our goal is to get every 4

cop on the street, every supervisor, every manager the 5

necessary training, the necessary tools so they can 6

reinvest it in serving us all. 7


Commissioner Braziel. 9

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Yes, and we’ve had 10

this discussion before; and might I suggest that maybe 11

the Commission actually have a workshop to look at this. 12

Because if you look at all the categories except for NA, 13

everyone has per diem and travel; and our goal is to 14

provide training. So maybe we look at it from a 15

different perspective other than the legacy classes. 16

Let’s figure out a way to eliminate per diem and travel, 17

to where we’re spending our money wisely and taking the 18

training to the students, not the students to the 19

training. 20

And I think there is a way to look at that when we 21

start breaking it down, just looking at the courses, 22

just even the Plan IV and the NA, the volume there is 23

huge. We’re working off an old model that people have to 24

go to the training, versus us customizing the training 25



96

based on the county or the region, based on what the 1

sheriffs and the chiefs want. And so we reduce those 2

costs. 3

And I think once we start looking from that 4

perspective, we’re actually maybe spending our 5

limited dollars more wisely and actually increasing the 6

amount of training, bringing the trainers to the 7

students, versus the students to the trainers. I think 8

it’s worthy of a workshop. Not just a 15-minute 9

conversation, but a dedicated workshop, maybe a half 10

day, where we just brainstorm ways based on Mission 11

Consulting’s findings and what this group knows; and 12

basically, just kind of changing what we do completely. 13


Braziel; and I just want to comment also, Commissioner 15

Hutchens, we all very much appreciate your thoughtful 16

comments. Thank you. We will embrace them. 17

COMMISSIONER HUTCHENS: Thank you. 18


MR. LOGGINS: Your points are well-taken. 20

And some of the other corollary issues we’re looking 21

at is perhaps putting a cap on travel. We want people 22

to go to training. We want officers to get training; but 23

it does not make economic sense to fly somebody from 24

Sacramento to San Diego, or conversely. Sometimes it’s 25



97

necessary to criss-cross the state. But perhaps there’s 1

a means where we could more effectively produce training, 2

or bringing -- it’s a lot cheaper to pay up some money to 3

pony up instructors and send them to the site to reduce 4

that travel. 5

We’re looking at several different areas, whether 6

it’s a cap on travel, whether it’s a mileage cap or a 7

region cap, or perhaps looking at allowing people to 8

go to training but putting a cap on whatever the least 9

expensive reimbursement rate is in the state of 10

California; so that if an officer does go to training 11

that is significantly out of the region, they’re still 12

getting a modicum of reimbursement; but not completely 13

fleshed out, so that the full generosity of a Plan 14

Level III or something to that effect. 15

But ideally, we could use this as a jump-start to 16

actually get people more training by being more prudent 17

with our expenditures. 18

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Yes, and I would 19

also -- I don’t want people to think there is 20

one-size-fits-all. Because training in San Bernardino, 21

for example, is going to be completely different with 22

just the numbers of law enforcement they have in that 23

region, versus where you get into Siskiyou or Alpine, 24

where you are going to have to have a completely 25



98

different model to facilitate what those -- and maybe an 1

STC model for them, with vouchers, is better than -- you 2

know, because when you have only a couple deputies you 3

can release at one time, it doesn’t fill a class. So I 4

think that workshop helps flesh out all the little 5

nuances of that. 6

MR. LOGGINS: Yes. And we’ve heard that from some 7

of our smaller agencies. You bring up a good point. 8

For Sacramento P.D. to send 20 people to an FTO course, 9

that’s easy. But if you’re working up in one of our 10

smaller regions, you take one deputy sheriff off the 11

streets, somebody has got to handle calls for service 12

for an entire week. So we’re mindful of that struggle. 13

And our executive director’s position is, if we could 14

actually find a way to ensure those people that are 15

struggling more financially, those people can capitalize 16

on the resources as well. We want everybody to get the 17

necessary training. 18

Executive Director, you were going to make some 19

comments? 20

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVREZ: Yes, if I could. 21

I completely agree with Commissioner Braziel in 22

bringing training regionally. 23

I think the new plans and the financial constraints 24

that we have are causing some of that to happen already, 25



99

where we’re approving courses where, historically, we 1

might not because there is a competing course next door. 2

I think we need to do a lot more of that, personally 3

speaking. 4

The other topic of discussion that we’ve had are 5

the plans -- the reimbursement plans that we have, 6

Plans I through V and NA -- are they applicable still? 7

I mean, do we have any real need for a Plan I and a II? 8

Should there be a new plan? Should -- and Maria and 9

Scott have heard this ad nauseam from me, but should 10

there be a new plan where we pay a portion of it? So we 11

incentivize training, but departments have some skin in 12

the game; whether we reimburse, you know, a portion of 13

their travel or we reimburse the registration fees. But 14

they have to incur the travel costs because, let’s face 15

it, I mean, all training is good training. The courses 16

that we have, we feel all of them are good courses. So 17

how do we incentivize it but not foot the entire bill? 18

So those are things -- I mean, we’ve had so many 19

discussions about how best to do that. We have not held 20

a workshop in that regard, sir; but that’s something that 21

we can definitely take to heart and have a discussion 22

about. 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And just to add to that, 24

in my office, we send all the Deputy District Attorneys 25



100

to training. But if they want to go to a subsequent 1

training, then they have to pay for a portion of it. So 2

it’s not just the agency, but the individual. There may 3

be different ways to include that in that workshop that 4

we’re discussing. 5

Thank you. 6

Anything else on this subject? 7

Yes, Commissioner Chaplin. 8

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: I just have a couple of 9

thoughts. I do concur with Commissioner Braziel. I 10

think there’s a lot to discuss, especially at this time 11

because we are looking at things in this instant where, 12

if we look out a couple years, there’s a PERS bill coming 13

that’s going to have a tremendous impact on municipal 14

departments throughout the state. And I have a terrible 15

fear that that’s going to greatly impact the ability to 16

provide training. And I think that workshop, whether 17

it’s a half day or longer, should really consider other 18

ways to deliver training. 19

I will tell you, in that four-minute “Did You Know?” 20

video, that was probably a couple hours’ worth of 21

training and discussion because it was immediate, it was 22

impactful, and it was very effective. And we have to 23

start finding ways to both train, reach, and communicate 24

to a group of incoming personnel that came up differently 25



101

than we did. They’re digital natives. They’ve been 1

online their entire life, and they learn in different 2

ways. And what we need to do is be strategic about how 3

we can capture that and find ways to more effectively 4

provide training and perhaps more effectively and less 5

expensive. 6

The other thing, I think the idea of a Plan I or 7

Plan II and this unicorn known as “backfill 8

reimbursement,” I think the time has come that rather 9

than continuing to put it off, why not just eliminate it? 10

I realize there’s going to be burdens on some 11

departments; but like it was discussed yesterday during 12

the Advisory Committee meeting, generally agencies get 13

a training budget as part of their budget. And any 14

reimbursements really don’t come back to the department, 15

they go in a general fund. So there could be an impact 16

to revenues received by the city’s general fund. But 17

I think there’s opportunities there to streamline, make 18

that less complex, and find ways to share costs that 19

aren’t so deleterious that you push off on people coming 20

to training but, again, doesn’t have the financial impact 21

that is currently incurred by POST specifically. 22


But I think we also have to consider, with the 24

Millennials and the post Millennials and the virtual 25



102

training, that they are already so involved with their 1

phone, and being -- and learning in a very isolated way. 2

What we’re asking our law-enforcement officials and 3

officers to do on the street is to relate to people. 4

And so there are some things you lose when you have a 5

virtual course; and I think it’s incumbent upon us to 6

find that balance. 7

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: Correct. I’m not quite 8

talking about a hologram delivering the training. 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Right. Good. 10

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: However -- 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: No, I understand. I 12

understand. 13

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: -- you never know. 14

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: This generation, they’re 15

having trouble relating to people. 16

Thank you. 17

Any other comments? 18

(No response) 19


MR. LOGGINS: Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, our last consent 22

item is Item 13 is the report on the proposed changes to 23

Regulation 1005 and Procedure D-14 regarding District 24

Attorney Training. 25



103

And I’d like to call upon Law Enforcement Consultant 1

Al Benitez to make a presentation. 2

MR. BENITEZ: Good morning, Madam Chair and 3

Commission Members. 4

As you know, current Commission Regulation 1005 sets 5

the minimum training standards for District Attorney 6

investigators. Currently, that is the completion of 7

the Regular Basic Course and completion of an 80-hour 8

Investigation and Trial Preparation course within their 9

first year of employment. 10

Commission Procedure D-14 sets the requirements 11

for that 80-hour course. That course has been revised 12

a number of times over the years and has remained at 13

80 hours. The content gets changed and adjusted; but the 14

course has remained at 80 hours. And we consistently, 15

over time, receive very, very similar feedback that says 16

it either is -- elements of that course are either too 17

basic and a waste of time for seasoned investigators; 18

and yet, at the same time, it doesn’t provide enough for 19

some of the other investigators who wish the course was 20

longer. 21

We propose at this time to adjust the way that we 22

revise this course by separating the components of the 23

80-hour course that are truly investigative in nature, 24

investigative experience in nature, from those that are 25



104

specific to the unique duties of a district attorney 1

investigator. 2

In the past, D.A.’s offices had the luxury of 3

selecting D.A. investigators from a pool of very 4

experienced law-enforcement detectives. That pool over 5

time has dwindled; and so the hiring pool now consists 6

of some new D.A. investigators who may have come from 7

patrol, custody, or another specialty assignment, and 8

not have an extensive investigative background. 9

And so while the specific duties of a D.A. 10

investigator, separate from what a law-enforcement 11

investigator might do, are important, we’d like to 12

distill the investigator, the required class down to a 13

40-hour class, strictly focused on the specific duties 14

of the D.A. investigator; and then use the Commission’s 15

Robert Presley Institute of Criminal Investigation 16

Courses, all of the investigative courses, for those 17

D.A. investigators that need specific training in either 18

core investigations, our 80-hour core course, or any of 19

the 16 specialty areas of investigation: homicide, 20

sexual assault, domestic violence, et cetera. 21

And so we are preparing that process for the 22

February Commission meeting. We have convened a group 23

of subject-matter experts from the various D.A.s offices 24

up and down the state, who have agreed to the concept and 25



105

have completed a review of the learning domains that are 1

applicable specifically to the unique duties of a D.A. 2

investigator; and we hope to have all that finalized in 3

the next month or so. 4


Any questions? Comments? 6

(No response) 7

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, Commissioner Long? 8

COMMISSIONER LONG: I asked this to come off, just 9

for one quick comment; and I’m not sure it’s applicable. 10

But in assembling the subject-matter experts, I just 11

noticed they were all district attorney investigators, 12

like 12 of 12. And that may be fine, and I don’t know 13

whether we should include maybe members of the defense 14

bar or some other experts, maybe from sheriffs’ 15

departments, police departments, whatever. I think when 16

you have all SMEs from one trough, you’re going to get, 17

oftentimes, a fairly predictable -- I mean, if you 18

asked -- if we were the subject-matter experts and they 19

asked us if we wanted 40 hours of training to be POST 20

commissioners, I’d think we could project where that 21

would go. Not well. 22

So I just wondered whether or not there were other 23

people that might be germane to this discussion in terms 24

of subject-matter experts. I mentioned it to Scott. 25



106

It’s just a question as to whether or not there are 1

others who might have some input here other than just a 2

bevy of D.A. investigators. 3

MR. BENITEZ: So we did include on the -- 4

COMMISSIONER LONG: There was one D.A., I think. 5

MR. BENITEZ: Well, so we have representing CDAA, 6

the California District Attorneys Association was their 7

lead and also their training chair. So we had the input 8

from CDAA as well. The training chair is also the 9

sitting D.A. of Yuba County, so it’s the District 10

Attorney that’s there. 11

COMMISSIONER LONG: Right, it’s one D.A. 12

MR. BENITEZ: We strive to include all of the 13

components up and down the state because we have rather 14

large D.A.’s offices, and then a number of smaller ones 15

as well, each of them with their own challenges for 16

hiring, retention, and training. Some have the advantage 17

of large in-house training capability and others don’t. 18

So we take your comment to heart that a broad and 19

diverse group might provide a larger contingency of 20

input. And so we’re working the best we can, trying to 21

get the greatest exposure to what are the requirements 22

that are needed for D.A. investigators. 23

COMMISSIONER LONG: Well, for example -- if I may, 24

Madam Chair? -- maybe somebody, a representative, a 25



107

subject-matter expert from the defense bar, for example, 1

the people who interact with these investigators on a 2

daily basis, I would just feel more comfortable if I 3

didn’t see a completely homogeneous group of 4

subject-matter experts. That’s all. 5

So it’s just a general comment about subject-matter 6

experts. 7

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Commissioner Long, if you 8

have anybody specifically that you might be interested, 9

perhaps you could let Executive Director Alvarez -- let 10

him know about that. 11

I can tell you, as a district attorney, I really 12

appreciate the idea of you cutting this down to 40 hours. 13

It’s a burden, it’s repetitive, it’s redundant. We do 14

hire people who have been experienced law-enforcement 15

officers for a long time. It’s difficult to get the 16

training accomplished and get them on board quickly. So 17

from the selfish position of being a D.A., I appreciate 18

this very much. And I think it’s good for communities in 19

general. So thank you. 20

Any other comments? 21

(No response) 22

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: All right, thank you so 23

much. 24

Okay, as that was the last item on the consent 25



108

agenda, did anybody rethink this and decide they want to 1

hear another presentation? 2

(No response) 3

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, is there a motion to 4

approve the consent items before we move to viewing of a 5

video? 6

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Moved. Braziel. 7

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: Second. Chaplin. 8


Any discussion? Questions? 10

(No response) 11




(No response) 15

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: The “ayes” have it. 16

And now we’re going to have the pleasure of a video; 17

correct? 18

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Correct. 19

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Great. 20

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Thank you. 21

I cut off my presentation a little short; and I 22

forgot to hand it off to somebody else, so I will do that 23

here shortly. 24

Also, I was just reminded by Connie that we would 25



109

like to take a group photo because every commissioner is 1

here today. So during the break, right before lunch, 2

we’ll take a group photo. 3

We presented a -- or produced a brand-new “Did You 4

Know?” video. I’ll let our bureau chief, Larry, speak 5

to it. But our hope is -- this video is not yet publicly 6

available. It’s complete; but we’re hoping to do some 7

kind of a press event with this video, using the chair 8

of the Commission to roll it out in some fashion. We’ve 9

already bantered about some ideas. It is a video on 10

fentanyl, and how fentanyl affects law enforcement. 11

So without further ado, Larry. 12

MR. ELLSWORTH: Good morning. And it is still 13

morning, but just barely. 14

Thank you for the opportunity to be here this 15

morning and to showcase our most recent released video 16

from the Learning Technology Resources Bureau. This 17

video is on a rather timely subject, and it’s entitled 18

“Fentanyl.” 19

I think most of us in the room know fentanyl is a 20

synthetic opioid, oftentimes -- or, rather, estimated 21

to be 100 times more powerful than heroin, and also 22

believed by many to be the source of much of the opioid 23

deaths across the nation. So this is very timely. 24

I would like to provide just a short context for 25



110

you on what this video is before showing it and also to 1

clarify that this is in our “Did You Know?” video series. 2

It is brief. Those are designed to be between two and 3

four minutes. 4

And the goal of these videos is not necessarily to 5

train, although sometimes they do; but, rather, it’s to 6

spark an interest within the law-enforcement 7

professionals who are viewers, to want to go deeper, to 8

want to learn more about this subject. 9

Ultimately, our goal is to try and create a visceral 10

reaction within these people to seek more knowledge. And 11

you will see that at the end of this video, where it 12

highlights a location, a Web site where you can find more 13

information about that. 14

So I’d like to show that video, if we’re ready. 15

Thank you, David. 16

(Video presentation: “Did You Know? Fentanyl”] 17

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Thank you, Larry. 18

Anything else? 19

MR. ELLSWORTH: I just wanted to thank the members 20

of my bureau for the assistance with this one, and also 21

the group of subject-matter experts I had from across 22

the state: Evidence technicians, evidence processing, 23

Department of Justice, and, of course, law enforcement. 24

And also, the production company, Digital Outpost, is the 25



111

same company that did do the Procedural Justice video 1

that you’re all familiar with. 2

And if anybody has any questions, I’d be more than 3

willing and happy to hear any comments you might have as 4

well. But I also know it’s close to lunch. 5

COMMISSIONER BUI: I’d just like to say, fantastic 6

video. Great job. 7

MR. ELLSWORTH: Thank you very much. 8

COMMISSIONER HUTCHENS: Ditto. 9

MR. ELLSWORTH: Thank you. 10

COMMISSIONER HUTCHENS: Outstanding video. 11

And I did share with the Executive Director 12

yesterday, after seeing this during the Advisory council, 13

I had the opportunity to address a group of hospital 14

administrators in Orange County, and we were talking 15

about fentanyl and the dangers; and I don’t think that 16

they’re aware. And so they’re encountering some of the 17

same people we are, in the ERs. So I think this would 18

be the opportunity for POST to reach out to other 19

emergency responder groups -- ambulance, drivers, fire, 20

emergency room, those individuals -- to kind of give them 21

a kick-start on starting their own training program. 22

Excellent, excellent video. 23

MR. ELLSWORTH: Thank you. And that’s an excellent 24

suggestion. Thank you. 25



112


(No response) 2

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, I agree. 3

Does anyone remember the name of the drug -- I just 4

learned about this, and I forgot the name, that’s 5

supposed to be a hundred times stronger than fentanyl? 6

COMMISSIONER HUTCHENS: Carfentanil. 7

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, so is there any 8

plans to address that in any way or…? 9

MR. ELLSWORTH: That was discussed in our meeting 10

to create this; and there are many different opioids that 11

can cause this type of reaction. We felt it more 12

appropriate, since fentanyl was the main one, to just 13

kind of keep that the focus right now. 14

I would like to add, though, it is our desire next 15

year in the next video contract to make this a long 16

format video that will, in fact, cover training. And 17

those issues will be addressed there. 18


Anything else? 20

(No response) 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, thank you so much. 22

MR. ELLSWORTH: Thank you. 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, the plan for the 24

next couple of hours is we’re going to do presentations 25



113

and then take a break and then resume. 1

And I think all of you were told that we might be 2

going until five o’clock. That may be true. 3

I’m getting looks like “We weren’t told that,” but 4

it’s going to be a long meeting, and if we can get out 5

before 5:00, we certainly will. 6

So let’s move things along. 7

And at this time, I will call on Manny to make some 8

presentations. 9

Manny? 10

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Okay, thank you. 11

If I could have Diane Hrepich -- please come on up, 12

Diane. 13

Come on. We’re going to hand you the microphone at 14

the end. 15

MS. HREPICH: I know, I promise. I already talked 16

everything. I’ve learned my lesson today. 17

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Many of you know Diane, 18

and some of you don’t. But her son is up there raising 19

his hand. 20

Diane recently retired from POST after many, many, 21

many years. I’ll read it in the resolution that we’re 22

going to present you. 23

Diane is also the person responsible for the new 24

testing that we’ve talked about so much over the last 25



114

year, the TMAS testing with the vignettes. That’s been 1

my experience and relationship with Diane, is over the 2

course of the last year. But she has been at the 3

forefront of dealing with law enforcement. If you talk 4

to folks across the state, they all have had some kind of 5

dealing with Diane over the course of time with POST. 6

So, Diane, we miss you already. 7

But let me read this before I go forward. 8

All right, “Whereas” -- this is a resolution from 9

the Chair of the Commission and from me. 10

Whereas, Diane Hrepich began her distinguished state 11

career with the Department of Motor Vehicles in 12

November of 1967, transferring through several state 13

agencies before moving to the Commission on Peace Officer 14

Standards and Training in June of ‘81, where she remained 15

until her retirement from service as a personnel 16

selection consultant II in October of 2017; 17

Whereas, Diane Hrepich was a pioneer in test 18

development, assisting in the creation of the latest 19

delivery systems that have served California law 20

enforcement well for several decades; 21

Whereas, Diane Hrepich developed testing processes 22

that are being used in law-enforcement academies 23

throughout the state of California; 24

Whereas, Diane has been at the forefront of law-25



115

enforcement test development and administration, always 1

striving to better serve the peace officers of California 2

and the communities they protect. 3

Diane’s contribution to law-enforcement training 4

and testing has personally impacted the majority of 5

California peace officers working today. 6

Diane has been a great leader throughout her career, 7

with a passion to serve the law-enforcement training 8

community. 9

Diane has been a mentor to countless POST staff 10

members, contributing to their professional growth and 11

development. 12

Diane has worked for the State of California for 13

the past 42 years, and is recognized as a premier expert 14

in law-enforcement testing. 15

Diane’s contribution to law enforcement has left a 16

lasting legacy that will be realized for years to come. 17

So now, therefore, be it resolved, the Commission 18

bestows its deepest gratitude and sincerest wishes for 19

a long, happy, and well-deserved retirement to Diane 20

Hrepich. 21

It is in this spirit of gratitude and appreciation 22

that the California Commission on POST presents this 23

resolution and remains eternally thankful for all that 24

you have contributed and for all that you have 25



116

accomplished. 1

So thank you, Diane. 2

I’ll set that down here. 3

(Applause) 4

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Don’t tear up yet, 5

Diane. We’re not done. There is more. 6

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Could I hold that for you? 7

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Sure. Thank you. 8

And this one I have not seen, so I’m going to mess 9

this one up even more. 10

This is from the Senate. 11

Diane established a remarkable career in public 12

service that spans nearly five decades; and in this 13

endeavor, concurrently made immeasurable contributions 14

to the State of California, dedicating a great portion 15

of her life to efforts that enhance the public safety of 16

all residents. 17

Ms. Hrepich currently serves as personnel selection 18

consultant at the Commission on Peace Officers Standards 19

and Training, and is retiring on October 1st, 2017, after 20

48 years of dedicated service to the State of California. 21

Throughout her career, Ms. Hrepich excelled in many 22

capacities and served various agencies and departments, 23

including the Department of Motor Vehicles, the State of 24

California Department of Justice, the Employment 25



117

Development Department, the Office of Criminal Justice, 1

the Planning Department, and the Commission on POST. 2

Whereas, considered a pioneer in testing, 3

Ms. Hrepich was a major contributor in the creation of a 4

system on test delivery, which also tracks the success 5

rates of students, referred to as “POST Track,” full 6

utilization of which began in 1980. 7

Ms. Hrepich paved the way for the installation and 8

implementation of the POST Track system in 13 other 9

states, and spent countless hours ensuring the system 10

was efficiently utilized and implemented. 11

Whereas, always looking to make positive 12

contributions to her field, Ms. Hrepich developed and 13

authored the item-writing guidelines for the questions 14

used in the testing by all 39 law-enforcement academies 15

in the State of California. 16

Additionally, she was involved in numerous 17

feasibility studies and software program testing to 18

ensure the integrity and applicability of testing in 19

law-enforcement academies throughout the state. To 20

safeguard the integrity of testing, Ms. Hrepich 21

authorized the security agreements for use of POST 22

testing software and test elements, and was the creator 23

and primary person in the development of a new testing 24

system, TMAS II, that focuses on the development of 25



118

student critical thinking, making it more difficult for 1

any student to cheat on an exam. 2

Ms. Hrepich was also directly involved in the 3

creation and successful passing of legislation, making 4

it a criminal and civil offense to cheat on police state 5

exams. 6

A dedicated member of the community, Ms. Hrepich 7

has conducted fundraising activities at POST for 8

hurricane and earthquake relief and has assisted in 9

strategies for law enforcement to assist the homeless. 10

Diane’s contributions are worthy of much 11

recognition, and the residents of the state of California 12

are fortunate to have been served by an individual of her 13

caliber. 14

Now, therefore, it be proclaimed that Senator Janet 15

Nguyen of California’s 34th District does hereby honor 16

Diane Hrepich for her immeasurable contributions to the 17

State of California; commend her for her exemplary record 18

of public service; and extends her sincere best wishes 19

for a happy, healthy, and fulfilling retirement. 20

Congratulations. 21

(Applause) 22

MS. HREPICH: Well, I’ve said a lot of words when 23

I retired, so I’ll just say, thank you very much for the 24

acknowledgment. 25



119

You know, sometimes we get ourselves involved in 1

things; and we forget who we actually impact. And my 2

whole goal -- really, my whole career, was just let’s 3

do better for law-enforcement cadets. 4

And I think that staff, without them, of course, 5

and without the test panel members, it would never have 6

happened. But with your support, it has. And I’m 7

pleased that it’s going to be carrying on. 8

And I have to tell you, the day I retired, my 9

official retirement day, I woke up and realized that I 10

didn’t have to worry about all those cadets in California 11

anymore. And it was a relief. 12

So thank you. 13

(Applause) 14

(Photograph taken of Executive Director Alvarez 15

and Diane Hrepich) 16

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: So the next one is 17

Sheriff Hutchens. 18

If we could have you come up here. 19

So as many of you know, Sheriff Hutchens is leaving 20

the Commission after this meeting. You’ll see how long 21

she’s been on the Commission and some of her law-22

enforcement accomplishments. 23

But I just want to thank you personally. Every 24

time that I have a conversation with you, it’s always 25



120

so pleasant and insightful; and every time that you are 1

here, you provide remarks and comments and suggestions 2

to all of us, that you don’t just sit there silently and 3

not provide that. And you do it in such a way that it’s 4

not offensive, and you get your point across. And I 5

greatly appreciate that personally. 6


EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Also, I think you’re 8

an inspiration for women in law enforcement to show them 9

how high up you can go. And I just -- I appreciate you 10

for what you are and what you do. So thank you. 11

If I may read this resolution. I’ll try not to 12

butcher it. 13

Whereas, Sandra S. Hutchens began her distinguished 14

law-enforcement career in 1976 as a secretary with the 15

County of Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department. 16

Sheriff Hutchens attended the Basic Academy and was 17

sworn in as a deputy sheriff in 1978, later assigned to 18

the Sybil Brand Institute, the Lynwood Station, and 19

Metropolitan Bureau. 20

Sheriff Hutchens was subsequently promoted to 21

sergeant in 1986, and then lieutenant in 1994, serving 22

both custody and field assignments. 23

Sheriff Hutchens was subsequently promoted to 24

captain in 1999, leading the Norwalk Station. 25



121

Sheriff Hutchens was promoted to serve as commander 1

in 2001, and later as chief in 2003, serving as the 2

Sheriff’s Executive Assistant, Chief of the Office of 3

Homeland Security, and the Commander for Field Operations 4

Region II. 5

Sheriff Hutchens, in her capacity as a leader in 6

the LA Sheriff’s Department, commanded over 1,000 7

personnel, including 40 contract cities, Aero Bureau, 8

SWAT, K-9, as well as Search and Rescue, and Transit 9

Services. 10

Sheriff Hutchens retired from the LA Sheriff’s 11

Department in 2007, and was appointed the twelfth sheriff 12

of the Orange County Sheriff’s Department by the Board 13

of Supervisors in 2008. 14

Sheriff Hutchens was elected the Sheriff of Orange 15

County in November 2010 -- I think that’s accurate; I’m 16

not sure -- and has led -- June. June, I remember you 17

saying that yesterday -- June of 2010, and has led one 18

of California’s largest sheriff’s departments, with over 19

3,800 personnel. 20

Sheriff Hutchens has served on the Commission on 21

Peace Officer Standards and Training since 2012, serving 22

as the chair of the Commission from October 2014 to 23

October 2015. 24

Sheriff Hutchens has honorably served the citizens 25



122

of California with distinction for 41 years and has 1

created a lasting legacy of leadership, selfless 2

dedication to others and public service. 3

Now, therefore, be it resolved that Commissioner 4

Sandra S. Hutchens has devoted her career to the 5

profession of California law enforcement and has provided 6

sage and insightful guidance to POST. 7

It is in the spirit of gratitude and appreciation 8


resolution, and remains eternally thankful. 10

Thank you, Sheriff Hutchens. 11

(Applause) 12

COMMISSIONER HUTCHENS: Thank you very much, Manny. 13

And I’m most proud that I was able to serve on this 14

commission when we made the wise decision to hire our 15

new executive director, who has done a wonderful job for 16

us in challenging times, needless to say. 17

It’s been an honor to serve on the POST Commission 18

with all of you. I’ve learned something from everyone 19

here. And I go away knowing that this commission is 20

in good hands. Everybody here, regardless of what 21

discipline you come from, have in your primary focus 22

what’s best for law enforcement in the state of 23

California. And I am very proud. I think we do it best 24

in the state of California, and I know we will continue 25



123

to do that. 1

So thank you very much. It’s been an honor. 2

(Applause) 3

(Photograph taken of Commission Chair Dudley, 4

Executive Director Alvarez, and Sandra Hutchens) 5

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Mr. Durant, will you 6

please come on up? 7

Hopefully, you all know Mike. But Mr. Durant is 8

the President of PORAC, Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s 9

Deputy. Will be potentially retiring, I believe -- I 10

don’t know if I can say that. 11

Is that official? 12

MR. DURANT: Yes, early next year. 13

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Okay, very good. 14

Well, Mike -- I don’t know if it’s premature for me 15

to say that or not; but Mike has always been a very big 16

advocate of law enforcement. He’s been to POST a number 17

of times, and brought some very pointed questions in that 18

regard in our meetings. And I’ve also witnessed Mike 19

standing up for the law-enforcement profession and for 20

POST in general at meetings that was unsolicited, where 21

I wasn’t present. You mentioned me by name, and some of 22

the things that we were trying to do at POST. And we 23

really appreciate everything you’ve done for -- not POST, 24

we don’t need people to just be advocates of POST; but 25



124

what you’ve done for law enforcement, and pushing things 1

forward. 2

So thank you, Mike. 3

And if I may read this resolution from POST, I 4

really appreciate what you’ve done. 5

Whereas, Michael G. Durant attended and completed 6

the Basic Course at the Tulare-Kings Counties Basic Peace 7

Officer Training Academy in 1984. 8

Mr. Durant began his distinguished law-enforcement 9

career in 1984 with the Porterville Police Department, 10

serving as a reserve police officer. 11

Mr. Durant became a deputy sheriff for the 12

Santa Barbara County Sheriff’s Department in 1987, 13

serving in a variety of assignments, including custody, 14

patrol, investigations, and K-9. 15

Mr. Durant began service to the men and women of 16

law enforcement in 2003 as a member of the board of 17

directors for the Peace Officer Research Association of 18

California, PORAC, empowering and representing the 19

interests of rank-and-file peace officers. 20

Mr. Durant served as the PORAC treasurer from 2005 21

to 2006, and as vice president from 2006 to 2013. 22

Mr. Durant became the president of PORAC in 2013, 23

continuing his education to promote awareness to foster 24

better collaboration between the public and law 25



125

enforcement. 1

Mr. Durant, in his capacity as a leader in PORAC, 2

served as a tireless advocate for development and 3

maintenance of the highest standards for California’s 4

peace officers, as well as the Commission on Peace 5

Officer Standards and Training. 6

Mr. Durant selflessly dedicated himself to serving 7

the men and women working in one of society’s most 8

challenging and dangerous jobs, with the hope of ensuring 9

public safety for California’s communities. 10

Mr. Durant has honorably served the citizens of 11

California with distinction as a peace officer for over 12

three decades, and has created a lasting legacy of 13

leadership, dedication to others, and public service. 14

Now, therefore, be it resolved that Michael G. 15

Durant has devoted his career to the professionalism of 16

California law enforcement, and has provided guidance, 17

service, and unwavering support to POST and the 18

stakeholders it serves. 19



resolution and remains eternally thankful. 22

Thank you, Mike. 23

MR. DURANT: Thank you very much. 24

(Applause) 25



126

MR. DURANT: Thank you. Thank you very much, Manny. 1

To Chairman Dudley, thank you very much, in my own 2

county. 3

I want to thank -- I have two executive board 4

members from PORAC on the POST Commission, Laren 5

Leichliter and Barry Donelan, and also two other members, 6

Batine Ramirez and Lai Lai Bui. 7

It’s an honor for me to be the president of PORAC. 8

And at no time have I ever been approached by anybody -- 9

Bob Stresak, Manny Alvarez, any POST commissioner -- to 10

advocate on behalf of POST. But I sit on many different 11

commissions and boards, including the latest, the RIPA 12

Board, where it’s essential that we in law enforcement 13

throughout the state of California continue to get the 14

training that is necessary to do the vast majority and 15

training of all of our jobs, not just facets of that job. 16

So PORAC will, and always has been, an advocate for 17

POST. I hope my successors will do the same. There is 18

no doubt in my mind that PORAC will continue to advocate 19

on the importance of funding for law enforcement. 20

When the POST budget gets zeroed out, and at the 21

same time we’re sitting in a RIPA meeting, discussing 22

how it’s very imperative that we get further training, 23

I fully agree with that. But we also need to have the 24

funding to do that training. And I can assure you, 25



127

PORAC will always be there to stand with POST and 1

advocate on behalf of funding -- full funding for 2

training of the best law-enforcement officers in the 3

country. 4

Thank you very much. 5

(Applause) 6


Executive Director Alvarez, and Mike Durant) 8

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Sheriff Leichliter, 9

come on up. 10

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Ten minutes is nine and a 11

half minutes too long. 12

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Thank you for coming 13

up. 14

This is also Commissioner Leichliter’s last meeting. 15

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: You can say it about me. 16

I’m not like Mike; I’m retired. 17

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: No, but I thank you as 18

well. You have been very vocal in giving your opinions, 19

and they’re appreciated. 20

As I would read newspaper articles and such, I would 21

see your name on a lot of those in regards to use of 22

force and other issues. You were very, very vocal about 23

that with the media and the community in general. 24

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: We’re not giving this mike 25



128

to my sheriff, are we? 1

COMMISSIONER McMAHON: I’ll take it. 2

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: So, no, I appreciate 3

what you’ve done for law enforcement. 4

I think a lot of the stuff that you’ve done outside 5

of the Commission to further the job of law enforcement 6

and the difficulties that law enforcement has across the 7

state and across the nation, you probably didn’t have to 8

do, but you always did. 9

I don’t know if you’ve done a Google search on all 10

the stuff that you have written or put out there; but 11

it’s out there. I didn’t see anything bad, but… 12

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Then you didn’t do a 13

complete search. 14

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Oh, no. 15

COMMISSIONER DONELAN: You wrote something, Laren? 16

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: I’m not going there. 17

All right, if I may. This is a resolution from the 18

Commission again. 19

Whereas, Laren Jess Leichliter, Jr., completed the 20

San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department Academy on 21

August 17, 1994. 22

Commissioner Leichliter was sworn in as a deputy 23

for the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department on 24

August 17th, 1994. 25



129

Commissioner Leichliter was elected and served as 1

the Highland Station director for the Sheriff’s 2

Employees’ Benefit Association, San Bernardino County, 3

from 2003 to 2010. 4

Commissioner Leichliter was appointed as the 5

secretary of the board for the Sheriff’s Employees’ 6

Benefit Association, San Bernardino County, from 2010 7

to 2011. 8

Commissioner Leichliter was elected and served 9

as the president for the Sheriff’s Employees’ Benefit 10

Association, San Bernardino County, from 2011 to 2017. 11

Commissioner Leichliter was appointed in November 12

2012 as a director at large and executive member for 13

the Peace Officers Research Association of California. 14

Commissioner Leichliter was appointed by Governor 15

Edmund G. Brown, Jr., to the California Commission on 16

Peace Officer Standards and Training on October 15, 2013. 17

Commissioner Leichliter served as vice chair of the 18

California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and 19

Training from October 23rd, 2014, to October 22nd, 2015. 20

Commissioner Leichliter served as the chair of the 21

California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and 22

Training from October 22nd, 2015, to September 6th, 2016. 23

Whereas, Laren Jess Leichliter, Jr., has honorably 24

served the citizens of California with distinction for 25



130

over 23 years and has created a legacy of leadership, 1

selfless dedication to others in public service. 2

Now, therefore, be it resolved that Commissioner 3

Laren Jess Leichliter has devoted his career to the 4

professionalism of California law enforcement, and has 5

provided sage and insightful guidance to POST. 6


that the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards 8

and Training presents this resolution and remains forever 9

thankful. 10

Thank you, Laren. 11

(Applause) 12

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: I was told I get 13

30 seconds, so I’ll make it short. 14

I agree with Commissioner Hutchens. It’s been an 15

honor to serve here. I would like to thank all of the 16

POST staff, because anytime I had a question, I called, I 17

got the answer. It makes us look good when we’re over 18

here. So I’d like to thank the entire POST Commission 19

staff for that. 20

And my fellow commissioners. Anytime I had a 21

question from them, like Commissioner Hutchens said, I 22

learned a lot from them. There’s a lot of everything 23

here: Management, line staff, people from the public, 24

as well as people from legislation, like Geoff. And so 25



131

you get a lot when you’re in this commission that you get 1

to take back. And for a POA president, you get to 2

present that to your members so that they have a full 3

understanding of what actually happens at POST, and why 4

it’s important to remain up-to-date on your training. 5

So that’s all I have. My 30 seconds is up. 6

And thank you very much. 7


Executive Director Alvarez, and Laren Leichliter) 9

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: We also presented a 10

resolution about three weeks ago to former Commissioner 11

Joe Farrow from the California Highway Patrol. We 12

presented it to him personally on the day of his 13

celebration, from leaving the Highway Patrol. I did that 14

before they actually did the presentation. So we 15

provided that to him. 16

He was always a very big, staunch supporter of law 17

enforcement, as many of you know, and a staunch supporter 18

of everything that happens around POST. And really, for 19

me personally, he was one person that I could use as a 20

sounding board on questions and issues and coming into 21

this job. And we’re really appreciative of everything 22

he has done. 23

He has now moved on to UC Davis as their Chief of 24

Police, so we did provide him with a resolution also. 25



132

And that concludes the presentations, Madam Chair. 1

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you, Manny. 2

Okay, it is now 12:17. So we’ll start again at 3

12:45. 4

Have a good break. 5

(Group photograph of full POST Commission) 6

(Midday recess from 12:17 p.m. to 12:48 p.m.) 7

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, thank you, all. 8

Commissioner Long will now provide the Finance Committee 9

report. 10

FINANCE COMMITTEE CHAIR LONG: Thank you. 11

We can be fairly brief, as this is essentially a 12

status-quo report from where we were in June, in terms 13

of the budget. But I would like to kind of focus on 14

what we talked about yesterday as being kind of a pending 15

alarm -- so this is the 2017-18 enacted budget that 16

you’re looking at. The bottom right corner shows total 17

expenditures of about $50 million. You’ll see it’s down 18

from about $62 million that it states from fiscal year 19

2016-17. But that’s somewhat erroneous. 20

In fact, the expenditures for 2016-17 were just 21

slightly under the $50 million that are proposed for 22

2017-18. That number includes the $5 million for 23

Procedural Justice; and it includes some of the funding 24

that was cut for reimbursements. So, actually, the 25



133

expenditures are very similar. 1

But the number I’d like to draw your attention to, 2

is the $46 million, the third line from the bottom. 3

Essentially, the complete funding source for POST, the 4

$46.5 million dollars from the State Penalty Fund. This 5

is a big change from last year. It is a very positive 6

change. Instead of getting basically a 24 percent draw 7

from the fund, POST received basically slightly more than 8

half of the entire amount. 9

But if you could go to the next slide, Dave. This 10

is what we need to focus on, is the State Penalty Fund. 11

Even though we got a set amount from it, you can see how 12

it’s continuing to decline. 13

I would expect that it would continue to decline 14

even in 2017-18, possibly even creating a deficit 15

situation. I think you can pretty much count on it 16

decreasing maybe up to another 10 percent for the 17

2018-19 budget. 18

And as Sheriff McMahon and I were just talking 19

about, there’s a number of -- there’s legislation that 20

would lead to potentially additional reduction in 21

manpower, and fewer citations and so forth. 22

And there’s a considerable number of legislators 23

who think that the assessments now are too high. So on 24

top of the kind of natural 10 percent decline, I think 25



134

it could be even higher. So what we’re really facing 1

going forward in 2018-19, is protecting that $46 million 2

base, and then trying to figure out if there’s any way to 3

grow it. 4

It’s also important to remember that some of the 5

other agencies that used to get money draws from the 6

State Penalty Fund, such as the Restitution Fund, 7

Correctional Training Fund, and the others, they were 8

largely shut out. They may or may not continue to go 9

quietly. There could be some competition there as well. 10

I always worry about the Restitution Fund, in 11

particular, because it does have quite a bit of clout. 12

They’ve just had some good reserves in past years. 13

So going forward, I think that what we really need 14

to do is keep our eye on the State Penalty Fund, and, 15

frankly, impress Finance. And I think the efforts at 16

POST have been very, very constructive in that regard in 17

the past six, eight months. I think they seem to me, 18

from my discussions, to be quite happy with what POST is 19

doing. 20

A couple things that I think we need to keep our 21

eye on are contracts. And Executive Director Alvarez 22

addressed that a little bit this morning, how we’ll be 23

going forward on really using a fine-toothed comb on the 24

contracts. But getting our fiscal house in order and 25



135

showing transparency is very important for 2018-19; 1

because the other issue I’d like to reference, we talked 2

about yesterday, is we’ll have a new governor, one way 3

or the other, after the next budget year. POST, I think, 4

enjoys some pretty good stature with the current 5

administration and people in Finance; and it’s important 6

to keep that stable as we head into a new governor, 7

particularly with the Department of Finance. There is 8

never as much change-over in Finance as there is in a 9

governor’s staff. 10

So if we have those relationships and have shown 11

that we’re doing everything we can to take care of the 12

current budget, and doing our best with our current 13

resources, it puts us in the best position to not only 14

safeguard what we’re getting now, but to try to make a 15

claim for perhaps growing in the out-years. 16

So that was the gist of the Finance Committee 17

report. 18

Any questions? 19

(No response) 20

COMMISSIONER LONG: Merrill Domondon did this chart 21

for us. 22

Merrill, are you back there? 23

Merrill is our new chart guy and our new fiscal guy, 24

kind of replacing some of the stuff that Dave Cornejo did 25



136

before he went back to PERS. 1

So that is, in essence, what we talked about. 2

Any questions or comments? 3


EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: May I, Commissioner 5

Long and Chair Dudley? 6

I think it’s important for everybody to know -- I 7

think we’ve perhaps hit on it in the past; but we’ve been 8

articulating it as best we can within POST, is this is 9

spending authority. If there is no money behind it, it 10

doesn’t matter. 11

So just to give you an idea, you saw the chart. It 12

said $62 million for 2016-2017, but, actually coming into 13

POST is $55 million. That’s what we got, including the 14

General Fund money. The Peace Officer Training Fund 15

monies, I believe, totaled about $33 million; and then 16

when you put the $21 million on from the General Fund, 17

it’s at $55 million. 18

So if we continue to spend at a rate of $62 million, 19

by the end of the year, we’re $7 million in the hole. 20

And that’s what has caused us to be in debt over the 21

course of time. 22

We continue to spend just below the spending 23

authority, but the money hasn’t come in behind it. 24

So we’re trying to be very cognizant of that now. 25



137

One, obviously, we’re trying to dig out from the years 1

that money hasn’t come in; and we’re trying to reduce our 2

expenditures knowing that that money may not come in, 3

even though now it’s a little bit more guaranteed. But 4

at least for us internally, it’s important for us to 5

know, it is spending authority. It’s not a bank of money 6

that is there all the time. 7

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any questions about that? 8

(No response) 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, is there a motion to 10

approve this report? 11

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: So moved. Chaplin. 12

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Second. Leichliter. 13

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Discussion? 14

(No response) 15




(No response) 19

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: The “ayes” have it and the 20

motion is passed. 21

Item E is a report on the proposed changes to 22

Regulations 1001, 1005, 1008, and Procedures D-10 and 23

D-11, regarding requalification and the Basic Course 24

Waiver requirements. 25



138

At this time, I’d like to call on POST Research 1

Supervisor Dr. Shelley Spilberg to provide us with a 2

presentation. 3

Welcome. 4

DR. SPILBERG: Thank you. Good afternoon. 5

Over the past several years, as I probably don’t 6

have to tell most of you, the Commission has spent quite 7

a lot of time hearing appeals of the requalification 8

requirements. A lot of that time was spent trying to 9

interpret what those regulations actually say. Even POST 10

staff acknowledged that those regulations are rather 11

obtuse. This item presents a proposed rewrite of those 12

requirements, with the goal that all readers will come 13

away with the same accurate interpretation as to their 14

intent. 15

I was chosen for this task for a couple of reasons. 16

First of all, over my many years at POST, I’ve had 17

extensive experience writing and rewriting Government 18

Codes, POST regulations, guidance documents, et cetera. 19

However, most of that work, perhaps all of that work, 20

has been in the area of selection and screening. I had 21

no prior experience with requalification. In fact, 22

Assistant Director Sandoval chose me for this task, 23

especially for that reason, so that I could not rely on 24

any prior knowledge when trying to derive the meaning of 25



139

these regulations. 1

Contrary, nevertheless, to my expectations, I found 2

this task quite challenging, so much so, I couldn’t do it 3

alone. Fortunately, I didn’t have to. I had the help 4

of a number of people -- somewhere at this table, Toby 5

and Assistant Director Sandoval; but I especially have 6

to acknowledge the help of my colleagues, Melani Singley 7

and Jennifer Imlay-Hardesty. 8

So in this revision, which was in Attachment A, in 9

addition to clarifying and simplifying the wording, we 10

also repackaged these requirements. All the requirements 11

associated with requalification are in 1008, including 12

Procedure D-10. And then all the requirements associated 13

with Basic Course waiver were included into Regulation 14

1005, Basic Training, and that includes Procedure D-11. 15

It’s important to note that this rewrite is 16

editorial. There were no substantive changes made, with 17

one exception: In this proposed version, the authority 18

for granting exemptions to the requalification 19

requirements rests solely with the POST executive 20

director. This change is intended to save time of both 21

the Commission and POST staff. 22

Note also that this rewrite represents Step 1 of a 23

two-step process. 24

In Step 2, the actual substance of these 25



140

requirements will be reviewed to determine if changes and 1

updates are needed. This effort will involve POST staff; 2

yourselves, the Commission; and stakeholders. 3

I’ll be happy to answer any questions. And if not, 4

thank you for your time. 5

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Questions or comments? 6

(No response) 7


Yes. 9

COMMISSIONER BUI: With the clarification in the 10

content of this regulation, I think that would alleviate 11

a lot of the confusion to where I don’t think that we’ll 12

be seeing the number of appeals that we’ve had in the 13

past. And now this section in here related to providing 14

the Executive Director the authority alone to hear these 15

appeals, and it says in here, the reason is because of 16

the time spent by the Commission hearing these appeals. 17

I, for one, am not opposed to listening to these. So 18

if it’s being done because you don’t want to burden us 19

because of the time spent on these -- I don’t know how 20

the other commissioners feel -- but that’s not an issue 21

for me. 22

MR. LOGGINS: Okay. 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Do any other commissioners 24

want to weigh in on that? 25



141


COMMISSIONER LONG: I certainly agree with 2

Commissioner Bui. I’ve only been on the Commission for 3

a couple of years, but I think we’ve had only five 4

appeals that I can think of. I think two, if I recall 5

right -- Scott, I think two were different from the 6

recommendations. So that’s actually that’s kind of a 7

40 percent flip rate, even though I think one of them 8

was due -- I think we talked about staff errors or 9

something on that. But five doesn’t seem to me to be 10

overburdensome. And with the correction to the -- all 11

the clarifications to the regs, my assumption would be 12

that would clear up a lot; or it should at least give us 13

the opportunity to see if that clears up a lot of it. 14

I just -- I think I side with Commissioner Bui here 15

in wondering why we would need to formally and explicitly 16

put in the regs that the sole authority for appeal is to 17

the Director and not remain silent. 18

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Other comments? 19

Yes. 20

ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR WALTZ: The Advisory 21

Committee received this presentation also yesterday. And 22

it was actually following the meeting, we had a lively 23

discussion about that. Even though it wasn’t in the core 24

of our meeting, I think it was notable enough to bring up 25



142

here. And, yes, that same point was brought up that the 1

clarifications in the regulations itself will decrease 2

the number of appeals. And so we thought that the 3

Commission should consider keeping that authority to 4

grant the exemptions. 5

MR. DARDEN: May I? 6

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, please. 7

MR. DARDEN: So as the attorney that has been trying 8

to give you, the Commission, advice as these appeals have 9

come up, one of the problems that I saw in the regulation 10

was that the staff was attempting to give some sort of 11

a venue, an opportunity for these officers who wanted an 12

exemption to the requalification requirement to have an 13

appeal; but there really wasn’t anything in regulation 14

that granted them the authority to use section 1058. 15

Section 1058, which is the section that we have been 16

using, I think staff just sort of shoehorned these into 17

1058. 1058 is the section of the regulation that 18

basically says if the course certification -- if there’s 19

been a decision on course certification, denial of 20

certification of a course, then there’s an appeals 21

process, which we have developed. 22

Since when these instances came up where an 23

individual wanted to challenge this -- and that is, 24

whether or not they would need to go back to the academy 25



143

or not, or have an exemption from requalification -- 1

staff basically just shoehorned those appeals into 1058. 2

So as the attorney for the Commission, one of the 3

things that I see on this issue is that, you know, if the 4

Commission -- as I looked at the language of the law a 5

number of years ago when we had a somewhat contentious 6

appeal of a decertification decision, you know, the law 7

basically says due process is a flexible concept; right? 8

It’s how bad is the deprivation; and if it’s a very bad 9

deprivation, then you have to give a lot of due process. 10

If the deprivation isn’t that bad, then a lot less 11

process is required. 12

So one thing that we might want to consider is that 13

if we do want to have an appeals process in an instance 14

where any given individual officer wants an exemption and 15

doesn’t want to have to go to the academy again, do we 16

want to use 1058, or do we want to have a separate 17

appeals process that looks a little different, perhaps? 18

In other words, it doesn’t have to be exactly the appeals 19

process that we use in the case of denial of 20

certifications -- it can be, if that’s what the 21

Commission wants to do. But that’s just -- I just wanted 22

to throw that in. 23

I don’t know if you looked at that or not, Shelley, 24

in terms of, you know, whether or not we would continue 25



144

to use 1058 and that process if, in fact, it was not to 1

go to the executive director. But that’s one of the 2

things that I think we should consider; and that is, if 3

the Commission wants to keep it, then the question is 4

going to be, what is that going to look like? Are we 5

just going to continue to use 1058? And if so, maybe we 6

should also modify 1058 to make it explicit that it’s not 7

just for certification/decertification; it’s also for 8

these instances where someone wants to appeal the 9

exemption process. So that’s the point I wanted to make. 10

DR. SPILBERG: Yes, a good point. 11

I will, at the risk of repeating myself, I will say 12

that the intent of this item was to clarify the existing 13

regulation. 14

So, in all honesty, we really didn’t look at 15

substantive changes. We really had -- I had enough on 16

my plate trying to figure out what it was supposed to 17

say. But your point is well taken, and again, in Step 2, 18

that needs to be done. 19


Yes. 21

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: Not to come off as a 22

contrarian; but I do think by being very precise from a 23

letter-of-the-law standpoint, especially when it comes to 24

who is eligible to become a police officer or a deputy, 25



145

at a time when, you know, the environment is changing so 1

rapidly and we have new layers of training that are put 2

on us. We talked about that a lot today. We recently 3

experienced CIT training in these last several years. I 4

have no problem; and, in fact, I support the language, 5

and I do prefer that the person that knows the business 6

best, the executive director, weigh in on the decisions. 7

I just wonder if there is a desire from the Commission to 8

have an ability to hear appeals, that perhaps an appeal 9

to his -- to the executive director’s decision might just 10

come in writing. 11

I, for one, am okay with it, as to how it’s written, 12

so… 13

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any other comments? 14

(No response) 15

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I think what I’m hearing 16

is that we’re now in this stage where we have some 17

clarity about the three-year and the six-year rule. 18

And I think there’s some hope that with that clarity, 19

there will be less appeals and because of the letter of 20

the law. 21

So it sounds to me that what I’m hearing the 22

commissioners say -- and please tell me I’m wrong -- is 23

you’d like to leave the power with the Commissioners and 24

hope that there are less because the law is now clear, or 25



146

at least the provisions are now clear. 1

Scott, it looked like you were leaning in. 2

MR. LOGGINS: Surprise. 3

I apologize for indulging you, the Executive Office, 4

Mr. Alvarez and Ms. Sandoval, we had a sidebar this 5

morning. They asked if I could illustrate the complexity 6

of completing these investigations in dealing with these 7

appeals. 8

When they talked about the labor intensity as it 9

applies to the Commission, they were actually relating 10

to internally of staff as well. And the reason I came 11

up here to help illustrate the gravity of the situation 12

is to explain, it’s not just the time of each of the 13

individual commissioners, it is time-intensive for POST 14

staff. 15

I led the way for, in fact, every one of those 16

appeals. Quite honestly, some of them take probably 17

upwards to about 80 hours’ worth of research. 18

Last year, we had an appeal where I had to do -- 19

become almost a subject-matter expert in federal 20

guidelines as they apply to military veterans. I had to 21

look into financial protections for military veterans. 22

This included consultations and conferences with 23

Mr. Darden’s counterparts at Cal HR, which was, of 24

course, was an expense to POST in order to make sure we 25



147

had all of our ducks in a row. 1

In addition to that, it involves a modicum of 2

researching case law, hand researching the initial 3

intent of regulatory matters that were created by this 4

commission decades ago, if not, some of them probably 5

occurred before I was even born, and even researching 6

Attorney Generals’ opinions. 7

And fast-forward to the last appeal that this 8

Commission heard, that took approximately 80 hours of 9

labor. 10

And, you know, albeit that’s time that I’m paid for 11

to do as a public servant; that is time away from the 12

mission of POST. That’s 80 hours that the staff that 13

work for me, that was running the largest consortium of 14

academies in the entire country, failed to have a bureau 15

chief there to assist in their endeavors. That’s 16

80 hours’ worth of projects that are mission-critical to 17

get those other 90,000 police officers the necessary 18

training that we had to deviate from. 19

So the concern was, I heard the mention of “due 20

process.” And Mr. Darden brought it up very eloquently. 21

He’s obviously an attorney. The current mechanism does 22

afford every appellant a modicum of due process. It’s 23

first addressed by the consultant, it’s addressed by a 24

bureau chief, and finally at the Executive Office level. 25



148

So our intent is not to just arbitrarily preclude 1

people from having the opportunity to go before the 2

Commission, but this is consistent and commensurate 3

with any other entity, albeit a public entity or a 4

governmental entity. Where, for example, in law 5

enforcement, if a citizen has an initial complaint, that 6

generally will be handled at the supervisory level, and 7

then as a matter of appeal to the internal affairs bureau 8

or division, and finally maybe up to the agency head. 9

In its current pattern, without regulatory clarity, 10

this would be like any citizen taking a personal beef 11

regarding the performance of a police officer straight 12

to city council, or taking a complaint against a deputy 13

sheriff and asking the board of supervisors to conduct 14

that requisite investigation. 15

So I hope that illustrates the fact that it’s very 16

labor-intensive. 17

If we were to move forward and have this number of 18

appeals in the future, very likely, we’d have to put 19

forward a budget change proposal and actually get a staff 20

of a couple of people to do nothing but research on these 21

appeals. 22

MR. DARDEN: And I would point out as well that the 23

individuals would still continue to have the right, even 24

if the power stayed with the executive director, after 25



149

the executive director made the final determination, 1

then the individual would still have a right to take it 2

to court. They would file a petition for writ of 3

mandate, a traditional writ, and basically challenge the 4

executive director’s decision; and then it would be 5

litigated by the lawyers. 6

So the individual would continue to have those 7

appellate rights in terms of the court, it just wouldn’t 8

be to this body. 9

MR. LOGGINS: Correct. 10

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Thank you, both. 11

Commissioner Braziel. 12

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: One, thanks for your 13

comments. But I would hope that you would do the same 14

amount of research, whether it was coming to the board or 15

coming to the executive director. So I don’t see the 16

workload changing if it went to that. Regardless, that 17

amount of work still should continue. 18

I’m hoping that the language change will make it so 19

we have very few, if any. Because part of it was, if you 20

go back and look at the appeals, the appeals actually 21

prompted the change, because the executive directors had 22

not sided with the appellant in a couple of cases. But 23

we saw the flaws when it was presented, and it was fixed. 24

So to me, that means the appeal process works and 25



150

identified flaws in our system that were not caught with 1

the prior executive director. 2

So I support that we allow the appeals to continue 3

to the Commission, knowing that we’re going to have 4

significantly reduced numbers. Because with the clarity, 5

I think, that we’ll see more resolutions when somebody 6

challenges the executive director -- because if I recall 7

correctly, it does go to the executive director to say, 8

“Well, no, it either is or isn’t in compliance,” and 9

either we’re going to fix it or we’re not. And the ones 10

that were not would then come to the Commission. 11

I probably just totally confused everybody on that 12

one. 13

But I do agree that there needs to be the ability 14

for folks to come to a commission to challenge a ruling 15

that significantly could potentially impact their 16

livelihood. I think that’s appropriate. And I think 17

the numbers will significantly be reduced with the 18

language change. 19

And good work on the language change. 20

DR. SPILBERG: Thank you. 21

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Because it was 22

confusing everybody, so… 23

MR. LOGGINS: Commissioner Braziel, I appreciate 24

that. Could I offer this to you for your consideration 25



151

and your guidance: One of the options we considered was 1

a middle ground, maybe a supreme court model, where if 2

an appellant was dissatisfied with the decision made by 3

the executive director, it could be brought forward to 4

this body for your initial review. And at that time, 5

you could undertake it and make a decision whether you 6

would allow them to move forward at the subsequent 7

commission meeting. That way, you would have a level 8

of triage to say, “Yes, this merits further review,” 9

or, “No, we’re going to leave it in the hands of the 10

Executive Director.” 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Executive Director 12

Alvarez? 13

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: Okay, thank you. 14

And if I may, what Scott just mentioned, maybe I 15

could pass to Toby at the end here; but that was our 16

initial discussion, was having a separate body look at 17

these -- a separate body of commissioners. 18

And, Toby, you can address the legalities of that. 19

I think what we’re looking for is just some clear 20

direction from you all. We’re not married to any one 21

way, or other way to do it; but we do think that the 22

policy should state what is available to each individual. 23

I think it’s better than leaving it blank and shoehorning 24

it, as Toby mentioned earlier. 25



152

Again, the only thing that allows for an appeal to 1

the Commission right now -- at least in writing -- is a 2

course certification. And we’ve just kind of been 3

jerry-rigging this and saying, “Well, if you don’t like 4

it, go to the Commission.” 5

We’re making decisions almost -- not almost -- we’re 6

making decisions daily; and some of them are not popular 7

decisions. 8

I mentioned to one of the commissioners one of the 9

questions that was posed to me by a chief of police; and 10

he’s not going to like the answer that I’m going to have 11

to give him about perishable skills training. Do we tell 12

that person, well, you have the opportunity to go to the 13

Commission? 14

Perhaps it’s just with this, with 1008; and that 15

language should be in the reg change. 16

Also, I think it’s important for us from a POST 17

perspective, I think the prior decisions that were 18

reversed, they weren’t because -- at least the one that 19

I’m thinking of, right off the top of my head, it’s not 20

because POST made an error in judgment applying the 21

regulation; there was one, if you recall, with the 22

three-year and the six-year rule, that the individual was 23

six years and 17 days. And we adhered to the letter of 24

that regulation: It is six years. And it was painful 25



153

for us to tell that individual that they were out of 1

compliance, so to speak. 2

The Commission reversed that on the totality of the 3

circumstances, but not because of an error that POST 4

made. We do not have the wiggle room to go around the 5

regulations that you all put in place. Perhaps it can be 6

written in such a way that POST has the ultimate decision 7

on whether it’s in compliance or out of compliance, and 8

then perhaps address it to the Commission on the totality 9

of the circumstances around that individual. 10

We’ve gone back and forth on this; and we really 11

are open. We’re not married to any one thing. But 12

personally, I think we should put something in that 13

regulation that says you can appeal to the Commission or 14

you cannot appeal to the Commission. 15

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Other thoughts? 16

Discussion? 17

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: And, Toby, would you 18

speak to having a subcommittee of commissioners to hear 19

these appeals that we talked -- that we spoke about 20

previously, as to if we can do that or not? 21

MR. DARDEN: Sure, yes, absolutely. 22

And the answer is, I don’t see any problem with that 23

at all. 24

So basically, how these are looked at by the courts, 25



154

if there was a legal challenge, they’re always looked at 1

based upon the facts of the particular case that comes 2

before the court. So the court would look at, in this 3

case, the existing POST regulations, they would look at 4

the nature of the deprivation, or what the individual is 5

claiming was the deprivation; and then they would look 6

at the level of process that POST was providing to 7

determine if, in fact, it was sufficient in light of the 8

deprivation. 9

And as I’ve said, if you are depriving someone, for 10

example, of the right to pursue an occupation, then that 11

would be a heavier burden; and there would be more of a 12

requirement of an evidentiary hearing, even up to and 13

including potentially, you know, having a judge, having a 14

formal presentation of evidence, and formal rulings and 15

that sort of thing. 16

This, I think, at least arguably, what we’re looking 17

at here, it’s less a question of depriving someone of the 18

right to be in law enforcement. You’re simply saying 19

that your training is stale, and you need to go through 20

a full academy again in order to assure that you are 21

properly trained. 22

And so my guess is, having looked at a number of 23

cases in this area, that the level of process even of 24

simply having the internal appeal process going to Manny, 25



155

Manny having the say, and then the person having the 1

right to go to court, that that would be sufficient. 2

Having said that, certainly I think the procedure 3

in 1058 was sufficient -- again, this is my view -- a 4

court could always disagree with me and say, no, even 5

more an extensive panoply of due process is required. 6

But my guess is, that wouldn’t be the case. 7

So certainly, I think 1058, I would argue strongly, 8

would be sufficient. And in my view, if the Commission 9

wanted to create another procedure, a more streamlined 10

procedure to take away some of the burden on the full 11

commission and delegate it to a subcommittee, I would 12

think that would be completely appropriate. It’s just 13

a matter of what the Commission wants to do in terms of 14

the delegation of these decisions. 15


Dr. Spilberg, did you want to say something else? 17

DR. SPILBERG: Well, certainly, obviously, I echo 18

what Director -- what Manny said, is that we’re looking 19

to you to make a determination at this point in time 20

whether the Commission would hear appeals. 21

It seems to me, there are just a few options. 22

One is, accept the wording of the proposed 23

regulation, which would take the Commission out of the 24

picture. 25



156

The second option would be to keep the existing 1

wording, as it is in 1008(b)(3)(B), okay, and not change 2

it. But even that option, to me, doesn’t mean that this 3

issue won’t be looked at more carefully in the very near 4

future when we do that substantive review and include the 5

input that Toby said. 6

So what I’m feeling -- and remember, I came in this 7

with no experience in requal -- is that this is an area 8

that we need to really more carefully consider exactly 9

how it should go and how it should be worded. But the 10

intent of this iteration was just to clarify the existing 11

regulation. 12

So, there you go. 13

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, Scott, did you want 14

to say anything else? 15

MR. LOGGINS: Well, I’m good, unless any of the 16

commissioners have any questions for me. 17

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, Commissioner Doyle. 18

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I share with some of my 19

colleagues. I don’t see this as a burden to hear the 20

appeals, and hopefully the language will clear it up and 21

we won’t have as many. And I believe the process as it 22

is now, the people should be able to appeal to the full 23

Commission. 24

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Would you like to make a 25



157

motion? 1

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, I don’t want to steal the 2

thunder from Geoff. 3

COMMISSIONER LONG: Please, Sheriff. 4

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Sure, I’ll make that motion. 5

DR. SPILBERG: May I interrupt? 6

I understand what your motion will be. And just for 7

the record, if you agree, we can go ahead with this 8

version to the Office of Administrative Law. I just 9

want to make sure that it’s clear that what you might be 10

proposing is that the existing wording of 1008(b)(3) 11

stands the way it is, not in the proposed version, or 12

something like that. That’s all. I just want to make 13

sure that OAL is happy. 14

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Okay. 15

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: And to strike that 16

language -- the one last sentence about the Executive 17

Director’s is the final approver. That we would strike 18

that. 19

DR. SPILBERG: And we would eliminate that one 20

sentence about the decision of the executive director 21

is final and binding; appeals will not be heard by the 22

Commission. 23

And then we have one other semantic change, changing 24

“the authority of the hiring agency” to “the hiring 25



158

authority.” That’s just a little more clarity when it’s 1

not the chief that’s making the decision, sometimes it’s 2

the human resource department or whatever. 3

So, sorry, I didn’t mean to… 4

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: No, that’s okay. 5

DR. SPILBERG: I just want to make sure this goes 6

through to OAL, if you approve. 7

MR. LOGGINS: Then I do have a question. Are we -- 8

just so we have clarity, are we moving forward and 9

looking at an alternative mechanism, like Mr. Darden was 10

discussing? Or just keeping the status quo? 11

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: That wasn’t my motion, an 12

alternative. 13

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I think that we don’t have 14

a clear motion right now. 15

So do you want to say something with full sentences? 16

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Me? Oh, sure. 17

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Because you were 18

interrupted a number of times. 19

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: You know, I’m good with 20

clarifying the language of training becoming stale. 21

And the intent of my motion is that executive director 22

decisions can be appealed to the full Commission. 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, I’m going to turn 24

to our attorney and ask him to clarify a possible motion, 25



159

because I do think there are a few things that are 1

dangling. 2

MR. DARDEN: Well, so let me ask this: I suppose 3

one possibility would be that if Shelley, as you 4

suggested, the motion would be to accept your changes 5

as is, with the exception that those two sentences would 6

be removed, that could be a specific motion. 7

Then what that would do is, it would continue our 8

final practice, for now, at least, of sort of shoehorning 9

the appeals into 1058 and doing them under that. We’ve 10

done them in the past, and we can continue to do it until 11

the next meeting. And then perhaps if the Commission 12

wants this, maybe one thing that we could do is look at 13

an agenda item for the next meeting of a variety of 14

different mechanisms by which the appeals could be heard, 15

and bring that to you to decide which one you want to do. 16

Or perhaps in the future, if you just want to keep the 17

existing process, staff could just present the next time 18

a revision to 1058, which includes these appeals within 19

the context of 1058, which currently applies to 20

certification or decertification. 21

So I wouldn’t presume to make a motion unless I knew 22

what the Commission wanted. But it sounds like maybe 23

where we need to go is just a motion that accepts the 24

existing language absent those two sentences; and then 25



160

we’d put off to the next meeting a decision on whether 1

or not we wanted to amend 1058 or come up with some new 2

process or procedure. 3

Does that make sense? 4

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes. Let’s do one thing 5

at a time. 6

So the motion is? Sorry, I keep going back to you, 7

Commissioner Doyle. 8

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: The motion is to accept the 9

language absent the sentences that Shelley mentioned. 10

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, now, just to be 11

clear on that, Shelley, would you now articulate those 12

two sentences that we’re saying should be absent? 13

DR. SPILBERG: The sentences that we will revoke 14

read: “The decision of the executive director is final 15

and binding. Appeals will not be heard by the 16

Commission.” 17

I just need to add, there is an existing paragraph 18

in 1008(b)(3), the exemption paragraph. It is 19

paragraph (B) that -- I won’t read you the whole thing -- 20

but it says, “The Commission may, in response to a 21

written request or on its motion, upon showing good 22

cause, exempt an individual from the completion of the 23

requal requirement.” 24

Now, that is not in the proposed version. And I 25



161

just want to make sure that -- and maybe Mr. Darden -- 1

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, let’s have Toby 2

weigh in on this -- 3

DR. SPILBERG: Exactly. 4

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: -- because the record has 5

to be super clear, or we’re going to be back here. 6

MR. DARDEN: Right. 7

Okay, so, Shelley, what’s the page where that 8

stricken language is located? Do you have that? 9

DR. SPILBERG: It’s in the existing Regulation 10

1008(b)(3)(B). 11

And I’m not sure all our pages are identical, that’s 12

why, so let’s… 13

MR. DARDEN: I see. Okay, so in other words -- 14

DR. SPILBERG: It would be my third page of that. 15

MR. DARDEN: Yes, okay. So perhaps what we need to 16

do then -- so it sounds like if we’re talking about the 17

motion, it would be to remove those two sentences, and to 18

insert back into it this language (pointing). 19

Is that the idea? 20

DR. SPILBERG: Whatever the Commission desires. 21

MR. DARDEN: All right, and so what she’s saying 22

then -- this is the language which the proposal would be 23

to reinsert it into this new regulation after we take out 24

the two sentences about the executive director. And it 25



162

would read as follows: 1

“The Commission may, in response to a 2

written request or on its own motion, upon 3

a showing of good cause and based upon an 4

individual’s employment, proficiency, training, 5

and education, exempt an individual from 6

completion of the Basic Course requalification 7

requirement. The individual shall: 1, have 8

satisfied the Regular Basic Course training 9

requirement; 2, become reemployed as a peace 10

officer after a three-year or longer break in 11

service; and 3, not be described or included in 12

subsection 1008(b)(3)(A)(1) through (5).” 13

I don’t know. Now, did those change? Did those sections 14

change with your new -- 15

DR. SPILBERG: You know, even if they did, I don’t 16

think OAL would have a problem with us updating that. 17

MR. DARDEN: Yes, you would just make a conforming 18

change? 19

DR. SPILBERG: Exactly. 20

MR. DARDEN: All right. So then as I understand the 21

motion, it would be to approve the language as is, with 22

the following changes: The language in the proposed new 23

Regulation 1008(d), the two sentences would be stricken 24

that say, “The decision of the Executive Director is 25



163

final and binding. Appeals will not be heard by the 1

Commission.” In its place, would be placed the language 2

that I just read, which is in the existing regulation, 3

that permits the Commission, in response to its own 4

request or on its own motion, exempt an individual from 5

completion of the requirement as specified and, again, 6

with the understanding that Shelley would make conforming 7

changes to the numbering. 8

DR. SPILBERG: Absolutely. 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, one moment. 10

Commissioner Doyle, is that acceptable to you? Is 11

that your motion? 12

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Yes, it is. 13

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay. A second, please? 14

COMMISSIONER LONG: Second. Long. 15

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any discussion? 16

(No response) 17

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: All in favor? 18


COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any opposed? 20

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: No -- yes, opposed. 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Yes, got that. 22

That’s opposition from -- 23

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: Chaplin. 24

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Anybody else? 25



164

All in favor? 1


COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Opposed? No? 3

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: No. 4

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And the motion carries. 5

And thank you. 6

Thank you very much. 7

Good work. 8

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, now, Item F is a 9

report on the proposed changes to the POST Administrative 10

Manual. 11

Would anyone like a presentation on this item, just 12

for the sheer fun of it? 13

(No response) 14

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: No? 15

Okay, so we do need a motion. 16

If the Commission concurs, then the appropriate 17

action would be a motion to approve direct reference of 18

POST regulation to the California Code of Regulations. 19

Do I have such a motion? 20

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Motion. Leichliter. 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Second? 22

COMMISSIONER DONELAN: Donelan. 23


(No response) 25



165




(No response) 4

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: The motion carries. 5

Okay, Item G is Report of Proposed Changes to 6

Regulation 1009, regarding the Academy Instructor 7

Certificate Program. 8

At this time, I would like to call upon Assistant 9

Executive Director Maria Sandoval to make a presentation. 10

Thank you. 11

MS. SANDOVAL: Thank you. 12

Currently, in order for somebody to teach in the 13

Basic Police Academy, they must attend the Academy 14

Instructor Certificate Program, which is Regulation 1009. 15

That’s a 40-hour course; and it teaches everybody how to 16

basically behave and teach in an academy setting. 17

The other portion of that is, every three years, 18

they must be recertified as an academy instructor. They 19

must have 24 hours of teaching; and they must have eight 20

hours of unspecified professional development, which we 21

are not quite sure how that is tracked at this point. 22

And it is -- we’re not sure if it even is tracked. 23

Failure to meet these requirements, the individual 24

must attend an IDI course, which is the first level of 25



166

Instructor Development Course and they are removed from 1

the academy cadré. 2

What we’re asking to do is remove the triennial 3

recertification, which is going to put us more in line 4

with the rest of the 1070 regulations; and just once 5

you’ve attended this class, you’re a one-and-done. 6

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Any questions? 7

(No response) 8

COMMISSIONER SMITH: I’d like to make a motion. 9

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I’ll second it. Doyle. 10


(No response) 12




(No response) 16

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Motion carries. Thank 17

you. 18

Item H is a report on the proposed changes to the 19

Regulation 1005 regarding attendance at Supervisory and 20

Management Courses. 21

Would anyone like a presentation on this item? 22

(No response) 23

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: If the Commission concurs, 24

the appropriate action would be a motion to approve the 25



167

proposed changes to 1005 regarding attendance. 1

Is there such a motion? 2

COMMISSIONER BUI: Bui. Motion. 3

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: Second. Chaplin. 4


(No response) 6




(No response) 10

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Motion carries. 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Item I is a report on the 12

proposed changes to Regulation 1953, regarding Peace 13

Officer Selection Standards for Interim Police Chiefs. 14

At this time, I would like to call upon Bureau Chief 15

Phil Caporale to make a presentation. 16

Thank you. 17

MR. CAPORALE: Good afternoon, Madam Chair and 18

Members of the Commission. 19

The agenda item before you this afternoon deals 20

with a very specific category in terms of background 21

investigations. Specifically, it deals with the interim 22

police chief positions throughout California. POST has 23

collaborated with the Police Chiefs Association to craft 24

the proposed regulatory change that’s in front of you 25



168

this afternoon. There’s some very strict criteria that 1

must be applied in order for this exception to occur. 2

Specifically, there had to have been a POST-approved 3

background conducted on the applicant within the past 4

five years; he or she must have served as an interim 5

chief within the prior two years; and the subsequent 6

hiring authority -- in other words, if I was an interim 7

police chief at Agency A, Agency B would have the option 8

to review it and accept the prior full background 9

investigation and conduct an updated background 10

investigation for that time frame, from when that was 11

conducted to the current time. Or if they were not 12

satisfied with that initial background investigation, 13

then they could conduct a full background investigation 14

on their behalf prior to a job offer. 15

That’s the essence of the proposed change. 16

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, let me check to see 17

if the Advisory Committee had any discussion on this, and 18

then I’ll open it up to everybody. 19

Did you? 20

ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR WALTZ: Yes. The Advisory 21

Committee did have discussion on this item. Our 22

committee representative from Cal Chiefs conveyed support 23

of that association. There were others from our 24

committee brought concern that the interim chiefs should 25



169

undergo a complete background that any other police 1

officer or deputy sheriff is required. So it was also 2

discussed that the length of appointment of an interim 3

chief is not clearly defined. There are some interim 4

chiefs that serve many years in that capacity. 5

Commissioner Chaplin did speak to our committee, 6

and he said that he believed there should be some 7

assurance that the complete background that was done 8

by another agency was approved by a POST consultant as 9

meeting standards; and it has actually been reviewed and 10

is incorporated with the update, should the update be 11

done, rather than a complete background. 12

That concludes the discussion that the Advisory 13

Committee had on this item. 14

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay. Other thoughts, 15

discussion, questions? 16

Commissioner Chaplin, did you want to say anything 17

more about that? 18

COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. 19

Having had an opportunity to review backgrounds on 20

several different levels, including for the state and for 21

two municipal police departments, I can tell you that not 22

all backgrounds are created equally. And I will tell you 23

that is perhaps even more problematic when dealing with 24

the position of police chief. 25



170

During a police chief background, they’re not 1

exactly interviewing second-grade teachers like they 2

do for entry-level law-enforcement officers. 3

My concern is that any background that’s going to 4

be relied upon should have been reviewed by POST to 5

ensure that it does meet standards; that it is, in fact, 6

complete and thorough. 7

And I know that, though the intention of POST is to 8

audit backgrounds annually, I know that also some of 9

them are found lacking; and there’s proposed changes or 10

additions are requested. So if there’s a way to build 11

into the safeguards that POST has already approved that, 12

I think that would be beneficial. 13

I understand the spirit of this. I was present when 14

Cal Chiefs weighed in on it; and I do support the item in 15

principle. 16

I do think there is one other fly in the ointment 17

here, and that is with regards to the retention of all 18

background investigation records, including the initial 19

and updated, will be the responsibility of the hiring 20

authority. That implies to me that that background would 21

change hands. I can tell you, that won’t happen. If we 22

have a background in our department, no other agency is 23

going to take that background with them, period, because 24

we can control the information. And it’s rare that you 25



171

would even allow somebody to prepare copies of a 1

background. Perhaps in this specific instance, there’s a 2

middle ground; but I see that as just necessitating a 3

clarification as well. 4

Thank you. 5


Go ahead. 7

MR. CAPORALE: I appreciate those comments, sir. 8

Let me address the last comment first. 9

We had a significant amount of discussion about 10

the retention and passing of information from Agency A 11

to Agency B. And I think it’s very clear that if 12

Agency A, for whatever reason, decides not to share that 13

information, then a full background would be warranted. 14

The intent, from our perspective, was to ensure that 15

if there was audit, that they would have a full package, 16

so to speak, to audit, as opposed to just an updated 17

background that Agency B conducted. They would be 18

responsible to have both agencies’ background packages 19

to assess the completeness and ensure that it’s within 20

POST regulation. 21

As to your first comment, I think we tried to 22

address that in section 2(b), as in “boy,” where we say, 23

A, that hiring authority has discretion; but more 24

importantly, the interim police chief was investigated by 25



172

a California POST-participating department in accordance 1

with all current requirements. So if any of those 2

statements were found to be untrue, then it would be a 3

flawed background on its face. 4

So we tried to build in some safeguards to ensure 5

that, as you say, not all backgrounds are alike. We try 6

to build in those safeguards to say that that initial 7

background has to be in compliance with whatever the 8

Commission has currently established as the criteria. 9


Other questions or comments? 11

Commissioner Doyle. 12

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, I appreciate that not all 13

backgrounds are created equal; but it would seem to me 14

that it’s up to the employer to make sure he or she sees 15

an acceptable background before that person becomes the 16

interim police chief, so… 17

And if they don’t see one, then they have to do one. 18

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Other comments? 19

Yes. 20

COMMISSIONER LONG: Just quickly. I appreciated the 21

Advisory Committee’s robust discussion on this yesterday. 22

And for what it’s worth, I’d benefit more from discussion 23

here from some of the chiefs and sheriffs. But I thought 24

Vice Chair Spagnoli kind of carried the day, even though 25



173

she disagreed with her association, and said, “I don’t 1

see what the overarching reason for the change is.” And 2

I don’t, either. 3

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Well, again, if the city 4

disagrees, they can do a background when they employ 5

somebody, so… 6

COMMISSIONER LONG: Well, all entities are not 7

created equal, either. 8

MR. CAPORALE: I think the -- Madam Chair, if I 9

may? -- the impetus for this was the fact that many of 10

these interim agencies move from agency to agency to 11

agency. And by virtue of the fact that they’re only 12

serving a very short period, it creates a gap in 13

leadership for these agencies when they have to conduct 14

a full background when an interim chief may perhaps only 15

work a period of three to four months. 16

To do a complete background, as you’re well aware, 17

it takes a long time. So they have this gap in 18

leadership. In the meantime, they’re recruiting for a 19

more permanent solution. 20

So this was to address that issue and give those 21

hiring authorities the flexibility to accept Agency A’s 22

background or not, and conduct a full background if they 23

so choose. 24

It does not impact any other part of the process in 25



174

terms of psychological evaluation and other assessment 1

criteria, only specifically to backgrounds. 2


And as an employer, I appreciate your comments. And 4

that space in leadership is really a problem for us when 5

we have to wait months and months for a background, 6

especially when one was just done. 7

Other comments? 8

(No response) 9

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, I think we need a 10

motion then. 11

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: I’ll make a motion that we 12

approve the recommendation. 13

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Second. Braziel. 14

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay. Any further 15

discussion? 16

All in favor? 17



COMMISSIONER LONG: Long. 20

COMMISSIONER LINDLEY: Lindley. 21

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay. So the opposition 22

is Long and -- 23

COMMISSIONER LINDLEY: Lindley. 24

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, the motion carries. 25



175

Thank you. 1

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, thank you very much. 2

Item J is a report of proposed amendments to the 3

Basic Course Test Management and Security Protocols 2017, 4

and Commission Regulations 1005, 1007, 1008, and 1052. 5

Would anyone like a presentation on this motion? 6

(No response) 7


approve? 9

COMMISSIONER DONELAN: Donelan. Make a motion to 10

approve. 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Is there a second? 12

COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Second. Leichliter. 13


All in favor? 15



(No response) 18


Item K is Report on the Proposed Changes to Peace 20

Officer and Public Safety Dispatch Selection Standards. 21

Would anyone like a presentation on this item? 22

(No response) 23


approve? 25



176



COMMISSIONER LINDLEY: Second. Lindley. 3


(No response) 5




(No response) 9


Item L is a report on the Proposed Changes to 11

Regulation 1011 regarding Professional Certificate 12

Requirements for Supervisors and Managers. 13

Would anyone like a presentation on this? 14

(No response) 15


approve? 17

COMMISSIONER DOYLE: Doyle. 18


COMMISSIONER LONG: Long. 20


(No response) 22






177

(No response) 1


Okay, that is it for motions. 3

And now Committee Report. 4

The Advisory Committee Chair, Mr. Randy Waltz, will 5

report on the Advisory Committee meeting held yesterday. 6

Please do so. 7

ADVISORY COMMITTEE CHAIR WALTZ: Thank you. 8

Other than the input I’ve had in the agenda items 9

that I’ve spoken to, the Advisory Committee moved to 10

support the rest of the agenda as written. 11


Is there a motion to accept the Advisory Committee 13

report? 14


COMMISSIONER MOORE: Moore. 16


Discussion? 18

(No response) 19




(No response) 23


Okay, the following correspondence were sent from 25



178

POST to: 1

The first, to Laurie Wood, attorney, Southern 2

Poverty Law Center, expressing sympathy over the untimely 3

death of the Sarah Viets, subject-matter expert, Southern 4

Poverty Law Center. 5

The second was to Brian Martin, Sheriff, Lake County 6

Sheriff’s Department, expressing sympathy over the tragic 7

on-duty death of Deputy Robert Rumfelt. 8

And the third was to Scott Jones, Sheriff, 9

Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, expressing 10

sympathy over the tragic on-duty death of Deputy Robert 11

French. 12

There is no old business to consider. 13

Is there any new business? 14

Yes? 15

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: I’d like to see if 16

maybe at our next meeting we could get a list of kind 17

of our Leadership Development courses, and then who is 18

eligible to attend, who they recommend, both mandated and 19

optional. 20

Over the last several decades, we’ve civilianized a 21

lot of positions and put more importance on civilian 22

supervisors and managers in our organizations; but yet, 23

there’s times we prohibit them from going to courses. 24

Particularly, I’d like to look at dispatch eligibility 25



179

for SLI and some of those. 1

You know, we exclude them when, in fact, we give 2

them leadership roles. And there’s evidence folks, 3

and depending on the civilianization level of the 4

organization, I think we’re excluding some of our 5

civilian supervisors and leaders, and we need to be more 6

inclusive. 7

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: And I think several of 8

us have seen how that plays out with dispatch, and that 9

they do feel continuously like the stepchild, when we 10

desperately need their professionalism. 11

COMMISSION VICE CHAIR BRAZIEL: Absolutely. 12

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: I agree. 13

Any other new business? 14

(No response) 15


COMMISSIONER CHAPLIN: In the past year, we have 17

heard from two separate chiefs, as they’ve addressed the 18

Commission. One was retiring Chief Bob Lehner from 19

Elk Grove, who served in Oregon and also in Arizona; and 20

then today, from Chief John Carli. And in both 21

instances, those chiefs brought up the concept of 22

decertifying people that have been certificated by POST. 23

I think it’s a topic we should take up. 24

And you’ll have to forgive me if it’s come up in 25



180

the past, I’m not aware of that. But I do think it’s 1

something to discuss. 2

And an article I noted recently where they compared 3

decertification processes in Minnesota and Oregon, the 4

crux of the article was, I think we’re an anomaly as a 5

state. I think some states do this well. And I think 6

it would be a topic that we should take up. I think it 7

would be a strong message from the regulatory body that 8

monitors and provides for training for certification 9

for hiring, for all that POST does, to strongly come out 10

when there’s a crime against moral turpitude or it’s an 11

ethical violation or if it’s something that we said 12

they’re no longer an officer and no agency in this state 13

is going to be able to hire them and such. 14

So I would like to see us take that up as a body at 15

some point in the near future. 16

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, let me just ask 17


You heard the comments from Commissioner Braziel, 19

the comments from Commissioner Chaplin. 20

Do you have any questions about what they’re 21

requesting? 22

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ALVAREZ: No. We will have that 23

ready for you, in informational agenda items on both. 24




181

Any other new business? 1

(No response) 2

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Well, I’ll tell you about 3

the upcoming Commission meetings. We’re going to be down 4

in Southern California next time, on February 7th through 5

8th, 2018, at The Westin, at LAX in Los Angeles. Then 6

back up here June 20th through 21st at POST in West 7

Sacramento. And then next October, 17th through 18th, 8

back up again at POST in West Sacramento. 9

Now, I’m going to ask that we adjourn to closed 10

session. 11

We ask that all attendees exit the room; and we will 12

reconvene in general session at the conclusion of closed 13

session. 14

So just to empty the room and give everybody a 15

little bit of a break, we’ll come back again in 16

seven minutes, at five to 2:00. 17

MR. DARDEN: In addition to the matters that are 18

agendized, we will be discussing some personnel issues. 19

However, I don’t believe it should take very long. 20


(Recess from 1:46 p.m. to 1:52 p.m.) 22

(The Commission met in closed executive 23

session from 1:52 p.m. to 2:10 p.m.) 24

(Recess from 2:10 p.m. to 2:14 p.m.) 25



182

(The Commission returned to open session 1

at 2:14 p.m.) 2

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: This meeting is now back 3

in general session. 4

Mr. Darden will report on items listed on the agenda 5

and discussed in closed session. 6

MR. DARDEN: And during the closed session, we 7

discussed litigation and personnel matters. 8

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Well said. Okay. 9

Commissioners, is there anything else? 10

(No response) 11

COMMISSION CHAIR DUDLEY: Okay, well, again, I’m 12

just saying, how much we’re going to miss a couple of 13

our commissioners who are here. 14

And you’ve been a real mentor to me -- both of you 15

have. Both of you were chair before I was, and watching 16

you, listening to you, seeking your guidance, and I 17

appreciate you very much. And we’re all going to miss 18

you very much. 19

With that, we’ll close today’s session. Thank you. 20


COMMISSIONER LEICHLITER: Thank you. 22

(The Commission meeting concluded at 2:15 p.m.) 23

24

25



183

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

November 14th, 2017.

___________________________________ Daniel P. Feldhaus California CSR #6949 Registered Diplomate Reporter Certified Realtime Reporter

Documents

STATE OF CALIFORNIA COMMISSION ON PEACE OFFICER … · 26/10/2017 · DAVID CHENG Analyst Training Program Services Bureau LARRY ELLSWORTH ... Case No. 2:15-cv-01951. c) People v