California Correctional
Peace Officers
Association
CCPOA
EEPEESENTING
marin
1755 Riverpoint Dt, + West Sacramento, CA 95605-1634 « (916) 372-6060
‘November 23, 2015
‘The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr.
Governor, State of California
State Capitol, Suite 1173
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: Overreach of the Office of Inspector General
Dear Governor Brown:
I write on behalf of the 29,000 hardworking Correctional Peace Officers CCPOA
represents to alert you to a number of serious issues within the Office of Inspector General
(OIG). First among those is the unprecedented encroachment upon the authority and discretion of
CDCR’s intemal affairs (IA) investigators, institutional assigned attorneys, called Vertical
Advocates (VA), and Wardens. O1G’s original mission, as set forth in Penal Code Section 6133,
was to provide “contemporaneous public oversight” of CDCR’s investigative and disciplinary
processes. The common understanding of this “contemporaneous public oversight” is the duty to
monitor, observe and then report to the publie CDCR’s compliance with its policies and
procedures.
The current Inspector General, however, is pursuing a form of “mission creep” in which
OIG is abandoning its oversight function and, instead, taking on a prosecutorial function by
vwresting control of CDCR’s investigations of alleged employee misconduct. OIG has actively
inserted itself into the investigation intake analyses, It dictates how CDCR is to investigate
misconduct, overrules the recommendations of CDCR’s VA’s, and usurps proposed Skelly (due
process) decisions of Wardens. OIG frequently pressures CDCR investigators to expand the
scope of thei investigations, to target unnecessary subjects, and to add vaguely supported
dishonesty charges against officers.
‘This prosecutorial mindset, which we have heard is manifested internally at the OIG as a
“burn a cop a week” policy, completely disregards the Legislature’s intent in establishing the
OIG, ignores sound investigation practices, and flies in the face of the state’s policy of fair and
progressive discipline,
In a second closely related and even more important issue, the OIG -through direction
from its top leadership - has recently, and repeatedly violated the rights and protections
guaranteed officers by state and federal law during investigations, The Rights OIG has violated
include the very rights the OIG is tasked with protecting as part of its oversight role, CCPOA.
will soon file an action in Superior Court seeking to enjoin the OIG from violating Government
Code section 3308 et seq. - The Peace Officer Procedural Bill Of Rights Act. Recently, officers
were compelled to cooperate in what the OIG termed an “authorized review.” Originally
|
|The Honorable Edmund G, Brown Jr.
November 23, 2015
Page 2
presented as voluntary interviews, when the officers declined to speak, they were quickly
ordered to participate in the interview, denied the right to counsel, or indeed any representation.
Other than a grand jury, I can think of no other process where someone who believes they could
be subjected to adverse action can be denied legal representation. In another recent case, the OIG
signed off on a matter as a “good investigation and prosecution” only after the State Personnel
Board found that CDCR failed to tum over exculpatory evidence. Even after the employees were
exonerated and CCPOA filed charges against the investigators and prevailed, the OIG stood by
its investigation rating. These instances are troubling because either many OIG Investigators do
not have experience or knowledge of investigative best practices, or choose to ignore them, yet
they direct or inappropriately influence the course of law enforcement investigations,
The final, and most insidious, issue by which the OIG usurps the role of the Appointing
‘Authority in discipline cases is through the use of the Wardens’ vetting and confirmation
process, and the Executive Review process which are being used as a mechanism to control
CDCR’s Wardens, In what appears to be a clear conflict of interest, any acting Warden who
disagrees with the position of the OIG is in jeopardy of having his or her confirmation negatively
affected, Confirmed Wardens, and CDCR attorneys are threatened with a negative Executive
Review when they recommend not pursuing disciplinary charges against an employee, suggest a
lighter penalty, or propose settling an appeal of the employee’s disciplinary action, The end
result of O1G's expansion of control is internal state conflict, confusion, waste and inefficiency
as the OIG devolves into a redundant investigative body, one in which the OIG has determined
the rules don't apply to them. On many CDCR disciplinary matters it seems the OIG has seen fit
to appoint themselves as judge, jury, and executioner.
By revising its own responsibilities, OIG is rapidly assuming control and power the
Legislature never envisioned. All this done in what can only be explained as an effort to justify
the existence of the Office or to promote the political career of the Inspector General. The time
has come for the elimination of the OIG or, at a minimum, a review and redefinition of O1G's
function in its public oversight of CDCR.
Very truly yours,
LL O O |
Charles Alexand
President
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL,
PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION
Co: California Attomey General Kamala D. Harris
California Legislature