Last fall the Cleveland Community Police Commission approved a draft policy that would overhaul how rank‑and‑file officers and department employees are disciplined. Commission Co‑Chair John Adams called the change a “major deal,” noting years of work to rewrite the city’s corrective‑action rules.
Key changes in the proposal
The new policy would create three categories for violations. Minor infractions such as tardiness, uniform or equipment issues, and first‑offense rudeness or improper body‑camera use would be classified as “non‑disciplined violations” and handled with coaching, letters of reinstruction, retraining or referrals to the Employee Assistance Unit instead of formal hearings.
More serious misconduct would remain subject to traditional discipline, while the most egregious offenses—including on‑duty alcohol or drug use, sharing confidential information, lying or retaliation—would be placed in a separate category that mandates termination.
Collaborative discipline process
Under the proposed “collaborative discipline” system, the chief of police (or a designee) would still conduct disciplinary hearings, but must first send a draft decision to the commission’s accountability committee. The committee can approve the decision, request reconsideration with an explanation, or, if the chief refuses to change the verdict, forward the case to the full commission for a vote or an evidentiary hearing.
This approach mirrors the Civilian Police Review Board’s role in reviewing resident complaints, offering the commission a real‑time voice rather than the current after‑the‑fact evidentiary hearing, which has been used only once.
Union pushback and legal concerns
Police unions, including the Cleveland Police Patrolmen’s Association and the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), argue the changes may violate state law and existing collective bargaining contracts. FOP President Jim O’Malley said the commission is an arm of the city and therefore bound by the city’s labor agreements.
The unions have threatened legal action, demanding a chance to bargain over any unilateral policy changes. They also expressed disappointment over a perceived lack of transparency and involvement in the drafting process.
Next steps
The commission had planned to vote on the policy on Aug. 25, but Chief of Police Dorothy Todd asked for an additional week to gather union feedback. Commissioners have met with union leaders, though the FOP declined a formal meeting, calling it “informal.” The commission is also seeking input from the city’s Law Department and the U.S. Department of Justice monitoring team, which oversees Cleveland’s compliance with the 2015 consent decree on police reform.
If adopted, the policy would be the commission’s most significant overhaul to date, aiming to improve fairness and accountability while navigating the complex relationship between city authority and police‑union contracts.
Original reporting: Signal Cleveland — read the source article.
