Lodge 35 response to the introduction of Council bill 2-24

Yesterday, Councilmember Jawando introduced Bill No. 2-24. This will prohibit the ability of Montgomery County police officers to conduct consent searches, which are allowed per the 4th Amendment of the United States Constitution. Councilmember Jawando has again introduced legislation that will impede officers’ abilities to do their duties proactively, particularly in the seizure of illegal guns and drugs. Choosing not to partner with law enforcement endangers both residents and officers in Montgomery County.

Through policy that has already been implemented, Montgomery County Police Officers go beyond the requirements of the 4th Amendment. Currently, when requesting a search of any person or vehicle, officers provide notice of a right of refusal. Legislation, such as this, has a direct correlation to the numbers of police officers in Montgomery County. This legislation and similar laws, which were previously passed by the last council, have a negative impact on retaining high quality and professional police officers.

We urge the County Council to oppose Bill 2-24 and repeal law enforcement policy laws passed by the previous Council that have done nothing but limit the size of our police force and made Montgomery County less safe.

Statement from FOP 35 and MCGEO 1994 regarding the introduction of bill 12-23

Bill 12-23, Traffic Limitations, introduced by Councilmember Will Jawando, is another example of the dangerous overreach of Council power, using legislation to limit the police and hindering their ability to keep the community safe.  Once again, Mr. Jawando is trying to set law enforcement policy, which is the job of County administration, not the County Council. His constant battle against law enforcement has not helped make Montgomery County any safer and has resulted in low morale and high turnover in all public safety jobs in the County.  

 It is unfortunate that a county facing rising property and persons crimes has a councilmember attempting to scale back the ability of police officers to protect the community. This type of legislation aimed at defunding police departments is yet another catalyst emboldening those who seek to do harm.

 To justify his legislation, Mr. Jawando used a flawed report from the Office of Legislative Oversight (OLO). Statistics are important for a lot of reasons, but, unfortunately, they can be manipulated and were in the OLO report. The report does not include statistics from redlight and speed cameras or account for non-county resident statistics when making their case about disproportionality.

 According to the OLO report, “black drivers accounted for 30 percent of the stops despite being 18 percent of the population.” This is misleading. It omits the important point that 25 percent of traffic stops conducted during the period captured by the report were of non-county residents.  How many were non-resident black or brown drivers?

 Additionally, the report did not include automated traffic enforcement in Montgomery County.  Other nationwide research, including in Chicago and Washington, DC, found that automated traffic enforcement disproportionally cited minorities.

 Finally, this bill makes it illegal for law enforcement to write tickets for jaywalking, effectively legalizing it. Some of the most dangerous roads for pedestrians in the U.S., according to a 2021 study, run through low-income neighborhoods, which are themselves disproportionately likely to be communities of color. Choosing to ignore jaywalking, and putting even more folks at risk for traffic fatalities does not support Vision Zero’s goals at all.

 Bill 12-23 will certainly be destructive to public safety in Montgomery County.  Mr. Jawando claimed when introducing his bill that law enforcement would not be prohibited from enforcing driving under the influence laws and other goals of Vision Zero.  This exposes his ignorance to what traffic stops often reveal – substantial numbers of impaired drivers are discovered through equipment violations, the same violations that Mr. Jawando is trying to restrict.

 Mr. Jawando stated that this bill “will allow our officers to focus on serious traffic stops.” What is a low-level versus a serious traffic stop? 

 Let’s have a real conversation about what needs to be done to fight back against implicit bias and racism in policing in OUR COUNTY. Community policing needs to focus on the community in which we live and work. We need our politicians to stop trying to seize opportunities to make names for themselves and work to solve our real problems. 

 We hope Mr. Jawando and any current council members who plan on supporting this bill will be able to sleep at night knowing this bill could lead to more traffic-related deaths. It keeps us up at night.

Statement from FOP 35 on January 2020 incident at East Silver Spring Elementary School

The Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35 cannot comment on the alleged incident involving a minor and two of our officer members one year ago at East Silver Spring Elementary School. 

 We do not have details of the investigation as it has not been concluded. We are limited to the same information as what is available to the public.

 Our members have fully cooperated in the investigation and gave their statements to internal investigators in August. They are awaiting its results and any recommended discipline from the police chief.

 We do agree with the feelings of the community – internal investigations shouldn’t take a year to process. The FOP believes that justice and discipline should be served in a timely and fair fashion.

Response to “Report says it’s ‘impossible’ for public to decipher county’s contract with police union”

Bethesda Beat’s article “Report says it’s ‘impossible’ for public to decipher county’s contract with police union” completely misinterprets how badly the Office of Legislative Oversight report misunderstood the Collective Bargaining Agreement with our union.

 Why is the Bethesda Beat giving Hans Reimer a platform to spout his anti-worker rhetoric yet again, yet you didn’t even contact us about this article? 

 We should be asking: Why is Hans Reimer using the Office of Legislative Oversight as a weapon to turn public opinion against the County workers? I wonder how many of the requests for OLO studies come from Reimer specifically to produce anti-worker reports? 

 “… It is impossible for a third-party reader to identify the terms and provisions of the collective bargaining agreement between the County and [Fraternal Order of Police] Lodge 35 because the parties do not agree on the primary document,” OLO senior legislative analysts Leslie Rubin and Aron Trombka wrote in the report.

 First off, nowhere in County Collective Bargaining law does it say that the public needs to be able to decipher collective bargaining documents. They are legal documents and should be understood by the parties who are subject to them, in this case, the County Executive (the employer) and the FOP (employee representatives). 

 Second, a direct examination of the agreement’s copies would garner the issues: there are missing commas, periods, colons, footnotes, and semicolons between the FOP copy and the County copy. As you know, in legal documents, commas do matter, but the mismatch cannot be attributed to the collective bargaining process or to the FOP.  Producing a finalized, signed document is not our responsibility. 

 It is also not County law that the documents be available on the website. If the County Council wants the documents available via the website, it can talk to the county executive’s office to have the document uploaded. The FOP makes the contract available to its members. Who is not doing their job? 

 The implication of the Bethesda Beat article is that somehow the union is gaming the County, or responsible for the county’s shortcomings. We are not. Our job is to follow the collective bargaining law and we’re doing our job

 And then there is the taser issue…. Just another absurd claim by Councilmember Reimer. The FOP had asked the council to fund additional tasers for uniform officers and for a general wage adjustment. We were denied both. When equipment is needed, the council can make it a priority to provide funding. But now Councilmember Reimer is somehow confused about how funding works. He’s either lying about his misunderstanding or he is misinformed. Either way, who is not doing their job? 

 Councilmember Reimer and his cronies’ disdain for the County workforce is destroying public services. He has spent a lot of time trying to destroy labor relations and supersede county collective bargaining law. On nearly every possible opportunity, he has voted to reject pay increases for County employees. This Council is solely responsible for Montgomery County police officers being one of the lowest paid police agencies in the metropolitan area.

 County workers are essential employees who are tasked with providing services to the most vulnerable in our community.  Officers put their lives on the line, and he wants to demoralize them for missing commas and for his inability to figure out how to fund a request for nonlethal weapons. Who is not doing their job?

 County collective bargaining law was voted in 40 years ago to create labor harmony between the County and its employees. Reimer would have us go back to when tumult ruled. You can’t move things forward that way. 

 Let’s all do our jobs according to the law. We’ll negotiate pay and working conditions with the County Executive’s office and the County Council will decide to fund or not fund those elements of the agreement that require funding. That’s County collective bargaining law and that’s Councilmember Reimer’s job. Get to work.

MOCO COUNCIL PLAYING POLITICS WITH YOUR SAFETY

Members of Montgomery County council are playing politics with the safety and well-being of Montgomery County police officers, residents and business owners.  This council passed Bill 27-20 which prohibits officers from using force to detain criminal suspects because of suspicion and hold officers to a different standard then the 4th amendment of the United States Constitution.  This shows the council’s agenda for police reform is to make policy changes providing the employer the ability to fire officers who do nothing wrong while acting within the law, but do not fit their political agenda.

 Instead of providing facts on how their bill will make Montgomery County safer for residents and businesses, members of the county council have pointed the finger at police officers and the FOP.  Councilman Craig Rice stated, “When ingrained racism shapes interactions our police have with the community, we must call it out and address it in order to expect any real change.” Councilman Rice has no facts to support “ingrained racism” within the Montgomery County Police Department.  This type of political posturing brings disgrace to his office and Police Officers that Councilman Rice claims to support, and is sure to create a wedge between the Montgomery County Police Department and the community of color.  

 Councilman Will Jawando posted the below response to the FOP publicly opposing Bill 27-20

 

Jawandotweet.jpg

 

 Obviously, Councilman Jawando did not comprehend the news release or message from Lodge 35. His response reveals how certain council members are attempting to cause a divide in Montgomery county communities. Will Jawando does not understand that Lodge 35’s concern with limiting the use of less lethal force and how it makes it more difficult to keep residents/businesses safe, and how the councils policy holds officers to a different standard than that of the of the US Supreme Court’s interpretation.  He also cannot understand an all democratic council is attempting to remove collective bargaining rights from the rank and file officers.  The men and women of the Montgomery County Police, members of Lodge 35, have always attempted to de-escalate use of force situations, and strive to use deadly force only as a last resort.  Mr. Jawando was asked to provide facts that would suggest otherwise.

 The fact is, this council has an agenda to cause fear within the police department to enact discipline when the employer does not agree with an officer’s actions, even if it is within the officers authority under law.  The council press release clearly shows their interest when it states, “Officers who violate these new police policies would be subject to discipline under the State Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights”.  The attacks keep coming with Bill 34-20 proposed by Councilmembers Han Riemer and Craig Rice, attempting to again remove mandatory subjects of collective bargaining (discipline and transfers) from police officers and separate them from all other county union members.

 Real police reform starts from the first day of employment.  It starts on how departments hire, train, and expect their officers to police within the community.  This council has not demonstrated any instances or issues, justifying such a drastic change to our use of force policy, disciplinary process, or the collective bargaining rights of our police officers.  We do not have the problems like we have seen across this nation. We are a expertly trained and highly educated police force.  Lodge 35 is committed to working on true police reforms that make policing safer for both law enforcement officers and the community.  True police reform must be embraced by all. 

 

 

  

Lodge 35's response to the passage of Council Bill 27-20

Yesterday, under an extremely flawed, closed-door process, the County Council passed Expedited Bill 27-20, which creates an untenable and dangerous legal framework, making it extremely difficult to protect the health and safety of law enforcement, while also protecting the public.

Despite pledges by the the County Council to protect the collective bargaining rights of employees, to include the 1200 police officers of Lodge 35, all nine members of the County Council voted to errode those collective bargaining rights of police officers, approving Expedited Bill 27-20, over the repeated suggestions, collaborative recommendations, of Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35, which cautioned the Council of the harm that the bill would cause to both law enforcement and the public, if Expedited Bill 27-20 were to become law.

Despite several official letters to the County Council, the County Council ignored the due process rights of Montgomery County law enforcement, and standard “open government” transparency laws by refusing to make public any of the testimony of Lodge 35 and the other unions speaking in solidarity (IAFF Local 1664 and UFCW 1994 MCGEO), while at the same time, including testimony of the Democratic Party, and several advocacy groups with political ties to both County Council members and County Executive Elrich.

As passed, Expedited Bill 27-20 limits an officer’s ability to investigate crimes and creates policy standards for Montgomery County officers that differ from standards set by the Supreme Court under the U.S. Constitution.

Expedietd Bill 27-20 Prohibits the detaining of criminal suspects unless an officer is attempting to arrest a suspect with probable cause. The United States Supreme Court has observed the ability of police officers to detain suspects where there is reasonable articulable suspicion. This more stringent standard by the Montgomery County Council will cause a decrease in apprehensions of criminal suspects by police officers. As an example, if a robbery were to occur within Montgomery County, and a lookout was provided, an officer would be unable to detain a person matching that description because there is no probable cause for arrest. Investigative Detention of suspects is a daily occurrence in police work, and has led to the arrests of some of the most dangerous criminals in America.

Expedietd Bill 27-20 also creates two different standards when determining use of force. A court may only look at what the officer knew at the time force was used. The Council’s bill requires the totality of circumstances to be examined when determining a policy violation for an officer who uses force. If an officer must determine the totality of circumstances before using force, an officer may be delayed in making a split second decision, causing potential deadly consequences to both an officer and/or an innocent Montgomery County resident.

Under Expedited Bill 27-20 neck restraints are banned without consideration of a deadly attack on an officer whose only option is a violent physical struggle. Montgomery County officers, just like every citizen in the Country, have a right to defend themselves from serious bodily injury or death. Departmental policy must not infringe upon that right, even to align with public policies in the name of police reform.

As was previously stated, the voices of the 1200 members of Lodge 35 were muzzled by this unfair, and (at the very least) censored process. Lodge 35 provided three letters to Council opposing Expedited Bill 27-20 for various reasons, to include the reasons detailed above. Not one letter was attached to the council packet for review. Council also stated they had over four thousand emails, and discussed several email exchanges between them and the police department, and did not provide the information to the public. Expedited Bill 27-20 was pushed without any careful thought concerning the safety of the public and police officers. There were several moments in discussion when council members were noticeably confused on the policy they were voting on. Not one council member has experience or expertise in policing, but they passed legislation that will dramatically impact the life and death decisions police officers may be called on to make. The Council and the executive created committees to review policy and carefully consider the best practices in policing. Residents of Montgomery County and the public at large should be concerned the council would pass legislation that will precede the work of the committee that was commissioned.

This bill is simply a solution looking for a problem. Montgomery County currently has one of the most progressive and strongest use of force policies in the State of Maryland. Our policy has been vetted by law enforcement professionals both locally and nationally. The Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35 believes Expedited Bill 27-20 will cause confusion and impair the ability of our law enforcement officers to keep Montgomery County safe.

Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35strongly advises the County Executive to veto Expedited Bill 27-20 for the safety of all Montgomery County Police Officers, Montgomery County residents, and Montgomery County business owners.

Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 35

Lodge 35 response to Delegate Acevedo claims in the New York Times

It is unfortunate that a Maryland state Delegate, and union member, would push forward a false narrative about a labor organization. Mr. Acevedo contacted media outlets to garner support for his disagreement over his termination from UFCW Local 1994 (MCGEO). Since Mr. Acevedo decided to make his employment matters public and chose to leave out information that does not support his cause, we will give the public some insight. First and foremost, Mr. Acevedo’s termination was not over the legislation he submitted in Annapolis, a year before his termination. 

 Mr. Acevedo made unfair statements about the Fraternal Order of Police that were without fact. He stated he would affect employee rights not only for FOP members, but for members of all unions representing law enforcement officers, to include the union for which he was a representative. The FOP notified the President of MCGEO in an effort to discuss how the two labor organizations could work together on making improvements to law enforcement. The FOP was contacted to meet and discuss working collaboratively on the issue, which included MCGEO employee, Mr. Acevedo. At no time did the FOP advocate for the termination or any disciplinary action by Mr. Acevedo’s employer for his comments at the council hearing. The FOP simply desired to work together, as we have done for more than 30 years.

 The FOP and Sheriff’s representatives from MCGEO attempted to reach a place of comfort to collaborate over improving law enforcement. After less than fifteen minutes into the conversation Mr. Acevedo, who became irate when interrupted by Mr. Renne, began yelling and pointing his finger in his employer’s face, disrupting the meeting. In my opinion, not only was Mr. Acevedo’s conduct at the meeting extremely unprofessional, but his statements and promises to oppose rights for law enforcement officers compromises his ability to fairly represent the law enforcement members of MCGEOin the workplace. 

 Mr. Acevedo’s claim that the FOP pressured President Renne to terminate him is disingenuous. He has only himself to blame for the current status with his employer.  I do not believe his conduct in the meeting with law enforcement representatives is the only matter that complicated his relationship with his employer.

 To be clear, the FOP did not pressure MCGEO to stop Mr. Acevedo’s legislation or attempt to change his personal opinion of law enforcement and labor unions representing law enforcement officers.  The sole interest of the FOP was to meet andwork together  to address the real issues in law enforcement and provide reasonable and thoughtful suggestions toimprove law enforcement as a whole. 

 

Lodge 35's response to acting chief Jones and county executive Elrich rejecting Thin Blue Line flag

Montgomery County Police acting chief Marcus Jones and county executive Marc Elrich have both rejected the display of the law enforcement “Thin Blue Line” flag in, of all places, the Germantown police station.

We condemn this arbitrary, political action and are especially disappointed that Marcus Jones does not demonstrate appreciation and understanding of the concerns of working police officers.

The working police officers of Montgomery County are highly offended by this act of outright disrespect for them and that flag which represents the sacrifices and dedication of police officers who daily risk their lives, health, limbs and own well-being in service to their community.

Too many have made the supreme sacrifice and we will not allow political pandering by Jones and Elrich to diminish their service.

Lodge 35 would be honored to accept this flag on behalf of the 1500 active and retired law enforcement officers of Montgomery County.

FOP Lodge 35

Where are the training funds going?

From October 2015 to October 2017, the police department has spent $561,620 on police training.  Of those funds, FOP unit members (1238 eligible) have used $256,053; police management (61 eligible) have used $153,284; and non-sworn personnel (810 eligible) have used $152,282. If you break these numbers down, that is $206 per FOP member, $2,512 per police manager, and $189 per non-sworn personnel. 

The chart below is an example of where police management funds are going.  Recently, a training committee (consisting of 4 assistant chiefs) approved police management (shown below) to attend high priced trainings. Meanwhile, FOP members were denied the same training due to a “lack of funds”.  If you look closely at the diagram below, you will see how each training links back to Tom Manger.  He is currently the president of Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) and vice president of the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF). Within the past three years, police management has spent $93,910 to attend conferences and trainings at MCCA and PERF.  Luther Reynolds alone attended 6 of these conferences and trainings, costing the County $9,482.  This does not include his scholarship as a class leader to attend PERF ($9,300 value). Training opportunities need to be fair to all, not just a select few.

 

training diagram.png