Police discipline, health policies OK’d

County commissioners approved two memorandums of understanding Tuesday involving the local law enforcement union.

One dealt with a new disciplinary policy that makes identifying violations of policy and punishing deputies for such conduct more uniform and fair throughout the department.

The second MOU dealt with awarding deputies $300 if they are able to pass an annual physical test, much like the tests they take to get into the police academy and the follow-up that must be completed in order to join the ranks after graduation.

The first issue revolves around a years-long negotiation process between the Nye County Law Enforcement Association and Sheriff Tony DeMeo on the creation of a disciplinary matrix, a sliding scale of violations and punishments, from slaps on the wrist for misplacing property all the way to termination for unlawfully discharging a gun while on duty.

“The discipline matrix simply sets a standard for the sheriff and the association — we’ve met many hours over this — to work together to make sure that everyone is disciplined and progressive disciplined fairly. I know the sheriff and I have worked on this almost for years now to make it fair and uniform,” Det. David Boruchowitz, NCLEA’s president, told commissioners.

A July 9, 2012 letter spells out that NCLEA and county officials were at loggerheads over an agreement the last time the union and county negotiated the union’s labor contract.

The letter states, “The parties acknowledge that at the time of executing the collective bargaining agreement for the period from July 1, 2012, through June 30, 2014, Nye County and the Nye County Sheriff’s Office have unresolved negotiations regarding the implementation of a discipline matrix and procedures for disciplinary investigations.”

The matrix as adopted this week maps out 13 areas of policy, violations of those policies and five categories of discipline possible for such violations.

For example, a few policy areas include “attitude,” or “evidence and found property” or “prisoner related violations.” Say a deputy has two violations of “unbecoming conduct,” which violates “attitude” standards, then that deputy would receive a “Category D” level punishment, which could mean a suspension of up to 30 hours of work. The first offense would have been considered a “Category C,” but because it was the officer’s second such offense in two years, he or she would receive the stiffer penalty. A third offense would push the disciplinary scale higher, to a “Category E” level punishment, or 40 hours suspension all the way to termination.

Some infractions, like “unbecoming conduct” automatically start out with the stiff “Category C” punishment. However, less serious attitude offenses, such as “display of unprofessional conduct toward public,” only rank a “Category A” — or suspension up to 10 hours — penalty on first offense, rising from there.

Sheriff Tony DeMeo says the department’s new disciplinary policy is probably among the toughest in the state.

“This is much improved from the disciplinary matrix proposed to commissioners last year. If a deputy committed a misdemeanor crime, say shoplifting, the most I could do to the deputy at the time was give him a written reprimand,” he said. “We looked at other departments with disciplinary matrix, theirs is not as severe as ours in a lot of respects. We probably have one of the toughest in the state of Nevada.”

Commissioners Dan Schinhofen and Donna Cox raised a few concerns. Schinhofen said he could understand why there was a difference between the penalties for failing to secure found property with values under or over $500.

“I think failure to secure found property, I don’t care what the value is, it goes to honesty, doesn’t it?” he asked.

Cox said the penalty for misplacing evidence was too light.

“Something like that could ruin a person’s life or cause a case to get kicked out of court,” she said.

Boruchowitz explained that sometimes during long investigations, late at night, for example, deputies can make mistakes. A simple mistake in the performance of duty, he said, shouldn’t cost someone their job. He added, however, that too many similar mistakes certainly would cause a deputy to risk his badge.

After lengthy discussion, commissioners approved the new policy by a 5-0 vote.

“I originally didn’t want to support this at all, but I understand the need and I understand the work you’ve done with it. Everybody knows I don’t think there should be unions anyway, but this is what we have and this is how we are going to deal with it and I make a motion to approve,” Schinhofen said.

Commissioners also unanimously approved the sheriff’s office holding annual physical tests for all deputies. The policy stems from complaints from POOL PACT, the county’s insurance provider, that Nye County was not participating in any sort of wellness program.

A July 9, 2012 letter outlines a memorandum of understanding between NCLEA and the county that pursuant to labor negotiations a health and wellness program was to be developed and put in place.

One year later and the “Physical Conditioning Bonus” was born.

The policy sets out that each calendar year employees of the sheriff’s office will take a physical training test — they will get two weeks notice before taking the test — and if the employee passes said test, he or she will receive a $300 bonus.

Those who do not pass the test will face no punitive action, much to the chagrin of at least one commissioner.

The tests will be administered by supervisors and adhere to POST — Nevada Commission on Peace Officers’ Standards and Training — standards.

A lively debate followed introduction of the agenda item, including the revelation that should every member of the sheriff’s department pass the physical exam, the bonuses would amount to an unbudgeted $27,900 expense.

Lorinda Wichman, who was possibly recalling the sheriff’s $1.2 million budget shortfall in fiscal year 2012, wondered how he could justify such an expense.

“Well, unfortunately that’s kind of a deal-breaker. You’re making agreements with the union for monies that are going to be expended that the board of commissioners did not approve in your budget. That’s kind of a hitch in the get-along, do you understand?”

Danelle Shamrell, the county’s human resources director, came to DeMeo’s defense and admitted the program wasn’t completed until after the sheriff’s budget was set.

Eventually, all parties agreed that if DeMeo held one of his vacant positions open for about six months, he could simply absorb any additional costs related to the program.