Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11 Page 12 Page 13 Page 14 Page 15 Page 16 Page 17 Page 18 Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23 Page 24 Page 25 Page 26 Page 27 Page 28 Page 29 Page 30 Page 31 Page 32 Page 33 Page 34 Page 35 Page 36 Page 37 Page 38 Page 39 Page 4022 AMERICAN POLICE BEAT: AUGUST 2016 by John George H ere in Oklahoma City Our F.O.P. Lodge just won an arbitration award that could have re- percussions for police as- sociations and unions every- where. The dispute in question arose when our agency implemented use of body worn cameras for our offi- cers without negotiating the policy with the F.O.P. We argued it was a change in working conditions and Ruling: Bodycams are part of the bargaining process that the contract demanded the policy concerning the body cameras had to be negotiated. And we won. The arbitrator ruled that the cameras – which rep- resented a big change in working conditions – could not be used until the agency sat down and negotiated the policy concerning their use with the F.O.P. The big question before the arbitrator was: did Okla- homa City violate the col- lective bargaining agree- ment they signed with the F.O.P. when it implemented a body-worn camera pro- gram without negotiating the terms of use? In 2014 we began to dis- cuss the details of a body- worn camera program. Ev- eryone agreed we needed the cameras but we objected to certain provisions in the policy the agency developed without our input. Ultimately, we agreed to most aspects of the program with a major sticking point being random review of camera footage by a supervi- sor. While the city claimed it had no obligation to secure agreement from the F.O.P. before implementing the body-worn camera program because the decision to do so was a management right, we argued the City should be ordered to cease and desist from implementation of any body-worn camera program unless and until bargaining over the issue was completed. We argued that the use of body-worn cameras and the ability of immediate super- visors to perform random reviews of recorded footage of officers’ performance of their duties constituted changes in our members’ working conditions which included officers wearing the cameras as well as other officers who might appear in the footage recorded by those cameras. We also argued that if previous controversies sur- F.O.P. charges implementation of bodycam policy without negotiating violated contract rounding rules on exposed tattoos and timekeeping methods were found by arbi- trators to have been changes in working conditions that required bargaining, then obviously the policies on body cameras should be viewed in the same light. In his decision the arbitra- tor wrote the following: “I agree completely with the Union that the use of body-worn cameras constitutes an enormous change in the working conditions of police officers. “I also agree with the Union that, although the John George is the president of the Oklahoma City F.O.P. Bodycams protect the public and police officers alike. But in order for the technology to meet its potential, police officers and associations need to be a part of the process. City retains the authority to plan, direct and control police department operations, there is no evidence that retention included the right to unilaterally implement a body-worn camera program containing the unrestricted right of supervisors to randomly review the audio and video footage required to be recorded during the course of an officer’s official activities.” John George is the president of the Oklahoma City F.O.P. He can be reached at: john.george. okcfop@gmail.com. Neal Johnson, a prosecutor in Alabama, seems like he’s either “soft on crime” or a huge Alabama football fan. Recently Johnson decided not to prosecute Alabama offensive lineman Cam Rob- inson and reserve defensive back Laurence “Hootie” Jones on drug and weapons charges. The DA said he didn’t want to “ruin the lives” of the two football players. “The main reason that I’m doing this is that I re- fuse to ruin the lives of two young men who have spent their adolescence and their teenage years working and sweating while we were all home in the air condition- ing,” Johnson said. Robinson and Jones were arrested in the early morn- ing of May 17 for the misde- meanor charge of carrying a weapon in the presence of narcotics. Robinson also was charged with felony posses- sion of stolen firearms. But since the two men played football, they’re get- ting a pass apparently. It would be interesting to find out if the prosecutor’s decision would have been the same had the would-be defendants played for Au- burn. They went to practice!