Discipline & Arbitration

One of the most important responsibilities of OSPOA is protecting members facing allegations of misconduct.

During my four years as President, I reviewed every completed case involving a member placed on administrative leave for a misconduct investigation. In the below, I have excluded procedural leave following officer-involved shootings, probationary separations and current ongoing cases that remain unresolved.

Of the remaining 41 members, 33 returned to work, a return rate of more than 80%.

Of the eight who did not return, six resigned before completing the disciplinary process, including four cases involving allegations of off-duty criminal conduct. Only two members completed the entire process and ultimately lost their employment. One of these involved sustained dishonesty allegations with significant credibility consequences; the other involved prolonged attendance problems.

These numbers don't include the many other disciplinary matters we have handled, including written reprimands, economic sanctions, a suspension and a demotion that we are currently challenging.

One criticism I've heard is that OSPOA doesn't take enough cases to arbitration. I disagree with the idea that the number of arbitrations is a meaningful measure of effective representation.

Oregon law changed significantly in 2021 with the passage of HB 2930. Under ORS 243.808, an arbitrator must generally uphold the level of discipline imposed on a law enforcement officer unless it is found to be arbitrary and capricious. That is a demanding legal standard, even when we believe the punishment is excessive.

Arbitration remains an important tool, and there are cases where it is absolutely necessary. But in a termination case, arbitration can mean a member remains unemployed for nine months to a year and a half, facing lost income, enormous stress and an uncertain future. We also have to recognize that the Department is unlikely to defend a termination at arbitration unless it believes its case is strong, particularly under Oregon's restrictive arbitration standards. If we can identify weaknesses in the Department's position, present a persuasive argument and negotiate an outcome that keeps a member employed, we have eliminated those risks and achieved something far more valuable than an arbitration victory months later.

I don't claim that every case has ended the way we wanted, or that every decision I've made has been perfect. And OSP does nickel and dime its employees on a ton of petty ticky tack squad level / informal stuff.

But I believe the results matter more than the number of grievances filed or arbitrations conducted.