California Correctional Peace Officers Association CCPOA EEPEESENTING marin 1755 Riverpoint Dt, + West Sacramento, CA 95605-1634 « (916) 372-6060 ‘November 23, 2015 ‘The Honorable Edmund G. Brown Jr. Governor, State of California State Capitol, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Overreach of the Office of Inspector General Dear Governor Brown: I write on behalf of the 29,000 hardworking Correctional Peace Officers CCPOA represents to alert you to a number of serious issues within the Office of Inspector General (OIG). First among those is the unprecedented encroachment upon the authority and discretion of CDCR’s intemal affairs (IA) investigators, institutional assigned attorneys, called Vertical Advocates (VA), and Wardens. O1G’s original mission, as set forth in Penal Code Section 6133, was to provide “contemporaneous public oversight” of CDCR’s investigative and disciplinary processes. The common understanding of this “contemporaneous public oversight” is the duty to monitor, observe and then report to the publie CDCR’s compliance with its policies and procedures. The current Inspector General, however, is pursuing a form of “mission creep” in which OIG is abandoning its oversight function and, instead, taking on a prosecutorial function by vwresting control of CDCR’s investigations of alleged employee misconduct. OIG has actively inserted itself into the investigation intake analyses, It dictates how CDCR is to investigate misconduct, overrules the recommendations of CDCR’s VA’s, and usurps proposed Skelly (due process) decisions of Wardens. OIG frequently pressures CDCR investigators to expand the scope of thei investigations, to target unnecessary subjects, and to add vaguely supported dishonesty charges against officers. ‘This prosecutorial mindset, which we have heard is manifested internally at the OIG as a “burn a cop a week” policy, completely disregards the Legislature’s intent in establishing the OIG, ignores sound investigation practices, and flies in the face of the state’s policy of fair and progressive discipline, In a second closely related and even more important issue, the OIG -through direction from its top leadership - has recently, and repeatedly violated the rights and protections guaranteed officers by state and federal law during investigations, The Rights OIG has violated include the very rights the OIG is tasked with protecting as part of its oversight role, CCPOA. will soon file an action in Superior Court seeking to enjoin the OIG from violating Government Code section 3308 et seq. - The Peace Officer Procedural Bill Of Rights Act. Recently, officers were compelled to cooperate in what the OIG termed an “authorized review.” Originally | |The Honorable Edmund G, Brown Jr. November 23, 2015 Page 2 presented as voluntary interviews, when the officers declined to speak, they were quickly ordered to participate in the interview, denied the right to counsel, or indeed any representation. Other than a grand jury, I can think of no other process where someone who believes they could be subjected to adverse action can be denied legal representation. In another recent case, the OIG signed off on a matter as a “good investigation and prosecution” only after the State Personnel Board found that CDCR failed to tum over exculpatory evidence. Even after the employees were exonerated and CCPOA filed charges against the investigators and prevailed, the OIG stood by its investigation rating. These instances are troubling because either many OIG Investigators do not have experience or knowledge of investigative best practices, or choose to ignore them, yet they direct or inappropriately influence the course of law enforcement investigations, The final, and most insidious, issue by which the OIG usurps the role of the Appointing ‘Authority in discipline cases is through the use of the Wardens’ vetting and confirmation process, and the Executive Review process which are being used as a mechanism to control CDCR’s Wardens, In what appears to be a clear conflict of interest, any acting Warden who disagrees with the position of the OIG is in jeopardy of having his or her confirmation negatively affected, Confirmed Wardens, and CDCR attorneys are threatened with a negative Executive Review when they recommend not pursuing disciplinary charges against an employee, suggest a lighter penalty, or propose settling an appeal of the employee’s disciplinary action, The end result of O1G's expansion of control is internal state conflict, confusion, waste and inefficiency as the OIG devolves into a redundant investigative body, one in which the OIG has determined the rules don't apply to them. On many CDCR disciplinary matters it seems the OIG has seen fit to appoint themselves as judge, jury, and executioner. By revising its own responsibilities, OIG is rapidly assuming control and power the Legislature never envisioned. All this done in what can only be explained as an effort to justify the existence of the Office or to promote the political career of the Inspector General. The time has come for the elimination of the OIG or, at a minimum, a review and redefinition of O1G's function in its public oversight of CDCR. Very truly yours, LL O O | Charles Alexand President CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL, PEACE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Co: California Attomey General Kamala D. Harris California Legislature