PRESS RELEASE MAY 19, 2008
REMARKS BY ATTORNEY GENERAL ROBERT E. COOPER, JR. TN STATE LODGE, FRATERNAL
ORDER OF POLICE POLICE OFFICERS MEMORIAL, NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE, MAY 12, 2008
Thank you for that introduction. It is indeed an honor to be back here
with you this year to pay tribute to the dedication to duty shown by the many
law enforcement officers around this state and across the nation. We have been
fortunate in Tennessee that we have not lost an officer in the line of duty
since we gathered here on this plaza last May. So let us pause to honor the
memory of those heroes who have shown courage in the line of duty, those who put
themselves at risk in the fight against crime and violence, and those whose
names are on this wall. Every day of the year – not just today, but holidays,
weekends, and special occasions - brave men and women accept the
responsibilities of the noble calling to protect our communities and its
citizens, and they are willing to face danger for our safety. We are forever
grateful to them and their families for accepting this responsibility. Law
enforcement officers are among America’s greatest heroes. They show their
heroism every day when they put on their badges, leave their homes and their
families, and go to work. Their instinct is to put the safety of others before
their own, and their actions can most certainly be called heroic. They answer
the duty to serve and protect and possess the courage, character, and devotion
to carry out that duty. As the Greek philosopher Aristotle said, “Courage is
the first of human qualities because it is the quality which guarantees the
others.” Our police officers risk their lives to protect and serve, so you and
I can go to our jobs, raise our families, have our liberties protected, and feel
safe in our communities. They accept risk so that others do not have to. They
answer the call to duty because they know it is the right thing to do. They wear
bullet-proof vests, carry pepper spray and have a gun strapped to their waist.
They are subjected to stresses, pressures, and dangers that few of us can
imagine. But imagine what an impact there would be on the criminal justice
system, and to our daily lives and to communities across this
state, if there were no courageous officers on the front line doing their jobs.
Imagine if there had been no courageous officers on that fatal September 11 day.
Joshua 1:9 tells us to “Be strong and courageous. Do not be afraid; do not be
discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.” Whether
it is chasing down a bank robber or stopping a drunk driver, officers don’t
let fear stand in the way when they face challenges. And we know that in today’s
world it takes bold courage and a deep commitment to duty to serve as law
enforcement officers, even though I’m sure they would say “I was just doing
my job.” Because of their strong sense of purpose, commitment to duty and
upholding the law, and display of courage, we continue to live in a nation of
freedom and opportunity. Let us always be thankful and never forgetful of their
willingness and devotion to serve, and their ultimate sacrifice. And to the
officers here today that are currently serving, thank you, and thanks to your
families. We are forever grateful for your courage, and acceptance of such
responsibility. In closing, let me urge us all to draw inspiration from the
warriors for public safety who are commemorated on this wall, so that, to borrow
the famous words of Abraham Lincoln, “from these honored dead we take
increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of
devotion.” May God watch over and protect each one of us, and may God continue
to bless this great nation and the great state of Tennessee. Thank you.
PRESS RELEASE APRIL 3, 2008
TNFOP PROTESTS DEFEAT OF HR 0028:The Tennessee Fraternal Order of Police would like to announce our
disappointment in the recent defeat of HB0028. This bill would have stopped the
on going practice of law enforcement officers being punished for not meeting a
set or predetermined number of traffic citations, or "ticket quota".
The companion to HB0028 had already passed in the Tennessee State Senate and we
would like to thank the members of the Senate who supported this bill. It is the
opinion of the Tennessee FOP that "ticket quotas" and the punishment
or reward of a law enforcement officer based on meeting a set quota is unfair to
the officer and the general public. This bill would have stopped the practice of
local city and county governments from using law enforcement as a means to
generate revenue and the practice of pulling officers from more pressing
assignments in an effort to meet their quota.
The members of the State House Criminal Practice Sub Committee of the
Judiciary Committee have by their inaction on this bill, expressed support of
ticket quotas, or in our opinion taxation without representation of citizens, by
the practice of local jurisdictions using law enforcement as a means of raising
revenue.
Brian Moran, President
Tennessee State Lodge
Fraternal Order of Police
www.tnstatefop.com
PRESS RELEASE MARCH 12, 2008
CALVIN HULLETT NAMED IN FEDERAL INDICTMENT: On Wednesday, a federal indictment was unsealed naming Calvin
Hullett. Hullet was indicted by a federal grand jury on allegations of
conspiracy, embezzlement and unlawful interstate commerce.
The indictment stems from a fiasco at the
Nashville Youth Camp. Hullet broke into the camp and placed hidden cameras in
certain areas. The indictment
provided more details on why Hullett, who represented the Teamsters at the time,
may have been trying to break into the camp.
According to a news release, between March and July 2007, Hullett befriended a
Davidson County inmate who was at the camp as part of a work release program.
The release claims it was through that relationship that Hullett, his girlfriend
and at least one other person were able to get on the property and plant hidden
video equipment that the Teamsters were hoping might provide evidence of
drinking and other inappropriate activities going on at the camp.
According to the indictment, Hullett may not have acted alone. It seems as if
one other member of the Teamsters went along with the idea and is accused of
helping Hullett divert more than $8,000 out of the Teamsters account to pay for
the equipment.
PRESS RELEASE - 2/29/08
S T A T E O F T E N N E S S E E
OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL
P. O. Box 20207
NASHVILLE, TENNESSEE 37202-0207
February 26, 2008
Opinion No. 08-37
Public Employees First Amendment Rights
QUESTION
Whether public employees enjoy free speech rights enforceable
under the First
Amendment when communicating with an elected official concerning
matters relating to the
operation of their governmental entity?
OPINION
When public employees make statements to elected officials
pursuant to their official
duties, the employees are not speaking as citizens for First
Amendment purposes, and the speech
does not enjoy First Amendment protection.
However, public employees who make statements to elected
officials outside the course
of their official duties are not engaged in an official
employment activity and thus retain First
Amendment protection.
Further, pursuant to Tennessee statutory law, public employees
have a statutory right to
communicate with elected officials without fear of retaliation.
ANALYSIS
The United States Supreme Court has recently held that, when
public employees make
statements as part of their official duties, they do not speak
with the same First Amendment
protections as private citizens, even if the subject is of
public concern. In
Garcetti v. Ceballos,
547 U.S. 410, 126 S.Ct. 1951 (2006),
1
a deputy district attorney was disciplined
because he
wrote in a disposition memorandum and testified in court that he
believed an affidavit from the
police used to obtain a critical search warrant contained
serious misrepresentations. The United
States Supreme Court held that the attorney's speech was not
protected by the First Amendment
because, when a public employee makes statements pursuant to his
official duties, he is speaking
not as a citizen but for his employer, even if his speech
relates to a matter of public concern. The
Page 2
2
Garcetti, 547
U.S. at ____, 126 S.Ct. at 1959-60.
3
Id.,
547 U.S. at ____, 126 S.Ct. at 1960.
4
Id.
5
Id.,
547 U.S. at ____, 126 S.Ct. at 1962.
“controlling factor” in the Court's decision was that the
deputy's "expressions were made
pursuant to his duties as a calendar deputy."
2
Official communications have official consequences, creating a
need for
substantive consistency and clarity. Supervisors must ensure
that their
employees' official communications are accurate, demonstrate
sound judgment,
and promote the employer's mission. . . . [W]hen public
employees make
statements pursuant to their official duties, the employees are
not speaking as
citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does
not insulate
their communications from employer discipline.
3
Thus, the Court concluded that "[r]estricting speech that
owes its existence to a public
employee's professional responsibilities does not infringe any
liberties the employee might have
enjoyed as a private citizen. It simply reflects the exercise of
employer control over what the
employer itself has commissioned or created."
4
Nevertheless, the Court commented that
government employees who make public statements outside the
course of performing their duties
retain First Amendment protection because that is the kind of
activity engaged in by persons who
do not work for the government. Thus, a letter to a local
newspaper is protected as is a discussion
of politics with a co-worker.
The Supreme Court found that First Amendment protection is not
necessary for those
employees seeking to expose "governmental inefficiency and
misconduct" due to "the powerful
network of legislative enactments — such as whistle-blower
protection laws and labor codes —
available to those who seek to expose wrongdoing." These
enactments "protect employees and
provide checks on supervisors who would order unlawful or
otherwise inappropriate actions."
5
In Tennessee, public employees have a statutory right to
communicate with elected
officials. The P
UBLIC
EMPLOYEE
POLITICAL
FREEDOM
ACT,
codified at Tenn. Code Ann.
§8-50-601
et seq., makes
it “unlawful for any public employer to discipline, threaten to
discipline or otherwise discriminate against an employee because
such employee exercised that
employee's right to communicate with an elected public official.”
Further, Tenn. Code Ann. §8-50-116(b)(1), provides that no
state employee shall
discriminate against a state employee because the employee
reports “violat[ions] of state or
federal law, rule or regulation,” fraud, willful
misappropriation, acts dangerous to the health or
safety of the public or employees, or gross mismanagement, waste, or abuse of
authority.
.
PRESS RELEASE - 12/7/07
The Ridgetop Police Department received the first five
bulletproof vests in a new program offered by the Tennessee Fraternal Order of
Police (FOP). All five of the officers were delivered custom-fitted body
armor on Saturday, Dec. 1.
The program is organized under the FOP’s Body Armor Committee and is
intended to provide body armor to smaller police and sheriff departments
throughout the state who struggle to pay for body armor, according to Robert
Mowery, chairman of the body armor committee and retired federal agent, said.
The vests have a retail price of about $700-$750, placing their purchase out of
reach for some departments.
PRESS RELEASE -
10/2/07
HR 980, PUBLIC EMPLOYER-EMPLOYEE COOPERATION ACT: Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order
of Police, hailed the introduction of S. 2123, the "Public Safety
Employer-Employee Cooperation Act," describing it as one of the top
priorities for the organization.
"Public safety employees—police officers and firefighters—are virtually
the only class of workers left in the nation today who are denied the
fundamental right to bargain collectively with their employers over wages,
hours, and working conditions," said Canterbury.
The bill was introduced yesterday by Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Edward M.
Kennedy (D-MA), the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor
and Pensions (HELP). In addition to Senator Kennedy, there were nineteen other
cosponsors—eight (8) Democrats, nine (9) Republicans, and two (2)
independents. The legislation, which is the companion measure to H.R. 980 that
passed the House of Representatives by an overwhelming 314-97 vote, recognizes
the right of public safety employees to form and join unions, and bargain
collectively with their employers. States with collective bargaining statutes
will be exempt, and strikes and lockouts will be prohibited under the provisions
of the bill.
"Law enforcement officers take their sworn oaths and their commitment to
the protection of the public very seriously," Canterbury said. "We do
not engage in work stoppages or slowdowns. Threats to public safety are not used
as bargaining chips by police or firefighters. But without collective bargaining
rights, these critical employees—these dedicated men and women—have no
avenue to influence important decisions affecting their jobs and livelihoods.
That's just not right."
Canterbury pledged the strong support of the FOP for the legislation, saying,
"The 'Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act' will put police
officers and firefighters on an equal footing with other employees—they'll
finally be able to bargain collectively for wages, hours, and conditions of
employment."
Frequently
Asked Questions (FAQs) About H.R. 980/S. 2123
The Fraternal Order of Police is the largest law enforcement labor organization
in the United States, with more than 325,000 members.
PRESS RELEASE - 09/19/07
Judge: "Police Dept. can't deny comp time over cop shortages"
FEDERAL COURT RULING could add to city's budget crunch
By Fran Spielman - City Hall Reporter
The Chicago Police Department can no longer cite manpower shortages to deny
requests from rank-and-file officers who want to use compensatory time in
lieu of overtime pay, a federal judge has ruled.
In a decision that threatens to exacerbate the city's budget crunch, U.S.
District Judge Sidney Schenkier said the Fair Labor Standards Act requires
the city to grant comp time requests made with sufficient notice, even if it
means calling other officers in on their days off to fill the void.
"We do not presume to tell the city how many police personnel it must hire
or how to balance . . . budgetary and public safety concerns," Schenkier
wrote in the ruling handed down Tuesday.
"However, it is clear that the [federal act] does not authorize the city to
balance those challenging concerns on the backs of police personnel by
awarding them compensatory time in lieu of cash payments for overtime work,
then depriving them of the ability to use that compensatory time for reasons
not permitted by the statute."
Fraternal Order of Police President Mark Donahue hailed the ruling as a
victory for rank-and-file officers who give the city weeks', even months'
notice to attend family events, only to be refused because the city says
it's "short" police personnel.
"It's something we've recognized for a long time. There is a manpower
shortage, particularly in district law enforcement," he said. "The city will
have to sit down and come to an agreement with us."
Deputy mayoral press secretary Jodi Kawada said the city is "examining
whether to pursue an appeal.''
Manpower shortages in Chicago's 25 police districts were already a focal
point in police contract negotiations.
PRESS RELEASE - 09/17/07
FOP WINS APPEAL FOR NPD OFFICER: On September 17, 2007 Williamson County Circuit Court Judge Robert E. Lee Davies gave FOP member and Nolensville Police Officer Charlie Holt his job back after a months-long legal battle. Officer Holt was improperly fired by the Nolensville Police Department in April of this year, and the Fraternal Order of Police immediately stepped in and provided legal counsel for an appeal. The termination was upheld by the Nolensville Board of Mayor and Aldermen in a hearing that violated the town's own policies and procedures in the manner that it was conducted.
On September 17th FOP attorney Mark Mayhew successfully argued the merits of Officer Holt's case in front of Judge Davies in Williamson County Chancery Court. Judge Davies awarded Officer Holt's return to the police force with back pay. This hearing was not only a win for Officer Holt and his family, but also for the officers of a small town that set its own personnel rules and then refused to follow them.
Fraternal Order of Police members pay for the FOP Legal Defense plan with their yearly dues. The plan is available to provide members with an attorney for on- and off-duty police actions and in certain disciplinary actions. The Fraternal Order of Police represents more than 250 law enforcement officers in Williamson County, almost 10,000 in Tennessee and more than 325,000 members nationwide.
PDF Files require Adobe Reader Version 7.0 or higher to view.
Download Adobe Reader Free here:
