Font size:
An issue closely linked with the destruction of disciplinary records are contract terms that forbid their use in promotion or retention decisions. Twenty-eight percent of the contracts examined expressly limit the use of disciplinary records for these purposes.[*] Taking into account the contracts that require or permit removing disciplinary records from an employee’s file after a fixed period, this means that 60% of contracts restrict the use of disciplinary records for promotion and retention decisions.[†] Only 12% of the contracts examined explicitly permit at least some disciplinary records to be considered in promotion or retention decisions.[‡]
Regardless of how long records are kept, contracts that explicitly forbid the consideration of past discipline when making promotion or retention decisions can distort the true record of an officer’s performance. This could result in officers being promoted despite significant and even recent discipline. Such systems weaken the integrity of police departments and prevent those departments from maintaining a command structure determined by the merit and performance of its officers.
There is some justification for limiting the use of disciplinary records in promotion and retention decisions. It would be unreasonable for very old and minor rule violations to bar the advancement of an otherwise upstanding officer. That said, blanket bans on the use of disciplinary records in these decisions increase the chance that problematic officers will be promoted. An appropriate balance would protect officers from unreasonable or unfair treatment but avoid helping troubled officers advance their careers in a way that damages the integrity of a department or its service to the public.
This balance can be achieved by permitting the use of permanent disciplinary records for certain misconduct. This would allow police departments to better account for troubling behavior that more directly bears on an officer’s fitness to serve, while disregarding more mundane discipline that does not significantly reflect on the officer’s character and, most importantly, potential to misuse legal force on Michigan residents.
[*] These labor agreements include Eastpointe (for nonfelonies, discipline cannot be considered after two years), Grand Rapids (two-year limit on discipline and lying on an employment application cannot be considered after two years), Jackson (cannot be considered after two years, absent additional discipline) and Madison Heights (no written discipline can be provided to promotional boards).
[†] These contracts include Bay City (record retention), Clinton Township (record retention), Novi (command) (record retention), Novi (officers) (performance evaluations cannot be used in disciplinary process, discipline cannot be considered after two years, absent good reason), Portage (record retention), Royal Oak (record retention), Taylor (record retention), Traverse City (record retention), Troy (record retention, for both command and officer contracts), and Wyoming (record retention for certain details).
[‡] These contracts include Kalamazoo (personnel file can be examined during pass/fail review for promotion), Marquette (discipline can be considered during promotion), Midland (discipline can be considered for promotions). Six labor agreements were silent on the question. Local procedures and common practices probably influence whether these municipalities use disciplinary records for promotion and retention decisions. This suggests it would be difficult to determine the use of this practice in nearly a quarter of municipalities in Michigan.
