The Mesa Police Association (MPA) represents the majority of the Mesa officers involved in a shooting that took place last night.  The Mesa officers engaged two suspects after they shot Gilbert officer, Lt. Eric Shuhandler.  Many police agencies became involved as the suspects fled on the US 60.  The suspects threw debris and fired bullets.  Fearing for their lives and others, officers shot the suspects in Superior, where the pursuit ended.

“Our thoughts go out to the all the officers and their families, who have suffered from a stressful and traumatic experience,” added Cota. “We particularly are sending our condolences to the family of Lt. Eric Shuhandler and our brothers and sisters in the Gilbert Police Department.”

MPA believes that after all the independent investigations are completed by the agencies involved and the county attorney’s office that the findings will conclude that the shooting was justified.  “Officers are required to employ deadly force to preserve their own lives and those of innocent bystanders,” said Fabian Cota, president of the MPA.  “Our officers acted magnificently.”

Any member of the public interested in assisting the family of Lt. Eric Shuhandler can do so at any Wells Fargo account and donate to the Officer Assistance Fund, or can go to www.mesapolice.org.  The Officer Assistance Fund was set up to financially assist any Arizona police officer (and their families) who has been hurt or killed in the line of duty.

Information about funeral:

VISITATION - Closed casket
Tuesday, February 2nd - 4:00 pm until 8:00 pm
Sinai Mortuary
4538 N. 16th Street
Phoenix, AZ  85016

FUNERAL
Wednesday, February 3rd - 11:00 am
Westworld
16601 N. Pima Road
Scottsdale, AZ  85260
After the service, there will be a funeral procession to the graveside service at:

Mount Sinai Cemetary
24210 N. 68th Street
Phoenix, AZ  85054

To honor the family’s wishes, in lieu of flowers, donations may be made to the Wells Fargo account in Lieutenant Eric Shuhandler’s name, or to the 100 Club of Arizona.

The Mesa Police Association’s PAC fund will be donating to the any voter initiative this year keeping the Cubs in Mesa.  We are thrilled they have decided to continue doing business in Mesa, and thank the City of Mesa Mayor, Council and City Manager for all their hard work thus far.

In light of other police municipalities taking major budget cuts and the City of Mesa preparing for a possible 3% to 10% reduction to it’s budget, the MPA has been asked how these cuts will effect the Cubs deal and public safety in general.

The MPA has told the public any revenue-generating proposal should take into account city services - especially public safety. The Cubs deal is another opportunity to fund core essential city services including public safety and should include adequate funding commensurate to future impacts in the area.

Mesa Police have a structural deficit that lacks a budget to support essential core services. Our revenue structure is literally outdated for 2010 Mesa. Effective crime fighting is not going to continue if we continue to have inadquate staffing and immediate resource needs are not addressed soon.

READ THE BUSINESS JOURNAL ARTICLE HERE

Below are pictures from the 1.27.09 press conference.

In times when bills are not being introduced or heard in Arizona, the Arizona Police Association was able to introduce Senate Bill SB1029, a Just Cause Bill for officers.  The purpose of the bill - it prohibits disciplinary action against a law enforcement officer except for just cause.  Today, the bill passed the Senate today!  This is a huge victory for Arizona officers if this bill passes.

Arizona Police Association - Just Cause Bill Language

VIEW THE AZ LEGISLATURE WEBSITE HERE

FACT SHEET FOR S.B. 1029

law enforcement officers; disciplinary actions

Purpose

            Prohibits disciplinary action against a law enforcement officer except for just cause.

Background

Current statute requires counties with populations of more than 250,000 inhabitants to establish a merit system council (Council) for law enforcement officers, which includes regularly appointed and paid police officers in cities or towns and deputy sheriffs (A.R.S. § 38-1002).  Among other responsibilities, Councils must fix and refix standards and qualifications of law enforcement positions and provide a plan for fair and impartial dismissal of officers.  Councils must also hear and review appeals in connection with suspension, demotion or dismissal of officers (A.R.S. § 38-1003).  Either party may appeal the decision of the Council in the superior court of the county in which the law enforcement officer resides. 

Statute outlines conduct for which Department of Public Safety (DPS) officers may be dismissed or disciplined.  Causes include fraud or misrepresentation in securing employment, incompetency, insubordination, dishonesty, being impaired by alcohol or drugs while on duty, commission of a felony, discourteous treatment of the public or other employees and any other failure of good behavior or acts during or outside of duty hours that are incompatible with the interest of DPS (A.R.S. § 41-1830.15).  Statute also outlines appeals procedures for DPS officers.

There is no anticipated fiscal impact to the state General Fund associated with this legislation.

Provisions

1.      Prohibits a law enforcement officer from being subject to disciplinary action except for just cause, as follows:

a)      the employer informed the officer of the possible disciplinary action resulting from the officer’s conduct through agency manuals, employee handbooks, the employer’s rules and regulations or other communications to the officer or the conduct was such that the officer should have reasonably known disciplinary action could occur;

b)      the disciplinary action is reasonably related to the standards of conduct for a professional law enforcement officer, the mission of the agency, the orderly, efficient or safe operation of the agency or the officer’s fitness for duty;

c)      the discipline is supported by a preponderance of evidence that the conduct occurred;

d)     the discipline is not excessive and is reasonably related to the seriousness of the offense and the officer’s service record.

2.      Specifies that the requirement does not apply to:

a)      any law enforcement officer who has not completed an initial probationary period if a probationary period is required by the employer or

b)      to a dismissal that is for administrative purposes, including a reduction in force.

3.      Stipulates that the requirement does not preempt agreements that supplant, revise or otherwise alter the provisions of this section, including preexisting agreements, between the employer and the law enforcement officer’s lawful representative association.

4.      Defines disciplinary action as the dismissal, demotion or suspension for more than 24 hours of a law enforcement officer or probation officer that is authorized by statute, charter or ordinance and that is subject to a hearing or other procedure by a local merit board, a civil service board, an administrative law judge or a hearing officer.

5.      Defines law enforcement officer as:

a)      an individual who is certified by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board, other than a person employed by a multi-county water conservation district;

b)      a detention officer or correction officer who is employed by the state or a political subdivision;

c)      a regularly appointed and paid deputy sheriff of a county;

d)     a regularly employed police officer in a city or town.

6.      Becomes effective on the general effective date.

Letter from MPA to Senators:

Dear Senators,

Fabian Cota, President
Mesa Police Association
www.MesaMPA.Com

This article provides insight into why FOP has been voted out in other cities, including Phoenix. Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) works with MPA under the Arizona Police Association (APA), and will be providing input into our first contract.

Who’s The Puppet?

by
Rusty Stuart

Recently the FOP put out a letter laying out all the reasons to quit PLEA and join the FOP.  Just for a little background, I had been an opponent of PLEA for a very long time.  I first became involved when I found two fellow officers to be in trouble who had been videotaped by PSB while working off duty.  There was a fight at the bar they were working at and the department accused them of using excessive force.  They were blasted by the media, the department, and surprisingly, OUR OWN UNION.   These officers were not guilty and later acquitted.  Who was the puppet?…

Our group quit PLEA and went to FOP to challenge the leadership at PLEA as we did not need a puppet for the FOURTH FLOOR, selling us out whenever possible in the name of cooperation. This was code for being a puppet. We did post a challenge to PLEA and lost. OR DID WE? We opened many eyes on and off the PLEA Board. Suddenly they realized we did not need a Puppet. We needed an advocate.

Mark Spencer ran against Jake Jacobson to correct the problems within the union. Mark had succeeded where we had failed both inside and outside the Union. I watched from outside the union to see if this was going to be a real change. None of the people involved in our movement had done it for power, or to split the Union. We wanted an advocate for officers, in contract negotiations, representations, and local politics that affect our membership and their very lives, such as illegal immigration. HOW MANY OF US MUST WE LOSE BEFORE THESE POLICIES CHANGE!!!

Mark Spencer and the current board of PLEA have made concrete changes. I have rejoined PLEA and as a member and a rep, support them completely. I have stayed educated and have proven I am not PLEA’s puppet. Those who know me in management know I am certainly not their puppet. There is right and there is wrong and PLEA has been on both sides over the years. Under this leadership, which includes Mark Spencer as our face and leader, directed by the board, PLEA has changed and is fighting for us in many arenas. For example, our last contract surpassed the last four combined. Agreeing on such important issues does not make us a puppet as recently implied by the current FOP leadership. It sounds to me as though they were advocating having puppet presidents back.

It is true you don’t have to fight with management all the time and most problems can be worked out. However, when you have such important issues that you disagree with management so intensely on, you must dig in and fight. When you do speak out and the 4th floor opposes you, who is severing the relationship? When management tries to influence our Association elections, who is severing the relationship? Do the FOP leaders really believe they could have three thousand members and no infrastructure to support them? If so, how are they going to pay for it receiving ten dollars a month per member from the dues, as twenty five goes to the labor council? No, it is a classic bait and switch. FOP dues would be the same as PLEA’s within two years or we would have no representation.

If you are a young officer in fear of losing your job, attempting to weaken the bargaining unit at the very pinnacle of that argument should offend you. The City has threatened such layoffs every contract negotiation since the beginning of time I think. This time the threat is real and PLEA is working its butt off to make sure such cuts do not occur.

For the full article, CLICK HERE.

To Whom It May Concern:

This letter is meant to express our gratitude and support for the Mesa MPA and our disappointment with the Mesa FOP.  Over the years, the MPA and FOP have been there to support Lisa and me through our careers.  We were dual members of the FOP and MPA until 2007 when I was involved in an on-duty shooting incident.  Even though we were dual members, Lisa and I used the MPA and the Law Offices of Napier, Abdo, Coury & Baillie exclusively whenever we needed representation.  This included the email investigation, my shooting, and any complaint that I.A. investigated.  We chose the MPA and the Law Offices of Napier, Abdo, Coury & Baillie because they were always more responsive, more vigorous in their defense, and appeared to have no ulterior motives.  They seemed to truly care about the officers and were there to offer assistance and answer any question.

In 2007, I was involved in a shooting.  Prior to my leaving the shooting scene, Lisa was notified at home by a fellow officer.  She responded to the police station and was with me when I spoke with my MPA attorney.  Lisa was off duty, never went inside the crime scene, and had no involvement with the shooting itself, or the investigation.  The Mesa MPA represented me throughout the investigation and did a fabulous job.

Though Lisa and I never asked the Mesa FOP to assist us in this incident, Sgt. Bryan Soller, who is also the Mesa FOP President, contacted Lisa after the initial investigation.  Soller’s actions over the next few days proved to us that he was clearly representing the department, under his authority as a department member, not as the Mesa FOP representative he claimed to be.  Instead of support during this critical time, Soller was the source of added frustration.  We found Soller’s involvement in the situation egregious and decided to immediately end our association with the Mesa FOP. 

Since that time, our only association with the Mesa FOP involved supporting events sponsored by the FOP, which directly benefited fellow officers.  Lisa and I believe that our fellow officers need not suffer because of our issues with the Mesa FOP President.

With the upcoming vote, Lisa and I felt it was important that we shared our story so our fellow officers could make an informed decision about their representation.

Sincerely,

Darren and Lisa Rigsby

(*Identity used with permission from these MPA members)

Did you know that you can be called into an investigation as a witness and later become a suspect?  Our very own grievance chair, Nate Gafvert, talks to the membership about when you need to call a rep.  Rep #’s are posted on all the bulletin boards at each station, and the 24-hour rep line is available at 480-216-4MPA.  Call us anytime!  Our trained volunteers are available anytime, even if you are not sure if you need a rep or not…CALL us!

Our very own Dt. Kurt Scanio was able to assist the public with tips for staying safe.  View his videos with KTVK!

Hello,

My name is Mark Kelly. I have been a police officer city of Mesa for four years. I have been working for the city of Mesa for five years. Nine months ago I was diagnosed with ALS or Lou Gehrig’s disease. My doctors have given me 2-5 years to live. The city of Mesa decided I was a “liability to the city” and told me I was no longer able to fulfill my duties as a police officer and would therefore have to retire. I am 30 years old, I have been married for 10 years to my beautiful wife Elizabeth, and we have four precious boys. We recently found out my wife is expecting a baby girl in June. The city of Mesa is forcing me to retire. How can my family survive on a $10,000 police pension?

We will lose everything, house, car, everything we have payments on. We will be forced to move in with relatives to fully support us. The city told me when my vacation, sick, and compensation time were depleted I would be forced to retire. I do not believe I am being treated very fairly in the city of Mesa should take better care of their employees. Exceptions need to be made, policies need to be written in order to protect police officers and their families.

I want to be clear that I am not upset with Chief Meza or the Mesa Police Department. The men and women of the Mesa Police Department have been my strongest supporters since the beginning of all this. The Mesa Police Department raised over $30,000.00 on my behalf, raised money for a wheelchair van, and are now in the process of raising money for my specialized wheelchair. I want to express my love and appreciation to my fellow officers on the department. I want the public to be perfectly clear that the city of Mesa is doing this to me, not the Mesa Police Department. I am proud to be a Mesa Police officer and honor the men and women I work with. Right now, men and women of the Mesa Police Department and the city employees are donating their personal vacation time and compensation time to keep me employed as a police officer, because they do not agree with the city of Mesa’s decision.

I want to state the simple facts in my case and they are:

1. Once I was diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease and they saw that my body was starting to deteriorate, the City of Mesa began the process of my forced retirement.

2. I can still perform the duties of a “station officer”. I can type 2-3 reports every day, monitor calls for service and clear non-paper calls to help patrol at Red Mountain. I can do the duties of a detective by reading reports, establishing probable cause, making phone calls, and typing reports. I know I can still perform the duties as a station officer.

3. If I am forced to retire, my family will get around $10,000 annually from my police pension, which is not enough to provide basic needs for my family of six. Food, clothing and shelter.

It will force my wife, who is 16 weeks pregnant, to leave me and our four young boys to work outside the home. She is my full-time caregiver and has enough on her plate already. We will lose our house, and everything we make payments on and have to move in with family to support us. I would have to move in with my parents. My father is a plastering contractor and has not had any work for six months. He is living off the money he saved during better years.

4.  Other cities that have had people in my situation have taken care of their employees and their families in the event of their death. They also kept them working, even from home, and made it possible for them to earn a full paycheck for their families.

5.  If the city keeps me employed as a police officer and I pass away my family would get around $30,000 annually from the police pension, which would be enough to provide my family with basic needs.

6. The department needs to create a position or positions for officers like me, who can still investigate, read reports, write reports, and help the department with the skills they taught me.

So my situation never happens to another Mesa officer again. Phoenix police department takes care of their own and bypasses the city.

7. I am not doing this for myself.  I am doing it for my family financially, in the event of my death. And secondly, I am doing this for future Mesa Police officers who find themselves in a medical situation like mine.

See Mark’s interview with KPHO: http://www.kpho.com/video/22278447/

See Mark’s interview with ABC15: http://www.abc15.com/content/news/southeastvalley/mesa/story/Mesa-officer-with-Lou-Gehrig-s-disease-gets-to/5jBpOKKexE-FYn3qZnsDeQ.cspx

From Mark’s mom:

The Michael Kelly Family and all of our family throughout the country, would like to send a heartfelt Thank you to all who took part in Officer Mark Kelly keeping his job as a Mesa Police Officer.  When I asked Mark where to start, he named the Fraternal Order of Police, The Mesa Police Association, his Sergeant Tony Landato, and the list of individuals was long after that.

I do not know if it is appropriate to list all the people, because surely names will be left out.  They know who they are, and words cannot express our appreciation to those who stood boldly in Officer Kelly’s behalf.

The two Police Unions have been so generous to Officer Kelly with their phone calls, fund raising efforts and support.  Everyone stepped up to the plate for one of their fellow officers.  Please know that our hearts are touched more than we can express. 

All our love and appreciation,  Carla Kelly -  Proud Mother of a Mesa Police Officer

The City Manager has tasked all departments with “an exercise” to deal with possible cuts needed to balance the city’s budget. At this time it is being called an exercise as it “may or may not” be necessary.

The Mesa PD has asked the MPA to request cost saving measures from our members. If anyone has got suggestions, please contact a MPA Board member or email president@mesampa.com. We would much rather be a part of the solution for making the cuts than having them dictated to us. Front line officers know more than anyone where we can be more efficient.

Just for reference, the numbers we are talking about for the 2010/2011 PD budget are as follows: 3% ($4,259,319) 4% ($5,679,092) 5% ($7,098,865)

The MPA has been meeting regularly with city officials to advise them of upcoming budgetary problems and to work with them on solutions. We will continue to do so and keep our members advised of any progress.

In June of 2008 I responded to a domestic violence call. It started out as the “typical” DV call that we have all been to countless times but ended as an officer involved shooting. Even though the shooting occurred very early on a Sunday morning, the MPA, including members of the executive board, and legal representation from the Napier Law Firm responded quickly and with the resources necessary to handle a shooting involving multiple officers.

The representation and support I received was tremendous. I had complete confidence in my attorney as well as the MPA to handle my needs with professionalism and care. I cannot begin to describe how comforting it was to have a solid, experienced defense attorney on my side, almost immediately, and the executive board of the Mesa Police Association present to support me. Not only did I receive the legal protection I needed but also the emotional support for myself and my family. I was later cleared with the assistance of my rep and attorney.

I have been a member of the MPA since day one and will continue to be until I retire. The MPA put myself and my family first ensuring we received what we needed to help us through an emotional time.  I believe the services the MPA provides to its officers and the immediate support I received on scene made this difficult situation better.  There is no better voice for the needs of our officers.

Sincerely, K.S.

(*Note: this member’s identity is protected and used per their permission in the capacity they approve.  We do not solicit our members so they can be publicly viewed by criminals.)