| |
Chris Collins |
President's Message
This month, I have what I believe are two very important topics to write about. First, I want to talk about the Department’s new soft body armor policy. The PPA first saw this policy in draft form several months ago. As you may remember, it called for uniformed officers to wear soft body armor while on duty. The draft did allow for some medical exemptions. The first response we sent to the Department had to do with Correction Officers and how the policy would affect them. The Department and the PPA agreed that Correction Officers would have to wear soft body armor outside the four walls of the Clark County Detention Center. We never saw another draft version of the policy. A revised draft of the policy may have been sent to the PPA office and it somehow fell through the cracks. The next time we saw the policy, it was out with our changes and a March 1 implementation date.
We then sent the Department a letter stating that soft body armor was “safety equipment” and therefore, a subject of mandatory bargaining under Nevada Revised Statutes. The Department acknowledged this letter, and several meetings were held to try to come to an agreement. Without going into great detail, the position of the PPA, Executive Board and Board of Directors was that all officers should wear soft body armor in a perfect world. But, as we all know, it is the choice of the officer to wear soft body armor or not. The PPA believed then (and still believes) that if it is ever made mandatory for all officers to wear soft body armor, the Department must purchase the soft body armor for the officers.
When no agreement could be reached, the Sheriff asked to address the entire PPA Board reference the issue. In what turned out to be a very long meeting, the Sheriff made a very compelling argument for the mandatory wearing of soft body armor for all uniformed officers. I think it would be more than fair to say that if not all, certainly most of the Board of Directors thought officers should wear soft body armor. When it came time for a vote to either support or not support the policy proposed by the Department, the Board of Directors chose not to support the policy. I do not believe this was as much of a vote against the policy as it was a vote to protect your right to have a choice. As a result of this vote, the policy that eventually came out makes it mandatory for new hires (starting July 1, 2008) to wear soft body armor when in uniform. As with the first policy, there are some exceptions to this rule.
WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID, I ASK YOU, AS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE PPA AND A FELLOW LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, TO PLEASE CONSIDER WEARING SOFT BODY ARMOR. I DO NOT WANT TO THINK THAT THE PPA PROTECTED YOUR RIGHTS TO THE POINT WE MAY HAVE COMPROMISED YOUR SAFTEY, ALLOWING YOU TO MAKE A DECISION THAT MIGHT PLAY A PART IN GETTING YOU KILLED.
The second thing I wanted to talk about is the upcoming contract. Although formal negotiations are approximately one year away, we will be sending out a survey asking for your input so that we will know what items are important to all of you. If you have been following the press, you have seen the layoffs at the city of Las Vegas. I don’t think any of us will be surprised if the City and the County come to the table claiming to have little or no money. Rest assured we will not just take the word of City and County officials about their financial status; we will once again spend the money to have the books audited. Depending upon what this audit shows, we may have to think outside the box. Also, rest assured we will not leave the table without a fair contract. We are very aware of what the other law enforcement agencies received in their last contracts; we will be looking for something similar. We need two very important things from the membership. First, we need the surveys back; and, second, we need all of us to stand together. Our strength comes when we speak with one voice. |
|
