‘Rubber stamp?’ Lexington council votes to adjust police disciplinary procedures
The Lexington council preliminarily approved changes Tuesday to how police discipline is presented to council members to requiremore details about what an officer did wrong.
Under the current rules, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Council must approve disciplinary actions against police officers, but the information provided to the council before the vote is often limited. That has prompted concerns and questions from some council members who say the information is so limited it’s often difficult to determine if the punishment recommended — which can vary from a six-month suspension without pay to a written reprimand — is appropriate.
If the officer does not accept the proposed punishment or the council does not approve it, the council must hold a full hearing, where the council acts as the jury. Too much information could prejudice the council.
The other major complicating factor: A state law — often referred to as the Officers’ Bill of Rights — prohibits anyone from speaking about allegations against a police officer until the punishment has been approved. That also limits what information is released prior to council approval.
During Tuesday’s work session, Vice Mayor Steve Kay proposed some minor changes that include:
- Providing as much information as possible about the allegations or charges against an officer.
- Requiring the police chief to present officer disciplinary actions involving a member of the public or an action an officer took that involved a member of the public.
- Prohibiting council members from seeking additional information from the police about the alleged wrongdoing prior to council approval.
“There have been concerns about what is in it and what is not in it,” Kay said, referring to the police presentation before the council is asked to approve an officer’s punishment.
For example, at its Oct. 8 meeting, there were two disciplinary actions involving the same police officer. The information that was read to the council included an allegation that officer Benjamin Fielder used excessive force. The details of what happened were not read aloud during the council meeting. Fielder received a three-week suspension without pay and retraining on de-escalation and use of force. Fielder also received three days suspension for “unsatisfactory performance.” The details were not publicly disclosed. The council receives some information in written form before voting on the recommended disciplinary action.
The city requires the Lexington Herald-Leader submit an Open Records Act request to get those documents. That means the documents are not released until three to four days after the discipline is approved. Documents related to Fielder’s discipline have not yet been provided to the Herald-Leader.
Councilman Mark Swanson voted against Fielder’s suspensions and other officer’s disciplinary actions in prior meetings.
“We are just a rubber stamp,” Swanson said during the Oct. 8 meeting. Swanson also raised the same concern during Tuesday’s council discussion on police disciplinary procedures.
“It is my understanding that we were supposed to provide oversight,” Swanson said. Swanson said he looked at 10 years of disciplinary actions and found that the council approved all disciplinary recommendations over the past 10 years. All but three were passed unanimously.
“That is not oversight,” Swanson said. “I am not criticizing the police. They are doing what they are supposed to be doing. I’m criticizing council. This is a fundamental flaw in the system.”
Swanson said he will continue to vote “no” against all police disciplinary actions because he feels the information provided to the council is inadequate.
But other council members said state laws have largely dictated how those disciplinary actions are handled before council.
Kay said the proposed changes would likely provide more information than what the council receives now. Also, some council members have called police to ask about the disciplinary actions before approval. Not all council members feel comfortable doing that. Expanding what is presented to the council and prohibiting council members from contacting police before council consideration of the disciplinary action will result in all council members having the same information, he said.
Other council members said they thought the council should wait until Mayor Linda Gorton’s Commission on Racial Justice and Equality makes its final recommendations. A subcommittee of that commission spent considerable time on police disciplinary procedures.
Those who have pushed for more transparency in police disciplinary actions have asked for a citizen review board, which would take a change in state law. Another idea pushed by some is adding citizens to an internal police disciplinary review board that currently consists largely of upper-level police command staff.
Councilman Fred Brown said Kay’s changes have merit, but the council may want to wait for the commission’s recommendations likely later this month.
“I think some of this... will be coming out of the task force,” Brown said.
Councilwoman Amanda Bledsoe said the officer has agreed to the punishment before it’s presented to the council. The vast majority of those disciplinary actions stem from an internal complaint — another officer has raised questions about that officer’s conduct, she said.
“They have accepted wrongdoing,” Bledsoe said of the officer. “They have worked with the chief to address it.”
The council has had few formal police disciplinary hearings because the police force has worked hard to correct and address officer misconduct, Bledsoe said.
Lexington Police Chief Lawrence Weathers told the council during its Oct. 8 meeting that the recommended punishment is determined largely by prior disciplinary actions involving similar allegations. He has to be able to justify the amount or length of punishment in case it’s challenged in the courts, he said. Weathers said he also takes into account prior allegations against the officer and the officer’s attitude.
“Whatever discipline I recommend, it has to be based on standards,” Weathers said. “If that officer is willing to accept that discipline and if that officer expresses a desire to be better, that means something.”
The council voted 9 to 4 to approve the changes. A final vote on the changes will likely come at the council’s Nov. 12 meeting. Those who voted against the changes include: Susan Lamb, Fred Brown, Chuck Ellinger and Bill Farmer Jr. Those who voted in favor of the changes include: Kay, Bledsoe, Swanson, James Brown, Jennifer Mossotti, Jennifer Reynolds, Josh McCurn, Preston Worley and Richard Moloney.
This story was originally published October 14, 2020 at 12:49 PM.
