Loveland council members agreed to clarify the city’s policy on insuring police officers facing certain civil lawsuits Tuesday, voting 8-1 to give the city manager the ability to decide whether to protect them using public funds.
While Mayor Jacki Marsh and Ward I councilor Richard Ball expressed concerns over transparency — specifically, how the public would give input or know about the money spent protecting an officer — ultimately, only Marsh voted against the item.
The resolution was brought forward by staff after the passage of Colorado’s new police reform law, which requires employers to cover 5% or up to $25,000, whichever is less, of the damages that an officer may be forced to pay personally in a civil suit, as long as the officer was found to have acted appropriately.
The employer would be on the hook for the rest of the damages in the hypothetical situation of an officer losing a suit.
While city employees acting within the course of their jobs are insured through the Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency, Loveland Human Resources Department director Julia Holland later said the city’s deductible for such an incident would be $250,000, meaning a judgment or settlement against an officer would have to be greater than that for CIRSA benefits to kick in.
For example, if a judgment were $500,000, the city would pay at least $250,000 and CIRSA would pay the rest, assuming they approved the city’s claim. Holland said the city would work with CIRSA throughout the process.
Deciding whether the officer or officers in question were acting in good faith and with a reasonable belief that their actions in the line of duty were lawful would be left up to the city manager, currently Steve Adams. If their actions were found to be appropriate, the city would cover them for the 5% or $25,000, which could then be reimbursed by CIRSA. Otherwise, they would not be covered.
The city manager would have the sole authority to grant or withhold financial protection, though Adams said at a Sept. 1 meeting on the issue that he would want to consult with the City Attorney’s office, Human Resources Department and city risk management staff before making a decision.
He also said that he would review the findings and conclusions of the Loveland Police Department’s Professional Standards Unit in any related disciplinary matters.
On Tuesday, in response to Marsh’s concerns regarding transparency, Adams said he would not feel comfortable sharing the details of personnel issues.
“The truth of the matter is, if it relates to employees and personnel matters, it’s really not shareable,” he said.
City Attorney Moses Garcia also said he would be uncomfortable inviting citizen input in the process.
Ball suggested public disclosure could be made a prerequisite for financial protection.
“If the public is never going to be aware that the city manager made the determination to allow indemnification, I think we ought to add in the procedure that if the officer wants to get indemnification and ask for it, then it damn well better be made public,” he said.
Ball’s proposed change was not made.
Council members agreed that the events that would necessitate the protection were unlikely, with Ward III councilor John Fogle saying the odds of a Loveland officer finding themselves in that position in a civil suit were “infinitesimal.”
A vote on the item was previously planned for Sept. 1, but the council ran out of time.
"Give" - Google News
September 16, 2020 at 10:56AM
https://ift.tt/32ygoPF
Loveland council votes 8-1 to give city manager authority to determine financial liability for police - Loveland Reporter-Herald
"Give" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2YqGX80
https://ift.tt/2YquBwx
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "Loveland council votes 8-1 to give city manager authority to determine financial liability for police - Loveland Reporter-Herald"
Post a Comment