This is an election year and the decisions
that are made by the Ohio General Assembly this year will
revolve around keeping power, in the case of the Republicans, or
gaining it, in the case of the Democrats.
The Republicans likely will retain control of
the Senate. The battleground will be the House, where the
Democrats need four seats to gain control.
Democratic control of the House, coupled with
Democrat Ted Strickland occupying the governor’s office, would
give the Democrats the upper hand in the legislature because of
the possibility of a Strickland veto. The veto threat also makes
it less likely any anti-labor legislation would pass in 2009.
Because both parties, particularly the
Republicans, want the support of law enforcement, any
legislation that passes this year will be in the best interests
of law enforcement.
One bill of particular concern to the OPBA
and law enforcement is House Bill 219, sponsored by State
Representative Tom Patton of Strongsville.
State law now makes certain conversations
privileged. Doctor-patient, lawyer-client, priest-parishioner,
guidance counselor-student, to name a few.
Patton’s bill would extend this to
conversations between a member of a labor union and his or her
union representative. It is modeled after legislation Illinois
passed in 2005.
We all know that in the case of law
enforcement, the conversation between the officer and his union
representative after an incident- let’s say a shooting- are
critical. What the officer tells those involved in the official
investigation may determine whether the shooting is justified or
whether criminal or administrative sanctions are pursued. That’s
why the OPBA tries to get our lawyers involved as soon as
possible. But that’s not always possible when something happens
early in the morning.
HB 219 is designed to protect our members.
There are certain exceptions. The officer involved could waive
privilege. Or, a court order testimony, though this is regarded
as unlikely. And it would also not apply if the conversations
disclosed an imminent threat of harm to someone or if the member
of his representative was the target of a criminal action.
If wrongdoing occurred, it would be
disclosed.
Representative Patton comes from a police
family. His father was a Cleveland police detective. His son is
a patrolman in Cleveland Heights. He understands our needs and
we appreciate his support.
I testified in favor of HB 219 January 29
before the House Commerce and Labor Committee. So did
representatives of the State FOP and the Ohio Association of
International Firefighters. Committee Chairman Tom Brinkman
believes the bill could come up for a vote in April. We think it
will pass, probably late in the year. There was no opposition at
the committee hearing.
Two other issues of importance likely will be
decided this year by the Ohio Supreme Court. A challenge to red
light cameras probably will be decided in February or March.
The legislature’s repeal of the municipal
residency laws should be decided by the end of the year. Eight
common pleas judges upheld the law but appeals courts in Lima
and Akron sided with the cities. The appeals court in Cleveland
held a hearing January 22.
Where someone is allowed to live, when it is a condition of
employment, clearly comes under state employment law. We are
optimistic the Supreme Court will support the legislature’s
action.
