dward Flynn was a police chief in Massachusetts for more than a decade, first in Braintree and then in Chelsea. Three years ago, he left the state to take a job leading the 500-member police department in Arlington County, Va., just outside Washington.
When asked about the differences in leading police forces in the two states, Flynn has a quick answer: ''This is the first time in 12 years where I spend most of my time on the police mission and not internal conflict,'' he said.
The process for disciplining police officers in Massachusetts is so divisive and convoluted that many police chiefs are consumed by it, Flynn said. The result is less time and energy spent on improving policing in the community.
Flynn places much of the blame on the state Civil Service Commission, which he and former colleagues in Massachusetts accuse of frequently overstepping its authority to reduce disciplinary action taken against officers accused of wrongdoing.
Virginia, like most other states, has a civil service system, but Flynn said the commission there focuses on making sure disciplined employees receive due process.
''What is twisted in Massachusetts is that the commission sees it as their mandate to substitute their judgment,'' by modifying discipline even if the department followed the proper procedures, he said. ''That undermines public confidence in police because civil service inoculates officers from accountability.''
Leaders of unions representing police officers, firefighters, and prison guards in Massachusetts are suspicious of criticisms of the Civil Service Commission. The agency offers important protection to employees who are unfairly disciplined, they say.
But even union officials agree that the Massachusetts system could benefit from change.
''We are always looking for something better,'' said Robert McCarthy, president of the Professional Firefighters of Massachusetts. McCarthy said his organization previously proposed the idea of a labor court to replace the commission.
In many communities in the state, unions have negotiated the right to have their appeals heard before the Civil Service Commission or before an arbitrator, and McCarthy says an increasing number of firefighters are taking their appeals to private arbitrators.
The arbitration system offers safeguards against many of the ills that critics say plague the Civil Service Commission, including checks to counter bias.
Each party is given a list of 15 arbitrators available to hear the case. Each side is then allowed to cross out the names of any arbitrator it deems to be unfair. The remaining names are then assigned a number in order of preference. The two lists are matched up and the closest mutual selection is picked.
Even before arbitrators are hired, they must submit recommendations from four different unions, four management entities, and four neutral arbitrators. It is a process that weeds out the extremes, said Karen Jalkut, regional vice president of the American Arbitration Association. Arbitrators must also meet minimum education requirements and have a minimum of 10 years of senior-level business experience or legal practice.
At the Civil Service Commission, on the other hand, a hearing officer is assigned without input from either side. There are no minimum qualifications for commissioners, and the selection process is based largely on political considerations.
The arbitration process is also much faster: There is no backlog of cases and most decisions are issued within three months from the time an appeal is received. The Civil Service Commission, on the other hand, is fighting to eliminate a backlog of 171 cases dating back to 1997.
Civil service decisions are also easier to appeal and as a result, many cases are caught in a cycle of litigation that can drag on for a decade or more.
There is a cost for the efficiency and flexibility of the arbitration process: The employee and management must split the $800-a-day fee for the arbitrator, which can easily total $3,000 to $4,000 for even modest cases.
The arbitration process has not been as popular with police officers as it has been with firefighters. Many policemen continue to prefer having their cases heard at civil service. And unless that process is changed, police chiefs in Massachusetts insist they will remain at a disadvantage.
''The disciplinary process is spinning wildly out of control,'' said Flynn. ''I think Massachusetts police chiefs face more impediments to holding their officers accountable for their conduct than chiefs in any other state in the country. That is not hyperbole.''
