Sharon Coolidge

scoolidge@enquirer.com

Cincinnati's police union told city officials last week if they want officers to wear body cameras they'll have to pay them extra.

City leaders announced at a press conference last Wednesday that the first group of police would start wearing the body cameras a move that itself came just days after the city's latest police-involved shooting.

A lawyer for Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #69, Stephen Lazarus, sent the city a "cease and desist" letter, saying until pay for wearing the equipment has been decided, officers shouldn't wear them. He asked that the city cease the program by Wednesday at the latest, pending the bargaining process.

"Requiring employees to wear BWCs will change several aspects of their job and regularly assigned duties," Lazarus wrote in a letter dated Aug. 11. "The adoption of of new BWC policies will also have a significant impact on the employees' wages, hours, or other terms and conditions of employment. Accordingly such changes are mandatory subjects that must be bargained to impasse with the union before they are implemented."

City Manager Harry Black fired back Monday, writing in a memo to council that as the manager of the police department he can order cameras be worn without a contract change, though he added he's hopeful the FOP will wear the cameras.

"Having a body camera program fosters transparency, allows the city to better protect the public and protects officers from frivolous and fraudulent claims," Black wrote.

In a letter to Lazarus, shared with the media, Black makes the same point and adds the union was given advance notice that cameras were coming.

“The FOP had ample opportunity to bargain over its proposal at various bargaining sessions and during mediation,” Black wrote. “The FOP did not focus bargaining towards its BWC proposal. Considering that this is the FOP’s proposal – not management’s – the burden is on the FOP to raise this issue during bargaining.”

Then, in closing, Black offered to continue discussions.

The Cincinnati union isn't alone with concerns. Unions around the country are insisting they have a say in the process of wearing cameras. Last year The Denver Post reported Denver's largest police union filed a lawsuit saying the Denver body camera program was illegally developed because it ignored collective bargaining.

Fraternal Order of Police Lodge #69 President Dan Hils said it's simple: "You want us to wear something new, it needs to be collectively bargained. The responsibility should increase our compensation."

At the moment, there's no planned negotiations. The two sides are at war over a pay raise.

Black has suggested the city can afford a 3 percent raise for police officers, but Mayor John Cranley, in a surprise move, has called for 5 percent raises for four unions, including the police union.

Some members of council have publicly questioned and criticized giving raises outside the bargaining process, but Hils said it's' the only way officers will be fairly compensated.

The cease and desist letter makes a different argument -- some issues related to the contract are better handled at the bargaining table, the FOP contends.

Body camera pay would come in addition to any raise officers would get.

Two complaints have been made to the state employment relations board over the raises, one made by Councilman Wendell Young against Cranley the other filed by Black against the police union.

City leaders have worked for more than a year to put body cameras on all patrol officers, calling them best practice. There's been countless meetings inside city hall and the in the community.

Last week officers at The Banks downtown began wearing cameras. The city bought 700 cameras, signing a seven-year agreement with TASER to support the equipment. Over that time, the equipment could cost taxpayers up to $6 million. By the end of this year 700 officers are expected to be wearing cameras.

Experts say body cameras offer officers added protection because they're proof in situations where they are alone with suspects. But Hils said not many officers want to be monitored and while cameras may show some of what happened, they typically don't show everything an officer is seeing and reacting to.

"It's more stress," Hils said. "They brought us in for a couple of meetings about procedure. We offered feedback. Less than 25 percent we offered was included."

Lodge #69 executive committee members directed the letter be written.

We’re putting the city on notice, saying, 'Hey, you forgot something,' " Hils said.

Councilman Christopher Smitherman, chairman of Council's Law and Public Safety Committee, said body cameras are meant to protect the officers.

"This is to support our officers at a time when transparency and more information is better," Smitherman said. "Tying compensation to public safety and tying it to body cameras specifically is a bad idea."

Smitherman said it's not an accident the letter comes now in the midst of the raise battle.

"This is ratcheting this up to next level," Smitherman said. "I hope calmer heads prevail."

Response to FOP Re BWC