For those who haven't read the story (excerpts from the Statesman story are reprinted below), essentially what happened is this: Under the City's meet and confer agreement, which is authorized by the state civil service code, the APD must notify an officer that he has been fired within five days of the firing. Chief Knee signed the order placing Ramirez on indefinite suspension on August 11; an APD Internal Affairs officer contacted Ramirez's attorney -- Austin Police Association general counsel Tom Stribling -- on August 12 to tell him to have his client come in to sign the suspension order to make the firing official as required by the meet and confer rules. But Ramirez and Stribling did not show up to sign the papers until August 17, one day late.

Judge Meurer ruled that under the APD's employment agreement this minor error required that the department place an alleged rapist back on the force. The Hall of Shame is devastated to report that (speaking as a non-attorney) our reading of the civil service law and the meet and confer agreement agrees with the judge.

 This isn't the first time Austin police officers have been kicked off the force by the police chief, only to litigate their way back on the job in the courts or through a state-mandated arbitration process that considerably favors the officer's interests over the department's. In fact, it's downright common. The Hall of Shame's Misogyny page tells the stories of Officers George Herrera and Doroteo Hernandez, two officers who were fired for spousal abuse but reinstated via the civil service appeals process.

 Perhaps the most famously reinstated APD officer was Hector Polanco, whose alleged perjuries and untoward habit of coercing (sometimes false) confessions from suspects caused a major scandal that rocked the department in the early '90s. Polanco appealed his firing through the civil service process, until an arbitrator absurdly ruled that he had been unfairly discriminated against on the basis of race. Not only was Polanco reinstated to the APD, but he has since been promoted and still serves as a high-ranking APD officer to this day.

 In meetings of the City's Police Oversight Focus Group, pro-law enforcement interests on the committee have argued repeatedly that under any civilian review system, the city must allow the police chief to retain control over hiring and firing decisions. But if the department and a series of chiefs have proven unable to actually fire alleged perjurers, rapists and wife beaters, then how much control does the chief really have? Damn little, once you look at it.

 No proposal presently being considered by the City's Police Oversight Focus Group would address situations like Officer Ramirez's reinstatement, which means that no matter what the outcome of the present reform efforts the APD still will not be able to get rid of its "bad eggs." And Chief Stan Knee and City Manager Jesus Garza are only the latest in a long line of city bureaucrats who find themselves unable to curb the worst elements in the department.

 Truly fixing this problem would require immense political courage by our elected officials, and reforms of both state and local laws. But the City Council and the City Manager could do a lot by requiring the union to agree to stronger authority for the police chief under the next meet and confer agreement, including the ability to effectively fire an officer for demonstrated misconduct. One would hope that the Police Oversight Focus Group would propose solutions that would encompass this important element, but right now it simply doesn't look that way.

Excerpt from Statesman coverage:

What follows are brief excerpts from "Indicted Officer Reinstated, Then Suspended," by Leah Quin, Austin American Statesman, 11-13-99, for the benefit of those who've not heard about this latest development in the Ramirez case. Ms. Quin also wrote another article 11-11-99 covering a protest in front of the courthouse the day of Ramirez's most recently postponed pretrial hearing.