PAX Centurion - March / April 2013

www.bppa.org PAX CENTURION • March/April 2013 • Page 5 Vice President’s Message: Ronald McGillivray, BPPA Vice President Hair testing decision T he Civil Service Commission has rendered a split decision regarding hair testing. A long-awaited decision regarding positive hair tests has arrived with mixed results: six appeals have been upheld and four others denied. Attorneys Alan Shapiro and Jennifer Rubin, along with two expert witnesses Dr. J. Michael Walsh and Dr. Douglas Rollins, presented a reasoned argument as to why hair testing shouldn’t be used as a “stand alone” measurement for termination. Dr. Rollins had served as the medical review officer at the 2002 Salt Lake CityWinter Olympics. Dr. Walsh had served in both the Reagan and Clinton administrations and helped design the federal workplace drug program and gone on to consult with the NFL. The scientist’s testimony was the telling difference in the final de- cision. As opposed to talking in terms of nanograms and picograms, the scientist gave examples that a lay person could understand. In one example; relating the microscopic amounts of cocaine needed to produce a positive result, one second was juxtaposed over a period of 27 years. Plain and simple there has been a lack of acceptance in the scientific community for hair testing as the sole determinant of illegal drug ingestion. External exposure given the levels of cocaine found on our currency coupled with the extreme magnitude of the testing gave credence to the assertion that external contact could not be ruled out or the irrefutable reason for termination. This judgment will be appealed on many fronts. Alan and Jennifer’s decision to focus on the science of hair testing was the difference. The attorneys give a comprehensive in-depth explanation on page 27 of this issue of the PAX. Screening Process T he BPPA attorneys have persistently argued before courts, arbitrators and commissions that the psychological screening process where duty status is evaluated has been unfair, being used more for punishment under the guise of an officer’s perceptual short- comings. Recently the Supreme Judicial Court took a look at the hiring and psychological screening process that involved several attempts and rejections of an individual attempting to become a Boston Police Of- ficer. The BPD applicant upon deferral appealed to the Civil Service Commission. In a decision written by former Commissioner Daniel Henderson, the Commission overturned the bypass. The Department then appealed to Superior Court, where the judge rejected the Civil Service decision siding with the Department. Upon appeal, the SJC took the case directly, indicating that the court had an interest in ad- dressing the issues. The Department examines two standardized tests, the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-2 and the PersonalityAssessment Inventory then conducts a 30 minute clinical interview and mental status examination for suitability issues essential to the functions of a police officer. The medical standards are promulgated by HRD (Human Resource Division) of the Commonwealth. The test responses create a psychological profile where indicators can range from depression, anxiety and deviant beliefs to being defensive, guarded and interpersonally stiff. These indicators can change from screening to screening and some argue that the final determination should give greater weight to the individual’s biographical background which one might consider as being more reliable criteria to evaluate. No selection process is perfect but the BPD’s deferral rate was high especially with foreseeing “depression” in many an applicant’s future. Some officers that had been deferred for one class passed within months for a subsequent class. The same individuals conducted the interviews lending skepticism to the whole process. In the decision issued this past November, the SJC rejected the bypass of a Boston Police candidate based on “arbitrary predispositions” of its psychiatrists. The applicant had been bypassed three times since 2005 based on the BPD’s psychological screening process. The SJC specifically noted how the former BPD psychiatrist had included observations about the applicant’s appearance in reaching conclusion that the applicant was unfit to work as a police officer. The same judgments were repeatedly made about full-duty veteran officers referred from IAD for fitness evaluations. The Court cited approvingly the work of Dr. James Beck, a psy- chiatrist/psychologist, who has testified on behalf of other bypassed candidates. Dr. Beck currently works as a consultant to the BPPA and has assisted us in challenging the fitness for duty determinations by BPD psychiatrist(s) in past cases. Hopefully, the Department will move forward from this case and revamp future procedures. Disability Policies T here are representatives from a couple of insurance carriers, Alli- ance and Standard that have been or will be making the rounds. Many calls were received regarding our endorsement of the products. The answer is the BPPA has not endorsed either one of the products nor have we endorsed any of the existing disability products out there. I have spoken to both brokers and will attempt to give my best understanding as to what is being offered. Alliance offers a standard policy for a year or two with a benefit of $1,500/month or upwards of but not to exceed $18,000/year based on supplemental income earned (details and overtime) in recent years. Day 1 policies up to Day 30 policies are offered with varying premiums. Standard’s policy is more of a hybrid in that it more than doubles the benefit but the wait time varies from Day 30 to Day 90 to kick in to help keep the premium in the ballpark. The Detectives are very much involved with Standard’s product because their average supplemental number far surpasses the annual $18,000 cap and might be a better fit for members depending on one’s ability to weather the wait period. Because of direct deduction, over time it is very easy to lose track of an individual’s coverage. Because of changing needs for some officers this might be a good time to sit down with a rep and get reacquainted with what you currently have by running some numbers. It costs noth- ing. Do your homework, if it sounds too good to be true, follow up. If current policies are up to expectation, you’ll have peace of mind. If so inclined to compare benefits make sure that the policy will pay an “on the job” injury… in the past officers have purchased “off the job” policies and to their later surprise did not pay. Do not over-insure yourself because the company is not going to pay and recouping premiums is not a gimme. Finally, hospitals and insurance companies always cross reference and will know about most of one’s medical history including former injuries and claims. Good luck…