Bargaining in Blue 

By

Ballotpedia staff

In this month’s edition of Bargaining in Blue: 

  • On the beat: $10 million settlement and agreement between the DOJ and Sangamon County following July 2024 killing of Sonya Massey
  • Insights: Ballotpedia CBA Dashboard takeaways on the use of body-worn cameras
  • Around the table: Arguments about disciplinary records and police hiring practices

Dear Bargaining in Blue Readers,

With this edition, we conclude our journey together. Thank you for your loyal readership. Should our work on police collective bargaining agreements continue in a new form, you’ll be the first to know. For any questions about our research, please contact editor@ballotpedia.org.

With appreciation, The Ballotpedia Bargaining in Blue Team

On the beat

$10 million settlement and DOJ oversight agreement reached following July 2024 killing of Sonya Massey

Sean Grayson, a former deputy for the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office (SCSO) fatally shot 36-year-old Sonya Massey on July 6, 2024, when responding to a call at her home in Springfield, Illinois. The incident was captured by the body camera that was worn by Grayson’s unidentified partner. Grayson’s camera was off and remained so until after he had shot Massey. Grayson was fired and indicted for first-degree murder, aggravated battery with a firearm, and official misconduct. Grayson pleaded not guilty and is currently in detention awaiting trial.

This month, lawyers representing the Massey family and Sangamon County agreed to a $10 million settlement. The settlement was unanimously approved by the county board and will go to Massey’s two children.

In January, the US Department of Justice also reached an agreement with Sangamon County. The agreement resulted from an investigation of race and disability discrimination within the SCSO that followed Massey’s death. The DOJ did not find any evidence of discriminatory practices in its investigation. The memorandum requires two years of DOJ oversight of the SCSO, makes provisions related to training for and responses to situations involving individuals with behavioral health disabilities or experiencing behavioral health crises, and requires the SCSO to review its departmental hiring practices. 

 Following the release of the agreement between the DOJ and SCSO in January, the Massey Commission, which is a citizens’ commission that was established as a response to the killing of Sonya Massey, released a statement expressing that they were pleased with the DOJ’s swift response. On February 13, the Commission released a follow-up statement calling for an independent investigation of the SCSO. In that statement, Commission co-chair JoAnn Johnson stated: 

“As we said when we learned of the agreement, we are pleased that there was swift action to move forward. Still, the timing of the DOJ’s work and the agreement with Sangamon County leaves many to question whether the investigation was sufficient to meet the discovery needs of the County and the Commission as we evaluate reforms.”

Due to Grayson’s employment history, the case of Sonya Massey raised questions about department hiring practices and the availability of police disciplinary and action records, aspects of which are determined by the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) of the different departments in which Grayson worked.

The background

Grayson worked for six different police agencies between August 2020 and July 2024. The Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office stated they did not receive relevant disciplinary records from Grayson’s previous employers.

While employed at the Logan County Sheriff’s Office—where Grayson worked before his employment at the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office—there were multiple complaints of misconduct against him. He was investigated in 2022 by the Logan County Sheriff’s Office for violating department policy by initiating a high-speed chase and allegedly lying in his report of the incident. Interview records pertaining to this incident between Grayson and his Logan County supervisors indicated concerns about violations of department policy, potential misconduct, and Grayson’s inaccurate reporting of the incident. 

Despite considering official discipline and termination, Grayson’s supervisors recommended training on high-stress decision-making and the department’s policies. A report from CNN indicated it was not clear if Grayson completed the recommended training before resigning and joining the Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office. 

Sangamon County Sheriff Jack Campbell said the department had not received any reports of misconduct from Grayson’s previous law enforcement agencies, but said previous employers told Campbell that Grayson needed more training. Campbell argued, “There was nothing in his background that would disqualify him from being a police officer in Illinois.”

Campbell announced his resignation on August 9, 2024. 

A closer look at Logan County Sheriff’s Office CBA

The Logan County Sheriff’s Office CBA contains provisions related to the storage and inspection of personnel files. Police officers have the right under the CBA to inspect and dispute any information in their personnel file. The CBA also requires immediate notification to officers when a written warning or disciplinary documentation is added to their file.

The CBA also prohibits the use of any information not available for inspection by the officer to be used in a way “adverse to the employee’s interest.” This includes reference reports, psychological examinations, or “information provided to the County and/or the Sheriff with a specific request that it remain confidential.”

Section 12.4 of the Logan County Sheriff’s Office CBA states:

“a. It is agreed that any material and/or matter not available for inspection, such as provided in Section 12.1 above, shall not be used in any manner or any forum adverse to the employee’s interest.

b. Any information of an adverse employment nature which may be contained in any unfounded, exonerated or otherwise not sustained occurrence, shall not be used against the employee in any future proceedings.”

Article XIII of the Sheriff’s Office CBA details discipline and discharge of police officers. This article explains that acceptable disciplinary measures are: oral reprimand, written reprimand, suspension, demotion, and discharge. The CBA requires disciplinary action to be imposed only for just cause and allows any disciplinary action to be processed as a grievance through the grievance procedure detailed in Article XIV. 

Section 13.1 of the CBA states that:

“If the Sheriff has reason to reprimand an employee, it shall be done in a manner that will not embarrass the employee before other employees or the public.”

Want to go deeper?

Insights

Ballotpedia CBA Dashboard takeaways on the use of body-worn cameras

CBAs and LEOBORs frequently include specific processes and requirements related to officer records. These include the types of records stored, where and how they are stored, accessibility and usage, timelines for removing or purging records, and sometimes provisions relating to body-worn cameras and body-worn camera video evidence. 

According to our Police CBA Dashboard:

  • 4 states have CBAs that contain provisions relating to the use of body-worn cameras or body-worn camera video evidence:
    • Kansas allows the superintendent to instruct an employee to use a camera in order to observe criminal, unconstitutional, or unsafe behavior.
    • Nebraska allows officers access to relevant camera footage when they are under investigation. 
    • Ohio’s CBA describes disciplinary action involving footage. 
    • Rhode Island’s CBA includes a $3000 stipend from the state to be used for the implementation of body cameras. 
  • 10 of the 100 largest cities in the U.S. have CBAs that contain provisions relating to the use of body-worn cameras or body-worn camera video evidence:
    • At least four of these cities’ CBAs require officers to be provided with the relevant footage when being interviewed or investigated:
      • Glendale, AZ
      • Houston, TX
      • Milwaukee, WI
      • Phoenix, AZ
    • Two of these cities’s CBAs require uniformed officers to wear body cameras:
      • Las Vegas, NV
      • Pittsburgh, PA

Around the table

Arguments about disciplinary records and police hiring practices

Journalism professor William H. Freivogel and former St. Louis Post-Dispatch reporter Paul Wagman argued in favor of a national database, that hiring departments should be required to consult, as the solution to the problem of wandering officers. Wandering cops as defined by Freivogel and Wagman are cops who “who lose their jobs in one place only to be rehired and to engage in misconduct in another:”

“There is a straightforward solution, experts say:

  • a national database open to the public with the names of all officers who have engaged in misconduct;
  • a requirement that all law enforcement agencies consult that database before hiring.

But that solution has proved elusive. Most states keep the names of disciplined officers secret and the vast majority of departments do not fully investigate the background of an officer they are hiring. Police chiefs, who have found it difficult to rid their departments of problem officers, generally support stronger laws. Police unions oppose them, arguing that past allegations – many of them denied – shouldn’t follow officers through their careers.”

Director of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’s Fourth Amendment Center, Jumana Musa stated that the National Law Enforcement Accountability Database (NLEAD) that was created by President Biden’s 2022 executive order was unlikely to be the solution to the nationwide problem of wandering officers:

“This is available for federal agencies, for particular people in some federal agencies that are doing hiring. So, what does that mean if you were the sheriff or the police chief in X city or town? Would not there be the same interest in knowing that this officer you’re about to hire has a deeply problematic history?”

President Trump’s Executive Order

Executive Order 14074, the order that established the NLEAD, was revoked by President Trump along with other executive orders and memoranda.

Want to go deeper?