The POST certified Regular Basic Course (RBC) is the training requirement for peace officer candidates in California seeking employment with a POST participating agency as a city police officer, sheriff's deputy, marshal, district attorney investigator, campus police officer, park police officer, or Level 1 Reserve peace officer.
On April 23, 2002, Ortiz successfully completed the RBC. He did so by completing Modules III, II, and I through the Alameda County Sheriff’s Office, and his completion is reflected on his POST Profile Report (see Attachment A).
Pursuant to POST Regulation 1008, graduates of the RBC have a three-year window of opportunity to be appointed as a peace officer. This regulation is commonly referred to as the “Three-Year Rule.” After three years, if the individual has not been appointed as a peace officer, he/she is allowed to take the POST Requalification Course (136 hour minimum) one time within six years from the date of the RBC completion. This regulation is commonly referred to as the “Six-Year Rule” (see Attachment B).
The Six Year Rule was created after the Commission approved an Agenda Item to establish more restrictive eligibility requirements for the requalification process on January 21, 1999. These proposed requirements were brought to the Commission specifically to address concerns realized when presenters of the requalification course reported an inordinate amount of time needed to bring trainees up to a cognitive and skill level prior to testing and skills evaluation, as well as a marked increase in trainees injured due to skill levels that had become stale.
The Requalification Course content includes curricula of the RBC which change rapidly, and address critical manipulative skills related to officer safety or civil liability in areas which persons are most likely to experience reduced proficiency and addresses related critical subjects. Presentation methodology includes lecture, practical exercises, demonstrations, and instructional activities. This course requires students to demonstrate techniques that require physical ability and agility. Student understanding of cognitive material is evaluated by the administration of a comprehensive written examination. Exercise tests are administered in manipulative/psychomotor areas.
After completion of the Requalification Course, the student must be appointed as a peace officer within the remaining six year timeframe. If the graduate is not appointed to a qualifying peace officer position within six years, Commission Regulation 1008(b)(2)(B) 1 specifies that, they must successfully complete the appropriate full course, Regular Basic Course (RBC – 664 hour minimum) or Specialized Investigator Basic Course (SIBC-591 hour minimum) to requalify for peace officer appointment. Based on Ortiz’ initial graduation date of April 23, 2002, his six-year window of opportunity to be appointed as a peace officer expired on April, 23, 2008.
Subsequent to his graduation from the RBC Ortiz was activated and deployed by the military, thus precluding him from pursuing employment as a California peace officer. To date, Ortiz remains employed full-time as member of the military.
On January 30, 2012, four years after his six-year window expiration, Ortiz contacted POST Associate Governmental Program Analyst Patti Kaida to request a waiver of the six year rule.
This exemption request would have allowed Ortiz to attend a 136-hour requalification course rather than an entire RBC, which is not only lengthier, but is substantially more challenging. At the time of this request it had been 10 years since Mr. Ortiz completed the RBC, and he had never been appointed as a California peace officer.
Given the fact that Ortiz’ request not only surpassed the mandates of the six-year rule, but actually extended to a 10 year deficit in training experience, POST denied his request. Kaida advised him on February 7, 2012, and again on February 13, 2012, that he was ineligible for an exemption, and forwarded him text from the Six-Year Rule (see Attachment C).
On February 14, 2012, Ortiz later appealed the response to Kaida’s Manager, Darla Engler, requesting another exemption from regulation.
On March 13, 2102, Basic Training Bureau Staff Services Analyst Luanne Vasquez sent Ortiz a formal letter, advising him that he was ineligible for an exemption from regulation (see Attachment D).
On March 15, 2012, Ortiz appealed the initial series of decisions by sending a letter directly to POST Executive Director Paul Cappitelli. In the letter Ortiz once again asked for an exemption to the Six-Year Rule and reiterated that he was unable to attend a full RBC since the military would not grant him seven months leave (see Attachment E).
POST subsequently initiated a detailed secondary review of Ortiz’ request.
April 19, 2012, POST provided a second formal response, advising Ortiz that there was no mechanism in regulation to allow for his requested exemptions (see Attachment F).
On April 26, 2012, Ortiz requested a Basic Course Waiver (BCW), which is a process that was created by the Commission for out-of-state individuals who have completed training comparable to the California RBC. Pursuant to Commission Regulation 1008(a), individuals who have never completed a California RBC but who have completed a comparable out-of-state RBC, and who have served in an out-of-state general law enforcement capacity, may submit their training and experience for consideration of waiving the requirement to complete the California RBC. Because Mr. Ortiz had completed a California RBC, he was ineligible for the BCW process (see Attachment G).
On May 16, 2012, POST Staff Services Analyst Luanne Vasquez generated a formal letter and sent it to Ortiz, explaining why he was ineligible for the BCW process (see Attachment H).
On June 7, 2012, Ortiz sent an email to Bureau Chief Frank Decker, acknowledging he had received the letter dated May 16, 2012, to request another appeal to the first three findings by POST regarding his ineligibility status (see Attachment I).
In July of 2012, Ortiz applied to attend the POST Requalification Course at the South Bay Regional Public Safety Consortium (South Bay). Based on the fact that Ortiz was ineligible attend the course, South Bay withheld authorization for Ortiz to attend unless he obtained express permission from POST to do so.
Mr. Ortiz began contacting different POST staff, requesting permission to attend the Requalification Course at South Bay.
On August 2, 2012, POST Senior Consultant Don Lane granted Mr. Ortiz permission to attend the Requalification Course based on his misinterpretation of the December 5, 2001, POST developed regulatory interpretation document that pertained to previously employed peace officers who required a break in service for active military duty. It was apparent that Mr. Lane was also not aware of the previous decisions of the past two Executive Directors to not grant Mr. Ortiz permission to attend this course (see Attachment J).
From September 12 through 28, 2012, Ortiz attended and successfully passed the Requalification Course at South Bay, however he was unable to obtain permission from the military to become employed as a peace officer as he was still full-time active duty military employee (see Attachments K & L).
On March 1, 2015, Ortiz sent a letter to Executive Director Bob Stresak requesting another exemption from the initial Six-Year Rule based on his completion of the Requalification Course in 2012 which should not have been authorized. In his letter, Ortiz advised POST that he would still be on active duty and not eligible to start seeking employment as a peace officer until June 2017, so he would need the additional six years to extend past that date.
This was the first time Basic Training Bureau staff became aware that Mr. Ortiz was inappropriately allowed to attend the Requalification Course (see Attachment M).
On March 9, 2015, POST Executive Director Stresak sent a response to Ortiz advising that he was ineligible to receive an extension from regulation, referencing the Six-Year Rule. Further, to address Ortiz’ ongoing requests for exemption from law based on his military employment, the letter stated,
“Both California and federal law provide specific reemployment rights for persons who have been absent from their employers because of military service. These rights, however, only to apply to reemployment, not matters regarding pre-service qualifications regarding law enforcement training (see Attachment N).”
On September 30, 2012, Ortiz telephoned POST to attempt to speak directly to Executive Director Stresak. Stresak’s Executive Assistant, Connie Paoli, spoke to Ortiz and arranged for him to send his request by mail. POST received another letter from Ortiz, requesting an exemption from regulation. In this letter Ortiz referenced his completion of the Requalification Course (see Attachment O).
On October 23, 2015, Executive Director Stresak responded to this additional request, and upheld the previous denials to exempt Ortiz from regulation. In the letter, POST addressed the ongoing pattern of letter writing, by stating,
“This matter was addressed after considerable investigation on three previous occasions by POST staff. The results of these investigations were provided to you in formal correspondence on March 13, 2012, April 19, 2012, and most recently on March 9, 2015 (see Attachment P).”
On or about October, 2015, Ortiz contacted the California Assembly Public Safety Committee and the Governor’s Office in an attempt to obtain an exemption from regulation. Ortiz asked to speak directly to Governor Brown, but was not allowed to do so. He also contacted a veteran’s organization to get the agency to persuade POST to exempt him from regulation. These events prompted telephone calls to the POST Executive Office from the respective entities, and POST staff explained to each caller of the circumstances and regulations prohibiting such exemption.
On October 26, 2015, Ortiz once again called the POST Executive Office in order to protest his inability to get an exemption from regulation. The matter was referred back to Basic Training Bureau Chief Scott Loggins.
On October 27, 2015, Ortiz left a voice mail message on the desk line of POST Basic Training Bureau Staff Services Analyst Mary Brendlen, asking for a return call. Brendlen recognized the name and referred the call to Bureau Chief Loggins.
On October 27, 2015, Bureau Chief Loggins telephoned Ortiz. Ortiz denied calling POST, and did not express an interest in discussing the matter with Loggins.
On November 13, 2015, Ortiz submitted a second request for a Basic Course Waiver (see Attachment Q).
On December 22, 2105, POST Executive Director Stresak sent Ortiz a letter advising him that he was still ineligible for the BCW process, reiterating that the matter had been addressed in 2012. In his response to Mr. Ortiz Executive Director Stresak related:
"Neither I, nor any member of my staff have the authority to override law. If you desire to become a California peace officer you will need to complete an appropriate basic course. As with your ongoing requests for an exemption to regulation regarding the Six-Year Exception, you have exhausted all levels of appeal directly to POST staff with regard to your request for an exemption regarding regulation as it relates to the BCW process (see Attachment R)."
On January 28, 2016, Bureau Chief Loggins returned a call from the California Military Department Office of the Adjutant General, to address a request the office had received from Ortiz for the organization to advocate for him. Loggins explained the parameters of CA law regarding law enforcement training.
On March 8, 2016, Ortiz contacted South Bay to persuade staff to allow him to enter into another Requalification Course. South Bay advised Ortiz that he was ineligible to attend the Requalification Course unless POST provided him with an exemption (see Attachment S).
On March 16, 2016, Ortiz called the POST Executive Office in order to protest his inability to get an exemption from regulation. Executive office staff asked Mr. Ortiz if he had ever discussed this issue with Bureau Chief Loggins and he advised he never had. He was advised to contact Basic Training Bureau Chief Scott Loggins.
On March 17, 2016, Bureau Chief Loggins telephoned Ortiz, and spoke to him regarding his ongoing requests and to reiterate CA law regarding law enforcement training standards. Loggins advised Ortiz that the matter was closed after considerable research as described in the numerous formal responses POST had provided. Loggins also advised him he there would be no further research into the matter, and explained to Ortiz that his only remaining option would be to appeal directly to the Commission pursuant to Regulation 1058.
On May 26, 2016, Ortiz submitted letter requesting for his appeal be heard at the June 22-23, 2016 Commission Meeting (see Attachment T).
On June 1, 2016, POST sent a letter to Ortiz advising that his request from May 26, 2016 was outside the 45-day window necessary to meet the deadline to be placed on the agenda for the June 23, 2016, Commission Meeting. The letter advised Ortiz his appeal would be heard at the Commission Meeting on October 27, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., with a reference to the meeting location (see Attachment U). Mr. Ortiz's attorney later requested the matter be moved to the February 2017 Commission Meeting.
On June 28, 2016, Ortiz sent a letter to the South Bay requesting a refund for the cost of the Requalification Course he attended in 2012 since he was denied permission from the military to obtain secondary employment at a law enforcement agency. South Bay declined Ortiz reimbursement request (see Attachment V).
On August 23, 2016, Ortiz sent an email to Bureau Chief Loggins, referencing federal statute that Ortiz claimed provided military members with an exemption to regulation. Ortiz alleged that Section 526 of the Act, which addresses tolling, exempted him from basic training requirements to become qualified to serve as a California peace officer.
The referenced section of the statute Ortiz claimed afforded him the regulatory exemption is part of the Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA), and is as follows:
“526. Statute of limitations
(a) Tolling of statutes of limitation during military service
The period of a servicemember's military service may not be included in computing any period limited by law, regulation, or order for the bringing of any action or proceeding in a court, or in any board, bureau, commission, department, or other agency of a State (or political subdivision of a State) or the United States by or against the servicemember or the servicemember's heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns.”
Further investigation by POST revealed the SCRA addresses relief for military members from civil actions with respect to items such as outstanding credit card debt, mortgage payments, pending trials, taxes, and terminations of leases (see Attachment V.1).
On August 24, 2016, Ortiz sent an email to Bureau Chief Loggins alleging that the content in a Gavilan College course catalog represented official POST Regulation. Ortiz claimed that “Course catalogs were approved by POST Commission advisory Committee before publishing,” and therefore represented official POST Regulations (see Attachment V.2).
Further analysis of the image from the Gavilan College course catalog reveals that a requalification course (JLE 107) may be taken up to three times for credit. Publication content in college course catalogs is not screened for approval by POST prior to publication, and does not represent POST Regulation. Further, the Gavilan College reference that the course may be repeated three times for credit is a college-specific policy, not that of POST, but only if the student qualifies for such repeat attendance. With respect to Ortiz’ case, he was not eligible to take the Requalification course at all.
On November 14, 2016, Ortiz’ attorney, Ellen Mendelson, submitted letter to Cal HR legal Counsel seeking further appeal to POST’s denial of the exemption requested by Ortiz (see Attachment W).
On December 23, 2016, Cal HR Legal Counsel Anthony Serrao sent Mendelson a response letter supporting the fact pattern POST utilized in its analysis of the applicable statutes and regulation in rendering a decision (see Attachment X).
|