Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Certification Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
POST reports certification statistics and advances disciplinary‑guidelines draft amid SB2 implementation
Summary
POST presented certification and disciplinary statistics since SB2 implementation and discussed proposed disciplinary guidelines that would add options such as psychotherapy, fitness‑for‑duty evaluations and probation terms; advisory members raised concerns about scope, due process and practitioner qualifications.
POST staff presented updated certification and disciplinary statistics and a proposed set of disciplinary guidelines to the advisory committee, part of a multi‑year implementation of Senate Bill 2 (SB2) and related certification procedures.
What POST reported: Michelle Wyler, bureau chief of the Certification Bureau, said that as of May 15, 2025 POST had recorded roughly "82,161 full time peace officers" and reported about 3,000 separations so far this year. She told the committee POST had issued 1,550 basic certificates, approved 2,729 appointments and issued 2,034 proofs of eligibility in the period cited; POST had also issued temporary suspensions and revocations under its processes.
On discipline: Christine Ford, bureau chief in the Professional Conduct Southern Bureau, summarized case volumes and outcomes under POST’s misconduct intake. She said POST had received tens of thousands of agency misconduct reports (Ford: "Today, we've taken over 35,000 agency misconduct reports") and that the top allegations reported were physical abuse, demonstrating bias and abuse of power. Ford said that of closed cases designated as sustained for serious misconduct, about 51% were classified as not serious misconduct for POST findings and roughly 36% could not be proven to the "clear and convincing" standard.
Proposed disciplinary guidelines and counseling/fitness‑for‑duty: POST staff introduced a draft disciplinary‑guidelines document intended to provide consistent benchmarks for administrative‑law judges and the commission when determining disciplinary outcomes. The draft includes possible dispositions ranging from revocation and suspension to options that involve therapy, fitness‑for‑duty evaluations, monitoring and terms and conditions (probation with reporting). POST staff said the guidelines would not substitute for full adjudication but were meant as a regulatory framework for expected range of outcomes.
Questions and concerns from advisory members: Advisory members and public commenters asked how the guidelines would be used, who would decide when a therapy or fitness‑for‑duty evaluation was required, how practitioner lists would be compiled and whether POST would become a de‑facto probation or monitoring agency. POST clarified the proposed model: if a practitioner recommended treatment, POST would request quarterly status reports that confirm whether the respondent is attending and participating; subject‑matter experts would be used to vet practitioners for cultural competence.
Legal and procedural notes: POST staff said some changes to guideline language were made to address public comments, including edits to avoid implying that revocation requires a "pattern" of behavior and language clarifying that organizational coercion would not preclude revocation where the totality of the evidence justified that outcome. POST also said administrative‑law judges traditionally include recommended penalties in proposed decisions and that guidelines must be adopted by regulation to be used as a reference in adjudication.
Ending: Advisory members asked for more detail on practitioner lists, confidentiality limits and how POST would avoid duplicating employer responsibilities. POST said it would continue refining the guidelines and planned additional subject‑matter presentations to the commission and advisory committees; no regulatory vote was taken at the advisory meeting.
