POST staff seeks input on new instructor conduct rules after quality assessments find repeated gaps

POST staff told the advisory committee they are considering regulatory changes to address instructor conduct and presenter responsibilities after an internal review identified gaps in how complaints and instructor performance are handled.

Training Program Services consultant Andrew Mendonca said current regulation 1057 addresses course decertification and suspension but does not specify a code of conduct or performance expectations for individual instructors. POST policy TDC‑4 governs the internal course‑complaint process but is a staff policy rather than a binding regulation for presenters or instructors. Mendonca and the bureau argued there is a gap when an instructor teaches for multiple presenters: a complaint about the instructor at one presenter may not be addressed in a way that prevents the same instructor delivering harmful instruction elsewhere.

Advisory members discussed the tradeoffs of regulating presenters versus individual instructors. Chief counsel William (Toby) Darden warned that certifying individual instructors would create a new legal relationship between POST and each trainer, raising due‑process and administrative hearing obligations and complicating situations where instructors teach a single session or serve as role‑players in scenario training. Several academy directors and presenters said they value an ability to address instructor performance without decertifying entire courses; others said bargaining units and college tenure systems complicate any attempt to bar an individual instructor from teaching.

The committee heard a companion presentation from the Quality Assessment Program (QAP). QAP contract manager Bridal Neumeier explained POST contracts with a third‑party assessor (South Bay Regional Consortium) to validate course delivery. In the most recent year the program completed 74 course evaluations and 148 instructor evaluations, producing about 660 recommendations for improvement and assessing 3,768 instructional hours. The assessors identified 12 instances of unsatisfactory instructor performance; in most cases presenters removed instructors or required additional training. Neumeier said POST lacks a ready regulatory “switch” to remove an instructor by name and instead typically uses presenter cooperation, suspension of future presentations, or, in the most serious cases, course suspension or decertification. She said the program has resulted in one completed course decertification this year and that a second decertification was in process.

Several advisory members urged further study and recommended a subject‑matter working group before drafting regulation. Academy directors said the issue is complicated by collective bargaining and tenure issues at colleges; presenters said they generally work cooperatively with POST when QAP reports cite problems. The committee did not direct staff to draft specific regulations but expressed interest in further evaluation of: (1) whether POST should pursue a presenter‑focused approach that ties presenter certification to instructor conduct, (2) whether a statewide instructor approval/certification system is legally and practically feasible, and (3) mechanisms to accelerate corrective training or temporary suspension in cases of problematic instruction.

Neumeier said the QAP will continue to be a major mechanism for quality assurance—assessors evaluate every instructor in a sampled presentation, provide remedial recommendations, and may re‑evaluate a presenter after corrective action. Staff will return with more analysis and potential regulatory options if the commission requests it.