POST weighs new rules for instructor conduct after Quality Assessment Program flags unsatisfactory instruction

POST staff asked commissioners on Nov. 1 whether the commission should write regulations to govern instructor conduct and clarify who must investigate complaints about classroom performance.

Andrew Mendonca, law-enforcement consultant in Training Program Services, told the Commission that existing Regulation 1057 and POST policy TDC-4 focus on course certification but do not set a binding instructor code of conduct or require presenters to investigate instructor complaints. "Staff recommends that regulations be adopted, which more specifically address instructor code of conduct and performance and the responsibilities of presenters when complaints are received," he said.

The proposed rules emerged alongside results from POST’s Quality Assessment Program (QAP), which sends trained assessors into classrooms to review course delivery. Brad Neumeier, training program services bureau chief, and Bill Baldwin, QAP program manager, reported that this year QAP completed 74 course evaluations and 148 instructor evaluations, producing 660 recommendations across more than 3,700 hours of instruction. "In those assessments . . . 12 instructors were found as unsatisfactory," Neumeier said. Presenters removed four instructors outright; the remaining eight were placed on 'modification' and required remediation—three have completed retraining and were re-assessed.

Commissioners and advisory-committee members generally endorsed a rule-making effort to create clearer expectations, but they also warned of practical difficulties. Representatives of the community college system and others told the advisory committee that adopting direct regulation of individual instructors could raise bargaining and contractual issues for colleges that supply classroom instructors. Commissioners debated the appropriate “unit of measure”: should rules regulate presenters (the bodies that deliver courses) or individual instructors directly?

Several commissioners argued for a middle ground: require presenters to adopt written standards and investigate complaints to a specified investigative standard, and hold presenters accountable (including suspension or decertification of a course) if they fail to investigate or to meet the standard. Commissioner Christian Bridal summarized a commonly voiced view: "I think it's presenters' responsibility to investigate based on some standard that we've established. . . . Give them some guardrails of what they look at or don't look at."

Other discussion topics included whether POST should use “secret shopper” assessments to verify ongoing performance after complaints, and how to coordinate sharing of investigation results among presenters when an instructor teaches at multiple venues. QAP staff described its practice of notifying presenters in advance of planned assessments and providing detailed written findings and follow-up plans; they said secret-shoppers and unannounced monitoring have been used sparingly where repeat complaints suggest the need.

What POST will do next: staff sought direction and will return with a more detailed proposal on whether to regulate presenters, instructors, or both, and draft language for a code of conduct and investigation standards for presenter accountability.

Why this matters: Instructor performance affects the quality of training officers receive across the state. Commissioners said they want clearer enforcement tools for when instructors repeatedly underperform or engage in unprofessional conduct, while avoiding unintended bargaining conflicts with colleges and other presenters.

For now, staff will continue drafting potential regulatory approaches and consulting with community colleges, presenters, and labor representatives before returning to the Commission.