anuary 14, 2006, was an important date in the history of the NYPD and the PBA. It was the date when the NYPD lost the credibility to say, “We have no summons quotas.”

The first formal ruling upholding the PBA’s perennial contention that the department has summons quotas resulted from an action the union filed in May 2004. That’s when dozens of police officers from the 75 Precinct signed their names to a grievance against the NYPD. They complained that they’d been transferred or had their evaluations lowered for what superiors said was insufficient summons-writing. Given the culture of retribution that exists in the management of this department, that was a courageous thing for the men and women of the 75 to do.

A “smoking gun” memo by commanding officer Michael Marino provided the evidence that an established minimum of summonses, arrests and 250s were necessary for a good evaluation. The 75’s officers brought that memo along with them to the arbitration proceedings, which also featured supervisors who testified to their understanding of what it all meant: Cops must meet quotas or else.

Take the case of P.O. David Velez, one of those cops with exceptional arrest activity. He has done the East New York section of Brooklyn a great service by taking the criminal element off the streets in great numbers. He has made a significant contribution to his precinct’s safety. But because he didn’t meet commanding officer Michael Marino’s summons quotas, he got his lowest evaluation in 13 years.

Marino’s insistence that Velez’s evaluation rating be lowered due to the summons-activity criterion is only one of the cases that caused the 75 Precinct’s “performance goals” to be correctly identified as illegal quotas.

Arbitrator Bonnie Siber Weinstock wrote in her decision: “The New York City Police Department violated New York State Labor Law, Section 215-a, by establishing and maintaining a summons quota for traffic violations in the 75th Precinct and by penalizing officers for failing to meet the stated number of traffic violations, including parking, standing and stopping.”

With those words and the order to “cease and desist,” the claims made by the NYPD and the mayor that they enforce “performance goals” rather than quotas have been seriously contradicted, even if they continue to chant the performance-goal mantra.

Even more damning to the concept of quotas was some of the other language Arbitrator Weinstock used in her decision. Citing Velez’s case, she harshly criticized the department for its obsession with tickets. “The Arbitrator finds that a preoccupation with ticket-writing to the detriment of ‘fighting crime’ is exactly what the Labor Law 215-a was designed to prevent.”

The decision noted that even a large number of felony arrests do not mitigate the damage to an officer’s evaluation done by failing to meet the requisite number of tickets. In other words, you’re a good cop for writing tickets but not for taking illegal guns or drug dealers off the streets. But the problem doesn’t stop with traffic summonses. The decision indicates that the NYPD also has quotas for arrests and quality-of-life violations enforcement but that, since the State Labor Law does not control these, the arbitrator has no power to order the department to halt those quotas. The existence of the arrest and 250s quotas was clearly supported on the record by the testimony of the 75’s supervisors.

Our members in the 75 have 90 days from the date the PBA received the decision (Jan. 17) to request that a bad evaluation for failure to meet these illegal quotas be revised. Of course, we all know the problem is not isolated to the 75 Precinct and that it exists in every command in the city. Now, with the first, momentous win under our belt, we must continue the fight with the assistance of more cops who are willing to come forward, sign a grievance, produce evidence and follow the process through so we can rid the entire city of this illegal practice.

In the meantime, the PBA will strive to ensure that the NYPD ceases and desists not only from saying that it doesn’t have summons quotas but also from imposing them. We will also continue to lobby for legislation we have introduced in Albany to broaden Labor Law 215-a to include all types of summonses, arrests and stop-and-frisk quotas. This fight has just begun but we have won an important early round.