Continued from previous column.

In a Feb. 16 affirmation of a motion to vacate the stay, PBA general counsel Mike Murray wrote that, after the NYPD twice refused to grant investigators access to the personnel records, the PA “realized that it would be futile to continue to submit file review requests and waivers...and they ceased doing so.”

The NYPD policy, Murray added, caused the officers “true irreparable harm” not just because they were being denied the PA positions but because they “also are foreclosed from obtaining any police position in any law enforcement agency or bureau that requires a complete background check through examination of personnel files” and because our officers “must work substantial overtime in order to make ends meet to feed their families, because as they increase through their police careers the wage scales between the Port Authority and the NYPD diverge dramatically.” PA cops make 30 percent more in salary.

“For decades the NYPD released the information in issue to other law enforcement agencies requesting them,” Murray continued. “While the respondents purport to have changed such policy in 2003, they never notified the PBA of a formal change in policy and we are not aware of the existence of any written procedures memorializing this important change in policy.”

Meanwhile, the case continued in State Supreme Court where, on March 3, Justice Abdus-Salaam issued a preliminary injunction against the policy, using in her decision strong language supporting the PBA’s positions.

There is “no rational basis” for the policy, the judge ruled, adding that the department had given “no explanation” for it “other than this is the policy and that the commissioner should be able to promulgate any policy that he thinks is best.” She added that the PBA had “shown a clear likelihood of demonstrating that this policy as applied in these circumstances is arbitrary and capricious” and cited the PBA’s assertion “that if (these officers) do not have a chance to be selected for this class, there is no guarantee that a new test will be given in the near future, that they will pass it, or that they will be randomly selected to participate in the appointment process, as they were in this instance.”

Justice Abdus-Salaam also pointed out that PA rules say that (the officers) have to be under 35 on day one of the academy, and some will be turning 35 this year. “This harm is irreparable,” she concluded, “because it cannot be adequately compensated by monetary damages.”

The preliminary injunction directed the NYPD to allow the officers access to the employment files (with the exception noted above) and to permit PAPD investigators to review them. But the city once more appealed to the Appellate Division, staying the injunction. Although the city’s appeal has again delayed these officers’ chances to join the PAPD, the PBA continues to pursue the case and is optimistic that it will prevail in the end, hopefully preventing future attempts by the department to keep our members from bettering themselves.

he fate of the NYPD policy of withholding personnel records from higher-paying police agencies recruiting our officers is now in the hands of a five-judge panel at the New York State Appellate Division. Here’s an updated analysis of the PBA’s legal challenge to the policy, which is the latest dirty and illegal trick in the department’s labor-relations war with its own police officers.

The issue surfaced on two separate occasions in early January, when teams of investigators from the Port Authority Police Department’s Investigations Bureau showed up at One Police Plaza to review the personnel records of a significant number of New York City police officers who had applied successfully to become PA cops but needed to provide their personnel records to the authority before they could finally qualify for the June 15 academy class. The officers had signed waivers permitting the authority to inspect their records and both they and the investigators agreed that information about current internal investigations might be omitted. Furthermore, the NYPD had provided this type of information in the past and the PA is currently receiving it from other law enforcement agencies and the private sector.The NYPD said no. Personnel records would not be provided to the PA or to the officers themselves.

Why was the department acting in such an obstructionist fashion? The answer was obvious. The NYPD has a recruitment, retention, pay-scale and public relations problem, and the most troublesome aspect of the retention part of it involves the record numbers of cops leaving for better opportunities.

Last year, 867 quit — the second highest number of resignations since 1991, a number surpassed since then only in 2002, the year after 9/11, when 1,224 quit. No wonder they pull stunts like this to keep cops from quitting.

As soon as the department’s refusal to provide the records came to the PBA’s attention, we went to State Supreme Court for a temporary restraining order (TRO) on behalf of 35 New York City police officers “and all those similarly situated” to compel the department to cooperate with the PA investigations process in time for the officers to qualify for the June 15 class. According to PA officials, the “drop-dead date” for the investigations to be completed was Feb. 27.

On Feb. 9, Supreme Court Justice Sheila Abdus-Salaam issued the TRO but the city immediately appealed to the Appellate Division, obtaining an automatic stay, which kept these officers in limbo. So the PBA filed a motion to vacate the stay and get the officers back on the PA track.

In filings before the Appellate Division, the city’s lawyers continued to dissemble, telling the court that they had received only two inquiries from the PA in the past two years. Of course, they failed to mention that these “two inquiries” were from two teams of PA investigators involving at least 137 New York City police officers.

Continued at top of next column.