Connecticut Sheriffs System Ch 3

The recommendations in the program review committee's February 1994 report (Connecticut Sheriffs System) focused on ensuring the sheriffs system remained responsive to the needs of the state. The report contained 12 recommendations dealing primarily with:

· the need for minimum hiring standards and training for courthouse security and prisoner transportation personnel; and

· the fees for and timeliness of the collection of money by deputy sheriffs on behalf of others.

All of the recommendations from the report were included in HB 5559, "An Act Concerning Sheriffs." The language in the bill was changed after the committee's March 1994 public hearing.

The substitute bill voted out by the program review committee would have transferred responsibility for courthouse security and prisoner transportation from the high sheriffs to a new Division of Protective Services in the Department of Public Safety. The bill also would have prohibited high sheriffs and candidates for that office from soliciting campaign contributions from deputy sheriffs. An amendment to establish a registration system allowing individuals to perform service of process work failed on a voice vote.

Substitute HB 5559 subsequently died in the Judiciary Committee. However, seven of the original program review committee recommendations were adopted in part or whole as an amendment to Public Act 94-177 (sHB 5433, "An Act Concerning the Lockup at the Lafayette Street Courthouse"). Table III-1 summarizes the original recommendations contained in the program review committee report and the disposition of each.

In 1995, in response to Public Act 94-177, a job description for special deputy sheriffs was developed with assistance from the Department of Administrative Services. Appointees must be 18 years of age and a high school graduate or have passed the General Educational Development (GED) exam. They also have to possess the "knowledge and skills necessary to enable candidates to successfully complete the Agency's training program and then carry out assigned duties." In addition, they may be required to possess and retain a Connecticut motor vehicle operator's license.

TABLE III-1. Status of Recommendations from 1994 Program Review Committee Report.
*Recommendation*	*Outcome*
Eliminate Sheriffs' Advisory Board, effective June 1, 1995	Not adopted; P.A. 94-177 did require board "approve" a training program for courthouse security personnel by October 1, 1995
Amend Sec. 6-43 to clarify special deputy sheriff can only be terminated prior to completion of four-year term of high sheriff for "just cause," based on person's performance of assigned duties	Adopted in P.A. 94-177
Require newly hired courthouse security and prisoner transportation personnel (i.e., special deputy sheriffs,) to meet minimum experience requirements and mandatory physical fitness standards and successfully complete mandatory training program -- persons already working as special deputies grandfathered in	Adopted in P.A. 94-177, but with implementation delayed until October 1, 1995
Amend Sec. 6-38 to delete limits on number of deputy sheriffs each high sheriff can appoint	P.A. 94-177 increased the caps in Hartford and New Haven (the only two counties near the limits)
Amend Sec. 6-45 to clarify deputy sheriff can only be terminated prior to completion of four-year term of high sheriff for "just cause" based on person's performance of assigned duties	Adopted in P.A. 94-177
Repeal Sec. 6-44 ("Appointment of special deputies upon application.")	Not adopted
Require Judicial Department, in consultation with high sheriffs, to develop reference manual for deputy sheriffs covering, at a minimum, service of process and wage, bank, and property executions by January 1, 1995	P.A. 94-177 required Sheriffs' Advisory Board to develop manual by January 1, 1995; manual completed April 1999
Amend Sec. 52-261(6) to allow deputy sheriff to continue collecting 10% of execution amount, but limit maximum to $10,000; amend Sec. 52-261a(7) to allow deputy to continue collecting 3% of execution amount, but limit maximum to $10,000	Not adopted
Amend Sec. 6-35 to require any sheriff or deputy sheriff who collects money on behalf of a person to turn over money within 30 days, even if only a portion of total amount collected	P.A. 94-177 required money be turned over within 90 days or when $1,000 collected, whichever occurs first
Amend Sec. 1-83, regarding filing of reports with State Ethics Commission, to clarify high sheriffs and deputy sheriffs must provide information about taxable and nontaxable income earned in their capacity as sheriffs; also require detailed expense information	Not adopted
Require high sheriffs to reimburse the state for all use of state provided automobiles for personal business, including performance of all service of process work for nonstate agencies	P.A. 94-177 required high sheriffs to reimburse the state 214/mile for private service of process work
Prohibit "honorary" or nonworking" deputy sheriff appointments	Not adopted

Figure III-1 summarizes the process currently used to screen applicants. It involves the high sheriffs, the Office of the County Sheriffs, and DAS.

These individuals then take a written test, administered by DAS. The exam, which is given about once a month, assesses general skills considered relevant to success at the sheriffs training academy and on-the-job. It includes sections testing observational abilities, logic, reading comprehension, and personal interests. DAS compiles a list of those who passed the test and sends this to the Office of the County Sheriffs.

Individuals from the list are selected by the high sheriffs for conditional appointments. They must pass physical fitness tests and a medical exam, which includes a drug screen. In addition, the appointing high sheriff is responsible for having a background check done, which includes information about the person's criminal history. Then, the person must successfully complete the Special Deputy Sheriff Recruit Training Academy.

Since June 1997, all special deputies have been required to perform their duties in accordance with the Office of the County Sheriffs' Ethics Statement and Code of Conduct. Upon successful completion of the recruit academy, new special deputy sheriffs must acknowledge in writing their receipt of the Ethics Statement and Code of Conduct.

Training academy. The training program for special deputy sheriff recruits has grown in length as well as the number of topics covered. The first session sponsored at the state level for recruits was held in January of 1996. It lasted 10 days and covered 17 areas of study. The three sessions held since May 1999 have lasted 21 days and had 37 courses. The cost for recruit salaries and equipment averages $2,675 per attendee.

Courses range from one hour to 15 hours in length; most last less than four hours. General categories covered by the courses include physical health and safety, operation of equipment, security procedures, roles of various parties involved with the court, relevant laws, and workplace rules. The courses lasting four hours or longer are:

Recruits are required to observe certain rules of conduct during the training, and they must pass both written and practical exams. Their performance is evaluated twice during the academy in addition to a final evaluation at the end of the program.

Upon successful completion of the academy, appointees receive on-the-job training. During this phase, they work directly with other special deputies and gain practical experience performing the full range of duties they may be assigned. The training staff in the Office of the County Sheriffs and the training coordinators for each county have developed a recommended Field Training Program. It calls for new employees to receive at least three days each of supervised training in the areas of bailiff, metal detector, hallway security, lock-up, and transport. The number of field training days actually received and the timeliness of exposure to the full range of positions will vary by county.

Continuing education opportunities are also required of special deputy sheriffs. Courses are offered annually in areas they are required to maintain certification in such as CPR or weapons (e.g., capstun and PR-24 batons). Also, during the summer of 1999, all supervisory personnel attended a five-day session on leadership development conducted by the Office of the County Sheriffs.

Potential future changes. The Council of High Sheriffs has been discussing several changes in the system of appointing special deputy sheriffs. Implementation is targeted for early 2000. The first change would eliminate anyone who has a felony conviction from being considered for the position, although the requirement would not apply to existing appointees.[1]

The second change would open up recruitment and allow anyone who met the general qualifications of the job to sit for the written exam. The details of the new process are still being worked out. Most likely, individuals would apply directly to DAS, which would screen applicants for eligibility. Based on the results of the written exam, the high sheriffs would select individuals for vacancies they have. The Office of the County Sheriffs would take over responsibility for conducting background checks; it would also conduct education and employment checks.

In the past, each high sheriff determined the organizational structure and the number of layers in the chain of command used in his or her county. In June 1999, the high sheriffs adopted a single rank structure and supervisory duty specifications for use in all of the counties. Under that plan, individuals could be designated majors, captains, lieutenants, and sergeants. The latter rank was to be used in a few of the counties, where sergeants would act as "lead persons" (rather than supervisors) and would fill in if a lieutenant was absent.

In August 1999, the system had to be modified to reflect the clearer separation between rank and file employees and managers needed to implement the impending collective bargaining process. As a result, only majors and captains were deemed management, and thus excluded from the new bargaining unit.

Individuals holding the title of captain within a county at the time of the change were offered the choice of giving up their rank and becoming a senior lieutenant in order to stay within the bargaining unit; most chose to retain the higher rank. At the end of 1999, the structure was being re-examined to determine what adjustments and reassignments might be needed to accommodate the exclusion of lieutenants as managers.

Performance appraisals. In May 1998, the Council of High Sheriffs adopted a systemwide policy requiring annual performance appraisals for all special deputy sheriffs who have been employed for at least six months. The same form is used in all of the counties. It includes an evaluation of the appointee in seven areas -- knowledge of work, quality of work, ability to learn new duties, initiative, cooperation, judgement, and attendance. There are five possible ratings -- three categories of "Good" and two categories of "Less Than Good."

New appointees are rated twice -- first, after three months, and then at least two weeks before the end of the six-month working test period. Their evaluation form uses a different rating scale (Above Average, Average, and Below Average) and covers additional elements of performance.

Discipline. In June 1999, the high sheriffs formalized a statewide process to consistently deal with special deputies accused of violating the Code of Conduct. The system involves an investigation of alleged violations that are reported. It includes interviews with witnesses and the person who is the subject of the allegation.

In situations that may lead to the termination of a deputy or special deputy sheriff for "just cause," an evidentiary hearing would be held. (This action is based on verbal advice from the Office of the Attorney General because of the reference in C.G.S. Sections 6-43 and 6-45 to "due notice and hearing" before removal.) Staff from the Office of the County Sheriffs handles most of the investigatory component of the discipline process for the high sheriffs.

When the program review committee conducted its earlier study, there were considerable differences among the counties in the ways deputy sheriffs were selected and trained and in the rules they were required to follow. Today, the requirements placed on deputy sheriffs by the individual high sheriffs are more uniform, although differences do still exist.

All follow the statutory requirement of citizenship and the exclusion of justices of the peace and judges (except probate judges). One expressed a preference for law enforcement, military, or business backgrounds, while several merely require appointees to avoid other employment that could conflict with their duties as a deputy sheriff.

The statutorily required statewide reference manual for deputy sheriffs was published in the spring of 1999. Individuals appointed after the current sheriffs took office in June 1999 were required to attend a centralized two-week program of training. The program was taped, and portions of it may be used to train newly appointed deputies in the future. Other efforts currently underway to create more consistency include development of a code of conduct for deputy sheriffs (similar to that used for special deputy sheriffs).

Table III-2 summarizes additional training requirements for deputy sheriffs by county. It also describes the process for handling complaints and the methods used by the high sheriffs to distribute legal process received by their office.

TABLE III-2. County Specific Information Regarding Deputy Sheriffs.
County	Training For Newly Appointed Deputies	Distribution of Work	Complaint Process
Fairfield	one class per week for 6 months with high sheriff or chief deputy; ride with existing deputy for 30 days; work under supervision of existing deputy for 6 months; pass written test	multiple methods	written complaints investigated -- if necessary, correct problem
Hartford	attend classes with high sheriff or chief deputy; ride with existing deputy for seven days; work under supervision of existing deputy; knowledgeable staff immediately accessible	multiple methods	complaints handled by high sheriff or chief deputy
Litchfield	ride with existing deputy for 15 days; work under supervision of existing deputy for eight days; daily support available as needed	based primarily on geography	all complaints receive follow-up by high sheriff or chief deputy -- need not be in writing initially
Middlesex	tutored by senior deputy sheriff for two weeks; ride with existing deputy for two weeks; work under supervision of existing deputy for two weeks	multiple methods -- high sheriff performs minimal amount	ask for complaint in writing -- then follow due process procedures
New Haven	attend classes conducted by high sheriff or chief deputy; ride with existing deputy for at least 30 days; work under supervision of existing deputy	multiple methods	written and verbal complaints forwarded to Internal Affairs for investigation -- complainant advised of findings
New London	attend classes with high sheriff or chief deputy for two days; ride with existing deputy for four weeks; work under supervision of existing deputy for two weeks; in-service training for five days	given mostly to new deputies and those who are least busy	complaints investigated by high sheriff or chief deputy
Tolland	attend classes with high sheriff or chief deputy one day per month; daily instruction available as needed	multiple methods	all allegations and complaints are investigated
Windham	attend classes conducted by high sheriff or chief deputy; ride with existing deputy for one week	given out on geographic basis	complaints referred to high sheriff or chief deputy
multiple methods = combination of service by high sheriff and chief deputy as well as distribution on basis of geography, rotating schedule, and to those least busy or new deputies with less work Sources of data: Correspondence from and telephone conversations with individual high sheriffs in December 1999.

At the time of the 1994 report, deputy sheriffs in four counties were required to submit their annual Ethics Commission filing to the high sheriff, who then transmitted the document to the commission. In two other counties, a copy of the report had to be given to the high sheriff. Today, three high sheriffs require submission of a copy of the report.

When the program review committee conducted its earlier study, there were 692 individuals holding appointments as special deputy sheriffs. In August 1993, 88 percent were male and 12 percent were female. Three-quarters of the males were White, 9 percent were Black, 5 percent were Hispanic, and less than 1 percent were Asian or Native American. All but 4 percent of the females were White -- 2 percent were Black, and 2 percent were Hispanic.

In October 1999, there were 969 appointees, of whom 17 percent were female. A detailed breakdown of racial and gender data for each county is presented in Table III-3.

TABLE III-3. Racial and Gender Data for Individuals Holding Appointments as Special Deputy Sheriffs (October 1999).
County	Total No.	MALES				FEMALES
		White	Black	Hispanic	Other	White	Black	Hispanic	Other
Frfld	170	60%	13%	8%	1%	6%	5%	6%	--
Htfd	274	69%	10%	5%	1%	7%	4%	4%	--
Lchfld	40	68%	5%	--	--	28%	--	--	--
Mdlsx	60	75%	8%	2%	--	15%	--	--	--
NHvn	232	70%	11%	3%	--	11%	4%	1%	--
NLndn	86	77%	5%	4%	--	11%	5%	--	1%
Tllnd	53	77%	4%	--	2%	17%	--	--	--
Wndm	54	74%	--	2%	2%	19%	--	4%	--
Total	969	69%	9%	4%	1%	11%	3%	3%	<1%
* Numbers may not total exactly, due to rounding. Source of data: Office of the County Sheriffs.

In August 1993, statewide 238 individuals held appointments as deputy sheriffs. (This was 77 percent of the statutorily allowed limit.) Twenty (8 percent) of these deputies were female; 14 (6 percent) were Black or Hispanic. Two counties had no female deputies. Half of the counties had no Black or Hispanic deputies, while no county had any Asian or Native American deputies.

As of November 1, 1999, there were 251 deputy sheriffs statewide. (This represented 79 percent of the increased statutory limits.) Eighteen (7 percent) were female; 16 (6 percent) were Black or Hispanic. One county had no female deputies, while three counties had no Black or Hispanic deputies. There are still no Asian or Native American deputies. Table III-4 presents detailed information about deputy sheriffs by county.

TABLE III-4. Number of Deputy Sheriffs, including Chief Deputies (November 1999).
County	Statutory Limit	Actual Appointees	% of Statutory Appointments Made	Number Male	Number Female	Number Black or Hispanic
Fairfield	55	51	93%	46	5	2
Hartford	72	63	88%	59	4	8
Litchfield	30	12	40%	10	2	1
Middlesex	21	20	95%	20	0	1
New Haven	62	61	98%	60	1	4
New London	38	22	58%	21	1	0
Tolland	22	12	55%	10	2	0
Windham	18	10	56%	7	3	0
Total	318	251	79%	233	18	16
Source of data: Correspondence from individual high sheriffs to the program review committee.

Generally, less than 85 percent of those holding appointments as special deputy sheriffs are actually working on a given day. As shown in Figure III-2, the number of appointees and FTE workers have both increased 40 percent since 1993. As detailed in Chapter Two, the number of FTE staff working in November 1999 was 791, while the number of people holding appointments was 969. In 1993, the numbers were 565 and 692 respectively.

Since FY 93, the number of central office staff has grown from six to nine, with an additional four positions vacant. During this period, the cost of the central office staff increased 31 percent (from $246,000 to $568,000).

From FY 94 to FY 99, annual expenditures for the sheriffs system increased from $17.6 million to $24.6 million. The appropriation for the current fiscal year is $27 million. This represents a 53 percent increase in six years.

Employee benefits. In 1996, special deputy sheriffs were given the right to participate in the state’s group health plan, but at their own expense. In 1997, they were deemed eligible for group life insurance. Since July 1, 1999, special deputy sheriffs have been subject to the provisions of Chapters 66 through 68 of the statutes (i.e., the State Employees Retirement Act, the State Personnel Act, and Collective Bargaining for State Employees). As a consequence of the latter, they were eligible to petition the State Labor Board to form a bargaining unit.

In October 1999, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers was selected to represent the special deputies. Negotiation of a contract with the state is expected to begin in 2000. The Office of Labor Relations within OPM will represent the state. As a result, the pay plan and benefits package for special deputies are likely to change in the future.

The scope of the court facilities served by sheriffs has expanded since the 1994 study. At that time, the sheriffs system provided staff to 51 court sites with 199 courtrooms in 26 towns. Today, sheriffs work at 52 locations with 253 courtrooms in 25 towns. Statewide, the number of trials has increased from 14,316 in FY 92 to 18,635 in FY 98.

The workload of the sheriffs in the prisoner transportation area has increased as a result of a change implemented by the high sheriffs. Special deputy sheriffs in seven counties regularly pick up prisoners from local police departments and a number of state police barracks, in addition to the prisoners picked up from correctional centers.

Policies on firearms are more restrictive today than in 1994. At that time, under certain circumstances firearms could be secured in locked areas at entrances to courthouses. In addition, high sheriffs in two counties allowed transport personnel to carry guns. In September 1999, the current high sheriffs adopted a statewide policy on the possession and storage of firearms. This policy, also adopted by the Sheriffs' Advisory Board in December 1999, prohibits all sheriffs from possessing or using a firearm while engaged in prisoner transportation or courthouse security functions. In addition, firearms cannot be stored at any courthouse or on any premises under the supervision of the Judicial Branch, including parking lots.

[1] Under C.G.S. Sec. 46a-79, it is public policy to encourage employers to give favorable consideration to providing jobs to qualified individuals, including those with criminal conviction records. C.G.S. Sec. 6-32e indicates the policy is not applicable to the prisoner transportation and courthouse security system, but it also specifies nothing prevents the Sheriffs' Advisory Board from adopting the policy. (This is similar to language in C.G.S. Sec. 46a-81 that applies to “any law enforcement agency.”)