HomeMy WebLinkAbout88th Special Meeting88th SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION
(Revised)
The 88th Special Meeting of the Civil Service Commission was held on Monday,
March 7, 2005. The meeting was called to order at 5:05 p.m.
Members Present: Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson
Harry C. Tatigian, Commissioner
Ronald E. Campau, Commissioner
Also Present:
Tom Funke, President, LPOA Timothy Larion, Senior Police Officer
Jimmy Howton, Deputy Police Chief Robert F. Biga, Human Resources Director
Mark La Berge, Police Captain Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III
Discussion was held regarding the Livonia Police Officers Association (LPDA) Grievance
Number 05-007. Tom Funke, President, LPDA, stated the grievance revolves around the
utilization of Police Reserve Officers for writing parking fickets during a declared snow
emergency. The dales in question are December 23, 2004, January 6, 2005, January 22,
2005, January 23, 2005, February 21, 2005 and March 1, 2005. The City used Police Reserve
Officers along with two regular officers on each date in order to write snow emergency tickets.
For the past ten years as the Union President of the LPDA, to Officer Funke's knowledge, the
Police Reserve Officers have never written tickets. In December 2002, the Department
conducted a training class for Police Reserve Officers regarding writing parking tickets over the
Christmas holidays at the shopping mall. The Union took immediate action and advised
Management that if they utilized Police Reserve Officers, it would violate the contractual rights
of Article 45.1 of the LPOA contract regarding call up procedures, as well as the overtime
practice and past practice. Approximately four years ago, the Union discussed with Mayor
Kirksey an attempt to utilize Police Reserve Officers to write handicapped tickets at shopping
mall lots. The Union opposed and advised Police Management as well as the Mayor, that if
that was the intent of the City, it should be negotiated in the next collective bargaining
agreement.
In 1989 the Union fled Grievance #89-0583 regarding the use of Police Reserve Officers.
There was an agreement that was reached with the Deputy Chief and the Union President at
that time, Wes McKee, on the use of Police Reserve Officers. In 1996 Grievance #96-237 was
fled on the use of Police Reserve Officers. At that time Chief Murray indicated that the intent
was to call regular officers before using Police Reserve Officers. A stipulated decision was
rendered by arbitrator, Mr. Girolamo, on April 7, 1997 in this grievance.
Officer Funke presented copies of the two grievances as well as the arbitrated decision to the
Commission and to staff. The Commission reviewed the materials.
Officer Funke summarized that the resolution for both grievances was to use Police Officers
when necessary and then to use Police Reserve Officers after exhausting all methods of
getting Police Officers. He continued that the current problem was that the administration is
attempting to circumvent contractual rights on the use of Police Reserve Officers, as well as
the intent and spirit of the agreements made in the past. On January 5, 2005, the Union met
with Police administration to discuss the use of Police Reserve Officers. The following day
Officer Funke was notified by the Chief to file a grievance. He asked the Commission how
Page 2 68th Speoal Meeting March 7, 2005
many times the Union needed to file a grievance on the use of Police Reserve Officers. He
stated the requested settlement would pay the Police Officers for the hours that the Police
Reserve Officers were utilized to write tickets.
Mr. Tatigian inquired if the arbitrator issued an actual written decision in this grievance in 1997,
or if it was just reviewed. Officer Funke indicated that the latter was correct; the arbitrator
listened to both sides and Attorney, George Roumell. He agreed with the settlement of March
1990, that when Police action is taken, an officer should be called in prior to Police Reserve
Officers. Officer Funke added that Chief Murray slated if Police action was needed, it was his
intent to call in Police Officers before calling in Police Reserve Officers. In the future the City
would utilize Police Officers before using Police Reserve Officers.
Ms. Mahoney clarified that the 1989 grievance was denied, as was the 1996 grievance, and
then this arbitration was what resulted. Officer Funke stated that was correct and that both
times the Civil Service Commission denied the grievances and finally that a decision was
rendered by an arbitrator in 1996. Ms. Mahoney stated that grievance strongly recommended
they exhaust the supply of off-duty Police Officers before calling in Police Reserve Officers,
regardless of the situation. Officer Funke agreed except during a natural emergency, they
could look at it as something the Union would go back and discuss with Management during
collective bargaining.
Mr. Campau inquired about past practice and asked if regular Police Officers had written
tickets during snow emergencies in the past. Officer Funke stated that the City has never
implemented a snow emergency with Police Reserve Officers or regular officers writing tickets.
He stated that regular officers would write tickets as part of their daily functions.
Captain LaBerge responded that all the dates Officer Funke referred to were correct. He
stated that the correct term was "snow alert" by ordinance, and after the snow alert was
declared, the Chief of Police determined that a detail needed to be set up to address the
people who park in the streets and don't move their cars. The Chief has had numerous
discussions with Mr. Beckley and they have received numerous citizen complaints. He stated
people don't move their cars. Parked cars make plowing difficult and hazardous to plow
operators. It was determined that after the plows go by then the department would write
tickets. They wait until later on in the evening to do it. The Chiefs decision was based on all
those things. The plow operators have difficulty plowing the streets, especially in some of the
areas with narrow streets. They have hit cars in the past. Lieutenant McGillivary is in charge
of the Community Service bureau. He and Officer Novak were notified on that date to come up
with a detail of Police Reserve Officers and regular officers. Officer Novak contacted all the
day shift officers who were working and couldn't get any volunteers. He also contacted the
rest of the regular officers who were working in bureaus and none of them wanted to do it. He
eventually came up with a couple of volunteers - two regular Police Officers and eight Police
Reserve Officers for that night. Mr. Campau inquired if there were other officers that should
have been called in. Captain LaBerge responded that it wasn't practical to call all officers
department -wide to find out who was available. He assumed the Union would say there were
other officers who were available. Mr. Campau inquired what the contract says. Captain
LaBerge stated that this was a special incident. He continued by stating that when these
details come up, there is little time to get a detail together, and it is not something that is
posted ahead of time. They have to scramble to get a detail together. In this circumstance, a
decision was made in the morning to have a detail for that night. On this detail they wrote 68
Page 3 80th Streoal Meeting March ], 2005
tickets. On January 5, 2005, after the snow alert was done and we knew it might be coming up
again. Officer Novak was directed to put out a special attention notice to all the Police Officers
for a standing detail; any officer interested in this type of detail was to notify his office with
name and phone number, so they could have a standing list. This couldn't be posted as a
regular Police Reserve Officer detail because they didn't know when it would happen. So for
the officers who were interested, a list was compiled according to seniority and according to
who has worked the details.
Mr. Tatigian clarified that these are officers who, while they are off-duty, would be willing to
come in, and inquired if this was as a result of the discussion of December 23, 2004. Officer
Funke responded that it was not discussed until January 5, 2005. He talked to Captain
LaBarge about this on December 20, the next day. On January 5, 2005, before the next
snow alert was activated on January 6, 2005, he sat down with the Chief of Police, Robert
Stevenson, Deputy Chief Jimmy Howton, and the other administration and discussed different
things on how they were going to go about this. It was the Union's contention that if the City
wanted to use Police Reserve Officers that they would look at a one-to-one ratio, having a
Police Reserve Officer in a car with an officer in order to do these snow emergencies. Officer
Funke stated that Captain Jandasek said that it would profit them to go to a one-to-one ratio.
Although at first, it was suggested a four -to -one ratio. Officer Funke stated the Union wasn't
interested in a four -to -one ratio, explaining that this was not a Police Reserve Officer detail; a
Police Reserve Officer detail is sponsored directly by an organization or committee, such as
the Spree or Churchill High School, where they are paying money for them to work. He stated
that this is strictly a Police function. Officer Funke recommended to the Chief on that day, that
according to contract, the Chief has the right to hold employees over on the afternoon shift,
and then if they didn't get enough volunteers, contractually, he could hold people over to work
the snow emergency. Officer Funke stated the Chief said that the men would kill him if he did
something like that.
Captain LaBerge passed out a handout titled, Background with Exhibits 1-9. The first contract
provision referenced was Article 45.1 Police Reserve Officers. They both agree that language
does say the City will utilize Police Reserve Officers as it has in the past. Captain LaBerge
read Exhibit #5, "In addition, Police Reserve Officers may be assigned to other Police activities
at the discretion of the Police Chief in conjunction with regular Police Officers who, in such
cases, will be selected from an advance posted overtime detail." He stated in the first snow
alert, they did not have the luxury of having an advance posting, but for the rest of the snow
alerts there was the advance posting for officers who were interested. The Police Reserve
Officers in each of the cases did work in conjunction with the regular Police Officers and this
was no different than working at the Spree, Greenmead, school activities, hockey games or
any other functions. It also provides that, 'Police Reserve Officers shall not replace regular
Police Officers in their normal assignments' No regular officers were replaced by Police
Reserve Officers. He then referred to Exhibit #6, City Ordinance 2.28.020 about Police
Reserve Officers and Exhibit #2, City Ordinance 10.63.020, the Snow Alert Ordinance. The
first ordinance provides in part that Police Reserve Officers, "shall perform Police duties at
such times as deemed necessary by the Mayor or the Chief of Police, including, but not limited
to...," and it says "for the promotion of public safety and welfare." The "Snow Alert Ordinance"
provides "the Mayor or the Mayor pro tem has the authority to declare a snow alert during such
periods in the interest of preserving and protecting public health, safety and welfare." The
language is very close in those two ordinances. He stated it was clear they were talking about
Page 4 08th Speoal Meeting March 7,205
a situation in the snow alert that the Chief of Police has the authority to have employees go out
and issue tickets.
Captain LaBerge referred to the 1996 grievance. He was not a Captain at the time. He was
unable to talk to former Captain Kunst, who is now the Director of Public Safety, about this
matter. In reading the determination, it appeared to him and the Chief, that the issue was not
settled by the arbitrator; he just reviewed the language and cited a note on the back on the file
from former Chief Kunst, that stated the date of arbitration and says "settled prior to
arbitration" Captain LaBerge agreed with Officer Funke that both sides probably went out and
settled it, and Mr. Joseph Girolamo, Arbitrator, just reviewed the language. It doesn't say he
settled it or he decided. It refers to "sustained Police action." In the current incidents, the
snow alert parking enforcement, the Police Department was not requiring sustained Police
action where it would be necessary to keep up already in -progress Police action, such as in
the first grievance (the Greenmead one). From what Captain LaBerge understood, it was a
civil disturbance. Far more people showed up than what they were prepared for and the crowd
became unruly. The situation resulted in a continued Police activity. They were not calling in
personnel to give support or relief to people who were already in Police action; this was a
separate new detail. An example of sustained Police action would have been when they had
the Detroit News strike on Stark Road. They did not have Police Reserve Officers coming in to
monitor the scene. They would have had regular officers to do that. They had their special
operations, some of their SWAT officers and some of their regular officers there. He referred
to Exhibit #8, "Maintenance of Conditions' that the Union alleges and stated they don't believe
there has been any condition or term of this Article that has been violated. Regarding past
practice in the use of Police Reserve Officers — Captain LaBerge stated they feel they are
using them as they have in the past. They are not replacing regular Police Officers in their
normal assignments, there has never been a snow alert parking detail in the past they are
aware of. This was not a detail or assignment that Police Reserve Officers were being used to
replace regular officers. It was a new detail that Police Reserve Officers were being assigned
to and were working in conjunction with regular officers.
Mr. Tatigian wanted to confirm that this had never been done in the past. Captain LaBerge
replied that he was not aware of a parking detail for a snow alert in the past. Mr. Tatigian
responded that if that was the case, how could they rely on the language of past practice.
Captain LaBerge stated an example they came up with was this past Valentine's Day there
was a bank that contacted the department that was going to do a free gas promotion at
Schoolcratt and Merriman. They wanted crowd control and traffic control. The Police
Department had never done that before. They used regular officers and Police Reserve
Officers.
Ms. Mahoney clarified that in the past, if tickets were issued during snow alerts, it was because
it was just in the line of a regular patrol. Captain LaBerge added it might also have been
generated from a citizen calling in. Ms. Mahoney stated that the difference was this time it was
determined to go out in mass and look for those cars and ticket them. That was the detail that
was created the first time, December 23, 2004. Captain LaBerge stated that was correct.
Officer Funke stated the Union was never approached prior to that.
Mr. Tatigian inquired if this was a cost-saving benefit, to avoid paying overtime to regular
officers. Captain LaBerge responded that they did call in regular officers, just not as many as
the Union would like to have them call in. Mr. Campau inquired how much a ticket cost.
Captain LaBerge replied he thought the maximum was $50 and inquired what the overtime
Page 5 80th Speoal Meeting March 7, 2005
cost for regular officers would be. Officer Funke replied that it was 210 hours for the total of all
six, which would have amounted to $8400 in overtime to Police Officers, as compared to
paying $10 per hour to Police Reserve Officers to do it. Police Officer Tim Larion stated that
this money went into the general fund, not to the Police Department. Captain LaBerge stated
that when they set this detail up, it was for public safety.
Officer Larion stated it was a revenue generating idea, since there are budgetary problems and
what better way to do it than hiring the Police Reserve Officers.
Ms. Mahoney inquired if there was some pre -thought in November or December as the winter
was approaching relative to putting this together, if the Mayor and a group of folks determined
that we could make more revenue by ticketing cars in the snow or whether it was to handle an
issue within a day or two of one of the snow alerts.
Captain LaBerge stated he was not privy to any conversations from the Mayor's office and the
Chief about revenue. The Deputy Chief stated that was not their purpose. As a benefit, yes, it
does come along, but that was not the intent. Deputy Chief Howton stated to his knowledge,
from the citizen complaints, and with discussions with Mr. Beckley shortly before this
transpired, that was when the decision was made.
Captain LaBerge stated under Management Rights, they believe the Chief of Police is allowed
to utilize Police Reserve Officers in conjunction with regular officers to perform parking
enforcement during this type of incident. The Chief was correct in determining the manner in
which snow alert parking enforcement was to be accomplished. As the Department Head, he
has the authority to determine the methods, means and personnel necessary for department or
agency operations. He was also within his Management rights to control the Police
Department budget. The approximate cost of using Police Reserve Officers in conjunction with
regular officers was $5300 for the details they've done. Officer Funke stated he came up with
$8400. Captain LaBerge continued by stating that if only regular officers had been used, the
cost would have been approximately $13,500.
Mr. Tatigian inquired after the December 23, 2004 incident, on January 5, 2005, if a list was
established with officers who were off duty that would be willing to come in. He asked if they
utilized the list on January 6, 2005. Captain LaBerge stated they did utilize the list and two
regular officers came in. Ms. Mahoney stated that the assumption was that as long as they
were seeking at least two regular officers from the list, the Police Reserve Officers could still
be called in to do ticketing. Captain LaBerge inquired if she meant they assumed that it would
be ok with the Union and he replied no, they did not even consider that. He stated he thought
it was after the second snow alert that the Union filed the grievance.
Officer Funke stated it was after the January 5, 2005 incident that they fled, because that was
the date he talked with all five administrators and the following day he was told to file the
grievance. Ms. Mahoney stated the initial grievance was fled on the actions of
December23, 2004. Then it so happened that the January 6, 22, 23 ... were all the same
actions so they just lumped them together. Officer Funke stated, "actually the 23rd and 6'h" and
he talked to Captain LaBerge and asked him how he wanted this handled and he said they'll
just stipulate that this was an ongoing grievance.
Page 6 Both Special Meeting March ], 2005
Ms. Mahoney inquired if there was a snowstorm with a snow alert tonight, if it was their
intention to proceed with the same process and Captain LaBerge responded "yes." Captain
LaBerge added that the key was in the language where it says that the Police Reserve Officers
may be assigned at the discretion of the Chief of Police to other activities, in conjunction with
regular officers. They're not saying you need to have one-on-one. That didn't seem
reasonable or practical to have a regular and a Police Reserve Officer - that would be like
going around with a secretary with you. They have to be efficient in what they're doing. It is
reasonable to have Police Reserve Officers who have been trained how to write the tickets and
have the authority to write the tickets, to go out and do this. They don't set up a detail and say
all the Lieutenants have first crack at this detail. That would be using your most valuable
resource to perform a very low-level task. I think everyone would agree that writing a parking
ticket is a pretty low-level thing, not a very complicated task. If a Greenmead incident came up
again, you need more highly trained people to come out and control the situation. When
writing parking tickets, there is very little confrontation. If it does come up, regular officers are
a radio call away. He cited that during the Stevenson vs. Churchill game this fall there were a
lot of regular officers used in addition to a lot of Police Reserve Officers. Officer Funke stated
again that this was an organized Police Reserve Officer detail that a committee or organization
pays for. Captain LaBerge stated we also have subdivision patrols and they are not
reimbursed; it comes out of regular City funds. Mr. Tatigian stated that this was done strictly to
save money, that it is still a Police function, even if it is a low-level function. Deputy Chief
Howton stated that everything a Police Reserve Officer is asked to do is a Police function. He
added that the Union would have no problem if this were a one-on-one situation. Mr. Tatigian
inquired if he would rather have a regular Police Officer all the time. Deputy Chief Howton
stated "of course."
Mr. Campau stated that Management was using Article 45.1 as an argument for this grievance.
He asked for explanation for the sentence, "Management may schedule Police Reserve
Officers with working Police Officers for details of a non -reimbursed nature, subject to
Departmental Memo #361" Tom Funke stated he went back to the previous grievances that
were fled back in 1996 and 1989 and that was what was established. Captain LaBerge stated
that #11 talks about Police Reserve Officer assignments in that memo. He thought the intent
of this was that they would not schedule Police Reserve Officers to be working with regulars,
then the regular cannot take the day off, or he can't go home early. It would prevent them from
using discretionary time. Mr. Campau continued to read Article 45.1, "Nothing shall prevent
the City without limitations to utilize Police Reserve Officers in the event of natural disasters,
riots, civil disasters, or emergencies." He stated that again seemed to indicate the City could
use Police Reserve Officers for the function that they used them and that this was the contract
language.
Officer Funke stated cars should be removed from City streets within six hours of the
declaration of the snow alert and these assignments were scheduled eight to ten hours after
the activation of the snow alert, and inquired if that constituted a real emergency. Mr. Campau
stated the contract has the words "emergency" and "natural disaster' listed but the contract
does not define what these are. He further stated that the two sentences indicated that the
City could do what they did. Officer Funke stated if you refer back to the 1996 grievance when
we had an agreement, the intent and spirit was that they wouldn't use Police Reserve Officers;
they would use regular Police Officers. Officer Funke continued that if you couldn't get regular
officers to come in, then Management has a right to order them to stay. The Union maintains
Page 7 68th Speoal Meeting March 7, 2OD5
that this is just a matter of saving money without utilizing the service of regular Police Officers.
Mr. Campau replied that the language indicates that the City has the right to do what they did.
Officer Larion stated that after six hours, it is not like a riot or a natural disaster. Mr. Campau
referenced the sentence in the middle of Article 45.1, "Management may schedule Police
Reserve Officers with working Police Officers...... Mr. Campau inquired what Memo #361 has
to do with this. Officer Funke stated 'nothing' and that should be eliminated, the spirit of the
decision rendered by the arbitrator in 1996 indicates this.
Captain LaBerge responded that there wasn't a decision rendered by an arbitrator, it was an
agreement reached by both sides, and it talked about sustained Police action. In that case
they were talking about a specific incident at Greenmead with the near civil disturbance. This
was different. He added that if they were at the Spree and a similar incident occurred, they
would not call in Police Reserve Officers to handle this, they would be calling in the regular
officers. This situation is an appropriate task for Police Reserve Officers to do. The ordinance
says they can use Police Reserve Officers. The snow alert ordinance addresses the need for
having a snow alert. Article 45 says that the Chief of Police, at his discretion, can assign
Police Reserve Officers to other duties, without limitation in emergencies and natural disasters.
Mr. Campau stated they were also citing Article 46.1, "Wages, hours and conditions... No
employee shall suffer a reduction in benefits as a consequence of the execution of this
Agreement, except as provided herein.' Captain LaBerge stated that was correct.
Chairperson Mahoney asked if there were any further questions.
Deputy Chief stated that going back to what Mr. Tatigian said earlier about utilization, he
thought in an infinite world, with no limitations on our budget, and we had enough Police
Officers out there, they wouldn't have any Police Reserve Officers, they would just use Police
Officers for everything. But that's not the case, they do have a finite budget, they do have all
these Police Reserve Officer details that the Union has agreed to over the years. Their
contention is that this is not different than other details that the Police Reserve Officers are
involved in. We have them working in conjunction with a Police Officer, whether it is one-on-
one or five -on -one, that is not an issue. That fact is we do have them working out there with a
Police Officer. And yes, it is budgetary, because we couldn't afford to put eight Police Officers
out there to do this type of thing, but if we can put two out there and can use Police Reserve
Officers in conjunction with them, we can go out there and issue a lot of tickets and hopefully,
get the public's attention and eliminate the problem.
Officer Funke stated that just to rebut Deputy Chief, at $50 a crack, that well exceeds the
money they would have paid for the Police Officers in order to write tickets. Deputy Chief
replied that was true, but the money doesn't come back to the Police Department.
Mr. Tatigian stated that based on the January 5, 2005 understanding, he wanted to hear what
each side thinks was arrived at. Deputy Chief Howton stated his understanding was that there
really wasn't any understanding. They listened to each other's arguments and the Chief
decided to do exactly what they did. The Union decided they wanted a one -on -ane situation.
He continued that other discussion took place and Captain Jandasek mentioned a possible
four -on -one ratio, but the Chief was making the decision. The agreement was that
Management would do what they did and the Union would probably go ahead and file this
grievance. Mr. Tatigian clarified that the Union's position was that they would like a one-on-
Page 8 88th Streoal Meeting March 7, 2005
one ratio. Officer Funke stated the reason why the Union proposed that was in order to avoid
the grievance process. Mr. Tatigian inquired that if they could have resolved it on
January 5, 2005, on what basis would it have been resolved. Officer Funke replied on the
basis on January 5, 2005, he did go in agreement that they would look at a one-on-one ratio.
He added that he had a conversation with Captain LaBerge and Chief Stevenson attempting to
come up with a compromise so that a grievance wouldn't have to be fled.
Mr. Campau inquired of Captain LaBerge, on December 23rd, when they tried to get officers to
work this detail—was it determined that they only wanted two officers and they were going to
call in Police Reserve Officers, or were they looking for a number of officers? Captain LaBerge
responded they were looking for two regular officers and a number of Police Reserve Officers.
Mr. Campau also inquired if the officers were in a supervisory mode, or were they in a Police
Officer mode. Captain LaBerge replied they were writing tickets as well, but it was more like a
regular officer working with a junior partner. Mr. Campau asked why they wanted regular
officers. Captain LaBerge stated it was because of Article 45.1 of the contract, following what
this contract says, to work in conjunction with regular Police Officers. Captain LaBerge stated
the ratio has always been a question; there is no set ratio. They looked at a four -on -one and in
a recent case, there was five -on -one. He continued that they worked on separate sections of
the City on the first one. This wasn't a detail that covered the whole City at once and if they
could gel everyone to comply without ever having to put a Police Reserve Officer out there,
that would be great, but they used what they had at their disposal to get the message out.
They thought they were reasonable.
Officer Larion stated that if there was a citizen that was going to contest the parking ticket, the
regular officer had to schedule a court date where he would have to appear and the regular
officer more or less supervising that group of Police Reserve Officers was going to testify on
behalf of the Police Reserve Officer. Deputy Chief Howton added that was one of the reasons
they don't want Police Reserve Officers writing tickets by themselves.
The Commission asked for a private discussion at 6:03 p.m. The meeting reconvened at
6:10 P.M.
The Chair asked if there was any additional information to be presented. There was none.
Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was
05-033 RESOLVED, That having reviewed the Livonia Police Officers
Association (LPOA) Grievance Number 05-007, regarding the use of Police
Reserve Officers, and after discussion with Tom Funke, President, Livonia Police
Officers Association (LPDA); Jimmy Howton, Deputy Police Chief, Mark
LaBerge, Police Captain; and Timothy Larion, Senior Police Officer, the Civil
Service Commission does hereby deny the grievance.
Chairperson Mahoney stated that both sides made very effective presentations, had good
materials and stated it would have been nice to have some of those materials in advance of
the meeting to review the information. She added she appreciated their coming here and the
information that was provided and the presentation was very well done.
Upon a motion by Mr. Campau, seconded by Mr. Tatigian and unanimously adopted, it was
Page 9 88th Speoal Meeting March ], 2005
RESOLVED, That the special meeting be adjourned at 6:15 p.m.
Gretchen Guisbert, Secretary III
Charlotte S. Mahoney, Chairperson
Harry C. Tatigian, Commissioner
Ronald E. Campau, Commissioner