Page images
PDF
EPUB

rent. The current limits of $50 and 30 days are so in substantial that they lack deterrent effect and tend not to justify the effort and cost in resources that are involved in prosecuting them.

Clarify enforcement authority

A second obstacle to effectively deterring criminal conduct has been the question raised about whether section 218, as currently worded, gives VA police officers enforcement and arrest authority with respect to misdemenaors and petty offenses such as enforcement of current regulations. By recasting section 218, the bill would clarify the authority of VA police officers to enforce laws and regulations and to make arrests. This would be in addition to VA's current felony enforcement authority. We favor this provision as a way of removing any doubt and further enhancing the deterrent effect of the statue and regulations.

Proposed section 218(b)(2) of title 38 provides for the issuance of standards concerning the issuance of and carrying of firearms. The Administration believes that the issuance of firearms, the training of employees as police officers and the conduct of the Government law enforcement effort in general is an important issue which must be coordinated throughout the Federal Government. We recommend therefore that this section be amended to provide that the Administrator of the VA, with the concurrence of the Attorney General, issue regulations concerning the training of police officers, the use of firearms and other matters connected with such activities. Unnecessary authorities

The bill would make statutory several authorities which VA currently exercises by regulation and policy. For example, it would require the Administrator to appoint a GS-15 Chief Inspector to supervise VA police officers. A position of Director of Security Service, grade GS-15, whose duties include supervision of VA police officers, is already authorized within DM&S. We do not need to provide for this position by legislation and oppose this provision.

The bill would also require the Administrator to select and regulate the pattern for VA police officer uniforms and to furnish each police officer authorized to carry firearms or other weapons with the necessary weapons and belts. Both of these requirements are currently provided for as matter of published VA policy. There is no need to legislate these requirements and we oppose these provisions.

Recruiting/retention

For some years, one of VA's major concerns has been to improve recruitment and retention of highly qualified personnel to serve as VA police officers. The VA has long had difficulties with such recruitment and retention, especially in certain geographic areas. Current authorities have proven inadequate to deal with many of the problem areas.

One source of recruiting/retention problems is the low morale and financial hardship resulting from the fact that required uniforms cost much more than the authorized uniform allowance provides. Currently, VA police officers are allowed a flat $125 annually. Under subsection 218(e)(3), as proposed, they would be authorized a one-time uniform purchase allowance of up to $400 and an annual uniform purchase allowance of $175 thereafter. We strongly support this measure. It would help rectify the unfair financial hardship currently faced by VA police officers. In our view, no one should have to suffer a financial disadvantage in order to work as a VA police officer, and the uniform allowance provisions would help prevent that.

The principal problem in the recruitment and retention of highly qualified personnel is our inability to pay competitive rates, particularly in certain geographic areas. This is evidenced by relatively high officer turnover in areas where competitive pay rates are generally higher we are able to pay. The bill proposes to resolve this problem by requiring the Administrator to issue standards for classifying and grading VA police officers and authorizing the Administrator to increase rates of basic pay authorized for persons in such grades and classes. We do not believe it is necessary or appropriate to remove VA police officers from the title 5 grading and classification system. The problem is money and although it is a widespread problem, it is not universal. To be of benefit, reclassifying and regrading would require that all police officers be upgraded to higher pay grades. However, that would mean providing increased rates across the board, including in areas where there is no recruitment and retention problems. OPM is currently engaged in a study of the police occupation, in order to develop revised qualification and classification standards. OPM is working closely with the VA and other agencies in carrying out the study.

Pending the completion of the OPM study we already have the basis for an interim, more flexible remedy than the bill would provide to deal with the pay disadvantage that exists in certain markets-a capability to target special pay rates where they would do the most good in recruiting and keeping quality law enforcement personnel. This could be accomplished by amending section 4107(g) which already provides a flexible targeted system for recruiting and retaining title 5 healthcare personnel to encompass VA police officers. We believe the amendment should be limited to a 3-year period.

TECHNICAL AMENDMENT REGARDING A GAO REPORTING REQUIREMENT-H.R. 4625 Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4625 makes a technical amendment to 38 U.S.C. § 5010. The amendment will correct an inconsistency between 38 U.S.C. § 5010(a) (4) (B) and (C) regarding the date by which the GAO must submit a report to the appropriate committees of the Congress. Enactment of the bill would have no impact upon the VA and we defer to the views of the GAO on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I will be pleased to answer any questions you or members of the Subcommittee may have.

STATEMENT OF JAMES G. FASONE, DEPARTMENT OF MEDICINE AND SURGERY,
VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I appreciate this opportunity to testify before the committee regarding the Department of Medicine and Surgery's Security and Law Enforcement Program.

Before I begin, I would like to reiterate what Dr. Custis said, namely, the entire issue of training police officers, using firearms, and the conduct of the Government law enforcement efforts in general is an important issue which must be coordinated throughout the Federal Government.

Our medical centers in many areas of the country continue to experience a high degree of difficulty in the recruitment and retention of well qualified police officers. We have a total of 1,975 police officer positions at 172 medical centers. From fiscal year 1979 to the present, over 3,100 officers have joined and then left the security service. This turbulance causes undeniably lowered efficiency, wasted training, periods of vulnerability, and additional administrative costs.

Although there are many reasons why employees leave their jobs, it is our view that a major factor has been the difficulty we have had in centers located in areas in competition with private and governmental police agencies in surrounding communities for officers able to meet our standards of performance. Entry level salaries for untrained police and deputy sheriff recruits offered by 142 nationwide agencies which serve communities having populations of under 10,000 persons provide a clear insight in to our compensation problem. The average annual wage offered to untrained recruits by these small communities is $14,368.1 In contrast, the VA is normally limited to an entry level of $12,367 in recruiting police officers with two years prior police experience or substitute education at the college level.

Title 5 of the United States Code provides the recourse for this problem. Under this law, when we encounter recruitment or retention problems at a facility and when the problems are a result of non-competitive salaries, we can ask the Office of Personnel and Management (OPM) to let us pay higher pay rates than the regular General Schedule provides. In reviewing these requests, OMP requires us to submit a considerable amount of data on the extent of our problems and the competion we are trying to meet. We have had some difficulties in meeting the law's criteria as interpreted by OPM.

A medical center director may suffer a high police turnover problem and the week to week problems of staff shortages, overtime costs and the inexperience of newly hired police officers for quite some time. After exhausting the means available to recruit and retain police without sacrificing performance standards, the Director may then direct his Personnel Officer to initiate the several surveys and the internal data collection necessary to submit a title 5 special pay request. These external wage comparison surveys and internal data collection requirements must be based on one year's experience to constitute a complete submission. When a facility has not done this before, it can be quite time consuming. Under current procedures, once this required information has been submitted to OPM, it takes four to eight

1 "A Survey of 1983 Salaries and Working Conditions of the Policy Departments in the United States" Fraternal Order of Police, 32nd Edition, March 15, 1983.

months to get approval or disapproval. Special salary rates were granted for our police officer positions at our Medical Centers in New York City, Northport, New York, Chicago, Dallas and Palo Alto, California. However, because of the lack of success and the effort involved in processing such requests, we have not submitted a special salary request for VA police officers since April, 1983.

In the specific case of our New York City area Medical centers, the salary increases granted in June 1983, were lower than those requested by the VA and are not expected to improve recruitment and retention appreciably. Special salary rates are subject to annual review and OPM renewal. When special salary rates for our medical center in Milwaukee were granted in 1980, a thirty percent annual turnover rate was reduced to five percent. In 1983, the special salary rates were withdrawn by OPM due to the medical center's inability to demonstrate a continued retention problem and because a lengthy list of applicants for police officer positions existed on the OPM area office register.

Mr. Chairman, we are keenly aware of the necessity to provide a highly effective umbrella of security over our patients, employees and property. We are also certain that the desired protection can be achieved through highly qualified and well trained security personnel. The handling of security and law enforcement at our medical centers is unique. To be fully effective, it requires that we have the means of recruiting and retaining well-qualified individuals who can serve as police officers in VA's medical environment.

Our incident rates in the areas of both personal and property crime remain unsatisfactorily high; much higher than the published incidence of crimes, offenses and law enforcement actions experienced by by the several self-protection forces of other Federal agencies. A sampling of our Fiscal Year 1983 offense reports shows 17,579 thefts and robberies, nine rapes and twelve attempted rapes. Our police responded to 40,078 disturbances and 4,108 assaults requiring 79 uses of the non-lethal weapon carried by VA Police. Our police also confiscated 3,935 weapons, made 12,968 stops of suspicious persons, and 3,682 arrests. Over 170,000 offenders were issued violation notices and another 48,341 citations into U.S. District Courts across the nation. Our total loss of accountable government and personal property alone exceeded five million dollars.

The vulnerabilities to criminal actions at medical centers greatly exceed those of typical Federal properties such as office buildings and parks. Illustrations of these peculiar vulnerabilities are as follows. A Veterans Administration medical center contains a repository for the bulk storage of a minimum 90-day supply of over 125 drugs of potential abuse. In addition, a VA medical center typically contains two pharmacy facilities and between twenty and one hundred nursing stations containing two-day supplies of narcotics. The VA medical center, as a repository of drugs of potential abuse, has become a unique target for the obtainment of drugs through burglary, robbery, conspiratorial thefts and pilferage.

All VA medical centers operate from one to three silver recovery units with a total annual recovery of $2.5 million in bullion and $1 million in scrap X-ray film sales to outside silver recovery plants. The approximate 350 silver recovery units in daily operation and stores of used X-ray films at each center constitute an additional high target to both external and internal crime elements. In addition to this precious metal attraction, each medical center maintains a supply of gold alloy with our Central Dental Laboratories storing as much as one-quarter million dollars in gold.

The value of both medical and administrative equipment as well as general medical and administrative supplies at medical centers is inestimable. Costly portable equipment such as ADP equipment, electronic microscopes, and televison sets exist in high quantities and are constant targets for theft.

Each VA Medical Center operates several cash handling facilities for the disbursement of travel funds to patients, canteen retail store transactions, and credit union activities. The case on hand at each of these facilities exceeds five figures on regular days and is substantially higher on pay days.

From the property standpoi standpoint, opportunities for the commission of serious crimes at all VA medical centers is deemed to be exceptionally high in comparison to commercial businesses within a community and other typical Federal properties. Added to the extreme vulnerability of VA medical centers as targets for property crimes is their vulnerability for crimes against persons, our paramount concern. Both staff and patients at medical centers are extremely helpless and vulnerable targets to trespassers and deranged persons. The potential hostility of those seeking medical care is indicated by the over 40,000 disturbances and 4,000 assaults yearly in our medical centers.

These outbursts can and do occur at VA medical centers regardless of their location in urban, suburban or rural areas and must be deterred or handled by all VA Police Officers.

Mr. Chairman, as the immediate program manager responsible for VA security operations, I welcome the intent of H.R. 4792. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. y. I will be glad to answer any questions.

WRITTEN COMMITTEE QUESTIONS AND THEIR RESPONSE

CHAIRMAN EDGAR TO VETERAN'S ADMINISTRATION

Question 1. Current regulations or policy concerning the conditions under which VA police officers may carry firearms.

Answer. Current policy of the Department of Medicine and Surgery prohibits the use, issuance or storage of firearms or any weapon other than the approved, standard chemical irritant projector (mace) for security and law enforcement purposes unless specifically authorized by the Chief Medical Director, or Administrator, as appropriate. No pre-set conditions under VA police officers may carry firearms are prescribed by regulation or policy. Attachment A is extracted pages from the DM&S policy manual which address weapon policy and procedures (paragraph 15).

Attachment B is a copy of special authorization by the Administrator for special investigators empowered under section 218 to bear firearms and the specific rules controlling their use.

[Excerpt from DM&S Supplement, MP-1, Part I, Change 39, October 31, 1982]
15. FIREARMS AND WEAPONS

a. Definitions. Directors will be guided by the following definitions of terms in the adjudication of matters pertaining to the presence and use of weapons at VA facilities.

(1) Weapon. A hand held instrument specifically manufactured to supplement a person's physical capabilities in defensive or offensive combat.

(2) Dangerous ous Weapon. Weapon. In addition to recognized weapons, any item which although not specifically manufactured as a weapon is readily adaptable for use as a weapon and, if used as such, enables the user to inflict serious or lethal injury on another.

(3) Arming. The equipping of a person with a weapon.

(4) Firearm. A weapon from which a solid shot, paper wadding or pellet lead is discharged by gunpowder.

(5) Gun. A weapon or dangerous weapon from which any solid projectile may be expelled by spring action, compressed gas or any expellant means other than gunpowder.

(6) Nightstick. Any of the commercially marketed clubs for police use including those made of wood and encased in leather, those weighted with metal and other called batons and containing tear gas dispenser compartments.

(7) CIP. Any of the commercially marketed aerosol type chemical canisters commonly referred to as Mace, which are button actuated and project a liquid stream of the irritant CN (alphachloroacetophenone), CS (tear gas) or cayenne pepper for the purpose of temporary incapacitation through acute local tissue irritation to skin and eyes. A CIP is classified as a weapon.

b. Official Use of Weapons:

(1) Following qualification, training and DM&S certification by the Director, Security [Service (132)], VA Police Officers will be armed with a DM&S approved chemical CN irritant projector. Chemical CS, cayenne pepper or CN projectors ors other than the DM&S approved weapon will not be used. Other hospital personnel designated by the Director may be trained and certified to use the CIP weapon.

(2) Firearms, nightsticks, or any weapon other than the approved standard DM&S CIP will not be used, issued, or stored for security or law enforcement purposes [unless specifically authorized by the Chief Medical Director, or Administrator, as appropriate.]

(3) Directors will not authorize the issue of CIP weapons to employees not trained and certified by DM&S by issuance of VA Form 10-1396.

(4) The CIP weapon approved for procurement and issue is designed to be holstered and worn externally. A CIP weapon will not be pocketed or otherwise concealed by a certified user.

(5) CIP weapons will not be removed from facility grounds by off-duty police personnel. Directors will establish regulations for turn-in and issue of weapons at watch changes.

c. Official and Privately Owned [Firearms]:

(1) With the exception of [Security Service] personnel and other employees [specifically Authorized by the Chief Medical Director or Administrator] to be armed for official purposes and members of law enforcement agencies of municipal, county, State and Federal Governments on official visits to the facility, no persons on or entering VA premises will be permitted to ( ) possess firearms. ( ) Any item classifiable as a potentially dangerous weapon for which a reasonable purpose for possession cannot be established is similarly prohibited.

(2) Directors are not authorized to bar armed law enforcement officers on official business from entering patient care areas even when the introduction of a weapon into the area is considered hazardous. However, in this situation the hazards should be discussed with the officers and an arrangement sought whereby the patient is escorted from the ward by medical personnel and VA Police Officers if appropriate. (3) Privately owned firearms, guns, weapons and dangerous weapons will be surrendered to the facility Director or a designated representative for safekeeping, unloaded, and placed in storage under two locked barrier control for return to the patient or visitor on discharge or departure. Two locked barrier control requires as a minimum that weapons be stored in a locked container within a locked room.

(4) To the maximum extent practicable, a patient seeking admission and possessing a firearm should be requested to dispose of it prior to admission in lieu of surrendering the weapon. When the patient cannot remove the weapon from VA property or transfer it to an accompanying member of his or her family, the patient should be rquested to contact a family member or guardian and request that individual to take possession of the firearm from the VA as soon as possible.

(5) Firearms discovered or confiscated on facility grounds will be preserved and stored as evidence when appropriate or turned over to the Supply Service for disposition in accordance with Federal Property Mangement Regulations. A receipt for the firearm will be obtained and provided the owner of the firearm, if known.

d. Special Security-Dangerous Weapons [and Contraband]:

(1) Directors will assure that procedures for the inspection of personal property and inventory of valuables of patients at the time of admission (M-1, pt. VII, ch. 9) include a thorough search of personal belongings for guns and other dangerous weapons. In addition, all hospital and domiciliary patients and members will be informed of the prohibition against the introduction of guns and dangerous weapons at the time of admission and [required] to dispose of or surrender these items.

(2) Patients admitted directly to wards or admitted after normal business hours will be required to allow an inspection of all belongings and a pat down of clothing to assure the absence of any items classifiable as a dangerous weapon, alcohol or drugs.

(3) Immediate action to locate a concealed weapon (a protective search) will be initiated at first report of an uttered threat to shoot, kill or harm another and reason exists to believe that the threatening person may possess a weapon (see par. 13h for compelling exigency search authority). A threatening patient or employee will be frisked and any furnishing or property under his or her control searched for weap

ons.

e. Tactical Procedures-CIP Weapon:

(1) A CIP weapon will not be drawn and used against an individual holding a firearm. When an individual so armed is confronted, the safety of persons in the vicinity is of paramount importance. The police officer will placate the holder of the gun and as soon as the situation permits, direct all persons to clear the area. It is then the police officer's task to reason with the individual until the Director or other official arrives at the scene. If the objective of the individual holding a firearm is robbery, the disadvantaged police officer should remain with the robber, note his or her description as accurately as possible, diminish the possibility of the robber discharging the weapon and expedite his or her departure from the center.

(2) When all other efforts by medical and nursing personnel have failed to calm a disturbed person who is acting violently and presenting a definite danger to self or others, a minimum stream should be fired with care taken not to strike the eyes.

(3) If a disturbed person is holding a hostage whose life is clearly threatened, two police officers should position themselves to the right and left front of the disturbed person and at the command of one, both will fire 1 second streamer at the disturbed person's face and then rush to free the hostage.

(4) When employing the CIP weapon outdoors the police officers should judge the direction of any breeze or wind and position self between the direction of the wind

« PreviousContinue »