Health & Welfare | Daily Report

Simon Howden/freedigitalphotos.net

The values of safety and therapy are clashing at the state’s mental hospitals, where police officers are pressing for clearance to carry guns.

Officers are not seeking to carry firearms on hospital grounds. Rather, the union that represents officers wants them to be armed when patrolling surrounding areas and taking patients to local hospitals and funerals.

The Department of Mental Health, determined to support treatment and recovery, is arguing to keep guns out of sight.

The issue has particular resonance in the months after psychiatric technician Donna Gross was fatally strangled by a patient at Napa State Hospital in October.

In response to that tragedy, hospital police are urging state authorities to conduct more thorough evaluations of patients, looking at gang affiliation, threats and potential for violence.

They are also escalating their effort to carry guns, even though a leader of the officers union acknowledges that the issue was brewing long before Gross died and that guns would not necessarily prevent a similar incident from occurring.

Rather, it would protect community members, patients and officers who find themselves in precarious situations, said Coby Pizzotti, legislative liaison for the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, which represents the state hospital police.

“You’re a peace officer surrounded by gang members and you’re guarding a gang member,” Pizzotti said. “It’s a really precarious position to be in with just pepper spray.”

Pizzotti could not recall an incident when an officer, patient or community member was harmed as a result of the hospital police being unarmed.

The officers attend police academy and report to a police chief stationed at each state mental hospital, which include Napa, Patton, Metropolitan, Coalinga and Atascadero.

The chiefs answer to Stephen Mayberg, the director of the Department of Mental Health. Patients at state mental hospitals include those found incompetent to stand trial for a crime, those deemed not guilty for reasons of insanity and prison inmates who’ve had a mental breakdown.

According to spokeswoman Jennifer Turner, the department opposes arming the officers in favor of maintaining a therapeutic environment. The department is close to successfully completing the terms of a federal consent decree put in place to ensure that patients get individualized and effective treatment.

“While individuals with mental illness can be violent and dangerous at times, our hospital personnel and security teams are trained in methods to subdue and control individuals when necessary without threat or use of deadly force,” a statement released by the department says. “We believe this is the best approach for dealing with individuals who have severe mental illness.”

The officers and department aired their views last week during an arbitration hearing at Napa State Hospital. A second hearing is scheduled in February over the same matter at Metropolitan State Hospital near Los Angeles.

The officers filed a complaint with the Department of Occupational Health and Safety in 2006, saying unarmed officers are at risk of harm.

Records from that investigation obtained under the Public Records Act include notes from interviews with state police officers. Hand-scrawled and difficult to read, the notes include phrases such as “prison mentality,” “prison skills” and “threatened by client – I’ll kill your family.”

Also: “How would weapon make a difference??”

And: “Could be huge escape.”

The OSHA office did not ultimately cite or fine the Department of Mental Health for a safety violation.

Instead, the officer closed the case with this memorandum:

Potential exists for employee (police officer) injury due to failure to adequately evaluate hazards in the workplace, such as combative activity where these employees are required to confront/arrest assailants/suspects who may be armed with firearms or other weapons.