I agree that the limitation period is too short.
We can all probably surmise why it's a year. You're dealing with code of conduct, internal discipline, and you want these matters dealt with as quickly as possible, because they can be debilitating for the morale of your organization, whether it's a law enforcement organization or any other. So people want to try to deal with these issues that could lead to discipline as quickly as possible, but I think we also know that sometimes you simply can't get all the facts, interview all the people, and get to the bottom of what happened.
Here, as Mr. Brown outlines, for example, Deputy Commissioner Braun stepped aside; he retired, and that's a perfectly legitimate personal choice on his part. There was even a delay of two or three months, I think, until Deputy Commissioner Sweeney stepped in as the appropriate officer. That's why I think a year just doesn't recognize the reality of fact-finding and the human dimension that sometimes enters into fact-finding, and why there could be delays that are nobody's fault, although I agree with Mr. Brown when he says that it was extremely careless on the part of the force to permit that limitation period to lapse.
I would think that at least a two-year limitation period would be reasonable, but I have no doubt that Mr. Brown will probably be looking at this in his task force report.