Fair Discipline

[IUPA comrade]

http://www.news-press.com/article/20...r-road-quarrel
Read the article, and judge for yourself. Was a standard of fair progressive discipline practiced through this example as compared to others in the most recent weeks? I think not. A letter of reprimand for knowingly violating policy, not being a certified LEO and conducting a traffic stop off duty in your own vehicle! Could this be armed aggravated false imprisonment, the gun was displayed out of the holster during the stop! No contact or threats were made by the other driver, just some erratic driving up to that point. Based on this, what justifies the use or display of the weapon? The officer admitted to having a cell phone as he called the department for officers to respond once the car was stopped. Why did he not use the phone to call in the erratic driving and his concerns at that point? This way, if these people were a threat to him, and he were put in legitimate danger, the incident would have been recorded on the 9-1-1 system and verified his story.

I am telling you all something right now, we need this union people. To preserve and protect our officer bill of rights and our rights given to us under the constitution. For too long this type of erratic punishment has been given out and officers took it, some chose to fight it with the civil service board and lost. The union will ensure the playing field is fair for all and common practice is followed. A small price to pay for our livelihood.

Lee County jail officer
punished for road quarrel

Pulled gun on couple who tried to hit him

by gabriella souza • gsouza@news-press.com •
July 21, 2010

1:10 A.M. — A Lee County corrections deputy has
received a written reprimand after he pulled his gun
on two people in a vehicle who tried to sideswipe
him while he was driving off-duty with his children.

Deputy Gilberto Davila, who has been with the
sheriff’s office for five years, violated its policy May
27 because he pursued the Hyundai and stopped
the vehicle although he is not a certified law
enforcement officer, according to his reprimand.
Also, he put his two young children in danger, it
said.

A month before, the sheriff’s office gave a harsher
punishment to a deputy who committed a similar act
while on duty.

Sgt. Thomas Tucker received one week’s suspension
and six months probation in April for
insubordination and neglect of duty. According to
an internal affairs report, Tucker pursued a vehicle
and forced it to pull over, although he was told not
to get involved.

The sheriff’s office did not do an internal
investigation into the incident involving Davila, who
has not been reprimanded before. But Sheriff Mike
Scott said the sheriff’s office believed what Davila
did was in line with protocol up until he forced the
other driver to pull over.

“His actions were supported with the exception of
what we felt was poor judgment in not disengaging
at the first opportunity,” Scott wrote in an e-mail.

According to a sworn statement, Davila wrote he was
driving his personal vehicle west on Lee Boulevard
around 4:30 p.m. with his two children in the back
seat.

A Hyundai drove up next to Davila. The young man
driving the vehicle and his female passenger tried to
ram the Hyundai against Davila’s vehicle twice, with
Davila braking and changing lanes to avoid them.
The pair was not identified in the reprimand.

Then Davila removed his gun with a chambered
round from his waist holder.

“At this moment I was thinking the unknown driver
may have been a disgruntled ex-inmate who
recognized me as a deputy and wanted to possibly
cause great harm or death to myself and my two
children in the back seat,” he wrote.

He pulled alongside the Hyundai, showed the pair
his badge and asked them to pull over, which they
did near Lee Boulevard and 8th Street West in Lehigh
Acres. Davila got out of his car holding his gun and
asked the pair for their licenses.

Davila then called the sheriff’s office for backup.
When deputies arrived they found no weapons or
drugs on the man and woman, so they were
released. They were not charged because the cars
did not make contact and there were no witnesses to
the incident, Davila’s reprimand said.

James Muwakkil, president of the Lee County chapter
of the NAACP, said Davila should be fired for his
conduct, which would have resulted in a battery
charge if he were not a corrections deputy.

“It sounds like he abused and misused his power,”
Muwakkil said.

But Charlie Mesloh, associate professor of justice
studies at FGCU, said he believes Davila’s
punishment fits the violation he committed.

“These guys shouldn’t have done what they did,”
Mesloh said, speaking of the man and woman in the
Hyundai. “Maybe next time they will run into (the)
wrong guy who will do something worse than the
deputy did.”

So, after reading it, what do you think? The sheriff thinks it is just "poor judgment." Foell used poor judgement, got demoted, transferred, lost pay and suspended. How many other people just used "poor judgment" and will get a letter of reprimand for knowingly violating policy and state law? I am not trying to bash the officer, I understand he was wanting to protect his family, but there are better smarter ways to do it rather than put them further in harms way and use "poor judgment." Luckily for the officer, the other party was not armed and felt threatened and a shoot out began. How many times have we been called of LEO impersonators trying to stop people? A lot. I am merely pointing out that what occurred here was wrong, the punishment in this instance may be fair to some, but others have done lesser policy violations and got suspended or terminated for it.

http://www.fortmyersbeachtalk.com/pa....html?nav=5049

To the editor:

After reading a local daily newspaper's July 7 Editorial titled "Quick action on bad cops good policy," I was motivated to respond on the current Lee County Sheriff's comment of, "I believe what reassures the public is swift and sure discipline." It reminded me of the old west adage, "We'll give them a fair trial and then hang them." That is a simple but telling statement that conveys the naive message that punishment is always the answer.

An important duty of a police executive is asset management - including human resources. Think about it for a moment. When an officer/deputy is hired, there is a substantial initial investment involving endless hours of training and other critical things that add up to thousands of taxpayer dollars. Short of a criminal act or a heinous violation of policy, it isn't good sense to throw away that person if the behavior can be corrected.

If a law enforcement agency has a high number of discipline problems and/or a high number of terminations, wouldn't that lead you to conclude there is a potential problem within the agency? Common sense says the problem is at the supervision or command level. It's generally accurate that the true problem lies two or three ranks higher than from where the issue is stemming.

My suggestion is that instead of looking at the obvious negative behavior and reaching a snap (swift) decision on cause is to look at the department, it's hiring practices, supervision, promotion, and discipline policies. Among other things, there should be a clearly written fair policy and due process for those accused of policy violations. Discipline should never be about personalities and "swiftness;" it should be fair and appropriate.

Discipline is more than punishment. There is positive and negative discipline. Negative discipline is the easiest way out..."You did this, your guilty and this is what you get." Time off, reduction in rank, or termination are punishments. Some call this "swift and sure discipline" and do it because they have absolute power. This also tends to allow the person with such absolute power to have a group of insiders whom they protect from discipline. This eventually leads to high instances of negative "swift" discipline, demotions, and terminations. That is not good for the agency or the taxpayers and negatively impacts public perception and faith."


Lee Bushong

Lehigh Acres

I'm not sure why my last post was deleted, but let's try this...

LB you talk of fairness, but your record speaks differently. Your documented handling of a Detective under you, is proof positive.

It is all good to talk of all things righteous, but one must walk the walk.

The last time you had authority over people, you proved your metal.

None of this violated the rules of the board, I did not go into details or slander LB.

[Mod 610]

I deleted the thread that had your post. I should have moved it here, but didn't. It was nothing that you wrote. I was busy and did not think about it. Sorry about that.

[1ofmany]

Perhaps the agency would have been better serves if LB hung a small portion of each of their @$$es to his office wall and called them p-ssies.

I see that there are many post that may need a little understanding and some way off base situations. I for one will support the IUPA. I have seen first hand how the administration has lost focus. That focus should be LAW ENFORCEMNT. Not anything el;se. MS has an agenda and by the way its doesn’t involve “YOU”. I have never seen anyone so quick to call on the media that he was a few months ago DRAWING A LINE IN THE SAND. I had a lady the other day tell me she has seen MS on TV more that OBAMA the last month. Man is that true. I see on another post that some stated that MS only has to show JUST CAUSE on a disciplinary hearing. That is true and it does not have to be a big violation because it doesn’t matter if the crime meets the time. So if at any time he wants you gone your gone, he wants to demote you he demotes you. Some say well OK THAT IS HOW IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN. I say F*CK THAT. With IUPA there will be a separate ARBITRATOR that will be involved to say well MS you suspended this guy for the same violation and you fired this guy, Hey MS you overstepped your bounds. Hey this is binding. Take a look at some other local agencies that have had disciplinary findings and punishments overturned. That is because what is done for one will now be precedent and be the normal. Any one remembers “JC” demoted two ranks a captain for racial remarks a letter to file and a cushy job in training. The list just keeps going and growing. I have recently spoken to a few that have said yes we need something well the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. MS+ your benefits, salary, well being, job security= INSANITY. Don’t think so just keep hoping that things get better. Me I have done everything I can to make sure it will get better.

IUPA is not what everyone makes it out to be. They are not a savior and in the end it does not matter what they believe they can do. The fact is that they actually can only pro-long the process of any matter. They will always loose the battle and BOCC will make the final call. Do not buy into the hype!!

IUPA is not what everyone makes it out to be. They are not a savior and in the end it does not matter what they believe they can do. The fact is that they actually can only pro-long the process of any matter. They will always loose the battle and BOCC will make the final call. Do not buy into the hype!!

The BOCC will have no voice in a disciplinary action. The only time they will ever get involved is at an impasse of a contract if arbitration fails. Keep in mind that if an impasse is reached with BOCC the contract will be forced on the sheriff per statute. Read the law and q and a session from the meetings the sergeants had with IUPA. There is no hype only a fight and voice with IUPA. They have already shown they will be there when it matters and their track record for agencies they represent is better than any alternatives. Remember MS' campaign slogan "we can do better." I do and I know we can with IUPA helping. It is our union and they will guide us. We have nothing now no voice in salary increases, no voice in pension contributions for detail pay, no guidance and representation for fair and progressive discipline, no voice in any benefit changes. We have nothing. You all need to think long and hard why MS and staff fought so hard to keep PBA out in November. They didn't want to be told what and how to do things and for it to be discovered some things were unethical and possibly illegal especially when it comes to pay and compensatory time and the fair labor standard act. Things do need to change. Union and us first. If anyone didn't know, we as a local under IUPA can endorse who we want for a political spot. Including sheriff and county commissioners.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/...p-lee-sheriff/

Remember this; FDLE found no criminal wrong doing in a halfa**ed investigation, however, they did confirm that they found the issues noted to be policy violations. So, it is apparent the sheriff has the attitude "do as I say not as I do." Or, as those who "I like." Has he truly cut ties with this guy or merely found other means to communicate with him?


Investigation into Lee sheriff’s relationship with felon finds no wrongdoing
By STEVEN BEARDSLEY
Posted November 23, 2009 at 5:35 p.m., updated November 23, 2009 at 8:48 p.m.

LEE COUNTY — A state inquiry into Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott and his relationship with a convicted felon found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the official or members of his agency.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement released roughly 100 pages concluding its examination of allegations made by former employees of the agency. Among the assertions were that Scott’s relationship with Richard Spence, an Alva shop owner, led to influence-peddling within the agency and claims of corruption and obstruction of justice involving members of the Lee County Sheriff’s Office close to Spence.

An FDLE investigator found that most of the claims reflected on department policy more than criminal wrongdoing.

An inquiry is the first step in a process that can lead to possible criminal charges against sworn officers. Those steps will not be taken in Scott’s case, said FDLE spokeswoman Kristen Chernosky.

“Our investigation is closed,” she said.

Scott lauded the report in a prepared statement.

“I have been confident from the outset there was no substance to the claims and I am glad we can call the case closed,” he said.

News of Scott’s friendship with Spence, a convicted drug trafficker, raised concerns of the man’s influence within the Sheriff’s Office this summer. Deputies were alleged to have frequented Spence’s shop, and one ex-deputy, former captain Kerry Griner, has said it was an open secret among agency employees that they could gain access to Scott via Spence.

Such access would bypass former chief deputy Charles Ferrante, Scott’s former second-in-command, who retired in April under a cloud of allegations leveled by the sheriff.

Ferrante and his brother, former special investigations commander Dominick Ferrante, were the source of the FDLE complaints, according to the report. Investigators traveled to Dominick Ferrante’s home to receive a binder of information from the brothers, the report stated.

The binder presented numerous “information reports” detailing Spence’s alleged growing influence within the agency, the Ferrantes’ attempt to quell it and the eventual fall-out between the brothers and the sheriff.

The reports included the account of a camera that Dominick Ferrante positioned by Spence’s store in an effort to catch deputies frequenting the store. After Spence learned about the camera, Dominick Ferrante claimed someone within the agency had disclosed the secret to the shop owner. Others, including Scott, said the investigation — which the sheriff said was an effort to catch Spence’s fugitive son — was blown when utility workers noticed deputies installing the camera.

Because Dominick Ferrante didn’t document the operation or the follow-up investigation into the blown cover, the investigator couldn’t prove obstruction of justice.

Another complaint alleged that polygraph records from Dominick Ferrante’s test were intentionally destroyed after his test. Scott told local media that Dominick Ferrante had failed the test, yet no documented proof was ever kept, and no audio was recorded due to a malfunction.

Although no evidence of intentional destruction was found, polygraph operator Ben Blalock told an FDLE investigator that the test on Dominick Ferrante presented “a unique situation,” in that he reported his results directly to the sheriff instead of writing a report.

He said “the sheriff told me to call him when the test was over to let him know what the results were,” according to the report.

Likewise, no internal investigations were ever opened into the Ferrante brothers, despite numerous allegations made against them before their departure.

FDLE investigators gathered additional evidence, Chernosky said, including e-mails. They interviewed more than 13 agency employees, including Scott.

The sheriff told them that the Ferrante brothers “hated” Spence, but that he didn’t believe in a “criminal nexus” warranting an FDLE investigation.

Scott says he cut ties with Spence after learning the shop owner was a convicted felon.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/...p-lee-sheriff/

Remember this; FDLE found no criminal wrong doing in a halfa**ed investigation, however, they did confirm that they found the issues noted to be policy violations. So, it is apparent the sheriff has the attitude "do as I say not as I do." Or, as those who "I like." Has he truly cut ties with this guy or merely found other means to communicate with him?


Investigation into Lee sheriff’s relationship with felon finds no wrongdoing
By STEVEN BEARDSLEY
Posted November 23, 2009 at 5:35 p.m., updated November 23, 2009 at 8:48 p.m.

LEE COUNTY — A state inquiry into Lee County Sheriff Mike Scott and his relationship with a convicted felon found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing by the official or members of his agency.

The Florida Department of Law Enforcement released roughly 100 pages concluding its examination of allegations made by former employees of the agency. Among the assertions were that Scott’s relationship with Richard Spence, an Alva shop owner, led to influence-peddling within the agency and claims of corruption and obstruction of justice involving members of the Lee County Sheriff’s Office close to Spence.

An FDLE investigator found that most of the claims reflected on department policy more than criminal wrongdoing.

An inquiry is the first step in a process that can lead to possible criminal charges against sworn officers. Those steps will not be taken in Scott’s case, said FDLE spokeswoman Kristen Chernosky.

“Our investigation is closed,” she said.

Scott lauded the report in a prepared statement.

“I have been confident from the outset there was no substance to the claims and I am glad we can call the case closed,” he said.

News of Scott’s friendship with Spence, a convicted drug trafficker, raised concerns of the man’s influence within the Sheriff’s Office this summer. Deputies were alleged to have frequented Spence’s shop, and one ex-deputy, former captain Kerry Griner, has said it was an open secret among agency employees that they could gain access to Scott via Spence.

Such access would bypass former chief deputy Charles Ferrante, Scott’s former second-in-command, who retired in April under a cloud of allegations leveled by the sheriff.

Ferrante and his brother, former special investigations commander Dominick Ferrante, were the source of the FDLE complaints, according to the report. Investigators traveled to Dominick Ferrante’s home to receive a binder of information from the brothers, the report stated.

The binder presented numerous “information reports” detailing Spence’s alleged growing influence within the agency, the Ferrantes’ attempt to quell it and the eventual fall-out between the brothers and the sheriff.

The reports included the account of a camera that Dominick Ferrante positioned by Spence’s store in an effort to catch deputies frequenting the store. After Spence learned about the camera, Dominick Ferrante claimed someone within the agency had disclosed the secret to the shop owner. Others, including Scott, said the investigation — which the sheriff said was an effort to catch Spence’s fugitive son — was blown when utility workers noticed deputies installing the camera.

Because Dominick Ferrante didn’t document the operation or the follow-up investigation into the blown cover, the investigator couldn’t prove obstruction of justice.

Another complaint alleged that polygraph records from Dominick Ferrante’s test were intentionally destroyed after his test. Scott told local media that Dominick Ferrante had failed the test, yet no documented proof was ever kept, and no audio was recorded due to a malfunction.

Although no evidence of intentional destruction was found, polygraph operator Ben Blalock told an FDLE investigator that the test on Dominick Ferrante presented “a unique situation,” in that he reported his results directly to the sheriff instead of writing a report.

He said “the sheriff told me to call him when the test was over to let him know what the results were,” according to the report.

Likewise, no internal investigations were ever opened into the Ferrante brothers, despite numerous allegations made against them before their departure.

FDLE investigators gathered additional evidence, Chernosky said, including e-mails. They interviewed more than 13 agency employees, including Scott.

The sheriff told them that the Ferrante brothers “hated” Spence, but that he didn’t believe in a “criminal nexus” warranting an FDLE investigation.

Scott says he cut ties with Spence after learning the shop owner was a convicted felon.

Why are we bring this up again?