OK, Now What?

Capable and talented cops have gone to vice and tried to lay out the big picture for the chain of command. They don't want and can't handle the truth. Way too many connections with prominent st pete professionals are involved in exposing traffickers. SPPD doesn't have the guts to take the necessary action and the former vice supervisors who have tried to sell the strategy have been tarred and feathered, ousted, or made so miserable they transferred.

Now you have the "Promote Me" Lt & Sgt crew there doing whatever they're told. Great attack plan...go after Childs Park while the big dogs work OT. Everything is nice again so we can all go back to sleep. Meanwhile the pockets are lined and money comes into the southside without interference.

[Gladiator]

""Must not be too bad if you aren't even willing to be called a troublemaker for standing up for your principles. Guess all of your whining is kind of lame isn't it? As they say, "No Guts, No Glory".""

Don't confuse whining with speaking the truth about the fouled up system under which we work in order to inform those who have no clue. As for being labled a "troublemaker." There are many of us who have the distinction of that label, as well as malcontent, disgruntled, rouge and even sometimes racist. Fact is all of us are usually doing nothing more then speaking the truth which is routinely ignored by those who have a lot to lose (the staff).

The SPPD has been setting the stage for management corruption for a long time. Almost every move is predictable and there is nobody in a position of management who has the guts to stand up to what is right.

We are again at a crossroads. Chief Chuck is in way over his head and even though he is doing everything to reach retirement, he is in the crosshairs of the coalition who are setting the stage for god ole boy Luke to move into the chief's chair. He too is in way over his head, but has been brainwashed to believe that he is competent (watch that anger level Luke or your hair will soon turn gray like Dave D).

Yes, us "troublemakers" will continue to voice our opinions and concerns in a manner that will still offer a bit of protection so we will be around to continue the fight long after the power struggle is complete. If we use your "no guts, no glory" thoery then we wouldn't last till the end of the war. How about shedding your cloak and grabbing a dagger, then joining us in the field of battle instead of whining from the stands.

[Lawman]

Luke is going to have some problems if he's going to be the next chief. You can't be a chief of a department in which you have relatives on, its against state law.

Like that really matters.....ask any member of the coalition and the answer is the same: they are Above The Law.

[CHUCKY CHEEEZE]

Just look at Sarasota County SO, thats a rampant family business and FDLE and FBI could care less and have said so several times. No differnt here. City mismanagement promised the FBI there wouldnt be any more huge race riots, as long as he delivers they could care less.

[Blah]

In reference to Lawman's laat post, I believe you may be mistaken about state law prohibiting one from being chief of a dept if your relatives work there. Both the current and last chiefs of Tampa PD have family members on the dept.

[Lawman]

112.3135 Restriction on employment of relatives.--

(1) In this section, unless the context otherwise requires:

(a) "Agency" means:

1. A state agency, except an institution under the jurisdiction of the Division of Universities of the Department of Education;

2. An office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative branch;

3. An office, agency, or other establishment in the judicial branch;

4. A county;

5. A city; and

6. Any other political subdivision of the state, except a district school board or community college district.

(b) "Collegial body" means a governmental entity marked by power or authority vested equally in each of a number of colleagues.

(c) "Public official" means an officer, including a member of the Legislature, the Governor, and a member of the Cabinet, or an employee of an agency in whom is vested the authority by law, rule, or regulation, or to whom the authority has been delegated, to appoint, employ, promote, or advance individuals or to recommend individuals for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement in connection with employment in an agency, including the authority as a member of a collegial body to vote on the appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement of individuals.

(d) "Relative," for purposes of this section only, with respect to a public official, means an individual who is related to the public official as father, mother, son, daughter, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, first cousin, nephew, niece, husband, wife, father-in-law, mother-in-law, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law, stepfather, stepmother, stepson, stepdaughter, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, or half sister.

(2)(a) A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, or advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a position in the agency in which the official is serving or over which the official exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual or if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement is made by a collegial body of which a relative of the individual is a member. However, this subsection shall not apply to appointments to boards other than those with land-planning or zoning responsibilities in those municipalities with less than 35,000 population. This subsection does not apply to persons serving in a volunteer capacity who provide emergency medical, firefighting, or police services. Such persons may receive, without losing their volunteer status, reimbursements for the costs of any training they get relating to the provision of volunteer emergency medical, firefighting, or police services and payment for any incidental expenses relating to those services that they provide.

(b) Mere approval of budgets shall not be sufficient to constitute "jurisdiction or control" for the purposes of this section.

(3) An agency may prescribe regulations authorizing the temporary employment, in the event of an emergency as defined in s. 252.34(3), of individuals whose employment would be otherwise prohibited by this section.

(4) Legislators' relatives may be employed as pages or messengers during legislative sessions.

(a) "Agency" means:

1. A state agency, except an institution under the jurisdiction of the Division of Universities of the Department of Education;

2. An office, agency, or other establishment in the legislative branch;

3. An office, agency, or other establishment in the judicial branch;

4. A county;

5. A city; and

6. Any other political subdivision of the state, except a district school board or community college district.




This statute doesn"t apply to a municipal police department. I wish it did, but it does not.

[Lawman]

A police department is a city agency. Why do you think the statute specifically exempts VOLUNTEER police officers....because it applies to officers that are employees.

[Lawman]

OK, I was half-right. Yes, it applies to police departments, but so long as the relative is never promoted, its ok to assume the role of chief. Kind of sucks for the relative.

CEO 90-62 -- September 7, 1990



ANTI-NEPOTISM



CITY POLICE CHIEF'S FATHER SERVING AS CITY POLICE OFFICER



To: Michael H. Hatfield, City Attorney, City of Umatilla



SUMMARY:



Section 112.3135, Florida Statutes, prohibits a city police chief from appointing, employing, promoting, or advancing his father to a position in the city police department. However, when the father was employed with the police department prior to the time that the police chief assumed his position, the father's employment would be grandfathered in. So long as the father were not promoted or advanced subsequently, the anti-nepotism law does not preclude the police chief from supervising his father. As favoritism in the terms or conditions of the father's employment may violate Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, the police chief should be cautioned against misuse of his official position to benefit his father.



QUESTION:



Does the anti-nepotism law prohibit a city police chief and his father from serving together in the city's police department, where the father was employed with the police department prior to the time that the police chief assumed his position?



Your question is answered in the negative.



In your letter of inquiry, you advise that Mr. Stephen A. Foster serves as the Chief of Police for the City of Umatilla. You also advise that in 1983, after both he and his father had obtained full-time employment with the City Police Department, he was elevated to the position of Chief. Since that time, you advised in a telephone conversation with our staff, the father has not been advanced or promoted. Any salary increases the father has received have been the result of across-the-board increases for the members of the Department, rather than being based upon evaluations of his work.

Under the City Charter the Police Department is part of the Department of Public Safety, which is headed by the City Clerk. The Police Chief evaluates the members of the police force and has exclusive control over their stationing and transfer, subject to the approval of the City Clerk. In addition, the Police Chief has the authority to suspend police officers for cause. The City Clerk, as head of the Public Safety Department, is responsible for final action in such cases.

Regarding your question, Section 112.3135(2)(a), Florida Statutes, provides:



A public official may not appoint, employ, promote, or advance, or advocate for appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement, in or to a position in the agency in which he is serving or over which he exercises jurisdiction or control any individual who is a relative of the public official. An individual may not be appointed, employed, promoted, or advanced in or to a position in an agency if such appointment, employment, promotion, or advancement has been advocated by a public official, serving in or exercising jurisdiction or control over the agency, who is a relative of the individual.



Chapter 89-67, Laws of Florida, enacted Section 112.3135 by transferring the anti-nepotism law from Section 116.111, Florida Statutes, effective June 19, 1989, with only one, minor change. Because the anti-nepotism law presently is within our jurisdiction, we will address your question in the context of the present application of the law.

The Attorney General consistently interpreted Section 116.111, Florida Statutes, not to require the discharge of a person whose relative took the higher position after the person's employment or otherwise where the prohibited relationship came into being after the person's employment. For example, where a public official married one of his employees, the employee was allowed to continue to work in the same position and to participate in routine raises, but could not be promoted or advanced, or recommended or advocated for a promotion or advancement. See AGO 77-36 and AGO 73-351. We previously approved of this interpretation of the anti-nepotism law in CEO 89-46.

In Slaughter v. City of Jacksonville, 338 So.2d 902 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), the court found "advancement" or "promotion" to mean an increase in grade which elevates an employee to a higher rank or position of greater personal dignity or importance. Therefore, under the circumstances presented here it does not appear that the Police Chief's father has been promoted or advanced within the meaning of the anti-nepotism law.

By its terms, the law addresses only appointment, employment, promotions, and advancement. As it does not address any other aspect of the supervisory authority a public official may have over a relative, we do not believe that it can be applied to prohibit an official from such actions as stationing, transferring, evaluating, or even suspending a relative. This was recognized in AGO 73-397, where it was found that a city could hire a policewoman who was the daughter of a patrolman who at times would supervise his daughter. Therefore, we find that so long as the Chief of Police does not promote, advance, or advocate or recommend the promotion or advancement of his father, the two may continue to serve in the Police Department.

We do not mean to imply that the Police Chief's discretion regarding the terms or conditions of his father's employment is unlimited. Section 112.313(6), Florida Statutes, provides:



MISUSE OF PUBLIC POSITION.--No public officer or employee of an agency shall corruptly use or attempt to use his official position or any property or resource which may be within his trust, or perform his official duties, to secure a special privilege, benefit, or exemption for himself or others. This section shall not be construed to conflict with s. 104.31.



In light of this prohibition, we suggest that the Police Chief should be cautioned to avoid even the appearance of favoritism toward his father when supervising the members of the police force.

Accordingly, we find that Section 112.3135, Florida Statutes, does not prohibit the subject Chief of Police and his father from serving together in the Police Department, so long as he does not promote, advance, or advocate or recommend the promotion or advancement of his father.