We’re not against the police. We’re not against the police department, but we are against police who commit misconduct (and those who help cover it up).
Employees in supervisory positions and those performing safety/security functions are generally expected to demonstrate a higher level of conscientiousness and integrity with respect to their employment. Accordingly, these employees may be subject to more severe levels of discipline for violations of behavior and/or performance standards because they are held to a higher standard of conduct. —Exhibit 1
These are the exact words found on page 74 of the City of Los Angeles’ Policies of the Personnel Department manual (February 5, 2012), a document that is used to explain the Los Angeles Police Department’s disciplinary system. It contains everything from the rationales underlying the disciplinary system to recommended penalties for specific types of misconduct. I finally got my hands on this manual and want to say thank you to the person who made that happen. Having this manual is important because it’s one thing to say what should have happened, it’s another to point to a page of an official document as proof that’s what should have happened.
So moving right along…
Let’s go back to an earlier article entitled The Three LAPDs where I attempted to explain how within the Department depending on who you know and/or your rank discipline is either something you give to others or receive.
I don’t want to beat a dead horse (no pun intended) but Chief Charlie Beck provided false and misleading statements regarding My Little Pony-gate and his involvement. His remedy was to issue a statement saying that his comments were mistaken when he said he had nothing to do with the purchase of his daughter’s horse for the Department. Had Chief Beck been a member of the rank-and-file he more than likely would have been disciplined according to the standards displayed below which we’ll call Exhibit 2.
MISCONDUCT, ON OR OFF THE JOB, SERIOUSLY REFLECTING ON CITY EMPLOYEES OR EMPLOYMENT
Standard: Employees must perform their duties in a manner that earns and maintains the trust and respect of their supervisors, other employees, and the public.
Chief Beck would have probably been found guilty of numbers 1 and 2, at least according to the policies of the Department. The punishment would have depended on how any times he’d committed this type of misconduct in the past but would have included the option for his termination.
Which brings me to the Captain who committed a 484 (and the Deputy Chief who seemingly aided and abetted him).
Again, from the City of Los Angeles’ Civilian Penalty Guide I respectfully submit for review Exhibits 3 and 3.1.
In an earlier post, I provided clear and concise documentation regarding the almost $9,000 that was removed from a nonprofit’s bank account on the orders of Newton Division’s Captain Ed Prokop back in November 2013. That money, while it was returned in February of this year, was in fact stolen and seemingly by member(s) of the LAPD. This is not news to the Department who is well aware of a lawsuit directly related to this situation, $10,000, and stolen laptops.
Well ladies and gentlemen, the punishment for theft, according to their rules, is discharge aka termination aka you’re fired aka bye bye.
So why haven’t Captain Prokop and Deputy Chief Jose Perez been discharged for their roles in the theft of money from a charitable organization?
Food for thought. But at least now you Mr. and Ms. Civilian can see for yourself what the expected punishment is for the crime and perhaps understand why so many of the rank-and-file are looking at command staff sideways when they do things and get away scott free.
What say you?