I rarely speak out publicly against our council. In fact, this may be the first time, but just
as I am expected to present and defend my annual budget, I now feel compelled
to defend my hiring recommendations. I
believe citizens should know how their elected officials conduct our business,
how and why votes are cast. The Mayor,
the council, and the Police Chief will not always agree, but each should
explain the rationale for decisions and votes. Because COVID-19 has greatly influenced
how we communicate with the public, much that goes on at council meetings is unknown. Given the time we live in and the challenges we face, many who
were silent and passive before, are now forced to speak up, and what we are
hearing is that we need more rational thought, more critical thinking and
solutions that are more practical. A couple of weeks ago, our city council with a 3-2 vote,
failed to support my recommendation to hire a specific officer to fill a vacant
position with the Arnaudville Police Department. The public needs to understand, that as an
elected Chief, Louisiana’s Lawrason Act governs Arnaudville – an act put in
place in 1898 that defines the separate powers and responsibilities of the
mayor, the town council, and the Chief of Police. The Lawrason Act directives
have been tested over the years, resulting in many legal challenges or attorney
general opinions. But, in essence, the
Chief can hire, fire, and discipline his officers/employees, but only with the approval
of the council. I have interpreted some
of their votes as a deliberate act to defy or patronize me or my office. Nevertheless, I look forward to the council’s
probing questions, but not to their undermining and second-guessing my
recommendations when they are based on bold assumptions, gossip and chit-chat
on social media. I guess I’m “old
school”. I hire based on the
demonstration of a core set of skills and capacity. It should be rare for a council to oppose recommendations
from its Chief, especially when there is no one on the council that has
first-hand knowledge or experience in law enforcement, no one who can speak
with the depth of knowledge about the hiring process and the scrutiny that goes
into matching skills and professional training with the specific needs of
Arnaudville Police Department. With that
said, it is my view that the council was
wrong, misguided and biased in their decision, and here is why. Two years ago, this candidate while working for another
police department, received praise from his community, his peers and local
media for assisting an African American family of six down on its luck. His personal involvement as a white man and an
officer proved his character, and served as a fine example of “community”
policing; certainly racism was not indicated!
Then, a couple of months ago, with no mal intent, he foolishly shared a
meme meant to be a humorous commentary for what is going on in our
society. While I don’t condone most social
media memes portraying sensitive and divisive issues, I do realize that sharing
or “liking” does not necessarily indicate your own bias or define your
character. The candidate and I discussed
the issue and he assured me that he had learned a lesson and that it would not
happen again. He further explained that
he would no longer use his Facebook page to post items. As many people do, he created another
Facebook account to avoid any controversy and to protect his privacy. This should not be an indictment, or a valid
reason to assume some sinister motivation.
I, myself have two accounts; my wife has three accounts in two names,
even some council members may have more than one account. We are living in very politically charged times. We are seeing radical expressions of bias,
hate, and divisiveness from all sides, influencing decision makers, business
owners and industry leaders. In order to
force agendas we see boycotts, bullying, shaming, and political pressure. Social media, fake news, and peaceful and violent
protests propel these agendas, leaving many confused and vulnerable to unjustified scrutiny. The pressure is on businesses, industries,
non-profits, school boards, churches, city mayors, and councils to either
buckle under the force, or face disruption, destruction or bankruptcy. BUT, there
is one place where bias cannot take hold – our police departments. This is where skills and competency must outweigh
personal beliefs and politics. This is the place where politicians (including
our council) should not impede the Chief from developing and maintaining a
proper police force and culture of equity, fairness and impartiality. One only need to look at the news to see
where politicizing police departments has led. When council members decide the
competency of a police officer based on anything other than his/her professional performance, police departments
will mirror society with its divisiveness, prejudice and hate, in favor of
standing against those societal flaws. Clinging to unfounded assertions and taking political cover
for expediency is not the way of real leadership. In my opinion, there are two reasons for not
allowing me to hire a qualified officer – 1) there is a preconceived notion
that you will be targeted by the fear mongering social media pile-on, which
might brand the council as condoning racism, or 2) you don’t like this
individual because he may not share your personal
political views. Neither reason even considers
the candidate’s competency, skills, experience or knowledge. The majority of police officers are conservative in their
approach to law and order, and many have military backgrounds. They conform well to structure, rules, and
professional protocols. They are
generally outwardly loyal to the flag, their country and the rule of law. But, frankly, I DON’T CARE what their politics are, who they vote for, who they
love, or what their preferred lifestyle is. I only care about them treating everyone with equal fairness and respect as they perform their duties. I believe that the overwhelming majority of citizens agree with this. It takes me approximately 2 months
to narrow my search to 2 or 3 candidates from a pool of as many as 25. When I find the best available candidate, (who
has passed a psychological exam, physical and drug testing), I invest in them
from the moment they start work – through field training, counseling, peer
review, and even send them to the Police Academy, if needed. I get input from my employees before hiring,
and council members who care to sit in on an interview are welcome. New officers are on a 6 month probation
period during which time they are monitored, trained, and informally evaluated. Even with this, I had a council member indicate he might change his no vote if the council was allowed to determine later down the road if he could stay. IT IS NOT THE JOB OF THE COUNCIL TO EVALUATE POLICE OFFICERS. Louisiana's Lawrason Act strictly prohibits direct interference into the police department, as any council member must know. You may be told that some council members met with me prior
to the vote. I appreciated the gesture, and
the two who voted in favor of the candidate were actually present during an
interview with him. The two who voted
against him, met only with me with (I believe) a predetermined intention to
vote “no”. The third council member
voting “no” went along with the other no voters, never met the candidate, and
never gave me the courtesy of a conversation on why I was recommending that
candidate. Votes were cast without the benefit of a full discussion. Even the positive input from a Black officer,
who would be working with this candidate, was summarily dismissed. If any employee – black or white had expressed
concerns over the hiring of the candidate, I would not have recommended the
approval in the first place. At the end of all this, I pose a simple question: Should I continue to recommend hiring people
who demonstrate through their actions, compassion and unbiased attention to the
public they serve, who have the required level of competency, temperament and
aptitude; and who come with excellent references from former employers? Or, should I crouch in fear of ridicule, and
judge fitness and competency based on surface-level assumptions dictated by today’s
social media “likes” and memes and/or rely on gossip and other people’s
prejudice? Should I have each candidate
I recommend prostrate themselves before the members of the Council and, while
beating their breast exclaim in a loud voice “through my fault, through my
fault, through my most grievous fault, I beg the Council to forgive me of my
current and past sins and faux pas’” ? I prefer to operate in the tradition of sound judgement and
rational thought; not on a rapid response to unfounded charges or the momentary standards and criteria of the mob. I ask for your support, your voices, your dutiful involvement, as I intend on bringing this candidate back up as a recommendation
for hiring at the next Council meeting and request for a third time their
approval to hire this candidate. Should
they still deny the approval I would demand, as should you, the public a valid reason behind the
denial. |