Because ‘real police work’ can include dealing with truancy, family issues, traffic safety and control, community health, and neighborhood disputes, many of the most effective police officers are those who are altruistic
A public servant is a government employee at any one of several levels who provides some type of service which benefits the general public — particularly the disadvantaged. A police department provides a public service and can be considered a social service agency because of the myriad issues addressed by police officers — recall that most police issues are not crime related.
‘Real police work’ can include dealing with truancy, family issues, traffic safety and control, community health and safety, neighborhood disputes, and many other issues.
Because of this, many of the most effective police officers are ones who are altruistic.
Motivated Toward Good
Altruism is selfless, genuine concern for the well-being of others. An altruist who performs a service for others does it for their own personal gratification. An altruistic police officer feels a sense of fulfillment when he or she risks their life to help others. An altruistic police officer is one who is approachable by citizens, is easy to meet and uses his or her ‘game face’ only for the chosen few who deserve a stern attitude and face of authority.
Arrogance, aloofness, being overbearing and a cynic are not traits of an altruist — although on occasion being overbearing is appropriate for any officer. An altruist is not detached, disinterested, or unconcerned. An altruist is compassionate, involved, and engaged with the matter at hand, whether that is a victim’s plight or a citizen’s concern.
Whether an officer responds to social issues or criminal violations, maintaining order requires a certain mindset that develops and keeps an interactive relationship with citizens served. Many reports of police misconduct portray officers as applying their authority arbitrarily, being insensitive and caustic to others, and exhibiting an attitude that their authority gives them privilege and entitlement. Unfortunately, many department leaders ignore reports and fail to learn from mistakes.
Countering Others’ Misdeeds
The occurrence of police misconduct — or the perception of misconduct — which can be caused by insensitivity of officers, (among other reasons) cannot continue if a police department is to be successful in maintaining order. An entire department must understand the culture of the people it serves even if that culture is markedly different from their own.
All officers may not be altruists, but all officers must know they cannot successfully serve the public without civil intercourse and vigilant respect along with discipline and professionalism.
| |
Friday, December 19, 2014
Why our best police officers are altruists
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Why background checks are so important
Pre-employment due diligence should address more than criminal history and financial responsibility — here are a few reasons why | |
The background of every law enforcement officer is scrutinized prior to employment and, depending upon the department, many are routinely updated periodically until retirement.
An initial background investigation is conducted to determine — among other things — criminal history, character, financial responsibility, and association with others. Some believe this process is cumbersome — sometimes even an invasion of privacy — and they may minimize the activity and avoid giving testimony.
However, professionals must understand the importance of an applicant or employee background investigation (BI). Today more than ever, it’s about ensuring our national security.
Repercussions (Still) of 9/11
There are many reasons why a BI should be taken seriously. Without a diligent investigation, an applicant who is dishonest or not suited to a law enforcement position could be erroneously hired. In addition, BIs always have been of utmost importance for security reasons, but since the 9/11 terrorist attacks the backgrounds of not only law enforcement officials but others in sensitive positions in public and private organizations have taken an even more serious note.
National security now includes the process of thwarting a terrorist group from planting a member in a police department.
United States counterterrorism organizations know that terror groups are actively attempting to place extremists in positions in sensitive government and private locations. Terror groups strive to infiltrate government intelligence, law enforcement, and other security positions. Government facilities and private locations like power plants and water dams are all targets for terror groups. International terror organizations are anxious to infiltrate group members into American society.
Since 9/11, the question of legal and illegal immigration has also taken a more serious note. While the September 11th attackers were all legally in the United States on temporary visas, employers are finding that illegal immigrants, through various means, are employed in sensitive positions.
A (Recent) History Lesson
In 2009, The Huffington Post reported that the infiltration and corruption of American law enforcement is a national security problem. The author reported that traitors among us are wearing federal law enforcement uniforms patrolling the U.S. border while corrupt local officers are patrolling elsewhere.
On December 12, 2013, the Associated Press reported that an Arizona Department of Public Safety detective resigned after it was discovered she was an illegal alien. And in 2011, The Alaska Dispatch http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/ex-anchorage-cop-us-illegally-gets-3-month-prison-sentence reported a police officer in Anchorage also was found to be an illegal alien and was sentenced to three months in prison, three years on probation, and given a $3,000 fine.
In 2007, the Washington Post reported that a Milwaukee police officer was arrested when it was determined he was an illegal alien. The officer, who had taken the identity of a deceased cousin, later pled guilty to a felony for claiming he was a United States citizen.
While these officers did not appear to have been a national security risk, they may have placed criminal and civil court cases in jeopardy by falsely identifying themselves.
In 2007, a Lebanese national named Nada Nadim Prouty pled guilty to charges of fraudulently obtaining U.S. citizenship and conspiracy to defraud the United States. She used her citizenship to obtain employment at different times with the FBI and CIA. Reportedly during her employment she unlawfully made computer queries concerning her relatives and the terrorist organization Hezbollah.
Looking to the Future
Some potential national security risks are not even born yet. In 2010, the Washington Post l reported a new significance to American citizenship. There are dozens of businesses that provide birthing services to expectant Chinese mothers, a 2013 Time World article asserts.
Since anyone born in the U.S. is deemed to be a U.S. citizen, Chinese nationals travel to and stay in the United States long enough to give birth. Reportedly the point of the U.S. birth is to circumvent China’s one child per family rule and to secure their children the benefits of American citizenship later in life.
To some, American citizenship in the 21st century has little to do with loyalty. It is suspected more sinister reasons for U.S. citizenship are yet to be realized.
An employment background investigation is one of the vertebrae of national security efforts. Cooperation is a must to not only protect yourself and co-workers, but your family and country. Federal and local government employees or anyone called to give testimony during a BI must understand the consequences if contact is avoided or information is withheld.
| |
Monday, September 2, 2013
Who is Among Us?
Every federal employee is scrutinized prior to and during employment. An initial background investigation is conducted to determine, among many things, a person’s loyalty to the United States, work ethic, character, and associations with others. Many people believe this process is cumbersome and sometimes excessive, and they may minimize the activity and try to avoid giving testimony. However, federal employees must understand the importance of an employee background investigation (BI).
There are many reasons why a BI should be taken seriously. Without a diligent investigation some employees may end up working with another who is dishonest or not suited to the position for which hired. BIs always have been of utmost importance for security reasons, but since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks the backgrounds of not only federal employees but others in sensitive positions in public and private organizations have taken an even more serious note. National security means more than just a spy in the closet; now it is thwarting a hidden explosive device or weapon of mass destruction to kill as many people as possible.
United States counterterrorism organizations know that terror groups are actively attempting to place extremists in positions in sensitive government and private locations to do harm. Terror groups strive to infiltrate government intelligence, law enforcement and other security positions. Government facilities and private locations like power plants and water dams are all targets for terror groups. International terror organizations are anxious to infiltrate group members into American society.
Since 9/11 the question of legal and illegal immigration has taken a more serious note, notwithstanding the appearance that U.S. Congress places more focus on potential voters than national security. The September 11th attackers were all legally in the United States on temporary visas. Furthermore, employers are finding that illegal immigrants, through various means, are employed in sensitive positions.
In 2007, The Washington Post reported that a Milwaukee, WI police officer was arrested when it was determined he was an illegal alien. The officer had taken the identity of a deceased cousin and later pled guilty to a felony for claiming he was a United States citizen. Recently, another police officer in Anchorage, AK also was found to be an illegal alien. Although neither officer appears to have been a national security risk, both have placed criminal and civil court cases in jeopardy by falsely identifying themselves.
In 2007, Nada Nadim Prouty, a Lebanese national pled guilty to charges of fraudulently obtaining U.S. citizenship and to conspiracy to defraud the United States. She used her citizenship to obtain employment at different times with the FBI and CIA. Reportedly during her employment she unlawfully made computer queries of her relatives and the terrorist organization Hizballah.
In 2009, The Huffington Post reported that the infiltration and corruption of American law enforcement is a national security problem that does not yet have a name. The Post further reported that traitors among us are wearing federal law enforcement uniforms patrolling the U.S. border while corrupt local officers are patrolling elsewhere.
Some potential national security risks are not yet of age. In 2010, The Washington Post reported a new significance to American citizenship. Reportedly there are dozens of U.S. based businesses which provide birthing services to expectant Chinese mothers. Since anyone born in the U.S. is deemed a U.S. citizen Chinese nationals travel to and stay in the United States long enough to give birth. Reportedly the point of the U.S. birth is to circumvent China’s one child per family rule and to secure the benefits of American citizenship later in life. To some, American citizenship in the 21st century has little to do with loyalty. I suspect more sinister reasons for U.S. citizenship are yet to be realized.
An employment background investigation is one of the vertebrae of national security efforts. Cooperation is a must to not only protect yourself and co-workers, but your family and country. Federal and local government employees or anyone called to give testimony during a BI must understand the consequences if contact is avoided or information is withheld.
John F. Hein is an adjunct instructor of criminal justice for the American Public University System and a retired executive of the former U.S. Customs Service. He served over thirty years in civilian and military security and law enforcement agencies. He is a member of ASIS International, an association of security professionals, and is a Certified Protection Professional (CPP). He is the author of Inside Internal Affairs: An In-Depth Look at the People, Process and Politics, published by Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc.
- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/09/02/who-is-among-us/#sthash.WPubGok8.dpuf
Friday, August 30, 2013
Overcoming organizational mistrust in the IA unit
All the players in the process can build trust between the IA function and those who are affected by it
The internal affairs (IA) function — the investigation of alleged misconduct by employees — is an integral part of department management in any law enforcement organization. Whether the office conducting an employee investigation is called Internal Affairs, Office of Professional Standards, or Office of Professional Responsibility, it serves management and the organization as a tool to maintain and strengthen professional conduct.
The investigation of allegations of wrongdoing helps to maintain professional conduct in an organization, which protects the department and the employees within it.
The complete and unbiased investigation of any allegation ensures fairness and reduces the potential for misunderstanding the IA mission.
Misunderstood and Misused
Sometimes, despite professional, fair, and unbiased employee investigations, the IA function can be misunderstood. A complete and honest internal investigation may be perceived as being biased depending upon leadership support and departmental culture.
Just as strong leadership and an impartial investigation can reduce the possibility of misunderstanding, the attitudes and actions of leaders can also taint IA actions and create an environment of suspicion, distrust, and intimidation. Strong, fair, and impartial leadership is essential to create an IA activity that is trusted throughout an organization.
Leaders are not alone in generating attitudes and perceptions of the internal investigative function. Compounding the complexities of the IA function is the IA process, which includes others who may affect the perception of internal affairs. Employees — along with many others — may have competing attitudes, perceptions, and motivations.
Internal affairs investigators, community and political leaders, union representatives, the media, department leaders, the rank and file officers, and the citizens the organization serves are all part of the IA process. Each can influence the perception of the internal affairs function. An internal affairs investigation may be perceived unfavorably because of negative attitudes among the players in the process even when IA actions are unbiased, just, and void of undue influence.
Conflicting Interests
The personal agendas of some participants may conflict with the best interests of the department. These agendas may adversely affect employee spirit and create a negative perception of the internal affairs function.
The internal affairs function can be affected simply because of diverse interests.
- Leaders may want to avoid — or ignore — tough issues that may complicate management of the organization
- Offending employees may not admit wrongdoing, and as their defense they attack the integrity of the internal affairs investigation
- Employees may feel powerless against management, and the community may feel betrayed by politicians who act in their own self-interest
- Unions may be deceived by management, management may be frustrated by union officials — both, along with the rank and file, may be ridiculed in the media and criticized by the citizens they serve
- An insensitive investigator may create a sense of unfairness by unprofessional behavior
Supportive management, thoughtful selection of IA employees, and continuing professional education can ensure an IA function that serves the best interests of the department, its employees, and the community.
About the author
John F. Hein is an adjunct instructor of criminal justice for the American Public University System and a retired executive of the former U.S. Customs Service. Hein served 35 years in civilian and military security and law enforcement agencies. He is a member of ASIS International, an association of security professionals, and is a Certified Protection Professional (CPP). Hein supported, supervised or conducted employee internal investigations for the U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Inspector General, then for the former U.S. Customs Service, Office of Internal Affairs, and, as a reservist, the U.S. Air Force Office of Special Investigations. He was a deputy sheriff prior to his service as a federal criminal investigator. He is the author of Inside Internal Affairs: An In-Depth Look at the People, Process and Politics, published by Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Report Corruption But Pick Your Fight
Employers have the right and responsibility to investigate allegations of waste, fraud and abuse by employees. The internal affairs function of investigating allegations of wrongdoing is the responsibility of a variety of organizations. Whatever the office title, offices of Inspector General, Professional Standards or Professional Responsibility, all have the mission to investigate allegations of criminal or administrative employee misconduct.
Any office responsible for internal investigations is an arm of that organization’s management. Therefore, the office which investigates wrongdoing by department employees is not independent. Theoretically, the office is a management tool responsible for professionally and aggressively investigating charges of wrongdoing. However, there may be times when allegations may not be honestly addressed, but instead are covered up either to protect the guilty or to avoid management’s embarrassment.
At times, employees are aware of corruption or wrongdoing but are reluctant to report it for fear of retaliation or just because of an ingrained understanding not to get involved. Even when allegations of unethical behavior are reported there are times when employees believe only a cursory investigation will be conducted in order to conceal or mitigate the charges.
Minor mistakes, lapses of judgment or policy violations are often overlooked. Violations of criminal law should never be ignored. Acts of corruption leave an indelible mark on the one who commits the act, on the organization and others associated with the program or activity. Employees who want to serve, help, protect, and do the best job they can are ‘assets’ of any organization.
An asset can also be an employee who is fed up with corruption, misconduct, or inaction. An asset can supply information and follow his or her conscience to improve their life and the lives of others.
However, reporting wrongdoing can be a painful experience. Everyone wants to be accepted by his or her peers and others. Some supervisors will peg an asset as a troublemaker because information that may have been known but never officially discussed or never documented is now in the open.
A whistleblower is one who reports unethical or illegal conduct. According to The Whistleblower’s Survival Guide published by the Government Accountability Project, whistleblowers’ actions may save lives and billions of dollars. However, rather than being rewarded for their integrity, many times a whistleblower is retaliated against by intimidation, demotion, or dismissal and blacklisting.
As an asset, a whistleblower can and does make a difference and will be in good company. Coleen Rowley, an FBI Special Agent reported FBI failures made prior to the September 11, 2001, terror attacks. W. Mark Felt, retired FBI Associate Director, was identified as ‘Deep Throat,’ the individual who gave information to Washington Post reporters which eventually caused the resignation of President Richard Nixon. Frank Serpico was reportedly the first officer in the history of the New York City Police Department to report and testify openly about police corruption. But these most famous assets were harassed and intimidated, including W. Mark Felt, who was not definitively identified as ‘Deep Throat’ for more than 35 years.
There is a solution for anyone who is fed up with corruption or inaction to wrongdoing. An employee can follow his or her conscience, report the misconduct, and improve their life at least in the work place. But there are a few concerns to remember.
There are many avenues for an employee to report allegations. If little faith is held in departmental efforts, a report can be made to one of many other entities, but the choice must be made carefully.
There are important issues and responsibilities of which the asset must be aware:
- Pick your fight. Do not report every act of wrongdoing. Some wrongdoing may only be a perception, a difference of opinion or administrative error. If any organization receives numerous reports that sound like ‘sour grapes’ or minor allegations of misconduct from the same department then that organization may discount future reports. Remember organizations communicate with each other and much of the reported information may be shared. Also, allegations of minor misconduct may just be referred back to the owning organization.
- Know the facts. Report as much information as possible including names, dates, times, location of documents, etc. without embellishing any facts. It is better to understate than over report. Do not act on rumors.
- To avoid recriminations or retaliation the asset must stay anonymous. However, information from an anonymous whistleblower maybe treated substantially different than information from a known source. Anonymous information may not be acted upon even if it involves serious criminal allegations. This is true whether the information is reported to the organization in which the wrongdoing took place or an outside organization. However, when reported to an outside organization the information is less likely to be ignored.
Some organizations or individuals who might be interested in and take action on information of corruption within the federal realm are:
- A newspaper or television station
- Congressional representative or Senator
- Office of the United States Attorney
- The Federal Bureau of Investigation
- U.S. Department of Justice – Public Integrity Section
Media and Congressional interests can include criminal violations, but there might also be interest in administrative wrongdoing if it is sufficiently serious or involves high ranking officials. A prosecutor, the Department of Justice or FBI will most likely only take action on probable criminal allegations, although there could be interest in civil sanctions.
- Crime Stoppers USA is a good way to report anonymous information.
The organization operates a secure tip line which technology allows for anonymous reporting. Anonymity is guaranteed if the Crime Stoppers affiliate uses TipSoft®. Check out Crime Stoppers @ http://www.crimestoppersusa.com/ Make sure the affiliate uses TipSoft® before you submit information. Crime Stoppers USA will forward information to any organization specified.
Offices which investigate employee misconduct are professionally trained and managed. However, at times the most ethical individual is placed in a situation beyond their control. If a fair and honest investigation of misconduct is doubtful, an allegation can be forwarded to appropriate authorities outside the control of department leadership.
Remember, report corruption but choose carefully what you report. If you choose to stay anonymous you are protected from repercussions. However, your report may be suspect and therefore not taken seriously.
John F. Hein is an adjunct instructor of criminal justice for the American Public University System and a retired executive of the former U.S. Customs Service. He served 35 years in civilian and military security and law enforcement agencies. He is a member of ASIS International, an association of security professionals, and has been a Certified Protection Professional (CPP) since 2001. He is the author of Inside Internal Affairs: An In-Depth Look at the People, Process and Politics, published by Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc.
- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2013/02/01/report-corruption-but-pick-your-fight/#sthash.kJEoGG9m.dpuf
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Are Good Employees Afraid of Bad Employees?
Employees are entitled to certain expectations in their work place environment. Those expectations include a well managed organization which is free from corruption. Being part of a well managed and respected organization may bring a sense of pride to that organization’s members. Likewise, the citizens that organization serves are entitled to expect a public service organization known for integrity, accountability and freedom from corruption.
No matter how hard an employer tries to hire good, upstanding, ethical employees, inevitably an employee will make a poor decision that impacts not only himself but the entire organization.
However, not all incidents of misconduct are equal. Some are willful and premeditated while others are simply the result of bad judgment. Some offenders have remorse while others do not. Some misconduct is a one-time individual act. In other instances the misconduct may represent a pattern of behavior committed by an individual or in collusion with others. Minor misconduct such as mistakes, lapses of judgment, or policy violations may be disregarded, but willful criminal violations should never be ignored.
Most public service employees are proud of the service they provide to their community and country. These are the good men and women who want to serve, help, protect and do the best job they can. However, these good employees sometimes encounter members of their organization who do not share the commitment to provide caring community focused service and whose misconduct places good employees in a difficult position. They are forced to make a decision about how to respond to their co-workers behavior.
Anyone who is fed up with corruption, misconduct, or looking the other way can supply information that allows them to follow their conscience and address the issues. An employee who makes a decision to follow their conscience becomes an asset to their organization by reporting wrongdoing. That employee becomes an asset who can have a positive and lasting effect on their organization by reporting dishonest or unethical conduct.
For most people, however, reporting wrongdoing is a painful experience whether the information is passed to a supervisor, an office which investigates employee misconduct, or an outside law enforcement agency. A consequence of reporting wrongdoing may be that the reporting employee is labeled a troublemaker and resented by management and snubbed by follow employees. Anonymous reporting of wrongdoing should always be considered and may offer protection to the employee who has decided to do the right thing.
Many bold determined employees have taken that honest but difficult step. They include Frank Serpico, arguably the most famous whistleblower, who reported pervasive corruption within the NYPD and Coleen Rowley, the FBI Special Agent who alerted Congress of the failings of the Bureau regarding the September 11th terror attacks. Also, the famous “Deep Throat”, W. Mark Felt, who was second in command of the FBI at the time of his cooperation with the Washington Post’s “Watergate” investigation that resulted in the resignation of President Richard M. Nixon.
These three individuals shared a commitment to do the right thing despite the consequences and controversy caused by their actions. Serpico and Rowley both reported corruption overtly and both were denounced by their department’s leadership and follow officers. Felt believed he would be fired or criminally charged for his disclosures. As a result he protected his anonymity for more than 30 years although he was reportedly accused many times of being the informer.
Despite great personal risk there has been and will continue to be courageous employees who do the right thing and report corruption. Good employees do not have to tolerate or fear the bad ones.
John F. Hein is an adjunct instructor of criminal justice for the American Public University System and a retired executive of the former U.S. Customs Service. He served 35 years in civilian and military security and law enforcement agencies. He is a member of ASIS International, an association of security professionals, and has been a Certified Protection Professional (CPP) since 2001. He is the author of Inside Internal Affairs: An In-Depth Look at the People, Process and Politics.
- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2012/12/06/are-good-employees-afraid-of-bad-employees/#sthash.nu8UIzI4.dpuf
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Internal Affairs Personality
This article is a continuation of the examination of internal affairs issues.
Not everyone is qualified to conduct investigations of employee misconduct. An employee investigation is a sensitive issue. The employee under investigation, along with others directly or indirectly involved, can easily become upset and distracted. The workplace and work product can be negatively affected. The resulting stress and suspicion may cause a negative view of the internal affairs (IA) function of investigating employee misconduct.
The suspicion also can extend to the investigator who may be viewed as unfair. The most qualified individuals must be chosen to conduct investigations in order to diminish the potential for adverse perceptions of the IA investigator and IA the function. There is no one personality type that is best suited for conducting employee investigations. However, empathy, objectivity and sensitivity are among the characteristics that make a strong IA investigator candidate.
The potential for distrust of internal affairs is not only the result of the attitude of the investigator, but also because the internal affairs function is part of an organization’s management structure. Some employees will view IA as unfair despite strong departmental leadership that supports the IA function and presents it as fair and unbiased. An investigator with strong credentials and appropriate characteristics can reinforce a positive perception of IA investigations.
Noted educator and author Stephen M. Hennessy conducted a study of police personalities published in Thinking Cop, Feeling Cop. The study looked into personalities of police officers and how they take in information and make decisions. The study looked at how police officers may choose assignments that likely match their method of taking in information (perception) and make decisions (judgment), and may explain why some officers either succeed or fail. Hennessy contends that officers may succeed or fail at their assigned task based on their information processing technique and its compatibility with their job requirements. If an officer’s assignment does not match well with his natural information processing he is less likely to success in the assignment.
An investigator must know the sensitivity of an internal investigation and show respect to all employees to create a sense of mutual respect and cooperation. An organization in turmoil will serve citizens poorly. To be ignorant of the sensitivity of an employee investigation or disrespect any employee can cause anxiety and resentment.
Although a personality type should not qualify or exclude an individual from internal investigative duties, an investigator who shows concern for others and handles situations while showing regard for other’s feelings is certainly a viable candidate for sensitive internal investigations.
—-
John F. Hein is an adjunct instructor of criminal justice for the American Public University System and a retired executive of the former U.S. Customs Service. He served 35 years in civilian and military security and law enforcement agencies. He is a member of ASIS International, an association of security professionals, and has been a Certified Protection Professional (CPP) since 2001. He is the author of Inside Internal Affairs: An In-Depth Look at the People, Process and Politics, soon to be published by Looseleaf Law Publications, Inc.
- See more at: http://www.fedsmith.com/2012/09/18/internal-affairs-personality/#sthash.a5wEgRgT.dpuf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)