When
I arrived in Wichita I committed to increasing transparency and changed
practices such as notifying the public as soon as possible when a police
officer has been arrested. Recently, I came across this blog I wrote when
I was a chief in Minnesota. It references a serious officer misconduct case
from 2012. Today, I feel some of the same frustrations regarding recent WPD
issues and what information we can or can’t provide due to labor agreements, the
Kansas Open Records Act, active criminal investigations and City policy.
Having served as a chief for nearly 12 years, I have worked diligently
and sincerely to be as transparent as allowed by law, policies and union
agreements. I will continue this work with the help of WPD partners and other
community stakeholders. Following is the blog from when I was chief in
Minnesota:
The
police department is one of the most visible and critiqued areas in local
government. Transparency and dissemination of timely information to the public
is critical in every corner of the policing world. Dealing with data privacy
laws, while trying to be transparent and keeping the community informed, is a
tough line for police administrators in Minnesota.
One
particularly difficult incident occurred a few years ago, when I terminated an
employee in a use of force case that received a lot of media attention. Due to
Minnesota law I was unable to publicly share that I had terminated the
employee. Unfortunately, law forbids releasing employment
information until final discipline occurs, which is after the grievance period
or arbitration. The only information I could release was previous discipline,
employment status and whether it was paid or unpaid. In this case, it was
unpaid administrative leave even though the employee had been terminated.
Many
in the community asked why I did not terminate the employee and were upset the
officer's employment status was "administrative leave." Some believed
we were not being transparent and I found myself frustrated that I could not
talk more openly about what action had been taken. The termination eventually
became public when the union dropped its grievance, but it was tough from a
community relations standpoint to not speak directly to the matter at the time.
The fact the employee was terminated 18 months later was no longer news and the
fact the employment status remained “unpaid leave” simmered in many
communities.
