Below is a letter we sent to the 3 assessors coming out for the PPD's reaccreditation of CALEA. You can read about it hear and what CALEA means.I encourage all of you to attend a meeting at the City Council Chamber, at 7:00PM on Monday, August the 18th.
Susan Maycock
Superintendant
Peel Regional Police
7750 Hurontario Street
Brampton, ON L6V 3w6
Ms. Maycock:
I represent a website in Phoenix, Arizona called http://www.badphoenixcops.com/ At this juncture it is relatively unimportant why this site was started and my involvement and passion to support it. The goal of the site is to set up a 501c non-profit organization to stop the blatant abuse and corruption in the Phoenix Police Department. What is important is what we represent and what we have to say.
Our site has a Blog where many of the posting come from Phoenix Police Officers. I know this because some have shared their identities and the information they provide is too revealing and privileged inside information.
I understand you are coming to visit Phoenix for the August, 08 reaccreditation for CALEA. I cannot stress enough the underhanded and internal corruption in the regime of Police Chief Jack Harris. Chief Harris supports cronyism and nepotism and has allowed a working environment where supervisors are not held to the same accountability level as officers. I have been made aware of numerous cover-ups and investigations that Chief Harris and his assistant chiefs endorse. The Police officer’s Employee Association (PLEA) has no confidence in Chief Harris, as verified in a letter from P.L.E.A. addressed to the MAC committee dated, June 7, 2006. R.C. “Jake” Jacobensen met with Chief Jack Harris (and then) Deputy City Manager Juan Martin over concerns that the Phoenix Police Department fails to investigate management misconduct:
“On March 3, 2006 PLEA President Jake Jacobsen and PLEA Grievance Chair Mark Spencer provided Chief Harris with examples of this failure of the Department to investigate supervisors for misconduct. On March 3, 2006 PLEA President Jake Jacobsen and PLEA Grievance Chair Mark Spencer provided Chief Harris with examples of this failure through written documentation. His response was alarming, “I’m not going to allow PLEA and citizens to say when and how investigations are done.” He also stated, “Based upon what you’ve shown here, the issue of disparate treatment is over.” The Association was shocked that his response to the aforementioned investigation policy as found in the Operations Orders was, “That’s not true.” Since these statements, his beliefs regarding disparate treatment have continued to be implemented. Sadly, his disregard of citizens and employees in the investigatory process contradicts his priorities.”
The letter goes onto to state:
” Based upon Chief Harris’ statements and failure to address the Association’s concerns, The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association has no confidence in the Police Department’s ability to consistently hold managers accountable for misconduct through administrative investigations.”
I have attached a full copy on this letter, for your review.
If CALEA’s goal is to improve the delivery of public safety services, primarily by: maintaining a body of standards, developed by public safety practitioners, covering a wide range of up-to-date public safety initiatives; then Chief Jack Harris and his poor management of the Phoenix Police have failed your testing and accreditation process, by refusing to investigate the misconduct and actions among his reports and subordinates. In fact during your visit, ask officers and employees around the department what they know about CALEA and what it is supposed to do for the Phoenix Police Department, and you will undoubtedly get a blank stare.
I and those who support the website implore you not to give Chief Jack Harris or the City of Phoenix Police Department their reaccreditation for CALEA. We encourage you to visit the site http://www.badphoenixcops.com/ and/or the associated Blog at http://www.badphoenixcops.blogspot.com/ and read posting and information directly from Phoenix Police Officers and what they have to say about their current and former employee and the Phoenix Police Department.
If any of you throughout your visit would like to meet with us and see much of the other evidence we have, we may be reached through the website.
Warm Regards,
BadPhoenixCops
Site Administrator
Cc:
Lieutenant Edward Smith
BadPhoenixCops
Site Administrator
Cc:
Lieutenant Edward Smith
Tallahasse Police Department
234 East Seventh Avenue
Tallahassee, FL 32303
Mr. Gerald Jarsocrak
Pennsylvania State Police
Department Headquarters
1800 Elmerton Avenue
Harrisburg, PA 17110
1 comment:
This is where that "famous" quote from Harris came from.
Andy Anderson, Assistant Police Chief
Phoenix Police Department
620 W. Washington St.
Phoenix, AZ 85003
Dear Andy:
The Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) and the Phoenix Police Sergeants and Lieutenants Association (PPSLA) provided legal representation to Officer Mark Wilcox and Sergeant Brian Carmichael at a Civil Service Board hearing on Thursday, February 23, 2006. While at this hearing, subpoenaed witnesses were sworn in by the hearing officer (Judge Cecil Patterson) and responded to various questions asked of them by both Jim Sampanes (City’s attorney) and Janet Feltz (PLEA/PPSLA).
At this hearing, Sgt. Kathy Johnson, the lead investigator in the administrative investigation focusing on Carmichael and Wilcox, was asked by Janet Feltz why she did not interview a witness (Jesse Perez) who spoke to Detective Kunst in a criminal report Kunst had authored (DR 2004 42145534A). Sgt. Johnson’s response was two-fold: 1.) she already knew what happened and 2.) Det. Kunst told her the witness was unreliable. From the recordings of the CSB she stated, “…we already knew what they had done so we did not investigate that…” She also said “…Det. Kunst told me, I have it written down somewhere, that he did not believe Jesse was a credible witness, that he was a gang banger, and he really didn’t believe what he said.”
This answer seemed odd to me and the affected employees. In a document I authored and provided to PSB in May 2005 (entitled Concerns with PSB 04-69- this was an attachment to the aforementioned administrative investigation) the same witness was addressed. PSB did not provide the explanation that Sgt. Johnson did at the CSB – a lack of confidence in the witness by the criminal investigator. Also, at Carmichael’s and Wilcox’s DRB on September 21, 2005, I presented a PowerPoint slide in which the criminal witness Jesse stated that he had heard an officer at the scene say to a narcotic suspect, “Suck my dick.” The DRB Chair, Assistant Chief Don Swanson, provided PSB investigators (Sgt.K. Johnson, Lt. L. Johnson, and Commander S. Campbell) a chance to rebut this slide. The issue of Det. Kunst stating Jesse was an unreliable witness was not mentioned at the DRB. The explanation offered at the CSB board hearing was not offered at the DRB, in fact there was no response to this slide.
On the same day (Feb. 23) at approximately 1620 hours I spoke with Det. Kunst about Sgt. Johnson’s statement. His reply was, “I never told her that. I know that I did not tell her that.” He explained that he never had a conversation with Sgt. Johnson about Jesse and did not sit down with her in a face-to-face forum to discuss his criminal investigation. Det. Kunst told me that he had a conversation on the phone with Sgt. Johnson and told her that the victim did not want to prosecute and that there was insufficient evidence to support any criminal damage charge against the involved officers. He stated that Sgt. Johnson’s response was, “We both know something took place” but beyond that he never spoke to her about the witness (Jesse). Det. Kunst informed me that if the witness had been unreliable he would have documented it in a memo for his chain of command. This information from Det. Kunst directly contradicts the sworn statement of Sgt. Johnson and calls into question the veracity of her testimony.
The Association believes that an administrative investigation into the testimony of Sgt. Johnson at the aforementioned CSB hearing is warranted. False testimony under oath is a serious allegation and this conduct contains the elements of a felony. An employee who is the focus of this type of serious allegation should have the benefit of an administrative investigation for exoneration if possible. The Department should have the benefit of an administrative investigation to uphold the standards of veracity that it expects of all its employees.
Ops Order 3.19.1 states, “To ensure the integrity of the Police Department, all alleged or suspected personnel misconduct observed or suspected by supervisor, department employees, or citizens will be thoroughly investigated.”
PLEA is hopeful that the Department will comply with a signed agreement dated April 14, 2004 in reference to reviewing misconduct allegations in accordance with established department policy and providing a written response as to what actions will be taken.
Post a Comment