August 19, 2016 at 2:56 p.m.
Step in and reform
Step in and reform
Of course, what's fine and what's not is in the eye of the beholder, and sheriff Grady Hartman apparently practices what he preaches because, when it comes to investigating possible misconduct by his officers, he just takes their word that they didn't do it.
He's a trusting guy, so it's understandable that's the way he wants the law enforcement committee to operate.
As we report in today's edition, when twice-resigned-but-never-charged deputy Lee Lech was accused of giving alcohol to an underage person while Lech was representing the county on a bomb-squad training trip, the department merely asked Lech if it was true.
Lech said no, and that was the extent of the investigation. As our article recounts, lieutenant Dan Hess's report of his interview with Lech makes it sound pretty professional and official. And maybe it was. But let us present a hypothetical version of the same interview, which we believe would present a more likely sample of what goes on behind closed doors at the Brotherhood of Justice - and would certainly explain the lack of any further investigation - and shows why there must be oversight of internal investigations involving officers who know each other well and, in many cases, are friends.
Here's our imaginary version of that interview:
"Now, c'mon Lee, you know you knew that waitress was too young when you plied her with the liquor, didn't you?" Hess asks. He can barely suppress a giggle.
"Nope, I never knew anybody was under 21," Lech says with a wink. "Don't ask, don't tell, don't you know."
"Well, then, fine by me," Hess says, giving Lech a thumbs up. "Investigation over. Innocent says the judge. OK, you rascal, get back to work and don't get caught doing what you do when you're on these training flings."
"Why, everybody knows we get falling-down drunk all the time on these trips, and end up in hotel rooms with women we don't even know," Lech says. "It's a tough job but somebody's got to do it."
The two are laughing and high fiving.
"Not that the county has any backbone if you do get caught," Hess says. "And I doubt they're even smart enough to read the newspaper."
The laughter is long and loud.
In the real interview, Hess does manage to ask Lech if he has a drinking problem, and Lech says no, he doesn't even drink unless he goes out.
The problem was, Lech went out a lot, and drank a lot, and when he did he attracted a lot of attention. He wasn't only accused of drinking with and giving alcohol to an underage waitress but of raping a co-worker after a night of drinking at a strip club, at yet another training event.
Several issues emerge in the context of this report. First, there is no mandatory requirement that the department report complaints about officers to any of the three oversight boards established by the county - the civil service commission, the grievance committee, or the law enforcement committee - unless a demotion or 10-day suspension or termination occurs.
And even then sheriff Grady Hartman manipulates the legal language, placing deputies on "paid leave" or "unpaid leave" rather than officially suspending them, as a way to skirt a requirement that he report those who are suspended for 10 days or more.
It's not an honest practice, but what is these days in the sheriff's department?
The lack of a requirement to report internal complaints and investigations before they are concluded is problematic because it means that the oversight boards aren't really overseeing anything. They aren't overseeing anything because they don't know anything, though they should be on top of investigations to make sure they are fair to all concerned and that the public interest in an accountable department is preserved.
The bottom line is, the lack of a reporting requirement when an investigation begins allows the department to conduct an investigation in secret and to keep it secret. The Brotherhood of Justice can simply circle the wagons, decide all these complaints are unfounded, without even so much as sneezing up a concern or a question, and go about their merry way.
Meanwhile, elected officials and appointed oversight officers live out their terms in blissful ignorance.
Maybe they don't want to know anything. After all, this gives county supervisors plausible deniability: 'Hey, we're not responsible because we didn't know our officers were letting certain people off the hook for drunken driving. We didn't know they were getting drunk repeatedly at out-of-town training; we didn't know they were drinking, fraternizing and giving alcohol to underage people. Hey, we certainly didn't know a police officer might have been raped by a co-worker, so how can we be held responsible?'
As for Grady Hartman, all trust in his ability to lead that department should be gone. Some of these events, we acknowledge, occurred before his tenure as sheriff, but much did not. In 2013, when the department decided to look the other way when Lech was accused of a statutory violation by giving an underage person alcohol, Hartman was already in charge.
He was in charge when the department decided not to interview the alleged underage minor, the complainant, or the witnesses. Grady Hartman was in charge when a captain from Marathon County felt compelled to apologize for the conduct of an officer from Oneida County.
It was Grady Hartman who should have been apologizing, and it was Grady Hartman who should have made sure there was an adequate investigation of the allegations, and to make sure there were consequences for Lech's wrongdoing, if there was wrongdoing.
And who knows? Perhaps Lech wasn't guilty. The lack of an investigation does him no justice in that case.
Make no mistake about it, circling the Brotherhood's wagons and letting officers escape scruitny and the consequences of proven misconduct invariably leads to even worse behavior and often enough to tragedy.
Ah, but the sheriff's department says, it was Lech's word against the complainant. Lech told us he didn't know the waitress was underage, so that's that.
Unfortunately for all of us, that's not that. For one thing, interviewing the multiple witnesses in this incident could well have corroborated Lech's version of events or it could have proven that Lech knew exactly what was happening.
In the latter scenario, the department would have been forced to suspend or terminate the officer, and to have the behavior exposed to an oversight committee. So, the truth is, the department never wanted to find out the truth. Better to circle the wagons.
What's more, the department seems to think that, even if Lech gave an underage woman alcohol, it's no big deal because it's not a crime but a forfeiture. Really, when officers representing their counties commit acts that are deemed violations of law, whether they are misdemeanors or forfeitures, that's serious, and it's especially serious when it involves issues of public safety and of the officer's character.
Not least, these kinds of incidents call into question whether the officer has the judgment needed to be a public safety officer.
As such, there needs to be consequences and accountability and public scrutiny. If Grady Hartman thinks those are a problem, then he's the problem.
Even if the specific allegation of giving alcohol to an underage person couldn't be proven, there was more than enough probable cause of a civil service rules violation to take the matter to the grievance committee or civil service committee for a hearing.
By his own apology, Lech confirmed his conduct was unbecoming of an officer, a civil-service rule violation. And his public overconsumption of alcohol while on a training trip representing the county is arguably a violation, too.
Yet, the department did nothing. The Brotherhood of Justice merely swept it all under the rug.
As we observed, not long ago Hartman told the county's law enforcement committee he did not think more oversight of the department was needed. The sheriff wasn't keen on tight supervisory oversight.
"My comment would be, at some point you have to trust your administrators, and, if you don't trust your administrators, you should replace them," he said.
Well, only the voters can replace Hartman, but until then the elected supervisors of this county can enact ordinances and fashion policy and use their budget powers to restore oversight to an unaccountable and rogue law-enforcement agency.
The committee can and should know when officers are accused of serious statutory violations. The committee can and should know if officers are accused of giving drunken driving breaks to preferred citizens. The committee can and should know when an officer is accused of rape. The committee can and should know if officers use training events to drink all the time, as Lech said they did when he was finally suspended.
And the committee has the right to know if the sheriff is in control of any of this, and, if he is, why he's running such a sloppy ship. It's so bad inside the department that even investigatory outcomes are just scribbled on the outside of file folders.
Is this any way to run a sheriff's department?
It's obvious to us that Grady Hartman either doesn't have the ability to reform his agency, or he isn't willing to do so,.
The time is way past for county supervisors to step in and reform the department for him, before another tragedy occurs.
Comments:
You must login to comment.