March 10, 2017 at 5:05 p.m.
Beneath the sheets at the Oneida County sheriff's department
Beneath the sheets at the Oneida County sheriff's department
No, we are not moralizing about or judging the personal relationship between the two officers, nor are we attempting to merely relay salacious details.
What goes on in their personal lives should stay in their personal lives; after all, no laws were broken.
But that is the problem. What went on in their lives did not stay in their lives but, as our reporting shows, spilled out into the public arena. The officers allowed their relationship to infiltrate their taxpayer-funded jobs, and, when they did that, the whole matter became public business.
And important public business.
Take behavior at training events and conferences, for instance. This past year, this newspaper has repeatedly raised questions about what goes on at out-of-town events and whether the county is providing proper oversight of attendance at these conclaves.
Obviously the county is not.
The alleged sexual assault of a fellow officer in 2011 by then deputy Lee Lech took place at an out-of-town event. So did his alleged drinking with an underage female.
Not even a year ago, at a Wisconsin Professional Police Association convention, two of Oneida County's representatives - the county's public face in the law-enforcement community - were busted for kissing in the bathroom at the bar, at a convention attended by their spouses, no less.
More than that, one of the involved officer's wife locked him out of their hotel room; and that officer admitted he sometimes did not know how he ended up back in his room in the mornings, because he was too intoxicated on the nights before.
There's more. Just this past September, these two went to another out-of-town event, this time in Green Bay, and shared a hotel room, though only one of them was authorized to attend. The officer not authorized to go hopped a ride in the squad to get there.
The way we see it is, and the way we think most people will see it, training events should be just that, training events, not a lovers' getaway.
So let's sum up what the records have revealed about sheriff's department attendance at out-of-town events just since 2011: alleged rape; excessive drinking; going to strip clubs; alleged drinking with underage people; more excessive drinking; kissing in a public rest room; being locked out of a hotel room by a spouse; still more excessive drinking; and unauthorized attendance with a lover at an out-of-town event.
And that's just what we know about.
Is this the public face of law enforcement that Oneida County wants everyone to see? More than that, police officers are supposed to be role models, and they need to be to maintain the public's respect. But are these the role models we want?
To be sure, we're all human, and we all make mistakes. But that is not what the records tell us. The records tell us there these are not isolated events but a pattern of misconduct.
Simply put, something is not right within the sheriff's department, and something is not right with the county's oversight of the agency.
Ditto with these two officers visiting each other's homes while one of them is on-duty. Sliding on over to a lover's home to sit by the fire while on duty for a while might not seem too egregious, but it is problematic.
For one thing, that is taxpayers' time and taxpayers' money. Let them cuddle by the fire on their own time and on their own dime.
For another, visiting with a paramour while on duty is a distraction that could well imperil the public's health, welfare, and safety. It is irresponsible conduct.
And, again, it is not just the misstep of two lovers. This is a pattern of pursuing off-duty entertainment while on-duty. It recalls the incident a decade ago when officers were allowed to go to a home and play video games, and even watch basketball games, while on-duty.
So one has to ask, why such patterns of misconduct?
We believe there are multiple reasons, and chief among them is a soft approach to discipline.
To be sure, there have been some terminations, and Lech resigned after the agency began to investigate the rape allegations against him. But more often than not, the discipline amounts to a slap on the wrist.
For example, the sheriff's department actually tried to hide the Lech rape allegations from the public, while the deputy scampered away to another job in another county. And when Lech let a person off for a DUI, he was simply advised not to do it anymore.
When he was accused of drinking with an underage person and possibly supplying her with alcohol, the department took Lech's word that it wasn't true and never bothered to interview other witnesses or the underage person herself.
And, for all the foregoing events in the most recent affair, each officer not only received just seven-days suspension but was allowed to use accrued PTO to cover any lost pay. What kind of discipline is that?
That's not punishment; it's a paid vacation.
It is also clear that sergeant Sara Wolosek lied during her initial interview about being "intimate" at the WPPA convention, which in itself should have been cause for further discipline.
First, captain Terri Hook asked Wolosek what had happened between her and sergeant Anton Keelin at the convention and she replied that nothing had happened. Well, a kiss in a public restroom is not nothing, especially when it is not your spouse you are kissing.
Wolosek was again asked about the convention and whether anything inappropriate had happened that would have upset their spouses, and Wolosek again said no. That, too, was not true, since Keelin's wife locked Keelin out of their room, according to the police interview report.
After the interview, Wolosek and Keelin - who was interviewed separately and who gave a different version of events - quickly met to get their stories straight, and Wolosek waltzed back to Hook to change her tune and claim she had misunderstood what was being asked.
Amazingly, she got away with it, despite her lies to Hook earlier in the day.
Part of the problem, too, is a police union that is all too powerful. The only reason Keelin and Wolosek could get their stories straight after their initial interviews is because their union representatives, who attended the interviews, compared notes.
Keelin was promptly informed that he and Wolosek's stories did not match up and that Keelin should have Wolosek do an interview re-do. She did.
So who is running the sheriff's department, the sheriff and his supervisory team, or the police union? It looks like the police union.
All of this leads to discord inside the agency, a discontent that has existed for years. After all, internal complaints drove this investigation.
When others see fellow officers getting off with a slap on the wrist, that encourages more misconduct, and it breeds enmity among the work force. And when such discontent exists, it erodes respect for the sheriff and his management team, and lowers morale.
That, too, is a temptation to misbehave.
Clearly, given not just the pattern of misconduct and not just its public flare-ups but the sheer numbers of disciplinary actions the department has meted out in a short period of time, the sheriff's department is in disarray. The sheriff needs to get control of his department, make the discipline fit the misconduct, and stand up to the police union.
Just as clearly, Oneida County needs to properly oversee this agency, which it has not been doing. The public safety committee hasn't had a clue what's going on in the department but has merely listened to the sheriff that everything is A-OK.
The public safety committee has about as much control of this situation as an empty, crippled vessel on a windy sea does. And the wind is blowing toward a rocky shore.
We've said this before and we say it again, how long before the county takes action to make this agency accountable?
Or do we have to see what else - or who else - is beneath the sheets at the sheriff's department?
Comments:
You must login to comment.