Imagine if you found an occupied stolen car and initiated a traffic stop. As the car stops, the driver bails and you chase him on foot, jumping walls and dodging trees. As the suspect rounds the next corner he is tackled by a perimeter unit who just happened to be at the right place and right time. You cuff the suspect and thank the other officer for his help. In the car you recover some dope and a stolen gun. To add to all of this, the suspect is a documented gang member. You transport the suspect to the interview room, and after a 90 minute interview, he confesses to taking the car and buying the dope. (For personal use of course)

As you emerge from the interview room, tired and hungry, that perimeter officer is entertaining a crowd of detectives and supervisors with an incredible story of how he delivered a text-book open field tackle on the suspect, who was at least six foot ten, 250 pounds. He relays the story in such glory you would think he had just captured the head of the American chapter of the Russian Criminal Syndicate. He accepts a series of high fives and “good job bro” compliments, and never once mentions that you started the whole series of events. It bothers you that he is behaving this way, but what do you do? Do you interrupt and say, “hey wait a minute, if it wasn’t for me, you would have never tackled that guy”, or do you chalk it up to arrogance and just continue with your duties?

This is predicament the MPA executive board has found itself in many times over the last year. We emerge from meetings with Chief Gascon and the FOP tired, but amp’ed about the future. We go back to work, or head home feeling like we have made progress in some areas, and understanding that other areas still need work. As we log on to the Internet that evening we find a series of statements issued by the FOP taking the fame and glory for every good idea that was brought up in the meeting. Now we are faced with a decision, do we scream and cry about it? Do we let it go? How do we tell our members that we are working hard for them, even in the face of such opposition?

Every officer has an ethical responsibility to give credit where credit is due, with the understanding that all true success uplifts the department as a whole. When a group chooses to boast about accomplishments it had little or nothing to do with, it de-legitimizes the entire labor movement and we all suffer for it. Our hope is that Chief Gascon’s latest decision to post the meeting minutes will help alleviate the problem. It seems petty to have this argument, but it also seems petty to advance your group’s status by taking credit for others’ work.

By Chris Adamczyk, Secretary

Aside from the many entries made by professionals decrying “performance based pay”, the biggest reason to oppose it is its subjectivity. Any supervisor, good or bad, would be placed in a position to determine an officer’s financial future, a prospect that would not be so bad if all supervisors were true leaders, but they are not. This opens the door to corruption, favoritism, and witch-hunts that could demoralize an entire department.

The entire process of “performance based pay” is fairly complicated, but what it amounts to is this: if your supervisor thinks you deserve a raise, you get one. If not, well then there is always next year. The criteria would be loosely based on the system we have right now, but it would also include the “who worked harder” category. This is where the subjectivity would reach its climax. How do you decide who is working harder? Is it based on statistics? If so then each section in the police department would need to devise its own system of counting progress. For a CST maybe it would be how many latent lifts they made, for a jailer it would be how many bookings they completed, and for a patrol officer is could be anything. But in the end, how can you point at a stat and say with any confidence that it is the only indicator of success?

I have long been a supporter of monthly stats, but my support goes only goes as far as the briefing room door. Stats are a way of building officer pride, and squad unity. A good supervisor recognizes that stats are one of many ways of seeing who the “hard chargers” are and who qualify as slugs. They use the stats to motivate and train. A bad supervisor uses the stats as a weapon to tarnish workstation files and deny privileges. What then happens when an officer feels that his or her livelihood is not the only thing that will suffer with low stats? How long does a person survive when their integrity is pitted against their personal economy?

Most of us have had to live through the cajoling about “ticket quotas” and other such non-sense. This banter would turn to out right hostility with performance based pay. Officers would feel compelled to lay aside their compassion for fear of not being able to make their house payment. And the public would be fully aware of the consequences. Police officers have a hard enough time eliciting information from people. This would only compound the problem and build a blue line thicker than anyone has ever seen.

Stats are the best of the worst-case scenarios; at least they are empirical. Imagine a subjective criteria dealing with attitude or perceived knowledge of policy. Performance based pay works well in sales and marketing, not in public safety. It is a bad idea born of even worse intentions.

By Vice President, Nate Gafvert

In reference to the rumors about the AR-15 rifles and lethal shotguns, I know there is much confusion over what really happened. Close to two years ago, Chief Gascon had a contact that would ultimately be able to outfit every patrol car with a pump action 12 gauge shotgun. This was a huge step forward for us since lethal shotguns had been taken away from us years ago. The shotgun in itself is an equalizer and many “lone wolf” departments rely on them when backup is 30 plus minutes away. The MPA had expressed its members’ desires to have these great tools at our disposal in every vehicle.

Just as this was coming to fruition, a spokesman from the other labor organization informed the chief that all the patrol officers had decided they wanted AR-15 rifles over 12 gauge shotguns. The spokesman expressed this desire without a poll of the officers let alone contacting the MPA, even though this would have added extra tools to our utility belt. The MPA did conduct a poll that showed what Officers preferred was having both shotguns and AR-15’s depending on what the situation called for. The MPA asked for both to be made available for patrol because we wanted to be prepared with the best tool for the job. The Chief agreed with this view, but said the budget limited us to only being able to adaquately train for 1 weapon system at that time. Ultimately, the shotgun idea was scrapped, and we were left out-gunned yet again with nowhere near enough rifles on the street.

A little over a year later, the shotgun issue was brought up again and fortunately we were given the option of purchasing our own. The approved shotgun was not the 870 pump action we had originally requested but an expensive semi-automatic version. The MPA brought this issue up to Chief Gascon, and requested more research be done for a less expensive shotgun to hopefully encourage officers to buy them. A decision was made on a much less expensive shotgun. Chief Gascon requested that I, personally, contact dealers and research the lowest price for this weapon. When I contacted range staff, I learned they had located vendors for the newly approved shotgun, and officers were able to purchase the shotguns at a discounted price. Somehow, the other labor organization took credit for this decision when it was they who had backhandedly stopped the purchase.

During my research of the shotguns, I learned that the current rifle mounts in the newer patrol vehicles would not fit rifles with certain weapon mounted lights or shotguns. I again contacted range officers and discussed the reasoning behind this mount. I was advised that the range was not included in the research and purchase of the current mounts. This issue was brought to the attention of the purchasing liaison by MPA and a new, universal mount was decided upon.

The MPA was also instrumental in the approval of personally owned AR-15 rifles. Were we the sole reason staff approved them, absolutely not. This was a big issue that not one organization can take credit for. There are many issues that are backed by both organizations, yet the MPA doesn’t pretend we are the ones responsible for making sure the sun comes up every morning. What can be said is that when the MPA takes a stand on an issue, we back it 100%. Rest assured that you have the most dedicated representatives speaking on members behalf, regardless which way the wind blows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oq5km-gZKf4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkpbaoS9S-k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBkPbZ5jp_I

The MPA brought it to the attention of the administration that there was no notice of the change in procedure regarding “Rolling 28″ information.

New federal communications regulations forbid officers/dispatchers broadcasting names of people or addressess on unencrypted airwaves due to public listeners (increasing the possibility of identity theft).

However, it is an officer safety issue when you need the information RIGHT AWAY or not getting the information can interfere with catching criminals.  As of now, information that should be given are:

*If the vehicle is stolen or not

*Year, make and model of car

The solution could be to encrypt all the channels. This is being researched.  More news about this issue will continue to be updated.

This is another example of the MPA leading the way in ensuring your safety and that you can do your job.

The MPA spoke to many other agencies nationwide who have already experienced an Officer involved shooting that has been captured on video. The MPA polled major agencies and studied the issues involved. After careful consideration in adoption of a position on the matter, the MPA approached the Chief’ and asked his opinion on the matter. The Chief’s view was consistant with our findings for best practices. At the request of the MPA, the department has agreed to adopt a practice allowing officers involved in shootings to be advised of the existence of video of the incident and to view the video prior to giving a statement. We also requested audio recordings be added to the practice and that a formal policy be researched for adoption prior to this becoming a reality in Mesa.  MPA will continue to work diligently with the Chief’s office for adoption of this policy. More information regarding this subject can be found at www.forcescience.com. This is yet another example of the hard work the MPA undertakes to ensure front-line officers are protected and the department is using best practices to allow police to do our jobs better.

03.18.09

The MPA assisted with FLSA research regarding K-9 pay. We accompanied the K-9 unit in meeting with administration regarding this practice. The current practice will continue. We are thankful to the Chief and his staff for the wisdom in continuing this beneficial practice. K-9 Officers can now get back to work secure in the knowledge their pay  and overtime is protected.

The MPA is here for you!

On March 16, 2009, NAPO was summoned to the White House by the Assistant to the President for Counterterrorism and Homeland Security to review ways to reform the White House organization for counterterrorism and homeland security.  NAPO President Tom Nee and Executive Director Bill Johnson attended the meeting on behalf of NAPO.

NAPO was the sole rank and file law enforcement group invited to meet with the White House counterterrorism and homeland security team.  NAPO was joined at the meeting by the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the Major City Chiefs Association, and the National Sheriffs Association.   Tom Nee and Bill Johnson used this opportunity to push the White House to provide more resources, funding and support to state and local law enforcement for homeland security and counterterrorism.

State and local law enforcement are our nation’s first responders and play a crucial role in the government’s efforts to protect the homeland.  As such, the federal government needs to aid state and local governments with funding law enforcement counterterrorism efforts and provide and share intelligence with state and local law enforcement.  Local governments have been responsible for too much of the cost and burden of federally-mandated anti-terrorism duties.  At a time when local governments cannot even afford to retain a whole police force, it is unconscionable to expect them to foot the bill for national security.

This meeting is just one of many in which NAPO will be asked to provide guidance on White House and administration policy that concerns law enforcement.