December 1997

In our high technology, multicultural, North American society there has been a high degree of rapid social, economic, political, and cultural change during the past fifty years. As these changes have occurred, it was quite natural that some people accepted change, some people have resisted, most of us were a bit confused, and all of us debated the wisdom of doing things differently. The most talked about change was that which we saw in the behavior of individuals. If you compare the average person's behavior in the 1950's with similar behavior today, you can only describe the difference as unbelievable.

Law enforcement deals with unbelievable in two ways. First, we try to contain the wreckage caused by drugs, sex, institutions that don't work, failed marriages, incredible levels of crime and violence, and a trashed value system. Second, we now employ many people nurtured and affected by this environment. That we, in the law enforcement profession, have experienced problems during this time with employee misconduct is not surprising. The purpose of this article is to examine ways in which the chief executive officer's influence in a law enforcement agency might be able to lessen future incidents of employee misconduct.

There is no central data base maintained in the United States regarding law enforcement officer misconduct or in the disposition of these complaints (I use the word misconduct to mean a variety of behaviors that ranges from a simple violation of a departmental rule to a serious violation of law, such as bribery or the unlawful use of excessive force). Inasmuch, my suggestion that it seems the number of misconduct cases has significantly increased in the past ten years is not based on hard data. Rather, I base my case on anecdotal evidence and many conversations with police executives. As a result of this information, I have come to the conclusion that the various forms and degrees of officer misconduct have become, particularly in our federal, and larger law enforcement agencies, a significant and serious problem.

We all understand that law enforcement officer misconduct, particularly the abuse of power, has a tendency to erode the trust people have in our organizations. So in light of the increase in misconduct incidents plus the negative publicity of recent egregious incidents, it prudent to conclude that the loss of public trust in law enforcement may become one of the most serious problems we face in the next several years. Therefore, perhaps it is wise to examine the problem and to take appropriate measures to reduce the number of incidents and the resultant negative impact on public trust.

As I stated earlier, there seems to be an increasing number of cases in North America involving law enforcement officer misconduct both on and off the job. In my opinion, there are at least six reasons for this increase in the numbers.

First, law enforcement agencies are more alert to officer misconduct than ever before. Additionally, there is more press coverage of law enforcement, we have had the introduction of civilian complaint review boards in many of our large cities, and it is far more common to have leaks from department members to the press. Finally, departments today are far more likely to publicize officer misconduct as opposed to the past practices when many agencies swept similar behaviors under the rug.

Second, the number of opportunities that an officer(s) may be tempted to engage in improper conduct has increased dramatically. For example, an increase in the use of mind altering drugs by the public often leads to their unpredictable behavior when confronted by officers. This has led to some occasions of an unauthorized level of force. Drug commerce has also moved away from its early violent stage and is engaging in more sophisticated ways to ensure distribution, such as bribery. The level of job stress continues to increase in law enforcement. This leads to behaviors, which are of dubious value in relieving stress. Such activities as choir practice, the use of steroids for body building, the adoption of an us versus them mentality often leads to subsequent actions by officers that are clearly wrong.

Third, our society is producing a large number of individuals who do not exhibit strong character, deeply held values, or the reasoning ability to chose right from wrong behavior. Far too many individuals chose behaviors that reflect an incredible lack of self-discipline, which, of course, may result in individuals choosing behaviors that make them feel good, advance their personal interests, or satisfy their desire to dominate and control others. Given the nature of a police officer's job, if we have a large number of officers who have similar attitudes, and behavioral characteristics, it does not bode well for them, or the department.

Fourth, the work environment of law enforcement has become, laudably, multiracial and more balanced in percentages of men and women employed. Unfortunately, this has also led to more interpersonal contention on the job and some serious difficulties on the home front as well! Given more time, I am sure the work environment will improve in this regard significantly, but at present it still remains a major source of tension and officer misconduct.

Fifth, our highly materialistic society is very compelling. We are all a bit greedy--Some of us more so than others, and a few individuals are consumed by greed. Greed often wins when it conflicts with morality and ethical behavior. In the past ten years, the FBI has been shaken by a number of its Special Agents being involved in a criminal activity. In virtually every one of these cases the principle motivation on the part of the Agent was greed.

It is not uncommon for police officers to face similar moral choices. A combination of personal values, self-discipline, and fear of the consequences usually is sufficient to ensure that most of us make the right decision. But as we all know, the old cliché, "There but for the grace of God go I" is appropriate to describe how close we have all come to making the wrong decision. It requires a strong commitment to ethical principles, and self-discipline to the resist the proffered temptations of the job. That so many officers consistently make the right decision is a tribute to them, that a few officers make the wrong decision is devastating to us all.

Sixth, it is fashionable for politicians, activists, and other influential people in the community to talk tough on crime, take a conservative stance on all issues, and be unwavering in the defense of old fashioned virtues. Most of us in law enforcement hold similar views. However, holding these views personally, while at the same time not letting them have undue influence in the administration of a law enforcement agency is difficult.

Law enforcement agencies must strive for neutrality on such matters. A truly wise law enforcement administrator will avoid sending a message to the officer that the defense of traditional values is a function of the police. This would allow some officers to assume that they are doing "God's Work." We cannot allow our officers to become consumed with trying to bring justice to all of society's problems. If we allow this, it will only lead to actions on the part of some, which indicates they believe that the end justifies the means. Curbside justice, lying under oath, or planting evidence to send the bad guys away are means that some officers, at times, use to achieve a just end to a problem. Unfortunately, in most cases of this type that come to light, it is the officer who is sent to jail.

All of us in law enforcement have to realize that there are those in our society who would make us the unwitting victim of powerful social forces. These forces are dimly perceived and not well understood by either the officers or the organization. Often, the role of law enforcement in our society places officers between a rock and a hard place. An example of this would be the role we play in the conflict between opposing sides on the issue of abortion. The fact that we have handled this conflict in a most admirable fashion is a tribute to law enforcement executives who so correctly insulated the department from taking sides in the core issue.

We have not had similar good fortune in trying to police the conflict between labor and management when labor strikes disrupt a community. A similar example, but one of unintended consequence, is the politicization of some law enforcement agencies as a result of the nature of community-based policing. In this new policing initiative we have placed officers in difficult situations where they are often faced with choosing between the chief's views, as reflected in department policy, and the community's demands--which may significantly differ.

I strongly believe that officers on the street need help to maintain their moral character, reinforce their ethical conduct, and maintain their personal integrity. We must bear in mind that Socrates, Mother Teresa, or other revered individuals in our society ever had to face the constant stream of ethical problems of a busy cop on the beat. So, I think it only fair that one of the roles of Chief of Police, Sheriff, or Director of a law enforcement agency is to create an environment that will help the officer resist the temptations that may lead to misconduct, corruption, or abuse of power. The chief executive officer cannot sit idly by and observe officers being used as cannon fodder by various interest groups, each trying to exert influence on the public, and occasionally trying to use the police to further their agenda. Nor can the chief allow individual members of the force to do, as they plead in current advertising jargon, "Make your own rules--Do your own thing--or Just do it!"

The executive cannot construct a work environment that will completely insulate the officers, or the organization, from the forces which lead to misconduct. It is also certain that the chief not do this task alone. Help is needed from the labor associations representing police officers and support is needed from the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. In addition, the rank and file have to know and support the rules the organization uses to protect them from physical and mental harm. However, the ultimate responsibility for an officer's ethical and moral welfare rests squarely with the officer. Good character is an individual responsibility that you can never shed. The excuse that someone, or something, made me do it has rung hollow since Adam and Eve tried to blame the snake!

In the balance of this article I will offer a few suggestions for the chief executive officer to personally have an impact on preventing officer misconduct. Some of these suggestions may hit the mark--others may not. The purpose in offering them is to generate discussion, debate, and reflection on the responsibility that leadership has in the prevention of officer misconduct.

Every police organization has a set of values, written or unwritten, which form the underlying structure of all policy, guidelines, rules and regulations. If this has not yet been accomplished, members of the department, a citizen's group, or a mix of the two can make sure the department's values are set forth. The final result should be a set of principles by which every member of the department agrees to follow. Existing rules, policy, and regulations should be modified, if necessary, to reflect these guiding principles. Subsequent actions, both positive and negative, by members of the department should be judged according to these principles and appropriately recognized. If the department can accomplish this, then you can achieve a state of integrity--that is, a consistency of principle and actions throughout the organization. If all decision-making in the department can follow the logic of that flows from basic principles it will make the task of integrity maintenance much easier. It is the prime responsibility of the chief executive officer to ensure that the above analysis of organizational values is accomplished. You do not have to write the values personally, but you must ensure that the task is accomplished.

The most onerous words ever spoken to me by my mother were, "You must set a good example." I am sure your mom tried to drill the same principle in your head as well. Ed Delattre, Dean of Boston University's School of Education and the author of Character and Cops, makes our mother's advice even more difficult to do when he advises, "Do the right thing, even when no one is watching." These difficult bits of advice combined with the observation that the job of a law enforcement executive is one of the most demanding, complex, and lonely jobs found anywhere does make your life challenging.

Being the chief executive officer, or an aspiring CEO, of a law enforcement agency gives you little choice but to live your life, on and off the job, at a higher standard. Most important, however, is that this is the life you have chosen to live. You know that if you are going to set and enforce the rules and regulations, then you have to place yourself in a position, not only to abide by department rules, but to make compassionate judgments against those who do not. It is not wise to place yourself in a position in which others call you a hypocrite. This undermines the respect and authority you need to be the department's leader. Leading this type of life can be difficult, but it in the long run it is a very satisfying lifestyle. We all know that there is not a single action of the chief that is not observed and interpreted by someone in the department or the community. Your uniform, hair style, laughter, quirks, comments, golf score, shoes, kids, rose bushes, and your likes and dislikes are all observed, commented upon, and communicated to others. There is an expectation on the part of all department employees that you are perfect! How close you come to that ideal is directly related to how effective you will be in convincing the younger officers that your lifestyle is one they can confidently emulate.

A lot of evidence suggests that when the rules and regulations of an organization (or society) are rigidly enforced, the number of people committing serious infractions is significantly reduced. Presently, New York City is making that claim in regard to their recent significant reductions in the overall crime rate. New York's attitude is that if you enforce the small and petty regulations, it will have a chilling effect on the more serious violations. So far it seems to be working. I recall, many years ago, when I was a grade school principal, the rule of thumb was that you could tell the quality of a school by the condition of the buildings. Clean and well-maintained facilities usually reflected an administration that paid attention to the smaller details. It is also said that student behavior and performance are enhanced when students wear uniforms or a strict dress code is enforced.

All of us know that most cases of law enforcement corruption begin with infractions of minor rules followed by ever-increasing serious violations. Given that there is a modicum of truth in the above common sense assertions, it is reasonable to assume that strict enforcement of rules and regulations by sergeants and other officers is in the best interest of all. I would not argue that punishment has to be severe. Actually, I would say that for most minor cases of officer misconduct our discipline is too harsh and needs some adjustment downward. What is key is that the rules and regulations be tied directly to the guiding principles of the department. All personnel should understand the reasons behind each rule. They also need to appreciate that the strict enforcement of rules and regulations is not an exercise in power by the administration. This strict enforcement reminds all employees of the seriousness of our work and the devastating consequences of serious misconduct to both themselves and the organization. If you want to call strict enforcement of rules and regulations "putting the fear of God into employees" that's fine with me. Just make sure everyone knows that strict enforcement is a means to prevent more serious violations down the line. This organizational philosophy, currently out of favor, always worked in the past and produced great organizations. I see no reason why it would not work today.

It is easy to say that the simple way to avoid the problem of future officer misconduct is to hire only angels! Unfortunately that labor pool is rather thin since most of the members have taken jobs as our critics. Notwithstanding this paucity of available angels, the chief needs to know to similar truths underlying a good selection process--Leopards never change their spots and Past behavior is the best predictor of future behavior. A possible third thing for the chief to keep in mind is that you cannot make chicken salad out of, say, chicken feathers.

Remember what you are trying to find is people who can be educated and trained to be good cops. If they happen to be female, black, brown, or a member of a protected class, that is fine. However, if race, sex, or ethic origin are their only qualification you would be well advised to increase your efforts to find similar people who are more qualified.

You should never hire more people than your staff can properly handle in terms of an extensive background investigation to determine the past behaviors of the applicant. Since the use of the polygraph has proved to be extremely useful in the selection process, consider having each applicant tested after they have been found to meet minimum standards. Next, tough and demanding training provides an excellent view of the talents, self-discipline, willingness to learn, and work ethic of the applicant. Given a good look at an applicant's previous behavior and the applicant's performance in training should provide a sufficient amount of information to judge whether the applicant will succeed as a law enforcement officer.

Finally, there are occasions when big departments are required to hire a large number of people in a short period of time. Should this be the case, the chief must provide leadership to the department in resisting any, and all, political pressure to do so. Time and time again we have seen in law enforcement a rush-to-hire scenario enacted. It always results in eventual disaster for the department and also a disaster to the unqualified individuals we were in such a hurry to hire.

It is a reasonable assumption that most recruits and younger officers have little military experience and possess a set of values which are quite different from the older employees--or the traditional values of a law enforcement agency. It is the nature of youth to be different. However, experience teaches us that new age values, or traditional values not deeply ingrained, are not compatible with the corrosive and difficult nature of a police officer's job. Yet one of the most difficult teaching assignments found anywhere is in teaching values to the young. It becomes even more difficult when trying to change the mindset of older officers. I used to teach--and still believe--that the best way to change attitudes, and values, is with a baseball bat!

Whatever methodology we use, however, the carrot or the stick, it is important that all employees know and adopt the principles of the department in their daily lives. Thus, training in ethics, character, and morality is not only essential at the recruit level, but at all levels of command. This type of training should not be a one time event, but must be done on a continual basis and in conjunction with all other courses. I can think of no law enforcement training course, including roll call training that should not include some aspect of proper ethical behavior. This is a subject we have long ignored in law enforcement because we thought it just dealt with corruption. Even today, I see, in many departments a tendency to treat the subject like it is a vaccination. One, four, or six hour shot and you are immune forever! This is just not the case. Ethics is a serious course of study covering all aspects of our lives. Appropriately presented, on a continuing basis, the study of ethics has the potential to transform the profession of law enforcement.

There are several other topics that are critically needed by officers to assist them in resisting occasions of possible misconduct. These include a great deal more defensive tactics training so as to equip the officers with alternative ways to bring subjects under control without having to resort to more extreme measures. More training is required on when it is appropriate to use, or not use, force. Last, I think we need to develop a source of instruction that can assist officers in understanding the strength and weaknesses of their own personality. The question of why are we overly aggressive, why some officers have a need to dominate and control others, or why we think and act the way we do are important to understand. Additional training in the area of personal psychology would benefit all police personnel.

Many readers will say, "All of the above is well and good, but we are a small department and do not have the resources to accomplish most of your suggestions." However, an astute law enforcement administrator knows the power that training has in terms of changing, or improving the efficiency and effectiveness of operations. Knowing this, the problem becomes not a question of resources, but one of will.

Actually, there are many ways in which small, or cashed-strapped departments can receive good training. Usually, nearby larger department will lend a hand. Nearby corporations often make their relevant training programs available to a few officers. Talented individuals within the community, such as lawyers, doctors, and the clergy can present a variety of programs. The State Police, DEA, FBI, and other agencies of this type have always bent over backwards to provide training to smaller departments. The Internet is also fast becoming a means by which officers can take advanced academic training. Additionally, the Rural Law Enforcement Training Center in Little Rock is an outstanding source of training for smaller departments. So, it is not always a question of resources. Sometimes it just boils down to the law enforcement administrator's vision and will.

No administrator of a law enforcement agency can, of their efforts alone, prevent all cases of misconduct in a law enforcement agency. The administrator needs a great deal of help. Let me make this argument. Show me a law enforcement agency with a serious problem of officer misconduct and I will show you a department staffed with too many sergeants not doing their job. My advice to law enforcement administrators is to recognize the vital and influential role sergeants play within a police organization. They should be selected with care, given as much supervisory training as possible, and included in the decision-making process of the organization. Sergeants are, in the view of the troops, the custodians of the police culture, the leaders and informal disciplinarians of the department, and the individual most officers look to for advice. In my opinion, good sergeants are the most critical key in reducing incidents of misconduct in a law enforcement agency. They need to be a part of the management team and know that the chief stands behind them.

Not all police agencies are large enough to have an internal affairs unit or sufficient personnel to rotate officers from one assignment to another on a regular basis. Space does not permit a detailed discussion of these two diverse problems within a department, except to say that they can make a significant contribution to lessening the incidents of misconduct within a department.

Every chief needs someone within the department to handle internal investigations with competence, sensitivity, and objectivity. If this is not possible because of the size of the department, then the chief must find an alternative source to conduct internal investigations--such as the State Police or a cooperative federal agency. The simple reason for this recommendation is that the public has to have confidence that a law enforcement organization is willing and capable of investigating misconduct on the part of its employees.

Departments must also limit what they ask undercover officers and officers assigned to investigate vice and drug activities to do in the line of duty. You just can't leave an individual in this assignment without careful supervision and psychological support. The consequences to the officer are enormous--none of them, I might add, are good! If a chief asks an officer to handle these corrosive assignments, then it is important that the assignment be of short duration, with quality support, and a mandatory rotation after a reasonable time. I would also suggest, to the extent possible, that every officer in the department be rotated on a timely basis. Ignoring these minimum recommendations place the department, and the chief, in a position that is difficult to defend on either ethical or moral grounds.

The chief executive officer of a law enforcement agency should never underestimate the amount of influence they could have over the behavior of their employees. It is also argued that the CEO has a responsibility to do all that is humanly possible to help officers resist the temptations encountered on the job. There is no question that some civil service commissions, labor contracts, and civilian review boards often can be difficult hurdles for the CEO to overcome in the administration of a well disciplined department--but there are always going to be some obstacles to either educate or overcome.

I think President Truman's comment, "The buck stops here," is particularly relevant to the job of a law enforcement CEO. The "buck" does, in a law enforcement agency stop with the CEO. Responsibility is the nature of the job. In the final analysis, most law enforcement officers want to do the right thing. Given the right example to follow and a leader who will stand with them shoulder to shoulder, the law enforcement officers of tomorrow can set an example for all other professions to follow.

An excellent publication entitled, Maintaining Integrity in Law Enforcement Organizations, a joint project of the Major City Chiefs, the NEI Associates, and the FBI Academy is available without charge. Make your request to Special Agent Buddy McKinney, FBI Academy, Quantico, Virginia 22135.

In my opinion, the best book written on the subject of ethics, morality, and character in law enforcement was written by Ed Delattre, Dean of the School of Education, Boston University. It is entitled Character and Cops and was published by the American Enterprise Institute, Washington, D. C. It is now in its third printing.

The National Executive Institute Associates Leadership Bulletin editor is Edward J. Tully. He served with the FBI as a Special Agent from 1962 to 1993. He is presently the Executive Director of the National Executive Institute Associates and the Major City Chiefs. You can reach him via e-mail at tullye@aol.com or by writing to 308 Altoona Drive, Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401