|
|
|
| NEWS > 18 September 2007 |
Other related articles:
Former police private eyes jai
Two former policemen have been jailed for hacking into computers while working as private detectives.
Ex-Met officers Jeremy Young and Scott Gelsthorpe even tried to hack into the New York Stock Exchange. They received 27 months and two years respectively.
Three former Staffordshire officers were jailed for unlawfully accessing the police national computer.
John Matthews was jailed for 14 months, Anthony Wood received 10 months, and Gary Flanagan got a three-month term.
Matthews, 59, from Stafford, used his position as a serving detective sergeant to r... Read more
|
 Article sourced from
|
|
Fort Smith Times Record - Fort
18 September 2007
This article appeared in the above title/site.
To view it in its entirity click this link.
|
|
Actions Show Lack Of Ethics
When City Director Velvet Medlock married the Fort Smith Police Department’s Maj. Jeff Barrows and became Director Velvet Barrows, the new arrangement garnered interest. In the quick hierarchy, Maj. Barrows answers to new Police Chief Kevin Lindsey, who answers to City Administrator Randy Reed, who answers to Director Barrows and the other directors. Hence, the potential for a conflict of interest was out there for anyone who wanted to connect the dots — if and when there was an opportunity for dot-connecting.
Still, we are an accommodating society, are we not, and love, being what it is, we’re all about giving people the benefit of the doubt. Surely, SURELY, having stepped onto such a slick surface, Director Barrows would walk very carefully so as NOT to show even the slightest hint of a conflict of interest in regard to her husband. Surely, SURELY, if her husband’s name came up concerning his employment with the Police Department, she would be silent and disappear from view.
Ah, were it so. If she has the slightest bit of restraint in her being, she has lost track of it as she has become her husband’s protector on the board.
During the past three weeks, Chief Lindsey put Maj. Barrows and two other Police Department personnel on administrative leave. Since then, an internal investigation has been ongoing. As with any such high-profile action, there have been rumors, but all the public knows for sure is that there’s an investigation.
Shortly after the chief’s action, some police officers apparently felt his position was in jeopardy, and in response, two police unions and hundreds of citizens expressed their support for Lindsey. The effect of that was to draw a line between the chief and those he had put on administrative leave.
Enter local attorney Chip Sexton. Sexton, at the behest of a group of police officers, filed a Freedom of Information request, asking for any correspondence between Director Barrows and the city staff and other directors regarding the police chief and his internal investigation.
Sexton said he and the officers were concerned that there had been an “inappropriate attempt” by Director Barrows to get information about what the chief was doing.
“If you use your role as a city director to gain information concerning an investigation about your husband, I think that anyone can see that there is a conflict of interest,” Sexton wrote.
Sexton’s intuition that something was amiss was dead on. Deputy City Administrator Dean Kruithof confirmed that he had received a request from Director Barrows regarding the status of the internal investigation.
For her part, Director Barrows said she had indeed asked for the status report — as is her right as a director, she said — and that she had talked to other directors about the possibility of holding an executive session to discuss Chief Lindsey’s performance.
“In conversation with those members, there clearly was an interest to support the meeting,” Director Barrows said. “It was to address the board’s concerns with the performance of Chief Kevin Lindsey.”
More likely that would be Director Barrows’ concerns. The reader can judge for himself, but in reading Saturday’s Times Record story, we did not get the impression that there was any burning interest in supporting an executive session to talk about Lindsey.
At-Large Director Kevin Settle said Director Barrows called him and asked if he would support going into executive session. “I declined,” Settle said. “I didn’t think there was any reason to do one at this point in time.”
At-Large Director Gary Campbell said an executive session on Lindsey would be out of place because he works for Reed, not the board of directors.
That Director Barrows may not have been the first to bring up the proposal — she said Director Cole Goodman first approached her with the idea — is irrelevant. Whatever the other directors did, she should have stayed out of it.
That she said she would vote to go into executive session and then recuse herself upon the board’s doing so is as disingenuous as an arsonist who lights the match and claims innocence as others fan the flames. It is still his fire as this matter would be Velvet Barrows’. Again, she should not be involved.
Added to the obvious nature of her conflict of interest in this matter is the way some board members went after Lindsey. This is the same board that was slapped down by the state Appeals Court and the state Supreme Court for discussing city business during serial phone calls from the city administrator to individual directors. The courts ruled that the calls constituted a meeting and, therefore, ran afoul of the state FOI law. What is it about that ruling that is so difficult for Director Barrows and other directors to understand?
From this perspective, the series of conversations among directors to gauge or drum up interest in an executive session regarding Lindsey’s performance is once again an attempt to conduct the public’s business in private.
It almost goes without saying, but we find Director Barrows’ actions highly objectionable. She is in the uncomfortable position of being married to a high-ranking police officer whose job may be in question. But she knew going in that such a situation, however unlikely, could arise.
A nobler elected official would have stayed far, far away from the situation. We thought Director Barrows was closer to being that person than what she has shown herself to be — someone whose ethics are sadly lacking.
|
| |
 EiP Comments:
|
|---|
|
| |
* We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper or periodical. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and we will remove the article. The articles republished on this site are provided for the purposes of research , private study, criticism , review, and the reporting of current events' We have no wish to infringe the copyright of any newspaper , periodical or other works. If you feel that we have done so then please contact us with the details and where necessary we will remove the work concerned.
|
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
 |
Ethics in Policing, based in the UK, provide information and advice about the following:
Policing Research | Police News articles | Police Corruption | International Policing | Police Web Sites | Police Forum | Policing Ethics | Police Journals | Police Publications |
|
| |
|
