Joined: 30 March 2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 14
QuoteReplyTopic: Police Video Posted: 28 May 2008 at 18:10
Greetings,
It has taken some time, but I wanted to take this opportunity to provide an update. Just to re-cap, a police officer, while assisting a motorist, caputured a less than flattering video of the motorist. That video was sent to his supervisor, on the supervisor's request, and from there it was forwarded to many agencies and officers, eventually making it to YouTube.
When the City Manager learned of the video, he asked the Chief of Police to conduct an investigation on the officer and then demanded that the officer be fired. The investigation revealed that no law or policy had been violated by the officer. The media learned of the controversy and the incident spiraled out of control. The Chief of Police retired. The City Manager stepped down. The officer kept his job.
One year later, the City is in the process of replacing the City Manager, and they will allow the new City Manager to administer the hiring process for the new Chief of Police. No charges were filed against the City Manager. No complaint was ever filed by the citizen who was the subject of the video.
What an absolute mess. Clearly there were several sub-plots running before this incident took place. The incident was the catalyst that brought them to the surface. Question: I do wonder how the City Manager, Chief of Police, patrol officer and his supervisor would have acted with 20-20 hindsight?
The value of ethics discussions like these is that they prepare us for these difficult decisions. The situations may differ but the principles and thinking processes apply across virtually all situations.
Thank you for your well thought out reply. I am sorry that I only just discovered that there is a page two to this discussion thread.
Now for news updates:
05/04/2007
Texas Rangers conducting inquiry into MPD officer's allegations against City Manager Rick Menchaca
Colin Guy<br>Staff Writer Midland Reporter-Telegram
-District Attorney Al Schorre said the inquiry is very preliminary and intended to determine whether or not a criminal investigation is needed
At the behest of District Attorney Al Schorre, the Texas Rangers are holding an inquiry to determine whether allegations made against City Manager Rick Menchaca by a Midland Police Department officer warrant a criminal investigation.
In April, MPD Officer Raymond Miller alleged in a written complaint that Menchaca ordered former Police Chief John Urby, who retired at the end of April, to terminate him following an internal investigation into how a video recorded by the camera in his police cruiser was released on the Internet. Miller, who indicated he distributed the video only to other police officers, stated in the complaint that state law requires that police officers be provided with a written complaint before being disciplined or terminated. Menchaca violated the law by ordering his termination without following the proper procedures, Miller alleged, and broke a state statute that prohibits abuse of office. Additionally, he stated in the complaint that Menchaca retaliated against his mother-in-law, Nancy Witten, after she spoke out at a City Council meeting in favor of higher police salaries by deciding to no longer use her pest control company to treat city buildings.
Texas Rangers Company "E" Capt. Barry Caver told the Reporter-Telegram he can "only confirm" an inquiry is being conducted and indicated the law enforcement agency is "really just doing preliminary (work) to see whether we're going to do an investigation." Caver referred any additional questions to Schorre.
"The status right now... we got a copy of the complaint the officer sent out. We got a copy of that, took a look at it and made an inquiry to the Rangers to see if they'd look into it," Schorre said. "I know from talking to them they've been busy looking into other things. I really don't think it's up to an investigation ... an investigation is where you're pretty sure a crime has occurred. I'd call this an inquiry, where you'd see if there is even a possible offense."
Schorre added he doubts if "it's on their front burner" and pursuing the inquiry is "probably waiting to get on to the back burner, actually," because the Texas Rangers have many other cases they are working on.
Witten, the owner of Boydstun Pest Control, told the Reporter-Telegram that her company bid less than a competitor based in Abilene, but her company has been performing pest control services for the city for around 60 years and had never been asked to submit a bid before. A few weeks after she addressed the subject of police salaries at a City Council meeting last fall, she said, she was notified she would be required to submit a bid to continue performing pest control services for the city.
"If the bid was put out by the city administration in retaliation for speaking out to the City Council, as I believe, then there is definitely something wrong in the state of Denmark," Witten said.
Witten said she does not know how many companies were invited to bid on pest control services and questioned whether it was possible the company that won the bid was contacted because someone working for the city knew it would submit a lower bid. Witten said she does not care about the money, but about "what's right and wrong."
City Attorney Keith Stretcher told the Reporter-Telegram that for contracts worth less than $25,000 city managers are authorized to award a contract to a company without first seeking authorization from the City Council, but may elect to use some form of competitive bidding process. Stretcher said he could not discuss the allegations made by Miller. Menchaca has declined to comment on the allegations, as well.
05/22/2007
BREAKING NEWS >> City Manager Rick Menchaca resigns; Assistant City Manager Tommy Hudson appointed temporary replacement
Colin Guy Staff Writer
Following the resignation of City Manager Rick Menchaca the City Council voted Tuesday to appoint Assistant City Manager Tommy Hudson as his temporary replacement.
The City Council also voted to authorize Mayor Mike Canon and At-large City Councilman Wes Perry to negotiate an "employment agreement" with Menchaca, but would not elaborate on the nature of the agreement.
Prior to the City Council's vote members of the public addressed city officials in Menchaca's defense and requested that more information be provided regarding his removal from office.
"You hear removal and I don't think that's the right word," Perry said. "It is a personnel matter and we have to respect Rick and his family and keep it private to the extent possible."
During a press conference held outside of City Hall after the meeting Menchaca expressed his appreciation for the show of support from members of the public who spoke out on his behalf. Menchaca also recognized his team-members and employees for their contribution to the successful completion of goals set by the City Council during his tenure as city manager.
"I believe you try to make your corner of the world a better place when you leave it, than when you arrived and I've done so in Midland," Menchaca said.
Lydia Madrigal, who said she has been asked to serve as a spokeswoman for Menchaca, told the Reporter-Telegram that Menchaca will be working with the city as a consultant to assist during the period of transition until a new city manager is hired. She indicated that Menchaca resigned, but added that "I think it's fair to say he wasn't thinking of resigning prior to this." Madrigal said that she was not aware of the specific issues surrounding Menchaca's departure from the city and that the parties involved are "trying to keep it internal."
End of news articles.
So, the Chief of Police has retired and the City Manager has resigned. The criminal investigation continues, and the officer who first started this controversy is still employed. I don't think anyone could have predicted the outcome to have been so far reaching over a somewhat trivial incident. That is, if the incident had been handled differently from the outset, it is doubtful that two high placed administrators would now be where they have found themselves.
As always, I appreciate the participation of everyone in this forum.
I think there have been some very valid points already said, particularly in relation to isolating the main officer’s role in this dilemma i.e. (officer described above as C). This is the focus. Everything that has taken place since is as a result of other people’s actions and reactions to events. I like the “vortex” descriptor which is a term I am familiar with and is pretty much synonymous with all ethical problems if not dealt with or challenged at source.
Now imagine if the first officer who received this video footage did what should have been expected of him/her, to CHALLENGE officer C and point out this is an inappropriate course of action albeit perhaps amusing and only amongst friends. I mean inappropriate in respect of using police information and equipment to send the video footage to others instead of its intended purpose. I would suggest that the problem may well have been solved before it became a problem. So ironically Officer C’s colleagues have contributed to his/her current predicament.
I know that this seems simplistic but I think it IS! I know from experience how difficult this can be to challenge colleague’s behaviour or actions. It was interesting to find that the recent polls conducted by EiP about challenging unethical behaviour or practice bears out how difficult this is to do BUT we can actually be helping our colleague by doing so.
To get back to the point initially raised by Texascop I support the views that it was inappropriate to distribute this video footage and officer C should apologise for this. The remaining events although are as a result of the first, should be looked at in isolation and do raise serious ethical issues in there own right.
At some point the actions and ethical decision making of D & E in particular, would provide some interesting and worthy debate for this forum.
Thank you for the story. I agree that it is important to keep an eye on the main issue. I also agree that a sincere apology is in order.
From the vortex:
Yesterday, the father-in-law of the City Manager is reported to have addressed the Mayor and City Council on behalf of his son-in-law. He called for an elevated discussion of the issues without name calling. He is reported to have ended by remarking about the "lame-brained cop" who criticized his son-in-law.
Attempting to place ourselves in the shoes of others is an eminently decent thing to do. How would I feel if I were the butt of this incident? I agree with Kiplin that when an action of ours has been hurtful and wrong, that an apology is in order. There is something entirely redemptive (for both parties) in the issuing of a sincere apology, even, and perhaps especially, when to do so might be to get us into legal difficulties.
We have an Aboriginal expression here in Canada that goes something like this: Never judge another man until you have walked at least two moons in his moccasins. Perhaps there is a message here regarding this situation we are discussing.
I think your vortex description is quite a good one in this case as it seems a storm had been brewing for some time.
A CID Training School in the Uk has a Red Squirrel as its emblem the reason for this is. When a law firm was seeking a new employee to train and had several applicants it gave them a case to study overnight from which they could ask one question the next day. The case was:
A farmer had a problem with a red squirrel and one day he was so up set he took is shotgun and fired at the squirrel who was running into a barn. He missed the squirrel and hit a lamp.The lamp fell to the ground and set fire to the barn containing cows. Some of the cows ran out of the door over the wife of the farmer, the farmer ran into the barn to try and get the rest of the cows out. The barn burnt to the ground.
The next day when the perspective candidates arrived for interview they were asked what quetions they felt was the most important. One asked if the farmers wife was alright, another asked if the farmer had survived the fire, another asked if the cows were saved and another asked if the barn was insured. One candiate asked what happend to the Squirrel thats the one who got the job.
In this case you are asked to speak on a person's behalf keep an eye on the squirrel do not get side tracked by other issues.
Having viewed the above my opnion is whilst the officer has not broken any laws, policies or procedures in all honesty would he have liked himself or a member of his family to be made the centre of a joke. If the answer is no then whilst not accepting any addmission of guilt over any procedural issues he should accept the action taken was in hindsight insensitive to the feeling of others and offer a personal apology.
The other issues raised as a result of this sequence of events are issues that need to be dealt with seperatly as they raise a number of serious ethical issues that need to be resolved.
Thank you for organizing the issues in the manner presented. I very much like the way you have done that.
With regard the officer making the video, when his overhead warning lights were activated, the video camera was also automatically activated. As might be expected, this is an automatic function because in the heat of the moment, during critical incidents, it has been found that officers often forget to turn on the video camera.
I agree that more has been made of this incident than it warranted. However, as William Tafoya once noted, ethical delimas can become the center of an ever more rapidly spinning vortex. Sometimes people on the edge of the incident find themselves sucked in to the vortex.
In this incident, the officer has found a mountain made of a mole hill. That is, as has been suggested, there were and are excellent opportunities for dealing with the root issue in a positive manner. However, the Chief of Police in this case has also been swept into the vortex, and now the City Manager is being swept in as well. It is interesting to note, that the officer, who started all of this when he copied the video, had no intention of setting off a series of events that would cause the Chief of Police to announce his retirement, nor that would provoke the local police association to publicly challenge the City Manager. Make no mistake, while the police association commented on man-power issues, the impetus for those remarks was the demand for termination and subsequent retirement announcement.
Then there are the others in positions of responsibility who contributed to the dissemination of the video, and whose names will eventually become known to the news media. The vortex can be relentless.
I note that the originator of this item asks for comments and add mine on the basis that the more comments he receives, the better, and that my comments are purely personal.It is highly doubtful they are any more knowledgeable than those of anyone else, and whilst it would be possible to relate abstruse ethical theory to this story, I do not believe it to be necessary.
I have assumed that the facts as reported are true.
For simplicity, I label the main characters as follows.
AThe man pushing the car
BHis wife
CThe police officer who made and distributed the video
DC’s chief officer
EThe city manager
Comments
A and B would appear to have done nothing wrong, and to be the victims of what is at the least inappropriate behaviour by an official of the state who is in a position to act as another citizen could not do.
I cannot see what legitimate reason that C can claim that he should have made this video, nor distributed it.Moreover, once he had made and sent off the video, as it were, he had no further control of it.I would assume that he should have been aware of that.(This is the reasonable person argument).
In my view, what C may not have been illegal or forbidden by regulations, but it was wrong.It was not a proper use of police time and equipment and it served no useful policing purpose.It cannot have improved the view of A and B of the police.It could be argued that it brings the police service into disrepute.Those views should have been apparent to C as a trained and experienced police officer who is expected to use his discretion for the public good, and not to amuse his colleagues.
The punishment, if any, should be proportionate to what occurred, and I should have thought this a good opportunity for restorative justice.(i.e., A, B and C should sort it out amongst themselves, with someone to act as the voice of common sense.)I cannot see why this episode should be made into a make or break issue for the police chief, and it is clearly unethical if someone is dismissed from any position on grounds that have been ‘manufactured’, as it were.(“Here’s our opportunity at last!”)
Clearly, as with many controversies, the original point at issue is in danger of becoming lost in further argument.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Topic Options
