Personnel Appeals Board Case Concludes

The PAB reached a unanimous decision tonight after two days of deliberations that the Sergeant's Promotional Exam from 2019 which had been appealed by multiple participants was indeed flawed. They will reconvene on Monday August 2nd to decide what the remedy will be (i.e. a new test and/or recommendations to fix the testing process for the future). We won't know what exactly this means until then. Thank you everyone for your patience while this matter worked it's way through the lengthy process and COVID induced delays.

Update to Last Post

 The meeting for tonight was cancelled, it has now been rescheduled to July 26th when a decision should be expected.

Decision Expected In Sergeant Test Appeal

 The Personnel Appeals Board is now scheduled to meet and deliver a decision in the matter of the appeal of the Sergeant's Promotional Exam on July 12th. We're now over two years into this process and are pleased to finally see it come to some sort of resolution. Though it was disappointing to see the Town continue their trend of doing everything in their power to keep this process hidden in the shadows by even excluding the Appellants themselves from the last hearing on June 30th where their attorney delivered their closing statement. I can't think of any legitimate proceeding where a plaintiff or appellant would be excluded from their own hearing where remarks are being given on their behalf. It defies logic.

This entire mess began because of the Town's complete lack of transparency with the stakeholders. Clearly they have learned nothing from it because all they have done throughout the process is double down on that lack of transparency. Until the entire testing and promotional process is reformed and made to be completely impartial, fair, and open, with a clearly defined rubric and rules, it's very likely that these problems will continue because employees and the public will not have faith in it. 

The Union has approached the Town numerous times in the past two years with ideas on how to fix the testing process to ensure it is completely fair. We've even asked to simply have a meeting where we could all sit down to discuss the matter and try to come to a mutually agreeable solution. Yet every single time we've asked, the Town has refused to even have a discussion with us. It's clear that they have no interest whatsoever in fixing this problem. Meanwhile the Town is bleeding tens of thousands of dollars in overtime costs while the Supervisor shortages continue as the appeals process plays out. 

Does EHPD Really Have a Lying Problem?

 In the past 11+ years that I've worked at EHPD, up until a little over a year ago I had only seen one non-probationary employee terminated, and I can't remember hearing of anyone being found guilty of lying. Yet somehow, in the last 15 months or so we've had five members investigated for "lying" and four terminations. So what's changed? Let's look at a brief overview of some of these cases of alleged "lying" and see if we can figure it out.

In one case we had an Officer with over 20 years on the job, who stated in an Internal Affairs interview that he was escorting a lost motorist to the highway. He was asked where he began the escort and at first wasn't sure, but after being pressed for an answer eventually gave a location. The IA Investigator went to multiple businesses along his route and asked to view their security cameras. Two of the businesses complied, one near where the Officer claimed he began the escort, and another near the end. The camera near the starting point didn't show the vehicle the Officer described behind his cruiser. However, the camera near where the escort ended did in fact show the exact car he described as the very next vehicle on the road a short distance behind the cruiser. 

Now any reasonable person would take that information and figure that perhaps the Officer was mistaken about where exactly the escort began, but clearly the escort did occur based on the second camera confirming his story. However this wasn't enough for our IA division, they still accused the Officer of lying about the escort, and Chief Sansom terminated him. 

Then we had another case that has been detailed here before, where two 20+ year veteran Officers were accused of making statements to members of a construction crew on a job site during a conversation. There was no evidence other than the statements from four workers, who actually contradicted each other on some points, and one of whom even admitted that he was on a different job site in another part of Town when the conversation in question occurred, and didn't actually witness anything first hand. However when the Officers denied the accusations against them, they were also charged with lying simply because they disagreed with the people who were accusing them. By this standard, you're not even allowed to defend yourself against an allegation without being called a liar. Apparently due process isn't a thing we do in East Hartford any more.

Lastly we have the most recent case involving a car chase of an armed felon in a stolen vehicle that ended in a crash. Here again the Officers were asked numerous questions about exactly where they were at precise times during the incident, over two months after it happened. Prior to the interview IA had already pulled surveillance footage, and GPS data from the cruisers. But IA didn't allow the Officers to view any of this information before answering their questions. Some of this data was actually pretty inaccurate however, and months later when the Officers were finally allowed to see it after the investigation was over, they found that it seemed to show one of the cruisers in different locations at the same time, and at one point even shows a cruiser moving backwards. Note that at the time this incident occurred we did not yet have body cameras.

Despite all of these inconsistencies in the evidence, when the account the Officers gave put them a couple hundred yards away from where IA thought they were based on videos and GPS the Officers were never allowed to see, they were still charged with lying by IA. Keep in mind that even based on the evidence from IA, the Officer's cruisers were still so far away from the suspect vehicle that they would have been out of visual contact with it well before the crash even occurred. So really their exact position on the road was kind of trivial to the substance of the case itself.

This is a pretty dangerous standard to have for an investigation in the era of cameras being everywhere, including on our bodies. In this case the Investigator has all of the footage and evidence, but you're not allowed to see it. But if the answers you give to the questions solely from your recollection don't match up perfectly with what's on the video that you can't see, then you're branded a liar. This doesn't make sense. 

The IA Investigator goes on to claim in his report that Police Officers are special in that they should have the ability to perfectly recollect everything that occurs during "stressful" and "chaotic" incidents without error. This is simply and obviously untrue. Police Officers are regular people, we get tunnel vision when we're stressed, and sometimes the exact order of events gets crossed up. We've all been through the trainings where we saw Officers who were interviewed after critical incidents and incorrectly recollected how many shots they fired, or where exactly people were at a given moment, etc... Scientists have even studied this phenomenon in first responders specifically and found that even in those who are expected to handle it, stress still causes the impairment of memory.

So what's changed in the past year or so, have veteran EHPD Officers just gone nuts and decided to start lying about minor details en mass? I personally don't think so. You see, this sudden flip of a switch from Internal Affairs where everyone is suddenly lying, coincided with a change of personnel running the division, namely Lt. Joe Ficacelli, who is the lead IA investigator. His name has come up here before, where we mentioned how he himself was terminated from his former employer, the Hartford Police Department, while he was in the Academy after they found some "inconsistencies" in the information he provided during his background check surrounding his steroid use and car crashes (click here for story). Is he looking for some kind of redemption for his past by making these accusations against others? I don't know.

What I do know however, is that Lt. Ficacelli was asked about his past with Hartford back in December of 2020 while he was testifying under oath in a hearing before the State Labor Board. But when the Union attorney began asking him about what happened to result in his termination, according to the transcript Lt. Ficacelli stated that he was "vindicated" in civil court. He then went on claim that he believed he had signed a non-disclosure agreement with the City of Hartford that would preclude him from speaking about the matter in the hearing. The Hearing Officer then stated that if he was the subject of an NDA then he couldn't be required to answer the questions about his termination.

So naturally this piqued my curiosity, and we made a few phone calls to the Hartford Police Department and filed an FOI request. After some time they were able to dig up the agreement that Lt. Ficacelli had cited to get out of answering the questions during the hearing. Upon review of the document we found that the City did not admit to any wrongdoing in terminating Ficacelli, and even had it clearly written that they were only agreeing to the settlement to avoid paying further legal costs fighting his lawsuit. The City merely agreed to sponsor Ficacelli to attend the POST Academy on the explicit condition that once he completed his training, the City would NOT employ him as a Police Officer, and he'd have to seek employment elsewhere. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't describe signing an agreement that states you're not going to get a job from an employer who terminated you, as being "vindicated." 

Additionally, paragraph 5 of the settlement clearly states that while Ficacelli is not allowed to speak of the details of the agreement to the general public, he is allowed to discuss it if compelled by "compulsory process of law." Such as testifying under oath in an official proceeding before a body such as the State Labor Board. So he actually shouldn't have been allowed to refuse to testify, and mislead the Hearing Officer.

So using the standard that Lt. Ficacelli has applied to the people his office has investigated, wouldn't these inaccurate statements that he made, under oath, also qualify as lies? Perhaps he mis-spoke, or mis-remembered some of the details? Well that reasoning didn't seem to resonate with him when he was the one doing the investigating. What we know is that he hasn't been investigated, or even written up, so I guess it's not lying when he does it, just everyone else? Seems like a bit of a double standard.

Fringe Benefits

 Anyone who's worked Patrol over the past year or two knows that the EHPD fleet of vehicles is in pretty bad shape. While we have a few newer vehicles many of the older ones are in various states of disrepair and are constantly in and out of the shop for repairs due to break downs or crash damage. As a result many of the cars that are still on the road end up running 24/7 as the oncoming shift often has to call the outgoing shift in off the road to take their cars.

So, we were glad to see in some documents we received that we are budgeted to get 6 new cruisers, and one new K9 vehicle. The existing K9 cars are in especially bad condition, being Crown Victoria models that haven't been produced since the 2011 model year.

However it was pretty surprising to see this sentence in the document that after the patrol vehicles were purchased, "remaining monies to be utilized for purchasing a 2021 Chevy Tahoe LS for the Chief of Police." While East Hartford Police Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs have long gotten free take home cars as a fringe benefit, this purchase is surprising because Chief Sansom just recently got a 2020 Ford Explorer. So I wouldn't think that SUV is already so worn out that he needs to replace it with a brand new 2021 Tahoe with a $52,600 starting MSRP. And his Deputies are also currently driving relatively new Ford Explorers as well.

The other problem with this is that ever since Chief Sansom was hired, he has taken to purchasing non-Police package vehicles for himself and his Deputies, instead opting for more expensive, fancier civilian models. The previous Chief, Mark Sirois, would purchase a new vehicle for himself nearly annually, but his take home vehicle was usually a basic Police package fleet vehicle, the same as everyone else. That way when he got a new vehicle, his old one could simply be rotated into the fleet at no loss to the overall Department. With these civilian spec vehicles Chief Sansom opts to purchase however, there is very limited use for them after he's done with them since they can't be equipped for Patrol and aren't pursuit rated.

Chevrolet actually sells two models of Police specific Tahoes, a PPV and SSV, which can usually be had for less money than the civilian models, and come pre-wired for Police equipment like radios, computers, and lights. However these models usually come with a far more basic exterior appearance, and a stripped down interior devoid of higher end features, they prioritize function over form. On the civilian model the Chief is purchasing for himself, the Town will also have to pay extra to get it wired up on top of the already increased purchase price, further inflating the cost.

So what does any of this have to do with us? Well it comes back to a recurring theme on this blog, where the Town and their officials have consistently told us that they don't have money to afford things like training, equipment, raises, or better health insurance. But when the time comes to buy the Chief yet another new up-specced SUV or other Administrative want, suddenly the cash flows. They seem to be selectively broke when it's convenient for them, yet flush with cash when they want to be. So I thought I'd try to find a few things the Department could purchase with about $55,000 if the Chief could bear to drive his old 2020 Explorer for another year. 

For about $53,000 we could acquire another new K9 car. The three in use right now are relatively dilapidated, and only one currently appears to be budgeted to be replaced. 

For about $51,000 you could also purchase brand new ballistic vests for about half the Department. Manufacturers usually recommend replacement about every 5 years.

For just a few thousand dollars we could get all new, and a greater number of computers for the Patrol report writing room. Currently we don't even have enough computers for an entire squad to use them at the same time, and often times at least one isn't working. It's not uncommon to see Officers standing in the back of the room waiting their turn to use a computer, especially during the overlap period between shifts. 

In fact, for $55,000 you could even outfit about half of Patrol with brand new laptops (Or all of Patrol with refurbished). This way each Officer could have their own computer that they put in a docking station inside the car like many other Departments do instead of having desktops in the building and tablets permanently installed in the cars.

$55,000 can be used to pay for a good portion of the cost of a used armored vehicle for the SWAT team. They haven't had an armored car since the old one caught on fire while driving down Route 2 a several years back and have since resorted to driving around in what is effectively a box truck. A new armored truck would obviously make it much safer for our team members to operate in the field on volatile scenes.

$55,000 could also pay for about 957 hours of overtime so Officers and Detectives can do things like follow up on cases and respond to crime scenes. Or you put together crime prevention details to tackle the epidemic of auto thefts and car burglaries that seems to have no end in sight. Or you could just use it to pay for the overtime we're incurring every day due to being short staffed.

You could also use that money to pay for the necessary retraining we all now need to re-learn how to do our jobs without getting arrested under the new Police Accountability Act. This law has fundamentally changed how Policing works in Connecticut, yet we haven't really received any new training on what we're supposed to be doing differently now. This has left our members in limbo wondering what to do, and at risk of having their lives ruined by simply doing what they have been trained since day 1 of their careers.

Then of course there's the obvious, we could just buy another Patrol car... and have money left over.

I could keep going on, but I think the point is made. The priorities of the people in charge here are just backwards. A good manager would want to ensure that the people working on the front lines have the training and equipment they need to do their jobs effectively, and are well compensated before spending money that we supposedly don't have to buy unnecessary new family vehicles for themselves on the taxpayer's dime.

There will be a new Mayor coming into Office by the end of the year, hopefully whoever that ends up being will take a hard look at how the dollars are being spent at EHPD.

The End Is In Sight - Sergeant's Test Update

 Last night the Personnel Appeals Board held the final hearing with witness testimony in the matter of the Sergeant's test appeal. They scheduled two more hearings, one on June 14th where closing arguments will be given, this hearing will probably still be subject to the gag order and therefore closed to the public. And a final hearing on June 23rd where the panel is expected to issue it's decision. This final hearing should be open to the public if anyone wants to attend. There is also the possibility with the State opening things back up that the final two hearings may be held in person at Town Hall rather than online.

We're coming up on the two year anniversary of the date this test was given and everyone is eager to get this resolved. We can only hope that the PAB will take this opportunity to fix this process and institute reforms in the testing process going forward such as hiring an independent firm to conduct the testing, and/or video recording the interviews to create a clear and indisputable record of the process so these lengthy and arduous hearings can hopefully be avoided in the future. 

May Meeting

 Our regular monthly meeting will be held on May 28th at 0830 at our outdoor location. This will be our last monthly meeting before the summer break and we have a few important issues to discuss.

Not Even Pretending Anymore

 Early Thursday morning an armed car burglary suspect opened fire on two East Hartford Officers and a citizen complainant while fleeing from the scene of the crime with his accomplice. Fortunately by sheer luck nobody was struck by the bullet, however the suspects managed to escape (Click here for the full story). This incident seems to be part of an escalation that's occurred over the last few years and has really ticked up over the past 12 months. We've seen things like car break-ins, thefts, and shootings increase in frequency, as well as more suspects fleeing from Officers trying to stop them, both in cars and on foot. Now we're seeing suspects responding to Officers with deadly force for daring to try and stop them from stealing a few bucks out of someone's cup holder.

This escalation is most likely related to the current anti-Police attitudes embraced by our State politicians who emboldened criminals with their Anti-Police "reform" bill that they forced through along party lines last summer. Our hands have been tied and our members have been demonized by rhetoric pushed for political gain, and the bad guys know it. 

But we've written about this problem before, and we warned of it along with numerous other Unions and Police groups before the law's passage. Now those ominous predictions are coming to fruition. But I think we all hoped that even with the national media and the politicians turning on us and using the Police as scapegoats for their failed policies, that we'd at least have support from our Administrators who used to be cops themselves way back when. But that hasn't been the case. 

When that shooting occurred Thursday morning Chief Sansom was out of State on vacation, so he had left his number two man Deputy Chief Hawkins as Acting Chief in his absence. When DC Hawkins was called in the early morning hours and informed about two of his employees being shot at, he never came in to work to see the scene for himself or check on his guys, or even just show his support. Instead he made a few phone calls and then presumably went back to bed. As if that wasn't bad enough, when the members on scene requested he send the Detective Bureau out on overtime to help collect and process evidence so we could try to identify the suspects before they catch another Officer off guard, DC Hawkins actually pushed back and questioned why we needed Detectives to come out before eventually relenting and allowing only one Detective and an Investigator to come in. This behavior just further shows that this Administration is beyond maintaining even the mere appearance of giving a damn about their employees' wellbeing. 

Their sole concern these days seems to be cutting the budget and pinching every penny they can. That is unless of course we're talking about raises for themselves where Chief Sansom just took a $30,000 raise (sorry, "market adjustment") for himself and Hawkins is proposed to get an $11,000 bump with the new, unnecessary Assistant Chief position that's being created for him. Meanwhile their employees continue to be some of the lowest paid in the region and that shows no signs of changing.

This Administration's policy of slashing costs with no regard has helped put us in this hole we're in today. Our pro-active unit has been completely dissolved, our Detective Bureau is rarely ever allowed to come in and do details to target crime hot spots and other issues, and even several members of our Traffic Unit are being required to do double duty by also performing Patrol functions. And on top of that any Officer who tries to do pro-active work has to worry about having IA come after them even if something completely out of their control goes wrong. 

A Police Department isn't a business, we don't sell anything and we don't make money. Our job is to stop and prevent crime, but we don't control the criminals, or when or where the crime happens. When crime goes up you need to put guys on it, and that costs money, but that's just the price of having a good Police Department.

April Meeting

We will be holding our regular April meeting On Tuesday the 27th at 0830 at our outdoor location. See the postings for more info.

Fourth Times a Charm?

This week yet another EHPOA member filed suit against Chief Scott Sansom for civil rights violations, this time Federal Court (Click here for story). This case involves a member who was improperly terminated back in 2013 after being arrested in a criminal case where the charges were later dismissed. Our Union filed a grievance on the employee's behalf due to disparate treatment compared to other employees who committed similar acts and were merely suspended, and eventually won his reinstatement at the SBMA (State Board of Mediation and Arbitration) in 2015.

Immediately after being reinstated, Chief Sansom terminated the employee a second time based on the same allegations that had already been argued before the SBMA and thrown out in his previous case. This second termination was clearly retaliatory and the Administration was admonished by the Arbitration Panel to "cease and desist from refusing to comply with their prior order" to reinstate the employee, and characterized their actions as an "unlawful circumvention" of their prior decision. 

The Administration then appealed the overturning of this second termination to State Superior Court which upheld the decision of the SBMA and also ordered the Town to reinstate the employee. The Town appealed the decision again to the State Appellate Court. Prior to a hearing at the Appellate Court the Administration and the Union negotiated a settlement agreement to reinstate the member with back pay and agreed that the Chief would take "all necessary steps to assist" the member in regaining both his POST and COLLECT certifications so he could resume his career as a Police Officer. 

The employee was reinstated in November 2016 and began working as a "Service Aid" while he completed his POST recertification process which he finished in 2017. POST subsequently recommended the member be reinstated as Police Officer pending his recertification with COLLECT.

At a COLLECT hearing in 2017 attended by our member and the Police Administration to rule on his eligibility for recertification, it is alleged that members of the Administration deliberately sabotaged the Officer's chances by instead of endorsing his recertification, they discussed the previously dismissed allegations against him and effectively argued against his reinstatement.

In 2019 the member had another opportunity to regain his COLLECT certification pending a written recommendation to COLLECT from the Chief of Police. It is alleged that Chief Sansom refused to submit said letter or provide supporting testimony which resulted in the member's COLLECT recertification again being denied. These actions are an obvious and deliberate violation of the Settlement agreed to by the Town, the Union, and the Member.

In the time since his reinstatement the member has been subject to retaliatory behavior from the Administration such as denying him the right to leave the building for his lunch break, something that every other in-house employee is allowed to do without question. He's also been assigned to the front desk doing menial duties traditionally reserved for injured employees, and he has not been allowed to do any meaningful or fulfilling work.

This pattern of behavior by Chief Sansom and his subordinates such as Deputy Chief Mack Hawkins, has clearly been retaliatory and meant to punish and humiliate the employee with the intention of getting to him to resign so as to accomplish the Chief's original goal of ending the member's employment with the Town.

This pending litigation is now the fourth time in his short tenure as Chief of Police that Scott Sansom has been sued by one of his employees for violations of their civil rights. Two of these cases have already resulted in substantial settlements being paid out by the Town, and another one is still pending before the CHRO. How much longer is the Mayor and Town Council going to continue tolerating this pattern of behavior by Chief Sansom that keeps costing the taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in settlement and attorney's fees? 

No other Department head in East Hartford has faced the sheer quantity of allegations and lawsuits from their own employees that Chief Sansom has. If this was any other regular member of the Department receiving consistent complaints such as these they'd be pulled from duty and thoroughly investigated by Internal Affairs. But instead in this case the Town just pays out the settlements and further enables his behavior. It's long past time for Town Council to send him on his way bring in someone more competent and capable to fill the role who isn't  consistently creating these issues with their employees and exposing the Town to liability and bad press.

Union Election

 Reminder, the Union Election for Officers is scheduled for April 15th in the Patrol Break Room. If you need an absentee ballot please contact the Union Secretary. Even though most of the Officers are running unopposed there is still going to be a competitive election for our three Trustee positions so please make sure you get your votes in. 

Too Much To Ask?

 You may have seen the recent article in Courant found here, that reported an incident last week where a man was stopped by one of our Officers walking through the restricted back lot of our Police Department while illegally in possession of a loaded firearm with a destroyed serial number and multiple knives. It's unknown what the man's intentions were. Unfortunately this is just the latest example of a long running problem since our Public Safety Complex opened in 2004. Our Officers regularly stop pedestrians wandering through our restricted back lot, drivers using it as a shortcut between Tolland St and Burnside to avoid the stop lights, and residents who were trying to find the public lot out front accidentally pulling in. We've also had more nefarious trespassers who've broken into both Police vehicles and employee's personal vehicles.

Ever since 2004 there have been on and off discussions about a fence and gates being installed to secure the back lot, it's even gotten so far as having bids put in, but for one reason or another the project has never actually happened. However with the increase in attacks and ambushes on Police Officers, especially at Police Stations around the country (Find recent examples here, here, here, here, here, and here.), we think now is the time to get this basic security measure built. We've even seen more local examples of arsons and attempts in Police lots over the last few years (Click here, and here.).

Our Officers are under enough pressure out on the street under the current anti-Police climate. They deserve to be able to let down their guard, even just a little, when they're on Police property. Now is the time for Town Council to approve the funding and get this fence built.

March Meeting

 We will be holding our regular March meeting on the 30th at 0830 at our outdoor location. See the postings in the building for more details.

No February Meeting

 Once again unfortunately this month's regular meeting will be cancelled. We do intend to hold a meeting next month since the weather should have (fingers crossed) warmed up enough by then that we can resume doing them outdoors.

Personnel Appeals Board Update

 We were scheduled to resume the PAB hearings virtually last night after nearly a year's delay due to COVID concerns, with another hearing scheduled for tonight. Unfortunately one of the panel members didn't show or wasn't aware of the hearing and it was cancelled. Tonight's hearing was also cancelled due to some miscommunication about scheduling that we thought had been ironed out. It's very disappointing and ridiculous that this process has been unnecessarily dragged out this long while our members have patiently waited. 

Even the Mayor chimed in during the hearing to voice her displeasure with all of the delays. But we'd like to point out that this process could have and should have been wrapped up over a year ago had the Town not insisted on pursuing their gag orders to block the people involved from publicly speaking about what actually happened with the test scores. Or they could've just not done what they did that caused our members to file appeals in the first place. Of course we can't disclose what happened here due to said order, but needless to say people don't usually pursue gag orders to cover up totally legitimate behavior, so read into that what you will.

So this process drags on further, we have new dates scheduled though the end of next month now. Remember this test was initially given back in the Spring of 2019. The Town has been unable to fill these Sergeant vacancies since then, and in fact more vacancies have opened as more Sergeants have since retired. I can't imagine how many tens of thousands of dollars (or more) the Town has spent paying overtime to existing Sergeants to fill in for the vacancies that should have been filled by these candidates over the last 2 years. Nor can I calculate how much income the candidates have lost out on due to the actions of the Town in this matter. Hopefully someone can do that math and find a way to make these members whole.