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.

So What Did All That Cost?

 It was brought to my attention the the Chief took offense to one of our previous posts ( click here ) where we discussed how he was having our Officers do constant "security checks" on the personal property of local Politicians who have routinely demonized Police Officers, on the taxpayer's dime. Apparently at the root of the Chief's frustration is that he felt I incorrectly implied that he was giving favorable treatment to these individuals because of their status as Politicians. So I did a little research to see if I was wrong to characterize it as I did, here's what we found;

From January 16th through January 20th (5 days) EHPD dispatched 289 "Security Checks" to the homes of 4 local Politicians including John Larson, Jeff Currey, Henry Genga, and Jason Rojas. Yes you read that right, two hundred and eighty nine. That's about 58 times each day that an Officer was pulled from their regular duties and dispatched to check on these politician's homes. 113 of those checks were just for John Larson, that's about 23 times per day. Mind you that during that entire time, Mr. Larson was actually in Washington DC, so we were sending Officers to check on an empty house 23 times a day.

Based on my experience while these checks were going on, each one took roughly 15 to 20 minutes for the Officers to travel, check on the home, and clear. When you add that all up, it equals up to about 96.33 man hours spent over those 5 days conducting these 289 security checks. Multiply that by the hourly top step wage of an East Hartford Officer and it comes out to approximately $3,690 spent over the 5 days. That's not an Earth shattering amount of money, but it seems like quite the expenditure for an Administration that has made a habit of not even sending Detectives out to shooting calls, or put together details to target the epidemic of car break in's and thefts because they supposedly can't afford to pay the overtime to do these necessary Police functions.

To validate further however, I wanted to see if these security checks are something that the Department routinely does for all citizens regardless of their status as Political figures. So we checked to see how many security checks the Department has dispatched over the course of the last five years prior to January 16th 2021. Unfortunately, we found zero, not a single one. Based on these pure and simple facts, I don't see how Chief Sansom can deny that these Politicians received treatment not afforded to the run of the mill East Hartford resident.

Now we all understand, we're Cops, and we routinely have to do things we don't like and put our personal feelings aside and just do our jobs. But to strip on duty Officers from their regular duties patrolling the Town to act as security guards for Political figure's private property just seems wrong. We have private businesses in Town who request Officers to provide extra security for them on a regular basis. In those cases the Department doesn't pull on duty Patrol Officers, instead they have the business hire an Off Duty Officer at their own expense and pay them overtime to provide the business with the security they need. Even the Town has done this in the past to have Officers watch over the site of fairs and events (i.e. Riverfest, Dragon Boats etc...) the night before. Isn't that what should've happened in this case?

 I'm not even going to get into how the Administration never shared with the membership why we were doing these checks or what we were supposed to be checking for, or if there was any threat to us in doing them. But I'd just like to point out the fact that the way that they did this whole thing just shows how completely out of touch Chief Sansom is with the people who work for him, and he doesn't seem to care.

Racial Disparity In How EHPD Internal Affairs Cases Are Handled

Since I've been involved in the Union Executive Board I've noticed trends in how Chief Scott Sansom's Administration has handled disciplinary matters in our Department. Some trends are easier to spot than others. In one case that you may have heard of there was a dispute between two of our members and a contractor, Paramount Construction who was doing work for MDC in our Town. The dispute stemmed from the fact that when the contractor hired for the job in the morning they had said they were going to pay whichever Officer was hired from a certain time in the morning. But by the end of the job a different foreman was on site who refused to pay the Officer who worked the job the hours that the morning foreman had said they would before the Officer was hired. The Officer who worked the job called his Supervisor who had spoken to the morning foreman and there was a verbal disagreement. Ultimately the Officer's overtime slip was signed buy the Contractor, but the Officer decided he was not going to submit the slip to payroll for payment because he knew there was some disagreement over it and he didn't want to cause a problem, meaning he effectively worked the job for free, he was never paid. The Supervisor in this case did not work the job and never claimed or demanded, or attempted to collect any payment for himself.

Disputes over hours worked are not out of the ordinary here at EHPD, we can cite several examples of similar complaints. However in this particular case the Department took the extraordinary step of putting the employees involved on Administrative leave and initiating a criminal investigation. This investigation took nearly 2 months of going back and forth between the Department and the State's Attorney's Office while they tried to figure out what they could charge these Officers with until they finally settled on Attempt to Commit Larceny 2nd, despite the fact that neither one ever attempted to collect any payment. We don't know the specific details of the allegations because the Department has refused to show the warrant to the Officers or their attorneys at the direction of Chief Sansom.

Contrast what happened in this case to what happened in a similar case just a few months earlier at EHPD. The case number for this is PSB 2020-18. In that case one of our members filled out an overtime slip for one and a half hours that the employee was found to have not actually worked, except in this case the employee actually submitted the overtime slip and attempted to get paid for the unworked hours. During the course of the IA Investigation it was also found that this employee had left work early and come into work late several times without prior authorization. In this case however there was no criminal investigation, nobody was put on Administrative leave, and there were no warrants completed, and the State's Attorney's Office was never even consulted or made aware of it. In fact despite the IA complaint being sustained and the allegations being more serious than they were in the other case we discussed, the only discipline issued in PSB 2020-18 was Verbal Supervisory Counseling, they were basically told "hey don't do that again."

Why is there such a disparity in how these two parallel cases were handled? The only difference we can see is that the two Officers who got criminally investigated are both African American, while the Officer who was given verbal counseling is White. This raises another question though, which course of action was the appropriate one? Did the White Officer get the standard treatment for this type of offense while the Black Officers got screwed over, or was the treatment they got the standard procedure while the White Officer was "hooked up?" Historically when we look back at other people who've been investigated at EHPD for similar offenses, they all seemed to have gotten treatment similar to what the White Officer got in PSB 2020-18, which implies that the Black Officers are being treated especially harsh.

We can go back a few years and find several other examples of White employees being written up and investigated by IA for the same exact allegations of inaccurate overtime slips, and not a single one of them was put on Administrative leave, or criminally investigated.

Our Internal Affairs division is headed up by Deputy Chief Chris Davis formerly of Manchester Police, and most of the investigations including these two, are conducted by Lt. Joe Ficacelli, the disgraced former Hartford Police recruit who was fired from that Agency. Are they the ones influencing the disparity between how these cases are handled with their recommendations? Or does the responsibility ultimately fall at the feet of Chief Scott Sansom who has the final say over what discipline will be issued after a case is completed?

We saw this pattern again in another IA case last year where an African American member was being investigated for a routine citizen complaint stemming from a traffic stop by Deputy Chief Chris Davis, but DC Davis missed the contractual timeline to complete the investigation (180 days). This issue had happened not long before with a White Officer, and in that case Chief Sansom was obligated to close the investigation due to them going over the timeline. However when the same exact issue occurred with the Black employee a short time later, Chief Sansom stated that "the timelines don't matter," and proceeded to issue discipline to the employee anyway in violation of our collective bargaining agreement. That matter is currently under appeal at the Labor Board, but it's another prime, contemporaneous example of Chief Sansom and Internal Affairs handling disciplinary matters for African American employees more harshly than they do for White employees, even to the point of breaking the contractual rules to exact punishment.

Unfortunately we've also seen this trend in other areas of the Department. A few months ago Chief Sansom decided to shake up the Traffic Unit. He removed an African American Officer from the Traffic unit, and when that Officer asked why he was being removed and if it was due to his job performance he was told that it was just because he had been in the unit for a long time and they wanted to give other employees a chance at that position. However at the same time the Black Officer was removed from the Traffic Unit, Chief Sansom allowed a White Officer who has been in Traffic nearly twice as long to remain in the unit. So is there one timeline for "too long" for Black Officers and another separate, longer timeline for White Officers?

We see it once again in the case of another African American Officer who was terminated years ago inappropriately, and eventually had his termination overturned by the Labor Board. When he was re-hired several years later he signed an agreement with the Administration stating that they would do everything in their power to help him get re-certified as a Police Officer. Recently when this Officer had his hearing before the Board, the only thing they required from Chief Sansom was a letter stating that he endorsed the employee being re-certified. Chief Sansom refused to write the letter or make any recommendation on the Officer's behalf in violation of the agreement he signed, that issue is now the subject of a lawsuit.

Chief Sansom's Administration has previously been the subject of multiple lawsuits by his employees for discriminating on the basis of disability and gender, one of which is pending, and the other was resolved via a settlement. So it's not surprising that we're now seeing a pattern of potential racial discrimination as well.

As a Labor Union we demand equal treatment for all of our members, regardless of race, gender, or any other reason. The fact that our Administration appears to be giving preferential treatment to certain employees over others is deeply troubling, especially when it appears to be based on race.

Negative Effects of Connecticut Anti-Police Bill Already Being Seen

 After an especially violent weekend in Hartford, the HPD Police Union put out a press release tying the violence to the recent passage of the Democrat sponsored Anti-Police Bill. You can read that press release below:

We agree with the statements made by our friends across the river, and in fact we warned this would happen before the bill was passed. The Courant reached out to us yesterday for a response to this statement (you can read the story here.) Unfortunately they chose not to publish the entire quote I gave them, which is a huge reason why we started this blog in the first place, so that we could get our voice out there, unfiltered. So here is the quote in it's entirety:

"I think it's obvious to anyone just looking at the numbers, car break ins and thefts are out of control, and nobody is doing anything about it. The bars and nightclubs being closed due to COVID is probably actually helping the violent crime numbers stay down, if those were open I bet shootings would be off the charts, just look at what's happened with the few unsanctioned large gatherings we had this summer, they almost all ended in violence.

Let's be clear though, Officers aren't intentionally stepping back just to make a point. It's happening organically because we have to protect ourselves, our careers, and our families. Even if you do everything right you can still end up in a bad situation purely by chance and have the mob calling for your head, and now the Democrat politicians who run this state are on their side. They're making us out to be the bad guys to help themselves get votes, and the only examples they can cite as to why we're so terrible are things that happened a thousand miles away."

As you can see the second paragraph gives a lot more context to the first, and I think that context is important. Many of our Officers still have a strong desire to go out there and fight crime, we enjoy chasing down bad guys and bringing them to justice, that's why we signed up in the first place. But when the politicians and the media have put us in a position where there is too much personal risk for us to do our jobs, it's a lot more palpable to just sit back and wait for the call and become totally reactive.

This is personal to me, I grew up in a bad neighborhood in Southwestern Connecticut in the 80's and 90's, and like many people who grew up in that time period I remember how bad things were back then. You were taking a risk every time you went outside, violent crimes were committed with impunity, gangs ran the streets, and drug addicts were roaming the neighborhoods conducting their transactions in the open with money they got from pawning stolen property. If something wasn't bolted to the floor or locked up it was getting stolen. 

What changed things was the introduction of Proactive Policing, getting Officers out there in the community stopping crimes before they happen. All these tactics that people today badmouth were what really turned the tide and gave us the relatively peaceful and safe society we have in this state today. I know they made the difference because I witnessed it first hand in my own neighborhood and it's what inspired me to become a Police Officer.

Today you have people in this state living in safety because of the actions of those brave Officers who worked in literal warzones 30 years ago, criticizing what those men and women did to create the comfortable, safe world they now have. How quickly people have forgotten where we came from as a State and a Nation. This bill and others like it across the Country will lead us back down the crime ridden road to where we were in the 80's and 90's. Criminals now have the upper hand, backed by the Democrats who are running our State into the ground.

To our members, stay safe, stay out of trouble.

Informative Links Regarding the Anti-Police Bill

Thanks to everyone who attended the meeting we held, please pass on the information you got to everyone who wasn't able to attend. Here are a few links you might find useful.

Bill analysis by Senate Republicans

Bill analysis by House OLR

House Voter Roll

Senate Voter Roll

Text of Bill 72 pages

If you read all 72 pages of the bill that's 72 more than most of the people who voted on it.

Anti-Police Bill Working It's Way Through Legislature

Many of our members have reached out to us over the last few days asking about the Anti-Police bill that was approved by the State House of Representatives the other day. People have asked what we're doing related to it, what they can do, and how or if, they should be doing their jobs, so we'll briefly try to respond here directly and honestly.

First and foremost, this bill is not yet law. It has only been approved by the House, it must still go to the Senate where they can approve or reject it as is, or they can pass it with provisions added or removed and then send their version back to the House for approval. Once a final version is passed it goes to the Governor for approval or veto. While I assume some version of this bill will pass, we're not going to offer any guidance or make any decisions until we see what the actual final language that gets passed is and what it means for us. Unfortunately the Legislature seems to be fast walking this bill without giving it the debate it deserves so they can go on vacation sooner. You can click this link to read the text of the bill and see how each Legislator voted.

As for what we've been doing, our attorney has been in contact with the Legislature on behalf of us and other Police Unions he represents, check your work email for more information. Additionally our Union Vice President wrote letters to several State Representatives on our behalf. Unfortunately there's not much more that we can do. As a labor Union, the only thing of value we have to offer to politicians are endorsements and campaign contributions, and right now the Democrats who are pushing this bill see us as the enemy and want nothing to do with our endorsements or our money. In fact they'd probably prefer we endorsed their opponents so they can show the mob driving them how anti-Police they are. So we just don't have much, if any political sway in this situation.

As for what you can do, you can click this link to find your State Legislators for your home district and East Hartford and write them an email or call their office to express your feelings on this bill. My only advice is if you're contacting a Democrat, it's probably best not to identify yourself as a Police Officer and rather present yourself as a concerned citizen, otherwise they may write you off immediately.

We don't have a crystal ball to look into to tell you what effect of the final bill will be until it's passed and we have time to analyze it. But if it goes through in it's current form it's highly destructive to our profession and we'll probably never be able to hire a qualified person again unless our salary is doubled. But for the time being, keep your cool, go to work, and let's see what happens. But just to be safe if you have 15 or more years on and you're still on the street you should probably take a look at your numbers and start thinking about heading for the exit IF we get the worst case scenario. Similarly if you have less than 5-7 years on you may want to start seriously looking at what your out-of-state options are if you wish to continue in Law Enforcement. We're not sounding the alarm just yet, and I'm hopeful the Senate will fix this mess of a bill before it passes, but I think people should start having these discussions with your families now so you have a plan if you need to go that route.

We'll post further updates on this as needed.