8 ms·

Heartening? I wish: > Saulet has long history of misconduct, with approximately 120 allegations against him and 21 cases of sustained misconduct (more than any

by gizmo 13y ago

Heartening? I wish: > Saulet has long history of misconduct, with approximately 120 allegations against him and 21 cases of sustained misconduct (more than any other officer in the department). It isn't exactly progress if the worst officer in de the department is fired after sustained abusive behavior. And the union immediately attempted to overturn the dismissal as well. This is pretty much as bad as it gets. So I see no reason for optimism, given the circumstances. There are no signs of structural improvement. Not so heartening.

krisdol 13y ago
No one said he was the worst in the department.
- awda 13y ago
  Yes, they did: """Saulet has long history of misconduct, with approximately 120 allegations against him and 21 cases of sustained misconduct (more than any other officer in the department). The sheriff's letter says that Saulet repeatedly was told to improve interactions with the public, and provided with remarkable investments of coaching and counseling. Saulet underwent three performance-improvement plans, two training sessions, and two multi-visit sessions with a social psychologist, coaching sessions with supervisors, and 80 hours of time off without pay."""
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- antjanus 13y ago
  >more than any other officer in the department It's in the writing.
netcan 13y ago
The reason for optimism IMO is the tone and content of the dismissal letter & statement.
- gizmo 13y ago
  There have always been individual police officers and sheriffs who take a stand against the abuse. The US such is a big country, how could it be otherwise? You can probably find a thousand similar examples if you look hard enough. I think it's already pretty comical that "Officer gets fired after long history of abuse" is news in the first place. Optimism is only warranted when we have reason to believe things are getting better. One anecdote doesn't do much.
- polymatter 13y ago
  I will caution optimism based on tone. The reporter also filed a complaint on the officer in charge of this very incident. The SPD review concluded that "The officer took a normal contact with a member of the public and turned it into a confrontation and escalated it to a point where he was acting in a completely unprofessional and inappropriate manner". The punishment for completely unprofessional behavior by the officer in charge was "one unpaid day off of work" which was "an appropriate measure" in the "middle of the range of possible disciplinary actions". That doesn't strike me as taking it seriously. The sounds to me like a slap on the wrist for being unlucky and causing a PR issue for the police by doing this to a real journalist.
  - Avenger42 13y ago
    > The reporter also filed a complaint on the officer in charge of this very incident. Note that these are two different officers with two different groups. Seattle PD disciplined Officer Marion with an unpaid day off. The King County Sheriff's Department fired Sgt. Saulet.
ChrisBland 13y ago
I am not a fan of public unions either, but this is a cheap shot at them and it hurts the ability to have a discussion about unions. Unions have what is called 'duty of fair representation' - which requires them to defend their members. If the union failed to defend him here he could sue the union claiming it has failed to fulfill its statutory duty to represent the employee in that dispute. If they got to pick which cases to defend, the whole point of having union reps/arbitration/mediation would go out the window. More reading: http://www.flra.gov/Guidance_duty%20of%20fair%20representation http://www.flra.gov/Guidance_duty%20of%20fair%20representati...
- ItendToDisagree 13y ago
  Do they have to defend someone who is outside of the union's stated rules/expectations for a member? For instance if the Officer's Union stated that if a member was doing something illegal or grossly incompetent that they would not defend the actions? Not saying that this union does have that sort of stipulation, but curious as to where the line is drawn. It does seem that the officer had a history of 'bad behavior' and was quite obviously in the wrong here. Do they have to defend 'hopeless cases' is really the question I have. I would be much happier if the union stood back, and decided to let him try to bring suit, then shut him down in court for his own behavior... Rather than just trying to get someone who obviously has issues reinstated because "reasons".
  - ggchappell 13y ago
    I doubt there is any sort of line. Consider that someone accused of a crime gets to be represented in court, no matter how bad the accusation is (in the U.S.). The reasoning behind this is (1) they might not be guilty of the crime, and until the court decides they are, they should be treated as if they are not; (2) they need someone to ensure they are treated fairly. I think similar reasoning can be applied here. Thus it would not be unreasonable that a union always defends a member who is accused/disciplined/fired.
    - jlgaddis 13y ago
      My mother is (and has been for many years) an officer of the union at her workplace. I know of many cases where employees were accused of either committing crimes or extreme violations of the "workplace rules" and the Union would not represent them before the company. These instances are the exceptions, of course, and the Union does represent the employee the overwhelming majority of the time -- and are, more often than not, successful in at least saving the employee's job. This is not a Police Union, of course, so things may very well be different. It is my understanding that the officers in a Police Union are almost always current or former police officers and I would guess that they would represent an officer accused of wrongdoing in all but perhaps the most extreme cases (and, in those cases, it's probably mostly due to P.R.). In my opinion, an officer accused of wrongdoing is entitled to due process just like anyone else. It does upset me, however, that Police Unions will often do anything they can to save an officer's job regardless of what s/he has done and/or the seriousness of the violation. I realize that that is what they are supposed to do but it ends up reflecting badly on the police department when Officer Smith was found to have done ${whatever} and escapes with little or no consequences.
kordless 13y ago
Given the government so obviously keeps an eye on us, it only stands to reason that we are allowed to keep an eye on them. This is currently a point of contention, but with the current technological advances, I doubt it's one that will be able to stick and stay.
baldfat 13y ago
I am pro-Union BUT this is the type of things that get them in trouble all the time. People who perform poorly at work should be held accountable and not defended by the Union. It really is in the Union's benefit to weed out bad apples themselves and not protect them.
- enraged_camel 13y ago
  The Supreme Court disagreed long ago. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7178777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7178777
  - baldfat 13y ago
    I read it and learned. Did some research. There is wiggle room but I guess everyone is afraid of defining "fair representation" in regards to a firing.
protomyth 13y ago
How can a government agency allow a person to have "21 cases of sustained misconduct" and still be employed much less not in jail?
dten 13y ago
I'm creating an account specifically to reply to this comment. Sheriff Urquhart has only been in office for a year, and this is the third cop he's fired for similar behavior. Details here: http://www.king5.com/news/local/King-Co-Sheriff-fires-deputy-who-threatened-to-arrest-reporter-243391961.html http://www.king5.com/news/local/King-Co-Sheriff-fires-deputy...
runamok 13y ago
The sheriff (Urquhart) has only been on the job for a bit more than 1 year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Urquhart_(sheriff) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Urquhart_(sheriff)

by gizmo 13y ago

krisdol 13y ago

No one said he was the worst in the department.

awda 13y ago
Yes, they did: """Saulet has long history of misconduct, with approximately 120 allegations against him and 21 cases of sustained misconduct (more than any other officer in the department). The sheriff's letter says that Saulet repeatedly was told to improve interactions with the public, and provided with remarkable investments of coaching and counseling. Saulet underwent three performance-improvement plans, two training sessions, and two multi-visit sessions with a social psychologist, coaching sessions with supervisors, and 80 hours of time off without pay."""
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
antjanus 13y ago
>more than any other officer in the department It's in the writing.

netcan 13y ago

The reason for optimism IMO is the tone and content of the dismissal letter & statement.

gizmo 13y ago
There have always been individual police officers and sheriffs who take a stand against the abuse. The US such is a big country, how could it be otherwise? You can probably find a thousand similar examples if you look hard enough. I think it's already pretty comical that "Officer gets fired after long history of abuse" is news in the first place. Optimism is only warranted when we have reason to believe things are getting better. One anecdote doesn't do much.
polymatter 13y ago
I will caution optimism based on tone. The reporter also filed a complaint on the officer in charge of this very incident. The SPD review concluded that "The officer took a normal contact with a member of the public and turned it into a confrontation and escalated it to a point where he was acting in a completely unprofessional and inappropriate manner". The punishment for completely unprofessional behavior by the officer in charge was "one unpaid day off of work" which was "an appropriate measure" in the "middle of the range of possible disciplinary actions". That doesn't strike me as taking it seriously. The sounds to me like a slap on the wrist for being unlucky and causing a PR issue for the police by doing this to a real journalist.
- Avenger42 13y ago
  > The reporter also filed a complaint on the officer in charge of this very incident. Note that these are two different officers with two different groups. Seattle PD disciplined Officer Marion with an unpaid day off. The King County Sheriff's Department fired Sgt. Saulet.

ChrisBland 13y ago

I am not a fan of public unions either, but this is a cheap shot at them and it hurts the ability to have a discussion about unions. Unions have what is called 'duty of fair representation' - which requires them to defend their members. If the union failed to defend him here he could sue the union claiming it has failed to fulfill its statutory duty to represent the employee in that dispute. If they got to pick which cases to defend, the whole point of having union reps/arbitration/mediation would go out the window. More reading: http://www.flra.gov/Guidance_duty%20of%20fair%20representation http://www.flra.gov/Guidance_duty%20of%20fair%20representati...

ItendToDisagree 13y ago
Do they have to defend someone who is outside of the union's stated rules/expectations for a member? For instance if the Officer's Union stated that if a member was doing something illegal or grossly incompetent that they would not defend the actions? Not saying that this union does have that sort of stipulation, but curious as to where the line is drawn. It does seem that the officer had a history of 'bad behavior' and was quite obviously in the wrong here. Do they have to defend 'hopeless cases' is really the question I have. I would be much happier if the union stood back, and decided to let him try to bring suit, then shut him down in court for his own behavior... Rather than just trying to get someone who obviously has issues reinstated because "reasons".
- ggchappell 13y ago
  I doubt there is any sort of line. Consider that someone accused of a crime gets to be represented in court, no matter how bad the accusation is (in the U.S.). The reasoning behind this is (1) they might not be guilty of the crime, and until the court decides they are, they should be treated as if they are not; (2) they need someone to ensure they are treated fairly. I think similar reasoning can be applied here. Thus it would not be unreasonable that a union always defends a member who is accused/disciplined/fired.
  - jlgaddis 13y ago
    My mother is (and has been for many years) an officer of the union at her workplace. I know of many cases where employees were accused of either committing crimes or extreme violations of the "workplace rules" and the Union would not represent them before the company. These instances are the exceptions, of course, and the Union does represent the employee the overwhelming majority of the time -- and are, more often than not, successful in at least saving the employee's job. This is not a Police Union, of course, so things may very well be different. It is my understanding that the officers in a Police Union are almost always current or former police officers and I would guess that they would represent an officer accused of wrongdoing in all but perhaps the most extreme cases (and, in those cases, it's probably mostly due to P.R.). In my opinion, an officer accused of wrongdoing is entitled to due process just like anyone else. It does upset me, however, that Police Unions will often do anything they can to save an officer's job regardless of what s/he has done and/or the seriousness of the violation. I realize that that is what they are supposed to do but it ends up reflecting badly on the police department when Officer Smith was found to have done ${whatever} and escapes with little or no consequences.

kordless 13y ago

Given the government so obviously keeps an eye on us, it only stands to reason that we are allowed to keep an eye on them. This is currently a point of contention, but with the current technological advances, I doubt it's one that will be able to stick and stay.

baldfat 13y ago

I am pro-Union BUT this is the type of things that get them in trouble all the time. People who perform poorly at work should be held accountable and not defended by the Union. It really is in the Union's benefit to weed out bad apples themselves and not protect them.

enraged_camel 13y ago
The Supreme Court disagreed long ago. See my comment here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7178777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7178777
- baldfat 13y ago
  I read it and learned. Did some research. There is wiggle room but I guess everyone is afraid of defining "fair representation" in regards to a firing.

protomyth 13y ago

How can a government agency allow a person to have "21 cases of sustained misconduct" and still be employed much less not in jail?

dten 13y ago

I'm creating an account specifically to reply to this comment. Sheriff Urquhart has only been in office for a year, and this is the third cop he's fired for similar behavior. Details here: http://www.king5.com/news/local/King-Co-Sheriff-fires-deputy-who-threatened-to-arrest-reporter-243391961.html http://www.king5.com/news/local/King-Co-Sheriff-fires-deputy...

runamok 13y ago

The sheriff (Urquhart) has only been on the job for a bit more than 1 year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Urquhart_(sheriff) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Urquhart_(sheriff)