Text of email sent to Champaign officials
Following is the text of an anonymous email addressed to city officials that accuses the city’s top police administrators of favoritism in assignments and promotions. Tables in the email that purported to show test scores of candidates for promotion are not included.
From: cpdintegrity@gmail.com
To: citymanagersoffice@ci.champaign.il.us; steve.carter@ci.champaign.il.us; dorothy.david@ci.champaign.il.us; craig.rost@ci.champaign.il.us; joan.walls@ci.champaign.il.us; mayorgerard@ci.champaign.il.us; willkyles@ci.champaign.il.us; michael.ladue@ci.champaign.il.us; kyleharrison@ci.champaign.il.us; marcidodds@ci.champaign.il.us; paulfaraci@ci.champaign.il.us; tombruno@ci.champaign.il.us; deborahfrankfeinen@ci.champaign.il.us; karenfoster@ci.champiagn.il.us; chris.bezruki@ci.champaign.il.us; legaldepartment@ci.champaign.il.us; fred.stavins@ci.champaign.il.us; Fredrick.stavins@ci.champaign.il.us
“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character give him power” Abraham Lincoln
Ironically not all that long ago Chief RT Finney went to his command staff and assigned them to solicit from the ranks terms or phrases that would best define five words making up the acronym P.R.I.D.E. – Performance Results Integrity Dignity Enthusiasm. This assignment was part of the City’s development of a police mission statement based on the phrase “Service with PRIDE”. While the definition of all of these terms may be critical in evaluating the quality and overall competency of police services, none is more important or relevant than that of Integrity. Unfortunately Integrity seems be the attribute most lacking in the executive level command of the Champaign Police Department.
It is with this in mind that a Group of officers of various ranks and positions came together in an effort to address this problem. Many attempts, using a variety of methods were made by these officers in a concerted effort to compel management to take appropriate action to address the issues discussed here. Unfortunately these efforts have failed as they have not had the effect or compelled the changes that were sought. Collectively the Group only sought to change a course of action undertaken by executive level management within the police department that violates all manner of principle and decency. Even considering the facts it is only after considerable debate and internal struggle that this memo was prepared for Council. It is the hope of the Group that this body will have the power and fortitude to compel further inquiry and bring about lasting change.
It has always been the preference of the Group that the issues enumerated here would be addressed internally and not find their way into the public domain. The Group’s concern with a public airing of these problems is the issue of unintended consequences. That is, too many people are likely to jump to the premature conclusion that a problem at the top of an agency is indicative of problems throughout the agency – this is absolutely not the case. The unfortunate effect of executive level policy over the last several years has been a drop in morale that has not seen or felt in decades.
The following paragraphs will outline behavior, action and activity that constitute violations considered generally as wrongdoing, fraud, corruption and/or waste. Just as easily these same actions could describe violations of elements of Illinois’ Official Misconduct statute.
While the fundamental problems have gone unchecked for much longer, the primary issue that drives the demand for action against the police department leadership was spurred by inequities in the development and execution of the Lieutenants promotional process.
Concerns for those seeking promotion from Sergeant to Lieutenant began in earnest at the release of the reading list for the 2008 exam. A review of the list revealed that the reference material had been twice used already; an issue that would give an advantage to veteran exam takers as they were already intimately familiar with the material while newly promotable Sergeants were not.
Much more concerning was the fact that Lieutenant Scott Swan was tasked with working with the testing company contracted by the City to assist with test development. This assignment was seen as problematic for two reasons. First, Lt. Swan shared an office with Sgt. Tom Walker, a sergeant actively seeking promotion. Second, it is common knowledge that Lt Swan and Sgt Walker are good friends and that they are among a short list of Deputy Chief Murphy’s closest friends. Professionally all three men have worked closely together in the various incarnations of the drug enforcement units in which the department has participated. This fact will figure prominently in this summary. It comes as no surprise that Lt. Swan’s assignment to help develop the Lieutenant’s test was made by Deputy Chief John Murphy but it could not have been done without the approval of Chief RT Finney.
The concerns of those seeking the opportunity to be promoted to Lieutenant in 2008 were expressed to Chief Finney but he apparently did not share the concern as no changes were made to the process and no safeguards were implemented. As a result there was a very predictable out-come; Sgt. Tom Walker scored a 98% on a written exam produced by a professional testing company. This score was more than 20 points above Walker’s closest rival. This academic feat propelled Sgt. Walker to the top of the Lieutenant’s list for the promotion period of November 2008 to November 2011. The statistical probability of this feat is similar to someone picking Illinois’ winning lottery numbers any given Saturday.
After landing at the top of the promotion list Sgt. Walker soon found himself upgrade to Lieutenant, albeit on a temporary basis. The justification for the promotion, during strained economic times, was that Chief Finney needed an additional Lieutenant to assist with the development and implementation of policies, procedures and practices that would permit the department to pass the CALEA/ILEAP accreditation process. Once accreditation was achieved Sgt. Walker was returned to grade, but only for a brief moment as Command soon found a new initiative for which they needed an additional Lieutenant – Problem Oriented Policing (POP).
The reasoning behind this move was perplexing as the existing chain-of-command would ultimately be responsible for the day-to-day implementation and review of this program on a district-by-district basis. As such there was no need for an additional Lieutenant to review the problems and the proposed solutions as each district Lieutenant would do this before they sent it the Deputy Chief of Operations (Murphy) for approval. After a relatively short time the department abandoned the Problem Oriented Policing concept for a new methodology based on a more frequent and efficient exchange of precise information referred to professionally as Intelligence.
This initiative was known in law enforcement circles as Intelligence Lead Policing (ILP) and a Florida Atlantic University researcher named Dr. Rachel Boba developed the model adopted by the department. Not surprisingly Sgt. Walker was tapped to lead this initiative, allowing him to retain his promotion. Walker then worked directly with Dr. Boba in getting the Champaign Police Department’s program up and running.
As the adoption of ILP gave way to it becoming part of the day-to-day fabric of the department’s operations the “need” for singular oversight of the program became functionally unnecessary. This fact did not immediately deter Deputy Chief Murphy and Chief Finney however; as they used the program as the justification behind their attempt to compel Council to permanently upgrade Sgt Walker to Lieutenant. This attempt was nicely memorialized in Council Bill 2011-51, prepared for Council on March 15, 2011 by DC Murphy. In this well written effort, DC Murphy seriously overstated the need for a Lieutenant grade command officer to oversee the continued implementation and use of ILP.
Murphy went so far as to characterize the position as that of a “Champion”. This effort, although gallant, failed as the Council voted the bill down, causing Sgt. Walker to be downgraded from Lieutenant to Sergeant once again.
Chief Finney shortly thereafter took the unprecedented and unjustified step of seeking to have the 2008 Lieutenants list extended without cause. Had this ploy been successful Sgt. Walker would be assured the promotion to Lieutenant as soon as a permanent post was vacated. Fortunately Human Resources denied this unwarranted but very telling request.
On April 18, 2011 seven (7) promotable Sergeants met with City Manager Steve Carter at the Champaign Public Library in a pre-arranged meeting to share their concerns about the inequity of the department’s promotional process for perspective Lieutenants. Hereinafter these seven men will be referred to simply as the 7.
Although convened in secret the sole purpose of the April 18th meeting was to voice the collective concern that the testing process was neither objective nor fair. As such the 7 relayed two primary thoughts. First they wanted to be clear that they’re singular goal was to see that the testing process was equitable and impartial. Second, they took issue with management’s lack of attention to the concerns that were voiced in 2008 and the ultimate outcome of that promotional exam. While wholly circumstantial the evidence found in the results of that process were unmistakable and warranted further inquiry, regardless Chief Finney took no discernible action.
Unfortunately two department employees not party to the meeting were in the area and saw the City Manager and the 7 enter the library. One of the employees realized that this was uncharacteristic and took the unfortunate step of relating what he saw to an On-Duty Sergeant who was not at the meeting. This Sergeant, one of a few very loyal to DC Murphy, then immediately reported the information to him.
The following week Sgt. Scott Friedlein was notified that his position was subject to elimination and that if that occurred he would be sent back to Patrol Sergeant duties. The justification for this action was departmental budget cuts, however the result would have been that Sgt. Friedlein would have to go back to uniform patrol from his duties in alcohol enforcement and community event planning. It would have also meant that the junior Sergeant, who was a member of the 7, would have had their promotion reversed and they would return to Patrol Officer duties.
Additionally, the interaction between the 7 and their immediate supervisors and the executive managers changed dramatically. The 7 Sergeants as a whole found that routine issues that must be addressed in the general course of police business that were previously worked out through personal conversations were now handled by short, curt emails.
Not long after the meeting on April 18th between the 7 and the City Manager, CPD Narcotics Officer Jack Turner went to the City Manager’s office purporting to be operating in his capacity as a FOP labor representative. In this meeting Turner assured the Mr. Carter that the vast majority of the sworn officers at the Police Department remain squarely behind the Chief. Turner reiterated that the meeting called by the 7 Sergeants was an aberration within the agency and that nearly everyone else was very happy with police management.
What Officer Turner failed to relate was that he made the appointment and relayed this opinion without consultation with any other bargaining unit member; therefore he could not have honestly relayed a majority opinion because he had not made any effort to find one.
The fact that Turner, who has worked in Narcotics Enforcement under Deputy Chief Murphy nearly his entire career, went to the city manager with this pronouncement is not surprising. However the fact that he did so under the auspices that he was representing the labor union members is inexcusable and reprehensible. There is no chance that anything close to a majority of the officers at the police department finds DC Murphy and Chief Finney credible or trustworthy. In fact, should a vote of no confidence be taken today there is little doubt that the vast majority would signal their desire to have immediate resignations from both men.
On or about June 13, 2011 Lt. Scott Swan retired rather abruptly. It is suspected that part of this decision was an effort to create an opening with which to promote a Sergeant Walker – again - before the 2008 Lieutenants list expired. This effort failed as Lt. Swan’s retirement does not officially take effect until November 2011 so Human Resources could not approve the move.
On June 16, 2011 a meeting was held for all Sergeants to confer with Chief Finney, City Manager Steve Carter and Human Resources director Chris Bezruki. This meeting was the result of a grievance filed by several Sergeants not among the 7. The grievance was authored by Sgt. Walker and signed by a number of others including Shaffer, Myers and Walker. In the meeting Chief Finney advised the Sergeants that regardless of the final outcome of the testing process he ultimately had the authority to promote at his discretion, irrespective of one’s position on the promotional list. This very bold statement, made in the presence of the City Manager, was very disturbing and flies in the face of the City’s historic position that hiring and promotion are open to and equitable for all qualified candidates.
Following the meeting Sergeant Clark contacted Personnel to seek confirmation of Chief Finney’s assertion. For merely making the inquiry the Clark received a personal visit from the Chief condemning the action and for questioning his authority. Such behavior is unacceptable from a genuine manager and wholly unnecessary from consummate and just leader. Shortly thereafter an astute member of the 7 discovered that Champaign Police Department Policy 34.1 Promotion Section .6 states that:
“In filling a vacancy for Sergeant or Lieutenant the Chief of Police Shall consider and select from the top 3 names on the applicable list”
Given the existence of this policy it confirmed that either the Chief was unfamiliar with his department’s promotional process and related policies or he chose the very brash position that he was not bound by them.
Prominent among the 7 was Sergeant Robert Rea, also the SWAT Team Leader. Sgt. Rea seemed to receive greater scrutiny than the others, possibly attributable to the fact that Deputy Chief John Murphy is also the SWAT Team Commander. This scrutiny is most apparent in the May 26, 2011 email from Chief RT Finney to Sgt. Rea and other Sergeants on the SWAT Team. The email originated from a citizen complaint about SWAT training in a predominantly black neighborhood earlier that day.
While the Chief worded his message well and characterized it as a genuine and thoughtful response to address community relations there is no doubt about his true motivations. First the email was addressed to Sergeants Rea, Lack, Baltzell and Crane, all SWAT Team members but not all SWAT Team Leaders. Chief Finney sought to hold them all accountable for the decision to train in a neighborhood without command approval.
Interestingly Sgt. Crane and Sgt. Baltzell are not SWAT Team Leaders but they were present at the 7 meeting. Sgt. Lack was not present at training that day as he was out on a duty injury and he is not a team leader. Sgt. Oleson, who is an Assistant SWAT Team Leader was not included in the email and, interestingly enough, Sgt Oleson was also not one of the 7.
There was nothing unusual or objectively inflammatory about the team’s presence in the neighborhood the day of the complaint as the team has historically trained in many areas of town, including the north east side. And while the Chief sites infractions and poor decision-making this issue would have been handled much differently prior to the April 18th meeting. The truth is the Chief was given an opportunity to exact a measure of pain among several members of the 7 and he took it eagerly.
The Team does not now, nor has it ever trained exclusively in one neighborhood over another and rarely does it choose its training sites on its own. In fact for the May 26thtraining the Team contacted a property management company and requested sites that could be used for training. The company responded by providing access to three properties, East Beardsley (the site of the complaint), 1700 Burnetta, an area of diverse residents in the Garden Hills neighborhood and one in Dobbins Downs that the Team never made it to. While Chief Finney expounded on the violations of the letter of law known as SWAT Team policy regarding the subject of chain of command approval of training sites, similar complaints about the team’s presence in various neighborhoods have been handled differently in the past.
While Sgt. Rea has no doubt received the lions-share of the anger and resentment from both DC Murphy and Chief Finney he has been far from alone. Shortly after the 7’s meeting Sgt. Baltzel received notice, via email, that he had been relieved of his command of the Narcotics Unit and that effective immediately his days off and hours of work were changed. Not surprisingly Sgt. Walker was selected to lead the Narcotics Unit as he was in need of a new assignment after having his promotion denied. There was no doubt about the true motivation for the change given the timing of the move and the way notice was given. This belief was confirmed soon after Baltzel removed himself from contention in the promotional process. Once he had withdrawn his name from the list DC Murphy explained to Baltzel that the decision to change his assignment was driven by Murphy’s anger over Baltzel’s involvement in the 7’s meeting.
The Champaign Police Department has had a long standing tradition of participating in the effort to raise money for Special Olympics. Among the various events, the Law Enforcement Torch Run is the premiere. Following the 7 Sergeant’s meeting the department’s participation in the Law Enforcement Torch Run was unexpectedly and without reasonable notice reduced to a 2-mile ceremonial jog across the city that ended with the torch being driven to Bloomington. In every year previous to 2011 the torch was run from Champaign to Bloomington by a relay of CPD officers proud to have the opportunity to participate in this worthy cause. The justification for this change was a lack of manpower and the fuel expense in the face of budget cuts.
Coincidentally Sgt. Tom Frost, one of the 7, had been responsible for coordinating the efforts of the Champaign Police Department’s participation in Special Olympics fund raising by promoting CPD involvement in the Law Enforcement Torch Run, Polar Plunge and Cop-on-Top.
Not surprisingly less than a month later when Chief RT Finney was to be sworn in as the new President of the IACP, overtime and vehicles were authorized to chauffeur out-of-town chiefs and their wives to and from the I-Hotel for the conference and ceremony. Overtime was also authorized for an Honor Guard, though not one officer volunteered for the assignment, a fact that speaks volumes about the majority opinion of the Chief and the lack of respect for him among the rank-and-file.
On July 11, 2011 Chief Finney announced in an email that all Sergeants participating in the Lieutenants exam were required to prepare a presentation to a community Group on ILP. While only eluded to by email it is strongly believed that the Chief intended to use the power point documents and presentation as justification for his scoring of Sergeants in the Evaluation section of the Lieutenant’s promotional process. Not only was this addition unprecedented, it was also previously unannounced. This issue is significant, as the evaluation by Command Staff constitutes a full third (1/3) of the overall exam score. Armed with this new evaluation instrument Command could conceivably justify a change in evaluation scoring and thus alter the outcome of the testing process. Because Chief Finney chose to use ILP as the subject of his unannounced task he provided Sgt. Walker with an obvious and distinct advantage. Since Walker was personally tasked with implementing the ILP initiative he was familiar with it in a way no other sergeant could be. In fact Walker worked directly with Dr. Rachel Boba, the developer of the program in Port St. Lucie, Florida that the CPD initiative is based on. In reviewing current departmental policy it would seem that the Chief violated the Policy Statement 34.1.5 – Promotion Test Announcement:
2. A schedule of dates, times and locations of all elements of the process.
The addition of the ILP presentation long after the testing process began would clearly violate this portion of the Promotion policy.
On August 3, 2011 Sgt. Friedlein was advised that he was being re-assigned from his position in Alcohol Enforcement and Event Planning to Patrol to fill the void seen by having one Sergeant on light duty and two more on Family Medical Leave. While filling this temporary void with a change in assignment may be warranted there are more sensible ways in which to accomplish it. As an example Sgt. Walker currently oversees the Narcotics Unit while Sgt. Baltzel supervises the Community Action Team. Previous to the 7 Sergeant’s meeting Baltzel supervised both units, so there would be no reason that either Baltzel or Walker could manage both units while the other went back to patrol to fill in there temporarily. This would seem a much more reasonable solution with which to fill a patrol Sergeant position versus using someone who has not seen the inside of a patrol car for nearly twenty years.
On August 8, 2011 the overall results of the 2011 Lieutenants list were released but the results of each step in the process were not put out publicly initially as they had been in the past. This lack of transparency fueled speculation that the Departmental Evaluation, a full third of the overall scores and the only part of the process in which executive level command had direct influence was used to alter the outcome. Doing so would put rank advancement back in the control of executive command rather than allowing a fair and equitable process to determine the result.
Several days later the scores from each section of the process were released and showed a result that was neither surprising nor tolerable in a City of this caliber. There were twelve Sergeants who completed the promotional exam process; three of the four highest scores in the Departmental Rating were received by the Sergeants who signed the grievance over the fact that 7 Sergeants met with the City Manager in April. In contrast, of the 12 candidates, six of the seven lowest Departmental Ratings were handed out to members of the 7.
This result cannot be by mere coincidence. If the process was handled in an objective and fair manner there would be complete transparency as to the source of each score. That is, the identity of each member of the command cadre that played a role in rating the candidates would be identified in relation to the score they gave each candidate. The lack of transparency from Human Resources is troubling as it suggests that the politics of upper management has suspended the City’s publicly stated values - at least as they relate to it’s employees. The issues surrounding this promotional list are significant because of the long-term implications. Over the course of the next three years, the life of the current Lieutenants list, at least six upper level command officers are likely to retire. In that shuffle it would be possible for current command to artificially influence departmental culture for at least a generation and the result of that is likely to be the continued corruption of the promotional process.
Officer DAVID ALLEN
Early in 2011 City Management began the process of explaining the City’s financial problems and the possible outcomes in the way of budget cuts, staffing reductions, furloughs and the like. In the same set of meetings City Staffers sought suggestions from employees at all levels as such suggestions might aid in saving money. In response to this request Officer David Allen wrote an email outlining concerns at the police department that cuts were concentrated within the ranks of “bargaining” employees, particularly civilian employees, with a noted absence of staffing reductions, changes or budget tightening among Lieutenants, Deputy Chiefs and the Chief.
Deputy Chief John Murphy responded by addressing his disdain for Allen’s suggestions, which would have, among other things, ended the possibility of getting Sgt. Walker promoted to Lieutenant permanently. DC Murphy’s choice of action was to address the issue with Sgt. Jim Clark the Crime Scene Unit Commander as Officer Allen is also assigned to the Crime Scene Unit. DC Murphy reportedly met with Sgt. Clark and told him, in no uncertain terms, that he was going to shut down the Crime Scene Units evidence processing assignments in response to Allen’s email. These assignments allow Crime Scene Unit Officers to come off of routine patrol duties to process evidence. DC Murphy added that this action was a direct result of Officer Allen’s email and that the Unit could thank Allen for the decision.
In the end the City Manager, or in the absence of action by him, the elected officials tasked with the oversight of city government, must decide the veracity of the facts and what the reasonable and appropriate consequences are. The Group would argue that similar behavior among officers of lesser rank would find them on administrative leave pending termination, an outcome that seems both reasonable and appropriate. The Group would propose that should the governing bodies feel that further inquiry is warranted it should not come from within as any internal investigation would lack impartiality and credibility. Only an outside investigative agency could make a suitable inquiry, anything less would be irresponsible and short-sided. The Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigation (DII), for their experience in such investigations, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be appropriate given their independence from our own department.
Whatever the course there must be consequences for the action and behavior described here. The City demands of its police officers a code of conduct that is commensurate with their post – with great power comes great responsibility. Gven that sentiment it would be unthinkable to allow executive level police management to continue to act in a manner inconsistent with the values the city holds most dear.
Freedom of Information Act Requests
CPD Staffing Levels, Command assignments and responsibilities 1999 through 2011
Emails or memorandums used as justification for changes
Council Memos
Adding Deputy Chief
Temporary Sergeant and Lieutenant up-grades
Promotional Exams for Sergeants and Lieutenants 1999 - 2011
Identify process
Policy review to review the promotional process to locate policy violations.
Of particular interest are the 2008 and 2011 Lieutenant’s tests and the addition of the ILP presentation
Promotional exam reading Lists
Identify Chain of Command and Responsibilities and Access to exam information, including questions
Identify personnel scheduled to take each exam and their respective assignments at the time of each exam
Identify results of each portion of the exam process for each promotional exam process
Any and all emails between police command staff concerning promotional exams
Any and all communication between police promotional exam consultants and Human Resources, City Management and Police Command
Of particular and specific interest are communications following the 2008 Lieutenants exam
Emails among and between command staff, Human Resources and the City Managers office concerning the retirement of Lt Scott Swan.
Emails, memos or other correspondence regarding the implementation of the community Group presentation being added to the Lieutenants test
Emails, memos or other correspondence between Jack Turner and other employee regarding his visit with Steve Carter concerning police confidence in or back of Chief RT Finney
Emails, memos or other correspondence concerning the change of assignment of Dennis Baltzel Emails, memos or other correspondence between Chief Finney and DC Murphy as well as communication between Chief Finney or DC Murphy and any or all of the Sergeants participating in the Lieutenants exam.
Emails, memos or other correspondence between Chief Finney and DC Murphy and Nearing concerning the change in assignment of Sgt. Scott Friedlein.
Emails, memos or other correspondence between Chief Finney and DC Murphy and Human Resources, City Legal or the offices of the City Manager or Assistant City Managers concerning the results of the 2008 and 2011 Lieutenants test including the decisions surrounding the release of all aspects of the testing process
The identity of each command officer who rated a sergeant testing for lieutenant in 2011 along with the score each gave for the respective candidate.
Dave Allen email
Allen’s original email to CPD Command concerning budget issues
Emails between command staff concerning Allen’s email
Emails to/from Sgt. Jim Clark concerning Allen’s email
Torch Run & IACP Conference
Any and all emails or memorandum concerning the 2011 Torch Run
Any and all emails concerning the preparation and execution of the 2011 IACP conference in Champaign
SWAT
SWAT Policy and SOP regarding training sites
Any and all email between Murphy and Finney or between either of them and any member of the SWAT team concerning the neighborhood training issue
SWAT Sergeants email in response to Chief Finney’s inquiry on the selection of training sites.
Any communication with the property management groups or neighborhood services concerning CPD SWAT training sites.
Mission
The Champaign Police Department’s Authority to Police and to Ensure Community Safety Comes from the Community – Our Citizens.
Our Success as the Champaign Police Department Depends Upon the Performance of Each Individual Employee.
Your Job Makes a Difference and Keeps Our Community Safe.
You Contribute to Our Success by Upholding Your Responsibilities and Through Your Actions on a Daily Basis.
The Champaign Police Department Values:
SERVICE WITH
P erformance
R esults
I ntegrity
D ignity
E nthusiasm
Guiding Values: Performance Guidelines and Standards
SERVICEmeans
Being Committed to the Needs of the Community
Helping Others with Solutions to Problems, Explaining Your Decisions and Actions
Delivering Timely Service when Service Counts
Looking for Ways to Serve
Treating Citizens as Important, Valued Customers
Providing Police Services in a Professional Manner
PERFORMANCEmeans
Taking Personal Accountability for Your Words and Actions
Being Proactive, Anticipating Problems and Offering Solutions
Looking for Better Ways to Do Your Job and to Improve Performance
Doing the Job Right – Being Accurate, Taking Care of Details,
Completing Assigned Tasks
Expanding Your Knowledge and Skills to be More Effective in Your Job
Demonstrating Strong Work Ethic
RESULTSmeans
Taking Pride in Your Work Product, Your Tasks and Results
Seeking Constant Improvements and Better Results
Community Acceptance of Methods and Results
Working Together as a Team Using Each Persons Talents
Completing the Job in a Timely Manner and Following Through on Commitments
INTEGRITYmeans
Being Responsible for Your Job and Actions, Being Accountable for the End Results and Outcomes
Being Honest and Trustworthy
Serving as a Positive Example to Others
Holding Yourself to the Highest Standards
Be Loyal to the Police Department – Your Actions Reflect on All of Us
Improving Yourself and Learning from Setbacks
DIGNITYmeans
Treating Others with Respect and the Way You Would Like to be Treated
Having Compassion for Others
Appreciating Individual Strengths, Talents and Contributions of Others
Upholding the Rights of All Citizens
Respecting Our Profession, Our Uniform, You Represent Our Department at All Times
Supporting Diversity in the Community and Department
ENTHUSIASMmeans
Supporting the Department’s Goals, Values, Mission and Decisions
Working Like Your Job Makes a Difference
Being Highly Motivated, Giving 100% Effort Encouraging Self and Others to Excel
Contributing to the Team and Our Police Department
Plan for the Future and Think About End Results
Unless the two of you are completely retarded, the email CLEARLY highlights corruption on many levels! Cheating on a Lieutenants test, "Good Ole' Boy" promotions and perks, and vindictive behavior against anyone that stands up to them.
Not only should Finney, Murphy, and Walker be FIRED, they should also be charged CRIMINALLY for Official Misconduct (should the findings of an investigation warrant it)! I truly hope that the FBI has received a copy of this email, and that swift action is taken as a result! Do you REALLY think Chief Finney's sudden "retirement" announcement is coincidence? Sounds to me like the actions of a guilty man trying to get out of Dodge before he finds out how the steel bracelets feel on his wrists!
And you, too, FAILed to inform anyone why he was unqualified for promotion. "Good ol' boy" networks - or whatever the incompetent tend to blame their failures on - it doesn't indicate in any way that he was unqualified.
You also have no clue on how the U of I works, either. Everyone who has ever worked there or been turned down for a job knows that it's not what you know, it's who you know. It's just the way it's done and there isn't anything that anyone can do about it. It would be easy to peg that merely on ones suspicion, but I've had three different people in hiring capacities in three different departments personally confirm that to me.
That's life, buddy. Lump it.
-1
The timing of Finney's registration gets more interesting by the minute. As for Walker being qualified, the question is not whether he was qualified, it is whether he was the most qualified. Presumably there are many men on staff who could do the job, and the promotional policies are in place to choose fairly between them. If the examination process gave him the advantage, it is a violation of policy and grossly unfair to his competition.
Reading all of this reminds me of working at a local Hospital/Clinic here in town. Maybe its time someone exposes some of the managment and officials at this health center as well. Their practices are just a sickening as what is to be assumed as the same practices with in our law enforcement in Champaign. I applaud the service of all of our law enforcement but we need to recognize that just because of your job title it does not exempt you from doing things in self interest. At the hospital I am speaking of several people spoke up about treatment, favoritism and unfair promoting. All of these people eventually were fired from their employment with a string of reasons, not one of them based on facts or evidence.
You could be speaking about Carle or Provena. This happens in every human workplace community.
Who rises in the ranks of management/administration? What qualifications are needed?
At Carle for example someone who started as a physical therapist worked up the management ladder and became a top executive. At one talk she gave us she said in her intro: "I don't have fancy degrees and qualifications, but my blood runs Carle red!"
You see they rise by participating enthusiastically, demonstrating blind allegiance, never being openly critical, and brown-nosing their superiors, not because they are brilliant or ethical or fair.
Eventually they become the boss and the results are poor for obvious reasons.
Favoritism, cronyism, and injustice happen in every workplace.
Did the police chief "retire" or was he pushed out?
All the talk of transparency but none of it here. The "retirement" seemed sudden, then this leaked email appears. Obviously there is infighting at the CPD.
Do they want him out but prefer to do it quietly through a "retirement"? If so the city will try to keep a lid on the details and the public in the dark about any misconduct. He will honorably be "retired" and enjoy his pension without his reputation being tarnished.
Given the breadth and depth of the charges laid out in this missive, I no longer wonder why so many people are unhappy with the CPD. With rot at the top, there's no question that it will trickle down. Unfortunately, those who have been forced to deal with the rot have had little support from the City prior to the latest election. Let's hope our new City officials will take this very seriously and call for an in-depth investigation, whether Finney has retired or not. They owe it to our community to ferret out the corruption, if indeed there is any.
As Lord John Acton aptly noted in his dissent to the notion that kings and popes (and, I would add, Chiefs of Police) can do no wrong:
"I cannot accept your canon that we are to judge Pope and King unlike other men with a favourable presumption that they did no wrong. If there is any presumption, it is the other way, against the holders of power, increasing as the power increases. Historic responsibility has to make up for the want of legal responsibility. All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority: still more when you superadd the tendency or certainty of corruption by full authority. There is no worse heresy than that the office sanctifies the holder of it."
I have worked in a few places in my years, 10 of them being military and 5 of them being the medical center i mentioned before with one or two other decent jobs inbetween, not to mention the place I worked before my service and I have NEVER encountered favoritism until I was employed at the hospital and even then there were no occurances until a new Assistant Manager was brought in after the first one was fired. 6 months after the change about a half a dozen enployees were fired and escorted out for no given reason....... I dont think favoritism happens to this extreme in all work places, if so I must of always been the favorite. Managers dont expect for people to stick up for themselves and in my expierience we were bullied, put down, threatened, and made to fear loosing our jobs (which were good paying with decent benefits). Its out right abuse for the manager to throw a cup of coffee across the room because he is frustrated at an employee. HR wanted nothing to do with that complaint and that employee was fired days after that complaint for suspected drug use... No test was ever given( passed a test within an hour of being escorted out, HR didnt care). The employees who were effected most are blue collar workers who actually have had to work for their money. In my case the hospital was cleaning house and getting rid of those who were close to the wage cap and were due for promotions and were fed up with the kids being brought in who have no work ethic and were drinking buddies to the new Assistant Manager. They had already had one bad Assistant and would fight tooth and nail to make sure their mistake wouldnt happen again or just hoped we would all just take it. Because HR is never wrong right?
98% of the people that work at Champaign PD are top notch, and certainly take extreme pride and honor in the service that they provide. Unfortunately, there is a small handful of people with power that have abused the privilege (for a LONG time now).
This very small group of people have taken their power and used it without integrity or honor. They need to step up and be accountable for their actions. They need to answer for what's gone on, and stand ready to accept the outcome from their improper actions. They can do the honorable thing and resign from their positions to "quietly step aside" (which is what it appears Chief Finney is doing), or they can drag the entire reputation of a great department through the mud to cover their own inflated egos.
To the 98% of the men and women of CPD that I mentioned above, I thank you for all that you do! You work in difficult circumstances on a daily basis, and this is only exacerbated by having to deal with INTERNAL strife as well. I think I speak on behalf of a majority of citizens when I say that you ARE respected and appreciated. Please don't allow the negative rhetoric (that's sure to come your way by this leaked email) as a reflection on you. Hopefully the City Manager will grow a spine and do what's necessary and proper in relieving the abusive command, and replacing them with leadership that you all deserve.
This is a quote by BC Sullivan. It is directed to those that have no problem criticizing every move by CPD. Until you wear a badge, being fire, police or any other profession that day in and day out puts themself in the line of danger for the public, you really dont have an understanding of how things work.
Also, if the CPD listened to the folks on here, they would be lost. Some say they dont do enough, some say they are to tough. Some think the Chief shouldnt have put in for retirement, yet if he didnt, others would say its time for him to retire. MAYBE, just maybe if we let the police do the police work, things would be a bit smoother... I cant recall the last time I had a cop come to my job and tell me how to do it.
When my job deeply affects everyone in my community, I will welcome public scrutiny to make sure that I'm handling things well for the entire community. Especially in this community where there has been ongoing strife and concern is it imperative that there be no hint of impropriety. At the very least, this email shows that it is essential that an outside agency investigate.
" Sgt. Tom Walker scored a 98% on a written exam produced by a professional testing company. This score was more than 20 points above Walker’s closest rival"
That line seems to be the gist of the writers complaints. He does not go so far as to suggest that the test produced by the "professional testing company" was not objective and fair. He does not go so far as to suggest that the scoring was not accurate. Nor does he suggest that the test was rigged or that Sgt. Walker otherwise had an unfair advantage. He only compares achieving a 98% test score to winning the lottery because the nearest rival only scored 78% on the test.
Of course high achieving Sgt. Walker sticks out like a sore thumb if the best of the rest could only score 78% - a high C. If the information is accurate it makes one wonder at the quality of the class of Sgt.s seeking promotion to Lieutenant.
It is amazing how people who no nothing about the truth in this department can get on here and make comments. Pretty sad that there are seven people who are causing issues that make it seem like the whole department is behind them. Believe me that is far from the truth. The whole department is not behind these seven. There are way more supporters of Chief Finney and DC Murphy than nonsupporters. These seven have forgotten the meaning behind the oath that they took when they became an officer, the teamwork that goes in to this job and the trust that you must have with the person backing you up on a call. No matter who the Chief will be these seven will have a negative attitude about them. These seven are just miserable people who should put as much effort into their jobs and being professional as they have to stir up all of these lies.
I am not sure what planet you are living on but I am going to assume that you, like me, is very close to the situation in a professional setting. Officers from the top down are tired of the oppressive tactics used by Finney and Murphy. Officer after officer can attest to this. Granted there will be malcontents any place you work. For anyone who actually works and CPD and thinks there is not a problem with the management you need to get your head out of the sand.
Obviously you have been sucked in by the "seven". I don't need to be close to the situation to have my own opinion about it, none of this emailed complaint is based on facts. Find some facts and then I might change my opinion but until then it is just based on the poor attitudes of the "seven". Try to use your own brain and look at the situation.
Comments
News-Gazette.com embraces discussion of both community and world issues. We welcome you to contribute your ideas, opinions and comments, but we ask that you avoid personal attacks, vulgarity and hate speech. We reserve the right to remove any comment at our discretion, and we will block repeat offenders' accounts. To post comments, you must first be a registered user, and your username will appear with any comment you post. Happy posting.