Aviso de queja relacionada con 2022-0746

OF
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
FOUNDED
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT
September 2, 2022
ICMS #: 2022-0746
On September 1, 2022, the OPO received an online complaint.
The complainant alleges: My name is
and I am a Police Officer with
the Austin Police Department,
Patrol Dayshift. I am submitting a formal complaint
against my Chain of Command, LT
for violation of Austin Police Department
General Order 900.2.2 Retaliation Prohibited, violation of General Order General Order
955.2.2 Flex Time, and unfair and impartial treatment. I have tried discussing my concerns
with LT
via email and my last correspondence with LT
was on
when I replied to his email which was received on
LT
and SGT
conducted show-up on
and informed the shift about our shortcomings, that
"Shift Conflicts" are present, went over
Rules for Assigned Districts", and then
reviewed General Order 900.5 Responsibility to Coworkers. We also went over shift
expectations, where I took notes. Prior to this show-up, I voiced my concerns face-to-face
and via MDC messages about shift issues on numerous occasions to Corporal
and
SGT
on the following: 1. The unprofessional attitude and comments towards the
public, and often towards other officers and leaders, by officers on our shift during show
ups. When officers are becoming negative and plainly saying, "I don't want to be here",
Leadership needs to address this type of attitude, try to find out what underlying issue is
causing this and mentor officers to cope in a positive manner. It is very common to observe
this type of behavior in the department. If you ask anyone, they will tell you that I mostly
remain silent during show ups. 2. Officers putting themselves on Directed Patrol calls to
avoid being sent to a call for service out of our sector. 3. Officer lingering on their calls for
extended periods of time rather than going back into service. For example, Officers would
stay Code 4, which means everything is ok, on a False Alarm call for over an hour. 4.
Officer "cherry picking" calls of the same priority. For example, a Priority 2 Sex Crimes
call holding for 6 hours and Priority 2 Alarm Burglar call holding for 20 minutes, Officers
would not assign to the longer holding call. 5. Officers not immediately responding to calls
they have been assigned to. For example, I responded to what turned out to be a Robbery
by Assault where the victim's car was taken by force, and my back-up took 23 minutes to
arrive at my location. While working the call, I noticed the officer's GPS remaining at the
same location for an extended period of time prior to heading my way. I later google
OF
CITY
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT
mapped the officer's originating location which stated it should have taken the officer
approximately 11 minutes to arrive to my location. I informed my supervisor, SGT
was
this
officer
specifically addressed I have no idea. 6. Again, officers not immediately
responding to a call when dispatched. This same officer was parked 4 minutes down the
road from a Crash Urgent call and instead of immediately starting to the call, a note popped
up in the call asking if there was an update from the Austin Fire Department which were
on scene; Officers arrived on scene 12 minutes later. These are just two instances; I have
brought this up time and time again. 7. Same officers consistently late to show up. 8.
Monthly counseling not being conducted. Show up on
was led by SGT
and LT
where shift rules and expectations were given. At this show up we were told
flexing out and working out on duty were no longer going to be authorized. Flexing out
means an Officer who stays past his regular duty hours, overtime, is allowed to use the
time he stayed late to get off early another day. After processing what occurred on
I sent LT
an email on
thanking him for reinforcing the
department's standards and asked if flexing out and working out on duty applied to both
shifts
under his supervision. LT
thanked me for the question and
said, "The prescriptive plan was built specifically to the
As the
have all
of the shift conflict." LT
also said, "The
do not share the same problems.
When the
performance improves then privileges can be added back to your shift."
We have
officers work overtime with us consistently and I can say, through my
observations, some
officers have the same substandard work habits. I responded to
LT
in an email on
about my following concerns: 1. What specifically
has been identified as "Shift Conflict" and what specific measures, documentation, follow-
ups have been taken to address them? 2. Because of this "Shift Conflict", is it fair to
establish a directive/standard where it appears to only affect one officer. For example,
Sarge has opened it up to all officers to work out during our shift, however, I am the only
one who has taken him up on that offer (have been doing it for over a year and for as long
as you've been our LT). Initially, even though Sarge said we could work out and take our
lunch as well, I recommended to only take one or the other and not double dip. 3. Policy
states Flex Time is allowed but must be approved in advance by the employee's supervisor.
I am concerned that you have categorized this as a privilege and have handed down a
blanket directive to take away something from all of us when policy states we are allowed
to use Flex Time. 4. In my experience, mass punishments (taking away privileges from
everyone) are not effective and are contrary to a healthy work environment. If there are
"Shift Conflicts", I believe those conflicts should be specifically identified, documented,
and followed up on to ensure they have been resolved. 5. I also believe in fair and impartial
OF
CITY
LUSTIN
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT
treatment amongst officers and shifts and feel this directive/standard does not abide by that.
LT
responded to my email on
LT
reminded me of a point stressed
during show-up on
and that was, "stay in their own lane." I was also reminded
by LT
this is not in my purview to be concerned with what measures, documentation,
or follow-ups they are doing to correct the shift. I understand the complexities of leadership
and how I am neither entitled nor privy to matters being handled by supervisors involving
other officers' shortcomings. What does concern me is that when I do bring up issues, and
then see those issues continue, what is being done by leadership. My point to LT was to
identify the specifics and preferably not penalize the entire shift. LT
addressed the
flexing out and working out by stating: "Ihighlighted an important point in yellow that you
seem to have overlooked. The Sergeant has the discretion to approve the measure in
advance. Please do not overlook the responsibilities of the Supervisor or his Supervisor.
We have elected to enforce policy. It is equally important to insure officers are in their
districts and available to respond to calls for service. If an officer has to go outside of their
district (
Sector) to eat lunch or download their equipment to work out, this does
not place an officer in an optimal position to respond to emergency calls for service. I will
not allow it at this time. End of discussion." This again goes back to fair and impartial
treatment amongst shifts. If policy states we can flex out, of course with supervisor
approval, why would LT
enact a blanket directive that allows one shift to flex out
and the other to not. And again, why would it be ok for one shift to workout, and not be at
their optimal position to respond to emergency calls for service, and the other shift
prohibited? I am not sure how often officers on my shift flex out, however, when I first
came to this shift, I informed my supervisor that when it comes to staying late, I will always
use my overtime to flex out if allowed. I also know that I am the only one who utilized the
"work out time" while on duty. There may be one other officer that took advantage of it,
but he does not work with us on a regular basis as he alters his normal work schedule. In
General Order 900.4(a) Requirements of Duty, it reads, "Employees will maintain
themselves in such a physical condition as to be able to handle the requirements of their
assignment." Why a leader would take away the opportunity for a proactive Patrol Officer
to remain physically fit, especially seeing as how the Patrol Officer is the boots-on-ground
troop who is the first contact with the community is complexing. With our day starting at
,
I personally find it hard to work out before shift; I leave my home at
After a hard day of patrolling, I again find it personally difficult to muster up the energy to
work out. I see working out during our shift as being a privilege, no doubt about that, I just
wish leadership would see the proactiveness and dedication to remain physically fit as a
positive and not something that should be taken away as a punishment for "Shift Conflicts."
OF
GIVE
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT
I have informed SGT
and CPL
on multiple occasions my concerns known
about our shift's shortcomings. I feel that even though we are instructed by our General
Orders, 900.2(b) Required Reporting Violations, "Suspected General Order Violations 1.
Employees will report any employee known or believed to be guilty of any violation of a
rule, regulation, or order issued by the Department to their immediate supervisor", these
issues I have brought to leadership has now labeled me as the one with "Shift Conflict."
LT
also stated, Irespectfully disagree if you believe enforcing policy is ineffective,
a punishment, or is contrary to a healthy work environment. Here at the Austin Police
Department we will rely on our experience in supervision to guide corrective actions to fix
the ailments on your shift. I cordially ask you to allow the Sergeant to do his job of
managing the shift. He does not need recommendations from anyone on the
shift. Sergeant
needs everyone on the
to adhere to the shift expectations,
sign the document that they acknowledge the expectations, and to "stay in their own lane."
It is disheartening to read "Your shift", in LT
response and not "Our shift." It is also
disheartening to read that my Sergeant does not need recommendations from anyone on
the
shift; even though I recommended (via MDC message) to SGT
that, after
he makes changes to the
Rules for Assigned Districts, he should have all of us sign
the document and for him to keep it on file. If bringing up concerns about our shift is seen
as not "staying in my own lane", I feel continued retaliatory behavior will come from my
leadership by putting me under a microscope and scrutinizing my every move. Again, I
believe LT
has violated the Austin Police Department General Orders as they relate
to Flex Time, Retaliation and Fair and Impartial treatment. I believe me voicing my
concerns with our department and shift has painted a target on my back where I am looked
at and scrutinized more closely than my peers. I believe if Flex Time is authorized by our
General Orders, we should have the option to do SO and not be singled out as an entire shift,
in advance, to prohibit us from using Flex Time. I believe treating one shift systemically
different from another shift is unfair, shows favoritism, and does not show an impartial
attitude from our leadership.
This notice of complaint is a request for Internal Affairs to initiate an investigation to
determine if the employee conduct is within compliance of APD policy, Civil Service
Rules, and Municipal Civil Service Rules.
OF
CHICK LUSTER
OFFICE OF
POLICE OVERSIGHT
FOUNDED
NOTICE OF COMPLAINT