Point of View: Discipline Philosophy By Darrel W. Stephens, M.P.A. In Policing a Free Society, Herman Goldstein notes that the adversarial nature of policing is a key factor that complicates the control and review of police action and behavior. The public grants the police considerable authority to act on its behalf in an effort to create an environment that is free of crime, drug abuse, violence, and disorder and the fear that accompanies these conditions. In almost all encounters with the public, police officers and nonsworn employees exercise this authority appropriately. But, there are times when citizens raise legitimate questions about how this authority has been used. And, unfortunately, there are also times when police personnel abuse this authority. Therefore, departments must establish a system of discipline that minimizes abuse of authority and promotes the department's reputation for professionalism. System of Discipline The most effective disciplinary system combines the reinforcement of the right set of values in all employees with behavioral standards that are consistently and fairly applied. Each employee must understand and be guided by these standards that have been established in the department's (and city's) general orders, rules, regulations, and procedures. Employees should be expected to conduct themselves, both in interactions with one another and with the public, in a manner that conveys respect, honesty, integrity, and dedication to public service. In turn, employees should be treated fairly, honestly, and respectfully by everyone in the department, regard-less of authority, rank, or position within the organization. Understandably, employees will make judgment errors from time to time when carrying out their responsibilities. In fact, employees who never make mistakes may be doing very little to try to improve the performance of the department. Each error in judgment, however, offers a learning opportunity for the employee and the department, although some errors will come with greater consequences than others for the public, the department, and the employee. Even so, the department has an obligation to make its expectations as distinct as possible to employees. At the same time, it has an equal obligation to make clear the consequences for failing to meet those expectations. While meeting both obligations can be difficult, the latter is obviously more complex. Circumstances often contribute to errors in judgment and poor decisions that administrators must consider when determining the appropriate consequences for behavior found to be improper. Employees often admit that they would like the department to provide a list of prohibited behaviors, along with the penalties for engaging in those behaviors. Yet, experience shows that employees directly involved in the disciplinary process, either as the subject of the process or in a review capacity, want to consider the results of one's actions in light of the circumstances that might have contributed to the violation. Of course, this is critical to apply discipline fairly and consistently. Some employees view consistency as the same treatment for the same behavior in every case. If this happens, then the consequences will be fair to everyone. For the St. Petersburg Police Department, consistency is defined as holding everyone equally accountable for unacceptable behavior, and fairness means understanding the circumstances that contributed to the behavior, while applying the consequences in a way that reflects this understanding. To ensure fair and consistent treatment of employees, however, discipline for unacceptable behavior must depend on a balance of several factors. Determining Factors A number of factors should be considered when applying discipline. Granted, not all factors may be considered in every case, and some may not apply at all in particular situations. There may also be a tendency to isolate one factor and to give it greater importance than another. Yet, these factors should be thought of as being interactive and having equal weight, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. These factors include employee motivation, degree of harm, employee experience, intentional/unintentional errors, and the employee's past record. Employee Motivation A police department exists to serve the public. Therefore, one factor to consider when examining an employee's conduct should be whether the employee was acting in the public's best interest. An employee who violates policy in an effort to accomplish a legitimate police purpose demonstrates an understanding of the broader public interest inherent in the situation. Accordingly, the employee should be given more positive consideration than one who was motivated by personal interest. Obviously, determining what is in the public's interest will be difficult from time to time. For example, would it be acceptable for an employee to knowingly violate an individual's first amendment right to freedom of speech to rid the public of what some might consider a nuisance? Or, is it in the public's interest for an officer to knowingly violate a fourth amendment right against an unlawful search to arrest a dangerous criminal? Clearly, in either case, improper action by police is not acceptable and should not be condoned; yet, officers address these complex issues daily. The police have a sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. And, it is in the greater public interest to protect constitutional guarantees, even though it might be argued the public interest was better served otherwise. But, if employees attempt to devise innovative, nontraditional solutions for persistent crimes or service problems and unintentionally run afoul of minor proce- dures, the desire to encourage creativity in their public safety efforts should carry significant weight in dealing with any discipline that might result. Degree of Harm The degree of harm resulting from employee error is another important factor when deciding the consequences for errant behavior. Harm can be measured in terms of monetary costs to the department and community, such as repairs to a damaged vehicle, or in terms of personal injury claims for excessive force. Another way to measure harm is by the impact of employee error on public confidence. An employee who engages in criminal behavior, e.g., selling drugs, corrodes public trust in the police if discipline does not send a clear, unmistakable message that this behavior will not be tolerated. Employee Experience Employee experience also has bearing on the type and the extent of discipline. A relatively new employee, or a more experienced one in a new assignment, should be given greater consideration for judgmental errors. Accordingly, errors by veteran employees may warrant more serious sanctions. Intentional/Unintentional Errors Supervisory personnel need to consider the circumstances surrounding the incident to determine whether the employee's error was intentional or unintentional. Obviously, the type of error will govern the extent and severity of the discipline. An unintentional error occurs when an employee's action or decision turns out to be wrong, even though at the time, the employee believed it to be in compliance with policy and the most appropriate course to take based on information available. For example, a supervisor gives permission to continue a vehicle pursuit on the basis that the vehicle and occupants meet the general description of those involved in an armed robbery. The pursuit ends in a serious accident, and it is subsequently learned that the driver was fleeing because of an expired license. Under these circumstances, the supervisor's decision would be supported because it was within department policy at the time it was made. Unintentional errors also include those momentary lapses of judgment or acts of carelessness that result in minimal harm (backing a police cruiser into a pole or failing to turn in a report). Employees should be held accountable for these errors, but the consequences should be more corrective than punitive, unless the same or similar errors persist. Employees make intentional errors when they take action or make a decision that they know, or should know, to be in conflict with law, policy, procedures, or rules at the time. Generally, intentional errors should carry greater consequences and be treated more seriously. Within the framework of intentional errors, there are certain behaviors that are entirely unacceptable, to include lying, theft, physical abuse of citizens, and equally serious breaches of trust placed in the police. In such cases, every effort should be made to terminate the individual found to be engaged in such behavior. Granted, determining deliberate errors that result in serious consequences for the department will be difficult. But allowing such behavior to continue will produce even more dire results. Employee's Past Record To the extent allowed by law, policy, and contractual obligations, an employee's past record should be taken into consideration when determining disciplinary actions. An employee who continually makes errors should expect the penalties for this behavior to become progressively more punitive. Less stringent consequences should be administered to employees with records that show few or no errors. When determining disciplinary action, every consideration should be given to employees whose past records reflect hard work and dedication to the department and the community. Conclusion Serving the community with integrity and in a professional manner should be the goal of every police officer. Employees must accept responsibility for their roles in maintaining this goal. When employees fail to do so, department administrators should make every effort to make the disciplinary decision fit each specific incident. This needs to be done consistently and fairly. Otherwise, the errors in judgment made by employees pale in comparison to the unfair treatment administered by the department's leaders.