What Happened to Leading By Example??

AngelsSix · 06-05-2008, 21:08

My Chief not only qualified when required, but he also came to each team's qualification date....

S.F. police chief has skipped target practice
Jaxon Van Derbeken, Chronicle Staff Writer

Thursday, June 5, 2008

(06-04) 16:47 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- After being assailed by the police officer whose satiric videos earned him and nearly two dozen others suspensions in 2005, San Francisco Police Chief Heather Fong acknowledged that she has gone years without taking the target practice required for officers who carry guns.

The head of the city's Police Commission said Wednesday that the panel is likely to take disciplinary action against Fong, which could range from a letter of reprimand to something more severe.

Department rules require all police officers who carry guns to pass shooting range tests every six months. Fong said in a statement this week that "the duties of a police chief are demanding and time-consuming. I acknowledge that I have not scheduled time for firearms re-qualifications. This will be addressed for future re-qualifications."

Fong did not say when she last took a target-practice session at the department's shooting range at Lake Merced or when she would be tested next.

The issue of Fong's proficiency with a gun was raised last week by Officer Andrew Cohen. He wrote to Police Commission President Theresa Sparks that the chief had gone five years without being certified, which he called "an egregious matter of misconduct."

"I know the chief is busy, and an occasional lapse or non-appearance may be justified," Cohen wrote. "However, 10 consecutive failures to qualify are simply outrageous and insulting to all the men and women of the department."

Cohen, an officer since 1995, ran afoul of the chief and Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2005 after he shot videos showing officers responding to mock calls. One showed a homeless black woman railing against white people after apparently being hit by a patrol car. Another showed an officer ogling a woman he had stopped for a traffic violation.

One officer was shown dressed as a transgender person, and another video showed officers attempting tai chi to vaguely Asian music, then heading into a massage parlor.

Newsom and Fong called a news conference to label the videos as homophobic, sexist and racist, and Fong suspended Cohen and 23 other officers at the Bayview station without pay.

An appeals court ruled that Fong had exceeded her authority, but Cohen and other officers still face disciplinary procedures. Separately, he and some of the other officers have sued over the chief's actions. Cohen is out on medical leave after he had an accident while working in the records room.

He told the Police Commission that Fong should face discipline for failing to pass her target-practice tests and should be forced to give up her weapon.

Under department policy, failing to qualify on the shooting range results in admonishment for a first offense, followed by a reprimand for a second, a possible suspension for the third and an automatic suspension for the fourth.

Cohen noted that in the last five years, "scores of officers" have been disciplined and even denied pay raises and promotion for the same infraction the chief has committed.

Allowing those under her to be disciplined while she was skipping target practice herself amounted to an "arrogant, ethical and moral failure" on the chief's part, Cohen said.

Sparks said Wednesday that Cohen's complaint has "opened a whole kettle of fish we need to look at."

"I think there's little chance that this will go without something, some disciplinary action," Sparks said, adding that the Police Commission probably would take up the matter in a closed-door personnel session next week.

"I don't think there is any question that the chief violated the general orders," Sparks said. "She admits it."

She added that police officials "need to qualify like anybody else. ... There are certain things you do to become a police officer, and qualifying at the range is one of them."

Gary Delagnes, head of the Police Officers Association, said Fong "should have been smart enough to qualify at the range."

But, he added, Cohen's accusations "have been very personal and vile in nature. It's unfortunate we are wasting our time on this."

E-mail Jaxon Van Derbeken at jvanderbeken@sfchronicle.com.

This article appeared on page B - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

Debo · 06-05-2008, 22:09

Quote:

Cohen is out on medical leave after he had an accident while working in the records room.

I found this line pretty funny.

triQshot · 06-06-2008, 15:56

WOW.

Everyone that I know of, sheriff or chief goes to yearly quals. Even if they only do admin work. They still qual with a service weapon. Whats good for the gander is good for the goose.

If she thinks it is that un-important, put her back in a squad car on the south side with no weapon.

**The Reaper** · 06-06-2008, 16:28

I agree.

Fail to qualify, lose the right to carry the gun.

The city attorney's office would probably support that as well.

TR

AngelsSix · 06-06-2008, 17:11

Sounds like the department has a serious problem with their leadership across the board.....

[QUOTE]
The issue of Fong's proficiency with a gun was raised last week by Officer Andrew Cohen. He wrote to Police Commission President Theresa Sparks that the chief had gone five years without being certified, which he called "an egregious matter of misconduct."

"I know the chief is busy, and an occasional lapse or non-appearance may be justified," Cohen wrote. "However, 10 consecutive failures to qualify are simply outrageous and insulting to all the men and women of the department."

Cohen, an officer since 1995, ran afoul of the chief and Mayor Gavin Newsom in 2005 after he shot videos showing officers responding to mock calls. One showed a homeless black woman railing against white people after apparently being hit by a patrol car. Another showed an officer ogling a woman he had stopped for a traffic violation.

One officer was shown dressed as a transgender person, and another video showed officers attempting tai chi to vaguely Asian music, then heading into a massage parlor.

Newsom and Fong called a news conference to label the videos as homophobic, sexist and racist, and Fong suspended Cohen and 23 other officers at the Bayview station without pay.

An appeals court ruled that Fong had exceeded her authority, but Cohen and other officers still face disciplinary procedures. Separately, he and some of the other officers have sued over the chief's actions. Cohen is out on medical leave after he had an accident while working in the records room.[\QUOTE]

**18C4V** · 06-07-2008, 15:53

Cohen is a POS and I'll leave it at that. From what I understand most of the major large metro depts, the Chief is granted certain perks and one of that entails qualification. Is it right, hell no.

Besides, she doen't need to carry a gun, her position is mostly admin considering we have over 2,400 cops. Every time she rolls out, she has her own vehicle with her own enterouge (sp?)

mdb23 · 06-08-2008, 02:06

All of our commanders still have to qualify, but they get to do it on a special date set aside just for them. Apparently, they don't want to attempt the qual course alongside the troops, since rumor has it they need multpile attempts to get a passing grade.

Funny story...... we have a list of firearms that we are approved to carry on and off duty. One day the Chief shows up at the range carrying a S&W Airlight Revolver... which wasn't one of the weapons that we were allowed to carry. The range guys informed him of this, so the Chief goes back and changes the policy to include his favorite little revolver.

What the boss wants, the boss gets.

Smokin Joe · 06-08-2008, 09:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdb23

All of our commanders still have to qualify, but they get to do it on a special date set aside just for them. Apparently, they don't want to attempt the qual course alongside the troops, since rumor has it they need multpile attempts to get a passing grade.

Funny story...... we have a list of firearms that we are approved to carry on and off duty. One day the Chief shows up at the range carrying a S&W Airlight Revolver... which wasn't one of the weapons that we were allowed to carry. The range guys informed him of this, so the Chief goes back and changes the policy to include his favorite little revolver.

What the boss wants, the boss gets.

Without so much as a courtesy call to your F.I. Staff about the pros/cons of allowing such a weapon. Nice! That really puts the "I" in integrity.

**Ambush Master** · 06-08-2008, 09:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by 18C4V

Cohen is a POS and I'll leave it at that. From what I understand most of the major large metro depts, the Chief is granted certain perks and one of that entails qualification. Is it right, hell no.

Besides, she doen't need to carry a gun, her position is mostly admin considering we have over 2,400 cops. Every time she rolls out, she has her own vehicle with her own enterouge (sp?)

As for an "entourage" I think it would be more of a Posse, like a "Rap-Staaa"!!

**18C4V** · 06-08-2008, 10:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

Without so much as a courtesy call to your F.I. Staff about the pros/cons of allowing such a weapon. Nice! That really puts the "I" in integrity.

Maybe with your dept. My dept is the 4th largest in California and one of the oldest in CA being over 150 yrs. With over 150 years, there's tradition and culture that the newer depts don't have. We also have the third highest number of officercs killed in the line of duty in CA. What that said, alot of petty things get overlooked, it boils down to is like what Mdb23 said. What our chief wants, is what usually happens. Is it right and fair? well bucking 150 yrs of tradition, perks, and customs is a sure way of getting sent to the airport nicknamed "Sibera"

**18C4V** · 06-08-2008, 10:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambush Master

As for an "entourage" I think it would be more of a Posse, like a "Rap-Staaa"!!

Actually I personally like the Chief. I was the first cop in my dept to leave for OEF. that entailed numerous administrative issues that there was no policy in effect for. When I left for Afghanistan in 2002, she (at that time, she was a Deputy Chief) took time out of her busy schedule to stop by my house right before I left. Her boyfriend gave me a shemagah (sp?) and she assured me that any personnel or payroll problems will be dealt with and gave me her business card with her personal cell phone number. She also arranged it that cops could have the time off to attend my going away party by having other outside district stations staff those gaps.

When she became Chief, every cop who got mobilized for OEF/OIF pretty much got the rockstar treatment. When me and another SF guy got mobilized for Iraq, we got the rockstar treatment that we didn't get from the prior Chief.

I'll never say anthing negative against her due to her taking care of the cops who are in the Guard or Reserves.

**Ambush Master** · 06-08-2008, 10:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by 18C4V

I'll never say anthing negative against her due to her taking care of the cops who are in the Guard or Reserves.

Good on Her!! I stand corrected!!

Take care.
Martin

mdb23 · 06-08-2008, 14:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by 18C4V

Maybe with your dept. My dept is the 4th largest in California and one of the oldest in CA being over 150 yrs. With over 150 years, there's tradition and culture that the newer depts don't have. We also have the third highest number of officercs killed in the line of duty in CA. What that said, alot of petty things get overlooked, it boils down to is like what Mdb23 said. What our chief wants, is what usually happens. Is it right and fair? well bucking 150 yrs of tradition, perks, and customs is a sure way of getting sent to the airport nicknamed "Sibera"

Great post.

We were founded in 1874, and have about 1400 officers...... We have our own "culture" that can seem odd to smaller departments.

Personally, I don't care if our Chief can hit the broad side of a barn. He is basically an administrator/politician, and spends more time in a suit and tie than in uniform. His fights battles over budgets, not crack deals, and has a gaggle of people with him wherever he goes.....so it really is a non issue to me.

All I care about is whether or not the Chief backs his troops. If he stands behind his guys, and makes good common sense decisions when it comes to policies and procedures, he can carry a slingshot if he wants.

Now at smaller departments where the Chief actually rides around in uniform and makes calls, I can see the need for a strict firearm policy.

**Razor** · 06-08-2008, 17:06

As a lieutenant (my department was founded in 1775, and had over 500k at the time

), I expected my battalion and brigade commanders to be able to pass an APFT and qualify with their assigned weapon, even though they weren't expected to engage in direct combat unless things went very wrong. Fortunately, I wasn't disappointed.

I guess its a difference in cultures. I'm happy to hear these two chiefs can at least support their officers that are serving on two fronts.

mdb23 · 06-08-2008, 17:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Razor

As a lieutenant (my department was founded in 1775, and had over 500k at the time

), I expected my battalion and brigade commanders to be able to pass an APFT and qualify with their assigned weapon, even though they weren't expected to engage in direct combat unless things went very wrong. Fortunately, I wasn't disappointed.

I guess its a difference in cultures. I'm happy to hear these two chiefs can at least support their officers that are serving on two fronts.

LOL. Understood.

In law enforcement, you kinda have to pick your battles. Im just saying that if I had a Chief who supported his Officers' decisions, backed them in the media, fought hard for them against city council budget cuts, etc., I really wouldn't be up in arms if I later found out that he didn't go to the range and qualify that year (with a weapon that he never carried anyway).

If I had one that was a douche bag, the fact that he didn't qualify woudl be one more nail in the coffin....

Like I said, you so rarely get a Chief that is "pro police" anymore that you are hesitatnt to attack one over what, considering their role, is a minor issue.

but I still understand what you are saying..