# Nepotism In PDs: Putting Public Safety At Risk



## MJS (Apr 14, 2011)

Link



> Fathers take care of their sons.
> That's why they don't belong on the same police force.
> If Windsor Locks didn't convince you, let's recap this week's events in Meriden, where two officers are alleging favoritism.
> A disturbing video from May 2010 shows Meriden Police Chief Jeffry Cossette's son, Officer Evan Cossette, shoving a handcuffed prisoner, who falls and hits his head on a concrete bench. Cossette moves the unconscious and bleeding man several times, but never calls for medical assistance for the prisoner who suffered a cracked skull.


 
For the LEOs that we have here, do you have a policy regarding this at your PD?  Do people here, think that this is an issue, that really effects the safety of the public?


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 14, 2011)

Family can't supervise each other.  Which currently means that we've got about a half-dozen people who can't work on the same squads in various combinations...

Reality:  Whether blood or not -- good ol' boy networks are common in police work.


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 14, 2011)

If the parent/relative isn't involved in the hiring/training/retention/supervision process I don't see a problem with it. Or a legal (or fair) way to avoid hiring relatives. If a person is eligible and qualified they should be considered for hire. But it is an issue that should not be left unwatched.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Apr 15, 2011)

I think couples or bloodrelatives should not work in the same hierarchy.
No matter how much training and policy there is, the conflict of interest will always be strong. A man is not going to chew out his wife (or vice versa) even if it is warranted.

I work in the same company as my wife, but in a completely unrelated department.
Had she worked in the same department, I wouldn't have applied for my job.
I cannot see such things ending well.


----------



## MJS (Apr 18, 2011)

http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-meriden-policebrutality0418-20110417,0,4589773.story

Yet another fine example.  IMO, I'm against having a child, sibling, relative, etc. working in the same place.  I think that it breeds nothing but trouble.  Not only does it lead to the chance of a father going to the ends of the earth, to protect his son, but look at how many others, get dragged into the dirty water too!  The Sgt in the Meriden case, is just as guilty for his actions and comments.  

Sorry, even if you're working another shift, not in direct supervision of your higher ranking relative, it still wont work.  Even if there was never any direct contact, the fact alone that you brother, sister, father, whoever, is a high ranking member of the PD, is enough to throw a monkey wrench into the works.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 18, 2011)

Depends on the size of the department.  A lot of large departments may have several family members working there, in various divisions.  No problem.  I'm reluctant to see family on the same squad, though I could handle siblings.  But in small departments?  Nothing but headaches.  We've got about 1/5 or 1/4 of our department right now that can't be assigned together in various combinations...


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 18, 2011)

I don't think there is a legal way to deny someone employment based on relationship. Policy regarding supervision/assignment..sure. But I don't know if denying basic employment would pass EEOC muster.


----------



## MJS (Apr 19, 2011)

jks9199 said:


> Depends on the size of the department. A lot of large departments may have several family members working there, in various divisions. No problem. I'm reluctant to see family on the same squad, though I could handle siblings. But in small departments? Nothing but headaches. We've got about 1/5 or 1/4 of our department right now that can't be assigned together in various combinations...


 


Archangel M said:


> I don't think there is a legal way to deny someone employment based on relationship. Policy regarding supervision/assignment..sure. But I don't know if denying basic employment would pass EEOC muster.


 
So in the long run, this is an issue that'll just keep happening.  Is it really that hard though?  I dont know, thats why I'm asking.  If a PD can require someone to have to have so many college credits, be non smokers, etc., is having a policy that states you can't work here if a relative does, that hard?


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 19, 2011)

You can get college credits to meet the requirement, you can quit smoking to make the requirement...I just think that someone refused employment based on the fact that a relative works in the same company/department/etc would be a legal minefield. Policies requiring work on opposite shifts, not being in the same command chain etc. would be seen as reasonable IMO.

What about people who date then marry within the PD and become "relatives"?


----------



## MJS (Apr 19, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> You can get college credits to meet the requirement, you can quit smoking to make the requirement...I just think that someone refused employment based on the fact that a relative works in the same company/department/etc would be a legal minefield. Policies requiring work on opposite shifts, not being in the same command chain etc. would be seen as reasonable IMO.
> 
> What about people who date then marry within the PD and become "relatives"?


 
Points taken, but IMO, that still doesnt solve the issue.  Ex: Your father could be a Capt. on the day shift.  You could be a patrolman on the midnight shift.  You see each other in passing, on a normal basis.  What happens with the following:

1) You get forced to work a day shift.  Your father is now a supervisor on that shift.  Are you exempt from a dayshift OI because of that?  Could you ever take OT on days?

2) You have the opportunity, after earning some seniority, of having day shift.  Your father is the supervisor.  Should you be declined to get days because of that?

3) While on mids, you screw up somehow.  Without a doubt, your father will hear about this incident.  Due to him being on the force for many years, and a well respected Capt., will he be tempted to 'pull some strings' to help you out?  Will the person investigating your incident, be tempted or feel obligated or intimidated into going easy on you, because of who your father is?


----------



## Archangel M (Apr 19, 2011)

It's not just a problem on police departments. Imagine how much worse it is in the private sector where the owner makes all the kids bosses.

Just to keep the discussion going, I believe that "nepotism" in the defined sense means the showing of favoritism toward relatives based upon that relationship (in regards to hiring/promotion/discipline), rather than an objective basis. Not simply having relatives working in the same place. 

To be honest, I think it's just "one of those things" that has been and probably always will be around. The best we can do is try to control it via policy, ethics boards, etc.


----------



## jks9199 (Apr 19, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> You can get college credits to meet the requirement, you can quit smoking to make the requirement...I just think that someone refused employment based on the fact that a relative works in the same company/department/etc would be a legal minefield. Policies requiring work on opposite shifts, not being in the same command chain etc. would be seen as reasonable IMO.
> 
> What about people who date then marry within the PD and become "relatives"?


That's exactly where a goodly chunk of our assignment complexities came from, in various combinations.

Then there are the ones that simply dated... and ended badly.  We've had at least one unsubstantiated EEOC complaint from that sort of thing.


----------



## MJS (Apr 19, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> It's not just a problem on police departments. Imagine how much worse it is in the private sector where the owner makes all the kids bosses.


 
Funny you should mention that.  The last place I worked at was a family owned business.  It was handed down to the owner from his father, and the guy had a few of his kids working there, as well as their spouses.  One guy had it real nice.  He was one of those coffee delivery guys.  Met and married one of the daughters.  Moved up into a nice VP position.  Go figure. LOL.  



> Just to keep the discussion going, I believe that "nepotism" in the defined sense means the showing of favoritism toward relatives based upon that relationship (in regards to hiring/promotion/discipline), rather than an objective basis. Not simply having relatives working in the same place.
> 
> To be honest, I think it's just "one of those things" that has been and probably always will be around. The best we can do is try to control it via policy, ethics boards, etc.


 
Yup, you're right, its probably one of those things that'll always be there, but hopefully there can be some policies in effect to keep things in check.


----------



## punisher73 (Apr 20, 2011)

MJS said:


> Funny you should mention that. The last place I worked at was a family owned business. It was handed down to the owner from his father, and the guy had a few of his kids working there, as well as their spouses. One guy had it real nice. He was one of those coffee delivery guys. Met and married one of the daughters. Moved up into a nice VP position. Go figure. LOL.


 
In almost any position private or public.  It many times depends on who you know or who can put in a good word for you.  That is why in MANY career fields networking through job experiences and internships is so important.  It gets your name out there to get an interview or job.

Your example is what nepotism really is.  That same kid you talked about whose dad is a captain gets promoted to Sgt. even though there were better qualified people that applied for the promotion.  That is where you run into issues.  But, again, I don't think it is just LE that deals with this.


----------



## Carol (Apr 20, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> What about people who date then marry within the PD and become "relatives"?



That is actually where the federal law is the strongest, marital status is a protected attribute by the EEOC.  One cannot deny employment, promotion, etc. because they are married (or because they are married to X).

As far as other family relations (siblings, parents, children...) the EEOC is silent but there may be state or municipal statutes in place that regulate the matter.  Especially in public sector employment, it is not uncommon for employment laws to regulate all the way down to the municipal level.  To complicate matters further, many state and municipal employment laws indicate certain provisions may be covered by a Collective Bargaining Agreement.  

So, what is verboten can depend on one's state, city, and even one's union.   Clear as mud, eh?    Some of the most basic American duties -- such as going to work and paying one's taxes -- have some of the most complicated laws....


----------

