Tyler Izen
August, 2011
Chief Beck’s use of Conditional Official Reprimands as a tool to help manage employee conduct is being scrutinized by the public and reviewed by the Board of Police Commissioners.
The Chief believes the Conditional Official Reprimand, which includes a warning of far more severe consequences or termination for a second offense, is more effective at improving officers’ behavior. If the warning doesn’t prevent repeat offenses, the process allows the Department to get rid of incorrigible cops more swiftly than before.
In its quest to evaluate the effectiveness of Conditional Official Reprimands, the Police Commission asked the Department for additional information at a Commission meeting in late June. The Commission, it seems, is not convinced that the change in philosophy is working to dissuade misconduct.
Chief Beck, on the other hand, does not believe that the traditional method of police discipline (punishment commensurate with the seriousness of the offense, often increasing incrementally if similar offenses are committed) is working.
Quoted in a Los Angeles Times article last month (ironically, on our nation’s Independence Day), Chief Beck said, “For the 35 years I’ve been in this organization, we’ve been trying to make this work and it hasn’t been effective.”
In the Times article, the Chief pointed out that under the traditional method of police discipline, an officer could be caught driving drunk three or four times before being fired. The new strategy is presumably designed to prevent a second offense or identify the chronic offenders more rapidly so they can be terminated before their behavior becomes an unacceptable liability risk to the organization.
The Chief and Deputy Chief Mark Perez made strong arguments to defend the use of Conditional Official Reprimands and the new process.
There was, however, little dialogue or discussion about the two most significant underlying issues: why officers act in ways inconsistent with their positions as Los Angeles police officers and what can really be done to modify or control that behavior. I have met sociopaths willing to commit acts without any concern for consequences, but I have not yet met the officer who commits an act of misconduct knowing that he or she will be caught and punished.
The important components of the Conditional Official Reprimand process must not be overlooked. We have to help officers identify what caused or allowed them to make a mistake or commit misconduct, and we must help them understand what they must do to prevent a future mistake.
The Conditional Official Reprimand without open, honest, education-based dialogue and mutual understanding may be no more effective than the traditional LAPD method of distributing suspension days like Social Security cards.
We must use the Conditional Official Reprimand appropriately and effectively for the system to succeed in modifying behavior. If we use the system only as a threat of future consequences, we’ll have another 35 years of ineffective results.
Unfortunately, the Department’s explanation and application of the Conditional Official Reprimand has already received criticism from the public, the Police Commission and our membership.
If this process is going to survive the Commission’s and public’s scrutiny, the Conditional Official Reprimand and the education and required mutual understanding must be better explained and applied consistently. If it does, I believe it will benefit our membership and improve the Los Angeles Police Department.
Let me know what you think, accept responsibility for your actions and hold me accountable. It’s why I’m here. Contact me at (213) 251-4554 or send an email to tylerizen@lappl.org.
