More Thoughts on Financial Disclosure (Part 3)
Recently, a hard-charging former south-end police officer met with the captain of the division to which he was wheeled after probation. This captain meets with all officers interested in leaving his division for an exit interview to discuss the 1.40, and rightly so.
The first portion of the interview was seemingly sincere flattery of the officer’s work ethic and was immediately followed with a sales pitch to stay and work that division’s GED. Highly unusual, since when do captains need to recruit for their coveted specialized units?
For nearly an hour, the captain tried (in vain) to convince the young officer to sign the financial disclosure and join his divisional GED. Unfortunately, when said captain finally determined that this previously exemplary officer had no intention of signing a financial disclosure, the tune of the interview changed.
It deteriorated into accusations by the captain that the officer’s refusal to sign was due to a lack of leadership and integrity on his part. This captain stated that it was obvious that the Department’s “true leaders” and the ones with “real integrity” were the individuals signing financial disclosures.
This is very telling. Consider the promotional process of the LAPD. Think about supervisory nightmares that have been thrust upon you by the Department’s version of leadership. Ask yourself what the code words “real integrity” mean.
If the majority of LAPD officers are refusing to sign financial disclosures, does this mean that only a small handful of us have integrity? What is the implication of this captain’s assessment of this officer?
Ask yourself what will happen when you are confronted by another departmental dilemma. Will you acquiesce to promote? Have you already?
Ask yourself if you believe in the LAPD core value: Integrity in all we say and do. Or do you believe that “integrity” means whatever the Department says it means today?
You have the choice.
