October 2022 Warning Bells article
A few months ago, the Department revised the “relationship” manual section. Personal relationships between Department employees, that is. The Department recognizes the rights of employees to become involved with each other but lays down some limits. At the risk of throwing cold water on true love, those limits were expressed as “it is the Department’s intent to ensure that personal relationships do not cause unrest, lend themselves to the perception of favoritism, adversely affect morale, officer safety or the safety of others, or otherwise disrupt Department operations.”
True, over the years the Department has witnessed unrest in the workforce caused by failed relationships, lawsuits over favoritism, morale problems over perceived relationship problems, and other forms of disruption caused by interpersonal conflicts including suicide. Experience has shown that all ranks from P-2 through command officers share in these imperfections.
The revision adds new language to the former manual section which had been in place for years. An officer should know what the new language requires. It starts out with the definition of “personal relationship.” It includes a potentially large pool of an officer’s daily contacts. The definition of “personal relationship “is defined as any romantic relationship that extends beyond simple friendship, including but not limited to, dating, cohabitation, marriage, or other intimate relationship. This also includes familial relationships such as an ex-spouse, child, stepchild, stepparent, parent, sibling, cousin, daughter-in-law, or son in-law.” [emphasis added] Although not included in the personal relationship definition the order also mentions a business relationship. “If a superior enters into a personal or business relationship with a subordinate, the motive for decisions made by that superior relative to the subordinate may become suspect and compromise the integrity of those involved.” [emphasis added]
The second element that ties into the potential misconduct charge is that the person who the officer has the relationship is employed by LAPD with the officer being in the position of a superior to that person. The “superior” relationship may be broader than one thinks. “The avoidance of an actual or potential conflict is particularly acute tor superiors and subordinates, by rank or paygrade. For purposes of this Section, “superior” includes employees who have temporary or ongoing direct or indirect authority over the actions, decisions, hiring, evaluation, and/or performance of a subordinate employee within the same watch or chain-of-command.” [emphasis added]
How about training officers? The revised order is very specific. “This includes superior officers (i.e., Police Officer I and II) who have training and/or evaluation responsibilities of a probationary officer.” [emphasis added]
What about an officer’s right to privacy and freedom of association? Presumably an officer will date the subordinate, or enter into a business relationship, off-duty. It is true that there must be some sort of nexus between a Department rule and the off-duty application of that rule. However, it doesn’t take much. Potential disruption of the Department’s operation is enough. [Warning Bells article October 2018] Just to be sure, the order finds that there is specifically an impact. “This could lead to a disrupted work environment, reduced production and a decline in morale.” That issue was covered by the Department in the order probably with input from the City Attorney.
The order imposes this responsibility on an officer. “All employees shall avoid situations which give rise to an actual or apparent conflict between their professional responsibilities and their relationships with other employees.” [emphasis added]
In a nod to reality, the Department recognizes that relationships will happen even if employees are told that they “shall avoid” these situations. In these cases, employees have the duty to immediately notify their commanding officer of the relationship. The commanding officer will then eliminate the conflict of interest taking into consideration the best interests of both employees and the Department. Generally, that means that someone is going to get transferred. The chief, of course, has the final say.
Can officers have relationships when they work different divisions or watches? Maybe. As a practical matter, it depends on disrupting the Department. Think personnel complaint. The order excuses the duty to report but gives itself a loophole. “Off-duty personal relationships not involving the same watch or chain-ot-command conflict are not reportable as conflicts of interest under this Section. However, any personal relationship between employees which negatively impacts an involved employee’s performance of their professional responsibilities is a matter of serious concern to the Department. The Department reserves the right to take appropriate action, to eliminate such conflicts in order to maintain an appropriate work environment.” [emphasis added]
The best advice is to keep your private life completely separate from the Department. Solve your relationship problems inside the relationship. If you, or your significant other, involve the Department in your dispute; the Department WILL become involved and there is no option to drop an allegation once it is made. The Big Blue Machine will grind on until the investigation is completed and adjudicated. An experience not to be desired.
Be legally careful out there.
