Come on in; the Water’s F-F-F-Fine!
While I have great respect for Chief Beck, when I read his article last month about “Myths and Rumors about Financial Disclosure” I couldn’t help but think of the comedy cliché of the kids in the swimming hole trying to entice their playmates into jumping into the freezing water. While it may be a funny situation on television, you might not think it is so funny once you have taken the plunge. And once you jump, there is no going back.
The whole situation reminds me of the party where the entrance is free, but it costs 20 bucks to get out — a fact that is in small print, if mentioned at all, on the party flyers. This raises the question as to whether it was ever free in the first place, along with some speculation about the ethics of those who neglected to fully disclose or even provide the small print — kind of like those pressuring officers to “just fill out the forms; it’s no big deal.” There is a ton of pressure being applied to “sign on the line.” The League has pointed out many of the dangers, such as security, but I wanted to weigh in on some lesser-discussed problems.
What If You Are Rejected?
We know that officers who have taken polygraphs to get into Narcotics Division and received a polygraph reading of “inconclusive” have been tailed for months by Internal Affairs. The Chief says that there will be no corrective action taken, but that only means that there will not be any charges based on your rejection. Just as the officers with the inconclusive polygraphs were not charged with failing the poly, it is true that you will not be charged with failure to pass financial disclosure, but will you tailed by IA? (To our knowledge the tails revealed nothing, just as the inconclusive polygraphmeant nothing.)
Remember that the reason that you are being forced through financial disclosure is to find dishonest cops. The Department’s theory is that if you either have “unexplained wealth” or your “debt-to-asset” ratio is bad, that is a sign that you are either dishonest or in danger of being dishonest. Or maybe you can assuage their suspicions in the subsequent audit if grandpa died and left you a million-dollar house, or you have a lot of medical bills because of a recent illness. In that case, expect to bring in wills or medical bills, at a minimum, to convince the auditor. Although it is true that your financial information will not be in TEAMS II, the fact that you applied to the specialized unit and were rejected probably will be, in some shape or form. Think of how that will affect the opinion of your supervisors. Then there are your peers. Who among your friends will not know that your financial condition has barred you from a trusted position?
Although I predict that everyone who falls in line and fills out financial disclosure documents will fly through with approval (rejects being bad publicity at the moment), the real test will be when they start doing those required random audits.
Just what is a bad debt-to-asset ratio? No one will say. And the Chief’s understanding that we are in a financial crisis doesn’t really make logical sense. If we can’t trust people with bad debt-to-asset ratios, what difference does it make that times are bad? The pressure to steal, under their theory, is the same. (What is wrong with this theory is that the number of “poor-but-honest” people is overwhelming, and always has been!)
Even the act of deciding not to sign the financial disclosure documents on re-up, or refusing to go along with the audit, will put a stain on your reputation. Special Order No. 20 plainly says that it may bar you from future acceptance backinto the specialized unit. Why? The implied answer is that you are not trustworthy. Written between the lines is that there must be some reason why — related to dishonesty — you won’t share your finances with the Department.
Pitchess and Brady Motions
Guess what? Whether you are accepted or rejected is based on a recommendation from the auditor and passed up the chain of command. That recommendation is in writing, of course. If it is written, it can be discovered. The Department will not surround the Chief’s safe with SWAT officers to fight off the FBI or the Marshals when a judge issues a subpoena for your financial disclosure information. Just because your bank account number is not on the form does not mean the form cannot be considered relevant by some court.
Criminal defense attorneys are no doubt salivating over the battle to get to your financial disclosure status, since refusal will give them grounds to ask for dismissals. Your credibility is always an issue in court and the Department has publicly declared its belief that your debt-to-asset ratio is relevant to your credibility. The number of arrestee allegations about dishonesty (made after consulting with defense counsel) will probably go through the roof because that sort of allegation puts your financial disclosure information at issue.
When Gerald Chaleff, who is one notch below Chief Beck, was asked in a deposition if Pitchess motions and Brady motions applied to the financial disclosure information, the City attorney representing him ordered him not to answer. (Good call on her part.)
Internal Affairs
It is said that Internal Affairs will not have access to the financial disclosure documents. First of all, if you put something in, or leave something out, and the form does not match outside information, there is no doubt that false and misleading charges are a distinct possibility and Internal Affairs will be poring over all your documents.
That aside, let me end this article with a quote from paragraph 19 of the declaration of Mr. Chaleff, signed on November 18, 2009, and provided during litigation:
“The Chief of Police will also have the sole authority to allow access to the confidential financial disclosure forms to those individuals who will need access to these forms in order to carry out the performance of their official duties; for example, as part of an Internal Affairs investigation of misconduct. The Board of Police Commissioners will also have access to the confidential financial disclosure forms in the course and scope of their duties. However, in my experience as a member of the Board of Police Commissioners and in my experience with the Department, this is not the type of information that is normally requested by the Board of Police Commissioners in the course and scope of their duties. No other individuals or groups will have access to the confidential financial disclosure forms absent a court order or pursuant to a valid legal process.” [Emphasis added.]
There isn’t room to go into all the ins and outs of the decision regarding filling out those forms in this article. Go to www.warningbells.com under “Hot Issues” and find out a lot more information.
Be legally careful out there.
