Montgomery County police officers caught breaking the rules almost always receive light punishments because of a disciplinary process tilted in favor of the police union, according to the assistant county attorney who handles police internal affairs cases.
In 2008, one out of nine officers found by the department to have committed a serious offense received the punishment originally recommended by Police Chief J. Thomas Manger, according to Assistant County Attorney Chris Hinrichs.
The year before, none of the 24 cases that went before a hearing board — which is made up of a police officer picked by the union, an officer picked by the chief of police and an agreed-on neutral panel member — resulted in the punishment sought by Manger, Hinrichs said.
“Suspensions are very, very rare,” Hinrichs said. “Dismissals are virtually unheard of.”
Hinrichs said the process is tilted because the neutral panel member on the board, which has the final say in discipline matters, almost always sides with union members. The result, he said, is that the union is able to protect the small number of “bad apples” who break the rules.
“If the chief cannot effectively impose discipline on his officers, is that a problem?” Hinrichs said.
But Fraternal Order of Police union officials said Hinrichs is unhappy with an agreed-upon discipline process because he isn’t getting the results he wants.
“Of course [the chief] shouldn’t get what he wants. Why should he get what he wants?” said Walter Bader, past president of FOP Lodge 35. “What if he’s wrong, what if he’s being discriminatory, what if he’s being inequitable, what if he’s being unfair. We’re not a society that rubber-stamps bureaucrats’ decisions.”
Union officials said the police department has a history of seeking unreasonable punishments and bringing “weak” cases against its members — a claim Hinrichs and Manger denied. The union and the county are awaiting a decision from the state Court of Special Appeals on whether Manger can pick a hearing board, instead of a mixed panel, in certain cases involving officers charged with less-serious misconduct.
The Examiner reported on a case that led to the Special Appeals court case. It involved a Montgomery County police officer who was found by her superiors to have ignored an armed robbery call less than a block away and was given a one-day suspension, which she refused.
