\
Milone, Michael From:
Sent: To:
Subject: Importance:
Milone, Michael Friday, October 02,200912:29 PM Jim Sima (E-mail); Laura DeCaprio (E-mail); maltieri@wallingford.k12.ct.us; Matt Altieri (E足 . mail); Matt Hall (E-mail); Michael Ecke (E-mail); sheldon@cheshirechamber.com; sheldond@snet.net; Tim Slocum (E-mail);TimSlocum(tim.homefabric@snet.net); Tim White (E-mail); Tom Ruocco (E-mail) pOlice dept vote of confidence High
To All,
Please keep in mind that this is a confidential document due to the sensitive personnel nature of the content. Chief Cruess informed me that the Police Union has scheduled a meeting for this afternoon and are planning to conduct
a "vote of confidence" in the Chief.
When I asked union President Kerry Deegan directly
about the possibility of such a vote taking place he did not deny it.
Regardless of the outcome of this vote, this is an unfortunate development that we have worked hard to prevent. It is no secret that there has been tension between Chief Cruess and some of the rank and file, and I have discussed this issue with the Council in at least two executive sessions over the past 18 months. We are also planning to review the grievances filed by all unions at the Personnel Committee meeting of October 7, 2009.
Since the summer of 2008, Personnel Director Lou Zullo and I have had multiple meetings with the Police Union Executive Board, both with and without the Chief. Additionally I have met individually with several union members and executive staff, and have had numerous meetings with Chief Cruess regarding this issue. As a result of these various meetings, changes were instituted by the Chief to improve communication, increase the flow of information, and expand the Deputy Chiefs departmental oversight, to name a few. The Chief has made a concerted and tangible effort to address the issues raised by the union, and I realize that more work remains. However, the union continues to display an unwillingness to recognize these efforts and has not demonstrated a strong inclination to work to improve this situation.
At a meeting that Lou Zullo and I had with the Executive Board earlier this year, the union president began the meeting by stating that he "wished the Chief were dead." This incredibly unprofessional and hostile statement cast a serious pallor over our discussions, and brought into question the union's commitment to, and desire for, a resolution to their concerns. 1
路
..
,
/
I
.;
While we have achieved mutually agreed-upon grievance resolutions over the past year, the union has
made the process challenging by frequently cancelling and delaying meetings. I can't help but feel that there is not a good faith effort on the union's part to bring about a resolution.
Michael Cruess is an ethical, hard working police chief who knows the operation of the department most intimately. However, his management style has been at the center of the union's dissatisfaction; he is well aware of this and has been working on it. Additionally, the union has taken issue with the Chiefs cost containment strategies implemented in response to my directive to all department heads to reduce discretionary spending to the extent possible without compromising core services. One of these cost containment strategies was to eliminate "swaps" (officers swapping shift assignments) because it was creating unnecessary and excessive overtime due to shift changes, not because of a need for additional coverage. The union contract clearly states that approval of swaps is at the sole discretion of the Chief. We attempted to resolve this through discussions with the union by establishing some parameters for this practice as a compromise, but we have been unsuccessful. One part of this matter has been mediated and arbitrated and a second part is being negotiated. The union president has indicated that this issue has become a major bone of contention with the union.
The Chief is trying to hold officers accountable and save money where possible, just as the Council has asked me to do; he is not creating a "hostile" work environment as has been alleged. I have been close to this situation and would simply not tolerate this had I seen any evidence that a hostile work environment existed.
In our attempt to maintain ongoing lines of communication, we had a meeting scheduled yesterday with the union's Executive Board, but unfortunately, this meeting was cancelled by the police union the day before the meeting. Nonetheless, we will continue to meet and communicate with the union as frequently as possible in an ongoing effort to resolve some of these issues. Additionally, and in an attempt to break through whatever barriers continue to exist, I will consider hiring a consultanVcounselor to work with our groups on continuing reconciliation issues. Michael
2
CHESHIRE POLICE UNION, INC.
AFSCME COUNCIL 15
LOCAL 1720
500 IDGHLAND AVENUE
CBESIDRE, CT 06410
(203) 271-5500
May 21, 2009
Mr. Michael Milone Town Manager Town of Cheshire 84 South Main Street Cheshire, CT 06410
Dear Mr. MiJone: On behalf of the Cheshire Police Union Executive Board, I respectfully submit this complaint regarding the performance and conduct of Chief Michael Cruess. We realize that the information contained herein is highly sensitive in nature and we ask that it be. treated as confidential to the fullest extent possible. We also understand that this complaint, and any testimony given in support of it, will significantly and adversely impact our working relationship with ChiefCruess, both individually and collectively as members ofthe Cheshire Police Union. These fears have prevented similar filings in the past~ however, attempts to reconcile these issues have failed to the extent that it makes this complaint necessary. The members of the Cheshire Police Union remain fearful that ChiefCruess will seek to punish those who he feels are responsible for this complaint. However, according to Section 31-51 m of the Connecticut General Statutes, "no municipal employer shall discharge, discipline or otherwise penalize any employee because the employee, or a person acting on behalf of the employee, reports, verbally or in writing, to a public body concerning the unethical practices, mismanagement or abuse of authority by such employer." The membership of the Cheshire Police Union fully recognizes the significance of this complaint and regrets the inherent and unavoidable unpleasantness associated with it. We
t:~o:e ,a full and;::Jjial investigation and appreciate your efforts on our behalf
A-'
I~
Lieutenant erry Deegan President, Local 1720
cc: Union files
Cheshire Police Department Rules , Regulations Duty Manual 1978 Foreward
"While no compilation of rules, regulations, or procedures can provide a specific guide to actions to be taken in each and every uniquely different situation, it is expected that the resultant response made by an officer of the Department in any incident not covered herein, shall be in the best interests of the public he serves, his Department, and his profession." 100
Definitions and Terminology
100.50 Neglect of Duty: Failure to give suitable attention to the performance of duty. Examples include but are not limited to: failure to perform duties prescribed in the police manuals. These violations include, but not are limited to • His inability to get along with others • Pandering to public opinion • Being ill-informed regarding Department Rules and Regulations and his obligation to follow them • Failure to update rules and regulations • Failure to establish a clear-cut chain of command • Being discourteous and disrespectful to subordinates • Failing to remain "cool and collected at all times" • Conduct unbecoming an officer • Failing to maintain harmony within the Department 100.51 Incompetence: Incapable of the satisfactory performance of police duties. The lack of any of the following qualities is evidence of incompetence; courage, honesty, emotional stability, sound judgment, industry, alertness, decisiveness, power to observe, initiative, energy, intelligence, ability to get along with people. • Courage- famous quote, "you go in first, I have more to lose than you" • Honesty - rarely takes blame for anything, if he makes a mistake it was somebody else's fault • Emotional stability - wild mood swings in a matter of minutes, frequent outbursts over trivial matters, vindictive nature • Sound judgment rules by emotion and, as a result, frequently reverses his own decisions. • Industry - takes ownership of all good ideas and passes them off as his • Ability to get along with people - he simply cannot
200
General Rules for ALL members
201.04
Officers will seek and preserve public favor, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law; by ready exercise of courtesy and good humor. • Pandering to public opinion - Underground Town Hall Cindy Kliest has more input in the decision making process than his own staff • Impartial service - permits personal relationships to influence police decisions (Kurtz family - July 4th/Nyberg incident) • Preserve public favor by ready exercise of courtesy assailed Congressman Chris Murphy at the '08 Fall Festival on a number of issues, including his residency. By all accounts, the uncomfortable encounter embarrassed everyone present (except the Chief)
203
Being Informed
203.01
Officers shall study and thoroughly understand the Department Rules and Regulations and the Duty and Procedural Manuals, general orders, town ordinances, and State and Federal laws. They shall obtain the assistance of their superior officer in the interpretation of any section that is not clearly understood. They shall be especially well informed concerning the rules, regulations, procedures, and duties governing their specific assignmen ts. • Apparently unaware that he is also subject to the Department Rules and Regulations, as evidenced by his failure to abide by them • Has failed to make changes to the Rules and Regulations which contain outdated and offensive language (which references and compares homosexuals to prostitutes and other "sex offenders"), Yet, following his promotion to Chief, he re-issued numerous memorandums and general orders in a move that was perceived as an attempt to purge Chief Walberg's name from said documents.
206
Compliance with Orders
206.02
As a general rule a member will be required to take direct orders from, and be directly responsible to one superior officer. • Has blurred the chain of command, creating confusion among subordinate officers at every rank • Chain of Command is only used at Chief's convenience • As Capt. Marchand is fond of saying, the department has but 1 supervisor (Chief) and 49 officers • Supervisors are often out of the "loop"
209.00
Relations with Others
209.01
Officers shall be courteous, civil, and respectful of their superiors, associates, and other persons, whether on or off duty. They shall be quiet, orderly, and attentive and shall exercise patience and discretion in the performance of their duties. They shall avoid answering questions in a short, abrupt manner; they shall maintain an even, cheerful temper, regardless of the provocation, remaining cool and collected at all times. They shall refrain from harsh, violent, coarse, profane, sarcastic, or insolent language. • Discourteous - refuses to acknowledge anyone he encounters upon entering a room, hallway etc. • Displays a quick temper, although he is equally quick to label someon~ else's tone or objections as insubordinate. • Disrespectful/Dismissive - devalues opinions/suggestions • Unable to maintain "cheerful temper", despite numerous warnings, mandated training etc.
210.00 Demeanor 210.01 Members shall not conduct themselves in an immoral, indecent, lewd, or disorderly manner, or in a manner that might be construed by an observer as immoral, indecent, lewd, or disorderly. They shall not be guilty of misconduct, neglect of duty, conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman, or acts tending to discredit the Department, even though such conduct is not specifically set forth in these rules. • Neglect of Duty - failure to perform duties prescribed in the police manuals. • Conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman: 1. failure to be courteous, civil, and respectful 2. failure to maintain an even, cheerful temper, regardless of the provocation, remaining cool and collected at all times 210.06
No member shall be guilty of oppression, favoritism, or willful wrong or injustice. vindictive, as he readily admits, he "never • Oppression forgets" , • Favoritism - shows preferential treatment with regard to assignments (e.g., light duty) • Favoritism - shows preferential treatment with regard to disciplinary action (e.g., former Dispatcher Rosario Leiva) • Favoritism - shows preferential treatment to businesses and other organizations (Barry's Automotive/CHS Band) • Injustice - refuses to acknowledge, or correct, the wrongs of his command staff
211
Harmony
211.01
Members shall avoid conduct or speech that is subversive to good order and discipline. They shall treat each other with the utmost courtesy and respect ... They shall direct and coordinate their efforts to establish and maintain the highest level of efficiency, morale, and achievement. They shall conduct themselves in such a manner as to bring about the greatest harmony in the Department. Grouchiness, wisecracks, and flares of temper shall be avoided. In addition to what has been said, Chief Cruess • is a shameless self-promoter, reminds everyone of how hard he works. He has repeatedly stated that he is ~the only person who is overworked" in the entire organization • frequently complains about his low pay and implies that everyone else is either overpaid or greedy. He openly resents the fact that other employees have earned more money (ignoring the fact that those employees worked substantially longer hours, with fe·wer days off in between) • has bragged that he squashed the early retirement incentive for police officers because it did not benefit him in any way • is generally unappreciative and rarely recognizes individual achievements (but lays claim to any successes}. • has claimed that the Department would be "lost" without him, told staff members that the "next Chief" will have to be recruited from outside the Department because there are no viable candidates from within (he does not realize that, if true, it would be his failure - not ours) • speaks of Chief Gary Walberg with disdain and, when countering "past practice" claims, asserts he is "NOT Gary Walberg" • requested a double digit raise for himself, and ONLY himself
243
Violations (PENALTY)
Failure of a member, either willfully or through negligence, incompetence, or cowardice, to perform the duties of his rank or assignment l or violation by a member of any department rule, duty, instruction, or order, or conduct prejudicial to the good order and police discipline of the Department ... may be considered sufficient cause for discharge, demotion, suspension, or other penalty. The Cheshire Police Union maintains that Chief Michael Cruess willfully, and/or through his own incompetence, failed to perform the duties of his rank as outlined in this petition and that sufficient cause exists for discharge, demotion, suspension, or other penalty.
301· .
DUt1e.of the Chief of Po.lice
301..03 . . O;rg-,uisirig
"P..
TheCl)iefof Policeshall .... estaplis:h.a logical an~ . . clear-cut .chain ofconunandwithdefinite channels'of' communication, responsibility andautho+,±t;y. . eRoutinely :wo'rks 'otit,sideof theesti:tijlished chainbf command, ,thus: weakening the entire chain . '.Chain of comrnandis.morecbmffibnly :used aSHan 'exc;:use 'when ,problems'. arise (e .g.; thatitwasri' t, followed)· eChahnels·of communication' "flow one way:- up'the c~ain " ' , e ,Respons ibility' does' no·t conunensurate with authority
301.5
.'Delegati-tiS! ;. ,bi:r.¢Unq, ,:, uc! Cootdl;lla 1:l.11q
n
'
A.· ,.' TheChlef of Police" shall delegate tohis~ubordinate officers an authority.commen$uratewith'their' re8pon~ibil~ties.
, ' . ChiefCruesshas become. the only .decisiori maker'. Aga,in, CapL :Marchand: is: fond. of Saying, the depa.rtment has hut, 1 supervisor (Chief) and 49 , . " '" officers ' , ',' , • Assig~s 1,'esponsibility with absbl~tely' no , , correspondingauthority,'to complete the task • 'Supervisors are constimtly second-guessed,' Chief" Cruess is the ultima:te\\Monday morning quarterback" • sup~rv.isors are not allOwed '1:6 make even 'the most ," bast:c decisi'ons . (Capt. Marchand: recently advised a Sergeant that holding a shitt ~eeting exceeded the scope' 6f his authority!'). ' .
C.
He shalL .. assure, that~ach .member of the Police Department isdirectlyresppnsible'tobut one superior offider. .' . " , "
,
'.
.
.
: .:
.
',.,
."
'."
'.
• ConSi..lrnrnatemicromanag'~r~·subordinates repoitto multiple supervisors, up to and including tl)eCh'ief D. H'e shall ... re~ise the. p!oG~dures and duty assignments· as needed to maintain high level of effective operation'. . , .a ' . .. . • Revising dutya~~.ignments -~ct~ without regard to the impact - e.g. implementing.discipline (Oa.ly)' schedule chi:mges without notice (0'. Giampietro) e Does not invitedis~ussion'on pending matters .which actually REDUCES the level'of effectiveoper'ation' • As a result, he wastes money on ill-conceived ideas and equipment (alcohol sensors/gun cabinet). . • Ignores Union right:;; to bargain changes (creation of job descriptions involving. significant changes) '. • Does not support new ideas (or current ones) with appropriate funding (M/C. patrol, ,carSeatpr~gram)
.301.06
Controlling arid Inspectinq
C.He shaii institute.astud;ofobstacies·thatpre\tent the Department fro~ functioning efficientiy ..• and other morale-destroying situations; • • . .: . • •
Hasn~t m~t wit~ su~ervi~~r~ Hasn't held aD~partment .ineeting .
Hasn ' tco~unicated .our mission· staterite~t •..
Ou~ ~uleS an~ Regulationsa~e3~ye~rS91~
Inconsistentappllcation ofthbse rules and regulations. . . . . .
~Union membe~shipwoulq weic~me ainorea¢tive,
n6np~rtisan roiein~evelopingpolicyandpr6cedure.
sign~
E . ·He . shallprepaI'e, and. present an official. . . commendation for meritorious servi<je to any worthy of1ice~; . .
..
Fails to recogniZe·exemplary w~rk, although he often tries to compare . such . efforts\o his· own (more . significant of course ) . accornplishrit.ents • Di~contli1Ued the employee recogni tion program • . Generally perceived as·· unappr~ciati ve
303.01
Leadership A. Leadership
of a
of personnel is the primary function superior officer. He must realize that
command imposes grave responsibilities, principal among which is . . . accepting responsibility • Chief Walberg's death - ordered responding officers, upon their return from the hospital, to "get back on the road; you still have a job to do". • Chief Loudon's death - failed to address Department members - NO supervisor or department meeting • Winiarski murders 1.Happened to arrive at headquarters as event unfolded and retreated to his office 2.Refused to release Meriden officer from traffic duties to save (CPD) overtime 3.0rdered SRT members, who just experienced a "critical incident", back to routine patrol duties • Petit murders 1. Argumentative and insensitive comments while touring active crime/accident scene (concerning the investigation, opening the roadway, salvaging tires from wrecked cruisers etc.)
2. Failed to acknowledge efforts of responding officers (while heaping praise on State Police) 3. Failed to attend critical incident debriefing in support of officers 4. J eopardized investigation by releasing classified information • Readily assigns blame for failures but accepts credit for successes B. The character and ability of a superior officer is reflected in the efficiency, discipline, and morale of his subordinates ... General laxity, indifference, incompetence, and ineffectiveness on the part of a subordinate shall be deemed evidence of incompetence and neglect of duty on the part of their superior officer. • Plummeting morale, growing indifference- and ineffectiveness are a reflection of Chief Cruess' management style C. The superior officer is not only respdnsible for his _own conduct and performance of police duties, but for that of his subordinates as-well. He shall set an example to all subordinates in sobriety, dignity, courtesy, discretion, initiative, industry, diligence, truthfulness, courage, painstaking attention to duty, and the observance of proper discipline. • Does NOT lead by example: "Do as I say, not as I do" management style • See Section 100.51 entitled "Incompetence". Examples cited would not be tolerated at any other rank • Preaches sacrifice, however, fiscal responsibility does not apply to him personally - e.g., 2 new cars in 2 years (with custom grill lights, new radios etc. when used equipment was available), new office furniture, $500 lobby photo • Requested double digit raise for himself but maintains everyone else is greedy 303.02
Orders B. (He) shall issue clear, concise, and definite orders to
his subordinates. Vague, ambiguous, and ill-defined orders and commands that cannot be executed are confusing ... and prejudicial to the efficiency, good order, and morale of the Department. • Issued a series of conflicting orders removal of signs mounted on telephone these "orders weren't carried out to satisfaction, he sent an email to all ll
regarding the poles. When his supervisory
personnel berating their lack of effort. Members also took exception to his complaint that they "haven't arrested anyone for a real crime in months or years", apparently forgetting many notable arrests, including those following the brutal Petit murders the year before. • Often blames inconsistent orders, written in the shift corrunander's "Red Book" (a daily logbook), on "miscommunication" with patrol division commander.
303.03
Performance of
Du~ies
B. He shall not perform the duties regularly assigned to a subordinate when the subordinate is available to perform them ... • Controls decision making at all levels (micromanagement) . • On or off duty, usurps authority of on-scene supervisor(s) regardless of the event 1. d isrupts routine events (e.g., Fall Festival, accident scenes etc. with unnecessary orders) 2. disrupts critical incidents - -attempted to dictate (incorrectly) how highly trained SRT commanders should handle Winiarski murder scene (e.g., when to make entry into the house) • As soon as Chief Cruess learned that the recently formed Underage Drinking Task Force, which has 3 supervisors (I Lt/2 Sgt.'s), would be at a high school dance, he immediately dictated what would be done and how. • Personally handles disciplinary matters 303.04
MORALE
A. A supervisor shall give particular attention to the morale of his subordinates and shall immediately eliminate any friction or jealously which exists in his ranks. He shall require his subordinates to maintain an even temper and cheerful disposition ... • Does not recognize or acknowledge low morale • Does not recognize or appreciate hard work (except in his own deeds) • Discontinued the employee recognition program • Knee-jerk reactions to small problems (e.g., suspends motorcycle and bike patrols at the slightest provocation) • Poor Union/Management relationship • Issues idle threats (e.g., closing the Traffic Division)
• Friction and jealousy arise from disparate treatment (e.g., favoritism) • Does not require of himself an even temper and
cheerful disposition
B. He shall constantly str.ive for harmony among all
employees of the Department and a spirit of good fellowship among his subordinates. • Rarely takes the high road - rather than address an issue on merit, he makes it personal • Refuses to acknowledge anyone he encounters upon entering a room, hallway etc. • Displays a quick temper • No sense of loyalty, "I'm NOT one of the guysH • Pits one supervisor against another • Disrespectful/Dismissive - devalues
opinions/suggestions
• Unable to maintain "cheerful temper" himself D. He shall exercise his authority with kindness, firmness, justice, and reason. • He relies on coercion (bullying), close supervision (micromanagement), and threats to get the job done, which results in hostility, low morale, and increased management-union conflict. F.· He shall not injure or discredit those under his authority by unreasonable, unjust, arbitrary, capricious, or tyrannical conduct, or by abusive language. • At the very least, Chief Cruess' tyrannical conduct has transformed the Cheshire Police Department into an uncomfortable, unpleasant workplace. At most, it has adversely affected the health and welfare of its employees and reduced the level of effective operation at the expense of officer and public safety.