WHATCOM COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF’S GUILD

MEMORANDUM

TO: WHATCOM COUNTY

FROM: GUILD GRIEVANCE COMMITTEE

DATE: 08-06-08

SUBJECT: GRIEVANCE-DEPUTY PAUL MURPHY

To whom it may concern,

It was recently brought to the attention of the grieva nce committee that Deputy PaulMurphy received a counseling form for failing to document a suspiciou s circumstance,which occurred on 07-05-08, and was a result of his own proactive patrol. DeputyMurphy was given the counseling form on 07 -10-08 by his supervisor, Sgt. Kevin Mede.

The counseling form appeared unnecessary as Deputy Murphy brought the circumstanceto the attention of Sgt. Mede on 07 -08-08, after Deputy Murphy investigated and deemedthe situation not suspicious and insufficient for document ation. In this specific case,Deputy Murphy would understandably be the one to make such a decision considering itwas based on his activity in the first place and he was more familiar with thecircumstances than anyone else involved. Deputy Murphy further advised Sgt. Mede thathe nonetheless planned to notify Crime Analyst Kope and Sgt. Chadwick. DeputyMurphy followed his chain of command and was not instructed to document thecircumstance by his supervisor as it did not appear suspicious.

However, Deputy Murphy received an e -mail from Chief Parks on 07-09-08 in whichChief Parks asked that Deputy Murphy document the circumstances. The e-mailincluded a directive previously sent to all WCSO personnel indicating that circumstances,such as those observed by Deputy Murphy, are deserving of documentation. L ater thatday, Deputy Murphy sent an e-mail to Chief Parks indicating that he received themessage and would comply. The next day, Deputy Murphy documented the incident.

Despite the e-mail from Chief Parks, which appeared to address the minor violation andappeared to suffice as a form of documented counseling , Deputy Murphy still receivedthe counseling form.

According to Chapter 28.2.3 in the Whatcom County Sheriff Rules and Regulationsmanual, a minor violation is classified as Class II, or “Administrative Inquiries,” and“…are not considered formal discipline.” However, “…a lengthy history of minorviolations may become the subject of a charge that could…result in economic loss ...”

It is unclear why Chief Parks’ e-mail was insufficient and a separate written reprimandwas included in this instance. However, the above referenced chapter also states, inessence, that additional violations could lead to charges including insubordination.Interestingly, on 07-11-08, following an additional exchange of e -mails between ChiefParks and Deputy Murphy regarding the same incident, Lt. Cooley advised DeputyMurphy that an e-mail Deputy Murphy sent to Chief Parks “…is tantamount toinsubordination.”

Finally, it is unclear that Sgt. Mede felt a counseling form was even necessary as Sgt.Mede did not direct Deputy Murphy to document the incident as he determined an e -mailto another sergeant and the criminal analyst was sufficient. Moreover, Deputy Murphystated that Sgt. Mede informed him that he was directed by either Chief Parks or Lt.Cooley to issue the written reprimand . If that is true, then it raises two questions:

1) Why wasn’t Chief Parks’ e-mail sufficient to address the issue? After receivingthe e-mail, Deputy Murphy rectified the problem by documenting the incident .An objective person would reason that an additional notice, in this case a writtenreprimand, is unnecessary; and

2) Why didn’t either Chief Parks or Lt. Cooley provide Deputy Mur phy the writtenreprimand? If both the deputy investigating his own proactive investigatio n, andthe deputy’s sergeant who supervises the deputy, determined no documentationwas necessary, and therefore no violation occurred, an objective person wouldagain reason that either Chief Parks or Lt. Cooley would issue the reprimand asthey obviously were aware of the need more than the immediate supervisor .

It appears that Deputy Murphy may be unfairly targeted , as receiving a written reprimandfor a minor violation based on his own self initiated work appears highly inappropriateespecially when, after serious consideration, the violation itself is debatable.

Deputy Murphy asked that the above issue be forwarded for grievance. It is the intentionof the guild committee to recommend the guild proceed in such a manner.

Sincerely,

Erik FrancisWhatcom County Deputy Sheriff’s GuildGrievance Committee member