RentonPDDiscpline2

8/6/2019 RentonPDDiscpline2

1/8

II'" Renton Police Department

CO-0311

Discipline

JUDD: ,


2/8

PotlCE DEPARTMENT

M E MaR AND U M

DATE:TO:FROM:SUBJECT :

Aug ust 11, '2011B il l J udd , Se rg ean tKevin Mi lo se vic h, Chie f l e f tDiscipline CO-0311

I h av e .r ev iewed the inform ation in C O-0311. T his, i ncludes the inform ation you providedin th e Interview conducted by Commander Leibman. I h ave also reviewed the findingsand discipline recom mendations provided by C om mander Leibm an and Com manderCurry. Based upon all of the lnforrnatlonprovlded, I issued m y prelim inary intent todemote you to the position of officer.T his prelim inary Intent w as based upon the follow ing inform ation.T he inv estigation reve aled that:

Sometim e in the m iddle of December 20101 you created an 8:42 m inute cartoonstyle video about the interactions between the Jail and Patrol. In yourstatement, you created this video as a "spoof."During that sam e month you notified D eputy Chief Marsallsl, Sergeant _and A/Sgt.=--.J that you were creating a video.

You had a conversation w ith M arsalisl regarding the posting of this video onY ouTube before it was actually posted . Y ou w anted to rem ain anonym ous.M arsalisi suggested that you to go to the library if y ou wanted to keep it a secret.

, You went through significant efforts to conceal your involvem ent by creating ananonymous email account from a location that would be difficult to trace back to

i ts o ri gi ns . You eventually posted the video on Y ouT ube. r- You were reluctant during your interview to indicate the medium that was used

to post the video by stating in your interview : " ...but, I think from an offsite em ailaddress."

You sent a link of the video to your department email account and to Sergeant( , departm ent email account. You conspired w ith Marsalisi/: ::JndLJ to keep your involvement andtheir knowledge about the creation and posting of the video a secret.

You removed the video from YouTube when advised to by M arsalisi. In ' your in terview you stated:


3/8

Kevin MilosevichPage 2 of7Aug ust 8 , 2 01 1o That the content of the video gives the perception to others that there

are problems with SCORE.o That the video could impact the Department's relationship with the Jail.o That the video could impact the Department's relationship with SCORE.o The clown in the video represents the Jail as an entity.o That you left open the possibility of a second video.

You stated that you would "fess up' to the video if you were confronted directly. That when others asked you if you had something to do with the video, you

avoided answering honestly and directly. You agreed that your actions are not consistent with your role as a sergeant. You agreed that your actions fall under the definition of Unbecoming Conduct. The video was the topic of discussion at a monthly SCOREOperations Board

meeting, given its disparaging and demeaning representation of the Jail. Public Officials in other cities viewed this video and Inquired asto the creation

and issues surrounding the video.Your conduct violated the following General Orders:General Orders 26.1.1.II.B - Unbecoming Conduct

Members of the Police Department shati conduct themselves at all times, both onand off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the Department.Unbecoming conduct shall include that which brings the Department into.disrepute or reflects discredit upon the individual as a member of the PoliceDepartment, or that which impairs the operation or efficiency of the Departmentor the individual.

Finding: Sustainedl

)

General Orders 26.1.1.II.K - Unsatisfactory PerformanceCommissioned members of the PoliceDepartment shall maintain sufflcientcompetency to properly perform their duties, and assume the responsibility oftheir positions. Members shall perform their duties in a manner which wif!maintain the highest standards of efficiency in carrying out the functions andobjectives of the Department. Unsatisfactory performance may be demonstratedby a lack oj knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced, anunwif!ingness or inability to perform assigned tasks, the failure to conform towork standards established for the officer's rank, grade, or position, the failure totake appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder or other conditiondeserving police attention, or absence without leave. In addition to otherindicators of unsatisfactory performance, the following will be considered primafacie evidence of unsatisfactory performance: repeated poor evaluations, or awritten record oj repeated infractions of rules, regulations, directives, or ordersof the Department.


4/8

Kevin MilosevichPage 3 of7August 8, 2011

Finding: Sustained

General Orders 26.1.1.II.FF --Public StatementsMembers of the Police Department shall not publicly criticize or ridicule theDepartment, its policies, or other members, where such speech, wr(ting, or otherexpression is defamatory, obscene or is made with reckless disregard for truth orfalsity and undermines the effectiveness of the Department or interferes with themaintenance of discipline. Members of the Police Department shall not addresspublic gatherings, appear on radio or television, prepare any articles forpublication, act as correspondents to a newspaper or a.perlodical, release ordivulge investigative information or any other matters of the Department whilepresenting themselves as representing the Department in such matters withoutproper authority. Members may lecture on pollee, or other related subject, onlywith prior approval of the Chief. \...

Finding: SustainedThe creation and dissemination of this ortglnal tPennv-tale" video has clearly impairedyour ability to perform the duties that is expected of a sergeant. Some ofthesesupervisory duties include:

Supervise, evaluate, and motivate subordinates. Establish and maintain cooperative and effective interpersonal relationships. ASSign,Instruct, and review the work of subordinates in an effective working

relationship. .Supervise and evaluate the performance of subordinates and interpretevaluation for correcting deficiencies in a positive manner. Enforce laws with firmness and tact. Deal effectively with violations of rules, pollcles, and procedures on an

impartial basis. Learn specific duties and responsibilities of individual assignments and apply

and carry out as required.In addition, your disrespectful behavior toward another division of the Department aswell asSCOREand its administration has substantially impeded your ability to performyour essential functions as !3 supervisor ofthis organization, created discord amongstthe agencies and significantly impaired the proper functioningof the Department:These findings are based on the following:

You created, shared and posted a video that was demeaning, demoralizing andridiculed members of the department and other Ki.ngCounty agencies.


5/8

Kevin MilosevichPage 4of7Augu st 8 , 2 01 1 The video reflected poorly on our agency and its good reputation, your

coworkers, supervisors and the relationship betw een the organlzatlons, 'You stated that the result of this video may have a negative impact on your

career and conspired to keep your identity and involvement a secret. It was only after M arsalis! came forward that you admitted to your involvement. The video deliberately distorted and exaggerated the jail's operations to cause

the viewer to conclude that the jail operations and jail personnel were.incompetent, ignorant and less valued than commissioned members of thepolice department. The speech was defamatory and made w ith recklessdisregard for the truth clearly underm ining the effectiveness o f th e o rg an iz atio n.

You publically demeaned and rid iculed certain department staff causing harm tothose relatlonshlps b etwe en o rg an iz atio ns .

The video impacted the relationship w ith the Renton Jail and with SCORE.r--o Specifically from ~ _

Theorlglnal S.CO REParody video is sarcastic, dem eaning to SC OREas an agency, to Correctional O fficers, and to her personally. It has caused a spirit of distrust between SCORE and members ofthe R enton P olic e D epartm ent.

She has been contacted by numerous officials from outsideagencies inquiring about the video.

Several members of SCORE were offended by the video. They felt. it w as derogatory towards SCORE a nd them personally.

: . . . s . . . . Jdvises that the jail staff in general weretrustrated, offended and em barrassed.

o Spec if ic al ly f rom I , There has been a negative im pact on S CORE and its operations. The depiction of a SCORE employee as a lazy clown by a memberof an owner agency has created a lack of distrust between SCORE

staff and the R enton Police D epartm ent. The video could have negative impact on potential correctional

officer recruits' during a tim e of increased hiring activ ity. Documented receiving an email from a SCORE em ployee that

read:."/ did n ot like being em ulated as a C lo wn. T he defin itio n of aclo wn is a rud e ill-bred p erson , a fo ol an d o ne w ho p la ys thebuffcon. I d o n ot b elie ve th ey w ere In te nd in g to show us as acom edian w ho en terta in s peo ple. It w as m ean t to m ake us looklikefools. II

L oudel'm lll hearing w ith Com mander CurryThis meeting was held in conference room 519 on June z o " at 1400 hours. D uring thism eeting several defenses were raised byG ulld A ttorney H ilary M cClure on your behalf,

)


6/8

Kev:in MilosevichPage 5 of7 .Aug us t 8 , 2 0 11

That this video is protected under the 1st Amendment. That the investigation and potential discipline is a result of your position in the

Guild. That the intent of this investigation is to punish someone for the second set of

videos.I disagree with all three issues that were raised in this meeting with Commander Curry.You have never indicated how this self-described "satire" implicates First Amendmentprotection. Your "parody" of the jail and ridicule of it did not raise a matter of publicconcern. Rather, asyou stated during your interview, this was ajoke to you. Even if itdid somehow implicate First Amendment protection, the Department's Interest inmaintaining the efficiency of its operations, interagency relationship with SCORE,andrespect and trust amongst officers clearly outweighs any interest you may have inridiculing your colleagues. Your "satire" was detrimental to the mission and functions ofthis Department and SCORE,and brought the City, the Auxiliary Services Division (Jail)and its current and former officers into disrepute.Nor isthere any evidence that the recommended discipline is in any way related to yourunion activities. Finally, there Isno evidence that your recommended discipline relatesto the other eight videos. Rather, it is based upon your admitted decision to ridicule anddemean another Department, conceal the fact you were the creator of the video, andthen your repeated efforts to avoid responsibility for your involvement until directlyasked. It was your disrespectful and insubordinate conduct-nothing else that hasprecipitated. my preliminary decision to demote you.

Prior to issuing my preliminary notice of Intent, 1also took into consideration yourrecent suspension of forty-eight (48) hours for Neglect of Duty and UnsatisfactoryPerformance. This investigation is another example of a pattern of sub-standardbehavior, policy violation and on-going overall unwillingness or inability to perform as a.supervisor.Followlng issuance ofthe preliminary notice of intent to discipline, we held yourLoudermill hearing on August 4, 2011.During this meeting, you were represented by Guild Attorney McClure; also present inthe room with us was A/Deputy Chief Curry. During this meeting your attorney stated:

That this form of speech is protected under the 1tAmendment. That there are several casesthat have supported the freedom of speech in the

work place, and speclflcally named the "Garcetti" cas~ a~n example. That this video that wasproduced falls under political satire on the inefficiencies

of government.


7/8

Kevin Mi losevichPage 6 of7Augu st 8 , 2 01 1

That law enforcement employees do not give up constitu tional rights when theyb ecome emp lo ye d.

T hat th is discip line's in tent is to stifle" d iscussions of union leadership , That the real intent of th is discip line is to hold you accountable for the second

series of videos that w ere displayed on Y ouTube. That the police departm ent does not require self-reporting . That th is incident does not meet the "Just Cause" defln ltlon regarding fairness. That th is was a parody, a joke, and that it would be unfortunate to work in an

environm ent w here hum or w as not allow ed. That you did not cross the line, your in tent was not to be hurtfu l of others. A rbiters look at the long-term financial impacts of promotions, and that they use

a higher threshold of clear and convincing evidence in these cases.I a sked you a few questions, and your attorney responded:

1 . I a sked why didn't you email m e the video in the first p lace if your in tent was togive notice of governm ent efficiency? Y our attorney replied that the processthat you used was sim ilar to an anonymous letter to the editor.

2 . In regards tovour concept of protected speech,'! asked whether you everconsidered getting legal advice prior to posting the video? Y our attorneythought that w as an inappropriate question.

3. I asked how this discip line is associated w ith your duties as a Guild V icePresident? Y our attorney stated that, the tim ing of th is investigation is close to, the recently com pleted collective bargaining agreem ent. It is m y understandingthat the last scheduled m eeting regarding the contract negotiations w asDecember 9, 2010 and the contract was signed on February 1, 201l.

4. And last, I a sked w hat you thought was the appropriate discip line in this m atter?Y our attorney stated - no discip line.Based upon all of the inform ation provided, lncludlng the inform ation provided by youat the L ouderm ill hearing, m y decision is as follow s:D iscipline Decision: Demotion to the position of O fficer and reassignment to Shift lB

South effective im mediately . A rotation schedule w ill bedeveloped.Y ou are elig ib le to participate in future prom otional exam sprovided you m eet the elig ib ility requirem ents. The decision asto whether to promote you to the rank of sergeant in the futurew ill be based on both your performance during vourcareer w iththe city and ranking on an elig ib ility list.


8/8

Kevin Mi losevichPage 7 of7August 8, 2011

\jI discussed with you the difference between mistakes and misconduct. That in this case,you had designed a plan to develop a video that was disrespectful and demeaning of 'another division / governm ent entity. You obtained a pre-paid credit card, created ananonym ous em ail account.postedthis inform ation from a local anonym ous "Ipll addressall while knowing that your conduct was unbecoming an officer -let alone a supervisorand could lead to discipline.In y ou r p ositio n as a Sergeant, you are formally one of the Department's leaders. Thisleadership role which you desired comes with a series of expectations, some formal andsome in fo rm al.As a department leader, you have the responsibility and obligation to look out for thebest interests of the police department, the City of Renton, and the citizens that weserve.As a department leader, you are expected to establish and maintain cooperative andeffective interpersonal relationships. C learly the creation of this video harm s ourrelationships w ith not only the form er Renton City Jail, but the.other six cities w ho aremembers of SCORE.This investigation has demonstrated on numerous occasions where you have failed .a s aleader. The issues that were raised in our Loudermill meeting were very sim ilar to thosethat were raised in your meeting with A/Deputy Chief Curry, which I addressed above. Iconcur w ith the recom mendations for dem otion.

The Department's General Orders and the collective bargaining agreement outline youra pp eal rig hts.

I h av e r ec eiv ed a c op y o f the d iscip lin e' m emora ndum.

Bil lJudd Date

)

Documents

RentonPDDiscpline2