Chief Koval Violates Police Code of Conduct

Let us count the ways . . . there are so many I’m sure to miss some and just skipped over some, so please, play along. I think the Common Council needs to censure him. His behavior was atrocious and he’s not above following the police department Code of Conduct. He’s setting a terrible example for others under his command and someone has to check this megalomaniac’s power on behalf of the citizens of this city.

This is the Madison Police Code of Conduct It was last revised 5/25/2016. It appears the chief doesn’t think it applies to him. I’ve made the portions you should look at in blue and my comments are in purple.  I didn’t do a terribly thorough job, cuz you don’t have to in order to make the point.  And I just didn’t get into his motivations etc.  I left out some of the grossest things I observed and stuck with the obvious . . . there are much deeper issues here of race, gender bias and failing to acknowledge his white male privilege power (with a gun).  Again, I’d advise you to read my blog (part 2, part 3), look at the clips on the Cap Times, or watch the last hour and a half of the council meeting.  It mind boggling.

Introduction
Police comprise a special class of public employee. In light of the fact that police presence and actions are highly visible examples of the desired role of police in a free society – guardians of constitutional rights and individual liberties – police conduct must be above reproach and held to high standards of professional behavior. When police conduct is found to be lacking, criticism is deservedly more warranted given the fiduciary relationship of trust established with the community. If community trust is lost, support and respect is diminished, as is the efficacy of police operations.

Well, let’s just stop right here.  I don’t trust the police chief, and I know council members no longer trust him given how he acted on Tuesday night.  I know that his white male privilege and his failure to understand his white male privilege was (fill in the blank with your own words I’ve heard so many, but I’ll use Mo’s words, “stunning”).  His failure to understand is white male privilege  is compounded by the fact that he doesn’t acknowledge that because of the power he has, he needs to be over-the-top above reproach.  Instead, the very next day we was out on the media circuit still whipping people up into a frenzy and defending his actions.  He didn’t learn a thing from what the alders said.  I don’t think he even listened.  He was anything but professional at the council meeting last week.  Throwing tantrums and threatening to leave (twice), mocking Alder Baldeh, interrupting and demanding to be heard.  Behavior I have never seen from any city manager in the 25 years I’ve been attending council meetings.  Even those who came close, we not this belligerent.

Our Code of Conduct and Core Values define us and directs our behavior; thus they require strict adherence. Our Standard Operating Procedures detail the means to perform our duties in a reasonable and lawful manner. Policing is complex, and we recognize the legitimate use of discretion to achieve goals that are in line with our Core Values.

Just a quick reminder.  It says “strict adherence”.  You can’t blame this on passion or a mistake.  It says “strict adherence”.   Excusing his actions by saying “I didn’t mean to . . . ” or “it was a metaphor” or “you misunderstood me” won’t fly here.  I don’t don’t buy it either, but even if its true, that doesn’t excuse the fact that our top cop is expected to strictly adhere to this code of conduct and that when he doesn’t, he sets the example that others in his department don’t need to if they are “passionate” about something.  

Members are responsible for adhering to the contents of the Mission, Core Values, Code of Conduct and Standard Operating Procedures. In addition, all City of Madison employees are expected to comply with the provisions of the Administrative Procedural Memorandums (APM) of the City.

The Madison Police Department strives to have a workforce that is representative of our community. Consequently, we are an equal employment opportunity/affirmative action employer and have an Equitable Workforce (Affirmative Action) Plan.

Mission
We, the members of the Madison Police Department, are committed to providing high quality police services that are accessible to all members of the community. We believe in the dignity of all people and respect individual and constitutional rights in fulfilling this mission.

Core Values
INTEGRITY
We are committed to performing our work with the highest degree of honesty, integrity and professionalism.

I won’t even go there on the honesty or integrity.  That just leads down a rabbit hole.  I think he has neither, you can decide for yourself.  Professionalism – he blew that out of the water.  Calling Tony Robinson’s grandmother a “raging lunatic”?  That’s not professional, not in the least bit.  Slamming his fist on the desk to get the council to cut her off during her testimony because her time was up.  That’s not professional in the least bit.  Openly mocking Alder Baldeh when he said he didn’t feel safe with the chief behind him with a gun.  That’s not professional, not in the least bit.  His sarcasm and snotty tone, not professional either. 

HUMAN DIGNITY
We acknowledge the value of all people and carry out our duties with dignity, respect, and fairness to all. Furthermore, the Department recognizes and respects the value of all human life.

I’m beginning to sound like a broken record.  He did not treat members of the public or the council with dignity or respect.  His comments about YGB certainly have not treated them with dignity or respect.  His comments in his blog to the council did not treat them with dignity or respect.  Apparently he even screamed at Mo Cheeks in his office that the council were “a bunch of clowns”.  That doesn’t sound like treating people with dignity or respect.

SERVICE
We strive to deliver exceptional service in an unbiased manner.

The council did not get exceptional service from their manager of the police department.  They got scolded like children.  He acted like he was the finance director, not chief of police.  And he acted in a very biased manner, putting his department above all others in the city.

COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP
We believe that the police can only be successful in improving safety and the quality of life the community enjoys when police and community members work collaboratively to address issues of mutual concern.

That, no matter how many times he says it, was NOT WORKING COLLABORATIVELY, in fact, he even says that he took on the adversarial role because of his “legal training” and sometimes things “get resolved through conflict.”  He says he didn’t mean to be divisive, but he hammered and hammered and hammered on the divisiveness in his blog, at the council meeting and in the press.  There was NOTHING collaborative in his efforts and he admits to his tactics and chose them willingly and consciously. 

PROFICIENCY AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT
We are accountable to the public and ourselves for the quality of our service. We strive for proficiency in all facets of our work. We seek to continually improve ourselves and those systems in our midst and those in the community where the police can effect meaningful change for better outcomes.

Opposing this study, on its face, was not seeking to improve.  He can say its about the money, but as Alder Baldeh got him to admit, he really thinks this isn’t the right time, which if you know your Martin Luther King history, you know that that means.  And again, I could go on, about the white man lecturing a black man about how this is not the right time . . . its always the right time to do the right thing.

DIVERSITY
We engage in continuous learning about different cultures, values and people. We promote mutual acceptance and inclusion of all.

Ugh, he was not striving to understand or learn about the values of the people on the council or people who were different than him (white male).  His exchanges with Alders Samba Baldeh and Amanda Hall were deeply disturbing on many levels. 

LEADERSHIP
We acknowledge that leadership knows no boundaries and is more comprehensive than rank or title. We also recognize that being a good follower – whether sworn or civilian – is essential to our success as a Department. We value the talents, creativity, and contributions of all of our employees.

Uh . . . he intends to do the exact opposite.  Even in his latest blog asking us all to move on he says he does not intent to follow the council, instead he intends to:  “Whenever a topic has a nexus to the Madison Police Department or there are issues that are affecting the morale of our workforce, one can expect that I will be speaking up (or out).” and “I also cannot be expected to remain silent with matters affecting our Department and officer morale.”  He intends to keep on doing these things, and not “follow” in any way shape or form, even when the votes are 19-1. 

Code of Conduct
1. Legal Authority
We believe that police powers and limitations on that power are guided by numerous legal authorities including (but not limited to) the United States and State of Wisconsin Constitutions, respectively. MPD officers have taken an oath to uphold the individual rights and constitutional liberties guaranteed to all of our constituents. We are committed to acting in accordance with these provisions.

2. Truthfulness
Members of the Department are required to be truthful.

This regulation prohibits perjury, withholding of evidence from a judicial proceeding, false public statements, untruthful statements made within the Department, and any other misrepresentations.

This policy does not apply to court-recognized instances where there are legitimate investigative activities involved (e. g. , undercover work, hostage negotiations).

Members shall not knowingly make false official reports, or knowingly enter or cause to be entered inaccurate, false or improper information in any Departmental records.

After all his double speak – I don’t trust a word coming out of his mouth.  His actions fighting against the study while saying they study is fine by him.  One of those things was untruthful.  Being divisive and saying he didn’t mean to be divisive.  One of those things was untruthful.  Saying he wasn’t threatening the council, while he was threatening the council.  One of those things was untruthful.  And I could go on and on and on and on.  He says hes doing one thing while he is doing another.  It’s dishonest. 

3. Performance of Duties
Members of the Department are held responsible for the proper performance of any and all duties assigned to them. It is the responsibility of the employee to report on time, to their assigned duty station, both physically and mentally prepared to carry out their duties. If an employee has been subject to an extended tour and the employee feels incapable of fulfilling their assignment, the employee should consult with a supervisor. Employees are expected to maintain all necessary licenses and certifications required to perform the duties of their position.

All Department members shall not be impaired as a result of any drug usage or alcohol. All employees are prohibited from having any measurable amount of alcohol in their system while on-duty. No Department member shall consume or purchase any intoxicants while in uniform. No Department member shall consume intoxicants while armed except with the approval of the Chief of Police.

It is the responsibility of the employee to consult with their physician to determine their fitness for duty based on their medical condition and/or prescribed treatment.

4. Absence From Duty
Employees shall not be late or absent from duty without permission from a supervisor or the on-duty Officer in Charge.

In the event of illness or injury, notification is necessary prior to the time designated for reporting for duty and may be made by telephone or by written report. If extenuating circumstances make timely notification impossible, notification within a reasonable time is necessary. If leave benefits become necessary during a work shift a supervisor must be notified.

5. Unlawful Conduct
Members of the Department shall not engage in conduct which would constitute a violation of criminal law or an ordinance corresponding to a state statute which would be a crime in the jurisdiction where the conduct occurred. This includes first-time OMVWI or hit and run offenses.

Department personnel shall immediately notify a supervisor whenever investigating an incident where the suspect is a law enforcement officer (any criminal culpability or OMVWI). A supervisor should affect a timely response to the scene and coordinate the investigation.

6. Notification Required Regarding Law Enforcement Contacts
Members of the Department who are contacted by any law enforcement agency regarding their involvement, as a suspect, witness, victim, or contact in criminal conduct, first-time OMVWI or hit and run, shall report the incident to their commanding officer or the OIC. This includes when a member has law enforcement contact regarding a statutorily-defined domestic relationship (including those relationships which are covered under MPD SOP Domestic Abuse
Investigations).

Supervisory contact must be in person or a telephone conversation within 24 hours of the incident or their return to duty, whichever comes first. The commanding officer receiving the report shall review the circumstances of the incident and determine whether any further investigation or action by the Madison Police Department is necessary. The fact that an employee has not been charged or convicted of an incident does not bar Departmental investigation and/or discipline under this policy.

7. Equal Protection
Members of the Department shall act to preserve the rights of all. Any intentional acts (by commission or omission) based solely upon an individual’s membership, association, identification or protected class is a violation of equal protection and prohibited by federal, state and City of Madison law. Furthermore, such activity is contrary to the MPD Mission Statement and our Core Values and only serves to undermine trust with the community we have pledged to serve.

See comments above, he wasn’t just disrespectful . . . he showed all kinds of bias and discrimination in his actions.  Again, rabbit hole, but you can see it if you watch, and you should.

This policy is also intended to prohibit employees from being involved in enforcement decisions, follow-up investigations, assisting in prosecutions or any other law enforcement functions that involve a family member, relative, friend, or important relationship. The purpose of this regulation is to prevent even the appearance of bias on the part of the employee.

8.Enforcement of Immigration Laws
The Madison Police Department will cooperate with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as it would with any other law enforcement agency. It is the policy of this Department that its officers shall not arrest or detain any person solely for a suspected violation of immigration laws, except upon the request of ICE.

Officers are required to obtain approval from their commander or the OIC prior to arresting or
detaining any person solely for a suspected violation of immigration laws, even if requested by ICE.

Officers shall not ask any person to produce an Alien Registration Card (Green Card) or other immigration document except when assisting ICE. This does not prohibit an officer from considering these documents as appropriate forms of identification.

9. Harassment
Any employee who engages in harassment on the basis of race, sex, religion, color, age, handicap, national origin, or sexual orientation; or who permits employees under his/her supervision to engage in such harassment; or who retaliates or permits retaliation against an employee who reports such harassment is guilty of misconduct. (See related APM 3-5.)

Supervisors are required to report to the Chief of Police all instances of harassment whereupon he (or his designee) is responsible for immediately notifying the Department of Civil Rights of the reported instance of harassment.

Complaints of harassment will be examined impartially and resolved promptly within the structure of the Department’s complaint policy and City Ordinance 3-23.

See comments above, he wasn’t just disrespectful . . . he showed all kinds of bias and discrimination in his actions.  Again, rabbit hole, but you can see it if you watch, and you should.

10. Courtesy, Respect and Professional Conduct
Members of the Department shall be courteous and respectful to the public and co-workers. Our
encounters should be predicated upon civility and the appropriate use of an officer’s discretion based upon the totality of the circumstances. Members of MPD should avoid abusive, profane language or gestures and actions that bring disrespect upon the Department or members of the community. This includes unreasonable orders, or warnings not within the lawful scope of the member’s authority.

He blew this one out of the water . . . civility.  He was anything but . . .

11. Public Criticism
Members of the Department shall not publicly criticize the operations or personnel of the Department if such criticism clearly undermines the discipline, morale or general efficiency of the Department.

The Department recognizes that its members retain rights to expression and freedom of speech
granted by the Constitution, whether on- or off – duty; however, these rights do not allow for conduct which is disruptive to the function of the public’s business. Generally, conduct prohibited by this regulation includes critical public statements or overt actions regarding specific employees, orders, or operations, and includes abusive or deliberately constructed false criticism.

He definitely failed to follow the spirit of the first sentence, he wasn’t criticizing the department, but the city as a whole.  He was definitely “disruptive to the function of the public’s business”.  He was out of order so many times in the council meeting I can’t begin to count the ways.  He’s not a council member.  They gave him a ton of leeway.  His actions were disruptive when he interrupted them, when he pounded on the table, when he couldn’t get their attention so he got up to leave.  The whole this was one big disruption.

12. Use of Force
It is the policy of this Department that officers, while in the performance of legal duties, shall always employ force in a manner that is objectively reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances, Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). The reasonableness test is an objective one and must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer at the scene. Members of the Department shall act at all times within the standards for use of force established in the Use of Force procedures.

Recognizing our legal and moral obligation to use force wisely and judiciously, it is the policy of this Department that deadly force will never be resorted to unless an officer reasonably believes that a lesser degree of force would be insufficient to defend the life of another, one’s self, or in limited situations, to apprehend a dangerous felon, or control an animal.

The use of force by police must be consistent with Department training, reported in a timely fashion, and subject to review for consistency with State of Wisconsin standards. The members of MPD, as guardians to our community, understand and expect the scrutiny that can result from use of force applications. MPD will take affirmative steps to review, assess, and inform constituents about the outcomes from use of force incidents and will continue to educate our community about the parameters and appropriateness pertaining to use of force decision making.

13. Duty to Intercede
Any officer present and observing another officer using excessive force, or engaged in unlawful conduct, or in violation of the Madison Police Department’s Code of Conduct has an affirmative obligation to intercede and report.

Ok, this one just makes me giggle.  Which officer would step up and point out to the chief how he was in violation of the MPD Code of Conduct?  They have an affirmative obligation to intercede . . . but who do they report it to?  He’s clearly in violation of this Code in many, many, many ways.  So, officers step up!!!  Oh, wait . . . then they would be violating several aspects of this code by not following or being publicly critical . . . can you say Catch 22?

14. Vehicle Operation
Members of the Department shall at all times operate city vehicles with due regard for the safety of all persons. When operating under emergency conditions, officers shall carefully balance the risks involved against the public interests, recognizing always that the exemptions provided by law to authorized emergency vehicles do not protect an operator from the consequences of reckless disregard for the safety of others.

15. Insubordination
Members of the Department shall promptly obey lawful orders from any supervisor. Should such
orders conflict with a previous order, policy, or procedure of the Department, the ordered member shall respectfully call attention to the conflict. If, however, the last order is not changed, it shall stand and the person obeying the order will not be held responsible. If any unlawful order is given to any member of the Department, such member will promptly report such fact to a higher ranking officer.

16. Acceptance of Bribes, Gifts, Rewards or Fees
No member shall accept a bribe, reward, fee, or gift for services rendered as a member of the Department. This regulation prohibits acceptance of anything of value which is not available or offered to other members of the public in similar circumstances. The purpose of this policy is to avoid the appearance that a member’s authority is being misused for personal gain which can undermine the public’s trust in the Department.

This policy does not prohibit the receipt of items of value from another governmental agency, national promotions for first responders, public service organizations, or from approved off-duty employment governed by city ordinance and existing labor contracts.

17. Criminal Association
Members shall avoid associations or dealings with persons or places that they know, or should
know, are under criminal investigation or indictment. Members shall avoid regular or continuous associations with persons who are on probation, parole, house arrest or Huber. This also includes those who have a reputation in the community or the Department for current and ongoing involvement in criminal behavior, except as necessary to the performance of official duties. If this situation occurs with a family member, the employee shall report this conflict to their commanding officer/manager.

18. Police Discretion
Police officers, of necessity, exercise professional discretion in deciding whether or not to address violations of the law. In addition to other specific laws, Department policies, or orders of a supervisor may further limit officers’ discretion and direct whether or not to affect an arrest.

In general, police officers, using sound professional judgment, may take the following factors
into consideration when deciding whether or not to use police intervention:
• The seriousness and nature of the offense (generally, the more serious the offense, the more likely arrest is the preferred course of action).
• The potential that official intervention will effectively aid in the resolution of a conflict.
• The availability of legal alternatives to arrest that would adequately resolve the conflict or problem.
• The likelihood that the citizen will be deterred from future violations by warning and education.
• The officer’s belief that the citizen made an honest mistake in violation of the law.
• The victim-witness’ interest in prosecution.
• The likelihood of formal prosecution of the offense.
• The potential that arrest, or other interventions will create more serious breaches of the peace or other problems (i.e., inciting riot).
• Legitimate competing priorities for police resources.
• The officer’s belief that the interventions will protect members of the community and/or the citizen.

The following factors are among those that are improper for a police officer to consider in deciding whether or not to use official interventions:
• The citizen’s economic status, race, ethnicity, gender, or other status for which the law prohibits legal discrimination.
• The revenue likely to be generated by fines or penalties imposed upon conviction.
• The personal or professional relationship that the citizen has with the police officer or with other influential citizens.
• The personal advantage to the officer for processing or avoiding processing of the intervention (e.g., overtime compensation, desire to finish tour of duty, avoidance of paperwork, etc.).

19. Solicitations
No member of the Department shall solicit anything of value for the Department without permission of the Chief of Police.

20. Complaint Acceptance and Investigation
The Madison Police Department is committed to investigating complaints utilizing transparent and accountable measures. Therefore, the Department will accept complaints against any of its employees, mindful of the rights of due process and fundamental fairness. Complaints will be resolved pursuant to the process enumerated in Standard Operating Procedures and Discipline Matrix.

Concerns or criticisms of Departmental policies or procedures can also be brought to the attention of the Chief through a complaint filed with the Professional Standards Unit.

Yeah, and how do you think those would turn out . . . Chief Koval has the ultimate power in the department . . . and the staff below him in the para-military organization have to follow orders . . .

(NOTE:  I think they left one option out, filing a complaint with the Police and Fire Commission)

21. Cooperation with Investigations Required
Members of the Department must cooperate in internal investigations of alleged misconduct, illegal activity or policy violations. This includes failure to answer questions or submit to proper investigative techniques

22. Access to Information
Members of the Department shall only access or release official records of the Department for reasons consistent with their duties.

Given the nature of the police chief being the top cop, a bully and totally out of control, I don’t think there are many people in the community that are going to want to stand up to him.  Clearly he’s in gross violation of the Code of Conduct in about a million ways.  But these seem to the the options to check his (un)balance of power:

• The police under him aren’t going to challenge him, even though its their affirmative duty.  That’s just professional suicide.
• Filing a complaint with department will go no where, since he’s the top cop.
• Filing a complaint through the Professional Standards Unit would also be useless.
• Filing a complaint with the PFC is a daunting task and you would have to show you are “an aggrieved person” and that’s nearly impossible for any of us folks who were not directly called a “raging lunatic” or openly mocked by the chief.
• The first thing you learn when you become an alder is that you have no control over the police, the Police and Fire Commission hire and fire the police, the only control the council has is the “purse strings” and at this point, they have been bullied and intimidated into voting for anything the chief wants.
• The mayor is no where on this, missing in action.

So, what do we do at this point?  Our top cop has no regard for the rules that apply to his department and is sending the message that the rest of the department doesn’t have to follow them either.   I think the council needs to send a strong message that he doesn’t get to ride roughshod all over the council meetings in the future, that that was a ONE TIME occurrence and they don’t expect that to happen again.. They need to remind him he’s not a council member, he’s a department manager that is there to answer questions if they choose to ask him.  If they let him get away with his actions, do all city managers get to interrupt and stomp out to get attention.  Do they all get to pound on the table if someone goes over time and is saying something they don’t like?   If he gets his way, could you imagine the council meetings where every department head gets to respond to every comment anyone from the public says?   I suggested cutting his pay, but I’m unclear if the council could even do that.  (Time to engage my attorney brain and do some research, ugh, I hate it when that happens.)  I think about the only thing the council can do is censure him, and I think they have to.  It would be a public statement that his actions are not acceptable, wouldn’t do much else, but it might keep him in check a bit. Or, if he’s stupid, he’ll use it as a rallying cry to launch more vitriol at them, which will further erode the public trust if that is at all possible.  I know he blogged he wants us to move on but that’s not how this works.  He wanted attention and conflict and he got it, he doesn’t get to unilaterally decide when its over.  If the council lets this go, they are in for one hell of a bumpy ride with him.   And so is the public and the officers who serve under him.   The council has have to stand up for themselves, for the public and the for the people who serve us in the police department, I think they are the only ones who can since the mayor is m.i.a.  Otherwise citizens can expect to continue to get bullied by the chief if they dare to have an opinion different than him and they will unleash a megalomaniac on the city as we have never seen before.