The policies are clear – No Police Related Off Duty Employment outside the Town Limits unless the Officer is working in conjunction with another jurisdiction AND is a Duly Sworn Officer of that Jurisdiction. In other words in order for an Officer to work in another town they would have to be sworn in by that particular department. Therefore, in accordance to Chief Phillips policy this is a clear violation and the biggest violator of this policy is the one who has done the most details none other than Chief Phillips himself, violating his own policy by making 10’s of 1,000’s of $$$. Which by the way this policy was approved and signed off on December 17, 2008 by the Board of Selectmen.
You can rest assured that none of the Winchester Police Officers are duly sworn officers of Swanzey, Keene or any other police department in Cheshire County.
According to his policy no town car or uniform is to be used outside of the Town of Winchester limits other than official business, not off duty work.
A written request by way of a completed form must be filled out and maintained in the personnel file of any Officer working a detail. You can be rest assured you will not find this form in any of the officers personnel files, again another violation of department policies.
Which by the way is exactly the reason why Warren Breau and Dan Reppucci quit working off-duty details.
Officer’s not having completed a 1-year probation are not eligible to participate in Off-Duty employment. For instance, Officer Smith and Officer Meacham would not be able to participate in Off-Duty employment as they are on probation.
Again, as has been stated all too many times the Policies of this department are not being followed. There are serious flaws in the system and abuses abound because of it.
Maybe Gary Phillips should be investigated and found to be not in compliance of his own policy for every time he did a detail.
13 comments:
I do not believe that an internal department policy carries the same weight as an ordinance voted on by the people.
The powers that be can alter a department policy to cover their collective butts as needed, as they have in the past and still do today.
If I am not mistaken an ordinance voted on and enacted by the people has the power of law and can not be altered willy nilly by the corrupt power hungry few.
An ordinance would carry more weight as long as it was enforced. This policy is signed by ALL the selectmen and is not enforced. The planning board has policies that are not enforced and the list goes on. The key is the enforcement. Enforcement of anything in this town depends on which side of the fence you sit on. That's unfortunate.
This is dangerous water. There is no one reputable in charge here.
I vote No Confidence in this police department and it's time to remove upper management. They are a potential danger to the community.
Clearly this is a police department that has been functioning in an evironment of chaos for far too long.
The purpose of policies is order, fairness and direction.
Policies are meant to be followed -not changed every time we screw up.
If a policy needs to be changed it's done for the proper reasons - not to coverup mistakes.
How can you expect people to learn to be better when you continually set them up to fail Chief Phillips?
I agree that enforcement is the key.
I just think it is harder to get an outside agency or court system to view a violation of policy as seriously as a violation of ordinance.
Policy violations are typically handled using broad discetionary powers by department heads and the BOS and are done behind closed doors as personell matters. Violating an ordinance that has specific rules and penalties would become a matter of public record and have more teeth for the people to demand action.
The BOS and department heads who do not enforce policy violations go pretty much unnoticed behind the closed door, not enforcing an ordinance in open view of the public eye would show who is working for us and give grounds for the removal of those who are not.
Close the loopholes, set the snare, let them trap and hang themselves.
When are the BOS going to ask for the resignation of this Chief?
Do we really need more liability and another lawsuit?
It will be interesting to see how the BOS deal with this info. It would be nice if they dealt with this problem before The Union Leader or WMUR get involved in our problems. You don't have to worry about the Sentinel, i don't think they are interested in alleged corruption in Winchester. Thank you fishercat, people like you will make a difference.
You want help from an outside agency? When you call in a complaint, insist that the State Police or the Sheriff's Office send one of their own. Flood them with calls and keep insisting they send one of their own. Remember folks, the Sheriff has state wide authority who can go any where, anytime within the state and do not need special permission from anyone to respond to a call.
To Fishercat,you bring up valid points that will be helpful in the future. However, the policies that are in place now that have and are are being violated are sufficient grounds to have the violaters removed from thier positions for conduct unbecoming an officer, especially the off-duty policy policy violations. For instance, each time a policy was violated it would be a separate violation. Therefore if you work off-duty 20 times you have violated the policy 20 separate times, hence you have 20 dept. violations. Sounds like a solid case for conduct unbecoming an officer. There you havr it, another tool for the selectmen to use to have the chief removed. These issues are at hand now anything imposed, policy ordinances or otherwise will not address the current situation. The ammunition the selectmen need to have the chief removed is in their hands. Weak leaders lead to wesk leadership corruption and disconnect from the community.
Dan Reppucci was fired because he disclosed information to a civilian. What did he disclose? Was it information pertaining to an ongoing investigation? No. Was it information pertaining to an internal investigation? No. Was it information of a highly sensitive and embarrassing nature? No. What Dan Reppucci did was to file a grievance letter to Gary Phillips outlining why he felt Chris Robert’s was not qualified to be Lieutenant and information allegedly was “leaked to a civilian”.
How interesting. Reppucci gets fired for “leaking” information to a civilian. Chris Roberts gets “caught” driving an uninspected police vehicle and submits a deceptive donation letter to the BOS duping them into accepting a conference table. Does he get fired or reprimanded? No. He get’s promoted. Jette admits to taking a bike, washer fluid and destroying evidence without telling a supervisor or documenting the destruction of that evidence, follows a female for several miles in his personal vehicle with his son in the passenger’s seat to her residence only to tell her she committed a traffic violation. Certainly if this woman’s driving was so egregious Jette would have obtained a warrant and arrested her especially since the violation happened in his presence in Richmond where has jurisdiction and powers of arrest. Does he get fired? No. He gets promoted to Master Patrolman and sent to several schools. Phillips violates his own off duty employment and worse yet he was aware of his officer’s performance and failed to take appropriate disciplinary measures towards Jette and Roberts. Does Phillips get reprimanded? No. He gets a new cruiser and a bonus for his officers.
I ask you folks, did Reppucci commit egregious infractions that equate to that of what Phillips, Roberts and Jette committed? No he did not. I also ask you folks, which officer’s actions warrant termination? If Reppucci was terminated for releasing information about three officers to a civilian why wasn’t Chief Phillips terminated for releasing internal investigation information to Brian Jordan who is also a civilian?
These issues are not based on speculation or a byproduct of small town gossip. It is information admitted to by officers and confirmed by written policy and various letters. This is clearly a double standard method of managing which is buying the silence and false loyalty of corrupt police officers.
Many larger cities have Citizen’s Review Board that oversees the practices of their government. Maybe Winchester should establish their own Citizen’s Review Committee to curtail its corruption and mismanagement from within.
If am Rite Aid employee uses fraud to obtain property they are fired and prosecuted. If a employee from Kulick's uses fraudulent means to obtain propety which does not belong to them, they will most likely get fired and arrested. If an employee from TD Bank obtains money through fradulent and deceptive practices they will get fired and prosecuted. Why would anyone expect phillips, Roberts ot jette to be exampt and aboce the law when there is clear and convincing evidenct of wrong doing on their part. As far as Phillips or anyone else loosing their pension, oh well they would not be the first to lose their pension nor will they be the last.
It's just like any law, if you don't enforce it, it means nothing.
Why is Kenny Smith working details?
He has been with the WPD for less than a year? How does Chief Phillips allowing this get justified?
Isn't a "ONE YEAR" probationary period spelled out for a reason?
The only thing consistent with you is your inconsistency.
You are an embarrassment to the hard working and ethical people who work in law enforcement.
You made a mess of the WPD, why don't you do us all a favor and do what you did in Jaffrey and leave?
Take your riff raff with you and go start your own PD somewhere where they appreciate your kind management expertise.
To Fishercat -
Department policies can be and sometimes legitimately should be changed, just like laws can be changed but just like with a law if a violation occurs before a policy is changed it is still a violation of that policy.
Another words - if a person gets stopped for running a stop sign today and is issued a ticket, it does not mean that tomorrow when a new law goes into effect making running stop signs legal that the ticket gets wiped out.
The violation happened while under the current definition of that policy and that is all that matters. That helps to keep order.
The loopholes only exist because management, at least up until now have refused to do something. But the courts, if involved, I would think would likely see a correlation between the corruption in the Town of Winchester and the lack of adherence and deviation to established policy, thus making these violations the equivalent of violating an ordinance. Only if a policy went against State or Federal Law would it be struck down as not legal and therefore of no significance.
Have a good day.
Post a Comment