                        Point of View: 
                    Discipline Philosophy 

                             By 
                   Darrel W. Stephens, M.P.A. 

In Policing a Free Society, Herman Goldstein notes that the 
adversarial nature of policing is a key factor that complicates 
the control and review of police action and behavior. The public 
grants the police considerable authority to act on its behalf in 
an effort to create an environment that is free of crime, drug 
abuse, violence, and disorder and the fear that accompanies these 
conditions. 

In almost all encounters with the public, police officers and 
nonsworn employees exercise this authority appropriately. But, 
there are times when citizens raise legitimate questions about 
how this authority has been used. And, unfortunately, there    
are also times when police personnel abuse this authority. 
Therefore, departments must establish a system of discipline that 
minimizes abuse of authority and promotes the department's 
reputation for professionalism. 

System of Discipline 

The most effective disciplinary system combines the reinforcement 
of the right set of values in all employees with behavioral 
standards that are consistently and fairly applied. Each employee 
must understand and be guided by these standards that have been 
established in the department's (and city's) general orders, 
rules, regulations, and procedures. 

Employees should be expected to conduct themselves, both in 
interactions with one another and with the public, in a manner 
that conveys respect, honesty, integrity, and dedication to 
public service. In turn, employees should be treated fairly, 
honestly, and respectfully by everyone in the department, 
regard-less of authority, rank, or position within the             
organization. 

Understandably, employees will make judgment errors from time to 
time when carrying out their responsibilities. In fact, employees 
who never make mistakes may be doing very little to try to 
improve the performance of the department. Each error in 
judgment, however, offers a learning opportunity for the employee 
and the department, although some errors will come with greater 
consequences than others for the public, the department, and the   
employee. 

Even so, the department has an obligation to make its 
expectations as distinct as possible to employees. At the same 
time, it has an equal obligation to make clear the consequences 
for failing to meet those expectations. While meeting both         
obligations can be difficult, the latter is obviously more 
complex. Circumstances often contribute to errors in judgment and 
poor decisions that administrators must consider when determining 
the appropriate consequences for behavior found to be improper. 
Employees often admit that they would like the                     
department to provide a list of prohibited behaviors, along with 
the penalties for engaging in those behaviors. Yet, experience 
shows that employees directly involved in the disciplinary  process, 
either as the subject of the process or in a review 
capacity, want to consider the results of one's actions in light 
of the circumstances that might have contributed to the 
violation. Of course, this is critical to apply discipline fairly 
and consistently. 

Some employees view consistency as the same treatment for the 
same behavior in every case. If this happens, then the 
consequences will be fair to everyone. 

For the St. Petersburg Police Department, consistency is defined 
as holding everyone equally accountable for unacceptable 
behavior, and fairness means understanding the circumstances that 
contributed to the behavior, while applying the consequences in a 
way that reflects this understanding. To ensure fair and 
consistent treatment of employees, however, discipline for 
unacceptable behavior must depend on a balance of several 
factors. 

Determining Factors 

A number of factors should be considered when applying 
discipline. Granted, not all factors may be considered in every 
case, and some may not apply at all in particular situations. 
There may also be a tendency to isolate one factor and to give it 
greater importance than another. Yet, these factors should be 
thought of as being interactive and having equal weight, unless 
circumstances dictate otherwise. These factors include employee 
motivation, degree of harm, employee experience, 
intentional/unintentional errors, and the employee's past record. 

Employee Motivation 

A police department exists to serve the public. Therefore, one 
factor to consider when examining an employee's conduct should be 
whether the employee was acting in the public's best interest.  
An employee who violates policy in an effort to accomplish a 
legitimate police purpose demonstrates an understanding of the 
broader public interest inherent in the situation. Accordingly, 
the employee should be given more positive consideration than one 
who was motivated by personal interest. 

Obviously, determining what is in the public's interest will be 
difficult from time to time. For example, would it be acceptable 
for an employee to knowingly violate an individual's first 
amendment right to freedom of speech to rid the public of what 
some might consider a nuisance? Or, is it in the public's 
interest for an officer to knowingly violate a fourth amendment 
right against an unlawful search to arrest a dangerous criminal? 
Clearly, in either case, improper action by police is not 
acceptable and should not be condoned; yet, officers address 
these complex issues daily. 

The police have a sworn duty  to uphold the Constitution. And,    
it is in the greater public interest to protect constitutional 
guarantees, even though it might be argued the public interest 
was better served otherwise. But, if employees attempt to devise 
innovative, nontraditional solutions for persistent crimes or 
service problems and unintentionally run afoul of minor proce- 
dures, the desire to encourage creativity in their public safety 
efforts should carry significant weight in dealing with any 
discipline that might result.   

Degree of Harm 

The degree of harm resulting from employee error is another 
important factor when deciding the consequences for errant 
behavior. Harm can be measured in terms of monetary costs to the   
department and community, such as repairs to a damaged vehicle, 
or in terms of personal injury claims for excessive force.  
Another way to measure harm is by the impact of employee error on 
public confidence. An employee who engages in criminal behavior, 
e.g., selling drugs, corrodes public trust in the police if 
discipline does not send a clear, unmistakable message that this 
behavior will not be tolerated. 

Employee Experience 

Employee experience also has bearing on the type and the extent 
of discipline. A relatively new employee, or a more experienced 
one in a new assignment, should be given greater consideration 
for judgmental errors. Accordingly, errors by veteran employees 
may warrant more serious sanctions. 

Intentional/Unintentional Errors 

Supervisory personnel need to consider the circumstances 
surrounding the incident to determine whether the employee's 
error was intentional or unintentional. Obviously, the type of 
error will govern the extent and severity of the discipline. 
An unintentional error occurs when an employee's action or 
decision turns out to be wrong, even though at the time, the 
employee believed it to be in compliance with policy and the most 
appropriate course to take based on information available. For 
example, a supervisor gives permission to continue a vehicle 
pursuit on the basis that the vehicle and occupants meet the 
general description of those involved in an armed robbery. The 
pursuit ends in a serious accident, and it is subsequently 
learned that the driver was fleeing because of an expired 
license. Under these circumstances, the supervisor's decision 
would be supported because it was within department policy at the 
time it was made. 

Unintentional errors also include those momentary lapses of 
judgment or acts of carelessness that result in minimal harm 
(backing a police cruiser into a pole or failing to turn in a 
report). Employees should be held accountable for these errors, 
but the consequences should be more corrective than punitive, 
unless the same or similar errors persist. 

Employees make intentional errors when they take action or make a 
decision that they know, or should know, to be in conflict with 
law, policy, procedures, or rules at the time. Generally,          
intentional errors should carry greater consequences and be 
treated more seriously. 

Within the framework of intentional errors, there are certain 
behaviors that are entirely unacceptable, to include lying, 
theft, physical abuse of citizens, and equally serious breaches 
of trust placed in the police. In such cases, every effort should 
be made to terminate the individual found to be engaged in such 
behavior. Granted, determining deliberate errors that result in 
serious consequences for the department will be difficult. But 
allowing such behavior to continue will produce even more dire 
results.   

Employee's Past Record 

To the extent allowed by law, policy, and contractual 
obligations, an employee's past record should be taken into 
consideration when determining disciplinary actions. An employee 
who continually makes errors should expect the penalties for this 
behavior to become progressively more punitive. Less stringent 
consequences should be administered to employees with records 
that show few or no errors. When determining disciplinary action, 
every consideration should be given to employees whose past 
records reflect hard work and dedication to the department and 
the community. 

Conclusion 

Serving the community with integrity and in a professional manner 
should be the goal of every police officer. Employees must accept 
responsibility for their roles in maintaining this goal. 
When employees fail to do so, department administrators should 
make every effort to make the disciplinary decision fit each 
specific incident. This needs to be done consistently and fairly. 
Otherwise, the errors in judgment made by employees pale in 
comparison to the unfair treatment administered by the 
department's leaders. 
