MassCops - Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network, A Mass Police Web Portal

Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network

Massachusetts Police News, Information and Discussions on MassCops

Pages: 1

Main Page Tampa police policy bans intradepartment dating
(Click here to view the original thread on the MassCops Message Board)

Posted by: kwflatbed

Copyright 2006 The Tribune Co. Publishes The Tampa Tribune

By VALERIE KALFRIN

vkalfrin@tampatrib.com

TAMPA - Kevin Durkin is a divorced Tampa police detective, head of the police union and a private guy when it comes to his personal life.

So he's baffled why he and other officers have to tell Police Chief Stephen Hogue about a one-night stand with a colleague or thinking of asking a co-worker for a date.

"I don't tell my mom who I'm dating, unless things work out," he said Tuesday.

The union Durkin leads may contest a bulletin the police department's legal adviser issued last week, advising all sworn personnel about a city policy banning fraternization between supervisors and subordinates as well as among co-workers.

"We're now 'The Dating Game' police," said Durkin, president of the West Central Florida Police Benevolent Association.

Police department spokeswoman Laura McElroy said the bulletin was meant to remind everyone - especially newly promoted corporals and sergeants - about the three-year-old policy.

Durkin, however, described the bulletin as a "knee-jerk reaction to a couple of officers who have had problems with relationships."

He declined to elaborate. McElroy said the executive staff did not discuss specific officers before asking Assistant City Attorney Kirby Rainsberger to draft the bulletin.

City Policy B24.1 was part of the city's ethics ordinance. In addition to prohibiting supervisors from overseeing people with whom they are intimate, it states co-workers who are involved with each other must disclose their relationship so one can be reassigned to another shift, unit or facility.

It is a fairly standard policy among local law enforcement agencies, with the exception of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. There, Sheriff Jim Coats has prohibited adultery, exempting people who are legally separated or filing for divorce.

Durkin and McElroy agreed that having supervisors and subordinates work together while romantically involved presents problems. In addition, one co-worker dating another might put himself in harm's way to help his sweetheart - say, charging into a burning building or gunfight - which is a safety concern.

But the language used in the bulletin is "way overblown," Durkin said, making him question the degree to which the department will judge officers' love lives.

"I don't think any of this is appropriate," he said.

For instance, the bulletin says close personal relationships include "casual dating, any sexual relationship and cohabitation."

Any "pending or potential relationship" between a supervisor and a subordinate must be immediately disclosed to the police chief's office by both employees "so that immediate corrective action can be taken," the document states. Any co-workers who have such relationships also must disclose the contact, which can result in their working different shifts or with different squads.

Failing to disclose such a relationship could result in dismissal, the bulletin states.

Employee Relations Manager Sarah Lang said the proposed discipline is standard for not following any city policy. Neither she nor McElroy could recall any officer being dismissed over not revealing such a relationship.

Police and firefighters are the city employees most often reassigned because of their love lives and the judgment calls they must make under stress, Lang said. "I can't recall moving anyone if it wasn't for safety reasons," she said.

McElroy said the department had not learned of the police union's concerns but is open to discussing them.

"We're not trying to police people's dating," she said. "We're trying to make sure people are safe."

Reporter Valerie Kalfrin can be reached at (813) 259-7800.

Copyright © 2006, The Tampa Tribune and may not be republished without permission. E-mail library@tampatrib.com

Posted by: bbelichick

Quote:

Originally Posted by kwflatbed

Durkin and McElroy agreed that having supervisors and subordinates work together while romantically involved presents problems. In addition, one co-worker dating another might put himself in harm's way to help his sweetheart - say, charging into a burning building or gunfight - which is a safety concern.

What a crock. Most of us would do that for anyone we work with. That is what we do, no?

Posted by: RPD931

bbelichick, you are 100% right. Regardless of the relationship we would put ourselves in harm's way for any of our brothers or sisters, even if it's someone we don't really get along with. How can they dictate your personal life? Sounds like they're violating civil rights in that one. I can understand, to a degree, the concerns for ranking brass to be dating lower ranks.

There are PD's out there where a good percentage of the Officers are dating or married to each other. Framingham and Natick come to mind.

Posted by: Peacemaker

No Problems with dating in my department--- Can't find any nice looking ones. certainly nice but looks NA

Posted by: USMCTrooper

Quote:

For instance, the bulletin says close personal relationships include "casual dating, any sexual relationship and cohabitation."

I wonder what happens when gays are forced to openly disclose not only the relationship but their orientation...........where will the ACLU be on THAT issue?

Does "cohabitation" include two officers sharing an apt. as roomies?

Posted by: sempergumby

Well Since I Cant Date Any Of You Or Live With Ya I Will Not Take A Bullet For You Either. Man This Is Bull

Posted by: Peacemaker

Quote:

Originally Posted by sempergumby

Well Since I Cant Date Any Of You Or Live With Ya I Will Not Take A Bullet For You Either. Man This Is Bull

STRONG WORDS !!!!!

BUT MOST LIKELY VERY TRUE.

Posted by: frapmpd24

Quote:

It is a fairly standard policy among local law enforcement agencies, with the exception of the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office. There, Sheriff Jim Coats has prohibited adultery, exempting people who are legally separated or filing for divorce.

What a guy, he allows those going through a divorce or seperated to date. How about minding his own business and worry about policing. There is a bright idea.

Posted by: irish937

The policy in full would not probably hold up to a court challenge. I would tend to think that a supervisor and subordinate, who are romantically involved, should be placed on different shifts. It undermines the supervisor's authority and causes serious morale issues. I've seen it before and heard the rumbles. For that matter, ANY officers, regardless of rank, should be separated if they are involved. Hmmm...domestics between the officers on the shift. Seems to me that would put a strain on the department as a whole.

Posted by: irish937

Quote:

Originally Posted by bbelichick

What a crock. Most of us would do that for anyone we work with. That is what we do, no?

Yes, without a doubt. The chief made a piss poor argument there.

ma police, boston ma police, massachusetts police, massachusetts police, mass state police, mass police, ma, mass, massachusetts, massachusetts, massachutes, massachusetts law, massachusetts polece, police, officer, police officer, cops, police gear, law enforcement, police duty gear, state police, sheriff, law, police supply, police agency directory, police agency, police department, traffic officer, police dept, state trooper, dispatcher, massachusetts county sheriff, massachusetts sheriff, massachusetts department of corrections, ma doc, doc, dept of corrections, police information, civil service, ma civil service, massachusetts crime, police training, police academy, ma police academy, massachusetts officers, masscop, masscops, mpa, bpa, ibpoa, police association, massachusetts police news, massachusetts crime news, mass most wanted, police career information, police patrol, police administration, police books, crime scene training, police discussion, crime discussions, cops

About MassCops, the home for Massachusetts law enforcement.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network opened in 1998 and is now a part of the New England Police Network The site is a pro-police discussion forum intended for sworn police officers and civilian law enforcement officials as well as those interested in pursuing a career in law enforcement here in Massachusetts.

The goal of The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network is to provide an informal network of law enforcement officials here in Massachusetts for educational and informational purposes.

The forum covers many topics such as Police Related News Articles, Agency & Profession Discussions, Police Training as well as Law Enforcement Career Information.

The Massachusetts Law Enforcement Network and The New England Police Network (NEPN) and it's network sites are privately owned websites/domains and are not affiliated with or endorsed by any government association or agency.

MassCops (masscops.com) and (masscop.com) are privately owned are not affiliated with or endorsed by the Massachusetts Coalition of Police (masscop.org)

3 4 5 6 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 49 50 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108