“The evidence partially supports and partially refutes the Guild’s allegations.”
That sentence appears throughout the Rebecca Dean report on the allegations in the Bainbridge Island Police Guild’s vote of no confidence against Chief Jon Fehlman. It could serve as a summary of the report itself, which partially addresses the Guild’s allegations, and is partially inconclusive. It could also be a portrait of the Guild, which comes across as partially a group of dedicated officers and partially a band of immature tattletales.
The allegations in the Guild’s no confidence vote range from relatively minor judgment errors or misunderstandings on Fehlman’s part, to rehashing of previously resolved union complaints, to petty gossip and rumor, to at least one falsehood. For a summary, go here.
Now that Fehlman has resigned, issues about his performance are no longer relevant. But the rest of the department remains–and Bainbridge will be well served if the police management study proposed by Interim City Manager Morgan Smith looks at the BIPD’s organization and culture, the influence of the Guild, the quality of each member’s performance, and the attitude they have toward each other, their work and to the members of the community they serve.
As a glimpse into BIPD culture, one Guild allegation stands out for its dishonesty and recklessness: the claim that Fehlman falsely stated in deposition testimony that he gave an oral reprimand to Lieutenant Chris Jensen for providing faulty information about the Ostling shooting. The Guild wrote in its no confidence complaint: “The Chief’s statement under oath violates policy and state laws relating to perjury and false swearing.” [emphasis in the original]
There was no hedging in the Guild’s statement, no “may have violated” or “appears to have violated.” It was not an expression of an opinion, but rather, an outright and untrue accusation that Fehlman committed a crime. The disbelief of the Kitsap County Prosecutor was nearly palpable in the Decline to Prosecute notice, which said Lt. Jensen admitted Fehlman expressed his “displeasure with Jensen regarding the information provided.” The notice concluded that “a reasonable person could find that this conversation constituted an ‘oral reprimand’ as stated by Chief Fehlman. It is highly unlikely that a criminal jury would find the statement to be false beyond a reasonable doubt.”
I’ll leave it to Fehlman and his lawyer to decide if that statement, published by the Guild and seized upon by Fehlman’s critics, is worth a lawsuit for defamation.
But as citizens, we should be more troubled than ever about the competence, honesty and professionalism of our police force. If the Guild members who made this accusation had so little regard for truth-telling, due diligence and fairness with their own boss, what can the rest of us expect?
It’s worth remembering that Fehlman’s much-maligned press conference the day after the Ostling shooting was based on bad information given to him by Lt. Jensen. When Fehlman learned that the information was incorrect, he reprimanded the lieutenant, and testified in his deposition that he had done so.
Jensen has trashed Fehlman’s reputation twice: once when Fehlman relied (foolishly, it turns out) on inaccurate reporting by Jensen after the shooting, and the second time in the no confidence vote, when Jensen (aided by the Guild) tried to shift blame for his own deficient work onto a chief who trusted him and took the relentless heat for months afterwards.
To steal a phrase from Bill Clinton, it takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did.
Jon Fehlman’s tenure at the BIPD has ended. But the department’s problems existed before he arrived and will continue after he leaves.
We’ve seen too much evidence of disrespect from some Guild members to return to business as usual once Fehlman departs. Both the perjury accusation and the stalking of a council member by Officer Scott Weiss, who was Guild president at the time, indicate far deeper problems than the departure of the chief and a PR campaign can solve. There is no place for that kind of vindictiveness and defiance in a professional law enforcement agency.
I’m glad Morgan Smith is asking the Council to approve the police management study. But we can’t stop with another report to put on the shelf. We need the political honesty and will to put any recommendations into place, and a City management and Council with the guts and integrity to take the heat that will come with any change.
(*Here is the Decline to Prosecute Notice: KC Prosecutor)
The Hendrickson Distraction and Self Promotion show has ended with a whimper, and now the attempt to tar and feather the Chief with a decade of department wide sins has failed. Let’s hope that the City Council majority has run out of excuses to delay the department wide investigation pushed for by Scales and Hytopoulos months ago.
But before we get to work on rooting out the real evil, perhaps it might be worth asking the larger question of whether a community gets the police department it deserves. Whether the arrogance, disregard for truth and vindictiveness of the police guild is a reflection of the same in this community, or whether it has been allowed to fester and grow due to the neglect of a disinterested populace, either way, we all play a role in how we got here. Just as we all share some blame for allowing the City Council majority to go to the Bainbridge Tea Party last November, and just as we all share some blame for the skewering of Jon Fehlman, a man guilty of little more than making the mistake of accepting a position at the City of Bainbridge Island.
If we don’t address this larger issue, we may as well not bother to address any of the other myriad of deficiencies and failures that define Bainbridge Island politics. This is really no different than the attempts in our public schools to address playground bullies. If you choose to look away, accept rumor as fact or god forbid participate in the bullying and the spread of hate and fear, then you have no one to blame but yourselves when no competent city manager is willing to take a chance on us , no sane islanders will run for City Council and we continue to be the laughing stock of the region.
Nice to hear these fighting words from what I assume is the dying establishment. Sounds like ethos is a little grumpy about the way the political winds are blowing. Isn’t it icky when whistleblowers have the audacity to complain about their superiors? And isn’t it even more icky when the wrong sort of people get on city council? Ethos, some friendly advice. Don’t accuse anyone of spreading “hate and fear” right after you call people you don’t agree with self promoters, tea-partiers and vindictive liars. It hurts your credibility. And don’t hide behind an alias if you feel like picking a fight. You seem like a coward that way. -Kim Hendrickson
Update: Last night the City Council unanimously authorized a police management study and asked staff to bring them options for the study and develop an RFP within 30 days.
The City’s separation agreement with Jon Fehlman was unanimously approved. Fehlman, of course, was not present, though many members of the ICP were, as were Mr. And Mrs. Ostling and daughter Tami (who is also on the ICP Board and head of its training subcommittee).
It struck me as particularly harsh and unprofessional, given the lack of any finding of wrongdoing in the Dean report, that only one member of City government found the grace to thank Fehlman for his service or otherwise acknowledge him. Kirsten Hytopoulos commented on her personal admiration for him and how unfairly he’d been treated.
I hope this episode does not prevent us from finding a new chief with the qualities our community needs and wants. We eat our leaders. At some point, qualified, good people will stop offering themselves up. ( It’s already happening—witness our tiny slate of City Manager candidates.)
I’d like to add my own thanks to Jon Fehlman. He was brought in as a Deputy Chief, and abruptly handed the chief slot after his predecessor suddenly decamped to eastern Washington, under somewhat mysterious circumstances. At the time, all city department heads were spending most of their time grappling with budget problems, and Fehlman did a great job with his. He inherited most of the problems he’s been criticized for and never whined to the press, or outed his employees for poor performance. But he did begin to impose some discipline.
I met him in his office once last winter, at his invitation. He was a decent, honest man with a lot of good ideas he was not able to develop because he was overtaken by events outside his control—most particularly the Ostling shooting (say what you want about that, but having sat through the trial, I believe he’s been scapegoated for that tragedy).
Good luck and Godspeed, Jon Fehlman. Thank you.
And what “dying establishment” is that, Ms. Hendrickson? The liberal, eco-conscious island majority that created this city so that we could ensure that local decisions are made by islanders who share our values? The majority that then took back our government when the mayor strayed too far from our ideals? The majority that had no idea last November that we were electing a largely republican panel of candidates intent on dismantling the island government we had created and fought for? You bet I’m part of that “establishment”. And while those of your political ilk may have grabbed a disproportionate share of the seats at the table, that doesn’t change the make-up of the citizenry they represent. We’re still here, we’re certainly not “dying” and quite frankly, we’re getting a little tired of watching you and your friends use our city as your own political playground.
No, Ethos. I’m referring to something different. When I said “dying establishment” I wasn’t referring to an ideology or a political party. I was referring, simply, to power, and the fact that some people who used to have quite a bit of it at city hall find it’s slipping away. Your “values” certainly are impressive (how marvelous that you’re liberal, eco-conscious, pro home rule, and worked on the change of government campaign!) but come on down from your high elevation: you’re ticked off because you lost some of your influence and you’re not being a good sport about it.
But let’s get back to the topic posted about, since more interesting than your personal problem. Do you agree, with Althea, that a police chief does not have responsibility for the quality of his department? That, somehow, a department that has depressingly low ratings from the community, a whopper of an employee morale problem, an excessively casual approach to Department rules, civil service requirements, and background checks, inconsistent discipline practices, an approach to mental illness found unacceptable by a federal jury, no real mission, and no strategic plan is not the sign of a bad Chief, but rather “events outside his control?” I don’t agree. Indeed, I find this line of argument, and Councilmember Hytopoulos’ praise of the former chief on Wednesday night, incredibly distasteful. We must hold our public officials accountable if we want good government, whether that’s in terms of road paving, utilities management, or policing. Papering over poor leadership with generous severance agreements and words of praise is insulting to our intelligence, and a disservice to island residents.
I hope it is obvious, in these comments, that I am speaking for myself and not my organization. ICP members have their own views about Jon Fehlman, even if they are not as vocal about them.
-Kim Hendrickson
Kim, don’t know why you felt the need to sweep me into your anger-stew with Ethos, but my comment above, expressing a personal opinion of Jon Fehlman, was very clearly not an assessment of the department. Neither you nor I have enough information to make that assessment, nor are we qualified. Neither is the Guild. That’s why I keep talking about the need for an independent police management study to learn about the department as a whole, remember?
I’ve been observing and acting within the politics and culture (or ethos, if you prefer) only since 2000, but that’s long enough to develop some feel for the “establishment” and its opponents. I’ve seen lots of changes. I heard ten years or so ago, from an admirable activist, of a group of ‘silverbacks’ who always got their way at City Hall: I don’t think any of them are around today. But there certainly is an establishment, and it’s not moribund. Some members of it are very much involved with issues that come before the Council; many, however, have little or no interest in the kind of power with which Kim is fascinated. They are busy with non-profit activities, and they are issue-oriented, if and when they express opinions on public policies such as the SMP update, the condition of Eagle Harbor, stormwater management, and trees and clearing permits.
I don’t believe that many members of the current establishment (so-called) are bothered that the power they are accustomed to is “slipping away.” There is concern, of course, that some of the power exercised by members of the City Council is in the wrong hands, or has been used recklessly, but when has the Council ever consisted of seven right-thinking and collaborative people? And how much power do the opponents of the so-called establishment actually have? What have they accomplished? (Brenda Bauer was summarily dismissed, and that was wicked, but how many power plays have succeeded since then?)