I have found two things that are generally true when it comes to municipal police officers. They jump at the opportunity to take off-duty jobs, especially if it involves security work, and they rarely live in the same municipality in which they are employed. And I have no problem with either of these situations.
I used to wonder about police residency requirements until I sat down and had a number of conversations with officers and now I completely understand why they chose to live where they do. And I have no reservations about them taking off-duty jobs. I do have a problem, however, if they use their marked vehicles on those jobs and their part-time employer is not reimbursing the city for the gasoline that’s used and the general wear-and-tear on the vehicle caused by taking that car off to, say, block an exit on I-35 or some such. No reimbursing is tantamount to stealing taxpayers money.
I didn’t know the city did not charge for the use of these vehicles until it was brought to my attention by a concerned citizen during a recent visit to a resident’s home. After I was told about this, I double-checked with city spokesperson Jerry Hendrix who sent me a copy of a Kyle Police Department General Order issued Feb. 1, 2013 concerning the department’s "take home vehicle program." The last item of that order says "The vehicle may be used to travel to and from an off duty assignment that is within the police department’s jurisdiction. Approval for an assignment outside the jurisdiction may be made on a case by case basis by the Chief of Police or his designee. If an officer is summoned on duty they must leave the secondary employment and travel straight to the police department in their take home vehicle."
That’s it. Nothing about reimbursing the taxpayers for the vehicle and Wednesday night, in her last meeting as a member of the Kyle City Council, Samantha Bellows felt the need to bring this to the attention of her fellow council members.
Police Chief Jeff Barnett told the council the department surveyed 13 other Central Texas jurisdictions and learned five did not charge and eight did. He told the council there are two distinct ways cars may be used by officers employed in off-duty security-type situations.
"One is the non-active use versus the active use of a police vehicle," the chief explained. "Sometimes people ask the police to bring a vehicle and merely park it at the front gate or park it near the front door of the business and the presence of the vehicle is a deterrent to criminal activity and the motor is not running and the lights are not in use. It really just drove from the police station to the location and then back to the station.
"Alternatively there is the active use of a police vehicle. And that means when the motor is running and/or when the lights are turned on and we are actually using the equipment throughout the security event.
"The non-active use locations might be a venue that’s going to host a concert or something and the activity is really on the inside. The police vehicle is there merely as a presence. The active use more closely relates to the Interstate 35 construction zones where our officers are helping to block Interstate 35. They bring out and lower the big cross beams across the interstate and we have to shut the interstate entirely down. We reroute traffic. And at other times on the service roads, on both access roads we may have to close a bridge at one end or the other while they’re doing their work. Generally those cars are active in use with the motor running and lights flashing and what-not."
He said only two of the eight entities he surveyed that charged for the use of police vehicles charged for "non-active" uses: Hayes County charged a flat fee of $15 "for the mere presence of a vehicle regardless of whether it’s there for one hour or 12 hours." Rollingwood charged $20.
"Several of the others charged an hourly rate if that vehicle is running and the lights are flashing and maybe you’re using fuel," Barnett told the council. "The prices range anywhere from $10 to $20 per hour and that’s charged to that customer and is paid directly tp the governmental entity. So it is paid directly to the city of Kyle and not the police officer."
That is, of course, if Kyle charged for this service which Barnett admitted the city currently doesn’t. He did say however he is including some mention of this in a fee schedule he is proposing as part of the department’s budget request to the city manager.
Mayor Todd Webster thanked council member Bellows for bringing the matter to the attention of the council, but said there wasn’t much that could be done about it until it came time to debate the city manager’s proposed budget.
""This is more that this is my last stand," Bellows responded. "I figured I should state it now instead of when budget comes around. So I want to put it on the radar now and say ‘Hey, we are missing out on this. We’re losing money because of it.’"
The Kyle Report
Showing posts with label Kyle Police Chief. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kyle Police Chief. Show all posts
Friday, June 12, 2015
Thursday, May 28, 2015
He's baaaack!!!
Just received the following from the city which I am reprinting here with no additional comment (at least, not for now):
“I’d like to thank Chief Edge for the professional manner in which he handled the very important personnel matter,” said Sellers.
The result of the adjudication process was that Kyle Police Officer Jessie Espinosa was suspended indefinitely. The City of Kyle will have no further comment at this time in order to protect the integrity of Mr. Espinoza’s appeal of this suspension.
KYLE, TX – Kyle City Manager Scott Sellers has returned Police Chief Jeff Barnett to duty effective Thursday, May 28th. Chief Barnett had been placed on paid administrative leave on May 6th for the purposes of adjudicating a civil service matter. Charles Edge, a former police chief with the Waxahachie Police Department, was appointed Acting Police Chief and has concluded his role in the adjudication of the matter. Under the Texas civil service statute, all personnel decisions must be completed by the department head. In order to ensure full and complete impartiality, the city manager placed Barnett on leave due to his involvement in the matter. Barnett was not the subject of the investigation.
“I’d like to thank Chief Edge for the professional manner in which he handled the very important personnel matter,” said Sellers.
The result of the adjudication process was that Kyle Police Officer Jessie Espinosa was suspended indefinitely. The City of Kyle will have no further comment at this time in order to protect the integrity of Mr. Espinoza’s appeal of this suspension.
Monday, May 18, 2015
What's with all this secrecy at the police department?
Update: Perhaps Sgt. Espinoza is on permanent indefinite suspension, which is tantamount to no longer being on the force. I say this because I just received this non-response response from Chief of Staff Jerry Hendrix: "We have no comment because Mr. Espinoza likely will file an appeal of his indefinite suspension. As it is Mr. Espinoza's right to have an appeal hearing, the City has no comment at this time so as not to affect the integrity of the process. If you¹d like any additional information, please file the request as a Public Information Request and we¹ll respond."
I’m filing.
Original post:
I’m guessing Sgt. Jesse Espinoza, the Kyle Police Association president, has been dismissed from the force.
I’m guessing this because there’s this item on tomorrow night’s City Council agenda that says the council will convene into executive session "Regarding disciplinary action and possible appeal of a police officer." Yes, it could be something else totally separate from the on-going soap opera being played out at City Hall starring Espinoza, Police Chief Jeff Barnett, Louisiana anesthesiologist Glen Hurlston, Hurlston’s ex-wife Suzanna Besse and, most recently, interim Kyle Police Chief Charles Edge. But if it was something totally separate from this, I would have expected city spokesperson Jerry Hendrix to let the world know it was something different, but so far he and the rest of the city has remained mum on the subject despite (1) an inquiry I made on the subject Friday and (2) the fact that no other city in the country has tried to hide actions taken and not taken against police officers in the last year or so.
In fact, I was quite amused this morning when I saw an item in the Austin American-Statesman about Mike Maugere, the recently appointed police chief of Smithville, Texas. According to this item, Maugere actually held a public town hall meeting last week to inform citizens about everything happening with and to the city’s police department. Here’s one telling paragraph from the story:
"With almost five months under his belt as the Smithville police chief, Maugere has instituted initiatives like the town hall to keep his department transparent and communication open with the public."
Kyle could take some lessons from Smithville.
Instead of informing citizens about what’s going on with those who are supposed to protect and serve the rest of us, Kyle city officials erect a Berlin Wall of silence. I’m not suggesting they divulge any sensitive legal strategy, but the results of an internal investigation and the actual dismissal of a police officer are not "sensitive legal strategy." Yes, the city is involved in a lawsuit filed against it by Hurlston, but the Espinoza investigation, although spawned by the suit, is not directly connected to it and, thus, not privileged information. In fact, most observers believe Espinoza’s problems with Barnett began before he ever heard of Hurlston. The firing of Espinoza will not affect the outcome of Hurlston’s lawsuit. Yes, it could spawn another lawsuit, an unrelated one filed by Espinoza claiming he was dismissed in violation of Civil Service procedures, but that, too, is not part of the discussion over whether Espinoza still is a member of the Kyle Police Department.
The internal investigation of Espinoza revolved around allegations he received gifts of paid vacations and donations to help pay for Espinoza’s son’s cancer treatments from Hurlston in return for providing the doctor with information about Barnett. And there are reasons Hurlston would want this information. While he was the chief of police in Princeton, Texas, a fast-growing community of 7,700 persons located just east of McKinney, Barnett had an affair with Besse, who was then Hurlston’s wife. The relationship produced a child, now 4-years-old. About a month and a half before the birth of this child, on Jan. 27, 2011, Barnett announced his resignation at Princeton, claiming he wanted to complete his doctorate. In May of that year, Barnett came to Kyle as its police chief.
In January of 2012, Hurlston was arrested and charged with felony domestic abuse after Besse claimed the doctor attempted to strangle her. The charge was later reduced to a Class A misdemeanor and Hurlston pled no contest to the charges. Hurlston is convinced Besse asked Barnett for help and that Barnett used his influence with his former employer to have Hurlston arrested. As a result, in December of 2013 he filed his lawsuit against Barnett, several Princeton police officers and the cities of Princeton and Kyle alleging "unlawful police actions" that resulted in Hurlston suffering "significant and severe emotional distress; physical pain and suffering; emotion, pain and distress; loss of income; and other damages."
Espinoza’s initial problems with Barnett apparently had nothing to do with Hurlston but the fact that Espinoza wanted someone else named police chief back in May 2011. The internal investigation targeting Espinoza came about when Kyle police learned Hurlston had apparently recruited Espinoza to provide him with information on Barnett. It is known, for instance, that Hurlston and Espinoza, along with their respective families, have vacationed together in San Antonio and Destin, Fla., and that in October, 2013, after Espinoza had initiated an online fund-raising campaign to help pay the costs of cancer treatments for his son, Hurlston donated $5,000.
It appeared a couple of weeks ago that the city’s investigation had provided enough evidence to terminate or, at the very least, demote Espinoza. But because of Barnett’s past associations with Espinoza, any action along those lines could be viewed by some, especially Espinoza, as unjustified retaliation. To avoid having it viewed this way, the city announced two weeks ago it was placing Barnett on administrative leave and bringing in Edge, the retired police chief of Waxahachie, Texas. It was going to be his responsibility, as an impartial department head with no prior involvement in this whole mess, to review the evidence against Espinoza, determine whether disciplinary action was warranted and then take that disciplinary action.
That doesn’t mean Espinoza is buying that "impartial" business, hence the item on tomorrow night’s agenda.
But, like I said, I’m really only guess here because, unlike Smithville, our police folks and others connected with Kyle city government don’t believe in all that "transparency" foolishness.
I’m filing.
Original post:
I’m guessing Sgt. Jesse Espinoza, the Kyle Police Association president, has been dismissed from the force.
I’m guessing this because there’s this item on tomorrow night’s City Council agenda that says the council will convene into executive session "Regarding disciplinary action and possible appeal of a police officer." Yes, it could be something else totally separate from the on-going soap opera being played out at City Hall starring Espinoza, Police Chief Jeff Barnett, Louisiana anesthesiologist Glen Hurlston, Hurlston’s ex-wife Suzanna Besse and, most recently, interim Kyle Police Chief Charles Edge. But if it was something totally separate from this, I would have expected city spokesperson Jerry Hendrix to let the world know it was something different, but so far he and the rest of the city has remained mum on the subject despite (1) an inquiry I made on the subject Friday and (2) the fact that no other city in the country has tried to hide actions taken and not taken against police officers in the last year or so.
In fact, I was quite amused this morning when I saw an item in the Austin American-Statesman about Mike Maugere, the recently appointed police chief of Smithville, Texas. According to this item, Maugere actually held a public town hall meeting last week to inform citizens about everything happening with and to the city’s police department. Here’s one telling paragraph from the story:
"With almost five months under his belt as the Smithville police chief, Maugere has instituted initiatives like the town hall to keep his department transparent and communication open with the public."
Kyle could take some lessons from Smithville.
Instead of informing citizens about what’s going on with those who are supposed to protect and serve the rest of us, Kyle city officials erect a Berlin Wall of silence. I’m not suggesting they divulge any sensitive legal strategy, but the results of an internal investigation and the actual dismissal of a police officer are not "sensitive legal strategy." Yes, the city is involved in a lawsuit filed against it by Hurlston, but the Espinoza investigation, although spawned by the suit, is not directly connected to it and, thus, not privileged information. In fact, most observers believe Espinoza’s problems with Barnett began before he ever heard of Hurlston. The firing of Espinoza will not affect the outcome of Hurlston’s lawsuit. Yes, it could spawn another lawsuit, an unrelated one filed by Espinoza claiming he was dismissed in violation of Civil Service procedures, but that, too, is not part of the discussion over whether Espinoza still is a member of the Kyle Police Department.
The internal investigation of Espinoza revolved around allegations he received gifts of paid vacations and donations to help pay for Espinoza’s son’s cancer treatments from Hurlston in return for providing the doctor with information about Barnett. And there are reasons Hurlston would want this information. While he was the chief of police in Princeton, Texas, a fast-growing community of 7,700 persons located just east of McKinney, Barnett had an affair with Besse, who was then Hurlston’s wife. The relationship produced a child, now 4-years-old. About a month and a half before the birth of this child, on Jan. 27, 2011, Barnett announced his resignation at Princeton, claiming he wanted to complete his doctorate. In May of that year, Barnett came to Kyle as its police chief.
In January of 2012, Hurlston was arrested and charged with felony domestic abuse after Besse claimed the doctor attempted to strangle her. The charge was later reduced to a Class A misdemeanor and Hurlston pled no contest to the charges. Hurlston is convinced Besse asked Barnett for help and that Barnett used his influence with his former employer to have Hurlston arrested. As a result, in December of 2013 he filed his lawsuit against Barnett, several Princeton police officers and the cities of Princeton and Kyle alleging "unlawful police actions" that resulted in Hurlston suffering "significant and severe emotional distress; physical pain and suffering; emotion, pain and distress; loss of income; and other damages."
Espinoza’s initial problems with Barnett apparently had nothing to do with Hurlston but the fact that Espinoza wanted someone else named police chief back in May 2011. The internal investigation targeting Espinoza came about when Kyle police learned Hurlston had apparently recruited Espinoza to provide him with information on Barnett. It is known, for instance, that Hurlston and Espinoza, along with their respective families, have vacationed together in San Antonio and Destin, Fla., and that in October, 2013, after Espinoza had initiated an online fund-raising campaign to help pay the costs of cancer treatments for his son, Hurlston donated $5,000.
It appeared a couple of weeks ago that the city’s investigation had provided enough evidence to terminate or, at the very least, demote Espinoza. But because of Barnett’s past associations with Espinoza, any action along those lines could be viewed by some, especially Espinoza, as unjustified retaliation. To avoid having it viewed this way, the city announced two weeks ago it was placing Barnett on administrative leave and bringing in Edge, the retired police chief of Waxahachie, Texas. It was going to be his responsibility, as an impartial department head with no prior involvement in this whole mess, to review the evidence against Espinoza, determine whether disciplinary action was warranted and then take that disciplinary action.
That doesn’t mean Espinoza is buying that "impartial" business, hence the item on tomorrow night’s agenda.
But, like I said, I’m really only guess here because, unlike Smithville, our police folks and others connected with Kyle city government don’t believe in all that "transparency" foolishness.
Saturday, May 9, 2015
Why Chief Barnett was placed on leave
 |
| Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett |
If you look at that carefully, it seems plain to see what’s happening here. The key is that word "investigation," which the city tried to eliminate in its revised statement.
On Feb. 26, the Austin American-Statesman posted a news story that began "The president of the Kyle police association has been stripped of his duties and is the subject of an internal investigation into whether he improperly received $5,000 from a man embroiled in a lawsuit against the city and police chief in exchange for potentially sensitive insider information."
There’s that word "investigation" again and it appears in the same paragraph as the words "police chief." By the way, the president of the Kyle police association is later identified by the Statesman as Sgt. Jesse Espinoza.
The second paragraph of that same story says "In a continuing saga that began with Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett’s romantic relationship with a married woman in 2011, officials have hired a Fort Worth law firm to conduct the inquiry."
So there you have it. Obviously, "Chief Barnett is not the subject" of the Fort Worth law firm’s investigation, Espinoza is. It’s not a stretch to believe that Fort Worth law firm has given the city, if not all the results of its inquiry, at least enough evidence for it to take some form of punitive action against Espinoza. But, as the city’s revised statement of last week said "all personnel decisions must be completed by the department head." That would be Barnett, but if the chief acted against Espinoza it could be viewed as a conflict of interest at least and retribution at worst. Either way, it could be grounds for another lawsuit against the city.
To solve the dilemma, the city decided to give Chief Barnett some time off and bring in a ringer to handle the dirty work, or, as the city put it, "for the purposes of adjudicating an ongoing civil service matter."
Sounds logical, right? And until someone from the city is willing to go on the record and swear under oath I’m way off-base here, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.
Wednesday, February 18, 2015
Council appoints Dean police officer
There was not a dry eye in the house.
It was like that moment when a terribly sad movie you are heavily involved in suddenly and unexpectedly has a happy, joyous ending. The miracle that occurs when the filmmaker somehow elicits from his audience tears of joy, not sadness.
That miracle came toward the end of Mayor Todd Webster’s reading of what Item 7 of last night’s City Council agenda described as "a resolution of the City of Kyle, Texas, acknowledging the contributions of Samantha Elizabeth Dean and her service to the citizens of Kyle through her passionate dedication as victim services coordinator for the Kyle Police Department."
I have not written about the Dean murder until now because it was my belief that the tragedy was a "crime" story and this blog is devoted strictly to "city government." Last night, the city council elevated it to an entirely higher level than anyone outside the council anticipated.
Police Chief Jeff Barnett talked about how Dean told him she had always wanted to be a police officer, and how those dreams were dashed after she was diagnosed with a form of cancer that left her somewhat disabled. "That didn’t slow her down, however, as she chose the next best thing, helping to bring comfort to victims of crime and families facing tragic loss" Barnett said. "
Then, with Dean’s parents, Kelvin and Kimberly, along with her sister, Alex, standing at the podium, Mayor Webster, after calling for a full minute of silence in Dean’s memory, read all the obligatory "whereases" that spoke about her passion, her dedication, her "tireless efforts" on behalf of crime victims, her being "a positive role model," her compassion and her humanity," and then said it is hereby resolved that Samantha Dean was "a valuable member of the City of Kyle."
But he didn’t stop there.
"…and in recognition," the mayor read "of Samantha Dean’s lifelong desire to be a police officer that she be posthumously promoted to a position of honorary police officer for the City of Kyle Police Department, having all honors and benefits bestowed upon her through that position…"
When the mayor said these words, my gaze turned immediately from him to Kelvin and Kimberly Dean. First I noticed Kimberly’s stoic posture wither ever so slightly and Kelvin’s body language betrayed his emotions as well. After that Chief Barnett presented the family with Dean’s police officer badge.
If one brief moment of joy, happiness and celebration can be extracted from an ocean of sorrow, that moment took place at Kyle City Hall last night.
It was like that moment when a terribly sad movie you are heavily involved in suddenly and unexpectedly has a happy, joyous ending. The miracle that occurs when the filmmaker somehow elicits from his audience tears of joy, not sadness.
That miracle came toward the end of Mayor Todd Webster’s reading of what Item 7 of last night’s City Council agenda described as "a resolution of the City of Kyle, Texas, acknowledging the contributions of Samantha Elizabeth Dean and her service to the citizens of Kyle through her passionate dedication as victim services coordinator for the Kyle Police Department."
I have not written about the Dean murder until now because it was my belief that the tragedy was a "crime" story and this blog is devoted strictly to "city government." Last night, the city council elevated it to an entirely higher level than anyone outside the council anticipated.
Police Chief Jeff Barnett talked about how Dean told him she had always wanted to be a police officer, and how those dreams were dashed after she was diagnosed with a form of cancer that left her somewhat disabled. "That didn’t slow her down, however, as she chose the next best thing, helping to bring comfort to victims of crime and families facing tragic loss" Barnett said. "
Then, with Dean’s parents, Kelvin and Kimberly, along with her sister, Alex, standing at the podium, Mayor Webster, after calling for a full minute of silence in Dean’s memory, read all the obligatory "whereases" that spoke about her passion, her dedication, her "tireless efforts" on behalf of crime victims, her being "a positive role model," her compassion and her humanity," and then said it is hereby resolved that Samantha Dean was "a valuable member of the City of Kyle."
But he didn’t stop there.
"…and in recognition," the mayor read "of Samantha Dean’s lifelong desire to be a police officer that she be posthumously promoted to a position of honorary police officer for the City of Kyle Police Department, having all honors and benefits bestowed upon her through that position…"
When the mayor said these words, my gaze turned immediately from him to Kelvin and Kimberly Dean. First I noticed Kimberly’s stoic posture wither ever so slightly and Kelvin’s body language betrayed his emotions as well. After that Chief Barnett presented the family with Dean’s police officer badge.
If one brief moment of joy, happiness and celebration can be extracted from an ocean of sorrow, that moment took place at Kyle City Hall last night.
Sunday, December 21, 2014
I ain’t part of no one-sided love (legal) affair
In my professional career I have had many opportunities to interact with a number of police chiefs, assistant chiefs, station commanders and rank-and-file police officers and one thing I’ve learned to be true and you can take this to the bank: As a general rule, police officers don’t like their police chiefs and the head of any police association/union feels it’s his or her mission in life to get rid of his/her chief.
This is true here and the proof of that fact is in a story that appeared today on the front page of the Austin-American Statesman involving Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett. I can vouch for the fact that this story is part of a campaign within the Kyle Police Department to get Chief Barnett fired and the reasons certain people want him fired has nothing to do, whatsoever, with any of the information contained in that story.
Rank-and-file police officers generally mistrust those in higher authority because, they feel with some justification, that those higher-ups put obstacles in the way of their being able to fight the bad guys. I don’t know if it started with Miranda — probably not — but that 1966 Supreme Court decision certainly exasperated the feelings. Then authorities began instituting such law-enforcement barriers as deadly force polices, rules against high-speed pursuits, outlawing choke-holds and police became convinced they were the ones being handcuffed.
Here in Kyle the contention is why is the city, with the chief’s endorsement and encouragement, spending all this money on buying SUVs and handguns for the police when they should be spending it on hiring more police officers. By gum, what we need is a new police chief.
I was approached by an individual within the Kyle Police Department (I don’t want to divulge just who right now) with the same information contained in today’s American-Statesman story. This individual also gave my e-mail address to one of the principals in the story, Dr. Glen Hurlston. I know this because Dr. Hurlston e-mailed me saying he desperately wanted to talk with me at any time and in any place. I poked around and because, apparently like the American-Statesman, I could not obtain privately held legal documents that told the other side of the story, I chose not to pursue it at the time because it would be, like the American-Statesman’s account, completely one-sided. (As an aside, I formally was a partner in a media consulting firm that was called on by governments, companies, sports teams, individuals, etc., facing a crisis and my job was to tell them how to respond to media inquiries. In that capacity, I will say Kyle city officials were correct in saying they could not respond to issues that currently are in litigation, but they could have said a lot more that would have made the newspaper’s account somewhat less one-sided.)
In a nutshell, here’s the issue as outlined by at least one member of the Kyle Police Department and Austin-American reporter Tom Plohetski. Prior to being hired as Kyle’s police chief in April 2011, Barnett was the chief of police in the Collin County town of Princeton, a relatively small, but growing, burg located on the eastern edge of McKinney. Apparently while there he met and twice engaged in a romantic relationship with Suzanne Hurlston, the second time after she became the wife of Dr. Hurlston. No one is able to say, precisely, when the affair ended, but it seems to have run its course when Barnett accepted the police chief’s job here.
On Jan. 1, 2012, Dr. Hurlston was arrested by Princeton police on charges he assaulted his wife. According to legal documents filed by Dr. Hurlston, he was arrested because Barnett used his influence as the former Princeton police chief to coerce Princeton police to make the arrest. Plohetski writes that in an interview with Mrs. Hurlston, she maintained "under no circumstances did the chief orchestrate anything."
Unfortunately, that has become the hub of the story: that Kyle has, as its police chief, someone who engaged in an affair with a married woman and then abused his position to unduly, if not illegally, influence a governmental institution outside the chief’s jurisdiction. To put it simply, he asked his old buds from his former hometown to protect his girlfriend. Ipso facto, Barnett should be fired, if not on legal, than at least on moral grounds.
Hogwash. First on the moral issue, I am firmly in the "Glass House" camp here. Now let’s address the issue of influence. If using a position of authority to influence former employers was illegal, I’d be serving a life sentence. I used my position as the president of a chamber of commerce to influence several Dallas city council members to hire my former boss at the city as the city’s new city manager when there was a great hue and cry to hire someone from outside the city. (My former boss was hired and she proved to be a superb city manager.). I used that same influence on an area police commander, who is now the city’s police chief, to arrest a panhandler that was using excessive force to extract money from shoppers in a certain area of the city. I used that same influence on that police commanders successor to bust up a section of an apartment complex I learned was being used as a meth lab. As a writer, I used my friendships I developed with other city employees to learn about issues happening within city government. Get over it. It’s a way of life.
But now let’s get to the real issue here and it’s illustrated by what I said about the panhandler and the meth lab. Both of these activities are illegal. And so is domestic violence. That’s the issue. Not whether Barnett used his influence to get someone arrested or whether he committed some heinous moral activity by having an affair. It’s whether, as someone sworn to uphold the law, he reported someone breaking the law. I don’t know whether Dr. Hurlston beat his wife. I do know he pleaded no contest to the resulting assault charges filed against him. I have my opinion based on that, but I’ll leave the facts of the case for others to decide.
I also know, largely due to all the publicity surrounding the Ray Rice incident from earlier this year, domestic violence is much more in the public’s eye than it ever has. Just look at the campaign that my former employer, the City of Dallas, has undertaken.
Domestic violence, and especially whether those who really do have the power to stop it, is one of the real issues here. But the other, and most important thing to realize is that, no matter what, those within the department are going to look for some way, any way, to get rid of their chief, especially when if that chief endorses SUVs and handguns over additional officers.
The subject of this argument needs to be changed to reflect that.
This is true here and the proof of that fact is in a story that appeared today on the front page of the Austin-American Statesman involving Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett. I can vouch for the fact that this story is part of a campaign within the Kyle Police Department to get Chief Barnett fired and the reasons certain people want him fired has nothing to do, whatsoever, with any of the information contained in that story.
Rank-and-file police officers generally mistrust those in higher authority because, they feel with some justification, that those higher-ups put obstacles in the way of their being able to fight the bad guys. I don’t know if it started with Miranda — probably not — but that 1966 Supreme Court decision certainly exasperated the feelings. Then authorities began instituting such law-enforcement barriers as deadly force polices, rules against high-speed pursuits, outlawing choke-holds and police became convinced they were the ones being handcuffed.
Here in Kyle the contention is why is the city, with the chief’s endorsement and encouragement, spending all this money on buying SUVs and handguns for the police when they should be spending it on hiring more police officers. By gum, what we need is a new police chief.
I was approached by an individual within the Kyle Police Department (I don’t want to divulge just who right now) with the same information contained in today’s American-Statesman story. This individual also gave my e-mail address to one of the principals in the story, Dr. Glen Hurlston. I know this because Dr. Hurlston e-mailed me saying he desperately wanted to talk with me at any time and in any place. I poked around and because, apparently like the American-Statesman, I could not obtain privately held legal documents that told the other side of the story, I chose not to pursue it at the time because it would be, like the American-Statesman’s account, completely one-sided. (As an aside, I formally was a partner in a media consulting firm that was called on by governments, companies, sports teams, individuals, etc., facing a crisis and my job was to tell them how to respond to media inquiries. In that capacity, I will say Kyle city officials were correct in saying they could not respond to issues that currently are in litigation, but they could have said a lot more that would have made the newspaper’s account somewhat less one-sided.)
In a nutshell, here’s the issue as outlined by at least one member of the Kyle Police Department and Austin-American reporter Tom Plohetski. Prior to being hired as Kyle’s police chief in April 2011, Barnett was the chief of police in the Collin County town of Princeton, a relatively small, but growing, burg located on the eastern edge of McKinney. Apparently while there he met and twice engaged in a romantic relationship with Suzanne Hurlston, the second time after she became the wife of Dr. Hurlston. No one is able to say, precisely, when the affair ended, but it seems to have run its course when Barnett accepted the police chief’s job here.
On Jan. 1, 2012, Dr. Hurlston was arrested by Princeton police on charges he assaulted his wife. According to legal documents filed by Dr. Hurlston, he was arrested because Barnett used his influence as the former Princeton police chief to coerce Princeton police to make the arrest. Plohetski writes that in an interview with Mrs. Hurlston, she maintained "under no circumstances did the chief orchestrate anything."
Unfortunately, that has become the hub of the story: that Kyle has, as its police chief, someone who engaged in an affair with a married woman and then abused his position to unduly, if not illegally, influence a governmental institution outside the chief’s jurisdiction. To put it simply, he asked his old buds from his former hometown to protect his girlfriend. Ipso facto, Barnett should be fired, if not on legal, than at least on moral grounds.
Hogwash. First on the moral issue, I am firmly in the "Glass House" camp here. Now let’s address the issue of influence. If using a position of authority to influence former employers was illegal, I’d be serving a life sentence. I used my position as the president of a chamber of commerce to influence several Dallas city council members to hire my former boss at the city as the city’s new city manager when there was a great hue and cry to hire someone from outside the city. (My former boss was hired and she proved to be a superb city manager.). I used that same influence on an area police commander, who is now the city’s police chief, to arrest a panhandler that was using excessive force to extract money from shoppers in a certain area of the city. I used that same influence on that police commanders successor to bust up a section of an apartment complex I learned was being used as a meth lab. As a writer, I used my friendships I developed with other city employees to learn about issues happening within city government. Get over it. It’s a way of life.
But now let’s get to the real issue here and it’s illustrated by what I said about the panhandler and the meth lab. Both of these activities are illegal. And so is domestic violence. That’s the issue. Not whether Barnett used his influence to get someone arrested or whether he committed some heinous moral activity by having an affair. It’s whether, as someone sworn to uphold the law, he reported someone breaking the law. I don’t know whether Dr. Hurlston beat his wife. I do know he pleaded no contest to the resulting assault charges filed against him. I have my opinion based on that, but I’ll leave the facts of the case for others to decide.
I also know, largely due to all the publicity surrounding the Ray Rice incident from earlier this year, domestic violence is much more in the public’s eye than it ever has. Just look at the campaign that my former employer, the City of Dallas, has undertaken.
Domestic violence, and especially whether those who really do have the power to stop it, is one of the real issues here. But the other, and most important thing to realize is that, no matter what, those within the department are going to look for some way, any way, to get rid of their chief, especially when if that chief endorses SUVs and handguns over additional officers.
The subject of this argument needs to be changed to reflect that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)