Chief Finney "Retiring" From Champaign Police Dept. Jan. 20, 2012

Time for the truth.  Below you will find a copy of an email sent to all city council members and upper city staff.  This confirms the truth.  The problem in the Champaign Police Department is not the men and women who serve on a daily basis, it is the people who are in command, specifically Chief Finney and Deputy Chief Murphy.  This shows the rift that exists between those that serve and those who manage.  It is my understanding all of this is true.  Sounds like it is time the city council takes action and fixes the leadership. 

 

From: cpdintegrity@gmail.com
To: citymanagersoffice@ci.champaign.il.us; steve.carter@ci.champaign.il.us; dorothy.david@ci.champaign.il.us; craig.rost@ci.champaign.il.us; joan.walls@ci.champaign.il.us; mayorgerard@ci.champaign.il.us; willkyles@ci.champaign.il.us; michael.ladue@ci.champaign.il.us; kyleharrison@ci.champaign.il.us; marcidodds@ci.champaign.il.us; paulfaraci@ci.champaign.il.us; tombruno@ci.champaign.il.us; deborahfrankfeinen@ci.champaign.il.us; karenfoster@ci.champiagn.il.us; chris.bezruki@ci.champaign.il.us; legaldepartment@ci.champaign.il.us; fred.stavins@ci.champaign.il.us; Fredrick.stavins@ci.champaign.il.us
CC: maryleeleahy@leehylaw.com
 

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character give him power” Abraham Lincoln

 

Ironically not all that long ago Chief RT Finney went to his command staff and assigned them to solicit from the ranks terms or phrases that would best define five words making up the acronym P.R.I.D.E. – Performance Results Integrity Dignity Enthusiasm. This assignment was part of the City’s development of a police mission statement based on the phrase “Service with PRIDE”. While the definition of all of these terms may be critical in evaluating the quality and overall competency of police services, none is more important or relevant than that of Integrity. Unfortunately Integrity seems be the attribute most lacking in the executive level command of the Champaign Police Department.

It is with this in mind that a Group of officers of various ranks and positions came together in an effort to address this problem. Many attempts, using a variety of methods were made by these officers in a concerted effort to compel management to take appropriate action to address the issues discussed here. Unfortunately these efforts have failed as they have not had the effect or compelled the changes that were sought. Collectively the Group only sought to change a course of action undertaken by executive level management within the police department that violates all manner of principle and decency. Even considering the facts it is only after considerable debate and internal struggle that this memo was prepared for Council. It is the hope of the Group that this body will have the power and fortitude to compel further inquiry and bring about lasting change.

It has always been the preference of the Group that the issues enumerated here would be addressed internally and not find their way into the public domain. The Group’s concern with a public airing of these problems is the issue of unintended consequences. That is, too many people are likely to jump to the premature conclusion that a problem at the top of an agency is indicative of problems throughout the agency – this is absolutely not the case. The unfortunate effect of executive level policy over the last several years has been a drop in morale that has not seen or felt in decades.

The following paragraphs will outline behavior, action and activity that constitute violations considered generally as wrongdoing, fraud, corruption and/or waste. Just as easily these same actions could describe violations of elements of Illinois’ Official Misconduct statute.

While the fundamental problems have gone unchecked for much longer, the primary issue that drives the demand for action against the police department leadership was spurred by inequities in the development and execution of the Lieutenants promotional process.

Concerns for those seeking promotion from Sergeant to Lieutenant began in earnest at the release of the reading list for the 2008 exam. A review of the list revealed that the reference material had been twice used already; an issue that would give an advantage to veteran exam takers as they were already intimately familiar with the material while newly promotable Sergeants were not.

Much more concerning was the fact that Lieutenant Scott Swan was tasked with working with the testing company contracted by the City to assist with test development. This assignment was seen as problematic for two reasons. First, Lt. Swan shared an office with Sgt. Tom Walker, a sergeant actively seeking promotion. Second, it is common knowledge that Lt Swan and Sgt Walker are good friends and that they are among a short list of Deputy Chief Murphy’s closest friends. Professionally all three men have worked closely together in the various incarnations of the drug enforcement units in which the department has participated. This fact will figure prominently in this summary. It comes as no surprise that Lt. Swan’s assignment to help develop the Lieutenant’s test was made by Deputy Chief John Murphy but it could not have been done without the approval of Chief RT Finney.

The concerns of those seeking the opportunity to be promoted to Lieutenant in 2008 were expressed to Chief Finney but he apparently did not share the concern as no changes were made to the process and no safeguards were implemented. As a result there was a very predictable out-come; Sgt. Tom Walker scored a 98% on a written exam produced by a professional testing company. This score was more than 20 points above Walker’s closest rival. This academic feat propelled Sgt. Walker to the top of the Lieutenant’s list for the promotion period of November 2008 to November 2011. The statistical probability of this feat is similar to someone picking Illinois’ winning lottery numbers any given Saturday.

After landing at the top of the promotion list Sgt. Walker soon found himself upgrade to Lieutenant, albeit on a temporary basis. The justification for the promotion, during strained economic times, was that Chief Finney needed an additional Lieutenant to assist with the development and implementation of policies, procedures and practices that would permit the department to pass the CALEA/ILEAP accreditation process. Once accreditation was achieved Sgt. Walker was returned to grade, but only for a brief moment as Command soon found a new initiative for which they needed an additional Lieutenant – Problem Oriented Policing (POP).

The reasoning behind this move was perplexing as the existing chain-of-command would ultimately be responsible for the day-to-day implementation and review of this program on a district-by-district basis. As such there was no need for an additional Lieutenant to review the problems and the proposed solutions as each district Lieutenant would do this before they sent it the Deputy Chief of Operations (Murphy) for approval. After a relatively short time the department abandoned the Problem Oriented Policing concept for a new methodology based on a more frequent and efficient exchange of precise information referred to professionally as Intelligence.

This initiative was known in law enforcement circles as Intelligence Lead Policing (ILP) and a Florida Atlantic University researcher named Dr. Rachel Boba developed the model adopted by the department. Not surprisingly Sgt. Walker was tapped to lead this initiative, allowing him to retain his promotion. Walker then worked directly with Dr. Boba in getting the Champaign Police Department’s program up and running.

As the adoption of ILP gave way to it becoming part of the day-to-day fabric of the department’s operations the “need” for singular oversight of the program became functionally unnecessary. This fact did not immediately deter Deputy Chief Murphy and Chief Finney however; as they used the program as the justification behind their attempt to compel Council to permanently upgrade Sgt Walker to Lieutenant. This attempt was nicely memorialized in Council Bill 2011-51, prepared for Council on March 15, 2011 by DC Murphy. In this well written effort, DC Murphy seriously overstated the need for a Lieutenant grade command officer to oversee the continued implementation and use of ILP.

Murphy went so far as to characterize the position as that of a “Champion”. This effort, although gallant, failed as the Council voted the bill down, causing Sgt. Walker to be downgraded from Lieutenant to Sergeant once again.

Chief Finney shortly thereafter took the unprecedented and unjustified step of seeking to have the 2008 Lieutenants list extended without cause. Had this ploy been successful Sgt. Walker would be assured the promotion to Lieutenant as soon as a permanent post was vacated. Fortunately Human Resources denied this unwarranted but very telling request.

On April 18, 2011 seven (7) promotable Sergeants met with City Manager Steve Carter at the Champaign Public Library in a pre-arranged meeting to share their concerns about the inequity of the department’s promotional process for perspective Lieutenants. Hereinafter these seven men will be referred to simply as the 7.

Although convened in secret the sole purpose of the April 18^th meeting was to voice the collective concern that the testing process was neither objective nor fair. As such the 7 relayed two primary thoughts. First they wanted to be clear that they’re singular goal was to see that the testing process was equitable and impartial. Second, they took issue with management’s lack of attention to the concerns that were voiced in 2008 and the ultimate outcome of that promotional exam. While wholly circumstantial the evidence found in the results of that process were unmistakable and warranted further inquiry, regardless Chief Finney took no discernible action.

Unfortunately two department employees not party to the meeting were in the area and saw the City Manager and the 7 enter the library. One of the employees realized that this was uncharacteristic and took the unfortunate step of relating what he saw to an On-Duty Sergeant who was not at the meeting. This Sergeant, one of a few very loyal to DC Murphy, then immediately reported the information to him.

The following week Sgt. Scott Friedlein was notified that his position was subject to elimination and that if that occurred he would be sent back to Patrol Sergeant duties. The justification for this action was departmental budget cuts, however the result would have been that Sgt. Friedlein would have to go back to uniform patrol from his duties in alcohol enforcement and community event planning. It would have also meant that the junior Sergeant, who was a member of the 7, would have had their promotion reversed and they would return to Patrol Officer duties.

Additionally, the interaction between the 7 and their immediate supervisors and the executive managers changed dramatically. The 7 Sergeants as a whole found that routine issues that must be addressed in the general course of police business that were previously worked out through personal conversations were now handled by short, curt emails.

Not long after the meeting on April 18^th between the 7 and the City Manager, CPD Narcotics Officer Jack Turner went to the City Manager’s office purporting to be operating in his capacity as a FOP labor representative. In this meeting Turner assured the Mr. Carter that the vast majority of the sworn officers at the Police Department remain squarely behind the Chief. Turner reiterated that the meeting called by the 7 Sergeants was an aberration within the agency and that nearly everyone else was very happy with police management.

What Officer Turner failed to relate was that he made the appointment and relayed this opinion without consultation with any other bargaining unit member; therefore he could not have honestly relayed a majority opinion because he had not made any effort to find one.

The fact that Turner, who has worked in Narcotics Enforcement under Deputy Chief Murphy nearly his entire career, went to the city manager with this pronouncement is not surprising. However the fact that he did so under the auspices that he was representing the labor union members is inexcusable and reprehensible. There is no chance that anything close to a majority of the officers at the police department finds DC Murphy and Chief Finney credible or trustworthy. In fact, should a vote of no confidence be taken today there is little doubt that the vast majority would signal their desire to have immediate resignations from both men.

On or about June 13, 2011 Lt. Scott Swan retired rather abruptly. It is suspected that part of this decision was an effort to create an opening with which to promote a Sergeant Walker – again - before the 2008 Lieutenants list expired. This effort failed as Lt. Swan’s retirement does not officially take effect until November 2011 so Human Resources could not approve the move.

On June 16, 2011 a meeting was held for all Sergeants to confer with Chief Finney, City Manager Steve Carter and Human Resources director Chris Bezruki. This meeting was the result of a grievance filed by several Sergeants not among the 7. The grievance was authored by Sgt. Walker and signed by a number of others including Shaffer, Myers and Walker.  In the meeting Chief Finney advised the Sergeants that regardless of the final outcome of the testing process he ultimately had the authority to promote at his discretion, irrespective of one’s position on the promotional list. This very bold statement, made in the presence of the City Manager, was very disturbing and flies in the face of the City’s historic position that hiring and promotion are open to and equitable for all qualified candidates.

Following the meeting Sergeant Clark contacted Personnel to seek confirmation of Chief Finney’s assertion. For merely making the inquiry the Clark received a personal visit from the Chief condemning the action and for questioning his authority. Such behavior is unacceptable from a genuine manager and wholly unnecessary from consummate and just leader. Shortly thereafter an astute member of the 7 discovered that Champaign Police Department Policy 34.1 Promotion Section .6 states that:

“In filling a vacancy for Sergeant or Lieutenant the Chief of Police Shall consider and select from the top 3 names on the applicable list”

Given the existence of this policy it confirmed that either the Chief was unfamiliar with his department’s promotional process and related policies or he chose the very brash position that he was not bound by them.

Prominent among the 7 was Sergeant Robert Rea, also the SWAT Team Leader. Sgt. Rea seemed to receive greater scrutiny than the others, possibly attributable to the fact that Deputy Chief John Murphy is also the SWAT Team Commander. This scrutiny is most apparent in the May 26, 2011 email from Chief RT Finney to Sgt. Rea and other Sergeants on the SWAT Team. The email originated from a citizen complaint about SWAT training in a predominantly black neighborhood earlier that day. 

While the Chief worded his message well and characterized it as a genuine and thoughtful response to address community relations there is no doubt about his true motivations. First the email was addressed to Sergeants Rea, Lack, Baltzell and Crane, all SWAT Team members but not all SWAT Team Leaders. Chief Finney sought to hold them all accountable for the decision to train in a neighborhood without command approval.

Interestingly Sgt. Crane and Sgt. Baltzell are not SWAT Team Leaders but they were present at the 7 meeting. Sgt. Lack was not present at training that day as he was out on a duty injury and he is not a team leader. Sgt. Oleson, who is an Assistant SWAT Team Leader was not included in the email and, interestingly enough, Sgt Oleson was also not one of the 7.

There was nothing unusual or objectively inflammatory about the team’s presence in the neighborhood the day of the complaint as the team has historically trained in many areas of town, including the north east side. And while the Chief sites infractions and poor decision-making this issue would have been handled much differently prior to the April 18^th meeting. The truth is the Chief was given an opportunity to exact a measure of pain among several members of the 7 and he took it eagerly.

The Team does not now, nor has it ever trained exclusively in one neighborhood over another and rarely does it choose its training sites on its own. In fact for the May 26^thtraining the Team contacted a property management company and requested sites that could be used for training. The company responded by providing access to three properties, East Beardsley (the site of the complaint), 1700 Burnetta, an area of diverse residents in the Garden Hills neighborhood and one in Dobbins Downs that the Team never made it to. While Chief Finney expounded on the violations of the letter of law known as SWAT Team policy regarding the subject of chain of command approval of training sites, similar complaints about the team’s presence in various neighborhoods have been handled differently in the past.

While Sgt. Rea has no doubt received the lions-share of the anger and resentment from both DC Murphy and Chief Finney he has been far from alone. Shortly after the 7’s meeting Sgt. Baltzel received notice, via email, that he had been relieved of his command of the Narcotics Unit and that effective immediately his days off and hours of work were changed. Not surprisingly Sgt. Walker was selected to lead the Narcotics Unit as he was in need of a new assignment after having his promotion denied. There was no doubt about the true motivation for the change given the timing of the move and the way notice was given. This belief was confirmed soon after Baltzel removed himself from contention in the promotional process. Once he had withdrawn his name from the list DC Murphy explained to Baltzel that the decision to change his assignment was driven by Murphy’s anger over Baltzel’s involvement in the 7’s meeting.

The Champaign Police Department has had a long standing tradition of participating in the effort to raise money for Special Olympics. Among the various events, the Law Enforcement Torch Run is the premiere. Following the 7 Sergeant’s meeting the department’s participation in the Law Enforcement Torch Run was unexpectedly and without reasonable notice reduced to a 2-mile ceremonial jog across the city that ended with the torch being driven to Bloomington. In every year previous to 2011 the torch was run from Champaign to Bloomington by a relay of CPD officers proud to have the opportunity to participate in this worthy cause. The justification for this change was a lack of manpower and the fuel expense in the face of budget cuts.

Coincidentally Sgt. Tom Frost, one of the 7, had been responsible for coordinating the efforts of the Champaign Police Department’s participation in Special Olympics fund raising by promoting CPD involvement in the Law Enforcement Torch Run, Polar Plunge and Cop-on-Top.

Not surprisingly less than a month later when Chief RT Finney was to be sworn in as the new President of the IACP, overtime and vehicles were authorized to chauffeur out-of-town chiefs and their wives to and from the I-Hotel for the conference and ceremony. Overtime was also authorized for an Honor Guard, though not one officer volunteered for the assignment, a fact that speaks volumes about the majority opinion of the Chief and the lack of respect for him among the rank-and-file.

On July 11, 2011 Chief Finney announced in an email that all Sergeants participating in the Lieutenants exam were required to prepare a presentation to a community Group on ILP. While only eluded to by email it is strongly believed that the Chief intended to use the power point documents and presentation as justification for his scoring of Sergeants in the Evaluation section of the Lieutenant’s promotional process. Not only was this addition unprecedented, it was also previously unannounced. This issue is significant, as the evaluation by Command Staff constitutes a full third (1/3) of the overall exam score. Armed with this new evaluation instrument Command could conceivably justify a change in evaluation scoring and thus alter the outcome of the testing process. Because Chief Finney chose to use ILP as the subject of his unannounced task he provided Sgt. Walker with an obvious and distinct advantage. Since Walker was personally tasked with implementing the ILP initiative he was familiar with it in a way no other sergeant could be. In fact Walker worked directly with Dr. Rachel Boba, the developer of the program in Port St. Lucie, Florida that the CPD initiative is based on. In reviewing current departmental policy it would seem that the Chief violated the Policy Statement 34.1.5 – Promotion Test Announcement:

2. A schedule of dates, times and locations of all elements of the process.

The addition of the ILP presentation long after the testing process began would clearly violate this portion of the Promotion policy.

On August 3, 2011 Sgt. Friedlein was advised that he was being re-assigned from his position in Alcohol Enforcement and Event Planning to Patrol to fill the void seen by having one Sergeant on light duty and two more on Family Medical Leave. While filling this temporary void with a change in assignment may be warranted there are more sensible ways in which to accomplish it. As an example Sgt. Walker currently oversees the Narcotics Unit while Sgt. Baltzel supervises the Community Action Team. Previous to the 7 Sergeant’s meeting Baltzel supervised both units, so there would be no reason that either Baltzel or Walker could manage both units while the other went back to patrol to fill in there temporarily. This would seem a much more reasonable solution with which to fill a patrol Sergeant position versus using someone who has not seen the inside of a patrol car for nearly twenty years.

On August 8, 2011 the overall results of the 2011 Lieutenants list were released but the results of each step in the process were not put out publicly initially as they had been in the past. This lack of transparency fueled speculation that the Departmental Evaluation, a full third of the overall scores and the only part of the process in which executive level command had direct influence was used to alter the outcome. Doing so would put rank advancement back in the control of executive command rather than allowing a fair and equitable process to determine the result.

Several days later the scores from each section of the process were released and showed a result that was neither surprising nor tolerable in a City of this caliber. There were twelve Sergeants who completed the promotional exam process;  three of the four highest scores in the Departmental Rating were received by the Sergeants who signed the grievance over the fact that 7 Sergeants met with the City Manager in April. In contrast, of the 12 candidates, six of the seven lowest Departmental Ratings were handed out to members of the 7.

Departmental Ratings for the 2011 Lieutenants Test ranked highest to lowest.

Myers	95.83	Grievance
Walker	94.25	Grievance
Griffet	91.58
Shaffer	90.69	Grievance
Coon	89.58
Clark	88.78	7
Frost	85.83	7
Ketchem	85.5
Lack	85.03	7
Rea	83.22	7
Crane	83.06	7
Ramseyer	82.89	7

 

This result cannot be by mere coincidence. If the process was handled in an objective and fair manner there would be complete transparency as to the source of each score. That is, the identity of each member of the command cadre that played a role in rating the candidates would be identified in relation to the score they gave each candidate. The lack of transparency from Human Resources is troubling as it suggests that the politics of upper management has suspended the City’s publicly stated values - at least as they relate to it’s employees. The issues surrounding this promotional list are significant because of the long-term implications. Over the course of the next three years, the life of the current Lieutenants list, at least six upper level command officers are likely to retire. In that shuffle it would be possible for current command to artificially influence departmental culture for at least a generation and the result of that is likely to be the continued corruption of the promotional process.  

 

Officer DAVID ALLEN

Early in 2011 City Management began the process of explaining the City’s financial problems and the possible outcomes in the way of budget cuts, staffing reductions, furloughs and the like. In the same set of meetings City Staffers sought suggestions from employees at all levels as such suggestions might aid in saving money. In response to this request Officer David Allen wrote an email outlining concerns at the police department that cuts were concentrated within the ranks of “bargaining” employees, particularly civilian employees, with a noted absence of staffing reductions, changes or budget tightening among Lieutenants, Deputy Chiefs and the Chief.

Deputy Chief John Murphy responded by addressing his disdain for Allen’s suggestions, which would have, among other things, ended the possibility of getting Sgt. Walker promoted to Lieutenant permanently. DC Murphy’s choice of action was to address the issue with Sgt. Jim Clark the Crime Scene Unit Commander as Officer Allen is also assigned to the Crime Scene Unit. DC Murphy reportedly met with Sgt. Clark and told him, in no uncertain terms, that he was going to shut down the Crime Scene Units evidence processing assignments in response to Allen’s email. These assignments allow Crime Scene Unit Officers to come off of routine patrol duties to process evidence. DC Murphy added that this action was a direct result of Officer Allen’s email and that the Unit could thank Allen for the decision.

In the end the City Manager, or in the absence of action by him, the elected officials tasked with the oversight of city government, must decide the veracity of the facts and what the reasonable and appropriate consequences are. The Group would argue that similar behavior among officers of lesser rank would find them on administrative leave pending termination, an outcome that seems both reasonable and appropriate. The Group would propose that should the governing bodies feel that further inquiry is warranted it should not come from within as any internal investigation would lack impartiality and credibility. Only an outside investigative agency could make a suitable inquiry, anything less would be irresponsible and short-sided. The Illinois State Police Division of Internal Investigation (DII), for their experience in such investigations, or the Federal Bureau of Investigation would be appropriate given their independence from our own department.

Whatever the course there must be consequences for the action and behavior described here. The City demands of its police officers a code of conduct that is commensurate with their post – with great power comes great responsibility. Gven that sentiment it would be unthinkable to allow executive level police management to continue to act in a manner inconsistent with the values the city holds most dear.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2008 Lieutenants Promotional Exam Result2011 Lieutenants Promotional Exam Results

Last Name	Written	Oral	Dept. Rating	Total
SHAFFER	84	94.29	90.69	89.66
MYERS	83	83.71	95.83	87.5
REA	80	86.57	83.22	83.25
COON	77	82.57	89.58	83.04
WALKER	84	70.86	94.25	83.03
CLARK	84	75.71	88.78	82.82
KETCHEM	77	78.57	85.5	80.35
LACK	79	76.29	85.03	80.1
RAMSEYER	67	78.29	82.89	76.05
FROST	71	58	85.83	71.6
CRANE	77	53.71	83.06	71.24
GRIFFET	53	48.29	91.58	64.29

  

COMBINED RESULTS 2008 & 2011

Last Name	Written		Oral		Dept. Rating		Total
	2008	2011	2008	2011	2008	2011	2008	2011
SHAFFER	78	84	92.00	94.29	91.82	90.69	87.27	89.66
MYERS	68	83	67.43	83.71	95.62	95.83	77.01	87.5
REA	78	80	77.42	86.57	91.01	83.22	82.14	83.25
COON	NA	77	NA	82.57	NA	89.58	NA	83.04
WALKER	98	84	79.42	70.86	94.49	94.25	90.64	83.03
CLARK	75	84	81.71	75.71	93.25	88.78	83.32	82.82
KETCHEM	NA	77	NA	78.57	NA	85.5	NA	80.35
LACK	69	79	81.71	76.29	88.63	85.03	79.78	80.1
RAMSEYER	NA	67	NA	78.29	NA	82.89	NA	76.05
FROST	NA	71	NA	58	NA	85.83	NA	71.6
CRANE	76	77	77.42	53.71	88.63	83.06	80.69	71.24
GRIFFET	70	53	69.14	48.29	92.12	91.58	77.09	64.29

 

 Freedom of Information Act Requests

CPD Staffing Levels, Command assignments and responsibilities 1999 through 2011

 Emails or memorandums used as justification for changes

Council Memos

 Adding Deputy Chief

 Temporary Sergeant and Lieutenant up-grades

Promotional Exams for Sergeants and Lieutenants 1999 - 2011

 Identify process

 Policy review to review the promotional process to locate policy violations.

 Of particular interest are the 2008 and 2011 Lieutenant's tests and the addition of the ILP presentation

 Promotional exam reading Lists

 Identify Chain of Command and Responsibilities and Access to exam information, including questions

 Identify personnel scheduled to take each exam and their respective assignments at the time of each exam

 Identify results of each portion of the exam process for each promotional exam process

 Any and all emails between police command staff concerning promotional exams

 Any and all communication between police promotional exam consultants and Human Resources, City Management and Police Command

 Of particular and specific interest are communications following the 2008 Lieutenants exam

 Emails among and between command staff, Human Resources and the City Managers office concerning the retirement of Lt Scott Swan.

 Emails, memos or other correspondence regarding the implementation of the community Group presentation being added to the Lieutenants test

 

 Emails, memos or other correspondence between Jack Turner and other employee regarding his visit with Steve Carter concerning police confidence in or back of Chief RT Finney

 

 Emails, memos or other correspondence concerning the change of assignment of Dennis Baltzel

 

Emails, memos or other correspondence between Chief Finney and DC Murphy as well as communication between Chief Finney or DC Murphy and any or all of the Sergeants participating in the Lieutenants exam.

 

Emails, memos or other correspondence between Chief Finney and DC Murphy and Nearing concerning the change in assignment of Sgt. Scott Friedlein.

 

Emails, memos or other correspondence between Chief Finney and DC Murphy and Human Resources, City Legal or the offices of the City Manager or Assistant City Managers concerning the results of the 2008 and 2011 Lieutenants test including  the decisions surrounding the release of all aspects of the testing process

 

The identity of each command officer who rated a sergeant testing for lieutenant in 2011 along with the score each gave for the respective candidate.

 

 

 

Dave Allen email

 Allen’s original email to CPD Command concerning budget issues

 Emails between command staff concerning Allen’s email

 Emails to/from Sgt. Jim Clark concerning Allen’s email

Torch Run & IACP Conference

 Any and all emails or memorandum concerning the 2011 Torch Run

 Any and all emails concerning the preparation and execution of the 2011 IACP conference in Champaign

SWAT

 SWAT Policy and SOP regarding training sites

 Any and all email between Murphy and Finney or between either of them and any member of the SWAT team concerning the neighborhood training issue

 SWAT Sergeants email in response to Chief Finney’s inquiry on the selection of training sites.

 Any communication with the property management groups or neighborhood services concerning CPD SWAT training sites.

Mission

The Champaign Police Department’s Authority to Police and to Ensure Community Safety Comes from the Community – Our Citizens.

 

Our Success as the Champaign Police Department Depends Upon the Performance of Each Individual Employee.

 

Your Job Makes a Difference and Keeps Our Community Safe.

 

You Contribute to Our Success by Upholding Your Responsibilities and Through Your Actions on a Daily Basis.

 

The Champaign Police Department Values:

SERVICE WITH

P erformance

R esults

I ntegrity

D ignity

E nthusiasm

 

Guiding Values: Performance Guidelines and Standards

 

SERVICEmeans

 Being Committed to the Needs of the Community

 Helping Others with Solutions to Problems, Explaining Your Decisions and Actions

 Delivering Timely Service when Service Counts

 Looking for Ways to Serve

 Treating Citizens as Important, Valued Customers

 Providing Police Services in a Professional Manner

 

 

 

 

PERFORMANCEmeans

 Taking Personal Accountability for Your Words and Actions

 Being Proactive, Anticipating Problems and Offering Solutions

 Looking for Better Ways to Do Your Job and to Improve Performance

 Doing the Job Right – Being Accurate, Taking Care of Details,

 Completing Assigned Tasks

 Expanding Your Knowledge and Skills to be More Effective in Your Job

 Demonstrating Strong Work Ethic

 

RESULTSmeans

 Taking Pride in Your Work Product, Your Tasks and Results

 Seeking Constant Improvements and Better Results

 Community Acceptance of Methods and Results

 Working Together as a Team Using Each Persons Talents

 Completing the Job in a Timely Manner and Following Through

on Commitments

 

INTEGRITYmeans

 Being Responsible for Your Job and Actions, Being Accountable for the End Results and Outcomes

 Being Honest and Trustworthy

 Serving as a Positive Example to Others

 Holding Yourself to the Highest Standards

 Be Loyal to the Police Department – Your Actions Reflect on All of Us

 Improving Yourself and Learning from Setbacks

 

 DIGNITYmeans

 Treating Others with Respect and the Way You Would Like to be Treated

 Having Compassion for Others

 Appreciating Individual Strengths, Talents and Contributions of Others

 Upholding the Rights of All Citizens

 Respecting Our Profession, Our Uniform, You Represent Our Department at All Times

 Supporting Diversity in the Community and Department

 

ENTHUSIASMmeans

 Supporting the Department’s Goals, Values, Mission and Decisions

 Working Like Your Job Makes a Difference

 Being Highly Motivated, Giving 100% Effort Encouraging Self and Others to Excel

 Contributing to the Team and Our Police Department

 Plan for the Future and Think About End Results

 

3E  

 

"There is no chance that anything close to a majority of the officers at the police department finds DC Murphy and Chief Finney credible or trustworthy. In fact, should a vote of no confidence be taken today there is little doubt that the vast majority would signal their desire to have immediate resignations from both men."

Where was Group 7 when Finney authorized the seizing of the camera and the prosecution of the two videographers filming Champaign Police officers in 2004? Where was Group 7 when Finney approved of the shooting of Larry Martin in 2006 when Martin was protecting his home from vandals? Where was Group 7 when Finney approved, and DC Murphy participated in the shooting of Donnell Clemons at West Side Park in 2007? Where was Group 7 when Finney approved of the beating and pepper spraying of then-17 year old Brian Chesley after Chesley refused to have his I.D. checked for warrants and entered into the ARMS computer database in March of 2008? Where was Group 7 when Finney adamently refused to allow a citizens review board to oversee citizen complaints against the department? Where was Group 7 when Chief Finney was out on patrol without lessor impact weapons in the Kiwane Carrington incident in 2009? Where was Group 7 when Finney lied about what he said to the two boys while he aimed his gun at them, threatening to kill them? Where was Group 7 when Finney initiated hands-on while his gun was drawn on a kid half his size? Where was Group 7 when the CPD charged the surviving youth in the Carrington incident with residential burglary (later dropped by the state's attorney) when there existed no evidence of a burglary? Where was Group 7 when Finney refused to produce medical evidence he sprained his knee and seperated his shoulder wrestling with a kid half his size during the Carrington incident? Where was Group 7 when the Illinois State Police Crime Lab failed to produce a rifling test to determine which gun shot Carrington? Where was Group 7 when Finney threw Officer Norbits under the bus and Finney failed to take responsibility for esculating the incident with the two boys? Where was Group 7 when Finney was promoted Chief of Chiefs for ILEAP?

It's a little selfish of these police officers to whine about unfit leaders, racist thugs really, only when their toes get stomped during promotion time. Those that have labored under the heavy patrols of the CPD have been telling council and the department for years that Napolean and his sidekick have got to go. The silence of the many good police officers over these last 8 years has contributed and allowed tragedy after tragedy to occur, cowtowing to the reign of thuggery Murphy and Finney prefer. No surprise the sargeants found them to be playing a rigged game. The north end has known this for years.    

The community as a whole is being presented with an opportunity.  The opportunity to have a clean break from the past.  That does not mean that people on either side will forget the past.  That being said, the City of Champaign should seize upon this opportunity to mend its relations with the community and vice versa.  It will require understanding and patience on both sides.  Finney will soon be gone.  I would only imagine that Murphy will be also.  I suspect that the next chief will be from outside of the Champaign Police Department.  If they are thinking otherwise, they need to reconsider.

Everyone should treat this opportunity seriously and not use it as a chance to grind axes.  Folks should bring thoughtful commentary to the table.  The commentary and perspectives should be used to find solutions and common ground. 

It should be pointed out that the News-Gazette ran portions of the above email but failed to acknowledge that it was first leaked at ucimc.org.

BD

Nah nah nah nah, goodbye worthess corrupt hillbilly loser. Under the leadership of our new mayor, I'm sure we'll have a good shot at hiring someone with management and leadership skills. Next up: Carter. That guy has overstayed his welcome by a long shot.

Maybe Sheriff Lobo is available fill take Roscoe P Coaltrain's empty boots.

Bob Kirchner is cheering from his grave, along with everyone else.

na na na na...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WigX--S7oh0&feature=fvst

Carter knows his days are numbered. He's trying to save his ass. It won't work. He's already pissed off too many people.

 

 

Check out quota systems in place to boost morale. Several officers have been required to initiate more traffic or citizen stops because they are lacking the numbers. The next time you are detained or ticketed by an officer in Champaign, it may be because that officer was ordered to by their morally corrupt administration.