During the last few months, the country has been plagued with both peaceful and violent protests over controversial officer-involved shootings involving African American subjects. They were sparked by the death of George Floyd by the hands of four Minneapolis police officers. As a result of violent protests, over 30 law enforcement officers have been killed, not counting innocent victims. Because of political pressure, some mayors’ politicians have taken aggressive actions to minimize the violence by restricting, defunding and reforming police organizations. On the other hand, union representatives have aggressively defended the rank-and-file for being labeled “racists,” not only by community activists but also by public officials, such as in the case of Los Angeles City Mayor, Eric Garcetti, who was blasted by Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) Union Representative Jamie McBride for referring to cops as “killers.”
We can all agree that the death of George Floyd could have been prevented had the other three officers intervened in a timely manner. As a result of this incident, police unions have publicly condemned the officers’ actions by stating: “No one hates bad cops more than good cops.” However, as we all try to learn from the Floyd incident, the most important question has still not been asked. How did these officers reach a mindset justifying their actions and/or inactions? Could this mindset have been unintentionally created by leadership of the city and the law enforcement organization?
For true reform to take place in any organization, as in the case of the Minneapolis Police Department, managers must examine their core values and management practices that have supported or impeded those values and practices. It is NOT enough to weaponize the disciplinary system and to punish those who embarrass the organization; and for that matter, the entire law enforcement profession. It is essential that managers look deep into the organization to identify and break toxic circles, that if not contained, can potentially become a breeding ground for bad cops and managers to operate without accountability. Only then can a true dialogue be facilitated among all stakeholders involved to promote a partnership toward resolving conflicting strategies to address allegations of systemic racism. To that end, public officials and leaders should keep in mind that it is best to remain neutral in controversial issues to avoid a perception of bias toward a specific group. However, if leaders feel the need to pick a side to be transparent, they must also assume full accountability for their role they played in a perceived failed leadership.
The first step to true reform is to acknowledge past mistakes and understand why those mistakes were made. As any proactive leader knows, change should start at the top of the organization down to the rank-and-file. As in the case of LAPD Chief Michel Moore, who for many years used questionable strategies toward the reduction of crime when he knew or should have known, discriminated against unprivileged communities. It is not enough for leaders to apologize for the wrongs committed by the organization as Moore publicly did. Leaders must also recognize the role they played within the organization’s history. The bottom line is that organizational leaders must learn from past mistakes and not blame subordinates for mistakes made while executing their orders because a failure to do so will always create moral, cultural and financial liabilities.
To reform the LAPD, Mayor Garcetti has created an Advisory Committee to build trust and equity toward police reform. In turn, the committee will report to the police commission president who will then report to Garcetti for implementation. Although the committee may be neutral, there will be a perception of inherent bias since the committee will report to those who also shared accountability. For those reasons, committees must bring both parties to the conversation and report the findings to an independent body with the authority to implement true reforms for the organization. This may include charter changes to ensure equality on both sides. Furthermore, those chosen to lead the conversation in reforming the organization must be familiar with its history, structure and working knowledge of the organization to determine where the breakdowns occurred. Committees appointed must be unbiased and be committed to listening, not only to those who made all the important decisions at the top of the organization, but also to those at the bottom. Only then can true change occur where the scale of justice is equally balanced, for those giving the orders, those who follow them and those who endure the consequences.
In 2000, the LAPD was placed in a Federal Consent Decree to address these very issues raised 20 years later. The question is why then would an organization revert back to past practices, which allowed toxic circles to operate and create perceived racism by the organization? For most of my 34-year career with the LAPD, I worked the neighborhoods of South Los Angeles in the ranks of both an officer and as a sergeant. To make myself a better sergeant, I joined the Professional Standards Bureau (PSB) in 1997. During these times, while assigned to PSB, I became an investigator and later became one of many auditors of public and internal complaints of a very complex disciplinary system. My first notable audits were some of the Rodney King investigations which had been lingering since March of 1991. While assigned to PSB, I became a project manager in charge of significant controversial political projects that helped the Department overcome highly-publicized criticism over the handling of the Rodney King incident followed by the Rampart corruption investigations. I was also one of the project managers that instituted disciplinary checks and balances to ensure the disciplinary system was consistent with mandates of the consent decree. Due to the importance and complexity of these projects, I was asked to stay at PSB to assist in ensuring mandates of the consent decree were fully implemented and the sanctions were lifted. In the meantime, I and other subject matter experts were also asked to conduct Department-wide training to ensure the mindset of toxic circles did not jeopardize the goals of the organization.
Toxic Circles and Change of Leadership
In 2009, a Harvard study was conducted about the LAPD. The study was conducted to measure progress in the organization. One of the issues was how is the culture of the Department changing? Most importantly, has the Department won the public’s trust and confidence while reducing crime and bringing offenders to justice? However, the study did not examine whether the Department had made any progress in dealing with internal issues—like discrimination, among others. Moreover, the consent decree did not examine whether the policies that governed a large range of internal and external issues were appropriately applied or any deviations were properly investigated. The courts relied on the managers of the organization to learn from prior costly mistakes and continue to implement changes to support much-noted progress by the organization. Unfortunately, when Police Chief William Bratton left the Department in 2009, he passed the progress torch to a management team derived from proteges from the old administration that allegedly allowed toxic circles to operate without any accountability. This became a direct factor in preventing progress for the organization. Instead, the quest for reduction of crime at any cost became the only goal for the organization. To meet crime reduction goals, questionable training orders were drafted toward the investigation of the use of force incidents which drastically differ from the model used in the investigation of disciplinary incidents.
At the same time, PSB changed leadership, and the new ideology began to drift from the original philosophy set by the consent decree. To ensure total loyalty to this new ideology, managers began weaponizing the disciplinary system. Misuse of the disciplinary system is a toxic management practice commonly used pre-consent decree, which led to the loss of over 60% of administrative hearings and high pay-offs to the real culpable subjects of the Rampart misconduct allegations. Once again, employees were targeted for reporting injustice to the organization. Indeed, an audit conducted by the Department’s Inspector General covering 2010-2015 confirmed this assertion. During this period, the LAPD paid over $71 million in internal discrimination and retaliation lawsuits litigation. It is expected that the payoffs will exceed over $100 million in 2020, money that can be better utilized to compensate for the defunding actions taken by the city council and the mayor. Other examples to illustrate the weaponization of the disciplinary system come from the LAPD’s own disciplinary records. For example, from March 2015 to March 2020, over 42 employees were directed to Board of Rights hearings for termination in allegations they provided false statements during investigations or administrative inquiries. Of those 42 employees that were directed to a Board of Rights, 21 were found NOT guilty. Why would this happen?
Sadly, based on past disciplinary settlements (over 400), the charge of false statements has historically become an acceptable management practice to ensure target employees are ousted from the organization. This unacceptable practice that started pre-consent decree once again has become the norm of doing business in the LAPD. Deviation of policies through bad management practices has created enormous financial liability for the organization. Because the City of Los Angeles settled 90% of the lawsuits to prevent transparency for leadership failures, lessons learned cannot be examined. To make things worse, managers who were directly responsible for enormous pay-offs were quickly promoted to higher leadership positions within the LAPD. It was a running joke between litigation attorneys who often predicted who was going to be promoted based on whether the manager was named in a lawsuit.
Learning from Past Mistakes to Prevent Toxic Circles
Police officers deal with solving real-life problems as part of their daily functions and responsibilities. In law enforcement, debriefing real tactical incidents or scenarios help to prevent from making the same fatal mistakes over and over again. Therefore, the same principles should apply to prevent bad practices that have led to unfair and biased management decisions. Lessons learned scenario training has also been recommended by the Inspector General but never implemented in the LAPD. Failure to learn from past mistakes sends a mixed message at all levels of the organization that this questionable behavior is an acceptable practice for the organization. This toxic mindset can lead to irreparable damage to employees of the organization and the community they serve. The long-term consequences are the creation of toxic circles that operate under the assumption that their conduct is consistent with the end goal of the organization.
Examples of How Toxic Circles Affect Dedicated Employees
Consider this true scenario of a 55-year old lesbian homicide detective who had served this Department for over 30 years with an impeccable service record. Her peers felt she was ousted because of her protected characteristics. This detective was sent to a Board of Rights by Chief Moore on unsubstantiated charges. To be fair to the chief, a disciplinary briefing of these types of investigations take less than five minutes. During the administrative hearing, I became the investigator/consultant who conducted an additional investigation and audited every piece of paper associated with the Department’s case. At the hearing, the investigator/sergeant testified that he never read the statute that governed the initial charge and lacked the evidence to prove the charges in question. He also testified he had no duty to interview the detective’s witnesses because he did not find her witnesses credible. The most disturbing part of the testimony was when the investigator testified that he did not have to follow the rules unless there was a “Shall” attached to them.
The investigator also testified that if he had a chance to do it again, he would charge the detective with another allegation. Fortunately, at the hearing, two brave women testified at the administrative hearing who told the truth. One was an African American female commander who was the Department subject expert on employment issues governing the initial charge. The commander testified that based on the facts, the Department did not meet the requirements for the first charge and therefore, the Department had not proven their case. She also testified the investigator did not follow investigative guidelines, which resulted in the inappropriate use of charging an employee with false statements allegations. She testified that a flawed investigation could lead to the Chief of Police possibly making a bad decision and irreparable damage. This commander, who was the subject matter expert, was never consulted in this matter. Another bombshell occurred when another female officer testified that she was ordered to destroy evidence that may or may not be related to the detective’s case, which she refused to do.
In another true case, there was an investigator/sergeant who did a similar act but this time, his unethical conduct affected the life and career of an African American detective. Because of a flawed investigation, the African American detective was directed to a Board of Rights for termination. However, this investigator/sergeant concealed and destroyed evidence that would have exonerated the detective, and when he was confronted with overwhelming evidence about his actions, he lied about it. In this scenario, the injustice was caught by a smart attorney who reported the flawed investigation to the Disciplinary Settlement Unit, which also served as a mediation resource. After an extensive audit, this detective was quickly exonerated and fortunately, he did not have to endure the stress of a disciplinary hearing. Based on the audit, the investigator/sergeant faced many administrative charges including lying during the investigation of such charges. Lucky for this investigator/sergeant, he was a friend of a high-ranking officer who intervened on his behalf resulting in the Board of Rights being dismissed. This investigator/sergeant received a minimum penalty and the false statement charge was dismissed to prevent him from losing his job. In addition, he was allowed to preserve his rank as a supervisor. The injustice of these two stories is that the high-ranking deputy chief who, in one instance, recommended termination for the highly-decorated homicide detective, was the same ranking officer who used his influence to save his friend’s career. He is now the LAPD Chief of Police who is recommending the elimination of the Board of Rights system so he could fire anyone he sees fit without any accountability.
No doubt in my mind, these two investigators/sergeants would also carry the same mindset as they provide service to unprivileged communities. Perhaps they will be assigned to conduct field operations where their conduct would determine whether a use of force investigation is properly investigated. Or perhaps their own greed for power would cause the wrongful incarceration of an innocent man/woman.
Deviating from policies and core values at all levels of the organization can create a potential for toxic circles where bad cops and ambitious managers feel they can operate without any sense of accountability. Since the consent decree is no longer watching over the LAPD to ensure old cultures do not threaten the success of the organization, checks and balances designed to keep the organization pure no longer operate autonomously. Unfortunately, good employees have nowhere to go to report such toxic circles, in which bad leaders are allowed to operate. Victims often attend Police Commission meetings to report acts of racism and retaliation, but their voices are lost in the Department’s bureaucracy and the complex disciplinary system that many do not understand. So now, the LAPD Police Commission is forming an advisory committee to investigate matters that for years they have failed to address. Instead, they have relied on their Inspector General, who conducts untimely superficial audits that are limited in scope, and who has consistently failed to address unacceptable management practices that create toxic circles within the organization.
The definition of insanity is “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.” Instead of repeating the same mistakes over and over, public officials and leaders of organizations must take a proactive approach to learn from the mistakes in handling management decisions and set clear expectations for their subordinates. To sustain change, leaders must ensure that these changes penetrate through at all levels of the organization. The mayor, council members, police commission, the Chief of Police and his/her high-ranking managers must be committed to holding themselves accountable at the same level as their subordinates. Accountability must be authentic and immediate if organizational leaders want to influence positive change. As Mayor Garcetti said, “The time is now.” Indeed, it is the right time now to take executive action to prevent toxic circles that directly and indirectly lead to incidents of internal and external discrimination/racism. However, the action must start at the top. Whether leaders manage small or large law enforcement or private organizations, the same principles apply in breaking toxic circles that would prevent systemic discrimination and limit the organization from reaching its full potential.