|
Back chief’s new off-duty policy
By Heber Taylor
The Daily News
Published October 24, 2009
Galveston Police Department has a new policy that prohibits officers from working off duty in bars and clubs. It’s a good policy, and it deserves public support.
It’s a policy that is designed to end an inherent conflict of interest. People who draw two paychecks have two bosses. Sooner or later, their interests will conflict.
It’s also a policy designed to build public trust. Any organization that depends on the public trust should be concerned about avoiding the appearance of evil.
Some time ago, a police officer walked into a Galveston bar and went to the cash box. He helped himself to some money and went about his rounds. Some of those who saw the officer wondered, uneasily, just what kind of business was being transacted. That story went all around town. Many people found it troubling.
A generation or two ago, that sight would have been familiar in a lot of cities. Police officers were paid poorly, and a lot of shop owners paid beat cops a little extra to keep an eye on their property.
The problem with that kind of system is obvious. In many cities, a policeman could make far more money keeping an eye out for certain kinds of business than he could working for the public. Sooner or later, a lot of people ended up wondering whether the police were working for the taxpayers or for the people who could afford to pay on the side.
It was not a system to inspire confidence in the police.
Thankfully, the days when police were paid so poorly that they needed a helping hand from shop owners to make ends meet are gone.
For many, many years, a lot of people have been urging people in public office to try to guide the police department toward better standards. Now that someone actually is doing that, a few people are complaining.
This is a good policy, for the police and for the public. If you let your council representatives hear one thing from you this week, let them hear that you support the change.
Share |
Save |
Mail |
Print |
Letter |
48
Comments
|