I’d like to introduce a new term: Poliganda. It’s a blend of “politics” and “propaganda,” and it describes the practice of using political maneuvering combined with propaganda to perpetuate a lie. This can sometimes lead to unjust prosecution or disciplinary actions against a public servant.
A prime example, in my opinion, is the case of Ms. Mosby versus the Baltimore Six. The prosecutor, Mosby, went 0-2 in court. The reason? She didn’t have a solid criminal case! It appeared to be a case of poliganda, and I hope someone holds her accountable.
Later in my law enforcement career, I was assigned to handle major Internal Affairs (IA) investigations. These weren’t routine complaints, but cases that could lead to serious discipline or even termination. I didn’t enjoy the work, but I took it seriously. One directive from the chief was, “Keep us out of the PORAC Magazine.” The Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC) Magazine is a publication distributed to members of law enforcement associations (unions) in California. They often publicize overturned personnel investigations, highlighting why the disciplinary process was unfair to peace officers.
“So you want me to be fair and impartial while acting reasonably?” I asked my boss, jokingly. “Exactly,” he replied. “I want facts. Leave conjecture and personalities out of it.” I was glad we were on the same page for this difficult but necessary task.
Now, years later and living in another state, I still read the PORAC Magazine. I’m often struck by the reported facts that led to the reversal of punishments. It seems like organizations often damage their own reputations (hitting their thumb with a hammer) through flawed personnel investigations aimed at accused officers (the nail). Some common threads emerge:
Combine these elements, and you have poliganda perpetrated by those who should be the caretakers of our organizations! Ethical leadership demands that we combat unjust punishment, regardless of the perpetrator’s position. While the rank and file may dislike personnel investigations, they are necessary for a healthy organization. I’m not trying to play both sides; I stand for truth, honor, integrity, courage, and accountability.
If an agency doesn’t keep its nose clean, there are other painful remedies, like civilian review boards or commission mandates. My department had four options for resolving personnel investigations:
Ironically, most major investigations stemming from citizen complaints were exonerated or unfounded because the public often misunderstands policies, procedures, and criminal law. Avoidable misconduct, discovered internally, was typically sustained.
Department heads can’t ignore the political climate, but they can control their response to inappropriate demands. I applaud chiefs and sheriffs who educate their accusers and condemn those who cower. Those who educate seem to maintain employment more often than trembling police commissioners (like in Baltimore).
We hire from the human race. Cops are fallible and will make mistakes. When this happens, we need to clean up the mess ethically, morally, and legally. But every cop deserves the benefit of the doubt until there is no doubt of their unworthiness. Leaders who ignore this will have few loyal followers, only untrustworthy appeasers.
Law enforcement operates in a bizarre political climate. I don’t want to condemn all prosecutors, but poliganda is real. For the good of our communities and the morale of each organization, we must stand firm against the persuasive power of noise – ignorance with a microphone!
In the social media circus that misleadingly dictates right from wrong, courageous and ethical leadership needs to be trending! Combating Poliganda!
-Jim