Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Double dipping not cause for firing, says civil service examiner

A Waco police detective was reinstated by a civil service examiner after being fired along with nine others for "double dipping," or working a second job during periods when he should have been on duty at Waco PD. This is the third officer reinstated through the civil service process over the incident. Reported the Waco Tribune Herald (subscription only):
The officers recorded on numerous occasions that they were working an off-duty security job for the Waco Housing Authority while working their city jobs.

The officers who appealed their indefinite suspensions through the civil service process claimed unintentional clerical errors, inconsistent work schedules and faulty memories — not criminal intent — were responsible for their inaccurate time cards.

They also claimed they only did what many officers have been allowed to do and that their actions were consistent with long-standing, unwritten policies approved by supervisors.
Of ten officers given "indefinite suspensions" for doubledipping, "four resigned or retired in lieu of disciplinary action and one did not appeal." Clearly they'd have been better off rolling the dice and appealing their cases under the civil service code. Apparently double dipping is something police officers in Waco can't be fired for doing.

10 comments:

R. Shackleford said...

...so, they were working elsewhere for a private institution, while they OUGHT to have been protecting and serving the public, who pay them with (overly high) tax dollars? How is that not illegal? What a bunch of worthless sons of bitches. If I lived in wacko, I would be VERY angry indeed. This 'one law for civil servants and another law for civilians' thing is getting way out of hand.

Anonymous said...

QUOTE "claimed unintentional clerical errors, inconsistent work schedules and faulty memories"

HUH? You mean when they are supposed to be at work, and then they don't show up, there's no supervisor that calls them to let them know that they are supposed to be working!??!?!
And the guy waiting to be relived doesn't notice that no one shows up?

And so they stay at their second job "unaware" they are supposed to be patrolling!??!

This happens how many times?

And the civil service examiner buys this pathetic excuse???

Nequam Compleo said...

"They also claimed they only did what many officers have been allowed to do and that their actions were consistent with long-standing, unwritten policies approved by supervisors." -- This statement alone says to me that they knew what they were doing was wrong, but condoned. Wouldn't that be more like organized crime?

Anonymous said...

Grits,

Clearly you need a subscription to the Waco Tribune Herald so you can keep up all with the BS that goes on here.

The only thing you missed in the last couple of days is that the newly elected DA says he is going to pattern his new domain after WILLIAMSON County!

Anonymous said...

Having lived in Waco for awhile, I can assure anyone reading this that they have a skewed perspective on both civil rights(yours and mine) and which laws apply to them(police)and which can be routinely ignored...stay away from McClennen Co. Iam.

Anonymous said...

Am I reading this correctly that these officers were paid by the city of Waco while they were working private security?

If yes, there many two problems here.....

The officers and possibly there supervisor Tampered W/A Government Record by submitting false city worktime information.

The examiner was wrong by awarding the jobs back because there may have been a crime committed.

Collin County officials were indicted for falisfying time records. Is there a difference here?

Thirdly, the city of Waco should be reimbursed by these offficers if in fact they were working security but showing themselves on duty. All city expenditures must be spent for "public purposes" only.

Anonymous said...

The City Council ought to notice that it doesn't seem to need all the policing it has paid for and cut back accordingly.

Atticus said...

Why is this not theft? And where's the IRS in these cases and the ones where the state reps were reimbursed TWICE for the same travel expenses? If Rep. Terri Hodge has to do time for accepting a free or discounted apartment, she should have these cops -- and those other state reps -- as cellmates...

Anonymous said...

I agree that these officers should have been fired, but I think an issue needs to be addressed.

These civil service examiners have only one decision in front of them, and that is whether or not to uphold the termination. They do not get to decide whether a crime has been committed or if charges should be filed. In my experience they also are not police officers or criminal attorneys, but rather civil attorneys serving for arbitration.

To an employment attorney, i.e. the examiner, the firing of an individual is the "death penalty." It is the worst sentence that can be given. They make their decision from that point of view. To them, a police officer is no different from any other job.

I don't agree with the decisions they make at all. Nine out of ten times, they get it wrong. I just want to clarify what I believe their thought processes are.

Byteheads Visions of Whirled Peas said...

and these guys can arrest you and put you in jail-----really????? - who thought that up??????