Recent events and conversation surrounding the Lieutenant reclassification have many questioning the MPSO’s actions and positions.  It’s time for some for some clarification about our position: 

The MPSO did not seek a change in the status quo.

     No one on the MPSO Board suggested, proposed, or even thought of reclassifying the Lieutenant position.  The reclassification of positions is a contractual management right we do not control, as long as that reclass does not result in lower pay for affected members.

The MPSO and MPD have worked together on the combined Lieutenant seniority list.  As such, we will not be filing a grievance specifically related to the list, barring unforeseen consequences.

     The Board strove to ensure that, taken as a whole, the seniority list would be fair, with no particular group receiving a systematic advantage.  Seniority was primarily determined by promotion date to either Lt. position.  On occasions where there were promotions from different lists on the same date, the tie would be broken by alternating between the 2, e.g. the first tie would have a Lt. of Police break up, the second tie would have a Lt. of Detectives break up, etc., alternating all the way down the list.  We received a number of suggestions on what those tie breakers should be: the date of list’s implementation, the position on the respective list, how long the person was in their previous rank, how long the person was on the department – the list goes on and on.  The method was impartially selected and was not to the benefit of any Board members.

     Additionally, the MPSO and MPD agreed to the principle of, “Once Days, always Days,” i.e. people would not get bumped back to Nights.  This became largely moot because of recent promotions and transfers.

The MPSO does not control the promotional process or the selection criteria.

     The Fire and Police Commission has the statutory authority to determine who gets to take the next Police Lieutenant test, and what that testing process will look like.  As of this date, we are not aware of the criteria, and we have no idea of whether or not Detectives will be allowed to test for that particular rank.

The MPSO represents supervisory officers.  The MPA represents rank and file.  The Department represents the Department. 

     The MPSO’s sole function is to represent it’s members’ interests.  Sergeants are our members, and Detectives are not.  As such, we will be vocal advocates in every appropriate forum for our members.  We expect the MPA to be staunch supporters of the Detective’s rank, and are not offended by the MPA’s duty to contradict an MPSO position in this matter.  Similarly, we expect the same consideration when our interests diverge from the MPA, and are always ready to assist the MPA when our members’ interests coincide with theirs.

     The Department will take whatever position it believes is in the best interest of the Department, and by extension, the public.  These positions may or may not be to the membership’s advantage, and our responses to them reflect that.

    Though we believe that our position is logical, well supported, and ultimately in the Department’s best interest, the MPA is a large and politically influential union, and their position could ultimately prevail.

 

Milwaukee Police Department’s rank structure is entirely unique to the Milwaukee Police Department.  And for the first time, members of both MPA and MPSO might be required to compete for the same rank.  Tension is inevitable.

     Those tensions may be exacerbated by different treatment accorded by contractual agreements.  For example, the MPSO has a promotional article which gives us a number of rights, the MPA does not.  Other differences will surface because different bargaining unit members are involved in the same promotional process for the  first time.

     When the DER undertook their reclassification study of the Lt. position, they queried a number of similarly sized departments about what their rank structures and promotional paths looked like, and included the responses of seven (7) police departments in their study (they queried 20).  The MPSO obtained information from the 13 other departments.  The results were very clear.  Not even one of them promoted Detectives directly to Lieutenant.  All had a requirement to be a Sergeant (or Detective Sergeant) before becoming a Lieutenant.

     There are arguments, possibly valid, that MPD’s way is better than everywhere else in the country.  However, there’s no denying the MPD’s allocation of resources is distinctly odd.  The exact numbers vary from time to time, but the generalities make the point.  At one point, the roughly 20% of MPD which was under CIB was consuming 60% of the overtime budget.  It had 36 of 69 Lieutenants.  Detectives have had roughly the same base compensation as sergeants, along with ability to promote to lieutenant. 

     The parity in pay within protective services the city has used in negotiations has been beneficial for two groups of people:  firefighters and detectives.  We know this because the national norm is for police officers to be paid more than firefighters, and supervisors to be paid more than investigators.  This is demonstrated in external comparables:  while detectives and firefighters have enjoyed stable wage rankings amongst their peers in other cities, police officers and sergeants have fallen dramatically.   This has resulted in an arbitrator breaking the historic parity relationships between the MPSO with the MPA & Firefighters Local 215.  Frankly, we would love to have the wage rankings those two groups have.

The MPSO Board’s position is absolutely in no way intended to imply that supervisors who were formerly detectives are unqualified for their positions or didn’t deserve their promotion.

     Given the above conditions, a lot MPD’s smart money went to the CIB.  A huge amount of talent took that career path, and there’s no denying the success they’ve had at  promoting to the executive level.  Along with many of my peers in patrol, I work for a boss who I respect and was promoted through the Bureau.  Whether perception matched reality or not, previous to Chief Flynn, it was widely believed that if you weren’t good enough to supervise anyplace else, you got sent to patrol.  Every department member deserves an excellent supervisor, and most don’t care which promotion path a good boss took.

     That said, if the reclassified lieutenant position is intended to be a second line supervisor, then the logical candidate pool is first line supervisors, i.e. sergeants.  Most supervisors believe their initial jump into supervision to be their most difficult career transition.  Many former Lieutenant of Detectives have significant supervisory ability  and experience, and their movement to second line supervisor will be seamless.   For someone without that experience, to assign them second line supervisory duties is unfair both to them and their subordinates.  The MPSO has proposed several ways for a detective to move in an expedited manner through the sergeant rank to lieutenant.  But we firmly believe that you must be a first line supervisor rank before moving to the second.

     Some detectives and former detectives are insulted by this position, arguing it fails to value the experience, knowledge, skills, and abilities of detectives.  Some sergeants and former sergeants are insulted that years of supervisory experience isn’t seen as automatically trumping non-supervisory duties for a supervisory promotion.   So I guess we’ll all sit around and feel insulted by each other.

The MPSO does not reject sound leadership principles, nor is insensitive to your challenges, no matter what your rank or work location might be.

     I’ve heard the principles of LPO bandied about to support both sides of this argument, like evangelical preachers quoting scripture in a theological debate.

     I like LPO, and I believe it’s principles are solid.  I’m a student of leadership, and I try hard to be a practitioner too.  I wish I were better at it, more determined sometimes.  But it takes discipline, kind of like diet and exercise.  We know what’s healthy, but it ain’t that easy, and sometimes we slip.  And LPO, for all its value, isn’t the holy writ.  And its worthless if we violate some very basic principles. 

     No matter your  level of leadership acumen or understanding, every one of us instinctively knows that openly trashing MPD leadership, policy, and supervision in front of a subordinate  or group of subordinates is wrong.  That undermining a fellow supervisor’s authority undermines you and your authority.  That allowing a subordinate to disparage a boss of any rank is unhealthy.  But it is oh-so-easy to slip, to indulge.  To commiserate with your subordinates and peers how lousy that boss is, how stupid that policy is . . . we’ve all done it.  It probably ranks as one of our biggest sins. 

     From the cheap seats, the CIB looks like a much more tight knit  group than patrol.  It stands to reason – its much smaller than patrol, it works almost exclusively from one building, and its supervision is from that peer group.  And the closer knit the group, the easier it is to slip, especially about “them.”  And it happens everywhere in MPD.   Managing conversations about bad bosses or bad policy is tough to do.  Open and honest challenges of policy and peers is vital to a healthy organization.  There are appropriate forums, including the MPSO.  But the honest, face to face criticism and acceptance of criticism is hard. Clearly, we need better bosses, better sergeants.  Maybe a revised promotional path will help, and the smart money and talent will head a little more towards patrol – I sure hope so.  

Fraternally,

Nick Kerhin

Secretary

Milwaukee Police Supervisors’ Organization