Editorial: Law should allow firing officers for dishonesty

When police Chief Anne Kirkpatrick came to Spokane in 2006, it was a city increasingly hungry for some form of civilian oversight of its law enforcement. Asked about that, Kirkpatrick declared that while she welcomed an independent monitor she preferred to give out her own spankings.

No surprise, then, that she was in Olympia last week testifying in support of a bill that would strengthen a sheriff’s or police chief’s ability to fire a dishonest officer.

As Kirkpatrick and Spokane know, some police officers perform their jobs at a lower ethical standard than others. The unacceptable consequences of that include an erosion of public trust in law enforcement.

The measure now under consideration in Olympia, Senate Bill 6590, arises from a Kitsap County case in which a 14-year sheriff’s deputy with a cloudy record was fired over 29 incidents of misconduct, including lies he told to his supervisors. The sheriff fired him, but an arbitrator eventually ruled that although the accusations were true, the Kitsap County Sheriff’s Department had no explicit public policy that dishonesty was grounds for firing.

The Washington state Supreme Court agreed with the arbitrator, which is why SB 6590 was introduced. It would supply the missing policy.

When she appeared before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Kirkpatrick reasonably said it would be one thing if an arbitrator concluded, as a question of fact, that the officer had not lied. But merely to substitute the arbitrator’s judgment for the sheriff’s about the appropriate discipline was another matter.

As Justice James Johnson noted in his dissent from the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, one of a police officer’s duties is to testify in court. Yet an officer with a documented record of dishonesty becomes an enticing target for a defense attorney out to undermine his credibility. Johnson also contended that obvious moral standards and long-standing government practice are sufficient to establish explicit public policy. The court’s 6-3 majority felt statutory language was necessary, however.

The Judiciary Committee is expected to vote today on SB 6590. Ideally, such a measure would never be needed, but experience here and in Kitsap County suggests otherwise. The bill deserves to become law.