Dining          Events          A&E          Style          The Daily Mil          Blogs          Photos          Guides          Magazine
The Squeeze on State Workers
And: Flynn vs. Journal Sentinel, Part II.

When Gov. Scott Walker announced his plan to require public workers to contribute more to their health insurance and pension, he promised he would end worker furloughs. He has lived up to that promise. But Walker left out the catch: a two-year freeze on salaries for state workers, which his administration announced last week.

Consider the impact of the benefit givebacks required: Those earning $25,000 a year are now contributing just under $4,000 - nearly 16 percent of their annual earnings. Those earning $50,000 are now paying about $5,400, almost 11 percent of their annual salary. Now the state is saying your pay is frozen for two years, so you cannot recoup any of that money.

Meanwhile the Walker administration has announced it will begin a system of merit pay for exceptional employees. The idea, ostensibly, is to make government work like the private sector. But private companies are driven by the profit margin and reward employees who contribute the most to that profitability.

Not so in the public sector. Government leaders are inevitably tempted to reward political loyalty. And all the changes occurring under Walker are leading in that direction. Unions have lost all ability to represent workers. There will still be civil service protection for those threatened with firing, but it’s difficult to see how civil service rules will prevent cronyism in the awarding of merit raises. And that sends a message to all workers: Be loyal or you’ll never get ahead.

Meanwhile, the legislature has given Walker the power to reach deeper into government departments to appoint loyalists rather than civil service employees, and the power to override rule-making by government agencies. All of this will lead to increased politicization of government – and less ability of workers to withstand orders that serve the party in power (whichever party it is) rather than all the people. These steps seem subtle, but lead inevitably to less democracy.    

The War Between Chief Flynn and the Journal Sentinel

The spat between Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn and the Journal Sentinel has gotten really ugly. On Sunday, the paper offered installment three of its series on rogue police officers whose crimes and other transgressions are treated lightly. The newspaper also published an op-ed by Flynn that bitterly criticizes the series, which it placed just below a JS editorial that blasts away at Flynn. It’s an extraordinary, almost unprecedented clash: The police chief and the newspaper are at war with each other.

Flynn’s op-ed offers a devastating critique of the series, noting that the highlighted cases span 31 years, back through the administrations of five prior police chiefs; that 86 percent of the cases occurred before he was chief; and that “the median discipline for domestic violence and drunken driving was two days between 1997 and 2004. My median discipline has been 30 days.”

Nowhere in the three-part series or its editorial does the paper deny - or report - Flynn’s statistics. The newspaper’s contention, to judge by the editorial, is that it doesn’t matter if nearly all the cases it discusses happened before Flynn was chief because these police are still on the force, as the editorial emphasizes with italics. But the paper offers no solution for this: Are Flynn or Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm supposed to reinvestigate officers who committed these infractions?

The editorial concedes that Flynn and Chisholm have made significant improvements in how officers are hired and disciplined. “But to duck the results of a two-year investigation?” the editorial goes on. “Then to attack the reporter?  There is only one word for such public behavior: It’s pathetic.”

The level of self-righteousness here is extraordinary. I can’t help thinking that for the public, it would matter far more that Flynn and Chisholm improved the system of disciplining police than that they did or didn’t cooperate with the “two-year investigation” of a reporter or two at the JS. As for the accusation that Flynn attacked a reporter, his op-ed is quite explicit in chastising the newspaper, without mentioning the reporter’s name.

Flynn is nearly as self-righteous in his op-ed. And there is enough in the Journal Sentinel’s reporting to suggest the police department is avoiding full disclosure of disciplinary records and/or has a sloppy system of records. But as a reader you have to sort out piece that together, just as you have to piece together how old most of these cases are. The end result leaves you concerned, certainly, about how police are disciplined, but confused as to how much the system has improved and what further steps, if any, need to be taken.

Experts on police departments will tell you that criticism from outside inevitably results in everyone on the force circling the wagons. Ironically, that is just how a newspaper like the JS often responds to criticisms from the outside. The end result of this war between these two, highly defensive institutions is a lot more heat than light – and a lot of confusion for the public.

This is not, alas, a small issue. Police departments can only succeed if they have support from the public. That was always true but is even more true for modern chiefs such as Flynn, who are putting great emphasis on a proactive community policing model that depends on the cooperation of residents in high-crime neighborhoods offering tips and other information to the police. For my money, Flynn is the best police chief this city has had in at least 25 years. But if he continues to get sidetracked by JS investigations that can’t see the forest for the trees – and here I’m referencing the silly, two-part series on police response time – it will be much harder for Flynn to succeed. The losers will be the citizens of Milwaukee.

The Buzz

-Is the Shepherd Express the victim of politics by Roundy’s? Pressroom Buzz reports, and also has his own take on the Flynn/Journal Sentinel conflict.

-Are the Packers the perfect team? Let’s not get ahead of ourselves, the Sports Nut warns

You must login to post a comment. Login or Register

Bill Sweeney Posted: 11/1/2011 4:55:14 PM
 1   0    

I thought that the op-ed by Chief Flynn was very impressive, especially the last half when he talks of how he agrees that there should be a higher standard for police officers, how he imposes discipline, his understanding and appreciation for both the physical and psychic hazards of the job, and his ideas on due process. It would be interesting for the Journal Sentinel editorial board to write a similar essay on how they see their responsibilities. Historically, there has always been a problem with "bad cops," especially in big cities. There have been major scandals in Los Angeles, New York, Chicago. A major part of the problem is the stigma of testifying against a fellow police officer. So given all this, every police department needs to have what Chief Flynn calls a "public accountability network," which obviously includes the news media. He just doesn't like the way the Journal Sentinel went about it. Is there any other kind of "audit" of the police dept, especially its disciplinary process by an reliable, independent agent or agency? What if the same material that the Journal Sentinel had to fight and pay to obtain were given to some reliable auditing firm which after study and analysis would issue a report? Another part that perhaps could have been more clear in the series was that there were some officers who seemed to be repeat offenders like Officer Pendergast who was mentioned in the Journal Sentinel editorial. Something definitely wrong there. But were there other officers who were disciplined once and then never disciplined again? In my past work, I have witnessed police officers who performed superbly under very trying experiences. I just had incredible respect for how they conducted themselves. However there were other officers who were just going through the motions. Chief Flynn seems to understand the difficulty of the work, but also the high standard that officers should meet. Somehow there has to be a way to verify to the public that there is a strict, and transparent system of accountability. More needs to be done with this story/issue, but the question is by who.
Stacy Posted: 11/1/2011 12:42:03 PM
 0   2    

How did the paper get this so backward? This is part of an "undercover" operation, part of his new community policing program -- it's called TOTKO Takes one to know one. It's all done under supervised conditions so no one gets hurt too bad. Under Flynn officers have been trained to drink and drive, and beat their wives so they can better FIGHT CRIME! How else can you explain the more double digit decreases in crime in this city?
MOST Viewed
POSTED 10/9/2014

Camera Ready
POSTED 10/9/2014

New Era in Milwaukee Music?
POSTED 10/6/2014

MOST Commented
Top Ten for September
POSTED 10/2/2014

Small is Beautiful
POSTED 9/29/2014