Now
Fair
71.0°
High
87°
Low
64°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > Editorial Main
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Trooper case should prompt rule changes

Comments 26 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

Thursday, Aug 31, 2006 - 12:06:46 am CDT

The Nebraska State Patrol needs to fashion better rules, procedures and union agreements to allow it to summarily dismiss troopers who do such things as joining white supremacist groups.

It shouldn’t take months of legal folderol to get rid of troopers who do things that cause legitimate concern about whether they can uphold the public trust.

Trooper Robert E. Henderson dishonored the patrol when he joined the Knights Party, which has ties to the Ku Klux Klan, and when he posted messages on its Web site.

It’s hard to imagine that an 18-year veteran on the force would fail to recognize that membership in the group would call into question his ability to enforce the law fairly, especially after questions have been raised during his career over whether other troopers had practiced racial profiling.

The patrol fired Henderson last spring after learning of his membership in the group from the Kansas Bureau of Investigation, which monitors the group’s Web site.

Henderson fought his termination under terms of the troopers’ union contract, which allows employees to ask for binding arbitration. The arbitrator ruled that the termination violated Henderson’s First Amendment rights.

Attorney General Jon Bruning last week went to court seeking to overturn the ruling. Meanwhile, state Sen. Ernie Chambers has asked the State Crime Commission to revoke Henderson’s law enforcement certification.

Although the arbitrator in the case said the patrol was unable to point to a “single instance on the job” where Henderson’s actions showed discrimination against a minority group, Henderson had been the subject of a complaint filed by a black news anchor at an Omaha television station after Henderson stopped him for not having a Nebraska license plate.

In a posting on the Knight’s Web site, Henderson complained that a recently hired black anchor “has been trying to get real friendly” with his fiancee.

The complaint, however, was ruled unfounded by the patrol after an internal investigation and a review of the videotape of the traffic stop.

In a statement, the State Troopers Association of Nebraska said it “shared the disgust” of those offended by Henderson’s membership in the Knights Party but was contractually obligated to represent him in the arbitration process.

The union, patrol administrators and other state leaders should combine efforts to reconcile the terms of employment for troopers with the protections of the First Amendment in a way that will clear the way for termination when a trooper’s actions undermine public trust in their ability to enforce the law without bias.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Editorial Main > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Kenneth H. Zike wrote on August 31, 2006 6:26 am:
" How many black troopers are members of, CORE, NAACP, BLACK Muslims ?? It would be interesting to know . "
Tammy wrote on August 31, 2006 6:49 am:
" Although I do not personally condone his choice of off work activities, unless it can be shown that he has let his personal beliefs guide his work (ie hassling minorities, unfairly targeting minorities, etc), then I'm not sure how he can be dismissed for his personal beliefs? Again, I don't condone his actions, but he DOES in fact have First Amendment rights, just as the rest of us do. What he chooses to do with his off duty time (last time I checked, it's not illegal to belong to such a group) is his business. This is another slippery slope you have to be careful with. Today it might be white suppremicists...what if tomrrow it's your personal choice of religion? Or your personal choice of co-habitation over marriage, or children out of wedlock, or democrat or republican? This is something that can easily get out of control. "
connie wrote on August 31, 2006 6:51 am:
" If the state patrol wanted to go to court over this, they shouldn't have agreed to binding arbitration in the first place. What are they going to say now? "Yeah judge, but we had our fingers crossed when we said it"? I'm appalled at this guys membership in this particular group, but it apparently didn't affect his on-the-job performance, and the constitution protects ALL of us, or it ultimately protects none of us! "
Keith wrote on August 31, 2006 8:29 am:
" I doubt anyone but a racist would agree with the Trooper's choice of off-duty activities, but if the organization is not illegal, what can we do about it least we open a can of worms? I am too young to remember the Red Scare of Sen. McCarthy, but no one like communists either but persecuting them was not legal either even though many people in the US originally supported McCarthy. Since Super Trooper was dismissed over off-duty, legal activities and not work-related issues, apparently there was not any evidence he took his opinion with him to work. If there was, then fire away. I bet the supervisors will keep a keen eye on him and his arrest record going forward "
Brandon wrote on August 31, 2006 8:30 am:
" It is my understanding that this group (the Knights) did not support violence against any minorities. They are a political group that has certain stated goals. While I do not personally agree with them, I must agree with the others that have stated here that he has the right to belong to such an organization. It IS a slippery slope. The Constitution does protects us all. This is typical knee jerk reaction. If he had been shown to be treating minorities unfairly, then absolutely kick him off and good riddance. But, that should be the case if ANY officer can be shown to be treating ANYONE in the public unfairly. It shouldn't matter what group he belongs to in his off time. "
Adam wrote on August 31, 2006 9:23 am:
" What people do not understand is that law enforcement officers are not "off duty" when they are not at work. That is why they can be dismissed for participating in activities outside of work that are not against the law, but will affect their ability to do the job. This trooper will never be able to stop/ticket/arrest a minority without it being legitimately questioned. Therefore, he can not effectively do his job. This is not a free speech isse, the fact is law enforcement officers are held to a higher standard of behavior because they have to have the public trust. "
JQP wrote on August 31, 2006 9:41 am:
" I think a couple of things should be noted. It sounds like the patrol spent months investigating this incident...I don't think it was a "knee jerk" reaction to fire him. But there is a bigger question here I think-does this guys affliation with a white supremecist organization affect his ability to fulfill his oath to protect and serve the public? Of course it does; he has violated the public trust. Regardless of his past work history, he will not be able to arrest a minority without his motives being called in to question and the case being thrown out. At the very, VERY least, this guy was guilty of an enormous lack of judgement...what kind of person joins a racist group and self reports being a law enforcement officer in a public forum after his wife leaves him? Ever hear of counseling? Is that the kind of officer you want patrolling the roads of Nebraska? "
Brandon wrote on August 31, 2006 10:16 am:
" Shouldn't every stop/ticket/arrest be legitimately questioned? Isn't that the concept behind innocent until proven guilty? If we start questioning what all police officers do in their "off duty" time and then taking them off the force based on those off duty activities where does it end? Do we take people off the force for being Christians? How about Muslims? The point is that people do have the right to be people when off duty. Is a law officer held to a higher standard of personal behavior? What exactly does that mean? I don't think it is a legitimate point. If the law officer does their job, does not use their position to single out any one group and obeys the law then how can we say they are not doing exactly what they are supposed to do? "
Keith wrote on August 31, 2006 11:32 am:
" Adam, What happens if a public official, say a Govenor, joins the group, a big hoopla occurs but when it comes time for election, s/he is reelected. S/He certianly is in a position what requires trust - far greater than a state trooper - would we be able to bar that person from the elected seat beacuse of the damage someone in that position could do - of course not. Not until that person actually does something against the law. What if the person was a teacher, fireman, postal worker, each of these position could do things to harm minorities. The could discriminate in class, not respond to a fire or slow respond, not deliver the mail. But until they do, nothing can and should be done. "
Sean wrote on August 31, 2006 11:38 am:
" So, if we know a trooper regularly goes to Hooters for lunch, he should be dismissed from service because there's a chance he might sexualy harass any women he pulls over for a traffic stop? Binding arbitration said you could'nt fire the guy. If there was a possibility you were'nt going to like the answer they gave you should'nt have asked in the first place. What a waste of court time and taxpayers money. "
Mike wrote on August 31, 2006 11:52 am:
" I thought Nebraska was a right to work state anyway. Can't NSP just let him go because the want to? I do not think he did anything wrong. I also thought Arbitrators opinions are binding. First amendment rights are very important and I am surprised to see LJS (a newspaper) going against them. "
Kansas Medic wrote on August 31, 2006 1:41 pm:
" Is this mans behavior completely out of line? Absolutely. However, we all must remember that we live in a free society. Just because someone does something that none of us like doesn't mean that he should be fired. The state patrol is totally out of line for terminating this mans employment. Everyone should be outraged over this. Can you even imagine the firestorm if a man was fired for being Muslim. There are many Muslim groups that support death and violence to non-Muslims. I am curious as to where the ACLU is at when someone actually needs them. They must be too busy protesting a cross in a cemetary somewhere. "
john q wrote on August 31, 2006 1:56 pm:
" Last time I checked the the Supreme Court cases, the state can't dismiss employees summarily, and have to have just cause to terminate or discipline someone. Arbitration actually speeds up the process as it takes place fairly promptly compared to the slow personnel board system and the court system appeals that follow. All you have to do is follow the arbitrator's decision, whether you like it or not. Get it? Jon Bruning does not, obviously nor does the NSP. They're dragging it out. Shame on them for disrespecting the First Amendment. Shame on the Journal for agreeing with their tactics. "
Adam wrote on August 31, 2006 2:03 pm:
" Again, this is not a free speech issue. Nor is it comparable to an elected official who is a known member of the group. Law enforcement officer are granted a "commission" by the state to carry out their duties. By accepting this commission, the officer agrees to not engage in any activity (on or off duty) that could damage their ability to perform their duties or hinder the efforts of their particular agency. This includes engaging in otherwise legal activities that bring their judgement into question. This is why law enforcment officers (at least in Lincoln, Omaha, & the NSP) are given extensive background checks, psychological tests, and polygraph tests. I can tell you first hand that much of the material covered in these tests does not relate to law violations; it focuses on judgement, integrity, decision making, etc. This trooper's actions have made it impossible for him to carry out his duties, due to the inevitible questions that would arise over tickets or arrests of minorities. This is exactly why a police officer who lies in an internal affairs investigation is summarily dismissed. They haven't violated any law, but they can never testify again without their integrity being called into question. "
Brandon wrote on August 31, 2006 2:56 pm:
" Maybe it isn't a free speech issue for some, but it is for me. To terminate a person's employment without cause, except for belonging to a repugnant organization is an affront to the constitution. I realize that there are significant requirements to become a police officer. I applaud people that can do that job. But, it is impossible to hold people to the standards that some on this forum would suggest. What about a police officer that lies to his wife about an affair? This shows bad judgement, bad decision making and poor integrity. Would this officer be fired? This is a knee jerk reaction (despite the length of time) to someone belonging to a white seperatist organization. In the interest of full disclosure I would like all state troopers to reveal all organizations to which they belong. Any takers? "
JQP wrote on August 31, 2006 4:12 pm:
" Here's our basic disagreement, Brandon: You believe that the trooper was terminated *without cause*. I disagree. This is not a witch hunt: The trooper joined a public forum, made racist remarks, and used his status as "law enforcement in Nebraska" to support those remarks. The officer brought the investigation upon himself. His actions affect his ability to perform the basic functions of his position. The public trust and reasonable expectation of an officer's objectivity is vital to his ability to perform his job. I am an absolute believer and defender in basic civil liberties. However, the minute this individual decided to link his professional office to his personal opinions, he ended strict seperation between the two. "
Hemet wrote on August 31, 2006 4:19 pm:
" I cannot understand the preoccupation in this editorial about the troopers "ability to enforce the law without bias." That is not the point in this issue. The point is, that this trooper belonged to a group committed to the demise of an entire class of people. Terrorists groups are committed to the demise of an entire class of people. The central point then, is this trooper belonged to a terrorist group and should be delt with accordingly. Free speech? Would Al Qeada get off on a free speech defense? Hardly. Its not a free speech issue and I doubt the arbitration was legally binding. He should go to jail, not just be fired. "
John Q wrote on August 31, 2006 4:50 pm:
" Sorry Adam...it is a freedom of speech and association issue. The Supreme Court of the United States and other Federal Courts have said it is. If the cops incar video camera and his 18 years of stats say he is not racially insensitive in his enforcement of the law, then what evidence does the NSP have that he is...read the 47 page arbitrator's decision and see what they could not prove. ALso. last time I signed a contract I was told it was binding. What's their excuse? "
List Groups Not Tolerated? wrote on August 31, 2006 5:15 pm:
" neoCons, al Qaeda, Satanic cults and this Supremist group are all extremists. Extremist groups should all be classified under the same guidelines so citizens have clarity with defined and published "Do not Join" messages clearly posted in employment manuels and amended to the laws. Transparency of restrictions is reasonable and should be expected before problems occur...not retrospective incrimination. "
Bill wrote on August 31, 2006 6:20 pm:
" All NSP troopers in the state must swear the following Oath before becoming an officer. "As a Law Enforcement Officer, my fundamental duty is to serve mankind; to safeguard lives and property; to protect the innocent against deception, the weak against oppression or intimidation, and the peaceful against violence or disorder; and to respect the Constitutional rights of all persons to liberty, equality and justice. I will keep my private life unsullied as an example to all; maintain courageous calm in the face of danger, scorn or ridicule; develop self-restraint; and be constantly mindful of the welfare of others. Honest in thought and deed in both my personal and official life, I will be exemplary in obeying the laws of the land and the regulations of my department. Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in my official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty. I will never act officiously or permit personal feelings, prejudices, animosities or friendships to influence my decisions. With no compromise for crime and with relentless prosecution of criminal, I will enforce the law courteously and appropriately without fear or favor, malice or ill will, never employing unnecessary force or violence and never accepting gratuities." In reality, is this any different circumstance that Regent Hergert's recent impeachment. He swore and oath and didn't live up to it. He was impeached. Henderson is not living up to the Oath he swore, he should be fired. I recognize the badge of my office as a symbol of public faith, and I accept it as a public trust to be held so long as I am true to the ethics of the police service. I will constantly strive to achieve these objectives and ideals, dedicating myself before God to my chosen profession...law enforcement. "
stg wrote on August 31, 2006 8:58 pm:
" It is helpful Bill posted the standard the arbitrator considered and failed to find justification for the process that the department had taken. I can't support the KKK or other extremist groups...but the ruling seems to have followed the process and that is the standard for conflict resolution the agency has obligation to meet.e of "
Concerned Citizen wrote on August 31, 2006 9:16 pm:
" What is happening to the patrol? First a Major that is accused of child molesting and now a trooper that has joined hands with the KKK. Might be time for a change of leadership and command! "
Dale Gribble wrote on August 31, 2006 10:53 pm:
" Where was all the Journal Star's trademark handwringing when a Black Muslim Omaha city policeman threatened violence on the family of a white police officer who shot a black suspect? Tariq Al Amin was fired then reinstated after professional race baiters including Sen Chambers rallied to his cause. The department allowed this despicable excuse for a law enforcement officer to retire. Wheres the outrage? "
Brandon wrote on August 31, 2006 11:05 pm:
" With respect to many on this forum, let us be clear about one issue. The Knights Party (who I neither support nor represent) does not advocate the destruction of any part of society. They are not a supremecist group they are a sepratist group. This means that they do not approve of the blending of different racial groups. In fact they have supported African American groups that have, in the past, also advocated this position. Second, I'm not sure that the officer in question used his status as a law officer in the state of Nebraska to support his remarks on any web-site. He may have stated that he was a law officer in the state of Nebraska, but I'm not sure that has any relevance on the issue at hand. If he did, indeed, link his status as a law officer to the furthering of the groups ends, then that is a different issue. If he did not and no evidence has been reported that he did, then we are back to the issue of free speech. Just saying that one has a certain job (let's be clear, I don't know if he identified himself as a member of the NSP) is not sufficient to say that one is linking a certain thing to another. Let's face it, this issue is explosive because it is about race. It isn't about some trooper and his 'oath' or anything else. The knee jerk reaction that I am talking about is to the words 'white supremicist', when that isn't the organization in questions position at all. I'm saying that the trooper was fired for belonging to an organization that many people find offensive. Period. It wasn't for cause, as if he were arresting only people of African descent. It wasn't because he had done something illegal, it was because the knee jerk reaction to the words 'white supremecist' or 'KKK' is to get rid of it. We can not seem to accept that a person can do his or her job despite personal feelings. That is all I'm saying. I'm not advocating support of this group or saying that what he did was right. "
whatever wrote on September 1, 2006 5:37 am:
" One thing is certain, if we begin to set conditions of employment based on ones political and social affiliations, we will drive what some call "extremist organizations" to a new level of secrecy, making it very difficult to identify and punish the "undesirables". In a way, this will strengthen these organizations and make them more efficient at what they do. "
Big Dog wrote on September 4, 2006 11:25 am:
" First let me say, I do not believe in the way Bob handled this. but , I have know him for almost 22yrs. I think he made a huge mistake. But in all the years I have known him, he has never acted or said any racist things. I know for a fact he donates lots of time with many organizations that help all kinds of people, of all colors. I even heard him come to the defense of blacks and latinos, when the police have treated them unfair. Yes, I believe he should have been disiplined for this action. But did it rise to the level of termination. I also know in the last week he has lost all five of his part time jobs that kept him paying his bills. Because of Jon Brunings news conference. This guy has been ruined for life, by the state of Ne. For life here in Ne. and in the nation as Brunings news conference went nation wide with Bob's picture in all the TV and news paper story's. I agree he brought some of this on his self. But should he be ruined for life because he made a mistake during hard times. I don't think so. I know he commented to me last week when I talked to him, they give murders, rapist, and child molesters more of a chance than me. I sure he is following his atty's advise and keeping quite. Because as long as I have known him, he would have already held his own press conference to explain himself. He's not know to hold back on his opinions. Yes he was wrong. But, I think it's time his true friends step up and defend him. As far as Bruning, remember it's election time, and Chambers, well what can you say. He always puts his nose where it don't belong. Oh, I hear people talk about Bob's political and religious beliefs. He's republician, and a catholic. All I am saying is put yourself in his shoes, and see how you handle it. His friend forever. Bid Dog "

Ads by Yahoo!