By Anthony Gangi, C1 Columnist
Last week’s example posed a situation that put a third shift sergeant in a bind. Limited on manpower, he was forced to give an order to three unit officers over the radio for immediate backup. Two of the officers showed, but the third did not. When the third officer was questioned, he stated that he could not abandon his post.
This scenario is just an example of what’s happening across the country as budgets are being cut. Supervisors are faced with having to make a decision that may break policy and procedures. As budgets are being cut, certain policies still remain the same and have not been updated. In some cases, these policies cannot be updated, because the moment the change is put on paper, the author will then become liable for the downfall.
In this scenario the sergeant had to come up with a solution on the fly and, unfortunately, this solution was a direct violation of a policy that either needed to be updated or improved.
An understandable gray area
“There is an understandable gray area. The officer that isn’t wrong, and neither is the sergeant, when you’re looking at policy. The issue is that policy doesn’t cover every situation. That’s actually a disclaimer on a lot of the policies where I work. If the officer was in a post that had to be manned at all times, what he could have and should have done was radio for someone to relieve him,” Clayborn.Basham writes. “He could have also radioed his sergeant and ask if he wants to have his post unmanned and go from there. When it comes down to it, you’re not breaking policy when following an order. If you are following an order that was given to you by your superior that breaks policy, you are not the one breaking policy. It would be your sergeant. When it comes down to it, CYA.
“In this case, the officer was wrong. He should have responded. If he was concerned about whether or not his post was manned or not, he should have radioed for relief.”
Clayborn.Basham hit some very valid points. Policy does not cover everything and, in some cases, such as when there is an emergency, policy may need to be overlooked. In this case, the sergeant had had to draw his manpower from a very limited pool. There was no one to relieve this officer because all general assignment officers were being utilized.
Clayborn.Basham also puts the officer in the wrong because he should have followed the direct order that was given to him. I would strongly agree with that statement, because during an emergency if more manpower was needed to subdue a situation, the order from the sergeant should be paramount. The responsibility for breaking the policy goes into the sergeant’s hands for giving the direct order. Later, the sergeant will have to justify his choice and let the higher ups decide if that choice was necessary.
Ethical quandaries
“Refusing an order is one thing; refusing it during an exigent circumstance is quite another. The officer’s use of the word unethical is quite revealing in my opinion. The officer has chosen not to argue the lawfulness of the order, but rather in the much lower and more vaguely ambiguous standard ‘ethics.’
“In the heat of battle, you simply do not refuse an order unless it is clearly unlawful as in crystal clear and the consequence of following the order would cause jeopardy to staff, inmates or the security of the institution,” dhitter writes. “Therefore the officer in this situation is absolutely in the wrong and he should have responded. “It is not within his purview to argue the order at that time: it may be appropriate to address it later in an after action review.”
This hits the nail right on the head. The officer is protected from a policy write-up due to following a direct order from his commanding officer, but by refusing said order, the officer has placed himself directly in the wrong.
The chain of command
“There is no gray area. Every California state prison I worked (and I worked several) has clearly written post orders which officers are required to read, sign and comply with. Additionally, any sergeant worth his salt will know under what circumstances he can direct which officers to respond to a varying level of emergency circumstances. Periodic emergency response training dictates which posts are to respond in which manner and is included in post orders which, again, all officers are required to read and to comply with. But even if we suppose this officer’s post orders require him to remain in his dorm, unless there is an immediate and compelling threat which would likely manifest itself should he leave that dorm, his refusal to respond to an emergency when directed to do so by his supervisor is appalling,” Centurion1950 writes.
“It indicates a level of cowardice and/or disregard for his fellow officers, the inmates under his charge and for his facility that renders him unfit to be a correctional officer. As soon as order is restored, and after interviewing him with the watch commander, unless there is some extremely compelling circumstance which justifies his refusal to obey orders in an emergency, I would personally escort him off the facility and recommend immediate termination.
“Any officer with this attitude represents an immediate threat to the safety and security of the institution and should find another line of work. He can make his case to the appeals board when and if he petitions for reinstatement. Prisons are dangerous environments. Refusal to respect one’s chain of command, to follow their lawful orders, even when unsure of policy and procedures, is inexcusable and should never be tolerated.”
Conclusion
We need to look at the immediate situation at hand. This sergeant had to make a drastic call because he was limited on manpower. We can see this occurring on a national level when posts are being cut, but policy is not being updated. Some made be afraid to update the policies because they will then have signed their name to a policy that had greater concern for money than it does for safety and security.
In this case, an extra person on the wing would have been great. They would serve as an extra pair of eyes for the unit and as a backup response in case of emergency. For this sergeant, when the post got cut, his manpower lessened greatly. So this sergeant went to what he knew best. His main concern was an emergency that was present and had to be handled. The officer’s concern related to a “what if.”
Either way, the only way to solve this issue is by giving our supervisors the respect they deserve. If they say they need more manpower, listen to them. Try your best to not put them in a situation where they have to choose the lesser of two evils.