BRIDGEPORT, CT- When you work in a city where the mayor is a convicted felon, it seems pretty rich for a police officer to get busted in rank for expressing an opinion. Yet that is what happened in Bridgeport, where a sergeant was busted back to patrol officer after he disagreed with the department’s pursuit policy during a roll call briefing. Now that officer has had his rank restored, the CT Post reports.
Sgt. Adam Szeps was restored to the rank of sergeant last week after the city’s civil service commission negotiated a settlement with the police union, however there are some strings attached.
In a statement emailed to the outlet, Personnel Director Eric Amado wrote that, “Management and the employee’s collective bargaining representative (the police union) mutually agreed to extend the employee’s probationary period.” The letter did not give specifics of the agreement.
“Consistent with the requirements of the Bridgeport charter and the civil service rules, the civil service commission voted in the affirmative to approve the joint request,” Amado continued. “As this concerns a personnel matter and active negotiations, no additional information can be provided at this time.”
A Dec. 10 memo from BPD Chief Roderick Porter distributed throughout the department, however, said that Szeps had violated “standards of conduct” and would therefore be suspended for five days and his probation would be six months.
Bridgeport Police Union President Michael Salemme III said that the incident should have been resolved “at the command level” before arising to the civil service commission. Salemme added that he was “glad it worked out for” Szeps.
Szeps, a member of the department for roughly ten years, was promoted to sergeant in the spring, however almost immediately stepped on a proverbial rake, where only two days after he was promoted, he told subordinates in roll call that they didn’t have to abide by the department’s pursuit policy, an internal investigation found.
In a Sept. 8 letter to Szeps notifying him of his punishment, Porter wrote, “During the lineup in question, you made remarks that were insubordinate and inappropriate. Specifically, you admitted telling the officers, including probationary officers present, that they did not have to follow a policy regarding pursuits.
“Further, you referred to those policies in vulgar and offensive terms...in the presence (of) officers under your supervision, including female officers and new recruits.”
It was not specified which language Porter found offensive, nor which part of the pursuit policy Szeps criticized. However, Porter said his behavior undermined the chain of command and compromised the department’s professionalism.
Porter then cited an Aug. 26 Loudermill hearing, a disciplinary proceeding required for public employees subject to discipline. During that hearing, Szeps was given the opportunity to muster a defense to the charges.
“You stated at your...hearing that you thought the policy was a joke,” Porter wrote. “Finally, you clearly articulated at the hearing that it was your ‘opinion’ and that you were entitled to your opinion. When asked if you were obligated to set your personal contrary opinion to the side when addressing a lineup as a sergeant, you refused to validate. Rather, you insisted that you do not believe in ‘New Age policing’ and that you are a ‘real cop.’”
It is a strong probability that most police officers in Connecticut believe current restrictions on police pursuits are a joke, since policies typically won’t allow pursuits for anything but a violent crime. In an age when 15-year-old punks are stealing cars left and right, and where so-called “street takeovers” have become a weekly event, it is understandable that some police officers are frustrated that their hands are being tied.
However, police supervisors must—whether they agree with a particular policy or not—remember that they can in some cases be held personally liable if something goes wrong. That is especially true if they do not comply with department policy or state law. Clearly, Sgt. Szeps was sending mixed messages to those under his command.
Porter addressed the above, telling Szeps that he was being demoted because Szeps was expected to serve as a role model. He also had a history of discipline for using excessive force and for inappropriate driving maneuvers.
“Supervisors in this department must be held to the highest standards because they are entrusted to set examples for others,” Porter continued. “Your words and actions have shown that you have not met those standards. As a result, I am demoting you from the rank of sergeant.”
The Szeps situation is a microcosm of issues within the department between the administration and rank-and-file officers. Salemme noted that there have been “disparities in discipline and unfair treatment” under Porter, adding that there have been over 20 complaints filed by department officers that are pending with the Connecticut Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities.
Salemme alleged that Bridgeport officials are “well aware” of those complaints, however have failed to take any action to address them.
The CT Post reached out to Mayor Joe Ganim’s office for comment, however no response was received.
The latest incident follows a March “no confidence” vote in Porter’s leadership, with Salemme citing “hostile working conditions” as the cause. Ganim promoted Porter, a retired captain, to chief three years ago.
Prior to the vote of no confidence, Porter issued a five-page memo defending his leadership and said that he needed to make “difficult decisions that prioritize public safety, officer wellbeing, and the integrity of our department,” the CT Post reported at the time.
Comments