I can't wait for this to go into effect.

mdb23 · 01-19-2008, 19:28

http://www.theolathenews.com/119/v-p...ory/29985.html

Mayor Mark Funkhouser is wondering whether the Kansas City Police Department should loosen its hiring standards to boost its number of minority officers.

During a town hall forum Wednesday night, Funkhouser, a member of the police board, bemoaned the declining number of minorities employed as officers. He said felonies and drug violations committed when someone is “16, 17, 21” shouldn’t prohibit service on the Police Department if they can then leap “certain hurdles.” Current department standards include a requirement that applicants have no felony convictions or misdemeanor convictions resulting from felony charges.

The mayor said deserving men and women are kept off the force because of mistakes they made when they were “young and stupid.” He said people at that age, including himself, often do stupid things and it’s just a matter of who gets caught and who doesn’t. He said he wasn’t making an actual proposal now. But he asked residents at the forum to consider the notion.

“We are up against (an issue of) trying to get people of color on the police force,” Funkhouser said.

Police spokesman Capt. Rich Lockhart declined to comment specifically on Funkhouser’s idea, but he said the department works hard to recruit minorities to the force.

“We too share the mayor’s concern about minority recruitment and representation on the Police Department,” he said.

Ok, so common sense tells us that convicted felons can't possess firearms, so they obviously won't be cops, but................. I see dudes all of the time with 13 or 14 felony arrests, and no felony convictions (they plead out, etc...). The mayor is pushing for these dudes to be eligible for hiring.

Gypsy · 01-19-2008, 19:44

Commenting as a citizen, obviously, if this was my city I'd be livid. I can't imagine any LEO would want to work with folks with felony arrests in their background... Perhaps the Mayor needs a reality check.

**The Reaper** · 01-19-2008, 19:50

DC already did this.

Look at their crime rate and police misconduct problem and see if KC really wants to do that.

TR

GratefulCitizen · 01-19-2008, 19:52

If they want a bigger pool of candidates from which to select, they should do it the old-fashioned way:
Offer more money.

**18C4V** · 01-19-2008, 19:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

If they want a bigger pool of candidates from which to select, they should do it the old-fashioned way:
Offer more money.

+1

Our city is trying to hire 750 officers over the next three years. Good luck Mdb23!!!

mdb23 · 01-19-2008, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

If they want a bigger pool of candidates from which to select, they should do it the old-fashioned way:
Offer more money.

We are already the highest paying dept in the state (topping out at 63K in eight years for officers (plus shift pay, etc), higher for Sgts and above), our problem comes from a residency requirement. Nobody wants to live in the city, which we are forced to do.

Trust me, we are livid.......... but police recruitment is all about numbers and demographics. The Chief and board have stated that they want a 33% minority department, and this is part of their plan to make it happen.

rubberneck · 01-19-2008, 19:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Reaper

DC already did this.

Look at their crime rate and police misconduct problem and see if KC really wants to do that.

TR

New Orleans as well. For a while the NYPD was willing to over look DWI convictions and other assorted crimes. I don't know if that is the case but it was in the late 90's. I feel for the guys on the force. My best friend growing up served in the NYPD for 5 years before leaving for the FDNY. He used comment all the time that there were people on the force that had no business being there in the first place.

GratefulCitizen · 01-19-2008, 20:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by mdb23

We are already the highest paying dept in the state (topping out at 63K in eight years for officers (plus shift pay, etc), higher for Sgts and above), our problem comes from a residency requirement. Nobody wants to live in the city, which we are forced to do.

Trust me, we are livid.......... but police recruitment is all about numbers and demographics, and has little to do with "the most qualified applicant." the Chief and board want a 33% minority department, and will do whatever it takes to make that happen.

Working conditions (residency, etc.) or compensation, they have to give in somewhere to attract quality/quantity.

Politicians just can't seem to understand that economic laws are not under their authority.

mdb23 · 01-19-2008, 20:08

Quote:

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Working conditions (residency, etc.) or compensation, they have to give in somewhere to attract quality/quantity.

Politicians just can't seem to understand that economic laws are not under their authority.

Agreed.

AngelsSix · 01-19-2008, 22:18

I am currently at the CATM course here in SA with a fellow who once worked in KC as an officer.....He didn't have much nice to say.....he preferred to not say anything. I have spoken to a few other officers on this subject. I personally have no interest in working with someone who has a past gang affiliation or a drug history, same goes for a DUI. Thankfully our current Chief feels the same. I understand people make mistakes, but some things are not really "forgivable" to LEO's. If you get up on the stand to testify in a DUI or drug case and the attorney for the defense asks if you have ever used drugs, and you have, how would that look??

jwt5 · 01-20-2008, 01:09

I expect this to happen down here in south Florida. Between the cost of living and the increase in violence against LEOs, it's a matter of time.

Local agencies are already worried, we're losing more officers to retirement or lateral transfers then gaining. Also, the governor is pushing a big "tax break" to homeowners that is going to seriously cut into the city/county budget...

incommin · 01-20-2008, 09:12

Committing a crime is not a mistake, it is willful misconduct....where have I heard that before...

Lowering standards for anything has never worked well. There are a few bad officers; they were bad before they were hired...... not a good idea.

Jim

JCasp · 01-20-2008, 09:27

If a 16 year old can be tried as an adult for felonies, their actions should not be excused for "young stupidity." When I was 12 years old I stole a pair of tennis shoes from a gym locker, and to this day it haunts me. It was a misdeameanor and I served my 30 days probation and was told the event would be expunged from my record at the age of 17.

I am now 23 and still get turned down from security jobs and my college application is even suffering because my state record shows "felony larceny of a building." I have called my local courthouse and they assure me that while my record was expunged long ago, as they can't even find my name mentioned in their archives, there is allegedly "nothing I can do" to have my state records corrected and cleared.

This could appear hypocritical, but while I think it's absolute horseshit a mistake I made at the age of 12 should be effecting my life over a decade later, I believe 16 should actually be the age at which you no longer are given free passes.

Geo · 01-20-2008, 09:39

Detroit P.D. too.........need I say more.

monsterhunter · 01-20-2008, 09:51

I've watched this happen to some degree with my department. It's strange how some think they can lower the standards for selection and get the same quality work they've enjoyed in the past. It just doesn't happen.

Breaking into a locker to steal shoes, at least where I live, is considered a burglary. That's a deal breaker in your background regardless of age. If the judge sees fit, he may reduce it to a petty theft during a pre-lim. I understand what JCasp is saying, but I'm not sure I would agree with making the change for hiring. It opens up a real can of worms where folks will line up with the "but Johnny did it" crap.