UNACCEPTABLE MESSAGE

The arbitration panel which overturned the suspension given Southington
Police Sergeant William T. Perry sends an unacceptable message to citizens
of Southington, to its police department and to all those who have labored
in the war on drugs.

No one has any desire to drag the Perry family across any more hot coals;
surely, there is suffering in this man's life.

But in February, on the basis of both an internal investigation and a state
police report, the Southington Board of Police Commissioners handed
Sergeant Perry a 30 day suspension without pay for the violations of
department policies, including apparently an admission that he knew about
his wife's use of marijuana and his minimal intervention with her behavior.

There was, of course, a conflict for Perry: as an officer, he is always on
duty, a duty which includes taking action when he sees the law being
broken. As a husband, he is also "on duty" and any person can see a
difference between turning in a stranger for a drug problem and turning in
a spouse for such a problem.

It's a hard choice and neither solution is positive. Perry apparently did
what many people would do: he tried to help her get help. But being a
police officer has its consequences in such a case.

The Board of Police Commissioners, one would surmise, realized Perry's
position in reaching its decision in his case: the 30 day suspension was
divided into two, with half being held in abeyance should some other
disciplinary problem arise within two years. The remaining 15 days, Perry
was to be permitted to take in three-day chunks over five months.
Certainly, such a consequence for misconduct was real, but compares very
favorably with losing one's job or being demoted or some other action.

Now, however, the state Board of Mediation and Arbitration, acting on an
appeal filed by Local 333 of the International Brotherhood of Police
Officers, has ruled that Perry doesn't have to serve his suspension, should
receive his salary in full and that the incident should be taken off his
record. In other words, nothing at all happened.

The message this sends is flat out wrong.

We would not hold Perry responsible for his wife's actions. If she used
marijuana, it is she, not he, who must pay the criminal penalty. Yet the
Southington Police Department, like that in every other town, is deeply
involved in the national effort to discourage the use of illegal drugs.
Whatever anyone believes about marijuana, the fact is that it remains an
illegal drug in this state and that its use is against the law. Since, in
fact, the sergeant admitted to police investigators that he was aware of
his wife's problem, it is just plain silly for the arbitration panel to
pretend, on the basis of a husband's privilege of electing not to testify
against his wife, that the admission just didn't happen.

The ruling mocks all the official rhetoric which tries to spell out the
consequences for the use of drugs. If this is the police union's notion of
self-protection, they cannot tell the difference between that and
self-mockery. The decision mocks the work of the Board of Police
Commissioners and the duty of Southington police officers. And it mocks the
citizens of Southington who are asked to take law enforcement seriously.