NYPD rant organizer fired because of the website?

[Soxfan101]

Any one from the NYPD have any thoughts about this. I feel he was treated wrong; if it was because of the rant. He may have a good lawsuit on his hands. Also did they shut down the site as well, because i have not been able to log on for a few days. I liked the rant because I was at a time interested in NYPD, but it did truthfully make me think twice about applying there.

[Soxfan101]

One more question, Did everyone in the department know who he was, or was he anonomous(SP) Was he sort of a "robin hood" of the NYPD that exposed the injustice that he saw while he thumbed his nose at the man? But the "man" got him in the end I guess.

[Norm357]

Added to clarify Soxfans post. :D

Credit: Daily News. etc etc etc

Insider 'NYPD Rant' site infuriates police brass

BY JOHN MARZULLI
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Police Officer Edward Polstein
A highly decorated cop got canned because of his Web site, NYPD Rant - a forum for disgruntled cops that is brutally true to its name.

Operating under the name Polecat, Police Officer Edward Polstein allowed his Finest brethren to take shots at Mayor Bloomberg, top cop Raymond Kelly, pompous bosses and even the police union.

Police brass weren't amused - bringing departmental charges that have led to the dismissal of Polstein, a housing cop for 18 years. Now unemployed and trying to figure out how to support a wife and three daughters, Polstein defiantly says he did nothing wrong and is gearing up for a legal battle in federal court.

"The Rant was my diary; it was how I felt at the moment," Polstein, 43, told the Daily News yesterday. "It is my constitutional right to vent."

His lawyer Jeffrey Goldberg said the ex-cop has the First Amendment on his side. "If the Web site had said Kelly wasthe greatest police commissioner there wouldn't be a problem," Goldberg said, "but Kelly's thin-skinned, and he didn't like the content."

Polstein ranted that the NYPD was run like the Nazi Party and posted a photo of Adolf Hitler addressing his storm troopers. Click on a photo of Kelly and it morphed into the cartoon character Popeye.

Polstein created NYPD Rant in 1999 as he became increasingly frustrated at being passed over for specialized units because, he believed, he didn't have a "hook," police lingo for a high-ranking mentor.

He's apparently touched a raw nerve in the blue ranks: The NYPD Rant message board averages more than 60,000 visits daily, and last month it recorded 126,048 visits the day a new police contract was announced. Some of the posters reveal their discontent with names like The Job Is Doomed, Burnt and NYPD Blew.

"A lot of cops don't have avenues to vent and rant," Polstein said. "If you keep it inside, bad things happen."

Polstein was told the Internal Affairs Bureau was monitoring the site, but he continued his diatribes and remained an active cop. On his own time, he offered a free course to housing cops on spotting concealed weapons.

During a visit to Police Headquarters after 9/11, Polstein wanted to show how easy it was to smuggle weapons into the building. Flashing a bogus police ID card, he walked past security carrying a gym bag containing plastic knives, a stun gun and a mock pipe bomb.

Then he revealed his ruse to the sergeant on duty, offering to help with training. He didn't hear back until October 2003, when the IAB slapped him with charges of "posting language and remarks" that were discourteous to police brass and elected officials, describing on the site how he "smuggled" weapons into headquarters, and using the NYPD logo on the site without permission.

He was convicted of all three charges, but he signed a settlement last October allowing him to retire if he agreed not to sue the NYPD. Polstein agreed, but after he was approved recently for a tax-free disability pension, Polstein was deemed in violation of the settlement and was fired.

NYPD spokesman Paul Browne noted that Kelly still gave him a chance to retire with a pension even though the trials commissioner had cited Polstein's lack of judgment and remorse and called into question his fitness to remain a cop.

[Valor55]

Sounds like a 1st Amendment issue and he may have a good case. I wonder what the details were in the original retirement agreement.

[retdetsgt]

Sounds like a 1st Amendment issue and he may have a good case. I wonder what the details were in the original retirement agreement.

The first amendment keeps you from being thrown in jail for what you say, not keep you from being fired.

[Valor55]

The first amendment keeps you from being thrown in jail for what you say, not keep you from being fired.

True but in our current climate I have a hard time seeing anyone get away with this. Under the criteria that the NYPD has my agency could can me for saying some of what I say on this site just because it is negative towards them. We aren't allowed to publicly criticize the government and keep our jobs? That's an ugly precedent.

[retdetsgt]

True but in our current climate I have a hard time seeing anyone get away with this. Under the criteria that the NYPD has my agency could can me for saying some of what I say on this site just because it is negative towards them. We aren't allowed to publicly criticize the government and keep our jobs? That's an ugly precedent.

I bet there's a lot more to this than what meets the eye.... I've written some negative articles about my dept when I was working in our union newspaper, but there is definitely a line that shouldn't be crossed. I seriously doubt this guy was fired for just expressing a negative opinion here.

[Joeyd6]

Teh deal is this from what I have heard/seen:
1) Was assigned to Housing (Projects). Started a web site for NYPD officers to go on and share info like:
-Bad boss's, experiences, vent a little, complain, discuss our internal polictics with others who understand it, let other cops know about rumors and give a heads-up when we hear something or share info on cops who helpped/failed to help other NYPD officers.
2) Sit is a place that gets over 60,000 hits a day!!! And with 35,000 officers you can understand why. Always good to talk with other officers, especially from the surrounding agencies to share info.
3) The guy was also a "concealed compartment" and "hidden gun" (guns ins pagers, pack of gum, etc...) expert. He had a HUGE knowledged and shared it with every officer. He set-up a few seminars at his station you could come on your own time and learn....but the NYPD did not like such, because he was not a licensed teacher, nor trained on such by the NYPD, and they thought it coudl be a liability issue.

4) Our Commissioner and the Mayor were not friends or people liked by him. Everyone has their own opinions. And off coure, it came up on the site when they would issue a decision, or ignore immoral/illegal action of supervisors but go after cops for such or just about anything elses they did. He alos posted details about how he did what he did at HQ's (maybe not a smart idea to give away intell like that!!!) and used the NYPD logo which was trademarked follwoing 9/11. They also charged him with the bad comments/language against elected officials/supervisors.

5) He went to a department trial and was found guilty on all 3. Side note: it is a court room, run by people who work for Police Commissioner, including the judge!

6) He threatened to sue about the language thing becasue he was off-duty and has Firts Ammendment privleges. City attornies and the like reviewed the case...and... he was offered a regular retirement with benefits. He accepeted. Thus...he was "retired" from the NYPD and no longer under department rule/reign, coudl say what he wanted on the site.

7) He continued being treated for injuries sustained when he was active. Injury was deemed dehabilitating, by his doctor. As a result, the Pension Rules we have allow you to notify the department, and request a medical review for a disability pension. He did such. He went to the NYPD medical review board...who sent them to their own doctors. All agreed. So they issued him a 3/4 pension. He would get 75% of his pay tax free.

8) After the board issued the pension, he was contacted by the Department and stated that this was not part of the "gentlemens" agreement he had and he must drop teh 3/4's pension. He refused as teh Pension Rules allow such and it is standard for guys to retire with an injury and later get bumped up to 3/4's. They gave him a deadline. he did not do it. So he was terminated, and it was back-dated, to the day before the original "gentlemens" agreement, thus, giving him no pension and no medical benefits.

[Valor55]

8) After the board issued the pension, he was contacted by the Department and stated that this was not part of the "gentlemens" agreement he had and he must drop teh 3/4's pension. He refused as teh Pension Rules allow such and it is standard for guys to retire with an injury and later get bumped up to 3/4's. They gave him a deadline. he did not do it. So he was terminated, and it was back-dated, to the day before the original "gentlemens" agreement, thus, giving him no pension and no medical benefits.

Whatever else he may have done that was bullshit. I hope he has a very successfull lawsuit.

[retdetsgt]

5) He went to a department trial and was found guilty on all 3. Side note: it is a court room, run by people who work for Police Commissioner, including the judge!

6) He threatened to sue about the language thing becasue he was off-duty and has Firts Ammendment privleges. City attornies and the like reviewed the case...and... he was offered a regular retirement with benefits. He accepeted. Thus...he was "retired" from the NYPD and no longer under department rule/reign, coudl say what he wanted on the site.

7) He continued being treated for injuries sustained when he was active. Injury was deemed dehabilitating, by his doctor. As a result, the Pension Rules we have allow you to notify the department, and request a medical review for a disability pension. He did such. He went to the NYPD medical review board...who sent them to their own doctors. All agreed. So they issued him a 3/4 pension. He would get 75% of his pay tax free.

8) After the board issued the pension, he was contacted by the Department and stated that this was not part of the "gentlemens" agreement he had and he must drop teh 3/4's pension. He refused as teh Pension Rules allow such and it is standard for guys to retire with an injury and later get bumped up to 3/4's. They gave him a deadline. he did not do it. So he was terminated, and it was back-dated, to the day before the original "gentlemens" agreement, thus, giving him no pension and no medical benefits.

If all that is true, then NYPD must be the most chicken shit dept on the face of the earth.

Unless this guy has a long history of disciplinary action against him, I don't see how your union could allow him to be fired for that web site. You don't have progressive discipline?

Secondly, does the dept run the pension board? Gentlemen's agreement or not, if he had a legitimate injury that all doctors, including the board doctors concur on, how can the dept take this away?

Something either smells or Tammany Hall is still alive and well.

[Joeyd6]

Unless this guy has a long history of disciplinary action against him, I don't see how your union could allow him to be fired for that web site. You don't have progressive discipline?

-We have interanl discipline for small things callaed a "command discipline" or CD. It is a formal letter in your file forever. That is for minor policy infractions. But anything other than minor, and you go to the trial room...where there is a City Lawyer against you, with your PBA lawyer and PD hired judged on the bench!

We have a different process when a civilian makes a complaint to the Civilian Complaint Review Board...independant 3rd party agency supposedly. They do an investigation (civilians) and deteremine if teh allegation is true or false. If true, they make a recommendation to teh Commissioner on what your penalty shoudl be (lost vaction days, suspension, etc...). The Commissioner then makes his decision.

Secondly, does the dept run the pension board? Gentlemen's agreement or not, if he had a legitimate injury that all doctors, including the board doctors concur on, how can the dept take this away?

NYPD runs the medical board review and runs the pension board. How they can take it away is the issue at hand here!!

[retdetsgt]

-We have interanl discipline for small things callaed a "command discipline" or CD. It is a formal letter in your file forever. That is for minor policy infractions. But anything other than minor, and you go to the trial room...where there is a City Lawyer against you, with your PBA lawyer and PD hired judged on the bench!

Geez, we're investigated by IA and the chief or A/Chief makes a determination of guilt or innocence based on the investigation report. No trial, no nothing. But we have an appeal process that goes as far as the mayor's office. If the union believes the officer is being done wrong, they can file for a binding arbitration.

But the union would fight tooth and nail if they tried to can someone for a 1st offense like that. We have progressive discipline in our union contract. No arbitrator would find for the city on something like this and they know it.

[SPEtactical]

Many people are losing their jobs for online diaries bashing their agencies. Let's see what powers the agency has, shall we?

The court in Waters v. Churchill (U.S Supreme Court 1994) stated, " The government as an employer has far broader powers in regard to employee's speech than does the government as sovereign...[t]he government can never restrict the speech of the public at large in the name of efficiency, but, as an employer, such restriction may be appropriate."

One of the tests that we use to determine if speech by a government employee is appropriate is the Pickering balancing test. If the speech was a matter of "public concern" (i.e.- pointing out waste at the agency, lack of training or corrupt activities) then it is protected speech and the officer should not have been terminated or disciplined. However, if the comments posted were not matters of "public concern" and were merely private rantings that created disharmony in the work place or impaired working relationships, then it is not protected.

This is the Reader's Digest version; however, it seems to be a good rule of thumb not to bite the hand that feeds you.

[oscarmitre]

That's a very informative post - excellent points.