Triple Jeopardy

Well, as we volley the ball back and forth;

Let's Talk ChiTown touched on our Happy New Year post & took it a step farther. He/she reminds us of the problems with our Complaint Investigation process, and we agree wholeheartedly with the post. Our money and lives are being heavy-handedly altered by a seriously flawed "investigation" process.

What sense does it really make to have the same person whose name is affixed to many complaints against PCOs (after the initial complaint is deemed "unfounded" or "not sustained," of course), REVIEWING OUR GRIEVANCES WITH THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OR DENY THEM? Doesn't that tilt the scales of justice just a *little* unfairly?

Really, we can't imagine that many of our non-PCO readers would agree with an arresting police officer being the judge in his/her own arrestee's trial. But that's about what our situation amounts to. We realize OEMC isn't a democracy, but we don't think "triple jeopardy" should apply, either. #1, We can get slammed for an incident. #2, Once we're cleared of allegations, and get slammed again for a "separate detail" within the same incident. Then, #3, once we're sacked with 3 days for first-offense "rudeness" when our contract and the city's Personnel Rules dictate that discipline should be "progressive," we file grievances which are denied across the board. By the complainant in the incident. And which sit in limbo for up 3 or 4 years.

How one person with axes to grind can continue to play judge, jury, executioner, and appeals board in a blatantly flawed and biased process is beyond us.