We’ve said many times that the great strength of the American system is the guarantee of due process. No matter if you’re an accused mass murderer or you got a parking ticket, you are Constitutionally promised fair treatment by your accusers and the mechanisms of justice.
As such, we are increasingly concerned that the leadership of Pine Bluff Police Department has embarked upon a path that leads nowhere good. To be clear, we limit this concern to events surrounding Assistant Police Chief Ivan Whitfield’s recent termination. Unfortunately, all sides in this mess do little to allay our worries.
What we know is that Whitfield (through whatever set of circumstances) failed to maintain control over a department issued pistol. That pistol was subsequently recovered in the possession of a person of interest in a homicide investigation. It has not been determined if the gun was used in the homicide or any other crime, but in the bigger picture, that’s not the most critical administrative issue.
Pursuant to that situation and perhaps others, Police Chief Brenda Davis-Jones terminated Whitfield. As reported in the Commercial, Whitfield and his attorneys construe things differently. They allege the termination is retaliation related to an investigation of Davis-Jones’ boyfriend — in which Whitfield took part. To complicate matters, some of an exchange related to said investigation was apparently witnessed by Deputy Chief Kelvin Sargent.
As if all this weren’t sufficiently bad, a profound conflict of interest now taints the investigation of Whitfield’s wandering gun. Rather than have the Office of Professional Services (the departmental internal affairs office) investigate matters, Davis-Jones appointed Sargent to conduct it. In the first instance, one cannot be both a witness to and an investigator of material facts. This puts Sargent in conflict. Second, Sargent was promoted to his current respective rank by Davis-Jones. Third, it is absurd to think that Sargent would be unfettered in his direct questioning of his boss.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
In short, there is no way Whitfield could have gotten a fair hearing when one of Davis-Jones’ appointees has unavoidable conflicts of interest. Moreover, no one in a department without Civil Service protections could begin such a fool’s errand with anything other than superficial intent. This situation needs a neutral, external body, one able to fairly determine the merit of the separate allegations. Obviously, it didn’t get it. Through whatever investigation was conducted, Whitfield’s fate was sealed and the coup de grâce delivered.
Predictably, this affair has generated a lot of online chatter, the most notable of which comes from Bobby Vanlandingham, the police department’s evidence officer. In a Facebook post, Vanlandingham wrote, “Because the media will eagerly report the bad things about the PD, Just wanted people to know that even though the Whitfield gun incident is bad, it was not the gun used in the reported homicide.”
This begs a couple of responses. First, if department officials would refrain from behavior unbecoming of persons in their office, nothing “bad” would be printed. Second, the Commercial routinely praises the workaday officers. When the department receives criticism, more often than not, it is limited to critique of poor executive decisions.
Of course, unflattering press shouldn’t be No. 1 on Vanlandingham’s list of worries given that his post comments on two open investigations, while also apparently violating departmental policy about media releases from sources other than the Public Information Officer. Moreover, what possible motive could he have had in making such a post? Whose interests did it serve?
At least when recently suspended officer Andrea Cherry pled her case to a local television affiliate, we knew who she was hoping to save. Vanlandingham’s post “evidences” no such purpose.
Despite the fact that the vast majority of police department employees are hard-working, honest and dutiful, the obvious deficit of leadership stands to poison the entire enterprise. If squabbles such as those outlined above continue much longer, a clean slate may be the only way to save the agency administration.