Detective suspended for time violationsA Superior police detective was suspended without pay for violations of department policy that included failing to report to work on time, breaks of excessive duration and failing to work 80 hours in a two-week pay period, and not notifying supervisors to explain the absence from duty.
By: Shelley Nelson, Superior Telegram
A Superior police detective was suspended without pay for violations of department policy that included failing to report to work on time, breaks of excessive duration and failing to work 80 hours in a two-week pay period, and not notifying supervisors to explain the absence from duty.
According to a Letter of Imposed Discipline signed by Detective William Braman III on Dec. 7, an investigation into the matter documented more than eight hours of unexcused absence from duty during the pay period from Nov. 17 to Nov. 30. The letter, obtained through a public records request, states Braman didn’t use vacation, personal holiday or another authorized time off option to account for the time.
“While these are the only hours that were documented through observation, you admitted the pattern of reporting to work later than your scheduled time has been ongoing for an undetermined period of time prior to the period of observation,” the letter also signed by Superior Police Chief Charles LaGesse, stated.
Four of the Superior Police Department’s general orders were violated, including a requirement police officers report to daily shift briefings ready for duty; officers refrain from conduct that could result in justified unfavorable criticism by the public; remain occupied with police business while on duty; and notifying a shift supervisor to explain why they will be late and provide an estimated time of arrival.
In addition to a three-day unpaid suspension, served through a reduction of 24 vacation hours in 2013, Braman was required to use eight hours approved time off compensation to cover documented hours of unapproved absence from duty.
However, LaGesse said, there was no way to prove how much time may have been lost prior to the period documented.
Braman could face demotion for further violations; his only option for appeal would be clear and convincing evidence he didn’t violate policy.
LaGesse said he decided to keep Braman in the detective position because he has been an effective investigator and has a lot of training and skills that serve the community.
“I do take seriously the infraction, and when it was observed, we made a point to track to see what was happening, and we dealt with it immediately and to the degree we can assure it won’t happen again,” LaGesse said. Since the matter was investigated and discipline measures were taken, LaGesse said Braman “has energetically pursued the cases he is assigned … We have some assurances that it won’t happen again, and I think the level of discipline is appropriate for what we observed.”