Free Speech or Speech Under Duress?

Free speech is completely different than speech under duress.

Unfortunately, we’re left wondering which was exercised when six officers and one dispatcher wrote letters to elected officials on Saturday and Sunday in support of Chief John Crone, who is suspended with pay pending the results of investigations into the way he handled the police department’s Cops for Kids program.

Mooresville Police Capt. Frank Falzone, along with five of his squad members and one dispatcher on his same shift, wrote the letters to commissioners over the weekend. It appears the officers, on town time and using town resources, quite possibly wrote the letters at the suggestion of their immediate supervisor, Falzone.

“We are concerned that our lack of or inability to publicly voice our opinions, for fear that we may cause additional controversy and complicate your efforts, may be misconstrued as a lack of support for Chief Crone,” Falzone wrote in his e-mail on Saturday. “We have concluded that notifying you by email is the best alternative in accomplishing our goal, without further obscuring the issue at hand.”

Continued Falzone: “I would like to reaffirm and emphasize my support for Chief Crone, and unless proven otherwise, firmly believe in his leadership, skills, and abilities.”

Falzone’s letter was the first of seven – out of 59 total police personnel – to be sent to town commissioners. By the next evening, five of Falzone’s squad members and the dispatcher had also submitted letters to town board members.

“Chief Crone has tried to show his love of children by his work with the children/teenagers in the community,” said the dispatcher. “I feel that he is unfairly being accused of things that people do not have the whole picture or information about.”

The dispatcher is the only police department employee who mentioned the facts surrounding Crone’s suspension. “As for the money situation,” the dispatcher said, “I am sure that even if receipts are not located for each and every dime, that he spent the money for something to do with the children he was working with.”

A police officer who said he has worked with Crone since Crone was hired as chief in December 1998 urged commissioners to “support Chief Crone during these trying times for our department and our town.” He said that Crone “has always treated me with respect and dignity” and that “I have always tried to give him that same courtesy.”

Another officer who said he has worked with Crone for more than seven years told elected officials: “I’ve never known (Crone) to be dishonest about anything going on at the department. I’ve always been treated with fairness, respect and honesty … all traits he demands from his officers.

“In summary,” the e-mail read, “I support Chief Crone as he goes through this difficult time.”

Another officer stated that he was also writing to express support for Crone. “Unless shown otherwise,” he stated in his e-mail to commissioners, “I will continue to support Chief Crone during this difficult time, and only hope that this matter will be resolved as soon as possible.”

In a memo-style letter with the subject titled “Letter of Support,” one officer stated that “Chief Crone is an extraordinarily hard worker, a responsible person, and he is an asset to the Police Department, Community and the Town of Mooresville as well.”

The final officer to write commissioners on Sunday said that he has worked with Crone “for many years.”

“This e-mail is not to say that I think the Chief is perfect,” he stated, “but I can honestly say that I am a better officer because of the years I have worked under Chief Crone's command.”

“I hope that you haven't misunderstood the silence from officers to mean that we do not support the chief,” stated the officer. “The vast majority of officers do support him. The turn over rate of officers at the police department is more that just numbers and with each officer leaving, there is a reason.

“Again, I fully support the Chief and hope that this will soon be over and we can get Chief Crone back to work where he should be.”

He ended his letter by thanking the commissioners for their time and “for allowing me to work for the Town of Mooresville Police Department, which I thoroughly enjoy, and for your support for the police department.”

Since each of the officers – with the exception of the dispatcher – work under Falzone, it is impossible to know which ones voluntarily wrote letters in support of Crone and which ones did so because they felt their boss had suggested that they do it.

What is clear is that at least one member of that squad who was on duty this past weekend did not write a letter to commissioners – along with more than 50 other people employed by the police department.

Did Falzone order his squad members to write the letters in support of Crone? Did he suggest it? Did he consider, when making such a suggestion, that his squad members may take his suggestion to be, in fact, an order? Did he consider that some officers might not want to write such letters and by not participating could therefore eventually become targeted for ill treatment by other officers, higher ranking officials or Crone himself should he return? Did Falzone write his letter with intentions of swaying the opinions of elected officials, who must wait until the investigations’ results before casting judgment?

Unfortunately, we don’t have answers to those questions. Falzone couldn’t be reached for comment yesterday.

What we do know is that the officers violated town policy by writing the letters because they wrote them using town resources and while on duty. All the letters were sent from the employees’ town e-mail accounts. The police department’s personnel policy states that “members shall not engage in political activity on duty, or when acting in an official capacity, or when in uniform, except to vote.”

The policy also states: “Members shall not interfere with cases being handled by … other government agencies unless: A.) Ordered to intervene by a supervisor; or B.) The intervening member believes, beyond a reasonable doubt, that injustice would result from failure to take action; or C.) Such intervention is required as a result of supervisory or command responsibilities.”

Maj. Carl Robbins, who is serving as interim chief of police in Crone’s absence, said today that the police department’s personnel policy “does address these type activities. I will gather the facts and then handle it as a personnel matter,” he said.

But really, a violation of the personnel policy should be the least of our worries. I am a staunch supporter of every person’s right to free speech, and I am elated when I see people embrace and exercise that Constitutional right, even if I disagree with what they say. Am I disappointed that the police department employees violated the personnel policy? Absolutely. But there’s a mitigating factor here: Their boss introduced to them the idea of writing the letters. What effect did that have on the officers? How voluntary were the letters really? Was it proper for a commanding officer to put his subordinates in a position where they might have felt uncomfortable not participating?

The fundamental issue here lies within the question of whether those particular officers practiced free speech … or if their speech was less free than some officers hoped it would appear to be.

And how about the officers who couldn’t in clear conscience write a letter of support, whether they don’t support Crone or they simply didn’t want to violate the personnel policy? What will this mean for them? Will they be punished for not participating?

The mere presence of these questions is reason enough why no one in the police department should have suggested officers write letters in support of the suspended chief.