Yesterday we were sent this interesting e-mail by a retired law enforcement officer concerning the Brady decision pertaining to the TRUTHFULNESS and CREDIBILITY politics affecting the daily functions of our law enforcement officers.In life, there are often second chances, and sometimes even more. In law enforcement, there are no second chances when it comes to the insuring the integrity of our officers. In law enforcement, malicious deceptive conduct is untenable and cannot be tolerated at any level in the organization.Please take time in reading this extremely interesting article concerning the BRADY DECISION that spells out the U. S. Supreme Court decisions that defines the criteria that Law Enforcement Officers are required to following in order to insure Truthfulness and Credibility while on duty.ARTICLE BEGINS HERETruthfulness and the 1963 Brady decision have become hot topics in law enforcement circles. Although years went by without much concern with the Brady decision, recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions have enforced Brady to include evidence maintained in a police officer’s personnel files. Under Brady, evidence affecting the credibility of the police officer as a witness may be exculpatory evidence and should be given to the defense during discovery. Indeed, evidence that the officer has had in his personnel file a sustained finding of untruthfulness is clearly exculpatory to the defense. To remind the reader, in 1963 the Supreme Court ruled in Brady v. Maryland that the defense has the right to examine all evidence that may be of an exculpatory nature. This landmark case stands for the proposition that the prosecution will not only release evidence that the defendant might be guilty of a crime but also release all evidence that might show that the defendant is innocent as well. Today many police executives have recognized the importance of officer credibility and have established a “No Lies” proclamation. As simple as No Lies sounds, it is far more complex and difficult to manage. Lies are not a fixed target; rather, deception exists on a continuum, from what is commonly called social lies or little white lies to egregious misconduct that warrants dismissal or prosecution. The true challenge is in dealing with deceptive conduct that lies somewhere in the middle of the continuum-not so far on one end of the continuum for termination and not far enough toward the other end of the continuum to be justifiable or excusable.Law enforcement executives have responded to these judicial decisions by imposing strict rules and, on the surface, No Lies seems great. This black-and-white rule certainly appears to be one upon which everyone can agree. To achieve a goal of maintaining the officer’s and the department’s credibility, ruling out all lies is the simplest solution and the easiest to enforce. But are police administrators really prepared to enforce the rule as it is communicated in the No Lies maxim?There is an adage in management circles that rules should be explained and tools provided so employees can achieve the vision set out for them. No Lies, however, does not express the true concern of police administrators. Rather, the concern is with improper, intentional, deceptive conduct that affects an officer’s credibility, whether that deceptive conduct consists of lying, making material omissions, or engaging in other unacceptable deliberate actions.Not only should there be a policy defining improper, intentional, deceptive misconduct but there should also be a clear definition of deceptive conduct that is accepted by an agency. In police work, deceptive conduct in some areas is not only condoned but also encouraged or even required. The key to developing a policy is an understanding of the difference between deceptive conduct and deceptive misconduct.In Lying (New York: Vintage, 1999), Sissela Bok defines a lie as any intentionally deceptive stated message. According to Bok, these are statements that are communicated either verbally or in writing. Lying is a subset of the larger category of deception, and deception is undertaken when one intends to dupe others by communicating messages meant to mislead and meant to make the recipients believe what the agent (the person performing or committing the act) either knows or believes to be untrue. Deception encompasses not only spoken and written statements but any conduct that conveys a message to the listener. Deceptive conduct can range from verbal statements or writings to physical expressions such as a shoulder shrug, eye movement or silence-any intentional action that conveys a message.Historically, not all intentionally deceptive conduct in social interactions has been considered improper. Indeed, as early as the Middle Ages, Saint Thomas Aquinas classified deceptive conduct as helpful, joking, or malicious. Aquinas argued that lying helpfully and lying in jest may be acceptable forms of conduct, whereas telling malicious lies, lies told deliberately to harm someone, was a mortal sin.Acknowledging that some deceptive conduct is acceptable helps to define deceptive misconduct. For example, the classic dilemma, argued about for centuries, is what to do if a murderer approaches you and asks the location of his intended victim. If you tell the truth, the murderer will kill the victim. If you lie, the intended victim will have the opportunity to escape. Although this hypothetical dilemma forces you to choose between insufficient options with no other choices, it is illustrative of Aquinas’s argument. Lying to a murderer to protect a potential victim is helpful, and it may be both morally and ethically the proper thing to do because it is the lesser of evils under the circumstances.Officer Truthfulness: Relevant Case LawHaney v. City of Los Angeles, 109 Cal. App. 4th 1 (2003).Ziegler v. City of South Pasadena, 73 Cal.App.4th 391 (1999).Brogan v. United States, 118 S. Ct. 805 (1998).LaChance v. Erickson, 118 S. Ct. 753 (1998).Ackerman v. State Personnel Board, 145 Cal. App. 3d 395 (1983).Gee v. California State Personnel Board, 5 Cal. App. 3d 713 (1970).Brady v. Maryland, 83 S. Ct. 1194 (1963).Lies Justified by Investigative NecessityIn the performance of their duties, police officers frequently engage in a significant amount of deceptive conduct that is essential to public safety. Consider lying to suspects, conducting undercover operations, and even deploying unmarked cars. Presenting a suspect with false evidence, a false confession of a crime partner, or a false claim that the suspect was identified in a lineup are but a few of the deceptive practices that police officers have used for years during interrogations. These investigatory deceptive practices are necessary when no other means would be effective, when they are lawful, and when they are aimed at obtaining the truth.Some, like John P. Crank and Michael A. Caldero in Police Ethics (Cincinnati: Anderson, 1999), have argued that accepting these types of deceptive practices places the police on a slippery slope, which will create a belief by officers that all deception is acceptable, or a perception by the public that diminishes the trustworthiness of officers. It may be true that some persons who engage in serious misconduct began with minor acts of deception, but it does not follow that all deception is a gateway to serious misconduct. Most police officers can distinguish the differences and do not conclude that specific, lawful deception implies the rightness of all deception. The majority of police officers are quite capable of applying the Constitutional test of whether that deceit would make innocent persons confess to a crime that they did not commit.Lies Made in JestWhere specific lies can be supported by rational argument as justified, other lies may be deemed excusable by the same type of ethical analysis. Lies made in jest, although sometimes callous and hurtful, do not affect an officer’s credibility unless they are in such bad taste that they call into question the person’s judgment in general. Between officers, embellishments and exaggerations are commonplace in the descriptions of the misfortunes of others. A sense of humor, even where some deception is involved, can and does help responsible persons cope with great stress and grim circumstances. Indeed, a sense of humor and a sense of proportion may be inseparable under the worst circumstances. Although humor is an acceptable practice at the appropriate time, humor is not a shield to the disciplinary process. When jokes become intentionally harmful to others, they become malicious lies that should be dealt with accordingly. Agency leaders should not strive to create such a sterile workplace that humor is forbidden, for they would succeed only in making themselves objects of derision and ridicule. Police leaders should seek to establish and enforce reasonable standards.Deception concerning trivial matters, often told to spare another’s feelings may also be excusable. These white lies are meant not for any personal gain but rather for social courtesy. Not every social situation calls for the whole truth. How do I look? What do you think? Sometimes benign statements or tactful silence are the most appropriate responses.The Varnished Truth(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), David Nyberg asserts that acts of deception are such common practice in human communication that deceptive conduct would be impossible to prevent entirely by any rule, law, policy, or manner of enforcement. From the social kindness of white lies to embellishments, exaggerations, and boastful behavior, we frequently conceal the truth for a variety of reasons. We not only condone these activities but also teach our children the art of deception from an early age. Children learn from their parents, friends, television, books, and other sources how to deceive. Children quickly learn how to maintain a poker face, so their hand is not easily identified by their body language, or in sporting activities where young athletes fake a throw or head-fake an opponent by looking one way and going another.Our laws and culture have even created exceptions to the unvarnished truth such as in advertising, recognizing that there is speech that tends to embellish the value of a product, but because these speech patterns are so common and easily recognized, they do not dupe a reasonable, mature person into a false belief. This exception, called puffery, encompasses terms like “world’s best,” “the greatest,” “the purest,” and so on.Malicious LiesAlthough lies justified by necessity, lies told in jest, and white lies may be acceptable forms of deception in law enforcement, malicious lies are the true evil of officer misconduct. The difference between lies justified by necessity or lies made in jest and malicious lies is the presence of actual malice by the communicator. Here, malice would include not only lies told with a bad intent but also lies that exceed the limits of legitimacy.For example, a police officer may be tempted to testify falsely to imprison a criminal. The officer’s intent may be a worthy objective to the public; removing a criminal from society and the officer may validate his intent in his own mind by believing that he is engaging in a greater good. But this lie would violate the standard by which we would say the lie was reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances given the status obligations of the person engaging in the lie. Although the intent may be legitimate, the actions are malicious. This malice is the motive by which any sense of limits or constraint or fidelity to law and policy is destroyed.It is important to understand that motive or intentions can be mixed, so that a person may deceive in order to pursue some worthwhile, utilitarian goal (such as public safety) and at the same time have a malicious disregard for the rights of the suspect and for the laws, policies, and limits that apply to policing. This willingness to betray basic principles of honesty attacks the very public safety that the person believes himself to be pursuing. A police officer who by malicious disregard goes beyond the limits of legitimacy is a threat to the public safety, since the officer may end up violating anybody’s rights, and this poisons the idea that the lie is advancing public safety.Deception ContinuumPerhaps it is easier to assess intentional deceptive conduct on a continuum. At one end is intentional, malicious, deceptive conduct that will take one of three forms:Deceptive action in a formal setting, such as testifying in court or during an internal affairs investigation. Failure to bring forward information involving criminal action by other officers, also known as observing the so-called code of silence. Creation of false evidence that tends to implicate another in a criminal act.Intentional, malicious, deceptive conduct in any of these three areas will permanently destroy an officer’s credibility. Should an officer violate these standards, there is no alternative in an employment context other than termination or permanent removal from any possible activity where the officer could be called upon to be a witness to any action.At the other end of the continuum are lies justified by necessity, which may be defended, based on the circumstances and excusable lies, including lies made in jest and white lies, which like minor embellishments and exaggerations are not intended to harm others or convey a benefit to the communicator. These types of deceptions are at least excusable if not acceptable.Deceptive conduct at either end of the continuum can be dealt with easily. At one end, the conduct does no harm and no action is necessary. At the other end, there is great harm and there is no option other than the termination of the officer’s employment. The problem is not the conduct at the ends of the continuum, but rather the conduct that falls somewhere in between. Consider the following example:A supervisor asks an officer whether a particular report has been completed. The report itself is of very little consequence, and the question was prompted by a routine administrative action rather than any specific employee concern. The officer has not submitted the report but quickly replies that the report has been turned in, fearing what would be at most a minor counseling by the supervisor. The officer then immediately completes the report and turns it in before the supervisor can discover the lie.In this example, the officer was dishonest. He was asked a direct question by a supervisor and he failed to respond truthfully. Although the officer had no opportunity for reflection, there is no excuse for his misconduct. The question was not posed as part of a formal process, the officer was not engaging in an action to protect another officer, and there was no conduct that would place a community member at risk of a false prosecution. Similarly, there is no evidence that the officer’s deceit was either justified or excusable.What is left is conduct that falls somewhere in the middle of the continuum. The officer’s response is certainly not acceptable, but it leaves the question of whether it is far enough on the other end of the continuum to be grounds for termination. There is a strong argument for termination in this case. After all, the officer was asked a direct question by a supervisor about a work-related subject and the officer responded untruthfully. The difficulty for managers is balancing the need of the department and community to have officers that are beyond reproach against the recognition that all officers are human beings and that they have human failings. The officer’s response may best be described as a spontaneous, unintelligent statement, and there are other factors that should be considered in making a final determination. Is the officer remorseful? Does the officer recognize the error? Does the officer have an otherwise acceptable record with the department? Was the underlying issue one of very little consequence?Consider the following:A dispatcher asks an officer if he is available for a call. The officer radios that he is out of service and unavailable, when in fact he does not want to receive a call because it is near the end of his shift. Based on the officer’s statement, the dispatcher assigns the calls to another officer.As in the last scenario, the officer’s conduct is neither justifiable nor excusable. However, the conduct probably does not amount to the end of the scale that mandates termination. It is this type of intentional, deceptive, misconduct that can be termed “administrative deception” that creates consternation for police management. The conduct may not warrant termination, but a sustained finding of untruthfulness creates a Brady issue that many believe will prohibit the officer from continuing his employment. The question then becomes, does Brady mandate termination on the basis of any lie or act of deception?Brady AnalysisThe No Lies rule causes managers to deem that Brady has taken their discretion away on these cases that fall outside the justified or excusable categories. But removing management discretion is not the Brady rule. Brady stands for the proposition that evidence that may be exculpatory in nature must be given to the defense. In a case where an officer will be testifying as a witness to an event, the officer’s credibility is a material issue and his lack of credibility is clearly potentially exculpatory evidence and therefore sustained findings of untruthfulness must be revealed.It seems that the analysis often stops at this point, suggesting that if there is evidence regarding an officer’s credibility, the officer can no longer be placed in a position where he may become a percipient witness in an investigation. If that evidence is that the officer violated the far right of the continuum-deception in a formal process, participation in a code of silence, or planting evidence-both Brady and responsible management principles dictate the termination of the employee. But what if the misconduct is in the middle area of the continuum? Working through the complete Brady analysis and court evidence admission process will help the manager make this determination.First, it is important to understand that even though the defense gets the information-and they should get it-there is no guarantee that the defense will be able to present the evidence of officer misconduct to the jury. It is the court, not the defense, that makes this determination. In its decision to admit evidence, the court will weigh the evidence to determine if it is more probative than prejudicial. Not all evidence of deceptive conduct by an officer will be admissible.Think about an officer who engages in a secretive extramarital affair. At a minimum, the officer has lied to a spouse and broken a vow (an oath) to remain faithful. If there is evidence that the officer has maliciously lied for his own benefit, it certainly follows that the officer’s credibility and testimony may be questioned. Although the officer may have committed a mortal sin according to Aquinas, the evidence of the officer’s deception will probably never be heard in court. This type of evidence would be prejudicial against the officer’s credibility, but at the same time it offers very little probative evidence on the officer’s credibility while testifying in court and therefore most judges would not permit this evidence to be introduced.Courts are likely to treat many administrative lies in the same manner. The court would probably view these administrative lies as evidence that would uniquely tend to evoke an emotional bias against the officer as an individual and would have very little effect on the issues. But even if the court allows the evidence to be presented to the jury the analysis has not been completed. The prosecutor will be able to present evidence in an effort to rehabilitate the officer. How long ago did the misconduct occur? Was it of a relatively minor administrative issue? Did the officer show appropriate contrition? Was the officer punished? Did the misconduct occur more than once? Has the officer received training as a result of the discipline? Did the officer that made the statement immediately make a subsequent truthful admission? Is there evidence that the officer’s conduct has changed?Police managers should weigh all of the factors of deceptive actions that fall at the middle of the continuum and use their management discretion on a case-by-case basis. In some cases, termination will follow. In others, it may not.Managers should also be warned that there would be a strong temptation to use euphemisms in describing the officer’s misconduct to protect the officer and the agency against potential Brady issues. In the examples cited above, managers may choose to discipline for the underlying misconduct-failing to complete a report and failing to respond to a call, rather than disciplining the officers for their statements. This type of discipline would send the wrong statement to both the officers and the organization. The officers should be disciplined for their deceptive misconduct as well as the underlying conduct. If management did anything else they would be engaging in intentional deceptive misconduct on a greater level than the officer. In the above examples, the officers’ statements were spontaneous, where management’s actions to discipline for only the underlying misconduct were thoughtfully chosen to hide the officer’s deceit.The key in making a decision regarding a particular middle-of-the-continuum deception is whether management can defend their decision or thoughtfully tell their story. The decision must be able to withstand rigorous analysis from those on all sides of the issue. In making the final decision, the chief of police must determine whether he or she can stand in front the community and defend the department’s position. If so, then the chief should deal with the issue directly and honestly; if not, there is no alternative other than termination.No Lies has started a conversation, but refinement of that discussion focuses our energy on the areas of deceptive conduct that cause the real concern for police administrators. In law enforcement, malicious deceptive conduct includes intentional deceptive conduct in a formal setting, the code of silence, and the false implication of another in a criminal act. A violation of any of these precepts should effectively and permanently end an officer’s career. Both honesty and the reputation for honesty in law enforcement are absolutely essential. Those who are not able to meet these expectations simply are not able to fulfill the essential job requirements of a peace officer.Law enforcement managers should be able to recognize deceitful conduct at either end of the scale and deal with the conduct appropriately. The issues that fall somewhere in the middle of the continuum are obviously much more difficult. The issue is not whether these middle ground deceptions are acceptable; they clearly are not. Any intentional deceptive conduct that is not justified or excusable is inappropriate. The issue for police managers is whether they have management discretion and whether there is any punishment available to them other than termination. The answer is that police chiefs have discretion available to them and that not every act of intentional deception may be worthy of termination. But management must be warned that with their discretion comes a duty to punish the inappropriate behavior and the willingness to deal with the officer’s action for years in the future.In life, there are often second chances, and sometimes even more. In law enforcement, there are no second chances when it comes to the integrity of our officers and ourselves. In law enforcement, malicious deceptive conduct is untenable and cannot be tolerated at any level in the organization.To read this article online go to:http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?Please take time and vote in today’s “Readers Poll”. Don’t miss reading today’s Feature articles because they are always an interesting read. Todays video features Mayoral Candidate Gail Riecken talking about mismanagement of our taxpayers money by theeWinnecke Administration.Copyright 2015 City County Observer. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.FacebookTwitterCopy LinkEmail
Pinterest (Photo supplied/State of Indiana) Governor Eric Holcomb has signed executive orders to protect Hoosiers, properties and businesses as the result of two nights of violence, following peaceful protests in Indiana.The Governor:Signed Executive Order 20-29 to lift restrictions on local declarations of emergency that had been instituted as a part of the stay at home and back on track orders pertaining to COVID-19. This order, effective as of 11 a.m. today, allows local governments to place more stringent travel restrictions than the state has in place. A link to the order may be found at: https://www.in.gov/gov/files/Executive%20Order%2020-29.pdf.Directed members of the Indiana National Guard to be on standby to assist communities across the state, if requested. Gov. Holcomb verbally activated the Indiana National Guard Reactionary Force company to be available to assist local communities Saturday, however no deployment was requested. Several hundred Guard members remain on standby.Ordered members of the Guard, supported by Indiana State Police, to establish a presence at state properties in Indianapolis to protect them from further damage.“At my order, the Indiana National Guard stands ready to assist local communities in need to protect the public and property, and I am deploying Guard members to protect state property beginning today,” said Gov. Holcomb. “Organized protests have taken place across the state without incident but the events that have followed, particularly in Indianapolis, have devastated businesses, defaced public monuments that are centuries old, and resulted in loss of life.” By Jon Zimney – May 31, 2020 4 795 Pinterest IndianaLocalNews Google+ Twitter Facebook Twitter Gov. Holcomb signs executive orders in the wake of violence, death following protests Previous articleDamage, deaths reported after rioting in IndianapolisNext articleSouth Shore Line suspends service due to protests, riots Jon ZimneyJon Zimney is the News and Programming Director for News/Talk 95.3 Michiana’s News Channel and host of the Fries With That podcast. Follow him on Twitter @jzimney. WhatsApp Facebook WhatsApp Google+
This morning the Prime Minister spoke to Prime Minister Abe of Japan. The leaders noted the positive impact of the Prime Minister’s visit to Japan last year and the significant progress made in a range of areas. In particular they welcomed the meeting between UK and Japanese Foreign and Defence Ministers and the first UK-Japan Industrial Policy Dialogue, both of which took place in December last year. The Prime Minister updated Prime Minister Abe on her meeting with senior Japanese business leaders at Downing Street earlier this month and reaffirmed the Government’s commitment to ensuring the UK remains welcoming to Japanese companies. They discussed the Prime Minister’s recent visit to China, and in particular North Korea, where they agreed on the need for the international community to continue to work together to maintain pressure on North Korea to cease its destabilising activity. The Prime Minister reiterated that the UK will continue to support all efforts to maintain and properly implement sanctions. A Downing Street spokesperson said:
Today, Sir Paul McCartney has released the newest single from his upcoming solo album, Egypt Station, which is set to be released on September 7th via Capitol Records. The newest track, “Fuh You”, follows previously released Egypt Station singles “I Don’t Know” and “Come On To Me”.“Fuh You” is a catchy pop jaunt that sounds like a mix between Paul’s shimmering, upbeat post-Beatles sound and modern power-pop thematics. The track also offers some amusing, tongue-in-cheek lyrical innuendo (based on the context, its anyone’s guess whether this “Fuh” is short for “For” or a certain four-letter word). All things considered, fans new and old will be singing along to this new tune for months to come. You can check out the newly released lyric video for Paul McCartney’s newest track, “Fuh You”, below:Paul McCartney – “Fuh You” [Lyric Video][Video: PAUL McCARTNEY]In July, McCartney announced a four-night Canadian run this September, the first dates on his new ‘Freshen Up’ Tour. In the ensuing weeks, McCartney has announced several more Freshen Updates, including stops in Poland, Austria, England, and Scotland in December. While the Canadian dates mark the only announced North American shows as of now, the timing of the confirmed concerts (Canada in the fall, Europe in the winter), seem to indicate that McCartney has carved out some time for a trek through the States this fall.The former member of The Beatles recently joined late-night TV host James Corden for a drive around his native Liverpool, England for an emotional edition of Carpool Karaoke that’s well worth the watch. Check out the full video of Paul McCartney’s Carpool Karaoke segment here.For more information on Paul McCartney’s new album, Egypt Station, or to keep an out for updates on his ‘Freshen Up’ Tour, head over to his website here.
On Wednesday night, October 24th, Bob Weir and Wolf Bros continued their inaugural tour with a stop at Missoula, MT’s Wilma Theatre. With each show, the new trio—comprised of Weir, Don Was, and Jay Lane—has dived deeper into their bag of tricks, pulling out old originals and covers in new and interesting ways.After opening with go-to early-show Grateful Dead tunes “Hell in a Bucket” and “Loose Lucy”, the band jumped into their first Bob Dylan cover of the night, “She Belongs to Me”. “Me and My Uncle” came next, followed by Dylan’s “Maggie’s Farm”, a Wolf Bros debut. The band started into “Peggy-O”, but quickly took a mulligan and tried it again from the top. Bob Weir and Wolf Bros tour continues Friday, October 26th at Eccles Theater in Salt Lake City, UT. For a full list of upcoming Bob Weir and Wolf Bros tour dates, head to Weir’s website here.Setlist: Bob Weir and Wolf Bros | Wilma Theatre | Missoula, MT | 10/24/18Set One: Hell In A Bucket, Loose Lucy, She Belongs To Me, Me & My Uncle, Maggie’s Farm, Peggy-O, Eternity > Wang Dang Doodle > Eternity > DealSet Two: Blue Mountain, Deep Elem Blues, Loser, Two Djinn, New Speedway Boogie, The Other One (v1) > Standing On The Moon > The Other One (v2) > Not Fade AwayEncore: Eternity From there, Weir and his Bros started up “Eternity”, the long-lost Weir/Rob Wasserman collab that made its first appearance in more than 16 years at Monday night’s show in Portland, OR. “Eternity” moved smoothly into Willie Dixon‘s “Wang Dang Doodle”—another first for Wolf Bros—before making its way back into “Eternity” to close out the first of two prominent jam sandwiches on the night and, finally, sliding into “Deal” to cap set one.Bob Weir emerged by his lonesome to start set two with “Blue Mountain”, the title track from his 2016 set of cowboy songs. “Deep Elem Blues” and “Loser” kept the set moving before RatDog favorite “Two Djinn” moved in for its second appearance of the tour. Following a slinky “New Speedway Boogie”, the darkness gave way to the second segue sandwich of the evening. After the first verse of “The Other One”, the band segued into fan-favorite Jerry Garcia ballad “Standing on the Moon” before landing back in “The Other One” for the song’s second verse. Finally, “Not Fade Away” closed out the second set, with a sing-along “Ripple” serving as the encore.You can listen to full audience audio from the show below:Bob Weir and Wolf Bros – Wilma Theatre – 10/24/18 – Full Audio[Audio: Mark Smith]
Graduate study at Harvard is a full-time job and many students are juggling school, parenting, and homeschooling — all from inside their apartments.Kaitlin Roberson, an Ed.M. candidate at the Graduate School of Education (HGSE), is one of those students. She recently shared her experience at a fireside chat event with HGSE Professor Junlei Li, an expert in supporting children and their caregivers hosted by Harvard Housing’s Graduate Commons Program (GCP). The full video can be viewed here.“I wake up super early to study before my children wake up, and then catch up on assignments in the afternoons when they’re on screens,” Roberson said. “I’m amazed at how hard it is to be productive while being isolated with my kids.”Li’s message to parents like Kaitlin was simple: There are reasons for hope, even in this difficult moment. Research shows that what children — and adults — need is attainable: Maintaining at least one caring and consistent human connection through ordinary daily interactions, even if such moments must be brief at times.This event was the latest collaboration undertaken by GCP to support graduate student parents and their families, following an earlier partnership with Harvard Ed Portal to offer Mind Matters: Families Make A Difference series. Since February, more than a dozen Harvard parents, led by the GCP family programming team, have been meeting weekly.Since COVID-19 broke out in the Boston area, serving Harvard families has taken inventiveness. First, GCP took Mind Matters online. But even then, the curriculum could only reach the subset of families already enrolled — and parents were asking for space to discuss the challenges of caring for children during COVID-19. So, a new solution was found: Pause Mind Matters for three weeks to offer a new, Harvard-wide series. In addition to the event with Li, the Parenting in Challenging Times series has included parent-to-parent support sessions facilitated by Graduate Commons family programmers Cyntia Barzelatto, Stephanie Catz, and Eva Gottschalk.Spearheading the novel Parenting in Challenging Times is doctoral candidate and GCP family programming intern Anna Kirby, who also studies with Li at HGSE. As a resident of Harvard University Housing, Kirby is passionate about promoting learning experiences outside the classroom.“Our recent programming has blurred the line between my academic work and my internship,” she said. “We’re using the insights from Harvard researchers to directly support caregivers in our own community.”Holding space for student parents to connect during this unprecedented time hit home with the Graduate Commons leadership team, who works to fulfill the Harvard Housing vision of Making Harvard Home. For students like Roberson, the events are often a reminder that kids don’t need caregivers to be perfect.“I’ve been more focused lately on the small little connection points [with my kids],” Roberson said. “Kissing my kids’ freckles, a one-minute snuggle, or a back rub can reconnect us in the midst of very stressful days. Parents need to know that we are all doing the best we can and that some days will be smoother than others.”
For skiers and riders, these storms simply mean endless powder days are in sight.Today 61 trails are open, accessed by 5 lifts. Conditions are powder and packed powder. More trails are expected to open as ski patrol continues to drop ropes. For the complete snow report, skiers and riders should visit www.boltonvalley.com(link is external).While some relish in this snow, others, especially those in urban and suburban areas, are not as thrilled about shoveling out’again. To ease the pain, Bolton Valley has created the Cabin Fever Elixir package, which includes 2 days of skiing, 1 night of slopeside lodging at the Inn at Bolton Valley, dinner, and breakfast, for just $149 per person. For details and reservations, guests should call 877.9.BOLTON.Bolton Valley Resort is Vermont’s most convenient big mountain for skiing and riding packed with value. Less than 10 minutes from I-89 and less than 30 minutes from Burlington, the family-friendly mountain offers skiers and riders of all abilities three mountain peaks with 71 trails and 6 lifts, plus 3 terrain parks including the Burton Progression Park.Source: BOLTON VALLEY, Vt. (Feb. 3, 2011) ‘ Bolton Valley is one of only two ski resorts in the U.S. to implement wind power as an energy source and is the recipient of the National Ski Areas Association’s 2010 Silver Eagle Award for environmental initiatives. A complete Sports Center, outdoor ropes course, extensive back-country skiing and Vermont’s most extensive top-to-bottom night skiing and riding are just a few of the extras available to guests. Bolton Valley Resort,This season, skiers and riders at Bolton Valley Resort, big mountain skiing and riding packed with value just 30 minutes from Burlington, continue to reap the rewards of the onslaught of snowstorms, including this week’s blast that drenched trails with nearly two feet of snow since Tuesday. With snow again in the forecast for this weekend coupled with the seven and a half feet of snow the resort has received since Jan. 1, the family-friendly resort is well on its way to surpassing its annual average natural snowfall total of 300+ inches. ###
Sign up for our COVID-19 newsletter to stay up-to-date on the latest coronavirus news throughout New York Representatives of a police research think tank is holding its first meetings with Nassau County officials this week to discuss reforming the county police department’s ethics policy following a string of scandals.Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), the Washington D.C.-based nonprofit, is likely to recommend the creation of an ethics review board, use of transparency devices and updating training procedures, according to a Press review of PERF’s prior reports on other law enforcement agencies.“Ninety-nine percent of our officers have a moral compass,” Thomas Krumpter, the acting Nassau County police commissioner, told the Press. “That’s not the problem. But, we’re always looking to improve our relationship with the community.”PERF representatives, who declined to comment, will meet with key stakeholders, including County Executive Edward Mangano, District Attorney Kathleen Rice and county legislators, according to Krumpter. The county hired the agency last month for $675,000.The firm will also poll local community leaders about police ethics, Krumpter said. The process of changing the ethics code will take about five to six months, and the training process for executives and administrators will take about 18 months.John Kleinig, a professor at John Jay College of Criminal Justice and a fellow at the Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, said in an email that PERF’s recommendations are likely to be general rather than case-specific.“It might, however, recommend the setting up within a particular police department the functional equivalent of a hospital IRB, which considers specific cases within a police department,” he said.An IRB, or institutional review board, is a committee that monitors ethic issues involving the use of humans as research subjects. Nassau police critics have called for a civilian complaint review board, similar to one in New York City.PERF may make recommendations on use-of-force policies in light of allegations that Nassau County police officers beat a Westbury man during a traffic stop last month. But, Newsday reported last month that the department already began revamping its use-of-force policy for the first time in nearly 30 years.PERF will likely be lending a hand with that. In a July 2013 report titled “Civil Rights Investigations of Local Police: Lessons Learned,” PERF listed requirements from the U.S. Department of Justice for local police agencies’ use-of-force policies, including defined categories of force, consequences for unreasonable use of force, and a reporting system for use-of-force incidents.PERF produced a report on U.S. Customs and Border Protection last year after a controversy emerged over Border Patrol officers’ use of lethal force in recent years. In it, PERF recommended additional training for agents on personal protection and the use of less-lethal weapons.“Training is especially important to the successful implementation of policy changes,” the report read. “In training, agents should be informed about the reason for changes in policy.”PERF might recommend training that will enable police officers to deal with adrenaline rushes, “a common problem when police pull someone over after a chase or catch someone after a foot pursuit,” Kleinig said.PERF also recommended in 2011 that the Albuquerque Police Department improve its citizen complaint process to make the process less “intimidating or discouraging.”Heath Grant, another professor at John Jay College, said that ethics consultants often recommend the use of body cameras to capture the actions of the officers.“Body cameras can back up and protect the officers,” he said. “They’re not necessarily used from a punitive angle.”Nassau County police had announced the creation of a dashboard and body camera pilot program earlier this month, hours after Democrats from the county legislature held a news conference promoting a proposal to do the same thing.Freeport village police have had four body cams and eight dash cams since a parallel pilot program launched there in January, according to District Attorney Rice’s office, which gave $108,000 in Asset Forfeiture funding. That will afford 30 more body cams and 11 more dash cams.“These cameras have proven to be an extremely beneficial tool in fighting crime, providing better policing and supporting crime victims,” Freeport Police Department Chief Miguel Bermudez said in a news release. Rice touted their benefits in providing more evidence for prosecutors.PERF was hired in the wake of several recent Nassau police scandals, including three former commanders’ recent misconduct convictions for a burglary cover-up in 2009, ex-commissioner Thomas Dale’s resignation over a politically motivated arrest last year, and ex-cop Michael Tedesco’s pleading guilty last month to on-duty visits to his mistresses.Such ethical issues among police officers are multifaceted and cannot be fixed with one simple solution, according to Grant.“You need to look at recruitment and assessing the quality of each candidate as well as the training process and teaching integrity to the officers, but most important is top-down policies and guidelines for behavior,” he said.However, some aspects of the agency will be left untouched by PERF. The organization will not be making any changes in administration or the size of the police force, Krumpter said. Departments that PERF has recommended hire more cops include those in Fayetteville, North Carolina; Groton, Conn.; Fort Lee, New Jersey; and Austin, Texas.For now, Krumpter is still the acting police commissioner, and PERF will not be looking for a successor for Dale, even though PERF offers a national search service for police chief candidates. Krumpter, who previously served as acting commissioner for nine months in 2011, resumed the same role in January.“That’s not what this engagement is about,” Krumpter said. “It’s just about changing the ethics code.”
Sign up for our COVID-19 newsletter to stay up-to-date on the latest coronavirus news throughout New York Press Patron Alure Home Improvements recently won five top honors at the 2015 Contractor of the Year (CotY) awards gala, held Nov. 20 at Larkfield Manor in East Northport.The annual event, sponsored by the Long Island chapter of the National Association of the Remodeling Industry (NARI) and currently in its 20th year, recognizes NARI members who have demonstrated outstanding work through their remodeling projects. Titled an “Evening of Excellence,” the reception is held on Long Island each November and nationally each March.East Meadow, NY-based remodeling company Alure Home Improvements earned one “Platinum” and four “Gold” awards for its excellence in various categories. Alure Home Improvements won the Platinum award in the Residential Kitchen category, for projects in the $30,000 to $60,000 range, along with Gold awards for Residential Bathroom, $25,000 to $50,000; Residential Kitchen from $60,000 to $100,000; Residential Bathroom for projects between $25,000 and $50,000; and Residential Bathroom projects from $50,000 to $75,000.Contractors honored included: Christina Piekut, Mike Kelly, Sherry Gossett, Joe Russo, Dave Weber, Mary Lotardo, and Joseph Capobianco. According to Seth Selesnow, marketing director for Alure Home Improvements, “Remodeling is a team sport.”“The CotY awards recognize NARI members who have demonstrated outstanding work in their remodeling business,” said Barry Goggin, chairman of the awards committee. “Each entry is scored by a panel of judges for design, overcoming difficulties, meeting clients’ needs and use of innovative products and building techniques.” Alure Home Improvements is a Long island home design and remodeling institution. Founded in 1946, in what began as a paint company, Alure has evolved into a full-scale construction business with a wide range of expertise, from kitchens, baths, and windows to siding, basements, sunrooms and roofs. Alure has been featured on ABC’s Extreme Makeover: Home Edition on Long Island and in the New York metro area, as well as contributing to projects in Baltimore and New Orleans. Alure’s commitment to community, under the direction of President Sal Ferro, has been unwavering, whether donating and delivering food and water in the wake of weather disasters or donating time and resources to the expansive list of recipients for their community service.Alure Home Improvements is also a premier member of Syosset, NY-based digital design and inbound marketing company Morey Publishing’s Press Patrons program, an innovative advertising, marketing and underwriting relationship exclusive to readers of the award-winning online investigative news and cultural arts organization Long Island Press.
To access this article REGISTER NOWWould you like print copies, app and digital replica access too? SUBSCRIBE for as little as £5 per week. Would you like to read more?Register for free to finish this article.Sign up now for the following benefits:Four FREE articles of your choice per monthBreaking news, comment and analysis from industry experts as it happensChoose from our portfolio of email newsletters