Last week, the Channel 6 newscast managed perhaps one of the most irresponsible pieces of local journalism this editor has witnessed to date. The news item dealt with ex-police officer Phil Yerington and the "uncovering of his record" relative to his being fired several weeks prior.
The reporter, with no small measure of emphasis from the news anchor, slammed down "six pages and 14 exhibits" of what they referred to as his record of "11 incidents of misconduct dating back to 1975," according to the Davenport Police Department. As a viewer, this drama certainly got my attention.
Unfortunately, the reporter failed to deliver. As I waited for the damning incidents of insubordination and termination-worthy misconduct, all I got were petty incidents of questionable behavior over a period of 25-plus years. Incidents such as Officer Yerington engaging in "horseplay on the police radio"; posing for a photograph in his uniform next to his squad car for a political ad; and changing a work schedule for a department employee. The most serious-sounding misconduct was falling asleep at the wheel of his squad car, causing an accident. The reporter neglected to inform viewers that this incident occurred at 2 a.m.; that Yerington himself reported it, acknowledging he was on medication and should not have been driving; and that the accident referred to was minor in nature, affecting a single fire hydrant. His punishment consisted of his working two days unpaid.
Nor did the reporter see fit to explain that the re-scheduling of an employee involved a 23-year-old female civilian who was assigned to tow cars in at-risk neighborhoods with no appropriate training or resources to execute such a potentially dangerous job, manning her with pepper spray and a bulletproof vest. The reporter also neglected to inform the public that this civilian's employment was classified under Civilian Service Specialist, but she was given responsibilities that fell under Towing Coordinator unbeknownst to her, a position over which Officer Yerington had authority as Traffic Bureau Commander and/or Deputy Patrol Commander - pick one. Meanwhile, after complaining to the city administrator, this civilian was reassigned to Records. It turns out that Officer Yerington's reassignment of this individual was appropriate at worst, arguably sparing her harm in the line of duty.
Neither the Channel 6 reporter nor her news director bothered to investigate any of the context in which these citations occurred, nor did they check the timeframes involved. For instance, the re-scheduling of the 23-year-old occurred in November, but Yerington wasn't cited until January the following year. He was suspended for 10 days, but the city administrator knocked it back to just five.
Another example of a significant time lag between incident and citation dealt with one of Yerington's patrolmen, who took a day's improper sick leave in May. Yerington reprimanded the patrolman and wrote him up as the patrolman's immediate superior. He handled the problem in a manner he deemed most appropriate for the situation. It was the patrolman's first citation, and the patrolman was remorseful. Yerington's own transgression in this instance was not reporting it to the chief of police, although he did apprise the patrol captain - who is his immediate superior - within two weeks of the incident. Others up the chain of command were informed on this incident from May though June, yet Yerington was not personally cited for his part until the following October. No punishment was forthcoming. But why are there such substantial time lags in these matters?
If this reporter or her superiors had bothered to engage in the story beyond slamming papers on the news desk and declaring that they "uncovered Yerington's record," they would have learned that Yerington's firing was the result of his talking to the media after a fax was sent to the media claiming that the police union was filing a grievance against Yerington - a claim that proved to be completely unfounded. The reporter doesn't hesitate to say that Yerington's speaking to the media on this subject was in direct conflict with DPD policy, but neglects to explain that Yerington was a candidate for sheriff in the upcoming November election and was compelled to address the issue as such, and in defense of his candidacy. Neglecting to point out this distinction was bright-yellow journalism.
And what of the officer responsible for sending the false information over the department's fax? What are the consequences for this officer? Here Yerington speaks to the media in an effort to defend his candidacy and dispel a deliberate and malicious lie that would negatively impact his campaign, but the officer who instigated the whole "Faxgate" incident is experiencing what consequences?
The city considered the fax serious enough to hire a private investigator outside the department to resolve the matter at taxpayers' expense, but to what conclusion? Yerington losing his job over this is hardly justice. Nor is trying to tie his attempts to defend his candidacy to trivial transgressions over a period of 25 years as justification for his termination. Hopefully, the public that has been well-served by this officer, and his peers who know the shenanigans being played here, will prevail at Yerington's appeal.
Nothing was mentioned about Lieutenant Yerington's 32-year service, or any of his commendations, accomplishments, or merits that distinguished him over this impressive length of time. If he was such a detriment to the department, then why were these various incidents tolerated at the time? Is it perhaps because they are, individually and collectively, hardly worthy of mention, let alone termination or jeopardizing a committed officer's career, including a well-deserved retirement? It was embarrassing listening to the Channel 6 reporter list the petty transgressions as if they amounted to anything more serious than acts that would receive detentions in most high schools.
I'll give Channel 6 credit for giving Yerington airtime the following evening to address the pervious night's issues, but how many viewers did not catch this follow-up broadcast? And there wasn't adequate time for Yerington to undo the damage done the night before with Channel 6's hype.
This entire episode begs the question: How many officers are still employed at the Davenport Police Department with similar transgressions or worse? If Officer Yerington's transgressions represent the threshold of conduct as grounds for termination, then the records of the remaining police force should be equally examined, including all supervising and upper management for the same. But this level of investigative journalism might require real work on the part of this area's news reporters.
The reporter, with no small measure of emphasis from the news anchor, slammed down "six pages and 14 exhibits" of what they referred to as his record of "11 incidents of misconduct dating back to 1975," according to the Davenport Police Department. As a viewer, this drama certainly got my attention.
Unfortunately, the reporter failed to deliver. As I waited for the damning incidents of insubordination and termination-worthy misconduct, all I got were petty incidents of questionable behavior over a period of 25-plus years. Incidents such as Officer Yerington engaging in "horseplay on the police radio"; posing for a photograph in his uniform next to his squad car for a political ad; and changing a work schedule for a department employee. The most serious-sounding misconduct was falling asleep at the wheel of his squad car, causing an accident. The reporter neglected to inform viewers that this incident occurred at 2 a.m.; that Yerington himself reported it, acknowledging he was on medication and should not have been driving; and that the accident referred to was minor in nature, affecting a single fire hydrant. His punishment consisted of his working two days unpaid.
Nor did the reporter see fit to explain that the re-scheduling of an employee involved a 23-year-old female civilian who was assigned to tow cars in at-risk neighborhoods with no appropriate training or resources to execute such a potentially dangerous job, manning her with pepper spray and a bulletproof vest. The reporter also neglected to inform the public that this civilian's employment was classified under Civilian Service Specialist, but she was given responsibilities that fell under Towing Coordinator unbeknownst to her, a position over which Officer Yerington had authority as Traffic Bureau Commander and/or Deputy Patrol Commander - pick one. Meanwhile, after complaining to the city administrator, this civilian was reassigned to Records. It turns out that Officer Yerington's reassignment of this individual was appropriate at worst, arguably sparing her harm in the line of duty.
Neither the Channel 6 reporter nor her news director bothered to investigate any of the context in which these citations occurred, nor did they check the timeframes involved. For instance, the re-scheduling of the 23-year-old occurred in November, but Yerington wasn't cited until January the following year. He was suspended for 10 days, but the city administrator knocked it back to just five.
Another example of a significant time lag between incident and citation dealt with one of Yerington's patrolmen, who took a day's improper sick leave in May. Yerington reprimanded the patrolman and wrote him up as the patrolman's immediate superior. He handled the problem in a manner he deemed most appropriate for the situation. It was the patrolman's first citation, and the patrolman was remorseful. Yerington's own transgression in this instance was not reporting it to the chief of police, although he did apprise the patrol captain - who is his immediate superior - within two weeks of the incident. Others up the chain of command were informed on this incident from May though June, yet Yerington was not personally cited for his part until the following October. No punishment was forthcoming. But why are there such substantial time lags in these matters?
If this reporter or her superiors had bothered to engage in the story beyond slamming papers on the news desk and declaring that they "uncovered Yerington's record," they would have learned that Yerington's firing was the result of his talking to the media after a fax was sent to the media claiming that the police union was filing a grievance against Yerington - a claim that proved to be completely unfounded. The reporter doesn't hesitate to say that Yerington's speaking to the media on this subject was in direct conflict with DPD policy, but neglects to explain that Yerington was a candidate for sheriff in the upcoming November election and was compelled to address the issue as such, and in defense of his candidacy. Neglecting to point out this distinction was bright-yellow journalism.
And what of the officer responsible for sending the false information over the department's fax? What are the consequences for this officer? Here Yerington speaks to the media in an effort to defend his candidacy and dispel a deliberate and malicious lie that would negatively impact his campaign, but the officer who instigated the whole "Faxgate" incident is experiencing what consequences?
The city considered the fax serious enough to hire a private investigator outside the department to resolve the matter at taxpayers' expense, but to what conclusion? Yerington losing his job over this is hardly justice. Nor is trying to tie his attempts to defend his candidacy to trivial transgressions over a period of 25 years as justification for his termination. Hopefully, the public that has been well-served by this officer, and his peers who know the shenanigans being played here, will prevail at Yerington's appeal.
Nothing was mentioned about Lieutenant Yerington's 32-year service, or any of his commendations, accomplishments, or merits that distinguished him over this impressive length of time. If he was such a detriment to the department, then why were these various incidents tolerated at the time? Is it perhaps because they are, individually and collectively, hardly worthy of mention, let alone termination or jeopardizing a committed officer's career, including a well-deserved retirement? It was embarrassing listening to the Channel 6 reporter list the petty transgressions as if they amounted to anything more serious than acts that would receive detentions in most high schools.
I'll give Channel 6 credit for giving Yerington airtime the following evening to address the pervious night's issues, but how many viewers did not catch this follow-up broadcast? And there wasn't adequate time for Yerington to undo the damage done the night before with Channel 6's hype.
This entire episode begs the question: How many officers are still employed at the Davenport Police Department with similar transgressions or worse? If Officer Yerington's transgressions represent the threshold of conduct as grounds for termination, then the records of the remaining police force should be equally examined, including all supervising and upper management for the same. But this level of investigative journalism might require real work on the part of this area's news reporters.
