State fights to fire trooper tied to Klan (Nebraska)

[RamboLiberal]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/08/26/trooper.racism.ap/index.html

Robert Henderson was not fired as a state trooper because he belonged to the Ku Klux Klan and another white supremacist group, authorities said.

Instead, he was ousted because he could not uphold public trust while participating in such groups, they said.

An arbitrator disagreed, ordering the State Patrol to reinstate Henderson within 60 days and pay him back wages. The state went to court Friday to keep him off the force.

"The integrity of Nebraska's law enforcement is at risk," Attorney General Jon Bruning said at news conference in Lincoln. "The Constitution does not require law enforcement to employ anyone tied to the KKK."

<snip>

Henderson also said he had joined the KKK, according to the arbitrator's report. He did so, he said, for two reasons: His wife had "divorced him for a minority" and the KKK gave him an avenue to vent his frustration.

[jeffseadot]

1. No right

If he wasn't doing anything illegal, there should be no grounds to fire him. It'll be a bad day for all of us if Nebraska allows personal, private interests to be grounds for dismissal.

[LeftyMom]

4. As a law enforcement officer, he's obligated to protect all people

If his private activities make his willingness to do that suspect or call into question his mental health, than he really can't be allowed to continue in this position. He's not a clerk at the state library or a gardener at a park, he has 1. a gun 2. authority 3. access to people's private information, so he absolutely should be held to a very high standard and his employment contract undoubtedly spells that out.

[karlrschneider]

7. He doesn't have to do anything illegal, his activities are clearly

indicative of substandard mental and/or moral requirements. Would you give the same latitude to a
judge? I'm not saying a cop is the legal equivalent of a judge but in many cases they exercise
similar powers. I'd support firing his ass if he belonged to the SDS or some organization as far out
on the left as the KKK is on the right.

[RamboLiberal]

8. Yeah - imagine being a non-white motorist stopped by

this a-hole. He's already coming in to the situation with a big chip on his shoulder against you. And he has a deadly weapon on his hip!

[karlrschneider]

9. I'm white and I'd be worried about my "Impeach Bush" bumpersticker

...

[RamboLiberal]

10. I know what you mean - worries me to that I have a Hate Bush

one. I think in many LEO - especially like this a**hat this would qualify us the same as non-white, a pinko commie bin-Laden loving "Liberal".

[karlrschneider]

17. I worked my way through college as a cop in Tulsa back in the

mid 1960s. I saw a LOT of racist behavior back then...maybe it's not all that much better now.
:grr:

[ret5hd]

14. To a minority, he could be judge, jury, and executioner.

[LostinVA]

20. There is "a right"

Certain government employees can't dow whatever the hell they want: teachers, cops, etc. Law officers aren't allowed to eb members of hate groups. Military personnel also can't. State employees in Virginia can't even let a sales rep buy them a Coke, because it's a conflict of interest. As is a law officer being a member of the KKK. It is a legitimate employment conflict of interest.

[KingFlorez]

29. You don't get it

Law enforcement have members of hate groups working for them, they can't be trusted.

[Cerridwen]

2. Rather than firing him,

maybe they could send him to some serious counseling. He needs a place to "vent his frustration" and to get over whatever anger he's carrying towards his wife and "the minority" for whom she left him.

No, it's not a great world and I'd love to see the KKK demolished. I do know, however, that using this membership to justify their actions could open the door to use membership in other "extremist" organizations to justify employment discrimination. Other "extremist" organizations such as, what, the Democratic Party, the National Organization for Women, AFL-CIO, Feminist Majority...pick one.

[Bombero1956]

23. big difference

the Democratic Party, the National Organization for Women, AFL-CIO, Feminist Majority. None of those organizations ever lynched someone because of their color.

[Cerridwen]

27. There is no difference in some peoples' minds and that was

what I was pointing out. There are those on the fringes of the far right who would "draw and quarter" any feminist, unionist or Democrat if they thought they could get away with it. We start limiting groups and rights at our own peril.

The (un)Patriot Act was purportedly a "tool" to enable "the authorities" to have an easier job of fighting terrorists. When it is used to arrest and prosecute a child pornographer; to much cheering and glee from "the masses" for getting the scum; it opened the door for it to be used against other non-terrorist "criminals" such as political demonstrators and nurses who write letters to the editor of their local paper criticizing this regime, er, administration.

When a crack addicted woman is prosecuted for "child endangerment" due to the effects of her drug use on the "unborn child"; to much cheering and glee from "the masses" for punishing the scum; it opens the door for the legal system to find women "unsuitable" for motherhood in contentious child custody cases if she happens to enjoy wine with her meals or a joint now and then.


In short, "Be careful what you wish for".

[Red_Viking]

3. Did he have an employment contract?

Likely that he did, and if so, he has to be fired for cause. Affiliation with a particular group is NOT grounds for firing someone, but being in a group whose goals are fundamentally illegal probably is. The officer is in a position of public trust. How can he say he can carry out his law enforcement duties equally and fairly for all citizens? He'd be violating the due process rights of minorities in the line of duty, potentially creating liability not just for himself but for the police department as well. I'm not sure the trooper has much of a defense here. If he had notice and a hearing, and the state has a good argument for firing him, I can foresee the arbitrator being overturned in court.

If he is an at-will employee, they can fire him because he wears the wrong color socks or his breath smells bad. But, I bet he has a contract.

This one will be interesting!

Peace,

RV

[LiberalFighter]

32. Nebraska is an "Employee-at-will" state

If he didn't have a contract they could had fired him.

But, since he is a union member he has a contract with the state. That doesn't mean the union approves of this member's action. They are bound by federal and state law to represent their members. They have to follow that contract and it apparently specifies they go to arbritration in this situation.

Nebraska is also a "Right to Work" state that prohibits mandatory membership in unions. But the union still has to represent him even if he doesn't pay dues. But I don't know the complete facts on this person.

[LiberalFighter]

33. State Troopers Assn of Nebraska Press Release

Press Release
The State Troopers Association of Nebraska (STAN) as a member of the State Law Enforcement Bargaining Council (SLEBC) shares the disgust of the Nebraska State Patrol Command Staff, the Attorney General's Office, and all those offended by Mr. Henderson.

SLEBC has a contractual obligation to represent all of its members through the arbitration process. This obligation should not be construed as condoning the actions of Mr. Henderson.

STAN has a contractual agreement with the State of Nebraska to utilize a binding arbitration process for dispute resolution involving SLEBC members. The arbitrator has made a clear decision in the Henderson arbitration ruling based upon the evidence presented.

Any further questions should be referred to SLEBC Legal Counsel Vince Valentino at 402-362-7725.

[LiberalFighter]

34. Mgmt Rights in Contract

The right to hire, examine, promote, train, transfer, assign, and retain bargaining unit members; suspend, demote, discharge, or take other disciplinary action against bargaining unit members for just cause; and to relieve bargaining unit members from duties due to lack of work or funds, subject to the terms of this contract.

The key is just cause. The state more than likely failed to present themselves clearly.

[LiberalFighter]

35. Paul J. Caffera Resume

State of New Jersey Public Employment Relations Commission Resume

[DeSwiss]

5. The primary stated aim of the KKK...

...is the separation of the races at minimum and the diminution if not outright denial of the civil rights of certain citizens based upon their race.

From the article:


Arbitrator Paul J. Caffera, a New York lawyer, last week overturned the firing. He said Henderson was entitled to his First Amendment rights of free speech and that the state violated the troopers' contract, in part when it fired Henderson "because of his association with the Knights Party ... and the Ku Klux Klan."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/08/26/national/main1936778.shtml

This goes beyond a question of "free speech rights," as Caffera says, particularly when the KKK has been investigated by federal and state authorities for many years, and found guilty of various crimes including murder, and violations of civil rights.

I agree that the trooper has the right to associate with any organization he chooses. But he has no right to do so while in the employ of the state of Kansas which among other things, is required to uphold the laws of the state and those of the U.S. As well as upholding the constitutional safe guards for ALL of its citizens. The KKK's stated mission runs contrary to supporting and upholding U.S. law.

As Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote regarding free speech in SCOTUS's unanimous opinion concerning Schenck v. United States which was with respect to pamphlets written in opposition to a draft for World War I:

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent."

I would argue that this state trooper's participation and involvement in the KKK clearly is a "clear and present danger," of evils that not only Congress, but all of us have a right to prevent. I can only hope that the state of Kansas will not stop here with this obviously flawed legal rationale of a poorly trained lawyer.

[RamboLiberal]

6. I can understand the slippery slope and 1st Amendment

argument on this, but since this trooper is charged with enforcing the law equally among all citizens regardless of race, I'd question his ability to do so as a member of the KKK. There must be grounds within his contract with Nebraska that would allow his firing on grounds of membership within this group. This guy is a potential liability to the civilian population and to the state of Nebraska.

KKK had a lot of power in the past since many of its members were also members of local law enforcement. I wouldn't want to go back to those really bad old days. There is still too much of a problem in law enforcement with unequal treatment of minorities.

[dsc]

11. Either we have a first amendment or we don't

If the state of Nebraska can fire him for his private political affilations, then what is to stop them from firing the next person for belonging to the Communist Party? Then the next one for belonging to PETA? and on and on.

[RamboLiberal]

12. Fine - If I was Nebraska I'd put this clown on desk duty

till retirement time with as little interaction with the public as possible. But since the Klan is a known racist group I still say fire his butt on "conduct unbecoming". If someone gets fired cause of affiliation with a political group, etc. then let's fight each case in court.

Each side is entitled to take this case all the way up to the Supreme Court if they want. And with the present makeup of that court as Rummie would say "Who knows".

[DeSwiss]

15. dsc, I don't see this as a zero-sum argument...

...while the Communist Party is clearly anathema to democratic principles, PETA seeks not to deny the rights of individuals but to extend them to animals for the preservation of their lives. The KKK and its adherents have not only been responsible for the taking of lives, but its principle aim is to seek to deny the rights (including free speech) of specific groups based upon race.

While I don't deny that there should be a right of such groups to exists, or for this man to belong to them, clearly the aims and goals of the KKK are contrary to equality, and to the application of those same rights you're saying protects his position as an employee. You can't have it both ways. Neither do I think that the citizens of Nebraska nor the U.S. should have to pay the salary of someone who through their affiliations (whatever they may be), who ultimately seeks to deny people their full rights. Particularly in this case where the job entails that he fully and equally uphold and enforce the law. How can this be? And if he didn't believe in the denial of full equality, then why did he join them?

In addition, any case in which he becomes involved that includes a member of a group that the KKK opposes (including Jews, Blacks, Catholics, Gays, Hispanics, etc), would become hampered from and prosecutorial standpoint because it' s merits become immediately suspect on its face. So how can he then perform the job for which he was hired?

[dsc]

16. The second he acts on his beliefs he should get fired

but people do things on their job they don't necessarily agree with all the time. I had to teach abstinence to my class last year as part of abstinence week. I did my job.

[KingFlorez]

30. The First Amendment doesn't have anything to do with this

He belonged to an organization that advocates discrimination and lynching people, no one who is a member of an organization like that should have authority.

[dsc]

36. Since when does the first amendment not have anything to do

with freedom of association? That is one of the four big rights in that amendment. The very same type of argument could be made of Communists who could be said to want to overthrow the government.

[KingFlorez]

37. It's not really safe

A lot of member of these hate groups become police officers to carry out their racist actions. We're not talking about communists, we're talking about a group of people with a very violent track record. It's not really safe to have people like this in the police department.

[dsc]

38. If this particular person is violent

then he should have a criminal record and by all means kick him off the force. But if his only problem is mere membership in this group I don't see him being able to be fired.

[krispos42]

13. I'm leaning towards the "Inability to enforce laws equally" argument

There may yet be no record of racist behavior (hell, it's Nebraska! It's mostly white!) but a devoted member of the KKK is a clear signal that the odd of him being able to enforce the law with something approaching fairness will be inhibited.

Police operate a lot on instinct and observation. With his instincts and observations being filtered through whatever rantings and 'logic' the KKK I don't see how he can keep from seeing criminal activity in all minorities.

Perhaps he can be a dispatcher, or in the armory or property room or something. I hesitate to think "guard".

[Charlie Brown]

19. the KKK is a legal organization

and as long as he is doing his job and obeying the law, the state of Nebraska is obligated to treat him the same as everybody else.

[Charlie Brown]

18. Equal protection under the law

The constitution certainly does require every US citizen to be treated equally by public instituions, as long as they obey the law.

This officer cannot be treated differently because of who he associates with, or his views, as long as he carries out his job impartially and appropriately.

The ACLU needs to offer its services. If this stands, we can get used to Democrats and liberals being fired for the same "we just can't trust them" grounds.

[DeSwiss]

21. Charlie Brown, I still disagree...

Freedom does not exist in a vacuum. With his freedom of speech also comes the responsibility to insure that the freedoms of others is respected and upheld as well. How can this be so when the avowed purpose of the KKK is to deny the freedom of others? No one is arguing that the KKK isn't a legal organization. A legal "terrorist" organization based upon federal law's definition I might add.

There are a myriad of jobs and professions in the private sector that anyone can pursue without any concerns being made of the organizations they might belong to. However, once one crosses over into a public service position, their background and histories become subject to the scrutiny of "the public." It must be so in order to insure the fair and equitable application of our freedoms.

As a peace officer, this state trooper is a sworn officer of the law. And yet the KKK defies the application of the law as it applies to those races it denigrates. If he were a member of the Taliban, he would not be eligible for this position and no one would argue the point because this is a "foreign" terrorist organization. The fact that the KKK's terrorism is of a domestic variety does not in my view make it any less of a threat to our freedoms.

[Charlie Brown]

22. He's still a US citizen

and the right to equal protection and freedom of association means nothing if a public institution can punish employees for what they do on their own time. If this guy is using his position to harrass minorities, or distributing Klan leaflets on his shift, then, by all means, fire him. Until then the Bill of Rights offers him the same protections it offers Democrats, liberals, communists, christians, and all other US citizens, and thank goodness it's still valid.

If he were a member of the Taliban, he would still be eligible for this position until it could be proven that he was either a threat to others, an ineffective employee, or some kind of security risk. Since the US is at war with the Taliban, there's a good chance he would be considered a security risk. I doubt anyone in the US could brag about being in the Taliban, and not end up in jail, though.

[DeSwiss]

24. CB, I understand your point...

...and have no problem with it if we were speaking of a private sector position. But when one is working as a public servant, this comes with different, and a higher level criteria of acceptance. And it should, because unlike private sector jobs, these are either directly or indirectly responsibile for carrying out the public trust.

Let me give another example: let's say that an elementary school teacher is found to be a member of NAMBLA. NAMBLA members have been known to break a number of laws and are under legal scrutiny and prosecution. They've kidnapped children and/or adopted them from foreign countries -- all for the purpose of engaging in "child-love" as they call it. Now, let's say that person hasn't broken any laws. They may have never carried out any act that could be prosecuted that is related to child abuse. Still, should they be able to keep their public supported job upon the discovery of their membership in such a group? Would you want them even in close proximity to your child?

I don't believe that the freedoms we both hold dear, that are accorded under the Constitution should be seen as a blank check. Particularly for persons in positions of authority who are charged with the direct enforcement and application of those laws, and whose beliefs (as evidenced through their associations and speech), run directly counter to the positions for which they were hired. In other words: "I would not hire the fox to guard the hen house."

There are a number of government jobs that for reasons of security, would deny a person employment if they were deemed a security risk. If this can be applied for reasons of national security, is not the security of citizens under the direct observation and oversight of the police equally as important? Equal protection and freedom of association is precisely what the KKK is against. There are a number of right-wing organizations that I disagree with that do not advocate the denial of rights based upon race, religion or sexual orientation or preference.

Where I believe the line must be drawn is when those beliefs and positions that are held run directly counter to either the letter or the spirit in the enforcement of U.S. law. How can we have any faith in those whom we hire to uphold the law, whose beliefs are contrary to the very laws they are charged to uphold? I think this is simply one of those issues where we'll have to agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Point of info: it is illegal to do business with an organization or members of such organizations that is are listed on the U.S. State Department's terrorist organizations list. I assume that would include hiring someone as a state trooper and providing "material support" and/or training in any of the martial arts. Unfortunately, the KKK isn't listed on any "domestic" terrorist list -- I think mainly because as an "organization" they barely exist at all now.

http://www.state.gov/s/ct/rls/fs/37191.htm

[Charlie Brown]

26. all interesting points

I don't know enough about NAMBLA to make a moral judgement on their actions, but if the school-teacher was a member for reasons other than breaking the law (like supporting rights for minors or lowering the age of consent for adults), then it would seem excessive to fire him/her just because of association. It's probably best to settle situations like that on a case-by-case basis instead of automatically firing anyone who's a member.

The reason I think it's important to reserve security quetions to only national security, is that any group or association could be designated a threat to safety or peace if the wrong people are in charge.

Many right-wing christians, for example, believe that pro-choicers advocate murder, and would gladly exclude them from public employment if given the opportunity. Likewise, talk-radio pundits have been accusing liberals of "helping" terrorists and trying to destroy America for many years now. I don't want to give them the power to bar people from employment because of the positions they have, or for whom they vote. I don't like the idea of KKK-members as cops, but the alternative of banning them could lead to a much worse situation.

[krispos42]

39. The State Police ARE a public institution

and as their representative this trooper is required to treat the public in an equal manner. By his own admission he joined because he needed a place to 'vent' his rage, so perhaps he has a massive case of (perceived) penis envy or some other racist crap.

He is admitting he has a problem of hating minorities because his wife left him for one. That is deeply personal and may well result in an incident that is entirely foreseeable (like a Rodney King-style beating) and the Mebraska State Police will be accused of knowing this and doing nothing to stop it beforehand.

If the guy has a rage problem, then he should not be patroling in potentially violent and emotional situations until after he's gone through counseling to help him see through his anger and hurt. He then, presumebly, also would not need to be with the Klan anymore and would retire from their membership.

The other problem with this situation is that is will almost certainly affect any arrests he makes of minority people, even otherwise rock-solid cases, where the defense attorney can bring this up in court or the media. The taint will be bad, very bad, especially when his reasons for joining the KKK surface.

He might be able to maintain KKK ties under other circumstances and still be an honest and effective police officer, but I don't think so under these circumstances.

[killbotfactory]

25. Watch him like a hawk

If he let's his racism get in the way of his job, or if there is already evidence of this, fire him.

But firing him for being a member of a group most people don't like? I don't know if I like where that can lead.

[Toots]

28. So using this logic it would be okay for a judge to have ten commandments

prominently posted in his courtroom. When people fear those in position of power have an agenda and can not treat others fairly because of that agenda then it become counterproductive to the state and can not be allowed to continue. Minorities can not get fair and equal treatment from the KKK or any of it's members. That is a given just by their creed. The Constitution guarantees equal and fair treatment for every citizen not just white citizens.

[Kailassa]

31. To have a local policeman being a member of the Klan

is an insult to every non-caucasian in the area.

If you are black and in the power of a member
of the Klan, you are going to feel fear.
And not a healthy fear born of respect, a "what
will this ass do to me if he can get away with it"
fear.

Not only is this policeman seriously impeded
out his job, but local non-whites have had a
protector replaced by a threat.