The independent investigator’s report into the work environment at Minot’s Police Department has been out for a couple weeks now. Explicitly, there is no finding of a hostile work environment. Specifically, the report states:
“A hostile work environment means conduct that is unwelcome or offensive in the workplace which causes one or more employees to feel uncomfortable, scared, or intimidated based upon a protected category, i.e. race, sex age, religion, disability, or another protected trait. There was no information to support an allegation of a hostile work environment based upon a protected category.”
Some have read that as an exoneration. And it is – in a legal sense. Also in the report: 28 separate recommendations that include the Police Department, Human Resources, and the City Manager’s office. In practice, the report is far less than an exoneration.
In short, we’ve been left standing in muddy water. We should have expected it.
Here’s why. For the sake of argument, try to divorce Minot’s current circumstances from the next line of thought. It’s not about Minot, it’s about anybody in our situation.
Imagine the consequences of finding a police chief – any police chief – created a hostile work environment. This is serious in any workplace, even more so in law enforcement. That finding speaks to integrity. In matters of police, where law enforcement officers routinely sit before judges and juries, matters of integrity are everything.
Consider the ripple-out effects of an officer’s integrity coming into question in an official report. Imagine all the criminal proceedings that might then have grounds for appeal because of that finding.
We’re not talking about ripple-out effects, we’re talking about a tsunami of consequences. That’s not good for the City, nor the Citizens who pay for it.
Now imagine a skilled independent investigator who understands the far-reaching consequences their report might produce. In an investigation that includes police, that investigator knows their report can go one of three ways: complete exoneration, muddy water, or compromised integrity.
But if their report lands on the third, they’ll completely screw their client with a tsunami of consequences. What are the odds an independent investigator is going to deliver the tsunami when they know they can just as easily find muddy water?
So, Minot’s report found muddy water. We should have expected it.
