Officers Who Cheated Need Stronger Lesson in Honesty : Lack of punishment sends the wrong message

Schoolchildren know that you don’t cheat on tests. National City police officers apparently have to be warned.

That’s one lesson to be learned from Police Chief Stan Knee’s decision not to discipline any of the 11 officers who admitted to “exchanging information,” as Knee prefers it, before the second day of a two-day promotional exam.

Twenty-two officers signed up to take the May oral exam for 22 newly created positions as “senior officers” and eligibility for a 5% pay raise. The exam was designed to test competence in departmental policies and procedures. Eleven officers took the exam the first day. Later, in casual conversation with officers who had yet to take the test, some officers described the questions they had been asked. Some of the listeners walked away. Others didn’t.

In a subsequent investigation, 11 officers freely admitted that they had discussed the questions.

Knee made all 11 ineligible for the new position, and reported his decision to the city’s civil service commission, which concurred. No further discipline was meted out.

Knee defends his action, saying the officers lost the chance for a pay raise (but only until the next test, when they will again be eligible to compete for the 11 remaining vacancies). There was no conspiracy to cheat, he adds, only the mistake of discussing the questions. The officers freely admitted wrongdoing. And the examiners failed to warn the first group of officers not to discuss the questions, Knee says.

Yes, that was an oversight. But Knee’s decision isn’t good enough. These officers should have been sanctioned, if only by a formal reprimand. Like it or not, the public holds police officers to a higher standard of honesty because they enforce the law. When they cross the line, it is especially important that they pay for it.

Besides, by the time you’re old enough to carry a gun, you should have learned that it’s not acceptable to cheat on exams.