2006 COMMENTARY

January 20, 2006

In jail with pay
Waste Watchers

By Drew Gaut

At most jobs, on-the-job conduct that gets an employee arrested will usually stop the paycheck, at least for the duration of the incarceration. However, if that individual is a Washington State Patrol employee sworn to uphold the law, the paycheck is delivered to the jail, it seems.

Michael Idland was on administrative reassignment and drew his full Washington State Patrol (WSP) salary during the 17 months he spent in the King County Jail for molesting women during routine traffic stops. Why did the agency that is supposed to enforce our state laws reward an officer for breaking those laws?

When we asked for their policy on administrative reassignments, the WSP sent part of the regulations manual. This portion of their policy mentions paid leave for many complaints, but Chapter 12, Section D states that "when the complaint served upon an officer is of a criminal nature calling for the discharge of the employee, the Chief may immediately suspend the employee without pay pending a Trial Board hearing."

The collective bargaining agreement also suggests that Idland could have been suspended without pay until his discharge was decided. In the disciplinary section, suspensions are repeatedly mentioned, and always without pay.

When asked about the continued pay, WSP spokesperson Jeffrey DeVere said it was the most efficient way to handle the situation. He said that Idland would have to remain on the payroll throughout the investigation, which seems to be out of line with the policies and guidelines outlined in both the WSP regulations manual and Idland's contract. DeVere made reference to property rights and an inability to fire someone without going through the proper investigation. He referenced the administrative investigation manual, which DeVere says must be followed before the regulations manual.

Which leads to the question: The evidence they had already uncovered was enough to strip Idland of his freedom, but not of his paycheck? What's wrong with this picture?

Not only did Idland continue drawing his salary, it actually increased while he was in jail. For the 2004 portion of his incarceration, he drew $3,898 per month. In January 2005, it went up to $4,132 per month, which lasted through June. In July, it increased again, this time to $4,289 per month. In September, it increased once more, and he drew $4,426 that month. He stopped drawing pay at the end of October, in accordance with an agreement reached when he resigned (after entering a plea deal, no less). All told, Idland earned approximately $70,000 while sitting in jail.

Though the WSP dropped the ball, Judge Ronald Kessler showed that his court has no tolerance for abuse of power. He sentenced Idland to four years of probation, payment of $24,850 for his incarceration, and $15,600 in fines and court fees-all added to the 497 days he served in jail.

Of course, the amount Idland was told to pay doesn't compensate the state for the time he was drawing full salary while unable to work, nor does it even begin to address the damages the state may have to pay his victims. At least it sends the message that the court doesn't tolerate police officers who abuse their power and break the law.

As for the WSP, maybe they'll take a good look at their policies and start asking why it's so hard to fire an officer who's in jail for breaking the law.

Additional Information
Ex-trooper convicted of groping told to pay $40,000
State trooper who groped women quits
Trooper's resignation may be only justice we see
Trooper free in misconduct plea deal

+ Send EFF your comments

  Send this Article to a Friend