President's Message

Henry, I believe you know me.

I am Stanley Cohen, a former Cincinnati, Ohio, police officer (1960-67), retired professor from Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, Pa. (1967-1996), and author of The Pennsylvania Police Criminal Law Bulletin (1972 to present). My web is www.papolicecriminallawbulletin.com.

The Gates Case: After Action Report
by Jim Pasco, Executive Director

On the morning of 23 July 2009, at the direction of National President Chuck Canterbury, I contacted the White House to advise them of the FOP’s concerns regarding the President’s remarks at the previous night’s press conference which were directed at Sergeant James Crowley and the Cambridge Police Department. I also advised them that National President Canterbury would issue a formal statement later in the day.

I was subsequently contacted by a second member of the White House staff, who told me that all other police groups had committed to remain silent on the issue. I told this staff member that we were unlikely to remain silent. I suggested that he call National President Canterbury, who was in a travel status, and gave him National President Canterbury’s cell phone number. I immediately called National President Canterbury and briefed him on both my conversations with White House staff.

About ten minutes later, National President Canterbury, having by then spoken with the White House himself, coordinated with Arnie Larson, President of the Massachusetts State Lodge, and instructed the Washington, D.C. office to issue a strong statement in support of Sgt. Crowley and the Cambridge Police Department. We did so at approximately 3 pm that afternoon. By early that evening, as a result of FOP leadership on the issue, all other national police groups--except the National Association of Police Organizations (NAPO)–rethought their positions and also made statements in support of the men and women of the Cambridge Police Department.

We were inundated with media calls but only responded to print media to ensure a clear and moderate message. National President Canterbury declined all invitations to appear on talk shows and television news programs.

On the following day, we were happy to comply with a White House request to help facilitate a call from President Obama to Sgt. Crowley, the content of which has been extensively reported.

There is no doubt that the FOP’s prompt, thoughtful, and aggressive action ultimately minimized potential adverse fallout from this matter, and brought focus to the simple fact that Sergeant James Crowley is a good police officer in a good department, and that he and his colleagues were merely doing their jobs that day–and doing them well.

It has come to my attention that misinformation is being circulated concerning the acceptance of new members, particularly those who work limited hours. This misinformation is causing confusion and dissension among the membership of Lodge #91. While I had expectation that these issues would have been settled by now, it would appear that it is the intent of a small minority to incessantly pursue this issue. Therefore, as well as, a follow-up to the PA. State Lodge FOP email, dated September 6, 2007, the purpose of this message is to address, and hopefully put to rest, the issue of membership in FOP Lodge #91.

My goal is to unify the policing profession, and counteract the ravaging efforts of the Teamsters, and the affects they have had on our membership, and our profession. Right now, the Teamsters boast about representing over forty (40) police departments across western Pennsylvania. If allowed to continue, they will raid enough of our membership, and eventually render the FOP ineffective. Officers being denied membership in the FOP are being preyed upon by the Teamsters. In a quote from Teamsters Local Union No. 205 Business Agent, and former McKeesport Police Officer, Carl Bailey, he states, “…Don’t listen to promises that have been made for over seven (7) years by an organization that doesn’t recognize you as a police officer. The FOP is a good Fraternal Organization, so are the Boy Scouts of America and the Lions Club.” Though admirable organizations in their own right, has the FOP become more like the Boy Scouts or Lions Club, rather than a professional labor organization for police officers? And, is this the way you, as the membership, want to be viewed? The Teamsters are using the issue of membership in the FOP to their advantage! And eventually, this will prove to be the undoing of the FOP!

In an excerpt from a letter dated July 3, 2007 the FOP PA. State Lodge stated that regarding the issue of membership and who would qualify, “…and police work is his/her primary source of income, then these Officers should be considered for membership in the Fraternal Order of Police.” They went on to say that, “…Also discussed was the Part-time Officer that only works only one-(1) or two-(2) shifts per week or month and these Officers would NOT meet the criteria for membership.” Additionally, in an excerpt from former FOP National Vice President Ken Rocks, he stated, “…Remove the word/term," Part-time,” and represent all, or we will be strengthening governmental management’s position by withholding representation of all certified police officers…”

It is NOT necessary that we amend Lodge #91’s By-laws to be in compliance with the position of the PA. State, and National, FOP. Although, this may still be considered. At the July 2007 meeting of Lodge #91 acceptance of the State FOP regulation involving membership into the FOP was accepted with unanimous passage.

The MPOETC certified police officer I’m referring to is one who works as a municipal police officer, and police work is their primary source of income, and who works a minimum of two hundred (200) calendar days per year, (As defined by the Police Officer Exemption Application). This, incidentally, is the basic definition of a “Full-time Police Officer.” An officer may work another job, but that job is with another police agency, not the butcher, the baker, or the candle stick maker.

No municipality can be forced to hire “Full-time” but by unifying all police officers, municipalities would have a more difficult time eliminating “Full-time” positions and hiring limited hour police officers as a way to solve budgetary problems.

FOP Lodge #91 has taken on the role of collective bargaining representation, and will now represent any police department that wishes us to do so. And in doing so, we may ultimately make the position of a limited hour employee obsolete.

The bottom line is this, membership in Lodge #91, and representation, for and of ALL police officers, certified by MPOETC, and meeting the criteria, comes down to a moral choice for the existing membership body. There is NO, by-law, legal, ethical, or professional, justification to deny these officers membership.

I hope that this has cleared up this misinformation, and satisfied any questions that may have been lingering. This will prove to be a positive progressive move that will in no way negatively affect the current membership body. And, ALL certified police officers, meeting the criteria, and granted membership in Lodge #91 will be regular full members with all rights and privileges afforded every member.

The strength of any organization is in its membership. The more members, the less likely there would be a need for dues increases, other than the National and State per capita tax. I am NOT “back-dooring” anybody. The membership votes them in and I swear them in. I will always protect the rights of the minority. But, it’s the majority that rules.

The F.O.P. has opened its arms and kicked open the doors. For years the children have paid for the sins of their fathers. Now those children are fathers, and mothers, and realize that CHANGE is good and necessary. It has been a slow process often met with friction and animosity. Police officers are family. How could this family divide itself for so many years? Judging differences in the status of men and women doing the same job? Remember the Civil War? Brother against Brother. American against American each strong in their belief but eventually realizing it was necessary to work together for the greater good of the country. The State of Pennsylvania actually had a good idea when they refused to draw distinctions between full time and part time. Your are either a police officer or not. The state of Pennsylvania doesn’t care if you are full time or part-time only if you work or don’t work. At three o’clock in the morning there are no distinctions among officers when confronted alone on a dark street, searching a dark building or come under fire. No one asks, “Hey are you part-timer?” Who cares, police officers are police officers doing a dangerous job. We are all family on the street with identical goals. Going home alive at the end of watch and doing the best you can. After all, don’t we all have the same training, devotion and dedication to our community?

I recently received a letter from our State Lodge Secretary, Dan Zakraysek, which affirms my long-standing position that police officers that make their living, as police officers, should be permitted membership in the F.O.P. This is an excerpt from that letter.

This is to inform you that at a recent special State Board Meeting of the Pennsylvania State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police the issue of membership was discussed, in particular the issue of Part-time Police Officers. After much discussion, it is the recommendation of the State Board the Local Lodges should consider the following criteria for Part-time Officers joining the Fraternal order of Police. If a Part-time Officer is working in police work (This could be one or more departments) and police work is his/her primary source of income, then these Officers should be considered for membership in the Fraternal Order of Police. It was noted that there are more and more Part-time Officers working one- (1) or more departments and actually working over 40 hours per week. Also discussed was the Part-time Officer that only works one- (1) or two- (2) shifts per week or month and these Officer would not meet the criteria for membership.”

During our general membership meeting in July based on the State Lodges recommendation the membership proposed and adopted a resolution whereby our by-law committee was directed to re-define the requirements for membership so that we may comply with the recommendations of the State Lodge. The resolution further directed our by-law committee to prepare the necessary revisions to make us compliant with the State Lodge. The motion carried unanimously. Last year when I appointed our by-law committee I directed them to investigate this exact issue. I had directed them to give serious consideration to the requirements of membership. Our committee has worked hard and spent numerous hours that have kept Lodge #91 on the very edge of forward movement. We are on the frontier of redefining the future of our organization.

Feelings have been hurt in the past and some officers have felt that the F.O.P. has abandoned them while others have patiently awaited the invitation to join the family. True or not the F.O.P. is finally able to extend its hand of friendship to all brothers and sisters who wear the badge to come home. Come home to the only family that really cares about you, your family and your career. The time has past to bury the hatchet and work toward strengthening our ranks. No organization knows your needs better than the Fraternal Order of Police. We have watched over you and your career and we are asking you to come home. We anxiously await your return to the family. We are looking forward to seeing all our brothers and sisters united together in a common cause. Spread the word. Change is good.

Website Designed By Creative Solutions