Originally posted by usmc_casinos
I can say from 30-years police experience CAP MUST WASH its own dirty laundry if we expect to have public creditability. Cops call it Internal Affairs (IA). The IA model meets the CAP need – policing its own. If we want to be trusted by our clients (the public) we must aggressively police ourselves! You get a complaint; you investigate it IN A PRIVATE/CONFIDENTIAL fashion; an executive board (that’s you Professor) hears evidence and makes its decision/finding: take disciplinary/corrective action if warranted; and make a public statement as to the discipline issued BUT NEVER GIVE DETAILS of the investigative findings. I for one would not care to hear the gory, nasty details. I just want dishonesty handled aggressively, fairly, and promptly. Jim
I agree absolutely, Jim.
Luckily, this issue is so rare here, that CAP didn’t have the protocal in the company manual as to how to handle it, as would a police department.
CAP did have a very lengthy discussion about this in private. CAP was against naming names until there was enough evidence to go public. Greg waited until he got the go-ahead from CAP before posting names.
However, once the cat was out of the bag, Lou handled it very well and correctly, managing damage control and deciding how best to handle it. He was very against naming names because he was afraid it would turn the thread into a mud-slinging mess as seen frequently on other forums. I applaud his efforts here; he has done an excellent job.