Dismissal of Capitol Police Recruits Triggers Norton Letter Raising Budget Priorities (6/25/08)

Washington DC - In a letter to U.S. Capitol Police Chief Philip Morse, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) questioned the department's budget priorities. Norton's letter was triggered by Morse's dismissal of recruits halfway through their training at the police academy. Far from making the case for more officers, however, Norton said she found a new class of 60 officers odd in light of the large number that have been added since 9/11. She criticized the Department's "skewed priorities" for failure to use some of the generous funding Congress has provided for replacement of the outdated and obsolete radios that would be particularly useful in case of incidents or attacks. However, Norton could not make sense of the dismissal of so many recruits so late in the recruitment, processing and academy process in light of the multiple set of hurdles recruits must overcome before admission to the academy, unless the usual time for processing a class was shortened. In her letter, Norton also questioned whether blame should be laid exclusively a human professional with no involvement by police. She said that "the context and full reasons for the dismissals raise far larger issues for the Department and Congress."

The full text of Norton's letter follows:

Phillip D. Morse

Chief

U.S. Capitol Police

119 D Street NE

Washington, DC 20510

Dear Chief Morse:

As you know, I have long voiced my high regard for the work of our excellent Capitol Police, whom I get to see in action on a seven-day basis. However, I was surprised and disappointed to learn that you personally had abruptly dismissed fifteen recruits half-way through their training at the academy in Georgia for reasons vaguely related to hiring improprieties, blaming the matter entirely on the human resources director. We have learned that some of the recruits were members of other police units and military organizations. Recruits are processed for many months before entering the academy, unless the process is shortened or less extensive than required. It is difficult to see how these recruits could have successfully passed written tests, and survived interviews, background investigations, physicals, and psychological evaluations, with final sign off reviewed only by a human resources professional and without police or command involvement in the process.

I am not making the case for more officers or even for these officers, about whom I have no concrete information. On the contrary, I was surprised that the Capitol Police, which has been the largest federal police force, per capita, for decades was taking on more officers at this time. The 50% increase in the Capitol Police after 9/11 stood in stark contrast, for example, to the Federal Protective Service (FPS), which protects one million federal employees, countless visitors, and many secure sites. FPS officers are no longer even present in 50 major cities, and are being all but phased out for lack of funding. The Park Police, which covers significantly greater territory and protects millions of visitors to the Mall and other sites, including the nation's most important monuments, is broken and drained even of the basics, which are only slowly returning.

The processing of yet more Capitol Police officers seemed particularly odd in light of the recent Legislative Branch Subcommittee hearing which showed that Capitol Police could not communicate among themselves because of dangerously obsolete and outdated radios, even within the Capitol complex, and more ominously, with the Metropolitan Police Department or federal and state police.

Considering the generous funding of the Capitol Police, especially since 9/11, it is hard to fathom the budget priorities of police over radios, resulting in two new classes totaling 60 more officers. Perhaps, even given the existing large increase in the force, more police are needed. However, the use of funds for additional officers, starting at nearly $52,000 over basic communication equipment, long known to be almost useless, suggests skewed budgeting priorities.

Against a history of generous funding, questionable priorities and the very rigorous process usually required for recruits, many unanswered questions remain. It seems clear that the commitment to young people who gave up jobs because of assurances by the Department that they were fully qualified to enter the academy raises serious questions of basic fairness that require review. However, the context and full reasons for the dismissals raise far larger issues for the Department and for Congress.

Sincerely,

Eleanor Holmes Norton