uf{Iot\

CONNECTICUT
STATE POLICE UNION
Date: May 9, 2016

To:

All Union Members

AMMO
#16-06
From:

Matthelvs, President

Exposed: Intimidution Tuctics und Gross Misase of Authoritv

The Connecticut State Police Union takes pride in the reputation it has built over the past 35 -vears. Our Union leadership is consisteut,
deliberate, diplornatic. fair, professional and responsive no matter the circurnstances. Vy'e are proud of our strong legac-v and all the
successes accornplished on behalf of onr members and their families. We are olso proud for holding those qccount&ble for
disrespecting, intimidsting, mistreting, tsrgeting, snd threqtening our members whenever necessary snd do not qpologze for nv
actions taken to defend our good nme and to protect our membership.

As a Union. lve believe everyone, regardless of rank or title, desen'es being treated rvith dignity and respect. Unfortunatelv, some
rnembers of our agency believe "rank has its privileges" and the Internal Affairs process only exists for NP- I . Ranli has its place in the
Connecticut State Police, but not within the Connecticut State Police Union or among other union leaders. Unfortunatel-v, sonre of our
managers cannot grasp tlris distinction. Clearlv, some managers v,ere promoted 'ell beyonel their level of competence sncl seek
promotions becouse of their egos. Thev then misuse their suthoritv to deliberatelv clestroy others. Fortunatel,v, the rnajority seek
promotion or leadership positions because they possess the skills and intellect to make a difference. These individuals understand there
is honor in being given the responsibilir-n- of supporting and caring for those rvho make this agency- unique.
Conversely, solne managers believe the-v should be respected b-v lorver ranking Troopers sirnpl-v because they hold a higher rank. These
individuals do not understand tlrat respect is eanred by holv you conduct yourself. As Troopers, we must recognize snd obev rsnk -- but
we clo not have to respect the inclividual holding the rank. One ranking officer rvho does not seem to understand this concept -- and is
not desen'ing of our respect -- is Michael Thomas, acting President for the Captains and Lieutenants Union. For good reason, our Board
of Directors recentl-v decided to publicly address the Union's concems about Thomas. Over the pqst six vears. Thomas's n&me was
roised numerous times as someone 'ho ignores Union members' rights, cloes not suoport Troopers in the lield, sncl has the
leudership philosophv of "Do ss I sav...Not ss I do. " In 2010 , as an NP-l Union Board member Thomas video recorded Union
meetings and rvould report back to command staff about our conversations. As a Lieutenant, Thomas atternpted to inten'ier,v an NP-l
mernber about a motor vehicle accident rvhile the Trooper r,vas in a hospital bed despite being informed the member invoked his right to
a Union representatir,e. When the Union Stervard refused to leave the Trooper's bedside, Thomas berated the Stervard and carne r,vithin
inches of hinr asking, "Whr are you chicken harvking tne?" Fear and intimidation
work within the State Police or v,th our Union lesdership and membership.
Over the years, Thomas has demonstrated holv unfit he is to command. Clearly, he does not follow tlie Golden Rule of "Do unto others
as you would have thern do unto yon." For example, in2014. as a Troop Commander, Thomas requested an explanatory from a Trooper
wlro rvas nearly stnrck b-v a speeding nrotorist. llthen the Union member invoked his right to confer u,ith the Union, Thomus ordered a
Sergesnt to immedistely initiste o crimnal investisation agqinst the Trooper. (See attached IA report) Without a civilian complaint,
Thomas requested a criminal investigation because he did not respect the Trooper's contractual right to cousult rvith the Union before
answering questions. Not surprisinglv, when Thomqs wss accused of sexuallv hsrassing s female employee under his cammand, the
agency fsiled to conduct an Internal Aff&irs investigation, and in fuct, oromotecl him to Coptsin. Hor,vever. rve have had members
investigated and demoted for less. Such practices rvill no longer be tolerated.
In April of 2016, r,vhile representing the Captains and Lieutenants Union at the legislahrre, Thomas complained to legislators that the
(NP-I) Union leadership "rau the department r,vith Cornrnissioner Schriro" and "Commissioner Schriro lvould not consider NP-9's
input." Thomas also cornplained that under CGS: 5-246, he and his members should be allorved to u'ork HCP, rvhich is our bargaining
unit r,r'ork per Article 4l . Unforhrnately for the NP-9 membership, the-v ratified their contract in 20 I I rvhich unambiguousl-v states"
"brgaining unit members shsll not be entitled to any overtime puy." Lamenting to legislators shows & Isck of professionalism Any
reasonable person r,vould understand if the agenc1."s comrnand did not have the same relationship r,vith NP-9, as it does r,vith NP- l. Wren
this atternpt to undermire NP-l failed, Thomas next contacted the Colonel and explained he leamed that during a recent Union meeting
r,r,e disclosed to the menbership Thomas had requested a criminal investigation against our member. Tltomas requested the Colonel
contact 1.'our President and demand he not speak "disparagingl-v" about him [Thomas]. ll'hst Thomas fails to understsnd is that v,e
have the right funder the First Amendment und CGS: 5-2 721 to .on*nunanl, fnas lo our m.ptnltrsAs rve move fonvard, rve r,vill continue to support those in comrnand r,vho support otr tnembers. Holvever. so loug as Thontas is acting
as President of the Captains and Lieutenants Union. onr Uniorr leadership r.vill not have a meauingful rvorkiug relationship rvith those
NP-9 rnembers rvho do not li've bv the Golden Rule. Michael Thomas and those rvlto "lead" sirnilarlv. shoulcl consicler this a v,arning:
If tou disrespect, intimidste, mistrest, target, or thresten our members, for self- eniovment or otherwise, we v'ill responcl.