Published Sunday, May 18, 2008 2:11 AM
Timeline - Officers disciplined in ticket flap
A College Station police lieutenant was temporarily suspended and two other top-ranking officials were reprimanded for their involvement in reviewing a traffic ticket issued to the lieutenant's daughter in October, according to records recently obtained by The Eagle.
The minor traffic citation was discussed over a 72-hour period by at least nine city employees, who later were interviewed as part of an internal affairs investigation overseen by an officer from a different department.
The matter even prompted a former police chief to speculate that it could have been the last straw that led to his unplanned retirement less than a month after the ticket was written.
Lt. Donnie Andreski, whose 16-year-old daughter was issued the citation, said recently that he didn't want to wait to let the ticket take its natural course through the municipal court system because he thought the charge was incorrect.
The ticket was written by a rookie police officer and ultimately was dismissed after going all the way to the city's top attorney, who rarely deals with traffic citations.
Andreski, a 20-year veteran of the College Station Police Department, said he stood by his decision to intervene in the matter and didn't think he did anything wrong.
The lieutenant was given three days off without pay in late January for displaying "unbecoming conduct."
Also receiving written reprimands were Lt. Jeffrey Capps, who has been with the department for 15 years, and Assistant Chief Larry Johnson, a 30-year department veteran. All three law enforcement officials appealed the reprimands, which were issued by former Interim Chief Bobby Whitmire, based on an investigation conducted by former Bryan police Lt. Choya Walling.
While Walling found that Andreski, Johnson and Capps had violated procedure in addition to showing unbecoming conduct, only the latter assessment was sustained by Interim Chief Whitmire.
Andreski said last week that no one tried to have the ticket dismissed but that he and other officers were concerned that the charge filed against his daughter didn't match the alleged offense.
"I think the incident was blown way out of proportion," Andreski said. "I don't agree that my action was unbecoming. But I want to reiterate that we put this matter behind us and it's time to move on. I'm proud to work for the College Station Police Department. Sometimes things happen that we don't agree with. We accept the results and move on."
The Eagle filed a request in January for communication related to the internal affairs investigation after news tips suggested it might be linked to former Chief Michael Clancey's abrupt retirement. The city asked for an attorney general's opinion, which tied up the release of the paperwork until last week.
The records, totaling almost 400 pages, show that former Chief Clancey also was named in Walling's investigation. The investigator said Clancey violated procedure, showed unbecoming conduct and was not truthful when he became involved in discussions about the ticket in October. Clancey wasn't disciplined for his role in the matter because by the time the investigation was complete in December, he no longer worked for the College Station Police Department.
Clancey was told in a July review conducted by City Manager Glenn Brown and Assistant City Manager Kathy Merrill that he had four months to make changes to his leadership style and performance or he could be fired.
The report filed by Walling in December states that even though Clancey said the ticket should follow proper procedure and go to court, he encouraged the officer who issued the citation and an assistant chief to talk about the matter with a prosecutor, who had authority to dismiss the ticket.
When reached for comment last week in Arlington County, Va., where he now does consulting work, Clancey said he had not seen a copy of Walling's investigation. The former chief was provided a copy of the report by The Eagle and said the comments in it amounted to "character assassination."
"I am putting the city on notice that there will be further action," he said Wednesday, explaining that he would consider filing a lawsuit. "This has assassinated my career. This was a poorly done investigation. This is not the end of this."
Documents obtained through the open records request show that Clancey told other officers he expected to be fired over the matter, but he later told Walling that the reason he retired Oct. 26 -- just four days after an internal affairs investigation was requested by Sgt. Steve Brock -- was unrelated to the matter. Clancey told The Eagle at the time of his departure that potential personality conflicts existed between him and the city manager's office.
When asked last week whether he thought he was asked to leave because of the Andreski situation, Clancey pointed to his July performance evaluation.
"You read the stinging review," he said. "All they needed was one more thing. Whether this happened or not, I was gone. Did I think this might have precipitated a quicker exit? Possibly."
City Manager Brown said Friday that it would be inappropriate for him to comment on personnel matters.
The ticket
Andreski's daughter, whose name is redacted from the 392-page file obtained by The Eagle through an open records request, was cited Oct. 9 for disobeying a police officer's traffic direction.
Officer Mica Lunt, who was in training at the time, was directing traffic at a school crossing at Rock Prairie Road and Rio Grande Boulevard. He said he motioned for traffic to stop at a crosswalk, but the Andreski teen "did not attempt to stop until almost at the intersection and finally slammed on [the] brakes and slid through the intersection, eventually coming to a stop," according to reports.
The citation was supported by Officer Jamie Urbina, who was Lunt's field training officer and witnessed the incident.
Andreski heard about the ticket from his daughter and said he was concerned that "disobeying a police officer's traffic direction" was an improper charge because it must show that a person willfully disregarded the instruction. Andreski said his daughter didn't see the officer.
"No one tried to cut a deal or do anything underhanded or sneaky," Andreski said. "There were no orders given to dismiss the ticket. My request was that we look into it and see if the elements of the offense were met.
"When the Police Department has received similar complaints, the PD always attempts to correct any mistakes made by their officers," Andreski said. "I expected to be treated the same as any other citizen. I could have taken it to court, but the outcome would be unknown."
Andreski asked Sgt. Brock to check with Lunt to see if the charge was "a good charge." After speaking with the rookie officer, Brock agreed that it was a valid ticket. But then Andreski asked Brock's supervisor, Lt. Capps, to investigate the charge.
"[Capps] did do that and before he could get back with you, you were already talking to [Assistant] Chief Johnson about the ticket," Whitmire wrote in a memo to Andreski dated Jan. 24.
The ticket was dismissed Oct. 16 after the city attorney determined that the "willful part of the elements could not be proven since the defendant did in fact stop after she saw the officer," Whitmire's memo states.
On Oct. 22, Sgt. Brock requested that an internal affairs investigation be conducted "in response to recent actions taken" by Johnson, Andreski and Capps.
'Dangerously out of control'
Capps recently declined to elaborate on his involvement in the matter, pointing to the documents that contain his sworn statements.
"I didn't agree with the final outcome, but we've moved on," he said. "We've put all that behind us, and we're moving forward."
The lieutenant said during the internal affairs investigation that he was contacted by Andreski on the day the citation was issued.
"He made it perfectly clear to me that ... 'I'm not trying to get her out of anything. I don't want anybody to think that I'm using my influence on anybody to try to get this ticket dismissed or anything like that,'" Capps said of Andreski in the investigation documents, explaining that Andreski thought the charge filed against his daughter was inaccurate.
Lt. Capps agreed to check into the ticket and make sure it met the designation "disobeying a police officer." Capps met Oct. 10 with Officer Lunt, who confirmed to him that Andreski's daughter had been speeding in a school zone, didn't stop at the crosswalk and "obviously committed some kind of traffic violation," Capps said during the investigation.
"Sounded to me that she needed a citation, so we kind of left it at that," Capps told the internal affairs investigator.
Later that day, Capps met with Andreski and Assistant Chief Johnson in Johnson's office and heard the assistant chief say to Andreski that the ticket couldn't be dismissed "because of who you are."
"[Andreski] is getting upset about the whole thing," Capps said about the meeting Oct. 10. "[Andreski] said ... 'I can't believe we have officers out here writing citations for charges that don't fit.' He kind of gets to the point where, you know, 'I'm demanding that you guys look into this and if it's not appropriate, you need to dismiss the charges.'"
Johnson told Andreski he was bordering on insubordination. Andreski said he needed to leave, then walked out of the room, Capps said.
Johnson sent an e-mail to Capps later that day that said, "This situation is dangerously out of control," according to documents from The Eagle's open records request.
The reprimand that former Interim Chief Whitmire issued to Capps said he had showed unbecoming conduct by continuing to be involved in the situation when he reviewed a videotape of the traffic stop with Andreski and Johnson.
Johnson's reprimand said that he brought the matter to former Chief Clancey's attention shortly after the ticket was written and was told by Clancey "to do things which placed [Johnson] in an untenable situation," according to a memo written by Whitmire.
"This is probably one of the hardest things to do while maintaining a position such as the one you hold," Whitmire wrote to Johnson. "Although I believe you did not actively seek to have the citation dismissed, your verbiage, actions and rank led others to believe you did."
Johnson has maintained that he said all along that the citation needed to "proceed as normal."
"The only person who could change that was Chief Clancey," Johnson said last week. "He was chief of police at the time. He gave directions, and I did what he told me to do.
"I disagree totally with the outcome as far as the findings that I did anything wrong," Johnson added. "It bothers me to have a letter saying something I did was unbecoming conduct. That just hits me in the gut. But it's done. We're moving on. I've put this behind me, and we're moving on."
Dismissed
Clancey directed Assistant Chief Johnson on Oct. 11 to call Adam Falco, a prosecutor who had worked in the City Attorney's Office for less than eight months.
Johnson said he protested and didn't understand the order because it seemed to contradict Clancey's previous direction to "stay completely out of this."
Johnson explained that Clancey had pressed him, and ultimately he called Falco while standing outside City Hall with Clancey just before a council meeting was to begin. Johnson said he told Falco that some issues had been raised about the validity of the charge against Andreski's daughter and that he had "some concern about the 'willful' [standard]."
Johnson also told the prosecutor that the ticket had been written by a new officer.
"I expressed to him my concern about whether or not we would be able to prove [that Andreski's daughter disobeyed the officer] willfully," Johnson said in his interview with the internal affairs investigator.
Johnson said he believed he was communicating what Clancey wanted him to say -- and Clancey was standing next to him while the phone conversation took place, he said. Johnson and Lt. Rodney Sigler, who handles internal affairs for College Station police, both said they received conflicting statements from Clancey.
Clancey said he did ask Johnson to make the call but didn't tell him to discuss probable cause or the "willful" designation -- only to say that the matter needed to take its normal course through the court. While Johnson was speaking to Falco, at one point, Clancey took the phone and told the prosecutor, "We are staying out of this," Johnson told the internal affairs investigator.
When asked recently to detail exactly what he was told by the chief, Johnson referred to the transcripts. The transcripts show that Johnson believed Clancey was giving an inconsistent message by saying the police should stay out of the matter but then encouraging him to call the prosecutor.
Clancey said he was never inconsistent with his direction to any officers.
"[The city is] going to clear me [of wrongdoing]," he said last week. "I demand to be polygraphed, and I want Johnson and Andreski polygraphed. This is the biggest disgrace I have ever encountered in my entire career. I had no idea this was what they would come up with. I was the one who was consistent in saying we are not getting involved and I want no sense of impropriety."
Clancey said he couldn't hear what was being said during Johnson's phone call to the prosecutor because Johnson had turned his back and noisy traffic was passing by City Hall.
Falco, the prosecutor, later told investigators that he couldn't recall the exact words Johnson used in the phone call "but he could tell that [Johnson] wanted him to get rid of it."
Falco declined to be interviewed for this story.
It was City Attorney Harvey Cargill who decided Oct. 16 to dismiss the ticket, after he heard about Johnson's call to Falco and called Johnson himself. The city attorney said he determined that there were concerns about the "willful" designation and about whether there was probable cause to issue the ticket.
"I don't have a great feeling whenever, you know, somebody tells me who's an assistant chief, there's not probable cause and it ain't a good offense ..." Cargill told investigators. "And so, once ... we've been pushed to that point, that's why I did what I did."
Cargill told The Eagle last week that he didn't set out to give Andreski a special deal but that he also didn't want to treat the police lieutenant worse than he would another resident.
"The statute requires that you have to prove a willful violation," he said. "The charge couldn't be proven, so the ticket couldn't be prosecuted."
Cargill, a 10-year city employee, told the investigator that the fact that Johnson had contacted a prosecutor worried him because it was so unusual.
"We don't usually have chiefs or assistant chiefs call about tickets," he is quoted in Walling's report. "In fact, I've never had them do it."
The citation was dismissed as a direct result of information derived from statements by Andreski, Capps and Johnson and communicated to Falco by Andreski and Johnson, the investigation concluded.
Moving forward
A new College Station police chief, Michael Ikner, is scheduled to start work June 2.
Scott McCollum, an assistant chief with a 23-year history at the College Station Police Department, is serving in the interim.
McCollum said Friday that he couldn't recall a time when an officer's questions about a minor traffic ticket had turned into "something of this magnitude."
"We do have people who question an officer's actions," he said. "I don't think that, in and of itself, is abnormal. I think there's some concern about how it was handled, but it's been put behind us. The resounding voice today is that now that we've healed, we don't want to reopen the wound."
McCollum said he thought the matter involved some miscommunication and "took on a life of its own." It shouldn't be a poor reflection on the department, he said.
"I've got heart and soul in this organization, and I would stand up to anybody and say that our organization is intact," he said. "I'm very confident in the integrity of all the officers who work in the College Station Police Department. If we have issues, we deal with them straight up. It's painful to have something like this, kind of a black eye on the department. I know we're better than that. There was no ill will here, just a bad set of circumstances."
Andreski, who said last week that he had never been seriously disciplined before, also said he'd like to put the matter behind him.
"I can tell you this hasn't caused any hurt feelings on my part," he said. "I wasn't happy with the outcome of the complaint in that I received disciplinary action over it. In the end, it is what it is."
• April Avison's e-mail address is april.avison@theeagle.com.
Notice about comments:
TheEagle.com is pleased to offer readers the ability to comment on stories. We expect our readers to engage in lively, yet civil discourse. TheEagle.com does not edit user submitted statements and we cannot promise that readers will not occasionally find offensive or inaccurate comments posted in the comments area. Responsibility for the statements posted lies with the person submitting the comment, not theeagle.com. If you find a comment that is objectionable, please click "report abuse" and we will review it for possible removal. Please be reminded, however, that in accordance with our Terms of Use and federal law, we are under no obligation to remove any third party comments posted on our website.
Full terms and conditions can be read here.
(Requires free registration.)
Posted by: Brad Johnson On: 8/15/2008
Comment Title:
The way the system is supposed to work is you get a ticket. You go to court if you think it is wrong or incorrectly written. No calls to daddy to make it go away. The police write the ticket the judge being a judge will determine if it is valid or not. It pretty obvious what was going on here.
Posted by: On: 5/28/2008
Comment Title: New Chief
I for one will be paying special interest in College Station PD after June 2nd. Will there be a reporganization at the highest level or will it be "bisness as usual?
Posted by: On: 5/24/2008
Comment Title: RE: RE: What leaving officers think
It is my understanding that the officer mentioned in this post left due to family considerations, not to jump ship from this department. It might be easier to "lob grenades" as you leave, but he displayed more courage than you or I since he did not send this letter anonymously. In my opinion this officer did what he felt right for a department that in his own words "will always hold a special place in his heart." It is sad that this department seems to be turning on itself. I am sure that everyone can agree that we all hope Chief Ikner has this courage that seems to be lacking.
Posted by: Richard Garza-Ray(VanNest) On: 5/24/2008
Comment Title: comments deleted
Why was my message dated 5/20/08 deleted?? Hmmmm??? I retired from CSPD in 1998 not 1988.
Posted by: Donna Brutowski On: 5/24/2008
Comment Title: Thanks for Providing a Better Picture
Regarding Mrs. Mackey's letter, thank you for clearing up the picture. It's obvious that Andreski's daughter has a traffic violation history. I'm guessing she ran that stop sign because "she didn't see it" or the officer who sited her for it. Since she is only 16, the incident on Rock Prairie Road, if it had followed its natural course, would have most certainly piqued her dad's insurance company's interest.
Posted by: On: 5/23/2008
Comment Title: RE: What leaving officers think
Just for everyone's knowledge, the officer that left and sent out the e-mail certainly did not display any of the type of leadership that he so longed for in his letter. It is easy to lob grenades as you leave out the door and not have to actually do something to try and make things better. Remove the plank from your own eye before you try to remove the speck from someone else's eye.
Posted by: Concerned Officer On: 5/23/2008
Comment Title: What the leaving officers think.
This is an email sent out to the PD from an officer that recently left the department. I don't think that it is just a few upset employees and I would hope the new Chief has been keeping up with what is going on. Maybe the powers at the PD won't get this deleted as well. As I leave I want to take this occasion to share some thoughts with you all. These are my personal thoughts, but they are ones I believe that at least some, if not many, of you share. Some are things that I have said before, others I did not feel wise to express until this point. As I am sure all of you know by now, I can be a little long winded so be forewarned. First of all I wish to thank the many of you who have helped me over these past eight years. What progress I have made was not done in isolation and I owe many of you for taking the time to teach me as I have developed as an officer. This department will always be where I learned to be a cop, and will hold a special place in my heart. That is why I have been distressed by the changes I have seen in my eight years here and wish to put forth some thoughts that I feel need to be said. When I started here, CSPD was the most progressive agency in the county and I was proud to be part of the group that laid the path for others to follow. As I leave I find that that spirit of innovation and clear sense of mission has disappeared from our landscape. At the heart of the department’s problems lies a major failure in leadership. Although Chief Clancey was a large part of it, the problem predated him and extends far beyond his office. There exists a lack of integrity at the highest levels of the department and this has poisoned all else. True integrity is not something that will exist in an institution because a pocket card reminds us of it, it will exist because we hire and promote ethical people, and because the people charting the course of the department conduct themselves in a manner above reproach for all below them to see. The greatest damage done to law enforcement in the past fifty years has not been by drug lords, terrorists or any other form of criminal. It has been the erosion of public trust and the integrity associated with the title of police officer and the perpetrator of this has been ourselves. From drunk driving, spousal abuse, falsifying reports and marital infidelity, members of this department have thrown away their integrity, an irreparable loss. Whether you are the one committing the act or the one covering it up, both make you someone unfit for the profession. Recently, an officer was encouraged to place loyalty above integrity by his superiors. This should never be a conflict and loyalty should never involve sacrificing one’s integrity. Luckily, the officer had a true moral compass and made the right call. Over the past few months we have seen more and more exhortations to be loyal to the department (or more precisely its leadership) and threats against disloyalty. True loyalty can only be earned, not compelled and the harder we are pressed to be loyal the more the situation reeks of tyranny. The events of the last few years in particular have highlighted a vast disparity between standards of conduct between the leaders and the led. We have reached a point where the relationship between patrol and administration is at a stage where it can almost be described as adversarial. As one of our officers so aptly put it not long ago “We succeed in spite of ourselves”. This cannot continue without having a disastrous affect on our mission. We need to find leadership brave enough to make unpopular decisions and clear away the ranks of those unfit or unworthy of command. This requires us to put aside cronyism and all those who have perpetuated it. We dwell too much in shades of gray: while not everything can be black and white in many of the most important things there is clearly a right and wrong side. There is no need to name who I speak of: we all know where the problem lies, although those who are the problem may have blinded themselves to the truth. There is more but it involves suggestions for improving the department.
Posted by: Andreski Fan On: 5/23/2008
Comment Title: Andreski
As a former employee of CSPD I have to say Andreski was the one and only one authority figure that I looked up to and respected. He is never one to cover anything up in fact he is more than likely to be the one to expose a problem and take care of it. It hurts me to see the citizens jump on this "bashing" bandwagon. Yes, there may be some issue with other officers and Assistant Chiefs however that is a seperate issue from Andreski's. If any of you would take the time to tour the PD and meet some of the staff, administration, communication officers and police officers you would see that they do work hard for little pay. They are there to help the citizens, plain and simple. With out them you would not have protection etc. Think about it! I have the up most respect for Andreski and I feel he was acting as any father would do.
Posted by: On: 5/22/2008
Comment Title:
AYE!
Posted by: On: 5/22/2008
Comment Title: Missing posts
Could who ever said they printed the missing posts take the time to put them up at MyBCS.com in the forum that is title the same as this article???
Posted by: On: 5/22/2008
Comment Title: re: disgruntled employees
Don't think they are disgruntled employees or ex-employees. Maybe they are just glad things are out in the open and CS citizens are aware of the "secrets" of CSPD. Most had sense enough to leave a department that lacked morals and ethics. The family violence incident did happen...most of "US" that were on duty that day are no longer at CSPD. Enough already! Another officer that wasn't in the "good-ole-boy" network/administration got fired for supposedly abusing his spouse. Simpson got promoted to LT. Go figure. And Andreski is not a saint! Don't just accuse Johnson of wrong-doings...they are ALL guilty in some shape, form or fashion; by omission or commission! Prayers for the new Chief!
Posted by: On: 5/22/2008
Comment Title:
The abuse scandel reminds me of an episode of Desperate Housewives.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title: Too Late For That
Luckily for the paper, truth is a defense to any accusation of slander. I don't think they have too much to worry about. But let's just make this simple: all who are in favor of Larry Johnson retiring, signify by saying "aye." AYE. Enough damage HAS been done.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title: Just a thought
Anyone who thinks an anonymous internet comment has more credibility because the poster makes it public is seriously delusional. People have their own agendas, and will post what fits that agenda. And for those criticizing the Eagle for removing the posts, they were correct to do so. Until or unless they know a post is factual, they would be fools to leave comments on the board such as those posted about Larry Johnson. My bet is that attorneys are already reviewing what has been posted here. Removing the comments doesn't remove the newspaper from liability. They were in the public domain long enough for the damage to be done, if there is any.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title:
If Johnson had any self-respect (doubtful), or any common sense, he'd retire quick. Oh and for those who have a problem with people posting facts go some place else, no one is making you read this...unless you really do care.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title:
What a bunch of B.S. We as citizens CS want to hear the uncensored comments of fellow citizens. I'm going to checkout the blog.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title: Eagle show some courage.
I worked for CSPD for eight years and will say that all that has been mentioned is true. As for being disloyal to the department, I don't see it as disloyalty to want to remove unethical and dishonest leadership. What Johnson has done over the years amounts to criminal violations. He should be charged criminally for Tampering with Evidence, witness coercion, and a host of other crimes. The Eagle needs to stand its ground and not be intimidated into covering up their malfeasance.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title: hmmmmm
Im glad Im not the only one who has noticed that this has turned into a few disgruntled employees who seem to have an ax to grind. Very sad.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title:
To those who want to vent without being edited by the Eagle, go to mybcs.com. There is a blog on that cite about the CSPD issues being discussed here.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title: re: SHAME
shame on the employees? how about shame on the administration for letting this go on. shame on the city council for not paying attention. shame on the city manager for not listening to officer's concerns. thanks for your input but you fail at your comment. P.S.- if everyone has put it behind them then why are they so eager to get the true, factual comments erased?
Posted by: K On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title: Run and Don't Look Back
Run Michael Ikner,Run! You should know CSPD and the Council are setting you up. They want you to clean up their mess up.
Posted by: Faye On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title: SHAME
For those of you who work for the City of CS and are blasting your own coworkers here and anonymously … shame on you! If you are not proud to be working for the City, go find another job. The City has great City management, as well as a great City Council and this issue has obviously been handled. It’s amazing that the parties involved have moved on, but you can’t seem to let it go. Maybe the problem is people like you who talk about your coworkers behind their back, instead of making an effort to make your Department the best it can be. It’s called communication … it works much better than gossip, you should try it. I hope you find the courage to stand up to those who continue to gossip and belittle their coworkers. Your Department will NEVER be cohesive if YOU continue talking about your coworkers … surely that’s not what you really want. Or is it?
Posted by: K On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title:
What happend to the other comment? I guessed someone leaned on the Eagle.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title:
Good thing I printed out all of these comments before they were removed. Funny....wouldn't comments such as this be covered under the "freedom of speech".....and a newspaper removed them.....interesting......
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title:
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title:
Just because you removed the posts doesn't mean people don't know about the corruption. It's pretty sad that y'all aren't brave enough to leave them up.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title: to Donna
Well said!!
Posted by: lancestrongarm On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title: NO SPECIAL TREATMENT
another stupid cop tryin to get special treatment. pay the damn ticket and shutup. i dont care if the cop is black or white or mexican. i hate em all and this is some of the typical behavior that is being exposed. and to see this andreski have a cow about it is stupid. u break the law u pay like everyone else.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title: Closer to Ten Years Ago...
... and the comment below is correct, it wouldn't matter anymore IF the people involved had been disciplined or let go - but they're still around and the incidents were buried. How many others don't we know about? And Donna... while I don't doubt your brother's integrity about most things, he clearly messed up here. You got one thing exactly right - he is a BLACK or WHITE man, no middle ground, no gray area. As his sister I know you have encountered his stubbornness before. Once he's decided on a course of action, that's that. Nothing will ever change his mind. And that's the situation here. Even though he went to the city attorney's office to discuss dropping the charge well before the ticketing officer was allowed to go, even though whatever your brother thinks the correct charge was was never allowed to be filed, and even though his disciplinary action was upheld on appeal - he still thinks he did nothing wrong. And since you brought up that other ticket that's being discussed over on MyBCS.com, you should notice that it was filed in a Bryan justice of the peace court, not in the College Station city court. That means a CSPD officer didn't write the ticket. (Probably a DPS trooper or sheriff's deputy did.) That means even if he disagreed with that charge as well, your brother wouldn't be able to urge his administration or city attorney to dump it like he did in this case.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title:
It may have happened 20 years ago, but those people are still in positions of authority and should not be. Therefore- break not given.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title: RE:do something about it or shut up
you could not have hit the nail more square on the head than you did with your post about the past and present corruption.
Posted by: On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title: Enough is Enough
This has really gotten out of hand. Now people are bringing up stuff that happened 20 years ago. Give me a break.
Posted by: Tj On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title:
Sounds to me like Lt. Donnie Andreski was only doing what any concerned parent would do in this case. He only wanted to make sure the charge was just. I can understand that! This was just a simple request from Lt. Andreski to check out the charges, and it got completely out of hand.
Posted by: Donna On: 5/21/2008
Comment Title: PROUD!!!!!
PROUD!!!!!!! I want to start by saying thank you to those who had positive things to say about Lt. Andreski and his daughter. After reading so many of the other comments that weren?t so nice, I to felt compelled to Comment. Lt. Andreski is one of the most black and white people you will ever meet. He is a man of integrity, honesty, and someone I am proud to say I know. If any of you are a parent then you already know that raising children does not come with a book or directions. We all raise our children to the best of our ability and we do this with the knowledge we have gained through our own lives. So many people seem to be under the assumption that Lt. Andreski?s daughter can do what ever she wants because ?Daddy Can Take Care Of it.? This is so far from the truth. His daughter has paid consequences in the past. She ran a stop sign and she paid the ticket. The question was asked in one of the other comments ?Why Couldn?t Daddy Get Her Out Of That One?? The answer is simple. She was wrong and she paid the ticket. That?s right she paid the ticket not her daddy! Lt. Andreski was not using his so-called ?Authority? to get rid of a ticket or anything else. He was simply a voice for his underage daughter concerning a matter in which he felt was not deserved after reviewing all the facts. He did nothing that many other citizens in the College Station area have not done. The only difference is that they were not slandered or plastered to the front page of the eagle. It is a shame that due to a persons ranking they aren?t to be a voice for their child in a few selective categories. Many people have stated that Lt. Andreski had not set a good example for his daughter. Well I say the examples, morals, and values are superior. His daughter has worked a part time job consisting of twenty or so hours per week since she was of age to be employed. With this she has managed to take honor classes and maintained an A,B average. She now has earned the right to graduate an entire year early. In my opinion Lt. Andreski?s morals, Values, and work ethics are of very high standards and they obviously have influenced his daughter?s life in a positive way. Many of you are probably speculating as to who wrote this comment and how I know so much. Well, I unlike everyone else that posted on this online comment section anonymously I am not ashamed to post my identification. I am Lt. Andreski?s sister and I would stand tall anywhere and anyplace and say ?Lt. Andreski is my brother? and for that fact I AM PROUD!!!
Posted by: On: 5/20/2008
Comment Title: Unfortunate
I can only hope that since these accusations have come out they will indeed be looked at from an outside agency, i.e. the FBI or Texas Rangers. I know a number of College Station officers that have told me similar stories as the one listed below. I have always hoped that they were not true but for someone to level these accusations on a forum like this I believe that it lends credibility to them. The post was undoubtedly written by a former or current CSPD officer, which they would know too well that the powers that be in the City of College Station could very well find out who was the author of that post. I hope that the Eagle continues to probe these accusations and that if they are true that the citizens of College Station demand that change takes place sooner than later.
Posted by: On: 5/20/2008
Comment Title: Just and observation but...
It's amazing how so many claim to "know" so much.
Posted by: On: 5/20/2008
Comment Title: Teenage driver
The fact of the matter as discussed is that this teenage girl drove through a school crosswalk (or at least partially) and supposedly didn't see the officer. So is she going to drive through the crosswalk and supposedly not see the kid she hits with her car? It is a sad day to think there are all of these teenagers out there on the road whose parents have signed off on the amount of time they have driven with "parent taught" driving. They don't even have to go to the DPS and take a driving test - their parents can just sign off saying they can drive. Scary thought. If it was witnessed she should have gotten some kind of ticket - it didn't teach her anything but that daddy can get her off if he causes enough of a stink.
Posted by: On: 5/20/2008
Comment Title:
Johnson is a "do as I say, not as I do" type of guy. Quuik to point out other's mistakes but even quicker to cover his own.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
Just because it is written in the paper does not make it true. I have good information that the documents obtained by the Eagle clearly show that the training officer did not see the violation, only the rookie calling her over. April could have made an honest mistake.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
How much did this cost the tax payer? CSPD has been ticket happy for years and the crime rate is going up. A lot of time for investigation into tickets. CSPD needs to but some time into the real crime in the city. City hall gives the order on this and the Police do as told.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title: Good Ole Boy System
More of what wasn't printed is the fact that the prosecutor agreed to accept the charge right off the bat, but the administration wouldn't stop there. If in fact all they were trying to do was to make sure this case was handled like any other, why all the phone calls? Why was the officer who wrote the ticket prevented from meeting or discussing this case with the prosecutor until days had gone by and all the frantic phone calls between Andreski, Johnson, the Chief and the City Attorney himself had been made? And finally, if the charge was really the wrong one - why wasn't the officer allowed to simply alter the charge to a more appropriate one, as he could have done in any other case?? Why was he eventually told of the dismissal and that no re-file or alteration of the charge would be accepted? This is not the first time Larry Johnson has involved himself in covering up another senior officer's conduct. It probably won't be the last, either. I just hope this incoming chief does his homework when he's introduced to his senior staff. Perhaps this could have all been avoided had the last chief poked around a bit.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
"The citation was supported by Officer Jamie Urbina, who was Lunt's field training officer and witnessed the incident." This is a quote from the above article. The person below may want to read the article again before making statements to attempt minimizing the story.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
"Consider for a moment that: the rookie's supervisor did not witness the alledged violation, that the police dept does hear complaints from citizens similar to Lt. Andreski's and does recommend dismisal to the prosecutor. There is much information not in the article. Do not be so quick to judge without knowing all the facts. There may have been some hidden agenda's by those making the allegation of misconduct. I am sure that we will never know the whole story but I have heard enough from pd sources that I know most of the public is missing a lot." Thanks for your input, Chief Johnson
Posted by: Chad On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title: CS Cops
CSPD gossip? I don't think the paper will run speculation and a bunch of city hall talk. More to the story, maybe.....I'll bet April has more to come. CSPD recommends erasing tickets to prosecutors for "civilians"? Huh? Why write 'em in the first place?
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
Consider for a moment that: the rookie's supervisor did not witness the alledged violation, that the police dept does hear complaints from citizens similar to Lt. Andreski's and does recommend dismisal to the prosecutor. There is much information not in the article. Do not be so quick to judge without knowing all the facts. There may have been some hidden agenda's by those making the allegation of misconduct. I am sure that we will never know the whole story but I have heard enough from pd sources that I know most of the public is missing a lot.
Posted by: Chad On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title: CS Cops
Great story. Good job getting a long and disturbing story out to the citizens.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
The proper "judge" never got to hear what happened because Asst. Chief Johnson went to the City Attorney and repeatedly asked them to dismiss the case. At least Sgt. Brock had the integrity to step forward, risking his career, to shed light on this improper action. What everyone misses in the facts is that the rookie officer's supervisor was at the scene and witnessed the bad driving too. This should have gone to court, just like anyone else's case. It's all about integrity and respect for the badge, not "using" the badge.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
Not a friend or a co-worker of Lt. Andreski...just wanted to make a point that we were not there when conversations took place so how can we judge? There is only one judge.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title: It's a sad day
It's a sad day when someone (maybe a friend, maybe a co-worker?) stands up for such morally wrong actions.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title: Doing the Right Thing
Apparently there is quite a bit going on behind the scenes at CSPD that we the public are unaware of. I am glad that this story finally came out even if it is the “for public consumption” version of the facts. I know some of the officers at CSPD and they are very ethical people. It is a shame that a few bad apples give the entire department a black eye. What is more shameful is that more action was not taken against these administrators. In business it is the administration that sets the example for its employees. What type of example are these administrators setting for the College Station Police Department? Police officers should be held to a higher standard and this story about what is taking place behind closed doors at CSPD should hopefully open some eyes. Thank goodness there are people willing to stand up to these administrators, Thank you Sgt. Brock for standing up for the department and doing the right thing.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
Sounds like the "good ole boys" are finally turning on one another. What took so long for someone to finally stand-up at CSPD. Unfortunately, nothing will come of this-it never does. Just another slap on the wrist.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
"Standing up for his daughter"? Give me a break. Just exactly what was Lt. Andreski standing up for? Her right to break the law or his right to be above the law? I agree that all the facts were not printed, but here's one that should have been. His appeal, as well as the two others, failed and his supension was upheld. He should be glad he still has a job.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title: It's a sad day....
What a waste of paper space. Were you lacking for a story? I applaud Lt. Andreski for standing up for his daughter. I know a little bit more than was written in the story and you all should not be so quick to judge. Not all of the facts were published, and they shouldn't be. This isn't worth a story. We have a lot more things to be worried about than this. I bet if you look back over your life you may have handled some issue the best way you knew how. Lt. Andreski did that. He didn't abuse his position. Shame on all of you for attacking someone that has served this community for 20 years. It's easy to forget all of the good things he has done while serving the community. People are SO quick to judge and jump on what they believe are the "bad things".
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
I completely agree about the criminal charges. It doesn't seem right that the only punishment was a few days off. Makes you wonder what you would have to do as a higher up there to get fired. Now I'm also wondering what happened to the Lt at Bryan.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title: laffin
Cargill doesn't take citizens' calls so just by entertaining Mr. Andreski and his issue, he already is treating the pd different.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
Kudos to the city manager's office!? Are you kidding me? no excuse for Bryan PD to be investigating this. Someone from outside the area should have investigated this. Someone with absolutely no personal ties to the area. The investigation was junk.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
you think because bpd did part of the investigation there was no inference of preferential treatment? naive much??? why don't you ask why lt choya walling is no longer working there...
Posted by: I know not to ride a motorcycle on the sidewalk On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title: Criminal charges
Why aren't these officers being charged with misuse of office and undue influence? I think all of the officers and Clancy should be charged criminally. I grew up here and I don't know of a single person who has ever gotten their ticket dismissed "pretrial" Step up to the plate Mr. Turner and set an example of these officers. Andreski knew what he was doing. Further, if they can give you a ticket for running a red light with a camera , then reinstate the ticket for at least reckless driving. Finally , kudos to the city manager's office. I very seldom approve of much they do but it was wise to bring in someone from BPD to avoid any inference of preferential treatment.I think this would never have faced the light of day if it hadn't been handle in this professional manner. Corruption never starts with big things.I wonder what else is being hidden?
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title: Andreski-Shame on you!
You are a terrible example and need to be gone. I agree that you should not be treated any different than any other citizen. They would have been told to follow procedure. A terrible example to your daughter too!
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title: Pastors perspective...
Having lived here for more than 7 years now, I have seen the very hard nature of the CSPD first hand. It seems to me that this Andreski was trying to get his daughter out of this ticket because he knows what that would do to his insurance and her ability to drive. At 16 almost any violation will take your license now. I witnessed a police officer in his personal vehicle driving on Rock Prairie doing over 50 in a 40 MPH zone. Called the office and talked to his supervisor. Nothing came of it... Yet if you or I were "caught" doing 50 in a 40 in CS there would be NO mercy. I don't have a problem with letting people off or even helping an officers daughter periodically. But I do have a problem when the harshness of the officers in CSPD is given with no mercy to others.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
I guess I'm not up to date on driving age -- this story says the young lady is 16. I thought they raised the age at which a young person is allowed to drive. Just curious.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title:
Why would Lt. Andreski think his daughter was any different & shouldn't have to pay for the ticket she received. Does he think that because he is a police officer him & his family shouldn't have to abide by the laws? We all have gotten tickets and had to pay for them - they should also.
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title: Curious
For the comment by "Disappointed" posted way at the bottom. I bet you that the Eagle became involved because some fed up CSPD officers brought it to their attention. The truth behind this needed to come out. Andreski is very tight with with Johnson and Capps and he should not have involved them. Capps got caught up in the middle and allowed himself to go down with the other two. Capps is a good man but maybe let his judgement get a little clouded. Just curious, would you happen to be Mrs. Andreski?
Posted by: On: 5/19/2008
Comment Title: Three Ring Circus
Larry Johnson is a raging liar, Lt. Andreski is a stubborn snake, and Clancey is a raging idiot! According to some of the CSPD officers I know, and they are good decent officers, these type of shenanigans are typical of Johnson. Many of the officers are embarrassed and fed up with the way this situation was handled. Andreski, you should have taken it to court instead of to your buddy Johnson. You have enough experience as an officer that you should have beaten the pants off of that "rookie" in court. How does that young officer feel about this? I hear he is a very good officer and outstanding human being. Besides, this is not the typical way a citation complaint is routinely handled. I encourage people to flood the Chief's office to have the tickets investigated simply because they don't believe they "intended" to break the law. There are rumors that several CSPD officers are ready to jump ship to Bryan PD in the very near future, better pay, better administration, etc. Certain individuals at city hall need to wake up and smell the coffee and donuts! Take a good hard look at this Chief Ikner and fix the problem. Otherwise sell tickets to this fiasco and enjoy the circus.