CITY OF HARTFORD

INTERDEPARTMENTAL MEMORANDUM
TO: Chief Daryl K. Roberts

FROM: Captain Achilles Rethis

DATE: November 1, 2010

SUBJECT: Hearing Decision: Officer H. Robles; IAD I File-09-12

On September 20, 24, and October 19, 2010, disciplinary hearings

were conducted relative to an Internal Affairs Division
investigation of Officer Hector Robles.

Present were: Assistant Corporation Counsel Nathalie Feola-

Guerreri as the Presiding Officer; Captain Achilles Rethis as the
Hearing Officer; Lieutenant James Bernier, the Department
Advocate; Officer Hector Robles, his Attorney R. Hartley Halloran
and assistant Kaitlin Halloran.

Officer Hector Robles was charged with:

1. Conduct Unbecoming an Officer § 1.0

2. Knowingly or Willfully Making a False Entry in any

Department Record § 2.10

3. Intentional Absence from Duty without Authorization § 6.07

4. Intentional Failure to Comply with Lawful Orders,

Procedures, Directives, or Regulations Oral or Written §
6.09

Synopsis of Case:

Predicated upon an assessment of work productivity by Captain

Paul Ciesinski of community service officers under his command,
an internal investigation was directed by the chief of police,
Daryl K. Roberts, on September 21, 2009. This investigation
culminated in the above listed formal disciplinary charges levied
against Officer Robles, which are the basis of this hearing.
The subject of the investigation was numerous discrepancies and
conflicts in the, hours worked relative to regulap^uty
assignments and :rivate duty by Officer Hector Robles.

I
 Over a period of approximately 14 months, Officer Robles worked
104 private duty assignments. Concurrently, there was a number of
consistently overlapping regular duty hours that were reflected
on Officer Robles' time cards, amounting to over 363 hours and
ascribed a monetary value based on his pay rate of approximately
$9,223.00.

Officer Robles also consistently did not sign on with the

dispatcher for both private and regular assignments. Out of 285
work days, he only was signed on within the dispatch system for
33 of those regular assignments and approximately 26 of the 104
private duty assignments he worked in the time period focused on
in this investigation.

Officer Robles in his interview by Internal Affairs admitted to

giving inaccurate times to his supervisor.

The Department's Position:

The department's position, as presented by the department

advocate, Lieutenant James Bernier, was that Officer Robles
violated the Hartford Police Department Code of Conduct,
specifically the charges previously enumerated.

By his conduct, he brought discredit upon the department and his

conduct rose to the level of a larceny by his falsification of
work records to essentially collect his regular pay while
simultaneously working private duty assignments and collecting
extra pay. Officer Robles' performance was non existent and far
below any acceptable standards, and that by a preponderance of
evidence, he falsified the time records and violated written and
unwritten policies to enable him to collect the increased pay
without actually performing the services.

Officer Robles' Position:

Officer Robles' counsel, Attorney R. Bartley Halloran, first

brought up a procedural issue insofar as the Internal Affairs
interview was conducted without regard to his rights under
Garrity and Weingarten. He claimed Officer Robles was harassed,
yelled at, and statements forced upon him, which were taken out
of context.
Attorney Halloran argued that the system of the police department
is antiquated and fails to account for the precise amount of time
spent-by officers on private duty. He characterized the system as
"analog in a digital age."

Page 12 of 17
 Counsel also argued that Officer Robles did not fill out the time
cards, Lt Dailey did; therefore, he did not commit the violation
of false entry.

Attorney Halloran furthered that the community service officer

duties cannot be fit into an 8 hour period. Officer Robles
received calls during weekends, holidays, and spoke to people
while in the grocery store. There is no evidence he didn't
perform his duties and no complaints from community or his
supervisor. He argued that Officer Robles worked at least forty
hours a week.

Attorney Halloran characterized the relationship with Lieutenant

Dailey as one where all he asked was "do your job" and Officer
Robles did that. He also asserted that Lieutenant Dailey had a
cavalier manner of filling out the time cards and blamed that on
the inaccuracies.

Attorney Halloran contended that Lieutenant Dailey did not

require Officer Robles to go online, positing that the analysis
thus, ends there.

Attorney Halloran also introduced that the crime is distinctly

different from other community service officers' areas and thus,
the comparison conducted by Captain Ciesinski is not valid. He
argued that crime went down in that neighborhood.

Attorney Halloran alleged political pressures and that he

believed it was not coincidental the investigation commenced the
day Officer Robles filed a complaint with the chief of police and
the Attorney General/Chief States Attorney for his transfer from
Community Service Officer to Patrol due to alleged performance
issues.

In the summation, Attorney Halloran conceded that there were

issues and suggested some culpability but he argued that it did
not rise to the extent of recommending termination by the
department.

Findings of Pact:

Officer Robles had performance disparately low compared to other

community service officers, which prompted Captain Ciesinski to
author a memorandum to the deputy chief of the South Division,
which ultimately led to Officer Robles removal from his"community
service officer position and reassignment within the department.
Officer Robles violated a number of written and unwritten
policies of the police department, including but not limited to

Page|3 of 17
not following the Community Service Officers policy. He also
failed to sign onto the computer aided dispatch system for the
majority of a 14 month period.

Officer Robles reported his regular assignment hours falsely,

both by verbally misleading his lieutenant with his reported
times, and by himself filling out times that were not accurate.
He collected pay for time spent on private duty simultaneous to
his regular pay.

Attorney Halloran pointed out several dates and times where

Officer Robles was signed online with dispatch that corroborated
that he had completed his private duty and was in service outside
of the hours listed on his time cards.

Decision:

Based on a careful consideration of the record in this case, the

hearing officer finds that, by a preponderance of evidence, the
charges as levied by the police department are sustained with the
exception of the Intentional Absence from Duty without
Authorization charge.

Discussion:

First, the procedural issue with regard to Officer Robles'

interview by Internal Affairs personnel was resolved in listening
to the interview. He was clearly given the Garrity warning and
advised of his Weingarten rights. He arrived at the interview
without union representation and declined to obtain it after
being advised of his right to such. There was nothing on the
recording that could be reasonably characterized as harassing or
yelling.

Officer Robles clearly violated the rules and regulations of the

Hartford Police Department. He failed to properly fill out the
private duty slips. However, his defense provided credible
evidence that this transgression was a systemic problem.

Officer Robles testified that he had read a memorandum indicating

that the slip should be filled out with the eight hour block of
time in conjunction with the contractual method of billing
entities hiring a private duty officer. Notwithstanding the fact
that no such memorandum was found or produced, contradicting the
written policy, numerous officers had not properly documented
their time and the issue was not resolved by rejecting the slips
until after Officer Robles' transgressions were'brought to light.

Page 4 of 17
Accordingly, the hearing officer has not given significant weight
to this issue in sustaining the charge of Intentional Failure to
Comply with Lawful Orders, Procedures, Directives, or Regulations
Oral or Written.

However, Officer Robles not signing on with dispatch for the

majority (approximately 88%) of a 14 month period presents a
significant accountability and officer safety issue to the
department and to Officer Robles. He followed the policy better
on private duty not complying approximately 75% of the time.
There is no written policy regarding signing online. Signing
online has been commonly known for uniformed officers on their
regular duties for the almost 21 years this hearing officer has
been with the police department, including his previous command
of community service officers. Memorandums were read at roll
calls and distributed to personnel at several times over the
years to include private duty assignments in this requirement.

In fact, some years ago, special numbers (700 series) were

created to allow non-patrol or special detail uniformed personnel
to sign on with dispatch without being part of the normal calls
for service algorithm of the computer aided dispatch system
(HARTBEAT). This unit designation series was used by operations
and community service officers when they had specific assignments
to complete. Otherwise, they were all expected to be online and
take calls for service. For private duty, an 800 series
designation was created and implemented throughout the
department.

Officer Robles worked under the command of this hearing officer

in 2004 and the beginning of 2005 and went online regularly.
Officer Robles knew of the policy, evidenced by his practicing of
it.
Moreover, witness Castagna (retired Hartford Police Officer)
brought in by Officer Robles' counsel to corroborate the lack of
consistent adherence to the proper filling out of the private
duty slips testified that he knew it to be required that officers
sign on with dispatch, including community service officers.
Officer Castagna was assigned as a community service officer for
several years in the same unit as Officer Robles, including the
time under the hearing officer's command.

Furthermore, Officer Robles testified that he gave out

infractions for motor vehicle violations without ever calling any
of them in to dispatch which he admitted was a safety issue.
Officer Robles claimed he was unaware that signing online or
calling in stops was a "policy." The hearing officer did not find

Page|5 of 17
this assertion to be credible. This policy is one of common
knowledge and basic training throughout officers' careers. While
it is true that it is not adhered to 100% of the time, it is
generally practiced. Officers are constantly reminded to call in
anything they do for their own safety.
Attorney Halloran implied that Lieutenant Dailey did not require
Officer Robles to go online and therefore, that should-absolve
him of responsibility to adhere to that policy. Lieutenant Dailey
did not give Officer Robles proper direction in most regards. He
failed to properly supervise Officer Robles and this contributed
to his being able to exploit the system to commit the acts that
he did.
Lieutenant Dailey received disciplinary sanction for his lack of
supervision. However, there is no evidence on the record that
Lieutenant Dailey gave him instruction to contradict departmental
policy. He had minimal contact with him and rarely, if ever,
directed or inspected him. This is far different from sanctioning
Officer Robles' deviation from the policy. The lack of
supervision does not justify misconduct.
Finally, Officer Robles violated the Community Service Officer
order (2-17) by not responding to telephone calls by the end of
his tour of duty. Captain Ciesinski in his inspection of Officer
Robles found his department assigned voicemail to be full twice,
on August 7 and 12, 2009. Additionally, the order on Electronic
Communications (5-1) requires review of messages daily. Officer
Robles' time sheets show he worked August 7, 10, 11, and 12,
2009. Officer Robles testified at the hearing that he did not
check or utilize the voicemail box because he was receiving calls
from creditors.
In spite of giving his personal cell phone number to some members
of the community, this is not a department requirement. Many
officers take the further step of doing this; however, this does
not negate the need for answering the department voicemail. Not
all citizens in the neighborhood may have access to a community
service officer's personal cellular phone number. It is not
publicized. This undermines the level of customer service the
department prescribes when citizens, who go onto the department
website, or are referred by a dispatcher call in to a
neighborhood community service officer and get a full voicemail
box.
With regard to not having secured an office in his area,
according to the order on community service officers, Officer
Robles testified that he attempted but was unable to find one
that would not cost the city rent. This requirement may not

Page 6 of 17
always be complied with reasonably and therefore, the hearing
officer gave this alleged violation no weight in sustaining the
Intentional Failure to Comply with Lawful Orders, Procedures,
Directives, or Regulations Oral or Written violation.
The department did not charge Officer Robles with multiple counts
of Intentional Failure to Comply with Lawful Orders, Procedures,
Directives, or Regulations Oral or Written for each alleged
instance of violation, but rather charged him with one count to
incorporate the cumulative and aggregate violations. The hearing
officer found that to be quite reasonable and credible thus,
sustained this charge. Officer Robles did not neglect to sign on
one or two occasions. He did so as his normal routine. The order
he is being held accountable for violating is well known and
generally followed. An occasional transgression certainly might
be handled differently, but a pattern of disregard for policy
over a period such as in the instant case warrants formal
punitive discipline.
Officer Robles falsified his regular duty time cards and did so
knowingly and intentionally. In the opening statement by his
counsel, the assertion was made that Lieutenant Dailey filled out
his time cards. Notwithstanding the fact that through the
examination of Officer Robles by the department advocate, it was
ascertained that a number of the time cards, which had
overlapping problems with private duty were actually filled out
by Officer Robles and submitted to his lieutenant, he reported
the times in person and via telephone to his supervisor for
submission to payroll. Therefore, he falsified the documents,
even if by proxy.
Officer Robles admitted that he gave inaccurate times to
Lieutenant Dailey in his internal interview. He could not provide
an explanation for why other than to state he did so off the top
of his head and was mistaken. However, in his interview with
Internal Affairs and in his testimony at the hearing, Officer
Robles commented that he worked mostly "B Squad" or evening hours
because he worked private jobs. That characterization is not
accurate. The majority of his time cards reflect dayshift hours
worked (approximately 4:1 ratio).
Officer Robles assertion that this was an oversight, an
unintentional mistake, implying poor time record keeping skills
was undermined by the cumulative magnitude of the conflicts with
time cards. This case is not a handful of discrepancies that can
be blamed on poor recollection or record keeping. It is about a
14 month pattern of conduct.

Page | 7 of 17
In fact, in some of the cases where he filled out or reported the
times to Lieutenant Dailey, usually on a Thursday or Friday
according to his testimony, he had conflicting hours on those
very days, hardly indicative of poor record keeping or memory. On
a Friday phone call to Lieutenant Dailey, he may have given the
hours while on a private duty assignment.
Moreover, Attorney Halloran asserted as a defense that the
department's antiquated system is substantially to blame for the
incongruities between Officer Robles' regular assignment hours
and private duty hours.
Yet simultaneously, that same lack of sophistication in the
record keeping is the defense of his client who gave inaccurate
hours week after week for over one year because he was
disorganized. This is unpersuasive to the hearing officer who
could not help but notice that Officer Robles possessed a "smart
phone" of some type at the hearing.
Officer Robles was able to recall when he missed pay based on
remembering the number of eight hour blocks he had worked the
previous week but could not remember his hours, even when filling
them out or reporting them that very day, or for the previous-
day.
Finally, Officer Robles suggested that some of the conflict may
have occurred when Lieutenant Dailey utilized his proposed times
instead of calling him to ascertain his worked hours. This
implication is again undermined by conflicts when he personally
filled out his regular hours.
Attorney Halloran produced a community organizer for the South
Meadows neighborhood, Alta Lash, who testified that Officer
Robles always returned her calls and she was satisfied with his
performance as a community service officer. She testified that he
introduced bills at the legislature, worked on problems, and
attended the monthly meeting for the South Meadows business
group.
In further questioning, she acknowledged that her contact with
him at best was only approximately 2 hours a week. This does not
evidence his being on regular duty for his whole workweek and
furthermore, those phone calls could have been made from
anywhere, including when Officer Robles was on a private duty
assignment.
Attorney Halloran also in his cross examination of Officer Robles
introduced meeting minutes from one of the South Meadows meetings
to demonstrate attendance. During the hearing, it was determined

Page | 8 of 17
 that Officer Robles did not attend the October 15, 2008 meeting
and it was covered by another officer. The reports submitted to
the hearing officer as part of the investigative file indicate
that on that date, Officer Robles was working a private duty
assignment from 0830 to 1530 hours and his time card reflects
1500-2300 hours; no HARTBEAT activity for that date.
Attorney Halloran proposed that no one from the community was
complaining and his supervisor did not complain or speak to him .
about his performance. But someone did complain. Captain
Ciesinski complained. Yes, the supervisor who was not "minding
the store" had no complaint.
As to the validity of the comparison to other community service
officers, it is true the distinct character of that particular
neighborhood may not lend itself to a direct one to one
comparison with other highly populous, crime plagued areas.
However, 'the activity of Officer Robles was far below reasonable
standards in the district commander's judgment. Coupled with the
evidence in this case, it is more likely that a crime drop in
that neighborhood occurred in spite of Officer Robles not because
of him.
The assertion that Officer Robles received calls on weekends,
holidays, and encountering people in his off time at the
"grocery" store is not credible. While it is true that this
occurs, the likelihood of it occurring each week for an aggregate
of 40 hours is highly unlikely.
Furthermore, to suggest that as a public or quasi-public
official, encountering people from the community in the grocery
store is compensable as work hours is patently absurd unless the
encounter forces him to engage in enforcement action.
Attorney Halloran proposed that the job of a community service
officer cannot be fit into an eight hour block due to this.
However, this does not take into account the full scope of the
community service officers' duties. Uniformed operational
officers are required to work an eight hour continuous shift by
policy and contract. They are sworn officers, not merely civilian
liaisons that can work from home or remotely.
Community service officers' duties to be the liaison to the
community is encompassed as a portion of their being present in
the neighborhood, conducting quality of life enforcement, and
handling calls for service. If they are not busy engaging in a
community meeting, conducting problem solving, or enforcing
quality of life complaints they are expected to be available to

Page|9 of 17
assist in other areas and respond to critical calls just as
patrol units.

Attorney Halloran also in his cross examination of Officer Robles

brought up some dates (9) to demonstrate discrepancies in the
time records to illustrate that his client was merely making
mistakes in his reporting of hours.

On April 3, 2009 the HARTBEAT dispatch printout indicates a call

for service handled at 247 Sigourney St. at 1311 hours but lists
it as Unit 182. This is a north end unit on the other side of the
city from Officer Robles' area. Officer Robles' unit designation
is 452 and at that time was assigned to private duty at
Washington and Buckingham St. from 0800-1600 hours for Fibertech
while his time card reflects a time of 1200 to 2000 hours.
In Captain Ciesinski's memorandum, he relates a case number drawn
on May 29, 2009 at 97 Ashley St. with Unit 182 as the assisting
officer; the same geographic area as 247 Sigourney St. He pulled
the file and found no mention of Officer Robles' involvement in
the case. Therefore, the logical deducement is that Unit 182 was
input online with the officers arrest code incorrectly typed in
by dispatcher; thereby, assigning the right unit designation to
the wrong officer.
In any case, regardless if this dispatched call was- Officer
Robles, he showed no activity in his area that day. This was on a
Friday and according to the testimony at the hearing, the -time
card for that week was not filled out by Officer Robles.
Therefore, based on being queried for his hours generally at the
end of the week, they should be more accurate if Officer Robles
claim that he suffers from faulty record keeping/memory skills
holds true. In this instance, Officer Robles may very well have
been released early and began his shift as stated on his time
card.
On May 18, 2009 the overlap of shifts is a full eight hours with
both regular and private duty records reflecting 0800-1600 hours.
HARTBEAT shows activity for Officer Robles in his area at 0950
hours and at 1247 hours at the State Capitol (Legislative Office
Building). It is possible that he was released early on that
date. Even if released at 0930 there is still an overlap of 1.5
hours. He then called in at the capitol with no activity
afterward. He did not radio in that he had completed this call
with dispatch at all and the system forced him offline,
indicating he may have engaged in his legislative duties.
In the statute (CGS 2-3a) he referenced in the memo of complaint
to the chief about his transfer, it prohibits employers from

Page[ 10 of 17
disciplining employees for lost time from work for legislative
duties but does not require the employers to pay for the lost
time, or prohibit them from requiring notice to employer of
taking such time. It is evident he did not put in a full shift
additional to the hours for the private duty on this particular
occasion. In fact, even if the job were cancelled upon his
arrival, the logical inference is that he did not work the full
day he was paid for.
On June 16, 2009 his private job slip reflects hours of 0800-1600
and his time card again is overlapping for the entire shift.
Attorney Halloran brought up that the HARTBEAT system has him
active from 1828 hours to 2116 hours. This does conflict with his
time card but his activity fails to establish whether he worked a
full shift or not. He was released from this private job at 1430
hours according to the Vendor Verification form for Connecticut
Natural Gas. Looked at individually, it is inconclusive as to
what he worked; whether he went home and returned later or began
his shift. However, it does evidence an instance where Officer
Robles wrote hours contradicting what he may have actually
worked. Perhaps, he did make a mistake on this time card.
On June 22, 2009 Officer Robles' time card reflects 1000-1800
hours and his private duty is from 0700-1700 hours, inclusive of
two hours overtime on the private duty. HARTBEAT then reflects
that he put himself off with dispatch at 1745 hours covering a
community meeting for another community service officer. These
meetings last a couple of hours in general and there is no
subsequent activity.
On August 14, 2009 Officer Robles' time card reflects 1700-0100
hours but he shows HARTBEAT activity from 1631 hours to 2136
hours. However, he is also listed as working a health festival on
overtime from 0700-1700 hours, indicating he left, or was
released from the overtime assignment early.
On August 17 and 18 2009 Officer Robles worked private duty and
listed regular hours of 1000-1800 for both dates. HARTBEAT shows
activity from 1032 to 1534 and 1142 to 1419 hours respectively,
indicating that he may have been released early from these
private duty assignments.
On August 21, 2009 Officer Robles had regular hours of 1200-2000
and a private job from 0800-1500 hours. HARTBEAT shows Officer
Robles on calls from 1154 to 1603 hours. This evidences that this
private job likely ended early. This was also a Friday and
Officer Robles did not fill out this time card.

Page | 11 of 17
.Finally, Officer Robles' attorney offered the date of May 28,
2009 where HARTBEAT activity shows activity from 0950 • 1717
hours, although he worked no private duty that day, as an example
of Officer Robles making mistakes on his time card, which listed
0800-1600 hours. The hearing officer noticed that this entry does
appear to reflect an eight hour work day, which was notable.
The dates focused on in the department investigation cover from
August 1, 2008 to October 4, 2009. Attached in the investigative
package is a spreadsheet of the conflicts during this period.
There are 61 pay weeks spanned on that sheet. In those weeks,
there are 75 instances of overlapping shifts. 66 are 3 hours or
greater. 60 are 4 hours or greater. 52 are overlaps of 5 hours or
greater. 32 are 6 hours or greater. 10 are 7 hours or greater. 1
is 7.5 hours and 2 are 8 hour overlaps.
Both of the 8 hour overlaps were covered in testimony by Officer
Robles in his cross examination by attorney Halloran on the dates
of May 18, 2009 and June 16, 2009, as discussed in preceding
paragraphs. The 7.5 hour overlap was on June 16, 2009 and was
also covered in preceding paragraphs.
On April 20, 2009 Officer Robles worked a private duty assignment
from 0930-1730 hours while his time card reflects 1000-1800
hours. The investigative report indicates that the vendor, Mr.
Purpura of Fibertech, was certain that on the dates in question
Officer Robles worked until 1500 hours. However, this is not
contained in the recorded interview the hearing officer reviewed.
In that'interview with Internal Affairs, Mr. Purpura stated that
his permits are until 1500 so the officers will not be there past
that time in general. He also related there were jobs that have
lasted a half an hour. He could not be more definitive on this
date in question. Officer Robles shows no dispatch activity.
Officer Robles may have been released early on this date.
One of the 7 hour overlaps occurs on July 17, 2009. The time card
reflects a shift of 0700-1500 hours, which appears to have been
changed from 0800-1600 hours. The time card, according to Officer
Robles' testimony was not in his handwriting. Accordingly, this
would have been reported to Lieutenant Dailey by him and this
date was a Friday. However, the private duty slip indicates he
was called for the private job at 0730 hours, a half hour into
his shift, for times of 0800-1600 hours.
i
Furthermore, Officer Robles then worked an overtime detail for a
Jazz Fest from 1500-2300 hours on that same date. He has no
HARTBEAT activity on this date. Therefore, he worked a private

Page] 12 of 17
duty job simultaneous to his regular assignment for up to 7 hours
and could not have worked his regular shift afterwards and
mistakenly reported the wrong time to Lieutenant Dailey. The
contractor he worked for on that date, Capitol Sand, was unable
to research the date but they are not a vendor known for
releasing officers much earlier than 1500 hours. No matter what
time they released him, Officer Robles collected double pay for
some portion of that shift.
It is unclear who made the change on the time card. It is
possible that Lieutenant Dailey made the adjustment due to
conflict with the overtime card, or that Officer Robles reported
that change to him.

The evidence in this instance is compelling and corroborates the

pattern of conduct the department has investigated and charged
Officer Robles with.
During the week from June 7 to 13, 2009 Officer Robles worked a
private duty on Monday June 8, 2009. His private job slip lists
hours of 0800-1600 but his time card reflects 1000-1800 hours.
There is no HARTBEAT activity for this date. Sergeant Hanson
contacted the firm, MJ Electric, and spoke to Frank Gallagher who
remembered the assignment, commenting that it was a real pain and
no way the officer would have been released at 1000 or 1100
hours. He recalled that it was near a number of businesses.
Again, in that pay week Officer Robles had another private duty
assignment on June 11, 2009 where his hours are listed as 0800-
1600 with time card hours of 0900-1700. The investigation failed
to determine exactly what time he might have been released on
this occasion.
On June 23, 2009 Officer Robles worked again for MJ Electric.
1000-1800 hours are listed on the time card and the private duty
slip shows times of 0800-1600 hours. The private duty assignment
took place at Meadow and Locust St. No HARTBEAT entries exist for
this date. Mr. Gallagher remembered this .job. He commented that
it was one of the biggest pains of his career. The whole job was
a nightmare and he was given not enough time to do it then asked
what took so long. He should have had 3 officers there. The slip
indicates that Officer Robles was the second officer of the
detail. Mr. Gallagher hired an overnight shift for that detail
but the day shift would have gone right until 1530 hours. He had
not been able to release an officer at 1000 to 1100 hours since
he started these projects. He added that officers probably are
not happy to receive his job because they will generally work a
full day.

Page | 13 of 17
On June 29, 2009 Officer Robles again worked for MJ Electric from
0800-1600 hours while his time card indicated 1000-1800 hours Mr.
Gallagher again stated that was a tough job and the officer was
probably there until at least 1530 hours. No HARTBEAT activity is
shown for Officer Robles on this date. Officer Robles identified
the handwriting for the time card on that week as his own.
On September 14, 2009 Officer Robles again worked for MJ Electric
from 0800-1500 hours (top of slip indicates 0800-1500; Robles
filled out 0800-1600 and wrote 8 hours) while his time card
indicated 1000-1800 hours. Mr. Gallagher stated it was a good bet
that he was there for most of the day. Officer Robles does show
HARTBEAT activity beginning at 1355 hours indicating he may have
been released an hour early from his private duty. His last
dispatch entry was at 1938 hours at headquarters to obtain a
notary service from a supervisor, indicating he received a
signature on his paperwork then left. Again, this would
demonstrate less than an 8 hour shift.
Officer Robles only worked one other private job for MJ Electric
on June 30, 2009 and the times were identical to the previous day
but Mr. Gallagher could not remember that job.
On November 12, 2008 Officer Robles worked a private duty
assignment listed from 0800 to 1600 hours while his time card
lists hours of 1000-1800. The contractor, Jim Garcia of
Underground Construction, in his recorded interview, remembered
the job as a long service and took more than one day because they
had 170' of pipe to install. He stated that would have been an
eight hour day. HARTBEAT shows no entries for that date. Officer
Robles in his testimony recalls that assignment and claims he was
released early.
Attachment F-3 of the investigative report by Internal Affairs
contains documents signed by Officer Robles that document his-
actual hours. The Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation fills out a
Vendor Verification Form and they fill it out with the actual
hours worked by the officer assigned to a private detail when
they sign the slip of the officer. The officer in turn signs that
form. There are three such forms that correspond to overlaps with
regard to Officer Robles, who signed each of them. There were a
few more in the files, which were not part of conflicting hours
but similarly signed with dismissal times around 1430 hours.
On October 20, 2008 the private duty slip for Connecticut Natural
Gas shows hours of 0800-1600 hours. His time card is listed as
1400-2200 hours. The Vendor Verification Form shows hours of

Page 114 of 17
0830-1430 hours. There is a half hour overlap for this date and
no HARTBEAT activity.

Finally, On July 23, 2009 the private duty slip for Connecticut
Natural Gas shows hours of 0800-1600 hours. His time card is
listed as 1200-2000 hours and identified as his handwriting. The
Vendor Verification Form shows hours of 0800-1500 hours. There is
a 3 hour overlap for this date and no HARTBEAT activity.
One of the vendor verification slips was introduced in the
questioning of Officer Robles who admitted signing it. He
testified that the foreman fills it out and believed it to be
wrong.

The hearing officer has worked for Connecticut Natural Gas in the
past and found that if there are any inaccuracies in the form,
they are on the beginning times. Connecticut Natural Gas may
start their shift at their facility and often do not arrive oh
the road until 0900 hours, or call late for an officer who will
show up around that time. The hearing officer has waited for them
on several occasions and changed the start time when he signed
their form. However, the foreman fills out the end time when he
signs the officer's slip and has him sign their form.
On December 31, 2008 Officer Robles had reported hours of 0800-
1600, as he testified in the hearing this time card was not in
his handwriting. On that same date, he worked an overtime private
detail at the XL Center for a basketball game. The time sheet for
the detail, filled out by a supervisor, shows the hours of 1030
to 1430. These detail sheets are accompanied with a roll call and
then the typed sheet generated by the private duty office, which
schedules the assignment in advance, is passed around and each
officer is directed to write their arrest code in the appropriate
box or call it out and the supervisor conducting the roll call
will write it in. Any no shows or substitutions are then crossed
out and added to the sheet. Officer Robles is listed on that
sheet and his arrest code is written in the appropriate box.
Officer Robles could not then have worked his regular assignment
from 0800-1600 hours. There is no HARTBEAT entry for Officer
Robles on this date.
The internal investigation documented a number of other instances
where there were unexplainable conflicts in the regular and
private duty assignments of Officer Robles. While there were a
couple of inaccuracies pointed out during the testimony of the
hearing, the investigation clearly meets its burden of proof in
this case.

Page | 15 of 17
A preponderance of evidence establishes that Officer Robles
falsified his time cards in order to allow him to work private
duty and collect the extra pay without having to put in the
requisite hours. Attempts to individually explain away the
conflicts are not credible when looking at the totality of this
case.

While it is not possible to sustain the exact dollar amount in

the investigation that Officer Robles defrauded the taxpayers of
Hartford through his misconduct, there is ample evidence that he
committed the malfeasance and nonfeasance, as alleged by the
department.

The sheer aggregate numbers indicate a conscious pattern of

corruption. While some of the assignments may have dismissed
early, it cannot be definitively ascertained based on the records
of the department and the vendor. However, in almost a dozen'
cases discussed herein the proof is higher than the preponderance
of evidence standard and is conclusive. It is proof beyond
reasonable doubt. Many of the other overlaps are suspicious by
reasonable inference. The number of times Officer Robles would
have the hearing officer believe he was dismissed early (as in
two to three hour jobs) defies the collective experience of the
police department.
Only 9 of the 75 overlaps in time are less than 3 hours. 60 of
them are a half day or greater.
Most private jobs generally run from 0900-1500 hours, consistent
with the permit hours for most major thoroughfares. Lately, many
•have been longer and some major projects run until 1700 hours. To
be sure, officers are released early from private duty but
usually around 1400 hours and an occasional 1300 hours dismissal.
The two hour jobs are indeed infrequent.
The charge of Intentional Absence from Duty without Authorization
was not sustained by the hearing officer because it is an
insufficient charge to address the conduct in this case. This
charge is applicable to cases where an officer takes a day off
without permission, or leaves early without authorization but
properly documents it, or makes no attempt to conceal or falsify
it.
In this case, the Conduct Unbecoming an Officer appropriately
addresses the behavior exhibited by Officer Robles. He
intentionally.falsified time sheets to work and collect double
pay for the same hours. He failed to work his full shifts and he
defrauded the City of Hartford. This behavior undermines the
public trust in the police department and undermines the good

Page ]16 of 17
order and efficiency of the department. It is a slap in the face
to the majority of the hard working members of this department
and to the community.
Recommendation:

The Conduct Unbecoming an Officer carries a penalty up to and

including dismissal

The Intentional Failure to Comply with Lawful Orders, Procedures,

Directives, or Regulations Oral or Written and Knowingly or
Willfully Making a False Entry in any Department Record both
carry suspensions as the punishment for first offense, which
these are.
Based on the length of time and egregiousness of the conduct of
Officer Robles, it the recommendation of this hearing officer
that Officer Robles' employment with the Hartford Police
Department be terminated forthwith.

Captain Achilles Rethis

cc: Department Advocate

Page | 17 of 17