Darrell Huffman's McCaffity Hit Mailer, #1

NOTE: see update at the bottom of this page.
I received a negative campaign mailer a few days ago.  It was a piece about Jason McCaffity and the Kennedale Police Department.  After looking very hard, I discovered that the mailer came from the Darrell Huffman campaign.

 Like all negative campaign literature it makes very damaging statements about a candidate in mostly unspecific terms and always with the worst possible interpretation.  In the days before the Internet, these mailers had to stand on their own without any backup.  So it was with satisfaction I noticed a link to supporting documentation at www.JasonMcCaffity.com.  However, when I went to the website, I found that most of the statements were either not supported by the documentation, or could only be inferred from it.  In this first article I will focus on this statement:

This statement references repeated reprimands and repeated violations of the Chain of Command. Nowhere in the supporting documentation can I find any mention of reprimands, repeated or otherwise, or of Chains of Command.

However, Neglect of Duty was in the chief's charging letter. As a matter of fact, it looks like the chief discovered Jason doing something he had told him not to on Saturday, thought about it on Sunday, then wrote the charging letter on Monday.

If Mister Huffman has supporting documentation for the statement about reprimands and chains of command, I urge him to add it to the website and notify me with a comment.

If anyone can find reference to reprimands and chains of commands in the supporting documentation, I urge them to point it out with a comment.

If you find mistakes of fact or logic in this piece, please let me know.  It is my belief that the beginning of wisdom starts with the acknowledgment of one's own ignorance.  Joel Downs

UPDATE: 5 – 20 – 2012 Another document has been added to the Disciplinary Action page.  It is the written reprimand from August 30, 2002.  And it reveals three things.  The first revelation is that this reprimand was instigated because of a citizen complaint.  The second revelation is that both charges, neglect of duty, and violation of the chain of command spring from one failure.  That failure was in supervision of a subordinate officer.  The third revelation is the charge of repeated reprimands is not supported if this is the only document.  The charge of violation of the chain of command is due to the actions of another officer, not Jason McCaffity. At the end of the letter, the chief encourages McCaffity to view this reprimand as a learning experience that will impact his law enforcement career in a positive manner. This is a light rebuke to a young sergeant, hardly the fire and brimstone REPRIMAND that is conveyed in the negative campaign mailer.