Gratuities: pay now or later.

One morning before reporting for duty as a rookie police officer, I stopped at a local convenience store for a cup of coffee. When I placed the cup on the counter and reached for my wallet, the clerk said, "We don't charge police officers for coffee." Not knowing exactly how to react, I thanked the clerk and left the store with what I deemed at the time was my trophy. What I did not realize was the position in which I had unwittingly placed myself.

Today, chain restaurants generally offer the same product, level of service, and cleanliness from one location to another. This helps travelers know what to expect when choosing an eating establishment. In the days before fast food, motorists had little prior information to use in selecting a place to eat when away from home. A parking lot full of automobiles often indicated enjoyable food but was not a sure bet. When I traveled as a child with my family, my father selected a suitable restaurant based on whether a police car was parked outside. He theorized that if the local officers ate there, it must be favorable. In retrospect, I wonder whether those vehicles were parked there because the officers enjoyed the food or because they received a reduced bill. In reality, an officer's choice of restaurant could range from assignment location, restaurant availability, or food preference to choice of employees.

Many business owners regularly employ off-duty law enforcement officers for added security. Resourceful entrepreneurs might analyze that attracting officers to their businesses by offering a free cup of coffee or discounted food might afford them a less costly way of boosting security. This practice can be more attractive for smaller restaurants, convenience stores, or retail businesses, especially those in rural areas.

Encountering Problems

As a new sergeant, I rode patrol with an officer during his first week with my department. He went into a fast-food restaurant to pick up our lunch while I stayed in the car to monitor the radio. When he returned to the car, he was empty-handed. Naturally, I asked about the food. When it was his turn at the counter, he explained, the cashier had snapped, "I guess you want your policeman's discount." To this he had quickly retorted, "No, ma' am, I'd prefer that you charge me double." The snickers, giggles, and awkward comments from customers embarrassed him and led him to make a face-saving retreat.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Another officer recounted an embarrassing moment to me after his third

visit to a local restaurant. The first time he ate there, he said that he received a half-price meal. The next week, he ate for free. On his third visit, the cashier became confused about how to apply the police officer discount using the cash register. While she struggled with the register, the other customers' voice levels grew in proportion to the growing service line. The officer's quiet suggestion that the cashier accept full payment went unheard. Repeated requests led to more frustration as the cashier stated that she was simply following company policy. The officer tried to explain that for him to pay full price this time was only fair, telling her about his first and second visits to the restaurant. By paying full price now, he would be making up for the previous free meal. One free meal and one full-price meal equal two half-price meals, he said. Unfortunately, the officer had a difficult time convincing the cashier, slightly elevating his voice and finally thrusting cash into her hand. His words, of course, were within earshot of other customers, and his demeanor sounded similar to a bossy demand that the cashier do as he said. The officer had not asked for a discount or the embarrassment; he resigned himself never to return to that establishment. By developing policies that restrict acceptance of gratuities, law enforcement agencies can protect themselves from such potential predicaments.

Evaluating Policies

Law enforcement organizations should evaluate their policies regarding gratuities. Wearing the badge of law comes with a considerable amount of honor and pride. For me, that first free cup of coffee made me feel honored. Now, I wonder whether I was being honored or used. Was the clerk honoring my badge or buying a little insurance? The best intentions can become tainted when circumstances change. I have heard numerous stories over the past 32 years about restaurateurs who presented their local governments with a bill for uncompensated food. Business owners could have felt cheated when their perceived special relationships with the law did nothing to help them when they actually fell victim to a crime.

On the other hand, a blanket policy prohibiting gratuities can have the unintended effect of damaging public relations. Some citizens have positive relationships with their local law enforcement officers and want to show their appreciation. Do we tell the well-respected and well-meaning lady who brings the fruitcake to the station at Christmas that we do not want her gift? There is a contrast between a citizen soliciting a police agency and an officer initiating the contact; (1) we can more easily distinguish the officer's intent if he is not the solicitor. Although the public's expectation of a special relationship might be the same regardless of who solicited whom, in either case, citizens may view the relationship as less damaging if the officer or agency has been solicited.

Solicitation by law enforcement agencies certainly dates back many years. My former agency has been involved in raising funds for events since I can remember. The distinction in the intent of the solicitation is where my experience has shown that lines should be drawn. Is the officer receiving personal benefit or does a special interest group receive the benefit? Annually, my former department sponsors a 4-mile run to raise money for the Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE) program. All funds are directly applied to equipment and supplies for the fifth-grade DARE students, with the officers and agency realizing no profit. Some departments hold fund-raising campaigns because they do not have budgets that support the purchase of bullet-resistant vests for the officers' personal use. However, I believe the vast majority of the public easily recognizes the dissimilarity between donating for a lifesaving device and a gratuity given with the express purpose of receiving a reward or payback.

Discounts that attract law enforcement officers also afford hourly clerks the opportunity to develop relationships with those officers. Does the clerk apply the owner's policy of a discount willingly or begrudgingly? The resentful clerk might smile at the moment of service but say to others afterwards, "Why should this officer get a discount? Cops think they're so special." Further, the clerk may expect the same discount when stopped for a minor traffic violation. In that case, the clerk or owner of the establishment could prompt a public relations nightmare for the local law enforcement agency.

Some departments have policies that regulate the exact dollar amount of an acceptable gratuity. Others forbid officers to accept anything of value for performing their official duties except when given permission by the agency. Furthermore, other agencies require officers to notify their superiors when they receive gifts from individuals, businesses, or organizations with which the agency has a business relationship.

While these policies are steeped in tradition, a more stringent one on the acceptance of gratuities can prevent agencies from finding themselves negatively portrayed on the front page of the local newspaper. It also can help eliminate embarrassing moments before the governing body, both in private and public forums. Every time we receive a freebie, we should ask ourselves, "What service have we provided in exchange for this?" Otherwise, the public may ask what profit or wealth we may have received by accepting it. As one author memorably stated, "What makes a gift a gratuity is the reason it is given, what makes it corruption is the reason it is taken." (2) Convincing someone that you want to pay full price for a meal might prove easier than convincing the public that your motives are ethical.

Realizing Options

Where do we draw the line between saying no thanks to a complimentary cup of coffee and creating a public scene? Clerks can be gregarious in enforcing company rules. A business owner could become offended when a generous offer is turned down. Some establishments always will offer discounts for law enforcement agencies, but that should not stop officers from always offering to pay full price. If the owner or clerk insists on providing a discount, the officer has the option of leaving the remainder of the full price on the table when served. This amount should not be considered a tip or gratuity to the service staff as tips are based on the full price of goods and services. If the business has counter service (a cash register), rather than table service, the officer can provide the cash register clerk with adequate change to cover the rest of the bill.

Officers are not expected to bring public attention to their ethical dilemmas regarding gratuities, but they can make a reasonable effort to receive the same monetary consideration as the public. Or, they can take their business elsewhere.

But, what about discounts offered to the general public? Should law enforcement officers accept a greater discount on top of the one everyone else gets? And, how do we differentiate between a well-intentioned gift and a self-serving gratuity? The lines are not always clear, but I believe we must try to make them so. The safest way to do so is to insist on transparency. Corruption is a black-and-white issue that cannot be measured by degrees. Free coffee and donuts may be a joke of the trade, but they should not be viewed as a perk of the job. The practice is quietly diluting our honor. Our basic ethics in law enforcement have not changed, but our integrity must be evident and confirmed in the eyes of the public. "[T]here is only a small difference between accepting a cup of coffee, accepting a cup of coffee and a donut, and accepting a free meal and only a small difference between that and a gift, and another small difference to accepting a large gift and another small difference to accepting ... a whopping great suitcase full of cash in small denominations, nonmarked, non-sequential bills. Thus, it could be argued that since there is no clear boundary between accepting a cup of coffee and accepting the suitcase of cash, one ought not accept the cup of coffee." (3)

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

The price of a cup of coffee may be only a dollar, but, if an officer patronizes the same business during each tour of duty, the price of coffee could equate to $5 each week. Multiplied by the number of weeks an officer works each year, the gratuity can easily surpass $100. And, for even a small law enforcement agency, multiple officers patronizing the same business can consume free coffee valued in the thousands of dollars. Further, adding a free donut, piece of pie, or sandwich can generate very large expenses in the department's name at the business. I am aware of police officers from other agencies who visited a restaurant in such numbers and with such regularity that the business owner was forced to abandon his free-food policy or face bankruptcy.

Conclusion

We may know the culture of our own departments inside and out. We may even realize the honor and integrity with which our officers regard one another and the public. But, what we hear from the public face-to-face may be self-serving and not the same words they would use in another discussion. Agencies can develop a gratuity policy by seeking the help of many officers and local business owners and by reviewing established policies in other jurisdictions. Such a policy should tie directly with modern law enforcement's strict code of ethics regarding financial gains or rewards. When those of us in this profession conduct our jobs in textbook fashion, we step on toes as the general public frequently does not understand our procedures. To this end, many agencies offer citizen police academies and other programs to improve their relationships with the public.

If the overall perception of public safety officers has improved, should we not work hard to perpetuate that image of ourselves? I do not want my professional discretion questioned. I will not knowingly place my department or myself in the embarrassing position of having to explain why we received a gratuity to which the general public was not entitled. Granted, we should avoid performing a disservice to the public by issuing a top-down prohibition on accepting gifts of any kind. But, we can let our actions and those of our fellow officers speak for themselves about whether we can be bought for an annual pot of chili. If gift-bearers want to be heard, an agency's open-door policy should provide a means for that to happen without the necessity of special treatment for departments or individual officers. Every agency should examine their policies on financial gains or rewards. But, just as important, they should analyze the culture of their departments. Pay for that cup of coffee today, or, in one way or another, you will pay for it later.

Endnotes

(1) For clarity, the author employs masculine pronouns throughout the article.

(2) John Kleining, The Ethics of Policing (New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 1996).

(3) Stephen Coleman, "When Police Should Say 'NO!' to Gratuities," Centre for Applied Philosophy and Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University, Australia, working paper, June 2003.

Chief Sewell heads the McMinnville, Tennessee, Police Department.