Is that what this is all about? Is the agency worried that because someone has a tattoo that they will be less able to do the job? Will the small amount of ink on someone's arm prohibit them from acting in a professional manner?
The Louisville Metro Police Department along with a handful of other agencies is now telling the public that you should judge a book by its cover. They implemented a policy in the fall of 2007 that prohibits Officers form displaying visible tattoos. The policy states that Officers must cover the tattoo by wearing long sleeve shirts, bandages etc… or else.
Since many Officers had these tattoos before the policy was written it seems that a reasonable compromise would be in order. Some agencies have a grandfather clause as long as the ink in question is not vulgar, racist or offensive. "It was easier, rather than trying to determine what is appropriate or inappropriate each time to just say any body art on hands, neck, face or head is prohibited," said LMPD Spokesperson Phil Russell." Here is where it gets sticky or should I say when the ink starts to run. The policy further states that "Members are prohibited from having any visible body art while in uniform or while performing official duty in non-uniformed attire unless otherwise approved by the Chief of Police. This includes off-duty employment in an official capacity."
Per policy, members with body art have the following options:
Cover the body art with clothing or uniform.
Cover the body art with a neutral colored patch or neutral colored elastic bandage.
Have the body art removed at the member's expense.
Those are some interesting options. In the heat of the summer someone should have to wear a long sleeve shirt? Ridiculous! Recently I have seen several Officers with huge bandages on their arms and I was wondering if some plague has stricken the police department. Truly ace bandages and band-aids look less professional than the ink ever did. Remember, many of these Officers have had body art for years and in many cases before they were hired. In the majority of cases it is not offensive, racist or vulgar.
Let's be reasonable about this. If something is racist, vulgar or offensive then by all means it should not be in the public eye. If the department wants to make it a condition of employment for new hires then they have that option. The Kentucky State Police Department has done just that. When the State government implemented a "No Ink" policy in 2002 the Troopers fought it and won, but new hires must not have any ink that shows.
This issue has been fought in several courts throughout the nation so far, but it also appears that only the extreme cases are the ones going to trial. The average Joe with his girlfriend's name on his arm is not the one going to court it is the guys with the questionable tattoos that most reasonable folks would find offensive.
Tattoos on the face, neck, head and hands I can agree with that they are not very professional. However, tattoos that are not vulgar, offensive or racist in traditional places on the arms should be allowed. Again, some Officers have had them for years even before joining the department. Others got them after joining but then there was no policy and nobody told them until last year that you couldn't do it. The "cover it up or else" stance cannot work. The ink on someone's arm has nothing to do with my professionalism or ability to do the job. An Officer's ability to perform is not impeded by body art.
Even though the State Police and I assume LMPD will follow suit, ban applicants from applying it is just one more reason why the applicant pool for new officers is down considerably from where it was 10 years ago. Setting policies to follow trends in other agencies isn't appropriate. I would be interested in knowing if there have been any complaints at all over officers with tattoos.
I would hope that now that this issue has been on the news that before anyone is disciplined that the Department re-evaluates the policy and clarifies the issue so that it doesn't have to wind its way through the court system wasting taxpayer dollars on an issue on which a compromise could surely be reached.