Invite a police officer to give their opinion on a fellow officer and chances are you will get more than you asked for. Ask a police officer to give their opinion on a commander and you will soon find yourself making excuses to get away...
Just like the majority of their civilian counterparts, officers love to gossip and are quick to pass judgment on their peers and even quicker on their commanders.
The latter of which I happen to agree with.
Police Officers are held to a higher standard then the general public. This is why it makes news when a police officer is charged with a crime or misconduct. If a police officer being arrested didn't make news headlines, would that not be more disconcerting then a biased story meant to fan the flames?
But it just seems that if police officers must hold to that higher standard, then police commanders must equally accept that higher standard to a greater degree then their subordinate. Now while I believe this applies to all commanding officers, I find the greatest amount of discrepancy among non civil service appointments, i.e. majors and above.
Ask yourself this...
Why do we consistently see news stories about the indiscretions of individual officers, but never see headlines about the malfeasances of political appointees? One could reasonably argue that it could shake the public trust, but I doubt the reasons are so noble. Could it be that such misconduct does not occur? No, to error is human, to cover it up is politics.
I am in no way asserting that all political appointees are corrupt and self-serving. There are ones who deserve it and some who don't. The problem lies with protecting those who don't while casting stones at the rank and file.