Before work, Sergeant Rich O’Neill dons a blue Seattle Police Department (SPD) uniform, pins on a badge, and begins his commute—just like 1,250 other Seattle police officers and sergeants. But O’Neill never actually patrols Seattle streets. In fact, he hasn’t worked a shift as a cop since 2006, but Seattle residents still pay him $109,703 a year.
O’Neill, 52, is the president of the Seattle Police Officers’ Guild (SPOG), the union representing all the city’s beat cops. He retains the title of “sergeant” per the terms of the city contract that he negotiates on behalf of Seattle officers. His other primary function is speaking on behalf of these officers, who are prohibited by the SPD from commenting to the press. But as the US Department of Justice (DOJ) begins an investigation into excessive use of force and discriminatory policing exhibited by Seattle police officers, many are calling O’Neill SPD’s biggest public relations problem.
“Rich O’Neill does a great deal of damage to the community’s perception of officers,” says Nicole Gaines, president of the Loren Miller Bar Association, a civil rights group that’s working with the DOJ on its investigation. Gaines argues that O’Neill doesn’t just speak for officers—his rhetoric pits them against the public they’re sworn to protect.
Others put it more bluntly:
“The city pays Rich O’Neill to be a total dick,” says a city hall staffer familiar with current police contract negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “That’s his job—being a total dick. That’s what the public sees.”
O’Neill didn’t return several calls for comment (his secretary said he would probably never call back). But his words in the Guardian, SPOG’s monthly newspaper, and his actions speak for themselves.
“It is extremely frustrating when individuals with zero police training feel qualified to voice their opinions on police actions,” O’Neill lamented in the Guardian about recent police scrutiny. What was so “frustrating”? The media “frenzy” and public outcry after several controversial incidents that led to the federal investigation of the SPD: Officer Ian Birk fatally shooting John T. Williams (the shooting was found unjustified), Detective Shandy Cobane threatening to “beat the fucking Mexican piss” out of an innocent suspect (an internal investigation reportedly has recommended Cobane be fired), an undercover officer kicking a juvenile who had his hands up (the Washington State Patrol is currently investigating the officer), and others.
The Guardian also regularly publishes inflammatory articles—joking about shooting African Americans and showing contempt for civilian oversight, for example—all written by Seattle officers within O’Neill’s fold. For example, last fall, Officer Steve Pomper wrote that city officials conducting racial and social justice training are “the enemy” and “the city is inflicting its socialist policies” on officers. Pomper is now the subject of an SPD investigation (the exact nature of the investigation is still undisclosed).
Meanwhile, O’Neill has stood behind the most controversial cops. He calls Birk “a good young man.” In defending Pomper, he writes, “Many in Seattle can be very intolerant of anyone who is not a left-leaning Democrat.”
But while O’Neill stands by his rhetoric as a matter of the union’s free speech, the department is trying to do damage control. “It doesn’t do the union any good or the department any good,” Police Chief John Diaz said at a community meeting in January. “You can’t hide and just say, ‘Well, this is my union paper.’ It’s there for anyone to take a look at. It reflects badly. It degrades trust in our police department.”
“Without trust, police officers can’t do their jobs,” says US Attorney Jenny Durkan, the top prosecutor in Washington, whose office is leading the investigation into the SPD with the DOJ. While investigating use-of-force complaints, Durkan says her team will examine issues of trust and make recommendations to the department. “Officers rely on citizens to give them good information, to let them patrol their streets,” she continues. “Trust goes to the heart of safety. They have to trust that they’re welcome—that they can get out of their cars and be safe. It’s the linchpin to good policing.”
Seattle police officers are the highest paid law enforcement officers in the state. The wages start at $64,000, and after a decade of service, most officers make well over $100,000 a year, including overtime. But instead of building community trust, their most public face, O’Neill, is overtly political and confrontational.
For example, O’Neill has used his paid position to campaign against candidates he dislikes. In 2009, he and SPOG members picketed city attorney candidate Pete Holmes, who used to serve on a police oversight panel. O’Neill and others blocked his campaign signs and accused him of “divisiveness” and “grandstanding.” And last year, O’Neill clashed with Holmes again (who won the election for city attorney despite SPOG’s campaigning), this time when Holmes suggested that cash-poor Seattle use city attorneys to defend misconduct lawsuits against Seattle officers instead of the highly priced private firm Stafford Frey Cooper. O’Neill’s response? “We will file legal action against the city,” he said.
SPD won’t directly comment on O’Neill’s behavior. But city officials are aware that he is a public relations liability. “In city hall, there’s general agreement that Rich’s comments are not helpful to his own cause,” said a city council member who asked to remain anonymous.
The DOJ investigation into SPD’s police misconduct and public trust issues has no timeline, Durkan says. And thus far, O’Neill appears to be playing nice. “[SPOG’s] statements to us have always been, ‘We’ll be as cooperative as we can be,'” says Durkan.
But whether or not the DOJ finds O’Neill and the union to be part of the problem, it’s unlikely that the city can be rid of him anytime soon. In January, union officers reelected O’Neill to his third three-year term with over 78 percent of the vote. 
More in NEWS
Local (and not-so-local) news from your favorite writers.
“joking about shooting African Americans”
Hadn’t heard that one. Link?
They reelected this fuckwad with 78% of the vote?
What percentage of SPD actually live in the city? I wonder if it’s 22%.
Lol @ how he believes that no one is allowed to criticize the police unless they have had police training. Just like no one should be allowed to criticze politicians if they aren’t politicians themselves, am I right?
I wish I had confidence that the DOJ investigation wasn’t a toothless dog n’ pony show to appease an uneasy populace, but I just don’t see where they’re going to be able to make any kind of difference. I actually believe Diaz would be glad to be rid of O’Neill, but then we’d probably just end up with his inbred cousin, Pomper, instead. What a friggin’ joke the SPD is…don’t they have some brown-skinned jaywalkers to go taze?
This will no doubt be called a hit piece, but when no one but the subject of the story is even allowed to discuss such things with the press, it’s hard to remain objective, I suppose it’s hard to find supporters.
@4 the DOJ can legally bind the SPD into various outcomes. If this goes south, O’neill and the SPOG could be screwed in a variety of ways.
@5 – And when the subject of the story is unwilling to discuss it with the press, he kinda has a hit piece or two coming.
Rich O’Neill is a stand up man… Standing up for his rank and file while they are vilified by Seattle whack jobs. Cops have rights and due process just like you Seattle freaks… It is the 5% of “Seattle” that lashes out against the police… the same 5% that McShwinn identifies with… McShwinn is a tool! And his 5% are his tool shed!!!! Rich O’Neill’s job is to support the rank and file’s rights and contract…. He does no more than that… he is a stand up man… This I know…. very very well…… The pic the freak Ciena put on this article can be directed back to you who hate the people who keep you safe….F you!!!!
Diaz actaully asked O’Neill if he was gonna run for a third term….. Wanted him to do so….. to the 5%’ers….. Kiss the collective BLUE asses of Seattle….. but we will protect you anyway….
78% of union officers voted to reelect that piece of shit??! Well there goes the idea that it’s just this one asshole making the rest of those fine upstanding police officers look bad, doesn’t it?
You people who are excited about the DOJ investigation have your heads in the sand. Have you actually looked at the results in the cities that have DOJ consent decrees? No increase in trust, no weeding out of “problem officers,” just a huge increase in cost (millions out of our taxpayer pockets). The only effective government starts locally…never expect paper pushers from DC to fix anything!
BAD research work, The Stranger. The officers who belong to the guild pay monthly dues, and reimburse the city for Sgt. O’Neill’s salary. So he is NOT paid by tax payers dollars (especially since many officers choose to live OUTSIDE the city). Retraction from The Stranger? I highly doubt it.
I’m reading the Agreement between Seattle and the SPOG at http://www.seattle.gov/personnel/resourc…
Section 1.4 states:
All compensation (including salary and the cost of all Citypaid benefits) shall be paid by the City.
Don’t see any clauses about reimbursing the city for his role.
I’m also concerned by the extortion/coercion clause (2.1) requiring all police officers to either join the guild, submit the equivalent of monthly dues toward the Police Charity Fund or to the Guild itself, without any rights of representation. The city has no responsibility for this section apart from mandatory extraction of this monthly fee from officer’s paychecks.
I think O’Neill is actually a savvy politician. He has a very specific constituency–the guild membership–and he keeps them happy by always backing them up and advocating for them. I don’t like the stuff that comes out of his mouth, but I’m not surprised that he is so well-supported. The patrol officers want someone who has their bck.
Cienna, what about proud policewoman’s point?
It is clear cultural change is needed at SPD. That will not happen until O’Neill is outta there. He is too much of a lightning rod and is completely out of touch with the public for which SPD serves.
Hmm, I wouldn’t really consider the stranger or the author of this terribly written article the press… after all they are so horrible that they are forced to give out their “newspaper” for free.
Of course it is bad research… it is the stranger after all. They are a free publication… free because nobody would pay a dime to read the crap that they produce.
ehhhh this is a pretty awful article. was this pieced together from google searches and 2 unanswered phone calls?
@ 18 & 19) Interesting comments. They’re almost exactly what Rich O’Neill wrote about The Stranger in February. “I do wonder though why, if it such an important piece of literature, it is given away for free,” O’Neill wrote. But if any of the research is wrong, we’re happy to run a correction.
“Proud Policewoman”@13/14: Right, the Guild pays O’Neill. Where does the Guild budget from from? Police salaries. Who pays police salaries? Taxpayers. Ergo, who pays O’Neill’s salary? Taxpayers.
@8 fuck you y chinga tu madre tambien. “This I know”. now crawl back to the tavern you call home in kent. keep me safe? FUCK YOU, safely. always wear a condom.
Wait… I thought that we love love love Unions… ?!?! I’m confused.
@22 – that’s ridiculous. Once a government worker is paid a salary for doing their job, the money is that worker’s, not the taxpayers’.
That said, if O’Neill is still on the SPD payroll, regardless of the actual source of the dollars for his salary, I think the public has a say in his behavior.
Funny, the setup that SPOG has with the City of Seattle is most likely illegal, as it is an unconstitutional gift of public funds and a violation of Chapter 41.56 RCW, the collective bargaining law that the City of Seattle police officer’s operate under.
Under Public Employment Relations Commission law, the only time that a union offical can be released from duty to operate the union is if the labor organization (in this case SPOG) pays the employer for the salary of the employee.
City of Burlington, Decision 5840
http://www.perc.wa.gov/Databases/ULP/584…
Examining this case and the other cases cited therein as it relates to facts presented in the article, if O’Neil is campaigning on city time, then the contract provision that allows O’Neil to be “released from duty” is illegal under Chapter 41.56 RCW because campaigning on company time is not a matter that is directly related to the administration of the contract.
Of course, the City is just as guilty for this setup because they allowed the contract provision to exist in the first place, and did not question its legality during contract negotiations.
@13
“It is extremely frustrating when individuals with zero journalism training feel qualified to voice their opinions on journalistic actions,”
Proud policewoman lamented in the Stanger about recent media scrutiny.
Kenny Stuart President of Local 27, Seattle Fire Union has his full salary paid by the City as well!!! Negotiations baby!
The comments that appear to be from police or police supporters which essentially say “screw you, Seattleites” don’t exactly engender deep trust that these are the people we should have “protecting” us.
@25
It seems you missed the part about officer’s monitary contributions to the SPOG being compulsory.
Officers get paid by taxpayers via the city. A percentage of their wages goes straight to the SPOG. That’s kinda like money laundering, isn’t it?
It’s perfectly clear that the SPOG is funded by tax payers.
On another note, it’s really, really stupid to assume it’s impossible that a Seattle police officer could be guilty of use of excessive force, racial profiling, brutality, or murder. Of course it could happen. It HAS happened. Why defend these criminals? ‘Cause they’re cops? Idiot.
PS – the “Idiot” wasn’t directed at you, shabadoo.
It’s directed at the obstinate hicks who insist on clinging to their absurd convictions.
Speaking of convictions …
@34: If you are referring to the deletion of the comment @28, you’re full of shit. It wasn’t censored because it contained facts that “contradict their naive egalitarian fantasies,” it was censored because a commenter – me, and possibly others – reported that it contained a gratuitous racist slur.
Now fuck off back to Stormfront, you ignorant racist douchebag.
I’ll ask again: When did the Guardian publish a piece “joking about shooting African-Americans?” I’ve been following this thing pretty closely and don’t recall that.
@ 39 Maybe aware of facts amenable to your worldview. Maybe not so aware of the benefits conferred on you by white privilege.
Also, if you’re going to comment, maybe have the decency — and balls — to register with the site.
shabadoo@25: As noted repeatedly, here and elsewhere, contributions to the Guild are mandatory. Taxpayers pay this guy’s salary, full stop.
Since when did a newspaper have to cost money to be valid? I’m pretty sure the local news you hear and watch on TV and radio is free. You can get any and all literature at the library for free. You can read just about any newspaper in the world on the internet for free. But just because the Stranger doesn’t charge .25 cents for a printed copy, it’s not real “press”? How much does a copy of the Guardian cost?
Also, I think it would be good to clarify whether union members or the city pays O’Neill’s salary. I don’t see anything wrong with members’ dues going to pay their union leader’s salary (by which I mean this seems the only ethical way to do things). I do see a big problem if taxpayers are paying it.
@13, you’re wrong–the city pays O’Neill’s salary. Please see the union’s contract with the city, section 1.4, which specifically addresses the function of the Guild president. It states, “All compensation (including salary and the cost of all City- paid benefits) shall be paid by the City.”
Wow! The SPD has sure done an about-face in its attitude toward the citizenry since the mid/late ’80’s!
During those years, the SPD was a model of working with the public, rather than antagonizing them, and there were none of these ridiculous ‘force first, questions/restraint later’ incidents.
I moved to Portland in ’88 and was shocked at the difference in PD’s. Portland cops always blew away the person first, then found out they had a fake gun (or none) later.
It’s great to see that SPD has now become a vicious, right-wing organization like other major cities- Atlanta & Dallas come to mind with their bogus ‘raids’. We haven’t seen that here *yet*, just innocent street persons gunned down without cause. Give it time.
@41 All union dues (in a closed shop) are mandatory, by definition. Since every worker benefits from the collective bargaining process, they are obligated to pay something for the service. It’s also what gives the union leverage at the bargaining table (claiming to represent the entire workforce).
If union dues are going to pay this guy’s salary, that’s a very different story than taxpayer money. You wouldn’t say that when a teacher buys groceries, it’s really the taxpayers doing the purchasing, would you?
@45 There are no such thing as facts amenable to your worldview? Clearly some facts would be amenable to the worldview you are putting forward and some facts would contradict it, or undermine it, or complicate it in some way. Right?
But I don’t see any place in this article where that fact would be relevant. And you still haven’t answered the more difficult questions I’ve thrown at you. Which makes me think you’re not so interested in facts, per se, as much as you are in scoring some kind of political point against progressives. Which is difficult, frankly, to respect.
When new officers are hired they have the option of either joining the Guild or not joining the Guild.
@47, 50 has is correct. You cannot have a “closed shop” in the state of Washington. RCW 41.56.122 states “A collective bargaining agreement may: (1) Contain union security provisions: PROVIDED, That nothing in this section shall authorize a closed shop provision[.]” A closed shop is where all unit member HAVE to be a union member, and pay full union dues. An “agency shop”, which is allowable in Washington, provides that no employee shall be required to be a union member or pay full union dues. Public sector unions in washington cannot discriminate against employees who do not want to be full union members.
Rather, the employee is required to pay only the amount that is nencessary for the representation costs specific to that bargaining unit. While this sum may not be that different from what a full dues paying union member pays (usually around 90%-95%), the distinction for legal purposes is important. Additionally, the union is REQUIRED by law to tell the employees how much the agency fee is.
@49 because the facts prove that “racial profiling” is valid and necessary.
“which is difficult, frankly, to respect”
That’s funny because I find it completely impossible to respect anyone who ignores or censors facts of any kind, which makes it impossible for ms to respect so-called progressives.
@ 36: As I reported in January, the Guardian joked about shooting at members of African American advocacy and service organization the Urban League:
@ 53 except that is not an actual quote. What you “quoted” in no way proves that they “joked about shooting African Americans”. That is your interpretation of some text that you failed to include for some strange reason. Try again!
@53, Dom…your link points back to this article not your report in Jan.
#13’s a meter maid.
Akbar @55) Thanks, here you go.
@15:
Section 2.1 of the SPOG Agreement is a standard “Union Security Clause”, that can be found in most, albeit not all, union contracts outside of so-called “right to work” states.
Under the terms of the National Labor Relations Act (NRLA), the union (or in this case guild) representing employees in the Bargaining Unit can contractually require those employees to become members of the union/guild at the end of 30 days employment when their “Taft-Hartley window” closes, UNLESS (as described in sections 2.1.B, C & D) they express a specific religious (and/or political) objection to such membership. If they make such an objection, they would then be classified as a “dues-paying non-member” of the Bargaining Unit, and would be required to either pay dues and fees equivalent to the “Financial-Core” costs the union incurs for the purpose of collectively bargaining agreements on their behalf with management, and excluding any costs pertaining to objectionable activities in which the union may engage, or to pay an equivalent amount to a specified non-religious charitable organization. IME, such religious objections are extremely rare, and I would imagine only a handful, if that, of SPD officers would either elect to make such a declaration, or request to make a payment to a secular non-profit organization.
In any case, so-called “Fi-Core” employees are NOT members of the union according to the provisions of the NRLA, and thus do not derive certain benefits associated specifically with union membership, such as the right to vote for officers of the union, or to hold office themselves, but they do retain all other rights specified in the contract, including the right to have the union represent them in grievance hearings, for example.