St. Petersburg Times
Special report
Video report
Multimedia report
  • Owning vs. renting
    The end of the real estate boom has led to a community mix that some owner-occupants say they didn't bargain for. See detailed, clickable maps with data for your neighborhood.
  • More multimedia reports
Print Email this storyEmail story Comment Letter to the editor
Fill out this form to email this article to a friend
Your name Your email
Friend's name Friend's email
Your message
 

2 disciplined for violating adultery ban

The Pinellas sheriff established the employee rule in 2005.

By JOSE CARDENAS, Times Staff Writer
Published December 28, 2007


ADVERTISEMENT

For the first time since Sheriff Jim Coats instituted a rule in 2005 prohibiting adultery within his agency, he has disciplined two employees for violating it.

Deputy John Bradshaw received a three-day suspension, which he served Dec. 20-22, according to Sheriff's Office documents released Thursday.

Radio operator Heather Clouser received a written reprimand, the documents stated.

Bradshaw and Clouser each received a letter that read: "You engaged in an intimate relationship with a member of the agency whom you knew was married."

The documents say Bradshaw and Clouser violated the order between April and October 2007 while they were off duty in Pinellas County.

Clouser refused to comment Thursday. Bradshaw could not be reached.

Coats instituted the general order banning adultery in October 2005.

It was the first-of-its-kind policy among Tampa Bay law enforcement agencies and went beyond rules common among many employers - both private and public prohibiting romantic relationships between supervisors and subordinates.

Law enforcement agencies also typically ban relationships between two members of the same squad.

When he instituted the rule, Coats said it was important he be able to respond to complaints because affairs can have perilous effects in the workplace.

"I felt it was necessary to make it clear to the members of our agency that we have a moral image and obligation to the public," he said in a 2006 interview. "If we openly allow it, what kind of example does that set?"

The adultery rule prohibits two employees from "associating" when at least one of them is married.

The rule defines associating as "residing with, dating or entering into any intimate relationship with." It excludes employees who are separated and living apart from their spouses and those who have legally filed for divorce.

Violating the policy draws similar punishment as associating with criminals or accepting gratuities. It can range from a written reprimand up to a three-day suspension.

Bradshaw also violated another rule, the documents said, because he used an agency vehicle while off duty to stop at a residence "which was deemed not to be a short, personal errand to and from work or with supervisor permission." No further details were available Thursday.

Times staff writer Jacob H. Fries contributed to this report. Jose Cardenas can be reached at jcardenas@sptimes.com or 727 445-4224.

FAST FACTS:

The policy

Sheriff Jim Coats established a rule banning adultery in 2005:

Associating with married members - sheriff's personnel, whether married or single, shall not develop an association with another member whom they know or should have known is married to another person. Married members also shall not develop an association with agency members who are single. Excluded from this are members who are separated and residing apart from their spouse, or those who have legally filed for divorce. For the purpose of this policy, "association" means residing with, dating or entering into any intimate relationship with.

[Last modified December 27, 2007, 22:32:26]


Share your thoughts on this story

Comments on this article
by Adrianne 12/30/07 04:24 PM
Sheriff Coats not only has the authority, he should use the fullest measure of consequence against these two adulterers and fire them. Adulterers cannot be trusted with Public trust. If they cheated their spouses, wouldn't they cheat the People too?
by PO 12/29/07 04:21 PM
This is a disgusting attempt to rule other people's morals. What if the married person knows and accepts a third party? And open marriage? This is discrimination. Make rules about all employees, not just married. Now change out married with another..
by Jenn 12/29/07 03:47 PM
I think they should not be punished for what they did.people should look in there own closets. Nobody is perfect not even god.
by Doug 12/29/07 12:13 PM
Did any of the sheriffs employees ever hear of a union to protect their rights and I don't mean the F.O.P. Why not the Brotherhood of Teamsters? A good attorney could easily take care of this sherrif's megalomania?
by Jeff 12/28/07 09:30 PM
you people are silly. It is not against Florida law to cheat. However all forms of oral sex are against the law in the state of fl.
by Dee 12/28/07 08:59 PM
I think the issue is safety-folks with guns having affairs-potential for someone going "postal" and many people getting hurt. I applaud Coats for attempting to prevent a potential disaster that could tarnish his agency and forbid even hurt some folks
by John 12/28/07 08:01 PM
Who cares? Everyone sleeps around, and since when does the sheriff become the morale majority? You all are too uptight , maybe a little more sex, and less morales will increase moral at the sheriff's dept.
by Tad 12/28/07 05:52 PM
A shame this happened. I know his wife and she did not deserve this. Personally, I'm more interested in what happened to the Sgt. accused of hostile work environment and making racial & homophobic comments. I hear Coats is letting him off the hook.
by Gene 12/28/07 05:43 PM
An interesting article and accompanying comments, especially in light of the fact that we live in a society wherein a large percentage no longer consider marriage vows to be sacred. One never knows the risks and consequences that come with adultery.
by Amazed 12/28/07 01:04 PM
Just wondering how many of the ones that have left comments have done the same but havent got caught. I bet there are lots of stone throwers here.
by Willie 12/28/07 01:03 PM
A policy against something that's illegal anyway. Next up, a policy against murdering your co-workers. If you do, you will have to take an extra long holiday vacation!
by djakout 12/28/07 10:50 AM
too much employer interference in employees private life. these are adult people who choose to enjoy themselves. let them do it freely as long as their is not interfering with their job performance. happy new year every one. i approve this message.
by Donna 12/28/07 10:06 AM
I think it's a great rule and glad it's being enforced. If you want to have "relations" with someone else...get a divorce or why get married in the first place?!
by Joe 12/28/07 10:06 AM
Pretty sad when you have to find a married co-worker to hook up with since you're too lame to get a date with a single person like most of the rest of us. Good job officers! Coats should withold a portion of their pay for Match.com memberships!!
by Aida 12/28/07 09:58 AM
Punishment should have been MORE severe. These people are "trusted public officials"! Nothing but untrustworthy sleezes, come on, you need to give respect to receive it!!
by Shirley Eugest 12/28/07 09:54 AM
"Honey, for Christmas I decided to give you the ultimate insult!" I applaud Sheriff Coats for establishing standards of RESPECT towards marital vows. He is completely correct for his actions against these adults and their selfish choices.
by AJ 12/28/07 09:53 AM
Scarlet Letter 2008? Where the heck does Coats get off. What people do in the privacy of motel rooms is their own business. Not their employers?
by Patric 12/28/07 09:48 AM
I'm not terribly concerned about who the police are sleeping with; I'm concerned about them tazing people with little provocation. Coats should worry what we think about that.
by Richard 12/28/07 09:37 AM
I'm glad they were diciplined for their lack of. As a public official they need to be punsihed for being scandalous to their office.
by Paul 12/28/07 09:23 AM
Great, legalized discrimination. What next, punishment for reading magazines with amoral themes? Howabout fines for being too liberal or too conservative? All together now: "SIEG...."
by Marty S. 12/28/07 09:06 AM
Hmmm,"Know OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN is married" Maybe the married can wear a big letter "M" on the shirts and the single an "S". A "G" or "L" will be next; maybe an "I" or "C" 4 interested or curious. "F" 4 flirty. "T" 4 teaser. "A" for...Abstinate!
by Donna 12/28/07 08:56 AM
I think that is a wonderful rule. and for one glad to see that it is enforced.
by ra 12/28/07 08:40 AM
I wonder who's fault it is that there will be another divorce? Hmmm Could it be the person that decided to cheat on their spouse?
by Niki 12/28/07 08:39 AM
Just curious why the leading law enforcement agency in the county did not arrest and charge these two individuals for violating the state's law against adultery instead of just merely punishing them for violating an agency policy?
by jackie o 12/28/07 08:12 AM
More fitting, that as police, they be stoned to death! Gimme that O.T. justice.
by Kimberly 12/28/07 07:56 AM
I agree with Gilbert's message and should add that I think more organizations/employers should adopt this type of rule. It can also destroy morale within social clubs that these people may belong to, causing strife within membership.
by billy 12/28/07 07:56 AM
cops are always breaking the rules, but dont let normal people try,, yes normal people cops are so way above everyone else ,,in fact there stool samples arent even brown,,,
by Matt 12/28/07 07:52 AM
I suppose I'm not too surprised, yet I feel outraged over this. Not only are the reprimanded for activities they engaged in outside of their workplace, now they are punished in front of family, friends, and colleagues thanks to media. Disgusting.
by Bill 12/28/07 07:49 AM
It's still ok for cops to have affairs with married people, as long as they're not with the agency? Married cops can still cheat, just not with other cops in the agency? Nice. Helps the public trust.
by Bill 12/28/07 06:57 AM
Yeah Gilbert, I can sure see where having co-workers publicly charged with violating an adultery ban can be a real morale boost!
by Linda 12/28/07 06:24 AM
It's no secret now! And there will soon be another separation and/or divorce!
by Gilbert 12/28/07 03:57 AM
Hooray for Sheriff Coats, I was in the military for 21 years we had a similar rule. However, the consequences was more severe. Up to and including jail time, w/BCD. It destroys the morale of an organization not to mention work place violence chances.
Subscribe to the Times
Click here for daily delivery
of the St. Petersburg Times.

Email Newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT