Secondary Employment

Order 282, Version 9, effective August 11, 2023, describes how the Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office regulates secondary employment. This includes enforcement-related work, such as private security and traffic control, and non-enforcement-related work, such as teaching or owning a business. The policy also includes arrangements in which employees receive reduced rent or other benefits in exchange for their services.

The policy establishes requirements for approving employment, documenting hours, supervising officers, and collecting administrative fees. In this assessment, we will describe the safeguards provided by the policy, identify areas where its requirements are unclear, and explain how these limitations could affect employees and the public.

The policy establishes that an employee’s responsibilities to JSO take priority over secondary employment. Employees are prohibited from working secondary employment while on duty or following a private employer’s instructions when those instructions conflict with JSO requirements. These provisions help maintain a distinction between an employee’s public responsibilities and private employment.

The policy also requires documentation. Enforcement-related assignments generally must be approved and entered into the Off Duty Integrated Scheduling System. Officers must document their work, and schedulers must verify the accuracy of recorded hours each month. Watch commanders are required to inspect two secondary employment locations per work cycle. Together, these requirements provide a means of reviewing whether officers are working approved assignments and accurately reporting their time.

Another strength is the inclusion of noncash compensation. Employees must disclose arrangements involving reduced rent and other benefits, rather than reporting only employment that produces a paycheck. This recognizes that a financial relationship can exist even when no money is exchanged directly.

Several decisions depend on broad standards that are not clearly defined. For example, secondary employment may be denied, restricted, or revoked when doing so is considered to be in JSO’s best interest. Although this allows supervisors to respond to different circumstances, the policy does not clearly describe how they should determine whether similar circumstances warrant similar decisions.

The policy also identifies who may approve dignitary protection services without establishing a clear standard for determining when those services serve a public safety purpose. These services can include escorting or chauffeuring corporate executives, celebrities, and other individuals. Approval requirements establish responsibility for the decision, but they do not fully explain the criteria on which the decision should be based.

Administrative fees present a similar limitation. The policy identifies exemptions and permits additional exceptions, but it does not provide detailed criteria for evaluating discretionary fee exceptions. It also does not explain how the listed charges relate to the costs associated with providing the service.

Finally, while the policy requires an investigation following certain suspensions, it does not describe a dedicated appeal process through which an employee or client can challenge the resulting decision.

The policy could be improved by establishing specific criteria for approving, denying, restricting, or suspending secondary employment. These criteria should address public safety, conflicts of interest, interference with regular duties, and the resources required for an assignment. Written explanations would make it easier to determine whether decisions are consistent with these criteria.

Dignitary protection assignments should include a documented explanation of the safety need and the reason police services are appropriate. This would help distinguish assignments based on a public safety concern from assignments based primarily on an individual’s status or convenience.

Discretionary fee exceptions should also require written explanations. The policy should identify the circumstances that justify an exception and explain how administrative charges are calculated. This would make the financial responsibilities of clients and the agency more understandable.

Finally, the policy could establish a review process for disputed decisions and require periodic checks comparing approved assignments, recorded hours, payments, and administrative fees. These checks should be performed by someone other than the person responsible for scheduling the assignment.

Our primary concern is the relationship between private compensation and impartial policing. An officer who receives payment from a business, or reduced rent from a property owner, has a financial relationship with that employer. This does not establish that the officer will act improperly. However, it creates circumstances in which the officer’s financial interests may conflict with their responsibility to treat all parties impartially.

Another concern is whether broad discretion could result in different treatment for similar requests. Without clear criteria and documented explanations, it becomes difficult to distinguish a reasonable exception from preferential treatment.

Secondary employment can also involve public resources. The policy permits on-duty assistance and provides coverage for authorized enforcement-related work. These provisions do not establish that private clients are being improperly subsidized, but they demonstrate that the financial effects are not limited to the officer and the client.

Overall, this version provides meaningful requirements for approval, documentation, and supervision. Its principal limitation is that several consequential decisions remain dependent on individual judgment without equally specific standards for evaluating that judgment.