In the video-taped interview with the Northwest Herald editorial board, Sheriff Keith Nygren told the board that he had "over 42 years" of experience. In addition, he stated that he has been in law enforcement since 1971. And he stated that he started with DeKalb County.
Something is not computing here.
When he said in 2009 that he had 42 years of experience, a little simple arithmetic will reveal that he started in 1967. Calculate it for yourself: 2009 - 42 = 1967. Everybody get that answer? Can we move on?
But then he said he had been in law enforcement since 1971. Whoa! Wait a minute. That's 38 years. Check it for yourself: 2009 - 1971 = 38
OK, so which is it? 42? 38? What happened to the missing four years?
Nygren also said that he started in DeKalb County. If he really has 42 years of experience and started in DeKalb County, then why does he only talk about the Crystal Lake Police Department, as if that was his first job in law enforcement? What kind of law enforcement job did he have in DeKalk County? And, since he's not talking about it, why did he leave?
In the Training History Report from the Illinois Law Enforcement Training and Standards Board (ILETSB) that is posted on www.mcsdexposed.blogspot.com/ Nygren's police training history began November 2, 1971.
Nygren completed only two courses with the ILETSB. In 1983 he took a five-day Investigators' In-Service Training Course (Grade: 82). In 1984 he took a five-day Constitutional Law for Police course (Grade: 82). Those are more than 25 years ago. He claims other training with the FBI Academy, but why so little from the State's own police academy?
Are the missing four years important? Probably not, except from standpoints of openness, completeness and truthfulness.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Typo correction........
Wow is this all you have to EXPOSE Nygren. What credentials does ZANE have? Zane was a turnkey at Crook County.
Up until 1976 police officers were not required to attend ANY State Academy classes. You could be sworn in and put on the street that day. Nygren has numerous certifications and the FBI Academy. I have a box full of certifications and I'll bet that very few were ever recorded at the ILETSB. Their records were not even computerized until about 1995and I don't think they entered old data. So a lack of records means little. You are so filled with hatred that you have zero credibility.
Those yeas maybe very relevant to the lawsutis that are piling up against him. It would be very bad for the county if it turned out that Nygren lied about his credentials all these years. That maybe he was terminated back in the 70's for say firing a weapon recklessly in the vicinity of other people. Maybe alcohol was involved. Maybe worse, justsaying?
I'd love to print what I believe to be true; but it is not confirmed, so I won't.
Let me put it this way: IHTNFOARIATR;PABR. When I have confirmed it, I'll spell it out for you.
The "FBI Academy"? It's not an academy. It's a networking outlet for law enforcement bureaucrats. There is no firearms training, arrest training, physical requirements or academic requirements. Don't try to equate this bogus "FBI" training as a difficult process that only the elite of law enforcement can obtain.
Justsaying... you are either clueless or jealous. Could it be that you just don't know? Ten weeks at Quantico, twelve when Nygren attended. 13 to 17 credit hours (either undergrad or post grad) from the University of Virginia. Physical training every day culminated by a grueling obstacle course prior to graduation. As I said you are either clueless, in which case we may now consider your ignorance cured, or you're a liar and a troll. To give you your due, yes it is a GREAT networking opportunity. If Nygren or any other grad has need of a law enforcement contact in a faraway city or country, he has to pick up the phone and locate a fellow grad and the assets of that department are at his disposal. I would assume, from your posts, that that would be a "bad" thing since it would tend to make Nygren and others able to do their jobs more efficiently and look good.
All this banter about Nygren's "lack" of credentials and training is a joke. What you folks haven't figured out is that some of his biggest detractors were still in diapers in 1976 which, coincidentally, is the year that academy training became mandatory in Illinois. Between, ~1971 and then it was voluntary and the state programs were just ramping up then. Back in the 60's there were very few academies for downstate officers and none were required. Also, some of the most prestigious police training programs, Northwestern University, the Southern Police Institute and, yes, the FBI National Academy are never listed with IL police training board for the simple reason that they aren't run by the state. So, while you speculate about all the dark and nefarious reasons that Nygren's record starts with the training board in 1971, spend a bit of time studying libel and slander law in this state. Open your mouth too far and you just might be treated to a lesson that will drive home the law and cost you a pretty penny.
Justsaying is all...
Mike, since you seem to be an insider, will you please explain Nygren's claim of "over 42 years" in law enforcement (but "since 1971"). Tell us about his law enforcement experience before 1971; when? where? DeKalb County? Addison, Ill.?
Fill in the blanks here, please.
I'll let the muckraker's paint themselves into a corner before I'll give them dates of employment that I know nothing about. You guys are so good at tossing s**t up on the wall hoping that it will stick, have at it. I WILL, however, give you a clue. It would appear from your documentation that Nygren attended his basic training (very basic, I'll grant you) in 1971 when he joined CLPD. That agrees with what I know about CLPD in those years. Since there was no requirement for training back prior to that, why would a state agency need to go back and fill in the blanks for somebody that may have worked as a police officer prior to the requirement for training? Why not ask Nygren and then work back from there rather than immediately take a perceived discrepancy and start saying he was dropped off by a passing spaceship or must have been involved in a shooting?
Hell, if you folks can't even come up with a little bit of background on what the National Academy really is about...
see
http://www.fbi.gov/hq/td/academy/na/na.htm
or maybe
http://www.fbinaa.org
...perhaps it really doesn't matter what you think, say or do anyway. Your ignorance is showing. Ignorance can be cured, but stupidity - amply demonstrated by some folk here (and I'm NOT attacking you, Gus, you're ignorant and have shown you can take the "cure") - is forever. They say life is tough, but it's tougher if you're stupid. Some of these posters must have a really tough life!
Mike,
Thanks for your comments here.
I surely would not want you to give dates of prior employment of Nygren that you know nothing about.
It was Keith himself who proudly told the Northwest Herald editorial board that he had "over 42 years" of law enforcement experience. The NWH video camera captured it. OK, so where was he for the four years before 1971?
Perhaps he or someone else will clarify this. And why not? He is the one who said it.
There is no reason for the Training and Standards Board to publish any information of which they have no knowledge. No one is asking them to do that.
Did someone say he was dropped off by a passing spaceship? Before you said it, I mean.
And no one said he was "involved in a shooting".
If it turns out that "he was terminated back in the 70's for say firing a weapon recklessly in the vicinity of other people", then he made a mistake, paid the price for it, and moved on through a career of increasing responsibility. Not saying that he did, but "if"...
Correct, actually what was said was "That maybe he was terminated back in the 70's for say firing a weapon recklessly in the vicinity of other people. Maybe alcohol was involved. Maybe worse..." I can see where someone of "Justsayings" ilk would consider that a reasonable statement to make that would have no negative inferences drawn... Right! Why not just ASK Nygren rather than assume - and has been - that he's hiding something SIMPLY BECAUSE THE LETSB DIDN'T TRACK SOMETHING THEY HAD NO INTEREST IN, NO BUSINESS LOOKING INTO, TOOK PLACE BEFORE THEY WERE CREATED..., and would appear to be rather insignificant at best since, according to your own words if [he made a mistake] (just to try and keep it in context)" [he]moved on through a career of increasing responsibility" I think that the latter is obvious. He didn't fall off the turnip truck and become sheriff, he was, by all accounts, the best man for the job when he was appointed. I've seen little to change that impression. Have there been problems in the department? You bet. Show me one department, firm, bank, hospital, school, church that has that many employees that HASN'T had a few problems.
Mike, you're kidding right? You mean, just ask him? Remember - I have personal experience about what he tells reporters.
There is no "Simply" about it. If the Training & Standards Board started on a certain date for everyone, then that's where THEY started.
Can't agree that they would have no business looking into any prior terminations and reasons therefor. But they didn't because it probably wasn't in their charter.
"Rather insignificant"? Can't determine that until the facts are out.
"...he was, by all accounts, the best man for the job when he was appointed."
Where did you get that? The County Board appointed him. Did they do a nationalwide search for the "best man for the job"? Nope. They picked someone they wanted and appointed him.
"Have there been problems in the department? You bet." Glad that you acknowledge that. But look at the types of problems and who is involved. That's what sets MCSD apart from most other departments of its size.
Check the statute, Gus. Do your research. When a Republican fades from office for whatever reason the job, BY LAW, goes to a Republican (as determined how they voted in the last PRIMARY since, as we all know, there are no "card carrying or registered Republicans" - it's the primary ballot you pull that determines )
Next the person must be a resident, no bringing in somebody from LA or NY even the on instance of an "outsider" a, gasp, Democrat coming in to replace a retiring sheriff, physically moved into the county before being appointed. Sleight of hand, sure, but you don't conduct a nationwide search for a sheriff as you can do with a chief of police.
As for problems.. Seipler was one and now the sheriff is being pilloried (by a few partisan nitwits) for getting rid of a person who admitted to falsely charging an individual, i.e. committing perjury. It is said that police are a microcosm of the society they protect. In a perfect world we would not need police. In a perfect world, if we had police, they would be perfect. We don't, we won't and, sadly, they are not. Police get drunk and do stupid things. They do, under this administration at least, find themselves dealt with quickly and some may say severely. I have no problem with them losing their jobs, do you?
Gus, you're just rehashing history, in fact very old history. Who cares what happened “way back when?” Last I checked we are electing a Sheriff for 2010 not 1971. The citizens of McHenry County "ELECTED" Keith Nygren to several terms as Sheriff, so maybe the appointment you grumble so much about was a righteous one. Get over it!
You cast stones and throw innuendos around regarding some math error? Maybe he was dog catcher, who cares? Keith Nygren easily has far more law enforcement training, education and managerial experience than your boy ZANE. What has Zane done beside write bogus tickets and thump his chest over a few sophomoric police certifications.
The residents of McHenry County are not so stupid and misinformed that they would seriously elect ZANE to this high position of trust and responsibility. Zane by his own admission committed an illegal act. By rights, he should have been charged with felony OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT. By that account alone he is disqualified.
Inferring some systemic problem, you respond to Mike by asking what sets MCSD apart from most other departments of its size. Easily answered. McHenry Co has few problems. 400 plus employees. When they have a bad employee that violates rules and regulations, violates the rights of people and discredits the agency, they fire him. That seems like good management to me. ZANE should know, he was rightfully fired and I seriously doubt that the people of this county are so stupid are willing to elect him to give him his job back.
Not, wouldn't it be interesting to find that I am rehashing old "history"?
I'm not the one who said "over 42 years" of law enforcement experience, and then said "started in 1971." Something is being "conveniently" left out. And those who care will find out.
It's not "some math error." He wasn't a dogcatcher. Nygren said "over 42 years" and then "started in 1971". It's not a careless math error.
Why would you say that Zane is "my boy"?
The qualifications for office of Sheriff are:
1. At least 18 years old;
2. U.S. citizen;
3. Resident of county for 1 year;
4. Registered voter in county;
5. Not a convicted felon.
By these State of Illinois requirements, Zane is qualified to be Sheriff. As am I.
You say that McHenry Co (Sheriff's Dept.) has few problems. "When they have a bad employee that violates rules and regulations, violates the rights of people and discredits the agency, they fire him."
No, actually they don't. You might want to familiarize yourself with the Pavlin case. Or the night of drinking at the Red Mill in Woodstock that preceded one deputy's shoving another, injuring her, and deputies who persuaded her not to call the Woodstock Police.
Or a supervisor who switched the positions of drivers in a crash report, so that the at-fault deputy driver was recorded as "No. 2", resulting in denial of the claim of the not-at-fault driver.
To list just a few.
Your jaded view of reality totally amazes me. The Pavlin case is another mockery of the McHenry CO justice system. When the SAO dismissed the case rather entering a Nolle Pros (Nolle prosequi) which allows future prosecution, the case it opened the County to unnecessary liability. The law is clear that the deputies had every right to pursue and not retreat from the arrest. You prefer to believe these criminals rather than see the truth. This was about politics and not about proper jurisprudence.
You keep parroting the illogical rhetoric of Zane Seipler as he tries to bring discredit upon those that ended his phony ticket scheme. You seem so certain that these deputies and supervisors performed these terrible acts. WERE YOU THERE? None-the-less, you blog these mistruths as being fact. You continue to spout and spew the pabulum fed to you by Zane. I know this is hard for you to believe, but Zane’s credibility is zero. Remember Zane admitted to perjury and should have been prosecuted for the crime. Perjury by another word is LIAR. But alas you worry about what Keith Nygren did 40 years ago.
You have become the Woodstock version of Oliver Stone. The local town crier incessantly warning of this evil cabal of Sheriff’s supervisors conspiring against Zane. Yup, you’ve become his mouth piece.
Gus, if you want to investigate Nygren's background then the way to do it is ask yourself "Who knows where he worked prior to 1971?" Two people definitely know the answer to that one: Nygren and his employer, right? Now, according to what you write, Nygren has stated that he's been in LE for x number of years and that claim doesn't square with what he also said - which may or may not have been a slip of the tongue when he only mentioned CL. Regardless of the fact that it's ancient history, I guess in the interest of complete disclosure, so that you and others can move on to nitpick something else while ignoring Seipler gross inadequacies and lack of integrity, you could just politely ask Nygren where he worked. He's either going to tell you (and allow you get on with your "work") or tell you to pound sand and/or ignore you. If that happens, you can make all kinds of wild accusations since he ducked the direct question and won't you feel good? Once he tells you he worked for "XXXX" you can quickly establish the truth or falsity of that. First, it will have to be a governmental agency that hired him to support his claim, right? Therefore, a FOIA will be the answer to your prayers (BTW, your inquiry to NIU won't go anywhere unless you pay their damn fee and follow the rules. I don't think that a FOIA WON'T work there; check out FERPA in the federal statutes, those records are protected.)
Anyway, once Nygren tells you where he worked you'll be able to prove that a) he's telling the truth or, b) that he's a liar. I seriously doubt that "b" will be the case and you sure as hell won't want to hear the answer that leads to "a" so why go to the trouble unless the only reason you're bringing this crap up is because you want to blow smoke. You are losing what very little credibility you ever had, Gus. Your complaint of "the big bad sheriff is staring at me" took away 95% of your credibility and gained for you a mere smattering of pity. I heard that teachers at the grade school level used that article as an object lesson to teach the kiddies to toughen up and act like adults rather than whiny crybabies. What you project here is not an inconvenient truth but an incomplete truth or smoke and sizzle but no fire.
not, apparently you are not familiar with the Pavlin case. There is no mockery whatsoever. The SAO was correct. The deputies had completed the arrest; the subject of the warrant was cuffed and in the patrol car. THEN Mr. and Mrs. Pavlin were injured in their own home by deputies.
I get information from many sources. You want to call them "mistruths"; they aren't.
Mike, how can you ignore Nygren's own words that he started in DeKalb in 1971 AND has "over 42 years" of LE experience? Don't YOU wonder about those first four years and why he won't say where he worked?
"Slip of the tongue"? Not hardly.
You write, "you could just politely ask Nygren where he worked..." You're right. Or the Northwest Herald could ask him.
I challenge you to name even one teacher at the grade school level who used the "glaring" article as an object lesson to teach the kiddies to toughen up and act like adults rather than whiny crybabies."
This is why bullying is still a problem in schools. And why it endures beyond school years into the military and other workplaces.
Students must learn to report bullying and not back down from teachers and administrators who refuse to act on their complaints.
One possible previous employer of Nygren has already responded that its employment records don't go back to 1960s. Its response? "These records appear to have been lost in the course of the years."
You used the word "inconvenient." I call their response repugnant.
Interesting discussion. I've "heard" enough to be convinced (though my mind is NOT changed).
If it ain't broke, don't try to fix it.
Voting for Nygren. Zane's not dry behind his ears. Neither are his supporters.
Post a Comment