Chrissy’s Massage Studios owner violated policy in job at College Station Police Department

College Station Police Department (CSPD) Accreditation Manager Chris Brannan is the person responsible for keeping the department in compliance with CALEA standards. CALEA is the source for much of the content in the department’s policies and procedures manual. After a complaint was filed, a CSPD professional standards investigation found that Brannan himself had violated one of those policies in not disclosing his ownership role in a College Station business, Chrissy’s Massage Studios, as College Station Police Department policy requires.

The investigation stemmed from the following CSPD Internal Affairs complaint submitted to Lieutenant Thomas Brown, the professional standards officer, upon discovering the policy violation:

The purpose of this email is to file an Internal Affairs Complaint with the College Station Police Department relating to non-compliance with CSPD and City of College Station policy requiring employees to disclose and attain approval for secondary employment.

The first subject of this complaint, College Station Police Department employee Christopher J. Brannan, has been self-employed as an owner and registered agent of Chrissy’s Massage, LLC.

The second subject of this complaint is the CSPD employee, possibly Brannan’s supervisor, who signed the attached form (from Brannan’s personnel file) attesting that Brannan was not employed in work outside CSPD requiring disclosure on 9/27/2016.

Despite Brannan’s ongoing self employment and the city’s requirement that any outside employment be disclosed by the employee and approved by their supervisor, Brannan did not properly disclose and obtain approval his secondary employment.

It is documented in at least one police report filed on behalf of his business that Brannan has represented and spoken for Chrissy’s Massage, LLC dba Chrissy’s Massage Studios in College Station as an officer/owner. Additionally, at least two emails related to Brannan’s business were sent to CSPD colleagues from his address.

This page of the Chrissy’s Massage, LLC website also refers to Mr. Brannan’s role in the business:

Please investigate these violations of CSPD policy and take appropriate remedial action.

CSPD Chief Scott McCollum responded with a finding that the complaint was valid, assuring this reporter corrective action was taken:

Thank you for informing us of the concerns you had in reference to a College Station Police Department employee potentially violating policy. As a result, a thorough review of the complaint you filed on October 9, 2018 was conducted.

The results of the investigation indicate that a secondary employment form should have been completed. The issue has been remedied and we will strive to review policy and determine if any modifications need to be made. The complaint was sustained and the appropriate disciplinary action was taken.

One of the main reasons that organizations require the disclosure of secondary employment is to avoid conflicts of interest. The complainant was aware of such a conflict, submitted in a separate, more complicated IA complaint complete with polygraph evidence. That conflict of interest, which is an apparent attempt to employ city resources to enrich Chrissy’s Massage, was the reason the complainant was going through Brannan’s personnel file, obtained via TPIA request, in the first place.

It is important to note that the policy violation alleged was falsification of required government paperwork relating to conflicts of interest. The violation sustained by CSPD was omission, not falsification, of said paperwork. It’s as if the document included with the complaint and the illegible CSPD supervisor who signed it simply did not exist.

Brannan’s misconduct wasn’t just an inadvertent omission. There was a signed document in his file that contained false information. In sustaining the complaint, yet denying a document’s existence and a second employee’s involvement, CSPD appears to be covering the true scope of their Accreditation Manager’s misconduct and his supervisor’s involvement.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s