Post by KC on May 30, 2006 22:45:32 GMT -5
May 30, 2006 - LADY LAKE -- The latest clash between Lady Lake and its police union has town officials wondering whether they have the power to fire as well as to hire. Meanwhile, the union says it just wants to protect officers from being fired frivolously.
In the most recent incident, a police officer fired after being accused of stealing evidence has filed a grievance asking to return to the force, arguing his punishment was too harsh.
During the past year, two other officers got their jobs back by filing grievances, costing the town $44,000 in legal fees plus months of back pay to the officers, according to town records.
The Fraternal Order of Police and the town are locked in a yearlong contract fight that has left some wondering over whether to revamp discipline procedures. On June 6, a special mediator will try to resolve that argument. Legal costs for the negotiations have risen to $20,000.
Allegations of misconduct and complaints about other officers have been numerous. Resolving those problems commanded 78 percent of the town's labor-attorney costs during the past two years, records show.
The most recent grievance comes from Officer Andrew Rutzebeck, charged with one misdemeanor count of petty theft in December. After an internal investigation, the town told Rutzebeck at the end of April that his last day was May 9.
Rutzebeck does not dispute that deputy sheriffs found a missing turquoise bowl inside a crumpled evidence bag in his car. His superior, Sgt. J.P. Bailey, said the bowl was stolen; the fired officer said his boss set him up.
Rutzebeck's grievance will trigger an arbitration process that town officials have called unfair.
Town Manager Bill Vance said other recent decisions have "proven that you can't be fired for insubordination. We don't think it gets worse than that."
He was referring to Sgt. Brian Williams, whom he fired in December after an internal investigation concluded that Williams had ignored a direct order. Six months later, the arbitrator determined the town's case against Williams was not enough to fire him and awarded Williams his job plus $25,000 of back pay.
Williams had been accused of making a derogatory sexual comment about a teenage female inmate and then disobeying Chief Ed Nathanson's order not to discuss it. Williams resigned from the force after the arbitrator ruled in his favor.
Nathanson wants to change the system.
"My concern is that when employees feel they can ignore the directives governing this department, they are jeopardizing the service to this community," he wrote in an e-mail.
Some town commissioners have said they want a citizen review board to hear officers refute disciplinary decisions. The board would be drawn from a pool of screened residents and function like a jury.
The police union, however, argues that a trained, certified legal professional should interpret the labor contract.
"If you were settling a legal matter and you had a choice between a board-certified attorney or your best friend, who would you want to represent you?" asked Bill Olsen, president of Fraternal Order of Police's local chapter.
The current police contract requires an arbitrator to settle disciplinary disputes. The arbitrator's decisions are final, even when the town has to take back officers it does not want.
"We have people who have trouble making responsible decisions," Vance said. "We are concerned because we have to give those people guns and badges."
Rutzebeck's grievance argues that he should get his job back because he was treated unfairly when the town fired him for misplacing the bowl he seized during a November traffic stop. His dog detected drugs inside the truck, and officers found marijuana and rolling papers inside the bowl. Rutzebeck submitted the drugs and the papers as evidence, but the bowl was missing.
Rutzebeck told an investigator he thought the bowl should be returned to the owner because it was not evidence. His boss told the investigator that Rutzebeck said he had gotten the bowl for his girlfriend and that Rutzebeck told him all items seized from the truck had been checked into an evidence locker.
Rutzebeck denied those conversations occurred and offers two theories about how the bowl ended up in his patrol car: either he absentmindedly put it there with other evidence bags, or Bailey set him up because Rutzebeck had complained about him.
Recently, the town refused to continue fighting about the other officer fired by the town for "poor performance."
Officer Dawn Alexander contested her dismissal. She labeled it retaliation for her complaints about another officer. The town rejected her grievance, saying that she filed it too late, but an arbitrator ruled it should be considered. The town declined to have an arbitrator determine the merits of her grievance, and Alexander returned to the force last month.
In the most recent incident, a police officer fired after being accused of stealing evidence has filed a grievance asking to return to the force, arguing his punishment was too harsh.
During the past year, two other officers got their jobs back by filing grievances, costing the town $44,000 in legal fees plus months of back pay to the officers, according to town records.
The Fraternal Order of Police and the town are locked in a yearlong contract fight that has left some wondering over whether to revamp discipline procedures. On June 6, a special mediator will try to resolve that argument. Legal costs for the negotiations have risen to $20,000.
Allegations of misconduct and complaints about other officers have been numerous. Resolving those problems commanded 78 percent of the town's labor-attorney costs during the past two years, records show.
The most recent grievance comes from Officer Andrew Rutzebeck, charged with one misdemeanor count of petty theft in December. After an internal investigation, the town told Rutzebeck at the end of April that his last day was May 9.
Rutzebeck does not dispute that deputy sheriffs found a missing turquoise bowl inside a crumpled evidence bag in his car. His superior, Sgt. J.P. Bailey, said the bowl was stolen; the fired officer said his boss set him up.
Rutzebeck's grievance will trigger an arbitration process that town officials have called unfair.
Town Manager Bill Vance said other recent decisions have "proven that you can't be fired for insubordination. We don't think it gets worse than that."
He was referring to Sgt. Brian Williams, whom he fired in December after an internal investigation concluded that Williams had ignored a direct order. Six months later, the arbitrator determined the town's case against Williams was not enough to fire him and awarded Williams his job plus $25,000 of back pay.
Williams had been accused of making a derogatory sexual comment about a teenage female inmate and then disobeying Chief Ed Nathanson's order not to discuss it. Williams resigned from the force after the arbitrator ruled in his favor.
Nathanson wants to change the system.
"My concern is that when employees feel they can ignore the directives governing this department, they are jeopardizing the service to this community," he wrote in an e-mail.
Some town commissioners have said they want a citizen review board to hear officers refute disciplinary decisions. The board would be drawn from a pool of screened residents and function like a jury.
The police union, however, argues that a trained, certified legal professional should interpret the labor contract.
"If you were settling a legal matter and you had a choice between a board-certified attorney or your best friend, who would you want to represent you?" asked Bill Olsen, president of Fraternal Order of Police's local chapter.
The current police contract requires an arbitrator to settle disciplinary disputes. The arbitrator's decisions are final, even when the town has to take back officers it does not want.
"We have people who have trouble making responsible decisions," Vance said. "We are concerned because we have to give those people guns and badges."
Rutzebeck's grievance argues that he should get his job back because he was treated unfairly when the town fired him for misplacing the bowl he seized during a November traffic stop. His dog detected drugs inside the truck, and officers found marijuana and rolling papers inside the bowl. Rutzebeck submitted the drugs and the papers as evidence, but the bowl was missing.
Rutzebeck told an investigator he thought the bowl should be returned to the owner because it was not evidence. His boss told the investigator that Rutzebeck said he had gotten the bowl for his girlfriend and that Rutzebeck told him all items seized from the truck had been checked into an evidence locker.
Rutzebeck denied those conversations occurred and offers two theories about how the bowl ended up in his patrol car: either he absentmindedly put it there with other evidence bags, or Bailey set him up because Rutzebeck had complained about him.
Recently, the town refused to continue fighting about the other officer fired by the town for "poor performance."
Officer Dawn Alexander contested her dismissal. She labeled it retaliation for her complaints about another officer. The town rejected her grievance, saying that she filed it too late, but an arbitrator ruled it should be considered. The town declined to have an arbitrator determine the merits of her grievance, and Alexander returned to the force last month.