Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-85 MINUTES OF THE SCHEDULED MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING HELD JULY 15, 1985 PRESENT: Chairman Breland, and Members Pat Bond, Marvin Sanders, Mary Ellen Frame, and Jim Swiekerath, alternate member David Lowery, and Deputy Clerks Louloudis, and Nordstrom. ABSENT: None. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Breland called the scheduled meeting to order at 7 :30 p.m., and led those present to the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. Mrs. Bond led in prayer. Mr. Breland then determined all were present by roll call. Mr. Breland welcomed Mr. David Lowery as the Board's alternate member, and explained his duties as an alternate member. An alternate member can only vote when a regular member is absent, otherwise the duties are the same as a regular member. HEARING FOR MR. ANTHONY VICK - POLICE DEPT. - TERMINATED Mr. Breland announced the charges which were placed against Mr. Tony Vick which led to his termination by the City Manager. They were as follows: Stealing from the government, Misappropriation of government property, Misconduct as a Police Officer. Mr. Vick stated he understood the charges against him. Mr. Vick announced his witnesses; Glenn Treanor, Bob Hey, Claudia Dane, Tony Wilson, Chuck Seaver, and Rose Handley. Mr. Vick stated he wanted to represent himself, before the Board. Mr. Vick had a computer print out of calculations dealing with traffic violations and homicide investigating. Atty. Tom Lang was present and ready to present their case. The City's witnesses are as follows: City Manager Griffin, Chief of Police William Brandt, and Corporal Brian Clinger. Mr. Breland asked no outbursts occur. The City called City Manager Griffin to the witness stand, and he was sworn in by Deputy Clerk Louloudis. Mr. Griffin took the stand and stated his full name, his position which is City Manager for the City of Ocoee. Mr. Griffin stated he was familiar with the circumstances surrounding Mr. Vick's termination, and he made the determination to terminate Mr. Vick's employment with the City. Mr. Griffin stated he decided to terminate Mr. Vick for the following reasons: Mr. Vick's record is "less than perfect ", with letters of reprimand for not attending mandatory meetings, not showing up for work, and most recently, stealing from the City. Mr. N "" Griffin stated the value of the computer paper did not play any role in the decision to terminate Mr. Vick, it was the principle of the matter along with the evidence in Mr. Vick's personnel file. Mr. Griffin stated that no one has 1 MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING JULY 15, 1985 PAGE 2 brought forth any evidence to show that Mr. Vick had authorization to take the computer paper from the City. To Mr. Griffin's knowledge Mr. Vick had no authorization from the City to prepare the computer programs, and was not working on the programs with anyone else in the City. At this time the City Atty. had no further questions. Mrs. Pat Bond asked Mr. Griffin why his reprimands were not reflected on his performance review sheets. Mr. Griffin stated he did not review each employee personally but he suspected the reason had something to do with the fact that the supervisor calls the employee in and explains the reasoning behind the employees rating given on the Performance Review Sheets. Mr. Griffin explained that holding the Managers position he only hears about the exceptionally good and bad employees. The charges brought forth came from the Chief of Police and Mr. Griffin was on the administrative end. The City Charter states that hiring and firing is done by the City Manager. Chief Brandt and Mr. Griffin discussed the decision prior to Mr. Vick actually being terminated. Mrs. Bond pointed out that the Charter states a certified letter must be sent to the employee three days after termination. Mrs. Bond asked Nil„ if this was done. Mr. Griffin explained that the letter was handed to Mr. Vick in person, therefore it is the City Attorney's interpretation that the certified letter is not needed, since the certification is to verify the person received the letter. Mr. Breland informed Mr. Griffin that he did not have to answer any of the questions, per his rights. Mr. Griffin was aware of his rights. The City called their next witness, Chief William Brandt, the Deputy Clerk swore him in and he took the stand. Chief Brandt was aware of the circumstances around Mr. Vick's termination. There was an investigation carried out under Chief Brandt's supervision. Chief Brandt explained the results of this investigation, as follows: On 6/23/85 there were accusations that Tony Vick went into the Dispatch section withnothing and came out with a box which contained computer paper. Corp. Clinger, who was the shift supervisor at that time noticed the box and asked Vick what was in it. Vick replied that it was "writing paper ". Subsequently, Chief Brandt confronted Mr. Vick with the accusations, Tony Wilson read him his rights, and he stated he knowingly took the paper. Chief Brandt testified that Mr. Vick told him at that time he was working on a computer program at home, but he had no authorization to take the paper, and no authorization to work on a program for the City of Ocoee's Police Dept. During the time of the investigation, Mr. Vick did not relay to Chief Brandt that Corp. Clinger had inquired about the contents of %"" the box. Chief Brandt presented a similiar box which Mr. Vick used on 6- 23 -85. Chief Brandt pointed out that the box used normally contains "sheet protectors" and not two copy fan folded computer paper. Atty. Lang asked Chief Brandt 2 MERIT SYSTEM BOARD JULY 15, 1985 PAGE 3 what the outcome would be keeping a police officer on the force who was found to have taken property from the City. Chief Brandt responded that it would be detrimental to the Department, Community and the City of Ocoee. Mr. David Lowery asked if the policy that Police Officers are not allowed in the Dispatch section is a common practice even though there is a policy which forbids it. Chief Brandt stated it did not occur in the day shift. Mrs. Pat Bond asked if the Chief or the City Manager terminated Mr. Vick. Chief Brandt stated he handed Mr. Vick the letter, but only the City Manager has the authority to hire or fire, although he felt that Mr. Vick should be terminated. Mr. Lowery asked Chief Brandt how he would rate Officer Vick. Chief Brandt explained that he had only been here a short time, but he has had contacts with Mr. Vick, one of which were substantiated. Chief Brandt stated after their last confrontation he thought that "Officer Vick would be alright ". At that time, Officer Vick told Chief that he would never be seen in his office again. Mr. Breland asked Chief Brandt if he has reviewed the personnel files of the department. Chief Brandt testified that he had previous to his employment with the City. Mr. �. - Breland asked Chief if he noticed anything unusual in Mr. Vick's file. Chief Brandt noticed several reprimands from Chief Turner, the majority being mandatory meetings he did not attend. Within the 18 months that Mr. Vick has been employed he has received several reprimands for various things. Mr. Breland asked Chief Brandt if he believed Mr. Vick had an intent to steal the paper, or was there any doubt in your mind that he was not stealing the property. Chief Brandt said, "I am convinced that he was just going to take that paper without anyone's permission." Mr. Breland clarified and Chief Brandt agreed, Mr. Vick was trying to conceal the fact that he was taking the paper. Chief Brandt believed this to be true because Mr. Vick lied to Corp. Clinger when he asked him what was in the box, had Mr. Vick said Computer paper, Corp. Clinger would have told him to take it back and talk to Chief tommorrow and he will get you some. Mr. Lowery asked Chief Brandt if he had given anyone else authority to take computer paper before. Chief Brandt answered he had not. Mr. Lowery asked Chief Brandt if he would have given Mr. Vick authority to use the paper. Chief Brandt testified that Mr. Vick told him of the program he was working on for Traffic Homicide at the date of the second notice July 8, 1985, and Chief Brandt told him he would buy him a box of paper if it was something for the Department. Mrs. Pat Bond asked Chief Brandt if he was saying rather than an intent to steal Mr. Vick used an error judgement. Chief `"'' Brandt would like to believe that but he lied to Corp. Clinger. Mrs. Pat Bond asked if he audited the supplies in the room, Chief Brandt does not. Chief Brandt stated it was not customary to take paper out, and Corp. Clinger did not 3 MERIT SYSTEM BOARD JULY 15, 1985 PAGE 4 know that Mr. Vick took the paper from the supply room, or that Mr. Vick came out of the supply room. Mr. Breland pointed out that Mr. Glenn Treanor and Mr. Tony Vick had quite a conversation that night. Mr. Breland inquired whether Dispatcher Treanor realized Tony Vick took the paper. Chief Brandt's information was third hand, but understood that he did not. City Atty. Lang asked Chief Brandt if he read Mr. Vick his rights. Chief Brandt stated he instructed Mr. Tony Wilson to do so. Following reading of his rights did Mr. Vick make any statement to you. Chief Brandt replied that he had said he took the paper out of the Dispatch section because he had a computer program which he wanted to run. How long was that after the time that he actually took it, the City Atty asked. Chief Brandt thought that was on the 8th of July. City Atty. Lang asked if he had had any discussions with Mr. Vick prior to the time that he admitted he had taken the paper. Chief Brandt said he had not. Chief Brandt stated the first time he heard about the program for the Traffic Homicide Investigations was on the 8th of July. On the 5th of July, Chief Brandt understood that he took the paper because he had a program to run. Mr. Breland asked Chief Brandt to step down from the stand, and prosecution to call their next witness. The City Atty. called Corporal Brian Clinger to the stand, and he was sworn in by the Deputy Clerk. City Atty. asked him to state his full name, his place of employment and position. He answered Brian John Clinger, Ocoee Police Dept., Corporal. City Atty. Lang warned him he was under oath, and the sanctions associated with not telling the truth while you are under oath. Mr. Clinger understood. Mr. Clinger was familiar with Mr. Vick and the incident which occurred on 6- 23 -85. Mr. Clinger recapped the incident which occurred at approximately 1:40 a.m.. Mr. Clinger observed a white box sitting at the north Dispatch window, after coming out of the back offices. Mr. Clinger asked Mr. Vick what was in the box. Mr. Vick replied that it was writing paper. Mr. Clinger stated that he was in charge of the shift, responsible for the City. It had other personal effects on the box. For some reason, Mr. Clinger had to leave the station, but before leaving the station Mr. Clinger picked up the box, and found it to be "quite heavy ". Mr. Clinger stated he did not go any further investigating the box, as he thought Mr. Vick may have had authority to have the box, but noticed it was marked some kind of paper covers. Mr. Clinger did not want to over step his boundary, therefore he did not investigate any further. Mr. Clinger then left the station and when he returned Mr. Vick had gone. Mr. Clinger then asked Mr. Treanor what had happened. Mr. `■- Treanor told him that he and Mr. Vick were talking about computers, and printers. Mr. Treanor told Mr. Clinger that Mr. Vick had entered the office and asked where the computer paper was kept. Mr. Treanor stated he did not want to get 4 �-- MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING JULY 15, 1985 PAGE 5 Mr. Vick in trouble, and did not want to give any information. Mr. Treanor relayed that Mr. Vick stated, "I can't take any out of this box, its full ". Mr. Vick then said, "all-ha, I found some." Mr. Vick then walked from the extreme back room carrying the white box, and asked Mr. Treanor if it was being used. Mr. Vick went back into the room and then came out with the box. At this point, Mr. Clinger questioned Mr. Vick about the box, and Mr. Vick stated it was writing paper, which later turned out to be computer paper. Mrs. Frame asked Mr. Clinger if he felt there was City property inside the box when he lifted it. Mr. Clinger stated he did not know what was in the box. Mrs. Frame clarified that Mr. Clinger picked up the box, being curious, but did not look inside; Mr. Clinger agreed. Mrs. Bond asked Mr. Clinger if he had ever seen, or if he had ever, picked up a pen, tablet of paper, or something, and it wound up at your house. Mr. Clinger stated, "Yes, but I had permission." Mrs. Pat Bond asked Mr. Clinger if he has ever seen anyone sign something, put the pen in their pocket and walk out the door. Mr. Clinger stated, "Not to his immediate recollection." The next day, Mr. Clinger went to his Lieutenant, the Lieutenant in turn went to the Chief of Police, who then summoned Mr. Clinger to his office, and asked him what happened. Mr Sanders asked Mr. Clinger how he would rate Mr. Vick. Mr. Clinger stated he would rate him good since 11 -7 -84. Mr. Clinger stated he was helping Mr. Vick with a dog, until Mr. Vick had a family preference. Mr. Clinger was Mr. Vick's first line supervisor that nite, since Mr. Vick had stayed over his shift. Mr. Lowery clarified that the issue is not the amount of the property, its the principle of it. There was only one officer in the Dispatch section, who was Mr. Vick. The prosecution had no other witnesses to present. Mr. Vick stated he failed to list Mr. Clinger on his witness list as he did not think that he would be there. Mr. Clinger was called back to the witness stand and was reminded that he was still under oath. Mr. Vick asked Mr. Clinger if, previous to 6- 23 -85, had he discussed a program for Traffic Homicides and Investigations. Mr. Clinger stated he had, and explained it was about a program for Traffic Homicide Investigation, and that Mr. Vick had purchased a computer. Mr. Clinger stated Mr. Hey, Mr. Vance, Mr. Clinger, and Mr. Vick are Traffic Homicide investigators for the City, and Mr. Clinger is the most involved. City Atty. Lang asked Mr. Clinger if he knew if anyone else knew about the program. Mr. Clinger did not know. Atty. Lang asked, to Mr. Clinger's knowledge, did anyone in the dept. give him authorization to develop the program. Mr. Clinger responded not to his knowledge. Atty. Lang asked Mr. Clinger if it had ever come to his attention the program was being developed for the Police Dept. Mr. Clinger stated he did not know it was being developed for Ocoee, but he put two and two 5 MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING JULY 15, 1985 PAGE 6 together and figured if he was developing a program for Traffic Homicide, it was being developed for Ocoee. Mr. Clinger stated to his knowledge no one gave Mr. Vick authorization to develop the program or use the City's property. Mr. Vick asked Mr. Clinger if he was familiar with the new standard operating procedures and general orders. Also, Mr. Vick asked him if he attended the meeting where Chief Brandt explained that first line supervisors would have an added responsibility. Mr. Clinger stated he was present at the meeting and he was somewhat aware of the new procedures. Mr. Vick asked him to explain what the added responsibility meant to the first line supervisor. Mr. Clinger stated he was responsible for the City, the Police Dept., the officers below him, the dispatchers, and he has the authority to suspend. Mr. Clinger did not feel he had the authorization at the time of the incident therefore he went to his Lieutenant with the situation. Mr. Vick called Mr. Glenn Treanor to the witness stand, and he was sworn in. Mr. Treanor explained that he was a Dispatcher, he takes complaints that come in, run the teletype, and send officers to scenes. Mr. Treanor was asked to explain the conversation between himself and Mr. Vick. Mr. Treanor replied that it was in reference to an Adam computer, printer, and programs, the programs to be used by the Police Dept.. Mr. Vick relayed that there were bugs in the program, and that he needed some printer paper, at which time he came into the dispatch section. Mr. Treanor explained that the door is supposed to be locked so that no one can enter on their own free will, but it is policy which is not written down, and other dispatchers frequently leave the door not shut completely, or standing open. Mr. Treanor explained that the rule is not enforced. Mr. Vick entered the back room, "where all the supplies are kept, and asked where the paper was kept." Mr. Vick asked Mr. Treanor if any of the boxes were open, and then he found one open. Mr. Treanor did not actually see Mr. Vick remove the paper, but assumed he had. Mr. Vick asked him if he was speculating that the program was for the Police Dept. Mr. Treanor had specifically been told the program was for Traffic Homicide Investigating. Mr. Treanor has been employed for about 4 to 5 months, and he is aware of the rule that Dispatch is supposed to be off limits, although other officers often enter the Dispatch area, the rule has not been enforced until recently, because of these proceedings. Mr. Vick asked Mr. Treanor to explain the conversation between Mr. Clinger and himself. Mr. Treanor explained that Mr. Clinger had asked if he gave Mr. Vick permission to have the box, Mr. Treanor wasn't sure if he had `NW or not but the box was trash, he was going to throw it away, so he may have given the permission. Mr. Treanor told Mr. Clinger he assumed that the box contained teletype paper, but he wasn't sure, because he didn't actually see it. Mr. MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING JULY 15, 1985 PAGE 7 Treanor did not give Mr. Vick permission to take the teletype paper, as he does not have that authority. Mr. Clinger asked Mr. Treanor to give a statement to that effect. Mr. Treanor did not want to make the statement as he "had nothing against Officer Vick, he is a nice guy, and I did not want to incriminate him, but I was more or less coerced into making a statement." Mr. Vick stopped Mr. Treanor and asked him if he was familiar with the definition of coerced, Mr. Treanor was. Mr. Treanor stated he signed the statement and had read the statement at the bottom about coercion. Mr. Treanor stated he asked Corp. Clinger if he were in his shoes what would he do, Clinger responded by saying, "If I were you, I wouldn't go to jail for anybody." At that time, Mr. Treanor made the statement. Mr. Treanor interpreted the statement to mean if he did not make the statement he would be held responsible, and consequently, may get into trouble. City Atty. Lang asked Mr. Treanor how Corp. Clinger would have put him in jail. Mr. Treanor explained that since the door to Dispatch was left open, and there is a verbal rule to keep it shut and locked, he felt he might be held responsible, but he did not know if or how that would put him in jail. The statement Mr. Now Treanor submitted was the truth, but he was concerned about it incriminating himself and Officer Vick. City Atty. Lang asked if he had ever taken anything from the Dept. Mr. Treanor answered as Mrs. Bond brought out that he may have put a pen in his pocket. City Atty. Lang asked him if he ever knowingly walked into a supply closet to get something and took it home, Mr. Treanor had not. City Atty. Lang asked him if he has let others back into the supply room, Mr. Treanor stated he had let others back into the supply room, he did not know what they were looking for. He along with other dispatchers, Iris Cruz, and Vaunita Babb leave the door open and unlocked, on a regular basis. City Atty. Lang asked Mr. Treanor if he had heard Mr. Clinger's discussion with Mr. Vick, Mr. Treanor had not. Mr. Treanor testified that no one else on his shift has taken computer paper, although other people have gone into the supply room on his shift. Mr. Vick made it known to Mr. Treanor that he was looking for computer paper, he did not sneak in the room and steal the paper and walk out discreetly. Mr. Treanor identified his signature and his statement, and stated it was given to Chuck Seaver. The second statement was also given to Mr. Seaver, it was written and all three detectives were present. City Atty. Lang pointed out that in either statement there is no note of the program being used for departmental use. Mr. Treanor explained that he just wrote the basics down, as he did not Now want to make the statement. Mr. Treanor thought that the fact Mr. Vick had entered the Dispatch section would get himself and Mr. Vick in trouble. Mr. Treanor stated he told Mr. Clinger about the program being for the department along with a few others. MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING JULY 15, 1985 PAGE 10 common practice by officers. Officer Toms testified that some of the Dispatchers keep the door locked. Officer Toms did not see anything wrong with Mr. Vick going back there, and she could not remember any time where the officers received a written memo to stay out of the Dispatch area. City Atty. Lang asked Ms. Toms if she had ever been in the supply room, or ever took anything from the supply room. Ms. Toms stated that she has been in the room, but has never taken anything. Atty. Lang asked Ms. Toms if she knew the procedures for taking anything out of the closet. Ms. Toms stated she did not know the procedures for taking anything and she has never been in that closet. Mr. Breland asked that everyone stick to the topic matter at hand. Mr. Sanders asked Officer Toms if there is a sign on the door stating "Unauthorized Personnel Only ". Officer Toms could not recall. Mrs. Bond asked if there were file cards stored in the supply room, which officers needed to do their job. Officer Toms did not know what was kept there any more, the files that were there, the officers would not need. Mr. Lowery asked if anyone else, to Officer Toms knowledge, has taken computer paper out of that room. Ms. Toms stated they have taken the carbon copies, from new computer sheets. Ms. Toms could not tell if they had authorization, or the situation around it. Officer Toms stated, "In my opinion, there is not one police officer in that department or in any other department, who is not guilty of, in essence, theft, whether it be theft of time, from the City from misuse, whether it be theft of gasoline from misuse of vehicles, whatever it may be, I see no difference, in this and what Officer Vick has done." City Atty. Lang asked Officer Toms how to stop the thefts. Officer Toms suggested through reprimands. Mr. Vick called his next witness, Chuck Seaver, who approached the stand and was sworn in. Mr. Seaver, who is a detective, and handles some internal investigation, did have affiliation with this case. Mr. Seaver was confronted by Chief Brandt and handed two statements, one from Glenn Treanor and one from Corp. Clinger, and was told to do the follow up. Mr. Vick asked him what the normal procedures are for an investigation or did he normally talk to all parties involved. Mr. Vick continued, "After you've been given a complaint, what is your next step, for following it up." Mr. Seavers would talk to all parties involved, meaning the defendant and the complainants. Mr. Vick asked Mr. Seavers who he spoke to during this investigation. Seavers spoke to Chief Brandt, his supervisor Tony Wilson, Corporal Clinger and Glenn Treanor. Mr. Seaver did not speak to the defendant, Mr. Vick. Mr. Vick asked him if he had a chance to speak to the defendant, meaning himself. Mr. Seaver stated, "I was instructed by my supervisor, who is Tony Wilson, to confront Chief Brandt, because of the new S.O.P.'s, as neither me or my supervisor were familiar with the new guidelines for MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING JULY 15, 1985 PAGE 14 department without permission. Ms. Handley had not. Ms. Handley stated she did not think Tony thought of himself as stealing the paper. Mr. Vick called his next witness, Officer Steve Caples, who was sworn in before taking the stand. Mr. Caples is a patrolman with the Police Dept. and has been for just over 2 years. Mr. Vick explained that Mr. Caples is a character witness, and would probably be able to answer more of the questions. Mr. Caples testified that he did not think that Officer Vick would intentionally steal anything from the Department or from anyone else. Mr. Caples stated that he and Mr. Vick are personal friends; he would trust him with any of his property; and he is an honest man. These charges against Mr. Vick are totally out of character. Mr. Breland asked Mr. Caples if he knew the definition of larceny. Mr. Caples stated it was when someone takes something which does not belong to that person with the intent to use it for personal use. Mr. Caples stated someone did not necessarily have to be concealing the item in which they were intending to steal. Atty. Lang asked Mr. Caples if he knew why Officer Vick took the paper. Mr. Caples stated that Mr. Vick had told him about two months ago that he got a Now computer and was really excited about it, and he was doing different things with it. Mr. Caples stated this conversation was boring to him, therefore he did not pay too much attention to him. Atty. Lang asked Mr. Caples if he beleived Mr. Vick was entitled to take the paper without permission. Mr. Caples stated, "Of course, this would be a personal opinion; I, myself would not have taken it; personally, I think that Officer Vick used poor judgement and I think he realizes it presently. I think that the punishment dealt to him was extreme. This would be like giving the death row to a shoplifter." Atty. Lang stated Mr. Vick was not entitled to the property. Mr. Vick asked Mr. Caples if he ever took any City property, be it a pencil, paper, white out fluid. Mr. Caples stated that he has taken at one time or another, a pen, or pencil, and probably every officer has. Mr. Caples did not ever consider that by taking the pen or pencil, it could be construed to look like it was theft. Mr. Vick called his last witness, Ms. Claudia Dane, and was sworn in. Ms. Dane stated she served as a Dispatcher for about six months, and then changed her status to a Reserve Police Officer. For the most part the reserves work on their own free time. Ms. Dane stated during this time she has had an opportunity to work with many of the officers, particularly Mr. Vick, who has shown a high quality of law enforcement. Ms. Dane responded to a question brought up earlier, why did Mr. Vick need that particular paper instead of running it off on copier paper. Ms. Dane stated it was because of quality, whatever Mr. Vick was going to present to the City or the Chief, he would want it to be his very best effort. Ms. Dane stated, "There also comes a double 14 MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING JULY 15, 1985 PAGE 15 standard, in one respect, an officer is really never off duty, whether it be a reserve or full time officer, when you are aware of certain things you take them into consideration, I've seen Officer Vick do unsolicited measures towards private individuals and citizens of Ocoee, just out of compassion and caring, because that is something that is within him. It takes a very special breed to enforce and uphold these laws. These laws are based on corrective measure, and I think in this case, Mr. Vick should be judged no more harshly than a private citizen. Corrective measure would be much more appropriate, instead of punitive corporal punishment, which is extreme. An officer is never really off duty, they have the good of the City uppermost in their mind, officers work a full eight hours, and then go home preoccupied with their occupations. Atty. Lang asked Ms. Dane if she has taken anything from the Police Dept. without permission. Ms. Dane replied, "I am sure that when I was a dispatcher, I went home with pens in my purse, its just something that is an extension of yourself." Atty. Lang asked Ms. Dane if she deliberately went into the supply room and took something out to take home. Ms. Dane had not. Ms. Dane added she did not do any work at home, therefore she would not need any supplies. Atty. Lang asked if the department has any computer programs. Ms. Dane did not know. Mr. Lowery stated that Ms. Dane seems to be a very competent, intelligent lady, and why did she not advise Mr. Vick to talk to the Chief or someone about his work on the programs. Ms. Dane stated it was important not to grandstand, as your every move is under scrutiny and observation. And if you step out of line sometimes, unfortunately, you are more chastised than a private citizen. Ms. Dane testified, "I think Mr. Vick was going about something privately and quietly not for self acclaim and not for a pat on the back, but something he felt would contribute greatly to the Department. Anything that makes their job easier, is definitely going to benefit, its a very hard job, they are under staffed, they don't have all the materials they need, they work with what they have and everyone works together." Mr. Swickerath asked Ms. Dane to give him the four most important qualities a police officer should have. Ms. Dane replied, "Self confidence, a person who is self sacrificing, honor and pride." Mr. Breland asked Ms. Dane if she thought an officer who was scheduled to work, and did not show was dedicated. Ms. Dane stated she knew of two of the incidents with officer Vick. Usually, when you take someones shift, who is going on vacation, you keep the same days off, and Mr. Vick assumed that this would hold the same, •.... as he had covered for persons taking vacation on other instances and his days off were not changed. Ms. Dane stated that no one has a perfect record. Ms. Dane was asked if Mr. Vick holds the four qualities that she previously stated. Ms. Dane stated that Mr. Vick inspires good qualities from MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING JULY 15, 1985 PAGE 16 citizens and children, in her children also. Ms. Dane testified that she did not know Mr. Vick previous to her employment as a Dispatcher. Prosecution called back Corp. Clinger for rebuttal. Mr. Clinger was reminded that he was still under oath. Atty. Lang asked Mr. Clinger if he took the first interviews after Mr. Vick was accused. Mr. Clinger stated he was not involved. Atty. Lang asked if he knew who was involved. Mr. Clinger stated that he knew the Chief was involved, but no more. Atty. Lang asked him if he took a statement from Officer Vick regarding this matter. Corp. Clinger did not. Atty. Lang stated that Corp. Clinger did not know whether he ever gave a statement wherein he did not mention the fact that he was taking that paper for a program for the Police Dept. Mr. Clinger agreed. Mr. Clinger did not know who took the first statement. Mr. Breland asked the prosecuting atty. to summarize to the Board. Atty. Lang reminded the Board to keep in mind that a Police Chief and City Manager made a decision to terminate employment of Mr. Tony Vick, which is always a difficult decision, because you are ending someone's career. "This incident could bring a discredit to the Police Dept. of the City of Ocoee. You have r•• heard Officer Vick, and I am very sympathetic for him, because he wanted to do something for the Police Dept., but he never brought it to the Police Dept.. Atty. Lang stated, "If you go back through all the testimonies given, and listen very carefully, Mr. Vick did not come up with the concept of taking the paper for departmental use until July 8, 1985. Testimony from Chief Brandt states that Officer Vick made no mention of a computer program on the first interview on July 5, 1985." Atty. Lang stated, "Mr. Vick admitted taking the paper and taking it without permission, and as a result the Chief has entertained a sanction, and City Manager has entertained a sanction, which has been brought to you. A police officer's position must be held above the standard of citizenry. The citizenry look at the Police Dept. to protect them, any indication that an officer could steal will totally undermine his creditability in the community, undermine the Police Dept, and effectiveness of the judicial system. Regretfully Officer Vick has been caught in that. He has a series of reprimands, one of them goes to creditability, whether or not he knew he had to work on his day off, the point being when he was called he could have volunteered to come in, and a series of meetings that he has missed, combined with the fact that he walked in and took the paper without permission, didn't bother to talk to anyone to the higher level, just took it upon himself that he could take paper from the department, and he compounded that by at least arguably not being totally forthright when questioned about the box. Mr. Vick knew the essence of Clinger's question, and he could have come out and stated he got the paper and what he wanted to do with it. This goes with the question of 14 MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING JULY 15, 1985 PAGE 18 into detail because of the programs. What more could I say at that point? This was on a Friday, July 5, 1985, when I was suspended from duty. On Monday, July 8, 1985, I was terminated from employment. No rebuttal or recourse. I did ask, someone brought up this question, if I was offered the chance to resign. I was offered after I requested it. I am not sure if the Board knows what a termination means in law enforcement field. It is not like just being fired, time to find another job. The termination would go on my record in Tallahassee, which every law enforcement officer in the State of Florida has a file up there, with Criminal Justice Standards. A termination is logged on that file and chances of me finding another job in law enforcement in the State of Florida are 99 to 1. That is like being black balled from the career and leaving. This is the penalty that I am facing. I am not just loosing my job with the City of Ocoee, but losing the possibilities of getting a job with any law enforcement agency in the State of Florida again. This is why the penalty that has been dealt me is so severe, when its compared to the charges brought against me. I am human, I make mistakes, I erred, my past record proves it. I do have some blemishes there, meetings that I forgot, meetings I did not attend, the subject of a lot of deliberation, the incident where I did not come in. That was a lack of communication between the lieutenant and myself, I was not explained the circumstances of taking another officer's shift, as far as my days off. I did not decline to come in. We are not here to discuss my past charges because disciplinary action has been taken against me for those. The case that I present to you is weighing the penalty with the crime. That is the basis of my being here. I am asking your consideration for this request." Mr. Breland stated, "The vote will be simple, either, yes I will uphold the City Manager's decision, or no, I will not uphold the City Manager's decision, and restore the man with employment." Mr. Breland asked Mr. Swickerath for his vote. Mr. Swickerath did not want to vote first. Mr. Breland stated that the Board should do this without deliberation. The City Atty. reminded the Board that their vote was a recommendation to the City Commission, and they would make the final decision. The City Commission will make this decision after they receive the minutes of the meeting, a recommendation from this Board and a recommendation from the City Manager. It is up to you as a Board, to come up with a decision, and make a recommendation to the City Commission. Mrs. Bond asked if there was an alternate recommendation, as she read the Board papers, heard both sides of the testimony, and was feeling there should be an alternative. Is there a probationary period, or suspension time that Mr. Vick can be punished. Atty. Lang clarified for the Board that they are 1A MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING JULY 15, 1985 PAGE 19 making a recommendation to the City Commission; if you do not believe there was a basis for termination, you could make a recommendation that Mr. Vick not be terminated; if you believe there was a basis for terminated you could make that recommendation; if you believe there was not a basis for termination but you want to recommend something else to the City Commission you can. The City Commission does not have to abide by your decision, but they will consider your recommendation. Mr. Breland asked for a motion that the City Manager's decision would be upheld. No motion was made. Mr. Breland then asked for a motion that Mr. Vick be reinstated with a six month probationary period. Mrs. Bond moved that Mr. Vick be reinstated with a probationary period, of three months and two weeks suspension, without pay. Motion died for lack of a second. Mrs. Bond then moved to reinstate Mr. Vick as of July 16, 1985, which will start a two weeks suspension period, without pay, terminating at the end of two weeks worth of shifts, when ever that would be, and a probationary period of 90 days beginning as of the day of his return to work, which would give him a full 90 days to be scrutinized. Mrs. Bond stated, "Let me explain my reasons, first, I think all the paperwork was handled properly and presented properly by the City. On the other hand, we've had testimony, that shows possibly the department has to accept a certain amount of their responsibility, as they made a rule and they did not enforce it. There has got to be a time when the question was asked by the City Atty. of Ms. Dane, what should we do about it. Number one, its raising tax dollars, I am totally against raising taxes, number two, if you're going to be a Police Officer, be upstanding lets not have this garbage in the newspaper. Our City doesn't need it. We all need to pool together, Tony is going to be the example set, but I don't think in lieu of everything which has been presented that we should ruin a career for him. I don't think he has been a hard left negative employee. Because of that, I say lets put him under a microscope for 90 days and see what he can do." Mrs. Bond stated after the 90 day probation Mr. Vick ought to be reviewed by his supervisor. Mr. Breland asked for a second. Mrs. Frame had a problem with the date of suspension, she felt it should be from the date he was terminated, not the date of the hearing. Mr. Swickerath did not think that they should set dates. Mrs. Bond did not think it should be left too open. Motion died for lack of a second. Mr. Swickerath stated he did not want to undermine the Chief and City Manager when they are trying to correct the things that are happening. Mr. Sanders stated the City Manager must have the authority, and have responsibility. Mr. Swickerath stated, "Can we say we support the concept of disciplinary action and we recommend that the City Commission seriously consider the administration's proposal for termination in this case but recommend special consideration 10 MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING JULY 15, 1985 PAGE 20 in this case. I would like the Police Officers in the community to know that it is not right to take things from other people even if your intent is for the department." Mr. Swickerath stated, "The petty amount of the dollars makes the people who are trying to enforce, the administation, look like ogers. Mrs. Bond stated the dollar amount did not concern her, because you can be arrested in a K -Mart for an item under one dollar. Mrs. Bond thought that a memo should be generated, and the rule to keep officers out of the Dispatch section should be enforced. Mr. Swickerath stated he did not think adults need to be told that they can not take something. Mrs. Frame moved to give Mr. Vick a suspension period beginning July 8, 1985, for two weeks without pay, and a 90 day probation period underwhich his duties would be limited to regular patrolman duties, and at the end of the probationary period, he would enjoy the same privledges and duties he had before the incident. Mrs. Bond seconded the motion. There was a unanimous decision upon this motion. The meeting adjourned at 10:55 p.m.. __ / CHAIR AN BRE' D _. ATTEST; / k AA • _a. I I DEPUTY CLERKULOUDIS low •)n CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES OF THE MERIT SYSTEM BOARD MEETING HELD lbw JULY 15, 1985 Page 8, Second line, correct to read, "meeting reconvened at 9:03 p.m.. Page 13, Line 37, right after, "actual run of the program. ", add the following, "Mr. Swickerath asked Mr. Vick if he had any computer fan fold paper at home, Mr. Vick responded that he did not." Page 18, Line 37, Correct to read, "Mr. Swickerath did not want to vote first, as he felt the Board should discuss the decision before voting." kibre 4 a011110A4t;( 0 DEPUTY CLERK LOULOUDIS `r.