Hearing Officer recommends reinstatement for San Luis officer
By Martin Bihn
AZCOPS General Counsel
One of our San Luis Police Department members was dismissed by the City in a pretty harsh way. Not only did the City accuse our member of fixing speeding tickets, it also went so far as to accuse him of lying in the investigation and thus potentially jeopardizing his AZPOST certification.
AZCOPS Legal got involved and requested a copy of the internal investigation supporting the dismissal. The City initially refused to provide it citing privacy concerns. However, since A.R.S. � 38-1101 mandates an employer provide the investigation once an appeal is filed, the City provided the materials to our member.
Apparently no longer concerned with our member's privacy, the City released the investigation to the local media. The story ran and painted our member in the worst possible light.
In a further attempt to smear our member, the City HR Director told the media that even if our member won his appeal that the City would just fire him again for another reason!
It seemed to us that city officials were trying to publicly bury our member because they were worried about the fundamental weakness of their case. And it was very, very weak. Consider the following:
* The City alleged that our member secretly fixed seven tickets to cover up the fact that one of those tickets belonged to the mother of a judge with whom our member had a "close personal relationship." The City castigated our member for fixing tickets with no permission from the Chief.
* The City alleged that two of the seven tickets were criminal matters and our member had intentionally or inadvertently caused two criminal cases to be dismissed.
* The City alleged that our member lied to investigators when he denied the allegations against him.
And now for the reality check. Our member, a supervisor, discovered that one officer was writing tickets but lacked any calibrating tuning forks. The officer told our member that he wrote between five and seven speeding tickets in the last few weeks. Our member knew tickets would not hold up. Our member not only contacted the local court about the procedure to follow to dismiss the tickets, but also cc'd the chief on two emails letting him know about the ticket dismissal.
The City shrugged that one off (in a footnote in its investigation) by claiming that, "everyone knows the Chief doesn't check his emails." Really? The Chief carries a Blackberry everywhere he goes. And if he really does not check his emails, does he have any business being the Chief?
Even worse for the City was the fact that the investigation contained no evidence that our member had any kind of relationship with the judge. And as you might already have guessed, the City never interviewed the judge or anyone else who knew both our member and the judge. City officials just assumed they were close personal friends because otherwise they had no case.
Most problematic was the City's insistence that our member needed to be fired because two criminals had gone un-prosecuted after their tickets were dismissed. AZCOPS Legal obtained the court records and discovered that, in reality, neither ticket was dismissed. In fact, both offenders pleaded guilty and were paying fines. Apparently in the rush to fire our member, no one actually looked at the records.
But the absolute topper, was the Chief's testimony on this issue. The Chief sat through the whole hearing as the agency representative. He watched as the City's own prosecutor had court records shoved under her nose. Backed into a corner, she had to testify that the cases had not been dismissed and that the perpetrators were paying fines to the court. Then the Chief testified.
The Chief, under oath, testified that he "had not been aware until today's hearing" that two of the charges were not dismissed. And that was not exactly true.
AZCOPS also obtained summaries of the investigation witness interviews. The Chief, clear as day, told the investigator that, "Two of the dismissed tickets had been paid." (Who pays fines for dismissed tickets?) When the Chief and the investigator knew that the fines had been paid then certainly they should have looked into it.
At best, this is a Chief whose skill set is clearly not up to the job and should be shown the door. At worst, this Chief knew that the charge related to two dismissed criminal tickets was false; and deliberately misled the City by recommending termination. We wonder if AZPOST would be interested.
The hearing officer hired by the City in this case also serves as the legal advisor to other personnel boards. It is obvious that he knows a lame case when he sees one. Read the hearing officer's report fully vindicating our member.
One final note. The battle in San Luis is only half won. The whole thing now goes to the City Manager for his final review. We hope and pray he sees the wisdom of the hearing officer's opinion and recommendation and puts our member back to work.
AZCOPS Legal encourages anyone outraged by the investigation to show support for our member, Sgt. Ernie Lugo.
