The Place Where Ludington Talks
Wayland Police Chief Dan Miller is Fired
WAYLAND -- Police Chief Dan Miller, suspended since early January from his long-time job, was told Thursday that he violated city policy 32 times in the past.
The notice of the violations, presented to Miller by interim Wayland City Manager Terry Hofmeyer, came as Miller is to learn today whether he keeps his 26-year job as Wayland police chief.
Miller said the alleged policy violations are minor and most are related to earlier allegations involving a state police probe over possible mismanagement of confiscated evidence.
The state Attorney General's office recently cleared Miller of any criminal wrongdoing of the allegations. In one instance, he was accused of keeping a seized GPS unit for his own use.
Miller was cleared more than a month ago, but he remained on paid suspension by the interim city manager pending an internal investigation of other possible wrongdoing.
Many community members have come to his aid, packing City Council meetings to urge the board to reinstate Miller to his full duties.
Miller said Thursday that he had a "predetermination" meeting with Hofmeyer that lasted less than five minutes. During that meeting, he was handed a list of 32 alleged policy violations that happened in the past and asked for any comment.
Miller said he did not know what would happen today with the city manager's decision, expected to be released to the media mid-morning.
He considers all of the alleged violations to be minor. Some involved his service of a personal protection order notice and others involved investigative document he had taken home to study.
Miller has a 40-year career in law enforcement, including 26 years as chief of Wayland police.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/04/suspended_...
WOOD TV confirms that Dan Miller has confirmed his firing this morning. The Ludington Torch has been following this story since the beginning of the year, and this looks to be just the start of a brewing controvery. Will this turn out like the brouhaha about a decade ago where the Chief prevailed over a corrupt City Manager? Or have the tables turned on the Chief?
Read more here at:
http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/wayward-and-waylaid-i...
http://ludingtoncitizen.ning.com/forum/topics/the-tail-wayland-the-dog
In case you missed it the first time.
Views: 2739
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Fran Cisco on
-
By reading some of your posts on FB, WOOD-TV, etc, I'm thinkin Mr. Convissor doesn't fall into the category of a logical person. Maybe he should clean up his own backyard before throwing junk elsewhere. Should we talk about why you were [deleted information- Editor]????
-
Permalink Reply by Willy on
-
Cisco
I happen to agree with Mr. Convissor. I suggest you redo your post and eliminate the personal information you posted about another forum user. All of us have skeletons in the closet so stay on the topic and not the poster.
-
Permalink Reply by XLFD on
-
Perhaps it was inadvertent, but, Fran, please keep it pertinent. The terms of service says members cannot make posts in a manner that includes personal or identifying information about another person without that person's explicit consent. Your initial post rose too close to that level.
The best way to prove your point is to attempt to refute Phil's postings, his statements on the record, or the public record. Unsupported assertions are empty assertions, and reflect more negatively on the poster of such.
-
-
Thank you well taken.
-
-
To all concerned, you may or may not have noticed,but I'm the only one in this forum not going under an "Alias". Leaving myself open for all to see. That could serve a purpose. Go a head open up the forum, I carry two on me. I have nothing more important to me to lose, that they haven't already taken from me. Just remember and be forewarned it may open a bigger can of worms. Fran Cisco IE if you were talking about the stuff that was on Mlive The Editor is obviously biased, If you'll notice, she only took the parts off the other parties put on that strolled from the "Forum". for some reason she did not edit mine? Why? Possible entrapment of some form? Or was what the other parties said so improper it may effect upcoming events?
-
-
You are not alone here in posting without an alias, but you are in the minority. This is a site that supports an open forum and we often cover controversial issues. A reality in modern America is that freedom of speech is often illusory. What you say or who you agree with on electronic media can affect your career and can attract the attention of some weird characters. That's why the Torch advises that using an alias is often in your best interest if you want to be frank in your discussions here, and elsewhere.
As you have admittedly experienced, the use of your real name has allowed your viewpoint to be overlooked by those who would rather impugn your character and your motives and publish what they think they know of you. That is unfortunate, and has happened to many of us here in the past, myself included. There are those that post regularly here under a surname who I have no idea who they are, and yet I am intrigued by their viewpoint.
I don't know your story, Phil, but I am interested in it from your "I have nothing more important to me to lose, that they haven't already taken from me" statement. This makes me wonder why you may not be more sympathetic to Dan Miller, who lost his job with 32 inflated reasons, in my view.
I would also remind you that insubordination relies on intent, and I would say NOT having one of his officers serve a PPO handed to him from the court to serve on another would be a breach of duty. And that the officer serving the PPO, instead of raising his concerns to the Chief (which is what firefighters and police learn in the concept of 'Chain of Command') he goes to the City Manager. That action is true insubordination to Chief Miller. It would be like a corporal in the army making a complaint to a general; that's not how it works, you go to the next level in the chain of command. Is that not so?
-
-
In reply to XLFD, this may be my last response to you since in your comments about insubordination you tend to forget the fact Miller first of all, was advised and warned by his superviser to stay out of what was personal in his life or what could be "Percieved" to be personal in his life. He then agreed to stay out of it and agreed to let the MSP or the ACSD handle any further situations involving his live in girlfriend. Any. He then chose to slap his superior in the face, not literally but in the form of a luitenant disregarding his superior officers command, when he went ahead after the fact and after he himself agreed to the fact, went ahead with full concious,and did it anyway. End of story, end of the line, end of a career.
While i have your attention tho, I'm also noticing by you constantly leaving out or choosing to forget the fine detail I just gave you about insubordination which I'm sure i already did give you, along with that fine "Bang Bang" Job S did by outlining a timeline for you, it appears you are taking this kinda personal, obviously hidden deep, one can see, in your very political way of representing yourself. That being said, one must ask why? Also why was that timeline deleted? You know I made a copy of it, right?
-
-
It was not my timeline, and not me who deleted it, Phil. I was apprised of why it was deleted, but I still wish it wasn't. Your filling in of the facts still leaves me coming up short on insubordination. perhaps show me some evidence that the officer who served the PPO was forced to serve it, or some evidence that the officer made his complaint to a superior officer first instead of taking his trivial complaint to the City manager. I am beginning to see some evidence myself of Fran's first assertion on logic...
That being said, I welcome any free psychoanalysis, but I really have no brand in the fire for the Wayland political scene, other than I see a veteran police chief being unfairly treated, and an intriguing story.
-
-
XLFD in reply to this statement of yours "It would be like a corporal in the army making a complaint to a general; that's not how it works, you go to the next level in the chain of command. Is that not so?"
My response to that is: That statement may be true, except for the fact that the person in the next chain of command was the problem in this situation,the officer may well have showed his contempt to miller at first, maybe what he got was no response. Do you know otherwise? Or at this point is it all "Hearsay"?
We did have an officer retire early this year or at the end of last year? Maybe there's something there your looking for?
Rollins was his name, maybe he liked the old chief better. By that I mean the other personality better.
And why don't you put that timeline back on your self? I'm pretty sure someone who has this much interest in this situation must have made a copy of it for themselves. But if you do or don't please indulge as to the exact reason you do or don't as i'm sure you will or won't.
Other than that, as far as getting into the real "can of worms", the bait I am being tossed is not enough for me to bite.
I've fallen for that twice already, and then the "Bait " gets deleted some how? Three times will truly be a charm this time.
-
-
Perhaps it is all hearsay because there has been no relevant documentation filed, Phil. Here's a legal link on insubordination I found that maybe you will find interesting: http://www.btuonline.com/pdfs/Grievance%20PDFs/MJJ.wasb.120304.insu...
You will notice real insubordination, not make-it-fit insubordination, that "the order must be explicit and clearly given, so that the employee understands its meaning and its intent as a command". This facet, among others, makes CM Hoffmeyer's vague instructions invalid for the action to perform a legal duty of his office, process serving. In your reasoning, anything the Chief did involving the girlfriend, even responding to a break-in call at her house, would be a violation of the CM's directive. But the Chief cannot neglect his duties, just because his boss, the CM, gives him a vague order to keep personal stuff personal. This was part of the Chief's duties.
As for the 'chain of command, p. 15 of that same link says: "An employee can only be restricted from communicating outside of a chain of command if the employer’s interest in limiting access to the superiors and in efficiently providing public services outweighs the employee’s interest in discussing matters of public concern." When Deputy Fife said he felt awkward and embarassed for doing a duty of his office to the City Manager, instead of his sergeant or Chief Miller,a duty that the deputy had presumably performed before, I feel he has violated his chain of command, and his actions are far more reprehensible than what you've argued so far for the Chief.
-
-
Hey XLFD its nice to see you can drop the Political BS and show your true ignorance, of human nature. You got baited into showing your personal side. "Deputy Fife"? I believe your showing a little bias there. Good show, Hope to see ya soon. Come on down, I'll be the one wearing my own special T-Shirt.
-
-
Would you rather me say Deputy John Doe, as I have no idea who this police officer who feels awkward and embarassed doing his job is called. We all have bias, Phil, and my bias against this officer is that he has not followed protocol. You never told me what T-shirt you'll be wearing, but I think it would probably be this one. Can you score me one?
© 2024 Created by XLFD.
Powered by
