The Lawbreakers: Episode 2: The Chief Complaint

[XLFD]

(at episode 1's end, XLFD is called into an LFD officer's meeting a few days after he requests a hearing to argue his innocence of crossing a clear stop intersection on his bicycle.)

I entered the LFD chief's office nervously, since I had been singled out and ushered into an area where the faces I knew and respected looked concerned about something. Seems that LPD Chief Barnett had related some untrue second-hand information to my chief about my traffic stop. Apparently, the citing officer had also talked to an LFD Lieutenant about it too. Anyhow, I learned that among other factual things and minor exaggerations: 1) the officer was only going to give me a warning, until I 'argued' that cyclists are not required to stop at stop signs. 2) that the officer came close to hitting my bike. 3) that I had said there was not a stop sign present at the intersection.

Being that all these assertions were false and contradicted by the officer's testimony at the eventual hearing, I was a bit upset. But before I had the opportunity to be upset over that, I was stunned by the disclosure of this personal information by LPD Chief Barnett and his officer. As a firefighter is a public servant, one of the first things we learn is the concept of confidentiality, even before we learn anything about quenching fires. This is of even more importance to a LEO, who deals with confidential stuff all day.

Before I had even got a notice for my hearing (which arrived ten days later, 21 days after my request), these two LEOs had gotten wind that I was boldly denying the ticket from the 79th District Court. Wanting to not have to go to court, they told my superiors that I needed to drop the case, and exaggerated their story accordingly. The meeting notes I received recently through FOIA, plainly state that Chief Barnett specifically brought it to the fire officer's attention, and all but one figured they had an obligation to address the matter accordingly. That lone dissenter had figure it was a private matter between me and the LPD. He was right.

I was threatened with receiving a written reprimand if I did not accept responsibility and drop the hearing I had requested, as is any citizen's right. What really stunned me was that the same officers who had drilled the concept of confidentiality into me, were now the same ones using what should have been private against me. Before they had even heard from me, they discussed the option of dismissal.

I stammered, my knees got weak, and I got sick within moments of hearing my Chief divulge the false, private, one-sided story I had experienced, and remembered so differently. I weakly affirmed I was going to go to court, and blandly denied some of the assertions that were made. I was to receive a written reprimand, and would be monitored over the next year for any further problems, because I would not give up my right to go to court. I was so sickened by the whole ordeal, that I was ready to resign that very night-- even though I had invested so much into the department and my training over eight years and loved the work and the people I worked with so much.

I resigned a dozen days later, citing an inability to adapt my safe bike riding habits into what was expected, and pledged to lead a crusade for the rights of bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs. But frankly, and this was implied in the letter, I resigned because the 79th District Court and the LPD had not respected my right to privacy. Here is the law, I've discovered along the way, as it pertains to this episode.

MCL 15.342(1): "A public officer or employee shall not divulge to an unauthorized person, confidential information acquired in the course of employment in advance of the time prescribed for its authorized release to the public" (1st attachment) Isn't that clear enough?

Section 2-120(a) under subdivision 4 of article III of the Ludington City Charter states that the general protections under the Whistleblowers' Protection Act which would have covered this instance, as I had already reported to the court suspected violations of the law by the LPD, and had been threatened with disciplinary action afterwards by another city official, upon the release of bogus information. (2nd Attach)

Continuing on that vein, section 2-120(b) states "This section shall not be construed as prohibiting disciplinary action if an officer or employee of the city or any city agency discloses information which he or she knows: 1) To be false or which he or she discloses with reckless disregard for its truth or falsity. 2) To be exempt from disclosure under the freedom of information act [in the FOIA, MCL 15.243(1)(b-ii and b-iii) states records compiled for law enforcement purposes whose diclosure would: (ii) deprive a person of the right to a fair trial and (iii) constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy are both exempt from disclosure] and 3) is confidential under any other provision of the law.

At the time, 3) would be satisfied by the violation of MCL 15.342(1); 2) would be violated due to its interference with my hearing, and its invasion of my privacy, and 1) was broken eventually after court testimony established the three facts which were misrepresented. Chief Barnett's reckless disregard of establishing its truthfulness notwithstanding. The 79th DC official(s) who leaked my private info would be in violation of 15.324(1) and the state's Whistleblower Act as well.

Still, at the time, I and those closest to me, knew only that something at least unethical had happened to me. The next weekend I composed a letter that I sent to Chief Barnett and sent copies to the Daily News, the City Manager John Shay, and my former chief. Would any of these entities see any problems? (end of episode 2)

Questions for discussion:

1) In the same situation, how would you feel and what would you do, if you sought to fight a minor traffic violation you thought unfair or misused and had a non-witness police chief bad-mouth you to your bosses using confidential info that happens to be false also?

2) The city had just settled the Jack Byers lawsuit for $250,000 because they had violated the Whistleblowers Act and the Open meetings Act (OMA) to his detriment (according to Mr. Byers). The LFD officer's meeting, which is itself governed by the OMA, violated this act in a couple of ways, and the Whistleblower violations that were already noted. You would think the city officials would have learned from their mistakes, but none of the people who violated the law prior (in Byers suit) had to pay for their mistakes-- it was from the taxpayers and the insurance we pay for. Most of the violators got raises shortly after that, in the midst of a recession. Is this fair to you, the people who elect the people who appoint our unelected leader (CM John Shay)?

[XLFD]

It was done out of respect for the photo-shooter, Disarm, and to more easier show what the topic we were debating was.
An annoying habit you seem to have is to Magoo threads and carry your vendettas into innocent threads and photos. Now how about some rebuttals, or do you just wish to badger people, and throw out baseless errata.

[Dave]

Obama is your cousin? :-P

[AQUAMAN]

Methinks Dis has definitely stepped over the line, along with Stanstahi tonite over at LT. Character assassination is your game nowadays? Wasn't Stan boy also booted here for such bad behavior? And now Diszzy copies and colludes with the same peeps? I see your game now well and clear, coming over here from the Stewed Soup that is going down the drain to a bottomless pit of failure and dismal participation. You hope that you can do the same to this project for freedoms and truth because the little green man has you by the gonads. That's your own internal mental problem, and has no bearing on this talk forum. You just proved, you have no soul, nor ability to communicate and debate with pinoche and clarity. Just another sicko imho. Take your vendettas and shallow crudeness elsewhere is all I ask, go kick your dog if that gives you a thrill, we don't need this low life behavior over here anymore sir. Get a life!

[XLFD]

Disarm, you wonder why I resigned amid undue criticism by my superiors over false, unlawfully-leaked-by-a-police-chief claims designed to impede me from my requested hearing, and yet you have decided to resign from here because of... decidedly non-threatening, perhaps easily disprovable, comments made by someone you admittedly have no respect for.

Granted, being a member of the Ludington Torch isn't as prestigious as being on the LFD (though, we're working on that, LOL) it still shows that there is a time to fight and a time to retreat. And thank you for the compliments, it was an incredibly tough decision for me to resign.

[AQUAMAN]

Disarm, I am truly sorry you feel this way now. YOU brought most of this on yourself, self-pity is another one of your shortcomings evidently. I think it's time to stop this chirade, and move towards a face to face meeting with you. Name the place, time, and date, I will be there to address all these problems you have with just me. Then we will determine whom has the problem, and whom is doing what to who. You can ask an LEO to be there too, if you are scared or timid about the outcome. Now, the ball is in your court sir, don't drop it or go out of bounds again.

[XLFD]

It is an open forum, and people can chime in anytime. Others have chimed in too, without your disdain. Also don't forget that insults beget insults, and I see just as much coming from your fortress (about him) as Aquaman's. I believe Aq's are more tactful.
I would advise some sort of gentleman's agreement between the two of you.

[AQUAMAN]

Well Dis, you sure are one of the best SPIN DR.'s in existence. Everything you have posted here for weeks is weak and impotent excuses for your lack of integrity and correctness. And very typical in your own citicizms of everyone here and at LT you stalk daily, encounters that have the least bit of disagreement with you. I see you steadfastly refuse to meet in person. You evidently have the chicken s__t syndrome for being a real person. Since we've met, which I doubt, why not meet again? And put this CS attitude of yours behind us all, so some can enjoy the forum for it's intended purpose. I seek not to defend X just for the fun of it, but firstly because he's right, secondly because he's a friend being crucified unjustly and on his own home turf, lastly, because it is the right thing I would expect of one of my friends under the same circumstances. Now, I'm at the Library, and taking important time from my duties and responsibilities elsewhere, that have priority over bickering with you, Stan, Behrry, Blindeye, and the other misfits of cyberspace that have nothing on their agenda daily. Have a nice relaxing lazy day as usual, and remember, I am available to meet anytime you get up the nerve to put words into action pal. I'll invite your pal Snide too if you wish a referee, har har!

[Mary A.]

WHY CAN'T EVERYONE JUST GET ALONG?

[Sweater Cows!]

really mary I agree. hello stay on topic. Maybe ya'll should start a quilting group called stitch and bitch like my grandma had. lol

or a thread where dis and aqua can go and hurl obscenities at each other until they tire of it. It is annoying and disruptive to the threads and happens way to much.

[Mary A.]

This will be ..... interesting!

My opinion: Women should rule the world.

[Max]

Stitch and bitch. I love it!

[Mary A.]

Just picturing this in my mind makes my day! He he :-)