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]

Disarm has voluntarily went away again. It's too bad; he always seems to leave when he feels uneasy, yet dishes out plenty of grief to others like you and Masonco. He is always welcome back as long as he remains civil, which he has shown in the past that he can be. I'm soon going to open up a thread he'll have a hard time resisting.

[Willy]

Every citizen has the right to challenge Police authority. XLFD did that and according to him his situation was brought into the work place by his superiors. The right thing for his boss to have done was keep his mouth shut and mind his own business. Noone knows what went on at the meeting between he and his boss so any specualation about it is just that. I do think XLFD should have stayed and stood up for himself but that's a decision only he could have made. The good ol boy network runs deep in all police and fire departments and if they decide to single out an individual for whatever reason then that person can be shunned, harassed and made to feel like he is no longer welcome, especially in a small town.

[Willy]

That's my point Al. The departments over stepped their authority. They acted outside their bounderies by gossiping between themselves about an employee and trying to intimidate him into not excercising his Constitutional rights. If XLFD were a woman the City would have another law suit on their hands. [I'm not denigrating women, I'm just pointing out that work place discrimination and harassment has been an on going situation for them for years.] There was no reason for the police and fire department to pursue this matter the way they did. This situation shows that positions of authority are abused at every level of Government. What should have been a routine ticket dispute between a citizen and the courts has now become a topic of public debate and what I consider a black eye for local authorities.

[Edie Lindsey]

Al Harris said: "The Whistleblower's Act? The Open Meetings Act? Reel yourself in. This topic of discussion doesn't apply to you...as much as you think it should...it doesn't."

Edie says: Such naive thinking is why maybe you shouldn't be using your real name on this site and others.

The Open Meetings Act protects everyone's right to know what's going on in government by opening to public view the process by which public officials (elected and non-elected) make decisions on your behalf. The Whistleblower's Act offers protection to employees who report or are about to report to a public body suspected or known violations of local, state or federal laws, regulations or rules.

Doesn't take too much imagination to see why these apply in this case.

I suppose you would roll over and take it up the suction pump like Disarm would, but what happened wasn't right-- and XLFD seems to place the lion's share of the blame on our village idiot police chief, as well it should.

After reading your assumptions and opinions about XLFD, it reminds me why I like his posts so much. He keeps to the facts, quotes the law, researches his subject, and stays on point.
You sir, seem to do none of these here.

[XLFD]

Al,
I will work backwards on your various points.
Anybody who posts here can use their real name and picture, or they can be anonymous. Credibility comes with the content of what they say, not from their willingness to use their real name and picture.

That being said, my real name and picture has been presented here, in the "Who is This?" thread, so since you missed that, I will present the picture of the 2002 LFD and tell you my name is Tom Rotta and I'm third from the left in back. I joined the LFD in January 2001, while you were still a member, you resigned shortly thereafter.

You were a member while Wally Taranko was Police Chief, and the admistrative head of the city was not a member of the LFD. During our shared tenure, there was very little politics involved in the LFD beyond the annual budget requests.

I joined the LFD for more noble reasons than you wish to ascribe to me, and if you remember who I was, you would probably remember me as humble and introverted. As long as I was doing the job I was trained to do, I was happy.

Politics has changed the LFD over the years. You can believe I wasn't tomahawked with a surprise meeting over something that should have been kept private by the police chief, but you would be wrong.

Sorry my writing style turns you off, but I wrote about what happened and my feelings. My loyalty to the LFD over my eight years on the department was strong, and I was hit below the belt.

[AQUAMAN]

Al, if you had a good pappy, he should have told you this as a kid long ago: don't judge your fellow man until you've walked a day in HIS SHOES! Obviously, you were not born and raised in Ludville, nor have you ever had any first hand experience of negativity with the local judicial system here. When you have walked in those shoes, and have the other related experience, please do post a cogent positive reply. I am surprised at you.

[Mary A.]

Al, I wondered if you were having a bad day or something. I think your post surprised a good many of us.

[Sweater Cows!]

Seems Al I get your point, but I think it is a pacifist point. One that will only make the going easy for the go-er. My DH would be right where you say X should be. Myself on the other hand,well, I don't play nice let ppl push me around, so I would be in X's shoes.

To me Al, what you saying leads to This:

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

[Mary A.]

Always the gentleman, XLFD.

[Sweater Cows!]

I was going to say to Al that we all know who you are, but seems you cleared that up for him.

[XLFD]

Thank you Al, I may have responded in much the same way you had about three years ago.

Politics is one thing, violating the rights of a grunt worker who was only trying to ride as safely as he could through an intersection the city had made unsafe by neglecting federal, state, and local laws is another. I wanted nothing to do with the sickness of our local politics until it was thrust against me.

There are provisions in Michigan law which prohibit gov't employees from serving in a second gov't position, but these are waived for smaller communities (<25,000 people) as regards most FF (MCL 15.183 sec. 4b). If it wasn't, the LFD would be about a third smaller in membership. These 6-8 people are good folks to the man, I'd wager, but prone to the appearance of conflict of interest issues just by wearing the two different hats.

If one is a practicing libertarian, I think they should be concerned with the less than perfect performance of any government, and seek the means of correcting that defect. Awareness of the problem is typically the first order of business, and that's what I try to do at this site with the local county and city governments.

I invite you to look at some of the other threads we have in our archives which explains other defects and inconsistencies I and others have noted. You may agree, you may disagree, but you may be surprised at what small town/county politics has been doing lately.
Michigan Legislature - Section 15_183.mht

[AQUAMAN]

Ok Al, let's see if you know about other type cases in Ludington. How about the Jack Byers case, the former building inspector? How about the previous City Mgr. Jim Miller? How about the previous City Marina mgr. Ralph Morrill? I could go on to many more, but, I really doubt you are acutely or even remotely aware of this town's history as it relates to crooked politics. Those whom turn there heads away and hide, just accelerate and reinforce the notion that it's ok to continue in these acts of unethical and sometimes illegal behavior. Btw, I do take pappy's advice mostly, do you?