Appeals
board upholds decision to fire officer
A three-person
appeals board unanimously reaffirmed a decision by Village Manager
Rob Hillard to fire former police officer Matt Williams earlier this
year.
But one of Williams’s
attorneys, Jeffrey Shulman, criticized the timing of the hearing, calling
it a “waste of time” since Williams has another appeal
pending in a Greene County court.
The Village appeals
board, which held a closed hearing on Nov. 14 to consider Williams’s
appeal of the termination, said that Williams did engage in misconduct
during and related to a traffic stop on Feb. 14, 2002, and that his
conduct “would constitute ‘just cause’ for discharge” under
provisions in the Village’s personnel policy manual.
Williams, who was
hired as a part-time officer in May 1998 and moved up to full-time
a year later, filed an appeal of the board’s decision in Greene
County Common Pleas Court on Dec. 4. The appeal names as defendants
the Village, Hillard and the appeals board, which consisted of the
chairman, Len Kramer, a member of the Village Mediation Program Steering
Committee; Barbara Boettcher, an attorney who served on the Village
Police Chief Search Committee; and Kent Bristol, a former Village manager
who is now the director of the Miami Valley Communications Council.
The ad hoc appeals
board issued its four-page report on Nov. 28. Jane Beach, an attorney
representing the panel, released the document, along with a copy of
Williams’s new appeal, to the News on Dec. 5 after the paper
requested the report.
The three panel
members declined to comment on their decision, saying that they had
nothing to add to the report. Kramer did say that the process was “difficult
but not impossible.” Boettcher said that she thought it was a “good
process” and noted that the board members had to meet three times
to discuss the appeal.
Beach, an attorney
with Green and Green Lawyers in Dayton, said that because the matter
is still in litigation she is “not at liberty to discuss the
substance” of the decision or Williams’s new appeal.
The appeals board
held a hearing to consider whether it was appropriate for the Village
to fire Williams. According to the report issued by the panel, the
board heard testimony from Williams; his girlfriend Catherine Allinikov,
who has said that she was in Williams’s car on the night of the
alleged incident; Nya Williams, one of the women involved in the traffic
stop that morning; and Captain John Grote. Attorneys representing Williams
and the Village presented arguments. The appeals board also requested
a copy of Williams’s personnel file.
The board said it
found that Williams engaged in “serious official misconduct” on
Feb 14, 2002. The board also said that given the previous warnings
the Police Department issued to Williams during his career here, the
Village was “justified in terminating” Williams because
the misconduct was the “culmination of a series of cumulated
offenses” during his time on the force.
Another of Williams’s
attorneys, Kevin Bowman, disputed the appeals board’s claim that
the Police Department gave Williams previous warnings. He said that
the Village did not follow its “progressive disciplinary process,” which,
he indicated, weakens the findings by the Village and appeals panel.
“ When we
get to court that will be really, really, really easy to prove,” he
said.
Hillard fired Williams
on Jan. 2, 2003, after an internal investigation conducted by former
Police Chief Jim Miller alleged that Williams was dishonest about,
misused his power during and filed a false report about a traffic stop
during the early morning hours on Feb 14.
Miller, who retired
in September, said that Williams made the stop without probable cause
and was “not truthful” about the incident. The Village
held a “pre-disciplinary hearing,” overseen by a neutral
hearing officer, to consider the allegations. The hearing officer,
Michael Hammond, a former municipal manager, agreed with Miller’s
conclusions.
Williams’s
attorneys have denied the allegations, and his attorneys have argued
that the actions Williams is accused of committing did not warrant
dismissal, especially since, they have said, the Village fired Williams
nearly 10 months after the incident allegedly took place.
In its report, the
appeals panel said that the Village provided a “satisfactory
explanation” for the long investigation and that it considered
the Village’s disciplinary action “prompt” in this
case.
Williams appealed
the Village’s decision at the end of January, claiming that the
Village violated his right to due process because the Village did not
provide Williams with a post-termination hearing to challenge and appeal
his dismissal. He also asked the court to reinstate him on the Yellow
Springs police force.
In September Judge
Stephen A. Wolaver of the Greene County Common Pleas Court ruled that
the Village had to provide employees with a mechanism to appeal decisions
that have an adverse economic impact on Village staff. Judge Wolaver
ordered Village Council to arrange a hearing for Williams based on
a provision in the Village Charter that allows discharged employees
to appeal their dismissal before an appeals panel. The judge’s
decision led to last month’s hearing.
The Village had
argued that the Charter provision was no longer applicable and that
the appropriate venue in which Williams should appeal his dismissal
was the Common Pleas Court.
Shulman, who works
at the law firm Seblay, Shillito & Dyer, criticized the Village
for holding the hearing last month while Williams has another appeal
pending with the Greene County Court of Appeals, 2nd Appellate District.
In a phone interview
Monday, Shulman said that Williams appealed Judge Wolaver’s decision
because they believe the appropriate remedy was to reinstate Williams
on the Yellow Springs police force, not to have a hearing before a
Village appeals panel. He said that the “appropriate thing for
the Village to have done” was to allow the appellate court to
consider Williams’s case before holding its own hearing.
Shulman called the
Village’s decision to hold the hearing last month “ill-advised” and
a “waste of time, effort and especially money.”
Hillard said on
Tuesday that he could not comment on Shulman’s criticisms since
the Village and Williams are in the middle of “on-going litigation.” He
did say that he was pleased with the Village appeals board’s
decision.
— Robert
Mihalek
|