Today's press conference from Akron Mayor Don Plusquellic contained a pretty good lashing of the media for reporting over the weekend that DP had fired two Akron Police officers for misconduct.
Long story short .. the Mayor's point was that media reports made it sound like he'd already reviewed the evidence and that he had decided alone to fire the officers. Today, he took the media to task that our reports were wrong, and while a police press release contained a headline that he had discharged the two cops, in reality, DP had signed the recommendation made by the Chief of Police and the Deputy Mayor for Labor Relations. It was protocol that for the officers to have their hearing, Plusquellic said he must first sign the recommended discipline and then give them a meeting to present their evidence as to why they should not receive the penalty.
The officers will get their chance to present their evidence to Plusquellic .. some time in the next 30 days .. and he could reduce their discipline and reinstate them .. but he could also let the terminations stand.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Then why are they off the payroll?
Here we go again. The ultimate blame of responsibility rests with the mayor of Akron and one of the first things he says is it was a deputy mayors decision and not his. When will this guy grow up and take some responsibility? Why not donnie take a ride in a police cruiser on a busy night just to see what these guys really put up with? Then again cowards will do what cowards do.
It's the same system the city has used for 40 years ...
The Mayor's signing of the recommendation triggers a full hearing so the employee can plead his case.
With 3,000+ employees, there's no way any mayor can be the sole authority on investigating and handing out discipline. Rather, it's the department leaders who do both, and those who wish to appeal get to do so to the Mayor.
The same process exists in the military. For example, while the Secretary of the Army's signature might be the approving authority page one of a dishonorable discharge, but it's the supervisors closes to the soldier who investigate his/her actions and make that recommendations.
I'll be interested in seeing how the hearings for these two officers unfold ..
The process should be different then. These officer's should be kept on payroll until EVERYONE from the Chief of Police, Masturzo and the Mayor have reviewed all the evidence and make their decision. What they have done to the officer's and their families is awful. It is obsurd that you would fire first and then review these things.
I wish the media in this town would quit being the Mayoy's lacky. You mean to tell me the mayor will sign off on a firing without looking at the evidence. We need to recall the mayor!
Basically, what you are saying shoot first and ask questions later. That's what our city's procedure is? I think not. It's only used when it's needed. These guys were on administrative leave for 5 weeks worrying whether they would have a job or not and not able to go get a job elsewhere. Now, who is going to pay their mortgage and their family expenses? Is our mayor stepping up to help them out. Not! With one stroke of a penm he can ruin someone's life. Too much power for one man, I think.
The mayor and Marco have shown their disdain for hard worker police officer for years now. marco writes a piece in the council propaganda newsletter stating he appreciates officers killed in the line of duty. What about the officers who are alive? He never showed support for thoses officers who caould have been killed on Victoria Ave!
I'm disappointed in your stance on the issue here, Mr. Mansfield. Why would you say that with 3,000 employees in the City that the Mayor cant be the sole authority on this. Ummmm, how about its his JOB to be that sole authority! Not to mention we are only talking about TWO employees here & I'm sure he can MAKE the time to be that sole authority before he puts these officer's & their families through this. Its a shame when criminals have more rights than the men and women who protect our community.
Dissapointed or not, you need to understand that the city charter is the contract of the people with its government.
Our charter mandates that an employees immediate supervisors -- in this case the chief or police -- investigate and then make a recommendation for discipline.
That's the investigative part. Do you expect the Mayor to be the investigator?
The charter then requires the recommendation to be upheld or denied before the employee gets a full hearing in front of the Mayor.
Think of it this way .. if police stop you for speeding, you can't go to the appellate court judge and ask what's going to happen to you. That judge can't rule on your case until the investigators write the charges and lower court judge rules on whether you're guilty or not.
How fair would it be for the chief of police .. or the fire chief .. or the head of the water dept. .. to have the mayor deciding what punishment their employees deserve based on their actions? If he did, then to whom would the employees be able to plead their case?
Instead, department heads make those recommendations (in this case, the chief of police recommended the officers be fired) .. and then the Mayor becomes the impartial judge who hears the case.
Folks . this is our charter .. if we don't like it, fix it ...
But just because a reporter or anyone else explains the way the rules are written doesn't mean that we're on one side or the other here.
Wouldn't you be more "dissapointed" in me if I didn't tell you both sides?
Unfortunately, you dont have both sides. Why would these Officer's have to prepare paperwork 3-4 weeks ago, along with letters addressed to the Mayor then if the process all along was that they are terminated first & then they file for a hearing before the Mayor. All of this paperwork was attached to the letters that the Mayor signed. You cant tell me that he couldn't take the time to review that paperwork first. Even Paul Hlynsky stated that the hearing process was filed just this week.
The union says the firings are wrong ...
The mayor says he's following the charter and that both men will get hearings ...
Both sides are equally portrayed in my story ...
Your argument is with city hall .. and the charter ... and whatever you perceive are the motivations by the two sides in this case .. and why the parties had to file specific paperwork ...
You sound like you want me to take sides and just tell the side of the story that I think is righteous. That's not my job.
We'll continue to follow the story .. and I hope the officers will share their stories once the hearings are over ... but right now, they're not talking ..
It's ok to feel like you have ammo in this fight, but you need to aim at the right target ...
stay in touch .. Eric
Come on Eric, get your facts right. The chief did not originally recommend firing and neither did any of his high ranking officers. Haven't you ever been told by your boss what to say or what not to say. And don;t say your haven't, because everyone has. Either go along or get fired. The only one to recommend firings was the Deputy Mayor. City spin control at it's best.
SPIN CITY ....
I called down to city hall this morning to trace the steps of this process ...
I'm told that Chief Matulavich made the initial recommendation for termination, signed the recommendation and then forwarded it to Deputy Mayor James Masturzo.
Likewise, Masturzo reviewed the recommendation, signed it, and then forwarded it to Mayor Plusquellic.
I'm efforting getting a copy of the document to post along side the charter that requires this process so we can all see it for ourselves.
As for insuations that the Mayor coerced the Chief into making that recommendation, I think you need to take a hard look at the current climate between those two. With the chief's contract up Dec. 31st and with every indication that he will not be re-appointed, there's no motivation for Chief Matulavich to write anything other than what he felt himself.
Call it "spin city" if you like .. and this is a good forum to discuss the perceptions of these types of cases ... but just be sure to understand the position of all the chess pieces before assuming you see checkmate.
I hope to have the documents up later today ... Eric
The Chiefs initial recommendation for Seiler was 90 days. It was the Mayor who wanted termination (thru Mazturso) knowing he could reduce later during the appeals process. Givens incident scared the Mayor because he thought all of Marco's friends would show up at city hall. What he had not acounted for was the GROUND SWELL of public support for both officers. Read the Blogs eric, Listen to talk radio and not Just WNIR but the new Matt Patrick Show on 640 AM. 95 percent of the respondants support the Officers. This caused the Mayor to back track and to use his SPIN CONTROL MACHINE. You will not find verbal conversations in a public records request. The Mayor doesn't even like to use email when discussing these matters. If you want honest background informatiom, get in contact with the former Deputy Mayor for Labor Relations and he will tell you what really goes on. He lives on North Hill so you should know who he is and where to get a hold of him. - "one who knows"
I've aquired the initial memo from the Chief's office recommending Seiler's discharge and it includes Chief Matulavich's signature.
I will upload later tonight for you to read here on my blog.
I'm not sure why you keep trying to debate this with me ... or are you trying to get me to share my personal opinion of the case?
If that's your goal, just know that's not what I'm here to do.
Look at what you've written here. Do you have any proof of what you're writing? Do you?
Without it, you've got nothing when it comes to the evening news. My story Monday included equal time to the FOP Prez and to the Mayor to each make their points.
Talk radio, police buddies, old employees, etc ... are NOT facts that can be used in news reports. I don't doubt for a minute that people would come out and support these officers. Still, my role as a broadcast journalist is to report what I can document as a third person observer and not to say "yeah but everyone knows the real story is ...."
I'll check with the Chief on his initial proposal as you claim .. but I'm holding a document right now with his signature that recommends that Officer Seiler be discharged. That's the proof that exists.
I like the dialogue here .. it's good open discussion .. and I don't doub that you believe what you're saying. But your claims sound more like WNIR chatter than documented information, and in my business, that's what I need.
Send me proof of your claims and I'll report it, otherwise your fight is with city hall and not with one of the few local reporters who's still covering this story.
Stay in touch .. Eric
Post a Comment