Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Committees - Civil Services Commission - 06/08/1988 CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETI,NVklTES June 8, 1988 �4, , This special meeting was called to order by Chairman T.-Richard Ried. Y In attendance: Commissioners Michele G. Hinz and Joseph A.° Street, City Attorney Driscoll , Chief Frederiksen, Captain Rees, Sergeant Kline and Officer Kullberg. Also Present: Attorneys Sharon Howard, representing the Commission; William A. Coats, representing the City of Kent; Stuart P. Koch, representing Pat Lowery and Pat Lowery, Appellant. Chairman Ried announced the purpose of this special meeting+ is, to discuss subpoenas and other related matters regarding Discovery in the Lowey matter. The minutes of the last meeting and special meeting will be considered at the� next regular meeting. (A verbatim transcript of this special meeting will be on ,fi'Te in the Commission Office. ) Miss Howard stated for the record that she met with Mr,:; Koch, Mr. Coats and Mr. Lowery and they resolved the subpoenas only. She suiggested the Commission could ask each party which ones they need and get some f6diration why such a person would provide information relative to the Commission's hearing and investigation into the discharge. She said she had subpoena forms preppred ,and given them to the secretary. ' Mr. Coats stated he had prepared subpoenas for twenty-two persons and he thought Mr. Koch and he are in agreement, on a number of the names of people who have pertinent information. He said there is a problem with 2 names on the list: Tim Richards, C.I. on a fishing boat in Alaska, and Angela McClellan who is in California. He stated that Mr. Koch and he are in agreement that if Ms. McClellan fails to appear at the hearing, they would agree to get 4,, court order to depose her before the hearing was closed. Mr. Koch concurred. Ms. Howard asked if the twenty-two names are relevant to this hearing. Mr. Koch responded that he had no objections to the persons subpo+ended, but he did request the Commission not issue subpoenas to Mr. Richards and othOrs4e has not hadtaccess to. He has been waiting since February 17, 1988 to coa t this person and 0aimed prejudice. He said Randy Norwood was interviewed by the,;°P,olice but his address or phone have not been provided to him and he will object to any; surprise testimony. Mr. Coats denied that the City of Kent has hid Mr. Richards or will present any surprise testimony. He has been trying to contact the Eli -in attempting to contact him. Mr. Ried commented that as long as arrangements are beirog,pare, Mr. Richards will be made available to Mr. Koch. As for Randy Norwood, ,* saiq if the record show he was picked up at his home, the City must have his addres� ,,anO it could be furnished to Mr. Koch. Mr. Coats stated he has also asked to interview Mr. Norwwd. The one witness he will not provide the address or phone number is Barbarvogjin, but he will try to arrange a meeting with Mr. Koch in a timely manner. But contact has to be made through another police department. He emphasized that a lot of these people are transients and he needs to interview them also. Mr. Koch reiterated that he had requested this information from the date of discharge with numerous letters to the Commission and with only a two week time-frame before the hearing, he said it was prejudicial that he has been denied continual access to the witnesses. Chairman noted for the record that Mr. Coats said he will attempt to set up the meeting, which obviously didn't take place so they're still attempting to set up this meeting. Mr. Coats responded that he has provided Mr. Koch with statements that he has concerning these people,, including Barbara Jolin's complete statement that was taken by the department and he is attempting to arrange an ,interview. In his view, Mr. Coats said Mr. Koch's claim of prejudice remains to be seen because Mr. Koch has been provided with statements he himself has. Chairman said that an agreement is being worked out between' Barbara Jolin, Mr. Koch and Mr. Coats and confidentiality at her request has to be maintained. Mr. Koch commented that the denial of access to people is fundamentally unfair. Mr. Coats noted he is not subpoenaing officers from the department an&�he is prepared to present a list of officers who might have pertinent information and he will provide that information to Mr. Koch. Ms. Hinz moved to approve the issuance of Mr. Coats' subpoend;s. Mr. Street seconded and the motion carried. Ms. Howard approved the subpoena forms prepared by Mr. Coats for the persons listed. Mr. Koch said he was submitting the names on his prior cemmnications as the list for subpoenas and he also requested that in anticipation of this hearing, police officers reschedule their vacations to be available for the hearing. Ms. Howard clarified for Chairman that she had prepared blank subpoena forms, not having anticipated any party preparing their own. Mr. Coats suggested circulating a memo to the officers involved and asking if any have vacations during the time of the hearing, to discuss it with their commanding officers. Regarding the names of officers on Mr. Koch's letter of March 24, rather than argue relevancy, he said he has no objection to finding out when vacation plans are and as the case progresses, relevancy may become clear. The parties reviewed Mr. Koch's list of names, many of whore were duplicates of Mr. Coats list. Upon Ms. Howard's question Mr. Koch said they are all persons who had contact either with the police officers or the partictpahts listed to be subpoenaed by the City, and they would be necessary for Mr. ,4owery s defense. Mr. Coats stated that as far as expense and travel , the persbn who is subpoenaed has to pay the expenses. For the record Mr. Koch objecteQ�%strongly to place the burden on Mr. Lowery,: who is unemployed. He said Civil Service is an offshoot of the municipality of the City of Kent and not an independent situation that doesn't have financial resources. Chairman stated that he has investigated several Civil Service Commissions as far as this practice is concerned, and in almost all of the cases, those who wish the subpoenas served, serve those subpoenas. Mr. Koch objected to that as denying Mr. Lowery equal protection under the law and fundamental fairness to place that burden on him. - 2 - i ;j 'e1 lil Ms. Howard stated her legal opinion that whether the has the authority to issue the, subpoenaasb each party,who seeks those, wo+uld #em themselves and bear that expense. The wisest course of action 'for tom,4100�rl ion should be that if Mr. Koch makes his offer of proof and the Commissio�n, ts own needs, determines that such person is necessary for the Commis$,,ja ',$- fair and impartial determination in this matter, the, Commission at that time ,co p,l d determine to make the monies available. Mr. Koch submitted to the Commission 'that Mr. Lowery would fit in the category as an indigent appellant and on thatipise he is being denied equal access to a fair hearing. Mr. Koch told the Commission his offers of proof for subp9pofting Cathy Cason, regarding an error concerning drug rehabilitation recor4,,,;W_#,wh 8l ue Cross. Mr. Coats noted that when Mr. Koch states that Mr. Lo ,Ja,,#n indigent, it opens up questions concerning funding, and he said he believ�tae;, Union is supporting and funding him and they have adequate resources. As far '** Ms. Cason is concerned, Mr. Coats said he is willing to provide her a4i s ,after authorization from her to release her address; however, the informati€aii , rrding drug rehabilitation is not the basis of Mr. Lowery's discharge, ' Ms. Howard suggested the Commissjpn authorize the subpoe ' ,requested by Mr. Koch for him to determine hpw best to 'serve them and if it s be financially impossible for him an4 his client, the Commission accept:,r ; s'ig d sworn statement from Ms. Cason if she 4 s not available. She questioned rh *or the Commission has any authority to expend money unless the Commission all thiptc_ it is necessary for function of their duty. She sato� a telephone conferenc& 4*timony is also an available option, but it, is all-premature, at this time,,,,, *,Hinz suggested issuing the subpoenas and entertain any request at a later date. Ms. Hinz moved to issue subpoenas to the 9 names listed by Mr. ,Koch. Mr. Street seconded and the motion carried. On the matter of Discovery, Mr. Koch requested an Order of Discovery on the police reports surrounding the arrest of Brenda Rene Moore. Ms. ;:Toward advised the order. Ms. Hinz moved to approve the order. Mr. Street seconded and the motion carried. Mr. Koch also requested the Commission to make the appropriate order for the police reports regarding McMahon. Ms. Howard advised the order, :i Ns. ; Hinz moved, Mr. Street seconded, to approve the order. Motion carried. A third request by Mr. Koch is Kent Police Department Repqrt 87-00336. Ms. Hinz moved, Mr. Street seconded, to grant the order. Motion carried. Referring to paragraph 16 of Mr. Coats' letter, Mr. Koch requested the criminal history information regarding potential witnesses. Mr. Str et' moved, Ms. Hint seconded, to approve the request. Motion carried. Mr. Koch also requested any records concerning the arrest of David Fritcher. Mr. Street moved, Ms. Hinz seconded, to grant the request. Motion carried. Mr. Coats requested this information be kept confidential and that the original orders entered by the Commission apply to this information. - 3 - 0 On the subject of Discovery Mr. Koch stated he was handed4lletter whereby the City is amending the notice of discharge of Mr. Lowery. He objeti*d to this as being inappropriate. He cited the Commission rules whereby the. rul-es require that he be given notice of allegations against him in writing and that %4as done on February 17, 1988. An amended allegation, undated, with a cover sheet dated the sixth, he said, is unduly unfair and for the record, he objects to the',amendment. Mr. Coats explained that he is proposing an amendment to clarify the earlier notice and, in accordance with Civil Service rules, he's offering' Mr. Lowery an opportunity to rebut the allegations, but will not send the notice until next week. Mr. Koch stated he will stay his objection and reserve the right to reinvoke it. Ms. Howard suggested that the next time they appear befrejthe Commission, the parties could argue that, if it has not been resolved by thin: Chairman agreed. Ms. Hinz suggested it could be entertained at the regular meeting next week. Mr. Koch stated he had received a document this morning from�Mr. Coats that a person identified as Informant 87-14 was contacted and he 0ouldlike to issue a subpoena for 87-14, which is regarding the interview of My, Heneley and regarding Randy Norwood. Mr. Coats responded that he did not know, Who, 87-14 is. He explained that the problem in providing Mr. Koch with working notes of our detectives is they could be by undercover officers. Ms. Hurd suggested reserving that request for subpoena until the City has a chance to Y*'lornd and, if necessary, Mr. Koch could renew his request. Mr. Koch noted that the ,ngtes described the CI as a cocaine user and dealer and he is relevant to the ca * ` Chairman instructed Mr. Coats and Mr. Koch investigate that and determine wh tllk Lion they want to take and the request for subpoena could be entertained at the next regular meeting. Mr. Street moved to adjourn the meeting, seconded by Ms. Hinz. Meeting adjourned at 9:10 a.m. Respectfully submitte4, Amy E. Kato Secretary and Chief` Xaminer Approved: T. Richard ie Chairman 308V-lV - 4 -