BOFPC rules against Gorski

The Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) met for three hours late this afternoon, before deciding, and then voting, to find Sgt. Steve Gorski “guilty” of misconduct in the Amended Complaint of Police Chief Bob Lowen against him.

The BOFPC hearing started shortly after 5:00PM, as soon as the court reporter arrived from Wheaton (I wonder if she got paid time and mileage for the commute). Present were the three Commissioners, the attorney for the Commission (from Naperville), two attorneys from the Office of the City Attorney, Police Chief Lowen, HR Director Janelle Crowley, the recording secretary for the Commission, Sgt. Gorski, Sgt. Gorski’s attorney Tom Loizzo, Dr. Rich Gorski and I.

Tom Loizzo made a motion to adjourn or continue, based on the pending action by the Woodstock Police Pension Board. Loizzo and McArdle argued both sides of the Motion. The BOFPC then entered Executive Session and, when it returned to Open Session, voted to deny the Motion by Loizzo.

McArdle moved to add the Police Department Rules & Regulations to the Complaint. Loizzo objected, because the Chief had rested his case more than a year ago. The BOFPC accepted the Rules & Regulations.

I loved Tom Loizzo’s comment during his objection to the adding of the P.D.’s Rules & Regs at this late date. He said he was against it, because it allowed (the Chief) a “3rd bite of the apple.” Certainly, the Chief got a huge second bite, when the BOFPC agreed on June 30 to allow him to amend his Complaint against Sgt. Gorski, and the BOFPC gave him the third bite tonight.

I was concerned during tonight’s meeting with what seemed to me to be a large degree of disrespect and disinterest on the part of the Board. Commissioner Larry Howell showed up in a green polo shirt and shorts and looked like he was either coming from a picnic or going to one. Commissioner Schroeder was dressed in old pants and a collarless t-shirt. I realize it’s summertime in Woodstock, but this Commission is an official public body of the City of Woodstock and it is dealing with a lengthy hearing and a very important decision to a 20-year employee. This was a business meeting, not a gathering to plan an employee picnic. Commissioner Howell’s body language during large portions of the Open Session indicated to me a high degree of disinterest and that he probably wished he was somewhere else.

The attorney for the BOFPC made a huge error early in the hearing by referring to Sgt. Gorski as “Mr. Gorski”. He must have realized the error, because he didn’t repeat it.

After the initial fancy footwork of the lawyers was out of the way, the real meat of the hearing was about to begin, and Loizzo moved to close the meeting to the public. McArdle objected, saying that everything was public record already. The BOFPC agreed to close the meeting, and Dr. Gorski and I stepped out.

After several breaks the Board returned to Open Session, and Attorney Broihier announced that the Board had reached a decision. Then he added that the Board would vote on a motion, and he proposed that the Motion be to find Sgt. Gorski guilty of misconduct.

Now here’s the rub! Was there another violation of the Open Meetings Act by this Board? How could Mr. Broihier announce that the Board had reached a decision, if they hadn’t voted yet? Maybe I’m too picky about words, but lawyers know what words are for and what they mean. So, when he said they had reached a decision, then they must have done so in Executive Session, and the Open Meetings Act clearly does not allow that.

The BOFPC is to issue a written Finding and Decision, as it originally did back on February 14, 2008. This will be a public record. Next will be a hearing of evidence of aggravation and mitigation, and the BOFPC will meet again on Tuesday, July 21, 2009, at 5:00PM in the City Council chambers.

This is, of course, just before the City Council meeting where it is highly likely that the “Grace Hall matter” will be heard. There is every possibility of a standing room only crowd. Surely, WCLS will ask all its employees to be there, and maybe 100-200 interested townspeople who want Grace Hall to remain standing will be there, too.

Note to Chief Webster: better check the Occupancy of the City Council chambers. The early birds will get the seats.

BOFPC meets, continues to 6/11, 6/30

The Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) met today at 5:00PM in the City Council chambers at City Hall. The attorney from Naperville for the 3-man Board sat with the commissioners in the big chairs; attorneys for Sgt. Steve Gorski and for the Police Department were present. Two attorneys were there for Sgt. Gorski, and two attorneys from the office of the City Attorney were present. A court reporter was present to record the meeting.

The Board very briefly restated the case and Judge McIntyre's decision to remand the case to the Board.

The Board has received a Motion to Amend the Complaint from the police department and a letter from Tom Loizzo, attorney for Sgt. Gorski. Attorney Loizzo requested that today's hearing be continued, in order to allow him time to review the Motion to Amend. Attorney McArdle, for the City and the police department, asked that the matter continue today, indicating that the Motion was presented on April 28 and that he felt that Attorney Loizzo had had sufficient time to study it and respond to it.

The Board went into Executive Session to consider the request to continue. When they returned to open session, the attorney for the Board, who did most of the talking for the Board today, stated that the decision of the Board was to continue the matter.

Mr. McArdle is to have time to correct the Amended Complaint and to present it by May 20. Mr. Loizzo then has 14 days (to June 3) to file a written response. Mr. McArdle then has 7 days (to June 10) to file a written reply to the response.

The Board will meet on June 11 to consider and vote on the Motion by the police department to amend its complaint. At that meeting attorneys will not be required to be present. In other words, only the decision of the Board on the Amended Complaint will be made and announced on June 11.

Then the Board will meet on June 30, 5:00PM at City Hall to continue the hearing; i.e., to proceed with the order of Judge McIntyre, when she sent the case back to the Board on March 24.

Isn't this amazing? The police chief filed charges against Sgt. Gorski in 2007. On February 14, 2008, the Board issued its Findings and Decision (public record now) that the chief had not made his case, and the Board directed the City to pay Sgt. Gorski all his back wages. That was 15 months ago, and not a dime has been paid.

On March 24, 2009, Judge McIntyre sent the case back to the Board, and now more than three more months will pass from that date until the next hearing.

Only three things in this world are certain:
1. Death
2. Taxes
3. Lawyers' fees

Judge McIntyre Rules!

At 9:06AM this morning Judge Maureen McIntyre called the case of Lowen v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.

She looked around the courtroom for lawyers to approach the bench. Seeing none, she handed some papers to her clerk.

I thought, “That’s it? Where are the lawyers?”

Here’s a case that was filed a year ago over a trivial, but legal, issue. And no lawyers are here?

After a few minutes I asked the bailiff if I could read the Decision. While he was finishing other business, I spotted a familiar face and, a few minutes later, left the courtroom and watched a hallway conversation between Sgt. Steve Gorski, his father and one of his attorneys.

What did Judge McIntyre decide in this case that was filed a year ago? You may recall the issue. The Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners told Chief Lowen that he had not made his case. Sgt. Gorski’s lawyer asked for a directed verdict in Gorski’s favor. And that’s what the Board decided.

Apparently, the City’s attorney did not object at the time. But they figured out later that they might make a case for the Board’s having made its decision in, in their opinion, an incorrect manner. And so they filed for an Administrative Review.

OK, so the judge sided with them. What does this mean?

The case goes back to the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. The Board has already heard the chief’s case. The chief rested his case a year ago. He should not have any opportunity to present more testimony or information. He’s all done.

Where will the Board pick up? Right before its decision to issue a directed verdict? What will it do? The Board could call Sgt. Steve Gorski, and then he has choices. He could say he has nothing to say. The Board has heard the chief’s case. It should decide exactly as it did before. And the Board could rule that the City is to pay Sgt. Gorski all his back pay. It’s not just one year’s back pay; now it is TWO years’ back pay.

Or Sgt. Gorski could testify. He could provide his name and rank and then say he has nothing further to offer. And the Board will make the same decision.

Or he could re-state the facts of the case and how he was placed in a Catch 22 situation when he was required to sign a statement presented by the chief that said he could not take certain medications but he COULD take any drugs prescribed by his doctors! Now, just how do you do that? And if you do take drugs prescribed by your doctors but they happen to be on the chief’s Don’t Take list, you’re in deep manure. And that's just where he found himself.

How quickly will the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners meet? They must give 48 hours’ notice, so they could meet on Friday at 5:00PM and finish off this matter.

By the way, the Board should order the Police Department and the City of Woodstock to reinstate Gorski’s health insurance which, I understand, the City canceled in October!

What a great way to treat a 19-year employee who has suffered two on-the-job injuries!!!

City Still Refuses to Pay

On February 14 the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners ended 4 1/2 months of hearings into an attempt by the police chief to fire a 19-year sergeant. The Board issued its Findings and Decision, five pages that clear Sgt. Gorski of charges that he improperly used medications prescribed by his doctors for treatment of two on-the-job back injuries. The Board dismissed the charges and ordered the City to pay Sgt. Gorski all his back wages.

Now, eight months later, the City has not paid one penny. Not the back wages; not the wages since February 14. Instead, the City is wasting thousands of dollars in court, claiming that the Board made the wrong decision and in the wrong way.

Should the City have gotten an opinion from a different law firm before hiring the City Attorney's office to run off to the courthouse? Just how much is being spent in legal fees in this silly legal maneuvering? The City is paying the City Attorney to handle the Chief's case; the City must be paying the attorney for the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.

And the City will end up paying the legal fees for Sgt. Gorski, when he ultimately is successful in getting what is due him! That's three sets of legal fees - all unnecessary!

The City has put every employee on notice. Be good. Do what you are told, even if it's not right. Or else.

Four of the City Council members need to correct the City's path and DIRECT the City Manager and Human Resources to follow the order of its 3-man Commission and pay Sgt. Gorski within seven days.

The Findings and Decision are public record. They should have been included in Minutes of the Commission's first meeting after February 14.

Why aren't they? Because the City Attorney says that they don't have to be there. He says they are public; anyone can read them at City Hall.

Of course, you have to be a mind reader to know that they are there at City Hall to be read.

Woodstock PD vs. Sgt. Gorski

Remember the saga of Sgt. Gorski, who suffered two on-the-job back injuries and whom the Chief is trying to fire? You can read the latest update on www.McHenryCountyAdvocate.com

Back in February the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners ("Board"), a three-man board of civilians that just happens to include a Woodstock resident who is Police Chief of a nearby village, determined, after four months of hearings, that Chief Lowen had not made his case to fire Sgt. Gorski successfully to the Board. The Board ordered that the Police Department and the City of Woodstock should pay Sgt. Gorski all his back pay - many months' worth of back pay. That was in February.

Has he been paid? No. Make that, NO.

Not a penny in eight months. Just how long does it take for a City to carry out a directive of one of its appointed Boards?

Instead, Chief Lowen filed an action in McHenry County Circuit Court to declare that the Board had not made its decision in the right way and it did not have the legal authority to make it in the manner in which it did?

Wouldn't it be interesting to know the total of legal fees expended by the City first in trying to fire Sgt. Gorski and, secondly, with the court case it filed? Probably as much as the City will end up paying for all his back pay, interest, legal fees to collect it, etc.

Maybe the City Attorney should have just told the City, "Hey, you (we) lost. Get over it. Pay him and be done with it. If you don't like the job we are doing for you, fire us."

And what was that manner in which the Board acted? The Board heard a motion by Sgt. Gorski's attorney for a directed verdict in Sgt. Gorski's favor. This motion was made at the conclusion of 4 1/2 month of hearings and when the Police Department had finally finished offering up everything it could think of.

Granting this motion would mean that the Board did not have to hear any testimony from Sgt. Gorski. In other words, if the Board granted the motion for a "directed verdict," then it would be saying that, after hearing everything that the P.D. had to say - all its witnesses, records, charts, evidence, etc. - then the Board did not have to hear from Sgt. Gorski. In other words, no defense would be necessary.

And that's exactly what the Board did. It granted the Motion for a directed verdict and told the Chief to pay Sgt. Gorski all his back pay. Did the Chief "give up"? No way! By filing his case in court, he apparently has found a way to stall the payment of all the back pay.

Last Wednesday they were all in Judge McIntyre's court for yet one more court date. When the good judge was asked back in March to make an administrative review of the Board's decision-making ability, it should have taken about two weeks. Certainly, a decision could have been rendered by mid-April. Did it happen?

Last Wednesday Attorney McArdle from the office of the City Attorney (an independent law firm contracted by the City of Woodstock) dragged in his tripod and charts and launched into a presentation to the judge. What was that all about? Apparently, nine reasons were given as to why Sgt. Gorski shouldn't be a Woodstock cop any longer.

Why would the City reveal information from the confidential medical records of an employee in open court? Maybe for the same reason it did so at the first meeting of the Board, before they went into Executive Session.

Wish I had been there, but earlier I was in a different courtroom with a friend whose case was set for the same day and time. What did that judge say to her? That he was conducting a criminal court, not traffic court. So she needs to go back another time. I heard the snide remark of the prosecuting attorney, which went unchallenged by the defendant. Too bad the judge let it pass without slapping that attorney on the wrist.

Judge McIntyre is to issue her decision on December 18 in the Gorski case. This will be ten months after the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners told the City to pay up. Ten months! TEN months. I wonder what the next step of stalling will be. A further appeal?

And what will she decide? Either that the Board made its decision in the right manner or it didn't. If it did, will the City pay up promptly?

And if it didn't? The matter goes back to the Board for a new decision. That ought to take all of about three minutes, since the Police Chief completed his testimony. He shouldn't get any further chance to prove his case. And, since it hadn't been proved it up to that point, it still won't be proved.

What do you suppose is the real reason that the police department is fighting so hard to can Sgt. Gorski?