Can the chief discipline an officer?

Arguments were made to Judge Feeterer this morning in the case of O’Doherty vs. the Woodstock police chief and the Board of Fire and Police Commissioner, and Judge Feeterer is expected to issue his decision at 1:30PM.

Choosing a seat this morning in the courtroom was a little like going to church wedding and having to choose whether to sit on the bride’s side or the groom’s side. What if you like both?

I wanted to be able to hear, so I sat on the side closer to the judge’s bench. That put me behind Jim O’Doherty, his attorney from the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and Ofc. Louis Vasquez. On the other side of the aisle were Chief Lowen, Deputy Chief Bozer and the two attorneys for the police department, David McArdle of the law firm that represents the City and John Kelly, special counsel “for all the defendants”, as he introduced himself for the record.

Ofc. Vasquez was there to answer questions about the current contract between the police department and the officers. The defense immediately objected, but the judge said he would hear the testimony and then decide whether to give it any weight in his consideration. Although the contract is new, the effective date was retroactive to May 1, 2008.

The gist of the argument between the two sides is whether an officer has the right to go to arbitration or if he must first go through the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners. The new contract seemed clear until the questions (picky questions – like those I would raise) were asked. And then the waters started to get muddy.

The FOP attorney presented his arguments first, on behalf of the Plaintiff, Jim O’Doherty. He explained that the contract gives an officer the choice of BOFPC or an arbitrator.

Then Mr. Kelly, representing the police chief and the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC), argued that an arbitrator could only be used after the BOFPC had heard the case and made its decision.

While Judge Feeterer mostly listened to the FOP attorney and asked a few questions, he engaged almost in a Q&A with Mr. Kelly, repeatedly asking for clarification and explanation of the position of the defense.

Mr. Kelly made an interesting argument that the police chief cannot fire any police officer. Only the BOFPC can fire an officer. Which caused me to begin wondering how the process in Woodstock really works. While the chief cannot actually carry out the firing, he can make a recommendation to the BOFPC that an officer be fired. What’s the difference, if the BOFPC agrees?

From now on, will the Chief merely inform the BOFPC that he has a problem and then ask the BOFPC what they want to do about it? Not likely! It was a novel argument. I didn’t look over at the chief to see whether he was ready to throttle his own attorney.

Mr. Kelly also asserted that Ofc. O’Doherty has not suffered “irreparable harm.” Oh, really?

Judge Feeterer read the state law relating to the BOFPC and mentioned that the BOFPC is to provide a “fair and impartial hearing”. Has it done so?

The Woodstock BOFPC met on March 2 and apparently did not notify Ofc. O’Doherty of that meeting; it suspended him “with pay”. Where was the fair and impartial hearing?

On March 12 the BOFPC met again, also apparently not notifying Ofc. O’Doherty that it would be meeting; the Chief wasn’t even there, but the BOFPC suspended O’Doherty “without pay”. Where was the fair and impartial hearing?

Then it didn’t meet on March 23 or on April 6. How far do you have to look to find “irreparable harm”?

Mr. Kelly also criticized the Contract between the police officers and the City that took a year to hammer out. The judge reminded him that the City had signed the Contract, and surely it did so only after legal representation and advice from the office of the contracted City Attorney.

Too bad they didn’t hammer out that “little” problem, which now is a big and expensive problem for the City.

OK, back to court to hear Judge Feeterer’s decision at 1:30PM.