Schlenkert wins again

Yesterday Judge Michael Caldwell ruled that fired Deputy Robert Schlenkert can continue his legal action against the McHenry County Sheriff's Department to get his job back. Schlenkert is winning decision after decision, but look at the cost, personally and monetarily, to him to continue. And to the taxpayers for the Sheriff's Department to maintain its position!

Unfortunately, the Northwest Herald story tells a slanted version of the story, one slanted in favor of the Sheriff's Department. Why would it do so, instead of presenting a balanced view so that readers' can determine for themselves whether taxpayer dollars are being properly expended by the Sheriff's Department in its continuing effort to terminate Bob Schlenkert.

On December 17, 2008, Judge Maureen McIntyre ruled that the decision of the Sheriff's Department's Merit Commission, the five-member "public body" that is appointed by the Sheriff (not by the County Board), was "arbitrary and unreasonable." Those exact words appear on Page 10 of her ruling.

This morning's Northwest Herald article reads, "(Judge) Caldwell gave him (Schlenkert) until July 7 to submit the lawsuit against the proper parties but (sic) denied other efforts by a county attorney to have the case thrown out of court." Perhaps a more correct statement would have been that Judge Caldwell gave Schlenkert until July 7 to refile his case AND denied other efforts by a county attorney..."

Choice of words has a great influence on readers.

The Sheriff ordered a deputy with years of experience to go back through the complete basic law enforcement certification training, rather than directing him only to take those courses which would bring him up-to-date on changes in laws since he was last on active duty. Schlenkert passed the course, except for one portion of the exercise element to the program. He tried several times to pass the running portion but didn't.

Now, any day of the week, go over behind the sheriff's department after roll call and watched the "fine physical specimens" leaving the building for the patrol cars. Some of the deputies are in good physical condition and work hard to stay that way. Others are fortunate enough to have body shapes that stay trim without great effort. Others? Do they spend eight hours at Dunkin' Donuts?

Once certified, and Schlenkert has been continuously certified, there is no physical requirement to remain a deputy sheriff.

What was Judge Caldwell's decision yesterday? He ruled that "the sheriff's department ... is not a legal entity" and gave Schlenkert until July 7 to file against the property parties.

I wish I'd been there to hear it but, even if I'd been in the courtroom, these tired old ears probably wouldn't have been able to hear much of what was said in low tones between the lawyers and the judge.

I contacted the ACLU several months ago to ask if visitors in a courtroom are entitled to hear what is said in a public hearing or trial, and it's past time to call them back for the answer. In the meantime, I'll get a copy of Judge Caldwell's June 9th Decision.

Keep in mind that this is not the only lawsuit involving Schlenkert and the Sheriff's Department. When the Department "lost" in the Decision by Judge McIntyre, it appealed. More taxpayer money - right down the drain.

NWH Editorial Supports Judge McIntyre

This morning's editorial in the Northwest Herald supports Judge McIntyre's decision Tuesday in the case of Lowen v. Board of Fire and Police Commissioners.

Here's what I wonder.

Judge McIntyre read about the case. The Board heard testimony - directly. They listened to Chief Lowen and they listened to his witnesses.

Then the three-man Board voted that the chief had not made his case.

I recall an example given to me years ago that clarified the difference between reading about something, compared with actually doing that thing (in other words, being there). I'm flipping a coin right now to decide whether to relate that exact comparison.

(flip).

Oh, sorry. Tails. I'll leave the comparison to your imagination.

BOFPC/Sgt. Gorski Decision - Feb. 17

It now looks like it will be one year and three days after the Woodstock Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (BOFPC) ruled, that Judge Maureen McIntyre will issue her Decision in this case.

All the details don't need to be re-hashed. In summary, the BOFPC ruled on February 14, 2008, that the police chief had not proven his case against Sgt. Steve Gorski and it directed the City to pay Sgt. Gorski all his back pay. The Findings and Decision of the BOFPC is a public record and can be viewed at City Hall, if you are interested.

If you are bashful (or prudent) and prefer not to ask the City to show you a copy, contact me and I'll be happy to share my copy with you. If I had a little more computer savvy, I'd figure out how to post it here. Basically, the report exonerates Sgt. Gorski.

The case in Circuit Court is not really against Sgt. Gorski, although he is named as a Defendant. In fact, it is curious to me why Sgt. Gorski is even named as a Defendant, because nothing in the Complaint is aimed at Gorski. Naming him as a Defendant only serves to drive up his legal expenses.

The case is Case No. 08MR60: ROBERT W. LOWEN, Chief of Police, v. BOARD OF FIRE & (sic) POLICE COMMISSIONERS OF WOODSTOCK, RONALD GIORDANO, LAWRENCE HOWELL, THOMAS SCHROEDER, and STEVEN GORSKI.

From the use of capitals in the naming of the case, the defendants are 1) the Board, 2) the three individual members of the Board, and 3) the City employee in whose favor the Board ruled. It seems to me that there are five (5) defendants in this case.

Does each Board member have his own attorney? There is a lawyer representing the BOFPC - John Broihier of Naperville. I wonder if he represents only the Board or if he also represents the three commissioners.

On the Order issued on January 13, setting February 17 for the Decision, only the City's lawyer and Sgt. Gorski's lawyer are noted on the Distribution list. I wonder why counsel for the BOFPC isn't being given Notice of the date for Decision. The Board is the real Defendant in this case.

Hopefully, Judge McIntyre will have recovered sufficiently to hold court on February 17. Last year the BOFPC met quarterly. If it follows the same schedule as in 2008, there will be a meeting in March. However, this year the BOFPC will meet only in Special Meetings on a minimum of 48 hours' notice, as no Regular Meetings appear on the 2009 Boards and Commissions Schedule of Meetings.

This means that concerned residents are going to have to lurk around the Agenda webpages of the various Commissions and Boards, in order to learn of Special Meetings. Or you can keep reading the Woodstock Advocate, because I'll keep you informed of Special Meetings, at least of the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners and the Liquor Commission.

Deputy Schlenkert v. Merit Commission

Just before closing this afternoon, the decision became available and the Circuit Court clerk's office printed off a copy for me of the decision in Case No. 08 MR 21, Deputy Bob Schlenkert versus the Sheriff's Department Merit Commission.

Let's skip to the bottom line.

Judge Maureen IcIntyre ruled on December 17, 2009 (sic) - (oops! No doubt she meant 2008!) that the "...Decision of the Sheriff's Merit Commission was arbitrary and unreasonable in terminating Deputy Schlenkert for cause. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Decision of the Sheriff's Merit Commission of McHenry County is reversed."

In a 10-page decision on Wednesday Judge McIntyre ruled in Deputy Schlenkert's favor in Case No. 08 MR 21, filed by Deputy Schlenkert against the SHERIFF'S MERIT COMMISSION OF McHENRY COUNTY, JANELLE CROWLEY, Chairperson, PATRICK McANDREWS, GLORIA URCH, WILLIAM MACK and BRIAN GOODE, Members of the Sheriff's Merit Commission of McHenry County, KEITH NYGREN, Sheriff of McHenry County, and COUNTY OF McHENRY, Kenneth Koehler, Chairman.

Deputy Schlenkert has been a McHenry County Sheriff's Deputy since January 1990 and has been fighting to keep his job since May 2007. Because Schlenkert was off on medical leave for approximately two years, Sheriff Nygren decided that Schlenkert had to go back through the entire basic 12-week (480-hour) academy required of new recruits for law enforcement certification.

Although there are no State requirements for physical fitness and none at the sheriff's department, there is a "POWER" test required to be admitted to the academy. The POWER test is not a fitness-for-duty test or a physical fitness test, according to Judge McIntyre's decision. Schlenkert was already certified as a law enforcement officer, and there are no state standards or requirements for continuing education or training to maintain police certification.

The court record in this case included testimony by Sheriff Nygren, Undersheriff Lowery, and Sergeant Wagner.

Component training of academy content is offered in 40-hour blocks of time. Why would a deputy with more than 15 years' experience and already certified as as Illinois peace officer be required to go all the way back through basic training? If a refresher were needed for certain new information, he could attend only those 40-hour blocks, saving the sheriff's department considerable money in several different ways.

Sheriff Nygren had attempted to fire Schlenkert "for cause." However, Judge McIntyre found that Schlenkert did not refuse to comply with Sheriff Nygren's order regarding academy training. "On the contrary, (he) attempted to comply but failed..." certain components of physical activities required only to enter the academy (but not to participate in the 40-hour blocks of component training mentioned above).

Importantly, the Decision continued, Schlenkert's "failure to pass the test did not disqualify him from performing his duties as a certified police officer as he was neither physically or mentally unfit for duty." In other words, he was fit for duty, both physically and mentally!

Judge McIntyre's decision continues that Schlenkert is not unfit for duty and that there is nothing to indicate that he cannot adequately fulfill his duties as a deputy. "His discharge was not based on substantial misconduct or insubordination."

"This Court finds that Decision of the Sheriff's Merit Commission was arbitrary and unreasonable in terminating Deputy Schlenkert for cause."

So, how does the Merit Commission, chaired by a person who is a full-time Human Resources manager, reach such a decision?

Maybe some of you readers have an answer to this question.

WANTED: One Rocket Scientist

WANTED: One rocket scientist. Must have common sense and ability to understand right from wrong. Must be willing to stand up to those in positions of authority. Must have integrity and be honest. If you have a Ph.D. or M.A., please do not apply.

On Friday an interesting court case gets started in McHenry County. It should be called Woodstock v. Woodstock, but the name on the court papers reads somewhat differently.

Following the February decision of the 3-man Board of Fire and Police Commissioners (previously and erroneously identified in City records for years as the Board of Fire and Police Commission, until I wrote to the City and suggested that this latter name made no sense, as there was no Board of the Commission) to direct the police chief to reinstate Sgt. Gorski with full back pay, the chief (meaning the City) filed for an administrative law hearing in McHenry County Circuit Court. This hearing will be this Friday, July 18, 2007.

So what we have here is a case in which the City is in court against the City, because the 3-man Board, comprised of three Woodstock residents (one of whom happens to be police chief of Lakewood) is named as defendants! Double whammy, right? Legal fees on both ends. The Lawyers' Relief and Retirement Plan.

What's the best that can happen? Judge McIntyre rules that the Board's decision was fair and proper and tells the chief to do what the Board told him to do in February. Reinstate Sgt. Gorski and get his money to him within seven days.

What's the worst that can happen? Judge McIntyre rules that the chief is right and sends the matter back to the Board.

And what happens then? The Board convenes a Special Meeting. Watch the City's website for a 48-hour announcement of that meeting. Go to www.woodstockil.gov and then click on Boards and Commissions, then on Agendas, then on Board of Fire and Police Commission (the old, incorrect name that has been used for years).

And what will the Board do at its Special Meeting?

The Board will reconvene where it left off. The City has already spoken and presented its case. No need to hear that again. So the Board will call Sgt. Gorski.

"State your name, rank and employer, Sgt. Gorski," the Chairman will say.

"Steven Gorski, Sergeant, Woodstock Police Department," Sgt. Gorski will reply.

"Do you have anything else to say?" the Chairman will ask.

"No, sir," Sgt. Gorski will say.

The Board will huddle and then announce its decision. "Chief Lowen, our decision is that you are to reinstate Sgt. Gorski immediately and with full back pay, and you are to see that he receives a check for full back pay and interest within seven days. There being no further action before this Board, is there a Motion to Adjourn?"

Now, aside from five more months of interest on its debt to Sgt. Gorski and five more months of pay without his having had to work for it, how much will all this legal wrangling cost the taxpayers of Woodstock?

Why do we even have a Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, if its decisions are not respected and followed by the City department for which it is established?

Oh, you ask about the rocket scientist? The City of Woodstock should create a position of Ombudsman and hire the "rocket scientist" to fill it.

© 2008 GUS PHILPOTT