Dormont Appeals Civil Service Commission in Phil Ross Case
The borough contends that because its evidence that Phil Ross was insubordinate went unchallenged, the commission was bound to uphold the borough's demotion of him.
Pdfs
UPDATED with additional detail from appeal:
Dormont Borough contends that because Phil Ross didn't present evidence when he appealed his demotion from chief, the Civil Service Commission was bound to rule in the borough's favor and uphold the demotion, according to its appeal.
The three-member commission on Tuesday unanimously overturned the borough's 6-1 March demotion of Ross for insubordination and ineffective management.
The commission said the borough's evidence was "insufficient" and "not credible."
But according to the appeal (available, in full, at right) filed Thursday in Allegheny County Court, "Ross provided no testimony or evidence to contradict evidence the offered by the borough. Accordingly, all of the borough's evidence and testimony is deemed to be credible and undisputed."
"The (commission) capriciously disregarded competent evidence," at Ross' April 6 appeal hearing before the commission, the appeal said. "... The borough presented overwhelming evidence that required the (commission) to affirm the decision of borough council and this evidence was uncontested because Ross presented no case nor did he even deny any of the allegations or evidence presented against him."
Borough Manager Gino Rizza deferred comment to Gabriel.
“My understanding is that the legal standard requires them to base their decision on the record. And it doesn’t appear to me that they did that," Chris Gabriel, the borough's labor attorney, said Thursday.
“The fact that they didn’t cite any of the record makes me think they completely ignored it," he said.
According to Gabriel, the only valid reasons to overturn Ross' demotion would be if council had acted arbitrarily or capricously. It hadn't, he's said.
Ross did not immediately return a call for comment and his attorney, D. Scott Lautner, could not immediately be reached.
The appeal is the latest round in an ongoing battle over who has ultimate authority over the police department. Council claims it does, but Ross and Mayor Tom Lloyd say the mayor is in charge.
Lautner has contended that the demotion stems from a "personality conflict" Rizza has with Ross. Rizza has denied that.
Rizza and council members contend Ross was unable to manage the department effectively, which lead to excessive overtime, lax discipline and failure to maintain police vehicles.
According to the appeal, all seven members of council signed a letter on Feb. 9 telling Ross to improve his performance or face discipline up to termination.
Council wanted officers to walk a beat, get approvals for purchase orders, maintain records of vehicle maintenance—based on his failure to get broken cameras in the patrol cars fixed for more than a year—and curb unneccessary overtime.
But on Feb. 11, Ross told Rizza and Ian McMeans, the assistant borough manager, that "council is not my boss," "I don't care who hired me, council can't tell me what to do" and "council can't terminate me," according to the appeal.
At a subsequent meeting with Rizza and McMeans, Ross again said he wouldn't follow the directives of all seven council members and that he wouldn't work with Rizza.
The appeal also said the commission failed to provide a public comment period, which is required by law.
dormonter
7:05 pm on Thursday, July 28, 2011
No "Attorney" Gabriel...the boro, meaning you and the clowns who retain you, failed to show that Chief Ross did anything wrong. The decision stated that not only did the items you alleged happened were "insufficient" evidence (6 hours worth!) the commission didn't believe any of you either. You deserve to be sued for legal malpractice and the council members who support this should be held personally liable for bringing these actions for personal vendettas, and now, when an impartial panel states the obvious - y'all are petty liars - you appeal the decision.
Quite interesting that "Chief" Dwyer is now saying Ross is a patrolman...should he not be at least reinstated as a Sgt now that the boro proved they are idiots?
Bryan
7:44 pm on Thursday, July 28, 2011
I would not fault the lawyers they are in it for the money and this council and borough manager are like having an open check book with unlimited funds! The lawyers are laughing all the way to the bank!
Hey was this not about money in the first place? Does not look like we are saving any now huh?
Dan Nephin
8:59 pm on Thursday, July 28, 2011
The article has been updated with additional detail from the appeal and to fix a couple dropped words.
Leah Petrilli
9:22 pm on Thursday, July 28, 2011
Remind me again when the COUNCIL voted to pursue this action? Joan Hodson didnt vote or approve this action when I questioned her in public at the agenda meeting on Monday night. Lusardi and Malka never answered one way or the other. Maggio, Barilla, Schmidt and Lehman were NOT even present. This is shameful behavior on the part of the council for allowing this action. I was hopeful that some sense of decency and sanity would prevail but it looks like we the citizens of Dormont will have to collectively make our opinions heard very clearly in November. To the individuals that want to continue this travesty I say, yet again, do it on your own dime NOT the taxpayer's.
Go Dormont
9:36 pm on Thursday, July 28, 2011
so hodson's too wimpy to back up her votes, huh? it seems like this would be a pretty big oversight if Ross's attorney didn't know this - so for me it's a little hard to believe. either way, Ross is defiant and may always be, so it's best to move on with him as a patrolman and find a suitable replacement for full-time chief.
dormont backdoor
10:41 pm on Thursday, July 28, 2011
Go Dormont:
Enjoy your job while you still have it!
maria
11:03 pm on Thursday, July 28, 2011
Hey Go Dormont maybe you should just GO! Chief Ross has been reinstated as Chief of Police for Dormont Boro, We do not need to pay an Interim chief $5,500 a month to look through thousands of parking tickets to discover that many were given to the same people and that some violations should have been $100.50 instead of $15. I have lived in Dormont for almost 50 years, having grown up here and I have always believed that we were an easygoing town that gives some breaks to our residents but also will punish true lawbreakers! This appeal will hopefully get the same results. This council needs to pay for this action from their own pockets because it is clear to me that council is out of hand and frankly out of their minds
Leah Petrilli
9:41 pm on Thursday, July 28, 2011
What vote? That is the point. Council had not properly voted on this action. As as far as your assertion that Ms. Hodson is wimpy, she was the only council person to have the stones to show up at the Civil Service Commission Tuesday night. Where were the instigators of this travesty? Not a one in sight.
Shelly
11:38 pm on Thursday, July 28, 2011
I think that it's SAD and EMBARASSING that Dormont is in the news all the time for such CHILDISH and IMMATURE issues!
Diane M - Dormont Resident
11:52 pm on Thursday, July 28, 2011
I hope the voters will consider the foolishness of this Council. I agree with Shelly (above) I just want to see these leaders act like mature adults. If they were in private business they would have been fired long ago.
time for a change
12:16 am on Friday, July 29, 2011
I feel bad for the new manager who has to figure out how to pay the federal lawsuits out of the 2013 budget that are sure to come. On another note the word is that someone is on the right track to find out if anyone on council or management had bread and water for the night compliments of the sergeant they demoted. Lets go over that one again cause it still puzzels me. Drop these charges mr. policeman take a demotion or your fired. Then we'll tell everyone we came to an agreement and show them the paperwork you were forced to sign so you didn't get fired. Wow!
Leah Petrilli
6:11 am on Friday, July 29, 2011
Federal law suits indeed. Perhaps council can call an emergency executive session, get a quorum together, save collective face(and a boat load of boro cash) and conduct a proper council vote to order their very highly paid attorney to withdraw this frivolous appeal. .
Dan Nephin
6:42 am on Friday, July 29, 2011
Comments closed on this version. Comment here: http://patch.com/A-kBBP