Politics & Government

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.

UPDATED with additional detail from appeal:

Dormont Borough contends that because Phil Ross didn't present evidence when he his 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 overturned the borough's 6-1 March demotion of Ross for insubordination and ineffective management.

Find out what's happening in Dormont-Brooklinewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

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."

Find out what's happening in Dormont-Brooklinewith free, real-time updates from Patch.

"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.


Get more local news delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for free Patch newsletters and alerts.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here