Dormont Chief Ross Portrayed as Insubordinate to Council at Appeal Hearing

Dormont’s police chief refused to accept that council was his boss, couldn’t control overtime and failed to oversee vehicle maintenance, which along with other reasons led to his demotion, according to borough officials.

Borough Manager Gino Rizza, testifying at Ross’ hearing Tuesday to appeal his demotion, denied the demotion was was based on a personality conflict between the two men, as Phil Ross’ attorney repeatedly asserted.

“Do you have a personality conflict with Phil Ross?” D. Scott Lautner asked.

Rizza said he thought Ross was “a great guy,” but wasn’t doing his job.

Still, Rizza conceded, he had wanted Ross demoted. But that was ultimately up to council, and was only sought after Ross repeatedly refused to listen to council, he said.

Ross, a 29-year department veteran who became chief in June 2009, did not testify and declined comment. to demote him on March 7.

In his opening statement, Christopher Gabriel, the borough’s labor attorney, told the borough civil service commission that Ross failed on his duties to provide effective services to keep the borough safe and to provide affordable police services.

“If this were a case about whether or not Phil Ross is a nice guy or a good man or someone people like, we wouldn’t be here ... But being chief of police is a big job,” he said.

Within Ross’ first year as chief, he said, council began noticing problems.

Testimony by Rizza, Assistant Manager Ian McMeans and council President Kim Lusardi painted a picture of man who didn’t have control of his department.

Rizza testified that during a meeting with him and Lusardi in November 2010, Ross said he didn’t want to be chief, but others in the department wanted him to be.

Ross, Rizza said, “felt they threw him under the bus” and wouldn’t listen to him.

Lusardi testified Ross had told her his men wouldn't listen to him and that he was unhappy.

According to testimony:

• Ross couldn’t control overtime, which exceeded the 2010 budget of $93,000 by about $50,000. This was in part because Ross would not use his ability to deny officers from taking comp time in some cases. At the time, the borough had a minimum shift requirement of a sergeant on all shifts and at least one officer.
• Ross did not notify Rizza of an attempted child luring in October. Instead, Rizza said he learned several hours later from the school superintendent. The delay, he said, prevented prompt notification to borough residents using the borough’s reverse 911 system.
• Rizza learned from another officer in November that police cars weren’t being well-maintained and that cameras in two of the cars hadn’t been working for about a year.
• Officers were also not walking beats as required by borough code. In 2009, officers walked 126 foot patrols, and 83 in 2010 and one in the early part of 2011.

Lautner also suggested the police may have had reasons for not coming forth with information about the attempted child luring. Rizza and McMeans said public safety should take precedence.

Lautner also said vehicle maintenance wasn’t in Ross’ job description. And, he suggested, police were walking more beats than those that were logged.

In his cross-examination, Lautner asked Rizza why he sought to demote Ross by holding a Loudermill hearing—essentially a due process hearing at which a public employee facing discipline can present his or her side—on Feb. 18, just six days after council had given Ross 60 days to comply with its latest directives.

Rizza said that was because Ross' reactions during the hearing indicated he had no intentions to following council's instruction, saying "Bull----. Council is not my boss."

At the end of the hearing, Rizza said, Ross complained of shortness of breath. He left the meeting and was taken by ambulance to the hospital and went out on sick leave until about early April.

Gabriel characterized that as a "panic attack," to audience groans. Lautner objected and was sustained.

The hearing before the borough’s civil service meeting lasted nearly six hours. The audience of about 70 was packed with Ross’ supporters, including family, police officers and firefighters.

Lautner put on no evidence and made no opening statement at the quasi-judicial hearing. After the hearing, he said, the reasons cited by council to demote Ross were no longer a problem.

The commission is not expected to rule for at least 60 days: In 30 days, the hearing transcripts must be completed, then each side has 30 days to present its conclusions of law.