Officer’s firing upheld
ENGLEWOOD — Here is a synopsis of the facts, arguments and decision in former police officer Keith Sigler’s grievance against the city.
What happened • In early February 2006, Susan Sigler wrote and sent an anonymous handbill to 30 people . The handbill made several complaints about the police department, urging citizens “to ask your city council why we are tolerating this injustice.”
• During the same period, she also sent two anonymous letters to the Clark County sheriff alleging that a patrol officer now married to the police chief failed to disclose that she was pregnant at the time of her 2004 divorce in Clark County from her then husband.
• In March 2006, the city manager fired patrol officer Keith Sigler for his alleged knowledge of the anonymous documents and failing to tell his superiors about his wife’s authorship of the documents.
• The Ohio Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association filed a grievance on behalf of Keith Sigler claiming the firing was without just cause. That grievance was denied by the city, and both sides agreed to take the matter to arbitration.
• Arbitrator Frank Keenan heard two days of testimony and after nearly two years, delivered a decision denying the grievance.
What the city alleges
The city claimed Keith Sigler was involved in the writing and distributing of the documents, initially lied about his role, and failed to tell his superiors that his wife was involved and that “discredited and embarrassed a co-worker.”
The spreading of false and misleading information about the operation of the department was part of vicious smear campaign against the police chief, his wife, the police department, city manager and the city, the city said. As such, the anonymous documents were not protected under the First Amendment.
The union’s position
The union claimed Keith Sigler had no role, much less knowledge, of his wife’s intentions until after the documents were distributed. Nor did he lie to investigators. Instead, the union said he was unjustly fired for his wife’s exercise of her First Amendment rights, and investigators failed to give him the required listing of his rights during their questioning of him.
The arbitrator ruled
Before ruling on the free speech issue, Keenan started with other issues, ruling the evidence presented him did not prove Keith Sigler knew about or had any role in the writing or distributing of the documents.
The city could not assume, he said, that because the couple was married, they shared all of their thoughts.
Precedents
Keenan used two U.S. Supreme Court rulings to determine the free speech issue.
The first found a school teacher should not be fired for complaining that the school board was spending too much on athletics. Even though some of the information was incorrect, the teacher, as a citizen, was publicly addressing a matter of public concern in a local newspaper. Also, the court said, neither the teacher’s work in the classroom nor his relationship to his direct supervisor were affected by his actions as a citizen.
The second found an assistant district attorney resisting a transfer could be fired for insubordination for circulating a questionnaire asking colleagues for their opinions on office policies, morale and effectiveness of supervisors. Rather than a matter of public concern, it was more about a disgruntled employee looking to stir the pot.
The handbill
Keenan looked at the veracity of the allegations contained in Susan Sigler’s handbill. He found that except for the first paragraph — outlining anti-fraternization policies of industry and the military, and the fact the City Council passed a similar ordinance following the chief’s marriage to the patrol officer — the remainder was false or misleading.
Keenan said both the handbill and the letters to the sheriff were filled with “reckless” allegations.
Fourteen of the city’s 17 officers had another word for the allegations. The officers called the allegations “crap” in a letter to the mayor.
Unable to respond
Unlike the teacher’s public statements to a newspaper in the first high court decision, Susan Sigler mailed out 30 copies of the handbill and could not recall everyone on her distribution list.
The city could not reasonably respond to the reckless charges because it had no idea who had received the handbill. Nor could the city reasonably write a letter to the editor because that would spread the reckless charges to more people,” Keenan said.
Husband’s role
Finally, when Keith Sigler failed to tell his superiors that his wife had written and distributed the documents — “thereby assist the city and the department in a response” — he was endorsing his wife’s reckless allegations, Keenan said.
Arbitrator unloads
The letters to the Clark County sheriff were “nothing less than a smear campaign. … It can only be inferred that such a mean spirited action was truly egregious … and was done to advance the common agenda of first (Susan Sigler) and later (Keith Sigler) of hopefully ridding (Keith Sigler’s) workplace of the (chief’s wife) or the chief.”
“The reckless nature of Ms. Sigler and (Keith Sigler’s) comments undermine their constitutional protection,” he concluded.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment | Categories: Englewood
Comments