EXCLUSIVE: OLDHAM COUNTY POLICE MERIT BOARD REINSTATES FIRED POLICE OFFICER

The Oldham County Police Merit Board voted unanimously today to overturn the termination decision of Oldham County Police Chief Michael Griffin and reinstated Officer Tom Douglas to his position of Patrolman with the department. Griffin had fired Douglas for failure to arrest a driver who is alleged to have been driving under the influence of alcohol. This hearing lasted for approximately 15 hours over a two day period ending with deliberations and a vote by the board. County Judge-Executive Murner sat with the board for the entire length of the hearings, however he did not cast a vote when the time came.
Officer Douglas has over eleven years of police experience with the majority of it as an officer with the Oldham County Police (OCPD). The OCPD has three levels of violations in their administrative code. They are referred to as levels A, B, and C with A being the most severe level. If an officer is guilty of more than one offense within a twenty-four month period, the level of a violation may be elevated to the next level. In the case of Officer Douglas, he had been charged with insubordination for using inappropriate language when speaking to a superior officer. According to testimony given by Officer Douglas, his Sergeant had called him on his day off and ordered him to report in full dress uniform the following day (which was another of Douglas’ scheduled days off) in order to attend the funeral of the sister of a fellow officer. Douglas told his Sergeant that he was going to attend the funeral but that he was going with another officer and that he was not coming to the station in order to carpool with other officers to the funeral. He further stated that he did not want to tie up his entire off-duty day. He testified that the Sergeant then swore at him and that he became upset and swore at the Sergeant. For this he was charged with insubordination. The department did not offer any testimony that was contrary to Douglas’ testimony.

Subsequently, Douglas also responded to a domestic violence situation. After the completion of his investigation in the case, he admitted to having further contact with the victim on one occasion which was stated to be a class “C” violation of the OCPD code. Douglas admitted that he had contacted the victim and did not dispute the allegations. The OCPD had alleged that he had also contacted another victim of domestic violence. However, that person would not confirm the allegations and no evidence was proffered to substantiate the department’s claim.

The third and final violation involved the failure of Officer Douglas to arrest a driver for “Driving Under the Influence (DUI).” Officer Douglas was responding to an accident on KY Highway 22 in an area known as “Bridge Hill”. The hill has become infamous due to the number of accidents that have occurred in the area due to its slope and extreme curvature. As a matter of fact, the state highway department has recently put a special coating on the highway surface in an attempt to reduce the number of accidents.

Officer Douglas stated that when he responded to the request for an officer at the accident scene, he was advised by the dispatcher that alcohol may be involved. Douglas testified that upon arriving at the scene he gave the driver a Portable Breathalyzer Test (PBT) and that the results reflected a 0.14. The level limit of 0.08 is the threshold for charging a driver with driving under the influence of alcohol. However, a key point in the testimony was that the PBT is not admissible in court and therefore, is not sufficient probable cause, standing alone, to arrest a person for DUI. Douglas testified that it had been raining and that due to the prevailing conditions he decided that his primary duty should be to control the traffic and try to prevent anyone from being injured. He stated further that after observing the driver for approximately twenty-five minutes while he was walking around and after observing that the driver’s eyes were not glassy, that he could not detect the odor of alcohol on the driver, and that the driver was very stable on his feet, he concluded that there was not sufficient probable cause to arrest the driver for DUI. Additionally, the driver asked Douglas to get a wrecker to tow his car due to the condition of it (It was later determined to be a total loss). Douglas obtained a wrecker for the driver. In the meantime, someone came to get the driver and the driver left the scene with person. It was stated during testimony that the driver believed he was having problems with one of the wheel bearings on his vehicle prior to the wreck.

Because Douglas used his discretion to not arrest the driver, the department management alleged that he was guilty of inefficiency. This was alleged to have been a class “C” violation. The department then elevated the charge to a class “A” violation since it was Douglas’ third violation within a twenty-four month period. One of the penalties for a class “A” violation is termination of employment, although a suspension could have been given instead of termination. Additionally, Douglas had only received written reprimands for his prior two offenses and had never received any suspensions, which are required by OCPD guidelines for increased disciplinary actions. Following Douglas’ termination, OCPD Lt. Col. Billy Way contacted the Kentucky State Police (KSP) to request a criminal investigation into Official Misconduct by Officer Douglas, after Douglas had requested a hearing before the Merit Board. An investigation and report by the KSP was presented to a District Court Judge who refused to move forward with prosecution based upon a lack of evidence and probable cause in the action’s taken by Douglas in relation to his non-arrest of the vehicle driver.

Another key point in the testimony was the revelation that former OCPD Sergeant Congelton admitted during a deposition that he had also not arrested someone he stopped for DUI, even though they failed Field Sobriety Tests in his presence during the stop. He went on to admit that his decision was based in part on the fact that the passenger in the vehicle worked for the commonwealth’s attorney’s office. Sgt. Congelton was not disciplined in any way for his actions by Chief Michael Griffin nor any of his staff. However, Griffin chose to fire Officer Douglas for his decision to not arrest the driver of the vehicle involved in the single car accident, even though his determination at the scene was that the driver was not under the influence.

The Merit Board actually found that all of the allegations were supported, but that the Department had errantly classified the third violation as a class “A” violation. They found that the third violation should have been classified as a class “B” violation. Thus, the Merit Board found that the appropriate penalty should have been a ten-day suspension instead of termination. The result is that Douglas will receive back pay and be reinstated to his former position, however he will be placed on a new probationary period. It is clear that the Merit Board’s decision was likely an effort to “please everyone.” It is this author’s opinion that Douglas should not have received any punishment for his failure to arrest the driver of the vehicle as no evidence was ever presented to indicate that the driver was intoxicated, that he was driving under the influence of alcohol or that there was sufficient evidence to show probable cause to arrest the driver. The OCPD and County Attorney’s office case against Officer Douglas was weak at best and the termination never should have been carried out against him. Police Chief Michael Griffin clearly did not follow his own department’s policies when it came to discipline of Officer Douglas. Could this be because Griffin’s goal was to fire Officer Douglas? In his sworn testimony, Douglas stated that Griffin told him he wanted to fire him. Chief Griffin denied that allegation and there was no other person present.

There are many underlying effects of the decision by the Merit Board. First, the Board apparently seemed to agree that Douglas should have arrested the driver for DUI even though there was not any admissible evidence whatsoever that the driver was driving under the influence of alcohol. As a matter of fact, an independent investigation conducted by the Kentucky State Police found that the driver, after being granted immunity, had admitted to having consumed two 12-ounce beers twenty to thirty minutes before the accident. In essence, the actions of the OCPD and the Merit Board appear to have removed discretion from the officers’ tool chest while performing their duties. Anyone attending this hearing walked away well aware of the key role that discretion plays in officer’s decision-making on a routine basis.

What does this mean for the citizens of Oldham County? Well, don’t be surprised if you are stopped for speeding when only driving slightly over the limit and subsequently given a citation instead of a warning. While patrol officers may not desire to carry out their duties in such manners, reckless decisions such as the one handed down today may force their hands. I really believe that not too many of the citizens want the officers to lose their ability to temper their decisions with discretion. Citizens should not be surprised if they are cited for infractions that they may or may not be guilty of committing simply because the officer may be afraid that he/she will be reprimanded and perhaps eventually dismissed if a citation is not issued or an arrest made. Just consider what kind of policing that could bring about. It makes me shiver! Shame on the Board for establishing this type of precedent. Now, if officers decide not to carry out their duties because they fear they will make an incorrect decision and later be punished, the public could also be in a state of not having adequate police protection. Neither of these results would be good for Oldham County. We have been accustomed to having excellent policing by both the OCPD and the Oldham County Sheriff’s Department. We deserve to continue having the same.

I spent two long days observing the aforementioned hearings and I observed a lot. There will be many more comments forthcoming. One interesting observation was that there was no member of the press present to report on the actions of the Merit Board. That is shameful!

At least Officer Douglas has his job back and in my opinion he deserved to be reinstated. However, now he will certainly be under a microscope by Chief Michael Griffin if he is placed on probation. I would not want to be in his position.

THIN SKINNED MAGISTRATES ARE OUTED

Are the magistrates of the Oldham County Fiscal Court thin-skinned or do they just not want to communicate with their constituents? Perhaps a little bit of both. During the last Fiscal Court meeting on October 6, 2009, the ordinance relating to the refinancing of the sewer district debt was on the agenda. Magistrate Scott Davis had circulated a flyer to about half of the residences in the county. The flyer advised the people that the ordinance, if passed, could result in additional taxes for all property owners in the county. Although that statement was true as well as the remainder of the flyer, the other magistrates, with the exception of Magistrate Bob Leslie and Magistrate Bob Diebel, were quite disturbed by the flyer.

Some of the magistrates alleged that the flyer was misleading and some alleged that it was untrue. However not one magistrate cited an example of fiction in the flyer. One Magistrate, Iva Davis, said that she was not prepared to answer questions on the issue when contacted by her constituents. What is sad about this is that fact that she had received a full copy of the ordinance at the first reading in early October. Perhaps she had not read the ordinance even though she was going to vote on it. The sad thing is that not being informed would not be a first for many of the magistrates.

As for the flyer being misleading, a person would have to make some assumptions to come to that conclusion. The fact of the matter is that the flyer was accurate. At the time the flyer was circulated there was no payment agreement in place. In fact, there was not one in place until the meeting was almost over. An audit of the sewer district finances was still not completed when the ordinance was passed, even though it has been nearly 10 months since one ordered by the Fiscal Court. Passing the ordinance without an audit being completed was very irresponsible – that cannot be denied although I am sure that those voting for the ordinance would deny it.

Clearly, Magistrate Scott Davis’ flyer caught the magistrates off-guard in answering questions regarding the ordinance. Further, it appeared that they did not like receiving so many inquires. They get paid approximately $2000 per month to do their job. Shame on them for being upset!

It was clear to see that Magistrate Voegele also lost his temper. Many of the people in the audience to whom I spoke thought that he was chastising them for being at the meeting and for challenging his performance, which was lousy at best. He went so far as to chastise the audience for not having run for office and then speaking before and challenging the court. He even invited them to vote him out of office. I would not be surprised to see that happen. If Magistrate Voegele believes he has any chance whatsoever at becoming the next Judge-Executive, he needs to get a much better grip on reality in regards to how he is truly viewed by the Oldham County community.

Then there was Magistrate Rick Rash being his usual self. When he took his turn to pontificate, he decided to tell a religious joke – Jewish at that. Talk about opening your mouth and inserting your foot or “opening your mouth and removing all doubt” about your intelligence. Rash clearly demonstrated that he was a professional at both. If I were running against Rash this next term, I would just make a DVD of his performance and circulate one to every household in his district. The fact is, Fiscal Court is not the place to be telling religious jokes, especially in the midst of a serious discussion concerning a $7 million spending decision.

Even Duane Murner had the audacity to say that the flyer was misleading. Perhaps he better than anyone else would know the definition of the word as he is a master at practicing it. The fact is that Murner continues to be upset that his schemes are being publicized and his legacy is being cemented as one of the worst Judges in this county’s history.

In the end, Oldham County CFO Shawn Boyle made an attempt to outdo everyone by coming to the microphone and telling the court just how hard he works. Since the Fiscal Court is not his boss, I don’t know what his purpose was and he probably doesn’t either. At least he didn’t call me a “jackass” this time as he has in the past. However, he did make some convoluted remarks about Magistrate Scott Davis and me. Mr. Boyle needs to learn his place and stick to performing his job. He has convinced himself that he needs to orchestrate a show of standing up for his boss, Judge-Executive Murner. Doesn’t he realize that very few, if any, of the people in this county care to hear his lousy arguments.

Magistrate Scott Davis responded very well to every remark directed toward him. He was obviously better prepared for the questions and remarks of the other magistrates than they were for their own constituents’ questions. Hopefully his efforts will have forced the sewer district to set the rates high enough to keep the other taxpayers from having to foot this bill through either additional taxes or tax money taken from general fund revenues (our taxes).