Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCIV 1976-05-18 Minutes M I N U T E S ~ _ . APPEAL HEARING OF T.R. SHOCKLEY before CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION CITY OF NORTH RICHLAND HILLS, TEXAS May 18, 1976 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman John Green called the hearing to order at 7:30 p.m., in the City Hall Building, located at 7301 N.E. Loop 820. ROLL CALL: COMMISSION MII~ERS John H. Green, Chairman W. C. Moore, Vice Chairman Court Reporter for counsel for the Appellant: Ka.yla Goodson Hamp Scruggs, Chief of Police Thomas R. Shockley, Appellant Jeff Kearney, Attorney for Appellant Helen Cline, Deputy Secretary, Civil Service PROCEEDINGS: Chairma.n Green read the memo from Chief Scruggs to T. R. Shockley, dated 4-20-76, giving notice of indefinite suspension. A copy was handed to the Civil Service Commission on the 20th of April. The memo stated violation of Rule 1.03 of Departmental Rules, Chapter 14, Section, "Criticism." Also, reading into the record the appeal by Shockley which was received by the Civil Service on April 27th at 8:00 a.m. These documents were entered as evidence. REMARKS: John Green made prefacing remarks as to how the hearing would be conducted informa.lly and that it was not a court of law. The Commission is concerned in the process of justice more than technicalities of how to arrive at justice. The emphasis is on substance. SWEARING OF WITNESSES: All witnesses were sworn in by the Civil Service Commission. RULE OF WITNESSES: Counsel for the Appellant invoked the "rule of witnesses." (All witnesses were excused from the room.) Minutes of Appeal Hearing Ma.y 18, 1976 Page 2 MR. KEARNEY: Referring to the sworn statements from other employees, the attorney said there was a lack of any specific facts and the statements were assumptions, feelings and opinions. Also, he pointed out, that the department head should have sent a written statement to the Civil Service (after Shockley's appeal had been made) specifying the "truth of these specific violations or acts complained of." (Art. XVII, Section 16, of the City Charter) MR. GREEN: Responding that he presumed the act of filing the memo of April 20th would substantially constitute compliance with Section 16. The investigative report is in substantial compliance with Section 16. With Mr. Moore's permission, the Commission agreed that we do have substantial compliance with Section 16. Mr. Green pointed out the lack of aay defense in Shockley's appeal form. Chairman Green recommended that Attorney Kearney rest his case until the City presented its case. ~ MR. KEARNEY: Agreeing to the recommendation, he asked if they would be allowed a rebuttal later and permission to recall witnesses if needed. MR. GREEN: Assured Mr. Kearney that he would have ample opportunity to cross examine a11 witnesses. WITNESSES FOR CHIEF SCRUGGS FIRST WITNESS: Gary L. Sinclair, Detective 7401 Deaver North Richland Hills, Texas Identified his written statement and restated Shockley's rema.rks that the department was "out to get you." He said that Shockley had offered him advice on how to make up his stories so he could "get by." Sinclair quoted Shockley as saying you have to "cover up your tracks, they'll be out to get you." (Hearing recessed for five minutes.) (Hearing reconvened at 8:20 p.m.) SECOND WITNESS: Ernie R. Parrish 7905 Lazy Lane North Richland Hills, Texas (Identified his written statement for the record.) Minutes of Appeal Hearing May 18, 1976 Page 3 In summary, Parrish restated that 5hockley had continually found fault with the department, was displeased with it and felt this had been a burden to his mind. He referred to a specific instance of an arrest which Shockley made. He was very upset and critical of the administration and policies. At this time, Shockley threatened to quit, raising his voice in disagreement. Sergeant Parrish could not provide specific instances of improper criticism. MR. KEARNEY: Stated that the criminal case against Shockley was dismissed this week. (W3tness was excused.) THIRD WITNESS: Randy 5hiflet, Patrolman 6713 Karen North Richland Hills, Texas Referring to the same above-mentioned arrest, Randy quoted Shockley as saying, "when they got through playing politics they could tell the patrolman what to do." Patrolman Shiflet could not provide any other instances of criticism by Appellant. (Witness was excused.) FOURTH WITNESS: Kathie Drake, Secretary to Chief Scruggs Route 3, Box 708 Burleson, Texas (Identified her written statement for ~he record.) Recalled Shockley as saying, "that's the way it is when you have this kind of supervision." His attitude had been one of determination to rema.in here regardless of the circumstances and frequently referred to his previous suspension. Mrs. Drake provided no specific evidence. (Witness was excused.) INFORMATION: Lopez wi11 be in traffic court for another hour. FIFTH WITNESS: Cecil Proctor, Sergeant 4108 Jerri Lane Haltom City, Texas Testifying and confirming his written statement, Proctor stated that Shockley repeatedly ma.de remarks in the presence Minutes of Appeal He~ring ~ May 18, 1976 Page 4 of other officers ridiculing City Management, the Department, as well as discussing tds indictment. Shockley would give his opinion and act in times when it was not his place to do so. Sergeant Proctor could not provide specific evidence. (Witness was excused.) (A recess was called for 15 minutes.) (Hearing reconvened) SIXTH WITNESS: G. H. Lopez, Patrolman Route 2, Box 917-A Fort Worth, Texas (Witness was sworn in by the Commission.) (Witness identified written statement for the record and was excused.) MR. GREEN: Since the Civil Service insisted that this statement be admitted, counsel for Shockley was given the opportunity to state what he thinks is wrong with the statement. (Permission was granted to enter the document as evidence ~ and to release Lopez for other court duty.) MR. KEARNEY: Made a motion to strike everything in the written statement from Lopez that was not specific. MR. GREEN: Asked Kearney if he meant to strike all but lines 6, 7, 8 and part of line 9. Kearney agreed. CHIEF SCRUGGS: Acting as his own witness, made a statement that he and Shockley had talked about his prior indictment and his suspension. He said that Shockley would keep bringing it up even after the other employees wanted to forget about the problems of the past. About two weeks before this last suspension Scruggs asked Shockley whether or not he intended to stay here if he was acquitted. The Chief was concerned about the morale of the rest of the department. It was the other employees who initiated the suspension, feeling that Shockley's morale and talking had adversely affected the others. MR. KEARNEY: Do you think Tom is responsible for the split in the department that Sinclair referred to? CHIEF SCRUGGS: The Chief answered, "in my opinion, yes." Employees in the department have come to me and said that the morale is better since the suspension. MR. MOORE: Referred again to 1.03 Criticism, and read: "tends to impair-- interfering with the maintenance of discipline." v Minutes of Appeal Hearing May 18, 1976 Page 5 (This concluded Chief Scrugg`s case for the City.) (At 9:45 p.m. a recess was called for counsel to confer with Shockley.) (Hearing reconvened at 10:10 p.m.) MR. SHOCKLEY: Testifying in his own behalf, ma.de a lengthy statement. He said that in the first place he disagreed with the witnesses stating that he is always the one who brings up the sub~ect o£ his problems. Some others have made ~oking rema.rks about it. He said that he does not have the power of Hitler to influence people but he is one who has to talk things out to relieve the pressures. He also stated that he is a good officer and is not a bad person. He denied that he had publicly ridiculed the Police Department and said that his contact with the public is professional. MR. GREEN: In light- of all that has happened, could you work effectively with any of these sergeants; Proctor, Parrish, Lynn or Chenault? ~ MR. SHOCKLEY: Yes. MR. GREEN: Questioned the resulCs of al3enating oneself from the rest of the department. MR. MOORE: No questions. CHIEF SCRUGGS: No questions. SUNlMARY BY CHIEF SCRUGGS: I still say briefly that employees in the department initiated this suspension and they say that the morale has gotten better. I would not welcome him back to ~he department. It would be to the betterment of the entire department if he was not reinstated. MR. KEARNEY: I will point out that we have not had any factual evidence that Shockley publicly impaired the operation of the department. There was no evidence of obscene or unlawful acts that tends to impair, et cetera. This is not good enough evidence to take a man's job away from him. We cannot infringe on freedom of speech. We need evidence to uphold suspension. (Hearing was closed for delibe~ations at 10:40 p.m.) r Minutes of Appeal Nearing May 18, 1976 V Page 6 (Hearing reconvened at 11:30 p.m. after deliberations.) MR. GREEN: Results of deliberations - I make a motion as follows: T. ft. Shockley is hereby reinstated as an employee of the City of North Richland Hills, with full back pay from April 20, 1976 through May 19, 1976. Further, T. R. Shockley shall be placed on leave without pay from May 20, 1976 through May 31, 1976. He will return to full duty and pay status on June 1, 1976. The motion was seconded by Mr. Moore. Mr. Green and Mr. Moore both voted "for" the motion. (Hearing was concluded with that decision from the Civil Service Commission at 11:40 p.m.). John H. reen, Chairman CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ~ ~'-=~-~~C~ ~~~~~~'L~ ' H~len Cline, Depu~y Secretary CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION ENCLOSURES: 1. Memo from Hamp Scruggs, Chief of Police, to T. R. Shockley 2. Grievance Form from T. R. Shockley 3. Summary of Appeal Hearing on Ma.y 12, 1976 4. Internal Investigation by D. E. Brown 5. Sworn Statements by: Gary L. Sinclair E. R. Parrish R. C. Shiflet Kathie Drake Cecil D. Proctor G. H. Lopez 6. Decision - Dated May 18, 1976 7. Minutes of Appeal Hearing held May 18, 1976 ~