Arbitrator Albert Murphy, a Hartford lawyer, said Wednesday he was working on the report which will contain findings of fact based on the testimony and evidence presented at Chief Lysaght’s December termination hearing. The report also will contain Mr Murphy’s recommendations on whether the Police Commission should fire Chief Lysaght.

The Police Commission alleges Chief Lysaght has not performed adequately as the town’s top law enforcement officer, and thus is seeking to fire him.

 Mr Murphy declined to disclose the contents of his report.  “I’ve got a lot of editing to do,” he said.

Testimony given at the four-day termination hearing amounts to about 750 pages of typewritten transcripts. Well over 100 pieces of evidence were submitted. The Police Commission’s allegations against the chief and his defense against the allegations formed the basis of almost 20 hours of sworn testimony at the termination hearing.

In considering Mr Murphy’s report, the Police Commission will be bound by his findings of fact, but not bound by his recommendations.

“It’s been one of the more difficult cases I’ve been involved in,” Mr Murphy said, citing the complexities of the Police Commission’s termination action against the chief. 

A key aspect of his report involves establishing the facts in the case, Mr Murphy said. In some cases, the facts are easily determined, but in other cases the facts are not so apparent, he said.

Judgment comes into play in gauging the credibility of witnesses and realizing that different witnesses have different agendas, Mr Murphy said.

Mr Murphy said the scope of the case – a Police Commission seeking to fire a police chief – is broader than the labor matters he typically arbitrates. His work more commonly involves deciding on labor grievances and contractual violations concerning lower level workers.

Police Commission Chairman James Reilly said Wednesday that after receiving Mr Murphy’s report, the commission will review it with its legal counsel to decide how to proceed.

The commission may act on whether to terminate Chief Lysaght at a special meeting this month, or at its next regular meeting March 7, Mr Reilly said.

 In January, the Police Commission’s attorney, David Zabel, and attorney John Kelly, representing Chief Lysaght, filed briefs in the case, summarizing and amplifying the points they made during the four-day job termination hearings. In the legal papers, Mr Zabel argues that Chief Lysaght should be terminated. Mr Kelly argues that the Police Commission has not demonstrated “just cause” for a firing. A firing would be subject to appeal by Chief Lysaght in Danbury Superior Court.

Commission members claim Chief Lysaght, 50, has not demonstrated the planning, management and leadership skills needed to effectively run the police department, and are thus seeking to terminate him. Commission members allege the chief has lost credibility and has damaged police department morale.

Mr Kelly has responded that the commission’s complaints amount to “philosophical differences” over how to run a police department, adding that the chief has become a victim of “petty politics.”

The action against the chief is administrative in nature, and does not involve any allegations of criminal wrongdoing.

Police Captain Michael Kehoe has run the police department since early July when the Police Commission placed Chief Lysaght on administrative leave, with full pay and benefits.