Date: Fri 09-Apr-1999

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

Lysaght-police-commission

Full Text:

Commission Sets The Stage To Fire Police Chief

(with photo)

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

Police Chief James E. Lysaght, Jr, has not corrected deficiencies in his

performance, which were listed in his job evaluation last September, and has

not displayed the skills needed to effectively lead and manage the police

department, according to a new job performance evaluation prepared by the

Newtown Police Commission.

Police Commission members provided their job evaluation to Chief Lysaght April

6 in a closed session which followed a tense preliminary open meeting.

The evaluation alleges, "The chief has failed to provide plans when requested

and to address problems. His failure to plan and to focus on problems has

caused the department to lose direction. He has lost credibility with the

personnel of the department and with the Board of Police Commissioners. His

actions, and in some cases his inaction, has seriously damaged department

morale. The deficiencies noted above also demonstrate the chief's failure to

meet the goals set by the board and to which he agreed. Chief Lysaght has not

demonstrated the leadership nor management skills necessary for the effective

and efficient operation of the department."

In Chief Lysaght's last job evaluation in September, Police Commission members

stated that unless his performance improves to a satisfactory level and unless

he meets the goals he agreed to with the Police Commission, the commission

believes it will have just cause to fire him.

Police Commission Chairman James Reilly said Wednesday the evaluation given to

the chief could set the stage for a public hearing on the chief's dismissal at

which the commission presents its case and the chief offers a defense.

Whether the matter progresses to a public hearing depends on the chief's

response to the evaluation, Mr Reilly said.

Commission members April 6 unanimously endorsed the chief's job evaluation.

They also directed the chief to respond to the evaluation in writing by April

15.

Mr Reilly said Chief Lysaght has not kept the commission fully informed as he

had been directed to do by the commission. Also, the chief hasn't always

faithfully carried out the commission's directives, Mr Reilly said.

"This is his second unsatisfactory evaluation," Mr Reilly said. "The

commission wants to wait for the chief's response" and decide what action to

take, he said. "We have to let this thing develop," Mr Reilly said.

"At this point, we just have to let the chief read over the evaluation, think

on it and make a response," Mr Reilly said.

"We're trying to give him a fair evaluation ... to better the operation of the

department as whole," Mr Reilly said. "We want an efficient, effective police

department as a whole," he added.

"It's an unfortunate situation for all involved," First Selectman Herb

Rosenthal said this week. "There's no winners in this situation. There's

serious allegations in [the evaluation]. I don't know where it goes from

here."

Response

Chief Lysaght said Wednesday that before commenting on the evaluation he wants

to speak with his lawyer about it. Chief Lysaght said he believes it was his

right to have his lawyer present Tuesday night when he was given the

evaluation by the commission. Police Commission members refused to allow that,

thus violating his basic rights, he said.

Tuesday night, after the 30-minute executive session, Chief Lysaght said, "I

don't think it's appropriate to respond right now. It's going to take some

time to consider it. I have to consider the process I went through."

On his job evaluation form Chief Lysaght wrote: "I was allowed to review the

attached document. I do not accept the opinions voiced in this document nor do

I waive any of my rights to counsel or other related benefits."

The Police Commission meeting Tuesday night proceeded smoothly for two hours

until the chief's job evaluation came up as an agenda item.

Mr Reilly told Chief Lysaght the meeting would enter a closed session for

commission members to present the evaluation to him, unless the chief wanted

the matter addressed in open session.

At that point, Chief Lysaght asked whether his lawyer could be present. His

lawyer was supposed to attend the meeting but some reason had not arrived, the

chief explained.

Chief Lysaght requested that the matter be postponed until his lawyer could be

present. The chief noted he had not been allowed to participate in the

formulation of his job evaluation. He said he was told not to attend a March

31 commission meeting at which his job evaluation was written. He said he

participated in his past job evaluations but was not asked to do so this time.

Again, Mr Reilly asked if Chief Lysaght wanted the evaluation discussed in

open session. Chief Lysaght again requested that the matter be postponed. "It

puts me in a rather precarious position" without having a lawyer present, the

chief said.

Chief Lysaght said he had been "interrogated" by Mr Reilly on March 26 and was

told by Mr Reilly on March 29 that his presence was not needed at the March 31

commission session where his job performance would be evaluated.

"I would request that the commission table this ... I'm at a disadvantage ...

and I hope the commission would act in a fair manner," the chief said.

At that point, Mr Reilly asked again whether the chief wanted the session to

remain open or be closed to the public.

"I protest this ... I'd like to make a phone call," Chief Lysaght said.

"You're out of order," Mr Reilly responded.

Commission members then voted to enter a closed session with the chief which

lasted 30 minutes, after which they unanimously adopted the job evaluation and

instructed the chief to respond to it in writing by April 15.

Evaluation

In the evaluation dated April 6, Police Commission members gave Chief Lysaght

the lowest of five possible scores, "marginal," in four general categories:

planning, management of resources, implementation of policy, and leadership.

Commission members also gave the chief the lowest possible mark in areas

including: supervision of people; creative ability; attention to costs;

communication ability; delegating ability; problem solving ability; job

knowledge; ability to plan and organize work; and leadership ability.

"The Board of Police Commissioners evaluates Chief Lysaght's job performance

during this period as unsatisfactory. The chief has failed to meet the goals

agreed upon at his last evaluation. The chief has failed to improve in those

aspects of his performance which were previously evaluated as unsatisfactory,"

according to the commission.

In the evaluation, the commission lists numerous objections to the chief's

behavior.

According to the commission:

The chief has not developed a plan to address staff training deficiencies as

he was directed to do by the commission in August 1997.

The chief has not provided a detailed plan including costs and a construction

schedule, as requested, for the relocation of the police communications

antenna.

The chief has not presented a computer equipment upgrade plan for the police

department as was requested by the commission. Although the chief told

commission members in June 1998 that laptop computers were installed in nine

police patrol cars, the computers have not yet been installed and are stored

in the police station.

The commission criticized the chief on his handling of a November/December

1998 internal affairs investigation involving a sergeant's allegation that a

patrolman had used police department equipment without authorization. "The

matter never should have escalated to an internal affairs investigation or

discipline. Furthermore, the investigation the chief approved was poor. No

statements were taken from three members of the department who were involved

with this incident," according to the commission.

The chief has not followed a June 1998 commission directive to increase

staffing levels for patrol shifts.

In February 1998, the chief requested and received commission support for

continuing the police department's participation in the Statewide Narcotics

Task Force. In July 1998, the chief withdrew the police department from the

task force, but the commission didn't learn of the withdrawal until December

1998.

The commission objects to how the chief staffs and schedules radio dispatchers

and how he handles related overtime costs.

The commission objects to the chief's plans for purchasing police cars,

questioning his approach to buying such vehicles for the town.

Commission members contend the chief misled them concerning funding to cover a

town employee's pay for weekend and holiday dog pound work.

The chief canceled six of eight scheduled staff meetings on staff development,

delegation of tasks, and the need for better communications.

The commission hired a patrolman on the chief's advice, although the chief had

not yet received a required psychological report on the person. "The

psychologist's report on this candidate was not favorable. The chief failed to

bring this information to the attention of the board," according to the

commission.

The chief has not completed an evaluation of the sergeant in charge of the

detective division which was due in October 1998.

The chief's March appointment of a patrolman to the post of acting sergeant

exceeded the chief's authority and was done without the knowledge of the

commission. The commission alleges the chief misled the first selectman,

telling him that the commission was aware of the appointment of the acting

sergeant when a payroll change was being made for the acting sergeant's post.

The chief did not act soon enough in developing cost information on new police

car purchases proposed in the 1999-2000 town budget.

The chief told the commission chairman on March 26 that he had documented

violations of the department's rules and regulations by a police supervisor,

but took no action because of the popularity of the individual and hadn't

reported the matter to the commission. The evaluation also describes problems

with staff sick leave use, tardiness and police morale.

"There are no clear lines of authority and responsibilities for personnel

below the supervisor level," according to the Police Commission.

In July 1998, the written reports and evaluations of a probationary patrolman,

who the commission was considering terminating, were found to be incomplete.

Also, field training and evaluation procedures had not been followed,

resulting in the commission being compelled to extend the employee's service.

Following his review the various allegations, Chief Lysaght wrote on the

evaluation document "At the above time and date I was permitted to review this

document for the first time. I do not agree with the contents of this

document. I was denied the right to have appropriate legal counsel and I do

not waive any of my legal rights."

In a vote of confidence on the police chief conducted by the police union in

September 1997, almost all union members who voted expressed "no confidence"

in Chief Lysaght, criticizing his management style.

Chief Lysaght started work as head of the police department in July 1996,

after leaving his post as second-in-command of the Bristol Police Department.

He and his family moved to Newtown from Bristol last summer.