Date: Fri 23-Apr-1999

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

Lysaght-evaluation-defense

Full Text:

Lysaght Offers A Defense Of His Performance

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

Police Chief James E. Lysaght, Jr, has refuted the Police Commission's

allegations of poor job performance, providing a different perspective on the

events described in his recent negative job performance evaluation.

Chief Lysaght April 15 provided the Police Commission with a lengthy, detailed

response to its evaluation. The document was disclosed under the provisions of

the state Freedom of Information Act.

"If the Town of Newtown's Board of Police Commissioners seeks to terminate me,

I request that the board comply with the requirements of Connecticut General

Statutes, Section 7-278," the chief writes in a cover letter to the

commission.

That state law describes procedures a police commission must follow when it

seeks to fire a police chief. Under that law, no police chief can be fired

unless there is a showing of just cause by the police commission and the chief

has been given notice in writing of the specific grounds for such a firing and

an opportunity to be heard in his own defense, personally or by his lawyer, at

a public hearing before the commission.

In its evaluation, the commission finds the chief has not corrected

deficiencies in his performance which were listed in his preceding job

evaluation last September, and has not displayed the skills needed to

effectively lead and manage the police department.

In the chief's September evaluation, 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. In their April 6 job evaluation, Police

Commission members rate the chief's job performance as "unsatisfactory."

Chief Lysaght declined to elaborate on his written responses on April 16,

saying, "Each of the responses stands on its own." Those responses include

numerous footnotes referring to commission minutes and other documents. Chief

Lysaght offered no general comment about his job evaluation.

Police Commission Chairman James Reilly said Tuesday "Right now, we're

evaluating the response." Commission members will be acquiring and reviewing

the various documents which the chief referenced in his response, Mr Reilly

said.

"We want to give him a fair evaluation of his response ... We want to take our

time ... We have an obligation to review that fairly and thoroughly," Mr

Reilly said.

Whatever action commission members eventually take will have significant

consequences for both the town and Chief Lysaght, Mr Reilly said.

Police Commission members will decide what action to take based on the chief's

response to the evaluation, Mr Reilly has said. The commission's options range

from "doing nothing" to "dismissal" of the chief, according to the chairman.

Specific Response

In the evaluation, the commission alleges 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 responds: "I have faithfully done everything in my power to improve

the [police department's] training function. As evidence of this fact, I point

to the 87 percent increase in the [police department's] training and education

budget account, in just two and a half years."

According to the commission, 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 responds: "For two and a half years, I and my administrative

personnel, captains Michael Fekete and Owen Carney, have worked hard to push

this project toward completion."

According to the Police Commission, 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, according to the

commission.

In response, the chief describes the criticism as "an inaccurate portrayal of

what has occurred in the department's effort to upgrade its computer system."

The chief states he had told commission members that software had been

installed in the laptop computers, not that the computers had been installed

in patrol cars.

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 [police] department who were

involved with this incident," according to the commission.

In response, the chief states "[The allegation] presents the `facts' in a

rather unique and imaginative manner. Unfortunately it has little to do with

the reality of conducting internal investigations or administrative law." In

his response the chief presents a detailed chronology of how the investigation

unfolded.

According to the commission, the chief has not followed a June 1998 commission

directive to increase staffing levels for patrol shifts.

The chief responds "[The allegation] is erroneous on its face, because the

assumptions upon which it is based ignore the laws of the State of Connecticut

[e.g. the Municipal Employees Relations Act] and the charter of the Town of

Newtown that vests all rights to negotiate with employee bargaining units in

the office of the first selectman. It also ignores the staffing levels

actually existing within the [police department], and lack of knowledge of

professionally accepted scheduling techniques, and reflects and/or contains

multiple contradictory directives."

Task Force

The commission states that 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 did not learn of the

withdrawal until December 1998, according to the commission.

The chief responds: "[The allegation] is faulty. I continue to believe that

narcotics enforcement must be a priority ... The [police department] has not

withdrawn from participation in the Statewide Narcotics Task Force. We are not

precluded from assigning one of our officers to service in the Statewide

Narcotics Task Force. We have several officers who would welcome the

opportunity to serve in such a unit. The reality of the situation is such,

however, that higher priority needs must be met first."

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

and how he handles related overtime costs.

In response the chief writes "[The allegation] infers that I am somehow

derelict in my duties and that the manner in which I choose to lead the

[police department] is not acceptable. The implied allegations are baseless."

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

questioning his approach to buying such vehicles for the town.

In response, the chief states "Once again, the evaluation insinuates that I

have somehow blundered in the performance of my duty... My decision was guided

by the hope of reducing the negative financial impact upon the Town of

Newtown, while avoiding the potentially disastrous repercussions upon the

viability of the [police department's] motor vehicle fleet and affiliated

patrol division operations."

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

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

Chief Lysaght responds, in part, "In recent weeks, Mr [George] Mattegat has

informed he is no longer interested in working at the dog pound during the

holidays for compensatory time off. The kennel keeper [Pat] Anzellotti,

however, is very much interested in working at the dog pound on holidays. The

beauty of the situation is that Anzellotti will be working at her

straight-time rate rather than at an `overtime' rate. In a classic `win-win'

style, the Town of Newtown receives the work that it needs in order to meet

state of Connecticut dog pound care mandates, Anzellotti picks up the extra

hours of work she wants, and Mattegat gets off the holidays."

According to the commission, the chief canceled six of eight scheduled staff

meetings on staff development, delegation of tasks, and the need for better

communications.

In response, the chief states that from April to December 1998, four staff

meetings were held, and three were canceled because supervisors were on

vacation, receiving training or were away for the Christmas holiday. The chief

writes he was unavailable for a staff meeting in July 1998 due to an injury.

"We averaged a staff meeting about every 60 days," he adds.

Report

According to the commission, it hired a patrolman on the chief's advice,

although the chief hadn't 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 terms the allegation "an incomplete and stilted portrayal of what

really occurred. A complete and impartial review of the matter reaffirms the

existing [police department] procedures concerning hiring and field training

and evaluation procedures...Eventually the employee was separated from service

from the [police department] due to numerous violations of the department's

rules and regulations."

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.

In response, the chief states "Much of the information posited as fact in [the

allegation] is based upon either misinformation or disinformation. It displays

a surprising lack of knowledge of the negotiated agreement."

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, according to the police board. The commission also alleges that

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.

In response, Chief Lysaght states, "While putting together the agenda for the

March 4, 1999, special meeting of the Police Commission, both commissioner

James Reilly and I inadvertently forgot the need to appoint an acting sergeant

to fill the vacancy that the captain promotion process would create in the

ranks of supervisors."

At the meeting, no other commission members noticed the oversight, the chief

adds. "The Police Commission made the captain's promotion with such speed that

I [was] caught off guard." The chief explains that he spoke to officer Raymond

Thompson who agreed to serve as the acting sergeant. "At the April 6, 1999,

meeting the commission voted to confirm my actions," the chief writes.

The commission alleges the chief did not act soon enough in developing cost

information on new police car purchases proposed in the 1999-2000 town budget.

In response, Chief Lysaght writes "[The allegation] of the April 6, 1999,

performance evaluation is blatantly wrong and misrepresents the truth... The

only delay in the [police department's] FY 1999-2000 budget process occurred

on December 8, 1998, when the members of the Police Commission voted to table

the budget discussions until the December 29, 1998, Police Commission

meeting." The budget was delivered to the town finance department before the

January 6, 1999, deadline, the chief adds.

According to the commission, 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 had not reported the matter to the commission. The evaluation

also describes problems with staff sick leave use, tardiness, and police

morale.

In response, the chief states, "The insinuations in [the allegation] are not

supported by the ongoing operations within the [police department] ... All

organizations have to continually address the concerns of employee absence and

tardiness and the [police department] is no different ... Most police

supervisors are allowed a measure of discretion in exercising their

disciplinary authority. I would hope that the chief of police is allowed to

enjoy the same consideration as a patrol sergeant. If, as a police supervisor,

I believe that it is more appropriate, effective and necessary to act as a

role model, teacher, coach, rather than a swaggering, screaming, demeaning

martinet, I will do so."

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

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

commission suggested that the chief assign patrol officers to report to

specific sergeants for better control and consistency in supervision.

The chief responds that such a proposal is under consideration.

"We would also have to sit down with representatives of the police union in

order to show that the proposed system did not constitute a `significant,

unilateral change in working conditions,'" he writes. The chief adds that

during February and early March he was busy trying to find a replacement for

an officer who retired rather than creating a plan to create a "squad system."

In its evaluation, the commission stated that in July 1998 the written reports

and evaluations of a probationary patrolman which 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.

Chief Lysaght responds that the conclusions reached in the allegation "fail to

take into account a number of critical facts." He provides a chronology of

events to explain his response and also questions why the matter was included

in his job performance evaluation.