Lysaght Denied

Unemployment Benefits 

By Andrew Gorosko

The state Department of Labor (DOL) has dismissed an unemployment compensation appeal filed by former police chief James E. Lysaght, Jr, determining that Mr Lysaght engaged in “willful misconduct” while employed by the town before his March firing, and thus is not eligible to receive unemployment checks.

In the decision issued December 13 by DOL appeals referee John W. Blair, Jr, the referee affirms an April 6 decision by a DOL administrator, which denied Mr Lysaght unemployment checks following his March 3 termination by the Police Commission.

In firing Mr Lysaght from the $65,280 annual position last March, Police Commission members decided the 51-year-old Sandy Hook resident did not demonstrate the leadership, planning, and management skills necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the police department.

Following his dismissal, Mr Lysaght filed an administrative appeal of his termination in Danbury Superior Court, seeking reinstatement as police chief. Judge William Holden is expected to rule on that appeal soon.

In his December 13 decision, Mr Blair writes, “The employer [Town of Newtown] discharged the claimant [Lysaght] for knowing violations of its reasonable and uniformly enforced rules and policies, which were reasonably applied. The employer… discharged the claimant… for a knowing violation of its rules which constituted willful misconduct in the course of his employment. As a result, the claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.”

Mr Blair heard Mr Lysaght’s appeal on July 20. In that appeal, Mr Lysaght contested a DOL administrator’s April 6 decision against awarding him unemployment benefits. The administrator found that Mr Lysaght had been discharged by the town due to “willful misconduct” in the course of his employment. Applicable state law provides that a worker is ineligible for unemployment benefits if it is determined he was discharged for “willful misconduct.”

Analysis

In his analysis of the appeal, Mr Blair finds that the Police Commission’s rules and directives pertaining to the Lysaght appeal involve requirements for: truthfulness at all times; reporting any condition which may render an employee unfit for duty; observance of the police department’s chain of command; keeping the commission fully informed of police department operations; and keeping the commission fully informed of matters which may affect the department’s operation or its budget. Mr Blair finds that the rules and directives, which applied to Mr Lysaght, are reasonable and that Mr Lysaght was fully aware of those rules and directives.

“Regarding [Lysaght’s] appointment of an acting sergeant and providing less than truthful information to the first selectman, [Lysaght] knowingly violated the employer’s rules. Although [Lysaght] contended that this action was based on his belief that it would save the [town] money, the ends do not justify the means,” Mr Blair writes.

According to Mr Blair’s findings of fact: in early 1999, a sergeant’s vacancy occurred in the police department. The Police Commission had expressed its desire not to place anyone in the position of “acting sergeant.” Mr Lysaght unilaterally appointed a patrolman to the post of acting sergeant and then submitted a payroll change notice to the first selectman. The first selectman later expressed surprise about the payroll change, since the Police Commission had expressed a desire for not creating “acting” positions. Mr Lysaght told the first selectman that the commission had approved the acting sergeant position, knowing that it was untrue. Mr Lysaght later justified the move to the first selectman, saying that it would save the town money.

 Also, Mr Blair questions Mr Lysaght’s April 1999 statement to the Police Commission that he had “recently” discovered technical problems with laptop computers in police patrol cars.

“[Lysaght] knowingly violated the employer’s rule regarding truthfulness at all times. Clearly, that discovery was not recent and he had not timely [informed] the [commission] of that situation.”

According to Mr Blair’s findings of fact: Mr Lysaght had learned of the problem with the computers in July 1998, but he told the commission in April 1999 that he “recently” discovered the problem.

Mr Blair also found fault with Mr Lysaght’s failure to advise the Police Commission concerning problems with two candidates for the position of police officer.

“[Lysaght] violated the employer’s rule requiring him to report any condition which may render an employee unfit for duty. The information was of critical significance to the [commission] in its assessment of the suitability for duty of the candidates.”

In his findings of fact, Mr Blair states Mr Lysaght did not advise the commission about negative psychological assessments of the two candidates until he was later confronted on the matter by a commission member.

Mr Blair also found that Mr Lysaght failed to keep the commission fully informed of police department operations, including internal investigations of police personnel, through April 1, 2000, thus knowingly violating a commission directive issued to him in a September 1, 1998, job performance evaluation.

 In his findings of fact, Mr Blair states that in November 1998, a police internal affairs investigation was conducted concerning a complaint by a dispatcher of alleged abusive conduct by a sergeant, but no report was made to the commission on the matter until March 1999.

 Also, police conducted an internal investigation concerning alleged abusive conduct by a sergeant in connection with a patrolman’s use of a patrol car on a private duty police job, but Mr Lysaght provided no information on the matter until the investigation was complete, according to Mr Blair. 

Mr Blair’s decision will become final January 4 unless, before that date, Mr Lysaght appeals the decision to the DOL Board of Review, or seeks to have Mr Blair reopen, vacate, set aside, or modify his ruling.

In July 1999, the Police Commission placed Mr Lysaght on administrative leave with full pay and benefits. At that time, the commission placed Captain Michael Kehoe in charge of the police department. The commission named Capt Kehoe the “acting police chief” last April, one month after it fired Mr Lysaght.      

Police Commission Chairman James Reilly has said the commission does not plan to select a permanent police chief until the outcome of the Lysaght court appeal is clear.