City of Oroville Police Department dispatcher and
past-POA treasurer, Laura Smith, was reinstated by Arbitrator Ronald Hoh
after the Department terminated her for "creating strife, discord
and discontent throughout the Department". Ms. Smith was
represented by LDF panel attorney, Paul Q. Goyette of Goyette &
Adams.
The department terminated Smith on August 28, 1997,
alleging that she engaged in a pattern of conduct that was critical of
the department and Police Chief Gordon Pitter, and caused division and
discontent throughout the department. Approximately in March 1997,
(unbeknownst to her), the department began an investigation to determine
whether Smith was involved in a romantic or sexual relationship with the
Technical Services Commander, a lieutenant. Not coincidentally, this
lieutenant was also under investigation by Chief Pitter, and was in the
middle of his own ongoing dispute with the chief and another lieutenant
in the department. At the time of this investigation, Smith was on the
Executive Board of the Police Officer’s Association and served as the
secretary and treasurer. Smith was an active and aggressive
representative of her members. Specifically, Smith was involved in a
grievance over whether the department had the right to change the MOU
and require some of the non-sworn members to wear Class A uniforms.
The department served Smith with a Notice of
Termination that set forth a series of charges ranging from allegations
that she was involved in a romantic relationship with a lieutenant, to
participating in conversations with her friends in the department, that
the chief determined to be undermining and divisive. Smith, in over 10
years, had never been the subject of any form of disciplinary action,
nor had her job performance or abilities ever been criticized on any
performance evaluation.
Smith’s arbitration hearing was conducted over four
days in November and December, 1997. At hearing, one of the first things
the department did was declare that all of the allegations against Smith
regarding her personal relationship with the Technical Services
commander were not allegations of misconduct, but were simply
"background information", so that the remainder of the charges
could be properly understood. The department changed its position
despite the fact that 85 percent of its investigation and dozens of
witness interviews covered only issues of whether Ms. Smith and the
lieutenant were involved in a romantic relationship. The department then
went on to have several witnesses testify, including Chief Pitter, about
conversations or meetings they had with Smith that the department viewed
as divisive or disruptive. Each witness admitted that a serious division
existed in the department between employees supportive of the chief and
employees who were critical of the Chief’s policies and
administration. However, despite the department’s efforts, each
witness also admitted that Laura Smith was not the cause of these
divisions within the department.
The department also alleged that Smith committed
misconduct by attending a meeting with other dispatchers and the chief
in which the dispatchers complained of their lieutenant’s management
style. As a member of the POA board of directors and a dispatcher, Smith
attended this meeting and contributed to the discussion. The department
alleged that Smith committed misconduct at this meeting, despite the
fact that Chief Pitter has a written "open door policy" to
discuss any matter within the department and he served as the immediate
supervisor of the lieutenant in question. Furthermore, no other employee
received any form of discipline for attending this meeting.
Arbitrator Ronald Hoh carefully analyzed each
allegation in a 58 page opinion. Hoh found that in a majority of cases,
Smith’s conduct was not designed to cause a disruption within the
department. Moreover, Hoh found that even in the rare cases where Smith’s
conduct may have been a factor in dividing the department, there were
several other reasons why those divisions existed.
Finally, Hoh noted that even Chief Pitter admitted
that Smith was "one of the best dispatchers the department every
had" and therefore, her termination was a grossly excessive level
of disciplinary action. Hoh found that the department never notified
Smith they viewed her conduct as problematic, nor did the department
even bother to interview Smith as part of its Internal Affairs
investigation. Hoh threw out the termination of Smith and recommended
the penalty be reduced to a letter of warning.
Smith was elated with the decision. She said "I
always gave 100 percent to the department and sincerely cared about the
people I worked with. I tried to be a fair and aggressive representative
for the POA, and I tried to stand up for what I thought was right. The
department tried to make me a scapegoat for its problems. I am just
thankful I was able to clear my name and receive some vindication".
Goyette stated this was an important case and a
protection of an employee’s ability to constructively criticize the
department. "This was a classic case of Laura Smith being an
aggressive representative of the POA and her fellow employees. The
department did not like her criticizing the actions of its
administrators, and because of that, they tried to ruin her career. The
department was so short sighted, that they tried to end Laura Smith’s
career despite the fact that everyone agreed she was one of the
department’s best and most well liked employees. It’s a good thing
that the PORAC Legal Defense Fund was around to support her through this
difficult process."
