Jason Gross Appeal Closing 9/26/11 Fenstermaker, Jim Boyers present Lynn and Insurance rep talk outside

(6:27pm) FOP here Called to order 6:30pm Roll Call SB here MD here PPC here RS present KS here TW here Damon, things yet to be done admission of exhibits accepting and closing council assuming to go forward with admission of exhibits Counsel JG gross exhibits A-j, Jenn I would reserve the right to object to exhibit A bending ruling .. All exhibits therefore admitted Exhibits 1-36 marked as exhibit 35 jason grosss interview with cpl fenstermaker Traffic video that was played since it would be difficult with court reporter I had discussions in email with mrs croghan only 6 of the exhibits Objected 3 based on earlier rulings by maor heresay Nothing but heresay if rulings are going to be consistent then rulings should be Jenn I would state that exhibit 3 is not being offered for the truth of te matter set forth in investigative report testified as far as investigative process record of actual investigation that occurred fact that investigation did coccur and it was part of what the It was not being offered for the truth its not relavent for the whats contained there in its not relavent ithere isnt any disput about the fat that an investigation in place LE Ill sustain that Jenn I would also because exhibit a relates to the investigation by fenstermaker regarding progress during interviews sould be excluded JG Ill withdraw it thatf fair 8,9,10 each of those none of those reprimands are signed by anyone none of them were in mr grosss personnel file at te time he was terminated testimony from srgt beach that he never gave authority to issue reprimands taddidtionally marked as exhibit 10 ws presented ot him he told cpl f that he would not accept it and in fact shreddid the document I would ask that those be exluded Jenn in response to 8,9,10 fenstermaker ..each of those incidents srgt veach testified officer gross was counciled regarding exhibit 10 gives credibility to weight and I belive its relavent to history LE Im going to allow 8,9, 10 in

JG next suspention from CN she never rendered a judgement on that suspention statuate . 19 that mayors oblgation that is to render a judgement on that suspention since that never occurred suspention is void should not be admitted Jenn exhibt 21 issue is mute because it was already signed off on officer gross mayor testified that she agreed with what was doen we dont believe under the statuate that mayors consideration because it doesnt go to council is reoquired shows progressive discipline of the chief and her recommendation to the mayor JG the statuate is clear about this there is no doubt about what the mayor was supposed to do fi the suspention was going to be upheld from officer gross Damon Im ot sure what statuate youre talking about JG certainly 737.19 would be the statuate LE doesnt it say three days not two days JG what it said it seems to me its important enough Jenn its the interpretation difference between them I would say to because officer gross enver objected to it stands in his file and was part of the consideration JG the statuate says within 5 days after reeiving this certification the myor shall inquire to the cause of te suspention and shall render a jdugement on it if the mayor sustains the charges the judgement could be suspention reduction in rank or removal from the department I agree that suspentions less than 2 dsays can not be (council) Statement from mayor was I never rendered a judgement she never exercised the suspention is void Jenn I would say this hearing is not abot his suspention is is part of his record and the mayor did testify that shw as aware of his suspention (Damon counsels Lynn) LE under advice of counsel I am going to allow it under the limited purpose that I was in the personnel file JG typically stautates are not marked as exhibits statuate 737.19 my admitting that that somehow this case is prejudice I dont think that exhibit 25 should be in the reord Jenn so that council has the beneifit in front of them similar to jury instructions LE Im going to sustain yours Mr. Shaub. Jenn Im going to step outside my role as advocate just a seoncd and as law director : once a decision is made you will findigs and facts conclusions of law council will formally adopt at next council meeting the mayor would not have the vote in this proceeding at this point. Mr. Wetterauer will (at this point) Would like to start with council by reminding them the recommendation with the safety committee goal was to have one of the finest police departments in the Midwest to have strong learership and not have such a lassiez fair approach have well trained and established officers and part of accopmolising those goals safety committee dept wanted to have positive relationships with residents and surrounding communities and mayor CT and all legal and law enforcement agencies. A lot has been said about general order number one and that is not the issue with this hearing

You will see exhibits following 13 there are two nsimilar to GO1 that says officers need to stay within jurisdiction Mr. Shaub issued an opioin that came to the FOP, there is no question about this order. Columbus, Franklin County, twps have their own officers. The MP is to render mutual aid to jurisdictions. If our officers are on Clevel.they are outside of the village, their duty is to work within the village of Minerva park The issue here is whether or not officer gross violated any of the policies and procedures of MP. Officers have the duty to have the basic comptetency to read, complu, etc the law. Failure to comply with the laws, rules, general and special orders, poiceis fo the dept and it is a neglect of duty to fail to that is not clearly understood. How do we know officer gross understood general order number oen We have the opinion that mr. shaub November 8 2010. the dept meeting new chief held in jan and feb issued the memo directive that general order 1 was still in effect. The chief also madet he option to come talk to her about general order 1 officer gross took her up on that he admits there were conversations with CN about Gen order number on If you look at exhibit 20 celeveland ave reprimand that he .stopping a vhechile outside the jurisdiction. There was no legal authrotiy and hse should have radioed in on the call contact Columbus pd via LEARN CN has testified she has used those dispatchin and it does work. Officer gros has the duty to comprehend and apply GO1. How do we know whterh there was a violation. You will have the chiefs report and findings and what you have heard. Im going to focus on one finding the misrepresentation It was for task force members only it was closed all the officers that have testified they attended in uniform they are paid to attend it is part of their duty they are speaking and representing the village of MP at those meetings. Sergeant hickey also testified that ..not able to patrol on adjacent roadways. Youll recall officer grosss own words on the interview he gave with cpl fenstermaker he was asking for advice on how to handle the OVI directive, he also advised sergent adams that he could not 161 when part of 161 is within the jurisdiction. Officer gross chose to misrepresent the members of the dui task force the ability of officers to So how are those facts applied to policies and procedures? One of the charges against JG is insubordination it states officers and empoloyees must obey given by supervisors and dispatchers. Flouting the authority of a superior by displaying obvious disrespect or otherwise.is indubordination. I believe was not part of his duty in attending the DUI task force (by CN). In making those representations he was not following CNs orders. There are other department policies and procedures truthfulness officer gross knowingly gave false and misleading information (department) Officer gross was not attentive to his duty at the DUI task force to speak and represent the village. Rule 1.1 conduct unbecoming. Reduced the being insubordinate rebellious disruptive or disrespectful behavior. As weve been discussing this disciplinary procedure is (ORC) failure to obey orders given to them by proper authority or for any other reasonable or just ause. When you look at officer grosss conduct at the DUI task force meeting (meets statuatroy reqs)

Any other just or reasonable cause you do not nead to defy violation of every policy listed to you need to determine the appropriate discipline. The mayor gave her basis for dtermination. There have been three incidences in less than three months. The statuate as I put up on the screen does not require her to give him a hearing this is a village 737.19 controls and it states there is only duty on behalf of the mayor to inquire as the cause of suspention and render judgement she reviewed the findings by the chief and past conduct is certainly something to condier someones past performance This is not being marked as an exhibit so you will need to give it to mr. weterraur it is mearly a timeline for reference instead of putting on the board. This is a timeline of officer grosss discipline history as of 2004 he failed to follow criminal charges he failed to obey requiest from a chief 2008. pl fenstermaker you can give your credibility where you would like, one of those items was fail to appear court he did that again 2 tiems December 3, 2008 and December 17, 2008. you can also see history there with new chief insubordination and charges here. When given directive on cell phone policy wrote back to the chief on whether or not he should follow that policy why it should apply to hm. Directive from the state auditor on how to d omail. When sergeant beach did his ..signed up for the STOP program and did not show. Multiple discussions regarding cleanliness of the cruiser. Discipline in this case his history warrants termination. Id like to go bck to the safety committees recommendation to be the best in the Midwest. Is he living up to the policies and procedures of the department is he the kind of officer the villag e is proud to have the chief is taking the strong leadership frrols that that SC recommended I wouuls ask that council find that officer gross did violate the policies and procedures. And that you sustain the termination of officer gross. Let me comment on Ms. Croghans statement aobut he process I would note and I would remind you um that officer gross requested a public hearing this has been conducted as a public hearing accordingly you must deliberate in public this is not a matter that youa re committeed to (exectibve sessin{) consisten with officer grosss requrest. Ms. Croghan said you need the officers of MP to stay within the villages jurisdiction its a vvery quaint notion however it conflicts dramatically they spent up to 4 hours of each 8 hour shift on Cleveland ave Westerville road and SR 161 checking villages and the idea that they stay in the confines of this village they have jobs that take them out onto those roads. The mayor following the crecommendation fired Jason gross because he had a telephone onversaiton with Doug Scoles and answered his seuqestios aobut why he had been disciplined by CN for making a traffic stop on Cleveland ave Jason read the contents of a reprimand villge exhiti number 20 over the telephone to mr. scholes in chich CN erroneously states that officer gross did not have the legal authority he did not intiate this call he did not provide him with any documents he did not ask him to do anything he as at home and off duty and mr scholes rightfully expressed concerns about a policy that would lead to a direct impact on public safety and thats why he wrote the letter to Mayor both the mayor and chief of police hav e afundamental misunderstanding of what authority police officers have on Cleveland ave, SR 161 and Westerville road. Cotnratry to the testimony of the mayor, the chief, the chiefs memo the officers do in fat have the authority officers gross and willis they were both exercising lawful authority provided to them under ohio law the video that you saw again contrary to the chief that documents why they made that stop the chief testified that no where in that video do you see the dirver go I hope you saw it when it was played hse clearly went across those lines

its just not true, they had a reason to stop that car, they had lawful authority to do it. The porovision of law section 2935.03 specifically authroitzes officers to in roads that boarder the village In a case out of Minerva park in which someone challenged MPs authority cited this section and said of course the officers have authority to make those stops its absolutely contarty to what the cN has put in writing that the officers have the authority to make this stop. There are three reasons why you should not make the .. 1 proper procedures were not followed in the process which denied him his constitutionally protected due process ways I understand she doesn thav eto have a predisciplinary hearing I understand youre not jsubject to collective bargaining thats not the source of his right the source of his right is in the constitutation is is abosluatey clear before he can be terminated the mayor was obligated to provide him with a copy of the charges. Youve heard my arguments as to why you c You sould not factor that into you deision whatsoever Ethe evidence in support of those charges officer gross was accused of providing village documents to persons outside te village Accused to lieing to sergeant beach leaing unnamed miffilin township police officer. There is no evidence about that either, accused of misleading doug scoles no evidence in the testimony and in that letter. General order one cns directive feb 8th and reprimand may 5th, you cant uphold the reprimand that cpl fenstermaker testified he has publically criticized the chief and publicly has criticized general order number 1. My memo to FOP sent and somehow ended up as an exhibit in this hearing. I read general order 1 of last year if you read the email theres an exceptin built into the order officers in those cases where they perceived a risk not substantia or great but risk they were permitteded to make these traffic stops thats precisesly what fficer gross and wilis believed when they made this stop The problem is that the general order, I dont know what the orders are anymore, I don tthink you do either. Which does provide an exception ont eh other hand saying erroneously you as MP police officers have no legal authority to make legal stops outside jurisdiction the fact that someone would question that as a village council you ought to be concerned about a chief o fpolice that doesnt have a basic understanding of what officers are allowed to and not allowed t o do Youre putting your stamp of approval on a policy that is later going to haunt you something bad is going to happen on one of those roads and a MP police officer is going to be there and not take action and the evidence will be we put our stamp of approval on that policy Lastly you shouldnt terminate Jason gross because the work record doesnt approve it As of September 13th of last year there were no areas of his job performance that she or any of his superviosors found unsatisfactory youve got two reported reprimands neither of which CF had any authority to issue and none In his file at the tie he was fired. You also have evidence that CF had no authority to issue reprimands

As reenetly as may your own monthly publication the mayor described officer gross as a good example to our other officers which seems to mea to dovetail with copl finetermakers testimony that hes oe of the best officers hes ever seen. I ask you to consider all of the evidence, consider the very basic fact that the premise for this is based on a faulty understanding of the law. To terminate officer gross for doing his job for trying to enforce the laws he has the authority to do I would ask that you .. Jenn with the responsibility of the burdeon of prro I get to talk last I would like tos ay tat madd is not the issue. Its what started the investigation. The whole cleveleand ave stop, CN in writing her reprimand was not saying that he did not have the ability to stop the vhecilesall he had to do was radio in the call the stop was on Cleveland ave. he only had to radio in the call to make the stop. I would submit to you s well that the statuate for the village gives the rules to follow within the village. There is no a right for a hearing in that statuate Mr. shaub aboids talking bout the statements made , he did make and advise misrepresentations to hm at that meeting it was not a public meeting he made those statements while directed to attend by the chief. Then finally I would state again that the general order this is not about he general order. Limiting jurisdiction is used by more than the village of Minerva park. It was told by stay within the jurisdiction just because there is authority to pull over a vehicle does not mean theres juridsiciton to prosecute it thats why we have a franklin ounty shiff department, Officer gross could have been terminated for violating general order number one Orders for dare Not appearing for court on at least two separate cases Does not mean council cannot say weve had enough. According ot the statuate you can dismiss the charges, you have the right to affirm the mayor, you have the right to amend the discipline. LE its your turn to decide to retire into executive session if you wish Damon, I respectfully understand what youre saying I undersan when it comes to personnel matters they have the ability to adjourn they must come back and make their decision known publicly JG note my objection the exception is when an employee requests a public hearing as did officer gross section ..i respectfully disagree what appears to be councils cdecision 121.22 of orc Damon the record council has no opinion one way or the other thats not my opinion. LE if you folks would like to entertain a motion KS I make a motion that the sitting ocunicl move into executive session and to include mr. W PPC seconds RS why do we need to go into executive seesion why cant we just discuss this LE Its a personnel matter Its a reason to go RS only nay JG I note my objection councils action going into executive session is Jenn I ask you to (give back timeline) 7:15. Back at 8:59pm

TW motion to come out of executive session KS seconds All in favor Damon, Id like to complment both councils presented cases well and civil congratulated on it. Council has been advised that they require four votes for any violation if they chose to modify the penalties need an agreement as to wht that is if that is in fact their decision. PPC this is not an easy thing to do therew as a lot of discussion a lot of very honest discussion it was a good discussion that we had this may be a two part process the first question to be answered and it will be answered by each council member is was there a violation there will be a vote and it will be a role call vote. Matthew was there a violation Yes PPC yes RS no KS yes TW yes SB yes The next , if there was a violation what is the onseequence MD Id like to move that the consequences ve a 3 week 21 day suspention without pay and that starts tomorrow Jenn second the motion KS seconds PPC well vote MD yes RS no SB yes TW yes KS yes PPC yes Council having spoken I would request that the findings and fact agreend upon by council be prepared Jenn typically we preare based ono Im assuming gene will handle the basis on the decision as far as what needs to ..findings and facts. Jenn findings and facts and conclusions along will be adopted next council meeting everyone will hve the opportunity to check yes/no/abstain Jenn just for the record for Mr. Shaub time wont start running until council officially adopts the findings and facts and conclusions of law Motion to adjourn TW seconds