11-28-1988 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

MIMUTW OF THE OROAO COUNCIL MEETING OF NOVEMRER 14, 1988 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION -CONTINUED caused Mr. Tomcheck to question every move he made, everyday. Peterson observed that Mr. Tomcheck paid for the evaluation himself and asked if there were any problems discovered with the evaluation. Bernhardson said that in ligh': of the two incidences occurring back-to-back, the purpose of the observation period was to %sure them that there would not be a continuing pattern. Petet -n then asked whether Mr. Tomcheck had received any oral or writte,. -eprimands. Bernhardson replied that to the best of his knowledge there had not been any written reprimand, and could not recall any oral reprimands being given. It was moved by Acting Mayor Peterson, seconded by Councilmember Goetten, to take no further action on this matter at this time. Peterson felt that the 10 month waiting period was a sufficient penalty. Bernhardson explained that the I day suspension held in abeyance pending any further violations was the only fa:tor. That would have been the same whether the two- day suspension was assesed now or back in March. Bernhardson stated that the violations were very serious and felt that the recommended discipline was appropriate. He did not feel that the time delay in assessing the discipline had a significant negative effect upon Officer Tomcheck. Councilmember Goetten stated that there was no question that Mr. Tomcheck's violations were serious. She reiterated Peterson's concerns about the time delay in determining the disciplinary actions to be taken. She felt that proiso and discipline should be given immediately following the action. She observes' that all of the information she had heard or read concerning Officer Tomcheck had been exemplary. Bernhardson agreed with Goetten that discipline should be assessed quickly and felt that under the circumstances and the need to evaluate all of the factors involved, this matter had proceeded in a timely manner. He added that he would be flexible in dealing with the deadline for the extra one day of suspension. He suggested that February 1, 1989, may be more appropriate than April 1, 1989. Councilmember Nettles made, reference to the actual written City and Police Department Po,l`^its pertaining to employee behavior. He said that he was t&c.t c lean �n wrat the policy was for off -duty display of fire arms for police officers. Bernhardson replied that Officer Tomcheck was mainly in violation of the City's rules. Bernhardson stated that Tomcheck exhibited negligence in the performance of duty, as well as offensive conduct toward the public and took actions that were detrimental to the public's health, safety and welfare. Bernhardson further explained that Officer Tomcheck was involved in a situation that ,ould have been explosive, and had been asked not to participate, but continued to do so. His ticns consequently required additional police response, and because of the nature of the situation, those orficers were al-, endangered. [settles observed