By Carol McIntire
Editor
May 12, 2009
Why was a Carrollton police officer placed on paid administrative leave for three weeks and then allowed to return to work with no explanation to the public?
That’s the question The Free Press Standard is attempting to answer.
Carrollton officials are refusing to say why Patrolman Paul Miller was placed on paid administrative leave Feb. 23 by Mayor Dave Flanary and remained on that status through March 13, when he was allowed to return to work on the police force.
The FPS contacted Village Administrator Robert Fowler March 17 to ask why Miller was placed on paid leave. Fowler said it was a personnel issue and would not discuss the matter.
On April 1, the FPS filed a public records request, asking for a copy of all documents relating to the placement of Miller on paid administrative leave, specifically the reason for placing him on leave, when he was placed on leave, who placed him on leave, when he returned to work and why he was allowed to return to work. Also requested was a copy of the village’s Drug Free Workplace Policy.
On April 2, Fowler called the FPS office and left a message stating the information was ready for pickup. He also said the FPS “was not getting any other information.”
“You can take me to court for the rest,” he said.
When the FPS arrived at village hall, the only document ready was a copy of the village’s Drug Free Workplace Policy.
The FPS contacted Village Solicitor Clark Battista of Minerva who said the village would comply with the request and asked for a couple days to comply. Battista faxed a copy of a letter to Carrollton Clerk-Treasurer Judi Noble from Mayor David Flanary. The letter stated Miller was being placed on paid administrative leave from Feb. 23 through March 13, 2009. The letter was not dated to indicate when it was written and the March 13 date was handwritten over top of another date that was typed on the original letter.
When Mayor Flanary was asked when the letter was written, he said he didn’t know, then said he was on vacation in Florida at the time Miller was placed on leave and he had to confirm the leave over the phone.
The FPS then contacted Battista to ask why there was no reason given for placing Miller on leave. His response was, “I believe it falls under the privacy exception.”
In order to find an answer for the taxpayers as to why Miller was placed on paid leave versus unpaid leave, a second public records request was made to view Miller’s personnel file.
Mayor Flanary, Administrator Fowler and Police Chief Ron Yeager were all present when the FPS arrived at Village Hall to view the file.
From information in the file and by talking to Flanary, Yeager and village payroll clerk Sandy Patterson, the FPS learned Miller was one of five village employees whose names were drawn for random drug testing Jan. 30, 2009. Three of the employees were members of the police force and two were other village employees. Yeager said he delivered the necessary paperwork to the three police officers. He said it was the first time the police department had been included in the random testing. Village council approved the policy Dec. 10, 2007.
Yeager said the officers drawn for testing worked normal shifts for the next few days. Payroll records show Miller worked Feb. 2, 3 and 4. He was not scheduled to work Feb. 5. Records show he received sick time pay for Feb. 6 and 7 although no one filled out a sick time request for those two days. Miller was then on sick leave pay Feb. 9-22 under a doctor’s excuse. Mayor Flanary then placed him on paid administrative leave.
The village’s Drug Free Workplace Policy (provided to the FPS) states “employee records such as testing results and referrals for help will be kept confidential. Information will be on a need-to-know basis. Any violation of confidentiality rights is subject to disciplinary action up to and including termination of employment.”
In keeping with the policy, both Chief Yeager and Flanary refused to publicly state if Miller tested positive following the Jan. 30 random test. Chief Yeager told the FPS he filed the necessary paperwork with Mayor Flanary to have Miller’s employment with the village terminated. He said it was denied. As mayor, Flanary is the village official in charge of the police department. Fowler, as administrator, is in charge of the Drug Free Workplace Policy.
When Mayor Flanary was asked why he placed Miller on paid administrative leave rather than unpaid leave, he replied, “It was an administrative decision.”
Miller was hired as a part-time officer May 14, 2001, and as a fulltime patrolman Oct. 29, 2002. His personnel file included a one-year performance appraisal for the period of October 2002 through October 2003. The report, signed by Chief Yeager, noted Miller was late for work three times during that period. There were several other reprimands for being late for work Mayor Flanary retrieved from his office, copied and turned over to the FPS that were not included in his personnel file.
Section 5:07 of the village’s Policy and Procedure Manual addresses work rules that govern employee conduct. Group I offenses include “failure to commence duties at the beginning of the work period or leaving work prior to the end of the work period.”
Disciplinary action for Group I offenses include: First offense, instruction and cautioning; Second offense, written reprimand; and Third Offense, three day suspension without pay.
Miller received a verbal reprimand for being late for work Jan. 2, 2006, a written reprimand for not appearing for grand jury duty July 2, 2007, a verbal reprimand for being late for work Aug. 12, 2007, a written reprimand for being late for work Oct. 28, 2008 (which stated he was also late for work Sept. 4, 2008), and another written reprimand for being late for work Nov. 18, 2008.
When Mayor Flanary was asked why Miller did not receive a three-day suspension without pay, Flanary at first responded he wasn’t mayor during that period, but after being reminded he has been mayor since Jan. 1, 2008, Mayor Flanary replied, “It was my decision not to reprimand him.” |
