|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
A judge has ruled that the city of Menlo Park erred in referring to prior allegations of dishonesty on the job when it fired a police officer. The decision does not overturn the termination, which will be appealed through binding arbitration.
Rolando Igno was fired in April after nearly seven years with the Menlo Park Police Department, according to a lawsuit filed in the summer with the San Mateo County Superior Court.
In 2012, the suit states, he negotiated a suspension of 100 hours for failing to appear in traffic court. In exchange, he said, the city agreed to delete allegations of lying from his personnel record.
The suspension agreement also included a “last chance” clause that Mr. Igno “agreed to be terminated if he is hereafter determined to have violated any City or Department policy regarding truthfulness, dishonesty, or false statements to a supervisor.”
The city argued that the allegations of prior dishonesty were contained in a different file — not in a personnel record. Judge George Miram found that line of logic unconvincing. “Whatever file the June 5, 2012 (notice of intended discipline) is maintained in, it is a personnel file” by the law’s criteria, the judge wrote in a decision filed on Dec. 4.
The judge went on to rule that the “Last Chance Agreement requires (the city) to revise the findings in the internal affairs investigative report to ‘not sustain’ the dishonesty allegations.” Thus, the city “shall remove all reference in all documents maintained or now generated concerning allegations of dishonesty from the June 5, 2012 matter.”
Mr. Igno’s appeal of his termination will ultimately be settled through binding arbitration, but Sean D. Howell, the attorney for the former police officer, said filing the suit in court was a necessary step to determine what the arbitrator may take into consideration when hearing the appeal.
“We feel that the judge’s decision was appropriate and we’re happy with the outcome,” Mr. Howell said. “The union and our client are happy to work together with the police department to have a neutral person review the case on its merits.”
Suzanne Solomon, the attorney representing the city, declined to comment on the ruling.
Documents filed with the lawsuit state that Mr. Igno had three previous incidents of misconduct on his record already failing to appear in traffic court in 2010; a two-shift suspension without pay for speeding through a red light with two prisoners in the backseat of the car in 2009; and failing to show up for an internal affairs interview in 2009.
Police Chief Bob Jonsen, according to a memo included with the lawsuit, alleges that Mr. Igno in 2013 lied about what happened during an off-duty contact with at least one man in a Safeway parking lot in Aptos. The chief invoked the last chance agreement and also made reference to the June 5, 2012, allegations in the memo.
Does it bother anyone else that the Police in Menlo Park can be caught, while on duty, naked with a prostitue or lying on reports and keep their jobs? This is what happens when the city council allows for arbitration in these cases. Police officers should be held to a higher standard and not a lower one.
Plea bargains away his history of dishonesty, and gets away with it.
2 strikes. What happens in the third?
Honest vops should be all over this guy.
Hey Brian,
If you take the time to read the article, you will discover that in this instance a judge from San Mateo County, in a regular judicial proceeding in a courthouse in San Mateo County, completely separate from any arbitration proceeding, issued this ruling. This is actually an excellent example that whether in arbitration, or in the courts, the City can be ruled against.
The judge did not rule that this cop should get his job back. This is just a game the lawyer is playing. The arbitrator can use this irrelevant ruling as an excuse to give the cop his job back. Similarly, there may have been a mistake when the city did not properly explain to Vasquez that he is not allowed to rent hookers while on duty (or off duty).
The cops protect their own, and they have the strength of their union. While others not in the cop union are not so fortunate. In particular, SEIU sucks. There is nothing fair about the City.
Is it any wonder that we have little respect for police? SMC voters keep re-electing Greg Munks, our sheriff, caught in a brothel sting in Las Vegas while attending a law enforcement conference. I guess we get what we deserve.
Given recent events around the country, it is more important than ever to ensure that dirty cops are not patrolling our streets. There is no dispute that this cop is dishonest. The arbitrator better get it right.
You mean the arbitrator that Menlo Park cops just pre-selected in their new employment contact that the council let them get away with? Is it any wonder that this city can’t rid itself of bad apples in its police department?