Dispatcher Reinstated After Her Termination for Criticizing the Department

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 the 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 no 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 representation 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 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.”