OCR Text |
Show I BOARD ORDERS POLICE RESTORED I Report Censures MenFor Squabble at Station House Civil Service Commission Sets Forth That if Patrolmen Violated Rules They Should Have' Been Punished at Time of Offense; Disciplinary; Action by Chief Advised. THE Ogden civil service commission yesterday issued an order directing Chiei oi I'ohc-e Jonathon Jones to reinstate II H. Elam and II H. Butler us members of the Ogdon police department, with the same ranlf wn.l Btanding and rate of compensation as they pos-1 isessed on the date of their dismissal from the service. Although the commission finds thnT ; the charges preferred against the pj-I pj-I trolmen were not sufficient ii war- rant their dismissal from the service, the commission finds cause for c--r -1 I surlng Elam. especially and Butiftr I I and Sergeant A H. Stephens as well, j In this connection the report roc--J I om mends that Chief Jones tsiJte steps I to discipline the. three for w hat th ( board declares v an conduct unbecorr- ! Ing police office! 9 The commission deplores the fail- 1 ' uro of the department to settle the? i squabble without an appeal to the commission, but the report etnpha-j etnpha-j sixes that the commission in no way criticises the chief of police and espressos es-pressos regret that fair play necessitates necessi-tates the reversal of his order of dismissal. dis-missal. CHIEF (.171 s COPY. Chief Jones received a copy of the findings, decision and recommendations recommenda-tions of the commission jyhlle in his office at the police station shortlv after 3 o'clock yesterday afternoon The copy was delivered by City Recorder Re-corder C. O. PeWolf. who is secretary' secre-tary' of the civil serv ico commission. Chief Jones began to read tlo- decision, deci-sion, when he was Interrupted and he did not finish them before going home last night in a conversation over the telephone last night Chief Jones declined de-clined to discuss th" decision and sulci he would not make a statement until he had read the findings thoroughly. The report of the civil service commission, com-mission, its findings and orders follows fol-lows in full: "On January 26, 1922. Patrolman H. B. Elsim and Patrolman H. H Butler were discharged from the Ogden Og-den police force by order of Jonathon Jones, chief of police following .in altercation at the polic e station between be-tween these officers and Sergeant A. II Stephens. "Pursuant to Rule XII of the civil service rules, he chief ,,t" police dul filed with this commission, under date of January 30. 1922. a statement In writing givlnj? the reason for Haid discharges dis-charges and furnished copy thereof to lid officers. "Separate notice of appeal from said order to the civil service commission com-mission was duly filed with the com? mission. In writing by each of .said officers of-ficers on January 30, 1922. togethci with a request for a hearing upon the accusations of t.ho c hief of police. HE HUNG IS HELD Tho matter came on regularly for hearing before the commission on th--flint day of February. 1022 at rhe court room In tho city hall in Ogden city. Utah, upon the said statement of tiie chief of police and the notices of appeal and requests for hearing ut said officers, the chief of police ao-psarlng ao-psarlng In person and by Samuel C. Powell. Esq , assistant city attorney and the said officers appearing in poi son and by Arthur Woolloy, Esq.. as their attorney. ' And the commis.-lon haying heard ihe testimony of the witnesses pi..- duced by the pSrtles. respectively I who were examined under oath I"!1 (Continued on Page Two) i POLICE SQUABBLE AT STATION NOT SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR DISMISSING COPS, BOARD HOLDS Jl (Continued from Pago One) having carefully considered ail of the testimony Introduced, makes the following fol-lowing finding of fact Decision and order and recommendations therein: : FINDINGS. 1. As to the charge thnt Officer EOlam was found by Chauffeur D. P. Hawkins at the Ullte cafe at about 6 o'clock onr morning during the month of October. 1921, In an Intox-Iciiti Intox-Iciiti d condition and that he was taken tak-en home In the police automobile, tho testimony in this case dons hot support sup-port the charge that Officer ESlath was Intoxicated or that he had been drinking on that occasion. The Incident In-cident was not Investigated at the time, although Chauffeur Hawkins testified that he reported It to Sergeant Ser-geant Stephens, and the serges it failed to report It to the chief of police. po-lice. No particular Importance seems to have been attached to the report at the time It was made, and no pun-l-hmont or reprimand was inflicted i upon Officer Elntn until after the officer had been discharged. We, i therefore, hold that no cause for dls-i dls-i charge has been proved nndir this i charge. I ABSENCE CRITICISED. ' 2. As to the" charge that Officer J EBlam absented himself from duty "n 9 Christmas Eve, 1921. without leave ! and left the city without leave of the L :hlef of police, we find that on Chris t- mas day Officer Elam went to Salt Lake City In an automobile party with some friends, without notifying police headquarters that he was I leaving, as was his duty to do under the regulations of the department When on the iV the : i 1 1 r n 1 1 1 1 1 broke down and Elam called on the telephone from a farm house to ae-euro ae-euro a relief car, and also called the ' police station and explained the clr- i.m.-s! i n' - rvi i formed Serges Stephens, with whom he talked, that he had had a breakdown and would l not be able to get back to report for duty for the night shift. He was told to report for duty, as there was a shortage of officers due to the holidays hol-idays Elam was delayed on account of the wreck and did nut return to iOgden until about 2 o'clock In ,vic morning, but he failed to report his nrrlval to police headquarters, and failed to go on duty for the r main? der of his shift. In this, he did not display that high devotion to duly which a police officer should manifest mani-fest toward his responsibilities, flc i Should not have left the city without the permission of the chief of police, and he was especially derelict in not reporting for duty when he did re-Turn re-Turn to the city. Punishment by way of reprimand, suspension or discharge dis-charge would. In otir opinion, have been Justified for this offense had It been handled at the time. How ever, the matter seems to ha so been passed ocr lightly by his Superior officers and it was no; reported to the chief of police until after the occurrence occur-rence of January 25 Sergvnl Stephens Steph-ens properly talked to Officer Elam us a brother officer on the following day, and admonished him to conduct himself in a proper manner in the future, and Informed him that nlu work waa satisfactory and that i was in line for promotion if he continued con-tinued to do his duty. No record W made of the incident, and the i p i tnand by Sergeant Stephens seems t i nave been deemed sufficient punishment punish-ment at the time, and In View of tht circumstances, we are of the opinion that the occurrence does not Justify the discharge of the officer at thi. time, and that the Commission should I not sustain his discharge upon thatl ground or consider the charge K IDl M r LAC KING. ,-3. No dereliction is charged j against Officer Elam in connection! With the conversation between hiih und Sergeant Stephens In the fore-! part of January, and no testimony was Introduced in support of ttte charge that Of fleer Elam was seen so drunk that he could scarcely g. t home on another occasion, i "4. As to the charge that Officer Duller, while on duty one night during dur-ing the forepart of January, 1921 was in a drug store on his beat lor about 20 or 30 minutes and talked to his family physician about his private pri-vate affairs It appears from the tes-I tes-I timony that Sergeant Stephens, who I happened along, cautioned him about I repeating this Infraction The occur-I occur-I rence was not reported to the chief I of police until after January 2S. nor I was It made a matter of rocord. and I no demerit waa marked against' the I officer, and the assurance- given by I him that he would not repeat the of I tense was deemed satisfactory to hi-I hi-I $uperlor officers at the time The ev-I ev-I Idence does not sustain the charge I that Officer Butler had been drink -I lug or had any liquor in his posses-I posses-I Slon at that tlnve. and If he did have I liquor, as charged by Sergeant Steph-I Steph-I t-ns it was the duty of the sergeant to I I h!lV0 taken appropriate action then I nd mere. This event likewise was I Passed over lightly hy the superior of-I of-I fleers and under the testimony doe. I not merit the cognisance of this com-1 I mission or Justify a dismissal I . 6Q1 I.BBL I STATION. I i ",0' T,lu altorcstion which occur-1 I iZd al th0 po,lce 8l"l on the night I Of January , i;,-. WM thl. I KK 'ro;inu r the dismissal by tho I chlcf ,of POce of the officers, The I , ..mmlssiun. after hearing all sides to I Incident deploys (he (ll , I J" patter was not handled within I let department In SUc), ., , u I ""V0 luJ,- cognizance of th. I Si or71" commission, otn , ra I ,L;'am a"d Blhler had together made I ,wo successful and courageous raids I !'P0,n ,rlontft! hangouts, and had I "oked two alleged Japanese gamo-1 I !Twf! :,n'1 r',ven alleged Chln I ,er" 'V"1 hrUl Inured gambhng I rlioL "jL money, In pursuance, u I "' "ought, of tho policy of the I commissioner of public safety , , iBBBBBl .v. in mis city. As Bwl he men were about lo go back to HJJ their posts after booking the alleged HH gamblers, for some reason. Sergeant HJJ .Stephens called them back and charg- Bwl JV.V,'r E1:in' wUh 'smelling like Vs dletl lery." This act provoked an BH altercation between the patrolmen and their superior officer. In tho course of which Officer Butler ac-cused ac-cused Sergeant Stephens of being an-gry an-gry because they had not Informed HM him beforehand of their Intention to make th" raids. The sergeant de rled this, and Officer Elam accused him with having taken liquor n'. J home on occasions. Sergeant Steph-ens Steph-ens called Elam a. liar, and gun-play was threatened between them. All three were apparently much wrought up. and Elam and Stephen.-, were es- B peclally angry. Officer W. A. Jones seon to havo been the only one pre-sent pre-sent who was not over-cxclted. and with commendable coolness he lntc-vened lntc-vened and restored quiet. Elam and Stephens both lost their heads In the quarrel, and Hutlor, thinking he was involved. likewise lost control of himself AH three men acted In a manner unbecoming officers of ths law, and are severely censurable for - - j their conduct, particularly Sergeant Stephens, who as the officer In chargo Should have controlled himself, and Officer Elam who seems to have been undulj hanty In his actions. The whole altercation took place in tho heat of argument, and nothing occurred oc-curred which in the Judgment of the I ommlsslon Justified the discharge of either of the three men Invohed. SMEMj oi l.lQi ok "As to the charge that Officer Elam El-am smelled of liquor on this occasion, occas-ion, had it not been for the fact thai he volunteered the Information thnt he had taken a whiskey "toddy" at home In tho early afternoon and several sev-eral hours before going on duty on account of a cold there would not bf any doubt whatever concerning the matter; an Sergeant Stephens alor.o out of eight persons who testified as to Elam s condition claimed to be able to smell liquor on him. All tin-others tin-others stated they could not detect It. and that he did not appear to bo under un-der th influence of liquor whatsoever whatso-ever Officer Jones, who was ordered by Sergeant St. phens to smell Elam's breath during the altercation, testified testi-fied that he could not smell liquor on his hit-nth Tim ovlrlflnn. la ttvmm- " ' ... fc , . v . v, i e ' I v t I - whelming that Elam had not been drinking on this occasion, and there was no Justification for the accusation accusa-tion which Sergeant Stephens made against him and which provoked the whole affair. viuii i m RGIjARIE s. "6. As to the. several alleged burglaries burg-laries which the officers are sought to he held responsible for, we find that there Is no evidence that either of these officers was negligent In his duty on either of the several dates spei ifled, and that they were not and should not be held responsible for tne illeged burglaries. "7. It should be stated in JusU e to the chief of police that while the recital of alleged, offenses contained In his 8t;xienient wa.; prepared hy Sergeant Stephens, one of the participants partic-ipants In the altercation leading up to the discharge of the men. he did not havi tnd expressly disclaimed i rsonsJ Knowledge of any of tho alleged al-leged offenses, and he affirmed that these men were good and efficient officers of-ficers so long as they attended con-B con-B lentlously to their duty and observ-. observ-. d the regulations of the department, and that they lould work In harmony with him. e take occasion to saj also, that it Is the purpose and pol-Icj pol-Icj of the civil service commission to upnoiu me cnier or police In the exercise ex-ercise of his authority over the police, po-lice, department, and It Is with very great reluctance that we have con-eluded con-eluded that in tho Interest of fair play to the discharged men and for the good of the service It Is necessary In this Instance to reverse a decision of the chief of police. In this actl-.n there Is no criticism of the chief of police intended or Implied, ns we be-lleve be-lleve that If he had had the opportunity oppor-tunity and facilities for full and Impartial Im-partial Investigation of (the occur-I'-nce which has been afforded the ommlsslon, he would have handled the matter In accordance with the commendations hereinafter contained con-tained DECISION M ORDER "From the for. going findings-, the commission decides thai the discharge of Patrolman H B. Elam and Patrolman Patrol-man H. H Butlei was not Justified and was without cause, and that they are entitled to bo reinstated In their former positions as members of the Ogden police force with tho same rank nnd standing and at the same i ite of compensation which thev had and received prior to said dlsohargl Now. therefore, the commission orders and directs that the suld I 'f -fleers 11. B. Elam and H. 11. Dut-ll Dut-ll r be reinstated is members of the Ogden police force, with the same rank and standing and at the same rate of compensation which they had received prior to their .said discharge eald reinstatement to be effective an and from January 2b, l$28; ;,nd yo I thi said JonathOn Jones, chief of police, are hereby ordered and di-reCted di-reCted to reinstate said officers cordingly "And the commission recommends to the chief of police that in ic-eordance ic-eordance with the civil service law, and the rules and regulations of th. civil service commission, some disciplinary dis-ciplinary punishment other than discharge dis-charge be Imposed upon Sergeant A H. Stephens. Officer H. B. Elam and Officer H. H. Butler, in the discretion discre-tion of the chief of police, on account of their improper and reprehensible conduct in provoking and participating participat-ing in an unbecoming altercation while or duly In the police stall on the night of January 2i 192' "Dated and signed at Ogden, Utah this 3rd day of February, 192 J 1 BU 'HEDGE. Jr . HAS. HUMl'HruS "WILLIAM PIQQOTT, "Civil Service ommlsslon of Order ERTUK kTE !?" Ca ,DeWo". the duly quail-tied quail-tied and acting secretary of the clvl service commission of gden City Ctah hereby certify that the foregoing fore-going Is a full, true and correct copy of the findings, decision and order and recommendations of the hi i enmr.ils,.on it, th. mutter of the discharge dis-charge from the Ogden police force of Patrolmen U. B. Elam and H I Butler, made and entered by sahl ' '-run,!--slon In -.,!d m.uter on the rrd SSJ !i Vbrunry- 1922. as appears from the records In my office. "C. 0 DeWOLF, Secretary ' |