Police Chief: 'Convicting My Officers Before Anything Is Done Is Unacceptable'
Arnold Police Chief Bob Shockey fired back at a councilwoman for publicly discussing the details of a discrimination lawsuit filed by a former police employee.
Photos
Arnold Police Chief Bob Shockey defended himself, his officers and his police department after ongoing litigation involving a former Arnold police detective was discussed at the March 7 city council meeting.
During the meeting, Councilwoman Michele Hohmeier asked why the Susie Boone settlement was approved so quickly when another alleged employee harassment case has been in the courts since 2011. Hohmeier then began reading a narrative she'd prepared outlining allegations in a lawsuit Alicia Ott had filed against the city.
"To convict my officers before anything is done is unacceptable," Shockey said to Hohmeier. "There are two sides to every story, and you have one, and it ain't right."
Patch obtained a copy of the lawsuit filed in October 2011 from Ott's attorney. In short, Ott alleges in the petition that she was sexually harassed by a fellow officer and retaliated against. Ott claims in the lawsuit the incidents led to her being demoted, suspended and eventually fired.
During the meeting, Hohmeier said, "Ott alleges she endured harassment for nearly a year from this police department and when she complained again, she was investigated, not the offending officer."
Shockey said the case was investigated and the officer was disciplined. After that, he said the officers had "zero contact."
A year later Shockey said he told Ott she would have to attend firearms training led by the officer who she alleged sexually harassed her.
"He is the only range officer I have," Shockey said. "I told her she was going to the range and I was sending two supervisors to make sure nothing happens. Well, she didn't like that."
Shockey continued, "Then all the sudden there was a claim that two weeks before that, they crossed in the hallway and that was supposedly harassment. We actually have it on video."
He added, "I'm tired of my officers, me and my department getting slammed with untruths. It (the Ott case) is ongoing litigation, and we don't talk about it in public."
City Attorney Bob Sweeney told Patch both the Ott case was turned over to the insurance company as standard procedure. He said the insurance company has denied the allegations made in the Ott lawsuit.
Doris Borgelt
9:47 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
And the insurance company would have denied the allegations made in the Boone case had the Mayor, the Chief and the city attorney not given statements to the media admitting guilt when there was none in the Boone case!
Patrick Crowley
9:47 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
Wow, just crossing a hallway is harassment? Oh male bovine fecal matter!
Michelle Hohmeier
9:51 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
"To convict my officers before anything is done is unacceptable," Shockey said to Hohmeier. "There are two sides to every story, and you have one, and it ain't right."
To set the record straight, I didn't say anything about convicting any of the Arnold Police officers. My comments were directly related to the Ott situation, which by the way, involves two Arnold Police officers. I never said I had both sides of the story either.
The point of my questions that night related to the differences in the way the two cases (Boone and Ott) were handled by the City. Taking out the insurance company's response, why did City staff and administration comment to the news media regarding the Boone complaint, but not even council members were told the whole story behind the Ott complaint. Both of these complaints are similar in nature, yet they were handled differently. By no means was I convicting, accusing or implying anything against the Arnold Police officers themselves in general, and by making such comments toward me causes me to wonder why the deflection.
I've heard similar comments from other council members recently regarding the Boone complaint. It was said we need to take care of our employees. The thing is, as much as I may like the City employees, I don't work for the employees of the City of Arnold. I work for the people of Arnold. Those who live here and pay taxes in order to pay the salaries of the employees. I think some of us need to remember that.
Bill Moritz
9:28 am on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The Ott and Boone cases are different though the respondents are/were employees of the city. The city council was briefed on the Ott case. You could have gone and asked before your display on March 7th. In the Boone case you claimed that Ken Moss was a victim of hearsay. Yet here you are relating only Alicia Ott's side of the story. That is the same thing isn't it? The difference being is you believe this hearsay and could not accept the other. There is proof that Ott's story contains false statements. If you are anxious for the story to be told then be truthful. Why claim five times in the March 7th meeting that you got your information from Case Net? You did not because it is not there. From where did you get it? Cite your source for the record.
In the article in the Countian you said you were told details about the Ott claim. You are correct. You received that information in closed session. You are charged with safeguarding such information as to do otherwise would expose the city to unnecessary liability. Like Doris, you show little regard for that trust. The insurance company did not deny the allegations in this matter. I heard what was said as I was there. The fear was the acts of retaliation by the certain council members would result in a larger payment. In the Ott case, the city's case was a winner. You can ask Chief Shockey exactly why Alicia Ott was fired for cause. I know it and I will not reveal it in this forum. You can go get the truth.
rkg
10:24 am on Friday, March 15, 2013
I assume the higher tax rates in arnold are there to differ for these situations ,,,,,great tax usage .................
Bob Hohmeier
1:05 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
And convicting a councilman before anything was done IS acceptable? This same chief, with the mayor and the attorney, took said councilman in the back room and tried to force him to resign. LONG before any investigation by the administration, the insurance company, or MCHR. Why is not what's good for the goose not good for the gander?
JC Penknife
7:24 pm on Friday, March 15, 2013
Shockey's tired of "getting slammed with untruths?" Well, pot meet kettle, because it was Shockey who filed a 100% bogus MCHR harassment complaint against the two people who were running against Ron Counts for mayor.
Michelle Hohmeier
7:26 pm on Tuesday, March 19, 2013
For the record, I found the Ott case on Scribd.com. Sorry about the confusion with Casenet. And I did not learn of any specifics regarding the sexual harassment portion of the Ott case from any City employee or in a closed session because during my 11 months on council, it has not been discussed in closed session. The first I learned of the Ott case being anything more than a personnel issue was when I saw the suit on Scribd.com.
Let me make myself perfectly clear, I have NEVER released closed session information of any kind.
Charmaine
3:35 pm on Wednesday, March 20, 2013
It's the IT'S A SHAME CAMPAIGN as we refer to it here.