.

Arnold Police Chief Files Harassment Claim With State

Chief Robert Shockey, who is also serving as acting city administrator, filed the complaint for alleged retaliation attempts by two city councilmembers, Arnold's city attorney says.

Arnold Police Chief/Acting City Administrator Robert Shockey has filed a harrasment complaint with the state alleging two city councilmembers have retaliated against him.

City Attorney Bob Sweeney said the claim, filed with the Missouri Commission on Human Rights, involves Ward 1 Councilwoman Doris Borgelt and Ward 4 Councilman Ken Moss. Sweeney said he could not comment further because it is a personnel matter.

Shockey had no comment on Wednesday.

This is the second time in recent months a city employee has filed a complaint with the division. In October, Susie Boone, the city's parks and recreation director, went public alleging Moss had harassed her for more than two years.

Shockey became chief of the Arnold Police Department in 2001. He was appointed to acting city administrator after Matt Unrein, former city administrator, resigned from the position in June 2012.

Patch will provide more information as it becomes available.

See previous articles: 

  • Ken Moss: 'I Didn't Do Anything'
  • Moss Says He Was Asked to Resign in September
  • Arnold Park Director's Lawyer Files Second Complaint With State
  • Arnold Councilman to Call for Impeachment of Ken Moss?
  • Arnold Council Votes Down Acceptance of Harassment Investigation
  • Arnold Employee Files Harassment Complaint Against Councilman
RUSS L February 13, 2013 at 11:27 PM
It never ends! You are keeping me in perpetual hysterics! Keep it going, Arnold will have it's own reality show soon enough!
Kohly February 14, 2013 at 02:06 AM
I sure wish it would end too. We need to clean house on council members that carry on this way.
Matt Hay February 14, 2013 at 02:53 AM
It is almost as if he is attempting to shield himself from being removed.....perhaps as a result of the collusion of the Susie Boone incident and subsequent sham investigation? Seems Shockey files a complaint as soon as he realizes that he is being pushed in front of the bus and will be the fall guy as this house of cards begins to crumble, taking his pension with it. It is the same thing Bob Sweeney did when he was removed from office. He tried to claim that he was being retaliated against because after he was removed for a yet to have been filed ethics complaint against Jerel Poor (which was tossed out), as if somehow, those that removed him were clairvoyant and could see his future filing of the complaint. Or perhaps, this is an attempt to silence certain council members to prevent them from voting to remove him from his position, or to set it up so that if they do, it is "retaliation" for the complaint? So, does this mean he completed the online survey like Ms.Boone, or was an actual complaint filed and upheld? And who announced this to the media? One would think that they would wait for its adjudication, unless of course, the goal was not the upholding of the complaint, but instead, a political motivation and concerns about covering ones assets?
Matt Hay February 14, 2013 at 03:00 AM
Also, it is being referred to as a "Harassment Complaint" however, the MCHR does not investigate "harassment" as that is a criminal statute. Per the State website, The Missouri Commission on Human Rights (MCHR) investigates complaints of discrimination in housing, employment, and places of public accommodations because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, age (in employment only), and familial status (in housing only). So, is the Chief claiming that 2 council members who both voted in favor of giving him his cush salary have discriminated against him because of race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, sex, disability, age? If so, which is it? Harassment is not on there. What is he doing, saying he was discriminated against because of his age? I am rather sure Doris is older than him, and that he would be unable to show any damage such as being passed up for a promotion, really, quite the contrary. Would be nice to read what the basis of this is, rather than falsely calling it a "Harassment Claim". Seems meant for political consumption.
Sheri Gassaway (Editor) February 14, 2013 at 03:38 AM
I saw a Tweet about it from JC Penknife today and made some calls. It's public knowledge because it had to be reported to the city's auditors and insurance co. Right after I posted the story, I checked my mailbox and saw the story on the front page of Thursday's Leader. They have more info than I do at this point.
Matt Hay February 14, 2013 at 03:57 AM
I am not sure what you mean when you say Auditor's and Insurance Company, and that a discussion about it makes it "public knowledge." I can tell you from personal experience, the City does not regularly engaged with the Auditor's unless there is a current audit, and even then, a personnel matter such as this is not something that would be shared with them, nor would there be any reason to (it is not like the City files a 10K and has to write down for risk liability or other externals in valuation like an SEC Listed entity does). If Chief filed a complaint, that is certainly his right, my concern however is that aside from Chief Shockey, Doris Borgelt, Ken Moss, Bob Sweeney, and likely Ron Counts, there are a very small circle of folks that would have any awareness as these complaints are not public until and unless the MCHR substantiates the claim, with the goal of preventing exactly what is occurring. So, unless Shockey waived confidentiality to send this to The Leader himself, in which case, he has made his complaint "public" (and should be placed on unpaid leave immediately for such a blatantly political action) despite MCHR Guidelines, or Bob Sweeney, Ron Counts, or someone in the small circle has violated personnel confidentiality. To wit, there was the huge uproar Bill Moritz and Bob Sweeney made about somehow Doris forced them to make Susie's complaint public, and that doing so was not right, yet it would seem that a different stance was adopted for this one.
Bill Moritz February 14, 2013 at 04:29 AM
The fact is these five council representatives (you know them all) have been actively covering Ken Moss' tail feathers rather than doing their jobs. Doris Borgelt was with her mini-me (Sandra Kownacki) at a political action committee Monday trying to get endorsements for their candidacies for Arnold elective office rather than exercising their fiduciary responsibility. They were so busy trying to keep their jobs that they neglected to actually do their jobs. The city council meeting on Monday was ended when Ken Moss shamefully walked out when we were going to discuss his harrassment issue. Doris and Sandra did not bother to show up because they were busy trying to get endorsements at a labor PAC meeting. I am sure you will learn more about hat in the next few days. The city has its zippper opened and these knuckleheads are exposing all of us to huge legal fees. We are way past their allegations of bad investigations. This city has a huge setlement bill ahead of it because of their bad actions. Stay tuned
Juanita Stephens February 14, 2013 at 12:43 PM
OK I am for the reality show, I think they are so afraid of Doris it is sooo funny, God forbid that Doris would question how our tax dollars are spent. Thanks Doris keep them on their toes. We need you there. Shockey should just run the Police Dept, how can we afford a part time Administrator, and a part time Police Chief, are we getting our money's worth? Maybe we don't need a full time Chief or a full time Administrator. By the way there is a show on Netflix called House of Cards great show and would be so much better than a show about Arnold.
Doris Borgelt February 14, 2013 at 04:01 PM
The fact is, the five members you speak of have been trying everything to bring it all out into the open. We haven't tried to hide a thing! Do you have your head so far in the sand that you just refuse to admit it? I neither asked for nor expected an endorsement. When asked if I was available on Monday evening I answered truthfully that I had plans. I was excused from the meeting that was called at the last minute because I clearly stated I had plans. What those plans were are none of your business or concern, Mr. Moritz. Why would the city council continue a meeting that did not have a quorum? I seem to recall Bill Moritz, Randy Crisler and Joyce Deckmann getting up and walking out of a council meeting that was in progress and going to a bar! The meeting was adjourned as there was no quorum. Please Mr. Moritz don't even try to portray yourself as some bastion of integrity, you haven't a leg to stand on.
JC Penknife February 14, 2013 at 05:23 PM
While we're off topic, Bill, how about a comment on the Shaun Missey situation? You have a special perspective to offer, since you were late on your taxes in 2011 and 2009 but got to stay on the ballot.
Guy With Hole Under House February 14, 2013 at 05:50 PM
JERRY! JERRY! JERRY! JERRY! I love watching these morons run the "Fine" City of Arnold into the human waste ground it was built on..... Thanks for wasting taxpayer dollars on on your pathetic attempt of a soap opera....
Bob Hohmeier February 14, 2013 at 06:20 PM
The "emergency" meeting was supposed to be about paying necessary bills, which took care of that "fiduciary responsibility". And they WERE taken care of! There was the necessary quorum for that and I don't fault the others for having prior commitments. Several council members had previously told the city that Monday was not workable, and made OTHER suggestions to make sure necessary business was taken care of in a timely fashion. Both Michelle (my wife) and Mr Moss had previous engagements also, but we canceled ours and Mr Moss made time from his. It was NOT the time and place to "hurriedly" discuss important "non time dependent" issues behind the backs of the citizens of Arnold, as the meeting needed to be over in an hour to accommodate evening court.. Allow for that to happen at "regularly" scheduled meeting so the people of Arnold you represent can attend and be involved, or at least hear in person, council actions.
Sheri Gassaway (Editor) February 14, 2013 at 07:42 PM
Matt, your comment has been deleted because it violates out TOS. Specifically, it was obscene and sexually explicit. Patch is a family friendly site, and comments of that nature will not be tolerated. Additional violations of our TOS will result in your account being suspended. I will send you an email on this shortly.
Bill Moritz February 16, 2013 at 11:36 PM
It occurs to me that Doris loudly promulgates that Sunshine is the Best Disinfectant. It seems to me she is getting sun-burned.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something