Another Sylvania Township Police Officer Suspended
This in via email from Sylvania Trustee DeeDee Liedel:
It was only two weeks ago that we had our first public disciplinary hearing in almost 2 decades, yet we held another hearing at our meeting Wednesday evening. This time the charges were much more serious and were dealt with accordingly.
Remember, it is a part of the Ohio Revised Code as well as the union contract that police department employees have the right to a disciplinary hearing before the trustees for charges which may result in time-off.
In this particular case, the officer – Sergeant Robert Colwell – attempted to waive the trustees hearing after we had already filed charges. In fact, Sgt. Colwell wanted to waive the trustee hearing only after seeing the results of our last disciplinary hearing. After having received an email from Sgt. Colwell’s attorney late on Nov. 4 again stating that they wanted to waive the trustees hearing, we discussed the request in executive session at our meeting on the evening of November 5. Unfortunately, Mr. Colwell declined to attend the hearing nor did he send his attorney to represent him. As a result, we proceeded with the hearing.
Sgt. Colwell was charged with several serious offenses. We carefully listened to the testimony of four witnesses and had the opportunity to ask our own questions. Ultimately, we found Sgt. Colwell in violation of several department policies as follows:
1. Sgt. Colwell had two unsecured firearms in an area of the Sylvania Township Police Department which is accessible by visitors, witnesses, suspects, victims, and other non-department persons. The weapons were left unsecured in Sgt. Colwell’s former office after he was transferred to another department from the Detective Bureau. How long they were unsecured before his transfer, we don’t know. This was clearly in violation of the department’s policy on Weapon Security.
2. Sgt. Colwell failed to properly process evidence; he did not log it into and out of the property room as actions necessitated. As a government entity, we must be careful to account to each piece of property which comes in to our control. This is an obligation that we owe not only to the public in general, but victims and accused in order to ensure justice in criminal situations. Again, the department has a clear policy on handling of evidence which in this case was violated by Sgt. Colwell.
3. Also in regard to evidence, Sgt. Colwell failed to properly log a laptop computer into the property room and left the laptop in his former office, untagged and unsecured for over one year. This action breached the evidentiary chain of custody for the laptop, rendering any evidence that may have been contained on the laptop vulnerable to tampering and thus challenge if criminal charges were brought regarding evidence contained on the laptop. Sgt. Colwell has a clear duty to follow proper procedures so that evidentiary issues are clear and evidence is not compromised.
4. Finally, as a detective, Sgt. Colwell was charged with properly maintaining and filing reports regarding cases that he investigated. When Sgt. Colwell was transferred to another department, he failed to correctly report the disposition of several cases involving identity theft and forgery. This is in violation of the township’s policy on Departmental Reports.
In summary, the trustees unanimously authorized a 15-day suspension (without pay) and a written reprimand. The offenses Sgt. Colwell was charged with were serious and are at the heart of the integrity of our police department and how it is viewed not only by our residents and businesses but the criminal justice system itself.
To respond to accusations that this was retaliation against union activity, let me say that we did not act in retaliation for any specific or general union involvement. I expect every employee to conduct themselves in a manner that is in compliance with township policy and Ohio law. Union activity does not elevate an employee above rules and regulations. The safety and security of our residents is of utmost importance; failing to follow policy and procedures that are necessary for a properly functioning police department cannot be tolerated.
I would love for these disciplinary hearings to be handled internally, without the public hearings. The township attempted to change the union contract language to that affect during our recent negotiations. The union disagreed, and ultimately the conciliator agreed with the union. So we will continue to have these hearings as long as employees wish to selectively bring discipline matters to the board.
DeeDee Liedel
Sylvania Township Trustee
[...] The safety and security of our residents is of utmost importance; failing to follow policy and procedures that are necessary for a properly functioning police department cannot be tolerated. I would love for these disciplinary hearings … Read more [...]
November 6th, 2008 at 10:35 amDoes Sgt. Colwell only like to get the bad guys? Is his old office not needed for someone else. He had unsecured guns and a lap top that should have been a part of an investigation. He sounds like a lazy teen who pics and chooses what class to give 100% or which one to skip.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:40 pmI’m curious as to a couple of the details regarding the letter posted:
1. Why was a hearing held in the absence of the accused when the right to the hearing had been waived? Were the accused and his legal representation notified that, though they were waiving their rights, the council was going to hold the hearing anyway? Could the council have postponed the hearing until the accused was present to offer a defense? The right to a hearing is the right to BE HEARD and defend one’s self… it seems this right was circumvented here.
2. Why is it that no one noticed that weapons were unsecured in his office? While he should bear the responsibility for leaving them unsecured, I’m more concerned with how no one knows how long those weapons were left unsecured. I’m not sure where, but there seems to be a breakdown somewhere in the department… there should be more safeguards on how officers are permitted to handle weapons if this was allowed to occur.
3. What steps are the Police Department and proper city officals taking to help safeguard against these things happening again? I think that it would not be enough to punish this officer and not learn from these things.
November 6th, 2008 at 12:52 pmGood points # 3
November 6th, 2008 at 1:10 pmSome of the answers can be found in the Ohio Revised Code, the officer can appear or can have a lawyer represent him but the hearing can proceed with or without that presence. There is a process to delay the hearing if an “application” is made but apparently that did not happen.
http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/505
Sections 505.491 Police officer guilty in performance of official duty and 505.492 Hearing of charge against police officer.
November 6th, 2008 at 1:24 pmAlways resourceful, LisaRenee, thanks
I’m sure the hearing can go on in the absence of the accused… this happens in most venues of law. And it almost exclusively results in a judgement against the one accused and not showing up. But if the accused has waived his right to this hearing, SHOULD it go on (morally, not just according to the ORC) in their absence? That requires the consideration of why the accused is entitled to a hearing. Just bears contemplation, that’s what I’m saying about it.
November 6th, 2008 at 1:34 pmI’ll respond to those questions. First, be aware that townships are creatures of statutes – we have only the authority given to us under the ORC, and must strictly follow those dictates.
#1: Under ORC 505.491, “The accused may appear in person and by counsel, examine all witnesses, and answer all charges against him.” So, Sgt. Colwell (or his attorney) is/was allowed to appear before us during this hearing, but is not required to do so. He was well aware of the date and time of the hearing and communication between the township and his attorney confirms this.
Sgt Colwell attempted to waive the hearing only after we had already pressed charges, and the waiver is clear that it must be signed before charges are pressed. Again, we are creatures of statute and there is nothing that allows us to withdraw charges after they are filed. Also, it is clear from the statute that only the accused could postpone the hearing; the trustees could not postpone the hearing on their own motion.
Sgt. Colwell had a right to be heard and defend himself; he was offered that right and chose not to do so.
#2. The weapons where in a cabinet, unlocked, with ammunition nearby. They were not in plain view, but still unsecured. We do not in general do spot inspections on stuff like this, as we expect our officers to follow policy, especially when it applies to matters of safety. I’m not going to micro-manage or baby-sit my officers by doing random checks for unsecured weapons. But when one is discovered, proper discipline procedures will be followed, as they were in this case.
#3. Our police chief is working with all officers and command staff in order to make sure our department is being operated in a legal, safe and effective manner. We are going through numerous steps to review, update and implement procedures and policies to this affect, as well as pursuing certification which helps us make sure that these matters are considered, reviewed and addressed. I also think that by taking disciplinary action such as this, it puts the rest of the department (and even the whole township) on notice that the trustees take these matters seriously, that we will not ignore them, and situations like this that jeopardize the safety of our residents and employees as well as the sanctity of the criminal justice system will not be tolerated.
November 6th, 2008 at 1:38 pmSounds like a pleasant place to work.
November 6th, 2008 at 2:36 pmI’m glad that this incident is being learned from. And the ORC text clarified, and your comments even further, the circumstances surrounding the hearing.
It sounds like the township is doing precisely what it should be: punishing the offender and trying to ensure that it will not happen again.
November 6th, 2008 at 3:02 pmRegarding the unsecured weapons, I’d have ordered the weapons and ammo secured, told the officer not to do that again and moved on. This is an incredibly minor infraction and not worthy of mention, let alone any kind of hearing. Sgt. Colwell’s immediate supervisor should have handled it.
Mishandling of evidence is far more serious, as the prosecutor can lose a case over this kind of performance. Question: Was the case lost or thrown out of court as a result of the mishandling of this evidence? Does Sgt. Colwell have a history of mishandling evidence?
November 7th, 2008 at 11:15 amActually, according to the discipline guidelines, the weapons infraction was the most serious of those faced, and I agree. Leaving weapons around where anyone could get their hands on them, including suspects, is not to be taken lightly, IMO. Anyone handling firearms should take the utmost care to make sure they do not get in to the wrong hands, be it children, untrained adults, or suspects. Lax habits with regard to handguns lead to dead people.
With regard to the evidence issue – the case was not pursued. For whatever reason we had the laptop for 18 months with no action taken or investigation pursued. I don’t know if an official determination has been made, but I can’t see the sense in pursuing charges when the evidence is so clearly compromised. As far as history goes, no prior discipline action has been taken that I am aware of regarding mishandling evidence.
November 7th, 2008 at 9:30 pmWhen are we going to learn to value, honor and respect the work of law enforcement?
We honor our police officers only when they are lost in the line of duty.
Those of us who are family, their loved ones, think fleetingly every day—what if he/or she walks out that door today and does not come home? Yes, it happens.
Therefore, when a police officer of Sgt. Bob Colwell’s caliber, of Sgt. Bob Colwell’s longevity and dedication to law enforcement is being put on display in printed word without defense of his lifelong commitment to law enforcement, when people behind the scenes have seen the writing on the wall and know what is really going on–it breaks my heart for him and for every police officer out there.
The kind of criminal element Sgt. Bob Colwell has either kept off the streets of Sylvania Township or has gotten off the streets of Sylvania Township and beyond for 22 years–you don’t even want to know about. We could scroll and scroll forever, skeins of unspeakable crime. Yes, it happens, even in Sylvania Township.
Sgt. Bob Colwell was laying his life down for and caring for Sylvania’s fair township long before the ladies of the township ever dreamed of trusteeship. For that he deserves their honor and respect, not their disdain and discrimination–as do all the other men and women who work in that township police department.
The bigger question here is why are you suddenly having the need of 2 public trustee hearings within 2 weeks after 20 years? What might be the common denominator?
Why is it that both officers charged and heard before the trustees are union representatives? Why is it that many, many times since Mrs. Liedel and Mrs. Hanley came to hold their trusted positions their printed words, both newspaper and blog, have referenced “putting the union in its place”?
A police department is a work environment in which its employees need to trust their administration and management. It is imperative to the safety of both the officer and the community. An officer should not have to second-guess actions wondering if this time he/or she will be the next target of a chief and administration proliferating an environment of discrimination.
Ladies of Sylvania Township—with what you have done in 2 short years to this police department—you are lucky that every officer in that department has not walked off the job. Unfortunately, in this economy it is near-to-impossible to make a lateral move for greener pastures to a community who actually cares about their law enforcement officers and will stand up for them.
Sgt. Bob Colwell, in his wisdom, knew he did not stand a chance with contrived evidence and accusations. Contrived out of “sibling rivalry,” contrived out of “retaliation,” contrived out of “discrimination,”—all parties involved full-well knowing who they are.
In fact, the phrases “self-preservation” and “put in a tight spot” have been thrown out in defense of these kinds of contrived actions by one of the known retaliators.
Therefore—public bloggers—do not be deceived by what you cannot actually see—what is going on behind the scenes is purely wrong, purely unethical, and purely undemocratic.
This leadership is failing the Sylvania Township Police Department.
By the way, ladies of Sylvania Township—do you recall these words from a report you paid for with several thousand dollars of Sylvania Township taxpayer money—words spoken by former Deputy Chief of the Toledo Police Department, Nate Ford, a police consultant hired to study police operations in the Sylvania Township Police Department—words whereby he awarded high compliments to the law enforcement and the public servants of Sylvania Township.
He stated: “…Their honesty and candor and true desire to improve their department were unremarkable. “ He furthermore stated: “…the employees of the Sylvania Township Police Department are loyal employees who appreciate their position in public service and are committed to providing the best possible service to the residents of the community.”
The article furthermore quotes Mr. Ford as stating, “…the strength of the township police department is its employees. I can’t emphasize how impressed I was with the quality of the individuals employed by this department.”
Sgt. Bob Colwell is one of those employees—he is one of the BEST of those employees.
So—public—please do not be fooled by what you think you see. There is much more to the story that you do not see.
November 8th, 2008 at 12:16 amSgt. Bob Colwell is not at all what “they” would like you to believe. There is no exaggeration in stating that for all he has done for Sylvania Township for 22 years—he deserves respect and honor, not an open court of public put-down and, certainly, not a trustees’ hearing of unfair bias and partiality.
From Good Will: “The kind of criminal element Sgt. Bob Colwell has either kept off the streets of Sylvania Township or has gotten off the streets of Sylvania Township and beyond for 22 years–you don’t even want to know about.”
This is precisely the kind of thing we DO want to know about. Get Sgt. Colwell and the Sylvania Township PD as a whole to list the various crimes that have been committed, solved and the names of the criminals that they’ve taken off the street.
I will state that my personal experience with the Sylvania Township PD has always been excellent. When my Mom had some things stolen out of her garage, a Township police officer came by and took a report and explained how a good security system works and what she should do to prevent future thefts. The officer took the time to speak to me on the phone, and he was polite and helpful. My regret is that I didn’t get his name, because I sure like to thank him in person for the help he gave us.
It’s been my experience that the Sylvania Township police are more like peace officers than anywhere else in the area, which is a very welcome change from Toledo or the city of Sylvania.
Sylvania Township needs the Fire Department and the Police Department. Both are staffed with excellent people, and I note that both are in the Township. Money spent on Fire and Police is money well spent.
November 8th, 2008 at 5:00 pmTo Mad Jack –
Beneficial as it may be to run listings of crime and the names of criminals affecting Sylvania Township, in reality, that listing also involves the victims. In sensitivity to that issue—it is probably not the ideal way to inform the public.
However, the point is that it does occur. The point being also that Sgt. Bob Colwell, along with his fellow officers, has always gone the extra mile to both prevent and intervene on such crime, from something as misdemeanor as a stolen bicycle through child abuse and molestation, rape and sodomy, and even murder. He is a seasoned, developed and professional investigator.
It is nice to hear your positive commentary regarding the Sylvania Township police officers. It is nice to hear other community members state the same and that this is not a new impression related to a new administration but, rather, a long-term noted history of exemplary law enforcement in Sylvania Township despite having had now 6 police chiefs within an 11-year time span. That’s a lot of adaptation and adjustment while still maintaining excellence.
Which brings up the common denominator in the recent rash of union grievances, the recent rash of unusual charges leveled against long-term police officers, the unusual rash of early retirement, and the unusual rash of officers searching for other law enforcement options—that common denominator being the police chief of the last 2 years, along with his back-up choir.
As you can see, from Nate Ford’s remarks, these hard-working people needed and deserved a real quarterback—a team leader, a morale-builder, a caring individual who cared about them as much as they care about the Sylvania Township community and, in that, they have been severely let down.
The trustees made a knowing choice in the selection and hire of a man who has already served as chief of police in 3 other departments within the past 10+ years, with a suspension and forced resignation after 2-1/2 years in Adrian, Michigan in 2000 and with failing contract negotiations in Huron Township, Michigan just prior to his hire here in Sylvania Township in 2006.
The style of leadership utilized here in Sylvania Township by this chief was really unnecessary to implement on the Nate Ford definition of the officers of the Sylvania Township Police Department. These people are not renegade officers. They are professional with purpose. They have reputations and families they hold dear, just as the trustees, just as Hugh Thomas, and just as Chief Metzger.
None of this was necessary and that’s why it is beyond ridiculous and sad that it is occurring. His leadership style is one of narcissism, the lethal kind that obstructs sound judgment; the toxic kind that leads to division and low morale. The kind of impulsive and arbitrary decision-making, the kind of subjective demotions, reassignments, and leveled charges toward what he perceives as threatened competition to his own security, and the kind that, when left unchecked and unregulated, leads to unethical and unlawful discriminatory practices.
The other part of that common denominator is the trustees and Hugh Thomas. If anyone thinks anyone in that department could go to any one of these people in pursuit of fairness or justice, please know that is not the case.
In the private sector work environment, there is the Compliance Act put into place to protect employees when ethical lines are being crossed. It involves a hierarchy of reporting in which an employee need not fear retribution or retaliation—Not so here.
Thus—take away a union in this police department and you have the very reason that unions were born.
Despite what you are reading and hearing, Sgt. Bob Colwell, as well as all the other officers in the Sylvania Township Police Department, has never let his community down. However, if the community buys into Dee Dee Liedel’s political damage control, in her lawyerly briefing style, if they do so without question and call for accountability, then the community is letting its police officers down.
In the world of politics, especially the one we have just lived through on the national stage, the hope is that we learned something from that—that our politicians are not always on the straight and narrow, that they are capable of bringing their own political agendas and even their own psychological issues into decisions that can negatively affect our lives–in this case our police officers’ lives, their families lives and, potentially the lives of the community.
November 9th, 2008 at 6:49 pmWhat Sylvania Township Trustees might want consider, in addition to the community itself:
1. Hiring of a chief of police with compromised credibility. Did you, the trustees actually do a thorough and professional background check and, if you did, what was the rationale for hiring someone whose credibility would fall into question—especially as a leader in a police department, i.e. in “he said, he said” situations? Leadership credibility should come to you without compromise—that should have been your highest priority in your selection of police chief.
2. Personal political ideals about unions have taken a heavy front seat. Your strategy became more of a prosecutorial approach wherein the union and your police officers became the bad guys, the criminals, and you have treated them as such, even worse. This has only served to create mutual disrespect, distrust and division.
3. Because of your influence and continued allowance of the above- you have successfully installed a hostile work environment, one in which both police work and community safety is compromised.
4. Perhaps, if you had chosen a more strategically sound approach – such as hiring an experienced police chief without predisposed credibility issues; one who is secure with himself/herself wherein he/she does not feel the need to undermine relationships to cement his/her leadership role in a blind sense-of-power; one who is unafraid to extend a hand in compromise, one who is able to sit down with union, police officers and public employees, as well as administration in a willingness to listen to the needs of all and work ardently to fashion compromises between all; one who knows leadership is all about unification and not separation and division; one who sees the value in the balance of employee rights and job satisfaction with the needs of administrative operations, budget and community goals—perhaps then–YOU, then, would have been successful within your own administrative leadership in YOUR own right.
Perhaps, then, there would be no fear in going forward–you would not need to doubt yourselves or what you’ve gotten into as you stylized a plan to “put the union in its place.” You could unequivocally hold your head high knowing that you had not sacrificed your integrity and the integrity of the community’s police department for personal gains and personal beliefs.
5. Unions were created initially in good faith for very good reasons. It takes confidence and compromise to be a good leader and a good employer. It takes leadership with sound understanding to balance the needs of all.
In your approach, You all have only proven WHY your police department needs their union, WHY they were created in the very first place. Your actions to your law enforcement have demonstrated an un-democratic leadership which has created a virtual “sweat-shop” of denying employee rights; denying due process when those rights are compromised; denying unbiased, fair policy open to disclosure and checks and balances, to actual dates of creation and revision; denying compliance to procedures that are consistent with those unbiased policies, consistent to each and every employee without subjectivity, favoritism and discrimination; and denying respect and honor to ALL employees who have served the community with loyalty and longevity, with high-level committed contributions to the police department.
6. If you want to turn this thing around, because conversation and chatter is placing a spotlight on the blight of what is actually going on here, then you might want to consider taking a longer, closer look at what you are condoning in the operations of your present-day police chief.
7. The buck stops with you, the trustees and administration. Your reputations reside in how you recognize mistakes, how you respond to them, and how you resolve them.
The community is watching and listening. It may be a mistaken guesstimate, but the hope would be that the community values PEOPLE more than tax rebates, more than a vigilante destruction of their police department.
November 10th, 2008 at 1:45 pm