STATE OF WASHINGTON
BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
__________________________________________________________
)
YAKIMA POLICE PATROLMANS )
ASSOCIATION )
)
Complainant, )
)
vs. ) CASE 19741-U-05-4998
)
CITY OF YAKIMA, )
) VOLUME II
Respondent. )
----------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT OF HEARING
----------------------------------------------------------
BE IT REMEMBERED, THAT THE ABOVE-ENTITLED
CAUSE CAME ON FOR HEARING ON FRIDAY, MARCH 3, 2006, AT
8:30 A.M. BEFORE
CARLOS R. CARRION-CRESPO, HEARING OFFICER, AT
129 NORTH 2ND STREET, YAKIMA, WASHINGTON.
APPEARANCES:
JAMES M. CLINE, CLINE & ASSOCIATES, APPEARING
FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE YAKIMA POLICE PATROLMANS
ASSOCIATION;
BRUCE L. SCHROEDER, SUMMIT LAW GROUP,
APPEARING FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA.
WHEREUPON, THE FOLLOWING PROCEEDINGS WERE
HAD.
I N D E X
WITNESS: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS
ROBERT HESTER
(by Mr. Cline) 235
(by Mr. Schroeder)
MICHAEL RUMMEL
(by Mr. Cline) 237 287
(by Mr. Schroeder) 274 293
GREG COPELAND
(by Mr. Schroeder) 297 341
(by Mr. Cline) 323
JAY SEELY
(by Mr. Schroeder) 346
(by Mr. Cline) 351
JEFF SCHNEIDER
(by Mr. Schroeder) 386
(By Mr. Cline) 389
SAMUEL GRANATO
(by Mr. Schroeder) 399
(by Mr. Cline) 429
ROBERT HESTER
(by Mr. Schroeder) 466
(by Mr. Cline) 468
BENJAMIN HENSLEY
(by Mr. Cline) 470
(by Mr. Schroeder) 471
BRUCE ROGERS
(by Mr. Cline) 472
(by Mr. Schroeder) 474
SHAWN BOYLE
(by Mr. Cline) 476
(by Mr. Schroeder) 480
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT NUMBERS: ID EVD
1 Collective Bargaining Agreement by 28 58
and between City of Yakima and Yakima
Police Patrolmans Association, Effective
January 1, 2004 through December 31, 2005
2 YPD Internal Investigation Response 34 58
Request to Officer Mike Rummel from
Captain Greg Copeland; 2/21/05
3 YPD Memorandum to Officer M. Rummel 37 58
from Capt. G. Copeland; 3/28/05
4 Document - Section One, Disciplinary 39 58
Action; Section Two, Fitness for Duty
5 YPD Memorandum to Cpt. Copeland from 41 58
YPPA Board; 06-27-05
6 Investigative Log 45 58
7 YPPA, Date: September 17th, 2005 58 86
(Updated) from R.D. Hester; Ref:
2005 dates
8 Letter from PERC to Sofia Mabee and 86 90
James M. Cline; April 7, 2005
9 Respondent City of Yakima's Answer 87 90
to Complaint for Case 19206-U-05-4882
10 Notice of Hearing for Case 87 90
19206-U-05-4882
11 Transcript of Hearing for Case 88 90
19206-U-05-4882
12 YPPA Meeting with Chief Granato, 91 112
Friday, May 27th, 2005, 1330 Hours,
Topic for Discussion
13 Handwritten document 93 112
14 Document dated May 27, 2005, to 103 112
Documentation File from R.D. Hester,
Ref. ULP Drug Testing-PERC/Officer
M. Rummel
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT NUMBERS: ID EVD
15 Memorandum to Officer Mike Rummel from 106 112
Chief Granato; July 5, 2005; Notice of
Termination
16 Chapter 7.00.00 Rules of Conduct 107 112
17 Last Chance Employment Agreement 114 115
between City of Yakima and Michael
Rummel
18 YPD Memorandum to Officer M. Rummel 116 118
from Chief Granato, Notice of
Pre-Termination Hearing; June 2, 2005
19 YPD Detail Report; 6/16/05 118 120
20 Internal Investigation Summary 124 125
21 State of Washington Office of 271 272
Administrative Hearings for the
Employment Security Department In The
Matter Of: Michael J. Rummel, Initial
Order
22 Order for Protection: Stacey Unglesby, 273 474
Petitioner; Michael Joseph Rummel,
Respondent
23 Psychiatric Evaluation Fit for Duty 278 280
for Michael J. Rummel by Kathleen P.
Decker, M.D.; 12/20/04 and 2/17/05
24 Letter to Chief S. Granato from R.D. 284 284
Hester, July 22, 2005; Ref. Grievance
of Termination of Officer Michael Rummel
25 Document CR 024245 292 296
26 WITHDRAWN
27 YPD Detail Report; 2/25/05 309 310
28 YPD Internal Investigation Supervisory 313 319
Review/Recommendation, Complaint 05-11
EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT NUMBERS: ID EVD
29 YPD Inter-Office Memo to YPPA 373 474
Executive Board, General Membership
from Sgt. J. Seely; Subject, Resignation
30 Letter to R.D. Hester, YPPA Chairman 427 427
from City of Yakima Police Department,
Response to Grievance of Termination
of Officer Rummel; August 3, 2005
31 E-mail dated Monday, June 27, 2005, 459 463
8:22 p.m. to Granato, Sam; Subject,
Grievance against YPPA
* * *
P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S
HEARING EXAMINER: We are on the record.
You have been called before to testify, and I won't have
the court reporter swear you in again, but I do remind you
that you are under oath.
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
HEARING EXAMINER: You may proceed,
Mr. Cline.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLINE:
Q. Sergeant Hester, I am recalling you to have you
clarify Exhibit 7.
A. Yes.
Q. Do you recall testifying about this yesterday?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. After thinking about this overnight, was there
something you wanted to clarify about your testimony
concerning Exhibit 7?
A. Yes. Some dates or actually the month is
incorrect.
Q. Could you point out where that is?
A. On the bottom of the second page where it says,
August 6th, that is actually September 6th. And the next
-- on Page 3 the remaining August dates are also September
dates.
Q. So if I'm following this, you have on the
second page you have July dates and then August dates, and
the August dates run through August 29/30 on the entry
that's next to the bottom of the page?
A. Yes.
Q. And then when you go to the next entry after
that, you're saying that entry should be September 6th
rather than August 6th?
A. Yes.
Q. And then on the third page all the other
entries where they indicate August, those should all read
September as well?
A. Yes. That's correct.
MR. CLINE: I don't have any further
questions.
MR. SCHROEDER: I don't have any cross.
MR. CLINE: Was that clear to our Examiner?
HEARING EXAMINER: You're talking about --
MR. CLINE: He's saying if you go to the
bottom of Page 2 where it says August 29th, the next entry
should have been September 6th, and then everything
follows.
THE WITNESS: Do you want me to make those
in this book?
MR. CLINE: I don't think it's necessary.
We've got the record on it.
HEARING EXAMINER: No. It's better not to
change the exhibits anyway.
MR. CLINE: That's all we have unless the
Examiner has any questions.
HEARING EXAMINER: Thank you. No. That's
fine.
MR. CLINE: Our next witness will be Mike
Rummel.
(MIKE RUMMEL, called as a witness by the YPPA,
being first duly sworn to tell the truth, the whole truth
and nothing but the truth, was examined and testified as
follows:)
HEARING EXAMINER: Good morning. Before we
continue, I would like to have him sign the attendance
sheet, if I could find it.
DIRECT EXAMINATION
BY MR. CLINE:
Q. Sir, can you tell us your full name?
A. Michael J. Rummel.
Q. Were you previously an officer with the Yakima
Police Department?
A. Yes, I was.
Q. For what period of time?
A. From July of 2000 to August -- no -- July of
2005.
Q. I'm sorry. What date did you start?
A. July 2000.
MR. CLINE: I just need a moment here.
HEARING EXAMINER: Actually, I do not have
his name here.
THE WITNESS: Here.
Q. (Mr. Cline continuing.) Was there a point in
time in the year 2002 that you had some legal and
disciplinary difficulties?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us briefly what that was about?
A. I believe it was July or August of 2002 I was
pulled over for a DUI.
Q. Driving under the influence of alcohol?
A. Correct.
Q. And did that result in some kind of criminal
disposition?
A. Yeah. In November, I believe, in 2002 they
wrote me a ticket for a DUI.
Q. Did that ultimately result in -- What happened
with that charge?
A. I went to a Neg 1, Negligent Driving 1st
Degree, which was on a deferred sentence. And after a
year of no violations or tickets or anything, it was
dismissed.
Q. Had you had any previous discipline issues with
the Department prior to that?
A. No, I did not.
Q. What action did the Department take because of
your off-duty DUI?
A. I was given a -- I was suspended from duty for
a period of time. I don't remember how many hours it was,
offhand. And I was subjected to what they call a Last
Chance Agreement.
Q. I'm going to ask you to turn to Exhibit 17,
which should be in your book in front of you. Do you
recognize this document?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. And what is it?
A. This is the Last Chance Agreement that the City
drew up.
Q. I'm going to ask you to turn to Page 4 of this
document. Is that your signature on this document?
A. Yes, under employee.
Q. I'm going to ask you to turn to the second page
and under heading No. 1 there's a heading that says,
Discipline terms and conditions. Do you see that?
A. Yes.
Q. Below that, are the terms and conditions of
your agreement set out?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, for example, on No. A it says that you're
going to be suspended for 350 hours?
A. Correct.
Q. 35 ten-hour work days.
A. Okay.
Q. Did that in fact happen?
A. Yes.
Q. And then it indicates under B and C that you
would obtain an alcohol referral evaluation and then
follow up on any treatment?
A. Yes.
Q. Did that happen?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. Can you tell us briefly about that?
A. My alcohol and substance referral evaluation I
did that. It came back that I was not an alcoholic. And
the treatment and requirements that they gave was a impact
panel board for driving under the influence, which I
completed, and a victims' panel or something. I completed
both of those.
Q. So there wasn't any treatment for alcoholism as
a result of that program?
A. No.
Q. Because you were diagnosed as not being an
alcoholic?
A. Correct.
Q. Did you feel that diagnosis was accurate?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Now, moving down to the bottom of that list on
Item No. I it says, Employee shall comply with any and all
Yakima Police Department policies and procedures and
Yakima Police civil service rules. Do you see that?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. Do you recall at the time this agreement was
reached any discussion that you were present for
concerning that condition?
A. Yes. My YPPA representative, Tony Patlin, was
there with me and he objected to that part of the
agreement.
Q. Tell us what happened after -- Well, first of
all, do you recall what he said about it?
A. He basically objected to I. Captain Schneider
was the only individual from the City present at the time.
Basically, Captain Schneider asked, Why do you object to
that? And Tony Patlin described that that's too general.
It's basically impossible for anybody to comply with all
the rules all the time.
Tony brought up some examples as to what could
happen and, you know, is Mike going to be fired or
terminated because he does these minor things that could
be construed as violating one of the policies and
procedures.
Captain Schneider then told Tony and I not to
worry about those types of things, that this Last Chance
Agreement had to do with violations that include
alcohol-related type things, you know, another DUI,
anything resulting in something to do with alcohol pretty
much is what he told us.
Q. And how did you -- How did Tony respond to that
explanation from the Captain?
A. He seemed like, well -- Then Tony and I talked
about it, about whether we should sign it at that time.
Tony said, As long as that's true then we will agree to
sign this Last Chance Agreement.
Q. Would you have signed it without that assurance
from the City?
A. No, I would not.
Q. Why not?
A. Because as Tony described to the Captain, you
know, you sign something that's that general and broad,
you're pretty much setting yourself up for failure.
Q. I want to move forward to the fall of 2004.
Was there an incident that you were investigated for
concerning a phone call to a girlfriend or former
girlfriend of yours?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell us briefly about the background of that
incident and what happened.
A. On November 1st of 2004 I was given an order by
Captain Copeland, a verbal order, advising me not to call
my girlfriend at the time, Stacey Unglesby, because of
complaints and things like that with her co-workers,
interrupting her work, and things like that.
Q. And did he tell you how long that order was
supposed to stay in place?
A. No.
Q. Did you say she worked as a dispatcher?
A. No. At the time she was working as a 911 call
taker.
Q. Explain real briefly for the record what the
difference is between a 911 call taker and a dispatcher.
A. Well, a 911 call taker, you know, anywhere in
Yakima County you dial 911 they're the ones that take the
calls, enter it into the computer, and send it to whatever
agency. It could be Lower Valley Fire Department. It
could be any agency down there. It could be Yakima Fire
Department. It could be Yakima Police Department,
Sheriff's Office. They send the information to whatever
agency is responsible for that 911 call.
A dispatcher at the Yakima Police Department, if
the 911 call taker took a call that City of Yakima needed
to respond to, say, an assault call or something within
the City limits, the 911 call taker would send it to our
dispatchers and then our dispatchers are the ones that
talk to us on the radios, the YPD officers, and they're
the ones that respond. The dispatchers don't take calls,
they're the ones that dispatch the calls to the Yakima
Police Department.
Q. Did she ever have an occasion to fill in for a
dispatcher?
A. No.
Q. Was there something later that happened with
that advisement you received from the Captain?
A. On I believe it was December -- I think it was
December 6th I received some phone calls. It was the
morning of December 6th, I don't remember the time,
probably around 10:00 in the morning, I'll say, I received
some phone calls from Stacey from her work while she was
working. There was actually a couple phone calls from
her. I returned her phone call at her work, talked to her
for probably anywhere from 10 to 20 seconds, and then the
call was terminated.
Q. And you believe you had more than one phone
call from her that morning?
A. I believe there was a couple from her cell
phone.
Q. Do you recall what she was indicating to you in
those phone messages?
A. She was -- Just briefly, the night before or
whatever would have been December 6th, she and I were
dating at the time, she was -- or I was caught her with
another guy. So basically I broke up with her at that
time. The next day her phone messages from her cell phone
at work were basically blaming me for her being with
somebody else.
Q. Did she ask you to call her?
A. No.
Q. What happened after that phone call?
A. Well, after that call was terminated I was
contacted on December 7th by I believe it was Captain
Copeland, basically stating that I was under investigation
at the time for violating his order not to call her.
Q. Did you ever determine or did the Department
ever explain to you how your single phone call to her came
to their attention?
A. She reported it.
Q. So she made two phone calls to you concerning
something that happened the night before, and you called
back?
A. Correct.
Q. And then she turned the information over to the
Department that you had called her back?
A. Yes.
Q. Can you tell us were you then investigated for
that allegation?
A. I was not investigated until February of 2005.
Q. What happened -- What was your job status then
after that phone call through the months that followed?
A. I'm not exactly sure if I was on days off or
what at the time.