ILNews

COA rules on fire department consolidation demotions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ruling on a case about fire department consolidation in Indianapolis, the state’s second highest appellate court has given police and fire merit commissions the same power as related safety and disciplinary boards as to how far they can go in restructuring police and fire positions.

The court issued a decision in Jeff Castetter, Tony Jones, David Strode and Matthew Hickey v. Lawrence Township, No. 49A05-1105-PL-249, arising out of a Marion Superior Court action involving the mid-2010 discussion in Lawrence Township of merging the township fire department with the Indianapolis Fire Department.

Before any merger could happen, the Lawrence department had to adjust its officer ranks because Indianapolis was only willing to accept a certain number of captains and lieutenants in the merger and no battalion chiefs. At the time, Lawrence Township had 10 of those battalion chiefs and the township fire department’s merit commission was tasked with modifying those ranks to conform with the proposed merger structure. At a public meeting in July 2010, the commission announced that a previous April 2007 rule amendment didn’t comply with the state statutes on public notice and comment, and therefore was rescinded. That meant the township had no merit battalion chiefs and anyone promoted under those “invalid provisions” adopted in 2007 would be reverted to their previous rank.

At the same July 2010 meeting, the commission turned to the merger and determined the township could no longer afford the local fire department and decided to restructure the officer ranks in order to move forward with a merger – which happened Jan. 1, 2011. None of the appellants in this case retained their positions, and they appealed the commission’s decision on grounds that the action was illegal, arbitrary, capricious and invalid.

Both sides filed summary judgment motions and the trial court granted the Lawrence Township motion, leading to this appeal about merger demotions.

In Indiana, the merit commission discipline statute of Indiana Code 36-8-3 dictates how those panels must handle notice and hearings before any suspensions, demotions or dismissals can happen. None of those statutorily required procedures took place here. Lawrence Township argued it wasn’t bound by those rules because the officers were demoted for economic reasons and fell under an “economic exception” to the disciplinary statute.

State courts going back to 1918 recognized an exception to the necessity of due process procedures required in police and firefighter discipline, and that exception has to do with whether the personnel action is considered “person-directed” or “position-directed.”

The court has determined those statutory requirements apply to the person-directed action before any termination or discipline can occur, but those protections do not apply to the more general position-specific changes as happened in this Lawrence Township Fire Department case.

“Although (past holdings) … concern the notice and hearing provisions of IC 36-8-3-4, which is the discipline statute applicable to safety boards, we hold that this exception extends to merit commissions as well,” Judge L. Mark Bailey wrote.

The appellate panel found the trial court didn’t err in granting Lawrence Township’s motion for summary judgment, and that the position-directed decisions were made in good faith and not for the purpose of demoting the appellants for cause, politics or any other reason.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT