City Prevails No Rights For Officers

Nearly a full year after two Prescott Police officers received letters of termination, the lawsuit brought against the City of Prescott in their handling of the August , 2017 termination of former police officers Bryan Massman and Ryan Most took place on Tuesday, June 26th in the Pierce County Courthouse, heard by judge Robert Duvall. At issue was the contention by the lawyer for the officers, Matthew Biegert, that improper procedure and lack of due process was provided to them in their firing delivered by then Interim Chief Robert Funk, just days after the death of former Chief Gary Krutke.
The judge weighed the arguments provided by the defense which used previous case law to prove the contract signed with the city did provide protection against termination without due cause or the opportunity to exhaust remedies for any complaint which had been brought against them. Biegert suggest the officers were not afforded any opportunity to correct the actions they were reportedly fired for. He also pointed to ambiguity inherent to the labor agreement signed by the city, which provides all city workers other than law enforcement, that due process.
The attorney for the city argued that there is no inherent protection and that the exception of law enforcement in such grievance protection is standard in the industry. Officers contracted under a probationary status for up to 18 months have no rights during that period, no due process and no grievance remedy. They are considered at will employees meaning that despite a Union Labor Contract, the city may at any time and for any reason sever their employment without cause and without compensation. The Police Union representative for the department is Jeryl Vonderheid, who was not in the courtroom. A request for comment from the WPPO union on their contract with the city , was not returned.
Judge Duvall noted during deliberations that he believes the Wisconsin Professional Police Officer’s Labor contract enacted in 2015, is also ambigous in it’s language and does not provide protection to officers from undue firing. He also stated that Interim Chief Funk acted inappropriately in offering Massman and Most an opportunity to provide a grievence as none was, in fact, required. This action was also walked back in references attributed to city attorney Phillip Helgerson, conveying the position that no offering was made by the city to allow officers a grievence opportunity.
Attorney Biegert stated that no monetary compensation was being sought, however a writ of Certiorari asked that more information be considered before rendering a judgement. That right is assured to all, said Biegert, when a government entity wrongs someone and does not depend on whether or not their employment status is probationary.
Representation for the City declared that no intention was given from the city to provide employment rights to any law enforcement personnel and they ask the nearly year old case to be dismissed.
Judge Duvall granted that request and the case against the City of Prescott was dismissed. City Administrator Jayne Brand, accompanied by their lawyer offered no comment to the outcome of the case, however the officer’s attorney did confirm that they have 5 days to submit an appeal, which is the action his clients are considering.