The Perry Township Board of Trustees meets in Regular Meeting format on the first and third Tuesday of every month at 7:00 PM.
The meetings are held at the Township Hall located at
3111 Hilton Street NW
in Massillon. Regular Meetings include reports by Department Heads, the Law Director, and the Township Administrator. The public is welcome to offer comments during the Public Speaks portion of the agenda on township related matters.
Perry Township Board of Trustees
July 21, 2015 7:00 pm
Call to Order/ Pledge of Allegiance:
Excused absence: Charles Hall, Law Director
Additions/Deletions to Agenda:
Public Hearings/Invited Guests:
Trustee Chessler stated that we have two matters that are considered Public Hearings scheduled for tonight; they are both Step II Grievances coming out of the Police Department and added that we will handle those individually as they have been listed.
Officer Slone Step II Grievance
Trustee Chessler stated that he will note that Officer Slone is here and verified that he was here with representation tonight. Officer Slone stated that was correct.
Lucy DiNardo, Fraternal Order of Police, Ohio Labor Council, introduced herself and Chuck Aliff and stated that Chuck will assume as the acting counsel for Perry Township due to her increased work load but added that she was directly involved with these grievances presented here this evening.
Trustee Chessler stated to Ms. DiNardo that the Board recognizes their representation and asked her to spell her last name for the record. Ms. DiNardo spelled out her last name. Trustee Chessler confirmed the spelling of Mr. Aliff’s name as well.
Trustee Chessler also indicated that the staff union representative, Jason Fisher is here this evening and added that Officer Luke also has a grievance scheduled for tonight.
Trustee Chessler indicated to Ms. DiNardo that he would primarily represent her as being the grievance representative and added that the grievant has the right to have the grievance heard by the Board of Trustees in Executive Session and inquired if this was something this council would request.
Ms. DiNarado inquired if this was opposed to having it out here in the forum. Trustee Chessler replied yes. Ms. DiNardo stated that she did not have a problem having it here in the open forum at all.
Trustee Chessler stated that he also had noted in the opening remarks that Law Director Hall was called away unexpectedly today and added that he is usually present and assists the Board in these hearings. Trustee Chessler indicated that the Board was prepared to proceed but inquired of Ms. DiNardo if that would cause any problem. Ms. DiNardo replied it was not a problem for them.
Trustee Chessler inquired of Police Chief Pomesky if he would outline, for the record, the process by which this came to him and the steps that it has followed so far pursuant to the union agreement.
Chief Pomesky stated that in regard to Officer Slone’s case tonight, he was contacted on May 3, 2015 of the facts given rise to the incident; we had taken appropriate action; we had a meeting with the union, and briefly summarized that we were unable to solve differences in the Step I hearing.
Trustee Chessler stated that the Board has received, as part of the written information, the Ohio Labor Council Grievance Report Form that sets forth the basic facts of the grievance and that it was submitted on June 18, 2015, timely, and has been scheduled before the Board tonight for the Step II Grievance hearing. Trustee Chessler stated that as a prerequisite of that, there was a meeting on June 18, 2015 and the Step I Grievance was denied and that puts it before the Board tonight. Trustee Chessler indicated with that, asked Chief Pomesky to present the information that he had with regard to the Grievance.
Chief Pomesky stated that he was contacted on the night of May 3, 2015 by Officer Slone. Officer Slone advised that he was involved in a minor pursuit with his patrol car (#120) that ended with him striking a pedal bike causing damage to Car #120. There were no injuries as a result of the crash. A copy of the case can be found attached to this summary for details surrounding the case.
Chief Pomesky stated, based on the information that he (Officer Slone) provided me, I advised him to contact the Ohio State Highway Patrol for the crash report to be completed. Chief Pomesky indicated that this is also consistent with Policy and Procedures 1.4 Operation of Police Vehicles which states in part: in case of accident or damage to any police vehicle, the driver shall immediately request the Ohio State Highway Patrol (OSP) to conduct an investigation, which shall be reported immediately on a state accident investigation form.
Attached before the Board are photos of the damage that car #120 sustained. Chief Pomesky stated that a request was promptly made for a copy of the crash report from the Ohio State Highway Patrol. Chief Pomesky stated, during the time I was waiting to receive the report, Sergeant Barker approached me in my office. This conversation took place on 5-6-15. Chief Pomesky stated that he received a call from a sergeant from the Ohio State Highway Patrol but he “could not recall the name”. Chief Pomesky stated that he found that statement rather odd because it is standard practice in law enforcement to introduce yourself when you contact them. The sergeant was looking into the details surrounding the crash. During the time Sergeant Barker and I spoke, he told me that he read Officer Slone’s narrative to the sergeant as requested over the phone. Chief Pomesky stated that Sergeant Barker told me that it was implied by the sergeant that his investigation did not match the information given regarding this matter. Chief Pomesky stated that the demeanor in which this was conveyed to me by Sergeant Barker displayed that he believed there were issues. Chief Pomesky stated that it should be noted that the phone call fielded by Sergeant Barker should have been transferred to me as this was an internal issue that he was not involved in and should not have handled.
Chief Pomesky stated that on May 8, 2015 at 10:55, he sent Sergeant Barker an email ordering an interoffice communication to be written detailing the conversation that he had with the OSP Sergeant. Chief Pomesky stated this was done because if in fact he did not recall the Sergeant’s name from OSP calling, the interoffice should be consistent. Chief Pomesky stated that it was in this interoffice communication that the name of the sergeant placing the call to the department from OSP was finally revealed as Sergeant Garber.
Chief Pomesky stated while this was taking place, I reviewed the case documentation contained in-house, and pulled a copy of the in-car video. Chief Pomesky stated that it was clear upon reviewing the video that this was a preventable patrol car crash.
Chief Pomesky stated that on May 29, 2015, I served Officer Slone a meeting notice for June 4, 2015 at 2200 hours, or 10 pm. He was advised that he would need to make arrangements to have a union representative present if he chose to have one. Chief Pomesky stated that on June 4, 2015, I reported to the Police Department for the meeting at 2200 hours, or 10 pm as scheduled and I met with Officer Slone in my office. Chief Pomesky stated I could see there was no union representative present and through the process of our conversation before the meeting began it was clear that he wanted one. Chief Pomesky stated I agreed to postpone the meeting and reschedule it to accommodate him and be fair. Chief Pomesky stated that during that time, I wanted him to be prepared for the next meeting and I displayed the interoffice communication sent to me by Sergeant Barker. Officer Slone was not subjected to any questioning. Chief Pomesky stated I told him that my review of the video is that this is and was a preventable patrol car crash and nothing more. Chief Pomesky stated, I felt that it was important for him to hear from me, and the interoffice communication from Sergeant Barker was important for him to see. Chief Pomesky stated that it is clear in Policy and Procedure 1.4 Operation of Police Vehicles that the use of a patrol car to strike a vehicle is only justified when there may be extraordinary situations, an aggravated crime of violence that litigates that if we use the patrol car to strike the vehicle, the use of deadly force must be justified and that type of action can only be approved by a supervisor or myself.
Chief Pomesky stated my review of this case clearly found that this case did not justify use of force actions consistent with #12 in Policy and Procedure 1.4; Operation of Police Vehicles. Chief Pomesky stated with the insinuation in conversation with Sergeant Barker, and the formal interoffice communication that OSP’s investigation did not match the information that Sergeant Barker provided, there was a distinct obligation upon me to clarify what took place.
Chief Pomesky stated I reviewed the crash report upon receipt of it. It should be noted that under the contributing factors section, #10 was noted which is an “improper lane change/passing/off-road”. The narrative from the Trooper states “Unit #1 (which was Officer Slone) was northbound on Locke Ave. NW.” “Unit #1 drove off the right side of the road striking an abandoned bicycle.” In addition to this, Officer Slone admits to striking the bicycle with his patrol car in his signed written statement for the crash investigation. In looking at the damage section of the crash report, minor damage is noted on the report consistent with photographs.
Chief Pomesky stated based upon reviewing the outlined information, discipline was processed appropriately for Conduct 11, Use and Care of Property and Equipment.
Chief Pomesky stated that Officer Slone received a written warning for his actions regarding the preventable patrol car crash. This discipline was served in the presence of his union representative and Law Director Charles Hall on June 18, 2015 in the afternoon. This occurred after a discussion of scheduling the meeting for discipline and the FOP Representative advised to just serve the discipline at that time and they would be grieving it. The grievance was filed within minutes of serving the discipline. Seeing the union representative’s demeanor and the lack of productive and professional conversation, the grievance was denied and returned to them to proceed to step II. This meeting was previously scheduled in an effort to resolve an unrelated grievance. Chief Pomesky stated this meeting was nothing more than a fishing expedition and it was apparent there was no good faith effort by the union representative to have a productive conversation. My impression of this meeting is that it was nothing more than to stir controversy and divert attention in effort for the real issue at hand to receive less focus.
Chief Pomesky stated during my investigation of this, I did speak with Sergeant Garber of the Ohio State Highway Patrol. Sergeant Garber stated to me that he was checking reports and followed up with our department to make sure that he understood everything as he had some questions. Sergeant Garber admits that he was not at the crash scene during the investigation. Hearing this and knowing his minimal involvement with the investigation, there was no relevant information otherwise gained. While on the phone with Sergeant Garber, I inquired if the Ohio State Highway Patrol was going to issue a citation in this crash. The fact that I made this inquiry made the FOP Representative upset; however, if I would have been provided a proper opportunity to explain during that meeting with professional dialogue, there would be an understanding that I have a concern for the pattern of citations with patrol car crashes. I have two officers who have been issued citations in preventable patrol car crashes, and two officers who have not. I have questions regarding what criteria is used to determine when citations are issued to officers. Please note, I am going to ask those questions regardless if the FOP Representative likes it or not. There should be a consistent standard and I want to understand what that standard is from OSP. There is also paperwork that I have to fill out and send to the BMV when an officer is involved in an on-duty crash to avoid negative effects on their driving record. I had also noticed the Trooper handling the crash is married to one of our dispatchers.
I have reviewed Officer Slone’s training records for the past 3 years and he was previously trained in 2014 and 2013 in Policy and Procedure 1.4 Operations of Police Vehicles as well as Conduct 11. In review of his 2015 Roll Call training records, I can see that he has not completed his training at all this year. Appropriate notification has been sent to his shift supervisor to assist Officer Slone in correcting this deficiency too. Copies of the training records can be found attached to this documentation for your review.
Chief Pomesky stated in closing, I feel there is substantial evidence to show that the investigation was properly conducted and the grievance before the Board tonight should be denied. Additionally, the grievance filed cites Conduct 11 as the section of the patrol officers and detective’s contract as being violated. Conduct 11 is covered within the policies and procedures manual of the police department, not the contract for patrol officers and detectives.
Chief Pomesky stated that he had some additional Exhibits to submit to the Board; a full copy of the Policy 1.4 Operation of Police Vehicles, a copy of Conduct 11 which was violated; training records and in addition the vehicle inspection from September 15, 2014 showing the exterior of the vehicle, the vehicle inspection report from December 15, 2014 showing there were only scratches on the rear bumper, trunk and hood and the vehicle inspection form from March 20, 2015 showing that there was no new damage. Chief Pomesky stated that he also has the video of the pursuit for the Board’s review.
Trustee Chessler inquired of Chief Pomesky regarding the section alleged to be violated and the proposed adverse employment action as to what it is listed to be. Chief Pomesky stated a written warning for Conduct 11, use and care of property and equipment.
Lucy DiNardo stated that we have written out a grievance regarding Article 17 being missing whereby identifying exactly what Section has been violated.
Trustee Chessler stated that Chief Pomesky has submitted photographs, the documentary evidence referred to, this DVD/video and inquired if there was anything else he would offer in support of denying the grievance. Chief Pomesky stated that he had nothing further. Trustee Chessler inquired of the Board members if there were any further questions. Trustee Haines replied not at this time.
Lucy DiNardo stated, we would like to start out by having Officer Slone give you a step-by-step as to what happened with the pursuit prior to us getting to our meetings with the Chief of Police.
Officer Slone stated that first of all this was a self (remainder of the sentence unclear); I was on my way to a call; I had some kids riding through yards on bicycles; I see a kid, and an adult riding a bicycle and shoving a bicycle. Officer Slone stated I am not a detective, but that is a stolen bicycle, especially at that time of night. I flip around, as soon as I turned around, he takes off, he ditches the bike and takes off. It was later determined that he had jumped the fence at K-Mart and had stolen a bike. He zig zags in and out of the cars; When I turn onto the street (remainder of the sentence unclear); I believed in real time that he was still northbound, but if you watch the video, I don’t know if he had crashed, cause he had gotten so far ahead of me that if he was I don’t know if he was getting back on the bike, but he’s not moving so I came around the lot and hit the gas cause I’m thinking he’s (remainder of the sentence unclear). He cuts across in front of me and he goes to (wording unclear). If you look at Locke, because of the way the road is there, gravel is all down in there, I’m not just driving, I’m coming out, I’m in a foot pursuit, I’m getting my seat belt off, I’m getting my door open, I’m getting ready to bail out for a foot pursuit; when I hit that gravel, there was no stopping, I didn’t intend on going off the road, I didn’t intend on hitting it, there’s no way that I could have missed this bicycle. I hit the gravel and I kept going. I didn’t expect him to be dead stop the next second, he was still northbound. It wasn’t until I saw the video that it looks like I don’t know if he had crashed there in the gravel and was getting back on the bike and that’s why he decided to take off through the grass, but he wasn’t still northbound, if that makes senses. If you watch the video very carefully, you will see that he’s sitting and then cuts across, definitely not the (wording unclear); that was when I came around and I was expecting to hit the gas and go. That was pretty much it, I got out, the bike had a peg on it and that is what scratched through the patrol car.
Officer Slone stated that he would like to say something here, two weeks ago, maybe two and a half weeks ago, I got in another pursuit with two bicycles and I haven’t told her this yet (laughter)(Lucy DiNardo stated that she has been doing this a long time, nothing will sound surprising). Officer Slone stated that we got a call for two males breaking into cars; I was literally right around the corner; they take off, I chase them, we go down into West Manor, they meet up side by side and I believe that’s when they (unclear); one stopped short and one went down about ten feet. Trustee Chessler inquired if they were on foot, Officer Slone indicated they were on bicycles. Officer Slone stated that the only way I could have protected myself would have been to run over the back bike because he stopped so short; instead, I kept my cruiser straight, even though that is not what we’re taught, we’re taught to use in the car, but since I’ve already been in trouble for running over a bike, I wasn’t doing it again. I get out (Lucy DiNardo stated that we do want to stipulate that the bike he ran over (remainder of the sentence unclear); Officer Slone stated correct. And this one, this one kind of already bailed; I get out, I thought in real time the guy was running, but it wasn’t until the next night that we watched the video, he actually comes off and appears to go for his waistband; I get them both down, we get them cuffed, Officer Luke is my back up. The guy had a 45 in his waistband, one in the chamber and just on a shooting (wording unclear) in Canton, about 2 hours earlier. But because of this huge incident, I didn’t put my cruiser where it should have been, I didn’t (wording unclear) and give myself protection, I put it straight and I was sitting out dead in the middle of nowhere with no protection. That’s the issue with this.
Lucy DiNardo stated that to be honest, it is not the written warning; that is not the reason why of what has transpired from the meeting with the Chief, from his meeting (unclear) of the Chief, which I’m going to let him explain because there has been a lot that has transpired with this; it’s been pretty culpable, a little more culpable than I’ve seen in my 11 ½ years of doing this job. I do want Steve to let you know what happened the night that he did meet with the Chief, after hours. I was not notified that night. I had no idea this meeting happened, I got a phone call immediately after the meeting.
Officer Slone stated that he went to the meeting without representation. Trustee Chessler stated that we are now moving into the Second Phase. Officer Slone stated yes. Lucy DiNardo stated (remainder of the sentence unclear). Officer Slone stated that as soon as it happened, I called the Chief and told him what happened, referring to incident one, he told me to call OSP, I did, (Lucy DiNardo added Ohio Patrol came to the scene); Officer Slone continued on to say that two troopers, Halstead and the other name is slipping my mind, but anyway, two troopers showed up, Trooper Halstead indicated that this wasn’t a crash, contacted his supervisor, and the supervisor said no go ahead and do it because the Chief is requesting it. Trustee Chessler inquired to duly record it. Officer Slone stated yes. (Lucy DiNardo stated that his initial opinion was this was not a crash report. Trustee Chessler inquired and has no report, really. Ms. DiNardo replied correct, however the supervisor advised that he had spoken to the Chief and the Chief wanted a report, so they did it. Officer Slone stated that at 6 o’clock in the morning when I get off, the Chief called me and said did OSP write you a ticket and I said no; he said well, you never know what they’re going to do and that was the end of the conversation. The next thing I know, I get a letter in my box stating that I had a meeting; in that letter it said there was no discipline at the meeting; I figured I was going to get a counseling or a training or a simple write up. I didn’t contact the FOP, I figured if I’m getting written up, I can live with that, I’ll sign it and not a big deal. I show up that night, go in and he asked me where my representation was, I said I don’t really think I need it, I’ll sign whatever I need to sign, I wasn’t going to cause them time, I wasn’t going to cause you time. Ms. DiNardo stated that he (Officer Slone) was initially advised that this was not a disciplinarian thing.
Officer Slone continued, Trustee Chessler inquired if by letter. Officer Slone stated yes. Ms. DiNardo stated yes. Officer Slone continued that he hands me an Interoffice from Sergeant Barker and in that Interoffice, it said that Sergeant Garber believed that I had purposely tried to hit this guy on the bike. Officer Slone stated that Chief Pomesky stated that maybe you should because now this is a use of force, attempted homicide investigation because of the allegation made. Officer Slone stated that he (Chief Pomesky) said I don’t believe it, it’s not true, I watched the video, but Sergeant Garber has made this allegation against you. This is (remainder of the sentence unclear) again Step One, and both Sergeant Barker and Sergeant Garber both made the statement to him that this was purposely done and therefore a use of deadly force. As soon as I let out the meeting I called FOP. I didn’t sleep for two days, I was scared to death. I knew what happened, but we’re talking about two Sergeants, one being from OSP, making this allegation. Lucy told me to calm down and she would look into it and she can tell you what happened with that.
Ms. DiNardo stated I then had a conversation with Sergeant Garber from the OSP, I had asked him on a taped line, and we do have a tape of the conversation, I asked him whether or not he had ever relayed to Sergeant Barker that he thought that Officer Slone purposely or maliciously tried to run over the subject that he was pursuing and Sergeant Garber said that those words never came out of his mouth, ever. He also told him that he never said that to Sergeant Barker. Ms. DiNardo stated, I had a conversation with Sergeant Barker subsequently as well and asked him whether or not Sergeant Garber had ever given him the impression or said to him that he thought Officer Slone purposely tried to hit the pedestrian on a bike and Sergeant Barker was extremely upset and said those words never came out of his mouth. Ms. DiNardo stated that he also stated that the only thing that Garber had said to him, and it actually ended up being a very, very minimal problem was that two things didn’t match with regard to I think it may have been time or where exactly the bike was when it was struck. Ms. DiNardo stated that is what Sergeant Garber meant when he said to Barker that what Officer Slone was saying on scene wasn’t actually coinciding with what they had in the report, it was a very simple, minimal problem, it was nothing with relation to his actions whatsoever and like I said, Sergeant Garber wasn’t real happy that he was being accused of this either.
Ms. DiNardo stated, I immediately sent over a public records request to Charlie Hall and I copied Chief Pomesky on it; I said I wanted all of these documents that were included with and presented to Officer Slone the night of his pre (wording unclear) hearing. Ms. DiNardo stated I wanted the document that he read and have no reason to believe that Officer Slone misinterpreted anything that he read especially when his job is on the line and he is being told that he is being investigated for deadly force. Ms. DiNardo stated I immediately asked for these memos, we were given our public records request, however, this specific memo was absent; it was not contained anywhere. Ms. DiNardo stated I kept asking – Trustee Chessler inquired what memo was this. Ms. DiNardo stated the memo that Officer Slone described to me where Officer Garber accused him of trying to purposely hit this pedestrian on the bike; it was allegedly written by Sergeant Barker. Sergeant Barker advised that he never wrote such a memo. Ms. DiNardo stated, when we requested it, I was given documentation and this is now is missing and it was not involved in the disk that we received; it wasn’t contained in it. Ms. DiNardo stated, I then called Charlie Hall immediately and said, look, I was told that this memo was handed to him the night of the pre (wording unclear) hearing, where is it. Ms. DiNardo stated, so the Chief assures me that he gave everything and that no such memo exists, so I called back Officer Slone and I said are you sure what you read is what you read. He said I am 100% positive that what I read was that I was being accused of this. Ms. DiNardo stated I will tell you that when I had my conversation with OSP Sergeant Garber, he had already heard that he was accused of saying this, prior to me even asking him. He had already heard it through the grapevine. So he knew (wording unclear) which also made me very suspicious. So when we got to our meeting of which the one that Chief is alleging I was unprofessional in, I demanded his hard drive, which I have every right to demand in public records. Charlie Hall told me no problem, we’ll give it to you. I said okay, great. After the meeting when I pursued Charlie Hall to get the hard drive is when he said no we’re not giving it to you and then I got a two page email, no, we’re not handing it over to you. Ms. DiNardo stated to be honest with you, I can still request it. I can still demand it. Unfortunately, we didn’t want all of these other things to come in and muddy the water with regard to the subject here at hand and we are not the ones who tried muddying the waters; all of these things started to happen within this hearing/alleged meeting we were having which was requested by the Township to me by Charlie Hall to try and get these two grievances settled. We are trying to get this situation with Officer Slone and the grievance with Officer Luke settled. Ms. DiNardo stated it ended up being nonetheless very unproductive because we were getting absolutely nothing on behalf of the Chief with regard to answers.
Ms. DiNardo stated a lot of hard questions were not being answered through this, if you want to say, conversation back and forth; after Officer Slone had told me what happened, that is when I, like I said, kind of started my own investigation with this. Ms. DiNardo stated while we were sitting in the meeting, because things weren’t going that way and it was right after I requested the hard drive that the Chief stated that he was going to give him a reprimand. Ms. DiNardo stated I said for what, what did he do wrong, he said, ran over a bike because his vehicle couldn’t stop because it slid on the gravel. Ms. DiNardo stated he himself, the Chief of Police wrote me an email stating that he admits that his conversations with Barker, Sergeant Barker must have misinterpreted what Sergeant Garber told him and he, the Chief himself must have misinterpreted what Sergeant Barker told him. Ms. DiNardo stated so he admitted to this understanding and I still could not get out of him what exactly what he had done wrong; there was no use of force in this with regards to him intentionally trying to hit somebody; it’s going to happen every; I represent over 28 cities; I have got the biggest cities in the state of Ohio and my officers get dings and bangs and scratches on their cars all the time, it’s the cost of doing business. He wasn’t reckless in any way, he didn’t do it on purpose, it’s not like he backed into a dumpster, this was an actual pursuit and in order for him to be able to chase the subject in question here, things are going to happen. The scratch, as you can see from the photos, there is not much of a scratch on that car, this officer did everything he was supposed to do in this situation, we do not feel that any discipline should be warranted here.
Ms. DiNardo stated, I know that none of you know me, but I will tell you this, that if my officers do something wrong, I am the first one to yell and scream and tell them; and I don’t know whether or not you can tell that in this twenty minutes, but I can tell you right now, they all know, if they’ve done something wrong, I have advised them to suck it up and take it; I will not allow administration however, to make them feel and second guess their position on the road because that becomes dangerous, and if they’ve done nothing wrong, that is exactly what we are telling you here today with regard to Officer Slone, our position is that discipline is not warranted at all and completely without just cause. Ms. DiNardo stated I’m going to let him finish what happened in your meeting with the Chief one-on-one when you left and I believed he advised you to look into the matter some more and get back to you.
Officer Slone stated, he advised me that he didn’t believe the allegations and that he felt like since the allegations had been made, he would have to look into it and he would get back with me on his findings and that I definitely needed to bring an FOP rep with me due to the seriousness of the allegations.
Trustee Laubacher inquired of Ms. DiNardo what is the hard drive she was talking about. Ms. DiNardo stated his computer will basically let me know whether or not this memo was ever generated. Ms. DiNardo stated now don’t get me wrong, your Chief is very savvy when it comes to computers, very savvy; and I’m not accusing him of anything, but that day that I wanted the hard drive, I was assured in that meeting that I would get it and I did not. Ms. DiNardo stated the switch went on when Charlie Hall said no, you are not getting it and then I got a subsequent email the next day saying that FOP will have to supply him with another computer on the interim while we take the hard drive to examine it. I assured him I will get VCI here to do it, I will get a third party mutual here to examine it, I need to know whether or not this memo was ever generated because if it was, we’re looking at a bigger problem here, we’re looking at your Chief of Police alleging that one of his Sergeants said something that he didn’t and put it in writing, this is all public record, not to mention the fact that a few of the things that were given to a few of the officers have numerous mistakes and which are public record. Ms. DiNardo stated again, Charlie Hall emailed me back and said no, you’re not getting it, we’re not giving it to you, we don’t have to give it to you, in fact, they do, I have not pushed the issue as of yet.
Trustee Laubacher inquired if the discipline that Officer Slone is going to receive is just a written reprimand. Ms. DiNardo stated correct and added I was told the reason for it by Charlie Hall was the Chief gives that to everybody who does anything or damages the car, regardless. That’s what Charlie Hall’s response was to me. That it is given to everybody regardless of the situation, regardless if there is damage to the car, it is given to everybody. I said well isn’t that nice, (wording unclear). Ms. DiNardo stated I didn’t understand what the big deal was because everybody hits them. Ms. DiNardo stated I don’t know if any of you got to see the public records request that I actually, it’s pretty detailed.
Ms. DiNardo stated our position is Officer Slone acted within the scope of his duties, we don’t feel he did anything wrong that warrants a reprimand. Ms. DiNardo stated we don’t feel the discipline was issued with just cause, at all, the Chief failed to prove that he has done anything wrong with regards to violating any type of policy; he did not act reckless with regard to what happened; it was simply an accident. We have got an accident report to prove it; how do you have an accident report, no fault accident report proven by OSP and yet you’re going to turn around and request that they cite him and on top of that they give him a written reprimand, it doesn’t make much sense to me.
Trustee Chessler stated to Ms. DiNardo that she has stated he thinks you said that your position is that the grievance is that this one that is proposed, which is a written reprimand, has been issued without just cause. Ms. DiNardo stated correct. Trustee Chessler continued that it is being asked that it be rescinded or (wording unclear); Ms. DiNardo stated correct. Ms. DiNardo stated it is actually a warning, a written warning. Ms. DiNardo inquired, do you have a copy of it. Members of the Board replied yes.
Trustee Haines inquired if when (remainder of the sentence unclear) is that correct, Steve. Officer Slone stated yes and added that we were at our meeting. Trustee Chessler inquired if that was the one that was scheduled at 10 o’clock. Trustee Haines indicated that was the meeting with representation. Ms. DiNardo stated that was during the day, during normal business hours.
Trustee Haines stated that the one thing that I think we can all agree upon here was that (remainder of the sentence unclear). Ms. DiNardo stated absolutely. Trustee Haines continued whether it was half fault, no fault, there was damage to the cruiser. We all agree on that. Ms. DiNardo stated yes. Trustee Haines stated that all the stuff in between, I’m not looking at that, I’m not looking at somebody accusing you of deadly force, that’s not part of the (unclear), in my eyes. I hear it’s all background, I just want to look at the simple thing, was there an accident and (remainder of the sentence unclear). Everything else that goes along with that, do you know if he’s being charged or saying you’re guilty of that or anything there. Ms. DiNardo stated (wording unclear). Trustee Chessler inquired if this was a preventable crash. Ms. DiNardo stated it wasn’t preventable.
Trustee Haines stated I have been involved in a lot of safety boards and we look at: can each accident be preventable, whoever it is. Ms. DiNardo stated do you get law enforcement accidents. Trustee Haines stated no, but every accident is preventable in some way or another, did he flatten gravel, yes, is it the gravels fault, maybe so, but there was contact. Ms. DiNardo stated that is the reason why OH forms have what the roadway is doing, what the weather is doing, just like an act of God from a tree falling on a house. Is it preventable, no, it’s not. Trustee Haines stated I’m not going to argue (wording unclear). Ms. DiNardo stated I respect your position, I’m just saying for law enforcement, it is a little different story when it comes to what they need to be doing, so whether or not what’s preventable, you can’t Monday morning quarterback in shooting a pursuit or an accident when it comes to law enforcement because you then jeopardize the safety of the officers and the safety of the public so we don’t have anything further.
Chief Pomesky stated that he had some things to rebut that. (Beginning of Chief Pomesky’s remarks unclear). Chief Pomesky stated the meeting that Officer Slone references, I will read it to you, read and attached before the Board.
Chief Pomesky stated that the reason discipline wasn’t the issue is because I wanted to find out the details surrounding it. There was a collection of issues (wording unclear), I wasn’t with Officer Slone on the night of the crash and (wording unclear) and find out whether the insinuations and discrepancies were accurate or whether they weren’t. (wording unclear) the full investigation, it led to the patrol car crash. Chief Pomesky stated I do have Sergeant Barker’s original interoffice right here to me. (wording unclear) In review of the OH-1 submitted by OSP, Chief Pomesky continued to explain the details of the report and incident.
Ms. DiNardo asked, how many pursuits have you been in, in your career, Chief Pomesky. Chief Pomesky stated several. Ms. DiNardo inquired how many. (wording unclear) Ms. DiNardo stated one, two, three. Chief Pomesky stated in excess of that, I can’t give you a number (wording unclear). Ms. DiNardo inquired how recent. Chief Pomesky stated it has been some years. Ms. DiNardo asked you never blew through an intersection. Chief Pomesky stated I have proceeded through an intersection, absolutely.
Trustee Chessler stated that he believes both sides have submitted their oral documentary testimony. (wording unclear) 18.6, pertinent parts reads that it shall be the responsibility of the Township to investigate (wording unclear) necessary to provide a written response to the Grievance within 30 working days in receipt of the grievance. Trustee Chessler inquired if we have a date on when that starts. Ms. DiNardo stated we can do 30 days from this evening.
Trustee Chessler stated, okay, if that’s the case I would suggest the Board take the time to pause and we are obligated to provide a written response. Trustee Chessler inquired if there were any other questions or comments or preferences.
Trustee Haines thanked Officer Slone.
Officer Luke Step II Grievance
Trustee Chessler stated that the Board will now move onto the Agenda item that we have listed and identified as Officer Luke Step II Grievance. Trustee Chessler stated that all the principal parties are present, Officer Luke is here with Lucy DiNardo. Trustee Chessler stated that in this case, the Grievance report form was dated May 12, 2015. Received Step One on May 12, 2015. The Chief’s response is May 19, 2015 and is before the Board tonight again for Step II Grievance, obviously the Step I was denied. Trustee Chessler communicated to Chief Pomesky that we shall proceed in the same fashion with this if he would outline or submit.
Lucy DiNardo stated, Step I initially wasn’t denied, he made an adjustment. Trustee Chessler stated I believe you are correct. Ms. DiNardo stated, he made an adjustment to the letter.
Trustee Chessler stated in your comments, for the record, Chief, will you set out what was proposed as discipline and then note in there how it was modified with the dates. Trustee Chessler stated, I would not want to interrupt your testimony, but if you proceed in the similar fashion, if there are documents you want to offer, we will put them in the records. The same with you, if you want to offer documents.
Chief Pomesky stated, I received a grievance from Officer Luke regarding a training memo that I went over with him. A summary of facts can be found as follows:
On March 19, 2015, I was made aware of an extra patrol of Officer Luke’s babysitter’s residence located at 539 Overdale NW, Canton, OH 44708. Sergeant Berkey inquired further regarding this request. This was in effort to provide a law enforcement support in the event that something was taking place at the residence that should not be. On March 20, 2015, I came to the police department to meet with Sergeant Berkey. I asked for him to get an interoffice communication from Officer Luke detailing the specific concerns that he has in that area. The purpose of this interoffice communication is to get additional information about the threats and issues he was seeing to address them properly. The only thing cited was national threats towards law enforcement. Officer Luke detailed in the interoffice communication received by Sergeant Berkey March 23, 2015 that he had not received any direct threats that placed him or his loved ones at risk. Sergeant Berkey advised Officer Luke after reviewing everything on March 24, 2015 that the patrol would be removed. Officer Luke was told if the situation changed to contact Sergeant Berkey baack so the appropriate resources could be put in place addressing the issues. It should be noted that this is a non-typical request. I have had the opportunity to speak with numerous officers outside of our department and no one has heart of a request similar to this.
On March 27 2015, Sergeant Berkey observed that 539 Overdale NW was placed on the vacation check list the patrols requested were from March 24, 2015 through March 26, 2016. This is an abnormal request as vacation checks are done when the home is vacant and requested by the homeowner. In this instance, we would be conducting a vacation check when the homeowner is home creating a safety issue for the officer walking up to the residence. As you can clearly see, this is not a two day request as portrayed in Officer Luke’s summary when he turned in his Step II grievance. Additionally, in Officer Luke’s summary he turned in, he is correct that he is a resident; however, he is an employee of the township and has a responsibility to be subordinate. This is a vacation check which is clearly problematic and was appropriately removed. This clearly falls within supervision’s discretion to address. Below is how the vacation check appeared on the list. A copy is also attached to this memo.
Until this issue presented itself, it should be noted the police department has never had an issue with an officer understanding the difference of what an extra patrol is versus a vacation check. This is one of the most basic functions of law enforcement. Based on this, I conducted a training session with Officer Luke to explain this further to him. I gave Officer Luke a copy of the training to sign off on acknowledging that he understood what a vacation check was for. After that, a grievance was filed with me the next day. This occurred on May 11-12, 2015.
I received this grievance on May 12, 2015 at 1153 hours from Officer Luke. Present with him at the time of filing this was Detective Jason Fisher. I held on to the grievance for the next few days and had a conversation with FOP Representative, Lucy DiNardo. I looked at the remedy Officer Luke was requesting, and after reviewing the copy that I first issued to Officer Luke, I agreed that some changes could be made to be more accommodating while accomplishing the original/same purpose. I have attached the two copies of the training to this summary of facts. I was specifically on the phone with FOP Representative Lucy DiNardo on May 14, 2015. We discussed at length Officer Luke’s concerns and we agreed to the amended writing on the training document provided to Officer Luke when I served him the response to his grievance on May 19, 2015. While on the phone with Ms. DiNardo, I asked her if this would resolve the grievance and I was informed that it would. FOP Representative Lucy DiNardo was sent the copy of what was agreed to on May 14, 2015 at 1441 hours, copies are attached.
On May 29, 2015, the grievance was filed at Step II. I was sent an email on June 1, 2015 stating that FOP Representative Lucy DiNardo has changed her mind and agrees with Officer Luke that two additional sentences need removed. She cited the second sentence stating “Upon further reviewing this matter, this posed a significant safety issue for your fellow officers”. Ms. DiNardo states this is untrue. Removing this sentence would remove the main reason for the training session that was conducted with Officer Luke and it should not be changed. It is a safety issue for what Officer Luke did. A vacation check consists of an officer physically walking around the residence and checking the doors to the home along with other ground level entry points to make sure they are secure. Doing this when someone is home has very high potential of a use of force situation. In looking at the second sentence Ms. DiNardo identified “You cannot just place someone on the vacation list as that infringes on the property owners rights”. I could further agree to adjust it to say you cannot just place someone on the vacation list when they are going to be home. Ms. DiNardo wants to cite Officer Luke had the permission of the homeowner to place them on the vacation list which is only one piece of the puzzle. The homeowner cannot give permission to utilize police department resources improperly. A sergeant and I clearly have the ability to make adjustments as needed with day-to-day operations. This is clearly outlined in Article 7; Section 7.1, Article 7, Management Rights, attached before the Board.
In this instance, the appropriate adjustments have been made. Officer Luke has not been disciplined, this is an issue to which his actions cannot go unaddressed.
Around the time that I received the email from FOP Representative Lucy DiNardo requesting additional changes. We spoke again I believe on June 1, 2015, the date of her email to me later in the day. She outlined the changes Officer Luke is requesting to me on the phone. I made no agreement to the changes and she was told I would contact her in the following morning June 2, 2015 if I was in agreement with those changes. It should be noted no call was placed to her as I was not agreeable to the changes.
The grievance for this should be denied. This is clearly not discipline issued to Officer Luke. Altering any more of the wording than what I have previously agreed to and outlined in this summary for you waters down the original safety reason for the training.
Chief Pomesky referenced all the attachments to this matter.
Trustee Chessler inquired how Ms. DiNardo would like to proceed on this matter. Ms. DiNardo stated that she would ask Officer Luke the rundown as to what transpired from the start (wording unclear).
Officer Luke stated, in the beginning, I spoke with the resident as to why I would want to place their house with extra patrol and they said they were fine with it. I provided different media things that tied law enforcement against families and so forth, a lot of things (wording unclear), also where two officers were killed, they were given no warning, they were given no direct threats, but they were killed without any forewarning. Officer Luke stated, there have been multiple incidents across the country with the same type of threats that have been going on toward law enforcement, so I placed the house with extra patrol. I was then notified by Sergeant Berkey as to why it was placed on extra patrol so I talked to him in private and told him my reasons behind it. Officer Luke briefly explained additional instances of threats against law enforcement across the nation. Officer Luke stated that he explained this to Sergeant Berkey and had provided four or five different articles that our police department has provided our law enforcement officers. Officer Luke referenced the back and forth emails that took place, stating that they were in order, attached before the Board.
Officer Luke stated, during that time, I was asked to place something in writing as to why I wanted the extra patrol or if I had received any direct threats and so forth; I didn’t receive any direct threats, I think my interoffice is actually in those emails too. During that time, I was told to do the interoffice, which I did, I still requested the extra patrol; I then received an email from Sergeant Berkey stating that he and the Chief denied my request and it was going to be removed. I was the first person and the first resident of this Township to ever have to place something in writing as to why I wanted the extra patrol since no resident in the Township has ever had to do it. I was the first one to ever be denied the extra patrol, no resident has ever been denied extra patrol before when they are requesting service from the Police Department. After that, I expressed my concern through email, which you can see in there. I was told that the extra patrol had to include certain criteria, it had to include either a suspect, a case number, threats toward person or whatever crime might be in the area.
Officer Luke stated, we have had multiple extra patrols, in the past, and before this incident and still currently, that do not include any of the criteria I was told that needs to be included. I have all the extra patrols that have happened after that, and the vacation checklist that are going to show that it is still done the way that I have always done the extra patrol vacation checks. I then was told by Sergeant Berkey to contact the Chief directly if I had concerns through email. Sergeant Berkey also submitted interoffice to the Chief saying you told me to contact the Chief directly. Sergeant Berkey is the midnight shift supervisor, he is my direct supervisor as the (wording unclear) shift, so the chain of command goes from me to Sergeant Berkey. I had contacted Chief through email; every email that had gone back and forth between me and Sergeant Berkey included the Chief, so he had seen and read these emails during the entire conversation. I had contacted the Chief directly, thinking I had already passed (wording unclear). I contacted him on March 29, 2015, I sent him an email and had not received a response. I came over here and talked to Administrator Fetzer asking how do I go about or to who the next person that I would contact after the Chief; she said you would have to choose one of the Trustees, so I made contact with Trustee Chessler and we met on or about April 8, 2015. We had a conversation and I presented all the emails, attached before the Board, saying what the situation was and what my concerns were. I then, after that, told him I was in fear that by meeting with him, I would receive repercussions for meeting with him and that I believe that this was a personal issue and no other resident is ever going to go through this trouble to put in a request for extra patrol. After that meeting and he told me that I wouldn’t receive any discipline in contacting him, which I did and I figured I would and I ended up receiving an interoffice that said I was to meet with the Chief on May 11th and no disciplinary action would be taken.
Officer Luke stated, that is when a detective official was with me, Sergeant Guist and Chief Pomesky. During that meeting, that was supposed to be a training meeting, I received absolutely no training whatsoever on how to do extra patrol on vacation checks. The meeting was about the whole incident up to that point. I was told that vacation checks are not to be put out there to create a use of force issue, however I had several vacation checks even after this meeting that shows that people are still in their house on vacation checks. Officer Dale, Officer Sloan, myself, all this year, have gone to homes that are on the vacation check list to check doors and the people have been home in their house. There are vacation checks that I can show you that even during our last meeting, our Step I earlier in June, that were presented to the Chief that shows that the criteria for extra patrols, I have then all highlighted.
Officer Luke gave an example of an address requesting extra patrol and stated that it was a general extra patrol and added that is how his extra patrol was listed. Officer Luke stated that the details were basically that the person was living there alone so that was put on extra patrol. I was told by the supervisor that how was an 80 year old person supposed to take care of themselves if somebody broke in. My response to that was how are a two and one year old supposed to take care of themselves if somebody breaks in. Officer Luke gave more explanation in regard to this matter.
Trustee Chessler stated to Officer Luke that he wanted to understand what the Chief has proposed to you that you are interrupting to be discipline or whether it was a training session or whether it was wording that you objected to.
Ms. DiNardo gave a brief explanation of the circumstances that led up to this point of the grievance process by Officer Luke.
Trustee Chessler inquired if the essence of the objection is the wording of the letter; you are saying it is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. It says it is a training document when you believe that it is a document that speaks of discipline. Ms. DiNardo stated that was correct.
Officer Luke stated that he doesn’t understand why it would even be training when we are still doing it the same way as we have always done this.
Trustee Chessler indicated that the issue before the Board tonight, a grieve able issue has to do with your union contract and not – Trustee Chessler inquired if that still is the essence of the grievance is that the letter if worded properly is a training document is not objectionable, but a letter that sententiously training but actually threatens discipline is not acceptable. Ms. DiNardo replied that if the sentences are redacted that we requested, it satisfies the grievance.
Trustee Haines inquired of Officer Luke if it is pretty self explanatory that when an extra patrol is versed as vacation check, if what you do as an officer when you fill that out. Officer Luke inquired, do you mean what form do you put it on. Trustee Haines stated if extra patrol is this and vacation check is this, what do you do different on each one of those. Officer Luke stated that the extra patrol is usually used for any type of criminal thing that happens and gave an example of car break ins in West Manor. Trustee Haines verified that it would be just extra driving through that neighborhood wherein a vacation check is you get out of the car and walk the property. Officer Luke stated yes. Trustee Haines inquired, so they are similar in many ways. Officer Luke stated that was right.
Trustee Laubacher inquired how the term vacation policy or vacation check originated. Officer Luke stated that if somebody wants to call if they are going out of town for a week or two weeks or sometimes six or seven months, they can call and place their house on a vacation check or provide key holder information; sometimes other people are coming and going to get the mail or feed the dogs or something like that. Trustee Laubacher stated to Officer Luke, you asked for a particular house to be put on a vacation check. Officer Luke stated yes and then added, after my extra patrol was denied, I had talked to the homeowner and got permission. Trustee Laubacher inquired what reason Officer Luke had to put on a vacation check. Officer Luke stated because my extra patrol was denied and added that originally he wanted more patrolling around the house. Lucy DiNardo stated that originally it shouldn’t have been an extra patrol; because of the national threat to law enforcement. Trustee Laubacher stated, I want extra patrol on my house. Ms. DiNardo stated, and you have every right to request it. Trustee Laubacher stated, and everybody does. Trustee Laubacher briefly expressed his concern regarding the extra patrol that Officer Luke had requested. Ms. DiNardo also expressed her rebuttal of Trustee Laubacher’s statements.
Trustee Haines stated, I think we are off track here. Ms. DiNardo stated I think so too.
Trustee Chessler stated to Ms. DiNardo that he did not want to cut her short on her presentation, but stated, that issue, it did get a little off field, is there anything else on this. If not, we will treat this similarly, we are under an obligation within thirty (30) days to have a written response and we will do that accordingly. Ms. DiNardo thanked the Board. Trustee Haines thanked Officer Luke.
Public Speaks on items up for Board Approval: None.
Township Business requiring Board Action: None.
Unfinished Business: None.
Trustee Chessler made a motion to approve bills and payroll in the amount of $155,190.88 for the week ending July 14, 2015 and bills in the amount of $84,646.33 for the week ending July 21, 2015, for a combined total of $239,837.21; Seconded by Trustee Haines.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Chessler, yes. Mr. Haines, yes. Mr. Laubacher, yes.
Consider Authorizing Amended Certificate ~ Additional $200,000.00 Fund 11 Road District
From Stark County Commissioners ~ Summerdale Project
Trustee Chessler stated that the Fiscal Officer has asked the Board to consider amending the certificate that establishes a budget. Trustee Chessler stated that we are in receipt of the amount of $200,000.00 and this was an amount agreed to be paid by the Stark County Commissioners to Perry Township as part of the funding for the Summerdale Project; it is going to amass particularly from Fund 11, the Road District.
Trustee Chessler made a motion to so amend the certificate under the request of the Fiscal Officer; Seconded by Trustee Haines.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Chessler, yes. Mr. Haines, yes. Mr. Laubacher, yes.
Consider Accepting the July 7, 2015 Meeting Minutes
Trustee Haines made a motion to accept the minutes of the July 7, 2015 Regular Meeting; Seconded by Trustee Laubacher.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Chessler, yes. Mr. Haines, yes. Mr. Laubacher, yes.
Fiscal Officer Schlegel stated that two weeks from today, we will be doing our 2016 Alternate Tax Budget for approval on August 4, 2015.
Consider Accepting Quote for Restoration of the Rowmont Pavilion Funded by Perry Rotary
Trustee Chessler stated that the Board has a memo before us dated July 17, 2015 wherein the Administrator had solicited quotations for the identified repairs to the Rowmont Pavilion at Perry Park and we have received three (3) quotes:
- 1. Riggs Construction $4,735.00
- 2. Ohio Outdoor Structures $5,000.00
- 3. Allen Keith Construction $8,377.59
Trustee Chessler stated in summary fashion, the proposed order is to:
- · Repair and install masonry blocks as required
- · Modify the existing rafters to accommodate a new 1×6 fascia boards (approximately 64 LF) on both sides of the pavilion
- · Replace the missing rafter and ceiling joists to match existing
- · Jack and repair and secure the sagging ceiling joists
- · Install additional supports to the existing ceiling joists to prevent future sagging
- · Pressure wash, prep, and paint the new masonry block to match existing
- · Pressure wash, prep, and paint #7 picnic tables same color as pavilion
- · Pressure wash, prep, and paint the ceiling boards, rafters, ceiling joists, fascia boards, and all supports to match existing
Trustee Chessler stated that the proposed quoted prices; among those there were three and Riggs Construction was the lowest at $4,735.00. The recommendation is to accept the quote of Riggs Construction in the amount of $4,735.00. It is noted that the company is fully insured and are prepared to begin the repairs in the near future. Trustee Chessler stated that we also wish to once again acknowledge the Perry Township Rotary who will provide Turkey Trot proceeds in the amount of $5,000.00 to complete this.
Trustee Chessler made a motion that based on the information we have that the Board accept the proposal from Riggs Construction to do the outlying work at the Rowmont Park Pavilion in the amount not to exceed $4,735.00; Seconded by Trustee Laubacher.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Chessler, yes. Mr. Haines, yes. Mr. Laubacher, yes.
Consider Auction Items to be Sold on GovDeals.com
Administrator Fetzer stated that attached the Board has many documents and a cover sheet pertaining to several items submitted by the Police and the Road Departments for the Board’s consideration of placement on GovDeals.com. Administrator Fetzer stated that due to the extremely large content of the post auction items, the Board had received previously, a separate attachment containing the detailed description sheets as well as a variety of photos of each item listed on the cover sheets. Administrator Fetzer stated that GovDeals is utilized by a government entity to dispose of surplus, unneeded, obsolete or unfit personal property through the use of internet auction. Administrator Fetzer indicated that we have been doing this since 2013 and added that we save on the employees delivering the items, designated auction site and as well as the approximate amount of $3,000.00 in advertising and marketing costs alone. Administrator Fetzer stated that this auction is another resource to assist the Board in being excellent stewards of their township dollars. Administrator Fetzer stated that we are asking the Board to have these placed on GovDeals.com. All auction items will be submitted and displayed on the link on the Perry Township website.
Trustee Chessler stated that he will note that the Police Chief has noted that certain items that are being submitted for bid and sale through this process, if they are sold the funds have to be allocated and earmarked for the law enforcement trust fund and inquired if there was a way to identify those sales proceeds. Chief Pomesky (wording unclear on recording)
Trustee Chessler made a motion that based on the information the Board has and the proposed items that we authorized, any and all steps necessary to have these items declared obsolete and no longer needed for township purposes be sold pursuant to our GovDeals.com agreement; Seconded by Trustee Laubacher.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Chessler, yes. Mr. Haines, yes. Mr. Laubacher, yes.
Fire Department: None.
Police Department: None.
Road and Park Department:
Consider 2.0 Mill Road Renewal Levy
Trustee Chessler stated that it has come to our attention that even though we did pass a road levy a year ago in May, we had an existing 2.0 Mill levy, and that is coming up for renewal and will expire in 2016. Trustee Chessler stated that we are trying to be proactive in making sure that the funding that we have come to rely on and have projected to meet our needs is uninterrupted. Trustee Chessler inquired if Road Superintendent Masalko had anything else that we need to consider.
Road Superintendent Masalko stated that this is our 1986 levy and it will be due in 2016 and will be placed on the November 3, 2015 ballot.
Trustee Chessler stated that as you will recall, on July 14th, we did request the County Auditor to certify the current tax valuation issued for Perry Township and the amount of revenue that the 2.0 mill levy would produce if renewed. The total tax valuation used in calculating the estimated property tax revenue is $483,701,000.00. The valuation to the constant throughout the life of the levy is calculated to be $654,876.00, but again, no new taxes and more paving.
Trustee Chessler made a motion that the written resolution be adopted to submit to the voters in the General Election in November and a renewal of the 2.0 Mills existing road levy; Seconded by Trustee Laubacher.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Chessler, yes. Mr. Haines, yes. Mr. Laubacher, yes.
Consider Emergency Repair of the Street Sweeper ~ $4,330.21
Trustee Chessler stated that after a long, hard winter and a lot of salt and grit thrown on the road, the street sweeper had to be repaired. Road Superintendent Masalko stated that this is also the piece of equipment we use to back out the catch basins so we cannot do without this machine. Road Superintendent Masalko indicated that this is a 2005 Whirlwind Elgin and added that the John Deere ECU valve needs to be replaced and programmed. Mr. Masalko stated that the Jack Doheny Companies specialize in the Elgins and this emergency repair in is the amount of $4,330.21.
Trustee Laubacher inquired if we have to transport this to the Jack Doheny Company; Mr. Masalko stated that it is already there. Trustee Laubacher inquired if we were still sweeping the streets after all the problem that we had several years ago regarding disposing of the debris. Mr. Masalko confirmed that we are because of the complaints of the leftover gravel from the winter months. Mr. Masalko also indicated that we have a backup sweeper, but stressed that we are in need of these repairs for this 2005 Whirlwind Elgin. Trustee Laubacher inquired about why the street sweeper seems to go over and over an area such as when they were on his street a short time ago. Mr. Masalko indicated that these new repairs should correct that issue.
Trustee Haines made a motion for Jack Doheny Companies to do emergency repair on the Road Department street sweeper not to exceed the amount of $4, 330.21; Seconded by Trustee Laubacher.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Chessler, yes. Mr. Haines, yes. Mr. Laubacher, yes.
Law Director: None.
Consider Reviewing and Amending Assistant Zoning Inspector Job Description
Trustee Chessler stated that the Zoning Inspector has asked the Board to consider reviewing and amending the Assistant Zoning Inspector’s job. Trustee Chessler verified of Zoning Inspector Weckbacher when this was last done. Mr. Weckbacher indicated that it was back in 2008.
Trustee Chessler stated that he has looked this over and there were several questions that he would like to propose and ask that the Law Director edit and revise. Trustee Chessler stated that if we could have this item back on the agenda and approve the Assistant Zoning Inspector’s position by the next meeting. Trustee Chessler indicated that we have received several letters of interest and inquiries for this position and added that if we could define the position to what we want, we can better decide who would fit that position. Trustee Chessler stated that if we are ready to do this at the next regular meeting, we can vote to approve the job description and maybe consider an appointment at that time. Trustee Chessler verified to Administrator Fetzer that we would put this on the next Agenda for a confirmed job description and tentatively consider hiring a person.
Department Matters Not Requiring Board Action:
Fire Department: None.
Road Department: None.
Law Director: None.
~Car Show – Perry Rotary Cruise In, Sunday, August 16, 2015, 11:00 am to 4:00 pm at George Waikem Ford, 4321 Lincoln Way
~2nd Annual Perry Township Community Parade and Oktoberfest – Saturday, September 12, 2015, Noon to 8:00 pm, Parade begins at 11:00 am – Details at: www.perrytwp.com
Public Speaks-Open Forum:
Timothy Blythe, 2956 Bridgeton St. NW, Massillon 44646 – Mr. Blythe stated in regard to Trustee Laubacher’s statements regarding Officer Luke’s request for extra patrol, that if his son who was a police officer or state patrol felt that your life was in danger because of the job that he does and he called the Perry Township Police Department and asked for extra patrol and didn’t get it, he would go through the roof. Trustee Laubacher stated I’m not saying that – Mr. Blythe stated, you did say that. Mr. Blythe gave an example of an incident wherein he had requested extra patrol from the police department and got it. Mr. Blythe stated to Trustee Laubacher that he wanted him to think about the statements that he made in regard to Officer Luke’s extra patrol request.
Mr. Blythe stated that he would also like an update on the Regis Perry Memorial. Mr. Blythe stated that we have had good weather now and it has not moved. Trustee Haines indicated that Mr. Vick has started the block and the bricks are being delivered Friday. Trustee Haines added that the plan is to start the project on Monday and brick it, hopefully it is a two day project. Trustee Haines indicated that he had picked up all the limestone tops at Ohio Beauty Stone and they are sitting in the Perry Park garage. Trustee Haines added that the bricks, the sand and mortar will be delivered Friday. Trustee Haines stated that it all comes down to this was a volunteer project by Mr. Vick and briefly explained the delay but added that he would proceed with this project next Monday.
Don Fick, 129 Saratoga Ave. NW, Canton – Mr. Fick stated that he had a list of all the streets that were going to be paved and his street was initially not on it so he thanked the Board for it being done (paved). Mr. Fick also stated that he wanted his street to be on a vacation check for extra patrol making the point that now that the street has been repaved and has a smooth surface without potholes, drivers do not stop at the indicated stop sign, they just roll right through it.
Mrs. Fick inquired what happened to neighbors helping neighbors making the point that the police officers that are on extra patrol for vacation checks cannot be out patrolling other needed areas. Mrs. Fick stated that they watch out for their neighbors and their neighbors watch out for them. Trustee Haines agreed that he also depends on his neighbors but added that there are people that do not have those type of neighbors who are helpful.
Mr. Blythe stated with regard to the police levy inquired what the status was on additional forces. Trustee Haines indicated that we swore in a new officer approximately a month ago. Chief Pomesky stated that there were three (3) more in the process adding that the backgrounds were a key factor.
With nothing further to come before the Board, Trustee Haines made a motion to adjourn the meeting at 8:36 pm; Seconded by Trustee Chessler.
ROLL CALL: Mr. Chessler, yes. Mr. Haines, yes. Mr. Laubacher, yes.
Craig Chessler, President Joe Schlegel, Fiscal Officer