Crescent-News.com - Patrolman denied promotion

By HEATHER BAUGHMAN

baughman@crescent-news.com

The promotion of a city patrolman to sergeant will be offered to the second-highest scoring person who took the sergeant test in June after the highest-scoring patrolman was removed from eligibility.

The July 21 request by city administrator Jeff Leonard to remove Patrolman Brian Kinner's name from the list of eligible candidates for the city police department's sergeant position was upheld Monday afternoon by the civil service commission.

After the nearly hour and a half hearing, the three-person commission agreed to remove Kinner's name from the candidate's list.

Following the sergeant's exam given in June, Kinner scored the highest among applicants, however, Leonard requested that Kinner not be considered for the promotion, citing "just cause."

During the hearing, Leonard presented the commission, made up of Leonard Myers, Stephen Korhn and Pete Lundberg, with information from Kinner's past including a Defiance County grand jury indictment from 2002, and a Nov. 26, 2007, disciplinary hearing.

The 2002 indictment alleged that Kinner broke into an occupied home in Defiance with a group of other people and caused another physical harm. The indictment alleged he committed burglary, assault and aggravated rioting. Those indictments were later dismissed, as were cases against several co-defendants, after another co-defendant was found not guilty in a trial.

"Mr. Kinner survived that indictment," Leonard said. "He, in fact, got his job back ... and up to a certain point has been a very good police officer, until you go to 2007."

Leonard introduced into evidence files from Kinner's disciplinary hearing from November 2007, in which then Chief Norm Walker reprimanded Kinner for misconduct, neglect of duty, dishonesty and incompetence.

These reprimands were the result of an Oct. 7, 2007, case involving the theft of tokens from East of Chicago. During the investigation, which Kinner was handling, "he got information that his son was a possible suspect and failed to remove himself from the investigation ... (or tell others in the department of the conflict of interest)," Leonard said.

"The conclusions obviously were neglect of his duties, incompetence, conduct unbecoming of an officer and dishonesty," Leonard said. The result: Kinner was "terminated by me," Leonard said.

Following an appeal made to Mayor Bob Armstrong, Kinner, the mayor and the police union "worked out an arrangement" for Kinner to get his job back. The arrangement included the mayor giving Kinner a 30-day suspension, Kinner conceding that he should have removed himself from the investigation and reported the conflict sooner, and he would work under a seven-year, last-chance agreement.

Because of Kinner's actions that resulted in the November disciplinary hearing, Leonard said he did not believe Kinner had the qualities necessary for a promotion to the position of sergeant, which according to the job description, includes the ability to execute sound reasoning in difficult situations and good leadership skills.

"I don't think Patrolman Kinner possesses any of these skill levels to promote him to sergeant," Leonard said, later adding, "Patrolman Kinner's character has been under question for the past few years."

In his defense, Kinner said of the 2002 indictment, "I did not do any of the allegations."

He also said he believed that once his 30-day suspension was over, he felt he was eligible for the promotion. "When I came back (from the suspension), I met with Mr. Leonard and was under the impression that he wanted me to do good," Kinner said.

"I thought we were going to put this (the case from October 2007) behind us," he said. "To deny me of this (promotion) would be like two punishments for the same thing."

Lundberg, believing he had not heard enough to rule in favor of Kinner, addressed the patrolman: "You haven't, to me, presented a case ... You appear to me on paper to be good to average at performing your job." But, at the same time, "You come off from a major (lack) of judgment, but want to be in charge of others."

Kinner's response incorporated his four years of experience in the military, which included combat and a very decorated career. Before he left the service, Kinner said he was even "asked to teach officers at Quantico," but decided it was time to come back home (to Defiance).

"As far as the indictment, that's what it was. It was thrown out," Kinner said.

He added, "I don't hold a grudge to Mr. Leonard. I feel we need to move on."

Addressing Kinner, Korhn said he was "pleased that you have kept your nose clean for the past seven months," noting however, that that is what he expects of all police officers for their entire careers.

After about an hour of testimony, commission members took a brief break and returned with their decision to remove Kinner's name from the list of officers eligible for the promotion to sergeant.

"The decision of the commission is that there is just and reasonable cause (to remove) Kinner from the sergeant position," Korhn said. The commission's decision was "based entirely on the last incident concerning the mishandling and misconduct of the investigation involving Kinner's son," Korhn said. "Entirely too little time has passed since the incident for someone to have eradicated that type of judgment."

The remainder of the list of eligible officer for the sergeant's position remains the same, which means that Patrolman Toby Delaney is next in line to be offered the position. He was the second-highest scorer on the promotional exam.

Asked to comment following the hearing, Kinner stated, "Although I look forward in advancing, I would like to congratulate officer and future Sgt. Toby Delaney. The department has a lot of good officers. Chief (Tim) Tobias and Assistant Chief (Jeff) Mack have expressed new ideas and there appears to be more positive energy in the last two months. Sgt. Delaney will be a fine addition to the supervisory ranks and he has my full support."

8.	Posted by godzerra August 27, 2008
	The issue isn't about having skeletons in the closet or "getting a job.' Rather, the main issue is taking a person with a history of poor duty performance (he was fired " very luck to be given his job back), lack of integrity, complete loss of public trust and promoting him into a law enforcement supervisory/leadership position. There is certainly no room for civil servants who believe they, their families or friends are above the law. If he is willing to jeopardize his public trust and disregard his integrity over stolen tokens; then I would hate to see his actions when the stakes are higher. Truthfully, I can't think of any job where you can be fired, re-hired under a "one-strike you are out rule' and then expect to be promoted in less than 7 months. The article references Mr Kinner's military service. Although it is good that he has honorably served his country, Mr Kinner owes it to the public to incorporate into his current position the high Marine standards and corps values he learned while on active duty. This is something he has failed to do and has led to his character in a continuous state of question. I agree that if he wasn't eligible for promotion, then he should not have been a part of the "selection pool' or promotion process. The military promotion system is based on a formula consisting of test scores, past duty performance appraisal ratings, years of service (aka: seniority) and certain awards. This type of promotion process was developed in order to ensure the "whole person' is being considered for promotion. This process helps ensure that situations like this do not occur. For example, the odds of promotion are much lower for a person who tests well but has a history of poor duty performance. On the other hand, the odds are higher for a person who tests average but has a history of outstanding duty performance. Please note, each annual appraisal is factored separately " more recent appraisal has a higher value (more impact) than an appraisal given five years prior. So, a member could have received a poor appraisal five years ago and then, for the next four years, received four outstanding reports. The poor report five years ago would not hold much factoring weight and would not add much friction to the member being selected for promotion. The reason I mention how each appraisal is factored, is due to the continuous referencing of "skeletons in the closet' and being punished by previous committed mistakes. This type of factoring allows a person to recover (over time) and still be organizational promotable. I would highly recommend the city begin researching and implementing a "whole person' promotion process similar to the one used in the military. This will prevent promoting personnel based solely on "test scores', provide city employees a well defined promotion process and prevent this type of situation from occurring in the future.