 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Schlumbohm v. City of Sioux Falls6/13/2001
whether just cause existed and whether the discipline is excessive. A finding of just cause does not require the Board to uphold the disciplinary action taken by the chief of police. Here, despite the scarcity of findings to support the reduction to a suspension, the record itself supports the Board's decision. However, in the future, the Board should make specific findings to justify its decision to modify disciplinary decisions.
[ .] As recognized by another court addressing a similar issue:
We are mindful of the commission's power to modify penalties and the considerable discretion provided it . . . . That discretion is, however, 'not without bounds,' and the commission may not modify a penalty without providing a reasonable explanation for doing so. It is well to remember that the power to modify is at its core the authority to review and, when appropriate, to temper, balance, and amend. Police Com'r of Boston v. Civil Service Comm., 659 NE2d 1190, 1193 (Mass AppCt 1996).
[ .] An abuse of discretion is "discretion exercised to an end or purpose not justified by, and against, reason and evidence." Bland v. Davison County, 1997 SD 92, , 566 NW2d 452, 455 (citations omitted). The Board's conclusion number 7 demonstrates the consideration which the Board gave to its recommendation for a reduced sanction.
When considering the City's long standing policy of progressive discipline, the totality of Grievant's actions and conduct on July 18, 1999, along with her prior record as a law enforcement officer, this board under the authority given it by the Ordinances of Sioux Falls, and based upon the evidence received at the hearing, in lieu of affirming the discharge of Grievant does hereby modify the discharge . . .
[ .] An examination of the record reveals the Board rightfully found just cause for the discipline of Schlumbohm for her irresponsible actions. In Schroeder v. Dept of Social Services, we recognized that findings of fact and conclusions of law are required for meaningful appellate review. 529 NW2d 589, 591 (SD 1995). On this record, the Board and the circuit court met this requirement. We decline City's invitation to review the record in the first instance, as that request exceeds the scope of proper appellate review. Under this standard of review, even if our view of the proper punishment may have been different, we are not convinced the Board acted arbitrarily or abused its discretion in modifying the original discipline. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court on issue 1.
[ .] 2. WHETHER THE BOARD COMMITTED ERROR BY ADMITTING AND CONSIDERING EVIDENCE REGARDING PRIOR UNRELATED DISCIPLINARY ACTIONS.
[ .] At the disciplinary hearing, Schlumbohm offered evidence of several prior unrelated disciplinary actions. City contends that the Board abused its discretion in admitting this evidence concerning prior discipline for DUI, other alcohol related offenses and traffic accidents. City asserts that the Board improperly used this evidence as comparative disciplinary information. We reject City's contention.
[ .] Schlumbohm advanced three theories of admissibility: 1.) sex discrimination; 2.) impeachment of Chief Quiring's testimony that Schlumbohm would no longer be capable of performing her duties; and 3.) that the discipline imposed was arbitrary, capricious and excessive. In response, the City objected arguing that the introduction of such evidence was irrelevant and immaterial and not supported by any evidence of excessive discipline. The Board adjourned, returned minutes later and allowed the introduction of disciplinary actions that took place after Chief Quiring took office.
[ .] We cannot say
Page 1 2 3 4 South Dakota DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|