City Council-Police Comm. Mtg.-Hidden Agenda-Jobs out of the

Thx to whoever for posting the council agenda. I note there is the vote on replacing the officer that just left. But I also noticed that the council has also on the agenda to have a excutive session for allegations against an employee and have called for a closed session of the police commission. One can only wonder 1-if the plan is not already to vote down to replace the officer that left; 2-if there is not workings behind the scenes that the meeting outcome is decided; 3- are these trumped up allegations against an officer to make the PD look bad? (closed mtg & closed police commission mtg) Our town is small enough that if there were shananigans(?sp) going on....everybody would know. Just all seems so coincidental....or maybe I am reading more into it. Monday night will tell. I hope fellow citizens of Ortonville attend the meeting to be heard and hear what the council is doing. The writing appears to be the wall they way a few on the council wants it to go.

Nobody seems to be making a noise about the dispatching services going out of the county either...are they really saving money? what about the jobs the county is losing? Have any of us heard how the conversion is going? I am all for progress and process improvement....but in a rural community when jobs are scarce & we are looking to bring jobs to the community... why is the need to always outsource...in the long run is there really a savings?

anyone else have an opinion on the agenda?

I was kind of confused about that. The agenda states under item 14 that there will be a closed meeting.

Quote :

14. Executive Session
Closed Meeting for Consideration of Charges and Allegations Against an Employee

See Ortonville Meeting

Then they have an agenda for a closed meeting with the Police Civil Service Commission. The notice then again states in another paragraph the same information. That is making reference to charges and allegations against an employee three times. Are those three separate employees or are they making three announcements on the same employee?

One could wonder why they would do that. It is also curious that Mr. Lang made out the agenda for the closed meeting and put it up. He has never done that before to my knowledge. It is even more of a wonderment considering that the last two closed executive meetings were not identified. Mr. Lang posted that there was a closed meeting but never alluded to what the closed meeting was about.

Now Mr. Lang not only announces the closed meeting three times in the same agenda but also gives the agenda for the closed meeting. Will it be Mr Lang's new policy to give the agenda for all "closed executive meetings?'

I am surprised that Mr. Lang did not announce what the last two executive meetings were about and why the City Attorney did not correct him for that. I am also curious why Mr. Lang announced the same employee issue three times in the agenda if it is indeed only one employee that is being considered.

Not sure if this where this should be posted but I wonder if your local government is applying for any of the stimulus/recovery grants available for the police force.

Here are some of the grants:
COPS Hiring Recovery Program (CHRP)
http://www.cops.usdoj.gov/default.asp?Item=2108

Byrne JAG
Recovery Act: Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program: Allocations and Disparate Information
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/recoveryJAG/recoveryjag.html

Please note that the deadlines are fast approaching!

*you make a good point ladyhawk. Why all of a sudden is he posting the agenda of closed sessions? can he do this? The Police Comm. must of recently met to make this receommendation. So why all this hoopla at a city council mtg? Why weren't the issues discussed then? Seems to me there is a hidden agenda, maybe even a witch hunt. Are they after the whole Dept or one particular person. Is this their way to easily say we have to go County Policing? It seems to be the majority of the council that votes financially irresponsible in my opinion.

*as to the grant...good thinking. Should bring it to the city council on Monday. Maybe the city staff can prepare it, Lang can sign it and he can get credit for it...like everything else. As it appears we have more staff in the office than when the previous city administrator was in office and the city finances are in worse shape....the blame there not only lies w/ the administrator but w/ the council. Thanks for the tip! I'll have to check those links.

LittleDeb the only other thread on that subject is here at Minnesota Cops.

That is probably another good question for someone to bring up at the city council meeting tomorrow night.
Considering the desire of some Ortonvillians who want to get rid of the police department it would stand to reason that applying for a grant would not be in their best interest.
See ...eliminate police

With the comments by missunderstood that an employee issue is being brought up (three times on the same announcement) and LittleDeb who brings up the question about money available via grants one could wonder if there was a pattern of behavior here.

I think the meeting laid an egg. See also City Council Outcome

The City Council expected to go into a closed session to discuss the charges against Mr. Curt Horman out of the public view. Mr. Horman choose to face his accusers publicly. The City Council seemed surprised that Mr. Horman would do that.

Mr. Ron Frauenshuh represented Chief Horman and witnesses watched as Attorney Frauenshuh pointed out that the proceedings were not according to procedure. Where was the due process?

Mr. Frauenshuh asked the City Attorney if he was aware of the city's procedure on this type of matter and he gave no response. The City Attorney admitted that he had made a decision without seeing all of MR. Lang's emails to the League of Municipalities.

Isn't the purpose of the Police Commission to keep the police office from being politicized? If there are issues they should be brought to the police commission. They should be the one to make the recommendation.

The concept of a closed meeting to discuss employee issues is meant to protect the employees privacy. But such a meeting could be a two edged sword. Some employers may use it to their advantage to misuse an employee. If the meetings are closed then no one knows how they handle or "mishandle" it.

By Chief Horman opening up the meeting he guaranteed that the City Council would have to face the public with their "allegations."

The first comments by any council members was that they were surprised at the format of the charges. It was a typed page listing the charges. It looked like a summary of charges with no reference to who made the charge or when the charge was made. Mayor Blair Johnson read the charges. They appeared petty to me, like little things that could have been discussed over a cup of coffee in the office and all worked out.

I will post the charges as soon as I get them. I went to the city office the morning after the meeting and asked the City Administrator Lang for a copy and he told me that he had to check with the City Attorney first because he wasn't sure it was supposed to be public. I reminded Mr. Lang that the mayor read the charges at the meeting the night before. He told me he would have to talk to the city attorney and said he would have it the next day. I don't know what came up that Mr. Lang was not there as he said he would be or why he did not leave a message.

The City Council meeting was this evening, April 20, 2009 and the Police Commission made a report to the City Council. They found no fault in the way Ortonville Police Chief Curt Horman conducted himself. City Attorney Craig Ash informed the City Council members that they had the report in their packets and that those documents were covered under privacy data laws. However if the Police Commission chose to they could give an oral report.

The Police Commission informed the City Council that they found no fault in Chief Hormans conduct. The oral report focused on the incident at the school when there was a lock down. Someone had scribbled on one of the bathroom stalls in pencil. It was believed to have been written on a Friday but wasn't noted until after the weekend. I recall that they said it was the weekend of the Sport & Leisure Show and the bathroom had seen quite a bit of traffic and so who knows when or who wrote the note. The message was very hard to read and had been partially cleaned by the janitor. After the administrators had been informed of the message they called 911 and Police Chief Curt Horman responded within minutes. (There has been a rumor around town that the police did not respond for 4 hours. That is not true, it was more like he responded within 4 minutes.)

Officer Horman talked with the superintendent and the principal and they all agreed on conducting a lockdown. The School Superintendent and the Principal were pleased with the Officer Hormans response to the call and his judgement in handling it.

If the Police Commission had anything to say about how things were conducted it was aimed at the City Council. The police commission informed the city council that in the future they would meet monthly and would review any and all concerns. It should never come to seven charges coming out all at once but each concern should be handled at the time the complaint is made. The police commission also pointed out to the City Council that the only person who can charge a police officer is a higher ranking police officer. And the only one who can charge a police chief is the Police Commission.

It was Mr. Berkner who first responded to the Police Commissions report by stating that he wasn't sure who put in the words "charges" in the city council minutes but that perhaps the council had gotten a little carried away. Mr. Berkner thought that perhaps it sounded wrong and caused Chief Horman to attend the meeting with counsel. Mr. Berkner suggested that the City Council pay for Officer Hormans counsel.

Thank you for the update! Will the minutes of the council meeting accurately reflect what the Comm. stated? Why didn't Mr.lang know that its only the Police Comm. that can only deal w/ complaints or concerns....is it an ordinance? Isn't Mr. Land & Mr. Ash supposed to be familiar w/ city ordinances?

Why was the wording Charges & Allegations put in there anyway? Shouldn't it have been toned down a bit until further investigation? Sounds pretty accusatory to start off. What anguish & stress for Mr.Hormann & his family.

Sounds like the school was happy with the way the police handled it...I know Chief Hormann has kids in the school system...so I am sure he is not only doing his job, but has in the back of his head his kids well being and their friends. He is a public servant and is there to protect the public. How often do you hear the city council publicly praise the police dept. or any other public service dept?

sounds like Police Comm. put some hard work in....Hats off to them!! I think its great that the city council pay for his atty fees. Its the least they can do for what they have done. Not all of them....Who ever worded it..."Charges & Allegations " and made it public.....still seems like some law was broken there? employee privacy?

I wonder what Mr.Lang will say will he gets to those Pearly Gates & has to account for all he's done? will he write to the league of MN? As someone once told me...."what would your mama say?"

Thank God for the Police Commission. The way the city council was handling this situation there is no way of knowing where this could have gone unchecked. Makes me wonder why the city council is concentrating on their own police force? Don't they have enough legitimate business to attend to? Aren't we as a city supposed to work together and uplift each other and watch out for things that could harm our lovely city. Come on city council gets your ducks lined up and do your job in an honest and forthright manner. You guys on the city council want to remember you are serving the community and you are put in place by voting members of the community. We are watching your performance. I'm sure you will be doing better in the future.