Laserfiche WebLink
<br />5. <br />AN AMENDMENT PROVIDING THAT A <br />HEARING EXAMINER SHALL UPHOLD THE <br />DISCIPLINARY DECISION OF THE CHIEF IF <br />THE HEARING EXAMINER MAKES A FINDING OF <br />THE TRUTH OF THE SPECIFIC CHARGES AGAINST <br />THE FIRE FIGHTER OR POLICE OFFICER <br />Current Law <br /> <br />The hearin~ examiner has the ability to alter the disciplinary action imposed by the <br />chief even tf the hearing examiner has made a determination that the city's charges <br />against an officer are true. <br /> <br />Proposed Chanee <br /> <br />This amendment would clarify any confusion regarding the determination that must <br />be made by a hearing examiner. The hearing examiner must make a finding of the <br />truth of the specific charges. This amendment would also provide that once the <br />hearing examiner has made a finding of the truth of the specific charges against the <br />fire fighter or police officer, the disciplinary action recommended by the chief shall <br />be imposed. . <br /> <br />Reasons for proposed Chanee <br /> <br />In the past, hearing examiners have been confused as to the finding that must be <br />made at an appeal hearing and the level of proof that is required of the city in <br />defending its disciplinary recommendation. The amendment would clarify the <br />findings that must be made by the examiner. <br /> <br />Additionally, hearin~ examiners, in an attempt to reach a compromise between the <br />chief and the disciphned uniformed officer, will: (1) find that the charges are true, <br />but (2) determine that the disciplinary recommendation is too harsh and reduce it. <br />