State board rules against sheriff candidate Laurie Bisch

By Joe Schoenmann

Thursday, Sept. 2, 2010 | 2 a.m.

A state board has ruled that Metro Police Officer Laurie Bisch, who is running for sheriff, was properly disciplined in a “conduct unbecoming an officer” case, and that the police union fairly represented her when she was investigated by Internal Affairs.

The Employee Management Relations Board ruled that evidence did not support Bisch’s claim that political considerations influenced the actions of either Metro or the union toward her.

Bisch filed a complaint with the board after she was reprimanded in connection with a dog-bite incident in mid-2008 involving a friend of her 18-year-old daughter. When the bite occurred, Bisch was unable to reach the girl’s mother, so she took the 17-year-old to the emergency room. There, Bisch falsely filled out a form saying the girl was her daughter. Bisch said she feared that if the hospital couldn’t reach the girl’s real parents, she would not get immediate attention.

Bisch did not, however, file a health insurance claim on behalf of the girl; she paid the $565 for treatment and $49 for antibiotics.

Months later, the girl’s mother reported Bisch’s action to Metro. Internal Affairs investigated, thinking it could be an insurance fraud matter. A police officer can be fired for insurance fraud or identity theft.

The investigation found no insurance fraud, but Bisch was alleged to have committed the felony of identity theft, a charge that could have ended her police career.

But Sgt. Ken Romane, who was asked to sign off on the investigation, protested. He testified that the charge didn’t fall in line with what Bisch had done. He also testified that when an Internal Affairs investigator told him it was a “tower caper,” he felt sick to his stomach. Asked to define a tower caper, that investigator explained it as a case being watched by top administrators because it could result in a termination or cast the department in a bad light.

But Romane’s refusal to approve the investigation’s findings forced police administrators to re-examine the case. Now, instead of a felony, she was accused of committing a misdemeanor for violating a city ordinance requiring dog bites to be reported. That misdemeanor was later dropped. Finally, Romane signed off on a written reprimand for “conduct unbecoming an officer,” which went into Bisch’s record.

Bisch’s complaint to the labor board stems in part from her experience during the investigation.

She said that when she went to talk to detectives about the insurance fraud accusation, she brought her friend, attorney John Moran Jr. It was her right to have her own lawyer, she argued, as well as a union representative at her side. But Chris Collins, head of the police union, said he had told Bisch before the meeting that union bylaws state the union won’t provide an attorney if an officer brings her own attorney.

Bisch’s attorney at the two-day board hearing in April, Adam Levine, countered that state law gives officers the right to two representatives. In any event, when Collins went to Internal Affairs to represent Bisch, he left after seeing Moran with Bisch.

Bisch’s allegations that politics motivated actions against her stemmed from various bits of testimony, including the “tower caper” comment. Bisch is a sheriff’s candidate this year, and she also ran in 2006.

As the investigation continued, Bisch’s name and politics came up during a meeting of the Metro Employees Health and Welfare Trust, which oversees the department’s health insurance fund. In December 2008, Tom Reid, the police union’s member on the trust, made a motion to seek a refund for treatment of the dog bite — Bisch had, however, paid for it herself — and for police to file a report claiming Bisch had committed fraud. After another trustee, Paul Page, abstained, he said Reid confronted him and asked: “How could you abstain from voting? Don’t you realize (Bisch) has other political aspirations?”

The board’s lengthy decision, dated Aug. 26, addressed political motives, union representation and Bisch’s discipline.

In its ruling, the board said state law allows an officer to have two representatives, but the law does not “compel” a union representative to be present. The board agreed with Collins that he was following the union’s bylaws.

The board also discounted Bisch’s argument that the union discriminated against her for political reasons, saying she simply did not prove it. “Bisch did not raise an inference that political reasons were a motivating factor for any of the (union’s) actions,” the board wrote.

But as to whether Metro politically discriminated, the board said that although Bisch had evidence to support the “inference that (her) political activity was a motivating factor in her discipline, an inference is only an inference; it is not conclusive.”

It added that “Metro did not initiate the complaint (against Bisch), it merely received and investigated it.”

As for the written reprimand, Bisch contended she had acted outside of her job (she was off duty), so Metro had no place disciplining her. The board disagreed, saying Metro’s Civil Service Rule defines misconduct as something that can happen “by an employee unconnected with his official duties, tending to bring the department into public discredit.”

Additionally, the board said Bisch’s reprimand followed Metro’s guide for imposing discipline.

Reacting to the decision, Collins said it shows that the union “did our job.”

“She was unhappy, but even the decision says we explained everything to her, explained the bylaws, and she made the decisions that she made,” he said.

He added that he thinks Bisch set the case in motion “intentionally” to get publicity.

“There’s some motive for what she did,” Collins said. “And what it comes down to is, (the board) saw through the smoke screen. There’s really nothing there.”

Bisch said Collins is “absolutely wrong” and called the decision “ridiculous.”

“His comment just shows he doesn’t represent his membership the way a union president should, and it’s clear to see he’s in collusion with the department when it comes to labor relations,” she added. “He basically does what the department tells him to do.”

Bisch also said the matter is not over. She plans to submit the case to District Court for judicial review, during which a judge may uphold the decision, overturn it, or send it back to the board for reconsideration.

“We’re going to turn over the whole case,” Bisch said.