Wednesday, June 1, 2016

Fire Investigation - Additional Questions Still to be Answered

The following are questions that an average $300 per hour "independent" investigator might ask in a search for the facts: 

What was the motive behind Edward Deas "Timeline"?

Does Deas admit that PUFFA and the fire department are separate in his "Timeline"?

Why did Edward Deas go to Hayward, Sisson and the Fire Chief and not the members of PUFFA with his issues?

Was the "Timeline" a complaint or was it just a disgruntled, former President of PUFFA seeking vengeance against Glover, Cobbs, Streeter, and Oliver?

Was there anything in the "Timeline" that warranted a City investigation?  

Were there legitimate concerns regarding the finances of the 501(c)(3)?

If issues are found with finances in the fraternal organization, what actions will the City take?

Did Edward Deas have issues with Joe Glover before October 2014?

Retaliation

noun

  1. the action of returning a military attack; counterattack."the bombings are believed to be in retaliation for the trial of 15 suspects"
  2. synonyms:
  3. revenge, vengeance, reprisal, retribution, requital, recrimination, repayment; More
  4.  
    • the action of harming someone because they have harmed oneself; revenge."protectionism invites retaliation"
Based on the definition, did Matt Schmitt "retaliate" against Edward Deas?

Did Deas retaliate against Glover?

Did Deas retaliate against Cobbs, Streeter, and Oliver?

Were Edward Deas' actions justified?  If so, why did Edward Sisson's boss Eric Olson recommend a Letter of Reprimand?

Who is the responsible authority in the fire department for carrying out disciplinary actions?  Has that recently changed?  If so, when did that change occur, who made the recommendation, and why?

Was Joe Glover the responsible authority in the fire department for carrying out any disciplinary actions?

Did Olson or Sisson ever discuss this issue with Joe Glover?

Was there already a surreptitious investigation conducted by HR in August 2015 on this subject?

Was Deas ever actually demoted with a reduction in pay?

Why didn't the $300 per hour  FACT FINDING "independent" investigator Russell Van Sickle ask any of these questions?

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

Why didn't the $300 per hour FACT FINDING "independent" investigator Russell Van Sickle ask any of these questions?

The answer is very simple....this was not a fact finding investigation.

Anonymous said...

You missed a few questions which should have been addressed first.

Did Schmitt know that his employee was filing a formal complaint?

Does Schmitt have the authority to decide what is a complaint and what isn't?

Did Schmitt properly investigate the complaint according to policy?

Can you draw a conclusion without researching, or in this case, investigating a complaint?

Should employees be free from reprisal when filing a complaint?

After the complaint was filed, did Schmitt ever tell the employee that he was demoted?

Did Schmitt ever have the employee to sign a personnel action recommending his demotion?

Does Schmitt have the authority to approve personnel actions or does he just recommend?

After the complaint was filed, was the employee ever directed to perform lower ranking duties, as if he was demoted?

Be honest, you don't want to get to the truth.

Anonymous said...

Very interesting questions that seem to be relevant, yet were apparently never asked by the $300 per hour, "independent", fact finding investigator. The answers to these questions will be telling.

George Hawthorne said...

Anonymous 10:41pm

Those answers will never be provided, because, the answers would discredit the "independence" of this investigation and would further show that this was clearly a "railroading" and "lynching" of two GOOD and DECENT men.

Anonymous said...

It sounds more like Deas was retaliating against members of an association. He got pimped by Ashton foolishly believing that selling out would make him some kind of political power broker.

Anonymous said...

Maren, Do you have the answers to these questions? Inquiring minds want to know and it would be great to have more insight on this situation in particular, especially since Hayward has now gone on record to state this was one of the main issues that led to his decision.

Maren DeWeese said...

Anonymous 11:44

Patience! Yes all of these questions will be answered. Some may be in depositions of Hayward, Sisson, VanSickle and Deas.

Some may be answered by showing what VanSickle did not investigate. The time for Mayoral Open Letters to the Citizens and Council is over.

Hayward will have to swear under oath to the video camera as he is presented with evidence.

Maren

Anonymous said...

Apparently, you know a lot about this but still choose to be completely subjective. Can you file a "formal complaint" on your boss because you are told that you can't be the Captain of the bowling team any longer. The employee admitted that his issue was not department related and clearly knew it. Maybe if you ever get in a position of authority your employees will come after you with some childish nonsense. If he wasn't demoted he didn't lose anything. Besides, you are an idiot if you believe this took a 3 month investigation. Schmidt made a judgment call and got lynched. Ed Sisson has openly VIOLATED the HR manual and everything else. I realize that you probably hated your boss because you're obviously a fireman, but stop trying to act like what the employee did in this case was legit. I hope he gets sued in civil court for libel and defamation.

Anonymous said...

This must be Deas! You are the one who doesn't want the whole truth to come out but it will. ;)

Anonymous said...

Nice try Edward! The truth will come out and that's the last thing you want. Nobody in the department likes you or respects you so stop trying to play the victim now.

Anonymous said...

The Deas situation is far from being over. You can also add Stefon Andrews to the list of individuals who might need to get lawyered up in the near future.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous June 1, 2016 at 8:38 PM

I have read the report and then read many of the transcripts. Frankly, the "supporting" documents do little to support his "findings". I have no dog in the fight one way or the other, but Russell VanSickle asked most if not all of the questions you listed in some form. I believe Ms. DeWeese's point, which is a very valid point I might add, is if the "independent" investigator was being unbiased and truly independent, why was the line of questioning so one-sided? To ignore the fact that Deas' motive was anything more than retribution is laughable. He literally provides the motivation in his timeline. There is also conflicting information as to whether a demotion actually ever occurred and the idea that Schmitt was retaliating against Deas simply does not make sense. Eventually, this will all be cleared up in court. Based on what I've read, Deas could possibly be held civilly liable when all of the questions are answered under oath.

Anonymous said...

To Edward Deas or Anonymous June 1, 2016 at 8:38 PM

"You missed a few questions which should have been addressed first."

Okay
, I"ll play along.

"Did Schmitt know that his employee was filing a formal complaint? "

No. A Timeline is not a complaint Edward.



"Does Schmitt have the authority to decide what is a complaint and what isn't?"

Yes. Every time an employee gets their feelings hurt is not grounds for a $65,000 investigation.



"Did Schmitt properly investigate the complaint according to policy?"

What policy Deas? There is no city policy for investigating an outside organization's disputes. Did you follow the policies of PUFFA? As you stated, it was separate from the fire department.



"Can you draw a conclusion without researching, or in this case, investigating a complaint?"

Deas, according to you, you were angry at Cobbs, Glover, Oliver, and Streeter because you got questioned about PUFFA funds. 

That's what brought this on but your arrogance and ignorance would not allow you to hide it.

"Should employees be free from reprisal when filing a complaint?"

What reprisal?" Schmitt had no reason to retaliate. The disciplinary action was not for filing a complaint. That's the lie that you, VanSickle, and the city keeps telling. You were being disciplined for violating fire department rules hence the reason Olson told Schmitt to give you a written reprimand.



"After the complaint was filed, did Schmitt ever tell the employee that he was demoted?"

Yes, but the demotion never happened. If anything it should have gone before the appeals board that was never formed where it probably would have been upheld.



"Did Schmitt ever have the employee to sign a personnel action recommending his demotion? "

Yes, you signed it but you kept your rank and your pay.

 Look up "disciplinary action". You're not nearly as smart as you think.

"Does Schmitt have the authority to approve personnel actions or does he just recommend?"

He was the interim fire chief who had the authority to take disciplinary action. You're not nearly as smart as you think you are. Read the job description for fire chief.



"After the complaint was filed, was the employee ever directed to perform lower ranking duties, as if he was demoted?"

"As if"? You're really reaching. It's hilarious how many times you use the word complaint NOW but never used it ONCE in your Timeline. Why is that? Guess you'll get to answer that in court when you get sued for libel.



"Be honest, you don't want to get to the truth."

Be honest, the last thing you want is for someone to get to the truth.

Now answer Maren's questions Edward.