Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Assistant Fire Chief Case City Response

According to the PNJ, the City has filed its response to the Assistant Fire Chief lawsuit filed against the City and Ashton Hayward individually.

http://www.pnj.com/story/news/local/pensacola/2017/03/21/pensacola-files-response-second-fire-chief-suit/99453246/

I find it comical that the reason that the City requested and the plaintiffs agreed to release Wilkins, Sisson, Olson and Walsh from the suits is they were:
  • acting at all times under the direction of Ashton Hayward, their supervisor.
But the City states that Glover's dismissal was "legitimate and non-retaliatory in that plaintiff violated the employment policies of the city of Pensacola."

Ummm.....at all times Assistant Chief Glover was operating with the knowledge of and the direct instruction of his supervisor who himself never did anything outside the parameters of his job description at the time before Sisson changed it.

How come the City staff gets to use the"I was only following orders" excuse and it works but Chief Glover does not?

Which employee was in a paramilitary organization where orders and chain of command matter and which employees sit around all day sending pooch pictures on City time with City computers?

Ummmm. isn't the picture below alone a violation of employment policies of the City for which this supervisor was treated differently from Glover?

Motion DENIED!



11 comments:

CJ Lewis said...

If I were in Schmitt and Glover's shoes, I would emphasize that the voter-approved City Charter vests the supervision of the Pensacola Fire Department in the Mayor. The Charter's Section 4.01.(1) directs that the Mayor "shall" exercise a power and a duty, "To exercise the executive powers of the City and supervise all departments, including to, the power to appoint, discipline, and remove all officers and employees, unless otherwise provided in this Charter." Rather ironically, in 2011 City Attorney Jim Messer issued a legal opinion that was mostly fictional and the product of a mind every bit as tortured as that of White House staff trying to bend the English language to try to explain the unexplainable. In that opinion, Messer wrongly reported on purpose that the Mayor of Tampa had prevailed in a legal dispute. In fact, the employee won the case on appeal with the Florida Supreme Court refusing to hear the city's appeal, a fact Messer withheld from the Council. However, in that issue a key legal question was if it was the Mayor or the Chief of Police who supervised the Tampa Police Department. The court read the Charter and concluded that the power was vested in the Mayor. Similarly, using that logic, our Charter vests the power to supervise the Pensacola Fire Department in the Mayor. The fact that the Mayor may fail to properly exercise that power does not let the Mayor off the hook, i.e. the Mayor is held accountable for everything done and not done in his name. As another factor, Schmitt was never the real "Fire Chief," i.e. never a department head. A person can only be made a department head if their name is submitted to the Council and approved by a majority vote. The Charter does not provide for Interim, Acting or Temporary department heads. Hayward knew Schmitt's status and so had a duty to provide even more active supervision over the Pensacola Fire Department either directly or acting through the City Administrator tasked by law to be "in charge of the daily operations of the City" to mean assisting the Mayor in his supervision of departments, etc.

Anonymous said...


The official reason for dropping Clown A and Clown B from the suit probably has nothing to do with the real reason(s). It could be that the plaintiff's attorneys feel that they will have a better chance of getting the two clowns to testify against Hayward if the two clowns are not themselves being sued. Another reason may be that it will be difficult to find them guilty if they were, indeed, just "following orders". A third possible reason is that the two clowns don't have enough assets to make it worth while to spend legal fees pursuing them. In Florida, you cannot take a persons home or his car, so there is probably little else that can be squeezed from these two.

Anonymous said...

The city's only defense seems to be deny, deny, deny and then deny some more. Is this a desperate attempt to get this case dismissed before Hayward has to get his own legal representation? It sure appears that way. I for one am not ready to simply take the defenses word or accept a pinky promise that they've acted completely in 'good faith'. I don t think they would tell the PNJ that they have acted in 'bad faith' regardless of what they have done. More importantly, I seriously doubt any judge would grant the Motion for Summary Judgment based on the defenses assertions alone.

Anonymous said...

Here's what makes me sick!

The "Chief Human Resources Officer" insults women by speaking about their body parts to other employees. He degrades African Americans and Asian Americans by using derogatory and racial slurs to describe them and also threatens to fire employees. Meanwhile, the city administrator discriminates against employees due to race, age and "temp status". The City is screwed up because there is NO LEADERSHIP!

Anonymous said...

The city has done everything by the book. Trouble is they keep changing the book after the fact. How do I know, I have the misfortune of working there.

Watkins Productions said...

Karen, call me Thursday, cell blew up, lost numbers. 850 516-1380
Liz

Anonymous said...

There are many witnesses to this behavior but where can we take our complaints without being retaliated against? Sisson and Olson are involved in the appeal process.

Anonymous said...

Regardless of what anyone might think, we do not have all the facts and it's pointless to speculate either way. What we do know is that public opinion doesn't matter. The only way that we will know what happened is if goes to court. If the defense has evidence that the case is frivolous, it certainly has not been provided. I think that everyone can agree that an investigation on the same two individuals who filed complaints a short time before is very suspicious. Nonetheless, the court room is where this needs to be settled and this is clearly a case for a jury to decide.

Anonymous said...

Let's not forget Ed Sisson's wedding reception antics when he slid across the dance floor on his knees and proceeded to disgust everyone by opening his shirt, exposing his chest and belly with "I'm that guy" written on himself. (I just threw up in my mouth all over again) What an embarrassment.

Anonymous said...

He didn't expose his chest, he had a tshirt on!!

Anonymous said...

How can I post a pic to your blog