04
Jan
2005
Former Lieutenant Phil Yerington has decided to fight the good fight in district court in hopes of overturning the Davenport Police Department's (DPD) decision to terminate his employment as a police officer after 32 years of public service. Yerington wants to be reinstated with the DPD.
On December 20, 2004, during a special meeting called to render its decision, Davenport's Civil Service Commission (CSC) by a two-to-one vote upheld the DPD's termination of Yerington for speaking to the media without permission from department command.
Yerington's termination is shrouded in controversy for myriad reasons, including:
· DPD ignoring its own administrative rules for termination of a police officer;
· an unusual "last chance agreement" (LCA) imposed upon Yerington that appears to be a thinly disguised gag order;
· a timeframe of only three days between Yerington being put on administrative leave pending potential dismissal and his actual dismissal (normally due process takes weeks, if not months);
· three separate hearings (Name Clearing with DPD, appeal before CSC, and CSC special meeting to render a decision) during which any discussion of "Faxgate" was censored (Faxgate refers to an anonymous fax sent from the DPD on August 22 that made false and malicious accusations against Yerington for misconduct);
· Faxgate's investigation concluding without holding anyone accountable for sending said fax with false information intended to malign Yerington and damage his political campaign for sheriff; and
· the termination of the malicious fax's victim - a decorated 32-year veteran of the DPD with only four years to retirement - for defending his candidacy in the media.
Across the board, a glaring lack of professionalism prevailed within the DPD and the city's administration, as well as on the part of two of the three CSC commissioners, Elton Howard (husband of Alderman-at-Large Jamie Howard) and Deborah Dubik (an attorney with the law firm of Betty, Neuman, & McMahon, which currently represents the city in several litigation cases). Both commissioners demonstrated bias against Yerington during much of the relevant proceedings.
A striking lack of discussion of the salient points of Yerington's controversial termination can arguably be perceived as predisposition to fire Yerington regardless of the facts on the part of two of the three commissioners, Dubik and Howard. Commissioner Jim Hughes, without much success, tried to engage the other two in a discussion concerning the dubious LCA that played a significant role in the commission's decision to dismiss Yerington. Hughes was especially disturbed because there has never before been such an agreement imposed upon any other police officer in the DPD.
The Commission is supposed to act as a neutral party as it investigates and draws conclusions based on both sides of a case. A 32-year service record deserves due diligence of the highest order. Other than testimony during the appeal hearing and a few cursory questions, no such intensive examination was forthcoming. This is particularly disturbing with so much controversy surrounding Yerington's termination.
Curiously, both Police Chief Mike Bladel and Commission Chair Dubik thwarted most attempts to discuss Faxgate during all of the proceedings, which demonstrated a clear bias against Yerington, because Faxgate is precisely what precipitated his speaking to the media, eventually resulting in his termination. By censoring any discussion of Faxgate, the entire foundation of Yerington's defense was substantially undermined.
What Happened
Lieutenant Phil Yerington announced his candidacy for Scott County sheriff on March 25, 2004. On Sunday, August 22, a fax was anonymously sent from the DPD to the media, stating, "This is to inform the Scott County Media that members of the Davenport Police Union of Professional Police Officers has filed a complaint on Lieutenant Yerington with Internal Affairs," alleging "unfair treatment of certain employees by Lieutenant Yerington while covering up abuse of sick time ... and that Lieutenant Yerington has been given more favorable discipline than union members have been given."
DPD officer and Davenport Police Union President Eric Court immediately issued a statement denying such claims as completely false. Yerington filed a complaint on the fax, which initiated an investigation by the DPD.
On August 23, an internal report was filed notifying DPD command that the August 22 videotape from the surveillance camera where the fax machine is located was missing.
The anonymous act of sending a false, malicious fax resulted in an internal investigation by the DPD. An independent investigator from Oak Park, Illinois - Larry Laschen - was hired by City Administrator Craig Malin to work in tandem with the DPD to determine who sent the fax.
On September 14, Laschen submitted his report, naming a Davenport police officer as the sender of the fax. The following Thursday - September 16 - Captain Kevin Murphy was placed on administrative leave for four violations, including PS.03 Violation of Rules, Sec. 3.6 - Misuse of City Equipment, "until the completion of an Internal Affairs investigation involving the improper use of a department fax machine."
However, on September 27, Murphy was exonerated of all charges in a Name Clearing Hearing held by Chief Bladel and Major Donald Schaeffer.
Chief Bladel acknowledged to the River Cities' Reader that the independent investigation named an officer, although he declined to specify whom. But the standard of evidence in that investigation was a "preponderance of evidence," Bladel said. "I do not discipline ... unless the standard rises beyond a reasonable doubt."
Meanwhile, the sender of the fax remains at large. So why is the investigation concluded? Why isn't it ongoing in a continued effort to find the sender? How is it that the victim of the fax, Phil Yerington, loses his job for defending himself against the deliberately mean-spirited fax while the offender is allowed to walk away because the DPD is no longer pursuing the matter by way of an active investigation?
According to Chief Bladel, the investigation is open but inactive. "It's never going to be closed in my books," he said. If information comes forward that proves a person's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, "I will take severe discipline," Bladel said. To date, "there has been no new information."
When asked if the person named in the independent report is still a suspect or has been cleared, Bladel said, "I wouldn't be able to respond to that."
Unsigned Agreement
On September 16, Yerington was given a document referred to as a Last Chance Agreement in response to an incident that occurred back in May 2004, involving a matter unrelated to Faxgate. Yerington never signed the agreement.
The Faxgate investigation concluded on September 28, according to a press release issued by the DPD that morning. Yerington was interviewed that evening by the Quad-City Times relative to his candidacy for sheriff, the fax, how it might impact his chances, and who he thought was responsible for the misdeed.
Responding to the incident as a political candidate, Yerington stated that he believed the fax was political in nature and meant to sabotage his candidacy. He opined that Murphy was responsible for sending the fax. The reporter told Yerington at the time of the interview that he would not print Murphy's name unless the DPD administration verified the information. When the article eventually appeared, Murphy was not named as part of Yerington's interview. Yerington also opined on what he believed to be a departmental cover-up, and the degradation of the internal investigative process because, in his opinion, the officer responsible was not being disciplined, leaving the matter unresolved.
Two hours after his interview, Yerington was put on administrative leave without due process that properly should have included an internal investigation as specified by departmental policy and procedures. Three days later, on October 1, at the conclusion of Yerington's own Name Clearing Hearing, he was fired despite what were arguably legitimate extenuating circumstances.
The lack of due process was stated for the record at the onset of Yerington's Name Clearing Hearing, including an objection by attorney Mike Meloy that Yerington had not been given the appropriate written documentation specifying the actual factual charges against him.
Yerington had virtually no time to prepare for his defense, and until the Name Clearing Hearing, had no factual charges to defend against. He was put on administrative leave without the counsel of a union representative, or an attorney. Bladel acted as investigator of the matter in the two-hour period between Yerington's interview and his being put on administrative leave. Later Bladel also acted as judge during Yerington's Name Clearing Hearing. This process is highly irregular and supports Yerington's claim of lack of due process.
The inexcusable result of this whole fiasco is that the victim of the fax is the one who lost his job. At no time do the charges reflect that, as a political candidate for sheriff, Yerington had an obligation to the public trust to address the issue as honestly and as completely as he could. Ignoring the investigation and its consequences in this context would have been a breach of that trust and politically inappropriate.
Both the DPD and the CSC summarily ignored this crucial fact, allowing the DPD to construct a disturbingly innocuous case in support of terminating Yerington, regardless of all the facts, as the relevant documentation shows. Instead, Yerington' comments to the media are relegated to insubordination of a police officer talking out-of-school against another officer and the department. Ironically, while the Quad-City Times did not publish the name of the officer Yerington referred in his interview, the DPD's own press release named Murphy for public consumption the following day, September 29.
City Attorney Mary Thee, in the six-page Specification of Charges against Yerington, cites four violations as cause for termination:
· PS.03 Violation of Rules, claiming that Yerington was a "habitual violator of departmental rules in the past and in this incidence [speaking to the media]";
· PS.07 Insubordination, claiming that Yerington failed to inform command of his comments to the Quad-City Times as required by the LCA if information concerns "critical issues involving personnel violations or critical events that would have an effect on the police department";
· PS.16 Divulging Information, claiming, "Yerington went on-record with Mr. [Tom] Saul regarding information he provided to internal-affairs investigators;" and
· PS.41 Public Statements & Appearances, claiming, "Mr. Yerington's divulging of information related to an internal-affairs investigation had the effect of bringing public criticism and ridicule upon the department."
In addition, Thee cites 11 violations that span three decades of employment, beginning in 1975 and ending in 2004, none of which individually or collectively constitute grounds for termination. It was not until Yerington spoke to the media about his candidacy that these violations were collectively construed to show cause for his dismissal.
Yerington appealed his termination to the Civil Service Commission. The CSC heard arguments for both sides during a formal appeal hearing on November 24. Testimonies on behalf of Yerington revealed a dedicated, highly professional career police officer who was respected by his peers. Commendations and honors too numerous to list, including 29 awards, throughout Yerington's 32-year service were submitted for consideration, and a history of exceptional employment performance was evidenced by annual evaluations of the highest order. Yerington's last two evaluations - in 2002 and 2003 - under Chief Bladel were equally positive.
Testimony against Yerington during the appeal hearing consisted exclusively of Chief Bladel and City Administrator Malin claiming that Yerington knowingly violated the LCA because he knew naming an officer who is part of an internal investigation is considered a "critical incident." Recorded testimony shows otherwise.
Regardless, confusion abounds with regard to the Specification of Charges claiming Yerington as a "habitual violator," because his consistently high evaluations largely conflict with this accusation.
The single most important standard to be met for terminating a police officer, according to Iowa Code Chapter 400, is whether the officer's conduct was detrimental to the public service. Yerington's comments to the media as a candidate for sheriff did not meet this burden. Examples of conduct detrimental to the public service traditionally include hazardous discharge of firearms, violence, and drunkenness. Three veteran police officers - state legislator and former DPD Captain Jim Van Fossen, former Major Wayne Nelson, and former police officer Jerry McCabe - testified that no other police officer has ever been fired for talking to the media.
Thee falsely stated in the Specification of Charges, filed November 3 with the CSC, that during his Name Clearing Hearing, Yerington "admitted that the media writing a story about an individual named who was the subject of an internal-affairs investigation was a 'critical issue' and that he was aware that he was placed on a 'last chance agreement' two weeks earlier that required him to notify command staff of any critical issues."
Malin also testified that Yerington acknowledged talking to the media and naming an officer as the sender of the fax as a "critical issue."
However, Yerington's recorded testimony during his Name Clearing Hearing demonstrated otherwise. He specifically stated that he was responding to the reporter as a political candidate, not as an employee of the police department, and that he did not consider naming the officer he felt responsible for Faxgate any more of a critical issue than the smearing of his candidacy. Yerington also stated that he was not talking about confidential information relative to an internal investigation because he was not part of any such investigation, and that he did not understand the LCA to mean anything other than a requirement to notify command of any personnel issues. At no time did Yerington feel he was violating the agreement or not complying with its terms.
This is of particular importance because the CSC based most of its decision on the LCA (referred to by attorney Meloy as a "no-chance agreement"), claiming that Yerington's violation of the agreement justified termination.
Context and Intent
The entire case comes down to context and intent. Yerington maintains that he spoke with the reporter on September 28 as a candidate for sheriff, and not only had a right by law (Iowa Code 400.29) to offer his opinion on Faxgate - because it directly impacted his campaign - but had an obligation to explain as best he could to clear his name and maintain the integrity of his campaign. Anything less would be political suicide.
Yerington maintains that he could not be held to divulging confidential information about an internal investigation because he was not part of the investigation, or privy to any of its data, and the investigation was already concluded. Yerington argues that because his comments fall outside critical issues of personnel for whom he is responsible, and because he was being interviewed as a political candidate and not a police officer, no violation of the LCA occurred, making his termination unjustified.
During the December 21 CSC special meeting, Chair Dubik admitted that the LCA was poorly constructed. And Commissioner Howard gave every indication that he simply didn't understand it. In one breath, he supported Yerington's right as a political candidate to defend himself against slanderous accusations in the press, but in the next breath he found him in violation of DPD policy. His comments were contradictory and lacked any sense of conviction.
Dubik charged that if Yerington did not understand the scope of the LCA, he should have filed a complaint with the CSC. This remark exposed Dubik's lack of understanding of due process, or of the inherent timing of the matter before her. Yerington had no time to file such a complaint before the LCA had been implemented against him. There were only three weeks between the issuing of the LCA and Yerington's termination. Yerington did not have sufficient time before his October 1 termination to appeal the LCA to the commission.
Yerington's appeal to the Iowa District Court will be filed this month. Yerington would like his job back and wants to finish his career as Lieutenant Yerington of the DPD.
His attorney Mike Meloy is confident about the appeal: "We believe the district court will look at the facts in a different light than the commission."
On December 20, 2004, during a special meeting called to render its decision, Davenport's Civil Service Commission (CSC) by a two-to-one vote upheld the DPD's termination of Yerington for speaking to the media without permission from department command.
Yerington's termination is shrouded in controversy for myriad reasons, including:
· DPD ignoring its own administrative rules for termination of a police officer;
· an unusual "last chance agreement" (LCA) imposed upon Yerington that appears to be a thinly disguised gag order;
· a timeframe of only three days between Yerington being put on administrative leave pending potential dismissal and his actual dismissal (normally due process takes weeks, if not months);
· three separate hearings (Name Clearing with DPD, appeal before CSC, and CSC special meeting to render a decision) during which any discussion of "Faxgate" was censored (Faxgate refers to an anonymous fax sent from the DPD on August 22 that made false and malicious accusations against Yerington for misconduct);
· Faxgate's investigation concluding without holding anyone accountable for sending said fax with false information intended to malign Yerington and damage his political campaign for sheriff; and
· the termination of the malicious fax's victim - a decorated 32-year veteran of the DPD with only four years to retirement - for defending his candidacy in the media.
Across the board, a glaring lack of professionalism prevailed within the DPD and the city's administration, as well as on the part of two of the three CSC commissioners, Elton Howard (husband of Alderman-at-Large Jamie Howard) and Deborah Dubik (an attorney with the law firm of Betty, Neuman, & McMahon, which currently represents the city in several litigation cases). Both commissioners demonstrated bias against Yerington during much of the relevant proceedings.
A striking lack of discussion of the salient points of Yerington's controversial termination can arguably be perceived as predisposition to fire Yerington regardless of the facts on the part of two of the three commissioners, Dubik and Howard. Commissioner Jim Hughes, without much success, tried to engage the other two in a discussion concerning the dubious LCA that played a significant role in the commission's decision to dismiss Yerington. Hughes was especially disturbed because there has never before been such an agreement imposed upon any other police officer in the DPD.
The Commission is supposed to act as a neutral party as it investigates and draws conclusions based on both sides of a case. A 32-year service record deserves due diligence of the highest order. Other than testimony during the appeal hearing and a few cursory questions, no such intensive examination was forthcoming. This is particularly disturbing with so much controversy surrounding Yerington's termination.
Curiously, both Police Chief Mike Bladel and Commission Chair Dubik thwarted most attempts to discuss Faxgate during all of the proceedings, which demonstrated a clear bias against Yerington, because Faxgate is precisely what precipitated his speaking to the media, eventually resulting in his termination. By censoring any discussion of Faxgate, the entire foundation of Yerington's defense was substantially undermined.
What Happened
Lieutenant Phil Yerington announced his candidacy for Scott County sheriff on March 25, 2004. On Sunday, August 22, a fax was anonymously sent from the DPD to the media, stating, "This is to inform the Scott County Media that members of the Davenport Police Union of Professional Police Officers has filed a complaint on Lieutenant Yerington with Internal Affairs," alleging "unfair treatment of certain employees by Lieutenant Yerington while covering up abuse of sick time ... and that Lieutenant Yerington has been given more favorable discipline than union members have been given."
DPD officer and Davenport Police Union President Eric Court immediately issued a statement denying such claims as completely false. Yerington filed a complaint on the fax, which initiated an investigation by the DPD.
On August 23, an internal report was filed notifying DPD command that the August 22 videotape from the surveillance camera where the fax machine is located was missing.
The anonymous act of sending a false, malicious fax resulted in an internal investigation by the DPD. An independent investigator from Oak Park, Illinois - Larry Laschen - was hired by City Administrator Craig Malin to work in tandem with the DPD to determine who sent the fax.
On September 14, Laschen submitted his report, naming a Davenport police officer as the sender of the fax. The following Thursday - September 16 - Captain Kevin Murphy was placed on administrative leave for four violations, including PS.03 Violation of Rules, Sec. 3.6 - Misuse of City Equipment, "until the completion of an Internal Affairs investigation involving the improper use of a department fax machine."
However, on September 27, Murphy was exonerated of all charges in a Name Clearing Hearing held by Chief Bladel and Major Donald Schaeffer.
Chief Bladel acknowledged to the River Cities' Reader that the independent investigation named an officer, although he declined to specify whom. But the standard of evidence in that investigation was a "preponderance of evidence," Bladel said. "I do not discipline ... unless the standard rises beyond a reasonable doubt."
Meanwhile, the sender of the fax remains at large. So why is the investigation concluded? Why isn't it ongoing in a continued effort to find the sender? How is it that the victim of the fax, Phil Yerington, loses his job for defending himself against the deliberately mean-spirited fax while the offender is allowed to walk away because the DPD is no longer pursuing the matter by way of an active investigation?
According to Chief Bladel, the investigation is open but inactive. "It's never going to be closed in my books," he said. If information comes forward that proves a person's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, "I will take severe discipline," Bladel said. To date, "there has been no new information."
When asked if the person named in the independent report is still a suspect or has been cleared, Bladel said, "I wouldn't be able to respond to that."
Unsigned Agreement
On September 16, Yerington was given a document referred to as a Last Chance Agreement in response to an incident that occurred back in May 2004, involving a matter unrelated to Faxgate. Yerington never signed the agreement.
The Faxgate investigation concluded on September 28, according to a press release issued by the DPD that morning. Yerington was interviewed that evening by the Quad-City Times relative to his candidacy for sheriff, the fax, how it might impact his chances, and who he thought was responsible for the misdeed.
Responding to the incident as a political candidate, Yerington stated that he believed the fax was political in nature and meant to sabotage his candidacy. He opined that Murphy was responsible for sending the fax. The reporter told Yerington at the time of the interview that he would not print Murphy's name unless the DPD administration verified the information. When the article eventually appeared, Murphy was not named as part of Yerington's interview. Yerington also opined on what he believed to be a departmental cover-up, and the degradation of the internal investigative process because, in his opinion, the officer responsible was not being disciplined, leaving the matter unresolved.
Two hours after his interview, Yerington was put on administrative leave without due process that properly should have included an internal investigation as specified by departmental policy and procedures. Three days later, on October 1, at the conclusion of Yerington's own Name Clearing Hearing, he was fired despite what were arguably legitimate extenuating circumstances.
The lack of due process was stated for the record at the onset of Yerington's Name Clearing Hearing, including an objection by attorney Mike Meloy that Yerington had not been given the appropriate written documentation specifying the actual factual charges against him.
Yerington had virtually no time to prepare for his defense, and until the Name Clearing Hearing, had no factual charges to defend against. He was put on administrative leave without the counsel of a union representative, or an attorney. Bladel acted as investigator of the matter in the two-hour period between Yerington's interview and his being put on administrative leave. Later Bladel also acted as judge during Yerington's Name Clearing Hearing. This process is highly irregular and supports Yerington's claim of lack of due process.
The inexcusable result of this whole fiasco is that the victim of the fax is the one who lost his job. At no time do the charges reflect that, as a political candidate for sheriff, Yerington had an obligation to the public trust to address the issue as honestly and as completely as he could. Ignoring the investigation and its consequences in this context would have been a breach of that trust and politically inappropriate.
Both the DPD and the CSC summarily ignored this crucial fact, allowing the DPD to construct a disturbingly innocuous case in support of terminating Yerington, regardless of all the facts, as the relevant documentation shows. Instead, Yerington' comments to the media are relegated to insubordination of a police officer talking out-of-school against another officer and the department. Ironically, while the Quad-City Times did not publish the name of the officer Yerington referred in his interview, the DPD's own press release named Murphy for public consumption the following day, September 29.
City Attorney Mary Thee, in the six-page Specification of Charges against Yerington, cites four violations as cause for termination:
· PS.03 Violation of Rules, claiming that Yerington was a "habitual violator of departmental rules in the past and in this incidence [speaking to the media]";
· PS.07 Insubordination, claiming that Yerington failed to inform command of his comments to the Quad-City Times as required by the LCA if information concerns "critical issues involving personnel violations or critical events that would have an effect on the police department";
· PS.16 Divulging Information, claiming, "Yerington went on-record with Mr. [Tom] Saul regarding information he provided to internal-affairs investigators;" and
· PS.41 Public Statements & Appearances, claiming, "Mr. Yerington's divulging of information related to an internal-affairs investigation had the effect of bringing public criticism and ridicule upon the department."
In addition, Thee cites 11 violations that span three decades of employment, beginning in 1975 and ending in 2004, none of which individually or collectively constitute grounds for termination. It was not until Yerington spoke to the media about his candidacy that these violations were collectively construed to show cause for his dismissal.
Yerington appealed his termination to the Civil Service Commission. The CSC heard arguments for both sides during a formal appeal hearing on November 24. Testimonies on behalf of Yerington revealed a dedicated, highly professional career police officer who was respected by his peers. Commendations and honors too numerous to list, including 29 awards, throughout Yerington's 32-year service were submitted for consideration, and a history of exceptional employment performance was evidenced by annual evaluations of the highest order. Yerington's last two evaluations - in 2002 and 2003 - under Chief Bladel were equally positive.
Testimony against Yerington during the appeal hearing consisted exclusively of Chief Bladel and City Administrator Malin claiming that Yerington knowingly violated the LCA because he knew naming an officer who is part of an internal investigation is considered a "critical incident." Recorded testimony shows otherwise.
Regardless, confusion abounds with regard to the Specification of Charges claiming Yerington as a "habitual violator," because his consistently high evaluations largely conflict with this accusation.
The single most important standard to be met for terminating a police officer, according to Iowa Code Chapter 400, is whether the officer's conduct was detrimental to the public service. Yerington's comments to the media as a candidate for sheriff did not meet this burden. Examples of conduct detrimental to the public service traditionally include hazardous discharge of firearms, violence, and drunkenness. Three veteran police officers - state legislator and former DPD Captain Jim Van Fossen, former Major Wayne Nelson, and former police officer Jerry McCabe - testified that no other police officer has ever been fired for talking to the media.
Thee falsely stated in the Specification of Charges, filed November 3 with the CSC, that during his Name Clearing Hearing, Yerington "admitted that the media writing a story about an individual named who was the subject of an internal-affairs investigation was a 'critical issue' and that he was aware that he was placed on a 'last chance agreement' two weeks earlier that required him to notify command staff of any critical issues."
Malin also testified that Yerington acknowledged talking to the media and naming an officer as the sender of the fax as a "critical issue."
However, Yerington's recorded testimony during his Name Clearing Hearing demonstrated otherwise. He specifically stated that he was responding to the reporter as a political candidate, not as an employee of the police department, and that he did not consider naming the officer he felt responsible for Faxgate any more of a critical issue than the smearing of his candidacy. Yerington also stated that he was not talking about confidential information relative to an internal investigation because he was not part of any such investigation, and that he did not understand the LCA to mean anything other than a requirement to notify command of any personnel issues. At no time did Yerington feel he was violating the agreement or not complying with its terms.
This is of particular importance because the CSC based most of its decision on the LCA (referred to by attorney Meloy as a "no-chance agreement"), claiming that Yerington's violation of the agreement justified termination.
Context and Intent
The entire case comes down to context and intent. Yerington maintains that he spoke with the reporter on September 28 as a candidate for sheriff, and not only had a right by law (Iowa Code 400.29) to offer his opinion on Faxgate - because it directly impacted his campaign - but had an obligation to explain as best he could to clear his name and maintain the integrity of his campaign. Anything less would be political suicide.
Yerington maintains that he could not be held to divulging confidential information about an internal investigation because he was not part of the investigation, or privy to any of its data, and the investigation was already concluded. Yerington argues that because his comments fall outside critical issues of personnel for whom he is responsible, and because he was being interviewed as a political candidate and not a police officer, no violation of the LCA occurred, making his termination unjustified.
During the December 21 CSC special meeting, Chair Dubik admitted that the LCA was poorly constructed. And Commissioner Howard gave every indication that he simply didn't understand it. In one breath, he supported Yerington's right as a political candidate to defend himself against slanderous accusations in the press, but in the next breath he found him in violation of DPD policy. His comments were contradictory and lacked any sense of conviction.
Dubik charged that if Yerington did not understand the scope of the LCA, he should have filed a complaint with the CSC. This remark exposed Dubik's lack of understanding of due process, or of the inherent timing of the matter before her. Yerington had no time to file such a complaint before the LCA had been implemented against him. There were only three weeks between the issuing of the LCA and Yerington's termination. Yerington did not have sufficient time before his October 1 termination to appeal the LCA to the commission.
Yerington's appeal to the Iowa District Court will be filed this month. Yerington would like his job back and wants to finish his career as Lieutenant Yerington of the DPD.
His attorney Mike Meloy is confident about the appeal: "We believe the district court will look at the facts in a different light than the commission."
