Police Chief on Leave of Absence

Posted in the Imperial Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Hello

Arnold, MO

#1 Feb 21, 2013
http://www.google.com/search...

Funny, they seem to do things differently in other municipalities.
Hello

Arnold, MO

#2 Feb 21, 2013
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-...

Here is the article that is in the Post-Dispatch.
Letusnamenames

United States

#3 Feb 21, 2013
It doesn't take a genius to say this has no relation to Arnold.

1. The Perryville Chief is on a VOLUNTARY leave of absence. He wasn't forced.
2. It doesn't say what he was accused of so you don't know how severe it was or what it was.

You're coming off as illiterate for posting stuff about other municipalities that have no bearing, relationship or similarities to what is happening in Arnold.
Hello

Arnold, MO

#4 Feb 21, 2013
OK, so an employee made a claim of misconduct against him, he took a voluntary leave of absence while the claim is being investigated and it is in the newspaper.
We know that the Chief here was not only accused of misconduct, we know what it was and that it was substantiated enough by the Missouri Commission on Human Rights for them to issue a Notice of Right to Sue. The suit is documented. This Chief was not on leave for the investigation, voluntary or involuntary and it was not in the paper. Seems like things are being handled improperly here in Arnold, don't you think that is so?
Use Your Noggin

Arnold, MO

#5 Feb 21, 2013
To the disengaged one: These are commonly called correlations. That means the circumstances are similar in many ways. That is why they are used as examples. Kind of like synonyms are the same, antonyms are different.
Letusnamenames

United States

#6 Feb 21, 2013
I don't agree with that. Things are handled as the situation dictates. These are two different situations and are handled two different ways. Again, his leave was voluntary showing it wasn't required.
Letusnamenames

United States

#7 Feb 21, 2013
Use Your Noggin wrote:
To the disengaged one: These are commonly called correlations. That means the circumstances are similar in many ways. That is why they are used as examples. Kind of like synonyms are the same, antonyms are different.
The circumstances are not similar. If you insist they are then you just proved that the Chief didn't have to be required to have a leave of absence because the one you are citing was voluntary, ie., NOT REQUIRED.
id10t

Fenton, MO

#8 Feb 21, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
I don't agree with that. Things are handled as the situation dictates. These are two different situations and are handled two different ways. Again, his leave was voluntary showing it wasn't required.
Yes, voluntary as in he was told, "You need to take leave voluntarily, or it will be involuntary".....you know, a bit like when Matt Unrein "resigned."
Rick Perry

High Ridge, MO

#9 Feb 21, 2013
Satan shoved a pineapple up Hitler's butt
Hello

Arnold, MO

#10 Mar 3, 2013
OK, so an employee made a claim of misconduct against him, he took a voluntary leave of absence while the claim is being investigated and it is in the newspaper.
We know that the Chief here was not only accused of misconduct, we know what it was and that it was substantiated enough by the Missouri Commission on Human Rights for them to issue a Notice of Right to Sue. The suit is documented. This Chief was not on leave for the investigation, voluntary or involuntary and it was not in the paper. Seems like things are being handled improperly here in Arnold, don't you think that is so?
Letusnamenames

United States

#11 Mar 4, 2013
No, Doris, we don't.
concerned

Arnold, MO

#12 Mar 4, 2013
This thread is about the fact that the police chief in the City of Arnold has filed a harassment claim against two city council representatives when he himself has a sexual harassment claim filed and in court against him that the Missouri Commission on Human Rights issued a Notice of Right to Sue, unlike the Boone case where there was no Notice of Right to Sue, the city and their insurance company just wants employees and businesses to line up asking for money. Who is next?
Letusnamenames

United States

#13 Mar 4, 2013
So the big, bad Doris only wants to keep things on topic when it suits her. Convenient that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander, huh?
Lettucenamenames

Arnold, MO

#14 Mar 4, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
So the big, bad Doris only wants to keep things on topic when it suits her. Convenient that what is good for the goose is not good for the gander, huh?
Because we all know I would NEVER derail a topic, right?
Letusnamenames

United States

#16 Mar 4, 2013
Lettucenamenames wrote:
<quoted text>
Because we all know I would NEVER derail a topic, right?
Not like you when you don't want to answer a direct question.
Letusnamenames

United States

#17 Mar 4, 2013
Concerned Citizen wrote:
<quoted text>
Improperly in Arnold? Seriously? Not at ALL! <sarcasm>
In this town, if you're the mayors buddy, you don't get suspended or fired, you get PROMOTED with a hefty pay raise to go with it! And all the while, Mayor Counts has been hiding and covering this up. Not only from you and I, but the council, too! That means he's been lying by omission. And that makes one a liar.
Maybe instead of mayor, a better term would be Liar Counts. The man should do the city a favor and resign. But he has no honor to do the right thing.
And yet Doris was on the Council when this was filed and said nothing when the city was served. She wait until now to bring it up. She was on the Council when Shockey was approved to be administrator and said nothing at that time either. Seems like Doris is just as much to blame as the Mayor if not more. She lied by omission, too.
Yeah Right

Arnold, MO

#18 Mar 4, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet Doris was on the Council when this was filed and said nothing when the city was served. She wait until now to bring it up. She was on the Council when Shockey was approved to be administrator and said nothing at that time either. Seems like Doris is just as much to blame as the Mayor if not more. She lied by omission, too.
You have a serious density problem. You should really go get it checked out.
This thread is about the Chief of police, the Mayor, the city administrator and the city attorney keeping this under wraps. Do you really think Doris would keep a secret like that? You really are nuts.
Concerned Citizen

Prague, Czech Republic

#19 Mar 4, 2013
Letusnamenames wrote:
<quoted text>
And yet Doris was on the Council when this was filed and said nothing when the city was served. She wait until now to bring it up. She was on the Council when Shockey was approved to be administrator and said nothing at that time either. Seems like Doris is just as much to blame as the Mayor if not more. She lied by omission, too.
What part of "the mayor hid it from the council" do you not understand? He had no problems, though, making a public spectacle against the councilman that planned to run against him for mayor. Making a claim that had no validity! He played as dirty politics as there are to denigrate him in public. Even used our tax dollars to pay for a sham investigation to railroad this guy, yet had no investigation and kept under wraps that his chief of police had a substantiated MCHR claim against him for sexual discrimination. And on top of that, the AND the city are being sued for it. Yet the mayor appoints this guy to city administrator with a 40K annual raise? All the while HIDING this from the council. Including Doris.
remember when

Saint Louis, MO

#20 Mar 4, 2013
Doris tells everything else . So why wouldn't she expose this as well. My thought is it was kept from her.
Oh well, as long as it is out for all to see. That's good enough for me.
I think counts would rather climb a phone pole and tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth. Not good ...not good at all.

Makes you wonder if Peewee doesn't have some dirt on counts doesn't it ?
Letusnamenames

United States

#21 Mar 4, 2013
Nothing was hidden. It was all out there. How come everyone else knew about it except her? Everyone else on the council knew and it was discussed in closed session AND someone claimed it was in the Leader.

She's just trying to hide the fact that she knew and didn't say anything. That makes her a liar. She's playing the political game.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Imperial Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Food Service Contract 58 min ArnoldCC 1
Election in Ward 3 (Mar '12) 1 hr ArnoldCC 57
Plea to Arnold Sewer Customers 7 hr Arnold86 193
Missouri's reign as America's meth king / Starr... 10 hr ArnoldCC 3
tea party trainwreck 10 hr ArnoldCC 15
Lakewood Apartments (Mar '06) 21 hr anon 46
Fox C6 Board of Education : Discussion Fri XAIO 661
Imperial Dating
Find my Match

Imperial Jobs

Imperial People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Imperial News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Imperial

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]