S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 1
IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OKLAHOMA OPEN MEETING LAW,
THE AGENDA WAS POSTED AUGUST 22, 1996
IN THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AT 723 S. LEWIS
August 26, 1996 6:30 p.m.
PRESENT: MAYOR TERRY MILLER, VICE MAYOR DAVE HESSEL, COMMISSIONERS RAY
SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY
CITY MANAGER CARL WEINAUG, PARKS & REC. DIR. BILL NELSON, CITY ATTORNEY MARY
ANN KARNS, WATER UTILITIES DIR. WYATT IRVING
1. Development of information summary on Lake McMurtry in preparation for a future public hearing.
MR. WEINAUG presented a first draft of key issues that need to be addressed prior to considering possible
sale of Lake McMurtry. He had responded to earlier questions such as "why haven't you just offered to sell
water to the city - saying, we have but that isn't what they have requested, or why haven't you offered it to
Lake MercCruiser to let them lease the lake for their exclusive use 2-3 days a week. We have offered but that
isn't what they're asking, so those discussions have not proceeded."
One of the things requested and received from Perry's Mayor was his water study. From that Mr. Weinaug
had summarized what they looked at in their options. Some aspects of that study presented questions about
both their calculations and the logic of it, but he had not felt at liberty to ask about particular aspects since
we have not begun the formality of going through negotiations with Perry. For example, MR. WEINAUG
did not know what their reasoning was to spend $1,000,000 to build a storage tank if they take water from the
Kaw Reservoir since they do not talk about a storage tank if the water were taken from Lake McMurtry and
only using Lake Perry as storage facility.
MR. WEINAUG sought the Commission's direction on whether the information provided would be needed in
a summary document. He also asked if a discussion with City of Perry officials might be advisable to see if
the answers to some of these questions could be resolved prior to the public hearing. MAYOR MILLER
observed all the various costs for manpower, vehicular costs, and utility costs for the lake had been provided
by the City Manager. The projected large expenditure in 1997, 1998, and 1999 was more because little in the
way of major capital expenditures has been done over the past 2-3 years. MR. WEINAUG said historic
expenditures would not necessarily properly reflect what had been put off because we did not know if we
would go through with improvements in anticipation of possible sale of the lake or some other arrangement .
He had shown these costs because he did not wish to surprise the Commission if the public makes a decision to
keep the lake with sudden improvements that would exceed current average costs of $80,000. Projected costs
could be in the $213,000 range.
COMMISSIONER SCARBROUGH requested information on the size of the lake and adjoining pasture land.
COMMISSIONER LACY recommended listing the purchase of water from Stillwater's Lake McMurtry as a
separate option. After passing out an information sheet, he said Perry's water study numbers appeared to
have some errors in calculations in purchase of water from the Kaw Reservoir as given in the water study.
Also, corrections in construction costs of operation and maintenance for 10 years, water quality, miles of
pipeline, installation of submersible pumps, etc. were included in his calculations. Another option of selling
just the lake to the City of Perry (not the surrounding land). If so, costs would be presumed as the same as
the same as purchase of the lake except initial project costs would be $2,000,000 less. Recreation costs would
be eliminated. Water purchase costs were est. $.20/1000 gal. (to be determined by the Commission). A study
entitled "Recommended Water Supply Strategy" by Perry's consultant which led them to believe purchasing
McMurtry was favorable for a permanent source of water v. negotiating with O.S.U. or the City of Stillwater
for just water rights was also provided.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 2
LACY presented four arguments which led the consultant to believe Lake McMurtry was the #1 option:
(1) Potential recreational revenue from Lake McMurtry if owned by Perry by development and enhancement
of adjacent property to provide for increased and diversified recreational uses.
(2) Other development scenarios which could impact the revenue generating capacity of this project which
could offset initial annual costs to Perry. These were considered important in making this investment by the
City of Perry. (These factors were not incorporated into the numbers the consultant used to recommend
purchase of Lake McMurtry). LACY sought clarification of "other development scenarios" and "adjacent
land to be developed" and what that would amount to.
(3) They would be able to sell water to other municipalities surrounding the Perry area. Those factors
seemed to sway the consultant to recommend pursuing the purchase of Lake McMurty over the other options
of purchasing water from Kaw, or O.S.U. (Lake Blackwell).
(4) Mercury Marine had expressed interest in leasing the lake from Perry (or whomever owns it). LACY felt
it was important for the public to know what those other options are. MR. WEINAUG advised he would add
a short summary of those 4 points in addition as to what Perry's future use of the Lake would include or how
they would address the costs. LACY advised these points would certainly enhance their revenue
opportunities and help them to recover the annual costs of Lake McMurtry.
There was some discussion regarding MerCruiser's interest in Lake McMurtry. MR. WEINAUG said he had
not heard anything in about a year. LACY had recently conversed with their new president who indicated
they still are interested in discussing the matter but not interested in a lengthy public ordeal to accomplish
MR. WEINAUG said he had received a memo from Water Utilities Dir. Wyatt Irving, who completed his
review of this proposal and had raised these questions; (1) the pump station ($140,000 listed as necessary for
the Kaw Pipeline alternative does not appear to be correct. The pump station should only be necessary for
Lake McMurtry alternative. The Kaw pump station should perform adequately for Perry using the Kaw
pipeline alternative. (2) The statement that the reservoir cost of $1,000,000 listed as needed for the Kaw
pipeline and not necessary for the Lake McMurtry alternative was also questioned. (3) The study shows
Lake McMurtry alternative using the existing Perry Lake as a reservoir. If will work as a reservoir for
McMurtry, it would do the same for Kaw. These discrepancies favor Lake McMurtry as best alternative by
almost two million dollars but on closer review Mr. Irving was certain there would be others. He also raised
the question regarding the silting in of Lake Perry - which Lake McMurtry has experienced too. While this
may have been taken into account, no figures had been provided.
MAYOR MILLER noted, currently the Kaw Pipeline processes an average of 10 million gallons of water per
day. The water line's capacity is 30 mgd. The water rights allow us up to 50 mgd. so we would have to put an
additional water line in if we went to the maximum amount of water rights we have. But we do have an
excess capacity in Kaw's pipeline - an amount to easily service a population of 120,000. Currently other cities
connected to the Kaw Pipeline are the Morrison and the Otoe-Missouri Tribe, both small users.
COMMISSIONER LACY asked if Mr. Weinaug would include those federal regulations pertaining to
recreational use of the lake. MR. WEINAUG said he would include the whole document.
After the Mayor sought a consensus, the COMMISSIONERS agreed they did not see a problem in letting the
appraisal go public. MR. WEINAUG explained the appraisal does not include the facilities built there
because there isn't anything comparable and people aren't putting lakes up for sale or trading them. The
appraisal was agricultural in nature. It does not make or break us in any form, in his viewpoint.
COMMISSIONER SCARBROUGH could not recall if all the pasture land had been included in the original
appraisal. MR. WEINAUG was almost certain the evaluation included the entire acreage, as we own it,
minus the improvements. Until Commissioner Lacy brought this up there had been no discussion of selling
just the lake and keeping the land. MAYOR MILLER said if we do - sell the land the dam occupies because
that is the potential liability. The YMCA's ownership of a parcel of land in the vicinity was discussed. More
information on MerCruiser's wishes for the lake was also requested. Also the Commission would want to
reserve the right to retain Lake McMurtry as an emergency back-up for the University or for us in the event
repairs to the Kaw Pipeline were necessary. MR. WIENAUG presented a procedure he would follow to
solicit any additional information that may be appropriate for the future public meeting.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 3
COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE said in Perry's study they had noted recreational uses were extremely
important and she wondered what recreational uses Stillwater had envisioned in the beginning and where it
had gone. She asked what the feeling had been when Lake McMurtry was established beyond the need for a
water source and flood control facility? MR. WEINAUG said recreation was a by-product and he recalled
seeing information regarding its' use as nature conservancy. There was a feeling that mostly because of the
cost factors. The desire to pursue a private operation and sub-development did not go very far.
COMMISSIONER LACY said some of the data contained in past budgets on Lake McMurtry is pretty
valuable and has a lot of information that might be useful to the City Manager in his search also.
MAYOR MILLER did not believe the concept of having lake side residences or cottages around the lake had
ever been explored. That may have been what the City of Perry was talking about. He believed costs are
$24,000-$26,000/acre to get an area ready for development. He advised those in the audience who may not be
on the mailing list for Lake McMurtry meetings to contact the City Manager's office so they can be kept
abreast of future events concerning the lake. Also everything the City Manager has compiled has been placed
on the InterNet.
MARGARET ESSENBERG, 1601 N. Denver asked that information regarding regulations and
infrastructure for making use of water from Lake McMurtry for Stillwater be made a part of the study so we
can understand how good that option is, and what current and past use has been made of that water. This
reference was to the size of the pipeline that goes to O.S.U., etc. MAYOR MILLER noted the City holds
water rights from Lake McMurtry in the amount of 3000 acre ft./year. The City also has water rights from
Kaw Reservoir for additional water of 56,210 acre ft./year - or 55,000,000 gals per day.
MILDRED RUSH, Lake McMurtry area resident, requested further information on the "pasture land"
referred to. MAYOR MILLER said there are five or six different parcels that we lease out but it was difficult
to point those out without a map. MRS. RUSH asked if there was an area designated as a wild life area or
that could be considered wetlands? PARKS & REC. DIR. BILL NELSON said there is about 2,100 acres of
land area that surrounds the lake, and 1,300 of surface acres of water associated with it (3,400 acres total
area). On the east side just north of the main entry there is about a mile of property that has been
traditionally been called the nature area which has not been leased. We're also kept hunting of water fowl
out of that area. The wetland question is a tough question - because it was a manmade lake, and anytime you
talk about the natural ecology of an area - this is an unnatural situation that we have turned into a natural
area. Whether or not we have turned this into an area that can be considered wetlands or not, this may have
to be answered by the national parks or who ever makes those determinations. MRS. RUSH noted there are
so many creatures associated with the wetlands - geese, ducks, etc. that have been using that lake for so many
years they have a perfect right to stay there! One other question that will be raised at some point is the
legality of various kinds of development. This is public land purchased partly with assistance from federal
grants - some of the land taken by eminent domain. We will have to face the question at some point as to the
appropriateness of any of Perry's dreams for development, whether it is legal as well as appropriate.
A study session will be scheduled with the City of Perry's council. No date was determined at this time.
MAYOR MILLER adjourned the Study Session at 7:20 p.m.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 4
STILLWATER CITY COMMISSION
AUGUST 26, 1996
PRESENT: MAYOR TERRY MILLER, VICE MAYOR DAVE HESSEL, COMMISSIONERS RAY
SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY
1. MAYOR MILLER called the Regular meeting of the City Commission to order at 7:30 p.m. The
Commissioners stood for the Pledge of Allegiance.
3. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
MAYOR MILLER presented the following proclamations: to Jim Scott, Sean Fry, and Linda Bartlett
declaring September 3-7, 1996 at City of Stillwater Employee Association Employee Week; to Robert Black,
declaring August 30-31 as "Fill the Boot Days" for Stillwater Firefighter; and to Alice Campbell, declaring
September as "Literacy Month."
4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
MOTION BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, SECOND BY BUD LACY TO APPROVE THE MINUTES
OF THE STUDY SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 1996 AS WRITTEN.
ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, BUD LACY -
YES. RAY SCARBROUGH - ABSTAINED. MOTION CARRIED WITH FOUR VOTES YES.
5. CONSENT DOCKET
a. Claims in the amount of $168,756.92, Special claims for $130,711.77, and Estimated Payroll in the amount
of $650,000 were presented for approval.
b. The following Street and Sidewalk covenants were presented for acknowledgment: A Street and Sidewalk
Covenant from Lisa Carter Sinclaire for property in the NW/4, Sec. 26, T19N, R2E, and a Sidewalk Covenant
from Kenneth and Edna H. Church for property in the NW/4, Sec. 13, T19N, R2E, I.M. Payne County, OK.
c. A Drainage Easement was presented for acceptance from Lisa Carter Sinclaire for property in the NW/4,
NE/4, Sec. 26, T19N, R2E, I.M., Payne County, OK.
d. A budget amendment was presented for approval, increasing Acct. 01-9-04-6406 by $500, a donation from
the Payne County Genealogy Society for the Library.
e. Street Div. staff requested award of bid for a 46,000 G.V.W. Dump Truck to Frontier International as low
bidder, with an increase to cab, axle, and front axle rating to 14,000 for total cost of $47,545.25. CC-96-180
f. Final Plat approval was sought for Chateau Lakes, Second Section. CC-96-181
g. Building Maint.'s Sean Fry requested re-award of the contract for some of the custodial services in City
Hall to second low bidder, Commercial Cleaning Services for a ten month period.
h. City Manager Carl Weinaug recommended approval of a budget amendment in the amount of $2,700 to
provide training incentive pay to Police supervisors of the training program.
MOTION BY DAVE HESSEL, SECOND BY RAY SCARBROUGH TO APPROVE THE CONSENT
DOCKET, INCLUDING SPECIAL CLAIMS AND ESTIMATED PAYROLL.
ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 5
6. OPENING OF BIDS
MAYOR MILLER and Commissioners opened and read the following bids for a 1997 Type 3 Ambulance for
the Fire Department:
AMTECH EMERGENCY PRODUCTS
1209 S. UNION, Box 29 $72,400
ROCK RAPIDS, IA. 51246 < 1,000> (Chassis prepayment)
TAYLOR MADE AMBULANCE
3710 HWY. 67 NO. $65,400 (1996 Model)
NEWPORT, AK. 72112 67,100 (1997 Model)
BOARDMAN EMERGENCY VEHICLES
2300 S. Thirteenth St.. $71,487 (1997 Model)
CLINTON, OK. 73601 67,224 (1996 Model)
SOUTHERN AMBULANCE BUILDERS
P.O. Drawer 949 $68,987 (1997 Model)
LAGRANGE, GA. 30241 No alternate bid
FIRST RESPONSE INC.
P.O. Drawer P $68,898 (1997 Model)
GRIFFIN, GA. 30224 67,098 (1996 Model)
MOTION BY DAVE HESSEL, SECOND BY RAY SCARBROUGH TO REFER THE BIDS TO STAFF
FOR EVALUATION AND RECOMMENDATION.
ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.
7 PUBLIC APPEARANCES, PETITIONS, COMMUNICATIONS
a. Miscellaneous items from the audience. No items presented.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Discussion with staff regarding questions on the disciplinary procedures arising from recent Police
arbitration case. AT THE REQUEST OF THE CITY MANAGER THE FOLLOWING IS BASICALLY A
VERBATIM STATEMENT OF THE DISCUSSION OF ITEM 8. (a).
MAYOR MILLER explained the intent of this discussion was to clear the air concerning the disciplinary
action taken after a January 1996 incident by Police Sgt. John Jerkins, and questions arising from the recent
arbitration case. We may or may not agree with the sanctions imposed by the Police Board and those
sanctions appear to be what the public outcry is about. These sanctions will either be upheld or changed
through settlement or arbitration. It is not for us to discuss these sanctions, but rather to understand the
process that was used. Questions and discussion were to be limited to the City Commission and staff.
CITY MANAGER CARL WEINAUG said the actions regarding John Jerkins and resulting disciplinary
action have caused a number of questions to be raised in the minds of some Commissioners, staff, and citizens.
Many questions are legitimate, however, this particular action raises larger issues citizens and commissioners
should consider. These are community standard issues. What do we expect from our Police Officers? When
an officer does something in his own home to cause an investigation, should that action be investigated in the
same way as a private citizen's would? Do we expect our Police Officers to enforce ordinances whether or
not they disagree with them? Do we expect them to be positive role models? If a Police Officer takes actions
that are determined to be against the law and policy, should the department look the other way because a
citizen is either afraid to come forward, or wants to avoid publicity?
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 6
MR. WEINAUG continued, What is the place of violence in our society? One troubling aspect of letters
received are those which advocated more serious punishment to both the young people. What level of force is
permissible as discipline against a child, whether or not the child is one's own? Is the Police Officer on the
scene to determine what was permissible or is he to make a report and let prosecutors and other professionals
determine whether the force is appropriate? It is difficult to be a parent - a teenage, or a Police Officer in
today's world. It is obvious better communication in families and within our department might have helped
in this situation.
The Commission asked the Personnel Director, the City Attorney, the Police Chief, and the City Manager to
respond to questions regarding the case. MRS. BREEN explained the disciplinary process as it is was used in
the Jerkins case was identical in all aspects as it relates to the Standard Operating Procedures for the
Stillwater Police Department, as set forth in Proced. 805, in the Personnel Manual as approved on August 1,
1995, and in the Grievance procedure in the FOP contract. The F.O.P. Lodge voted to accept those on
October 18, 1995. It is essentially the same for all employees as it is for a Police Officer, with a few different
details as it relates to non-Union employees, non-bargaining, non Police Dept. employees. Police Dept.
procedures, as set forth in the SOP are more detailed, more clearly spelled out but basically the same process
for all other city employees. The Fire Dept. by contract, have their own set of documents.
MAYOR MILLER asked how the initial Board was comprised and how they reached the sanctions they did.
MRS. BREEN stated as in accordance with the SOP, all of the steps in the Board selection were followed.
The Administrative Review Board was convened at the discretion of the Police Chief at a specified date, time
and location. Board members consisted of three department members all appointed by the Chief of Police.
The Chief appointed one to act as Chairman (or himself, if he chose). He did not act as chair but appointed a
member in this case. One member was of the same rank or equivalent status as the member whose case is
being reviewed; one member was a supervisor. More details about the third member of the Board were
unspecified. None of the Board members were to have any direct involvement in the case, and no department
member could serve on the Board who is under disciplinary probation, active suspension, or under
investigation of a pending complaint. No direct supervisor of the employee can serve on that Board.
Once the Board is formed, it looks at the information supplied by the supervisors, the Police Chief if
applicable, and any kind of internal investigation report which in this case was provided, the Board
designates a chairman who attends to the administrative and logistical matters of the Board, scheduling, etc.
this person also actively participates as a Board member. The member whose case is to be reviewed is
notified in writing of the date and time, and after agreed upon, the hearing will take place within a certain
amount of time. This hearing was delayed because of a scheduling conflict with Mr. Jerkins' attorney. The
member whose case is being reviewed may be present at the Board meeting to ask questions, clarifications or
present information in his defense if he so desires. That did take place. The Board may review any issue
relative to the case, including past demeanor records of the party involved. The Board Chairman will submit
the Board's recommendation in writing with appropriate justification for that action to the Chief of Police
within two days after completion of their process.
The initial recommendation to the Review Board was for termination. The Review Board did not uphold that
recommendation, but rather a demotion. The Police Chief reviewed the recommendation of the Board and
then took action he deemed appropriate. There is a wide variety of actions available in any action which
involves discipline including everything from an oral reprimand to termination. In this case, the demotion
was the option taken, a demotion which let the accused employee stay at the highest range possible and still
not function as a supervisor. The Chief of Police then has ten working days after receiving the Board's
recommendation to notify the accused member in writing of his decision and advising him of his right to
appeal under the City's Personnel rules. From that point, it can be taken to the City Manager. All of those
steps were followed as written in the SOP or as agreed upon based on time frame delays that were needed
administratively to make the whole process work as stated in the Personnel manual and the FOP contract.
MAYOR MILLER asked how did these actions first start in the process? POLICE CHIEF MCNICKLE
said there was an initial criminal complaint of assault and battery filed against Mr. Jerkins by the young
man's parents. When we do investigations criminal in nature, if there is also an apparent violation of rules
and regulations an administrative complaint is drawn, also. There is no crossing of paths of separate
investigations. They are performed by separate individuals of all parties involved.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 7
The criminal complaint is delivered to the District Attorney's office, the administrative complaint is handled
in-house either for a hearing or whatever ultimate disposition there may be. MAYOR MILLER concluded, a
criminal complaint was filed and then the investigation did proceed? MCNICKLE - Yes. COMMISSIONER
LACY asked who filed the charges against Mr. Jerkins. MCNICKLE - the assault and battery charge was
filed by the young man's parents, who requested a criminal investigation shortly after it occurred.
COMMISSIONER LACY read a prepared statement relating to the disciplinary action taken against Officer
Jerkins. An abridged version of this began (1) As I understand the city's position, the severity of Officer
Jerkins punishment was attributed to his continued insistence he had a legal right to strike the boy (and his
promotion of his position to other officers) despite the fact his position contradicted that of the DA, his
department, and City Attorney. Yet he said at the arbitration hearing it wasn't until the very end of that
hearing that he fully understood what he was being punished for. LACY had listened to our Personnel
Director's comments to find out if Officer Jerkins was adequately informed why he was being punished early
on in that process. It seemed to him that surely Capt. Lester must have justified his recommendation for
termination on these grounds similar to the Review Board's recommendation for demotion which was based
on the need to remove Jerkins to a non-supervisory position. That also must have been based on these
grounds. Why, after some seven months of investigation, internal hearings, etc. did he not fully understand
what he was being punished for? Was the justification for punishment at each stage of this process not made
clear to Officer Jerkins? MCNICKLE wished to clear up one other matter. It's been widely reported that
Capt. Lester who wrote the memo recommending termination also served on the Review Board. That is not
true. In addition, through the FOP, John Jerkins told an FOP member one of the Board members was
tainted. Although McNickle did not believe that to be the case, in the interest of fairness he presented John
with two additional names of peers to choose from to serve on that Board. Jerkins chose one of those
individuals so if there was any other question of fairness on the Board, if there was anyone on there with an
ulterior motive, he would have told me. I cannot fully explain why John testified it was not until late in the
arbitration hearing that he understood why he was being punished. There were several documents. Capt.
Lester's letter of January 29, 1996 stated "while the activity that led up to this incident would be upsetting to
any parent, it is apparent there was no attempt on the part of the juvenile to assault Sgt. Jerkins, and that the
blow delivered by Sgt. Jerkins had no purpose in self defense. In part, Sgt. Jerkins stated „Saturday night
when I slapped him, he had it coming and he went too far.‟ Of equal concern to me is, Sgt. Jerkins,an 18 year
veteran of this agency, a supervisor in CID, does not acknowledge an understanding of the law or the rules
and regulations that permit him to realize the seriousness of his actions or the department's genuine interest
in this matter. His credibility with his peers, subordinates, the DA's office, and the courts have been thrust
into question, not only by his action but by his professed lack of understanding of the system he has worked in
for 18 years. Appropriate disciplinary action in this case is difficult to determine. The behavior of juveniles
leading up to this incident was inappropriate and would naturally upset any parent. It appears anger had
been building for some time and some type of confrontation was inevitable. Given this knowledge, one should
reflect on how this should be handled. Striking a juvenile in the face is not a legal response, particularly that
the person is a juvenile and a Police Officer, on duty or off, one must know the action is illegal and will cause
an investigation, both criminal and administrative. We must deal daily with criminal violations that occur
inside people's homes. This is not a matter of choice for us but a matter of fact and law. We do not enjoy the
discretion to agree or disagree with the laws as it relates to our duty. We take an oath to uphold, enforce, and
abide by these laws. Sgt. Jerkins, both by action and words, displayed an inability or unwillingness to do this
or at least the lack of understanding or acceptance of this principle."
A quote from then District Attorney, Paul Anderson, of Feb. 23, 1996 stated "Sgt. Jerkins is aware we believe
that he created a criminal act of assault and battery, not justifiable or excusable under Oklahoma Law." The
following was taken from the transcript of Feb. 26, 1996 Review Board Hearing where Board members
questioned Sgt. Jerkins regarding rules and the law: Question: Do you feel this has made an effect not only
on you but the department itself? Answer: I think it has affected the department from the aspect of I've had
a lot of people who want to know where is the line and where you are no longer a Police Officer. If you can't
be in your own house and can't maintain discipline there, people want to know. Question: How would you
answer that? Answer: I tell them I felt in my own home as I would freely so to you all if you were in the same
position, you have an absolute right to do what I did. I believe that. In re-direct by Mr. Moore to Sgt.
Jerkins: Question: Do you feel you did adhere to the rules and the law by doing what you did? Answer: I
think I adhered to the law. The rules are so broad it is hard to say without, there's nothing specifically
written down that says, "Thou Shalt Not Do This In Thine Own Home."
From the Review Board letter dated February 29, 1996: The Review Board conclusions are (1) that we as
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 8
Police Officers are held to a higher standard by our communities, whether on duty or off duty and the higher
the level of responsibility awarded the officer either through assignment and/or promotion, the higher the
standard. (2) That Sgt. Jerkins did commit an assault and battery on another person. This act was
committed without legal justification. The law governing the ability to discipline another's child was the
central issue in this case and effaces John's defense throughout all proceedings.
COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE asked, do I understand correctly Sgt. Jerkins was a training officer?
CHIEF MCNICKLE: At one point, yes. MULLENDORE - Sgt. Jerkins had some 6 weeks prior to this
incident itself, requested clarification and training on the very law that he came afoul of. Based on testimony
at the hearing, that training was not given. Is that correct? MCNICKLE - Yes, I will be glad to discuss that.
COMMISSIONER LACY: Wait, can I get an answer to my question. I am curious that at the time Capt.
Lester recommended Officer Jerkins be terminated - was Officer Jerkins informed the recommendation for
termination was based upon his continued insistence he was right despite everyone else's opinion he was
wrong? MCNICKLE - Yes, all of those things I just read to you are in the letter handed to him. LACY - The
grounds for which he was being disciplined - were those same things provided to him in writing from the
Review Board? MCNICKLE: Yes.
CHIEF MCNICKLE said, John had a conversation with his Lieutenant prior to composing a memo on Dec.
5, 1995. During that time he told Ron Thrasher he had concerns about the fact patrol officers were
describing acts in which parents who struck their children as suspects. He further felt parents were being
subjected to unnecessary investigations based on the fact parents were permitted to discipline their own
children. Lt. Thrasher told him at the time our job was to gather the facts and present them to the District
Attorney's office. The decision as to whether a crime was committed was the D.A.'s preview. He further told
John an investigation should be completed and presented for review by the D.A., or DHS. Jerkins was then
told if he disagreed with his assessment to place his concerns in writing and he would forward same to the
training division for consideration. The memo was forwarded to training for consideration. That memo
dated Dec. 5, 1995 entitled "Legal issues and Domestic, and/or Assault and Battery Cases" to Lt. Thrasher
stated "For some time I have noticed a trend in reports originating in the field I review on a daily basis in
which officers seem to be convinced many of the calls they respond to involving physical contact between the
parties are clearly assault and battery or domestic violence. This often results in an arrest of one or both
parties involved or in one of the parties, being in my opinion, wrongly labeled as a suspect in the case. This
label indicates in the minds of some the person has some degree of culpability in the case. It may not be the
case at all. We have gone through a period where well intentioned employees of a state agency have been so
intent of advocates of children that their personal beliefs reference discipline have been loudly and freely
publicly espoused, and mistakenly, I believe, replaced officers familiarity with the law. This repeated
negative personal opinion about corporal punishment has been so thoroughly made public frequently parents
believe the myth they cannot use corporal punishment to correct behavioral problems of their own children.
This can result in the parent just giving up and a child becoming more of a behavioral problem leading to
delinquency and our involvement in the child's life.”
CHIEF MCNICKLE continued, “Attached is a case in point. The mother in this case was clearly trying to
restrain a child who had attempted to obtain a knife and do either bodily harm to herself or her mother.
During the scuffle, the child slammed her own head on a counter resulting in a nose bleed. Upon the officer's
arrival, the mother had the child in a bear hug and was merely restraining the child. Yet the officer coded
the case as an assault and battery, listing the mother as a suspect and exceptionally cleared the case because
DHS is investigating. Alternately and realistically this case should have been correctly coded as a mental,
with the mother listed as a parent, not as a suspect. This doesn't apply to just cases involving children. Not
all cases where a person makes physical contact with another are an assault or battery. Another case is
attached in which the parent wished to file Child Abuse charges against a doctor who, upon being attacked,
restrained the child until he calmed down. Attached are copies of State Statutes concerning Assault and
Battery and Child Abuse. After reading the Assault and Battery statutes (21 O.S. 643) I believe one of the
questions an officer should ask a parent is „Did your child refuse to obey a lawful command?‟ If the answer is
affirmative and the force used against the child appears to have been reasonable, we should counsel the child
to mind his parents, not counsel the parent against disciplining his child. Additionally, 21 0.S. 844 specifically
allows Corporal Punishment as discipline. ”
“It seems as if some officers blindly respond to calls and when the complainant says „I want to report crime
X,‟ the officer gives no thought as to whether the elements of the offense are present and dutifully fills out the
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 9
crime report as per the complainant's original assessment of the situation regardless of the accuracy or lack
thereof. I encourage staff services to put out a training memo concerning these issues. I believe our
familiarity with the law is paramount to guiding our responses to the situation we encounter on a daily basis.
We owe it to our officers to educate and replace what appears to be responses based on advocacy, lack of
training, or political correctness with responses on knowledge of the law."
MCNICKLE continued, please note this memo contains no mention of the application of discipline by persons
other than the parent and the cases outlined have nothing to do with the law he now claims to protect him.
Discussion between Lt. Thrasher and Lt. Wright centered around the need to present training in this area.
Lt. Thrasher did inform Lt. Wright for the reasons that investigation into allegations of assault should be
completed and presented to appropriate agencies. The training as requested in the memo was unnecessary.
The interpretation of the memo and accompanying discussions that we were investigating cases unnecessarily
I would submit that our job is to investigate and present the facts. MULLENDORE agreed, but said her
point is the Police Dept. did not feel the request was justified. MCNICKLE responded, I see no request for an
interpretation of the law. I see request for application of it. MULLENDORE said - did he or did he not ask
for training on it? MCNICKLE, I believe he asked for training on how we code cases. MULLENDORE - If
he thought he was asking for training, and you thought he didn't. Doesn't that indicate there was some
confusion? MCNICKLE said it might, but certainly I am told his lieutenant discussed that with him. LACY -
So the department's position was that, despite the memo, not a need for training in this area. MCNICKLE -
In this particular area, that is correct. MULLENDORE - Has there been a change of opinion on that?
MCNICKLE - If I were to re-read this memo today? MULLENDORE - No, has there been a change of
opinion on whether training should be necessary regarding this particular issue? MCNICKLE - I am sure
there does, yes. MULLENDORE - So now we do feel there needs to be training given? MCNICKLE - No, I
think there needs to be training given now.
LACY: I understand in addition to a request by Officer Jerkins, personnel from DHS had met with
representatives of the department. I have their names, but I wasn't sure they had met with representatives of
the department to request a meeting with all the Police Officers regarding when DHS should be called to
investigate cases of child abuses. Was that around the same time or did that lend any credibility for the need
to train in that area? MCNICKLE said we did have a meeting with supervisors of DHS some time ago and
they have from time to time offered to provide in-service to department employees. There was no companion
request to this from DHS. The most recent meeting with DHS supervisors and the department took place 7-8
months ago, I'm not sure. The meeting with the DA, DHS, and myself was to discuss when DHS workers
should be called to crime scenes and when they should be involved in actual participation in interviews of
suspects or witnesses to serious child abuse cases. The issue was resolved by policy of the District Attorney's
office and required no training. LACY: Is the willingness of the city to settle now, after this arbitration
hearing, attributable to Officer Jerkins admission he was mistaken and would now abide by the City's
position and that he would not advocate to others the validity of his previously held position? If so, what are
the basic parameters of that settlement offer if that can be made public? CITY ATTORNEY MARY ANN
KARNS advised the settlement discussions began during the arbitration hearing, not afterwards. Based on
the way Mr. Moore, Attorney for Mr. Jerkins was putting his case on, I had expected John to say some things
during his direct testimony that he didn't quite say but almost said. We took a break - I invited his attorney
to my office, and told him what I had expected John to say, but hadn't said. He felt that John had said those
things. We discussed a settlement based on John's answer to questions on cross examination and I would
forego cross examination and rebuttal, which I did based on my understanding that we had a deal. First, at
the end of his direct testimony Officer Jerkins said "I thought I was being punished for slapping the young
man, I now find out I'm being punished for disagreeing with the Police Chief." That still is not the issue. The
issue was an acceptance. So I asked him some questions - "Now that you have the DA's interpretation, would
you do it again?" He said, no. If the same question from others came up regarding Art. 844 again, would you
give them different advice from what you've learned from this experience? He said, yes. He denied getting a
letter from the D.A. Apparently it was given to his attorney, and he says it was not shared with him. But
anyway, here's where we finally got to it "Can you accept The D.A. has said you were wrong? He said, I can
accept that. I said can you accept your Review Board said you were wrong? He said, I can accept that. I
asked, can you accept Capt. Lester and Chief McNickle said you were wrong. He said, I can accept that. I
asked, can you accept some punishment for being wrong instead of ? There was some argument over that.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 10
MS. KARNS continued, Then I asked, can you affirmatively say to your Chief that you will do your best to
answer officers questions and others questions about 844 in compliance with that letter, meaning the letter
from the D.A.? He said, yes. I said, can you authorize your psychologist to at least talk to the Chief and tell
him where you are? He said yes. I asked, can you come back and do your job without bitterness and
animosity toward those who disciplined or testified against you? He said, yes. I asked can you do it without
retaliatory action to supervisees that are involved in this? He said, I will not. She asked, did you understand
the Chief said he didn't care whether you agreed with him - what he cares about is your ability to follow? He
said, I understand that. I asked, and you've been able to assure him that you will. He agreed. I asked, do you
accept his statement that he is not punishing you for disagreement? He said I accept that. And I said, I'm
satisfied and didn't ask him anything else. So that is the parameters of the offer. That night we reached what
I thought was a deal. It was reduced to writing, the offer to was to restore his rank to Sergeant at an
assignment to be determined by him and the Chief. They discussed that privately, and afterwards John
indicated he had requested a specific assignment and the Chief had agreed; that he would receive back pay
and benefits including pension, that the Review Board's recommendation for discipline would be changed to
show 40 hours without pay, it would not be served - it would be a bookkeeping adjustment, and he would
release a report by a psychologist showing he was fit for duty. There would be a mutual agreement to no
retaliation, a joint press release, and no further discussion. Shortly thereafter his Attorney, Mr. Moore said
he had discussed this with his client, and did not want to worry about joint press releases, and let everyone
make their own statements. That was agreed to. Mr. Moore and Officer Jerkins then discussed this with
family and friends. Mr. Moore then came back, said fatigue factor had set in - and he would call me over the
weekend. He did not call. The following Monday he called and told me John could not agree to the 40 hours
suspension. During McGrath's testimony he had mentioned a punishment like two days, or letter of
reprimand - I said, “Fine, two days.” I did not hear from him again until 4:30 this afternoon - this was after I
read in the paper that talks had broken off, a surprise to me. The request he now has is full reinstatement to
his former rank and assignment, restoration of his pay, removal of all reference to the discipline from his file,
no release of letter from psychologist, no retaliation - just from the city, and an apology from the Board, the
Chief, and the City Manager. I am not sure that is consistent with the testimony he gave under oath. I
responded immediately we could let the record reflect two days suspension, no docking of pay but the other
terms of the offer would remain unchanged. I have not heard anything further.
COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE asked what the date of the D.A.'s letter was. MS. KARNS: The date of
his letter to the city was February 23. MULLENDORE: The date of the request of the opinion to the D.A.
was? MS. KARNS responded he was asked to appear before the Review Board and advised he could not, and
that date was February 22. Capt. Warren wrote him a letter on February 22, asking for a written statement
to answer the two questions they would ask at the Board. One was based on his investigation of the case, has
the credibility of Sgt. Jerkins been damaged, and if so to what extent. The D.A.'s legal opinion concerning
his act was that “it will obviously cause strain with certain individuals in our office but those issues are not
dissimilar to strained relationships we have experienced with other officers concerning our view of their
performance, investigative ability, and overall reputation. While his attitude may reflect his working
relationship with some individuals this incident does not affect our view of his credibility. It would not be
unreasonable that this incident could later be revisited upon cross examination in the event his temperament
and judgment were questioned in a criminal case. We would obviously move to prohibit the inquiry but
could not guarantee the matter would not surface in later prosecutions. On the other hand, this is all part of
the baggage that comes with our subsequent working relationship with officers who have engaged in conduct
which has been reviewed for criminal prosecution by this office, and/or has been the subject of administrative
action by the department. Sgt. Jerkins is aware that we believe he committed a criminal act of assault and
battery, not justifiable or excusable under Oklahoma law, but nonetheless an act for which a court or jury
might not, under the circumstances of the incident, feel compelled to criminally convict or sanction him for
his behavior. He does not agree with our legal opinion, and that fact has been made known to us. Ultimately
the parents of the victim opted not to subject their son and remarkably, Sgt. Jerkins' stepdaughter, to the
embarrassment of a public trial which would have focused on actions which could have deeply and publicly
embarrassed or adversely affected the psychological well being of the juveniles in this case. The judgment
and emotional maturity of the parents is to be commended. If that family had wanted to file charges, we
would have permitted them to do so. They agreed however, to be compensated for their son's injuries without
further civil or criminal involvement. We accept their request.” The amount of acceptance was in the range
of $350. MS. MULLENDORE said she was not sure she got an answer to her question, the date the opinion
was requested. KARNS - February 26. He did not ask for an interpretation of the law, he gave it.
LACY: The incident occurred when? MS. KARNS: Early morning of January 21. LACY: Capt. Lester's
recommendation occurred when: January 29. Internal Review Board? February 26. Arbitration: Aug. 16.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 11
MS. KARNS explained one reason for the delay was there was a court reporter at the arbitration and also at
the Review Board hearing, and rather than listening to the tapes (which are sometimes scratchy) since there
was an official transcript, Mr. Weinaug asked for time to make his review until he could actually read the
transcript. That caused a one month delay. The arbitratration procedure also takes time.
MULLENDORE: So this started out in December with the request from Officer Jerkins regarding confusion
on training in this area? MS. KARNS said she had to disagree with your characterization of that request. He
did have a conversation with Lt. Thrasher in December. MULLENDORE: What I'm trying to get at is, and
you noted in the arbitration hearing that the cases that Officer Jerkins attached to his request did not directly
apply. KARNS - Not even marginally. MULLENDORE: My point is that this should have indicated the
confusion in regard to his understanding. KARNS: Again, I disagree with you. The cases related directly to
what he was discussing in that memo, that he didn't like the way other people were coding things. That is
actually an issue for him to train his supervisees, not an issue for everyone else. He does not anywhere in
there say, please tell us what we can do to children, not our own. He doesn't say anything other than there
needs to be training on how to code reports. It's based on his opinion that apparently officers at the scene
should make some kind of decision about whether an assault has occurred, rather than the prosecutors
making a decision based on an investigation.
LACY: Wouldn't a decision on how to code those inherently involve some understanding about what
difference is between an 844 action v. an assault and battery action. MCNICKLE: In the two cases attached,
the dispositions were actually based on state statutes in the reports; one was titled #63, and one #21 that dealt
with self defense. None implicated issues of #844. LACY: Well, you know more about it than I do. I
respectfully disagree, Miss Karns. As I read this memo, it sure looks like a request for training to me.
KARNS: I have looked at it a lot. From the first time I saw it, it always looked like a statement that he
knows what the law is, and he wants someone else to tell the patrol officers they are "messing up" by calling
the parents suspects. I do not see anywhere in it a request for training for him or any indication he is
confused but he wants staff services to educate patrol officers who are not under his supervision. LACY:
Who is staff services? KARNS: The division that does DARE, training, property room, personnel - a
different bureau than he is in. He is within a division of the Operations bureau.
LACY: The paper suggests the internal Review Board's recommendation for demotion was necessary
because they did not want Officer Jerkins in a supervisory position. In absence of any other considerations,
this action as well as the recommendation for termination by Capt. Lester seems excessively harsh, in my
opinion. For an officer who has been the department for some 18 years with an excellent personnel record,
and no prior discipline for excessive force, and again, it's hard to believe there's not something else here such
as complicating factors; that all the facts are not out, that conflicting personalities or personal vendettas
aren't involved - something beside the incident itself and the fact that the officer refused to acknowledge he
was wrong. I mean termination? The incident occurred on 1/21 and 8 days later, his captain recommends
that he be terminated after 18 years on the department because he hasn't gone along with or agreed with
some interpretation? It doesn't sound right, and doesn't seem right. It seems the Police Chief, the city
manager, or the city attorney should have had the same reaction, "the punishment doesn't seem to fit the
crime" and they should have intervened. It has been suggested at least one of the officers that served on
Officer Jerkins' Board had openly and repeatedly demonstrated his antagonism toward Officer Jerkins.
What are the general rules under which the internal Review Board operates? (addressed earlier). What
other actions did the Board consider? What is the policy regarding who serves on the Board (answered
earlier). What role does the Police Chief, City Manager, City Attorney play in this type of disciplinary
procedure (I guess you've answered all those). Finally, why wasn't such a controversial decision which had
the potential of bringing a considerable amount of publicity to the city brought to the attention of the
commission at an earlier stage in the process? LACY continued, I was put in an extremely uncomfortable
position of telling people I didn't know anything about the incident, the hearing, the decision - I didn't know
anything. It seems at the very least we should have been provided with the necessary background so we could
have responded to questions from the citizens. Are there any policy guidelines or are these the kind of things
that someone could have decided and said, boy, this one is going to be a mess - let me get with the Commission
and see what they think?
MR. WEINAUG responded: (1) Why wasn't such a controversial decision which had the potential of
bringing a considerable amount of publicity to the city brought to the attention of the Commission at an
earlier stage in the process? Why didn't I tell you about this before it hit the news media? Quite simply, I
was surprised that Officer Jerkins distributed his side of the issue in a written news release to radio and
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 12
television stations state wide. I've never seen that happen before. This is the first time I have ever seen an
employee seek publicity during the appeal process. Had the decision not gone in his favor, I might have
anticipated a public appeal. (2) I did not anticipate the news media for people misinterpreting our actions as
condoning pre-marital sex and even rape. There was no rape - we did not condone and do not condone any
use of force. As a result we have received hate mail that is not justified. (3) I was slow to recognize that
Officer Jerkins was seeking a political resolution of his case, rather than a judicial one according to the terms
of the union contract and state law. (4) Even though I knew Officer Jerkins attorney was a labor attorney for
the FOP I misjudged the manner in which he conducted this case. (5) I was unaware of Officer Jerkin's
familiarity with television media. (6) I underestimated the power of talk show hosts to whip up public
emotion and attract the attention of the more responsible media. Also, I did not anticipate the effectiveness of
the rumor mill within the community to create clouds of doubt over the city and the Police Department. I
still believe that the majority of Stillwater residents are not so quick to jump to judgment as those who called
for a grand juries within only hours of hearing the rumors and allegations stated Friday night at the
arbitration hearing. I believe most of the outcry is as result of the misinformation and emotions coming from
talk show hosts. The majority recognize our obligation for their protection to maintain high standards in the
Police Dept. I hope they recognize those officers serving on the Board also acted under this same high
standard. I believe the majority believe in a rule of way and understand my obligations as city manager and
the Police Chief's obligation to follow it - whether it is popular or not. I also believe the vast majority of
people reject those who wish to take the law into their own hands and apply their own sense of justice. I
supported the decision of the Police Board and the Police Chief, and I continue to support them. Regarding
Commissioner Lacy's second question - At the least, I should have given you background about the issue so
you could have responded to citizens questions. First, I had never heard any of the allegations before you,
Bud Lacy, were kind enough to tell me last Monday night about the rumors talked about here tonight that
developed over that weekend. When I inquired of three of the other Commissioners if they had heard the
same rumors, they had not. The Police Chief had not heard most of it either. What he did know was
addressed at the hearing or it was ancient history, things that happened 6 years ago that had been
investigated, addressed, and not relevant to the Jerkins case. (2) There is little I could legally tell you even
though we would like to. (3) Since the City Commission does not by law have the obligation to decide these
issues, there is a question of how much you should be advised until such time as it is necessary. We have
many personnel issues that come up and are handled that do not justify your time or the possible loss of
confidentiality to the employee(s). (4) When Officer Jerkins brought this appeal to me, I asked him on what
basis he was making the appeal so that when he read the transcript of the Police Board hearing I would pay
particular attention to that area. John said he would talk with his attorney first. He came back another day
and said, I should review the appeal based on the transcript only, that he was instructed not to say anything.
Consequently, all the allegations heard late in the arbitration hearing only 8 days ago was entirely new to me.
Had Officer Jerkins and his attorney taken the opportunity they had to present the basis for their appeal, the
result may have been different. (3) Are there any personnel policy issues or procedures the City Commission
should evaluate? You may evaluate all our procedures as found in the personnel manual, union contracts, and
state law. Our procedures give us an opportunity to resolve matters without public controversy. If we could
have done so we would have and we still would like a graceful way of resolving this.
MULLENDORE: Carl, I too feel our citizens are basically fair. But they do get a little outraged if they
perceive unfairness. And I think there was a perception of unfairness. Another point, an employee has an
obligation to his employer to do his job. The employer has an equal obligation to let that employee know
exactly how he is to do that job. I still feel - which came out at the tail end of the hearing in which MayAnn
Karns said there would be training on several issues - that anytime a member of the Police department
requests clarification, it should be given. Anytime a member requests training, it should be given. It is our
obligation. KARNS: I would like to say one thing. The question of this so-called request for training was
not presented to the Review Board, or to Carl, it only came up during arbitration. That was our first
opportunity to talk with Lt. Thrasher about it and if that is what he (Sgt. Jerkins) was relying on, I don't
understand why he didn't tell the Board and what he didn't tell Carl.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 13
LACY: It has been suggested the harshness of the punishment recommended by Capt. Lester was in
retaliation to a previous incident in which Officer Jerkins reported the Captain to Chief McNickle for
violating some departmental policies. At least that is the rumor I have heard. What is the departmental
procedure for reporting alleged violations of departmental policy by a supervising officer? CHIEF
MCNICKLE: First of all the issue of the disagreement came up in a staff meeting which Sgt. Jerkins
attended. He said something about violation of policy by a staff member, I asked who that was, and he
indicated Capt. Lester. Again, this is widely reported erroneously. Capt. Lester had been in a unmarked car
on duty made a traffic stop. Jerkins said that was against policy. There was discussion during the meeting
about that and no derogatory comments were made. Capt. Lester explained the circumstances of a driver
driving 25-30 miles an hour over the speed limit, weaving in and out of traffic - and traveling into a densely
populated area. He stopped the person, visited with him and went on. There was discussion about that policy
and evidently after the staff meeting, Capt. Lester went back and talked with Sgt. Jerkins regarding the
impact of that policy. No one was disciplined. LACY: Is there a procedure for that kind of thing?
MCNICKLE: There is. If you are my superior and I see you do something I think is either a violation of
policy, I am bound to report that. He has an open door policy and you are welcome anytime.
LACY: If Capt. Lester was the officer that recommended termination, why didn't he testify at the hearing?
Wouldn't his testimony have been relevant here? KARNS: I made the determination I did not think it was
relevant. It was a 12 hour hearing. I knew it was going to be a long hearing. We do not need seven people to
tell the arbitrator the same thing. Capt. Lester made his recommendation for termination based on Lt.
Thrasher's report, and it wasn't taken by the Board. I did not see how it was relevant. No-one bought that
scenario so I put on Lt. Thrasher to go through his report and put the items in from the report. I then used
Sgt. McGrath to testify about the decision of the Board. Sgt. McGrath was the officer chosen by John Jerkins
to be on the Board, so I used him as I thought he was the one most likely to be able to do it fairly. The current
D.A. Rob Hudson testified he agreed with Paul Anderson it was an assault and battery, not justifiable under
the law, and the Chief testified. While I'm on the topic of who testified, there has also been rumor that Capt.
Lester hid out and made himself unavailable. In fact on Wednesday prior to the hearing on Friday, a
representative for Mr. Jerkins‟ attorney served some subpoenas on Police Officers in the station. He did not
serve Capt. Lester. No one from their side had asked him to appear or told him they wanted him to appear.
He asked me if I planned to use him, and I said no. He stated he would be at home and by the phone or pager
and if anyone wanted him he could be here in 10 minutes. He wasn't hiding out, I knew where he was. No
one asked for him, and nobody said they wanted to call him. I could have had everyone on the Board testify,
and could have subpoenaed the boy's parents or John's family. But why make a four day hearing out of it?
LACY: During arbitration hearing, he understood it was the city's position the boy struck by Officer Jerkins
suffered a broken jaw, nose, or something and he also understood all evidence presented in the hearing
showed there were no broken bones. Why would the city take this position when there was no evidence this
was the case? KARNS: I'm passing a document out to you which has the young man's name removed. It is
in the physician's handwriting which is basically illegible. When we received this Chief McNickle called the
nurse at the doctor's office and she read to him what was meant. So the Chief's translation is on the front. At
the hospital on the 21st of January, X-rays were taken and they subsequently showed there were no broken
bones but the emergency room advised him to go to an ENT specialist. The report says 17 year old white
male sustained blunt trauma to nose. Patient had bleeding at times. Patient with mild nasal obstruction.
Sense of smell good. Diagnosis of septal deviation. The family has told us the doctor discussed with them he
thought surgery might be necessary later. They have chosen to forego surgery at this time and to work on
some other issues to see if it helps with the breathing problem and the obstructions he has been having. As I
told you, we didn't finish our case and that's why it was never put into evidence. But the evidence from the
specialist is while a bone was not broken, he does have an obstruction caused by a deviated septum. I never
head anything about a broken jaw.
MAYOR MILLER: I presume the cash settlement offered and agreed upon by the family was primarily for
the medical examinations? MS. KARNS said she had no idea. Based on my experience in the emergency
room, I am surprised they got in and out of the emergency room for $350. They may have had a
supplemental policy. Certainly they were not making vacation money on that amount.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 14
LACY: Does the city request any outside agencies to perform an investigation of our department, given all
this talk about everything being wrong inside the department? WEINAUG said, yes. Chief McNickle looked
at that option. CHIEF MCNICKLE: Commissioner, we've heard rumors of a laundry list of indiscretion,
however, no one has come forward with that, but rumors abound. Based on those rumors and on some of the
things said during the arbitration, I did contact the city manager early last week and suggested to him I call
OSBI and let them look at these issues because there would be a question of credibility. I called the OSBI
Director and told him what was going on. His response was, they could not become involved in an
administrative investigation. There would have to be an allegation of criminal conduct and intent for the
OSBI to become involved. I made the same request of the D.A.'s office and got the same response. As a result
of those responses we have begun an investigation into those issues that surfaced at the hearing. Please be
aware some of those events occurred over six years ago. If indeed there is a list we need to see it and we may
be able to get someone in here to look at those items. Conversations since the arbitration hearing with Police
employees who failed to produce additional ancillary reports. Another issue raised was of interference with a
witness and that is pending. However, we have been able to determine there was no subpoena issued to that
individual and no attempt made to serve a subpoena on that individual (from both the person who brought
forth the complaint who was the process server and from Mr. Jerkins' attorney). LACY: Thank you Chief
McNickle, I appreciate the answers to those questions but I still keep going back to the one thing. Something
about it, and I repeat myself, here we have an 18 year officer. An incident occurs on January 21 and 8 days
later some Captain recommends he be fired from the department for a controversial issue. He didn't go out
and beat up some citizen - it was a touchy situation, I understand that but a week later some captain
recommends he be released from the department. Some 30 days later an internal Review Board recommends
a significant demotion, an impact on his pay, reassignment of duties and all that stuff. By the time it got to
you - given all that has happened - did you at any time, say, gosh - this doesn't add up? I don't understand
the severity, the quickness of this punishment given this incident? MCNICKLE: It was anything but quick.
It wasn't posted until March 4-5. It certainly wasn't that capricious. I will also tell you if I had thought there
was even the remotest possibility of some ulterior motive or revenge or conspiracy, I certainly wouldn't have
done that. I will tell you, sir, I was looking for a reason not to do it. I was actively searching for a reason not
to do it. If you would like the names of individuals I talked to about it I can give them to you. It's not some-
thing done capriciously. Those decisions were reached independently by each of those persons without, I am
told, any influence from anyone else. Capt. Lester did not try to influence the Board, the Board tells me they
received no influence from anyone else. The severity of it dealt with the fact we are about the business of
enforcing the law, not interpreting it - and doing it equally. And when you have someone who continues to
tell you after sufficient notice everybody in the world, at least in the legal profession, disagrees with him - if
the legal opinion of those people we're responsible to reporting the facts think his defense in the issue is wrong
and continues to tell you he will tell other people - that was the issue.
LACY: Have you ever had the opportunity to sit down with him and said unless you come clean on this thing,
and realize this contradicts everything? - The same case you are making - did you have the opportunity to tell
him that? Did you ever say, unless you do that, this thing is going to come down and look bad for you?
MCNICKLE: No, I did not. I told him 2-3 times I would love to be able to discuss this issue with him, but I
had specific instructions from him to go through his attorney. MS. KARNS: In addition, if you read a
transcript of the administrative hearings, you would find the members of the Board repeatedly tried to work
with him on that issue. You keep talking about how fast it is, but the investigation was over on January 22.
There is really only one dispute about the facts of what happened that night. John says he slapped him - the
evidence led to a different conclusion. That's the difference between the ordinary or too much force. But the
rest of it, there were tiny variances in the details about who was standing exactly where, how much light was
on - but it wasn't anything important. We began thinking seriously about the problem on our hands the
morning of the 22nd. That's when the Chief was informed so it's not like Capt. Lester decided in 5 minutes.
He'd had 10 days nearly before he wrote. There's a lot of talk about his revenge or vengeance or whatever. I
can assure you, based on my conversations with him, it was very difficult. If you read his letter in its entirety
he talks about his regret. It was very difficult on the Board. You've asked about processes and procedures,
and I tell you in the 20 years the FOP has been in existence in the City of Stillwater this is the first case to go
to arbitration. So that procedure has worked for 20 years - this one broke down probably as much over
communications as anything else. The Lieutenant testified, “I tried to talk to him, I wasn't sure he heard me.”
The Chief said, “I wasn't sure he heard me.” It was clear in the hearing - he didn't hear until I went back
over it with him that he knew what was being said. John's tenacious. That's a very good quality if you are an
investigator. It can get in your way in a situation like this, but this was not something that was done - I didn't
have a part in the decision making.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 15
My job was to make sure the process keeps going and to be the person who ends up being quoted the most at
the last. But employee discipline is not easy, ever, and it is particularly not easy with a long time employee.
Again, it goes back to - if you had done it at your house and someone called the police, the Police would have
come and done exactly what we did here. Now, I don't know what they would do to you at O.S.U. because I
don't know what your rules are there, and I don't know what we would have done if it had been a Street
Department employee. But a Street Department employee is not charged with enforcing the law. Our
officers tell people everyday, "I'm sorry you didn't know it was illegal to drive the car while your friends
were drinking, but it is, and here's your ticket." LACY: Thanks, Norm for your candor, I know it has been
difficult for you.
VICE MAYOR HESSEL: I have a question for the Chief, and a follow up question to Carl. It refers to some
questions that have already been asked. It has to do with the punishment fitting the crime. When the Review
Board came back with their decision, what was your thought on the punishment they recommended?
MCNICKLE: I sat and talked with them after they delivered the letter to me for probably an hour and a half
to two hours to make sure I understood their position. Their position was, "he personally continued in the
face of all the evidence, to say not only that I have a right to hit this young man legally under Oklahoma law,
but I am going to tell others and have told others they have that same right." To have a person in a
supervisory position that has that contention - we'd be here talking about a completely different subject
involving the application of that theory. HESSEL: Okay, I understand that, but the penalty - with that
consideration, that thought - to me does not match the reduction in rank, the loss of some portion of his
retirement, it seems to be way out of portion even in light of what you've just told me, that he continued to say
he was right and in doing what he did. That's what I have problems with, Chief. You took that
recommendation and then presented to Carl, is that right? MCNICKLE: I visited with him yesterday.
HESSEL: There was no thought in your mind to reduce that penalty, or increase that penalty?
MCNICKLE: I had dispensed with any thought of termination. HESSEL: After determination, they came
back with the reduction in rank? Or was that your recommendation? MCNICKLE: No, that was the
Board's recommendation. HESSEL: And you agreed with that? MCNICKLE: I did, after consideration of
several days, yes. HESSEL: And from that point it went to Carl? MCNICKLE: It did. HESSEL: Carl,
you then read the report and saw all the facts pertaining to this case, and saw the disciplinary punishment
that had been issued. What was your thought? MR. WEINAUG: I looked at the fact this recommendation
of the employees involved one of their own peers and this is the standard they wish to uphold in the
department. It is a high standard and he would back it, absent any statement from Officer Jerkins as to how
I might look at it differently or how he was looking at it during the appeal process. I then relied and backed
the decision of the Board as the standard they, his own peers, wanted to set for the Stillwater Police Dept.
LACY: Carl, did you at any time talk to John after he received the recommendation from the Chief?
WEINAUG: Yes, John Jerkins came into my office with Guy Pallidino, I can't remember if it was the time
he was there or before, but I specifically asked him, on what basis do you want me to evaluate the decision of
the review board because his letter really didn't say anything, just "I appeal the decision of the Board."
That's when he said I will get back to you after I talk with the attorney. A day or so later he came back in
and said his attorney advised not to respond, not to say anything more other than to tell me to look at the
record. And that's what I did. So as far as the severity, I just basically backed the decision of his own peers
as to what they felt was appropriate. LACY: I presume it had been difficult for you at that stage of the game
absent any evidence to the contrary to start overturning a decision the Chief came to you with, and the
recommendation of an internal Review Board. WEINAUG: I couldn't see anything in the transcript that
gave me that legitimate basis for any reason not to. LACY: Could you, if I turned back to Norman, and said,
look, this whole thing seems a bit excessive? Why don't you go back and talk to him some more before...?
WEINAUG: Norm talked to me and basically said, I'm in a box here. I either uphold the law and if I don't
uphold the law, then someone will say because he is a Police Officer he got away with something I as an
average citizen wouldn't. We both recognized it as a no win situation. To me, it's a very simple thing
although not emotionally acceptable to simply say, what is Oklahoma law, and base our decision on that.
That's exactly what I did. To me it's that simple. Unfortunately, and I'm not minimizing the difficulty in
being a parent, and I'm not minimizing the effect I understood it had on John, that is what the law says. I
have the administrative duty under this procedure to maintain that law.
MULLENDORE: Was the specific charge against Officer Jerkins assault? MCNICKLE: The criminal
complaint? MULLENDORE: (clarification) What was the specific charge or complaint that he went
through the process of? MCNICKLE: There were several. What the Board found was violations.
MCNICKLE continued, let me start from the beginning, the original complaint came in as a criminal
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 16
complaint, as we discussed. There was an administrative complaint drawn up on the basis of a complaint
filed, again, a criminal complaint against Sgt. Jerkins of assault and battery. LACY: That's Lt. Thrasher's
investigation and the report as result of his investigation? MCNICKLE: No, that was the administrative
complaint that precipitated the investigation. The specific charges the Review Board found him guilty of - I
can't remember all of them. MULLENDORE: But it started out with an assault? LACY: Who files the
administrative complaint, is that someone within the Police Dept? MCNICKLE: Yes, that is whomever the
commander of that particular division is, generally. In this case that was Capt. Lester. MAYOR MILLER:
With the initial instigation of the report, was assault and battery charged by the parents of the young man
with the District Attorney? MULLENDORE: That was withdrawn, was it not? MCNICKLE - No, it was
settled. MULLENDORE: And the District Attorney did not file charges? MCNICKLE - That is correct.
MULLENDORE: I continue to contend this incident might not have happened and we might not have had
everything the whole town has gone through - we would not be here this evening looking at this if another
decision had been made earlier in response to the officer's recommendation. I did appreciate the statement
that training would be given.
MAYOR MILLER: I wonder if we would even be having this discussion if the parents of the young man had
decided to follow through with complaints. We saw the medical report, something was mentioned in some of
the papers I read that because of the delicate circumstances surrounding this - there might not have been
good jury appeal if it went to a jury trial. It probably would have lent more prudence to the assault and
battery charge itself, possibly, and I guess part of what we're looking at in our Police Department is whether
we tolerate violence - whether it be to male, female, animal or whatever it is. The Police Department sets
itself up to high standards. Whether the Review Board's standards were too high or not high enough, I don't
know. We'll probably never know on that, but apparently part of the communication did break down when
Sgt. Jerkins did not want to talk directly with the Police Chief, or did not give Carl direction to look at the
transcripts of the Review Board. If he had been able to pinpoint some particular items possibly we might not
be sitting here tonight. Some compromise might have been worked out earlier. Through the arbitration
hearing it sounds like a lot of these sanctions against Sgt. Jerkins were agreed upon or we thought we had an
agreement on but it was not followed through. I don't know what discussions may still be going on since 4:30
p.m. this afternoon or whether we're going to try this in this arena tonight, an impossibility. The purpose
tonight I think is to try to clear the air and let us know what the actual circumstances were and to try to
dispell some of the rumors we have all heard.
MS. KARNS: We're all available to the extent we can to talk to you if you hear something, or if you want
more information. We can't fix something if we don't know it's broken. We can't investigate it when
someone alleges it happened. Some of the alleged information in the hearing are being looked into on the
basis of administrative complaints and not requiring someone else to make the complaint to do it. So if you
continue to hear rumors, we'd like to have a chance to find out is something is wrong. And if it is, to handle it
- if it's not to try to get the word out. It is impossible for us to even solve the rumors in Stillwater, much less
the inaccurate A/P that has flown around the world and the bizarre things said on radio talk shows. So we'd
like at least at home to keep you informed. MULLENDORE: The appearance of excessive punishment, and
the seeming failure to provide training when requested are the two things that bother me the most and as the
Mayor said, there's a good chance none of us will ever have the whole story because there is always an
interpretation. Just as there is an interpretation of the law. That is why it is so important that have your
City Attorney's opinion, your Police Departmental standard, or a District Attorney's opinion, but for
Heaven's sake, let's get them out there so they know what they're doing when they do go out. LACY: I just
feel so badly about the city we're all so proud of - and we're looking like a bunch of jerks out there across the
rest of the world. It just seems in my area, and the laws I deal with - we have a term called "hazards of
litigation." Sooner or later you just say - Is this worth going after relative to what kind of precedent it will
set and what kind of problem it will relate to later on? Somebody should have said, wait a second, do we
really want to push this to the wall here? I understand the city's position, but something still doesn't click
right in there with regard to the severity of the punishment. I understand the wrongs of the action and the
city's concern for that. It just seems like something else could have been done there to resolve that without
taking that harsh of an action on an 18 year officer with a great record. KARNS: It takes two to settle.
LACY: Oh yes, this could have been settled early on but everyone else got involved in this thing and next
thing you know no one is talking, and nothing can be settled and everyone is forced into doing something they
didn't want to do in the first place.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 17
MILLER: We may not may not have agreed with the sanctions and it is not for us to determine those
sanctions, but it would be us to determine those sanctions if we did have an attorney who gave us erroneous
opinions all the time. We would not have that attorney - that attorney would be terminated if we thought we
were getting wrong information from the attorney. We may or may not agree with the sanctions but that is
what has been done, and I hope the arbitration and settlement process will still go ahead and proceed from
There was some debate on whether to open this discussion to the public, after which MAYOR MILLER
invited the public to speak. A five minute break was taken prior to this.
WOODY BASTEMEYER, 4423 Greenvale Ct, said he and Sgt. Jerkins have been friends for years, and
what ever decision John has made, he's asked me what he should do on this thing? When they sent him
downstairs (lower level), he was feeling pretty low and I told him to smile, sit up straight and be nice to
everyone. You'll eventually get through this. What I need to tell you is that last February I was at the Payne
County Fairgrounds to attend a benefit auction for Deputy Sheriff Newcomer who was having some medical
problems. While there I was approached by a member of the Review Board and the conversation lasted
about 15-20 seconds and he asked me how John was doing. I told him about as well as could be expected.
Then he said, if it has been me I would have done the same thing. That was the end of the conversation. It is
my understanding that during the arbitration hearing this individual got up on the witness stand, and when
asked if he said that, he said no. That in fact, is a lie and it bothers me quite a bit. Another thing that
occurred is last Thursday night before the hearing I got a call from a law enforcement officer in the Stillwater
area and he tells me a story that leaves me to believe there may be another member of that Review Board that
may be trying to intimidate, harass, or tamper with a potential witness. I made a report to the Police
Department about that and that's all I'm going to say until Norman has had an opportunity to follow through
with an investigation on it. Somebody has to put the breaks on this thing. Enough is enough. KARNS:
What day in February did you talk to that officer? Do you know? BASTEMEYER: Mid February, I don't
remember the exact day - I was standing along the south wall of the Fairgrounds main building when this
individual approached me.
CECIL MAYNARD, 1301 W. Fourth, said in over 50 years he has lived here nothing has upset him more
than the harsh punishment dealt to an 18 year veteran to the Police force based on the circumstances we have
been lead to believe in the news media. "I cannot understand it and to make matters worse, we've talked
about a criminal complaint against this Police officer but no one has said anything about this young man. As
far as I'm concerned, there is no way he could have insulted Sgt. Jerkins more than he did by his actions. It
was disgraceful and disrespectful as far as I am concerned and how his parents could bring criminal charges
against a Police officer on something like that is beyond me. They should have kicked him in the rear. Last
week I was upset by hearing comments from people in other states, laughing and making fun of our situation
here in Stillwater so I wrote the Mayor a letter, and to top it off - I heard on national news, NBC, a relay of
this whole thing. I heard about our attorney discussing consenting sex in a policeman's home. The
implication was, that's fine - everything was fine. I can't understand why we've let this thing drag on this
long and given Stillwater a real black eye. If we would use some common sense and a little courage we could
settle this in a few hours."
LOUISE STRATTON said she was so upset she had to write it down. "I remember when every kid on the
block wanted to be a Policeman as they get older. I don't doubt anyone would want to anymore. She said my
heart goes out to the officer and all the family. I think he reacted like a concerned father when he saw the
two juveniles in an unseemly act. Incidentally, wouldn't that be statutory rape? And this was in his very own
home too. This should never have been allowed to be turned into an embarrassing media event.
Embarrassing to this lovely city. I'm tired of the public statements about this boy's injuries, and golly, they
were just acting in a mutual consent. That bothered me because that is very inappropriate. She asked (1)
Why did we wait nearly 7 months? (2) Have we come to a point where the law works against decent people
and protects the bad guys? (3) Are 18 years of diligent service not a major factor in this case? (4) What
about the kids, should they not have been spared this humiliation by the parents settling this quietly?
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 18
SCOTT MCLEMORE, 1205 S. Chester, understood the City Attorney made a statement last week about the
tapes, and acquiring a copy if the public chose. Some people may not know how or where to get a copy.
Many quotes and misquotes are out there. He requested the tapes of the entire proceeding be run on the city
government channel at least twice to allow the citizens to watch the whole thing to dispel those rumors. Also,
the dispute seems to be the "sucker punch" she said he delivered. That has not been proven.
MS. KARNS advised the city does not own the tapes. Bill Burke could be contacted for their availability.
She saud the evidence did establish there was a "sucker punch." LACY asked Mr. Burke if those tapes could
be made available. MS. KARNS said if you guys want to sit there and listen to tapes for 12 hours, that's fine
with me. MAYOR MILLER asked that those tapes be made available and run them on Channel 16. MR.
BURKE advised they were available.
DAVE SYLVESTER, 1123 Brown Ave., said he had attended the hearing for 12 hours and heard every bit of
it. He left somewhat distressed after in listening and watching, and hearing every word. He said in my
opinion there is some kind of cover-up going on here. That's a strong statement. I've lived here many years,
went to school 50 years ago, and I could live anywhere in the U.S., yet I choose Stillwater. I've talked to
people all over the country every week, and they are laughing at us. John Jerkins is a friend of mine, and to
be disciplined in the manner he was disciplined for what he did makes no sense at all. It was brought out
during the hearing some other offenses, disciplines for other officers were a slap on the wrist but he's dealt
this punishment. If there is something that hasn't been brought out let's get it out on the table. In the
meantime he strongly recommended the city make an effort to settle this thing now. This community is upset
something fierce. He has a tremendous respect for Norman McNickle, the Police Department, the City
Manager - all up and down the aisle. He said we've got to get this thing off high center quickly or some heads
are going to roll. MAYOR MILLER said we thought a settlement had been made but we've been unable to
make contact with John's attorney until late this afternoon. So it is apparently being tried in the media
rather than letting us take care of it here. MR. SYLVESTER: Maybe the offer won't be acceptable, maybe
there is a counter. But we need to find out. I don't think there's any question they have apparently agreed on
certain items here to take him back to his original rank and get him out of the basement stuffing envelopes,
back pay and back retirement - but it's coming down to who will apologize to who. John Jerkins should not
apologize to the city - the city should apologize to him. That is going to be a final point. Apparently the city
is attempting to make an honest effort to settle and I still think they can work it out. They've got to.
CONRAD JONES, 1506 E. Sixth, said he is a chemical engineer who has been trying to bring a company in
California to get their production facility to the State of Oklahoma, preferably Stillwater. He said now I look
ridiculous making this proposal based on the fact if you have a chain of command in the city and no one can
act on a problem or stop that problem that exists now - what am I to do to convince them to come here? This
is a lot of money and I have spent a lot of money to get a business in here with 23 people, making products
nationwide. I am very upset about this whole affair. The comments made about that letter and not being
important - it is. It was interesting to him when it was quoted in the paper "nothing contained in this act
shall prohibit any parent, teacher, or other person from using ordinary forces as a means of discipline,
including but not limited to spanking, switching or paddling." Who is an ordinary person - the other person?
He pleaded for the city to settle this in a fair and honest way.
DR. MARGARET WHITE, 1624 Glenwood, said she believed the city has in place a due process procedure
and that should be allowed to work completely and thoroughly before we make judgments on what the city
should and should not do. We have a constitution that guarantees freedom of the press. Our city manager,
our city commission, our city attorney and anyone else in this room does not control the press. They can say
what they "dang well" please. We have a case with a gentleman who is sworn to uphold the law who has
taken the law into his hand, even though he was provoked, and has slapped a citizen of the City of Stillwater.
She did not expect police officers to slap citizens in any way, shape or form. So there are questions that make
this a very gray area. We should let the process work and quit worrying about the national media, although I
can appreciate the problem of trying to attract new businesses, etc. I would ask those business people if they
believe everything they read, no matter where they read it or hear it because we cannot control that process.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 19
JAMES GRAY, 1815 W. Third, said he has lived here the majority of his life. He was personally not terribly
concerned about national affairs because we cannot control the publications but he was concerned about the
innuendoes and other statements made by public officials that in my humble opinion, that going into this
hearing that all the testimony given under penalty of perjury is in total discord with the testimony given at
this hearing. He urged the Commission to look at this, to get a written testimony, or watch the video and
read it as carefully as you can. Because you will be literally appalled as to what in his opinion, has happened
to this fine police officer in our city.
RAY BERNARD, 1602 S. Main said he would like this to be settled as soon as possible. MayAnn says it takes
two - in this instance I don't think it does. He saw the tapes of the hearing and seen comparable situations for
allegations of excessive force investigated by the police and the officers involved received 40 hours off without
pay. I feel that John has already suffered enough with this demotion that even if he is made whole, given his
pension and back pay, previous rank and position, he has suffered at least as much as those officers that lost
40 hours pay. As MayAnn said, we're arguing over two days now, Why don't we restore him without that
two days. If you don't feel you can apologize, don't but at least make the effort for the man to be whole again.
MS. KARNS said one thing difficult for her is the way this was reported in the press. She said I've gotten a
lot of mail saying I'm clearly not a parent, not a Christian, that I condoned promiscuity, condoned sexual
behavior among teenagers, etc. - that's not true. Every officer on that Review Board has children - and some
are exactly the same age as Sgt. Jerkins older daughter. My daughter is the same age as his younger
daughter and we go to the same church. My daughter has been in his home. The only purpose for
mentioning it was consentual sex is because of the number of people who believed his daughter was being
raped, or that it was statutory rape. The comment I made was that it is a matter of law - it had nothing to do
with the morality of the situation. I understand Officer Jerkins' concern about the behavior of his children,
so does Chief McNickle, and every member of the Review Board. That is not the point. I understand people
disagree with us about other things. We were prohibited by law to discuss this at all. We have limited our
comments to what was made public - we cannot tell you everything we know. I'm sorry but that would not do
his family any good either. We perhaps made a wrong decision in trying to stop and settle instead of going
ahead with a cross examination. Some of you may have changed your minds but we're still trying to settle. I
don't think it's fair to officers who paid a price for their mistakes for his file to reflect no discipline was
imposed when an officer has in fact done something wrong. I agree, he has been severely punished. No one
disagrees with that.
BILL BURKE, Legal Video Documents offered to make a copy of the arbitration hearing to interested
parties. What concerned him about this case is that John was charged with a crime. He said I always
believed that in America the only way you are convicted is by a jury of your peers. I believe the man was
denied this right. He did not get a hearing in court with a jury of his peers. The D.A. said he did not think he
could convict him. The public has shown through their outcry he is not guilty. That is the issue that has
motivated all this public anger and certainly does with me. We can run the tapes. He encouraged the city to
do that. He also thanked the Commission for allowing everyone to speak.
MAYOR MILLER advised this would be placed on Channel 16 but could not provide specifics at this
moment. He said we will try to get something to the Newspress to advise when this will be shown.
b. Notification of effective date of new drainage ordinance and steps to implement recommendations of the
Drainage task Force. CC-96-183
PUBLIC WORKS DIR. JEFF HOUGH explained this report had two purposes, one, to note the effective date
of the new drainage ordinance, which officially goes into effect today. Any new drainage plans that go to the
City Engineer's office will have to meet those drainage standards. The other purpose was to discuss the next
steps of where we're going with the implementation of the Drainage Task Force recommendation. There is
one particular item in the new ordinance that will affect the average citizen in the community and that is the
provision that prohibits dumping of materials into drainage channels. A lot of that stems from the notion
that dumping actually controls erosion when in fact, it is washed downstream, impedes box culverts, etc. and
causes flooding and increasing erosion. That is now prohibited by city code.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 20
As far as new construction sites, there are additional requirements for erosion control and we do expect that
will affect all sites regardless of when construction was started or when building permits were issued.
Starting today all will have to have some form of erosion control in place. Another item is the idea of
adopting best management practices that further define what kind of erosion control methods are required
when something still needs to be developed. Last week we had five drainage plans that were under review,
four of those met the criteria and approved by Friday, one still had discrepancies and it was sent back. We
expect that drainage plan to be resubmitted in the form of the new drainage ordinance.
This report was also geared towards additional recommendations of the task force yet to be implemented.
He believed additional manpower will be required to meet these. They include research and development of
best management practices for the local community, establishing a storm water utility, initiation of a storm
water master plan (we have funds budgeted to do that), drainage standards for the community that need to be
developed, researched and adopted. Just the normal work load of reviewing drainage plans and earth change
permits that come - if we continue to increase our emphasis on drainage standards to make sure they are
followed keep the City Engineer quite busy.
He proposed adding an experienced Drainage Engineer to continue with these recommendations in a salary
range of $30,000-$40,000. While in the process of filling this position we would like to continue the search for
a consultant to help us with the storm water master plan. He did not feel this could be accomplished without
the addition of one engineer. He hoped by the time we have this position filled we will have a list of
consultants who are interested in helping us with the search. The new Drainage Engineer will take the lead
in developing that as well as taking the lead in developing the Drainage Task Force recommendations. We
have other issues if we hire the additional person such as finding space. The City Engineer's office is filled
with personnel at present - we have short term alternatives to add another person but it will be less than ideal
so there are costs to reconfigure the offices and relocation of equipment, computers, etc. More information
will be provided at a later date.
COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE and VICE MAYOR HESSEL recommended including members of the
Drainage Task force to help develop the description of the Drainage Engineer. COMMISSIONER LACY
said we need to include the philosophy for a fee to help defray some of the costs for this added person. MR.
HOUGH said there seems to be strong support for the idea of a storm water utility in which an extra dollar a
month would be added to pay for that utility. This will address a wide variety of issues and will help that
individual to focus on developing this program and not have to spend time worrying about what pot holes to
fix, leaking water lines, etc. that comes into the city engineer's office. He recommended continuing with the
general outline proposed. As the job description for this position is developed, staff will bring this to the City
for a budget supplement necessary to provide the salary for the remainder of this fiscal year and for office
MOTION BY KAREN KAY MULLENDORE, SECOND BY RAY SCARBROUGH TO ACCEPT STAFF'S
ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.
a. Resolution CC-96-19 closing a street and road easement and right of way located in the southwest corner
of 2721 South Sangre Road.
MOTION BY DAVE HESSEL, SECOND BY BUD LACY TO APPROVE RESOLUTION CC-96-19,
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CLERK TO SIGN.
ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.
S.C.C. 8/26/96 Page 21
a. Ordinance No. 2545 rezoning property located at 2318 No. Washington from RS3 (Small Lot Single
Family District) to CO (Office District).
MOTION BY RAY SCARBROUGH, SECOND BY BUD LACY TO APPROVE FIRST READING OF
ORDINANCE 2545 AND ADVANCE IT TO SECOND READING.
ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.
11. REPORTS FROM OFFICERS AND BOARDS
a. Miscellaneous items from the City Attorney. MS. KARNS advised Keri Kocht will be temporarily
replacing her assistant, Mrs. Rhoads, who will be on maternity leave for a period of time.
b. Miscellaneous items from the City Manager. No items.
c. Miscellaneous items f from the City Commission.
COMMISSIONER MULLENDORE provided another example in which one vote does make a difference.
VICE MAYOR HESSEL encouraged everyone to vote on Tuesday's primary election.
MAYOR MILLER said he had not purposefully not made any public endorsements in any of the campaigns
or signed any signature pages even though it may appear he has. There are more than one person by the
name of Terry Miller in town. He thanked Quality Plants for the lavender Daisy-Mum plant. He further
advised there had been an exciting teleconferencing with Mayor Taniguichi in Kameoka. The O.S.U. campus
there has been renamed The International Center, and they celebrated an international festival last Saturday.
He also expressed appreciation to the following people who had assisted in cleaning up the Kameoka Koen at
City Hall; Marsha Fields, Pam Chaser, Betty Sisson, Steve Owen, Sherry Hughes, Susan Mosey, Johnetta
Bunney, Kara Beer, Nancy Simms, Larry Jones, John Mills, Russel Conway, Linda Ely, Mary Rupp, Lori
House, and John McClenny.
12. NEW BUSINESS No items presented.
13. ADDITIONS, CORRECTIONS, QUESTIONS No items.
MOTION BY DAVE HESSEL, SECOND BY RAY SCARBROUGH TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR
MEETING OF THE CITY COMMISSION.
ROLL CALL VOTE: TERRY MILLER, DAVE HESSEL, RAY SCARBROUGH, KAREN KAY
MULLENDORE, BUD LACY - YES. NO - NONE. MOTION CARRIED WITH ALL VOTES YES.
The Meeting was adjourned at 10:17 p.m.
MAYOR TERRY MILLER SYLVIA S. MALLETT, DEPUTY