Date: Fri 02-Oct-1998

Publication: Bee

Author: ANDYG

Quick Words:

police-commission-Lysaght

Full Text:

Evaluation Pans The Police Chief

BY ANDREW GOROSKO

Unless the job performance of Police Chief James E. Lysaght, Jr, improves to a

satisfactory level and unless he meets the goals he has agreed to with the

Police Commission, the commission believes it will have just cause to fire

him, according to a recent job performance evaluation of Chief Lysaght by the

commission.

When the Police Commission last evaluated Chief Lysaght in mid-1997, it set

goals for him of "listening" and "focusing on priorities."

"Chief Lysaght has failed to carry out the directives of the Board of Police

Commissioners on several occasions. The chief has failed to provide the

planning and leadership necessary to implement the board's directives and

department policy," Police Commission members noted in the evaluation dated

September 1.

In response to the evaluation, Chief Lysaght said Wednesday, "I was

disappointed in the job evaluation, but the commission has given me goals for

the next year, and I'll do the utmost to achieve those goals." He had no

response to specific claims made by the commission in the evaluation.

First Selectman Herbert Rosenthal said of the evaluation, "I'd rather not

comment. It was the Police Commission's evaluation of his performance. My

personal dealings with him have been very good. The working relationship I

have with the chief is a good one."

In the evaluation, Police Commission members listed as "marginal" Chief

Lysaght's performance in the areas of planning, management of resources,

implementation of policy, and leadership. "Marginal" is the lowest of five

marks possible for those activities.

In nine areas of managerial and technical skills, the Police Commission states

the chief "needs improvement." These areas include: supervision of people;

creative ability; attention to costs; communication ability; delegating

ability; problem solving ability; job knowledge; ability to plan and organize

work; and leadership ability.

In the annual job evaluation for the period July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1998,

"The Board of Police Commissioners evaluates Chief Lysaght's job performance

during this period as `unsatisfactory.' The chief has failed to plan and/or

follow through on plans. He has failed to address problems. He has failed to

manage the department within budgetary constraints. The chief has circumvented

the Board of Police Commissioners on several occasions and on one such

occasion concerning the appointment of a detective, his actions were

insubordinate," according to the job evaluation.

"Chief Lysaght has not demonstrated the leadership nor management skills

necessary for the effective and efficient operation of the department. The

chief must correct these deficiencies and improve his performance to a

satisfactory level. The chief's performance during this period does not merit

an increase in salary. If at his next evaluation, Chief Lysaght has not

improved his performance to a satisfactory level and if he has not met the

goals agreed to with the Board of Police Commissioners, the board believes

that it will have just cause to terminate the chief's employment," according

to the evaluation report.

On the Police Commission's recommendation, the Board of Selectmen has

recommended that Chief Lysaght not be given a raise for the current fiscal

year and allow his annual salary to remain at a rate of $65,280.

The job performance evaluation of Chief Lysaght done by the Police Commission

last year gave the chief generally negative marks for his first year on the

job.

In a vote of confidence on the police chief conducted by the police union in

September 1997, almost all union members who voted indicated a vote of "no

confidence" in Chief Lysaght, criticizing his management style.

Chief Lysaght started work as head of the police department in July 1996,

after leaving his post as second-in-command of the Bristol Police Department.

He and his family moved to Newtown recently.

Specifics

In its evaluation of the chief, the Police Commission lists 10 individual

instances in which it takes issue with how the chief runs the police

department.

The Police Commission alleges that Chief Lysaght had not responded to a

complaint from Scott McColl nor investigated Mr McColl's complaint, nor had

the chief taken any disciplinary or remedial action concerning Mr McColl's

complaint. The complaint concerned how police handled a call involving Mr

McColl's wife and children.

On October 25, 1997, Scott McColl wrote a letter to each Police Commission

member concerning the police department's lack of response to his wife being

locked out of her vehicle on March 28, 1997, while their two young children

were inside the vehicle. According to the chief's job evaluation, Mr McColl

provided Police Commission members with copies of letters on the matter he had

sent to the chief on March 29, 1997, and June 22, 1997.

Police Commission members list deficiencies in the chief's job performance

including: his failure to submit a plan for the training and recertification

of police department members for cardio-pulmonary resuscitation and medical

response technician; his failure to submit a plan explaining how to remedy

certain deficiencies in sergeant training; and failure to provide a detailed

plan with costs for police training in the current fiscal year.

Police Commission members state the chief has not submitted to them a

construction budget and schedule for relocating the police department's radio

transmitter as he had promised to do.

Commission members state the chief didn't meet a deadline to spend federal

grant money to buy portable computers for police.

The chief has not presented the commission with a detailed plan on spending

$85,000 to acquire a new central computer system and its installation,

according to the commission.

According to the Police Commission, the chief hasn't provided any leadership

on resolving patrol unit staffing problems, with his only solution being

spending overtime funds to deal with the matter.

Chief Lysaght attended a training course on the design of police facilities on

March 30, 1998, for which he was denied approval by the Police Commission on

August 5, 1997, the commission states. The chief was granted approval by the

first selectman to attend the course, according to the commission.

The commission states that on March 3, 1998, it asked the chief to seek a

legal opinion from the town's labor attorney concerning the procedure to be

used for promoting officers to the rank of sergeant. The chief and the first

selectman then entered into an agreement with the police union concerning the

procedure, according to the commission.

At a February 17, 1998, Police Commission meeting, the commission approved a

selection process to appoint an officer to fill a detective vacancy. At a

March 3, 1998, commission meeting, the chief told the commission he had

discussed the appointment process with the police union and that he had

entered into a "gentleman's agreement" with the union to change the process

that had been approved by the commission, according to the commission.

Commission members, however, told the chief they did not want the appointment

process changed, according to the evaluation statement. On March 11, 1998, the

chief and the first selectman entered into an agreement with the police union

creating a selection process for detective which differed from the process

formulated by the commission, according to the commission.

On March 19, 1998, Chief Lysaght signed an agreement with the first selectman

altering the benefits and duties statement which was agreed to at the

beginning of his employment, according to the commission. Although the Police

Commission chairman signed the original agreement, the changes negotiated by

Chief Lysaght and the first selectman were made without the knowledge or

approval of the Police Commission or its chairman, according to the

commission.

Goals

The Police Commission has set a series of goals for the chief.

The chief must develop and implement plans that use the police department's

resources effectively and efficiently to complete the department's mission,

with the highest priorities being personnel training, patrol staffing, radio

and telephone communications and computer operations, according to the

commission.

Also, the chief must respond to and resolve the grievances of police personnel

and citizens in a timely manner and inform the commission of complaints at the

next regular commission meeting following the receipt of a complaint,

according to the police panel.

The commission also wants the chief to keep the commission fully informed

concerning police department operations and budgetary matters.

Also, the commission wants the chief to: carry out the commission's

directives; assign duties and delegate authority to subordinates consistent

with the police department's plan of organization, with the goal of developing

and improving staff performance; and develop a plan to fully staff all

budgeted positions and to keep the positions staffed as vacancies occur.

"The chief's performance will be reviewed at the regular meeting of the Police

Commission in March 1999. If at his next evaluation Chief Lysaght has not met

the goals agreed to with the Board of Police Commissioners, the board believes

that it will have just cause to terminate the chief's employment," according

to the document.