Since this blog wasn't around when the Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance came out with their report on the Nuesse case, I'm wondering if there are any readers interested in giving some analysis of the document.
SR:
The city has made no contact with the Ohio Attorney General's office, despite the commission's unanimous vote May 12 to request that the Alliance work in conjunction with the attorney general's office to review the motives and procedures of the Nuesse investigation.
What has come of this? Whose job is it to contact the AG's office and why didn't it happen? Has the IMA followed up on this?
The Alliance referenced James Neff's "Mobbed up", published in 1989, and articles from the New York Times for some history on investigators Patrick J. Foran and Martin McCann Jr.
The alliance goes on to say that the credibility of Foran and McCann's has been gutted by the New York Times. Nice.
The IMA's case against the Murman Report: (This is a summary of the major points.)
1. Murman has long history with Sandusky. Murman not capable of independent investigation by virtue of his long standing relationship with Sandusky in particular Law Director Don Icsman. The Murman report was the "evidence" needed to fire Nuesse, because Kline had no complaints in writing from any witnesses. The case against Nuesse was manufactured after Kline decided that she would be fired.
2. Murman report misuses term "hostile work environment" which is a term of art in the field of law and specifically defined by federal law. Murman report replaces this term "hostile work environment" with "uncomfortable work environment" which is entirely interpretive and not illegal even if Nuesse were guilty of creating it. None of the several lawyers (Murray, Icsman, Murman) involved in this situation ever defined "hostile work environment."
3. Kline unwisely, and without direction from his bosses (the commissioners) set out to prove that the city (through Nuesse) is guilty of creating a "hostile work environment" within the police department which would be a federal lawsuit plaintiff's dream. In other words Kline put the city at risk financially by trying to prove that Nuesse created a hostile work environment if a police officer decided to sue the city on these grounds. The unintended consequence of Kline's action was basically handing proof to any cop who wanted to sue the city for discrimination.
4. Kline had no complaints against Nuesse in writing.
5. Kline had no evidence that any officer had complained to the FOP about Nuesse.
6. IMA compares Kline's claim that Nuesse had made "questionable" decisions and had a poor "relationship with the truth" to the fact that nearly every public administrator in the history of man has had detractors claim the very same thing about their political enemies. This is not a valid reason for discipline.
7. The term "hostile work environment" was never defined in the Murman Report - despite the fact that the term has a specific definition in the field of law. No elements of "hostile work environment" allegedly created by Nuesse were described in the Murman report.
8. Prior to making a decision of this magnitude the city manager should've sought direction from the commission - to which Kline's serves at it's pleasure.
9. Timeline of events and fact that no complaints about Chief Nuesse were made until February 26, 2008 suggests collusion between several individuals to have Nuesse fired.
10. Serious doubts exist over the credibility of the Murman report investigators. (McCann & Foran) Both agents credibility questioned by New York Times in unrelated investigation into mob activity. Agents accused of protecting mobsters illegal activity.
11. Kevin Baxter and Mary Ann Barylski have made "corrections" to statements attributable to them in the Murman report, which leads IMA to doubts about other statements or facts in Murman Report.
12. Full scrutiny over Murman report is being hampered by uncooperative city officials who will not comply with public records requests.
Back
