HORTONVILLE, WI (WTAQ-WLUK) – The Hortonville Police Commission has suspended Police Chief Michael Sullivan for two weeks– with another possible six weeks of suspension held open for violating department policies.
In the 15-page decision issued Wednesday morning, each of the six allegations are addressed.
Count 1, Inappropriate Discriminatory Conduct:
We have weighed Respondent’s explanations and interpretations, but we remain disappointed in the lack of professionalism, civic sensibility, carelessness, and simple rudeness that this conduct displayed… We expect more from our officers, and of course we expect our Chief to establish, demonstrate, and maintain a high standard on all phases of his work.
Count 2, Inappropriate Disclosure of Confidential Information:
We believe that Respondent was careless in failing to recognize the applicability and importance of principles of confidentiality underlying this count. We do not find that a preponderance of the evidence in our record supports the imposition of discipline directly for this conduct but we reflect our concerns and expectations for the future within the framework of the discipline we impose.
Count 3, Violation of the State Transaction Information for Management of Enforcement (T.I.M.E.) System:
The preponderance of the evidence in our record establishes clearly that these violations occurred, substantially as alleged… In this instance we are not persuaded by the Respondent’s explanations and interpretations of events; in short, he was wrong.
Count 4, Violation of Employee Rights to Grieve and Engage in Concerted Protected Activity:
We note that our record does not show any actual grievance filings by affected individuals or unions, and we are very aware that we are not the appropriate body or tribunal to resolve labor-management issues. However, we expect our Chief to respect fully the established, statutory rights and procedures for dealing with the Village’s employees generally and department employees specifically.
Count 5, Violating the Directive Not To Discuss the Investigation during the Course of the Investigation:
Respondent has defended or explained much of his conduct as resulting from frustration, confusion, and uncertainty. We accept the reality of this explanation, but not its validity. He should not have engaged in his inquiries and conversations about the investigation, just as he and we would expect a police officer to respect strictly an order not to reveal or discuss a professional standards investigation. He should have remained uncomfortable, frustrated, curious, and worried, without probing into and thereby at least potentially undermining the investigation.
Count 6, Not Being Truthful During an Internal Investigation:
In our judgment a preponderance of our evidence does not support the core allegation of untruthfulness in Count 6.
In the end, the commission rejected the village’s request to fire Sullivan:
Although commissioners have declined to terminate Chief Sullivan as proposed by Complainant, the several sustained allegations are sufficiently serious that we have imposed a substantial suspension penalty,” the decision states. “In this case we received a clear recommendation of termination from the Complainant, but our consideration of the Chief’s admirable record of service, our confident anticipation of his renewed and improved leadership, and our judgment of the best interests of the department and our community cause us to temper the penalty we impose to that of a very significant suspension of eight weeks, holding six of those weeks in abeyance for a period of two years contingent upon non-recurrence of the elements of these charges and on non-retaliation against any person for any connection with the instant case. We have confidence moving forward that the Chief can now lead and our officers can follow.
Sullivan has been on administrative leave since October. A two-day hearing was held in December to determine his fate.
