.
Feedback

Three Beaumont Police Officers, Union Claim Retaliation for Criticizing Chief

City of Beaumont staff have recommended the five-member City Council deny the officers' claim at Tuesday's meeting.

Three Beaumont police officers and the union that represents about 40 sworn personnel have filed a claim alleging retaliation for their call to evaluate the chief of police, according to city records and the union.

In a six-page document dated Nov. 3, the Beaumont Police Officers Association and members Scot Davis, Brian Ford and Jeremy Harris made their government claim against the City of Beaumont, Beaumont Police Chief Frank Coe, Beaumont police Commander Greg Fagan, and Beaumont police Sgt. Mark Keyser.

Coe said Monday morning the claim is a personnel action with no merit.

"It's a process they have to go through before deciding if they want to go into litigation," Coe said in a phone interview. "We don't believe there's any merit. That's why we're recommending the city deny the claim."

City of Beaumont staff have recommended the five-member City Council deny the officers' and union's claim at Tuesday's meeting. The item is on the agenda consent calender, which according to the agenda means the item does not require a public hearing or discussion.

The Beaumont Police Officers Association is the exclusive bargaining representative for sworn personnel employed by the Beaumont Police Department, according to their attorney, Christopher Gaspard of Upland.

The union has 40 active members, who represent more than 70 percent of the department's sworn personnel, according to the union's web site.

"In early April 2011, the Association voted to conduct an evaluation of Beaumont Police Chief Frank Coe," the claim states.

Davis and Ford spoke at an association meeting regarding Coe's performance and were supportive of the effort to conduct the evaluation, according to the claim.

"On or about April 20, 2011, the Association sent a letter to City Manager Alan Kapanicas, with an attachment containing numerous officer critiques of Chief Coe's performance," the claim states.

The majority of the critiques contained negative comments, and some of the statements were made by Davis and Harris, according to the claim.

The letter to Kapanicas explained the purpose of the evaluation was to "express a voice and bring light to any areas of improvement that can be addressed and/or corrected . . . " according to the claim.

"Based on information and belief, Chief Coe was furious about the Association's letter and immediately initiated a campaign of retaliation and discrimination against the Association and its members intended to silence their speech and punish them for their speech and petition for redress," the claim states.

Coe also tried to get the president of the Beaumont Police Officers Association to disclose which officers made specific statements in the letter to Kapanicas, according to the claim.

Greivances against Coe, according to the claim, include his refusal to promote union members and his harsh punishment of union members, including Davis, Ford and Harris.

According to the claim, the City of Beaumont hired Davis as a police corporal in October 2007. Ford was hired as a Beaumont police officer in March 2008, and Harris was hired as a Beaumont police corporal in January 2009.

They have each received numerous certifications and commendations, according to the claim.

In addition, prior to their association speech in April, Davis, Ford, and Harris had stellar work records, according to the claim.

"But immediately after their speech calling into question the Chief' s qualifications, they were all subjected to incredibly harsh discipline for trumped-up, pretext charges," the claim states.

"Right after discovering the letter sent to the City Manager by the Association, Chief Coe instituted what he called a 'zero tolerance' policy for discipline - he began hammering members of the Association, including . . . Davis, Harris, and Ford, with draconian levels of discipline for minor allegations of misconduct."

The claim also alleges Coe attempted to "silence free speech" of other union members.

"Based on information and belief, Chief Coe also subjected other officers to harshly disparate treatment based on their involvement with the evaluation letter," the claim states. "(T)hose officers entered into settlements with the City which reduced the draconian level of discipline against them.

"On or about November 1, a commander for the police department circulated a memo stating that officers currently employed by the department shall not provide employment references to prospective employers of the officers who had settled with the city," the claim states. "The commander required each officer to sign the memo.

"Chief Coe's actions establish a prior restraint against the exercise of free speech by his officers, as the competence of law enforcement officers has been clearly established as a matter of public concern."

The claim seeks damages including "recovery of all unlawfully withheld wages and benefits" as well as "recovery of all attorney's fees, costs and expenses as are necessarily incurred by them in prosecuting this action."

Coe said Monday that "Nobody lost any money in the process of the allegations. If the officers and POA decide they want to proceed to the next step then we'll go into litigation."

The claim, if not resolved, will be filed as an unlimited civil case, according to Gaspard.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Banning-Beaumont Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Jeremiah Price May 20, 2013 at 08:54 am
Victor - why do you try to imply that I am stupid and need to take classes? Why do you make personalRead More attacks instead of intelligently presenting your opinion? FYI I have been designing and maintaining web sites since 1993 and I don't need to be instructed in how internet threading works. That was not the point of my "complaint" as you call it. My opinion is that this is not so easily useable to carry on LOCAL discussions concerning the city we live in because of the structure of the "comments" section and that because of that discussion is being stiflled on local issues compared to the old Patch. For you maybe there is a need to become "internet famous" and have your thoughts spread far and wide - most of the commenters here are not interested in that. We are interested in using the Patch to deal with issues in our community. What you wish to do is better done on FaceBook or Twitter, which in my opinion are a mindless waste of time. This is a good example - on the old Patch I could have replied to your comment and my response would be inset under your comment, instead of appearing at the bottom of the list after many other comments. That doesn't facilitate ongoing intelligent conversation. You will notice I did you the courtesy of responding to you without ever denigrating you or using innuendo to imply that you are stupid and have no right to your opinions - maybe you could do the same in the future and stick to opinions and issues rather than using the paper as a forum for your need to feel superior to others? Jeremiah
Jeremiah Price May 20, 2013 at 08:32 am
To expand a little: it is easy for people to post a thought or an opinion - what is not so easy isRead More to carry on an ongoing discussion of that thought or topic. In the former post you had the option of replying to the overall subject or replying to a specific comment. This facilitated a community of people interested in a subject whereas the new version does not because all replies are in line and replies to certain comments become out of order. Latest comments are not visible on the front page. That feature alone got many people involved who will not now go menu diving in order to find what is being discussed. The former comments section was free-flowing and intuitive - this is regimented and keeps the discussion hidden behind layers of mouse clicking.
Victor S Dominguez May 20, 2013 at 08:23 am
The new look is great! The same principal applies, you have a good blog, it travels. Your blog sucksRead More it dies. Blogging is a formula example, Patch blog+Social media+baiting the internet = blog seen by thousands for FREE...... So stop complaining and take a internet threading class they are offered by any 20 yeard old ;}
Jeremiah Price May 20, 2013 at 06:56 am
Renee - I agree 100% with Lloyd on this and you will find all the posters who used to make the PatchRead More an interesting read are going elsewhere. I know you are stuck with what they give you, but you need to stop defending this change and address it's failure. Holding our comments does no good - giving them to the people you deal with AFTER the site becomes set in stone will not work. Even the news stories don't rotate fast enough - the same things are on the page that were there after the changeover. I won't be using the new features - they are not nearly as user-friendly as you try to portray and new responses to blogs and new comments are hidden. If they even show up - many of my comments on this new format have posted and then disappeared. Not a good move and it has hurt your paper. Jeremiah
Renee Schiavone (Editor) May 19, 2013 at 10:14 pm
Hi James, Actually all the Patch sites are switching over to this format, as the west coast wasRead More just the latest roll-out. They tested this model on the east coast, and most of the sites do have our "2.0" format now. However, they do encourage us to forward on user feedback about features you guys like— and don't like. I am saving all these comments to pass on to our teams. I appreciate your thoughts and I hope you will come to take advantage of some of the new features (as you already have with this board posting.) Patch is all about getting the community involved, and that's why there are now more ways for people to post, and why the blogs are now in the main column.
Lloyd White May 19, 2013 at 05:31 pm
James, I couldn't agree more. My posts on the old format generated many more comments than with theRead More new format. Sometimes my posts wouldn't make it to the front page and no one saw them until I asked the editor to move them to the blog column. Now they get lost in the news column and they drop off faster. Newcomers to the patch won't know whose blogs to go and check out. I hope the patch will find away to return the focus to the blogs, you are right there is no difference from the newspaper sites now.
Tina West May 17, 2013 at 03:12 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRxJrtmGPbg Join us! http://on.fb.me/ZUxe3o Find cities alreadyRead More participating: http://bit.ly/ZTDsk8
Tina West May 17, 2013 at 03:09 pm
Join us for the March! We will have picket signs that clearly state our different perspectives. WeRead More will have brochures that explain the cause. Distributing fliers before the march is a HUGE part of this. Please tell your neighbors about this... www.march-against-monsanto.com
Renee Schiavone (Editor) May 16, 2013 at 02:14 pm
Thanks for sharing, Tina!
bryce May 19, 2013 at 11:27 am
TOTALLY AGREE 100% too !! Especially with Mr. Price regarding replying to individual comments, vs.Read More these big 'ol run-on threads -- & the ginormous ad panel sucks too...Patch doesn't feel as intimate as before. It was cute, handy, & informative ...Now it thinks its Facebook, ....Errrr..... :(
Renee Schiavone (Editor) May 15, 2013 at 03:28 pm
I personally don't have too much control over the way the site looks and functions, since it's partRead More of Patch overall. However, I am forwarding all your suggestions on to our design team and appreciate all the feedback-- positive and negative! And Jeremiah, I've asked around about the FB commenting thing some more, and there really are no plans to do away with our Patch logins. The FB comments are just meant to be a "plus" for those who want them... and others don't have to touch :)
Jeremiah Price May 15, 2013 at 03:01 pm
100% agree with that! Plus I liked the way that in the old one you could reply to an individualRead More comment. This one only lets you post at the end of the thread. Pretty sure she has started using the Facebook comments program, which by itself will keep me from posting. If the old one doesn't come back I will most likely be saying sayonara. I pretty much like everything else, but this was the real draw of the Patch and it's strong point - especially during the fire. Advertisement pane is about 10% too large as well and should be on the other side of the page to look right. Renee is trying though, which is appreciated. I just hope she listens about the comments section. Jeremiah