[0:03] Commissioner Hallberg Rogers Ford and Santiago. Also present our personnel

[0:08] director Eric Kamato um clerk to the commission Deborah

[0:12] Rosford and attorney John Matola. All right, Eric, can you introduce item

[0:18] number one on the agenda which is the triaray vote for Adam Ships? Certainly,

[0:23] Madam Chair and Commissioner, the commission received a request from

[0:26] police chief Roger Porter for a partite vote regarding and like recommending the

[0:31] probationary uh Sergeant Adam Zeps fail this

[0:35] probationary period. Um, Chief, if you want to Well,

[0:49] » afternoon. [clears throat]

[0:52] » Good afternoon, commissioners. Uh, Deputy City Attorney John Bohan on

[0:55] behalf of Chief Porter in this matter. Uh, Adam Zeps, uh, it was a probationary

[1:00] sergeant from the Bridgeport Police Department. uh this commission extended

[1:05] his probationary period uh on December 9, 2025. So he had the standard uh

[1:11] six-month probationary period uh that was uh extended by uh the civil service

[1:17] commission based upon uh comments that uh officer Zeps had made uh at a lineup

[1:24] contradicting uh one of the chief's orders.

[1:27] Uh so

[1:31] uh Chief Porter had the right to press the issues regarding rule violations and

[1:34] to his credit he agreed that probationary uh Sergeant Zeps uh would

[1:39] receive a five-day uh suspension provided in addition uh to the Civil

[1:43] Service Commission extending the probationary period uh for review by an

[1:48] additional 6 months. During the additional six-month probationary

[1:52] period, uh, probationary uh, Sergeant Adam Zeps tested positive for steroids.

[2:01] There was a split sample taken uh, that was confirmed.

[2:05] Uh, so the positive test results resulted in the chief uh, denying him

[2:12] uh, permanent promotion to the rank of sergeant. uh with regard to the uh e

[2:18] efficacy of those drug tests, I do have Dr. Mohamd here uh who is the physician

[2:24] uh who oversaw uh the testing uh and receive the lab results. So if there's

[2:29] any question as to the efficacy and reliability of that, I'd just like to

[2:32] establish that for the record. Uh I can off I can offer you this that the uh

[2:37] doctor will testify uh that the efficacy of those test results is not in doubt in

[2:42] any way whatsoever. But to the to the extent any of the commissioners have any

[2:47] doubt about that we'd be happy to put on this test

[2:52] » and to the chair and commission the uh employee and representative are here

[2:57] too. So in what order like you would like to hear at your discretion?

[3:01] » Okay. Um, I think you should hear from Mr. Seps first, his attorney. Do you

[3:08] agree? >> I stole all the chairs. Is

[3:10] » there somewhere you would like us to come?

[3:11] » Yeah.

[3:20] » There's an extra chair. Oh, >> you want a rolly one?

[3:26] » I don't really care. >> I'm going to give you this. You can take

[3:28] this. >> That's for you.

[3:45] Uh, good afternoon, evening. Kelly Raml on behalf of um, Adam Zeps. I'm the

[3:52] union attorney for local 1159. Our argument in this case is the Bridgeport

[3:56] Police have established a discipline matrix which um gives guidelines for

[4:01] disciplines. Um Adams is not the first individual Bridgeport Police Department

[4:07] that's had a positive drug test. However, it's the first individual that

[4:11] the talk of a um demotion is um an item that's up for on the agenda. every

[4:19] officer in history who has had a positive drug test um has conformed to

[4:25] the discipline matrix in that um they get a 30-day um suspension without pay

[4:31] as well as um 18 months of random drug testing and compliance to the EAP

[4:35] process. Um although this matters before um civil service tonight, he's actually

[4:40] already started complying with the EAP process. started um the other course of

[4:45] discipline that has been um advocated and agreed on um by the union. So

[4:51] our um position is that Mr. Zeps who um should be treated like every other I

[4:58] think six copies is what maybe >> I'm sorry can you repeat what the um

[5:03] guidelines are for you said for the other officers you said 30-day

[5:07] suspension 18 months of >> random drug testing

[5:10] » and said something else >> and there's compliance with EAP

[5:15] u mandated I believe it's three sessions unless I think there's some discretion

[5:19] for EAP if there needs to be more and if you look on the matrix um that I've

[5:23] provided you um that is on the first page 2.02 2.2 alcohol drug use. So what

[5:30] the unit is simply asking here is that u Mr. Zeps be treated like his peers um

[5:35] and that he has the same um penalty. He's willing to accept that penalty

[5:39] again. He's already started complying with that penalty. Um there's no uh

[5:44] dispute here on his performance as a sergeant. He's wellliked in the

[5:48] department. he has been performing his supervisory duty satisfactory and that

[5:52] is not why we're here today. Um we're here because of a positive drug test

[5:56] unfortunately and but fortunately we have already contemplated what

[6:00] discipline is in that regard. >> So the other officers that you've

[6:06] mentioned that tested positive were they also on probation?

[6:10] » Not that I know of. >> And what what I would do is distinguish

[6:15] that argument. This is not a disciplinary matter. This is a habits

[6:18] and conduct uh disqualification of a candidate who is serving in a

[6:22] probationary period. He's seeking higher office and that is sergeant. So while he

[6:27] receives the standard uh discipline that was given to other officers, uh the real

[6:33] issue for Chief uh Porter in this matter when he sees this is assessing whether

[6:38] or not candidates have what it takes to be a sergeant. Okay? Are they showing

[6:45] the qualities that we want in a sergeant? So here you have a situation

[6:49] unfortunately uh for officer Zeps where he made comments out of lineup that

[6:54] undermined a chief's order and based upon that he was given an extended

[6:59] probationary period. That is the chief said I'm going to give you another

[7:02] chance. Okay, we'll give you another six months to prove yourself and it's during

[7:06] that six-month extension that he comes back positive for the steroids. Uh so

[7:12] based upon that that he's under scrutiny appropriationary period as we've all

[7:16] been here in civil service you're on your best behavior. So, it was not just

[7:22] uh the initial problem uh that resulted in the extension of the six-month

[7:27] probationary period, but a violation during that six-month probation that she

[7:32] felt showed true irresponsibility and a lack of the qualities needed to

[7:38] warrant [clears throat] a promotion to the position of sergeant.

[7:42] » And again, we're we're not claiming that the conduct here is acceptable or

[7:47] warranted. What we're claiming here is that we've agreed on what the penalty

[7:51] should be and we're asking that this same penalty be enforced here.

[7:54] » So the contract is an agreement on penalty. Civil service as we all know is

[8:00] a separate entity. This commission governs civil service process and we

[8:06] have rules and a habits and conduct disqualification is not unusual. This is

[8:12] a situation where the chief has acted properly. he has good grounds for what

[8:17] he's for the disqualification that he's made in this case and that's undeniable.

[8:22] There is now an appeal that the disqualification for habits and conduct

[8:26] is on warranty but that's separate and depart apart from any discipline that

[8:31] was imposed. We're here to determine whether or not officer Zep has the

[8:37] qualities to be a police sergeant. Rod Porter. Chief Rod Porter is in

[8:44] charge of the police department. He is the person that has to assess the

[8:48] candidate in the first instance as the department head. Does that candidate

[8:54] have the qualities? Have they demonstrated the responsibility in order

[8:58] to assume the first and I believe most important rank in the Bridgeport Police

[9:03] Department, which is sergeant. These are the people who are out in the field.

[9:07] These are the people who are the first line supervisors who are uh observing

[9:13] and guiding uh the officers in the field. If you fail at that level, you

[9:18] have a major problem. And what Chief Porter is seeing that he has a candidate

[9:22] who has not accepted the responsibility to behave appropriately during a

[9:26] probationary period and that gives him a legitimate lack lack of trust in that

[9:32] candidate to perform in the position of sergeant. So with all due respect, my

[9:36] opposing council, this is not a matter of discipline. This is a habits and qual

[9:41] conduct disqualification based upon legitimate evidence that the chief has

[9:46] gleaned in this situation. >> My response is I've been union council

[9:51] here for 14 years and I have not been before commission. I think that goes

[9:57] without saying that we have not had this issue before. So, under the city's

[10:01] argument, this is the only person under probation that's not made standards.

[10:07] Only person, there's not been another one, at least in 14 years. I think I've

[10:10] heard of one lieutenant in 20. This is an a sergeant that has done an

[10:15] impeccable job as a sergeant and a supervisor responsibilities. Um, that's

[10:20] all I have to say. >> I'm not just John Matah for the

[10:25] commission. I'm not sure that's accurate. You you hear these types of

[10:29] cases all the time and disqualify individuals during the probationary

[10:34] period. I think you've heard some in the police department over the years too.

[10:38] And and you and the commissioners, you know what the section is. It's section

[10:41] 15 subsection G of the the new charter and uh

[10:48] section 14 chart. This you've handled many of these cases over the years. This

[10:54] is this isn't anything unusual. And in this case, what's been stated is this

[11:00] individual

[11:03] did something during his probationary period last December. If you recall, you

[11:10] extended the probationary period and then this individual during the

[11:14] probationary period um violated uh the rules of the department during a time

[11:21] when he has to be extra extra vigilant because he knows he's on probation and

[11:28] he knows you extended his probationary period. So you're familiar with these

[11:35] types of cases. The other thing I would add to that is we routinely give

[11:40] sergeants promotional exams and this is not the end for Adam's eps. I mean I

[11:45] know Adam's eps. I like Adams. Okay. I I do respectfully think that Adam made

[11:50] some mistakes here. Probably mistakes that he himself uh you know regrets at

[11:54] this point. Um but there will be another sergeant's exam and Adam will be able to

[11:58] take that test. I think he's a good t test taker and he'll have that

[12:02] opportunity. And that's the great thing about our civil service. This is not a

[12:05] death penalty. But in the first instance, the chief knowing of the

[12:09] circumstances, he is acting fully responsibly in denying uh the promotion

[12:15] at this time for habits of conduct. And he's asking you to support that

[12:19] decision. [clears throat] >> And just one response, I think that in

[12:23] order to have this action taken against Adam Zeps, we would have to take the

[12:26] position that every other sergeant was perfect. because maybe you have heard

[12:30] these cases, but I don't think there's been a case for a sergeant in about two

[12:34] decades that I know of. Um, again, I said I've been here 14 years. I know for

[12:38] a fact since I've been here, I believe there was a lieutenant maybe 20 years

[12:41] ago in the probationary period. So, I guess so the position the commissioner

[12:45] would have to take in order um to cancel probationary period is that every other

[12:49] sergeant must have been perfect. Every other sergeant had no um disciplinary

[12:53] issues and everyone else was perfect during the probationary period, which is

[12:56] really a tough position to take. Not really. Not hearing them. It's not a

[13:02] tough position to take. >> It is. If it doesn't come, it only comes

[13:05] to your attention um by way of the chief of police. And if the chief of police

[13:09] chooses not to bring it to your attention,

[13:13] » do you have evidence of other cases similar to this that was not brought to

[13:17] the chief's attention or? >> There was a sergeant on probation who

[13:22] left their firearm unattended at the at Harbor Yard and there was I think they

[13:26] received a

[13:30] I think they received something less than um a suspension.

[13:34] » Oh, we saw that case. >> We saw that and there was no intent to

[13:40] um answer. >> Well, you you heard that case and the

[13:44] distinction is there was a mistake made by that

[13:48] individual. I'm not going to get into names different than this case. And

[13:52] secondly, that person wasn't um didn't commit a second violation while on

[13:59] probation and having her or him uh probationary period extended. This one's

[14:05] a lot different than that case. >> That was my question. Was

[14:14] » anyone else have anything to say? Chief, did you want to say anything?

[14:17] » Yes, thank you. of again, you know, this is not something that we would want to

[14:21] do. It's something that I have to do at the chief of um there's times when I

[14:25] have to take tough decisions and this is one of those times. I understand the the

[14:30] process of going through the promotional process. I know it's a stressful and

[14:33] tough time and individuals put a lot into it, but as the chief of police, I

[14:37] have to make sure we have the best most qualified people who have the character

[14:40] and the morality to be a police officer in the city of Bridgeport. Um, as

[14:44] attorney uh uh Bohani stated, first line supervisor sergeant is perhaps the most

[14:49] important position in the police department because they set the examples

[14:52] for police officers. Um, they are the the ones most closely connected to the

[14:57] public at any given time. And it's important that we have people with the

[15:00] best character and uh uh individuals who follow the rules. And uh it's really

[15:06] important that we have that. And this is just a situation where I just could not

[15:09] overlook it. And you know, it's you know, we talk about it's never been

[15:13] done. if not now when um at some point we have to set a standard.

[15:17] I >> think um Sergeant Zeps would like to

[15:19] address. Go ahead. Thank you. >> Um so I apologize. Everyone was sick and

[15:25] tired of seeing my face and hearing my voice. Um it was my mistake to make

[15:30] [clears throat] I'm not going to uh say that I take all the responsibility here,

[15:34] which I do. as far as my performance as a police officer and a sergeant. I've

[15:38] served the city for 14 years and I know my skills and I know my conduct as a

[15:43] sergeant and this has this has nothing to do with this is something that in my

[15:46] personal life um that I do. I've always been uh trying to take care of my body

[15:51] and I have a lot of injuries from this job. I had four four major surgeries in

[15:54] five years and two in one year and this is something you know I I go to a doctor

[15:59] and I'm in the doctors all the time. I thought of something to help me and uh

[16:02] again it was my mistake to make is the with the with the new laws and things

[16:06] like that again. So I uh I take responsibility for that. Okay.

[16:10] » As far as anything else as far as meeting a standard or anything um you

[16:14] know it is what it is. I'm a grown man and I'm ready to take whatever it is

[16:18] coming to me because at the end of the day I have all my peers and my brothers

[16:21] and sisters that come and support me. They respected me as a patrolman. They

[16:25] respected me as a sergeant. I took care of everybody I possibly could and it

[16:28] does mean a lot to even the opposing council turned my hand. Thank you for

[16:31] saying your kind words to me and you know I'm willing to accept the

[16:34] punishment for this. Um and if you guys don't see fit, you know, I'm willing to

[16:39] accept that too. I'll continue to serve my capacity in whatever the capacity is.

[16:44] I'll continue to faithfully serve the city.

[16:46] » Like I said, stand up. >> Thank you. Anyone else have any

[16:52] comments? >> Can you repeat what the current policy

[16:54] says about that? about the suspension >> about the

[16:58] » suspension and motion anything >> the about the discipline matrix points

[17:03] to for the first offense a 30-day suspension without pay um and 18 months

[17:08] of random drug testing um the second offense is termination so in in addition

[17:13] which I I stated on the record which is in here um the EAP program is also

[17:18] required to be utilized and he has already started um going that route as

[17:22] of today >> and And as attorney Bohan said, that's

[17:27] great that he's doing that, but this is not discipline.

[17:30] This is pursuant to negotiations between the union, police union of the city, and

[17:36] part of their collective bargaining agreement. That's not what we have here.

[17:40] This is a civil service issue. All familiar with that.

[17:43] » So, thank you. >> So, let me ask the chief. He's as a

[17:46] 14-year veteran, is he had any other disciplinary actions in his file? Um,

[17:52] again, this isn't a discipline here, but yes, there's quite a

[18:05] questions, comments.

[18:10] I think just for the common discipline, I don't think I think that besides the

[18:13] two actions that you're familiar with, I think we're looking at 2019 or 2020 and

[18:18] prior. Was that correct? She

[18:23] » um I don't exact dates. I think over a four or five year period.

[18:26] » Was it the same policy as well? >> No.

[18:29] » I'm sorry. >> Was it the same policy? I wasn't at that

[18:32] time. >> It might not have been in place

[18:36] situation. I I can I can tell you I was I was the

[18:39] one that got >> just say what year it was

[18:41] » discipline. Um there was uh

[18:46] » between 20 my last official discipline I believe but it was it was a case from

[18:52] 2016 >> the Colorado Avenue

[18:54] » the Colorado Avenue >> I think there were like there were a lot

[18:58] of disciplines >> you know yes I have discipline but I can

[19:01] say the Colorado Avenue was the only sustained civilian complaint against me

[19:05] during my entire tenure as an officer and it was also sustained against 50

[19:08] other officers who were on scene as far as my conduct. towards the public.

[19:12] Everything else was conduct that was that was in house that someone else, the

[19:16] acting chief at the time found fit that my action was that she didn't approve of

[19:21] or chief uh res didn't approve of. So that was it was internal discipline and

[19:27] it was um I was I had a few it was a few unpaid suspensions during that time

[19:32] period. >> Nothing regarding [clears throat] his

[19:34] performance or at least option. So if I can just clarify and this is off memory

[19:40] there were at least couple of excessive forces. Uh one occurred in police lobby.

[19:46] Um there was obviously the December one where there was an insubordination.

[19:51] Uh there was a a pick maneuver some years ago that is a form of force. So

[19:55] there were I mean they weren't citizens complaints but they were internal

[19:58] complaints that are against citizens >> all before 2020. So, Director Skyus has

[20:04] provided me with the Parry report uh for Adam's cast discipline. Uh it looks like

[20:10] uh June 11th of 2020 uh there was a discipline reduced to a 3-day suspension

[20:17] uh for uh violation of 1.34 knowledge of department rules and regulation

[20:22] violations rules and performance of rules and unbecoming conduct. Uh on

[20:28] 91820, uh officer Zeps made an arrest of

[20:33] someone that came to the front desk to complain about their lost property. Uh

[20:38] and uh Officer Zeps received a 10day suspension perhaps.

[20:42] » I believe it was 10 days. >> That's what it says.

[20:44] » Yeah. Um and then uh 11 11120

[20:49] uh officer Zept was involved in Colorado Avenue and he received a 20-day

[20:54] suspension and there were a lot of officers as you probably know that were

[20:57] involved in that particular case. So that that's what they have and then I

[21:00] guess [clears throat] uh there was uh October 9 of 25 and and coordination

[21:07] » but that was the incident we talked about at the lineup and that was a case.

[21:12] Thank you sir. to the commission and chair as someone

[21:18] that I guess has to vote on this as well. Um, when we're dealing with

[21:21] probation, we're dealing with the measurement of performance during the

[21:25] probationary period. I respect the matrix and everything else that's

[21:29] happened in the past, but we we we really should be evaluating the

[21:34] performance during a specific uh specific finite period of time. And I

[21:41] mean, I think the biggest issue here is that we're we're dealing with an

[21:45] employee that's uh an extended probation. And I think that's

[21:50] why we're here now where if that wasn't already extended, I think that's the

[21:56] behavior and the actions that we should be looking at.

[21:59] » Um irrespective of everything that else has happened in the past because the

[22:03] employee has already been deemed eligible to be promoted in the first

[22:07] place. So [clears throat] all that [laughter]

[22:11] » if if there's any interest in hearing from um his supervisor about performance

[22:16] during that time I believe Captain Blackwell was has been captain of patrol

[22:20] and could speak to that >> sure

[22:27] you spoke >> no I'm saying during the probationary

[22:29] period that's what we're talking about >> yes no

[22:35] » during the probation period on those steps kept going Okay. Sorry, wrong

[22:38] captain. There's [laughter] >> Yes.

[22:44] » Remember [clears throat] that next time we do a promotion,

[22:46] » I need my own get everyone going in here, right?

[22:50] » Well, at least everyone's here in case >> um Captain Gillard is here and what and

[22:56] has been the supervisor during his probationary period um to talk about his

[23:01] performance if needed. >> The only performance issue we have is

[23:05] the presence of steroids. Uh, no one's contesting any other performance issues

[23:09] for officers. >> I had a question.

[23:13] » Yes, ma'am. >> Um, this is for Sergeant and Sep.

[23:17] You knew that this was not the right thing to do, but since you have all

[23:22] these past injuries and and all these health issues, did you talk to your

[23:29] doctor about it? Does he did you let someone know know that you

[23:35] needed this because of your injuries or because I don't understand if you knew

[23:40] that that was wrong why you keep doing it and knowing that you was in provision

[23:45] and that's the part that is I'm concerned about it. So, uh, in my

[23:50] defense, all my worldly knowledge on supplementation, everything like that, I

[23:54] thought that this fell under my prescription from my doctor, that was

[23:57] that's my mistake to make. If I had just asked him beforehand,

[24:01] um, then he would have advised me that, you know, either he's got to write

[24:05] something else for me or I have to or just I have to stop using it because I

[24:08] can't use it. So, again, I said, you know, I try to pride myself on not

[24:13] having all this knowledge and that was just something I just I didn't really

[24:17] think of. It was something that I thought was going to help me out with my

[24:20] injuries in my body and um you know I should have just done more research

[24:26] into it. >> Discount with your doctor so he can come

[24:30] here and say anything on your behalf because apparently you did it without

[24:35] annoying. >> Um

[24:37] » I have to give you the benefit of that. You know

[24:40] » my doctor he he did write a letter about some of the things that I used. Um, but

[24:46] uh I didn't want to just make an excuse for what I used.

[24:51] » Prescription. The prescription was covered when I took the test. The other

[24:54] things weren't. So I I respect my doctor. I love him. He always takes care

[24:58] of me. He wrote me a very nice letter, but it doesn't absolve the fact that it

[25:02] was still a violation of the policy. I don't I don't want to make a big

[25:06] excuse. >> Steroid what policy?

[25:08] » The steroid policy typically set there's there's a disclaimer. This isn't the

[25:12] first shared case I've had between other departments. Your disclaimer that it's

[25:15] the officer's responsibility to know whether this is going to because there

[25:20] there are some overthec counters. There are some things and I'm not saying this

[25:23] is there are some things you can actually purchase at GNC or online and

[25:28] if it's on a prescription it's still going to come up as a positive drug

[25:32] test. So the onus is on the officer and like he said he did get a doctor's note.

[25:36] Um but I said that you know you're willing to take responsibility for this.

[25:40] still having a doctor's I'm not sure is going because the onus is still on you

[25:44] and as an officer um it's not a defense because you should have known as just as

[25:49] a citizen. >> Yeah, I just asked the question because

[25:51] sometime you take something without not knowing that has something else in the

[25:56] drug that you are not aware. That's what I was asking the question

[26:00] » and some you know some of other cases we hear in other places have have been

[26:04] obviously cocaine or heroin or other things. this is, you know, that's a

[26:09] different sort of category and they've only started, I'm not sure if

[26:12] commission's familiar, but steroid testing only has become uh mandatory

[26:16] since 2020. It wasn't even actually even part of the panel until the law changed

[26:21] post Floyd and the post restrictions. >> And what I advise the commission if you

[26:24] have questions about the steroids or the test itself, Dr. Muhammad is here. He

[26:29] can answer all those questions for you. That's what he does for a living.

[26:32] » Okay. >> So, he's an expert in that area.

[26:35] If I could add too, we're talking about anabolic steroids. It's illegal. You

[26:40] cannot legally possess or get a prescription for anabolic steroids. So,

[26:44] just like cocaine is illegal, anabolic steroids is illegal. It's illegal to

[26:49] possess, criminally illegal to possess.

[26:54] » Thank you.

[26:58] » So, this is a three-part vote. If you're if you're ready to vote, the commission

[27:02] goes first and the uh >> Did you want to hear from the doctor?

[27:07] » I actually have a question. Is the doctor here?

[27:09] » He's very director of labor. I actually have a

[27:12] question because I am a little confused. Um because I have a little familiar

[27:15] familiarity with there are certain mislabeled issues that the FDA is very

[27:19] much trying to get on top of. Is this a particular substance that was positive

[27:23] in his report that could have been the subject of a mislabeling that he could

[27:27] not have been aware of? I agree with what just chief said. Uh these are

[27:30] anabolic steroids. There's no uh prescription for these type of drugs.

[27:35] They're actually banned in any sports activity, Olympics, you name it. You

[27:38] won't find it even I cannot prescribe those. Right. So my license will be

[27:43] again first there. The pharmacy does not make it. So I concur with what the chief

[27:48] just said. >> So they couldn't have been supplied by a

[27:50] doctor's. >> No, it's not available through

[27:52] prescription. >> Thank you for the clarification.

[27:57] Any

[28:01] further questions or comments? Commissioners, are you ready to vote?

[28:08] » Okay, we're going to start with you, Commissioner Goldberg. How do you vote?

[28:12] Do you um grant or deny his request? >> Deny.

[28:19] » So, he denied the chief's request to fail probation.

[28:24] » Uh deny the appeal. that Sergeant Danny. Um the

[28:28] » not so >> so the request

[28:33] » this is a request from Chief Porter >> uh to

[28:37] » recommend >> recommend probation Sergeant Zeps fails.

[28:40] So if you if you vote yes >> he he's failing right if you vote no

[28:45] » I said yes. I'm sorry. >> Sorry I should have pointed that out.

[28:48] Sorry. >> Okay.

[28:52] » I'm sorry. [laughter] Right. Commissioner Bourne.

[28:57] » Yes. >> Yes. Okay.

[29:01] » Commissioner Rogers. >> I'm sorry. I'm just confused. They're

[29:06] saying deny and we're saying yes. >> Yes.

[29:09] » So, it's a yes. >> Agree with

[29:13] » Yes. You're agreeing with the chief's recommendation. No, you're not.

[29:17] » So, you are Did you hear that? >> Yeah.

[29:20] » Okay. So, is it a yes or a no? >> No.

[29:23] » It's a no. Okay. All right. Command. Yes. It's a

[29:27] yes. Okay. For my for myself, it's a yes. Um, we're going to move over.

[29:32] » We're not over yet. We still have the uh the chief.

[29:35] » Yeah, that's where I'm going. [laughter]

[29:38] » I apologize. [snorts] >> So, we're going to move to Chief Porter

[29:41] next and then to Eric. >> My vote is yes. That is it'll be denied

[29:48] » and Eric. >> Uh, yes.

[29:50] » Okay. So, um, Mr. That's unfortunately um this this probationary period we're

[29:58] ordering that it's it's over. >> Okay. [clears throat]

[30:02] » All right. Best of luck to you. Thank you.

[30:06] » No, thanks for coming.

[30:12] » We're going to move on to item number two, which is the appeal for police

[30:16] officer Francis Curro.

[30:33] What's that?

[30:36] » Executive session. >> Uh yes. Uh there is a uh pending claim

[30:41] we have in the city attorney's office of potential lawsuit to be brought in

[30:46] connection with this matter. So since it's a matter of threatened and pending

[30:50] litigation, we respect the request in executive session.

[30:53] » Okay. >> And the union does not agree with that.

[30:56] » I'm sorry. >> The union and the appellent would not

[30:59] agree with that. They do not want this matter in executive session.

[31:01] » Well, >> okay. Well, the commission has to vote

[31:03] on it. >> Yeah. And I and I um

[31:05] » I just thought >> that's give our opinion coming on.

[31:09] » I haven't been in front of you guys yet, so I wanted to make sure. I mean, are we

[31:12] allowed to say we're >> Yes, you can.

[31:13] » Okay. kind of seemed like it wasn't for a second, but

[31:17] » so just I'll give you some clarity and then you know so so there is a a a

[31:23] pending claim that's associated with this incident involving officer St. for

[31:29] a pending claim that lawsuit is going to be brought and under the Connecticut

[31:34] General Statute section 1-20, a pending claim means a written notice

[31:40] to an agency which sets forth a demand for legal relief or which asserts a

[31:44] legal right stating the intention to institute an action in an appropriate

[31:48] forum if such relief or right is not granted. That's one of the reasons why

[31:53] you can go into executive session. And in this particular case, you really need

[31:57] to go into executive session because there's going to be a frank and specific

[32:02] discussion about what happened on the day of the incident which prompts us all

[32:07] to be here. And if this discussion happens in open session, it's it's it

[32:13] could be harmful to officer Santoro later on in that litigation in the city

[32:17] of Britford. So, it's perfectly appropriate to go into executive session

[32:22] and um as your attorney, I would advise that you do. So,

[32:28] » you want to comment before we go into executive

[32:31] » um the harm seems to be from attorney's perspective to the appellent and the

[32:36] appellant is the one that requested this venue. Um therefore, the appellent would

[32:40] like his matter heard. Furthermore, the documents referred to the

[32:44] investigation of the case has all been subject to FOI. This is all public

[32:48] documents. Um I don't know what what harm it would be. Um he has fellow

[32:52] officers here first of all that will testify on behalf other officers in

[32:55] support of him. Um and including union officers. We would ask that this case

[33:01] remain open. >> If I may, commissioners, we have uh

[33:05] threatened litigation uh against officer Santoro and the city of Bridgeport. We

[33:10] intend to defend the city and we most certainly intend to zealously defend

[33:14] officer Santoro. Okay, everybody deserves a defense, but the comments

[33:20] that might be made in connection with this labor matter could potentially

[33:24] reflect adversely upon that litigation. I am respectfully requesting an

[33:30] executive session to address those issues so that we have full ability to

[33:36] defend both the city and officer Sanuro while dealing with this separate labor

[33:41] matter. This is for

[33:45] doesn't matter what you two attorneys say the mission can decide to go into

[33:49] executive session period in right but you but you

[33:54] » as long as you going into executive session is is legal uh under FOI and

[34:00] here it certainly is and I I think we're just expressing to you why it's really

[34:05] important for you to go to executive session on this particular matter but

[34:09] that's it and and if I I'm just trying to move it along.

[34:13] » No, I get it and [laughter] and I understand.

[34:16] » I think you understand our positions, right?

[34:18] » I would ask >> Yeah.

[34:21] » that this is the motion you read to comply with the um Hoya statements to

[34:26] going into executive session.

[34:33] » Does the recording stuff? >> It does. And everyone has to leave.

[34:38] » I know what that means. Right.

[34:44] » So I I would read that as the motion and you have to to go into executive

[34:48] session. You need to be rather specific and that's why I'm drafting that.

[34:53] » Okay. So I am going to accept a motion to go into executive session to discuss

[34:59] and consider item number two on the agenda as it relates to a claim of

[35:02] notice pending claim filed against the city of Richport and Officer Santo by

[35:07] Haron McDaniels. I need someone to make that.

[35:11] » So, it was moved by Commissioner um Falberg. I need a second

[35:18] » and seconded by Commissioner Santiago. All in favor?

[35:21] » I >> I We are now entering into executive

[35:23] session. The time is now 4:38 p.m.

[35:29] the commissioners to vote on the matter regarding Officer Francis Santoro.

[35:34] Commissioners, are we ready to vote? Okay. Commissioner Santiago, do you

[35:41] grant or deny the appeal >> for Santoro?

[35:43] » Yes, I grant it. >> Commissioner Rogers, do you grant or

[35:46] deny the appeal? >> Grant. Um, I personally I deny the

[35:50] appeal. Commissioner Ford, do you grant or deny?

[35:52] » Deny. >> And Commissioner Santiago, I mean,

[35:55] Commissioner Fber denied. Okay. So, unfortunately, the the appeal has been

[35:58] denied.

[36:05] motion to check for everybody's all set. Okay. So, can I

[36:09] accept a motion to move made by Commissioner Ford, seconded by

[36:14] Commissioner Falor. All in favor? I Pizza here.

Civil Service Commission Special Meeting - June 3, 2026

Transcript