[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.