Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1955-05-12

ToGovern DC.
PO|iceFirings
Murray Protests
New Ruling Will
Hurt Discipline
The Commissioners today for
the first time applied the dis
miSsal procedures of the Veter-
ans Preference Act to members
of the Metropolitan police.
The action-promptly attacked
by Police Chief Robert v. Muir
ray-requires among other things
30-day advance notice of the
Commissioners intention to dis
MISS d man.
The Commissioners made it
clear this policy will be applied in
all future cases. They did not
indicate whether all the other
regulations under the Veterans
Preference Act would apply to
policemen.
Complexities Process
Previously, dismissal of po-
liceman has been first recon-
mended by a trial board, APP
proved by the police chief and
carried out by the Commissioners
with five days notice of appeal.
Under the Veterans Preference
Act, the procedure is much more
complicated. AS explained to-
day, after the notice of proposed
dismissal, the policeman will
have 10 days to reply. If the
final decision is adverse, the dis
missal would be effective 80 days
after receipt of advance notice
Of proposed adverse action.
Approximately 80 per cent of
the men of the Metropolitan po-
lice force are veterans. At
present, they come under the
Veterans Preference Act only
regarding their right to return
at the same rank or position at
which they left the force to 60
into the service.
Custer in March
The case today involved Pvt.
Harold E. Jones, suspended
Ninth Precinct policeman and
World War II, veteran whose dis
missal was recommended by
Police Trial Board on March IS.
Chief Murray indicated he
was particularly concerned about
a phase of the Veterans Prefer
-ence Act not covered in today's
Jacksonville one requiring "a
hours written notice of suspension
before a veteran can be Sus-
pended.
Il believe that applying the
Veterans Preference Act in this
way will hurt the discipline and
good order of the Police Depart
nent," Chief Murray said.
Whenever a man is charged
before the Police Trial Board, he
is served with a notice of the
charges and specifications and
has the privilege of appearing
before the trial board to answer
the charges.
Different Situation
II feel the Veterans Prefer
ence Act was never intended to
apply to cover cases of miscon-
duct by a policeman. 1 feel that
policemen fall in a category a
little different from most Civil
Service employees in that they
have the power of arrest, and
they are armed.
ITO have to notify a policeman
who might be drunk or guilty
Of some criminal violation of
the law that he could only be
suspended after "a hours writ
ten notice under the Veterans
Preference Act in my opinion
would greatly handicap the good
order and discipline of the Po-
lice Department"
Commissioner Samuel Spen-
Ger told Engineer Commission
er Thomas A. Lane that notice
of dismissal under the Veterans
Preference Act has not been
given in the past but procedures
will be revised so the earlier
notices in the future will con-
stltute the notice required under
the Veterans Preference Act.
Firing Recommended
A trial board found Pvt. Jones
guilty Of being drunk off duty,
failing to report at the police
clinic while on sick leave and
making untruthful statements.
Two of the three members of
the board recommended his dis
missal but the chairman of the
board, Inspector Charles J. Sui
Ivan wrote a minority report
asking clemency. Chief Murray
recommended dismissal.
In his appeal to the Commits
sioners Pvt. Jones called on the
Commissioners to extend me all
OF the benefits and projections to
which am entitled under Sec
ton Ia Of the Veterans Prefer