Opinion ID: 2615078
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Public Criticism

Text: One of the grounds stated by the Commission for upholding Sgt. Holloway's dismissal was that Mr. Holloway involved himself in an activity which created a condition of public criticism of the Ada County Sheriff's Department... . The Sheriff testified before the Commission that he received complaints from citizens that they were confused by the solicitation and did not know whether the Union was sponsoring the fund raiser or whether the Department was sponsoring it. However, it is uncontroverted that the Sheriff had received similar citizen complaints when fund raisers were previously sponsored by the Deputy Sheriff's Association and the Sheriff's Reserve, both of which are non-union organizations connected with the Sheriff's Department. All of the businesses contacted which ultimately purchased advertising space accurately made their checks payable to the Union rather than to the Sheriff's Department. [10] Additionally, at least some of the controversy engendered by the solicitation was the result of erroneous statements made by the Sheriff himself. The following testimony was received at the Merit Commission hearing: MR. O'ROURKE [Commissioner]: [I]t was reported in the news media, evidently at the time of this controversy, that the promoter did, in fact, leave town with the receipts and the show was cancelled and that somehow people were bilked out of funds. I don't know if that is something that was alluded to in the media or whether it was actually fact. Do you have any knowledge of that? THE WITNESS [Sgt. Holloway]: I saw a television broadcast in that Sheriff Palmer said that these people had left town with $18,000... . MR. O'ROURKE: Do you think that Sheriff Palmer's statement there had impugned the character of the people in Wildwood Productions? THE WITNESS: I believe so, yes. ... . MR. O'ROURKE: Do you also think that possibly some of the complaints were generated by Sheriff Palmer's comments? THE WITNESS: I believe so... . Sheriff Palmer admitted making such a comment: Q. [By Mr. Stoppello to Sheriff Palmer] Well, did you not in fact, in front of Channel 7 news, make a statement after this promotion began in August that you understood that the proceeds from the advertising sales had left town? Did you ever make that statement? A. [Sheriff Palmer] Yes. It is uncontroverted that Wildwood did not leave town with the funds and that the Union received all funds rightfully belonging to it from the fund raiser. [11] Although outwardly concerned with public criticism engendered by the solicitation, Sheriff Palmer never notified Sgt. Holloway that he would be disciplined or terminated if the source of the criticism continued. In fact he did not terminate Sgt. Holloway until six days after Wildwood had, on its own initiative, stopped the solicitation, thereby removing any grounds for any further public criticism of the Department. Sheriff Palmer originally handed Sgt. Holloway a termination letter which stated that Sgt. Holloway had failed to obey three direct orders and that to that date, September 14, 1978, the solicitation was continuing. Sgt. Holloway testified that: I, you know, explained to him that no, the solicitation had been stopped last Friday, which was the 8th of September, was the last day that there was soliciting. And he lined that out and said that if that's so, you know, I'll just redraft the letter and make it correct. The Sheriff failed to offer sufficient evidence to show that there had been any public criticism differing from that received when other non-union departmental organizations had previously sponsored fund raisers. There was insufficient evidence to show that the Sheriff was indeed concerned about unfavorable public criticism, having himself engaged in actions guaranteed to result in such criticisms. There was also insufficient evidence offered to support a finding that the Sheriff acted in response to the public criticism engendered by the fund raiser when he neither took action nor threatened Sgt. Holloway with any action during the course of the solicitation. Sheriff Palmer did not terminate Sgt. Holloway until six days after the solicitation had been stopped by Wildwood on its own initiative. It is thus clear that there is not substantial evidence to support a finding that any public criticism engendered by the solicitation constituted such a grave and immediate danger to a legitimate state interest that Sheriff Palmer had cause to terminate Sgt. Holloway.