Court Opinion

ID: 9520893
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:52:46.503662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:47:11.607803
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
The Board was entitled to reach the factual conclusion that the statement was made not in the context of frugality with city funds but was made in the context of corruption and abuse of power. Also, even if focusing upon fiscal responsibility, the remark was inextricably tied to the Mayor’s Jewish heritage. In the context of the remark made, the clearly intentional misstatement of the Mayor’s surname could only be viewed as derogatory. Furthermore, in broaching the subject of corruption and abuse of power and specifically referring to the Mayor in relation thereto, Heath had substantially deviated from any laudatory and beneficial caste to his overall talk to the Patriots. He was no longer speaking of police reaching out to the community nor was he encouraging community respect for law enforcement. Quite to the contrary, the remark, though perhaps isolated in context, was unmistakable in its encouragement of disrespect for the chief executive of the city which the Department serves, and therefore demeaning to the Department itself and its attempt to breed respect within the community.
From the evidence, the Board was within its discretion in concluding that as a factual matter, the remark was “demeaning to the uniform and the Department” and therefore a violation of Section VI — Conduct Unbecoming an Officer.