Board of Public Works and Safety

MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL MEETING BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY CITY OF HOBART, LAKE COUNTY, INDIANA BEGINNING ON AUGUST 26, 2015 and CONTINUING ON AUGUST 28, 2015 and CONTINUING ON SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 and CONTINUING ON OCTOBER 2, 2015 IN THE MATTER OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION FILED BY THE CITY OF HOBART CHIEF OF POLICE ZORMIER REGARDING OFFICER KIRK HOMOKY Hearing Officer James Meyer placed the meeting on the record at 8:55 a.m. with the Board of Works members not present. Attorney Dan Whitten and Attorney Adam Mindel, representing the City of Hobart Police Department were present. Attorney Christopher Cooper, representing Officer Kirk Homoky, was also present along with his Law Clerk Luis Gonzalez. Police Chief Rick Zormier was present. Officer Kirk Homoky was not present. Also present: Clerk-Treasurer Longer, Court Reporter from Boss Reporting, and Video-Record Reporter from Hobart Police Department. Pre-Hearing Matters: Hearing Officer Meyer reviewed a number of pre-hearing matters and two (2) Orders he had issued via e- mail to all parties on Friday, August 21, 2015. He provided an Amended version of the charges to all parties with a notation on the top that he, as Hearing Officer, had amended the charges. Discussion followed regarding witness lists, Memorandum of Law regarding the Petitioner as a witness and exhibits, asking both sides to present their exhibit books. Mr. Whitten provided his exhibit book and Memorandum of Law. Mr. Cooper stated he had never received the Orders and did not have an exhibit book or a memorandum of law. Further discussion followed regarding the charges and Hearing Officer Meyer dismissed Count IV of the Amended Charges, leaving only three (3) Counts pending before the Board. Attorney Whitten will prepare an Amended Notice of Discipline prior to the next hearing date. Witnesses were asked to leave the room until they were called to testify. A brief recess was taken to allow the Board to enter and convene the hearing. The Board of Works Members were brought into the Council Chambers at 10:00 a.m. Present: Mayor Snedecor, Rich Lain, Tom Ehrhardt. Hearing Officer Meyer stated all members were present and all parties represented. He distributed to the Board a copy of his 2nd Amended Complaint, noting that Count IV is withdrawn and/or dismissed and evidence pertaining to Count IV is not admissible and noting the language stricken as part of Count I regarding violating guidelines for operating mobile data terminals was determined by the Hearing Officer that it was not supported by the factual allegations and therefore stricken. Three Counts remain: Count I: IDACS and NCIC Violations; Count II: Allegations of $20.00 missing from Rodney Pineda after a traffic stop; and Count III: Stardust Bowl payroll checks for time Officer Homoky did not work. Pending Motion to Dismiss: Hearing Officer Meyer noted that a Motion to Dismiss had been filed by Respondent on June 27, 2014 and was a pending matter in front of the Board. The parties each explained the requirements of laches and Mr. Meyer stated the Board needed to determine whether there was any harm resulting from the delay between the time of the alleged violations and the charges being filed. He recommended the Board deny the motion to dismiss as the parties failed to show harm as a result of the delay. Motion by Mr. Snedecor, seconded by Mr. Ehrhardt, to deny the motion to dismiss. All aye, motion carried. (3-0) Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 1 Opening Statements: Each side provided a brief opening statement. Mr. Mindel noted that any one of the Counts could be cause for the termination of Officer Homoky and described the requirement of a preponderance of the evidence for a determination. Mr. Cooper stated the Respondent denies all of the allegations. Petitioner’s Case: Witnesses for the Petitioner were called and individually sworn as they took the stand: Jody Jackson, currently a Lake County Dispatcher, formerly with Hobart Police Department as a 911 dispatcher and IDACS and NCIC coordinator. Mr. Jackson provided an overview of the IDACS and NCIC policies and procedures and the training of officers on the use of the systems for law enforcement purposes. He noted Certifications for the use of the system are issued to officers who pass a state-supplied test and it is impermissible to use the system for non-law enforcement purposes or to share information received with those outside law enforcement. Mr. Cooper did not cross-examine. There being no further questions, the witness was excused. John Carmin, Asst. Commander of Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Section of the Indiana State Police, reviewed the requirements for use of the IDACS and NCIC systems and the penalties imposed for misuse of the system consisting of three parts: verbal warnings, written warnings and finally blocking access for the entire department violating the policies. Warning and notifications are only issued to the Department Heads, not individual officers. Mr. Carmin stated the system contains protected information in accordance with FBI regulations. Mr. Cooper questioned whether the City of Hobart had ever been suspended from use of the system. Mr. Carmin stated he was not aware of any suspension issued to the City of Hobart. There being no further questions, the witness was excused. Side-Bar: A side-bar was requested and the Board of Works members were advised to leave the room. They were called back in after the side-bar. Exhibit Books provided by Attorney Whitten and Attorney Mindel were distributed to the Board. Mr. Meyer advised the Board not to page through them but only to refer to certain sections when directed to do so. Dan Barton, General Manager of Stardust Bowl II, provided an overview of business records that he has access to including payroll records and human resource records. Mr. Whitten requested that Exhibit 9, Copies of Stardust Bowl Checks be admitted. Mr. Meyer noted it was ruled as admissible in his previous orders. Mr. Barton reviewed seven (7) checks issued to Kirk Homoky by Stardust Bowl II between February 25 and April 14, 2010 for time that Mr. Homoky did not work. He noted the payroll checks had been cashed and when they were found to have been issued in error, Mr. Barton attempted to contact Mr. Homoky but only was able to leave a voice-mail message and Mr. Homoky never returned his call. Mr. Cooper questioned Mr. Barton about certain statements made in his deposition (page 21, beginning on line 23). Mr. Barton stated he does not know if Mr. Homoky ever had contact with any of the checks issued. The witness may be recalled at a future point in the hearing. Mattie (Homoky) Robbins, ex-wife of Kirk Homoky, stated she was married to Kirk in 2000 and the couple divorced in 2011. Mr. Cooper served Ms. Robbins with a subpoena. Mr. Whitten questioned Ms. Robbins as to knowledge of Mr. Homoky’s signature and reviewed the individual checks found in Exhibit 9. Ms. Robbins stated four (4) of the checks she had signed and three (3) were signed by Kirk. Mr. Whitten also questioned what knowledge Ms. Robbins had regarding IDACS and NCIC information being run on her or her acquaintance, Phillip Crowder or the running of license plates for vehicles parked in front of her residence. Mr. Cooper requested Exhibit 83, Respondent’s Deed be admitted into evidence, stating it Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 2  was provided to the parties on June 6, 2015. The exhibit was admitted, noting it was a deed to the marital residence of Kirk and Mattie Homoky. Ms. Robbins discussed finding out about this via a text message which then caused her to go to the HPD to discuss this action and showed Officer Thompson and Officer White the texts. Ms. Robbins stated she no longer had the specific cell phone where the text messages appeared as she had changed phones and carriers. As to the check signing, Ms. Robbins stated it was common for her to sign and deposit the checks when Kirk instructed her to do so and on occasion, she would pick up paychecks from Stardust when Kirk asked her to. She stated that she knew that Kirk was not entitled to the checks shown in Exhibit 9 when issued because he didn’t work during that time period. Discussion followed regarding exhibits not in evidence and Mr. Cooper amended his subpoena to include her presence and to bring the cell phone which received the text messages. Mr. Meyer recessed the hearing for lunch for 30 minutes. Mr. Whitten will be permitted to re-direct Ms. Robbins after lunch. The hearing recessed at 12:53 p.m. The hearing was reconvened at 1:27 p.m. with all parties present. Mattie (Homoky) Robbins: Mr. Whitten questioned Ms. Robbins under re-direct regarding the shared residence; the depositing of checks, the recordings of phone conversations with Kirk and the shared bank accounts. Ms. Robbins stated she signed and deposited the checks with Kirk’s knowledge and all statements made have been truthful and not misleading. The witness is subject to recall at a future time during the hearing. Garrett Ciszewski, currently a Captain with the Hobart Police Department, formerly a Detective with the HPD, discussed the internal investigation he conducted of Officer Homoky in 2012 regarding a traffic stop, IDACS and NCIC use of information and other past incidents involving untruths. Mr. Whitten requested the admission of Exhibit 5, State link router log, IDACS and NCIC records of queries run by Officer Homoky. The Exhibit was admitted. Captain Ciszewski reviewed each record regarding records run by Officer Homoky regarding Mattie Homoky on 9/18/2012 and Phillip Crowder on 10/8/2012. Side-Bar: A side-bar was requested and the Board of Works members were advised to leave the room. They were called back in after the side-bar. Hearing Officer Meyer advised the Board that all personal information in Exhibit 5 will be redacted and the last two pages will be removed from the exhibit as irrelevant to these proceedings. Garrett Ciszewski: Attorney Whitten continued his questioning of Mr. Ciszewski, asking that Exhibit 7, Driving Record Search generated at Officer Ciszewski’s request be admitted into evidence. Mr. Meyer admitted this exhibit. Mr. Ciszewski reviewed each of the driving record search report consisting of fifteen (15) search records performed by Officer Homoky regarding Mattie Homoky and/or Mattie Robbins and stated he could not determine any law enforcement purposes for the running of these records. Mr. Cooper questioned Mr. Ciszewski as to pending litigations, recordings Ms. Robbins made with Officer Homoky and the traffic stop investigation information. Numerous items were deemed irrelevant to the current hearing. Mr. Whitten, on re-direct, questioned Mr. Ciszewski as to any truthful and not misleading statements being offered and Mr. Ciszewski stated his testimony was truthful and not misleading. Captain Ciszewski may be recalled as a witness at a future date. Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 3 Hearing Officer Meyer stated the Board portion of the Hearing was finished for today and will reconvene on Friday, August 28, 2015 in this same room at 9:00 a.m. He asked the Attorneys to remain in the room for some additional instructions. The Board and Hearing went off the record at 2:58 p.m. to be reconvened on August 28, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. AUGUST 28, 2015 Hearing Officer Meyer placed the meeting on the record at 9:06 a.m. without the Board present. Attorney Dan Whitten and Attorney Adam Mindel, representing the City of Hobart Police Department were present. Attorney Christopher Cooper, representing Officer Kirk Homoky, was also present along with his Law Clerk Luis Gonzalez. Police Chief Rick Zormier was present. Officer Kirk Homoky was not present. Also present: Clerk-Treasurer Longer, Court Reporter from Boss Reporting, and Video-Record Reporter from Hobart Police Department. Pre-Hearing Matters: Both sides presented oral arguments regarding a Motion to Strike filed by Mr. Cooper on August 27, 2015. Hearing Officer Meyer ruled on the motion. Mr. Meyer then reviewed the Memorandums of Law presented by each side and issued a ruling. Discussion followed regarding scheduling of subsequent hearing dates, and Offer of Proof to be presented prior to the next hearing date, witness lists and exhibit books. Mr. Cooper asked that two exhibits be entered into the record only as they had been previously denied for inclusion by Mr. Meyer under a previous order. Exhibit 47 and Exhibit 121 were entered into the record but affirmed as excluded from the evidence presented. An Amended Notice of Discipline was distributed to the attorneys for consideration to be discussed later in the day to allow all parties time to review. The Board of Works Members were brought into the Council Chambers at 10:00 a.m. Present: Mayor Snedecor, Rich Lain, Tom Ehrhardt. Hearing Officer Meyer stated all members were present and all parties represented. A discussion followed coordinating schedules for future dates to continue this hearing at the conclusion of today’s proceedings. All parties determined that after today, the hearing would be continued to September 30, 2015 and October 2, 2015. Mr. Meyer stated the hearing would begin on those dates at 9:00 a.m. with the Attorneys to be present at 8:30 a.m. each day for pre-hearing matters. Mr. Meyer stated for the record that all subpoenas are continued to the new dates. Mr. Meyer also stated that the Executive Session scheduled for later today is cancelled and will be rescheduled for a future date. Witnesses were asked to leave the room until they were called to testify. Petitioner’s Case continued: Witnesses for the Petitioner were called and individually sworn as they took the stand: Kenneth Williams, Patrolman for Hobart Police Department, testified in response to questioning by Attorney Mindel as to the traffic stop he initiated on September 30, 2010 involving driver Rodney Pineda. He stated he was assisted at the stop by HPD Officers Chris Ciesielski and Kirk Homoky and during the course of the stop, he and Officer Homoky searched the car due to an odor of marijuana while Officer Ciesielski stood by with the occupants of the car outside the vehicle. Officer Williams stated he saw a $20 bill folded up in the ashtray located in the front center console of the vehicle during the search and after assisting in the search, Officer Homoky left the scene. Officer Williams stated he determined that there was not enough marijuana found in the vehicle to make an arrest and informed Mr. Pineda he was free to go. He continued his testimony stating that Mr. Pineda went back to his car and informed the officers that his money was missing from the car. Officer Williams stated he then helped Mr. Pineda search the car and the area for the missing Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 4  $20 bill and Officer Homoky arrived back at the scene. Officer Williams stated that Officer Homoky took $20 from his own pocket and gave it to Mr. Pineda and all parties left the scene. Officer Williams stated he reported the incident to Corporal Grissom and he does not recall Officer Ciesielski searching the vehicle. Attorney Cooper questioned Officer Williams as to his interview with Officer Jeremy Ogden on November 15, 2012, providing him a copy of “Exhibit 27” (reference to Exhibit used only for organizational purposes), a copy of the interview. Mr. Cooper questioned Officer Williams on his ability to remember details of the traffic stop and why Mr. Pineda was not charged with a crime. Officer Williams stated there was only a small amount of marijuana found and it is an officer’s discretion as to whether an arrest is made or charges filed. Officer Williams also stated that he disposed of the marijuana he did find at the scene. When questioned, Officer Williams stated the weather the day of the traffic stop was sunny and windy and Mr. Cooper referred him to his statement in the interview document that he told Officer Ogden that he believed the $20 had blown out of the vehicle. Officer Williams testified that he did not see Officer Homoky take the $20 from the vehicle and the report of the stop was not written up but was reported to Corporal Grissom. Attorney Mindel, on re-direct, questioned Officer Williams regarding seeing Officer Homoky giving $20 to Mr. Pineda and Officer Williams responded that he did see this happen. Mr. Mindel then asked about Officer William’s memory of this incident and Officer Williams replied that it stands out because he had never had money taken from a traffic stop prior to this incident. Attorney Cooper advised Officer Williams that the subpoena previously issued is continued to September 30, 2015 and he will be recalled at that time. Christopher Ciesielski, Patrolman for Hobart Police Department, testified upon questioning from Attorney Mindel as to his recollections of the traffic stop initiated by Officer Williams of Rodney Pineda on September 30, 2010. Officer Ciesielski stated he was with the occupants of the vehicle behind or beside the car while Officers Williams and Homoky searched the vehicle. Officer Ciesielski stated that after the search, Officer Homoky left the scene and when Mr. Pineda informed them of the missing $20 he helped to search for the money and called Officer Homoky to ask if he had seen the $20 bill in the vehicle. Mr. Ciesielski stated that Officer Homoky then came back to the scene during the time that Officer Williams, Mr. Pineda and himself searched the parking lot area and the adjacent bike trail area for the missing $20. Officer Ciesielski stated he saw Officer Homoky take a $20 bill from his pocket and give it to Mr. Pineda. Attorney Cooper questioned Officer Ciesielski regarding the procedures of a back-up officer responding to a traffic stop and Officer Ciesielski stated he did not search the vehicle initially but did look in the vehicle when the $20 was reported to be missing by Mr. Pineda. Mr. Cooper questioned Officer Ciesielski as to his interview with Officer Jeremy Ogden on November 15, 2012, providing him a copy of “Exhibit 28” (reference to Exhibit used only for organizational purposes), a copy of the interview. Officer Ciesielski stated the interview report says that he told Officer Ogden that Officer Homoky took the $20 out of his wallet and gave it to Mr. Pineda. Officer Ciesielski also stated he believed there were two occupants in Mr. Pineda’s vehicle when the traffic stop occurred. Attorney Mindel asked who gave Mr. Pineda the $20 and Officer Ciesielski stated that Officer Homoky gave Mr. Pineda $20. Hearing Officer Meyer informed Officer Ciesielski that the subpoena previously issued is continued to September 30, 2015 and he will be recalled at that time. Mr. Meyer recessed the hearing for lunch at 11:45 a.m. The hearing was reconvened at 12:35 p.m. with all parties present. Attorney Cooper stated he had reviewed the Amended Complaint and has an issue with a certain item. Mr. Meyer stated discussion of this issue would be taken up later without the Board present and asked the parties to proceed with the next witness. Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 5  Richard Zormier, Chief of Hobart Police Department since March 1, 2013 and also an Attorney in good standing, was questioned by Attorney Whitten as to his responsibilities as the Chief of Police. Chief Zormier stated his duties include the enforcement of the rules and regulations of the Hobart Police Department governing the officers and employees of the department and to cause an investigation into matters regarding potential rule violations and determine if rules have been violated and take appropriate disciplinary action. Attorney Whitten asked about the need for the IDACS and NCIC systems and Chief Zormier stated this system is used every day for law enforcement purposes and each officer is trained and certified on the system and as part of the training understands the rules regarding its use. He further stated that if the Hobart Police Department were to lose its IDACS and NICI privileges, they would have to find another means to acquire the same confidential information to investigate reports and complaints of victims. Chief Zormier stated he was the Sergeant in the Patrol Division when the Homoky internal investigation began. Mr. Whitten provided Chief Zormier with Exhibit 8, Amended Notice of Discipline, dated August 6, 2014. Chief Zormier stated he had written this document in his capacity as Chief of Police and presented it to the Board of Works, subject to amendments since the initial filing. Hearing Officer Meyer noted this Exhibit was permitted for admission in his prior rulings subject to future amendments currently under review. Attorney Whitten questioned Chief Zormier as to each of the Counts itemized in the document. As to Count I: Chief Zormier stated he believed that Officer Homoky violated Local Rule 10.1.1.20 of the Rules and Regulations of the Hobart Police Department regarding Protection of Information as the internal investigation had found that he had run protected information on Mattie Homoky Robbins and Phillip Crowder and had shared that information with Mattie Homoky Robbins. Chief Zormier continued upon questioning that he believed that Officer Homoky violated Local Rule 10.1.1.26 regarding Conduct Unbecoming an Officer in that Officer Homoky had repeatedly ran information on multiple occasions on Mattie Homoky Robbins that were not found to be within the scope of his duties for law enforcement purposes. Chief Zormier continued upon questioning that he believed that Officer Homoky violated Indiana Statute 36-8-3-4(b)(2)(b), a Violation of Rules because he violated the confidentiality rule of the department and the IDACS and NCIC rules that he had been trained on as to use of those systems. Chief Zormier further continued upon questioning that he believed Officer Homoky violated Indiana Statute 36-8- 3-4(b)(2)(h), Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and showed unfitness for duty by violating these rules that protected private and confidential information, in this case regarding Ms. Robbins, Mr. Crowder and others. Attorney Whitten introduced Exhibit 3, HPD Rules & Regulations, Section X, pages 1-5, as approved for admission by the Hearing Officer’s prior order. Chief Zormier explained that this document is dated August 2008 as amended and noted it has been amended as of January 2014. Mr. Whitten questioned Chief Zormier regarding Section 10.1.1.6, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer and Chief Zormier stated he believed Officer Homoky’s actions as described in Count I was a violation of this rule in the repeated discourteous treatment of citizens and overbearing and oppressive conduct in the discharging of his duties. Mr. Whitten questioned Chief Zormier as to whether he believed as to the actions described in Count I, that there was a violation of Indiana Statute 36-8-3- 4(b)(2)(f), Immoral Conduct and Chief Zormier replied that he believed it was immoral conduct by repeatedly running former family members through the IDACS and NCIC system and using that information to harass the former family members. Chief Zormier also stated, when questioned, that typically officers do not run family members through the system when the possibility of a crime has been committed and general procedure is that is it reported to a supervisor to assign an unbiased officer to investigate the case to avoid the appearance of impropriety. Chief Zormier stated he is not aware of any investigation having taken place on Officer Homoky’s behalf against Phillip Crowder or Mattie Robbins. Chief Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 6  Zormier stated he is asking the Board to find that Officer Homoky violated the items as set out in Count I. Attorney Whitten continued his questioning regarding the Amended Notice of Discipline as to Count II: Chief Zormier stated he believed that based upon the conduct alleged, Officer Homoky violated Hobart Rule 10.1.1.22 as it relates to Conversion as the investigation provided evidence that he had exerted unauthorized control of the $20 in the vehicle of Mr. Pineda. Attorney Whitten asked, if it were true that Officer Homoky did the actions described in Count II with respect to the $20, is it Chief Zormier’s belief that it is a violation of Hobart Rule 10.1.1.23, Disregard for Property Rights? Chief Zormier stated he believed the investigation showed a disregard for property rights based on the $20 that went missing, the fact that Officer Homoky returned to the scene and gave Mr. Pineda $20 from his own pocket and then he lied during the investigation about giving the money to Mr. Pineda. Chief Zormier continued that he believed Officer Homoky also violated Hobart Rule 10.1.1.25, False Information, based upon Officer Homoky reporting to the investigators that he had not given Mr. Pineda the $20 and other officers had stated that Officer Homoky did, in fact, give Mr. Pineda $20. Chief Zormier also stated he believed that Officer Homoky’s conduct would violate Hobart Rule 10.1.1.26 Conduct Unbecoming an Officer because it is discourteous to the public to take their things and it is overbearing and oppressive for an officer as part of their police duties to take things from citizens. Mr. Whitten questioned Mr. Zormier as to the importance of honesty on the part of a police officer. Chief Zormier stated that honesty and integrity are critical to police operations and general policing of society and if they are found to commit an act of dishonesty, there would remain a shadow over that officer in future dealings with the public during the performance of duties that may not be trustworthy. Chief Zormier stated he believed that a violation of Indiana Statute 36-8-3- 4(b)(2)(b), a Violation of Rules applied in that in relation to Count II, Officer Homoky violated the department rules of conversion, the rules as to property rights of others, and the HPD rules of conduct of an officer. Chief Zormier continued upon questioning that he believed that Officer Homoky violated Indiana Statute 36-8-3-4(b)(2)(f), Immoral Conduct because it is immoral to take the property of another; as to Indiana Statute 36-8-3-4(b)(2)(h), Conduct Unbecoming an Officer because the honesty and integrity of an officer is greatly related to his fitness for duty; and as to Indiana Statute 36-8-3-4(b)(2)(g), Conduct Injurious to Public Peace and Welfare because of the circumstances found in the investigation where he is alleged to have taken money and he is asking the Board to find that Officer Homoky violated these items as set out in Count II. Attorney Whitten asked that any potential witnesses be removed from the room prior to questioning regarding the items listed in Count III. Mr. Cooper advised that those witnesses have left the room. Attorney Whitten questioned Chief Zormier with respect to Count III: Chief Zormier stated he believed Officer Homoky violated the Hobart Rules and Regulations as related to Conversion and Local Rule 10.1.1.23, Disregard for Property Rights, because he cashed checks that were issued to him by Stardust Bowl for work he did not perform which would constitute unauthorized control of funds; and he believed that Officer Homoky violated Local Rule 10.1.1.26, Conduct Unbecoming an Officer, because it would be discourteous to cash checks for work not performed; and he believed that Officer Homoky also violated Indiana Statute 36-8-3-4(b)(2)(b), a Violation of Rules, because he violated the local rules of Conversion, Disregard of Property Rights and Conduct Unbecoming an Officer. Chief Zormier further stated that he believed Officer Homoky violated Indiana Statute 36-8-3-4(b)(2)(b), Immoral Conduct, because it is immoral conduct take money for financial gain for employment that was not worked; and he believed Officer Homoky violated Indiana Statute 36-8-3-4(b)(2)(g), Conduct Injurious to Public Peace and Welfare, because a violation of the other items bring into question the integrity and honesty of the officer and would be injurious to the public peace and welfare; and he believed that Officer Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 7  Homoky violated Indiana Statute 36-8-3-4(b)(2)(h), Conduct Unbecoming, because the questionable integrity and honesty would violate that rule. Attorney Whitten asked as to Count II, whether it is important for an officer to be truthful during internal investigations and Chief Zormier stated it is important because any lack of integrity calls future actions of the officer into question. For all the reasons stated, Chief Zormier stated he is asking the Board to terminate the employment of Officer Homoky. Attorney Whitten asked whether in 2010, Chief Zormier, who was then Patrol Commander, was ever advised of the Pineda traffic stop. Chief Zormier answered “No.” Attorney Whitten handed Chief Zormier Exhibit 2, HPD General Order 15. Chief Zormier stated this is part of the HPD Policy and Procedure manual regarding discipline of an employee, enacted January 1, 2014 and currently in effect. Attorney Meyer noted this exhibit is admitted as mentioned in his previous order. The Board took a recess and Hearing Officer Meyer met with the Attorneys only (Chief Zormier and the Board were not in the room) to discuss an Offer of Proof; Attorney Cooper asked for the filing for the record only of Exhibit 126, entered into the record but affirmed as excluded from the evidence presented as inadmissible; and a subpoena issue not yet resolved. Parties to file case law for the Hearing Officer’s review. Attorney Mindel asked that an Exhibit including a Probable Cause Affidavit and Information regarding an individual that was presented during this meeting to the Hearing Officer be made part of the record and Hearing Officer noted it is not admitted to the Board but should be given a number for the record. The Board and Chief Zormier were brought into the room to reconvene the meeting at 1:58 p.m. Chief Zormier continued testimony under questioning from Attorney Cooper, referring to Exhibit 125, General Orders regarding calls for service, chain of command and the Officer in Charge (OIC) and the duties as Patrol Commander who would be informed by the OIC as to any unusual incidents that took place during a turn, relying on the OIC to provide the information. Attorney Cooper questioned Chief Zormier as to the consistency in disciplinary procedures and progressive discipline procedures used by the HPD. Chief Zormier stated he was only given the General Orders, not the Rules and Regulations and Attorney Cooper provided Chief Zormier with Exhibit 90, Rules and Regulations of the Code of Conduct as he had been provided during discovery and Chief Zormier stated this Exhibit only includes Section X from December 2010, a previous version of the Rules and Regulations and explained that the prior General Orders and Rules and Regulations were formerly split into two sections but the current Rules are incorporated together. Chief Zormier stated this is information is from the old manual. Hearing Officer Meyer noted that Exhibit 2, General Order 15 was admitted into evidence prior and contains the discipline stages. Chief Zormier stated Section D. covers the progressive discipline policies and noted he was unable to find specific policy at this time regarding when an Officer or Officer’s family is a victim of a crime but stated the officers are taught generally the need to have another officer investigate the criminal activity alleged when it involves a specific Officer or his family. Attorney Cooper asked if Officer Homoky was the only officer ever to run family members through the IDACS system. Upon objection by Mr. Whitten, Hearing Officer Meyer instructed the Board as to the Guilty and Penalty portions of a trial and this being an Administrative Hearing, the phases are done at the same time and certain questions may be permitted. Chief Zormier stated he was not aware of another officer running a family member through the system but there was a dispatch employee who had done so. Attorney Cooper noted that the dispatch employee is now a police officer and Chief Zormier agreed. Questioning followed regarding when the investigation of Officer Homoky was conducted by Jeremy Ogden and Chief Zormier stated in 2011 and 2012. Chief Zormier noted that the old rules would have applied during the investigation but the new rules apply as to procedures. Chief Zormier also testified upon questioning by Mr. Cooper that information Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 8  can be obtained in the officer’s squad cars through the computer in the car which has access to IDACS and NCIC. Attorney Whitten asked Chief Zormier to review the classifications of offenses in the disciplinary procedures and Chief Zormier noted that theft is one of the offenses listed as is engaging in immoral conduct and these are considered a category 3 offense with the potential punishment up to and including dismissal for a single occurrence. Chief Zormier may be called to testify at a future date during this hearing. The Board took a recess as they waited for the next witness to arrive and reconvened at 3:20 p.m. Rodney Pineda: Attorney Mindel called Mr. Pineda to the witness stand and the Court Reporter swore him in. Mr. Pineda testified as to the traffic stop done by Officer Williams that started near City Ball Park and the stop actually occurred in the parking lot of Hobart Lumber near the bike trail on Main Street. Mr. Pineda stated that Officer Williams made the stop and Officers Homoky and Ciesielski arrived shortly thereafter with Officer Homoky arriving while Officer Williams was searching the vehicle. He stated that Officer Williams searched his vehicle the first time and Officers Williams and Ciesielski searched for his money after Officer Homoky had left the scene when he told them the $20 was missing and then Officer Homoky came back to the scene and pulled out a black wallet from his back right pocket and handed him $20. Upon questioning by Mr. Cooper, Mr. Pineda stated he did not give the officers permission to search the vehicle and he told Bill Shane that he was shaking and angry that the officers had searched his vehicle. Mr. Pineda also stated the officers had searched his backpack during the search of the car and he did not see Officer Williams dispose of any drugs. Mr. Mindel asked if Mr. Pineda was sure it was Officer Homoky that gave him the $20 and Mr. Pineda stated he was certain of it. The Board asked a question of Mr. Pineda through Hearing Officer Meyer: who did Mr. Pineda say was the second officer on the scene and Mr. Pineda answered that it was Officer Ciesielski. This witness is subject to recall for additional questioning at a future date and was told the next hearing was set for September 30th at 9:00 a.m. Hearing Officer Meyer stated that is the end of testimony for today and the Hearing in is recess and will reconvene on Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 9:00 a.m. with the full Board, asking the Attorney’s to arrive at 8:30 a.m. for any pre-hearing matters that need to be considered. The hearing recessed at 3:40 p.m. SEPTEMBER 30, 2015: Hearing Officer Meyer placed the meeting on the record at 9:00 a.m. without the Board present. Attorney Dan Whitten, Attorney Adam Mindel and Attorney Ken Elwood, representing the City of Hobart Police Department were present. Attorney Christopher Cooper, representing Officer Kirk Homoky was also present along with his Law Clerk Luis Gonzalez. Police Chief Rick Zormier was present. Officer Kirk Homoky was not present. Also present: Clerk-Treasurer Longer, Court Reporter from Boss Reporting and Video-Record Reporter from Hobart Police Department. Pre-Hearing Matters: Mr. Cooper provided an oral Offer of Proof regarding Mattie Homoky and requested Exhibit 36 and Exhibit 121 be entered into the record. These exhibits were entered into the record but affirmed as excluded from the evidence presented by prior ruling of the Hearing Officer. The Board of Works Members were brought into the Council Chambers at 9:20 a.m. Present: Mayor Snedecor, Rich Lain, Tom Ehrhardt. The Mayor called the continuation of the Special Meeting to order followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Mr. Snedecor then turned the hearing over to Hearing Officer Meyer. Petitioner's Case continued: Hearing Officer Meyer asked the Petitioner to continue with their case. Attorney Elwood stated the Petitioner rests, reserving the right to call rebuttal witnesses. Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 9 Respondent's Request for a Directed Finding in favor of Respondent Homoky: Attorney Cooper stated that witness Mattie Homoky was angry and upset since her marriage ended and she no longer has custody of their children and much of what she provided in her testimony was not true. Mr. Cooper also stated the $20 taken from Mr. Pineda's vehicle may have been taken by one of the other officers at the scene, noting that Mr. Pineda filed a complaint with the Hobart Police Department regarding the conduct of Officer Williams and Officer Ciesielski related to the traffic stop. Mr. Cooper stated it is the position of the Respondent that the evidence does not provide a basis for the hearing and requested the Board rule in favor of Officer Homoky. Hearing Officer Meyer stated the Board will take the Motion for a Directed Finding under advisement and will discuss the matter in Executive Session. Respondent's Case: Witnesses for the Respondent were called and individually sworn as they took the stand: Thomas D. Smith, Retired FBI and Chicago Operations Investigator, provided a video testimony taken on September 16, 2015. Hearing Officer Meyer, Attorney Cooper and Attorney Mindel were all present at the taping of the testimony. Mr. Smith provided information regarding his written reports, stating he had reviewed the reports written by Officer Jeremy Odgen and was of the opinion that Officer Ogden was not impartial as to his handling of the case in that the Garrity Rights were provided to Officer Homoky but not to other officers interviewed. Mr. Smith stated he found certain items to be missing from the report which indicated an impartial investigation did not take place. He also noted that any one of the officers could have taken the $20 from Mr. Pineda's vehicle. Attorney Mindel questioned Mr. Smith regarding various methods of conducting internal interviews and Mr. Smith stated that there is more than one method of interviewing and a joint internal investigation allows the two investigating officers to rely on one another to obtain the information, as was the case with Officer Ciszewski conducting some interviews in this case. Attorney Cooper questioned Mr. Smith as to his report on the Stardust Bowl investigation. Mr. Smith stated he had noted in his report that Mr. Barton of Stardust Bowl wanted the funds returned but cannot explain why there was a 2 1/2 year gap before he began attempts to collect the funds. Mr. Smith also noted that Mattie Homoky's interview about the Stardust Bowl checks was not recorded, Officer Homoky was not initially interviewed regarding the checks and no forensics were done on the checks that were processed, only that Mattie Homoky told Officer Ogden that she had signed 4 and Kirk had signed 3. Mr. Smith stated that Officer Homoky was given his Garrity Rights a few days later and Officer Ogden determined he was lying, seemingly based upon Officer Homoky's pauses and delays in answering questions. Attorney Cooper requested Document 53, Mr. Smith's Report on the Probable Cause Affidavit, and Document 57, Mr. Smith's Report on the Allegations, Complaints and Completed Internal Investigations Detective Summary of Jeremy Ogden along with Respondent's Exhibit 1-5, the Resume of Thomas Smith and his reports, be admitted. Upon objection, Hearing Officer Meyer admitted only Respondent's Exhibit 1, the resume of Mr. Smith. The other exhibits were made a part of the record, not admitted as evidence. Mr. Smith also noted when questioned that little direction had been given to Officer Ogden as to conducting an internal investigation and the reports have remained unchanged and not corrected. Attorney Mindel questioned Mr. Smith's assessment that the copies of the Stardust Checks have no value and Mr. Smith responded that a handwriting analysis cannot be completed with copies of checks. Hearing Officer Meyer explained to the Board that the factual basis for not being able to complete a handwriting analysis with a copy of a document is that the originals show the pressure indentations of the signature. He also noted that a wife can generally recognize the handwriting of her spouse. Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 10 A brief recess was taken at 11:30 a.m. to wait for the arrival of the next witness. The hearing reconvened at 11:40 a.m. with all parties present. Jeremy Ogden, Detective Sergeant with the Hobart Police Department, discussed the internal investigation he conducted with regard to Officer Homoky, stating he met with Mattie Homoky and provided her with a digital recorder to record conversations she might have with Officer Homoky. He noted that the only conversation recorded was the initial one when he was present with Mattie. Attorney Cooper questioned Officer Ogden regarding conversations he had with Dan Barton of Stardust Bowl. Officer Ogden, upon referring to his report, stated he talked with Mr. Barton on November 28, 2012 when he took a report of theft of money from Stardust Bowl upon the request of Det. Sgt. Dave Evans. Officer Ogden stated Mr. Barton told him that Officer Homoky had cashed checks from Stardust Bowl that he was not entitled to for time not worked as security. Attorney Cooper then questioned Officer Ogden about any personal knowledge he may have about the traffic stop of Rodney Pineda. Officer Ogden stated he had no personal knowledge as he was not present at the time of the stop. Officer Ogden stated he spoke with Mr. Pineda initially for about two minutes last spring when Attorney Cooper was looking for him. Officer Ogden also stated, per his report, he interviewed Officer Ken Williams and Officer Christopher Ciesielski on November 15, 2012 about the traffic stop that occurred on September 23, 2010. Attorney Elwood stated he had no questions for the witness at this time but requested the witness be subject to recall. Dan Barton, General Manager of Stardust Bowl II, testified that a glitch in the software system caused 16 paychecks to be issued to Kirk Homoky in 2010, seven of which were negotiated by Officer Homoky. He noted that it is common practice for family members to pick up checks for the security officers or other Hobart Police officers may pick them up for each other. Mr. Barton stated only one attempt was made to contact Officer Homoky regarding the checks and he was confident when he called the number listed in the employment file of Officer Homoky that he had reached Officer Homoky’s personalized voice-mail and left a message. Attorney Elwood questioned whether Mr. Barton had provided the employment application as requested by a subpoena to the parties when his deposition was taken and Mr. Barton stated he had provided the information at that time. Hearing Officer Meyer stated the Board had a question of Mr. Barton: Did Stardust pre-pay their employees prior to work being performed? Mr. Barton stated they did not. Attorney Elwood questioned what Mr. Barton considered “personalized voice-mail” and Mr. Barton stated it was a human voice, not robotic but he did not recall if the voice-mail included Officer Homoky’s name. There being no further questions, the witness was excused. Mr. Meyer recessed the hearing for lunch, asking the Attorneys to remain for some matters. The Board left the room at 1:45 p.m., while the attorneys remained. Attorney Cooper provided an oral Offer of Proof regarding Dan Barton, referring to Mr. Barton’s deposition (Document 43) items contained therein. Discussion followed regarding the remaining witnesses Attorney Cooper intended to call in this case. Mr. Meyer recessed the Attorneys for a lunch break. The hearing was reconvened at 2:45 p.m. will all parties present. Hearing Officer Meyer stated there would be no further testimony offered today and the hearing would reconvene on Friday, October 2nd at 9:00 a.m. in this same room as previously scheduled. The Board was excused and left the room and he asked the Attorneys to remain for some additional matters. Attorney Cooper provided an oral Offer of Proof regarding Denise Talcott and requested that Exhibit 125 be included in the record. Mr. Meyer recessed the matter for the day, asking the Attorneys to return at or before 9:00 a.m. on Friday, October 2nd to continue the hearing. The hearing recessed at 2:55 p.m. Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 11 OCTOBER 2, 2015 Mayor Snedecor called the meeting to order at 9:09 a.m. followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. Present: Mayor Snedecor, Rich Lain, Tom Ehrhardt. Also present: Hearing Officer Meyer, Attorney Dan Whitten, Attorney Ken Elwood, Attorney Adam Mindel, all representing the City of Hobart Police Department; Attorney Christopher Cooper and his Law Clerk Luis Gonzalez, representing Officer Kirk Homoky; Police Chief Rick Zormier; Clerk-Treasurer Longer; Court Reporter from Boss Reporting and Video-Record Reporter from the Hobart Police Department. Mr. Snedecor turned the meeting over to Hearing Officer Meyer. Witnesses were asked to leave the room. Respondent’s Case continued: Witnesses for the Respondent were called and individually sworn as they took the stand: Jeffery White, former Chief of Hobart Police Department from March 2012 until mid- January 2013, upon questioning stated he had supervised Jeremy Ogden and was aware of the investigation taking place by Officer Ogden and that Mattie Homoky was a witness in the case. He stated over objection of counsel that he had no intimate relationship with Mattie Homoky. There being no additional questions, the witness was excused. James Paoletti, Chief of Police in Crete, Illinois, testified as an expert witness, noting that he was being paid for his testimony from the National Fraternal Order of Police Legal Defense Fund. He stated he interviewed Officer Homoky and several individuals and relied on his experience of 45 years of law enforcement to form opinions regarding this case. As to the traffic stop, Mr. Paoletti stated concerns regarding the search of the vehicle and the handling of the $20 and that nothing showed that Officer Homoky took the $20. As to IDACS documents, Mr. Paoletti stated that as a police officer, Officer Homoky has a duty to investigate a possible crime being committed. He noted that some items in IDACS are public record and that the expectation of an officer’s duty if a family member is involved is to share the information with another officer to investigate. When questioned about his opinion regarding the Stardust Bowl checks, Mr. Paoletti noted there is no evidence that Officer Homoky picked up the checks or deposited them. Attorney Cooper provided Exhibits 84-4 thru 16, various Evaluations and Reports from Officer Homoky’s Personnel File, and Exhibits 84-A1 thru 14, Military Records from Officer Homoky, all admitted as evidence by previous ruling of the Hearing Officer. Mr. Paoletti provided an overview for each record. Attorney Cooper asked Mr. Paoletti to define progressive discipline and Mr. Paoletti stated it should begin with a warning and counseling and have a progression up to possible termination if necessary. Attorney Cooper stated he had no further questions at this time. The Board recessed at 10:35 a.m. and resumed at 10:55 a.m. with all parties present. James Paoletti (continued): Attorney Whitten questioned Mr. Paoletti about whether certain offenses rise directly to termination and Mr. Paoletti stated they may. The Board questioned Mr. Paoletti as to whether there would be occasions that progressive discipline could begin at various levels and Mr. Paoletti stated that would be possible. There being no further questions, the witness was excused. Mattie Homoky Robbins: Mr. Cooper asked if Ms. Robbins was present as a result of subpoena and whether she had brought the cell phone also included in the subpoena. Ms. Robbins stated she received the subpoena but she no longer has the cell phone. Mr. Cooper questioned Ms. Robbins as to whether she admitted to Officer Ogden that she deposited the checks into the joint bank account and she stated she did not. Mr. Cooper requested the Probable Cause Affidavit be moved into evidence and Mr. Meyer stated it would be admitted Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 12  with specific redactions. Mr. Cooper will provide a redacted version at a later date. There being no further questions, the witness was excused. Sandra Lynn Homoky, mother of Officer Kirk Homoky, was called by Attorney Cooper. Attorney Elwood objected as she had not been disclosed as a witness. The Board was excused from the hearing at 11:00 a.m. and returned to the hearing at 11:05 a.m. Attorney Meyer stated he would allow Sandra Homoky to testify. Sandra Lynn Homoky (continued), offered information as to when her granddaughter received the cell phone from Mattie Homoky, stating it was shortly after August 21, 2010 at her grandson’s birthday party. She noted it was a pay-as-you-go cell phone and within 1 week the minutes had been used. Attorney Elwood asked when Ms. Homoky had first spoken with Attorney Cooper regarding the phone and Ms. Homoky stated the conversation took place on Wednesday, September 30, 2015. She also stated she had talked with her son about this case at various times and had seen some documents from her son throughout the course of this case. There being no additional questions, the witness was excused. Rod Gonzalez, Sergeant with the Hobart Police Department, stated he is currently a Patrol Supervisor and Officer Homoky had worked as a Patrol Officer under his supervision. Officer Gonzalez stated that Officer Homoky was a good officer and good producer. Officer Gonzalez stated that while under his supervision, he had no reason to question the integrity of Officer Homoky. There being no additional questions, the witness was excused. Jeremy Ogden (recalled), stated he signed the Affidavit after the case was filed by the Prosecutor. Discussion followed as to allowance of the Affidavit being put into Evidence. Mr. Cooper presented Respondent’s Exhibits 51 and 128 and Mr. Meyer stated these are part of the record but not in evidence. Officer Ogden read a portion of a document into the record stating that Mattie Homoky admitted to him that she most likely deposited the checks into the bank. There being no further questions, the witness was excused. The meeting recessed at 11:36 a.m. to wait for the next witness and reconvened at 11:47 a.m. with all members present. Stephanie Homoky, Officer Homoky’s current wife, testified that she resides with Officer Homoky and his three children from his prior marriage and her two daughters who are away at college. Attorney Cooper questioned Mrs. Homoky regarding newspaper articles from September or October 2012 about Philip Crowder being involved in an incident. Mrs. Homoky stated she knew Philip Crowder as Mattie Homoky’s boyfriend at the time and he would come with Mattie to pick up the children for visitation. She stated she had also “Googled” Mr. Crowder’s name and had found other information on the internet regarding some of his criminal history. Attorney Whitten asked Mrs. Homoky if there would be an impact on her if Officer Homoky were to lose his job and she stated that all Kirk ever wanted was to be a police officer but there would be no impact on her financially if he lost his job. There being no additional questions, the witness was excused. Attorney Cooper stated he had numerous Offers of Proof and a Judicial Notice to present outside the hearing of the Board. The Board was excused from the hearing at 11:58 a.m. Attorney Cooper requested Judicial Notice regarding the IDACS information and Hearing Officer Meyer allowed Respondent’s Exhibit for Judicial Notice #1-7 to be made part of the record, stating that these are public documents but prior orders issued by him prevented these from being introduced into evidence. Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 13 The Attorneys recessed from 12:20 p.m. and reconvened at 12:43 p.m. without the Board present. Attorney Cooper presented an oral Offer of Proof regarding Tim Manteuffel, requesting that Exhibit 126 and Respondent’s Exhibit 1 as to Offer of Proof on Tim Manteuffel be made part of the record. Hearing Officer Meyer stated these documents are not in evidence but are admitted as to the record. Attorney Cooper presented an oral Offer of Proof regarding Mattie Homoky Robbins and her facebook relationship and requested that Respondent’s Exhibit 1 as to Offer of Proof on Mattie Robbins be made part of the record. Hearing Officer Meyer stated this document is not in evidence but is included in the record. Attorney Cooper presented an oral Offer of Proof regarding Brian Snedecor requesting that Respondent’s Exhibit 1 – 4 as to Offer of Proof on Brian Snedecor along with Document 80 and Document 39, previously filed by Attorney Cooper be made part of the record. Hearing Officer Meyer stated these documents are all to be included in the record. Attorney Cooper presented an oral Offer of Proof regarding David Grissom requesting that the deposition of David Grissom be made part of the record. Hearing Officer Meyer stated the Deposition of David Grissom was made a part of the record under the Offer of Proof regarding Brian Snedecor and labeled Respondent’s Exhibit 2 as to Offer of Proof on Brian Snedecor. Attorney Cooper presented an oral Offer of Proof regarding Camille Winicky requesting the sworn statement provided be made part of the record. Hearing Officer Meyer stated Respondent’s Exhibit 1 as to Offer of Proof on Camille Winicky is included in the record. Attorney Cooper presented an oral Offer of Proof regarding Bruno Winicky and requested his sworn statement be made part of the record. Hearing Officer Meyer stated Respondent’s Exhibit 1 as to Offer of Proof on Bruno Winicky is included in the record. Attorney Cooper presented an oral Offer of Proof regarding Debbie Ogden and requested the facebook postings be labeled as Respondent’s Exhibit 1-3 as to Offer of Proof on Debbie Ogden and entered into the record. Hearing Officer Meyer stated these documents are all included in the record. Attorney Cooper presented an oral Offer of Proof regarding Jeremy Ogden, requesting that the deposition of Jeremy Ogden be included in the record as Respondent’s Exhibit 1 as to Offer of Proof on Jeremy Ogden and that the Interview with Mattie Robbins be included as Respondent’s Exhibit 2 as to Offer of Proof on Jeremy Ogden. Hearing Officer Meyer stated these documents are included in the record. Attorney Cooper presented an oral Offer of Proof requesting the Exhibit 128 be admitted as part of the record. Discussion followed and Hearing Officer Meyer stated that Exhibit 128 as Redacted are included in the record. The Board was brought back into the hearing room at 2:05 p.m. Hearing Officer Meyer informed the Board that the Evidence has all been presented and noted that arguments had been heard regarding Judicial Notice, stating that there is some accessibility by the public as to criminal activities. He asked for closing statements from the parties, advising the Board that the lawyer’s statements are not evidence and the burden of proof lies with the Petitioner. Closing Statements: Attorney Whitten provided his closing statement, reviewing the three Counts included in the Disciplinary Action filed by Chief Zormier. He noted that the decision of the Board is not based on “beyond a reasonable doubt” but on a “preponderance of the evidence” presented. Attorney Whitten asked that the Board determine the evidence presented makes the discipline for Officer Homoky’s employment terminable. Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 14 Attorney Cooper presented his closing statement, noting inconsistencies in statements given by certain witnesses, bringing into question their truthfulness. He asked the Board to allow Officer Homoky to go back to work immediately. Hearing Officer Meyer’s Instructions to the Board: Hearing Officer Meyer reiterated that it is the Board’s duty, having heard the evidence and the arguments of Counsel, to determine whether or not Officer Homoky committed one or more or none of the violations that he is charged with; the burden of proof is on Chief Zormier; and the decision is based on the preponderance of evidence, meaning that it is more likely than not. The Board members are to be fair and impartial in their deliberations and are only to consider the evidence and exhibits presented during this hearing ruled as admissible and not the statements of the attorneys from either side on this case. He continued that any questions that were stricken from the record are to be disregarded by the Board and any questions asked that were objected to and sustained should also be disregarded. He noted it is solely the Board’s duty to determine the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given to the testimony and the exhibits offered. He continued that there were expert witnesses called in this case to possibly help the Board understand things that may be beyond the experience, training and knowledge of the Board, and because of the experience and training of the expert witnesses, they are allowed to provide opinions which other non-expert witnesses are not allowed to do. He continued that it is the Board’s duty to treat the testimony of experts the same way as you would treat the testimony of lay-witnesses in so far as determining their credibility and what weight you would give to their testimony. Hearing Officer Meyer stated the Board would now go in to Executive Session as previously noticed to discuss the matters pending before them and the evidence that has been submitted. There will be no final action and no vote taken in Executive Session. The decision of the Board will be made at the next regularly scheduled public meeting of the Board scheduled for Wednesday, October 7, 2015 at 4:00 p.m. in this room. The hearing adjourned at 2:45 p.m. ____________________________ ______________________________ SECRETARY PRESIDING OFFICER Special Meeting Board of Works Minutes/Homoky Hearing: begins August 26, 2015; concludes October 2, 2015 Page 15