An all-day due process hearing on the termination of former Smithville police chief Friday resulted in a 3-2 vote to uphold Mayor Jimmy Poss' decision to fire Randy Caplinger.
While testimony during the seven-hour hearing included accusations of bid rigging, interference in police business and confusion in the department, whether the vote is binding became the final concern. Attorneys from both sides called a plethora of witnesses to testify, and many, including Caplinger himself, opined that the former chief was being singled out for less wrongdoing than many employees at city hall and members of city government, and that there had been an ongoing effort to undermine his authority at the department.
Several members of the police department, testified against Caplinger, saying that there was often “confusion” in the department, and that he created “hard feelings” between members of the force by ordering supervisors to take certain actions, and then failing to support those actions.
Aldermen Gayla Hendrix, Danny Washer, and Jason Murphy voted to support the termination, while Shawn Jacobs and Josh Miller opposed the move.
Caplinger’s representation, Sarah Cripps and Brandon Cox, along with two aldermen, opined that the city charter requires a two thirds majority, or four out of five votes, to uphold the termination. While the attorneys said their interpretation of the charter required four out of five votes, and aldermen Jacobs and Miller told the assembly that they had consulted legal representatives of the Municipal Technical Advisory Service (MTAS), and had also been told that the charter required four votes to settle the matter, city officials disagreed.
Section 3.01, of the charter reads: "All officers and employees of the city, except as otherwise specifically provided by ordinance, shall be appointed and removed by the Mayor, but only with the approval of at least two-thirds majority vote of the council present voting upon the appointment or removal, and the employees shall be under the direction and control of the mayor."
City Attorney Vester Parsley, however pointed out another area (Section 3.08) in which the charter seems to contradict Section 3.01 that calls for a majority of the board to approve the mayor’s dismissal of employees. "My contention is that a simple majority would be enough, the courts may have to decide that issue," Parsley said.
Section 3.08 reads: "The appointment and promotion of employees of the city shall be on a basis of merit, considering technical knowledge and education required to perform satisfactorily the work, experience in the particular or similar line of work and administrative or supervisory qualifications. The mayor, or the city administrator, if established by the board, may, with the approval of a majority of the board, make appointments, promotions, transfers, demotions, suspensions, and removal of all employees."
Jacobs recommended that the council heed the MTAS opinion, and voiced his displeasure with situations that made him feel that some other city officials had conspired against him. "I called MTAS Legal Consultant Melissa Ashburn on the way to the meeting today,” he said. “She texted me right before the meeting, and said that according to Section 3.01 of the Smithville charter, firing requires a two thirds vote of council members present. If five are present, this would require four votes to fire. If four are present, it would require three votes to fire. I would submit that is why many of you conspired not to have me present here today. I think we have to go with the MTAS legal opinion. I don't think we have a choice. I'm not saying this because of Randy Caplinger. If it were a dog catcher, police officer, someone in public works, or any employee of the City of Smithville, I would take the same stand. This is a farce. This is a circus. You all have tried to act without the inclusion of the entire board and certainly without the scrutiny of the public of the City of Smithville. I am offended. It was a big hardship upon me today to make this meeting. I think that by being a long-standing member of the board and vice mayor, I deserve more respect than this. Certainly Mr. Caplinger, who is the person in question at this point, also deserves more respect, regardless of his guilt or innocence of these charges." Jacobs said.
Alderman Gayla Hendrix took exception to Jacobs’ remarks, saying: "Mr. Jacobs, I would like to say I do not appreciate you reprimanding this board, saying we didn't want you included here. This has been a hardship for all of us, not just yourself. I've missed a full day's work, just as these other board members have. You keep implying that the rest of us have some kind of vendetta against you. I don't understand where that comes from, but that is certainly not the case, or it's not with me. I can only speak for myself."
"I wasn't necessarily referring to you", Jacobs replied.
"Well that's what you have been doing for the last several meetings and I do not appreciate it," Hendrix shot back.
"No ma'am, I have just referred to some members," Jacobs said.
The allegations made by Cripps and Cox included testimony that policemen had been awarded bids to work on city equipment, and did the jobs on city time, and that one alderman had attempted to interfere in the arrest of his son in law.
Responding to accusations that he had attempted to prevent the arrest of a family member for DUI, Alderman Danny Washer told the assembly, "I don't feel like I did anything wrong. If I did I'll apologize, but Mr. Caplinger and every officer in this room or that I spoke to or dealt with have all told me that if there is anything I can do for you, let me know, if I can help you in any way. I told them the same thing. I'd do the same thing again tomorrow. I did nothing wrong in trying to help my son in law. I didn't use my influence or my power. I don't care what anybody says. The only thing I said was I'm Danny Washer and he is my son in law. If I can take him home and maybe keep him from losing his job I'd appreciate it. Nobody knew I was calling the sheriff except me. I called him and he talked to his officer. I again talked to the sheriff, and he said I am supporting my officer. I am backing him. I said I understand, no hard feelings. I just wanted to try and help my son in law. If I am wrong in doing that then I am not much of a daddy, step dad, father in law, husband, or friend if I can't try to help you. If Randy (Caplinger) had been working that night, I would have called him. I just knew who was working. He always told me just like every other officer, if there is anything I can ever do to help you, call me. That's what I did. If I'm wrong and I broke the law I'm sorry. I didn't know I was. I was just trying to help my family, or I'd help a friend the same way," Washer said.
The mayor also addressed also voiced his opinion on the criticism leveled at him during the hearing.
"There has been a lot of talk today,” Poss said. “I'm like Danny. I've been worn out. Most of it was unwarranted. I didn't know I was going to be on trial today. But evidently I am."
Previous to casting her vote, Hendrix said that while she had nothing against Caplinger personally, she felt that she should support the termination. "Lack of leadership and loss of morale are the foremost allegations that upset me,” she shared. “We've had testimony of five employees, and most of them have worked for the city for a number of years. I can only imagine how difficult it is to have to come to a hearing like this and give testimony against your boss. It's not easy, and I don't think any of those gentlemen would have done that if they did not feel it was necessary. It does sound like there is a lot of confusion in the department. It actually sounds fairly chaotic. Each department has to have a department head who can be the leadership figure and run it efficiently and effectively. From what I've heard today I don't see that. I love Randy Caplinger as a person, but as a chief of police I'm going to vote with the mayor. We need a change.”
Jacobs said that while he did have concerns with some of the day’s testimony, he could not vote for the termination. "I do not take lightly the concerns of the officers who have had to testify here today,” he said. “I value your opinions very much. I appreciate the job you all do. I am very concerned about what you have had to say here today. Obviously there was quite a bit of confusion in the department, however, I'm not sure it rises to the level of dismissing the chief, especially without these problems having been brought to the full board to begin with. I am also troubled by the fact that we don't have any written reprimands in Chief Caplinger's file, or where the mayor or Mr. (Hunter) Hendrixson, or the police commissioner, have tried to counsel the chief or discipline him in any way. I think if the problems were that severe, and I'm not saying they weren't, but I'm thinking that if they were that severe, then some action should have been taken, and that it should have been documented and placed in a file so that we would have some evidence to go on when we were brought to this hearing here today."
