Advertisement

Sanilac County Sheriff's Sgt. Jim Wagester filed for binding arbitration after his labor complaint was denied on the county level. He claimed he was demoted without just cause from the rank of lieutenant by Sheriff Virgil Strickler and Undersheriff Garry Biniecki, and wanted the demotion overturned.

Wagester, a 17-year veteran with the sheriff department, lost his lieutenant bars on Aug. 27, 2007 for violations of the department's Standards of Conduct regarding "Public Perception" and "Common Sense."

The violations were the result of Wagester's hiring two work release prisoners from the county jail who were key witnesses in a major burglary and safe-breaking case. Wagester was the lead investigator in the case that had not gone to trial when the inmates worked on his rental properties.

The officer's actions became public during the July 2007 trial of Thomas Earls, and it led to an immediate decision by Circuit Judge Donald Teeple to prohibit members of his staff or sheriff department officers from hiring prisoners on work release. Teeple also admonished the sheriff for the situation, and this, combined with newspaper publicity led Strickler to request an outside investigation by the Michigan Sheriff Association's Mission Team, which determined Wagester had violated policy.

Paul Jacobs, an arbitrator with the American Arbitration Association, announced his opinion last Friday. Jacobs denied Wagester's grievance based upon testimony by Strickler, Wagester and former jail administrator Mike Redman, at a hearing on June 17.

Strickler faulted Wagester for going outside the chain of command when he sought Redman's permission to hire the prisoners in August 2005. The request should have been made to the sheriff or undersheriff, who would have denied it, Strickler indicated. He also testified that Redman did not have the authority to approve the request, because Wagester was assigned to road patrol and wasn't under his supervision. Strickler characterized Wagester's actions as "shopping for an answer to get the one he wanted." Strickler said Redman might also have been have been disciplined had he not resigned from the department.

Jacobs stated, "The Grievant (Wagester) testified that he understood the Jail Lieutenant (Redman) to be the next officer in the chain of command, and that it had never been explained what the chain of command was."

Redman, who left the department to become police chief in Yale, testified, "he was capable of commanding anyone beneath him, and that he had never been questioned when he gave an order to anyone on the Road Patrol."

During the period the prisoners worked the Wagester, they had only received court-ordered work release for a contractor in Brown City.

"Even if chain of command were not an issue, there is the issue of properly obtaining a court order for the release of an inmate to a designated employer," Jacobs stated. "There is sufficient testimony on the record to indicate the proper method of obtaining work release orders. The Grievant, a 17-year veteran totally immersed in the Department's affairs, must have known."

Wagester testified that "he was solicited by (one of the inmates) to repair decks on his rental properties, and that he was told by (the inmate) that he was on work release. The Grievant then went to the Jail Lieutenant, believing him to be in contact with the judges, and did not intentionally avoid the Sheriff, stating that he knew of no policy regarding to whom a request for a work release inmate should be made."

Jacobs stated, "The Grievent... acknowledged that he did not monitor (the prisoners) while working on his property; he could not recollect whether or not he had issued them an Internal Revenue Form 1099; he did not know the hourly rate that they were paid for their services. He did acknowledge that only the judge has the authority to release an inmate for work release."

In his testimony, Redman "emphasized that he would not have allowed the Grievant's request to have (the prisoners) released to work on his property had he been told that they were beyond the restriction of the Court Order which provided they could only work for the Brown City contractor."

"The former jail administrator's testimony clearly places blame for the improper release of (the inmates) at the foot of the Grievant," Jacobs stated. "...had he known that (the inmates) were not being released to work for the contractor as per the Sanilac County Court Order, he would not have released them to the Grievant."

Jacobs stated, "I shall not try to ascribe any motives to the Grievant's actions other than what the Mission Team called a lack of 'common sense.'"

Jacobs concluded, "...There is no denying the conclusion that the Grievant made a terrible misjudgment which, but for the intervention of the newspapers, the prosecuting attorney and the Circuit Court, would have gone unpunished. However, now that the matter has come to light and the punishment imposed, it is not unreasonable that the punishment was proper. Therefore, the grievance is denied."