Testimony wraps in Moore hearing

CHILLICOTHE – The second day of former Chillicothe Police Chief Roger Moore's termination appeal hearing could prove pivotal in determining his chances of getting his job back.

The city's primary argument to uphold Moore's termination revolved around Moore's apparent lack of regret for his role in several past incidents and an inability to follow the direction of superiors. Moore's argument questioned whether performing his duty as chief should override an order from the mayor.

The hearing got off to something of a contentious start Thursday morning with regard to the first witnesses of the day.

When Moore's attorney, Paige McMahon, began to mount Moore's defense, city attorney Patrick Kasson objected because he said he had not been given prior notice that three Chillicothe police officers were going to be asked to testify.

The board designated by the Civil Service Commission to hear the appeal called for a recess shortly after testimony had begun to allow Kasson the chance to question the officers before they would take the stand.

Once testimony resumed, Officer Bud Lytle admitted under questioning from McMahon that he had not seen Moore being disrespectful to Chillicothe City School District Superintendent Jon Saxton during any discussions regarding school safety and explained to the panel how he and the former chief had worked to make the schools safer.

Lytle also said Moore was kept informed about all significant developments in discussions establishing a school safety plan, even though the chief was not always involved in those meetings.

The questions about the involvement with the school district were tied to allegations from the city that Moore had been disrespectful to Saxton in a letter he sent the superintendent expressing his displeasure about not being directly involved in developing a school safety plan.

His failure to provide what Mayor Jack Everson considered a sincere apology to Saxton and to Ross County Sheriff George Lavender for a similar letter complaining about the sheriff not informing him of an undercover operation in the city was the culminating incident that led to the chief being placed on leave and then terminated in August for what the city said was insubordination, malfeasance and poor behavior.

Moore, who offered testimony in the first day of the hearing Wednesday, was recalled to testify Thursday. He said he and Saxton had only one issue they disagreed on after the safety plan was completed. He felt he had to send something to Saxton after no draft of the plan had been sent to him for months and that his biggest concern about the plan was that he felt it did not offer adequate preparation for an active shooter situation.

Kasson, in his examination of Lytle, spent time discussing a verbal altercation the ex-chief had with another individual outside the Cozy Inn while off duty.

The city's attorney played a tape the captured that incident and asked Lytle whether Moore had acted correctly in defusing the situation or if he heard at any point in the tape anyone identify themselves as a police officer.

When Moore was recalled to testify, McMahon urged him to talk about the Cozy Inn incident. He said he had been confronted by his date's ex-boyfriend's best friend, who was drunk, and that he used words that were "effective enough for me to get in my truck and for me to leave." Moore said that even though he did use harsh words, he did not touch the man.

Moore was in tears during his testimony, and Kasson asked him why he was expressing remorse for the first time at the hearing. Kasson also pressed Moore on why he had not called the police.

"If you are in that situation, you don't have a badge, you don't have a gun, you don't have a Taser," Moore said. "All I had was my words."

McMahon, with his second witness, Chillicothe Detective Twila Goble, focused his questioning on the the crux of Moore's letter to Lavender – failure to file deconfliction reports with the police department to inform officials of sheriff's office operations within the police department's jurisdiction.

Goble said the incident that prompted Moore's letter to the sheriff was not the first time the sheriff's office had failed to follow deconfliction protocols. The protocols are in place to keep departments from inadvertently taking action that interferes with an ongoing operation.

Goble, under questioning, admitted she and Moore are personal friends, and she disputed claims the chief had ever called Lavender power hungry, paranoid or crazy. Lavender claimed during testimony Wednesday that Moore had done that in front of both police department and sheriff's office staff and had said that deconfliction reports do not equate to asking for permission to operate in another jurisdiction.

Goble said Moore's actions during the Cozy Inn incident were not in accordance with how police are trained.

McMahon's next witness was Detective Charles Campbell. Campbell also said he had not witnessed Moore calling Lavender power hungry, paranoid or crazy, despite having been involved in the meeting during which Moore is alleged to have said the words.

During his testimony, Moore mentioned Everson had not made him serve a one-day suspension, as publicly announced. Moore said the mayor only brought up the suspension when he called a meeting with Moore and Safety Service Director Michael Green after the Gazette requested Moore's personnel records.

On Wednesday, Everson said he did not make Moore serve the suspension because he felt it would cast the city in a negative light and defended his decision to require the chief to create the Operation Standup program to combat drugs in the city.

Moore also said Wednesday that had he known his job was being threatened, he may have written the apology letters differently. But during Thursday's testimony, Moore said, "(Everson) told me I could either write those letters as ordered or he would take my badge."

Kasson argued that Moore's most recent statement implied knowledge that his job was threatened, and he wrote "purposefully inflammatory" letters anyway.

For the city's closing argument, Kasson painted a picture of Moore's alleged past misconduct as a public figure and his inability to show regret for his actions.

"He wrote those letters and it would have blown up the relationships," Kasson said. "What choice did the mayor have? ... The letter from the mayor was clear, he wasn't to apologize because he wanted kids to be safe, he wasn't to apologize because he wanted the officers to be safe. He was to apologize for the disrespect. "

McMahon's closing argument in Moore's defense showed Moore's proven involvement in keeping schools safe and brought to question whether Moore is ultimately responsible to an elected figure such as Everson or to the Civil Service Department.

"The city's argument is that they should be allowed to throw out Chief Moore for trash after all his work because right or wrong, he didn't do what the mayor said," McMahon said.

The panel hearing the case has asked for closing arguments to be offered orally with any case law arguments to be submitted in writing within the next week. The panel also asked for clarification on whether Moore should have followed the police department's employee conduct rules or the city's.

Once all supplementary materials have been submitted, the panel will release a recommendation to the Civil Service Commission, which has the final say.