City commissioner Pervis Brown Jr. defended himself against an accusation that he botched the search for a new police chief by refusing to consider any officers with present or past associations with the Perkins Township Police Department.
“I am concerned over the numerous phone calls I received this (past) week regarding the exclusion of certain candidates from a geographical location,” commissioner Diedre Cole said during Monday's commission meeting, suggesting Brown snubbed the Perkins officers because the Perkins Police Department had investigated or arrested Brown’s son, Pervis Brown III, on several occasions.
Cole's assertion led to a heated 30-minute exchange involving Cole and commissioners Brown and Jeff Smith, who defended the decision to exclude the Perkins officers without explaining why they were excluded.
*
Get Tuesday's Register for more on this story.
Comments
to Reader....how right you are about your assessment of Ms Cole. I truly felf sorry for Mr Brown on Monday night and after seeing what the paper printed today about his son, I felt even worse for him. That mess had nothing whatsoever to do with the committee, their work OR the people of Sandusky and the choices this committee is making for a police chief.
I think this whole ruckus that Ms Cole and fiends are making is a simple matter of personal agenda gone terrible wrong and it stinks like so much unfrigerated fish. (MY OPINON....just saying)
When is this city going to stop putting up with the personal agendas of so many people getting in the way of progress for this City? When is it going to start working together for the good of this city ? It certainly cannot do it with this kind of nonsense going on at commission meetings such as Monday night.
I think Ms Cole owes the committee and Mr Brown an apology.
You are SPOT ON with your anaolgy with what you are saying. I was there and saw exactly what you are talking about. You couldn't be more accurate.
Are you all happy know? You got what you voted for.
Today's e-Paper says that there is a video of the meeting. Where is it? How do you view it?
By the way while I did not hear it first hand, I heard over a month ago that Ms. Cole was pushing for Matthews to be the new Chief. And that he was telling people that he would be the next chief. It would be really nice for someone that heard it first hand to step up and set the record straight as to who promised what.
Commissioners Smith and Hamilton both attested to having a conversation with Ms. Cole last November when she told them of her plan to have Chief Lang fired and replace him with her candidate, who would hold the job temporarily for a year, then be hired as permanent chief.
Now who tainted the process ?
Thanks for the comments Reader, Just Asking and others who have offered their thoughts. The Register staff is working today to "render" the video to a format that can be posted here. That process is a little bit challenging only because the video format used by the city to record the meeting is not compatible with the format used to post videos here at sr.com. It requires a conversion process. We're working on that and expect to be able to post the meeting video today.
During the meeting commissioner Wes Poole asked commissioner Pervis Brown Jr. whether there was any documentation of the work the search committee had done. I don't believe commissioner Brown answered whether there was, or if he would provide it to city commission. Any notes from the various committee meetings would likely be part of the public record, so I don't quite understand why Brown would not provide those notes and other documentation to a city commissioner when he asked, or why he didn't answer that question directly.
What commissioner Cole might have said about the process back in November, and what commissioner Smith said she said, or commissioner Hamilton said she said, really, is nothing more than a "he said, she said." The recollections provided by Smith and Hamilton do seem similar, but I'm just not sure it's relative to the important questions Cole and Poole raised during the meeting. I recall commissioner Cole saying to me she did want local candidates to apply, and she has been a past supporter of hiring local candidates, or at least providing them an opportunity to interview for open positions. I do not recall my conversations with Cole the same way Smith and Hamilton are remembering previous conversations they might have had with her, but, again, I just don't see how any of that matters.
It seems obviouis to me Cole was correct to encourage local candidates to apply given the questions that have arisen about the qualifications of some of the candidates selected for the "Top Five" cut.
The "he said, she said" banter during the meeting strikes me as nothing more than a distraction from the legitimate questions and concerns raised about the search process. It would be better, in my opinion, to simply answer those questions. The biggest ones, it seems, is were members past and present of the Perkins Police Department excluded from consideration for the Sandusky police chief position? Did commissioner Brown mandate that? And why?
The debate on this topic during Monday's city commission meeting got a bit heated, but it was a good debate. As a resident, I'm glad commissioner Cole brought this topic to the public forum. The search for a police chief is just too important, in my opinion, to simply push forward without a thorough and vetted process. I was disappointed the questions Cole and Poole posed weren't answered, and also disppointed with Smith's and Hamilton's avoiding the questions with the "he said, she said" banter.
With that said, commissioner Smith also brought a matter to the public forum regarding whether it makes more sense to invest in the current City Hall building or whether the city should look again at a possible re-location. As a resident, I was pleased Smith brought it forward for a public dialogue, and diappointed he did not get much support for his suggestion a committee be formed to look at it. But perhaps, given the questions about Brown's police cheif search committee, a committee on the City Hall topic might not be the best avenue for that review. I hope Smith continues to push the question in the public forum and the city is able to provide a clear balance sheet for residents on the pros and cons of both options. It's a worthy topic, in my opinion.
The SR editor's observation that we should let data drive the decision on repair/replace City Hall is a rational response to the situation. Having said that - who develops the data and performs the analysis is frankly just as important. It really doesn't take a genius to "statistically" show "facts" that lead to a bad conclusion. Anyone remember "GIGO" or garbage in, garbage out.
Sharon Johnson, noted watchdog of city business and a blogger on this site, commented during the public participation portion of the meeting. Mrs. Johnson attended many of the police search committee meetings and was satisfied the deliberative process was fair and balanced.
@ reader......and Mr Icsman would totally agree with her. In fact, he read the criteria from the city charter after Mr Pool and Ms Cole went on their rant....but it was obvious they were not listening.
This goes to show what happens when a person is elected because of their media exposure, instead of real qualifications. It is very obvious that the SR is on "Dee's" side, even though she is wrong. Time for somebody to get a "real job". I would prefer mine supersized please.
The Wednesday morning pulp version of the Register promised online video on this. It it here somewhere?
@ Mr Westerhold and others.....since I WAS at the meeting and heard the conversations quite clearly...Ms Cole was on a roll about what she wanted. She attacked, quite clearly, the committee and Mr. Brown. She also quite clearly stated that she had spoken to Mr. Hamilton about having Mr. Brown removed from the committee because she did not like the way he was "running it". Mr. Hamilton "refused" to do so. It was at that point that all holy "he%% " broke lose. She also brought up the so called "lack of credendials" of candidates but has not brought them up to the committee at any of the meetings. She has stated she has "looked into the backgrounds of candidates" but brought no proof of same. She said she got phone calls about so called statements about "if you were from Perkins you need not apply". At that point, Mr Pool joined in with virtually the same song and dance. But neither commissioner could bring proof of their complaints.
Mr Smith brought up the conversations with Ms Cole and her attempts to get Mr Mathews placed in as Police Chief and get Chief Lang fired. She called him a liar. Mr Hamilton stated the same conversation with her...stating where and when it took place....she called him a liar. Mr. Brown began to state the same..she called HIM a liar. In short....all are liars but her. (This can be verified by seeing the tape).
Mr Brown took all this in and was a true gentleman and true statemsman. HOWEVER, you can not say the same for Ms Cole, who acted like she didn't get her own way and was not happy about it.
Even Mr Icsman stated the committee was doing what they should, that should be enough ....END OF STORY.....The council set the committee to do a job. Why do they now need to have an explanation from the committe of what is going on and how they made their decisions. Because Cole and Pool have their shorts is a bunch? Too bad. They gave them the job....now live with it.
When the legal council of the city tells you they are following the rules....LIVE WITH IT.
Just because a select few.....Cole and POOL don't like the outcome or the SR thinks they should have notes on their decison and the legal council tells you otherwise....LIVE WITH IT>
For once.....let a committee, selected and authorized to do a job, given the authority to make a decsion and doing their work....albeit slowly.....is in the process of finishing their work.....let them along.
Forget about stirrring the pot. Forget about making the story or lighting the fire.
Your going to get a big story and get your new Chief. That will satisfy most everyone. But you can't please EVERYONE.
Some people in this town need to grow up. Yes, Ms Cole....your job is NOT to solicit it is to govern. Have you not learned your job yet? It is to govern. To make decisions WITH your other commissioners NOT on your own.
Diedre is a native of the District of Columbia and relocated to Sandusky in the early 90's. A BGSU Firelands alumn, Diedre pursued studies in electrical/electronic engineering technology concentrating in digital science. Since then, she has continued the path of higher education studying physics, mathematics and organic science. She is currently pursuing a terminal degree in global business management.
Diedre is the founder of a small organic manufacturing firm in Sandusky. Married in 1997 to a Sanduskian, Diedre and her husband are raising one grandchild, are the parents of two adult children and three other grandchildren.
That being said. Where is the business that Diedre operates. I would like to visit and maybe purchase some product. Be smart, buy local, right? I was going to stop at her house, but then I remembered that you cannot run a business out of a house owned by Metro Housing. IMO this may qualify as a "questionable" concern.
I had heard the same comment that Ms Cole had a scheme about firing Chief Lang a while ago but I dismissed it. After hearing what both Hamilton and Smith stated, I have a real problem with what Ms Cole wanted to accomplish. The only reason that this was aired out in the public is because the Sunshine Law doesn't allow you to go into executive session to reprimand another fellow commissioner. After calling Smith and Hamilton a liar, Ms Cole then proceeded to apologise so what does that tell you? I think Ms Cole definitely crossed the line with her scheme of a plan and she has the gull to criticize Brown for tainiting the process? What is right and what is wrong here?
@darkhorse, I don't remember hearing Ms Cole apologize to either Mr. Hamilton or Mr. Smilth at that meeting but we did leave before it was completely finished. HOWEVER, I do believe that Ms Cole has her own agenda and in some ways she was backed by Mr. Poole which I found most distuburbing.
Mr. Brown did NOT deserve the thrashing he took at her "mouth" nor did he deserve the kind of treatment he had to listen to by her continual thrashing. I doubt she heard a word that Mr Icsman said when he told the entire commission that the committee was doing EXACTLY what they were supposed to be doing according to the City Charter. It was pretty obvious that both she and Mr Poole didn't want to hear that.
It is sad that you appoint people who volunteered and a City Commissioner who is "willing' to do the job, have them work all this time and then, at the eleventh hour, start hammering away at them, because you don't like the outcome. It was OBVIOUS the reasoning, So much so, that Mr Brown was using everything within his power to remain a statesman and he deserves credit for doing so.
She, on the other hand, does not. She deserves no credit. She does not know the boundries of her job nor the reason for which she was elected. She does not know why she is there. It is sad.
Pages