Brown will continue to lead Sandusky police chief search

Sandusky city commissioner Pervis Brown Jr. will continue to lead the police chief search committee despite the missteps and delays that pushed deadline into next year.
Andy Ouriel
Nov 19, 2012

Click below for a copy of the report detailing the failures the first time around.
Get a copy of Monday’s Register to learn what comes next in the effort to hire a permanent police chief.


car 54

The commission needs to read and understand the city charter to eliminate future missteps.


yeah, all three lines of it.

car 54

The commission needs to read and understand the city charter to eliminate future missteps.


The charter needs to be re-written into a clarified document that makes sense when read. Something so vague and misunderstood as how it is written (which is what this man indicated) should be changed. No wonder this committee had problems. It's pretty evident from this report.


Nice thorough report
Too many crooked pages
Please fix the feeder


Apparently "abject failure" looks good on a resume these days. Who knew?

Julie R.

When Nuesse first got fired (wasn't that in 2008?) I predicted the case would still be going on in 2012. Isn't that when it was finally resolved --- the joke 6th District Court of Appeals agreed with the rent-a-judges that she should stay fired?

I'm predicting now that Sandusky will be lucky to have a permanent police chief by 2015!


Julie, this is probably one time when I will disagree with you only because I don't think they will let it go that far. I believe you will see a new chief by mid 2013, only because they almost half to after all of this.

If not, you will see Lang stay until Orzech gets his degree. Then he will get the promotion from within. If that happens, someone better start explaining why they wasted all this time, money and effort for nothing.


Having read this report, it is very obvious that the allegations made by Cole and Poole were unfounded and unnecessary. The committee and Mr. Brown did NOTHING wrong in their efforts to select the next chief of police. I think they owe Mr. Brown and the committee a HUGE apology for making such a big deal out of nothing.

However, I think this committee better get moving on chosing someone quickly and expeditiously to give to Ms Ard for making a decision. I would just LOVE to know how many applications actually came in from Perkins after all this innuendo from the two commissioners and their "flack". It would certainly be interesting to know if any of that was true?

I think that is something that should be revealed to the public. The SR is so hot to let the public know things, let us know the answer to that question, please.

As far as the rest of this goes, it seems that the "charter" needs some major overhauling in the verbage to which it states exactly what we need. Apparently that seems to be part of the problem if you take the time to read the entire text on this site. Too "iffy". No wonder the committee was confused.

Just take the names of those who are still working that fit the bill, ditch the rest, vet them and send them on to Ms Ard. That shouldn't be too difficult or take too long.

I wish them the best of luck. I do think that Ms Cole and Mr Poole have some explaining to do about their actions, however. Obviously from the report, their complaints and comments were totally without merit or foundation. Accusing a fellow commissioner in public like that without proof is beyond rude. It smacks of something much deeper. They could have asked him in private, not embarrassed him in public. That is something that bothers me right down to my toes.


Maybe the accuser(s) need to be asked some questions in public.


exactly right. And they should have their answers ready and available


How hard really is this? Five people on the committee, hand each one ten applications with a copy of the charter. Throw in the middle the ones that don't meet the criteria, FIRST. Go from there.

This reeks lack of leadership.


It's frankly NOT that hard. The problem? The people on the committee don't seem to KNOW which meet the criteria, and which do not. That's what started this whole mess in the first place!


Actually that ISN'T the problem. The problem is if you read the advertisement and the charter, the don't match. When you see what they advertised for and what the criteria is stated in the charter they are two different items. When you have a "wish list" added to what a mininimum exists it creates conflict. That is the problem. No wonder they are confused.


Again, wired.. No leadership. If one fails to plan, then one plans to fail.


Ok, I have to ask....what does that mean? Do you think they planned to fail? Because I know that isn't the case. Have you READ the report??? The investigation paperwork? The charter (which is a joke). ?

SamAdams just helped to make my point. Why didn't the ad and the charter match? If the committee had had a clue as to what it was doing, there wouldn't have been a conflict between the two. If the committee was confused (as is apparent), it could have asked the Law Director for clarification and again, there wouldn't have been a conflict. This hiring process was botched from the start, and it just went downhill from there.


Sam, we have to look no further than the HR department for the Ad. I would LOVE to know who authorized it. It didn't come from the committee so who did put it in?

Again, the law director who should know this stuff, surely didn't do much in clarifying any discrepency in this matter did he? Since that is his JOB, why was he not doing it? Do any of the people who criticise this REALLY expect ordinary citizens to understand all of this without it being explained at least ONCE by the person who SHOULD know what is going on? I would hope not. It makes no matter whether it was "botched" or not.

They now have 40 new names with which to add to the others they had. They should have no problem going quickly through them. Take out all the ones that are NOT working and are not above the rank of Lt. and proceed. Heck, I can do that in less than five days by myself. There is no reason why they cannot be done in short order.

I think everyone is making far too much of continuing the process. What IS maddening is to find that nothing came of the allegations. That I find truly upsetting. Just more of an example that the lies that go on fly think and fast and come from within our own commissioners. They owe Mr. Brown a BIG apology and the two owe an explanation as to WHY they did it.


ok, want to win and be right so can win this one. Have it your way. but read below


It isn't lack of leadership. If you see the actual AD and see the charter you will understand the problem. The HR department should be SHOT. Whoever got the idea to add the junk at the bottom is nuts. Just put in what the charter says and leave it at that. Don't add the rest that isn't in the charter. Talk about confusing. Talk about a government job.

And don't believe all you read. I happen to know they got FORTY new applicants right now. Yes, FORTY.


Here's a solution to the problem: Appoint whoever the committee wants to hire as interim-chief. Then, have the person apply and be hired as chief. If they are acting as interim-chief, they have a job and will qualify.

Jim Lang was not active when he was hired (someone correct me if I am wrong).


The report said they could have given Ms Ard the ONE they had and it would have been legal....but NO....they didn't do that because there are certain people in this town who yell and scream and cry every time about "it says one to three" (I could name names here). This would be OVER now had they done so.


The report is wrong. If you re-read the report the attorney re-wrote the Charter.


The charter was taken right out of the paperwork of the city. How do you figure it was re written? The report ISN"T wrong, DG. I think you are terribly mistaken here.

How do you figure it was wrong? Do you have some celestial knowledge that none of us is privilege to? Please tell us what you know that we do not know. But keep in mind that the charter was NOT re written, it was followed exactly as it is from the city charter.


I don't have any interest in critiquing the report because it served its purpose. But, yepper, he did re-write the Charter. Page 5, 3rd paragraph, last 3 lines of the pdf. He even highlights his re-write in quotes, lol. "name or names". The text he uses is " is also stated, in paragraph two, that the "name or names" of qualified individuals are to be certified to the City manager ( which seems to imply that a single qualifed person could be referred to the City Manager )."

The Charter doesn't say "name or names". Reference the Charter in the same pdf, Exhibit "B", page 2, 1st paragraph, line 2. "...Board shall certify to the City Manager the names of not more than three (3) applicants who are eligible..." It says, "names" not "name or names".

He may say that he was paraphrasing but "name or names" was definitely a re-write. lol


I will look it over, but for now.....if you say so. But when I read the Charter it did say name or names. I believe I said that to you once before and you said it had to have three.

But if you say so. I will look it up though. I think you are mistaken.


Lang was Chief Park Ranger for Erie Metro-Parks.


almost half to?


Why is the SR trying to divide this city over this matter and create such a problem over this? Its as if they are punishing the city, the commission and the police department? Is it to get "even" with all three in one felled cutting? It appears that is the agenda of the day.

Printing "slanted" stories isn't the right thing to do, and half truths isn't right either. When one is the ONLY news source, the public would expect there to be an unbiased and totally unobstructed resource of CLEAR information coming from that news source, not what we have been getting of late from our paper. I just don't understand this. It is being used to take "pot shots" at particular people, using half truths and short sighted stories and coming dangerously close to printing (shall I say lies) to obtain an end.

People can read. If they take the time to read the report written by the man who did the investigation, they will see that Ms Cole and Mr Poole' allegations were "unfounded" and that the committee did nothing wrong.

There was NONE of the wrong doing that either of these two commissioners accused the commissioner or the committee of doing. Of that, both Poole and Cole should truly be ashamed. But the Register would have you believe that is not the case and the extension is because of some wrong doing by the committee. WRONG.

Take the time to READ the report. The committee members were on track and trying hard to fit candidates to the process and fit it to the charter. It seems strange that the SR quotes Deidra Cole and Sharon Johnson as their "references" working for the SR and the other who sides with the SR on points of interest and whom the SR sides with against the committee. How fair is that, how objective?

No, this has become a grudge, a vendetta...not fair reporting. For some reason, it has stopped being objective and become subjective and something for which Matt Westerhold and his immediate staff should not be proud. You cannot call this "reporting" when it becomes subjective in nature and no longer tells the truth about an issue, but only one sided.

For whatever reason the SR is doing what they are doing, shame on them. Being the only source of news gives you a grave and great responsibility and seeing it misused is dishearting and upsetting. I thought the SR a much more fair and impartial paper than this.

What happened? Can you not give the fair opinion on this? Can you not be objective, open, honest and fair about this one? What has over shadowed the objectivity so badly that the paper would take this type of stand? Is it bitterness, jealously, worry or worse?

I just expected better. Remember, people outside this area read this paper. You are also an embassador to the outside world and you are giving a bad view of what Sandusky looks like to the outside world.

I just said something about perception to those in Huron. I will say the same to you. Stop giving the perception that we are a bunch of small children with petty problems that cannot be solved reasonably. Stop making things worse by stirring them up. Stop printing things that are half truths or lies, just print facts.

And start working WITH people, not against them. Everything isn't a major headline. Even a quiet sunset can be a great sight. It doesn't need an explosion to go with it.


I read the report, wired. The committee did not follow the charter. Nor did the person who put the ad out to whatever resources they used. The charter was not followed in either case. That's not to mention promises of jobs by naysayers that couldn't produce.. Either way, it's FUBAR. Back to square one. Leadership has got to be the key.