BLOG: Court Calls Nuesse Parking Ticket Allegation "Absurd"

Bryan Dubois
Aug 10, 2010

 

The parking ticket allegation was one of those pieces that didn't stick to the wall...

Visiting Judge James Sherck:

But the city did manage to get her reinstatement overturned with some he-said, she-said fairytales, the validity of which is only known by the people who were directly involved.

Way to go.

Litigation and Infighting are great ways to spend the public's money and it helps so much with credibility too!

I'm going to end this post with a great quote from then city commissioner Dennis Murray, who, at the time, was very proud of the long, rich history of support of department heads...blah blah blah....[insert platitudes here]

Wonder if he would still make these comments on how the city treats it's department heads?

Blah blah blah.

Ball is in Nuesse's court.

Comments

Salvatore

Blah Blah Blah? More like Um Um Um.

Driving in Circles

Would it kill you to acknowledge the seven falsehoods proved by the preponderance of evidence?  I agree, the ticket was absurd, as was Ms. Nuesse's handling of the situation.  The bottom line is the evidence demonstrates that she lied.  She may have been right about a great many things but she still lied.  These falsehoods were not limited to he said, she said, some were easily verifiable. 

I agree that the City did a lousy job of it but people like yourself, Matt Westerhold, and the SR fail to take responsibility for your role in this mess.  The media circus probably cost Ms. Nuesse her job and any possibility of a settlement with the City that may have salvaged her law enforcement career.  I don't think Matt Kline really wanted to fire her but it looks like she became openly defiant and left him no choice.

I suspect she will have little choice but to appeal and that is her right.  In the meantime, I welcome some evenhanded reporting from the SR and its bloggers.

I would have a lot more respect if you and the SR could at least be open to the idea that you were wrong.

Bryan Dubois

Driving,

You make a good point.

This is the way I see it:

In political battles, nobody's hands are clean.  Once somebody's livelihood is on the line, the stakes are raised.  Everyone involved begins hedging bets, guiding storylines, filtering their stories. 

Everyone. 

This is the nature of politics.  The  word politics is so misused nowadays that people no longer appreciate the dirty nature of it.  They no longer appreciate the word for what it is:  the struggle for power.  Whether it's local or national.  (Remember Craig Stahl referring to himself as a 'politician'?)

Nuesse's case is political in nature.  The core of the case has nothing to do with good government.  It has everything to do with the struggle for power in city government. 

Did Nuesse make mistakes?

Sure.  Just like everyone else. 

My position through the whole thing has always been to look at the overall situation and judge it from a "good government" standpoint.  The city hired an outsider for a purpose - and that purpose was being fulfilled.  The city needed to buckle down, support the person they chose to carry out the thankless and dangerous (to their livelihood) task of shaking up the complacent police force.  Nuesse was doing her job - but she was given no support.  The situation was brought about by folks in key positions who didn't appreciate what it taked to achieve the goal they set out to do.  They left the entire structure resting on Nuesse's shoulders and she, like anyone else placed in a tough position like that, simply couldn't hold it all up.

In short, the city lacked the intestinal fortitude to stay the course - to fight through the difficult spot.  They dumped it on Nuesse and this is what they ended up with.  Had they supported her from day one and encouraged their co-workers, subordinates, naysayers to do the same, Sandusky would be a very different city right now.

Julie R.

 If at first you don't suceed using one old rent-a-judge you can always hire a second one!

baxter+lyons= yuck

Connect The Dots

People listen up.  You do not give a parking ticket to the police chief and use such a lame excuse to get her removed from the job she was chosen to perform.  This is definately gender discrimination, the GOB network would not allow this to happen to one of them.  The reason this allegation did not stick to the wall is that THERE  WAS NO WALL THERE TO STICK IT TO.

All I have to say is it is time to clean up Sandusky.  Driving in circles , you will never get out of the circle because you just can not figure out what is going on.  Overall The Register has done a great job of trying to clean up this mess, and it will happen very soon. Kim Nuess just may have more power on city council, and if the other honest members do the right thing, she could accompish greatness with the new agenda by getting out the remaining GOBS like icksman, Baxter, and replacing them with people that really care.  Let us move on and take back our city.

SarahTonin

This whole thing is rediculous! The parking ticket is only a part of the overall scheme to get rid of Nuesse but it is indicative. Indicative of what happened and it tells the story so well. The SPD wanted rid of her and they were going to harass her until either she gave up or committed some infraction that caused her dismissal. No human being could be put in that position with everyone trying to come up with a way to harrass you or get you fired and keep their absolute cool! The judge clearly ignored the big picture and the fairness of it all.

Ms. Nuesse, I wish that I was financially able to fund your appeal because I would. This is a clear case of bullying and anyone that supports the city's position doesn't deserve air!

If you can, please appeal this. Cirgliano was a bully. Schreck's ruling is flawed. This should be a case that makes an example of a Sandusky so that others will never try this again!

Bryan Dubois

Sarah, that made me realize the irony of Sherck's words:

The parking ticket with technically correct - but not in keeping with the spirit of the law.  On the same token, Sherck's entire ruling is technically correct - but not in keeping with the spirit of the law (or the reality that nobody is perfect, as you stated!)

Sandusky lost today. 

Making a tough decision to 'hire the outsider to clean up the town' means nothing if, as administrators, you don't have the guts to calm the crew in the rough seas that are sure to follow...

Darkhorse

I liked the part where Icsman claims, at the last commission meeting, that  he is Nuesse's long lost friend now that she is his boss. I remember a time where he wouldn't even see her when Nuesse wanted to talk to him about the city's problems and how she was being treated.  If you can't go to the city's attorney, who can you go to but seek out an attorney instead, and that is how we got into the mess in the first place.  I wonder if things could have been different for the city woes had Icsman taken the time to see her.   Icsman flips on the side of whoever holds the four votes at any particular time.

Captain Gutz

"the complacent police force. "? How was/is the police force complacent?

 

How would "Sandusky would be a very different city right now."?

 

 

Driving in Circles

Does being bullied by her subordinates justify a management style "based upon the telling of partial truths and outright lies to suit her own purposes"?  I don't think so.

Few will ever know the whole truth and I do not pretend to be one who does?  I have tried to consider all sides but I see very little balanced reporting from the SR.  It seems more focused on convincing everyone of her just cause instead of putting out the unbiased truth.

If this decision was based on the testimony of a handful of individuals who have their own motives for wanting her out that would be one thing.  The judge, however, cited seven different examples based on a wide range of evidence and testimony. 

It seems that the community has put all their frustration with our government into this case.  I suggest we put our energy into finding better people in which to place our trust.

Bryan Dubois

Driving,

The judge cited seven examples based on the testimony of the a few police commanders.  The command structure opposed Nuesse - and they have the power to level accusations that are "technically correct" but not in keeping with the spirit of cooperation and good government.

In my opinion, that's what happened.  By the way, if you gave me the power to investigate you - and gave me access to a bunch of people who don't like you,  I guarantee that I could have you fired from whatever job you hold at the present time based on your lack of "absolute honesty."

If you're looking for a flawless person to place your trust, Jesus Christ is your only option.  If you were looking for a good person in which to place in charge of a police department, Kim Nuesse is a good choice.  (You have to give her the tools to succeed though!)

Outside lookin in

Listen all you boys and girls...When ever anyone from the prosecutors office gets a parking ticket around the courthouse...They send it the the Sandusky Detectives to Void or Destroy.  This is common knowledge.

Driving in Circles

The judge did not base his seven examples on the word of a few police commanders.  As I read the list it included testimony from:

 

Chief Nuesse - Status of Cedar Point Police Assistant Chief Sams - Warrant Review Chief Nuesse - Laptops in Patrol Vehicles Cedar Point Chief Majoy - Soak City Tickets Judge O'Brien - Parking Ticket Chief Nuesse - Dispatch Center Tour Chief Nuesse - Department Website

When people start using lies, it gets very difficult to keep the story straight.  I think she hung herself in this situation.  Maybe the GOB's are just better at it, but their jobs are not on the line here.  The judge didn't even touch on the fact that her best relationship was with a former Chief who has pled guilty to Federal Charges.  I don't believe in guilt by association but people are often judged by the company they keep.

This is what bothers me about the local coverage of this issue.  The facts are continually glossed over in favor of Ms. Nuesse, as you have just done.  She may have had the best intentions but if you come to town as a reformer, dishonesty shouldn't be one of your methods

Bryan Dubois

Driving,

Of course you're free to believe whatever you want.

By the way, you "lied" in your post about Nuesse.

You claimed that Nuesse's best relationship was with a former Chief who has "pled guilty" to Federal Charges.

McClung did not plead guilty.  He plead not guilty.

So that makes you a liar and whoever employs you should fire you.

Or was that an honest mistake?  Hopefully your employer isn't as unreasonable and unwise as Sandusky's former city manager and you'll finish this day without getting fired for your outright lies.

(See my point?)

Julie R.

Driving in Circles must not know how the LIARS in the legal system work to come up with a comment like that!

Driving in Circles

You really need to stop using the SR as your only source for news.

 www.morningjournal.com/articles/2010/02/25/news/erie_huron/mj2362073.txt

http://www.toledoonthemove.com/news/story.aspx?id=434986

 

See my point!

Bryan Dubois

Now wouldn't it have been a shame if you had been fired over that misunderstanding? 

(See my point?)

Captain Gutz

No Brian, I don't see your point. A lie is a lie.

Driving in Circles did not lie, Nuesse did.

 

See my point?

Bryan Dubois

Well Capt. Gutz.....

You not seeing my point doesn't surprise me.  Then again, I wasn't even addressing you.  I was asking Driving in Circle if he/she saw my point.

Overreacting to situations that arise from misunderstanding is a poor way to govern and as you can see leads to costly and unfortunate situations. 

Driving in Circles

I am disappointed in you.  You call me a liar based upon your own misinformation then say it proves your point.  My employer requires both honesty and accuracy, apparently not a requirement with the SR and its bloggers.  The difference, however, is that I would not have the benefit of all this due process.  Like most private sector workers, I am an at will employee.  My employer can fire me if they even suspected that I was dishonest or inaccurate.

I agree that the term "absolute honesty" is problematic.  The record, however, as summarized by the judge demonstrates that Ms. Nuesse fell far short.  A wide range of individuals have contradicted her statements.  The judge gave Ms. Nuesse the benefit of the doubt several times, when he felt she was either simply wrong or there was a difference in opinion.  She does not carry the burden of proof, the city does, so it is not surprising that not all of their charges held up. 

In my opinion, when the media circus started, the city got nervous.  They threw whatever additional charges they could think of which turned out to be a mistake.  I think she was fired for lying and her erratic behavior when her lies started to unravel.  That is the charge they should have stuck with and it held up under review. 

It has occured to me during this discussion that many of these falsehoods were made under oath.  I wonder if perjury charges are not in Ms. Nuesse's future. I look forward to her appeal, I think it is going to go from bad to worse for her as she gets further away from Sandusky.

Bryan Dubois

Driving,

McClung's original plea was "not guilty."  My understanding was, as you said, based on misinformation.  [Actually my accusation was based on a selection of facts that supported my accusation.]  If I was your boss, wouldn't it have been a shame if I accused you of lying and then fired you for making what I portrayed at the time to be a false statement?

You agree that the term "absolute honesty" is problematic.  Why do you condone a million dollar trial which is based on the "evidence" and agenda of a team of people who politically oppose the accused to prove that the standard "absolute honesty" doesn't really exist?

The whole process has been a farce.  Nobody could live up to the standard to which they held Nuesse, yet you defend the system as they continue to destroy a good person.

But carry on, Driving.  Lots of people in Sandusky think like you - which is why Sandusky is in the situation they're in.

Just-a-thought

A lot of people seem to think that the SPD supervisors ganged up on Mrs Nuesse because they had something against her. Could it be they were concerned that they could go down with her the same way ex-Det Jenkins went down with ex-Chief McClung?  

Just Asking

To Bryan Dubois,

Don't give up your day job - oh I forgot writing is your day job.

Regarding the orticle you pulled up referencing McClung pleading not guilty. 

First this article refers to the court case in the STATE charges.  Second at that time McClung had pled 'not guilty' to the Federal charges. 

HOWEVER, later on he changed his plea to the FEDERAL charges to guilty.  To my knowledge his sentencing in the FEDERAL case, to which he has entered a guilty plea, has not taken place yet.

So Driving did not lie about anything.  And lie is a little strong even if he was in error. 

Bryan Dubois

Well I'd fire you anyway because I think most people agree that you failed to display absolute honesty.

sanduskysteve

Driving, et all.

It would appear that the change to a guilty plea was a result of a plea bargain deal.  Many many many charges were dismissed (this from the source Driving used to prove he was not lying and that we should not pay attention to the SR).

It would also appear that due to the plea bargain offer, it would seem likely that the state or feds, either way, felt they could not completely prove their case or they wouldn't have gotten involved with a plea deal and certainly wouldn't have dismissed so many charges.

I'm not convinced that either person in this argument outright lied - but it is obvious that absolute honesty doesn't play out here.

And while we are arguing about Kim's honesty - lets take a close look at those who are still on the force who are way more dishonest than Kim was.

The crux of most of the city's case in the first hearings was that stupid parking ticket.

As for the list of those who's evidence they supposedly used against her in this last decision - most of those people's testimony was actually on her behalf - especially that of Judge OBrian concerning the ticket to begin with.  The rest of the testimony it appears for the most part was her own testimony.

Bottom line is still that this dispatch issue was at hand, and as it turns out - she was right - they were wrong.  So, although the information was tainted at the time it was given (due to the reports which were compiled by someone other than Kim), the reports turned out correct as did Kim's thoughts on those reports.  Dispatch is now at the Sheriff's office for Sandusky PD. 

This is stupid - and you nay-sayers can press all you want that this was a good decision - things would have been much different at the SPD today if she would have stayed on and gotten a little support from Klein and city council - both of which wanted her out as soon as she began trying to fix the problems there.  Even if the cops and city didn't perceive that those were problems.