Salisbury chief lawsuit case: 'It ain't over'

December 3, 2009

Salisbury chief lawsuit case: 'It ain't over'

Police chief to seek reconsideration against Salisbury's mayor, City CouncilBy Laura D'AlessandroStaff Writer

SALISBURY -- The legal battle between Police Chief Allan Webster and the city isn't over.
Despite the recent dismissal of Webster's case by a Wicomico County Circuit Court judge, Webster announced Wednesday he'd continue to seek a declaratory judgment. Webster's attorney, Robin Cockey, said a motion for reconsideration would be made by Monday.

"It ain't over till the fat lady sings, and the fat lady has not yet even tuned up," Cockey said.
Webster filed the lawsuit Nov. 3 after receiving the first reprimands of his 40-year career and claimed Mayor Jim Ireton denied him a proper grievance hearing by which to appeal them. Webster said the default judge for the employee grievance hearing, City Administrator John Pick, was a witness and the second-in-command, Assistant City Administrator Loré Chambers, was of a lower rank than he. Webster therefore asked Ireton to allow the City Council to judge his employee hearing, though provisions are not made for such an arrangement within the city charter or employee handbook.

His request led to the fourth and final reprimand from Ireton prior to Webster filing the lawsuit.
Ireton responded to the lawsuit with a public statement, calling the debacle "frivolous" and "unlawful" and labeling it a distraction. His opinion hasn't changed.

"With appealing the ruling, Mr. Cockey and his client are saying the mayor's wrong, Mr. Pick is wrong, Loré Chambers can't be right, the city charter is wrong, the city employee handbook is wrong and the judge is now wrong," Ireton said. "I am confused as to why this distraction continues."

But Cockey said the case hasn't been given a fair chance or a lawful one.

Cockey was taken aback by the delivery of the dismissal, done prior to his Monday deadline to submit a response to the city's Nov. 23 motion.

"Granting the city's motion without allowing the opposing party the time to respond and to request a hearing provided in the Maryland Rules was illegal and unfair and the court's decision was contrary to what we think the merits of the case dictate," Cockey said. "We would like and feel we are entitled to an opportunity to present the merits of the case according to the timetable and in the manner prescribed by the Maryland Rules ---- that's why we have rules."

The court's dismissal was made on the grounds that the chief's case was not ripe for judgment as he had not exhausted all provisions laid out by the city charter and employee handbook.