Reply #4: That is NOT even the position the municipality it taking [View All]

From the article:

"The issues with the property room go beyond the actions or inactions of Officer Robinson," City Manager Judith A. Gilleland wrote in a memo last July. "There are limitations with the facility and with the levels of staffing."

Sounds like the arbitrator recognize this as the result of telling someone to do a job and then NOT providing adequate resources to do that job and then punishing that employer when it comes out such a job can NOT be done given the resources allocated (The officer was told to do a job that COULD not be done, and when it became clear it could NOT be done, punishing the officer for NOT getting the job done).

No one is claiming the Officer did NOT tell her employer of the problems, but that the problems existed when she was in charge of the property room (Another example of the "Last Touch" rule, "you touched it last, you broke it, even through it was broke before you even saw it coming to you").

Sorry, I have been in such situations and once you realize that no one wants to hear your complaints, you just stumble forward. That appears to be the case here, she made some request for more resources in the early years when she was in charge of the property room, and then was told there were no resources to spare and she had to do whatever she could with the resources she had, she did so, enough to keep the property room audit-able so that when it was audited it still meet minimal Federal specs (So the department kept its federal funding) but not enough to do what is expected of a property room.

Remember no one is accusing her of losing any money, or stealing any money (The only missing money was missing because it had been returned to its owner without documentation, documentation that probably should have been generated at the time of the money was returned, probably by someone other then the officer in charge of the property room). The property room probably met minimal federal specs (Thus no lost of federal funding) and that is all her employer was willing to pay for and thus we have the results we do, and that is the decision of her employer NOT her.