Lawyer: Goodmaster Will Sue Seymour To Stay On Job

Detective Sgt. Ronald Goodmaster plans to sue the town to stay in his job past the state-mandated retirement age after Selectmen voted to deny his request for such an extension Tuesday.

On Thursday Goodmaster’s lawyer, Bill Palmieri, called the Tuesday vote a debacle” and accused First Selectman Kurt Miller of playing politics with the issue.

This is going to cost Kurt Miller the election in the fall,” Palmieri said. This was a terrible, terrible decision by him, to the extent that he even had the right to make such a decision.”

Told of the lawyer’s comments and asked if he had a response, Miller laughed, said that the town will win whatever lawsuit Goodmaster brings, and pointed out that nobody who attended Tuesday’s meeting spoke up for Goodmaster: If this was such a no-brainer and if this is something that’s going to cost me the election, where was the support during public comment?”

Background

Goodmaster will turn 65 next March, at which point he will be obligated to retire, according to state law.

In September he asked the Board of Police Commissioners to extend his employment with the town in order for him to reach 25 years of employment and max out his pension.

Police Commissioners approved that request Sept. 13.

But that action was ruled null and void after a town attorney concluded the police commission had overstepped its authority and said only selectmen could issue such an extension.

New Request

Goodmaster petitioned Selectmen for just that, and on Tuesday they voted 5 – 1 to deny Goodmaster’s request after a back-and-forth debate on the issue that lasted about 45 minutes.

Miller and selectmen Gary Bruce, AnneMarie Drugonis, Al Bruno, and Nicole Klarides-Ditria voted to deny the extension. Karen Stanek cast the sole dissenting vote.

The vote came after an at-times animated debate, mainly between Miller and Palmieri.

Goodmaster attended Tuesday’s meeting but did not speak.

Palmieri recounted Goodmaster’s many commendations and citations to Selectmen and said there’s nothing to be gained and the world to be lost by not granting Ron Goodmaster this brief extension.”

That he’s led the detective bureau in an excellent manner is recognized both by members of this department and others,” Palmieri said. What he is asking at this point is that he be able to continue that work.”

Palmieri went on to say that he didn’t believe Goodmaster even had to make the request to Selectmen, and that the police commissioners’ action should stand.

It is with all due respect that we’re here presenting our arguments to this board, because that’s what I think that we need to do to show our proper respect,” he said. Obviously it’s our position and assertion that we’ve already had this decision made through the proper board.”

Not so fast, said Bryan LeClerc , a lawyer representing the town.

The authority does not rest in the police commission,” he said, adding that state law is crystal clear” on the matter. While the police commission may have chosen to do something on their own prerogative, that does not constitute a delegation of authority to them by you.”

Stanek pointed to previous extensions by the police commission as a precedent that’s been set.”

The Board of Police Commissioners has done this twice before and it has not been challenged,” she said.

Miller said later that doesn’t make the practice right.

Shame on previous Boards of Selectmen who may have done that or who didn’t have proper counsel at the time,” he said.

Debate

Beyond that issue, though, Miller pressed Palmieri to show how the town would benefit by letting Goodmaster work another year, and said the town should be getting something in return.

If we’re going to extend something or go beyond something, there needs to be something given up or offered by this person,” Miller said.

He’s giving another year and a half of his life in service to the police department,” Palmieri said. That’s what he’s willing to give.”

Miller wasn’t convinced, cited ongoing manpower and inefficiency problems at the Police Department, and floated the idea of Goodmaster taking on some sort of special assignment” in exchange for being able to work another year.

Miller also said that Warren Holcomb, one of the town’s lawyers, had reached out to Palmieri to discuss such a deal but was told Goodmaster wasn’t interested because there would not be enough overtime involved.”

I’m not questioning the man’s work ethic, his performance,” Miller said. But if we have an opportunity to better manage the police department, why would we not ask for that?”

Palmieri responded to Miller’s question with one of his own.

Why does he have to give something up or why does he have to be sacrificed because of these nebulous complaints about inefficiency in the department outside of the detective division?” the lawyer said.

He later accused Miller of playing politics with the issue.

A change of assignment that resulted in financial harm to this man would be an unfair action by this board or any other board that made that action when in the past anyone who came and asked was not asked to give up what they earned, moved to another assignment, to give something to get something,” he said. Now you’re asking us to bite at something, which is nothing, because you will not say what a special assignment is, so you could then turn around and say Aha! He refused us.’”

Click the play button on the video below to see footage of the discussion recorded by Frank Loda, a private citizen.

What Now?

Palmieri on Thursday said he will be preparing at least one lawsuit against the town, perhaps more, to challenge both the town’s action in rescinding the police commission’s extension and the underlying law which saws police officers must retire at 65.

Certainly there’s going to be a filing after this,” he said.

The lawyer on Thursday reiterated the position he outlined to selectmen — namely, that the police commission’s extension of Goodmaster’s employment still stands.

This extension has been granted by the proper body who was authorized to grant such an extension,” Palmieri said.

Palmieri accused Miller and other town officials of having either an axe to grind with Ron or a preferential person who they want to put in the place of Ron, or both,” he said. This is sheer pure malice against Ronald Goodmaster.”

This is small-town politics at its worst and most distasteful,” he said. Somebody’s golden boy is going to be promoted and Ron is going to suffer for it, and that’s a shame. It’s unlawful and it’s intolerable.”

Palmieri said Miller tipped his hand” during the Tuesday discussion by saying a vote to extend Goodmaster’s employment would mean exposing the town to another 16 months of potential liability.”

At the time, Miller didn’t elaborate during the meeting on what he meant by the phrase.

But Palmieri said it’s obvious: Miller just doesn’t want Goodmaster questioning what goes on at the police department.

Goodmaster had been subject to disciplinary action in recent years — and had even been demoted — but he fought back through a series of grievances and complaints. One complaint alleged age discrimination.

He negotiated an agreement with the town that saw him reinstated as Detective Sergeant. Two suspensions against him were also reversed.

Click here to read his agreement with the town.

This is what he perceives as a liability,” Palmieri said. Truthfulness.”

This was motivated by vendetta, by retaliation,” Palmieri went on, saying Miller wants to get” Goodmaster. And he thinks he has. This is the first shot of a battle. The war is yet to be waged.”

Miller said on Thursday that Palmieri’s characterization is completely inaccurate.”

What I was referring to is, it’s very easy for any police officer, regardless of their age, to become injured,” Miller said. It is a physically demanding job. Any officer could get injured at any time. And if we were to extend Det. Sgt. Goodmaster and he were to become injured on the job, we would be paying for him for the next year. So there is potential exposure to the town there for him or any other officer.”

The first selectman went on to say that had Goodmaster been willing to meet the town in the middle on some sort of compromise to have his employment extended, they would have had my vote.”

They had no interest in that,” Miller said. My request to have a conversation about something that would benefit this community was flat-out denied and ignored.”

Asked what type of special assignment” he had in mind, Miller said Goodmaster could stay on the job — with the same rank, if not a higher one — and, instead of just supervising the detective bureau, help out in other areas of the department, like community policing, administrative work, being a court liaison, etc.

But discussions never got that far.

He wanted what he wanted,” Miller said of Goodmaster. And because he was not getting it, he wasn’t interested.

He does not have the best interest of the town of Seymour in mind,” the first selectman went on. He has the best interests of Ron Goodmaster in mind. And i don’t fault him for that. But if you’re asking the town to do something for you, why are you not then in turn willing to do something for the town that would not harm you in any way?”

As it stands, Goodmaster will have to retire in March, when he turns 65, meaning the police department’s detective division will be without a supervisor.

The town’s Board of Police Commissioners, which met Tuesday after the selectmen’s meeting, debated what to do about the upcoming vacancy for about a half-hour.

Click here to watch a video of that meeting.

The police commissioners didn’t act on the vacancy Tuesday, but said the matter would be on the agenda for their meeting next Thursday (Dec. 13) at 7 p.m. in the Police Department, 11 Franklin St.

Keep local reporting alive. Donate.ValleyIndy.org