Wolfeboro Police Chief

[TiltonBB]

Internal report reveals 'multi-year pattern' of misconduct by former New Hampshire police chief.

It looks more like statements and Facebook posts offended some people.

https://www.wmur.com/article/interna...chief/44992867

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by TiltonBB

Internal report reveals 'multi-year pattern' of misconduct by former New Hampshire police chief.

It looks more like statements and Facebook posts offended some people.

https://www.wmur.com/article/interna...chief/44992867

Glad he's gone

[mofn]

I have a question for the town’s officials who had the report:
1) When was it completed?
2) When did you get it?
3) Why was an F.O.I.A. request needed for it to see the light of day?
4) How much push-back by the town was there to the F.O.I.A. request?

[John Mercier]

F.O.I.A. request?
Does that even cover local municipalities?

I think they would use RSA 91-A

They would be beholden to RSA 91-A:3 specifically section 2.

[ApS]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Glad he's gone

Fifteen years ago, he (Rondeau) was nicknamed "Rambo" by Wolfeboro townsfolk. Member tis would remember...

It took only the "PC" of Facebook to end an otherwise-successful Wolfeboro career. Facebook has not been friendly to the forum to which you are opining.

My Wolfeboro WWII pilot Dad was on first-name basis with "Rambo", and knew nothing of "Rambo" nor Facebook.

[LikeLakes]

Originally Posted by ApS

It took only the "PC" of Facebook to end an otherwise-successful Wolfeboro career.

Only the PC of Facebook? What about this?

The report also highlighted inappropriate behavior by Rondeau when interacting with police department employees.

A quote from the report said, “When asked about whether he commented about women's breasts to his subordinates, Rondeau replied that it was ‘common’ and that ‘they all do this.’”

[John Mercier]

Facebook still would have done it.
The civil lawsuits would be untenable for the taxpayers.

[FlyingScot]

Granite State News has a piece this morning--this is a LOT worse than a few Facebook posts or debates about PC. Department in complete disarray, including multiple (all?) officers not responding during a life or death situation.

It's kind of amazing and really sad that a relatively wealthy community (i.e. a community with a bunch of demanding people) put up with this for so long

[LoveLakeLife]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

Facebook still would have done it.

The civil lawsuits would be untenable for the taxpayers.

What would be the grounds for a lawsuit John?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

[mofn]

Who cares if it was a “F.O.I.A. request” or “RSA 91-A:3 specifically section 2”. It goes straight to the summer of 1973 and Howard Baker:
“What did the president (town) know and when did he (they) know it?”
Then it begs the question why did the town not release the findings of a TAXPAYER funded investigation?

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by mofn

Who cares if it was a “F.O.I.A. request” or “RSA 91-A:3 specifically section 2”. It goes straight to the summer of 1973 and Howard Baker:
“What did the president (town) know and when did he (they) know it?”
Then it begs the question why did the town not release the findings of a TAXPAYER funded investigation?

Because the RSA lays out the specifics.
The release may have allowed for the police chief to sue for defamation of character.
He would not have to prove that he didn't do what they alleged he did... only that the process was violated and thus his privacy violated as an employee of the town.

[camp guy]

In the "InDepthNH.org" article, by Nancy West, Rondeau is quoted as saying "My attorney and I are keeping our options open", and, "I do feel I have been harmed".

In the light of these two quotes, and recognizing the fact that Rondeau may be in for an uphill battle, I would offer the suggestion that comments by outsiders may be totally out of context and without factual basis, and, therefore, inappropriate.

Continued discussion of this matter could lead to actually strengthening his claim of "been harmed". I am no fan of this individual, but I think this entire matter should be left in the hands of the officials involved.

[Major]

I read the article differently than most. My take is that the origins of the complaint and investigation stemmed from the chief's decisions on assignments and overtime. The union didn't appreciate him reserving plum overtime duties for him and the other senior officer. Once an investigation is initiated, the investigator has broad latitude to pursue any other misconduct. It is not surprising that instances of bad conduct were voiced by the same people complaining about allocation of assignments and overtime. I am not saying the chief did not say things that were inappropriate, things that should not have been said. However, the standard for creating a hostile work environment is not merely stating uncouth things. The employee has to be part of a legally protected class, such as age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation. Making crude jokes does not rise to the level of a hostile work environment if some form of discrimination does not occur with it.

I was part of and conducted many Article 15 Investigations while in the National Guard. This type of scenario occurred frequently. (An individual being investigated for one thing, but the findings proving something else.)
Proving a hostile work environment is not easy. In this case, the chief very well may have a cause of action against the town.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Major

I read the article differently than most. My take is that the origins of the complaint and investigation stemmed from the chief's decisions on assignments and overtime. The union didn't appreciate him reserving plum overtime duties for him and the other senior officer. Once an investigation is initiated, the investigator has broad latitude to pursue any other misconduct. It is not surprising that instances of bad conduct were voiced by the same people complaining about allocation of assignments and overtime. I am not saying the chief did not say things that were inappropriate, things that should not have been said. However, the standard for creating a hostile work environment is not merely stating uncouth things. The employee has to be part of a legally protected class, such as age, disability, race, religion, sexual orientation. Making crude jokes does not rise to the level of a hostile work environment if some form of discrimination does not occur with it.

I was part of and conducted many Article 15 Investigations while in the National Guard. This type of scenario occurred frequently. (An individual being investigated for one thing, but the findings proving something else.)
Proving a hostile work environment is not easy. In this case, the chief very well may have a cause of action against the town.

News flash--women are a protected class.

Bigger issue though (not to minimize sexism)--don't you think the town should be able to fire a police chief (or fire chief, or DPW head...) just for being a lousy leader? Did you see the Granite State News piece? A captain called for help in a life or death situation and NOBODY came to the scene? Unbelievable. That complete lack of structure/discipline alone is reason to terminate the chief

[Major]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

News flash--women are a protected class.

Bigger issue though (not to minimize sexism)--don't you think the town should be able to fire a police chief (or fire chief, or DPW head...) just for being a lousy leader? Did you see the Granite State News piece? A captain called for help in a life or death situation and NOBODY came to the scene? Unbelievable. That complete lack of structure/discipline alone is reason to terminate the chief

Of course I know that women are a protected class. Locker room humor alone is not sufficient to create a hostile work environment. It needs to be coupled with some sort of discrimination or favoritism, which doesn't appear to be present in this instance.

The situation you mentioned is not referenced in the article. Not sure whether it was investigated. Police make split second decisions on a routine basis. As with most if not all of these situations, we do not know all the facts. If the chief was not performing to the requirements of the position, there were any number of ways to initiate his removal. The initial investigation in this instance appears to be rooted in disgruntled employees complaining about assignments and overtime. The article doesn't really mention poor job performance.

I have seen many instances when even a small number of disgruntled employees can destroy an otherwise honorable career. People get caught up in the emotional aspect of a hostile work environment accusation and tend to overstate and embellish what really was said and happened. And then they use the allegations to effect the removal of the individual. Again, I know nothing about this present situation, but given the history of shoddy reporting by the LDS, I always view stories like these with a critical eye.

[John Mercier]

AB lost revenue because the establishments that support the transgender community will no longer purchase, and thus sell, the product.

Critics of the transgender community, like bar owner Kid Rock, continue to sell the brand at their bars.

Locker Room Humor can legally if the situation persists constitute a legal finding of a hostile work environment. The supervisor is responsible to see that it stops. The Chief, being the direct supervisor, had to be overstepped by the BoS after the investigation.

https://www.skassellaw.com/how-locke...k-environment/

The Board acts on behalf of the taxpayers; and I would guess got the best legal advice they could to protect those taxpayers.

Work environments are always tough... but we have to do the best we can to limit offensive behavior and make others feel comfortable to perform at exceptional levels.

[Major]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

AB lost revenue because the establishments that support the transgender community will no longer purchase, and thus sell, the product.

Critics of the transgender community, like bar owner Kid Rock, continue to sell the brand at their bars.

Locker Room Humor can legally if the situation persists constitute a legal finding of a hostile work environment. The supervisor is responsible to see that it stops. The Chief, being the direct supervisor, had to be overstepped by the BoS after the investigation.

https://www.skassellaw.com/how-locke...k-environment/

The Board acts on behalf of the taxpayers; and I would guess got the best legal advice they could to protect those taxpayers.

Work environments are always tough... but we have to do the best we can to limit offensive behavior and make others feel comfortable to perform at exceptional levels.

California law may have a different standard for what constitutes a hostile work environment than New Hampshire law. When I retired from the Army 11 years ago the standard was that the conduct must be persistent, intentional, severe, recurring and pervasive, and must interfere with the employee's ability to perform. The person making the accusation must reasonably believe that he or she will be discriminated against, e.g., if not he or she will be terminated. Instances of locker room humor or inappropriate jokes are not enough.

That said, the standard probably has lowered over the years, especially with the "me too" movement. Also, there may be legal theories prohibiting such behavior other than hostile work environment. And while I agree we have to do the best we can to make people feel comfortable and perform well, those who can relate and adapt to all personality types do best. I thought the world was a much more interesting place where we had to deal with "characters." When I was a kid, there were "characters" everywhere. Now, in our effort to be diverse, we are creating a society of homogenous behavior. Boring!

[John Mercier]

https://www.shaheengordon.com/employ...0or%20comments

[Major]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

https://www.shaheengordon.com/employ...0or%20comments

No mention of the standard in the article. Just the types of behavior that may get you in trouble. Yes, inappropriate jokes and innuendos can get a person in trouble, if they are part of a severe pattern of behavior that caused the person to reasonably believe they are being discriminated against.

John, I used to give presentations on sexual harassment to each of the RIANG units every year for about 10 years straight. I know a little something about this topic.

[John Mercier]

It provides the NH Statutes pertinent.

[Major]

Originally Posted by John Mercier

It provides the NH Statutes pertinent.

The RSA supports what I've been saying. Jokes and locker room humor are not enough. Typically, Federal and State statutes, like NH RSA 354-A: 6 & 7, prohibit discrimination based on an employee's protected class. NH RSA 354-A: 6 states that it is discriminatory for an employer to refuse to hire or employ or to otherwise discriminate against an employee because of age, sex, gender identity, race, color, marital status, physical or mental disability, religious creed, or national origin. RSA 354-A: 7 prohibits harassment, such as unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal, non-verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature. Such behavior must include one of the following: (a) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment; (b) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or
(c) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.

What is not said in the RSA, and is required when proving such cases, is that the individual making the accusation must have a reasonable belief that they are being discriminated against, meaning that some level of reasonableness is the standard that the person being effected cannot perform his or her duties because of the conduct.

You are correct, the papers did not remove the chief. Based on what was in the article, it was the allegations about assignments and overtime that triggered the investigation, not his allegedly boorish conduct or poor performance. I agree about the Board's analysis, the Board weighed the likelihood of legal action in retaining the chief by the union and/or individuals offended by his conduct versus the likelihood of legal action in dismissing the chief by the chief. However, I am not sure what role his retirement plays. He may argue that his retirement essentially was a constructive dismissal. It will be interesting to see what happens.

[John Mercier]

(C) would cover it.

Also the bar for a civil suit is lower than a criminal violation of a statue.
Nor does it protect contractual employees from violation of policy.

The female employees could file on the basis that his comments suggested underlying discrimination against them.
And if it when public, all sorts of actions could come from the community at large.

The outcome of the Franklin case will be the more interesting, as that one is very active.

[FlyingScot]

Originally Posted by Major

California law may have a different standard for what constitutes a hostile work environment than New Hampshire law. When I retired from the Army 11 years ago the standard was that the conduct must be persistent, intentional, severe, recurring and pervasive, and must interfere with the employee's ability to perform. The person making the accusation must reasonably believe that he or she will be discriminated against, e.g., if not he or she will be terminated. Instances of locker room humor or inappropriate jokes are not enough.

That said, the standard probably has lowered over the years, especially with the "me too" movement. Also, there may be legal theories prohibiting such behavior other than hostile work environment. And while I agree we have to do the best we can to make people feel comfortable and perform well, those who can relate and adapt to all personality types do best. I thought the world was a much more interesting place where we had to deal with "characters." When I was a kid, there were "characters" everywhere. Now, in our effort to be diverse, we are creating a society of homogenous behavior. Boring!

Weird and sad that you imply the standard for keeping a police chief is that he has not broken the law. This is the kind of thinking that leads governments to function so poorly compared to businesses. Any decent business would just fire his sorry ass for being a lousy leader, as described in numerous reports that you seem to ignore.

If he's your brother, cousin, or BFF--that's cool and you're a good friend. But other than that, this is your toughest defense since Silber & Co

[Major]

Originally Posted by FlyingScot

Weird and sad that you imply the standard for keeping a police chief is that he has not broken the law. This is the kind of thinking that leads governments to function so poorly compared to businesses. Any decent business would just fire his sorry ass for being a lousy leader, as described in numerous reports that you seem to ignore.

If he's your brother, cousin, or BFF--that's cool and you're a good friend. But other than that, this is your toughest defense since Silber & Co

I don't know him from Adam. But when I hear that a union is unhappy, and then they generate an investigation based on allegations that appear to be within a chief's discretion, I tend to have skepticism of the allegations. People like you think you know everything about the situation just because you read it in the paper. I hate to break it to you but news reporting has biases, and they come out in articles like this one about the chief (and the article about the restaurant owner in Franklin). And it isn't sad, you or I do not know all of the facts, you or I don't know if the allegations are true or made-up. I know the standard for sexual harassment and workplace and they are basically the same for public and private sectors. Such standards are and should be high to protect the employee. Otherwise, someone can make an allegation and destroy someone's life. You are talking about something completely different when you suggest a lower standard for employment. I don't necessarily disagree with you. The standard should be lower for poor performance. However, in the private sector it is easier to terminate someone than in the public sector.

[John Mercier]

The papers didn't remove him from his position.

The allegations only trigger an investigation.

The Board, with legal advice, must have felt that a suit from the Chief was less likely to have a negative outcome than a suit(s) filed by others.

The Chief can file civil suit, if he feels that appropriate.

[Descant]

In a small state like NH police all over the state are known to each other. You don't get to be chief because you have no credentials, or because nobody knows you. Why isn't anybody questioning the commission that screened and hired this guy? We've seen other threads with police chief issues. This is not just a Wolfeboro problem, but it is a hiring problem.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by Descant

In a small state like NH police all over the state are known to each other. You don't get to be chief because you have no credentials, or because nobody knows you. Why isn't anybody questioning the commission that screened and hired this guy? We've seen other threads with police chief issues. This is not just a Wolfeboro problem, but it is a hiring problem.

Aps and Major laid it out.
Changing standards. So what someone did in the past may have been more acceptable from a legal and social outlook.

Also, ex-employers really don't need the hassle of either a civil suit from a former employee or the social media attacks should they become disgruntled.

[John Mercier]

Originally Posted by LoveLakeLife

What would be the grounds for a lawsuit John?


Sent from my iPhone using Winnipesaukee Forum mobile app

Anything from the Chief feeling the process was not followed and it brought harm to his character, to a resident claiming what the woman in Franklin is claiming - they do not feel they have equal protection. To a business owner claiming harm from loss of tourist revenue due to the remarks being posted in a broadly open forum.
Civil suits are tantamount to venom.

[mofn]

"InDepthNH.org" has the 28 page report released in June.
It is a toxic mess that did not pop up overnight!

[John Mercier]

And should the Chief decide to sue InDepth, that is his purview. But unless he can prove the BoS violated the process... then the town is clear.

The town did what conservative towns all over NH do. Take the complaint, investigate the complaint, act on the findings of the investigation if necessary after seeking competent legal counsel, and make a small generalized statement on their actions.
It is the safest route for every municipality.
It is a slower process... but avoids ongoing drama out of the spotlight.

[Mr. V]

Originally Posted by mofn

"InDepthNH.org" has the 28 page report released in June.

link to MRI report: https://indepthnh.org/wp-content/upl...REDACTED-2.pdf

[ApS]

Originally Posted by Mr. V

link to MRI report: https://indepthnh.org/wp-content/upl...REDACTED-2.pdf

Thanks...I read most of it, but when reading way down to Rondeau's own Facebook cartoons. I had to LOL at the cartoon that begins with, "This is Susy". (A hairy weightlifter wearing a red bra). Anheiser-Busch lost $27 Billion as a result of transgender(ism): presumably, due to gender-specific boycotts.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ket-value.html

It looks like the Wolfeboro police chief was just "Caught-up in the Times". It happened at my own police department, where she was rocketed through $100,000 promotions, and might be collecting $300,000 annual salary today; that is, were she not retired.

Transphobia--as a term- hadn't yet been invented.

We saw none of this hullabaloo in the U. S. Navy of the 1970s. It all started later with the Feds and "Don't ask--Don't tell".

Anyway, when Chief "Rambo" was mentioned at a now-defunct Wolfeboro forum, a male educator listed this quote, "People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf".

I hope Chief "Rambo"--while his old job would have paid well in retirement--retires wealthier than could have been arranged with his two year's time remaining.

While I've had only two occasions to call on WPD in 47 years, I'd received prompt service. I called just three weeks ago, alerting WPD to a loud barking (and getting frantic) dog left alone at my newest neighbor's walk-in basement. Though the dispatcher advised the officer would respond to such calls in an "as-available" basis, an officer arrived so quickly, he could have been parked in my driveway!

Facebook itself has been collecting data on people: wherein their salaried censors had viewed "inappropriate" postings, then would deplatform, ban, or use "shadow-banning" algorithms to provide "Proper-Think" to the masses. Chief Rondeau's posts seem to have been allowed-in for some reason.

Facebook, again, provided million$ to "educate" cities who needed to shift their alliances in a NY newspaper article titled, "Zuckerbucks". The People didn't learn of Zuckerberg's manipulations with integrity, because they'd been counting on Google--and the NYTs--who had both censored the article.