anonymous
Other,#2UPDATE EX-employee responds
Sun, November 28, 2010
In response to "Shelton's" post, Mr. Webster has successfully completed the Basic Training Course and has been reinstated to the auxiliary police as indicated in the the letter below. It appears "Shelton" and others are using a "consumer protection" issue as smear campaign against Mr. Webster.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
AUXILIARY POLICE SECTION
120-55 QUEENS BOULEVARD 2nd.F1oor KEW GARDENS, N.Y. 11424
February 5, 2010
Michael Webster
80 Rockland Avenue
Yonkers, New York 10705
Dear Mr. Webster:
In order to proceed with your reinstatement to the position of Auxiliary Police Officer, you must complete the enrollment process outlined in the Auxiliary Guide. The purpose of this procedure is to update all necessary forms and data, and is applicable to all participants who have been. inactive for a substantial period of time.
Thereafter, you will be scheduled .for the Borough based Basic Training Course scheduled for March 2010; This course will provide up-to-date relevant training in the basic skills and techniques needed to function effectively as an Auxiliary Police Officer. Upon completion of the Basic Training Course, you will be issued your shield and identification card.
Please contact the undersigned or Lieutenant Brian Connolly as soon as possible at (718) 520-9243 to initiate the reinstatement process.
Angelo J. Maroulis
Deputy Inspector
COURTESY PROFESSIONALISM RESPECT
Website: http://nyc.govinypd
One Who Knows
Shelton,#3General Comment
Thu, November 11, 2010
I came across this posting and noticed Mr. Webster's rebuttal, which states that his dismissal from the NYPD Auxiliary Force was reversed by the New York appellate court.
Something that is worth noting is that the reversal was granted on technical grounds only, based on the fact that Mr. Webster was not granted sufficient opportunity to be heard in his own defense. Nothing in his response suggests that the investigation conducted by NYPD Internal Affairs, which found that his organization uses deceptive fundraising practices, or that he misused his police uniform, or that he charged people a fee for a "VIP tour" of restricted NYPD facilities without any authorization, plus a number of other allegations, was falsified or inaccurate.
What the New York appellate court seems to have done is to grant Mr. Webster an opportunity for a full hearing. Since this all happened a year ago, presumably he has had that opportunity by now.
Mr. Webster: what were the results of that hearing and on what public site are they posted? Have you been reinstated as an NYPD Auxiliary Sergeant? Did the hearing find that the results of the internal investigation were inaccurate or falsified in any way? Anyone who reads this posting, especially if they are considering making a contribution to your organization, is going to want to know these things.
Anonymous
Yonkers,#4UPDATE EX-employee responds
Sun, April 05, 2009
Mr. Webster dismissal from the NYPD auxiliary has been REVERSED by the Supreme Court of NY County, Appellate Division, First Department because the NYPD and Commissioner Kelly denied Mr. Webster his due process rights. SEE BELOW. The initial report is not a consumer complaint against the RPOA. It was posted by Michael DePalma, NYPD auxiliary officer, who for unknown reasons has a grudge against Mr. Webster. PLEASE NOTE-since the court has reversed the previous decision , the decision referenced by Michael DePalma is VOID and if this rebuttal is not posted immediately, RPOA legal counsel will take legal action against all parties. It would be in the best interest of all parties involved to remove the entire posting. Thank you. Decided on February 24, 2009 Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire, DeGrasse, JJ. 5321 107302/06 [*1]In re Michael Brooke Webster, Petitioner-Appellant, v Police Department of the City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents. Stuart Salles, New York, for appellant. Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Cheryl Payer of counsel), for respondents. Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about September 10, 2007, which, in an article 78 proceeding challenging respondent Police Department's determination to dismiss petitioner as an Auxiliary Police Officer, after a hearing, granted respondent's cross motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the statute of limitations, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the cross motion denied, and the matter remanded for further proceedings. Petitioner testified, without contradiction, that several months after being told not to go out on patrol, he was instructed to attend a "fact-finding" interview with the Internal Affairs Bureau, that the interview concerned the engagement of fundraisers by an auxiliary police association of which petitioner was president, and that petitioner was assured that there would be a second interview at which he would have an opportunity to bring in additional information he did not have with him because he was not informed in advance of the subject of the interview, but that the second interview never took place. Instead, about six weeks later, petitioner received a phone call instructing him to turn in his badge and ID. The Commanding Officer of the Auxiliary Police testified that when petitioner called him next day for an explanation, he told petitioner that he was being terminated because of the results of the IAB investigation into petitioner's association with an internet telemarketing company, that the termination could not be changed to a resignation, and that the order came straight from the Commissioner himself. The Commanding Officer also testified that he did not share with petitioner a report about the investigation and other items of information in his possession because the conversation was "too quick" to "go into specific[s]," that an instruction to turn in a badge and ID is consistent with a suspension, and that the process of termination for disciplinary reasons, which would ordinarily involve an administrative hearing with notice of charges, in this instance was "totally out of the ordinary." Petitioner, for his part, denied the substance of the Commanding Officer's testimony, testifying that the latter made it clear that he simply had no information to give. Supreme Court did not explicitly credit the Commanding Officer's testimony that he had told petitioner that he was being terminated. Instead the court found that the Commanding [*2]Officer "confirmed" the instruction to petitioner to turn in his badge and ID, and that such instruction, together with petitioner's inactive status and the IAB interview, had to have given "any reasonable person in [petitioner's] position" notice that he was being terminated. We disagree. The instruction was admittedly consistent with a suspension, and was especially ambiguous here since petitioner had already been placed on inactive duty, an apparent de facto suspension. Furthermore, respondent's own Auxiliary Patrol Guide provides for specific due-process procedures to be followed when charges are brought seeking dismissal of an Auxiliary Officer, including a hearing at which the testimony is to be taped, but none of these procedures were followed here. Assuming, as respondent argued before Supreme Court, that the Commissioner, who made the decision to terminate petitioner, need not comply with these procedures, the failure to do so added to the ambiguity of the purported notice. In short, we find that respondent failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that it gave petitioner unambiguous notice of his termination. Accordingly, the four-month statute of limitations began to run, not on the date in late December 2004, when petitioner spoke with the Commanding Officer, but on January 30, 2006, when petitioner's counsel was advised that he had been terminated (see Matter of Vadell v City of New York Health & Hosps. Corp., 233 AD2d 224, 225 [1996], citing, inter alia, Matter of Matter of Biondo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 NY2d 832, 834 [1983]; see also City of New York v State of New York, 40 NY2d 659, 670 [1976]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT. ENTERED: FEBRUARY 24, 2009 CLERK