02-02-2009, 02:25 PM
Story user rating:
Published: Yesterday
A member of the top brass at the Coral Gables Police department, investigated for and cleared of possible perjury charges, was slapped on the wrist this month by the city for having filed an affidavit with false information.
The complaint filed last year by the attorney for two police officers who were disciplined by Maj. Ed Hudak, former chief of the internal affairs division and who later sued the city saying they were not disciplined in the required timely manner.
While the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office said there was not sufficient evidence that Hudak, who now heads the city's patrol department, committed perjury, the 22-year veteran got a written reprimand Jan. 9 for violating rule 1.03 of the department's rules and regulations.
''Personnel at each level of the department will have the authority and responsibility commensurate with their position to make decisions necessary for the effective execution of their duties,'' the rule states. ``All personnel are fully accountable for the use or misuse of authority.''
Attorney Michael Pancier, who represented Sgt. Alan Matas and Lt. Alexander Roffe in the lawsuit, said Hudak's sworn affidavit was ``false and misleading.''
In the affidavit, Hudak said he met with the two subordinates and the police union president to discuss the investigation and possible disciplinary action May. 17, 2006 -- when the union president was out of town.
Pancier filed a complaint with the department last March, after the civil case was resolved, saying Hudak may have committed ``official misconduct, perjury or obstruction of justice by submitting a false and misleading affidavit.''
Lt. Theresa Silverio-Molina told the Miami Herald last week that the department immediately forwarded the allegation to the state attorney's office.
Assistant State Attorney Johnette Hardiman said in her close-out memo that the date of the meeting and who was present were not relevant to the case. ``It is immaterial to the litigation. Materiality is required to establish perjury.''
And official misconduct can only be established if it were proved that Hudak had a corrupt intent to obtain a benefit or cause harm to another through the affidavit, Hardiman wrote.
They did not file criminal charges, but sent the case back to the city to proceed administratively, Silverio-Molina said, adding that a charge of violating the personal accountability rule was sustained.
''He admitted he signed the affidavit after not thoroughly reading it,'' Silverio-Molina said.
Hudak said Friday there were several revisions to the affidavit, which was prepared by a paralegal, and that he was working on several cases at the same time.
''There were a lot of corrections made,'' Hudak said, adding that he had instructed the paralegal to write ''on or about May 17'' because he was not sure of the date.
'She just put `on.' She did not put 'or about,' '' Hudak said. ``I did not catch it. It was not an accurate reflection of what I told her.
``Did I sign an improper document? Yes, absolutely. And it will never happen again. I learned from it. I'm probably one of the bigger proofreaders in the department and I'm in the largest division.
''I learned if you are doing those affidavits you should do them yourself,'' he added. ``What I got at minimum was what I deserved. When you are looking at documents like that, you can't leave any stone unturned.''
Published: Yesterday
A member of the top brass at the Coral Gables Police department, investigated for and cleared of possible perjury charges, was slapped on the wrist this month by the city for having filed an affidavit with false information.
The complaint filed last year by the attorney for two police officers who were disciplined by Maj. Ed Hudak, former chief of the internal affairs division and who later sued the city saying they were not disciplined in the required timely manner.
While the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office said there was not sufficient evidence that Hudak, who now heads the city's patrol department, committed perjury, the 22-year veteran got a written reprimand Jan. 9 for violating rule 1.03 of the department's rules and regulations.
''Personnel at each level of the department will have the authority and responsibility commensurate with their position to make decisions necessary for the effective execution of their duties,'' the rule states. ``All personnel are fully accountable for the use or misuse of authority.''
Attorney Michael Pancier, who represented Sgt. Alan Matas and Lt. Alexander Roffe in the lawsuit, said Hudak's sworn affidavit was ``false and misleading.''
In the affidavit, Hudak said he met with the two subordinates and the police union president to discuss the investigation and possible disciplinary action May. 17, 2006 -- when the union president was out of town.
Pancier filed a complaint with the department last March, after the civil case was resolved, saying Hudak may have committed ``official misconduct, perjury or obstruction of justice by submitting a false and misleading affidavit.''
Lt. Theresa Silverio-Molina told the Miami Herald last week that the department immediately forwarded the allegation to the state attorney's office.
Assistant State Attorney Johnette Hardiman said in her close-out memo that the date of the meeting and who was present were not relevant to the case. ``It is immaterial to the litigation. Materiality is required to establish perjury.''
And official misconduct can only be established if it were proved that Hudak had a corrupt intent to obtain a benefit or cause harm to another through the affidavit, Hardiman wrote.
They did not file criminal charges, but sent the case back to the city to proceed administratively, Silverio-Molina said, adding that a charge of violating the personal accountability rule was sustained.
''He admitted he signed the affidavit after not thoroughly reading it,'' Silverio-Molina said.
Hudak said Friday there were several revisions to the affidavit, which was prepared by a paralegal, and that he was working on several cases at the same time.
''There were a lot of corrections made,'' Hudak said, adding that he had instructed the paralegal to write ''on or about May 17'' because he was not sure of the date.
'She just put `on.' She did not put 'or about,' '' Hudak said. ``I did not catch it. It was not an accurate reflection of what I told her.
``Did I sign an improper document? Yes, absolutely. And it will never happen again. I learned from it. I'm probably one of the bigger proofreaders in the department and I'm in the largest division.
''I learned if you are doing those affidavits you should do them yourself,'' he added. ``What I got at minimum was what I deserved. When you are looking at documents like that, you can't leave any stone unturned.''