04-22-2009, 11:53 AM
One word the former Lee County sheriff’s chief deputy uses to describe the last six weeks: hell.
After 20 years in law enforcement, Charles Ferrante spent the final days of his career stripped of his uniform, accused of wrongdoing — all while waiting for word on an internal investigation The News-Press has since discovered never really got under way.
Sheriff Mike Scott had announced Ferrante had been placed on paid leave pending a formal internal investigation. But Scott now says the investigation was over almost before it began.
Ferrante, 42, was second-in-command at the 1,600 member agency for more than four years, beginning when Scott took office.
On March 9, two days after Ferrante announced his retirement, Ferrante was accused of using abusive language toward a subordinate and later attempting to pressure an attorney into altering the personnel file of his brother, a captain of Special Operations who resigned abruptly in the weeks prior.
Speaking Tuesday, four days after his retirement became effective April 18 and for the first time at length since news of the allegations broke, Ferrante denies the allegations.
Scott said he ordered an internal investigation and Ferrante was placed on paid administrative leave — the first steps to an internal investigation. But he said when Ferrante went on medical leave the day after he was suspended, it effectively halted the formal investigation.
“We can’t investigate the chief without the chief,” Scott said.
He questioned the timing of Ferrante’s medical leave, but Ferrante said the medical issues, which he declined to discuss, had been ongoing.
“So, really I’m on sick leave, yet they continued to report that I was being investigated,” Ferrante said. “Well, which one is it? I mean, this is my reputation, and if the reason they didn’t move forward on this was because I was on sick leave, then why didn’t they even try to interview anyone else?”
Ferrante said he was never formally notified of the accusations against him, and no other witnesses made sworn statements — steps that should be taken under the state’s officer bill of rights.
Ferrante expressed bafflement at Scott’s handling of events.
He said despite the sheriff’s declarations he repeatedly told his second-in-command to steer clear of actions involving his brother, then-Capt. Dominick Ferrante, 39, Scott invited him to a meeting to discuss his brother’s personnel file and also ordered him to deliver an ultimatum to his brother, who was head of Special Operations: Resign or be fired.
“There were colonels and majors all up and down that hallway,” Ferrante said. “Of all people, he sent me to do it. Now, if he wanted me to stay out of it, why would he put me in that position?”
Scott called Ferrante’s assertion “absolutely false.”
Today, Scott plans to release his self-penned response to sheriff’s attorney Abbi Smith about an incident in which she alleged the chief attempted to intimidate her into purging a document from Dominick Ferrante’s file.
Ferrante said the only communication he had with Smith was during the meeting the sheriff invited him to; he said he never spoke to her alone about the matter. The sheriff said the chief was out of town during that meeting.
Just before his brother resigned, Ferrante was facing a civil service board hearing about his treatment of Sgt. Ryan Bell during a meeting in November to sort out disagreements in the Forensics Unit. It was alleged he cursed and threatened Bell.
The former chief said he sometimes used “language for men, behind closed doors,” which he said is common in law enforcement. But he said the sheriff didn’t frown upon it, and in fact sometimes encouraged his next-in-command to give certain employees “the chief’s special,” meaning an especially stern tongue-lashing.
“He just made sure he wasn’t in the room when it happened,” Ferrante said, noting his discipline was always, “fair, firm and consistent.”
The sheriff said Ferrante is lying.
“I think that statement’s probably right up there with the whole claim about having a, ‘chief’s probation,’” Scott said. “We don’t have a chief’s probation, we don’t have ‘chief’s specials.’ And as far as all this, ‘men talk,’ I don’t know what they’re talking about. I don’t speak to my employees that way, and I wouldn’t expect my administrative staff to speak to other employees that way.”
But Ferrante questions Scott’s credibility, pointing to the fact that on the day he announced his retirement, Scott described his career as, “impeccable.” Days later, Scott blasted Ferrante, saying he had repeatedly counseled against his harsh tone with employees, and also about the reported incident with Smith.
In the last year, Ferrante said he and the sheriff spoke at least twice about his performance, and the sheriff never questioned his tactics.
“If it was true that he had to repeatedly counsel me, then I would consider it his failure as a sheriff that he didn’t remove me from this position sooner,” Ferrante said. “You don’t repeatedly counsel your second-in-command about something like that. You take action.”
Scott said if Ferrante had merely retired after the Bell incident, the outcome might have been different. He said the Smith incident was, “the last straw.”
But internal investigations, Ferrante said, protect the agency and the employee. He said one should have been carried out, especially when the public was told it was.
“They would have had to take sworn statements,” Ferrante said. “The truth might have actually come out.”
After 20 years in law enforcement, Charles Ferrante spent the final days of his career stripped of his uniform, accused of wrongdoing — all while waiting for word on an internal investigation The News-Press has since discovered never really got under way.
Sheriff Mike Scott had announced Ferrante had been placed on paid leave pending a formal internal investigation. But Scott now says the investigation was over almost before it began.
Ferrante, 42, was second-in-command at the 1,600 member agency for more than four years, beginning when Scott took office.
On March 9, two days after Ferrante announced his retirement, Ferrante was accused of using abusive language toward a subordinate and later attempting to pressure an attorney into altering the personnel file of his brother, a captain of Special Operations who resigned abruptly in the weeks prior.
Speaking Tuesday, four days after his retirement became effective April 18 and for the first time at length since news of the allegations broke, Ferrante denies the allegations.
Scott said he ordered an internal investigation and Ferrante was placed on paid administrative leave — the first steps to an internal investigation. But he said when Ferrante went on medical leave the day after he was suspended, it effectively halted the formal investigation.
“We can’t investigate the chief without the chief,” Scott said.
He questioned the timing of Ferrante’s medical leave, but Ferrante said the medical issues, which he declined to discuss, had been ongoing.
“So, really I’m on sick leave, yet they continued to report that I was being investigated,” Ferrante said. “Well, which one is it? I mean, this is my reputation, and if the reason they didn’t move forward on this was because I was on sick leave, then why didn’t they even try to interview anyone else?”
Ferrante said he was never formally notified of the accusations against him, and no other witnesses made sworn statements — steps that should be taken under the state’s officer bill of rights.
Ferrante expressed bafflement at Scott’s handling of events.
He said despite the sheriff’s declarations he repeatedly told his second-in-command to steer clear of actions involving his brother, then-Capt. Dominick Ferrante, 39, Scott invited him to a meeting to discuss his brother’s personnel file and also ordered him to deliver an ultimatum to his brother, who was head of Special Operations: Resign or be fired.
“There were colonels and majors all up and down that hallway,” Ferrante said. “Of all people, he sent me to do it. Now, if he wanted me to stay out of it, why would he put me in that position?”
Scott called Ferrante’s assertion “absolutely false.”
Today, Scott plans to release his self-penned response to sheriff’s attorney Abbi Smith about an incident in which she alleged the chief attempted to intimidate her into purging a document from Dominick Ferrante’s file.
Ferrante said the only communication he had with Smith was during the meeting the sheriff invited him to; he said he never spoke to her alone about the matter. The sheriff said the chief was out of town during that meeting.
Just before his brother resigned, Ferrante was facing a civil service board hearing about his treatment of Sgt. Ryan Bell during a meeting in November to sort out disagreements in the Forensics Unit. It was alleged he cursed and threatened Bell.
The former chief said he sometimes used “language for men, behind closed doors,” which he said is common in law enforcement. But he said the sheriff didn’t frown upon it, and in fact sometimes encouraged his next-in-command to give certain employees “the chief’s special,” meaning an especially stern tongue-lashing.
“He just made sure he wasn’t in the room when it happened,” Ferrante said, noting his discipline was always, “fair, firm and consistent.”
The sheriff said Ferrante is lying.
“I think that statement’s probably right up there with the whole claim about having a, ‘chief’s probation,’” Scott said. “We don’t have a chief’s probation, we don’t have ‘chief’s specials.’ And as far as all this, ‘men talk,’ I don’t know what they’re talking about. I don’t speak to my employees that way, and I wouldn’t expect my administrative staff to speak to other employees that way.”
But Ferrante questions Scott’s credibility, pointing to the fact that on the day he announced his retirement, Scott described his career as, “impeccable.” Days later, Scott blasted Ferrante, saying he had repeatedly counseled against his harsh tone with employees, and also about the reported incident with Smith.
In the last year, Ferrante said he and the sheriff spoke at least twice about his performance, and the sheriff never questioned his tactics.
“If it was true that he had to repeatedly counsel me, then I would consider it his failure as a sheriff that he didn’t remove me from this position sooner,” Ferrante said. “You don’t repeatedly counsel your second-in-command about something like that. You take action.”
Scott said if Ferrante had merely retired after the Bell incident, the outcome might have been different. He said the Smith incident was, “the last straw.”
But internal investigations, Ferrante said, protect the agency and the employee. He said one should have been carried out, especially when the public was told it was.
“They would have had to take sworn statements,” Ferrante said. “The truth might have actually come out.”