Mark Edwards Wins Arbitration

Another lost for the administration!!! Yeah baby!! :snicker:

The Arbitrator finds that dismissal of Officer Edwards is an excessive penalty as it took into consideration serious charges against him that were not sustained.

Officer Edwards was a nine year veteran officer with an unblemished record. He had never previously been subject to discipline. His personnel record contains numerous internal memorandums as well as letters from civilians commending his excellence in the performance of his duties; too many to mention individually. There is no evidence of any act done for personal gain. There is no indication that Officer Edwards will not perform his duties in a satisfactory manner.

The Union has offered proposed comparators who received discipline less than discharge for serious infractions. One such individual was found on a random drug test to have taken a pain pill for which he had no prescription. (Tr. I, 191 204). One individual was involved in the use of excessive force on a prisoner. (Tr. I90). Another officer reported to work intoxicated. (Tr. I90). Another officer photographed the answer sheet to a promotional exam. (Tr. I, 191-92). An officer was found to have committed discrimination. (Tr I, 193). None of these individuals’ conduct was like in kind to that of Officer Edwards. However their retention of employment indicates that returning Officer Edwards to employment will not be deleterious to the function of the police department.

The City argues that Officer Edwards’ situation is different because the others were contrite, admitting accountability for their infractions. In contrast Officer Edwards undertook to defend himself by attributing the actions taken against him as recrimination. Defending oneself against charges, many of which were not sustained, is not a component of good cause. It in fact raises questions of due process, if not retaliation.

Order of the Arbitrator
For the foregoing reasons the Arbitrator orders that Officer Edwards be reinstated as an officer of the Fort Myers Police Department with compensation to commence on the city’s receipt of this Order at the rate it would have received if he had not been discharged.


See you in school next week. :evil:

The Arbitrator finds that dismissal of Officer Edwards is an excessive penalty as it took into consideration serious charges against him that were not sustained.

Officer Edwards was a nine year veteran officer with an unblemished record. He had never previously been subject to discipline. His personnel record contains numerous internal memorandums as well as letters from civilians commending his excellence in the performance of his duties; too many to mention individually. There is no evidence of any act done for personal gain. There is no indication that Officer Edwards will not perform his duties in a satisfactory manner.

The Union has offered proposed comparators who received discipline less than discharge for serious infractions. One such individual was found on a random drug test to have taken a pain pill for which he had no prescription. (Tr. I, 191 204). One individual was involved in the use of excessive force on a prisoner. (Tr. I90). Another officer reported to work intoxicated. (Tr. I90). Another officer photographed the answer sheet to a promotional exam. (Tr. I, 191-92). An officer was found to have committed discrimination. (Tr I, 193). None of these individuals’ conduct was like in kind to that of Officer Edwards. However their retention of employment indicates that returning Officer Edwards to employment will not be deleterious to the function of the police department.

The City argues that Officer Edwards’ situation is different because the others were contrite, admitting accountability for their infractions. In contrast Officer Edwards undertook to defend himself by attributing the actions taken against him as recrimination. Defending oneself against charges, many of which were not sustained, is not a component of good cause. It in fact raises questions of due process, if not retaliation.

Order of the Arbitrator
For the foregoing reasons the Arbitrator orders that Officer Edwards be reinstated as an officer of the Fort Myers Police Department with compensation to commence on the city’s receipt of this Order at the rate it would have received if he had not been discharged.


See you in school next week. :evil:

You forgot some of the ruling... How about a little objectivity :devil:

"His penalty will be that he will receive no compensation or benefits nor accrue any leave time during the period during which he was not working in the department. His date of original employment shall be the same as it was prior to his dismissal and his eligibility for future benefits shall be based on that date."

Thats a huge penalty..... ouchy...

This one will STING LIKE A BEE everytime Mark passes BP, WM, RC and DB in the hall. Well DB would be the stairway. Congrats Marcus. You should have had a week or two on the beach for covering for your boy. Something every generation of cop has done round here!

The Arbitrator finds that dismissal of Officer Edwards is an excessive penalty as it took into consideration serious charges against him that were not sustained.

Officer Edwards was a nine year veteran officer with an unblemished record. He had never previously been subject to discipline. His personnel record contains numerous internal memorandums as well as letters from civilians commending his excellence in the performance of his duties; too many to mention individually. There is no evidence of any act done for personal gain. There is no indication that Officer Edwards will not perform his duties in a satisfactory manner.

The Union has offered proposed comparators who received discipline less than discharge for serious infractions. One such individual was found on a random drug test to have taken a pain pill for which he had no prescription. (Tr. I, 191 204). One individual was involved in the use of excessive force on a prisoner. (Tr. I90). Another officer reported to work intoxicated. (Tr. I90). Another officer photographed the answer sheet to a promotional exam. (Tr. I, 191-92). An officer was found to have committed discrimination. (Tr I, 193). None of these individuals’ conduct was like in kind to that of Officer Edwards. However their retention of employment indicates that returning Officer Edwards to employment will not be deleterious to the function of the police department.

The City argues that Officer Edwards’ situation is different because the others were contrite, admitting accountability for their infractions. In contrast Officer Edwards undertook to defend himself by attributing the actions taken against him as recrimination. Defending oneself against charges, many of which were not sustained, is not a component of good cause. It in fact raises questions of due process, if not retaliation.

Order of the Arbitrator
For the foregoing reasons the Arbitrator orders that Officer Edwards be reinstated as an officer of the Fort Myers Police Department with compensation to commence on the city’s receipt of this Order at the rate it would have received if he had not been discharged.


See you in school next week. :evil:

You forgot some of the ruling... How about a little objectivity :devil:

"His penalty will be that he will receive no compensation or benefits nor accrue any leave time during the period during which he was not working in the department. His date of original employment shall be the same as it was prior to his dismissal and his eligibility for future benefits shall be based on that date."

Thats a huge penalty..... ouchy...

No, I learned from my superiors you only bring up issues you want to see, not getting back pay? no worries, I have some plans coming for that, its called VIOLATION OF DUE PROCESS, FSS 112 and our own department policy. To my friends, I missed you and will see you soon, thank you for all the love and support you shown during my PSB vacation.

If you have a problem with me feel free to tell me to my face when I return.

Father, You sustain me by speaking peace to my heart even in the midst of troubling circumstances. Your unsurpassed peace cannot be defined by the absence of conflict but by the assurance that You will come alongside me in the midst of my conflict and make a roadway for me in the wilderness of my suffering. When I seek You I can be assured that You will hear me and deliver me from all my fears. Thank You for Your sustaining presence that lifts me from my slumber and helps me to trust You for another day. Amen

WELCOME HOME MARK :cop: ...AND MAY PEACEFUL TIMES MOVE FORWARD AT FMPD

Beautiful Baby :!: :devil: Beautiful :devil: welcome back to the Leo Affairs party Mark...now we only need to get 40 CAL_666 and Diceman to show up...more to come baby ... :devil:

Congrats Mark. For those of us that worked with you we will be glad to see you back in uniform. Also, congrats to Cecil and the PBA Legal team that fought for you. This is what is suppose to happen when someone is terminated unjustly and without cause.

2 Officers back on the job in 2 months after they were fired by our current chief. Well City Council, time TO WAKE UP and do something about this administration. What else do u need. Come on.

No violation MOD, do not delete.......

Congrats Mark. For those of us that worked with you we will be glad to see you back in uniform. Also, congrats to Cecil and the PBA Legal team that fought for you. This is what is suppose to happen when someone is terminated unjustly and without cause.

2 Officers back on the job in 2 months after they were fired by our current chief. Well City Council, time TO WAKE UP and do something about this administration. What else do u need. Come on.

Let's see, racism in the department, criminal infractions by staff, officers drinking on the job, officer bill of rights violations, unjust terminations causing the city thousands of dollars - should I keep going!

No violation MOD, do not delete.......

Amen, very well said. :snicker: :snicker:

BRAVO!!! BRAVO!!! :snicker: