WOODSTOCK — Joseph Swanson has filed a new lawsuit in his ongoing legal fight to regain his position as Woodstock’s police chief.
On Monday, Swanson asked the court to “remove” him from paid administrative leave and to reinstate his prior police chief salary and order that he receive back pay owed to him since he was demoted to patrol officer earlier this year.
Swanson’s second stint on leave is the latest gyration in the 14-month legal scuffle between Swanson and Woodstock Village trustees over an effort to oust him as police chief after coworkers complained about his leadership style.
“There’s no basis in law or reason for what they are doing,” Swanson’s attorney, Linda Fraas, said last week. “There’s no legitimate reason for him to be on leave.”
Municipal Manager Eric Duffy notified Swanson via email on Dec. 5 that he was immediately being placed on non-disciplinary administrative leave. He was ordered to relinquish his badge and firearm, and stay away from the police department building, according to the lawsuit.
No reason for the action was stated in the email and Frass said no explanation has subsequently been provided by the village trustees or municipal manager.
The notice came three days after a Windsor County judge “reversed” an April decision by the Woodstock Village Trustees to demote Swanson. Windsor County Superior Court Judge H. Dickson Corbett ruled trustees did not follow the proper procedure to remove him from office. Corbett found the trustees were wrong when they decided they did not have to find legal “cause” for upholding Duffy’s demotion of Swanson to patrol officer.
In his decision, Corbett sent the case back to the trustees “for further proceedings,” rewinding the clock and starting all over again with another hearing before the village trustees challenging Swanson’s demotion.
Hours after Corbett issued his ruling on Dec. 2, Swanson texted police department personnel announcing that “the demotion was reversed by the court today,” adding “it is unclear what the next few days will hold as far as decisions by the trustees” but “in the meantime, call me with any questions about calls and cases,” the lawsuit detailed.
One hour later, John Klesch, attorney for the trustees, sent an email to Frass stating that he “was just alerted” about the text Swanson had sent to “all WPD personnel” and that it had “dangerously created confusion as to the chain of command.”
Furthermore, Klesch wrote, Duffy would be notifying the police department that Swanson “continues to hold the rank of patrol” officer and Sgt. Chris O’Keeffe would continue as interim chief.
Swanson “should be directed to refrain from contradicting the forthcoming correction from the manager or otherwise issuing any further confusing statements to WPD personnel,” Klesch wrote to Fraas.
Two days later, on Dec. 4, after Swanson had not been reinstated as police chief, his attorney filed contempt motion against the trustees for what she said was not acting in accordance with the judge’s order.
The following day, Dec. 5, Duffy notified Swanson, who has been assigned the overnight shift as a patrol officer, that he was being placed on administrative leave again.
Neither Duffy, the chair of the trustees nor an attorney representing the trustees responded to messages for comment about the reason Swanson was placed on leave again.
But the 16-page “Rule 75” motion filed by Fraas on Monday offers some clues.
The new administrative leave order led Fraas to withdraw the contempt motion of Dec. 4, explaining in a court filing that “the issue now in controversy surrounds (Swanson’s) current rate of pay as well as back pay owed for the period of time” that he served “in an unlawful employment status.”
A week later, on Dec. 10, Klesch, the attorney representing the village trustees, informed Fraas that among the factors Duffy weighed in his decision to reimpose administrative leave on Swanson was “concern” that Swanson “would engage in unprofessional, insubordinate and/or disruptive conduct if he were to remain on active status,” according to the new lawsuit.
Fraas, in response, dismissed the “concerns,” calling them “hypothetical” and stated that the trustees’ attorney had “mischaracterized” Swanson’s Dec. 2 text to department personnel as “prematurely indicating that he had been reinstated by (the trustees) to the chief position which was clearly not contained in the text,” the lawsuit states.
Among other relief the lawsuit seeks is to provide Swanson with “proper due process of the reasons for his administrative leave and a timely date for a new hearing.”