Appeal Filed With US Court of Appeals on Step-Pay Suit!

Our appeal of the Federal District Court’s granting of a summary judgment motion, which resulted in the dismissal of the step-pay lawsuit, was filed with the Tenth District US Court of Appeals this last Monday (02-07-05).  We have read the 42 page brief completely and are impressed with the appellate case put forth by our attorneys.  There is good reason for optimism that the “Summary Judgment” will be overturned and the case remanded back to US District Court for jury trial.  This is a lengthy process and we will keep you all updated as the appeal progresses.

Judge Grants Motion To Dismiss

To Our Brother & Sisters,

It is with disappointment that we must advise you that on Friday afternoon, 09/10/04 we received the opinion of the trial judge on the pending Motion for Summary Judgment in the Federal step-pay lawsuit. Unfortunately, Judge Johnson has granted the City's Motion, agreeing with their argument that the Longmont City Council, as long as it crosses its T's and dots its I's, can rescind promises the City has previously made, such as the promised Step Pay increases made and basically do what they want with regards to your pay and benefits.

We are disappointed in this decision of the trial judge. While we believed we would prevail on this Motion, we knew there was a risk that the court would grant the Motion. We did believe (and still do) that the law allows employees to hold a City-employer to the promises it has made to its employees. There are previous court cases that go both ways on the issue, and unfortunately the judge sided with the City in this round. In doing so, we believe he made a couple of key mistakes in understanding the nature and detail of our case, and our present intention is to file a Motion for Reconsideration. Such a Motion will direct the judge's attention to a few very specific facts and apply them to some of the critical portions of his ruling. A motion to reconsider is somewhat of a long shot, but it does help focus the issues in the event we collectively decide that we should appeal.

This ruling means that the trial presently scheduled to commence September 27 will not proceed as scheduled. While we will seek reconsideration, as discussed above, we do not think there is time between now and September 27 to brief the issue and to have the judge rule on it, so the trial will be delayed in any event. In the real world, we are now faced with an appeal, which will take us into next year.

Although disappointment in this decision will be the common feeling of all of our members, each of you should be proud that you stood up in support of the unfair and inequitable treatment of your brother and sister officers. You were morally right and correct in that decision. What happened to these officers was immoral and illegal. To let that go unchallenged would have been wrong. Your decision was the proper and correct one regardless of the outcome. We know that each of those police officers and firefighters that were victimized by the City Manager and City Council’s actions appreciate your support and the hard work that went into this fight.

We have one of the best law firms in this state to fight this battle. They represented our position as well as any law firm could hope to perform. Members of the executive boards of both our association and the fire association worked hard in this noble cause. The legal arguments put forth were equally as strong as those of the city. The City Manager’s testimony in deposition was an embarrassment to the city and showed his true feelings about the employees he manages. Unfortunately the judge chose to go with the city’s arguments. He could just as easily ruled the other way. His decision does not change what happened, or right any wrong that was perpetrated on these police officers and firefighters. They will continue to be the victims of an unsympathetic and indifferent City Manager and City Council.

While the city administration may find comfort in this hollow victory, the problems they have created will not go away. They persist. It is obvious the current system we work under is not sufficient to prevent these things from occurring. This only illustrates to everyone the need for collective bargaining. Without that system of fairness that allows each of you a collective equal voice in an atmosphere of mutual respect these things will continue to happen. We have already begun to see the reaction to this unfortunate decision. There is common anger, frustration and disappointment that is drawing us all closer together. As a result we will be stronger and more united than ever before.

We believe we have a pretty good police department and a chief we can work with even though he must answer to the City Manager on many issues. We don’t want to see our department or its members suffer at the hands of a callous and uncaring City Manager. We are working hard to change that and soon that issue will be in the hands of the voters. Our biggest concern now is that we may lose several officers to other agencies as jobs become available. To those who are contemplating this move we ask you to wait. If we lose in November then we will understand your decision. Our other concern is the message that is being sent out to potential applicants in other police and fire departments about a city government that would treat its emergency service workers in that manner this government has.

Recent actions and statements of our Mayor and City Council have reinforced the belief within our own ranks that they have little respect or concern about the results of their unfair actions and the behaviors of their City Manager. That is a sad but true fact. Once again time will tell. They are concerned about losing the ability to continue to do as they please with their employees without consideration of the results. We are hoping we get the word out loud and clear to the citizens of this community, who we so proudly serve, that it is imperative a system of fairness is put in place in the form of collective bargaining that will level the playing field and restore dignity and respect between them and their employees.

It was Frederick The Great who said, “One cannot savor triumph without having first tasted defeat.” Let us hope with unity, strength, truth, commitment and determination we can savor triumph on November 2nd!

Fraternally,

Your Executive Board

Motion To Dismiss Still Pending

The City's motion to dismiss the lawsuit is still pending a decision by the judge.  All plaintiff and defendant arguments have been filed.  We are optimistic the motion to dismiss will not prevail, bit that is not a given.  The judge could rule to dismiss based on issues of law as he interprets.  The judge is not bound by issues of fairness or the rightness of the action.  If the judge moves this to a trial there will be one more formal hearing to settle.  If that is not successful it will move to a jury trial tentatively scheduled to start September 27th.  As soon as the judge rules you will be notified.

Depositions Completed

The depositions are all but over.  There is still one firefighter and our expert witness Ray Siatta left to be deposed.  The overall assessment of the depositions is very positive.  Our plaintiffs presented strong consistent testimony.  On the other hand the city’s witnesses were inconsistent, contradictory, and at times evasive on key points.  This certainly was the case with the City Manager’s testimony.  Both sides now have a clearer picture of the entire case as it will play before a jury.  Trial is scheduled to begin on September 23^rd.

What's Up With This?

One of our officers in the federal lawsuit gave his deposition last week.  He was question by Thomas J Lyons who is the lead attorney representing the city in this matter before the court.  Present for the officer was Mari Newman who is co-attorney for us in this litigation.

During the course of the deposition My Lyon’s continuously lost his temper, became red faced, raised his voice and to quote the officer being questioned, “continuously had drool and spittle coming from both corners of his mouth”.  Apparently Mr. Lyons was more than a little upset by some of the objections raised by Ms. Newman during the questioning of the officer.

If this is Mr. Lyons’ style, or if this is indicative of the manner in which he carries himself during a legal proceeding, then one has to wonder how good of a choice was this firm in representing the interests of the City Administration in this matter.   Mr. Lyons obviously has problems controlling his emotions.  On the other hand Ms Newman was composed and completely in control.

Lawsuit Depositions Begin 06/10/04

Depositions in the federal step-pay lawsuit of certain City officials began today.  First up to bat was City Manager Gordon Pedrow.  Pedrow was under oath for over seven hours answering questions from our lead attorney Darold Kilmer.  Pedrow heads a list of several city officials who will be testifying under oath in the near future.

Several of us were present for portions of Pedrow’s testimony.  It was interesting to say the least.  However, in keeping with our commitment not to go public with any deposition testimony we will refrain from comment on Pedrow’s testimony and performance, other than to say it is our opinion it would be in the City’s interest that this man does not go in front of a federal jury.  Those present for today’s deposition all expressed their satisfaction in the skillful handling of this witness by Mr. Kilmer.  It is unfortunate each member of this organization was not able to attend this interesting and insightful display. 

It is still our sincerest hope the City will do the right thing and spare itself a highly publicized and potentially embarrassing trial.  Our goal is and always has been a reasonable and fair settlement of this issue for the officers and firefighters who were treated unfairly.  We stand ready to carefully examine any reasonable offer.  The City controls the path that will be taken.  If that means placing this case in front of a federal jury then so be it.  If the City chooses that course we are certainly prepared and confident for that eventuality. 

Although we will not be covering any of the deposition testimony in detail on this web site, we will review portions of these depositions at the next membership meeting in July.  At some point in the future we will have access to the transcripts of all the deposition testimony for analysis and review.  Anyone having questions on this process should contact an executive board member for details.

Motion Denied

The federal step-pay lawsuit is scheduled for jury trial on September 4, 2004.  The City’s attorneys and our attorneys recently both filed a joint motion to reset September’s trial date to a later time.  The judge denied this motion and ordered the parties to proceed in preparation for the original trial date.  Depositions are expected to begin very soon.

Faith, Trust & Respect

This is a lead-in to the story that follows on this page.  A story of faith, trust and respect. These are three important elements to a harmonious employee-employer relationship.  Why would that be important?  Because without them morale suffers, productivity goes down and loyalty is damaged.  What common denominators preserve these three work relationship values?  Honor and Truth.  If an employer acts consistently without honor and proves to be deceiving and untruthful; then the employer looses the faith, trust and respect of its employees. 

Managers who demonstrate to their workforce that they have no honor, commitment or respect for their employees; will loose their employees’ confidence in their ability to manage effectively.  Why?  Because these managers have demonstrated they lack the ability and traits of true leadership.  Effective managers are also effective leaders because they establish respect and trust between themselves and their employees.  Unfortunately bad managers rarely grasp these principals, and generally have over-blown egos which distorts their own self-image and self worth, and the reality of their ability to lead. 

A True Story Of Recruitment & Employment  2000 - 2004

In 2000 a young police officer is contemplating a change in jobs.  He wants to find a police department where he can realize his potential in an area which offers a better environment to raise a family.  He is looking for a progressive department with better pay and benefits, where he feels his family would be better off and he could develop professionally.  He learns a police department in Longmont, Colorado is hiring.  He is interested and is recruited.

The recruitment process is designed to attract the “best and the brightest” to come and work for the Longmont Police Department.  This process has proven to net excellent police officers and makes Longmont one of the better police departments in Colorado.  The recruiters believe in that, and so does the department.  He is told he is one of those “best and brightest” the City of Longmont is looking for. 

The police officer is told about the excellent pay and benefits package Longmont offers it police officers.  Especially the step-pay system and health benefits.  The officer is married with children and needs to discuss the entire matter with his family before deciding to place his application.  The officer compares his current salary to what Longmont offers.  He realizes if he is hired he will have to uproot his family and initially take a cut in pay. 

They talk it over, weighing the benefits of the move against staying.  They decided that even though they will have to cut back and live on less money; because of the step-pay system they can rely on recovering that and eventually his pay will exceed what he currently makes with his department in a relatively short time.  Besides that Longmont appears to be a great employer in a great area of the country.

So the officer, relying on Longmont’s advertised step pay and other benefits, applies, tests and is offered a job.  Relying on the stated conditions of employment he accepts the offer.  He uproots his family and moves to Longmont.  His standard of living is reduced, in his mind temporarily, and his wife has to find a job until his pay improves. 

The officer proves to be an excellent find for the department.  He works hard and gets his step-increase as promised.  He is upholding his side of the implied contract under which he was hired, and so is the City.  With the next step-increase he will be making more than he was with his old department.  His wife makes plans to quit her job and be a mom again.

As the time for the next step-pay increase grows closer they decide they will be able to afford to buy that new home and a few other things they relied on when he accepted employment with Longmont.  Why shouldn’t they?  He was told that was what he would receive as long as his performance was satisfactory.  That has always been the case in Longmont and besides he received his step pay increase last year.  So they buy the home.  The loan is approved partially because of his projected income. 

That was fall of 2002.  All of a sudden that future is changed when he finds out everyone’s pay will be frozen in 2003.  Well as much as that may hurt he will still get his step increase.  Right?  Wrong.  He is told his step-pay, and that of ten other officers hired under the same circumstances, will be withheld for 2003.  He can’t believe it.  He was promised this pay standard if he accepted employment with Longmont. 

He was not promised an annual comparability raise each year, but the step pay is part of a long standing past practice which Longmont used to recruit him and others.  Surely there must be a mistake.  Protest is made to no avail.  LPOA gets involved.  The City Manager and City Council’s’ answer,  “Too bad! So Sad! Times are tough! You’ll have to suck it up and take one for the team!”  The union steps in trying to reason with the City.  The City could care less. It has no obligation to negotiate with the union.

The officer believes he was lied to when he accepted the job, and looses all faith he had in his employer and the City he serves daily.  His Chief feels bad and disagrees with what the City did, but is powerless to change it.  He and the other ten officers are told the department would understand if they went somewhere else to work. 

His fellow police officers in LPOA/FOP are his only support, and file a lawsuit on his behalf.  The year goes on and this officer will never again trust the City he serves.  His plight opens the eyes of many of his fellow officers, and their trust with the City is destroyed.  His trust and that of his fellow officers goes to their union and the FOP, which nationally declares its support for him.

To make ends meet his wife continues to hold a second job.  The officer works as much overtime as he can to make up the difference in pay from what had been promised.  The kids see more of the babysitter than their mom and dad.  There are pressures on the family that should not have happened.  There is tension in his household.  He looks at his decision to move to Longmont as a bad one.

Fall of 2003 arrives.  The officer finds out he may get a 5% pay increase in 2004 and finally his step-pay increase.  Even though he is a year behind in pay, there is some light ahead!  Wrong!  He learns of the cut in health benefits and doubling of his health insurance premiums.  His calculator shows, even with a 5% pay increase, he will have less spend able income in 2004.  The overtime will have to continue and his wife will have to continue to work. 

The officer likes living here, but it looks like he will be forced to seek employment elsewhere.  The idea of LPOA/FOP trying to gain collective bargaining becomes popular.  The lawsuit is progressing.  The officer sees this as the only hope for his future here and decides to hold out and see if that happens.  If not he will be leaving and so will several like him.  He takes the time telling officers he knows, from other departments who are thinking about applying with Longmont, of his experience and the lies that brought him here.  He feels he owes nothing to this City since it obviously feels it owes nothing to him. 

City Continues To Drive Up Costs To Citizens

(03/19/04) The progress of the lawsuit remains slow.  The law firm representing the city has regularly filed motions to the court which have resulted in delaying depositions and discovery.  This action is also resulting in driving up the legal costs to the citizens our city.  We are sure the attorneys hired to represent the City are not unhappy about receiving more taxpayer dollars than would appear necessary to defend this action. 

It is unfortunate City officials overseeing this action are not more conscientious with their spending of city resources.  It apparently is the City’s decision to manage this matter in this manner.  We certainly are disappointed that it has progressed in this direction.  We will continue to try to move this matter along as best we can, and hope the City is as concerned as we are about how it is spending its citizens tax dollars.  At this point it appears they are willing to spend far more of our citizens money than what a reasonable settlement would cost. 

We responded with a counter settlement offer to the City’s settlement position.  We have made an offer which is fair to both sides and if accepted would end this matter immediately.  In turn the City rejected our settlement offer.  Due to the sensitive nature of anything involved in such an offer, and other attorney client protection issues, we cannot report or comment on that in this public forum.  Hopefully talks will continue.  Only time will tell. 

We continue to express our interest and desire for a fair settlement to this matter.  It is our desire to avoid putting the taxpayers of our City through this costly litigation.  However, to this point in time, the City has left us with no choice, and we are completely prepared to take this to a trial if necessary.  We will always be ready to give serious consideration to any reasonable settlement offer that would ultimately end this dispute.

Motion Upon Motion & Delay Upon Delay

The progress of the lawsuit has slowed to a snail's pace by delaying tactics being used by the attorney's representing the City.  These delays persist due to continual motions being filed with the court by attorneys hired to represent the City in this matter.  The City's attorneys have twice now filed motions to compel the plaintiffs to provide ten years worth of financial and medical histories, while at the same time seeking protection from the court from our request for pertinent documents in this case.

The Judge Magistrate denied the first set of motions and the City has filed "renewed" motions for consideration.  In addition the City has filed a motion for a summary judgment seeking dismissal of the suit.  FOP/LPOA feels the motion to compel is intrusive, immaterial and irrelevant to the case at hand, and constitutes a feeble attempt at legal harassment and intimidation. 

We are both amazed and disappointed that this outside law firm, hired at a rate that is costing the taxpayers several hundred dollars per hour, is using these delaying tactics to drive up the legal costs to the taxpayers.

We feel the continuing efforts by these attorneys, are nothing short of fiscal irresponsibility, and ultimately will accomplish nothing more than to drain precious taxpayer dollars and resources.  If the court rules in favor of the City's motion to compel then we will comply with any final order of the court on these matters.  In the meantime both discovery & depositions are on hold.

Depositions Delayed

The lawsuit is progressing satisfactorily.  Lodge Three and State FOP have already provided some funding and we are in the process of working out the details for National FOP financing.  The LPFFA is in contact with IAFF to receive financial assistance to hold up their end on the lawsuit.  This issue is of such importance to FOP, that if the City continues to refuse to try to settle this litigation satisfactorily we are prepared to go all the way to trial on this matter.

Depositions of over thirty-five witnesses were to begin on 12/15/03 and continue through the entire month of January. They have been put on hold.  The attorneys representing the City have asked for a hearing in front of the judge concerning objections to certain items of discovery.   

 Both sides are pursuing the discovery process.  The purpose of deposition and discovery is to give the attorneys representing both sides a clearer picture of the strength of their case and how it may play out at a trial. 

We believe the City is already aware of the strength of our case and their attorneys will be educated to that by the time this process ends.  Whether that will provide the impetus for settlement remains to be seen.  After all, it is apparently their opinion it is only taxpayer dollars they are spending.  Not their own. 

FOP/LPOA has been, and is constantly interested in a fair settlement to this litigation.  That has been our posture from the beginning.  Sadly the same cannot be said for the City.  If their continual refusal to do the right thing by the taxpayers of our City and settle this matter before it costs our citizens far more money; then we will see them at trial putting this entire matter in front of a jury!

Settlement Hearing Delayed

Due to scheduling conflicts including the police department’s annual shift bid for 2004, the first Settlement Hearing in the lawsuit, scheduled for December 3^rd, has been postponed to a later date.  Depositions and discovery will be conducted from mid-November through January. 

Three officers have been selected to represent the plaintiff’s in matters of communications with our law firm.  This committee consists of Ofc Darren Bloom (chairman), Officer Stephen Schulz, and Ofc Brian Smith.  These officers will coordinate questions, concerns, progress and scheduling with the eight other police officer plaintiffs.

Ofc Mike Violette will oversee this committee and will continue to coordinate the overall strategies and management of the lawsuit as liaison with Killmer & Lane.  He also is liaison with LHM concerning the current audit and its ultimate use in the lawsuit and public relations efforts.

Settlement Hearing In December

We have had the opportunity to review the City’s initial defense filing which essence states they have done nothing wrong.  They claim they did not violate any implied contract nor were any promises made to any of the plaintiffs in this case at their time of hiring.  Furthermore they state that if promises were made, then people who had no legal authority to do so made them.  So far it would appear their defense is somewhat of a joke cloaked in smoke and mirrors; but they have reserved the right to put forth other defenses as time goes on.  Sound familiar????

Several things will be occurring during the next several weeks.  The court has tightened up the time frame from what was originally scheduled.  The discovery process is under way.  We have provided a detailed list of items and documents to our attorneys important to the lawsuit that will be secured during that process.  This is in addition to numerous pertinent documents, which we have already secured.  Depositions of key witnesses will probably begin before the first of the year.  A settlement meeting in the presence of the Federal Magistrate is scheduled for December 3, 2003 in Denver.  We have put together a 6-person settlement committee comprised of three plaintiff police officers, three plaintiff firefighters and Mike Violette.  Each party shall submit a “Confidential Settlement Statement” to the Magistrate Judge on or before 11/26/03 outlining the facts and issues in the case and the party’s settlement position.  For the first time in the history of this dispute the City is being forced to sit with us and discuss settling this matter.  There is a remote chance we may reach an agreement with the City to settle.  However, based on past performance by the City in this area we are not very optimistic.

If we go to trial it will be a jury trial, which is projected to last fourteen days.  The trial date is tentatively scheduled for September 20, 2004 in Denver Federal court.  In the event we receive a favorable verdict we will be seeking damages calculated on the facts that each of the 28 Plaintiffs have been or will be deprived of Step Pay increases to which they are entitled. The amount of damages for each Plaintiff will be calculated based on the amount of the Step increases not received, with the pay differential compounded over the duration of each Plaintiff's career. To the extent that the deprivation of Step Pay increases impacts each Plaintiffs’ benefit entitlements, such as contributions to retirement funds etc, those damages will also be included in the calculation.

Categories of damages suffered by Plaintiffs include: back pay and front pay on all claims allowed by law, including lost benefits and other employment compensation; compensatory damages for emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, and other pain and suffering on all claims allowed by law in an amount to be determined by the jury at trial; punitive damages on all claims allowed by law in an amount to be determined by the jury at final; attorneys fees in the costs of this action, including expert fees, on all claims allowed by law; pre- and post-judgment interest at the highest lawful rate; and, any further relief that is just and proper. Plaintiffs may obtain an economic expert to assist them in computing these damages.  The City stands to suffer a severe financial blow if they receive an adverse verdict. Amazing isn't it?  This whole affair began by the City saving $75,000 with its illegal decision and could ultimately end up costing them hundreds of thousands of dollars.  For what?

City retains outside Law Firm

The City has retained the Denver law firm of Hall & Evans LLC (link).  Established in 1932, Hall & Evans is a medium-size law firm of approximately 65 attorneys serving a diverse client population in the areas of business transactions, commercial litigation, employment and insurance, along with representation in the areas of environmental, estate planning, governmental contracting, health care, intellectual property, professional and product liability and real estate.

Attorneys Thomas Lyons and Andrew Ringel will be representing the City of Longmont in this suit.  If you click your mouse on their names you will be linked to their respective profiles.

Litigation handled by Hall & Evans public entity attorneys involves claims alleging constitutional violations brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, including First Amendment issues; due process, property, equal protection and liberty claims; police liability; contracts; claims arising from the employment relationship, including claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act; allegations of discrimination, including race, religion, age, sex, national origin, and disability; sexual harassment claims; general tort litigation; zoning; land use; and regulatory and licensing matters.

Additionally, Hall & Evans consults extensively with public officials on risk management issues, legislative drafting, and analysis of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act and other statutory provisions affecting public entities and public officials. Hall & Evans LLC also provides assistance and testify in relation to attorney fees litigation and perform or assist with sexual harassment investigations. Their members lecture on a frequent basis respecting the various issues confronting public entities.

Order Of Reference

As all of you are aware we have filed the lawsuit into U.S. District Court, Denver.  The case has been assigned to Judge Alan Johnson, a federal judge from Wyoming.  Some of the Wyoming judges are taking Colorado cases to help out with the court’s burgeoning caseload.  We think Judge Johnson is a fine draw for us, and will fill you in with further details in this regard later.  We also drew U.S. Magistrate Judge Boyd Boland as our Magistrate; he will be responsible for handling procedural and administrative matters, discovery issues, settlement conferences and the like.

On August 15^th Lewis T. Babcock, Chief Judge United States District Court, directed an “Order of Reference” to the United States Magistrate Judge.   Pursuant to U.S.C. 28 United States Magistrate Judge Boyd Boland is designated to conduct proceedings in this civil action as follows:

• Convene a scheduling conference and enter a scheduling order. 

• Conduct such status conferences and issue such orders necessary for compliance with the scheduling order, including amendments or modifications of the scheduling order upon showing of good cause.

• Convene such settlement conferences and direct related procedures as may facilitate resolution of this case.

• Hear and determine pretrial matters, including discovery and other non-dispositive motions.

• Conduct a pre-trial conference and enter a pre-trial order.

Lawsuit Filed

The Longmont Police Officer’s Association (LPOA/FOP) and Longmont Firefighter’s Association (LPFA) today (08/13/03) announced they have filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Denver against the City of Longmont on behalf of twenty-eight of their members to enforce the commitments made to those police and fire employees by the City with respect to terms and conditions of employment.  Attorneys Darold W. Killmer and Mari Newman of KILLMER & LANE, LLP, are representing the police officers and firefighters in this lawsuit.   The State and National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) are in support of this action and have pledged financial assistance to LPOA/FOP to prosecute this lawsuit. 

This lawsuit is a result of a decision by the City of Longmont not to honor its contractual obligations with those employees.  For years, Longmont has compensated its police and firefighters in accordance with an unbroken policy and practice guaranteeing annual step increases upon the satisfactory performance of the employee.  This guarantee of regular pay raises is a centerpiece of Longmont’s recruitment pitch to potential police and firefighters.  Moreover, the practice has been formalized into a specific municipal ordinance providing for such step increases. 

Without a doubt, this guarantee -- which was provided to candidates both orally and in writing -- was the primary reason that many members of the police and fire departments elected to accept employment with Longmont instead of any number of other possible cities.  Indeed, many members of the LPOA/FOP and LPFA turned down positions with other departments, many relocated their families, and many bought homes, all in reliance on the promises made to them by the City.   

Moreover, the guaranteed step increases have long been based upon the mutually explicit understandings of the police and firefighters and the City.  As public servants, members of the LPOA/FOP and LPFA have the Constitutional right to not be deprived of their property interest in their guaranteed step increases without due process of law under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  The City’s refusal to honor its commitments to pay step increases to its police officers and firefighters has caused, and will continue to cause, these public servants substantial financial trauma

LPOA/FOP and LPFA have made every effort possible to resolve these issues only to be rebuked by City officials on every attempt.  Their members attended various budgetary meetings throughout the budgetary process where they voiced the concerns of their members, and they and their members communicated openly with the City Manager, the Police Chief, the Fire Chief, and members of City Council. 

The LPOA/FOP and LPFA wrote a letter to the Mayor and City Council again voicing their legitimate concerns and seeking a just resolution.  The LPOA/FOP and LPFA have made repeated attempts to try to mediate this issue.  Officials of the City have consistently refused to discuss this matter with them, and have refused every attempt to reach any resolution on this concern.   It is unfortunate for the citizens of Longmont that certain City officials, elected and appointed,  have decided to waste precious public resources rather than try to reach a resolution to this dispute.  The City's arrogant and irresponsible attitude towards resolving this matter has left LPOA/FOP and LPFA with no recourse but to file suit.

Audit of City Moving Forward Again

The audit had been delayed while FOP considered sponsoring a broader City audit concerning comparability and other non-lawsuit specific aspects in addition to the original lawsuit specific audit.  FOP Northern Colorado Lodge 3 has decided to pay for the combined expanded audit package of the City.  Now that this decision has been made we will move forward on completing this task.  More news will be released as this develops.

City Makes Potential Mistake

Over the course of the first week in June, City Manager Gordon Pedrow attended patrol briefings and engaged in discussion concerning the major issues of law in our pending lawsuit.  This was something LPOA views as a serious mistake by the legal wizards at the City.  LPOA followed the information being offered by Mr. Pedrow.  We have to admit we were pleasantly surprised with information he provided.  That information and several of his statements will prove very beneficial to our side of this legal issue.  Many of the officers in attendance felt his answers gave them insight as to how weak the City’s position is with respect to the step pay issue.

We doubt if he was aware most police officers carry a mini-pocket tape-recorder on their persons that are commonly used to surreptitiously record important conversations during their everyday course of business.   We were also surprised that the City Attorney would allow one of the main defendants in a pending lawsuit to engage in open debate with those bringing forth that suit.  Especially considering he made statements he may have to revisit with our attorneys in a deposition and courtroom.  Normally defendants in a lawsuit are urged by their lawyers not to discuss the issues at hand.  So needless to say we were very pleased with his decision to do otherwise.

History of Pending Legal Action

• In August of 2002 we began hearing of plans by the City to freeze this year's "Comparability Pay Increase" for all City of Longmont employees.  City revenues had fallen below projected levels for 2002 and the forecast for 2003 wasn't much better.  By September of 2002 it was officially announced the 2003 City Budget would contain no provisions for a Comparability Pay Increase. 

•  

• In October of 2002 it was learned that in addition to an across the board pay freeze for all City employees, the City planned to not fulfill its' obligations to pay step increases.  This decision would impact approximately 11 police officers and 17 firefighters.  The result would be that these 28 employees would suffer substantial losses in wages and benefits over and above those of other City Employees.  No reasonable explanation was given as to why these employees would be penalized more than the rest of the City Employees.  In our opinion it was an arbitrary and capricious decision made with no consideration to its impact.  Certainly those making this decision would not suffer from it.  If they would have, we doubt the decision would have been made.  Reviewing the proposed budget it was obvious to us the budget did not teeter on the $75,000 or less it saved through this discrimination.

•  

• Individual employees and representatives of both LPOA (The Police Officers Association) and LPFA (The Firefighter's Association) wrote Emails and attended various meetings to bring light on the unfair and inequitable treatment these employees were about to suffer at the hands of the City.  It was made very clear we were not protesting the across the board pay freeze.  The Emails and letters were never answered and the pleas were ignored, and no effort was made to explain why this discrimination was necessary or legal.

•  

• During the last 2002 quarterly business meeting of LPOA it was decided to research possible legal action concerning the City's decision.  It was decided the law firms of Bruno, Bruno, & Colin P.C. and Killmer & Lane LLP would be contacted with respect to the validity of legal assistance and possible litigation on this matter.

•  

• In December members of the incoming LPOA Executive Board made contact with representatives of the Longmont Professional Firefighters Association (LPFA) concerning our common interest in this matter.  A legal opinion was received from Bruno, Bruno & Colin that litigation was a viable option.   Darold Killmer of Killmer & Lane gave a similar opinion.  The incoming Executive Board of LPOA and the LPFA Executive Board met and reached an agreement to equally share the costs of litigation provided the memberships of both associations gave us a mandate to pursue this course of action. 

•  

• On December 12, 2002 a letter was drafted concerning our understanding of the issues of law at hand and sent to Killmer & Lane for review.  On December 16, 2002 members of the incoming LPOA Executive board and the LPFA's Executive board, along with some of the affected police officers and firefighters met with Darold Killmer.  We presented to him the facts known to us at the time concerning the events surrounding this denial of pay step increases.  It was his opinion, based on the information we had available at the time, we had a legitimate and presentable case with substance.

•  

• On December 28, 2002 a special LPOA Membership meeting was convened.  The legal case was presented to the membership.  A resolution was made and unanimously adopted directing the LPOA Executive Board to join in partnership with the Longmont Professional Firefighters Association and retain the law firm of KILLMER & LANE, LLP to pursue all necessary legal actions including litigation concerning the City of Longmont’s denial of pay step increases to any affected police officers and firefighters. 

•  

• Within a few days the LPFA had adopted similar measures and a partnership was formed.  The law firm of Killmer & Lane was retained to represent our Associations in this legal matter.  Our Executive Boards drafted a letter to City Council in an attempt to avoid litigation and to resolve this matter without having to involve the law firm.  On January 8, 2003 that letter (see below link) was sent to the Mayor and City Council with the intent of once again bringing the issue of the unfair and inequitable treatment of these employees to the City Council's attention.  We made it clear we were not attacking the City-wide pay freeze.  It was hoped the Council would reconsider its decision and correct this egregious error.  We felt the Council, who are elected to represent the interests and opinions of their constituents, would see the unfairness of this decision and do the right thing.  We were not asking the Council to become involved in the "day to day" business of running the city, nor to micro-manage the City affairs. This issue was above that and involved a decision they had made.  Unfortunately, the City Council in typical bureaucratic fashion did a "Pontius Pilate" by washing their hands of the entire matter and referred it back to its original source, the City Manager, for review and recommendation. 

•  

• On January 23, 2003 the City Manager responded in writing to the letter that had been addressed to the Mayor and City Council.  It was obvious from the tone of his letter he views this as a personal issue.  He upheld his original recommendation to City Council and did not address the issues of the unfair and inequitable treatment of these selected employees.  Apparently he feels it is reasonable and appropriate to single out this group, for reasons never revealed, and treat them differently from all other City employees.  His letter dealt only with why he feels this discriminatory decision was technically legal. Then, also in typical bureaucratic fashion, he attempted to shift the blame back to these employees, refuse to accept responsibility, and accuse them of potentially diverting "scarce public resources" if they exercised their constitutional right to pursue this matter legally. Our response to the membership is contained in our "Executive Board Position" (see link below).  On January 24, 2003 we had no choice but to turn this matter over to our attorneys for litigation.

•  

• On February 6, 2003 Executive Board members of both LPOA & LPFA met with our attorney's.  We expressed our desire to attempt to settle this before filing a lawsuit.  We decided to suggest mediation to the City as a method of settling this issue, trying to avoid putting the taxpayers through a lawsuit.  The attorneys were directed to proceed with that attempt before filing a Federal Lawsuit.

•  

• That same evening Tim Malen and Tim Miller attended the Northern Colorado FOP Lodge 3 Business Meeting.  The Lodge was briefed on the legal issues and Lodge 3 pledged its support to assist us in any way possible.  Lodge 3 also pledged $3,000 for an audit of the City of Longmont.  They gave us contact info for the auditors they have used with other cities.  Most recently the City of Lafayette.  FOP Lodge 3 stated if the cost exceeds $3,000 they would cover the remainder.  We will be consulting with our attorneys as to when to conduct this audit.  In addition the Colorado State FOP has been advised by us of the legal action and has pledged full support. 

•  

• On February 24, 2003 Killmer & Lane mailed a letter to the City requesting mediation of this matter.  The letter detailed issues surrounding the problem and expressed our continuing interest to try to resolve this matter short of a lawsuit (see link below). 

•  

• On March 6, 2003 Tim Malen was contacted by Pierette Shields of the Daily Times Call requesting an interview concerning this legal problem with the City.  Apparently the newspaper had received a tip that this conflict existed and the informant had directed the reporter to our website.  Tim made it clear a lawsuit has not been filed, and that it is, and always has been, our desire to exhaust all means available to us to resolve this issue without having to take the City into federal court.  Tim advised the reporter we do not seek media involvement and in keeping with that it is the position of the Executive Boards of LPOA and LPFA not to comment on the conflict at hand.  The reporter was referred to this website for any information they sought. The following day the City requested and was granted a seven day extension to the March 12, 2003 deadline for their response to our proposal of third party mediation. 

•  

• On March 20, 2003 the City Attorney responded to our request for mediation.  The response fell just short of an all out rejection of our request.  The response is being studied by the Executive Boards of LPOA & LPFA and our attorneys.  Unfortunately we are being pushed to the brink of a lawsuit.  That is the decision of the City and we will respond accordingly.  We fully intend to open this issue up to full public disclosure if we are forced to proceed.

•  

• On 04/01/03 the decision was made to file a lawsuit against the unlawful action of the City against the 28 police and firefighters.  We have exhausted all efforts to avoid this.  The City has chosen this course by refusing to even discuss this matter with us. On the same day the City Finance Manager revealed the City had found six million dollars extra in the 2003 budget they did not know they had.  This is one time money is infused into the budget and can be directed by City Council as a matter of policy.    Unless there is a change in the City's position in the immediate future this dispute will be decided by the courts.

•  

• Between 04/23/03 and 04/29/03 conversations took place between LPOA's attorneys and the City Attorney.  The City is considering our input of ways to resolve this issue.  They advised LPOA's attorneys they would respond with an answer by 05/09/03.  Details at this time are confidential.

•  

• On 04/30/03 the Executive Board met with the prestigious accounting firm of Levine, Hughes,& Mithuen and tentatively agreed on a plan for auditing the City of Longmont.  The plan is contingent on the response by the City to the latest proposal for resolution.

•  

• On 05/12/03 the City rejected our attempt to deal in good faith and attempt to resolve this dispute.  LPOA and LPFFA have given our attorneys the green light to file suit, and to start the necessary process for an audit.

• On 05/23/03 LPOA/LPFFA attorneys began their preparatory interviews by interviewing eleven police office in detail on their individual cases.  Interviews with the seventeen firefighters will be completed in the near future.  The results of these initial interviews were excellent and more than what the attorneys initially expected to gather.  Our position in this matter is very strong.

•  

• During the first week of June the City Manager attended shift briefing and discussed issues pertinent to our lawsuit.  Why he allowed himself to be trapped is beyond us; but that's his decision making and we welcome it.  His statements will be very beneficial during deposition and court.  Go Figure!

•  

• On 07/20/03 FOP Northern Colorado Lodge 3 decided to finance the larger audit package.  One which will address issues involved in the lawsuit and which also provides us with invaluable information with respect to comparability standards.

•  

• On 08/07/03 at the National Convention in Providence, Rhode Island the 3,395 delegates assembled unanimously passed a National Resolution condemning the City of Longmont's decision to deny pay step increases to its police officers.  The lawsuit was reviewed by FOP's National Labor Council and General Counsel and determined the lawsuit to be valid with a high probability of success.  As a result both State and National FOP have pledged financial assistance.

•  

• 08/11/03 through 08/13/03 FOP National President attempts several times to contact City Manager Pedrow.  Pedrow does not respond.  Just another addition to a long list of the City refusing to try to settle or even discuss this matter.

• 08/13/03 LPOA/FOP & LPFFA's lawsuit is filed in US District Court Denver.  U.S. Judge Alan Johnson and U.S. Judge Magistrate Boyd Boland were assigned the action.

•  

• An "Order of Reference" outlining the assignments of the U.S. Judge Magistrate in this case was issued.

•  

• 09/11/03 our attorneys meet with the law firm of Hall & Evans and draft a proposed Scheduling Order.  They agreed to meet again on 09/26/03 for a scheduling and planning conference.  The City is represented in this action by attorneys Thomas Lyons and Andrew Ringel.

•  

• 09/26/03 The Scheduling Order is given by the Federal Magistrate and the dates tightened for discovery and depositions.  Discovery has started and it is expected depositions will begin before the end of the year.  A settlement conference is scheduled for 12/03/03 and a committee of plaintiffs has been formed.

•  

• 11/05/03 a Settlement Committee was formed to represent the plaintiffs.

•  

• 11/15/03 the Dec 03, 2003 Settlement Hearing was postponed due to scheduling conflicts. Depositions and discovery will begin this month and continue through January.

•  

• 1210/03 Depositions scheduled to begging 12/15/03 have been delayed at the request of the City attorneys.  They have requested a hearing concerning objections to certain items requested in discovery.  A new schedule for depositions is being developed.

•  

• 01/14/04 Delays continue by the continual filing of irrelevant, intrusive and immaterial motions by attorney's representing the City.  Additionally the City has filed a motion to dismiss the suit.

•  

• 03/19/04 Settlement talks via mail continue and each side has made offers to the others.  At this point we are far apart on our settlement positions.

•  

• 05/14/04 The federal step-pay lawsuit is scheduled for jury trial on September 4, 2004.  The City’s attorneys and our attorneys recently both filed a joint motion to reset September’s trial date to a later time.  The judge denied this motion and ordered the parties to proceed in preparation for the original trial date.  Depositions are expected to begin very soon.

• 06/10/04 Depositions of City Officials begin with Pedrow.

•  

• 09/10/04 Judge grants motion to dismiss.  Appeal possible.

•  

• 02/07/05 Appeal filed with 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals.

Archived Legal Action Page Web Site Articles

(click here to return to top of page)