The law regarding repayment of wages is very ambiguous. However the law regarding payment of wages and benefits during a suspension and after the accused is reinstated is very clear. WS 62.13 (5) (e) and (h) pertain to that topic. Under (h) is says “no person shall be deprived of compensation while suspended pending disposition of charges”. It makes no suggestion of repayment should the board prevail.
What Copperguy blogged is related to ones “due process”. Hearings are to take place no later than 30 days because of this very issue of wages among other things. I believe Mr. Hazelbaker’s urge to settle this agreement probably takes the issue of wages into account. The village REALLY needs to be cautious at this point and look at the bigger picture. Should DeVoy prevail at a hearing, then he has the right of recourse to pursue his attorney fees and related law suit(s) pertaining to his case.
I know some people want this issue to go away (including DeVoy) but I too agree that things were handled inappropriately from the start and that is a price the village will have to pay.

If the hearing ever does proceed, and if DeVoy is officially terminated, does he have to repay all the salary he has collected????

If Mr. Halloran had accepted an agreement on Chief DeVoy's behalf, then yes, I think the VB could try to have that agreement enforced.

And, again, I think the bottom line that a Circuit Court Judge will look at is the repeated failures to bring this case to a timely resolution. The stipulations are something that will come in to play, but ultimately, it was the Village that caused most of those delays because it has mishandled the matter.

I don't think anyone can reasonably argue that Chief DeVoy and/or Mr. Halloran have any culpability for Mr. Dennison's actions. Nor can anyone reasonably suggest that Chief DeVoy or Mr. Halloran made the VB direct Mr. Hazelbaker to settle. Those trips lie at the feet of the Village of Darien. To my recollection, the instant delay is the only one brought about by Chief DeVoy. And, it is the result of the VB failing to honor their pledge of good faith.

When I entered into voluntary arbitration in a suit, we failed to reach an agreement. Then, on my way home from my attorney's office, he called to say that he had reached an agreement with the defendants' counsel. I didn't like it, and would not have agreed to it if it were presented with me there. But, he was my counsel and was representing me. So, I accepted it.

I respectfully disagree with you, Copperguy, that it was the Village who caused the previous delays of the hearing. However, even if that was the case and whatever the statute reads, that the hearing shall be held within 30 days, BOTH sides stipulated to those delays. There is nothing regarding the specific issue of the many delayed hearings that will work in either sides favor. It is a non-issue completely. Both stipulated to the rescheduling each time. But, in any event, you didn't answer my question to you about whether the Board could be doing what DeVoy is doing now, trying to force the Board to enter into the stipulation, if DeVoy had refused a settlement offer. What is your opinion on that? Since you believe DeVoy has every right to force the Board because they didn't accept a settlement offer, why couldn't the Board do the same thing if the roles were reversed?

That is the question that Mr. Herrick will have to answer (though I suspect it will end up in the hands of a Circuit Court Judge before any hearing will occur). I do not believe that the Village will prevail. All of this, of course, works very much to Chief DeVoy's favor.

Under the law, the Village was REQUIRED to hold a hearing within 30 days of serving the charges. They did not do so, and were not prepared to do so. When the hearing was imminent, the Village had to delay it because of the alleged telephone calls by Mr. Dennison to the "select 4" trustees. It has been delayed multiple times by the Village. The instant delay is due to Chief DeVoy seeking to preserve his rights. This delay WOULD NOT have happened if the VB had not reneged on it's pledge of good faith.

So, given the failure of the VB to provide a timely hearing (as definied by state statutes), and then causing Chief DeVoy to expend large sums of money in those "good faith" negotiations, the VB has really shot itself in the proverbial foot. Now, it's a matter of following the procedural steps in order to have the Village held accountable for it's failures.

Regardless of how Mr. Herrick rules on the motion, I wouldn't be surprised if there never is a hearing. In my humble opinion, the Village has so mishandled this matter that it will end up with a Circuit Judge granting some sort of summary judgement or other motion to just quash the whole matter and return Chief DeVoy to the Department. I'm not sure what the legal steps are to get there, but I do see that as the final result.

Copperguy, "the VB gave Mr. Hazelbaker direction to settle". Can you agree that that statement is very different than 'the Village Board gave Mr. Hazzelbaker direction to NEGOTIATE'? Negotiate. When Hazelbaker came back with the results of that NEGOTIATING, the Board was not satisfied with the terms and wouldn't agree. If DeVoy decided not to accept a settlement offer after the negotiations started, could the Board be doing what he's doing? Trying to force him to take the settlement?

Choo! Choo! copperguy is the conductor of the common sense train once again! It is amazing to see all the fab 4 supporters just lying down on the tracks hoping that their attorney's plan of bleeding Chief DeVoy's wallet works out. It is equally amazing to read that if the hearing never happens, both sides feel as if they've won. EVERYONE loses, take a strong look around no matter what side you're on. You are losing more than what you hallucinate that you are winning. This I guarantee.

2LH: Expense of a hearing is one consideration. More importantly, the VB gave Mr. Hazelbaker direction to settle. Chief DeVoy paid Mr. Halloran to negotiate a settlement IN GOOD FAITH. Once they had achieved an agreement, the VB reneged on that pledge of good faith. Those negotiations COST Chief DeVoy money! He spent that money taking the VB on it's commitment of GOOD FAITH.

I don't understand what people don't GET about that. Good faith is good faith! Those who dont understand the concept should reasearch it sometime instead of spending their efforts spinning things.

He isn't going through with the hearing because it would cost a "frickin' fortune", do you really believe that?????
He is getting paid for doing nothing and dragging it on instead of having a hearing.
If he had really been falsely accused he would have had a hearing. Whether or not he should have been fired/terminated is the question (of course after proof that he did the things in question is shown) not of false accusations or illegal termination.
Someone else has been falsely accused.

ncboy,

Your clueless, what evidence do you have that he did not do his job? The amount of e-mails they said they assumedly found adds up to like 2 or three a day. How much e-mail do you get in a day, and who says it wasn't during his lunch hour. Remember this all started, not because he wasn't doing his job. But because they found cameras in the police office. When that didn't work they had to come up with another means of getting rid of him illegally. So don’t come into our town and tell everyone he didn’t do his job. This is nothing more than a witch-hunt and you know it. In fact look at yougottobekidding2’s blog. He lists all the positive things SD has done for the village. Name some that the Fab. 4 have done for the village, ZERO. That is unless bringing us closer to bankruptcy is a positive thing in your book.

If he was doing his job Darien would not be in this mess and Devoy would have money to spend on other things. If you get paid you should work for it. Chief I think you own that mess.

He hasn't gone ahead with the hearing because it would cost a frickin' fortune!

Exactly what I have been wondering.
.
Why would he want to go back to work under a settlement that is so very restrictive for him?

My question is this; the chief says he has been falsely accused of everything by the “4”. Why hasn’t he just gone ahead with the hearing he wants or wanted and completely, once and for all, cleared his name when the hearing officer finds in his favor? This mess would be over, the chief would have cleared his name, and he could sue the “4”?