A case of sleepiness

Hugh Hopwood

Dear Editor,

I want to briefly reply to the Letter from Mark McDaniel which was included in last week’s edition of The Mineral Independent. While I recognize the limitations of brevity and the hazards of debating this matter publicly, Mark has chosen the forum and I feel obligated to correct at least the most egregious of his misstatements.

First, let me be very clear about one thing: Mark McDaniel was terminated as a dispatcher with the Mineral County Sheriff’s Department for repeatedly sleeping on duty. He was observed by fellow workers and at least one member of the public. He admitted to sleeping on duty during one of the several administrative hearings he initiated. His behavior put the lives and safety of the staff and public at risk.

Second, Mark was terminated only after I made several attempts to get him to stop sleeping while on duty. He was not terminated after the first incident. He was counseled by his supervisor, letters were written to him and finally, when none of this worked, he was fired. I believed at the time and still believe I had no other alternative.

Third, while Mark grouses about the amount of money his termination process cost Mineral County, he fails to mention what the damages could have been if he had failed to answer an emergency call on 911 or if an officer had been injured or killed because he missed the radio call while sleeping; especially if one of these catastrophes occurred after I had notice of this problem. It is also worth mentioning that, as far as I know, and despite his supposed concern for the welfare of the Sheriff’s Department, Mark has never offered to return any of the money he was paid in his settlement with Mineral County. This sum – paid to Mark for a year’s worth of work others were paid to do while he sat home and pursued his various claims – had a major impart on our budget.

Fourth, the County elected not to appeal the decisions made in Mark’s favor not because he was right, and not even because we could not have prevailed on appeal. The settlement with Mark was reached because it was critical to permanently and immediately separate him from the department even if it cost us financially.

Finally, a review of all the documents will prove that at no time did I, or anyone else acting on behalf of Mineral County admit to mistreating Mr. McDaniel in any way. While it is true the arbitrator and hearing officer concluded otherwise, in the end, and with the support and agreement of the County Commissioners, the County Attorney, outside legal counsel and our insurance carrier, I decided it was more important to put Mark McDaniel in the rear view mirror than to spend money and time we could not afford to vindicate our legal position.

I’ll save my response to Marks misconceptions about the county budgeting process for some other time.

Sincerely,

Hugh Hopwood

Mineral County Sheriff