The Observation Deck

To avoid thread drift, I thought I would put this here. On another thread, someone mentioned that a city employee that hit the garage door at City Hall was not drug and alcohol tested. This reminded me of another city employee that was possibly singled out.

Does anyone remember seeing this?

http://fox8.com/2015/11/18/i-team-lakew ... e-working/

This article says how a Lakewood garbage man was put under investigation for having three crashes while driving the garbage truck. According to the article, after this garbage truck driver's first accident, he was subject to a blood-alcohol test, even though the article states that officers did not notice any signs that the garbage man was impaired. Furthermore, the article states that this garbage man has never been charged with DUI and that he has generally received good reviews by supervisors.

Also according to the article:

The Lakewood Police chief says the city always does drug and alcohol testing after crashes involving vehicles such as garbage trucks.

When officers take a crash report, they are required to fill in a box that states whether or not the driver (s) were subject to drug or alcohol testing. I have at least six or eight police reports from accidents that other garbage truck, snow plow, and senior van drivers have had. According to the reports, none of those other drivers were ever tested for alcohol or drugs, even in cases where the city employee was listed at fault.

Does this appear to anyone else to be a double standard? Did the police chief lie? If so, was it on his own volition or was he told by Summers? Is there any possibility that this garbage man rattled someone at City Hall's cage and City Hall got even? It is worth noting that this garbage man was terminated after a short investigation.

http://fox8.com/2015/11/30/i-team-lakew ... accidents/

Now, assuming that this garbage man was indeed driving under the influence, I will say that there is no excuse for that, especially if he indeed entered into a "last chance" agreement as City Hall claims he did. My message here is that there appear to be double-standards. If this garbage man is going to be subjected to drug and alcohol testing after crashes (even though he did not appear impaired), every other city worker should be treated the same. Also in this article, Summers claimed that this garbage man lied on his application about being terminated from a firefighter job in Parma. Really? Nobody knew that? Is City Hall really doing complete background checks on potential new hires? This is not the first time that City Hall allegedly hired an employee only to later discover that he allegedly lied on his application.

In summary:

1. Why was this garbage man tested while other city employees were not?
2. Why did the police chief say that the city always does drug and alcohol testing after crashes involving city vehicles, such as garbage trucks?
3. Why did City Hall not notice during the hiring process that this garbage man was allegedly fired from a firefighter job in Parma back in 2007?
4. Is it possible that this garbage man said the wrong thing or made the wrong person mad?
5. If he was drinking on the job as is alleged, I will say that there is no excuse for that. However, this does not mitigate the fact that other drivers did not have to take a drug test.
6. I question whether or not this gentleman was treated fairly or if his termination was legitimate or even legal.

Is City Hall really doing complete background checks on potential new hires? This is not the first time that City Hall allegedly hired an employee only to later discover that he allegedly lied on his application.

I'd like to know the answer to that. If a job posting says a background check will be done, it should be done.

This leads to the question - if an employee HAS a record, it should be discovered during the background check. So why do we have people who failed to disclose their previous record employed by the city?

Did the city FAIL to complete the required background check, or did they IGNORE the results of the criminal history?

I find that very concerning. Someone either dropped the ball or deliberately ignored city policy, and neither excuse is acceptable.