A Leelanau County Sheriff's Deputy who had been reinstated to road patrol may lose his job to a deputy who was fired last year for allegedly having "inappropriate contact" with a female crime suspect.

The deputy who Sheriff Mike Oltersdorf fired in April 2006 - Bruce Beeker - must be given his old job back, according to federal arbitrator E. Frank Cornelius who on Feb. 23 issued a decision sustaining Beeker's police union grievance against the sheriff.

Beeker is due to receive more than $40,000 in back pay and benefits from the county, according to county administrator David Gill. In addition, the county will be required to pay half the bill from the arbitrator, some $4,800, plus around $8,500 in legal fees, Gill said.

Meanwhile, Deputy Mark Stevens – who was reassigned from the sheriff’s department road patrol to the department’s corrections division as a jail guard immediately following his 2005 drunk driving conviction – has since been reinstated on the road patrol.

“That was a bait-and-switch on the part of Sheriff Mike Oltersdorf,” said Patrick Spidell, of the Police Officers Association of Michigan, the union representing Leelanau County deputies.

“As far as the union is concerned,” Spidell said, “Deputy Stevens lost all of his seniority as a road patrol officer when the sheriff transferred him to corrections – and he didn’t get his seniority back when the sheriff transferred him back to road patrol. We’ve already filed a grievance over that one.”

Spidell added: “Now that Bruce Beeker is back, he has seniority over Stevens – and Stevens must go. The Sheriff’s Department is already at its maximum staffing level, so the Sheriff has to lay somebody off. And if somebody other than Stevens is laid off, I guarantee you that it will only generate another grievance from the union.”

Oltersdorf was out of the state on vacation this week and could not be reached for comment. He was expected to return later this week.

Undersheriff Scott Wooters, who conducted the internal investigation that led to Beeker’s firing, declined to provide any comment.

“Mike (Oltersdorf) ain’t here and Scott (Wooters) ain’t talkin’,” Gill quipped.

The county administrator said the issue would be brought to the Leelanau County Board of Commissioners at its executive committee meeting on Tuesday morning. Gill said he expected the board would conduct its deliberations in “closed session” because the topic involves privileged communication from the county’s attorney regarding pending litigation and pending union grievances.

“The main question is – if Beeker’s back – the Sheriff has one too many guys on his staff,” Gill said. “I don’t think the county board will authorize the Sheriff to have more deputies than he already has.”

The Sheriff fired Beeker on April 19, 2006, after the undersheriff conducted an internal investigation into Beeker’s handling of a case in which a Suttons Bay Township woman ultimately pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic violence. The investigation accused Beeker of engaging in “severe misconduct” by befriending the woman and “violating his oath of office” in handling the case.

At the time, the Sheriff also cited a long list of prior suspensions, required counseling and reprimands against Beeker.

But federal arbitrator Cornelius criticized the investigation for not also taking into account an extensive list of commendations and awards Beeker had received during his time with the Sheriff’s Department.

Cornelius wrote that the sheriff’s case against Beeker was “permeated by hearsay, unsubstantiated allegations, insinuations, rumors and innuendo (not to mention possible libel and slander)….”

The arbitrator ruled that the Sheriff’s investigation “failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence” that the sheriff fired Beeker “for just cause.”

The arbitrator also acknowledged that Beeker’s “work record is not spotless.” Cornelius called Beeker a “high-maintenance employee” and said he was “not insensitive to the (Sheriff’s) concerns.”

“In the short time the arbitrator had to observe (Beeker’s) demeanor at the hearing, he came across as distant, detached, spacey, not quite all there,” Cornelius wrote in his opinion. “His sometimes erratic behavior and inconsistent job performance seem almost bipolar or schizoid (in a colloquial sense, inasmuch as the arbitrator is no clinician). As a result, the arbitrator agrees with the (Sheriff) that (Beeker) is in need of counseling.”

The arbitrator ordered that Beeker see a mental health professional to determine whether he is fit for duty – and if he is, to undergo psychological counseling sessions regularly for the next year. Beeker would be required to pay for 60 percent of the cost of counseling with the county covering the rest.

by Eric Carlson
email