A Leelanau County sheriff's deputy who lost his job on Monday because he was found by a psychologist to be "unfit for duty" has hinted that he won’t go quietly, and may seek an "unbiased opinion" from another psychologist.

Bruce Beeker was fired by Sheriff Mike Oltersdorf more than a year ago after Undersheriff Scott Wooters conducted an internal investigation into Beeker’s handling of a case in which a Suttons Bay Township woman ultimately pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault.

The investigation accused Beeker of engaging in “severe misconduct” by befriending the woman and “violating his oath of office” in handling the case.

But Beeker last year filed a police union grievance that resulted in an arbitrator’s Feb. 23, 2007 decision that he should be reinstated as a Leelanau County sheriff’s deputy, be given back pay and benefits, and retain his seniority. The arbitrator also ruled that Beeker should undergo a psychological exam – but that he could be terminated if he failed the exam.

Oltersdorf announced Monday that he had received results of the March 28 psychological examination in the mail. According to the sheriff, the psychologist wrote: “I have no choice but to find him (Beeker) unfit to carry out the duties and responsibilities of a Deputy within the Leelanau County Sheriff’s Department.”

The sheriff declined to release the report or discuss it in any detail, citing the Privacy Act, exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act, and requirements related to patient confidentiality.

“I find the results of the evaluation to be biased and unfair,” Beeker told the Enterprise. “Undersheriff Wooters met twice with the psychologist and Sheriff Oltersdorf met with him prior to the completion of the results. This is the same psychologist who is paid by and chosen by the Sheriff’s Department and the same psychologist whose ‘Fit for Duty Evaluation’ I have taken and passed before. However, Sheriff Oltersdorf did not release those earlier positive results to the public,” Beeker said.

“Now that the sheriff’s psychologist has had his say, the arbitrator’s decision allows me to seek an unbiased opinion,” Beeker added.

Beeker said he agreed with the arbitrator and union officials that the internal investigation conducted by the undersheriff was “not full and fair.”

Quoting union officials, the arbitrator wrote: “The investigation was unfortunately prepared by an individual with an agenda. The agenda was to substantiate the discharge of Deputy (Beeker) …”

The arbitrator wrote that he agreed with the union’s assessment, and that the arbitrator, too, “got the impression that (Beeker’s) fate was sealed even before the internal investigation began.”

Sheriff Oltersdorf told the Enterprise this week that his April 2006 firing of Beeker was “a business decision made by myself and our entire command staff based on a history of (Beeker’s) behavior and not one isolated incident.”

Although the arbitrator’s report lists many commendations Beeker received during his 11-year career with the Leelanau County Sheriff’s Department, the arbitrator acknowledged that Beeker’s “work record is not spotless.”
In 1997, Beeker was suspended for three days for an offensive joke directed toward a tribal police officer, according to the arbitrator’s report. In 1999, Beeker was suspended for 15 days for sexual harassment. In 2004, he was reprimanded for criticizing superiors.

“That same year, he was also reprimanded for an overly aggressive search,” the arbitrator wrote. “Even in one of the congratulatory letters … he was chastised for not promptly reporting a major drug bust. (Beeker) is a high maintenance employee,” the arbitrator wrote.

County administrator David Gill said that Beeker was slated to received $36,038 in back pay from April 2006 to March 2, plus about $5,600 for March 2 until Sunday.

In addition, the county’s legal bill for handling Beeker’s case was around $7,000, Gill said. The union arbitrator charged the county $5,000; and the psychologist charged the county $2,900, Gill said.

“The cost of defending this termination is a lot of money,” Oltersdorf said. “But it could be miniscule compared to a potential lawsuit against the county for the improper actions of a deputy.”

The sheriff added: “Everybody did what they needed to do in this case. With regard to Mr. Beeker’s termination, I and my command staff made a decision that was in the public’s interest. Everyone went through the proper procedures and we are now complying with the arbitrator’s decision and union rules.”

Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) union official Patrick Spidell, who represents the Leelanau County Deputy Sheriff’s Association, did not return a phone call from a reporter seeking comment on this story.
Oltersdorf said that he, too, had not received a call back from Spidell regarding the sheriff’s concerns about “seniority” language in a pending union contract. The Sheriff has declined to sign the contract until the language is clarified. The county board last week tabled its approval of the contract as well.

Leelanau County sheriff’s deputies ratified the contract earlier this month.

“If anything good comes out of resolving the Beeker case, it’s that no one is going to be laid off,” Oltersdorf said.

When Beeker was temporarily returned to duty with his seniority intact, the Sheriff’s Department was over its authorized manning level, and at least one officer would likely have been laid off had Beeker been retained.

“It’s been difficult for everyone over the last year with all the unknowns related to the arbitration,” Oltersdorf said. “Being overstaffed would have had a domino effect in terms of possible layoffs, seniority issues and promotion opportunities.

“These issues still need to be clarified and we’re hoping to schedule another meeting soon with the union,” Oltersdorf said.