A Leelanau County sheriff's deputy who was fired more than a year ago will take a third psychological examination sometime later this month to determine whether he is fit for duty.

A union arbitrator has urged Leelanau County Sheriff Mike Oltersdorf and fired deputy Bruce Beeker to “not make a federal case” out of results of Beeker’s next psychological evaluation – no matter how it turns out.

“The arbitrator respectfully urges the parties to settle this case, as the whole situation is spiraling downward,” wrote union arbitrator E. Frank Cornelius.

The arbitrator said that from his perspective “the animosity between (Oltersdorf and Beeker) appears to be so great as to cast doubt upon their ability to work together effectively. It seems that (Beeker) may be in (Oltersdorf’s) crosshairs and that it could be just a matter of time before (Beeker) is terminated again for some real or imagined infraction,” the arbitrator wrote.

“Moreover, even if the opinion of a third physician is obtained, and even if that tie breaking physician were to side with (Oltersdorf), all manner of Americans with Disabilities Act and Medical and Family Leave Act issues might arise. … The case could take on a life of its own,” Cornelius wrote.

Nonetheless, the arbitrator ruled last month that Beeker is “entitled to a third, tie-breaking opinion” on whether he is fit for duty. In April, Beeker failed an exam conducted by a psychologist hired by the county. In May, however, Beeker underwent a psychological evaluation from a psychiatrist he selected himself – and passed.

Beeker was fired from the Sheriff’s Department after an internal investigation was conducted and the sheriff accused Beeker of “severe misconduct” for befriending a woman who was under investigation. The woman subsequently pleaded guilty to misdemeanor domestic assault.

A member of the Police Officers Association of Michigan, Beeker challenged his firing – leading to the union arbitrator’s April ruling that he should be reinstated to duty as long as he passed a psychological exam. Beeker failed the county exam, but then received a “second opinion” in his favor.

“It’s important to note that the exam they had me take earlier this year was conducted by a psychologist, not a psychiatrist,” Beeker told the Enterprise.

“But I had a right to obtain that second opinion – which I did from a psychiatrist – a medical doctor whose opinion trumps that of a psychologist,” Beeker said.

The June 11 arbitrator’s opinion also asserted that Beeker is “entitled to be put back on the payroll” because there had been no “final” determination as to his fitness for duty.

“Because the arbitrator finds that the Employer has acted unreasonably,” Cornelius wrote, “Grievant is awarded statutory interest on all back pay, dating from his most recent termination.”

A county official said that – as of July 2 – Beeker had not been put back on the county payroll.

“What effect has all this been having on the Leelanau County Sheriff’s Department?” Oltersdorf asked rhetorically. “Very little.”

“Even if it’s determined that Mr. Beeker should be returned to duty, there’s nothing that dictates exactly how I should employ him,” the sheriff said. “In the meantime, nothing has changed. My staff is at full strength now and we are satisfied that the department is configured as it should be.”

Oltersdorf stressed that the decision he made more than a year ago to fire Beeker was based in input from the undersheriff, the three sergeants in the sheriff’s department, and the county administrator.

“This was not a capricious or unreasoned decision,” Oltersdorf said. “Right now, we’re just waiting for the next evaluation to be completed, and we’ll take it from there. If the determination is made that Mr. Beeker must be reinstated, we will consider very carefully where he will be placed in our department so as to avoid any liability or public concern.”