BATTLE GROUND — The disclosure of public records is shedding some light on the relationship between Battle Ground’s city manager and the former police chief.
Three months before Dennis Osborn fired James McDaniel, Osborn presented him with a letter of discipline for behavior “bordering on insubordination.” The black mark was apparently a first for McDaniel, who called the letter an overreaction.
“It was a ridiculous overreaction on his part,” McDaniel said by phone Monday. “When I was presented the letter, I asked if I had any opportunity to contest or rebut and was told I had absolutely no recourse.”
In the Sept. 2 letter of discipline, Osborn wrote McDaniel’s behavior was “bordering on insubordination” during meetings to discuss allegedly improper off-duty conduct by an officer in the department and potential criminal charges against the officer.
The Columbian obtained a copy of the letter through a public records request. The letter was the only disciplinary action in the personnel records released to The Columbian.
In the letter Osborn wrote he advised McDaniel to bring in an independent, outside investigative agency to protect the city, the department, the officer and McDaniel. Osborn wrote that whenever the issue was brought up during the meetings, McDaniel became “visibly upset and disagreed with the direction.” Osborn claims in the letter that at one point McDaniel stood up, raised his voice and pointed aggressively at Osborn.
The letter also claims McDaniel said he has never had a city manager get involved in an internal police department issue and believed Osborn did not trust him.
In the form of government used in Battle Ground and many other Washington cities, department heads such as the police chief work for the city manager. The city manager, in turn, is hired and fired by the city council.
McDaniel said he was caught off guard when he received the disciplinary letter.
“This is the only time in my entire 31-year career in law enforcement that I ever had any disciplinary action, letter or anything taken against me,” McDaniel said.
After writing the letter, Osborn placed it in McDaniel’s personnel file. The letter also stated “any further transgressions of this nature will result in further disciplinary action being taken against you, up to and including termination.”
Three months later, on Dec. 17, Osborn fired McDaniel, sparking outcry across the community. Osborn said he wanted to move the department in a new direction.
The council unanimously approved Monday evening a request by the Battle Ground Police Officers Association to be placed on the agenda for the next city council meeting to discuss the new direction Osborn envisions for the police department.
Since the firing, police officers and community members have stood at street corners with signs calling for Osborn’s termination, flooded city council members with e-mails and voiced their concerns at council meetings.
At the city council meeting Monday night, more than a dozen city employees and residents spoke out against Osborn and his leadership style. Two city unions — the police officers association and the public employees association — have issued votes of no confidence in Osborn. That should be a sign to the council, police officers association President Kim Armstrong said.
“This does not happen to a good leader nor does this happen due to one bad decision,” she said.
Several current city employees responded to Councilman Chris Regan’s request at the last council meeting to give Osborn the benefit of the doubt for his decision to fire McDaniel.
“I ask that you please understand that our benefit of the doubt for Dennis Osborn has run out,” said Joy Lee, a utility clerk for the city for nearly four years. “I ask that you give the employees of this city the benefit of the doubt.”
Armstrong said an investigation of Osborn, which the council approved last month, would be costly, time-consuming and only reinforce what the employees and community members have said.
“It is clear this city does not run well because of Mr. Osborn,” she said. “It has run well despite Mr. Osborn.”
