By Carl E. Hartdegen
WESTFIELD, Mass. (The Westfield
News) – The decision by the leadership of the city police department to
terminate an officer believed to be unfit for duty has been upheld by the Civil
Service Commission after a lengthy appeal process.
A former city police officer,
Michael C. Puza, terminated in 2011 because the department found him to be
unfit for duty, had appealed the department’s decision to the commission and
was granted a reprieve when the commission set aside his termination and substituted
a one-year suspension.
Puza had been an officer for
more than a decade when he was fired and had a history of disciplinary issues
extending over much of that time.
He had undergone an evaluation
to determine his fitness for duty by a licensed psychologist before he was
terminated and was re-evaluated by a psychiatrist before he returned to work
after the commission rejected his termination in favor of a one-year
suspension.
The commission’s report details
a number of incidents considered in the two evaluations, several of which
involved off-duty alcohol use, that ultimately contributed to findings in both
evaluations which found him to be unfit for duty as a police officer.
In one 2005 incident, Puza had
been drinking with a fellow officer who was experiencing marital discord and
Puza called the man’s wife on the telephone and “called her a highly offensive
name.”
Later in 2005, Puza was in a
city bar when he became involved in an altercation with a bouncer and police
were called. Puza called the station in an effort to forestall a police
response.
As a result of the second
incident, the commission’s report states, “the WPD demoted the Appellant (Puza)
from Detective to Patrolman.”
In 2007, the report notes, Puza
failed to appear in court and was working a paid road detail when he was due in
court.
In 2009, Puza was suspended for
a day for making hours-long personal phone calls on his city-issued phone while
working. In an evaluation interview Puza “asserted that he wasn’t shirking his
duty during the lengthy calls because he was writing a report while he was on
the phone.”
In 2011, Puza was reprimanded
for providing confidential Registry of Motor Vehicles information to a friend
who used it to harass another person and child. In discussing that incident
with an evaluator Puza said that “other officers give out information like this
and, incredibly, that his only error in this regard was that he should have
told his friend not to use the confidential information.”
Also in 2011, the report
relates, Puza “was involved in an off-duty high-speed chase with passengers in
his car and evading the State Police.”
In discussing that incident, he
told the doctor evaluating his fitness “that he had only one drink that night
and that he was just horsing around, that other police do the same and that it
was just a joke” but went on to acknowledge that “in hindsight, it was poor
judgment and not funny, that he could have put people in jeopardy, and it was a
mistake.”
Later in 2011, Puza was
suspended for 13 days “for calling in sick for a shift so that he could attend
a close friend’s 30th birthday party.”
Puza was subsequently
terminated but, when he appealed to the commission, “The Commission found that
the only reason for termination supported by a preponderance of the evidence
was the speeding incident involving the State Police and modified the
Appellant’s employment termination to a one year suspension.”
The commission allowed the
department to obtain another evaluation of his fitness for duty, with a
different examiner, before he returned to work.
The department exercised that
option and required a re-evaluation by a psychiatrist, Julia Reade, who was
assisted by a psychologist who administered a number of tests “widely
recognized for their reliability.”
In addition to the testing
results, Reade examined the reports of other practitioners who had met with
Puza and herself interviewed him for four and a half hours.
Her evaluation, as reported by
the commission, includes statements such as “Mr. Puza has a long history of
problematic alcohol use” and “Mr. Puza is at high risk for return to active
alcohol abuse.”
She states he “has entrenched
maladaptive personality traits that include psychological rigidity, difficulty
taking responsibility for his own behavior and trouble reflecting on his
contributions to a conflict. He is prone to blame others for his difficulties,
to trivialize his problematic actions and to sanitize his account of his
behavior.”
She concludes “Mr. Puza is not
currently fit for unrestricted duty as a police officer. It is unlikely, in my
view, that he can be restored to fitness, even with specialized treatment,
given his severe and problematic personality factors.”
After the commission’s
examination of the relevant reports and testimony the report, written by
Commissioner Cynthia Ittleman, found that “Time and again, the Appellant
disregarded his duties and appropriate conduct as a police officer.”
It further states “the
Appellant is not able to conduct himself pursuant to Department rules and
regulations at all times and does not uphold the higher standard to which
police are held.”
The commission thus denied
Puza’s appeal saying “Therefore, the Respondent has proved, by a preponderance
of evidence, that the Appellant is unfit to perform the function of a police
officer, providing it just cause to terminate the Appellant’s employment.”
The appeal process, which
extended for about two years, had precluded the department from hiring a
replacement but, at the most recent meeting of the Police Commission, a full
time officer was appointed to fill the vacant slot on the police roster.
