Bombshell

The Maplewood Voters Coalition has posted the transcript of an interview of Maplewood Police Officer Palma, which was released today by Dr. Marlene Palkovich's attorney. See Maplewood Voices for more background. Dr. Palkovich is a Police Civil Service Commissioner and also a board member of the MVC.

Synopsis: At a special meeting in early October, city employment attorney Charles Bethel leveled accusations against Police Commissioner Palkovich, saying that Officer Palma had filed a complaint that Dr. Palkovich had harassed him. Erik Hjelle made a motion to table the issue and adjourn the meeting, a motion that passed with a 3-2 vote (Hjelle/Cave/Longrie vs. Rossbach/Juenemann). Thus, after giving Bethel the opportunity to make these claims, the meeting ended without allowing Dr. Palkovich or her attorney to rebut the allegations.

It turns out that Palkovich's attorney had already interviewed Officer Palma, with Palma's attorney present. As the transcript of the recorded interview makes clear, Palma denied that he was harassed or made any complaint of harassment.

This portion of the exchange is perhaps even more disturbing (RF=attorney Rob Fowler, representing Dr. Palkovich; SP=Officer Palma; MA=police union attorney Marylee Abrams):

RF: Did anybody make, if you understand the term “a quid pro quo” deal with you to go along with this complaint in exchange for anything?

SP: Ah,

RF: I know these are difficult and ridiculous questions but I just need to know.

SP: Can I talk to you first (Marylee Abrams)?

MA: Sure.

(recorder left on while SP and MA left the room)

RF: I actually left my recorder running…

SP: Ok that’s fine.

RF: so there is no break in my recording.

SP: Alright, the question, if you want to repeat it for me?

RF: Ya know, I don’t know exactly how I asked it, but what I was wanting to know was did anybody at the City offer you kind of a “quid pro quo” deal for advancing this complaint, or did was there any promises made to you if you would go along with the complaint, anything like that?

SP: I’ll tell you the situation. I received 2 phone calls on this date.

RF: Ok?

SP: The first one, as I was still, I had just ah, ah, resigned as union steward, but we still had a contract negotiation, er contract that went through arbitration, and we were just ah, figuring out the particulars of it, and we had a conference call with our business agent, another union steward, and our finance director.

RF: Ok.

SP: Alright, ah, and ah, there was an issue settled, where it only affected me on deferred comp, where I ah got my backpay, ah, of $400, and ah, at the end of that conversation or as we were hanging up, and ah the business agent was going top take care of a couple of the other contract things, the City Attorney told me that he would be calling me back on another matter.

RF: OK. And then you got the call from Chuck Bethel?

SP: The City, I’m sorry the City Attorney, so it’s the same person, then he called me about an hour later.

Am I reading this right? It sounds like this police officer feels that his receiving $400 in back pay was given as a quid pro quo by the city attorney in exchange for going along with this false complaint against Dr. Palkovich.