WESTFIELD – 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.
