Braman vs. Sleepy EyeEx-police chief to sue city

By FRITZ BUSCH

Journal Staff Writer

SLEEPY EYE -- The City of Sleepy Eye was recently served a 14-page civil complaint regarding former police chief Elvin Braman.

Sleepy Eye City Manager Mark Kober acknowledged the papers were served, and an attorney representing the League of Minnesota Cities recently interviewed city officials and employees involved in the complaint.

The Journal learned of the complaint from an anonymous telephone tip. Attorneys on both sides were contacted.

Minneapolis attorney William J. Mavity, representing Braman, faxed a copy of the complaint to The Journal. He commented briefly on the lawsuit.

"It's a small town (Sleepy Eye) but this is a fairly serious lawsuit. We have a number of claims, and lay out the basic facts to support them," he said.

St. Paul attorney Julie Fleming-Wolfe, representing Sleepy Eye, faxed a six-page copy of the defendants'answer, after The Journal faxed her the cover sheet of the complaint fax.

Braman was chief of police in Sleepy Eye from Feb. 11 to April 5, 1999, and from April 12, 1999 until he was terminated on Oct. 10, 1999.

The complaint, to be filed in Fifth Judicial District Court in Brown County, accuses three Sleepy Eye councilors, Richard Zinniel, Lester Reinarts and Harold Windschitl, of "defamation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and tortious (wrongful) interference".

It also contains claims of "defamation and intentional interference with contract" against two Sleepy Eye police officers, John Schueller and Robert Paulson. Both were under Braman's supervision when he was chief of police.

The complaint charges the city with "breach of implied contract, promissory estoppel (broken promises) and fraudulent misrepresentation".

It requests awarding Braman compensatory damages of $50,000 or more, legal fees and costs and other relief.

Factual background, according to the complaint:

In late 1998, the city advertised nationally for applicants for the position of chief of police. Braman responded to the advertisement by submitting a written application.

He was a part-time police chief in Leeds, Utah, and a full-time foster care caseworker and domestic violence investigator for the State of Utah when he applied for the job.

At the city's request, Braman traveled to Sleepy Eye on Dec. 19, 1998, for an interview. He was interviewed by members of the City's Police Commission, several community residents and Sleepy Eye City Council members Earle Stevermer and Zinniel.

The city completed its selection process on Dec. 27 or 28, 1998, and conditionally offered the job to Braman, pending a background investigation.

After completing the investigation on Jan. 21, 1999, the city officially offered him the job, starting no later than Feb. 15, 1999. Braman accepted the offer and gave his Utah employers the required two-week notice.

Braman drove to Sleepy Eye Feb. 8-10, 1999. His wife and six children remained in Utah until he could find suitable housing and his wife could resign her employment and sell the family home.

When Braman was hired, he was told, among other things, to be innovative, write grants, make needed changes, and handle public relations for the police department.

He was told to upgrade and "professionalize" the six-person department. The city, including councilors Zinniel, Reinarts and Windschitl, and the Police Commission promised they would support his efforts.

As Braman began to direct and supervise the department, he immediately encountered resistance and hostility from Schueller and Paulsen, both long-time department veterans, the complaint said. Schueller and Paulsen refused to carry out "normal" and "reasonable" orders from Braman.

After Schueller and Paulson were warned of possible discipline, they met with Zinniel, Reinarts and Windschitl numerous times.

The purpose of the meetings was to plan and implement actions to bring about Braman's termination, the compaint said.

On April 5, 1999, less than two months after Braman moved from Utah, his employment was terminated by a 3-2 vote at a city council meeting. Zinniel, Reinharts and Windschitl voted for the termination. He was not given warning or notice that he was going to be fired, or any opportunity to respond.

Braman was rehired as police chief on April 12, 1999, after a special city council meeting, on condition that he would be on probation for six months, his performance would be evaluated every two months, and if he got satisfactory evaluations from the Police Commission, his employment would become permanent.

Meanwhile, Schueller and Paulson continued to refuse to cooperate with Braman, according to the complaint. With encouragement from Zinniel, Reinarts and Windschitl, they began to file "unfounded and/or petty" grievances about Braman's directions and orders. He was not supported or assisted by the three councilors.

On June 21, 1999, the Police Commission completed the first of three evaluations of Braman. Written comments read that Braman needed more cooperation from officers and "met resistance from department personnel... (and) council members," and that the "chief's attention to norman operations of the department has been somewhat diverted by accusations, rumors and grievances."

In July 1999, a Police Commission member told Braman he was doing a good job. Braman sold his Utah home and moved his wife and six children to Sleepy Eye.

The three members of the Police Commission resigned Aug. 30, 1999, stating they had been denied the opportunity to fairly evaluate Braman's performance, according to the complaint.

Five weeks later, Braman was fired for what the complaint calls "false and defamatory reasons motivated by ill will, malice and bad faith."

Termination caused Braman to suffer loss of income, damaged his reputation and caused him embarrassment and humiliation, according to the complaint.

The defendants' answer denies the allegations in 35 out of 57 paragraphs.

The paper cites a lack of knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations.

The paper also claims that the court lacks jurisdiction over some or all of the plaintiff's claims.

Elsewhere, that document says that the complaint fails to state claims upon which relief may be granted; and that claims should be barred because statements made by defendants were "true expressions or opinion, and therefore absolutely privileged, barred by doctrines of discretionary immunity, qualified immunity, official immunity and/or common law immunity".

The document also says statements made by defendants were "true, made in good faith, without malice, on proper occasion, for proper purpose and privileged."

The defendants acted with legal justification and privilege, and if there was any injury, damage or harm, it was a result of the plaintiff's own acts, omissions or conduct, it says.

The plaintiff failed to mitigate (moderate) his damages, it also says.

The answer calls for dismissal of the complaint, and awarding the defendants all costs and attorney fees, and further relief.