CHICKASHA —

Questions linger after a 2-1 split vote by the Grady County Commissioners to pay a tort claim to the Town of Hinton.

The claim is a request for a law enforcement officer's salary in the amount of $7,700 paid by the Town of Hinton while the officer attended CLEET training. The officer resigned from the Hinton Police Department without completing the one-year employment requirement and was hired by the Grady County Sheriff's Department. The officer has since resigned from the sheriff's department, also.

Documents provided by Grady County Sheriff Art Kell show the officer was employed with the Town of Hinton from May 15, 2009 until Jan. 1, 2010. The documents state that he was employed with Grady County from Feb. 2, 2010, until Aug. 9, 2010.

Oklahoma Statute 70-3311 Section N states that the second agency or the person receiving the training shall reimburse the original employing agency for the salary paid to the person while completing the basic police course.

Grady County Assistant District Attorney Lesley March had previously advised the commissioners to pay the claim, stating the opinion of the district attorney's office is that it would potentially cost the county less money in the long run. She advised that if the lawsuit went to court and the county lost, additional costs would be incurred in attorney fees.

However, Kell appeared before the commissioners in mid-August and asked that the case be litigated. He told the commissioners he had concerns related to the claim and would like time to gather more information and research the possibility of receiving outside counsel.

Kell questioned whether the county was liable for the officer's salary reimbursement during his CLEET training since he was employed in a different profession between his job in Hinton and with the Grady County Sheriff's Department. Also, in question at the time, was whether the county's insurance would cover the claim.

District 3 Commissioner Jack Porter advised the sheriff that any legal fees or settlement below $50,000 would come directly out of the commissioner's pocket. He said a claim had to be over $50,000 before insurance would pay.

Kell reported back to the commissioners that he had sought legal advice from the local law firm of Park, Nelson, Caywood and Jones. March advised that the district attorney's office could no longer go forward representing Kell since he had other council.

"Are we going to roll over and pay all these tort claims that come in? I don't feel like this is right," Kell told the commissioners at the late August meeting. "Why doesn't the district attorney try to find more facts (before agreeing to a settlement)?"

The issue was again revisited at the Tuesday, Sept. 7, regular commissioner's meeting. Kell advised that local attorney John Nelson said the matter is "out of his hands since the district attorney had already started it."

Kell also reminded the commissioners that the law states that reimbursement can come from either the second employing agency or the person who received the training.

"Hinton should go after him (for the money)," Kell said. "Why are they coming after the county?"

Kell strongly maintained his position that the county should not pay the tort claim, but rather have the district attorney's office represent him and fight the lawsuit in court. He felt that the county stood a good chance of winning the suit before a jury, because the employee in question had worked for a farm in between jobs with Hinton and Grady County. He also maintained it was clear in the Oklahoma statutes that the employee could be held accountable, not the employing agency.

Kell also pointed out to the commissioners that he had spoken with Chickasha Police Chief Lynn Williams, who had told him that the city rejects those claims.

"The city attorneys have never paid one," Kell said.

District 1 Commissioner Windle Hardy agreed with Kell and voted against paying the tort claim. District 2 Commissioner Mike Lennier maintained that the lawsuit had already been filed and made the motion to pay the tort claim. District 3 Commissioner Jack Porter seconded the motion.

"I know what the law says, but the law needs to be changed," Hardy said. He called into question the fact that the law enforcement employee had left law enforcement and worked in an unrelated field before being hired by Grady County.

"I'm not happy about it, either," Porter said. "But, I think it would cost us more in the long run."

Although not able to vote on the matter, Grady County Clerk Sharon Shoemake voiced her concern about paying out tort claims.

"If we keep this up, how are we going to pay them?" she asked. "We have to watch our money."

Shoemake noted that her office is responsible for paying the county bills and is concerned about the shortfalls in the upcoming budget.

"If we run out of money, the judgment goes on the tax record," she said. "When we run out, we're out. Why can't the cities and the counties get along?"

The Town of Hinton Attorney was present at the commissioner's meeting and was on the agenda to speak.

"Our police chief did try to resolve it reasonably with your sheriff," said Attorney Kim Spady. "It's disturbing that a clear law is not being followed by law enforcement."



 The Town of Hinton paid the officer and you benefited from his training."

In responding to Spady, Kell said, "I feel like we have a good case here. We did not hire him directly from Hinton."

Spady responded by saying, "The law is clear. It doesn't matter if he had worked at Sonic for six months."

Kell asked the attorney why she was "going after" Grady County and not after the person. "Why did you pick us?" he said.

"I did what my client told me," she said. "This is the way it is typically done. The entity benefiting from the employment (is the one who pays)."

Spady later said in a telephone interview that the Hinton Police Chief, Shanon Pack, had offered in a letter sent last April to accept a "pro-rated amount" of $2,836.

"The original amount requested was significantly reduced, but we received no response from your sheriff. A lawsuit was filed in June and I believe it was first submitted by your district attorney's office to the commissioners in August," Spady said.

"The amount of $7,700 is the amount entitled to the Town of Hinton for the CLEET training. The $2,836 was what was offered without involving the town attorney. In the lawsuit, we demanded attorney fees and court costs on top of that. However, as a compromise we agreed to waive the attorneys out-of-pocket expenses," she said.

After additional discussion, the commissioner's vote stood 2-1 to pay the claim.