RETURN TO WORK AGREEMENT...A CITY SETUP?

According to the U.S. Department of Labor, elaws - Section 9, dated September 16, 2007 a Return-to-Work Agreement (RTWA) is a written document that sets forth the expectations that the employer and the employee assistance/medical professional have of an employee who has completed mandated treatment for alcohol and or drug problems. It also sets forth consequences if the expectations are not met.

Section 9 also requires that in developing a RTWA "coordination between the employee, employer, union, Employee Assistance Program and treatment professionals" take place. It also requires that "prior notification through company policy that a RTWA would be expected as a condition of continued employment."

All of the above seems perfectly reasonable except that:

1. It presumes that the underlying primary problem was one of an alcohol or drug nature and not one of a physical nature caused by two separate in-the-line of duty injuries to the individual involved. The first being witnessed by other individuals and the second officially documented at the time of injury.
2. There also was no "coordination between the employee" and the other individuals mentioned in Section 9. He or his attorney were not included in any way in drawing up this so called RTWA.
3. Prior notification that a RTWA would be necessary as a condition of his continued employment was never given before he started his relationship with the Employee Assistance Program.

The above being dully noted it also should be noted that on review of the unilaterally created document of self destruction (RTWA) that there was NO way that the Sergeant could live up to the unilaterally created document. He signed it under alleged duress from an alleged order of the Police Chief...something to the alleged affect of "sign it or you will never return to the police department". The document was a totally "loose-loose" one for the Sergeant. You judge for yourself. The agreement states in pertinent part:

"I will not use any substance containing the (named medications). I will not use any controlled substance other than that which is prescribed by a licensed physician......." this places the Sergeant in an impossible position; if he uses said medications for control of pain he is in violation of the unilateral agreement but then the agreement goes on to say that he can if prescribed by a licensed physician. This makes absolutely no sense.

I question the judgment of the people involved in this whole process of prosecution of Sergeant Steven R . Gorski. The Board of Fire and Police Commissioners found 3 to 0 in the Sergeant's favor but the Chief and the City persist in costly further litigation at the taxpayers of Woodstock's expense. When are the citizens of Woodstock going to say STOP !!! Enough already!!!!

Intimidation by...Deep Taxpayers Pockets in Woodstock Ill.

When the process initiated by Chief of Police, Robert W. Lowen, Jr. of Woodstock Illinois began by him filing a formal complaint against Sergeant Gorski with the City of Woodstock's Fire and Police Commission seeking his termination from the force that he served in for over 19 years I must confess I was somewhat depressed and angry that a single relatively new individual backed by a City (at least allegedly a few persons in high level positions) could allegedly con volute and change the true circumstances of a situation to serve their own self serving and financial interests respectively. The Sergeant understood that his oath of office was to the U.S. Constitution, the State, the County of McHenry and intimately with the people of Woodstock Illinois; he understood that his sworn duty was to the citizens and not to be a "team player of the Chief" and not to do things that he felt may have not been in the best interest of the citizens or his fellow officers. I guess he was just not viewed as one of "the good ol boys" that would go along with someone elses personal agenda.

My faith in the intrinsic goodness of most people was restored on February 4, 2008 when, after months of the Chief's and City's unilateral prosecution of Sergeant Gorski they, the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, after several minutes of deliberation, found in favor of Sergeant Gorski after they were asked to consider a directed verdict (which means that Sergeant Gorski did not even present his side of the case or defend himself). They found in his favor 3 to 0 and ordered he be reinstated and all back pay with interest due him by State statute be paid immediately as possible. To date he and his family which includes three young daughters have not received a penny from the City....so much for 19 years of loyalty to the people. I've learned one thing from this fiasco and that is one individual and his backers may take the wrong path and they cannot give up because they will loose face and might fracture delicate egos. What reinforces that direction they take is that it costs them nothing....they don't pay the tab...you do the taxpayer. You pay the tab to the lawyers who think they have nothing to loose and the other individuals involved. Eventually the tab will be paid and it is usually the taxpayer who winds up paying that also...all this for something that need never have occurred.

The Chief could not accept the fact that the Board of Fire and Police Commissioners found in Sergeant Gorski's favor and filed for an Administrative Review with the 22 Judicial Circuit Court...more taxpayer dollars being spent. And the Saga of Sergeant Gorski goes on and his family and children must suffer because someone cannot accept the decision of his superiors.

The question remains: why even bother to have and fund a Board of Fire of Police Commissioners if their decision can be disobeyed by one alleged individual with someones alleged political backing? I hope that the tax payers of Woodstock get angry and upset and look into this matter that is draining their pockets and inappropriately causing severe hardship on a hard working cop's family. Someone other than me has to realize that it may be them in the cross hairs next time.