[What follows is the decision issued Sept. 30, 1998, by the Madison Police and Fire Commission.]
BEFORE THE BOARD OF POLICE AND FIRE COMMISSIONERS
OF THE CITY OF MADISON
Bill Lueders,
Complainant
vs.
Lt. Dennis George Riley,
Respondent
DECISION AND ORDER
DECISION This Order encompasses matters raised by a motion to dismiss the complaint, a motion in limine regarding evidentiary issues, and requests or motions to quash subpoenas. We address the motions in that order.
Motion to Dismiss: The gravamen of respondent's motion is the insufficiency of complainant's standing as an "aggrieved person." This issue has not commonly arisen in our proceedings, because the nearly universal pattern of complaints before us involves charges either by a chief or by an individual directly and indisputably aggrieved by alleged misconduct. Coincidentally, we are now faced in two concurrent but unrelated cases with similar issues of standing in charges brought by non-principals to the subject matter of the complaints. (See our concurrent decision in Greer v. Amesqua.)
After careful consideration of the arguments of the parties, we have concluded that complainant Lueders lacks standing as an aggrieved person with respect to the greater part of his complaint, which deals largely with matters to which he may be, at most, a peripheral witness. We believe that the amendment of the statutory qualification for standing some years ago from elector to aggrieved person signaled a requirement of some degree of particular interest or involvement in the circumstances of the matter at issue. From the face of the complaint we conclude that this complainant's interest in these matters generally is not distinguishable from the interest of any other observer. Therefore we must conclude that this complainant lacks standing with respect to such allegations, and our order excludes those allegations from this proceeding.
We observe one exception to this generalization about this complaint. Complainant alleges that respondent untruthfully represented that respondent had no knowledge of certain matters, in violation of department rule 2-1816 (Complaint, page 5). As the person to whom this representation is alleged to have been made, complainant's interest and involvement is sufficient to qualify him as an aggrieved person.
We note that complainant has suggested that the individual more directly interested in the primary subject matter of the complaint would participate in the complaint if necessary, and complainant has submitted a photocopy of that individual's handwritten note to that effect, but we have not received papers formally joining her as a party. Rather than delay these proceedings further, we act on the record before us. Our action here does not preclude that other individual from prosecuting her own complaint before us if she chooses to do so.
Motion in limine: Respondent's motion seems to us to focus on matters related to the elements of the complaint which we have excluded by our decision regarding complainant's standing. Discovery by its legal nature is limited to lines of inquiry which produce admissible material or which reasonably may be expected to lead to the discovery of admissible material. In light of our action in limiting the scope of the complaint to the allegation regarding respondent's truthfulness, the evidentiary issues posed by respondent's motion appear moot. However, to avoid confusion, we grant respondent's motion in limine. In fact, we expect that complainant's inquiry may be further limited simply by the scope of the surviving element of the complaint.
Motion to quash: We decline to quash outright any outstanding subpoenas, but we note that the proper scope of inquiry both in discovery and at hearing is to be determined by reference to the sole surviving allegation of untruthfulness.
ORDER
1. Complainant may continue to prosecute the following allegation of the complaint that respondent violated rule 2-1816, Untruthfulness: "I believe that Lt. Riley violated this rule when he falsely represented to me that he had no knowledge of Patty's complaint."
2. All other allegations of this complaint are dismissed for insufficient legal standing by complainant.
3. Respondent's motion in limine dated May 26, 1998, is granted.
4. Pending motions to quash subpoenas are denied.
5. All discovery shall be consistent with the complaint as narrowed by this ORDER and shall be completed no later than October 9, 1998, that being the fifth business day prior to the first date of evidentiary hearing as provided by previous order.
6. Hearing will convene as scheduled on October 15 and 22 and November 5 and 9, 1998.
September 30, 1998
[signed]
Alan Seeger,
Commissioner
[End of document.]