Thanks Mr Mayor...

It's simple....DOWNARD FOR MAYOR!!!!!

It is amazing that these facts are out there and yet the Mayor for life is still popular. It is like Marion Barry in Washington DC getting re-elected after getting caught smoking crack with a prostitute. we need to hold our elected officials to the very highest standards. he sure wants to hold Police Officers that way.

We got rid of Mitch when he went to Washington. Jerry to Frankfort?? Come on Ben.....help us out!! Take him with you!

I don't get mad when the media does its job, I get mad when they don't. Unfortunately the CJ (and other media outlets) are simply not going to go after a prominent Dem - so it is up to all of us to get the word out so many times and so loudly that the media has no choice but to report on it.

There are lots of wastes of taxpayer money, however, that you guys don't want to acknowledge either - how do you think the general public would feel about paying twice for the same benefit with regards to the PD?

If every public safety employee out there commits to not only voting for Downard - but also "turning" 10 votes from Abramson to Downard, Downard CAN win. Will you take that challenge? Will you speak out about the realities of the crime problem in Louisville?

Isn't it amazing that the company that is going to purchase Soutfields has connections to certain developers that the mayor is friends with. As a matter of fact they serve on some of the same boards....did someone say airport earlier? Why isn't the AG office investigating these guys, they have done more than the governor every thought about.

I have been following this web site for the past week. I would like to congratulate your department web designers on an excellent job. This is by far one of the better websites I have come across.

I am the chief of a mid-size (154) police department in the mid-west. The city manager of our city would never allow this type of "Open Forum" discussion on any of our city's web sites. My point being, although it appears that officers disapprove the current administration, you must definitely appreciate them for allowing such open candor. Just a thought.

Since I do not want this to be open to speculation and rumor, I will answer your question directly...

Reasons stated for dismissal:

Violaton of Pursuit Policy (12.1)

"I have determined you violated Standard Operating Procedure 12.1 Pursuits when you were involved in this pursuit on November 14, 2005. I have determined you admitted a violation of the pursuit policy when you documented in your memorandum dated November 14, 2005 to Sgt. Glen Simpson, you entered the far left of I-65 near hospital curve and waited for the pursuit. You acknowledged in your memorandum you slowed your vehicle in a blind curve to 25 mph without your vehicle's emergency equipment being activated. Your actions further established a roadblock in a dangerous curve. This action contributed to an automobile accident, which caused injury to 2 civilians. This action also involved a tractor trailer carrying ammonia nitrate paste which is highly explosive.

Violation of Mobile Video System Policy (4.1)

I further find you violated Standard Operating Procedure 4.1 Mobile Video System when you failed to perform a routine check of your MVS on Novemeber 14, 2005. You further violated this policy when you failed to put a tape in your VCR and you failed to check the tape during an extended period. You also violated this policy when you failed to record your involvement in this pursuit and your Code 3 emergency vehicle operation. Lastly, you admitted in general you violated this rule by neglecting the Mobile Video System Policy regarding its use and operation over a long period of time.

Violation of Obedience to Rules and Regulations (5.1.2)

Your actions which lead to this automobile accident also violated Standard Operating Procedure 5.1.2 Obedience to Rules and Regulations. When operating your vehicle contrary to traffic violations, KRS 189.940 requires you to continuously have your lights and siren in operation and to drive with due regard for the safety of all person and property upon the highway. It is clear you violated this statute and our policy when you caused this automobile accident.

Violation of Truthfulness (5.1.5) (6 counts)

I also find you violated Standard Operating Procedure 5.1.5 Truthfulness on several occasions. In regard to this incident you consistently failed to fully, accurately and truthfully answer questions posed to you. I have determined you violated our Truthfulness Policy in regard to the following:

You were untruthful about the use of your emergency equipment while in the blind curve.

You were untruthful to Sgt. Glen Simpson when you told him you never activated your emergency equipment.

You were untruthful when you attempted to blame the missing video tape on a previous unknown defective connection between your light bar box and the mobile video system. You reported this problem was discovered on November 17, 2005.

You were untruthful when you told Sgt. Simpson there probably wouldn't be anything on the video tape because you never activated your emergency equipment.

You were untruthful about the "CASS-OUT" message not blinking on your system.

You were untruthful when you stated in your November 17th memorandum to Sgt Simpson, "I was not aware that my mobile video system was missing it's video tape."

These are the facts stated verbatim in the termination letter from the Chief's Office. To fully understand the circumstances, I will give you a synopsis of the events:

On November 14, 2005 (approx 1300) Detective Sergeant Barnett, unit 490, notified radio he was in pursuit of a vehicle northbound on I-65 near the fairgrounds. Sgt. Barnett asked the radio to send cars for assistance.

I was at the intersection of Floyd and St. Catherine. When no units answered the call for assistance, I notified radio of my location and that I would jump on the interstate ahead of the chase and wait for them to reach me.

I entered the expressway and made my way to the far left lane. I slowed my vehicle and turned on my emergency flashers, not my lightbar, and waited for the pursuit to catch up to me. A tractor trailer, also in the left lane, slowed behind me.

As the pursuit reached hospital curve, the fleeing vehicle crashed into the rear of the tractor trailer that was directly behind me.

I stopped and exited my vehicle and ran to the accident site behind me to help Sgt. Barnett take the suspect into custody. E.M.S was called for the suspect, whose injuries appeared minor. The driver of the tractor trailer was not complaining of any injuries at the time and did not request E.M.S to evaluate him or be transported to the hospital. The driver of the semi never said anything to me about hauling explosive material and further stated that he was "Empty".

I do not know the justifications for Sgt Barnett to pursue the vehicle. We did recover numerous firearms from the vehicle, but I do not know what he was charged with.

I am not going to go into detail about all the charges against me and my defense because it would take entirely to long and that wouldn't be smart before the appeal, but if you read carefully the charges....(i.e truthfulness "You were untruthful about the use of your emergency equipment while in the blind curve", and then read pursuit policy "You acknowledged in your memorandum you slowed your vehicle in a blind curve to 25 mph without your vehicle's emergency equipment being activated.") one can reasonably see that this is fruitless...

And to answer your question about "The Lodge"... I did not take anything. There are disagreements about what I am entitled to after resigning as webmaster, but I did not steal anything. None of this came to fruition until after I decided to resign.

It is also interesting that about six years ago, the Eastwood Fire District was willing to build new police training classrooms if they would have been allowed to purchase approximately 5 acres of the land fronting Flat Rock Road. There would have been no cost to county government at the time and several new classrooms would have gone on line and have been part of the new fire facility. The politicians at that time also decided that wasn't a good idea, but never said why. Hummm!

i think you don't know him or the situation completely. first its 30 days in a year. im pretty sure that year has well passed. the 29 days he received was also complete baloney as i believe it was for breaking chain of command or some other silliness. and i know for a fact, he worked his butt off for the lodge and tried to work things out with keeling before resigning. the resignation had nothing to do with days being numbered. it had to do with content on the web site and keeling not wanting to allow anything negative to be posted and ending the comments. just an extra 2 cents.

Are you in the chief's office?

If I worked with you...Could you please elaborate on what you specifically have witnessed that warrants your criticisms?

I work with this officer and I have had no problems with him.also I know him away from work and he would do anything for a friend.and he is a good family man.John Owen