Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Disciplinary Proceeding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Merit commission to review court remand in firefighter Benjamin Renz disciplinary case
Summary
Legal counsel told the Muncie Fire Merit Commission that a Delaware County circuit court judge remanded the disciplinary proceeding for firefighter Benjamin Renz and flagged possible defects in the original investigation and an unnotarized complaint; commissioners voted to receive the court order and departmental filings for future action.
At the March 12 meeting of the Muncie Fire Merit Commission, legal counsel Mark Irvin told commissioners the Delaware County Circuit Court issued an order remanding the disciplinary proceeding involving firefighter Benjamin Renz back to the commission.
Irvin said the order, entered Feb. 18 by Judge Fike in cause no. 18CO42405PL0053, asked the commission to reconsider the matter and expressed concern about whether a proper investigation was conducted and that the original complaint was not notarized. Irvin said he had received two departmental filings — an affirmation of disciplinary complaint and a summary of investigation — and offered to enter them into the commission’s record.
The commission moved to "take the information we have received under consideration for future action," a motion put by Ms. White and seconded in the meeting. The body took a roll-call vote; commissioners Victoria Rose, Andrew Dale and Linda Gray recorded "yes." The transcript records one commissioner identified only as "Mike" voting yes (the surname is inconsistent in the record) and notes Commissioner Kevin Cooley did not vote due to a stated conflict or inability to participate. The motion passed, and the commission agreed to receive the court order and the department’s documents for later consideration.
Why it matters: The court remand means the merit commission will revisit a concluded disciplinary matter, and the judge’s stated concerns (the scope of the investigation and the notary status of the complaint) could affect any prior determinations. Commissioners did not take a final disciplinary action at the meeting; they formally received and documented the materials and left next steps for a future meeting.
What was said: According to the record, Mark Irvin summarized the court order to the commission and confirmed he would place the court order, the departmental affirmation of complaint, and the summary of the investigation into the commission’s files for consideration. The commission’s vote to receive the materials was procedural; no hearing was reconvened during the session.
Next steps: The commission did not announce a date for further action. The matter will be considered by the commission at a later time; no final disciplinary outcome was reached at the March 12 meeting.
