HSPD Chief reinstated, required to reimburse City for overpayments

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

HIGH SPRINGS, Fla. – High Springs Police Department Chief J. Antoine Sheppard has been reinstated after a two-week administrative leave and an internal affairs investigation that found he improperly assigned extra duty details and was overpaid.

Sheppard was placed on administrative leave on June 23, but the complaints were not made public until the investigation was complete.

The allegations

A June 26 letter from City Manager Jeremy Marshall notified Sheppard that the City had found probable cause supporting allegations that he had failed to advertise extra duty details to officers; had failed to honor requests for extra duty details and had taken those details himself; had scheduled himself for CRA extra duty hours on Mondays and Tuesdays, when CRA district businesses are mostly closed; had received significant overpayments for extra duty details and had failed to alert the City of this; had received significant overpayment for Paid Time Off (PTO) and had failed to alert the City of this; had falsely recorded extra duty hours on his timecard; had falsified CRA activity logs and misrepresented his presence in the City during some of those hours; had used 234 of 235 CRA extra duty hours in only three months; had improperty collected extra duty pay during business hours, resulting in double compensation; and had failed to ensure that CRA activity logs submitted by other officers were accurate.

At a hearing on July 1, Sheppard argued that the City’s policy on assigning extra duty details was outdated and superseded by the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) between the City and the North Central Florida Police Benevolent Association.

At the hearing, the City stated that the Chief is not an “employee” under the CBA and is excluded from the bargaining unit, so the terms of the CBA do not apply to the Chief, and City policy applies; the City also argued that Sheppard’s method of assigning extra duty details “was contrary to the express terms” in the CBA, which says these details are to be assigned by rotation on the basis of seniority.

A second hearing on July 6 was scheduled to address the issues Sheppard raised regarding the CBA.

Sheppard’s response

Sheppard’s written response, dated July 6, denied the allegations and stated that he believed the investigation was prompted by his decision to discipline an employee who was represented by a local attorney, who then submitted “an extensive series” of public records requests about his administration. He also wrote that he opposed reductions in the City’s police department and was informed by Marshall that “at least one Commissioner was unhappy” with the information he presented.

Sheppard pointed to his 25-year history with the City, including seven years as Chief. He said the practice for assigning extra duty details has been “openly utilized for years without objection,” including under previous Chiefs Holley, Antonio, and DeCoursey, Jr., dating back to at least 2013. He said he works extra duty details “when necessary to ensure that all scheduled patrol hours are covered.”

Sheppard wrote that he was “completely unaware of any alleged payroll overpayment” until the July 1 hearing and said that if he had been notified, he would have “immediately cooperated to determine the cause and resolve the matter.” He added that the City’s new payroll software has resulted in “recurring and well-documented problems affecting multiple employees throughout the organization.”

Regarding the allegations that he had billed time to the CRA while not in the district or even in the City, he pointed out that his equipment does not have GPS or Automatic Vehicle Location technology to continuously track his movements, so the locations provided in the complaint were based on communication with dispatchers; he wrote that the dispatch system (CAD) “continues to display that last recorded location until another CAD event updates it. That can result in a CAD sheet that appears to show me [at] a certain location for more than 24 hours and [in] some cases for days, which is clearly not the case.”

Regarding the allegation that 234 of 235 CRA hours were used within three months, Sheppard wrote that this is factually accurate but does not constitute misconduct; he wrote that historically, CRA patrol hours have been concentrated during the holiday shopping season, primarily November through January.

Sheppard wrote that he has “historically utilized flex time rather than charging accrued leave for every variation” in his work schedule, and this “has never previously been identified as improper, inconsistent with City practice, or in violation of any written policy.” He accepted responsibility for the lack of “oversight” of several identified issues with CRA activity logs but said there was no intent to submit false information.

Conditions of reinstatement

Marshall notified Sheppard today that he has been reinstated, effective immediately. Marshall also issued Final Written Warnings for Sheppard’s failure to follow City policy in assigning extra duty details and his failure to ensure that extra duty compensation requests are accurate. Marshall wrote, “The available evidence was insufficient to support the remaining grounds set forth in your Predetermination Hearing Notice.”

Sheppard will be required to enter into a payment plan by August 1 to repay the City for overpaid PTO and any overpaid Extra Duty compensation, after an audit is completed to establish how much was overpaid.

Conditions of Sheppard’s reinstatement include an expectation to accurately record and report all time worked and all PTO taken, and he will not be eligible for extra duty assignments unless preauthorized by the City Manager. Marshall also clarified that Sheppard is not entitled to flex time, but he is entitled to compensatory time. He is expected to monitor his department’s payroll submissions on a biweekly basis to ensure correctness.