PDF

A Florida Law Enforcement Accredited Agency.
“Providing for a safe community”
North Port Police Department
Internal Affairs /Division Level
Preliminary Investigative Summary
To: City Manager Peter Lear
From: Inspector W. Michael Koval ID#330
Date: 05/01/2018
Re: I/A Case Number: 2018 - 01
*******************************************************************************************
INVESTIGATION:
A. Complainant:
Chief Kevin Vespia
4980 City Hall Boulevard
North Port, FL 34286
(941)429-7306
B. Employee (s) Involved:
Assistant Chief Michael Pelfrey
(941)429-7378
C. Complaint description:
On two separate occasions Assistant Chief Pelfrey was given directives by Chief Vespia, which
he failed to carry out. When questioned by Vespia about the failure to complete the assignments,
Pelfrey allegedly told the Chief that they had had been inadvertent. However, Pelfrey, in a
meeting told the Human Resources Director and Human Resources Manager that one of the
directives given to him by Chief Vespia, he had intentionally disobeyed, believing them to be an
unlawful order. This is contrary to what he had told the Chief. It also raises the potential for
additional charges regarding truthfulness.
D. Policy Violation:
1. 701.02(V) (34) Insubordination Level 4 (2 counts) to wit: Personnel shall promptly obey
any lawful orders of a superior. This will include order relayed from a superior by personnel
of the same or lesser classification. Members shall willfully observe and obey the lawful
verbal and written rules, duties, policies,

procedures and practices of this organization. They also shall subordinate their personal
preferences and work priorities to the lawful verbal and written rules, duties, policies,
procedures and practices of this agency. Members shall willfully perform all lawful duties
and tasks assigned by supervisors and superior ranked personnel. Direct, tacit or
constructive refusal to do so constitutes insubordination.
2. 701.02(V) (17) Untruthfulness in an Official Proceeding (Level Five Violation)
Members shall speak truthfully in any official proceeding, including, but not limited to,
criminal or civil court proceeding, depositions, administrative hearings, and administrative
investigations.
E. Witnesses:
Civilian:
1. Deborah Hope-Human Resources Manager
City of North Port
(941) 429-7219
2. Christine McDade – Human Resources Director
City of North Port
(941) 429-7136
F. Investigation:
On 03/21/2018, I received a written complaint from Chief of Police Kevin Vespia regarding
two specific incidents involving Assistant Chief Michael Pelfrey where he had given Pelfrey
orders that he needed Pelfrey to carry out, and explained to Pelfrey his reasons why they
were important and needed done as soon as possible. Neither directive given to Pelfrey was
completed. When questioned why those orders were not carried out, Pelfrey was reported to
have responded that they were inadvertent lapses of memory. Later, Chief Vespia received
information from Human Resources Director Christine McDade and Human Resources
Manager Deborah Hope that in a meeting they had with Assistant Chief Pelfrey; he had
admitted to them that he intentionally did not carry out one of the orders given to him by Chief
Vespia because he thought it was an unlawful order violating Officer’s Bill of Rights and
Internal Affairs policy as well as Florida State Statute. This is in direct opposition to what
Pelfrey had told Chief Vespia. Chief Vespia directed me to initiate an Internal Administrative
Investigation.

Specifics of this complaint are as follows.
On November 9th
, 2017 Chief Vespia was at the Knight’s Trail Gun Range for agency firearms
qualifications. He observed an officer (Carter) with a loaded firearm approaching the firing line
with no firearms instructor present. This is a violation of agency policy and the Knight’s Trail
Range policy. Chief Vespia telephoned and instructed Assistant Chief Pelfrey to meet with
Captain Gary Arsenault, who supervises training and firearms instruction, and advise him of the
incident to ensure there would be no reoccurrences. Later, Chief Vespia mentioned this
incident to Captain Arsenault and inquired about the conversation he had supposedly held with
the Assistant Chief. Captain Arsenault appeared surprised and told Chief Vespia that he knew
nothing about the incident and the Assistant Chief had never met with him.
Chief Vespia confronted Assistant Chief Pelfrey and asked why he had failed to carry out that
directive. Assistant Chief Pelfrey allegedly relayed that had been inadvertent on his part.
The second incident occurred on or about 11/01/2017. Chief Vespia, after conferring with
North Port Police Use of Force independent consultant Roy Bedard, had directed that an
Internal Affairs inquiry be opened regarding a Use of Force incident that had resulted in serious
injury from a K9 bite (IA Case Number 2017-12). Bedard, recommended that IA be opened as
an after-action investigation to validate that the actions taken were consistent with the North
Port Police Department use of K9 policy. This differs from a standard IA in that no complaint
against any subject officers had been made. Chief Vespia instructed Assistant Chief Pelfrey to
meet with the Captains, who through the chain of command, would advise the officers involved
that the IA was coming, the reason for it, so that the officers involved were not blindsided by
the IA, thinking that charges were being filed against them. Chief Pelfrey failed to carry out this
directive resulting in consternation and extreme angst by the officers when they received the IA
notices in their mailbox. When Chief Vespia questioned Assistant Chief Pelfrey about his
failure to carry out this directive, Assistant Chief Pelfrey replied it was inadvertent and said he
would take care of it right away.
On or about 03/12/2018 Chief Vespia met with Human Resources Director Christine McDade
and Human Resources Manager Deborah Hope to discuss his concerns with what he deemed as
the continuing poor performance of Assistant Chief Pelfrey without any significant
improvement. During that discussion McDade and Hope related to Vespia that they had met
with Assistant Chief Pelfrey about his concerns about what he felt was a worsening relationship
between Chief Vespia and him. Pelfrey offered as one of his examples that Chief Vespia had
given him an illegal order to meet with the Captains about a soon to be initiated K9 I.A.
investigation but that he, Pelfrey, intentionally refused to carry out that order because he felt it
was a violation of Florida State Statute, Officer Bill of Rights, and NPPD Policy. This was a
direct opposite of what Vespia stated that Pelfrey had told him was the reason he failed to
follow the directive, an inadvertent oversight. It should be noted that Assistant Chief Pelfrey
failed to voice his concerns to Chief Vespia when he was given the directive about any possible
violations of law and policy. Instead, Pelfrey chose to ignore the order.

For the record, the directive/order given to Pelfrey by Vespia was not a violation of policy, law
or Officer Bill of Rights. It was given prior to the IA being initiated and no officer was being
interrogated. Therefore, Officer Bill of Rights does not apply.
On 04/03/2018 at 1130 Hrs. I interviewed Human Resources Manager Deborah Hope in her
office in the City Building, 4970 City hall Boulevard, North Port, FL. After placing her under
oath, I took a taped sworn statement from Hope. She told me that during a meeting with
Assistant Chief Pelfrey while discussing his concerns about his perceived issues with Chief
Vespia, he admitted to McDade and Hope that he had intentionally refused to carry out the
order to meet with the Captains and inform them that an IA was coming due to the use of force
incident mentioned above in this report. Pelfrey told them he thought it was an illegal order in
violation of the Police Officer Bill of Rights, policy, and state law. Their other conversations
were not narrowly related to the insubordination complaint. Nothing was said by Pelfrey
regarding his failure to carry out the second directive, that being speaking with Captain
Arsenault. When Chief Vespia came to HR to meet with Manager Hope and Director McDade
about the performance issues he was having with the Assistant Chief; Hope said that he related
to them how Pelfrey had failed to carry out the afore mentioned directives and had said it was
inadvertent lapse of memory. At that time, both Hope and McDade told Chief Vespia that
Assistant Chief Pelfrey had discussed the same incident with them but had told them it was an
intentional act.
On 04/04/2018 at 1330 Hrs. I met with Human Resources Director Christine McDade in her
office in the North Port City Building. I took a sworn taped testimony from her. McDade told
me that on or about March 9, 2018; manager Deborah Hope was meeting with Assistant Chief
Pelfrey about his concerns over the working relationship with Chief Vespia. Sometime during
the meeting, Hope came to Director McDade’s office and asked her to join the meeting, which
she did. During the meeting, as Pelfrey described incidents between Chief Vespia and him. He
used as an example an order given to him by Vespia, which he Pelfrey, felt was a violation of
FSS 112.532 Florida Officer’s Bill of Rights. Pelfrey stated that he refused to carry out that
order because he felt it would be a violation. No further information of interest that might be
beneficial to this investigation came of the meeting. On March 12, 2018, Chief Vespia met with
Director McDade and Manager Hope about his issues with Assistant Chief Pelfrey’s poor
performance and lack of improvement after numerous consultations between the two. Two of
the examples offered by Chief Vespia was the afore mentioned two directives that Pelfrey had
failed to carry out and had offered an excuse of forgetfulness in nature. McDade and Hope told
Chief Vespia that Assistant Chief Pelfrey had discussed the same incidents but told them that he
had intentionally refused to carry out one specific command, that to notify the Captains about
the IA investigation/after-action inquiry about to be initiated, because he felt that it violated
state statute. Director McDade had no additional information pertinent to this investigation. I
did ask if we were in any way violating Assistant Chief Pelfrey’s rights or confidentiality and she
replied “No” because part of meeting with employees with concerns like Pelfrey’s, was to

discuss what he told them with his supervisor to try to resolve the problems and that there was
no expectation of confidentiality.
On 04/10/2018 at 0930 Hrs. I met with Assistant Chief Michael Pelfrey in relation to the
insubordination complaint. He was permitted to read the complaint and witness statements.
Pelfrey was then given a copy of Garrity which he read and signed indicating that he
understood. I placed him under oath and took a taped sworn statement from him.
Chief Pelfrey told me that the incident described in the complaint concerning a directive given
to him by Chief Vespia to speak with Captain Gary Arsenault about an incident at Knights Trail
Gun Range in which Vespia observed an officer walking with a loaded firearm toward the firing
line without a Range Instructor present, a violation of NPPD Policy and Range rules; he vaguely
remembered and could not recall if he spoke to Arsenault as directed immediately, at a later
time, or at all. He told me that the complaint does not state who the officer was in violation, or
any particulars that might help him remember any more accurately.
The second complaint was a directive given to Asst. Chief Pelfrey by Chief Vespia to contact the
Captains and let them know he was going to open an IA investigation about a K9 incident and
wanted them to “get ahead of it”. Pelfrey told me that he was taken aback by that directive since
the Chief had telephoned him in October while he was out of town attending a conference and
at that time told Pelfrey at that time he was opening an IA. Pelfrey told me that as far as he
knew the IA was already in progress. He related that he felt that since the IA had apparently
already been opened, this directive was a direct violation of NPPD Policy, the Officer Bill of
Rights, and a 1st
degree misdemeanor under Florida Statute. I asked Pelfrey if when he received
the order, did he make his concerns known to Chief Vespia. Pelfrey told me he did not. I
inquired as to why he had not. Pelfrey told me that he would have to relate a backstory to help
explain why he did not question Chief Vespia. Pelfrey said that he thought maybe the Chief
could have been setting him up to be charged with interfering with IA investigation, which
could lead to him being charged with a Misdemeanor offense. The reason he felt this way was
based upon his perception of the recent history between the Chief and him extending back to
last year. Asst. Chief Pelfrey told me that he had always had what he considered to be a very
good working relationship with Chief Vespia. Everything seemed to be working smoothly. Back
in or around May of 2017, Chief Vespia, Captain Morales, and he met in the Captain’s office and
Vespia asked him how much longer he planned on staying at the agency. Pelfrey described being
surprised by the question and said he had never thought about it because he loved it here but
off the top of his head he would stay until he was 62 or 63 YOA. He said that Vespia mused and
said that that would have him leaving in 2019, the Chief said he was retiring in 2020, and so that
would give Vespia a year to work with Captain Morales as the Assistant Chief. So, when he got
ready to leave, he, Vespia would make Captain Morales the new Chief. Chief Vespia impressed
upon Pelfrey that when the new chief came in he was going to need Pelfrey’s help getting
acquainted with everyone and acclimated to the new agency and how we do things here. This
remained the norm until Vespia announced this fall that he was going to leave earlier than
planned and became involved in the selection process for the replacement Chief. Pelfrey told me

that as soon as Vespia learned that he, Pelfrey, applied for the Chief’s position, something
changed immediately in their relationship. Initially, Vespia would not speak to him. However,
going forward Pelfrey told me that it seemed he could do nothing right in the chief eyes. Every
discussion turned into a debate. On more than one occasion, Vespia had jumped to conclusions
that Pelfrey had done something wrong, when he had not. E.g. accusing Pelfrey of moving a
SPARC representative into the Investigations Unit when that had not been done, and accusing
him of incorrectly handling the Captain promotion process, which caused Vespia more work.
When Pelfrey stated he followed the direction of Assistant City Manager Schult given in a
meeting also attended by Vespia, Captain Morales, Jennifer Ayres; Vespia then charged that
Pelfrey was also told to speak with HR about the process, implying that Pelfrey had not done so.
When Pelfrey countered that he had indeed spoke with HR as instructed, the Chief immediately
changed subjects. On a frequent basis the chief would call Pelfrey into his office or visit Pelfrey
in his office and ask him if he had an exit strategy planned. On January 30, 2018 Pelfrey and
Vespa had a meeting in which Vespia asked him again if he had an exit strategy. Pelfrey asked
him what he meant and Vespia replied “You know when the new chief comes in he’ll not want
you here. You’re old school and were an applicant for chief and he’ll not want you here.” Pelfrey
replied that he did not know why that was being discussed and asked Vespia “Am I being forced
out or fired?” “Does Mr. Lear want me to leave?” Vespia replied “No, but you need to leave
with me, the new chief will not want you here”. Vespia asked Pelfrey if he wanted to meet with
the city manager, Pete Lear, and he replied that he did. The meeting with Lear, according to
Pelfrey, went well and Lear told Pelfrey he did not need an exit strategy but being straight
forward, Pelfrey would not be the new Chief or interim Chief. Pelfrey went on to state that on
numerous meetings through March 2018 Vespia continuously brought up that Pelfrey needed to
leave when Vespia left and “go out on top” stating “Don’t make me open an IA on you.”
Pelfrey inquired “An IA for what.” He received no answer. Vespia did tell him he was forgetful
and that staff was being held to different expectations than him. On other occasions Pelfrey said
that he felt he was being threatened by Vespia or extorted because Vespia told him that if he
didn’t agree to leave Vespia would open an IA on him, it would become public record, and
Stephanie Gibson might get the public records from it and Pelfrey wouldn’t want his family to
see all of that in print. Pelfrey went on to ask why Vespia, if he felt Pelfrey had been
insubordinate by not following his orders back in November, did he not confront him and deal
with it at that time instead of holding it until April, months later after the fact. Now because
Pelfrey had refused to leave voluntarily, Vespia did as he had threatened and opened an IA.
Pelfrey described another peculiarity, that from December through the end of January, Vespia,
who had been an absentee chief was away on vacation but had left him, Pelfrey, as the acting
chief. Why, if he had been such a substandard employee as Vespia documented in his complaint,
would he trust him to run the agency for over a month? Pelfrey apologized for going on so long
but said he needed to give me an idea of the background of what had been going on between
the Chief and him to explain why he didn’t question Vespia’s directive when given it because he
felt it was a policy violation, unethical, and against the law. Pelfrey told me he dislikes
confrontation and he was concerned of how Vespia would react should he have questioned the

directive considering the way Vespia had been treating Pelfrey since he announced applying for
the chief’s position. Pelfrey told me it was like Vespia was angry all the time and tried to turn
every meeting into a debate, even bringing up Pelfrey’s elderly parents.
Pelfrey closed by saying that he takes responsibility for not getting with Arsenault about the
range although he did speak with Commander Scott King who was also in charge of Training.
He also takes responsibility for insubordination by not following the directive to notify the
Captains of an opening IA, but reasoned that he had been convinced the IA had already been
opened and was trying to save the agency, the Chief, and himself from any charges.
Note: On 04/10/2018 at approximately 1300 Hrs. I spoke with Captain Arsenault and asked
him if Assistant Chief Pelfrey ever spoke to him about the incident at the Knights Trail Range.
He told me that he did not recall ever talking with the Assistant Chief about it but he did hear
about the incident.
On 04/17/2018 at 1700 Hrs. I interviewed Kevin Vespia regarding the testimony of Assistant
Chief Michael Pelfrey who stated that while he did intentionally disobey a direct order from the
Chief, he felt that the Chief had given him a directive which would have caused him to commit a
Misdemeanor of the first degree and a Level 5 violation of North Port Police Policy but was
apprehensive about discussing it with Vespia due to what he felt was the Chief’s antagonistic
behavior toward him. I asked Vespia if the testimony of Assistant Chief Pelfrey was accurate.
Chief Vespia told me that the “backstory” as related my Assistant Chief Pelfrey was not only
inaccurate but Pelfrey had been untruthful while under oath. Vespia produced documentation
which he used to support one facet of the untruthfulness.
Incident 1 - Pelfrey had told me under oath that Chief Vespia had telephoned him in
Philadelphia in October and told him that he, Vespia was going to open an IA on the K9
incident. Chief Vespia told me that that statement was not true. He didn’t know
that he was going to open an IA until he conferred with Roy Bedard and the Inspector.
That decision wasn’t made until November 1st
. It should be noted that the IACP
conference Pelfrey attended was from October 21-25th
.
Incident 2 - Pelfrey stated under oath that he refused to follow the order given him by
Vespia to notify the Captains that an IA was forthcoming so they could forewarn the
troops and they were not blindsided. Pelfrey thought it was not only a violation of policy
but a criminal violation since an IA was already opened. This too according to Vespia
was not truthful. Vespia produced Assistant Chief Pelfrey’s latest performance
evaluation. On December 25th
Pelfrey responded to a poor rating in one area concerning
his failure to notify the Captain of the upcoming IA, by writing that he was told it was an
“inquiry” and had he told the troops it was inquiry and they then received the IA notice,

it would have been considered to be a lie. This refutes Pelfrey’s testimony that he
thought an IA was already open.
Incident 3 - Further, when Vespia confronted Pelfrey for not having told the Captain as
directed, Pelfrey told him he “forgot” and was going to go take care of it that very
moment. This too was being untruthful since by his own admission to the HR Director
and Manager, as well to me under oath, he intentionally refused to obey the order given
to him by Chief Vespia.
Incident 4 – Chief Vespia told me that contrary to Pelfrey’s statement that the Chief
had mentioned on more than one occasion that Pelfrey needed to have an exit strategy to
go out on top and that Pelfrey shouldn’t force Vespia to open an IA on him. Pelfrey
alleges that this IA is the result of his refusal to resign. Vespia said that he did ask Pelfrey
if he had an exit strategy and suggested that he resign and leave with his dignity and good
name. However, he also explained to Pelfrey that the IA he was talking about was for a
discourtesy complaint from a citizen who had come into our lobby and was spoken to
rudely by Pelfrey to such an extent that the citizen went to the city commission meeting
and told of their treatment by Pelfrey. Further, Pelfrey had also apparently spoken
discourteously to a citizen by telephone and had been demeaning to Business Manager
Jennifer Ayres and Assistant Rachel Birkett. Vespia told me that he explained to Pelfrey
that he was number two and he, the Chief shouldn’t have to open an IA on him and that
Pelfrey should take the occasion as being counseled and not to let it occur again. This is
completely contrary to the statement under oath given by Pelfrey.
The other allegations by Pelfrey, while having no direct bearing on the policy violations outlined in this
investigation, were also answered by Vespia. Pelfrey asked while under oath if his lack of following an
order was considered so egregious, why did the Chief wait four months later to open an Internal
Investigation, implying it was part of the threat he perceived by Vespia to leave on his own or be the
subject of an IA. Vespia told me that when he had confronted Pelfrey about disobeying his order to
immediately go speak with the Captains about the upcoming IA; Pelfrey told him that he had forgotten.
So Vespia, while not happy, accepted the excuse as being truthful since according to Vespia, Pelfrey had
been found to have been “forgetful” on numerous occasions. However, months later, while attending a
meeting with Human Resources over the failure to perform up to standards by Pelfrey including his
many incidents of forgetfulness, Vespia was informed that Pelfrey had admitted to them that he
intentionally did not obey the order. This made it insubordination. Further Pelfrey had lied to the Chief
by telling him that he had simply forgotten. Vespia pointed out to me another untruthful statement
made by Pelfrey under oath. Pelfrey described the Chief telling him that a new Chief coming in would
need him, Pelfrey, to help adjust and learn the North Port way of doing things. Vespia said that never
happened because Pelfrey himself still doesn’t

seem to grasp his position, doesn’t know enough, and would be little if any help to a new Chief so
Vespia would never make that statement.
Chief Vespia also addressed an allegation made by Pelfrey that everything seemed to turn sideways
where he could do nothing right once he told Vespia that he was putting his letter in for the soon to be
vacant Chief’s position. Vespia stated that too was untruthful. Pelfrey never told him that he put a letter
in for the position. Vespia learned it from an outside source and then went to speak to Pelfrey.
Secondly, Chief Vespia described that Assistant Chief Pelfrey has never performed to an acceptable
level. The two have had many meetings discussing what Pelfrey needed to do to improve his work
performance. Vespia gave examples of the Annual report being months behind two years in a row and
various assignments not being completed so that he, the Chief had to complete the assignments.
He described Pelfrey as just not adapting to North Port way of doing things. He told me that he did tell
Pelfrey that he was too “old school” and a new Chief would probably not want him as the assistant.
The agency is transitioning to a strong Community Policing mentality, which Pelfrey resists.
I asked Chief Vespia, concerning the IA insubordination charge, would he have been open to listen to
Assistant Chief Pelfrey’s concerns about his directive. He stated that certainly he would. He doesn’t
know everything and if someone can point out something he was wrong about, he encourages it. still
listened. He also contradicted Pelfrey’s description of Vespia being so confrontational and angry that he
was apprehensive to speak to him. Vespia told me that Pelfrey has never seen him angry, disappointed
in lack of performance maybe, but never angry.
I asked Chief Vespia if, as Assistant Chief Pelfrey described, he had opened this IA and developed a
hostile relationship to intentionally force Michael Pelfrey out of this agency. Vespia replied absolutely
not. Vespia said that while Pelfrey was not performing at a level expected of a North Port Police
employee, especially an Assistant Chief; Pelfrey is personable, takes things to heart, and is a 30 plus year
veteran. He said that he did everything he could to first give Pelfrey a chance to improve, and then
when he continued not to show any improvement, a manner to leave this agency with his dignity intact.
Vespia told me that he also holds himself to high standards and is being paid to be the Chief of Police
until his last day is over. He could not permit Pelfrey’s insubordination to go unanswered. He finished
by stating that he is extremely disappointed by Pelfrey’s allegations, attempts to minimize his actions or
lack thereof, and his obvious lying under oath.
On 04/26/2018 at 1500 Hrs. I reinterviewed Assistant Chief Michael Pelfrey for clarification of the
points alleged by Former Chief Vespia as being untruthfulness by Pelfrey. As for the allegation that the
Chief had telephoned Pelfrey in October and at that time told Pelfrey he was opening an IA; Pelfrey
reaffirmed that contrary to what the Chief said, he did indeed tell him that. I have no evidence to
prove or disprove what was said over the telephone. However, Roy Bedard was not consulted about the
dog bite case until October 20, 2017. He was in Oregon at the time and asked for the particulars on the
case on October 23, 2017. The Conference attended by Pelfrey ended October 25th
.

Chief Pelfrey reaffirmed his initial statements to me and swears under oath he has not been untruthful.
He counters that Chief Vespia was untruthful in maintaining that he told Pelfrey about what incidents
he could open an IA for, that Pelfrey was ever discourteous to Staff. Pelfrey did acknowledge that he
questioned the current budget process which he felt was cumbersome and could be made so much
smoother and easier and Business Manager Jennifer Ayres took offense and she, Vespia, and Pelfrey
had to have a sit-down meeting to clear the air. He acknowledged that he had the same issue with
Tammie Jacobs over police and accreditation to which Jacobs took offense to anyone daring to
question accreditation as managed by her and that resulted in another meeting with Vespia. Pelfrey told
me that upon looking back, that was possibly when the relationship between Vespia and he started
deteriorating, because he dared to question Jacobs who Pelfrey said the Chief “thinks highly of”. Pelfrey
also told me that Vespia was untruthful claiming he didn’t know of any plan to make Captain Morales
the assistant Chief for a year then name him Chief as he, Vespia retired. In fact, Pelfrey stated that
Vespia moved up his timetable to retire as soon as he learned the City Manager Lewis was leaving.
Pelfrey stated that Vespia’s statement of “He’s never seen me angry” was untrue. He said that if
Vespia’s actions weren’t that of someone incensed and angry, he didn’t know what was. That Vespia
tried to find fault in everything he did and made accusations that as soon as Pelfrey had a valid
response, would quickly change the topic and move on to something else. Pelfrey brought up another
fact that was evident on the evaluation. That Chief Vespia rated him as highly effective for most of the
categories and proficient as the worst. Pelfrey said that it contradicted Vespia’s description of him as a
poor performer.
I went over each incident of untruthfulness pointed out by former Chief Vespia by Assistant Chief
Pelfrey. As a result, I learned that the allegations of who said what to whom is a “he said vs. he said” set
of situations. It appears to be totally opposing recollections by two respected administrative officers
and is subjective as to which version one believes.
There is no solid evidence to prove or disprove either person’s perceptions or prove wanton
untruthfulness, save for one incident. Assistant Pelfrey originally told me and reaffirmed in this second
interview that he committed an act of intentional insubordination by refusing to follow the order of the
Chief regarding the K9 notification because he was convinced that an IA had been opened. When I
produced his Annual Evaluation written a month after the incident, and showed Pelfrey where he wrote
that Chief Vespia “…verbally depicted to me as being an inquiry.” It contradicts his statements under oath
and to both HR Manger Deborah Hope and HR Director Christine McDade that he believed it was an
open IA. Upon asking Pelfrey for clarification about that, he responded that it’s a matter of semantics
because Chief Vespia used the terms “inquiry”, “IA”, “Investigation” all interchangeably with all
meaning the same thing. So as far as he was concerned, he thought it was an IA. I found this response
to be questionable in that Pelfrey’s written response on his Annual Evaluation continues “When the
notices to the officer(s) were distributed, the letter was titled “Internal Affairs Investigation” and the Garrity Statement ,
which was not how it was portrayed to me to “Get in front of.” If I had told the officers “It’s only an inquiry”
it would be viewed as a lie.” This appears to be convincing evidence that not once but twice in the same
paragraph, Assistant Chief Pelfrey swears that the Chief Vespia told him to let the Captains know

an inquiry was coming, not the open IA that Pelfrey has testified as a justification for insubordination.
That renders his testimony in that regard as untruthful.
On the violation 701.02(V) (17) to-wit: Untruthfulness in an Official Proceeding (Level Five
Violation) There is evidence that one statement made under oath by Assistant Chief is not truthful.
While all the other alleged untruthful statements are again, “he said-he said”. The statement that
he was insubordinate because he thought an IA case was open and he would be in violation by
following the order, Pelfrey clearly wrote a month later on his evaluation that he was told by Chief
Vespia that he was opening an inquiry and (Pelfrey) believed it to be an inquiry. Although Chief Pelfrey
offers in his defense that Chief Vespia used Inquiry, Administrative investigation, and IA investigation
interchangeably; Pelfrey never attempted to clarify what Vespia meant. While I have no evidence that
this was intentional, it still is on record (evaluation and sworn statement). Therefore, I recommend a
finding of SUSTAINED
On the first violation of policy 701.02(V) (34) Insubordination - Level 4 Offense.
For failure to discuss with Captain Arsenault an incident occurring at Knight’s Trail Gun Range; there
is no evidence to prove or disprove that the directive from Chief Vespia was intentionally disobeyed by
Assistant Chief Pelfrey, or was a case of accidental oversight. Pelfrey, while admitting that he did not
speak with Captain Arsenault, did discuss the matter with Commander King who is also in charge of
the Training/Range function. Therefore, lacking corroborating evidence; I recommend a finding of
NOT SUSTAINED.
On the second violation of policy 701.02(V) (34) Insubordination - Level 4 Offense.
For failure to obey a directive from Chief Vespia to immediately speak with the agency Captains to
inform them of an upcoming Internal Affairs Investigation being opened to review the K9 incident
(2017-12) with the purpose to ease any angst among the members involved; there is sufficient evidence,
that being an admission under oath by Assistant Chief Pelfrey that he knowingly and intentionally did
refuse to carry out that order. Therefore, I recommend a finding of SUSTAINED
H. Additional Information/Evidence:
1. Typed signed notes from meetings between Assistant Chief Pelfrey and Chief Vespia.
2. 701.02(108) (B) Progressive Discipline Chart
3. Partial Annual Evaluation Michael Pelfrey
I. “I, the undersigned, do hereby swear, under penalty of perjury, that, to the best of my personal
knowledge, information, and belief, I have not knowingly or willfully deprived, or allowed
another to deprive, the subject of the investigation of any of the rights contained in
ss. 112.532 and 112.533, Florida Statutes.”
______Insp. W. Michael Koval #330________ _05/01/2018_____
Investigator Date

PDF

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (17)

Featured

Featured (20)

PDF