Donora council discussed the suspension of a police officer during Thursday’s work session and will likely vote to overrule it at next week’s meeting.

Council debated the suspension of Officer Michael Parry, who was briefly put on leave in November. Members questioned the efficacy of the suspension and whether it followed proper procedure.

Council declined to disclose why Parry was suspended, as it is a personnel matter.

Parry was briefly borough police chief in 2021, when council remade the position under former police superintendent Jim Brice. However, due to conflicts within the collective bargaining agreement and lack of seniority, council later rescinded the promotion, giving it to current Chief Neal Rands.

While no borough authority confirmed a reason for the suspension Washington County Deputy District Attorney John Friedmann said Parry neglected to appear for a Court of Common Pleas hearing in October while under subpoena. Friedmann said because of Parry’s lack of testimony, the county dropped one of three charges from the case, which involved an alleged drunk driving incident. Friedmann was unable to give the nature of the dropped charge.

He added that he thought Parry’s lack of appearance was unusual.

“In my experience, I haven’t seen this very often,” he said.

Asked if he knew whether Parry had been reprimanded, Friedmann replied that the matter didn’t fall under county jurisdiction.

Mayor Don Pavelko declined to speak on the suspension during Thursday’s workshop, though council members suggested he initiated it.

“I’ll reserve my comments for the public meeting,” Pavelko said.

Councilman Gib Szakal made comments implying the mayor initiated the suspension after consulting borough Solicitor Steve Toprani, arguing the solicitor works at the behest of council, not the mayor.

“You don’t work at the mayor’s discretion, you work at council’s discretion,” Szakal said to Toprani.

Toprani replied that he can provide counsel to the mayor within borough

DONORA • A8 FROM A1 mayor within borough guidelines.

“The borough code is clear,” Toprani said. “The solicitor can act upon the request of the mayor, president of council or a head of a committee. In instances where there’s a conflict of interest, the mayor can seek his own council, like (former) mayor (Jim) McDonough did.”

The procedure Pavelko followed remained unclear during the meeting. Council did disclose that, following his suspension, Parry and the police union filed a grievance with the borough.

Members also suggested the borough neglected to enact the suspension through a Loudermill hearing, which may have undermined the action.

“Why didn’t (the grievance) go to arbitration?” Councilwoman Cindy Brice asked. “Because we didn’t have a leg to stand on,” Councilman Joe Greco said. “There was no Loudermill hearing.”

Interim borough Administrator Warren Cecconi provided some clarity on the nature of the suspension and illustrated what a compliant process looks like.

“When you get a (grievance letter), you write up the charges you want to give (the officer). You call (the solicitor) Steve. You come into my office. You read the charges, and say, ‘This is your Loudermill hearing. You have a right to respond.’ And technically, then you’re done,” Cecconi said.

For further clarity, Szakal asked Cecconi if Parry’s suspension procedure had been followed correctly.

“It was not handled correctly, is that right?” Szakal said. “The suspension? That is correct,” Cecconi said.

Greco also suggested that the mayor had signed off on the grievance, something Cecconi said must go through police department personnel. “If you have a lieutenant or captain, they sign it first,” Cecconi said. “After that, it goes to the chief of police. And then after that, it goes to council.”

Greco suggested that the borough place a separate officer in charge of evaluating grievances.

“Mayor, I think it would be good for all of us if, in the future, we designate someone to either approve or deny the grievances,” Greco said. “And we should deny them, and bring them to the next step of the collective bargaining agreement.

“I don’t think it’s in your best interest to sign a grievance, denying it, after you already alleged inappropriate conduct.”

Pavelko rebutted, implying that the serious nature of the charges against Parry granted an allowance.

“The grievance could’ve been upheld,” Pavelko said. “Once you’ve seen the charges – you got the letter (from the DA).”

Council President Mike McDowell said it was his understanding that the mayor had authority to suspend an officer while council wasn’t in session.

“I thought if it was an infraction, and council wasn’t in session, the mayor had a right to make a decision,” McDowell said. “Once council went into session, or had a special meeting, they could uphold what the mayor had done; they could dismiss what the mayor had done. They could pay the guy and just let everything go. That’s the impression I got.”

Finally, members revealed that Brice, Greco and Mc-Dowell held a meeting Tuesday with union representative Carl Bailey to discuss the grievance.

The meeting appears to have laid the groundwork for the suspension’s overruling, which includes back pay for Parry in the amount of three days’ wages plus eight hours of missed overtime.

News of the meeting raised eyebrows. Members noted they weren’t informed of the meeting and that Toprani didn’t attend.

“When was the grievance hearing?” Szakal asked. “When was it even heard? I have no right to be at the grievance meeting?”

“That’s a good question,” Toprani said.

Council abruptly ended the conversation after Szakal made a stark comment about the grievance meeting.

“If we (certain council members) would have done this, it would be all over the front page — illegal,” he said. “We’ve been there before.”