After a four-and-a-half-hour, courtroom-like hearing on November 27, four Eastport city councillors voted unanimously to uphold City Manager Elaine Abbott's firing of Police Chief Dale Earle. Councillor Shannon Emery was not present. Over 30 residents attended the hearing, which was held at city hall in open session, since Earle requested that the scheduled executive session be open to the public. However, the public was not allowed to speak, and the testimony presented was at times confusing or contradictory.
     During the hearing, attorneys for Abbott and Earle questioned the two under oath and sparred about the admission of letters to support their positions. Abbott had outlined her concerns about the chief in a July 18 letter to Earle, which stated that he had failed to make sufficient arrangements for adequate police protection over the Fourth of July, "putting the officers and the public at risk"; had wrongfully denied pay to a part-time officer, Ethan Stevens, for 79 hours of time worked, "which exposed the city to legal claims"; and had failed to provide protective vests to at least two officers.      She wrote that Earle had misrepresented statements she had made and had attributed to her statements she never made, including telling officers that she wouldn't authorize payments for vests. She also charged that Earle had repeatedly circumvented the chain of command by working through city councillors instead of her. She fired him on October 20.
      In his responses, Earle said he had not circumvented the chain of command or misrepresented Abbott's statements. He said he had provided adequate coverage for the Fourth and safety vests for officers and had treated officer Stevens fairly.

Fourth preparations
     Responding to questions from her attorney, Linda McGill of Bernstein Shur of Portland, Abbott stated concerning the Fourth of July preparations that Officer David Chapais told her in June, while Earle was on vacation, that no plans had been made for extra coverage during the five-day event that draws thousands to the city, so she called the Washington County sheriff and chief deputy, who told her that no arrangement had been made for deputies to provide coverage.      Because of the late hour of the request, deputies would have to come in off vacation, so a premium would have to be paid by the city. She said Earle had been on his honeymoon in Alaska, and when he returned to work on June 26 he told her that he had arranged to speak with the sheriff then. "I was not satisfied with that explanation," Abbott stated. Noting that there are "always lots of problems over the Fourth," she said, "I cannot risk public safety. It's unacceptable."
     Earle's attorney, Don Brown of Brewer, later asked Abbott why she didn't speak with the police chief earlier about the coverage arrangements for the Fourth. "With no law enforcement experience, you decided more officers were needed," he said to Abbott. The city ended up spending approximately $3,600 for the sheriff's department coverage.
     Earle testified that Abbott never called him about the Fourth coverage while he was on vacation and that he had spoken about staffing with the Pleasant Point police chief, the sheriff and chief deputy, the Border Patrol, the U.S. Navy and the Naval Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS), all of whom said they would provide some coverage. He also spoke with officer Mark Emery about coverage while he was on vacation. He said once he spoke with NCIS he knew he would have nine on patrol, which he said was "more than adequate."
     Brown presented a letter from Chief Deputy Michael Crabtree stating that Earle did speak with him and the sheriff about having a deputy swing into Eastport over the Fourth if they could. Crabtree also wrote that Earle stated he would speak with them again when he returned from vacation. Earle also solicited statements or letters from former Eastport officer Thomas Fredette, reserve officer Donald Rice and former Pleasant Point Police Chief Pos Bassett about the Fourth coverage. Fredette wrote that the Fourth security was well planned and that the additional support from the sheriff's department was "completely unnecessary" and "a gross negligent expenditure."      Rice wrote that there was sufficient officer coverage, and Bassett stated that he had assured Earle that Pleasant Point would be able to help with coverage as in the past.

Denial of pay
Concerning the denial of pay to a part-time officer, Abbott said that new officer Ethan Stevens had submitted time sheets for pay that Earle had refused to sign. "It's a violation of the law not to pay someone for his work," she said. She stated that Earle had offered to pay Stevens $1,000 to settle the dispute, which Stevens accepted. "It was less than he was owed. I had him paid for the remainder of his hours."
     In a June 17 letter, Stevens wrote that in July 2016 Earle and he agreed that he would be paid $10 an hour until he finished the field training program. He filled out time cards but Earle would not sign them, and Stevens then applied for a position with the Pleasant Point Police Department, where he now works. He agreed to the $1,000 offer from Earle after working nearly a month with little to no income.
     At the hearing, though, Earle said he told Stevens he would be paid $10 an hour only after Stevens completed his training time, which occurred on July 27, 2016. Earle said the city is not liable for paying officers during their training time and that he spoke with the federal Department of Labor about the issue. Asked by McGill if he knew the criteria for internships and apprenticeships, Earle said at this point he did not know, but Brown said that Stevens was not an employee of the city at the time. Brown also stated, "We believe some of the time sheets may have been forged." But Abbott said she does not believe any are fraudulent. Concerning the $1,000 payment that Earle gave to Stevens to settle the issue, councillor Hailley Bradbury asked Earle if he felt it was within his power to do so. Brown noted that Stevens accepted the payment.

Protective vests
     Concerning the issue of not providing protective vests for officers, Abbott said one officer, Greg Smith, had noted in his March 19 letter of resignation from the department that he had lacked safety gear and had to borrow it from another department. Officer Chapais had told her that he had been without a duty vest for about a year, until family and friends paid over $800 for one for him. Abbott stated that when Earle went out on medical leave in July the first thing that officers Mike Donahe and Mark Emery did was order duty vests. "I was told that Dale Earle told the officers that I refused payment for safety vests," said Abbott, adding that was not true.
     Earle has denied not supplying the vests, and Brown later asked Abbott why she didn't ask Earle about the vests, since officers report to him. Earle later stated that he had never heard from officers about not having vests. He said Chapais and Smith told him they were all set with vests.
     In his March 19 letter, Greg Smith states that the main factor for why he left to take a position with the Pleasant Point department was because he was offered more pay but another factor was the issue of poor equipment and gear. He stated he worked without a vest until borrowing an undersized one. In a July 22 letter, Smith states that he had not been given the opportunity to get a vest until Earle had begun serving as chief. "I feel Chief Earle adequately gave me what I needed when I asked him," he wrote.

A deteriorating relationship
     As for Earle misrepresenting her statements, Abbott said that he told her and the council that two officers stated that she told them "'they should be grateful they have jobs because they work in Mayberry.' I didn't say that." Mayberry was the setting for a 1960s television show about a sheriff in a sleepy North Carolina town. She also said that numerous times Earle complained to councillors about her and was told to stop by councillors, because he was being insubordinate.
     Attorney Brown noted numerous times that he had requested documentation for the allegations about Earle from Abbott, with his requests being unanswered. Abbott's attorney responded that Earle had already seen the documents. "There aren't any secret documents," she said.
     Brown also asked that councillors Gilbert Murphy and Shannon Emery recuse themselves from any of the proceedings, since they had voted against the hiring of Earle and could be witnesses. The request was denied, and Brown commented, "This is trial by ambush."
     Abbott stated that she had heard that Earle had used graphic profanity in speaking about her in public. Also, Officers Donahe and Chapais said that Earle would comment about other officers, which Abbott said pitted them against each other and affected his ability to be an effective leader. "I was very concerned that he and I couldn't work together in a constructive manner," Abbott said. "I concluded there was little chance for a cooperative working relationship."
     Brown later suggested that Abbott was the one pitting officers, specifically Mark Emery and David Chapais, against Earle. Earle stated that he did not make derogatory remarks about officers to the city manager. He said he felt he was getting along with Chapais, who had applied for the police chief position at the same time Earle had applied, and only found out Chapais was talking with the city manager after he got back from his June vacation. He said he felt undermined by the city manager. "I felt she was creating a situation where she was encouraging insubordination." He said he had not been disrespectful to the city manager but that if you disagreed with her "she sometimes went ballistic and used four-letter words."
     At the end of the hearing, councillors stated why they were upholding the termination, with Bradbury stating that his actions concerning Stevens could have exposed the city to a lawsuit; that his plans to solidify security for the Fourth just four days before the celebration began were "grossly irresponsible"; and that Earle's not providing safety vests for "multiple officers" was "negligence" on his part.
     As of December 1, Earle and his attorney had not yet decided if they would be pursuing a lawsuit against the city.