Is Salisbury Police Chief Allan Webster Teflon Coated?

For the second time since the hiring of Salisbury police chief, Allan Webster, complaints have been lodged against him, potentially serious enough to request his resignation or terminate his service with the city. For the second time since his employment, under two very different mayors, he escapes termination. Both times complaints were filed with the expectation of anonymity, for fear of retaliation, for which the city has become known. Both times anonymity has been breached.

Comparing the events of 2002 to the most recent events of 2009 it would appear Chief Webster has an established modus operandi. Upon reading all the information gathered you will see a pattern develop. If I had the time I would research further to see if Chief threatened his former employers with the same senseless, baseless lawsuits, which he never wins.

My intention was to put this out with complete articles from the various media outlets and official city documents. Rather than post extensive documentation I’m going to keep it as short and sweet as possible. There is enough here for anyone to come to a rational conclusion. The chief of police must be replaced, it’s that simple.

July 2002 after receiving complaints from city police department employees and citizens, the city council made a formal request to fire Allan Webster. Later in the fall of the same year more complaints were filed against the chief of police. The council hired an attorney, Steve Bers, because Paul Wilber could not represent the city while investigating one of its department heads. Probably the only time a conflict of interest was realized. The council spent a considerable amount of money investigating the complaints filed.

Ordinance 1862 was passed on October 28, 2002 by a 4-1 vote with Michael Day abstaining. This ordinance could force Chief Webster to hand over personnel records to the council. Chief Webster wasn’t having any of that, he enlisted the aid of the FOP to file suit against the city to prevent the council from having access to personnel files. Specific information in these files would have provided answers to the questions councilmember’s had regarding the complaints filed by police department employees. Of course, Barrie Tilghman maintained Webster had done nothing wrong and the council had no reason to suspect he had. Tilghman also vetoed the ordinance.

Chief Webster and Barrie Tilghman are not very good at the “I didn’t know” game; it just doesn’t work for them. Proof the “I don’t know anything” doesn’t work for them. …“the complaints were not new to Administration since conversations were held with Mayor Tilghman and Chief Webster well over a year ago. When the investigation began, every attempt the Council made to secure information was blocked. There were specific files the attorney needed to review to substantiate information and a few police officers to interview, but this did not occur” City Council Meeting dated October 28, 2002 Special Session
Oops, pesky things like official records tend to get in the way.

Next thing you know, sometime in November 2002, heres Chief Webster, doing what he always does, threatening the City Council with a lawsuit if they don’t turn over tapes from a July 8th closed session meeting. Chief Webster filed a formal request for these tapes and wouldn’t you know it, the one page letter just happened to be obtained by the Tilghman Times.

January 2003 after much media manipulation and the usual Barrie temper tantrums thrown around town C.T. Webster caves in, as does Joe Scott. In the presence of the city solicitor, Mayor Barrie Tilghman, and three of the council members, Michael Day, Joe Scott and C.T. Webster sign an agreement with Chief Webster. Rachel Polk and Von Siggers refused to sign due to unresolved issues. The agreement called for the city to pay the chief's legal bills and it allows Webster to become a city employee when his contract expires in July 2003. In return, Webster has agreed not to sue the city for any action taken against him prior to January 10, 2003. Webster sued the city for $400,000 but settled for $9,999.00 which came out of the city budget.

January 24, 2003 Chief Webster files a civil suit against Rachel Polk for defamation. Chief Webster claimed that Rachel Polk distributed an anonymous letter that contained defamatory statements she knew to be false. His case was thrown out of court. Dismissed with prejudice.

The anonymous letter he claims as defamatory is the same anonymous letter sent to the council with complaints about Chief Webster and some issues with the Weed and Seed Fund. Shanie Shields was the West Side coordinator for the program at the time. Shanie was asked to investigate when the first round of complaints came in. Later more complaints were sent to the council, in an anonymous letter from a police officer. Shanie was contacted again, to see if she had uncovered anything, she was also sent a copy of the letter. Instead of replying to the council with her findings, Shanie sent the anonymous letter to Chief Webster. This was the basis of his lawsuit against Rachel Polk.

Fast Forward to 2007

Webster files a civil suit against Joe Albero for defamation. Once again, he sues and loses. He sued Albero for $9,999.00. He never made it to court with Albero. In the final hours before they were to appear in court Webster’s attorney, Jesse Hammock was pleading with Albero’s attorney, Bruce Bright to come to an agreement. Joe told his lawyer there would be no monetary settlement, none whatsoever. Not a dime, not a penny, zip, zilch, nada. Had Webster pushed for money he would have had his day in court with Albero and ended up, once again losing. Whatever the agreement was, it must be embarrassing for the chief because he had it stipulated the terms of the agreement were to be kept quiet. Joe would have told it all if he were able, we all know this to be true.

Now here we are in 2009

Chief Webster does as always, runs to the Tilghman Times and spins out a story claiming to know nothing about what is in the documents. Once again, documents of a confidential nature are leaked to the Daily Times. Once again, Chief Webster asks the council to pay his legal fees.

Are you seeing the pattern yet? This is Chief Webster’s M.O.; he gets caught then uses the Daily Times to spin the truth into something that doesn’t even remotely resemble the truth, in an effort to make it look like everyone is out to get him. Somehow the Daily Times always manages to obtain documents.

If he had handled his business in a professional manner, if he was performing his duties as a department head should, if he would answer truthfully to the council, he wouldn’t be on the carpet.

Sources: WMDT, WBOC, Daily Times, Salisbury City Council Meeting Minutes

Originally Posted on 8-23-09 at 9:05 AM.