Donora’s civil service commission held a hearing Thursday to determine the fate of former police superintendent Jim Brice.

Brice was fired in August, and accusations against him have remained unknown to the public until yesterday. Brice’s dismissal came after repeated efforts from some borough officials to remove him from his post over the previous two years.

The borough brought a dozen accusations against the former superintendent, including neglect of duties, submitting erroneous monthly reports, failing to respond to backup calls, failing to follow multiple borough directives, allowing unauthorized access to police databases and intoxication at work.

Brice denied the accusations, requesting that the commission dismiss them, reinstate him and provide back pay for missed time.

Opening proceedings Attorney Megan Turnbull mediated the hearing and revealed the allegations against Brice before reading his response statement.

The statement defends Brice against each charge, claimed the borough lacks sufficient evidence and argues that witness accounts of alleged incidents were vague.

The statement additionally argues that when holding Brice’s Louder-mill hearing, the borough violated his right to due process.

“At Mr. Brice’s Loudermill hearing, held on Aug. 10, 2022, he was not provided with specific allegations against him, or an explanation of the evidence against him, attendant to those allegations,” the statement read. “He was not was not even provided with the specific dates that these alleged violations occurred.

“Therefore, he did not have an adequate opportunity to respond to the allegations held against him at that time. … The 14th Amendment provides that a state may not deprive any person of life, liberty or property without due process of law.”

In his opening statement, Brice’s

BRICE • A4 FROM A1 attorney, Massimo Terzigni, claimed the borough did not bring charges based on factual evidence; rather, it argued officials were motivated by personal vendettas and petty rivalries.

“During his 32 years as superintendent, and even before, Jim never received a negative performance review, a citizen complaint or any indication from anyone in his chain of command that his performance was anything less than stellar,” Terzigni said.

“Today, the evidence will show that Jim’s termination, after nearly 40 years of exemplary service, was nothing more than a hit job orchestrated by a councilman with a grudge.”

Terzigni claimed Councilman Joe Greco was the driving force behind Brice’s firing, painting a picture of a scornful colleague motivated by petty jealousy.

“During the early days of his career in Donora, Jim worked with … Greco,” Terzigni said. “You will hear about how Mr. Greco felt snubbed by Jim’s promotions — how Jim’s rise in rank soured their once-friendly relationship. “You will hear testimony about how almost immediately after being sworn in, Mr. Greco took steps to oust Jim from his leadership role in the police department. Mr. Greco’s campaign against Jim ended with the statement of charges before you today.”

In addition to serving on council, Greco sits on the borough’s civil service commission. Terzigni raised questions about Greco’s ability to judge impartially, as he played an active role in bringing charges against Brice and voted to fire him in August.

Terzigni requested Greco recuse himself from the case as a safeguard against potential bias. The attorney cited a case wherein Pennsylvania judges ruled that an “individual who brought the accusations should not have served on the commission deciding the appellant’s appeal because it created an appearance of bias.” “Here, Mr. Greco is a fact witness to several of the accusations that have been made against Mr. Brice,” Terzigni said. “He is being accused of not following certain directives. Some of those directives were directly passed down by Mr. Greco.

“He voted for Mr. Brice’s termination. We believe he has already made his decision.”

Turnbull and commission members called for a brief executive session to discuss the matter. Upon returning, Turnbull asked if any commissioners wanted to recuse themselves. None responded and Turnbull denied the request for recusal.

In addition to serving on the commission, Greco is listed as a witness. Prior to proceedings, witnesses agreed to sequester themselves during the hearing — only appearing when called to testify.

Terzigni pointed out that Greco can’t sequester if he sits on the commission throughout the hearing and again requested Greco recuse himself. Turnbull denied the request, saying that Greco will wear two hats during proceedings.

“The conflict is going to be resolved by his participation as a civil service commission member,” Turnbull said. “And he will not be sequestered.”

Greco commented about his shared past with Brice and argued his impartiality in the case.

“I’d like to respond to the allegation that we’ve been having a grudge with Mr. Brice, which can’t be further from the truth,” Greco said. “I ran for council because Mr. Brice requested me to — he and his wife both.

“I had no intentions or ambitions of becoming the chief, or having any type of grudge against the chief. I thought we worked very well together. In fact, as a union member and representative, I hired Jim many times to come and work with me.

“I had great respect for Jim and I still do. I think he was one hell of a police officer — probably top five in the county. I knew the allegations against him. I voted for his termination, as the majority of council did — strictly on the investigation work and recommendation of (Attorney Chris) Gabriel. “I have no animosity or vindictiveness with Jimmy whatsoever. To this day I still have great respect for the man.”

Gabriel, the borough’s hired counsel, declined to give opening statements beyond advocating the soundness of charges against Brice.

Testimony

The borough laid out its case for firing Brice over the course of five and a half hours in the banquet hall of the borough building. The four-person commission heard testimony from four witnesses, all of whom attested to charges brought against Brice.

Gabriel called former mayor Jim McDonough and current council President Mike McDowell each to the stand, and each testified they had issues giving directives to the former superintendent while working with him.

McDonough claimed that Brice failed to follow directives regarding camera installation in police vehicles, evidence room inventory, wearing a protective vest in the field, delegating database responsibilities to a full-time officer and scheduling.

The former mayor also claimed the department under Brice was divisive and fractured, with officers consistently engaging in dirty office politics.

“I have never seen in my life — of working, having relationships with other employees — a more backstabbing, horrible (environment), through text messages to me and each other,” McDonough said. “At one time or another, every police officer, including the superintendent, sent me something about somebody playing games — that somebody was rotten. It was constant.”

McDowell provided a less scathing testimony, but also supported the claim that Brice often failed to follow directives from council.

Throughout Gabriel’s questioning, Terzigni repeatedly brought objections, often delaying proceedings. Turnbull urged the defense attorney to remain precise and professional in his objections.

During cross examination, Terzigni emphasized the lack of written documentation of alleged events and pursued establishing political motivation behind decisions involving Brice. However, he occasionally struggled to make his questions clear to witnesses.

The keynote witness was Officer Mike Parry, who testified for two hours regarding his time working with Brice.

The officer testified about multiple issues working with the former superintendent, claiming that he’d seen Brice drunk on the job and said he often refused to provide backup to officers he didn’t like.

Parry cited two instances in which he claimed Brice was drunk — once in person and once over the phone. In both instances, Parry stated Brice slurred his speech and overly repeated himself in both instances and claimed that Brice was on the job on both occasions.

During the in-person instance, however, Parry stated Brice had been in plain clothes. He said he gave no written report or formal complaint about either incident.

Similar to Brice’s claim of a personal vendetta against him, Parry claimed Brice had a personal gripe against him and other select officers.

“I don’t know if it’s personal hatred, or some kind of disrespectful event that happened years ago,” Parry said. “I have no idea.”

Parry was briefly promoted to chief under Brice in 2021 before being forced to step down to comply with the borough’s collective bargaining agreement with the police union.

During his time as chief, Parry and Brice split certain responsibilities in the department. The defense regularly pointed out that some of the duties witnesses claim Brice neglected were delegated to Parry or current Chief Neal Rands. However, the document has a disclaimer that reserves council discretion over delegation of department duties.

During Parry’s testimony, Gabriel exhibited surveillance camera footage of Brice and his son in the police department. In the video, Brice’s son appears to access license plate data on police databases and appears to take a picture of the computer screen with his phone.

Parry said after seeing the footage, he looked up the search history on the database, and claimed Brice’s son — who is not an officer — had used an officer’s login information to access the data.

When asked why he looked up footage from inside the police station in the first place, Parry said he didn’t remember.

Terzigni pointed out that Brice’s son, who worked as a turnkey in the borough building, had Commonwealth Law Enforcement Assistance Network (CLEAN) certification, which allows individuals to have limited access to police information. He added that Brice’s son had occasionally utilized the certification to help in the department.

Parry emphasized the limited access CLEAN clearances grant, saying it “lets you be in the room,” but suggested he didn’t have legal access to police information on the department computer.

“Was Tanner Brice allowed to be in that room?” Terzigni asked.

“Yeah,” Parry said.

“Was he allowed to be in that chair?” Terzigni asked. “He can sit in the chair, there’s no problem with that,” Parry said.

“But he was not allowed to be on the computer?” Terzigni asked.

“Correct,” Parry said.

According to psp.pa.gov, CLEAN clearance allows an individual to “access driver license and motor vehicle information, state criminal history record information maintained in the Pennsylvania State Police Central Repository, the Commonwealth’s central registry for Protection from Abuse orders, “hot” (stolen and wanted) files, law enforcement messaging capabilities and a host of other services.”

The code the clearance is written under requires access to be restricted to specific police work and sets high penalties for individuals who don’t act with discretion or share private information.

Following Parry’s testimony, Gabriel called retired police officer Keith Charlton to testify. Charlton corroborated Parry’s claim that Brice neglected to report to backup officers he didn’t like, allegedly including Charlton.

After Charlton’s testimony, Gabriel rested his case. The commission has yet to hear from the defense’s witnesses, who will testify at a continuance hearing set tentatively for 10 a.m. Feb. 8 in the borough building banquet hall.