Appeal of former Leet police chief's termination in the hands of Civil Service Commission

Former Leet Police Chief Michael Molinaro is fighting to get his job back.

It may prove to be a Herculean effort as township officials have accused him of conduct unbecoming of an officer including incompetence, insubordination, attempting to steal money during a search warrant, disobedience of orders, submitting false information/documents and lying to the township board.

Molinaro, a Leet officer since 2013 and chief since March 2021, was fired on July 25, 2022, at a township commissioners’ workshop meeting.

He had been on paid leave since April of that year, pending an investigation.

The termination was ratified at an Aug. 6, 2022, regular voting session following scrutiny about how commissioners handled the situation the previous month. Brian Jameson was named interim chief and is still in that position.

Molinaro filed a federal lawsuit against the township in June 2022 alleging he was placed on administrative leave because of his support of their political opponents. He also claimed in the lawsuit the township violated his civil rights, claiming retaliation against his politics and his speaking out against reinstating an officer.

The lawsuit was dismissed earlier this year.

Civil service hearings

Molinaro appealed his termination to the township’s Civil Service Commission, which is reviewing hundreds of pages of testimony and dozens of exhibits.

Both Molinaro’s defense attorney Erik Yurkovich and prosecutors — attorney David Mitchell of the firm Campbell Durrant and township solicitor Stephen Chesney — made their respective cases Aug. 1.

It was the seventh day of hearings that began June 21.

Molinaro testified times have been rough since he lost his job. He said he cashed in his deferred compensation plan, dipped into his savings, works various side jobs and helped at a family business to help make ends meet. He was also unable to get another policing job.

Township attorneys indicated Molinaro does not deserve another chance in law enforcement.

“Pennsylvania law indicates that police officers in Pennsylvania are held to a higher standard than other employees,” Mitchell said. “They must do nothing that weakens the public confidence in their department or that tarnishes the reputation of their department.”

Mitchell argued the aforementioned charges and evidence showed Molinaro did just that and his termination was justified.

False information and disobedience of orders claims

The submission of false information and lying to the board claims stem from the termination of part-time patrolman Nick Vigliotti.

Molinaro testified he had been having issues with Vigliotti that required counseling 15 to 20 times in seven months.

He said he took notes of disciplinary discussions and that Vigliotti was taken off the schedule in May 2021 for making derogatory comments.

While being questioned by township attorneys, Molinaro said he did not provide Vigliotti with any disciplinary letters or written notifications.

Molinaro said he told Vigliotti on Dec. 20, 2021, that he had five days to submit a resignation letter or he would be fired — that would have been a Christmas Day deadline.

The deadline passed and Molinaro waited until Jan. 18, 2022, to file a separation form with Municipal Police Officers’ Education and Training Commission, stating Vigliotti was terminated as of Dec. 30, 2021, for disciplinary reasons, according to testimony.

Molinaro testified he did not give Vigliotti any notice of termination and followed past practices despite it being required under department policy.

“I followed how I was trained to handle the officers in Leet Township, and I did nothing more,” Molinaro said.

Chesney also questioned why Molinaro would go against department policy and against state Act 57, which requires law enforcement agencies to keep records of the reasons for a police officer’s separation form.

Chesney submitted certifications Molinaro acquired after taking classes and legal updates from MPOETC, classes in which would have covered Act 57 among other police topics.

“You were given legal updates, so you knew the correct way, but yet you chose to follow the incorrect way,” Chesney said. “You attended the course and you testified you paid attention.”

Molinaro reiterated that he followed his training from other officers and was not told he was doing anything wrong at the time, even by the township solicitor.

Molinaro later cited minutes from a June 14, 2022, commissioners meeting in which Chesney reported that he had reviewed all police policies and that the chief had updated all the current policies.

The former chief was asked if he notified any township commissioners about Vigliotti. He testified that he did not.

Vigliotti submitted a letter of resignation on Jan. 24, 2022, and later filed a complaint sometime the following month after finding out about the MPOETC separation form.

Chesney said Molinaro had several opportunities to correct the form but did not. He also allowed the commissioners to believe Vigliotti resigned.

Township commission president Martin McDaniel said they had a discussion with Molinaro about police personnel on Feb. 14, 2022, and the chief did not mention Vigliotti’s termination.

Commissioners rejected Vigliotti’s resignation letter and ordered him to be put back on the schedule.

In April 2022, township commissioners asked Molinaro if he put the part-timer back on schedule. He said yes. The township claims that was a lie.

Jameson testified records from PlanIt Schedule, a software program the department uses to help keep track of schedules, indicated Vigliotti was back to work but at far fewer hours than before.

Jameson said Vigliotti worked three shifts in March 2022 and 17 shifts in April 2022.

Mitchell said Molinaro stopped using PlanIt in favor of a paper system three days after being told to put Vigliotti back on the schedule.

There were also multiple text messages from Vigliotti to Molinaro in December 2021 and January 2022.

Mitchell argued Vigliotti’s texts came from an officer who believed he was still working while Molinaro and Yurkovich said they appeared to be from someone trying to come back to work.

Search warrant

The township accused Molinaro of attempting to steal money while he and several officers executed a search warrant at a township home in January 2022.

Officers searched the home and found money in various locations, including an upstairs bedroom and in the basement.

There were several different dollar amounts testified to, and that money exchanged hands between officers several times at the home.

There were some discrepancies between comments made between Molinaro and Officer Chuck Galazarano about money being found in the basement after officers had already searched the area.

Molinaro said he could not recall exactly if he told Galzarano that he found money in the basement and for him to go get it, or if he asked Galzarano to go search the basement to see if there was any money down there.

“It’s pretty clear that we have a problem with the seizing and the counting of the money during this search,” Yurkovich said.

He also noted there were some technical issues with body cameras, including one officer’s camera going out right before the money is found.

“We have no expert testimony here from either side about what’s going on with the body cameras,” Yurkovich said. “We have police officers giving it their best shot, but I submit to you there is no true expert; no one doing a forensic analysis of any of this. … I submit to you that these irregularities with the missing money were not the fault of Chief Molinaro.”

The township also accused Molinaro of deleting a portion of body cam footage related to the search warrant.

Galzarano testified that Molinaro regularly took home a portable hard drive that had body cam footage.

Molinaro said he only took the hard drive home once in April.

More claims

Township attorneys said Molinaro failed to comply with orders during the internal investigation last year when he was instructed not to have any contact with township employees or third parties that may be connected to employees.

Their evidence included an incident at a Walmart in which Molinaro and his girlfriend came in contact with Officer Jame Lema’s wife.

Molinaro testified his girlfriend, who had not met Lema’s wife previously, struck up a conversation with her, and it was Lema’s wife who made a comment about officers having his back.

Molinaro said he never made comments to Lema’s wife.

Mitchell said there was testimony to the contrary, and that Molinaro had said he hopes officers had his back.

The township claims Molinaro was insubordinate when instructed to put Vigliotti back on the schedule.

Molinaro testified that he was following past practices and “did how I was trained” when it came to Vigliotti.

Township attorneys also said Molinaro was insubordinate when he did not promptly comply with orders to relinquish department property and was negligent with computer passwords.

Mitchell said Molinaro was also incompetent with his duties when it came to a controlled drug buy.

Mitchell said officers testified Molinaro suggested using fake money for the operation.

Yurkovich said Molinaro testified he was using an ad or a coupon and was joking.

Conduct unbecoming

Township attorneys said other incidents that strengthen their conduct’s unbecoming claims involve a domestic incident at the former chief’s home earlier this year in which Molinaro’s girlfriend had allegedly struck his fence.

Molinaro said he did not feel the incident required a call to 911, and instead called officers directly.

Officer Lema received the call. He and Officer Galzarano responded to the home. The girlfriend was later found. No charges were filed.

Lema said he asked Molinaro the next day how he wanted to file a report and was told by the chief not to file one.

Galzarano said he and the chief did not have a conversation one way or the other.

Molinaro denied instructing officers to not file a report.

Yurkovich said argued that there was no misconduct regarding the call at Molinaro’s home because officers at the scene did not take “any serious police action,” and that Lema could have started a report if he felt one was necessary, but Lema did not.

Towing problem

The township also claims Molinaro threatened a resident in response to a Facebook post.

The resident, who owns Ambridge-based Fasmo Towing, posted to social media that he was surprised to see a Leet patrol car riding around town one day and that he had not seen one in a while.

Molinaro testified he did go to the business sometime after the post was made, but it was to have a friendly conversation.

The towing company was removed from the township’s rotation sometime after that visit.

Yurkovich noted Rengers testified she made that call. The defense attorney later summed everything up with a football examination.

“Chief Molinaro’s actions, after a Monday morning quarterback review, were not perfect, but they were reasonable,” Yurkovich said.

Civil Service Chairman Tom Weber said it was going to take several months to go through the transcripts and review all the evidence that was presented. A timeline for a ruling was not announced.

Molinaro would not be back on the schedule immediately should the commission rule in his favor.

The township could appeal to Allegheny County Courts. It would then be up to a judge to decide Molinaro’s fate.