West Chester Police Department
Support Bureau
Police Integrity and Development Section

Date:
Date Assigned:
IIU#:
Investigator(s):
Complainant:
Officer(s) Involved:

February 11, 2020
February 11, 2020
2020-01
Lt. Paul Haering #39
Colonel Joel M. Herzog #59, Chief of Police
Captain Jamie Hensley #130

Background
On January 28, 2020 Chief Herzog was having a meeting at Human Resources
(HR) to discuss the expectations he had for Captain Hensley as a member of the West
Chester Police Department’s Command Staff. Present during the meeting were Chief
Herzog, Lieutenant Colonel Brian Rebholz #68, HR Manager Tonya Charles and Captain
Jamie Hensley. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss Chief Herzog’s expectations
for Captain Hensley’s performance. Captain Hensley was provided with a letter listing
these expectations.

Complaint
During the meeting on January 28, 2020 Captain Hensley displayed behavior that
was disrespectful towards Chief Herzog and Ms. Charles. He regularly interrupted both
Chief Herzog and Ms. Charles. Captain Hensley’s tone of voice and the distain he
displayed was not consistent with that of a Command Staff officer.
A Facebook post regarding Cronyism, written by Captain Hensley’s
, was brought to Chief Herzog’s attention. The post was causing
disruptions within the Police Department. Captain Hensley’s response was, “I am not
aware of when she posted or anything about it.” A short time later, Chief Herzog learned
Captain Joe Gutman #87 and Lieutenant Mike Quinn #98 had discussed the post with
Captain Hensley a week prior. This caused Chief Herzog to question the honesty of
Captain Hensley.
On January 29, 2020 Chief Herzog and Lt. Col. Rebholz met with Captain
Hensley. During this meeting, Chief Herzog asked for a copy of the recording Captain
Hensley made during the January 28th meeting. Captain Hensley’s response was, “I don’t
have it. I deleted it.” Chief Herzog said, “You deleted it?” Captain Hensley said, “Yes.”
Chief Herzog enquired on what phone Captain Hensley used to record the meeting.
Captain Hensley responded he used his personal phone. Chief Herzog said he would need
the phone to have the recording recovered. Captain Hensley immediately stated, “I will

1

 get you a copy. You are not getting my phone.” Chief Herzog responded “I will get your
phone if needed, but a copy will suffice.” Chief Herzog requested the copy of the
recording by the end of the day. Once again, it is believed Captain Hensley displayed
disdain towards Chief Herzog during the course of this exchange. It is also alleged
Captain Hensley made a false or misleading statement about not having the recording
when in fact he was able to provide a copy.

Issue #1
It is alleged Captain Hensley violated Rules and Regulations Section 1.07a on
January 28, 2020 by “displaying disrespect and disdain” towards the Chief of Police and
his position. He also was disrespectful towards the Human Resources Manager Ms.
Tonya Charles. Section 1.07a of the West Chester Police Rules and Regulations states in
part:
1.07

Members of the department:
a) Should always be civil, orderly, and courteous in dealing with the
public, subordinates, supervisors, and associates.
Issue #2

It is alleged Captain Hensley violated Rules and Regulations Section 1.07d by
making a false or misleading statement during a January 28, 2020 meeting. West Chester
Police Rules and Regulations Section 1.07d states in part:
1.07

Members of the department:
d) Shall be honest in all matters.
Issue #3

It is alleged Captain Hensley violated Rules and Regulations Section 1.07a on
January 29, 2020, by being disrespectful and demonstrating disdain towards the Chief of
Police and his position. Section 1.07a of the West Chester Police Rules and Regulations
state in part:
1.07

Members of the department:
a) Should always be civil, orderly, and courteous in dealing with the
public, subordinates, supervisors, and associates.
Issue #4

It is alleged Captain Hensley violated Rules and Regulations Section 1.07d by
making a false or misleading statement during a January 29, 2020 meeting. West Chester
Rules and Regulations Section 1.07 states in part:

2

 1.07

Members of the department:
d) Shall be honest in all matters.

Investigation
February 11, 2020
I received and was assigned IIU 2020-01.
I received a flash drive containing two recordings of the Human Resources (HR)
meeting held on January 28, 2020 between Chief Herzog, Lt. Col. Rebholz, Ms. Charles
and Captain Hensley. The two recordings were copied to a CD disc and are included in
the Recordings section of this report. The recordings on the flash drive and CD disc are
titled “new recording 2” and “new recording 3.”
The original recordings were made by Captain Hensley on his personal phone.
The recordings on the flash drive were copies Captain Hensley supplied to Chief Herzog.
Chief Herzog gave me the recordings for this investigation.
It was explained the first recording began shortly after the meeting started at the
request of Captain Hensley. The first recording [new recording 2] was interrupted by the
phone and stopped during the conversation. The second recording [new recording 3]
started shortly after the interruption. A segment of the conversation was not recorded
during the interruption.
February 12, 2020
I reviewed the recordings of the HR meeting held January 28, 2020. The
transcript of recordings are summarized and paraphrased below. On the transcription of
“new recording 2” it is referred to as “Recording 2, January 28, 2020” and “new
recording 3” as “Recording 3, January 28, 2020.

RECORDING 2, JANUARY 28, 2020
The recording starts with Chief Herzog responding to Captain Hensley’s question
about issues occurring within the Department. Chief Herzog provides an example of a
Facebook post [Saturday January 18, 2020] made by
[Captain
Hensley’s
] referencing Cronyism. He explains how the perception amongst the
officers is the post has a nexus to the [January 16, 2020] Personnel Order [for Sergeants
Brent Lovell #136 and Michael McCalla #214] and this is causing officers to speculate.
Chief Herzog noted the following comments made about the post, “Wow, that’s
inappropriate, shows dysfunctional Command, astonishing that was posted by a Captain’s
.” “How did Brent finish number two (2) on the list, is this why” and “How do I
know when to believe him [Captain Hensley], is it what he says or what his
posts

3

 because she’s obviously getting information from him.” Chief Herzog said the
speculations and discussions surrounding the post are causing disruptions within the
Department.
Captain Hensley explains he doesn’t have Facebook and he has had “Zero
conversations with anybody about anything like that.” He says, “This is ridiculous.” “My
can post whatever the hell my
wants.” “This is ridiculous.” “This is the most
ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.” He questions the nexus between the post and the
Department, “I don’t care what the officers say” and the “Post have nothing to do with
the Police Department.” Captain Hensley says, “I don’t have any control over what, what
my
posts. How do you know that doesn’t have anything to do with politics or any
number of things she posts about?”, “It doesn’t have anything to do with the police
department.” “Who, how does anybody even make that connection to the police
department?”
post and she can
Chief Herzog explains he is not trying to control
post anything she chooses, it is her First Amendment right. He says as a member of the
Command Staff there is a certain prestige and responsibility that comes with the position.
When the officers see a post from a captain’s
that seems contrary to what comes
from the Command Staff, speculation occurs. The discussions surrounding that
speculation cause disruptions within the Department and the unity of command is
questioned by the officers. It doesn’t matter what the intended or unintended purpose of
the post was, the perceived perception is what affects the Department.
Ms. Charles attempts to explain Chief Herzog’s position, but is interrupted after saying
“Okay, but you have a different standard…” Captain Hensley continues to argue over the
Facebook post. He defends his
right to post. Ms. Charles tries to explain it’s not
about her rights, the issue is the distension and dysfunction being caused by the lack of
unity of command. Chief Herzog says the perception of the officers is the Facebook post
is coming from Captain Hensley. The officers are questioning what has been told to them
versus the Facebook post and that is undermining his command.
The Chief provided another example of a Facebook post made by
which occurred in close proximity of a private Command Staff meeting. The post stated,
“I’m so fortunate to work with a boss with morals and integrity”, and “Oh, I have so
much, I’d love to ‘put out there’, I’m just holding my card and waiting for the exact
perfect time to play them!!” Chief Herzog believes this demonstrates a continuing
pattern of conduct.
Captain Hensley acknowledges the previous discussion and defends his position
on the issue. He changes the conversation back to his
Facebook page. “I’m
curious, who is trolling my
Facebook page considering your
and Courtney
defriended her on Facebook and the FOP has her blocked from their page so I’m
wondering…”, “So you don’t think it was… counter-productive to department operations
by having your
and Courtney defriend my
after we had the issues with
? You don’t think that was a problem?” Chief Herzog explains he

4

 doesn’t know about who defriended or blocked anyone. In fact, he doesn’t know what
defriended means.
Captain Hensley continues to argue about being held accountable for his
post saying, “I’ve never heard such… Idiocy…” Chief Herzog becomes offended by the
comment saying, “Jamie, I will not have you sit here and tell me I’m an idiot. Do you
understand that?” He expresses how serious the matter is and the dysfunction that it is
causing amongst the Command Staff.
Chief Herzog says Captain Hensley had been spoken to in the past about his
behavior and that is why he needs to establish expectations. Chief Herzog said he has not
seen any improvement, even though they tried to work through the problem. He tells
Captain Hensley to treat everyone in a normal manner and refrain from awkwardness or
avoidance. The Chief asked Captain Hensley to do some self-reflection. Captain Hensley
maintains his behavior is professional. He said he is unhappy and does not feel
appreciated. He believes his relationship with the Chief has deteriorated.
The recording concluded.

RECORDING 3, JANUARY 28, 2020
The recording starts with Lt. Col. Rebholz discussing cross communication and
frustrations expressed by Captain Hensley. He explains how sometimes problems with
communications occurred between different levels of command, however, it is the
responsibility of the person providing the information to assure all parties are kept
apprised of what is going on at the time. Lt. Col. Rebholz recognizes this issue needs
improvement. Chief Herzog asserted it is his right to talk to anyone regarding matters of
the Department. To talk directly to a lower ranking officer without going down the chain
of command. Captain Hensley recognizes the right of the Chief to talk to whomever he
chooses. However, he wants Chief Herzog to understand bypassing the chain of
command on a consistent bases causes dysfunction.
Captain Hensley once again questions how individuals are coming to the
conclusion the Cronyism post is related to the Personnel Order. Chief Herzog responds
it’s the timing between the two.
The conversation turns to the letter presented to Captain Hensley at the beginning
of the meeting, listing the Chief’s expectations. They discuss several topics in the letter.
They exchange points of view on the topics and at one point Ms. Charles says we are
going to have to agree to disagree. Chief Herzog once again asks for self-reflection from
Captain Hensley. Captain Hensley says he takes the matter seriously and will do as the
Chief asks.
The recording is concluded.

5

 February 12, 2020
Sergeant Mark Weingartner #67 and I interviewed Lieutenant Mike Quinn #98.
The interview was recorded and added to the file. The transcript of the recording is
summarized and paraphrased below.
QUINN INTERVIEW, FEBRUARY 12, 2020
Lt. Quinn was asked how he learned about the Facebook post made by
. He explained Officer Rob Obermeyer #150 asked if he saw the Facebook post
by
dealing with cronyism. Lt. Quinn questioned Officer Obermeyer if
there was a problem or was something going on? Officer Obermeyer believed it had to do
with Sgt. Lovell and questioned if the reference to cronyism was in regards to the Chief.
Lt. Quinn told him he did not know, because he hadn’t seen the post.
Lt. Quinn was asked if he could remember the date the conversation with Officer
Obermeyer took place. He couldn’t remember the date, but said he talked to Officer
Obermeyer and later that day discussed the matter with Captain Joe Gutman #87. He told
Captain Gutman about Officer Obermeyer’s concerns, because he wanted to make
Captain Gutman aware of the situation in the event something happened. Lt Quinn had
concerns it may stir something up among the troops and wanted to get ahead of the
rumors. He believed it was going to turn into a “crap show.”
After speaking with Captain Gutman, Captain Hensley arrived in his office a short
time later and they discussed the post. Captain Hensley questioned what Officer
Obermeyer said about the Facebook post. Lt. Quinn explained how the post said
something about cronyism and could be dealing with the Chief, but he had not seen the
post. Captain Hensley responded he did not know what it referenced and he had not seen
the post. He said
is her own woman.
Lt. Quinn suggested the discussions with Officer Obermeyer, Captains Gutman
and Hensley occurred on Wednesday or Thursday the week prior to a discussion with
Chief Herzog on the topic. Lt. Quinn remembered he talked to all three the same day, but
couldn’t recall the exact week.
Lt. Quinn didn’t want to make assumptions about what the cronyism post was
referencing. Officer Obermeyer had made the connection of the post to Sgt. Lovell
because of the timing of the promotional list posting. He didn’t know how Officer
Obermeyer came to such a conclusion. Lt. Quinn did mention there are people that may
believe a relationship exists between Chief Herzog and Sgt. Lovell that shouldn’t be. Lt
Quinn believes the suspected relationship between Chief Herzog and Sgt. Lovell may
give the perception of cronyism. However, the relationship doesn’t mean there is
cronyism occurring.
The interview was concluded.

6

 February 14, 2020
Sergeant Weingartner and I interviewed Chief Herzog. The interview was
recorded and added to the file. The transcript of the recording is summarized and
paraphrased below.
HERZOG INTERVIEW FEBRUARY 14, 2020
Chief Herzog was asked to explain the complaint he filed against Captain
Hensley. He said a meeting was conducted on January 28, 2020. The meeting was held at
the HR Department, Captain Hensley, Lt. Col. Rebholz, Ms. Charles and he were present.
At the meeting Captain Hensley was presented with a letter of expectations involving his
position as a member of the Command Staff. Chief Herzog mentioned there had been
some issues where minimal progress had been made. He wanted to address the
expectations so they were fully understood and all could move forward.
On January 23, 2020 Chief Herzog was made aware of the cronyism Facebook
post causing disruptions and questions were being raised by officers. The officers felt the
Facebook post was inappropriate and showed dysfunction within the Command Staff.
The officers were astonished Captain Hensley’s
had made such a post. They
believed the post reflected the beliefs of Captain Hensley. The perception amongst the
officers was the post and the Personnel Order for Sergeants Lovell and McCalla were
related. Chief Herzog found this a little disturbing. This prompted the HR meeting with
Captain Hensley.
After the meeting started, Captain Hensley asked to record the meeting on his
cellphone, which was permitted. Chief Herzog began by giving Captain Hensley the letter
of expectations. He wanted to talk about the expectations, Facebook post, and the
disruptions. It was explained
had First Amendment rights to post on
Facebook and they were not in any way restricting her abilities to make posts. However,
Chief Herzog wanted to point out the effect her post was having on the Department. He
wanted to address the concerns and perceptions of the officers. Chief Herzog said Captain
Hensley immediately became agitated and argumentative. Captain Hensley was very
emotional. Chief Herzog characterized Captain Hensley’s behavior as disrespectful.
Captain Hensley constantly interrupted the Chief and Ms. Charles. Chief Herzog believes
Captain Hensley’s actions had gone too far. He believes the manner in which Captain
Hensley spoke and the interruptions were unprofessional. All Chief Herzog wanted to do
was talk about his expectations, officers’ perceptions, disruptions and how they were
going to handle this situation. He wanted Captain Hensley to understand the expectations,
perceptions and disruptions caused by this issue.
After the meeting, Lt. Col. Rebholz and Chief Herzog came back to the station
and called Captain Gutman into his office. Captain Gutman is the Road Patrol Bureau
Commander and Chief Herzog wanted him to be aware of the disruptions amongst the
officers regarding the post. Chief Herzog started to explain the situation. Captain Gutman
told Chief Herzog he was aware of the Facebook post. Captain Gutman said he had

7

 learned about the post and issues from Lt. Quinn. Captain Gutman had informed Captain
Hensley and they had discussed the issues. Chief Herzog was shocked and upset to learn,
Captain Gutman learned about the issues on January 23th and failed to bring them to his
attention. Captain Gutman for whatever reason assumed the Chief was already aware. As
they finished their conversation Captain Gutman made the Chief aware Captain Hensley
also knew about the post. This caused Chief Herzog to reflect back on the earlier meeting
at HR with Captain Hensley. He remembered Captain Hensley saying he was not aware
of his
post or anything about the post, when in fact Captain Gutman had told
Captain Hensley about the post and the information.
The next day, January 29, 2020, Chief Herzog and Lt. Col Rebholz met with
Captain Hensley and requested a copy of the recording made during the HR meeting.
Captain Hensley responded, “I don’t have it, I deleted.” Chief Herzog stated “You
deleted it?” Captain Hensley response was, "Yes.” The discussion turned to which phone
Captain Hensley used to make the recording. Captain Hensley said the recording was
made on his personal cell phone. Chief Herzog asked for Captain Hensley’s phone so he
could give it to Officer Michael Sly #92 to retrieve the recording. Captain Hensley’s
response was “I’ll get you a copy, you’re not getting my phone.” Chief Herzog said a
copy would suffice and he needed it by the end of the day.
Chief Herzog was shocked by the conversation. Chief Herzog felt Captain
Hensley’s response was showing disdain. He immediately wrote down what Captain
Hensley said about the recording. He remembers looking over at Lt. Col. Rebholz saying,
“He lied to me”. Lt .Col. Rebholz replied, “Yes he did.” Chief Herzog believes Captain
Hensley was 100% dishonest and misleading regarding deleting the recording.
I asked Chief Herzog to provide examples of Captain Hensley’s disrespectful
behavior. Chief Herzog said Captain Hensley’s conduct during these meetings was
defensive, argumentative, stern and constantly interrupting. The interruptions resulted in
the Chief telling Captain Hensley to stop and listen to him. The Chief felt Captain
Hensley was talking over him so much he had to raise his voice to get his point across. At
one point the Chief addressed Captain Hensley as “Captain” to bring him down to a more
respectful tone. The Chief felt Captain Hensley’s behaviors and body language were
disrespectful and out of line for a captain speaking to the Chief of Police.
The Chief was asked to describe Captain Hensley’s body language and the disdain
being displayed. Captain Hensley was described as tense, animated and upset. Chief
Herzog was receiving stone cold looks, and stares from Captain Hensley. Captain
Hensley’s facial expressions were changing to where it appeared he was grinding his
teeth.
I noted Chief Herzog has worked with Captain Hensley for years. I asked if this
behavior was contrary to behavior the Chief has witnessed from Captain Hensley. Chief
Herzog said twice before he has witnessed this type of behavior, but never to this level.
What he witnessed was not normal office etiquette for Command Staff.

8

 I asked Chief Herzog how Captain Hensley was disrespectful towards Ms.
Charles. Chief Herzog said as Ms. Charles tried to explain the issues, Captain Hensley
interrupted and made comments such as “This is ridiculous”, “This is absurd” or “This is
idiocy.” Captain Hensley wouldn’t allow Ms. Charles to explain and accomplish their
goals for the meeting. It was his disruptive attitude, basically not listening.
I asked Chief Herzog to explain how he would expected a command level officer
to handle the situation. Chief Herzog said he would expect an employee to be upset and
defensive because they are looking out for their
. However, an employee should
recognize where they are and what is appropriate. Chief Herzog expects an officer not to
raise their voice, not interrupt, and listen to the Chief and HR Manger. The meeting’s
goals were to set expectations, talk through a situation, but it turned very argumentative.
He expected a higher level of professionalism and a more professional tone. Chief
Herzog recognizes as one moves up relationships are developed, more open
conversations occur with a command officer compared to a line officer.
I asked Chief Herzog if the Facebook post had a date or if he knew the date the
post was made. Chief Herzog didn’t believe the post had a date on it, but he believed the
date of the post to be January 18, 2020. Sgt. Weingartner looked at the post and saw that
it had Saturday at 16:42 as the date of posting. Chief Herzog explained the post was sent
to him on January 23, 2020 so in order for it to say Saturday it would have to be a week
prior. If the post was any further back it would have the date, not the day of week.
I asked Chief Herzog to reflect back on the HR meeting on January 28, 2020. I
questioned him about Captain Hensley’s comments regarding not being aware of the
Facebook post. Chief Herzog said they were discussing the Cronyism post made on
January 18, 2020. He said Captain Hensley made the statement “I’m not aware of when
she posted or anything about it.” I confirmed it was later that day after the January 28th
meeting, while talking to Captain Gutman, he became aware Captain Gutman discussed
the post with both Captain Hensley and Lt. Quinn
Sgt. Weingartner asked if the conversations between Lt. Quinn, Captain Gutman
and Captain Hensley took place on January 23, 2020. Chief Herzog said he believed it to
be true. If it wasn’t, he assumed it was on the 24th the week prior to the meeting on the
28th because Captain Gutman said he already spoke to Captain Hensley about the post.
Sgt. Weingartner asked if he spoke to Lt. Quinn about the conversation with
Captain Gutman. Chief Herzog had asked Lt. Quinn if the post was brought to his
attention. Lt. Quinn said he spoke with Captain Gutman and Captain Gutman spoke to
Captain Hensley. After which, Captain Hensley came and spoke to Lt. Quinn about the
post.
I asked how a command officer, who learned of a situation such as this, should
have handled the matter. Chief Herzog said once the Lieutenant learns about the situation
he should notify the Captain, who should inform the Lt. Col. or Chief. It should move up
the chain of command especially since another Captain was involved. It had been brought

9

 to Captain Hensley’s attention, but at no point was the Chief or Lt. Col. made aware of
the post or any discussion by either of the Captains.
I confirmed it was on January 28, 2020, during the HR meeting, that Captain
Hensley said he didn’t know when his
made the cronyism post nor did he know
anything about the post. After that meeting ended, around 4:30pm, Chief Herzog drove
back to the Department and immediately spoke to Captain Gutman. At which time
Captain Gutman said he and Captain Hensley had a prior conversation about the
cronyism post.
On January 29th Chief Herzog called Captain Hensley into his office to ask for a
copy of the recording during the HR meeting. Chief Herzog said Captain Hensley said, “I
don’t have it, I deleted it.” Chief Herzog pressed Captain Hensley on the issue because he
wanted the phone to recover the recording. After being pressed, Captain Hensley said, “I
will get you a copy, you’re not taking my phone.” I asked Chief Herzog if he believed
Captain Hensley was being dishonest by reason of saying he deleted it and after being
pressed saying I’ll get you a copy? Chief Herzog said “Yes, that’s accurate.”
I asked Chief Herzog if he ordered Captain Hensley to turn over his phone or was
it implied by virtue of our policy. Chief Herzog believed it was an implied order because
he said “I need a copy. I’d like to get a copy of that.” His intent wasn’t to take the phone
he just needed a copy of the recordings. Chief Herzog said he was shocked Captain
Hensley deleted something so quickly. Our policy says if you make a recording and it is
business related, it is supposed to be downloaded onto Department media before the end
of day. I asked Chief Herzog to describe Captain Hensley’s demeanor during this
interaction. He said it was like someone flipped a light switch. Captain Hensley’s tone
and behavior changed. We were having a lighthearted conversation and when he asked
for a copy of the recording, Captain Hensley became challenging in a demanding manner.
I asked Chief Herzog if the statements made by Captain Hensley regarding deleting the
recordings were dishonest. Chief Herzog responded, “Absolutely”.
I asked Chief Herzog if there was anything else he wanted to add. During the HR
meeting, Chief Herzog wanted Captain Hensley to understand he was not trying to stop
post, and stated she has a First Amendment right. He wanted to explain
how
post were affecting the Department and causing disruption. It was
supposed to be an expectation or coaching session, but became very adversarial. Chief
Herzog just wanted to outline the expectations he had for Captain Hensley.
The interview was concluded.
Chief Herzog provided copies of the Facebook posts. The copies were placed in
the Documents tab.
I obtained a copy of the Personnel Order dated January 16, 2020 and placed it in
the Documents tab.

10

 February 18, 2020
Sergeant Matt Tombragel #106 and I interviewed Lieutenant Colonel Brian
Rebholz. The interview was recorded and added to the file. The transcript of recording is
summarized and paraphrased below.
REBHOLZ INTERVIEW, FEBRUARY 18, 2020
Lt. Col. Rebholz was asked about the January 28th meeting. He said Chief Herzog
wanted HR to be aware of concerns, issues, and expectations he had for Captain Hensley.
In turn HR drafted the letter of expectations to be given to Captain Hensley during the
meeting.
I asked Lt. Col. Rebholz what transpired during the meeting. Lt. Col. Rebholz
said Ms. Charles provided Captain Hensley with the letter of expectations. Captain
Hensley read the letter and asked if he could record the meeting, which he did. Captain
Hensley was clearly upset. Chief Herzog explained the situation and what his
expectations were for Captain Hensley. Captain Hensley started to repeatedly interrupt
Chief Herzog and Ms. Charles. In Lt. Col. Rebholz’ opinion Captain Hensley came
across very defensive and along with his body language, appeared disrespectful.
Lt. Col. Rebholz was asked to explain if there was anything in particular he found
disrespectful. Lt. Col. Rebholz said, during the course of the meeting, Captain Hensley
continually interrupted Ms. Charles and Chief Herzog. Captain Hensley wouldn’t let the
Chief explain his position without interrupting. Captain Hensley referred to the Chief’s
explanations as idiocy. This upset the Chief so he sent a very clear message to Captain
Hensley he had enough. He referred to Captain Hensley as “Captain” not “Jamie.”
Lt. Col. Rebholz was asked to describe Captain Hensley’s demeanor during the
meeting. Lt. Col. Rebholz said when the Chief brought up the post Captain Hensley
defended the post by taking the offensive. Captain Hensley would not listen to what the
Chief was saying. It was idiocy in Captain Hensley’s terms that the Chief came to such a
conclusion about the post. He interrupted the Chief and wouldn’t allow the Chief or Ms.
Charles to talk. He was verbally aggressive and very persistent. Captain Hensley got on a
train of thought and wasn’t going to break stride, nothing was going to stop him. His
behavior was challenging and disrespectful. Lt. Col. Rebholz commented, afterwards to
Chief Herzog, Captain Hensley showed a tremendous amount of disdain towards you.
Lt. Col. Rebholz was asked how Captain Hensley responded to the post. Captain
Hensley said he doesn’t have Facebook and had no knowledge of the post. He said, his
can post whatever she wants and doesn’t have to seek or get his permission.
Sgt. Tombragel asked Lt. Col. Rebholz if he interpreted Captain Hensley’s
comments to mean there was no prior knowledge of the post. Lt. Col. Rebholz said that
was correct. Lt. Col. Rebholz assumed if Captain Hensley would have had prior
knowledge of the post he would have shared it.

11

 I asked Lt. Col. Rebholz if he was present when the Chief talked to Captain
Gutman and what the conversation was regarding. Lt. Col. Rebholz said he was present
and the Chief wanted to make Captain Gutman aware of the conversation he had with
Captain Hensley. During this meeting Captain Gutman told them Captain Hensley and
himself had spoken about the cronyism post a week prior. They also learned Captain
Hensley had talked to Lt. Quinn about the post. This caused Lt. Col Rebholz tremendous
concern, because Captain Hensley hadn’t mentioned discussing the post with anyone. Lt.
Col. Rebholz said that was when he and the Chief realized Captain Hensley had been
aware of the post prior to the HR meeting.
Lt Col. Rebholz was asked what conclusion he drew from the conversation with
Captain Gutman. Lt. Col. Rebholz’ impression was Captain Hensley was hiding
something and lying to them. Lt. Col. Rebholz said during the meeting Captain Hensley
expressed no knowledge of the post, that he doesn’t approve his
post, and he
doesn’t have Facebook. Lt. Col. Rebholz believes when the topic of the post came up
during the HR meeting, Captain Hensley could have said he knew about the post and
clarify with an explanation. His reaction instead was to dig in, stand his ground, defended
the topic, walk on the chief, talk over him and display a level of disrespect that was
uncalled for.
Lt Col. Rebholz was asked what had been discussed during the meeting on
January 29th. Lt. Col. Rebholz said the Chief wanted to ask Captain Hensley for a copy of
the recording made during the HR meeting. The Chief asked Captain Hensley about the
recording and he immediately stated, “I don’t have it, I deleted it.” Lt. Col. Rebholz
didn’t think the HR meeting went in Captain Hensley’s favor, so it made sense he would
have deleted the recording. Then the Chief asked for his phone and Captain Hensley
instantly said, “You’re not getting my phone. You’re not getting my phone.” The Chief
responded, “I’m getting your phone,” and referred to Department policy. Captain Hensley
said, “I’ll get you a copy.” Lt. Col. Rebholz thought “Oh no, he had just stated he don’t
have it, I deleted it, and now he’s going to get him a copy … what in the world are you
doing.” Lt. Col. Rebholz was asked how he felt about the conversation. He said, “I
though he lied to the Chief.” He believed if the Chief wouldn’t have pressed Captain
Hensley, the impression would have been he deleted it, it was gone, it was unavailable,
but that wasn’t the case.
Sgt. Tombragel asked if anyone asked Captain Hensley how he was going to
retrieve the recording. Lt. Col. Rebholz said he couldn’t remember.
Lt. Col. Rebholz was asked if he could explain why there were two recordings..
He explained, shortly after the meeting started, Captain Hensley started to record and at
some point he received a call. The call disrupted the recording. Captain Hensley realized
the recording had stopped and restarted the recording a little later.
Lt. Col. Rebholz was asked if anything of substance was not captured on the
recording. He said there was a black tie event Captain Hensley attended in Cincinnati and

12

 picture was posted of the Cincinnati Police Chief, West Chester Citizen Police Academy
President and Captain Hensley. Because of the attendees in the picture, the Chief believes
there was a connection to Captain Hensley’s position within the Police Department.
Captain Hensley failed to make Chief Herzog or Lt. Col. Rebholz aware he attended the
event. Chief Herzog questioned Captain Hensley about his attendance. In Captain
Hensley’s opinion that was his private life and he could do as he chooses. The Chief
disagreed, because there was a nexus to the Police Department..
The interview was concluded.
February 19, 2020
Sergeant Weingartner and I interviewed Human Resource Manager Tonya
Charles. The interview was recorded and added to the file. The transcript of recording is
summarized and paraphrased below.
CHARLES INTERVIEW, FEBRUARY 19, 2020
Ms. Charles was asked about the January 28th meeting. She said Captain Hensley
was called over to HR. She explained to Captain Hensley the purpose was to talk about
expectations the Chief had for him. Ms. Charles gave Captain Hensley a copy of the letter
outlining the expectations. Ms. Charles said the Chief started talking about the
expectations, positive team environment, how to do his work and positive image of the
Department. Captain Hensley questioned how he wasn’t providing a positive team
environment. Chief Herzog started to talk about Captain Hensley’s
Facebook post.
At that time Captain Hensley asked to record the meeting.
Ms. Charles was asked what occurred after Captain Hensley started to record the
meeting. She said Chief Herzog outlined his concerns with the Facebook post from
Captain Hensley’s
. Captain Hensley said he knew nothing about the post and wasn’t
aware of it. He said it didn’t have a nexus to the Department. She said there was more
conversation on how the post was affecting the Department, line staff and the upper level
management. They talked about Captain Hensley’s treatment of and professionalism
towards an employee. Chief Herzog talked about wanting to be aware of events he
attended. Captain Hensley suggested maybe it would be better for him to be demoted.
Ms. Charles said that was the end of the conversation.
Ms. Charles was asked what Captain Hensley’s demeanor was during the
meeting. Ms. Charles said it changed throughout the conversation. At first, he was caught
off guard, then angry, emotional and upset. She said Captain Hensley and the Chief were
going back and forth over the Facebook post. Captain Hensley’s voice was elevated and
agitated. Captain Hensley interrupted the Chief several times. The Chief had to talk over
him several times saying, “Listen to me, I’m trying to talk to you, I’m trying to explain to
you.”

13

 Ms. Charles was asked if Captain Hensley interrupted her. She said, “Yes, three to
five times.” Ms. Charles was asked how she felt about Captain Hensley’s behavior. Ms.
Charles understood Captain Hensley may have been surprised and rightfully upset by the
conversation. She wasn’t offended by his behavior, but he wasn’t professional.
I asked Ms. Charles if Captain Hensley’s response was appropriate. She said
Captain Hensley could have apologized for the misperception about the post, say he
would speak to his
and move on. Not argue about his
being able to post
whatever she wants or who unfriended and defriended who, it was unnecessary. It had
nothing to do with the conversation. She believes if the context of the post wasn’t in line
with the Chief’s comments then it shouldn’t have been a big deal.
I asked Ms. Charles if she remembered what Captain Hensley said about the
nexus when first confronted. He said there wasn’t a nexus and the Chief could not prove
a nexus. Saying his
could have been posting about politics or something that
happened at her job. He doesn’t check, nor do they talk about her posts and doesn’t talk
about work items with her.
I asked if Captain Hensley mentioned anything about prior knowledge of the post.
Ms. Charles responded, “No, he said he had no prior knowledge of the post.” “I don’t
have Facebook, I don’t know anything about Facebook, I’m not on Facebook, I don’t
know what she post, I don’t see it, I don’t know, and we don’t talk about it.”
I asked Ms. Charles to describe Captain Hensley’s conduct towards herself and
Chief Herzog. Ms. Charles described Captain Hensley’s conduct as very unprofessional,
aggressive and angry. Ms. Charles explained she was a bystander and wasn’t the leader
of the conversation. She was just trying the keep the conversation on track and on task.
Ms. Charles was there to offer assistance.
Sgt. Weingartner asked if the meeting went as anticipated. Ms. Charles said it was
very different from what she thought. She never expected the conversation to be
aggressive, angry, with elevated voices, especially over Facebook posts, because they
were not talking discipline or demotion. It was like a roller coaster of emotions. She was
surprised by Captain Hensley’s reaction and it wasn’t consistent with what was being
discussed.
The interview was concluded.
Ms. Charles provided a copy of the letter presented to Captain Hensley during the
HR meeting. A copy was placed in the Documents section.
February 21, 2020
I made a copy of Lt. Quinn’s Telestaff work calendar for January and February
2020 and placed it in the Documents tab.

14

 I served Captain Hensley with Notification of Internal Investigation and Rights
Form IIU 1 and set interview time. IIU-1 was placed in the IIU Forms tab of this
document. A copy of the IIU-1 was given to Captain Hensley.
Sergeant Weingartner and I interviewed Captain Gutman. The interview was
recorded and added to the file. The transcript of recording is summarized and
paraphrased below.
GUTMAN INTERVIEW, FEBRUAY 21, 2020
Captain Gutman was asked if Lt. Quinn informed him of a Facebook post made
by
that dealt with cronyism. He replied, “Yes.” I asked him to
expound on the conversation with Lt. Quinn. He said Lt. Quinn saw a Facebook post and
was inquiring if the post had something to do with work. Captain Gutman hadn’t seen the
post, so he didn’t know if there was a relationship to work. He couldn’t recall if Lt. Quinn
had mentioned any issues caused by the post.
Captain Gutman was shown the post made by
that was the correct post we had been discussing.

. He confirmed

I asked Captain Gutman what he did with the information. Did he take it to
anybody else? He responded “I mentioned to Jamie.” I asked when he talked to Captain
Hensley. He said shortly thereafter. I asked if it was the same day he had spoken to Lt.
Quinn. He thought it could have been a day or two later. I asked how the discussion went
with Captain Hensley. He said Captain Hensley responded, “She can post whatever she
wants, I don’t know what it’s about, and I’m not on Facebook.” I asked if he knew
whether or not Captain Hensley talked to Lt. Quinn about the post. He said he did not
know if Captain Hensley talked to Lt. Quinn or anyone else.
Captain Gutman was asked if he talked to Chief Herzog about the Facebook post.
At first, his response was, “I honestly can’t remember.” After further questioning he
replied, “I believe I did.” He said they did discuss it, and the Chief did express some
concerns. The Chief’s concerns were about social media and appearances. The Chief
mentioned it could possibly be causing a rift within the Department. The Chief was upset
with him for not bringing this information forward beforehand. Captain Gutman told the
Chief he didn’t feel the information was relevant at the time. Captain Gutman said he
apologized for not bringing the information forward and said he would do better the next
time.
Captain Gutman was pressed on the issue as to why the Chief would bring the
issue about the post to him. In hindsight, Captain Gutman believes individuals were
drawing a connection between the Facebook post and the promotional list post. He
believes the Chief was upset because he didn’t make the connection and bring the issue
forward.

15

 Sgt. Weingartner wanted to clarify with Captain Gutman that he and Captain
Hensley had discussed the post. Then on January 28th the Chief met with Captain Hensley
and directly after the meeting he talked to Captain Gutman. During that time Captain
Gutman told the Chief, he had a prior discussion with Captain Hensley about the post,
therefore the Facebook post and Captain Gutman’s conversation with Captain Hensley
would have occurred prior to January 28th. Captain Gutman agreed.
The interview was concluded.
Sgt. Weingartner and I interviewed Captain Hensley. The interview was recorded
and added to the file. The transcript of recording is summarized and paraphrased below.
HENSLEY INTERVIEW (1) FEBRUARY 21, 2020
I provided Administrative Warning Form IIU-3 to Captain Hensley. The IIU-3
was placed in the IIU Forms tab of this document. A copy of the IIU-1 was given to
Captain Hensley
Captain Hensley was asked if he remembered providing a recording of the HR
meeting to the Chief. Captain Hensley said he had provided a copy of the January 28th,
2020 HR meeting to the Chief. He had been given permission to record the meeting on
his personal phone. Captain Hensley hadn’t used the audio application on his phone prior
to the meeting. During the meeting something happened causing the application to stop
recording. He checked the phone and saw the recording stopped. He restarted the
application a second time to continue to record the meeting. This caused a split between
the two recordings which is demonstrated by different topics being discussed. He deleted
the recording off of his phone per policy. Because he had deleted it from the phone, he
had to forward the recording from a personal email to Department email. He transferred
the recordings to a flash drive which was given to the Chief.
Captain Hensley, Lt. Col. Rebholz and Chief Herzog met the next day. The Chief
requested a copy of the recording. When initially speaking about the Chief’s request for
the recording Captain Hensley told me he said “No problem. I’ll get you a copy and he,
he [the Chief] asked for it by the end of the day.” Later in the interview, Captain Hensley
was asked if he could remember exactly what was said.
CAPTAIN HENSLEY: Yeah, he said umm… he said, hey umm… the
other day when we had that meeting and, I’m not going to say I’m
remembering everything exactly as it was said, umm… I, I remember he
called me into his office and said, hey, you need to get a copy or the other
day you recorded umm… that meeting, I need to get a copy of that. And I
said, I said, I, you know, I don’t, I deleted it and he said umm… he said,
you deleted it? And I said, yeah. And he’s like, what did you record it on?
I said, my personal phone. He said, well I’m going to need to, we’re going
to have to get that to Mike Sly or umm… or somebody to get, to get it off

16

 of there and I said, no, you’re not getting my personal phone, I’ll get you a
copy of it. And umm… he said, okay, well just so you know, I can get
your personal phone if I needed it but as long as you get me a copy of it. I
said, yeah, I’m aware of that. I’ll get you a copy of it. He’s like, well, I’ll
need it by the end of the day. I said, okay, you’ll have it, what medium do
you want it on? He said, doesn’t matter, email, disc, you know, flash
drive, whatever. I don’t remember what all he listed but he, he just said it
doesn’t matter, just get it to me. Umm… so you know, like I said, I, I had
to email it from my personal email to my work email and then put it on a
flash drive and, and provide it to him so… (Hensley Interview 1, 2/21/20,
81)
Captain Hensley was asked how he felt about the conversation during the second
meeting with the Chief, on January 29th. Captain Hensley said he was emotional and
upset. He was blindsided. Just as he was with this current investigation and the HR
meeting, January 28th. He said the HR meeting and letter were completely unexpected. He
found the letter to be frivolous and nonsense. He believed it to be a performance
improvement plan and didn’t understand the need. He saw no indications he wasn’t
meeting standards. He explained issues have been ongoing since May of 2018 between
members of the front office staff. He believes this to be a continuation of those issues. He
said he has previously addressed the issues with Chief Herzog, Assistant Administrator
Lisa Brown and Township Administrator Larry Burks.
Captain Hensley was asked if the HR meeting was the first time he saw the
Facebook post.
CAPTAIN HENSLEY: I, you know, the, there was one (1) that he read at
the time and umm… it wasn’t the first, it wasn’t the first time I had heard
that because Mike Quinn had asked me about a post by my
and, and I
think it was that post. It was a definition of cronyism or something like
that. But at the time Mike Quinn had asked me, and this was probably a
couple, I don’t remember when this was but it was before that meeting,
umm… all he asked me was something to the effect of, hey, umm… that
post that
did, was that, was that about, yeah, to be honest with you,
I don’t know if I’ve ever, I’ve never even see it. I’ve heard it, I’ve heard it
read to me by the Chief. Umm… he umm… Quinn says that post, that post
or Facebook post from
, was that, was that about work and I’m like,
what are you talking about? I don’t even know what you’re talking about.
And I think he said something about cronyism or, or a definition of
cronyism or something and I’m like, I said, Mike, that ain’t even, that’s
got nothing to do with work. I said, but to be honest with you, I don’t
approve, I don’t review and approve my
Facebook posts before
they go out. I’m not even on Facebook. So umm… I said, that ain’t got
nothing to do with work. Anybody making that connection is, that’s on the
reader, you know, they’re connecting it to something they… their own
personal experience or something like that. I said, this has got nothing to
do with work and he’s like, oh okay, well… And umm… so when the

17

 Chief asked me about it in this meeting on the 28th what I told him was,
the same thing I just told, I told Mike Quinn and I also told him, I said, I
have not had any conversations with anybody saying that’s about that post
being related to work. Or the Chief brought up the Lieutenant process and
the postings for community, community affairs umm… sergeant spots and
I’m like, that’s got nothing, that’s in no way linked, there’s nothing
linking that post to me or the department other than, as you can see
there’s, there’s Officer Mike Blankenship is obviously somebody that
liked the post but there’s nothing in that post that says anything about the
police department. So that’s the only conversations I’ve had.
SERGEANT WEINGARTNER: In, in your meeting with umm… with the
Chief and umm… Ms. Charles and Lieutenant Colonel, umm… did you
make any statement about not, not having any knowledge of that post?
CAPTAIN HENSLEY: I don’t know if I said I didn’t have any knowledge
of it, I just said, I don’t, that ambiguous post doesn’t have anything to do
with the police department. I know there was one other post he read that I
didn’t even know what the hell, I didn’t even know where it, I didn’t know
anything about it. It was a second Facebook post that he read. In talking to
my
, turns out, that you know, and when you’re, when you read it
again, says nothing about the police department. It’s not linked to the
police department in any way, does not link to me in any way umm… it
was about her boss that she works for where she works and how great it
was to work with, for a woman, I don’t remember exactly what it said but
it was about working for a boss with good integrity and morals and, and
whatever else she said about her. Umm… but at the time in that meeting, I
didn’t even know what, I, no clue what he was talking about. So yeah, I
didn’t know what umm…
SERGEANT WEINGARTNER: But at, at the time of the meeting you
were, you were aware of the post cause you had spoken to Lieutenant
umm… umm… Quinn and Captain Gutman?
CAPTAIN HENSLEY: Yeah, about, yes, about that conversation that I
had with Mike Quinn, yeah, this, was this, is this post related to, now like I
said, did I read the post or see it, Quinn didn’t show me a post. He just
asked if
post was related to work and I said, I, I don’t even know
what you’re talking about and I think he read, I think he said something
about cronyism and I just said, Mike, that ain’t got nothing to do with
work. I don’t read or review
posts. I don’t approve them before
they go out, and so, you know, umm… so yeah, I guess in that, now, in
that context, yeah, I was aware of it. But umm… again, umm… that was
the only other conversation I had about it with Quinn. And then I think I
might have mentioned that Quinn, I can’t remember when I talked to Joe
about it, if it was before that 28th… January 28th meeting or after but I

18

 had a conversation with Joe about my conversation with Mike Quinn and
that I told him that it’s got nothing to do with work.
LIEUTENANT HAERING: And…
SERGEANT WEINGARTNER: And… I’m sorry…
LIEUTENANT HAERING: Go ahead.
SERGEANT WEINGARTNER: In your conversation with umm… with
Lieutenant Quinn and Captain Gutman about the post did they express any
concern or that they had information that officers were tying that to the
police department?
CAPTAIN HENSLEY: I think Quinn said something about Obermeyer
mentioned something to him and was wondering if it was related to work
and that’s the only thing I remember Mike saying. And I said, it’s not, no,
doesn’t have anything to do with work. So umm… it’s not linked to work.
There’s nothing in there linking it, you know, I’m umm… I only
remember him saying that Obermeyer came to him and asked him if it
was. I don’t remember him saying if there was anybody else talking about
it. But Obermeyer had asked Quinn about it is what I recall. (Hensley
Interview 1, 2/21/20, 93-97)
Captain Hensley was asked if his conversation with Lt. Quinn was before the HR
meeting on January 28th. He believes the conversation with Lt. Quinn was before the HR
meeting. He went on to say at the time of the meeting he wasn’t thinking about the prior
conversation with Lt. Quinn.
He couldn’t recall when his conversation with Captain Gutman occurred. He
couldn’t remember if he told Captain Gutman first or vice versa.
There was no discussion between Lt. Quinn and Captain Hensley on how Lt.
Quinn should handle the rumors.
Captain Hensley was asked what prompted the Chief to request his phone so
Officer Sly could retrieve the recording. Captain Hensley said it was because he told the
Chief he deleted it off the phone. He believes the Chief assumed the phone was the only
place where the recording was located. However, he had saved the recording elsewhere.
Captain Hensley was asked if he told the Chief he didn’t have the recording. Captain
Hensley said he told the Chief, “I deleted it.” When the Chief pressed Captain Hensley
for the phone, Captain Hensley said, “You’re not getting my personal phone.” At which
point Captain Hensley offered to make a copy of the recording for the Chief. Captain
Hensley was asked if he understood by refusing the Chief’s request to turn over the
phone he was potentially in violation of policy. Captain Hensley didn’t see it as a
violation of policy. He was debating if he needed to talk to an attorney or if the recording
was a public record. After thinking about the matter he believed the recording was most

19

 likely a public record and he needed to provide the Chief a copy which he did. He
believed the topic of the HR meeting was definitely work-related.
Captain Hensley was asked about the level of respect shown towards Chief
Herzog and Ms. Charles during the HR meeting. He doesn’t believe he was disrespectful
to Ms. Charles in anyway. He couldn’t recall addressing her at all during the meeting. He
was emotional, upset and the situation was heated. He referred to the Command Staff by
their proper titles. He mentioned at one point he said this was idiotic and the Chief took
offense to the phrase. He said the situation was heated with both sides raising their
voices. His frustration was high because of dealing with everything for the past two
years. The only way he saw himself being disrespectful was the emotional reaction he
displayed during the meeting. At the end he apologized for his emotional response.
The discussion turned to the history of the situation. Captain Hensley said he was
going to pass the information onto HR and the Township so they could direct the
investigations. Some of the information had already been addressed prior to this situation.
He understood how this investigation is focusing on the two meetings we had been
discussing.
The interview was concluded.
Captain Hensley called several hours later and requested a second meeting. Sgt.
Weingartner and I interviewed Captain Hensley a second time. The interview was
recorded and added to the file. The transcript of recording is summarized and
paraphrased below.
HENSLEY INTERVIEW (2), FEBRUARY 21, 2020
Captain Hensley had additional information he was going to provide to HR and
the Township. He talked to Ms. Charles after the first interview and they plan on meeting
next week. However, he wanted to provide more of the back story. Captain Hensley
provided a list of topics in justification for the cause of his emotional state during the HR
meeting. He said these topics were brought to the attention of Mr. Burks back in April of
2019. He explained a culture exists which he doesn’t want to be associated. Captain
Hensley believes because of prior events this internals’ frivolous allegations were made
against him. He felt the need to explain the full context of the situation in defense of
himself. Captain Hensley didn’t know if the information he provided was pertinent or not
to this investigation, but believes it is pertinent to the way in which he has been treated.
He once again said he will be taking all this information to the Township and HR.
The interview was concluded
February 24, 2020
Captain Hensley was provided a copy of his interview recordings. A copy of the
Telephone or Radio Recording Request was placed in the Documents Tab.

20

 February 26, 2020
Assistant Township Administrator Ms. Lisa Brown called and requested a
meeting. Ms. Brown wanted to discuss the allegations Captain Hensley brought against
Chief Herzog during his February 21, 2020 interviews. She requested an overview of any
policy violations Captain Hensley alleged and any written documents. She wanted
anything Captain Hensley alleged and any proof he brought forward. I informed her I
only had the recordings of his interviews made February 21, 2020. Based on Captain
Hensley’s interview, I told her my investigation was going to deal solely with the issues
brought forth by Chief Herzog in his complaint against Captain Hensley. Any allegations
made by Captain Hensley were separate. Captain Hensley had talked to Township
Administrator Larry Burks and HR in the past about the issues. I told her Captain
Hensley would be discussing his issues with HR. Ms. Brown said because Captain
Hensley’s complaints involved Chief Herzog, she would be handling his complaints and
an investigation will be conducted by individuals outside the Police Department. Later, I
met with Ms. Brown to discuss Captain Hensley’s allegations and provided her a copy of
his recorded interviews from February 21, 2020. I provided copies of the Department’s
current Rules, Regulations, and Policies. I provided an overview of Captain Hensley’s
interviews. Ms. Brown said she would make contact with Captain Hensley to discuss the
issues he brought forth in the interviews.
February 27, 2020
I requested our Information Technology Department to query Captain Hensley’s
received e-mails with any recordings attached. They provided a Log Query which was
placed in the Documents tab.
March 11, 2020
I provided transcriptionist Shannon Schul copies of nine recordings to be
transcribed.
March 15, 2020
I received the transcription of the nine recordings related to this investigation. The
transcription totaled 159 pages and was provided on a flash drive. The Certification page
was printed and signed by Ms. Schul. The signed Certification page was scanned and
attached to the file. I copied the document with Certification page to a disc and placed it
in the Recordings section of this document. A printed copy of the transcription and
original Certification page are included in the Transcription section.
April 6, 2020
I copied the transcription and Certification page to a disc. I delivered the disc to
Ms. Brown.

21

 Summary
The West Chester Police Department is a quasi-military organization which
operates under an authoritarian command structure in which orders flow one‐way—from
the top down. At the top of the command structure are the senior executive officers; the
Chief of Police and the Lieutenant Colonel, with authority descending downward to
Captains, Lieutenants, Sergeants and ending at Police officer. The Chief of Police
exercises command over all personnel in the Department. Respect for chain-of-command
is essential for the smooth growth, prosperity and effective management of an
organization.
On January 28th, 2020 Chief Herzog was conducting a formal meeting to convey
performance expectations, event notifications and Facebook posts with Captain Hensley.
Present during the meeting were Lt. Col. Rebholz, HR Manager Ms. Charles and Captain
Hensley. A letter was presented to Captain Hensley to provide formal acknowledgment
of expectations in his current role. Causes stated in the letter were; Captain Hensley had
been “engaged in several prior conversations regarding his unprofessional attitude and
behavior, including formal sessions with an organizational psychologist”. [Letter from
Tonya Charles HR Manager] It also stated, Captain Hensley as a Command Staff member
is held to a high standard of professionalism.
The meeting caused Captain Hensley to become upset, emotional and raise his
voice. He frequently interrupted Chief Herzog and Ms. Charles as they spoke about the
expectations and associated issues. He repeated his argument time and time again, failing
to listen to Chief Herzog’s explanations or rationale. When Chief Herzog drew a nexus
between the cronyism Facebook post and dysfunction within the Department, Captain
Hensley stated “I don’t have any… Zero conversations with anybody about anything like
that.” (Recording 1, 1/27/20, 123) “I’m not aware of when she posted it or anything about
it.” (Recording 1, 1/27/20, 126)
About a week prior to the HR meeting, around January 23th, Officer Obermeyer
questioned Lt. Quinn about the Cronyism post. He raised issues regarding the post to Lt.
Quinn. That same day, 10 to 15 minutes later, Lt. Quinn discussed his concerns with
Captain Gutman. Fifteen minutes later Captain Hensley arrived in Lt. Quinn’s office and
asked what Officer Obermeyer said about the cronyism Facebook post. Lt. Quinn told
Captain Hensley the concerns brought forth by Officer Obermeyer. Captain Hensley
confirmed he talked to both Captain Gutman and Lt. Quinn about the cronyism post and
that was the first time Captain Hensley had learned about the post.
On January 28th after the HR meeting, Chief Herzog and Lt. Col. Rebholz met
with Captain Gutman. Captain Gutman told them he learned a week earlier from Lt.
Quinn about the Cronyism post and had spoken about it to Captain Hensley. This
information was confirmed during my interview with Captain Gutman.
When Chief Herzog learned Captains Gutman and Hensley had spoken about the
post he was shocked because he remembered Captain Hensley remarking he was not

22

 aware of or anything about the post during their meeting at HR on January 28th. This
precipitated the Chief to request the recording of that meeting from Captain Hensley.
On January 29, 2020 Chief Herzog and Lt. Col Rebholz met with Captain
Hensley and requested the recording of the HR meeting. Chief Herzog asked Captain
Hensley for the recording. Captain Hensley responded, “I deleted it.” Chief Herzog said,
“You deleted it?” Captain Hensley responded, “Yes.” Chief Herzog asked for Captain
Hensley’s phone so Officer Sly could attempt to recover the deleted recording. Captain
Hensley refused to turn over his phone. The Chief had to press Captain Hensley for his
phone. Captain Hensley then offered to get the Chief a copy of the recording. Chief
Herzog requested the recording by the end of the day, which Captain Hensley complied.
During both meetings, Chief Herzog believes Captain Hensley was dishonest,
misleading and/or lied. Captain Hensley said he didn’t know anything about the
Cronyism post. However, Captain Hensley had discussed the matter with Lt. Quinn and
Captain Gutman a week prior. When asked for the recording of the meeting Captain
Hensley said he deleted it, but after being press offered to provide a copy.
Ms. Charles said Captain Hensley’s conduct during the HR meeting was
unprofessional. Chief Herzog said Captain Hensley expressed disdain towards him during
both meetings. Captain Hensley was understandably emotional and upset. However, he
failed to listen to the explanations given at the time. He interrupted Ms. Charles and
Chief Herzog several times. His deceitful and aloof responses to both the questioning
about the post and recording demonstrate disrespect.
All of the meetings and discussions where witnessed by Lt. Col. Rebholz and he
supports the conclusions drawn by Chief Herzog. He expressed the same believes
regarding Captain Hensley’s unprofessional demeanor, dishonest, and misleading
statements.
Time line of events:








On January 16, 2020 a Personnel Order was posted assigning Sergeants Lovell
and McCalla to the Community Affairs Section.
On January 18, 2020 Sandi Hensley posted a Facebook post about cronyism.
On January 23, 2020 Officer Obermeyer tells Lt. Quinn about the cronyism post.
Lt. Quinn tells Captain Gutman about the cronyism post. Captain Gutman discuss
the post with Captain Hensley. Captain Hensley asks Lt. Quinn what Officer
Obermeyer said about the cronyism post.
On January 28, 2020 during a meeting at HR, Captain Hensley tells the Chief, he
is not aware of the cronyism post and hasn’t talk to anyone about it.
On January 28, 2020 after the HR meeting, Chief Herzog learns from Captain
Gutman that he and Captain Hensley learned about the cronyism post from Lt.
Quinn a week prior.
On January 29, 2020 Chief Herzog asks for a copy of the recording made during
the HR meeting. Captain Hensley tells the Chief he didn’t have the recording and

23

 he deleted the recording of the HR meeting. At the end of the day Captain
Hensley provides the HR meeting recording to the Chief.

Recommended Findings
Issue #1
It is alleged Captain Hensley #130 violated Rules and Regulations Section 1.07a
on January 28, 2020 by “displaying disrespect and disdain” towards the Chief of Police
and his position. He also was disrespectful towards the Human Resources Manager Ms.
Tonya Charles. Section 1.07a of the West Chester Police Rules and Regulations states in
part:
1.07

Members of the department:
a) Should always be civil, orderly, and courteous in dealing with the
public, subordinates, supervisors, and associates.

SUSTAINED – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence.

Issue #2
It is alleged Captain Hensley #130 violated Rules and Regulations Section
1.07d by making a false or misleading statement during a January 28, 2020 meeting.
West Chester Police Rules and Regulations Section 1.07d states in part:
1.07

Members of the department:
d) Shall be honest in all matters.

SUSTAINED – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence.

Issue #3
It is alleged Captain Hensley #130 violated Rules and Regulations Section 1.07a
on January 29, 2020, by being disrespectful and demonstrating disdain towards the Chief
of Police and his position. Section 1.07a of the West Chester Police Rules and
Regulations state in part:
1.07

Members of the department:
a) Should always be civil, orderly, and courteous in dealing with the
public, subordinates, supervisors, and associates.

SUSTAINED – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence.

24

 Issue #4
It is alleged Captain Hensley #130 violated Rules and Regulations Section 1.07d
by making a false or misleading statement during a January 29, 2020 meeting. West
Chester Rules and Regulations Section 1.07 states in part:
1.07

Members of the department:
d) Shall be honest in all matters.

SUSTAINED – The allegation is supported by sufficient evidence.

This investigation completed 06/04/20

Name: Lt. Paul Haering #39

25