Opposition Brief — Paisley v. City of Minneapolis

’

owe!

Lv

\

t

ayo :

i

:

No. 96-222

In The

Supreme Court of the United States

October Term, 1995

o

DUANE D. PAISLEY,

Plaintiff-Petitioner,

VS.

CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS,

Defendant-Respondent,

MINNEAPOLIS POLICE RELIEF ASSOCIATION,

Intervenor-Respondent.

-*

Petition For Writ Of Certiorari

To The United States Court Of Appeals

For The Eighth Circuit

SJ

DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT'’S

BRIEF IN OPPOSITION

+

Larry L. WARREN

Assistant City Attorney

Counsel of Record

C. LYNNE FUNDINGSLAND

Acting Deputy

MicHaet T. Norton

Acting City Attorney

Office of the City Attorney

300 Metropolitan Centre

333 South Seventh Street

Minneapolis, MN 55402

(612) 673-2010

COCKLE LAW BRIEF PRINTING CO., (800) 225-6964

OR CALL COLLBICT (402) 342-2831

«.

>

QUESTION PRESENTED

Whether the Plaintiff-Petitioner, Duane D. Paisley,

waived any reemployment rights he may have had under

38 U.S.C. § [4324] 2024(d)?

PARTIES

The parties to this proceeding are Duane D. Paisley

4a

(hereinafter “Paisley”), the City of Minneapolis (hereinaf-

ter “City”), and the Minneapolis Police Relief Association

(hereinafter “Relief Association”).

ili

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

i ne i

aus e ets whens CoC Seka es oes ek ks ckin cde ii

i cr SN sk ccc ucchoctecsess iv

ERS aS ae FS eo kc ea 1

rs ag Ser ee oe cd 1

Statutory Provisions Involved...................... 1

i CN ees a eke cb adeeb ubukies dues 2

EE ASS ERLE SD W'y'\-6 6.6 p05 30544 5.00 e 0-450 bas) 6

OEE AS LI os OT Ca Cg AE 11

iv

TABLE OF CITED AUTHORITIES

Page

CASES

King v. St. Vincent's Hospital, 112 S. Ct. 570

FROOED kina duck caeeeeen ced oaw ene Cee ekkia keaee 6, 9, 10

Loeb v. Kivo, 169 F.2d 346 (2d Cir. 1948).............. 8

Smith v. Missouri Pacific Transp. Co., 313 F.2d 676

ge B. . Aereeer yer yee eres ere 7, 8, 9, 10

Wright v. Ford Motor Co., 196 F. Supp. 538 (E.D.

ee, | Se re rr ree Tye re rye Perey 8

STATUTES

BE Wks IG hss Veness bu veda naw een Rane ee eR eeeN 2

y Bik tome Bs. MEE r re rem reer rin cit rere 1

BS | oe Ee . RAO ee Pare Terre Tere TTT ee eer Ty 2

BS EEA Se EAE SOURS 5a be daha uvadeWececsasantases ]

SP Eek. Te OEE SRILA) 8c bck Ncehark iba tuunebads 3

BO AT. B FGSSSE BOM) 6a ov in eawew es vweenss 6, 9, 10

OPINIONS BELOW

The opinion of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals is

reported at 70 F.3d 722 (8th Cir. 1996). (Paisley App. A-1 -

A-9).! The opinion of the District Court is unreported.

(Paisley App. A-10 — A-22).

o

JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

was entered on March 27, 1996. (Paisley App. A-1 - A-9).

Paisley’s Petition for Rehearing was denied on May 10,

1996. (Id. A-23). Paisley has prepared a Writ of Certiorari

for review by the United States Supreme Court concern-

ing the March 27, 1996, judgment based on the Supreme

Court’s jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1254.

¢

STATUTORY PROVISION INVOLVED

The principal statutory provision involved is the Vet-

erans Reemployment Rights Act, 38 U.S.C. § [4321] 2021

et seq. The full text of the Act is found in the appendix

filed with Paisley’s instant Petition. (Paisley App. A-28 -

A-45).

' “Paisley App.” refers to the Appendix filed by Plaintiff-

Petitioner, Duane D. Paisley, in his Petition for Writ of

Certiorari.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case arises from an action brought by Paisley

against the City seeking a declaration of his right to

reemployment with the City pursuant to the provisions of

the Veterans Reemployment Rights Act (hereinafter, “the

Act”). (Paisley. App. A-28 —- A-45). Paisley seeks not only

reinstatement, but compensation for accumulated sick

leave, vacation time, and pension benefits from January

16, 1980, to date. (Id. at A- 46 — A-66). Because of Paisley’s

claim regarding compensation for pension benefits, the

Minneapolis Police Relief Association moved to inter-

vene, and its motion was granted January 6, 1995.

All parties then moved for summary judgment, and

all motions were heard February 1, 1995. In an Order

dated March 31, 1995, and filed April 3, 1995, the District

Court granted the summary judgment motions of the City

and the Relief Association. (Paisley App. A-10 — A-22). In

that same Order, the District Court denied Paisley’s

motion for summary judgment, concluding that, although

Paisley had established that he is a person entitled to

reemployment rights under the Veterans Reemployment

Rights Act, he had waived those reemployment rights.

(Id.).

Paisley appealed to the Eighth Circuit Court of

Appeals on the issue of whether he had waived his

reemployment rights. The City and the Relief Association

filed a cross-appeal on the issue of Paisley’s eligibility for

reemployment rights under the Act. On March 27, 1996,

the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District

Court pursuant to its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.

§ 66(c)(3) and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Paisley’s request for a

rehearing was subsequently denity, on May 10, 1996.

(Paisley App. at A-1 — A-9).

Paisley enlisted in the National Guard in 1965. (Pais-

ley App. A-46). From 1965 until 1980, Paisley was a

traditional Guard member, serving one weekend a month

and fifteen annual training days with the National Guard.

(City App. A-13 — A-15).2

Upon joining the National Guard, Paisley went to

basic training and advanced individual training. He was

commissioned a Second Lieutenant, promoted to First

Lieutenant in 1972, and to Captain in 1976. From 1979 to

1980, Paisley was the aide to the Adjutant General and, in

1980, was promoted to the rank of Major. (Id. at A-9,

A-76).

In 1973, Paisley began employment with the City, in

its Police Department, as a sworn police officer. (Id. at

A-76). In 1979, Paisley requested a two-year leave of

absence from his position with the City to go on active

duty with the National Guard. The National Guard had

offered Paisley this position, which he accepted. (Id. at

A-19). Paisley’s acceptance of this offer was purely volun-

tary: he would have suffered no penalty for refusing this

offer for active duty. (Id. at A-21).

In 1981, Paisley requested that his leave of absence be

extended for an additional two years, until 1984. (Id. at

A-29). In seeking this extension of his leave of absence,

Paisley cited to 38 U.S.C. § [4324] 2024(b)(1), stating that

* “City App.” refers to the Appendix filed by Defendant-

Respondent, City of Minneapolis, in this Brief in Opposition.

he believed the provision entitled him to a four-year

leave of absence. (Id. at A-69).

The City granted Plaintiff’s request for an extension

of his leave of absence, and Paisley remained on active

duty with the National Guard. (Jd. at A-27). Paisley later

requested an additional leave of absence, to extend from

1984 to 1986, so that he could remain on active duty with

the National Guard. (City App. A-29). The City granted

this request for an additional leave of absence. (Id.).

Paisley could have left his active duty position with

the National Guard at the time his initial leave of absence

expired. (Id. at A-30). Paisley voluntarily requested leaves

of absence from the City for the purpose of remaining in

his position with the National Guard on full time active

duty. (Id. at A-27). During the time he was on a leave of

absence, it was Paisley’s preference to remain on active

duty with the National Guard rather than return to his

employment with the City. (City App. A-29).

On October 18, 1985, Paisley requested that his leave

of absence which, at that time, extended until January 15,

1986, be extended for an additional three years. (Id. at

A-30 — A-31, A-69 — A-70). The City denied this request.

(Paisley App. A-61). Also in 1985, Paisley requested that

the City allow him permission to take a promotional

examination for the position of police sergeant with the

City. (Id. at A-56). On November 15, 1985, the City denied

this request. (/d.).

On December 15, 1985, Paisley tendered his resigna-

tion to the City. (Id. at A-61). In Paisley’s letter of resigna-

tion he wrote, “This difficult decision was prompted by

the recent disapproval of my request for extension of a

military leave of absence to serve on active duty.” Paisley

went on to write, “ ... but for the fact that I was denied

the opportunity to compete in the recent Sergeants [sic]

promotional examination, my decision might have been

otherwise.” (Id.).

At the time Paisley tendered his resignation to the

City, his career plans were to continue serving on active

duty with the National Guard. (City App. A-41). Paisley

tendered his resignation to the City knowing, at the time,

that he could have returned to work with the City in its

police department. (Id. at A-42). After Paisley’s resigna-

tion, Paisley sought, and received, the amount due him

under the pension plan for the City’s police officers.

Paisley remained with the National Guard on active

duty continuously from 1980 until September, 1994. (Id. at

A-52). In 1984, he was promoted to Lieutenant Colonel,

and, in 1988, was promoted to the rank of Colonel. (Id. at

A-76 — A-78).

In May of 1994, Paisley was offered early retirement

from the National Guard. (Id. at A-10). In the officer ranks

of the National Guard, there is no mandatory retirement

date. (Id. at A-12). If a person in those ranks chooses to

leave the National Guard, he or she may do so at any

time. (Id.).

Also in May of 1994, Paisley first sought reemploy-

ment with the City. (Id. at A-56). Paisley sought reem-

ployment with the City at that time because he had then

made the decision to retire from active duty with the

National Guard. (City App. A-55). At no time between

the time of Paisley’s resignation from employment with

the City (December 15, 1985), and May, 1994, did Paisley

seek reemployment with the City. (/d. at A-58).

Based upon the offer of early retirement, Paisley

retired from the National Guard in September of 1994. (Id.

at A-57). Paisley began receiving a pension based upon

his military service at the time he retired from the

National Guard. (/d. at A-57).

°

ARGUMENT

Petitioner Paisley claims that the Eighth Circuit

Court of Appeals, in reaching its decision in this matter,

decided an important federal question which conflicts

with the decision of this Court in King v. St. Vincent's

Hospital, 502 U.S. 215 (1991), 112 S.Ct. 570 (1991). How-

ever, the facts in this case clearly establish that the Eighth

Circuit Court of Appeals properly held that Paisley

waived his rights to reemployment under 38 U.S.C.

§ [4324] 2024 (d), and that there is no conflict between the

Eighth Circuit’s decision and that of this Court in King.

Paisley waived his rights to reemployment when he

resigned his employment with the City in 1985. Paisley

stated in his resignation, “Though I am disapointed [sic]

to leave the department at this time, I am very apprecia-

tive of the support that I have been given and the oppor-

tunity I have had to accept several challenging

assignments in the military.” (Paisley App. A-61 — A-62).

Moreover, Paisley acknowledged “There was no require-

ment I serve time or continue in the National Guard. |

could have left at any time. (Id. at A-5).

The Eighth Circuit has held that reemployment rights

under the Act may be waived if the employee does so

“clearly and unequivocally.” (Paisley App. A-5 (citing

Smith v. Missouri Pacific Transp. Co., 313 F.2d 676, 680 (8th

Cir. 1963)). In Smith v. Missouri Pacific Transp. Co., a

retired Army colonel sought reinstatement to his civilian

employment after almost eleven years of continuous mili-

tary service. Only after being released from the military,

upon reaching the age of sixty, did Smith seek civilian

reemployment. The Eighth Circuit sustained the trial

court’s finding as to Smith’s voluntary extension of his

commitments in the Army, his intention to remain in the

Army as long as possible, and as to his return to civilian

employment being dependent upon his inability to

remain in the service. Id. 313 F.2d at 680.

The Eighth Circuit affirmed the trial court's finding

that Smith had waived any reemployment right he had by

choosing a military, rather than a civilian, career. In doing

so, the Court wrote that:

In summary, we feel that the plaintiff’s claim of

protection under the facts of this case asserts too

much and goes too far. To render a decision in

favor of this plaintiff would be to recognize and

to vest in one in his posture the power, step by

step, as extension-of-duty opportunities present

themselves, in effect to make a career of the

service and at the same time to force his civilian

employer to hold or to make a place available

for him throughout the career period and until

such time as he chooses to bring his military life

to an end or until it is finally terminated for him

because of age, physical disability, or the like.

This, we think, was not the intent of Congress.

Appropriate civilian reemployment protection

at the end of a non-career period of service was

what our national legislative body had in mind.

Id. 313 F.2d at 682-83. |

SPER

Smith brought his suit under the Selective Service

Training and Service Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 885, 890,.and

U.S.C. App. § 459(g). The Court, while noting that the

1940 Act contained no time limitation on employment

rights, stressed the fact that the 1940 Act included noth-

ing which would preclude a waiver of reemployment

rights. Smith v. Missouri Pacific Transp. Co., 313 F.2d at 682.

ony

In the instant case, the Eighth Circuit stated:

It is clear that Paisley voluntarily extended his

active duty with the National Guard and that he

voluntarily resigned from the police department |

in 1985. See, Smith, 313 F.2d at 681 (observing as )

a factor supporting waiver ‘that the commit- |

ment and requests signed by the Colonel were

executed voluntarily’). Moreover, there is no

suggestion that Paisley did not understand his

legal rights under the Act. See id.

(Paisley. App. A-6).

It is undisputed that, in order to find that a veteran

waived his or her reemployment rights, that waiver must

be “clearly and unequivocally indicated”. Loeb v. Kivo, 160

F.2d 346, 349 (2d Cir. 1948); Wright v. Ford Motor Co., 196

F. Supp. 538 (E.D. Mich. 1961). It must also be shown that :

the veteran was aware of the rights he or she was surren- .

dering, and intended to abandon them. Id.

Given the reasoning of the Court in Smith, Paisley

clearly exercised his choice to make a career with the

military rather than with the police department. Not only

ee

does Paisley’s resignation demonstrate a “clear and

unequivocal” waiver of his rights, Paisley sought and

received the pension benefits and refunds to which he

was entitled as a separated police department employee.

(Paisley App. A-6). He stayed with the military until he

retired in 1994 with more than fourteen years of contin-

uous active duty service. (Id. at A-6). Based on these facts,

the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, found that Paisley

had “clearly and unequivocally” waived any statutory

reemployment rights he may have had and opted for a

military career rather than a career with the police

department.” (Id.).

Paisley argues that “the District Court and the Court

of Appeals were seduced by the seeming similarity of the

facts in Smith ...” (Paisley Pet. p. 7). Specifically, Paisley

states that Smith is no longer good law in light of the

Supreme Court's decision in King v. St. Vincent's Hospital,

502 U.S. 215 (1991). In King, the employee sought a three-

year leave of absence from his employment to take full-

time appointment with the National Guard. (Paisley App.

A-6). His employer denied the request and sought a

declaratory judgment that the three-year request was

unreasonable and that the employee therefore had no

reemployment rights under the Act. (Paisley App. A-6 -

A-7). This Court held that there was no durational limit

on a leave taken under 38 U.S.C. § 2024(d), and that it

would not read a “reasonable” limit to the length of a

§ 2024 leave after which the employee would be entitled

to reemployment.

“To the extent that Smith can be read to suggest that a

leave of absence for active guard duty must be of a

‘reasonable length’ in order to entitle a serviceman to

10

reemployment,” the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals

admits that Smith was “overruled by King, at least for the

brief time that King controlled the question. (Paisley App.

A-7).” King left it to Congress to set any durational limits

on leaves for the military service. Congress has now done

this by passing the Uniformed Services Employment and

Reemployment Rights Act of 1994, amending Chapter 43

of Title 38. This enactment sets a five-year limit, in most

cases, on military leaves of absence.

Nonetheless, there was no issue of waiver in the King

case. Therefore, its holding has no bearing on the ques-

tion of whether a veteran may waive his reemployment

rights. Nothing in the King decision indicates that it over-

rules Smith, or that King was intended to impact the issue

of a person’s ability to waive his reemployment rights.

Paisley clearly and knowingly waived his rights to

reemployment by choosing a military career over his

employment with the City. The Eighth Circuit Court of

Appeals properly held that Paisley waived his rights of

reemployment under 38 U.S.C. § [4324] 2024(d).

*

11

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant-Respondent

City of Minneapolis respectfully requests that this Court

deny Plaintiff-Petitioner Duane D. Paisley’s Petition for

Writ of Certiorari.

Dated: September 9, 1996

Respectfully submitted,

Larry L. WARREN

Assistant City Attorney

Counsel of Record

C. LyNNE FUNDINGSLAND

Acting Deputy

MicHaet T. Norton

Acting City Attorney

Office of the City Attorney

300 Metropolitan Centre

333 South Seventh Street

Minneapolis, MN 55402

(612) 673-2010

A-i

INDEX TO THE APPENDIX

Page

Deposition of Duane D. Paisley with deposition

EEC SES SC SRS Ag a ae A-1

Duane D. Paisley’s letter to Brian Isaacson, Dec. 7,

NE ERNE Siva dh Wis coh vase abok kckoe i sckc A-33

Duane D. Paisley’s letter to Brian Isaacson, Oct.

EEUU 1a baker co Vers cee on bie cos cicui A-35

Duane D. Paisley’s letter to Ronald Kastner....... A-37

Ronald Kastner’s letter to Duane D. Paisley, Feb.

TENSE IRE RIAA or ete ean A-38

Kathy Nasi’s letter to Duane D. Paisley, Feb. 28,

SME ae 80 F500 e Ca ie oak Uschi Sak cng, A-39

A-1

[p. 1] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

FOURTH DIVISION

Duane D. Paisley,

Plaintiff,

vs. File No.

City of Minneapolis,

Defendant.

Desposition of DUANE D. PAISLEY, taken pursuant

to Notice of Taking Deposition, taken before Robert W.

Waish, a Notary Public in and for the County of Washing-

ton, State of Minnesota, on Tuesday, the 20th of Decem-

ber, 1994 at 300 Metropolitan Centre, in the City of

Minneapolis, Minnesota, commencing at approximately

1:30 o’clock p.m.

* * *

[p. 3] APPEARANCES:

C. Lynne Fundingsland, Assistant City Attorney, 300

Metropolitan Centre, Minneapolis, Minnesota, appeared

representing the Defendant.

Harry A. Sieben, Esquire, of the law firm of SIEBEN,

GROSE, VON HOLTUM, McCOY & CAREY, LTD., 900

Midwest Plaza East, Minneapolis, Minnesota, appeared

representing the Plaintiff.

Jon Cieslak, Esquire, Office of Adjutant General,

appeared representing the Plaintiff.

A-2

WHEREUPON, the following proceedings were duly had:

* * *

(Whereupon Deposition Exhibit [sic] 1 through

11 marked for identification.)

DUANE D. PAISLEY

after having been first duly sworn, deposes and

says under oath as follows:

EXAMINATION

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

[p. 4] Q. Colonel Paisley, my name is Lynne Fun-

dingsland, and I am representing the Defendant, the City

of Minneapolis, in this matter.

And | am going to ask you some questions today, and

hopefully won’t make us too long, to try to get some

information from you about this lawsuit.

And you have had your deposition taken before

obviously?

A. Yes.

Q. So you know that we want to try not to talk over

each other.

And certainly if I don’t make any sense on one of my

questions, let me know.

And if at any time, other than when a question is

pending, you want to talk to your counsel here, just let

me know and I will step out and you gentlemen can talk.

A-3

Can I get your full name for the record?

A. Duane, D-u-a-n-e, Daryl, D-a-r-y-l, Paisley,

P-a-i-s-l-e-y.

Q. And what is your address, please?

A. 2731 Mackubin, M-a-c-k-u-b-i-n, Street, No. 14,

Roseville 55113.

Q. And what is your date of birth?

A. 5-10-44.

[p. 5] Q. And can you tell me, please, what your

educational background has been?

A. Graduated from high school in 1962 from

Columbia Heights High School. Got a Bachelor’s degree

from Metropolitan State University. I have got a mini

MBA from St. Thomas. Numorous military schools. And

my latest military school was United States Army War

College, graduating in June of ‘93.

Q. And tell me about your work background,

please.

A. How far back do you want to go? In high school?

Q. After high school.

A. I because a law enforcement officer for the City

of Anoka in 1972. I received information that I was eligi-

ble to be accepted as a Minneapolis Police Officer, so I left

Anoka and came to Minneapolis. My - you want my

military background?

Q. Please.

A. Joined the Guard in 1965. Went to Basic Training,

Advanced Individual Training. Went to Officer Candidate

School. Was commissioned a Second Lieutenant, honor

graduate. Became a First Lieutenant, Captain.

Commanded the Military Police Company for [p. 6]

five years.

Was General Sieben’s Adjutant General’s aide.

I then accepted a full-time position as a Captain on

active duty. And my position there was Recruiting and

Induction Officer.

Two years later I was promoted to Major. And

became the Recruiting and Retention Manager.

Three years, four years later, [| was the Training

Administrator at the Minnesota Military Academy.

I then became the Support Personnel Management

Officer, which is human resources in the military, and

administered the program for 1,700 full-time employees.

I then became the Military Support Officer in 91, I

believe it was. And my responsibilities there was to deal

with law enforcement and emergency preparedness, mili-

tary support to civilian authorities, key asset protection,

and counter/drug operations.

I was offered an early retirement and I accepted it the

Ist of September, 1994.

Q. So what is your current status now with the

National Guard?

A. Iam retired.

* * *

A-5

[p. 8] know?

MR. SIEBEN: You don’t have a retirement date?

THE WITNESS: Pardon me?

MR. SIEBEN: You don’t have a retirement date?

THE WITNESS: That’s correct. There was no

retirement date. I could have left at any time.

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. Okay. And why is that?

A. That’s the way it is in the officer ranks. If you

choose to separate, you can depart.

Q. Okay, is there any, is there a mandatory retire-

ment age?

A. Yes, age 60.

Q. You are not there yet?

A. I am 50. Young 50.

Q. So that would have been another ten years?

A. Yes.

Correct.

So you started in the National Guard ~ you are going

to have to educate me here, because I don’t know a whole

lot about them, or what they do, or what you did there.

[p. 9] A. Okay.

Q. So I am not trying to be difficult. I just really

don’t know.

A-6

So you started with them in 1965?

Yes.

And you have a rank when you go in?

Private.

Okay. And is it - you enrolled?

Pardon me?

Do you enroll? Do you enlist?

You enlist.

Can people be drafted into that?

No.

It's strictly voluntary?

Yes.

FOF OF HD FH YO >

Q. So you went in as a private. What — tell me — like

what happens? What do you do when you first get in

there?

A. First you do is you go to basic training. Which

consists of things that all soldiers are supposed to know.

You then attend advanced individual training. Which

qualifies you for a specialty, perhaps infantry or crew

chief of military police or some specific position. It's

called occupational specialty, military occupational [p. 10]

specialty.

After you serve your initial six months with the

Guard, you come home and do one weekend a month and

fifteen annual training days. So you spend 39 days a

month — correction. 39 days a year involved with the

Guard.

A-7

Q. And when you do that weekend a month, what

do you do there?

A. It depends on what your occupational specialty

is. If you are a radio operator, you work on radios. If you

are a military policeman, you would perhaps run traffic

control point, or traffic law enforcement, or regular police

duties. Apprehensions.

Q. So basically, I mean, and I don’t want to tell you

what happens out there, or what you want to say, but you

are basically keeping people doing what they would be

doing if we had -

A. Yes.

Q. - an emergency situation?

A. Yes.

Q. So it’s like a military preparedness kind of -

A. Yes.

Q. So you keep your skills up in whatever your

training area is?

[p.11] A. Yes. The only other thing is that the

National Guard really wears two hats.

Q. Okay.

A. it serves at the discretion of the governor. Such

as Operation Metro Mobility. We were called out on tor-

nadoes at Stillwater and Cottage Grove. I probably been

on ten or twelve tornadoes.

We also serve at the discretion of the president. Who

can send us to Operation Desert Storm. As a matter of

A-8

fact, the MP Company I commanded for five years went

to Desert Storm for eight or nine months during an

emergency situation.

Q. Were you over there?

A. No.

Q. So it’s a federal program, correct?

A. It can be federal, and it can also be state. But it is

a federal program.

©. Tell me how that works.

A. When you take an oath of office -

MR. SIEBEN: Very complicated.

A. When you take the oath of office, you take an

oath to the governor as well as the president. Where in

the regular Army, you are only taking an oath to the

president. That’s why the governor can’t call up the 101st

Airborne and utilize them in an

* * *

[p. 15] time you were on the department?

A. No, I was at the Fourth Precinct a very short

time, and then I went to the Special Operations Division,

or the old Tactical Squad.

Q. Was Jerry Larson your partner at the Fourth

Precinct?

A. He was my partner at Special Operations.

Q. At Special Operations is it Lerch or the other

one?

A. Lerch. J.A. Right.

Lerch is J.A. And the other one is J].M.

Q. And how long were you at Special Operations?

A. I think about five years. And I went from there

to, I think back to the Fourth Precinct.

I then went to work for the Street Crime Unit.

I then worked for Organized Crime as an investiga-

tor.

And then I went back to the east side, Second Pre-

cinct I guess it was.

And then I was offered an active duty tour in the

Army, and took it.

Q. So you were at the Second Precinct when you

took the leave of absence, as well as you can remember?

[p. 16] A. It was either Second or Fourth. But one of

the precincts. Because they had abandoned the Special

Operations of the Street Crime Unit.

MS. FUNDINGSLAND: Excuse me one second.

(Brief recess.)

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. Okay, in 1979 you were working for the Police

Department in either the Second or the Fourth Precinct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that’s when you requested a leave of

absence, right?

A-10

A. Yes.

Q. I gota stack here of exhibits that we are going to

go through real quickly. And I have got copies so that we

can just — all I want you to do is just verify what these

are. And I think you have seen them before. Okay.

And you can look at both these two together. And I

know they are really wonderful to read because it’s old

microfiche.

MR. SIEBEN: Weren't these in his other deposi-

tion?

MS. FUNDINGSLAND: They might have been,

yes.

[p. 17] THE WITNESS: Yes.

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. This won't take us long.

But looking at Exhibits 1 and 2, these documents

have to do with your first request for leave of absence in

1980, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And that request was going to be for a two-year

period, right?

A. Yes.

Q. And tell me now why you requested this leave of

absence?

A. I requested a leave of absence to go on active

duty with the Army.

A-11

Q. Okay. And what does that mean?

A. That means they offered me a position and |

accepted it.

Q. They, the Army, or the National Guard? And if

it’s the same thing, then you got to tell me. Or if I am

confusing the terms tell me.

A. It’s the same thing.

Q. Okay.

A. Active duty assigned to the National Guard. But

it’s active duty. I was paid by the Army. I was a regular

Army officer. I had a green I.D. card that

* * *

[p. 20] Q. And where were you stationed?

A. Minneapolis Armory.

Q. Colonel, if you will look at Exhibit 3. And I don’t

know if this is something that you know anything about

or not. And if it’s not, just tell me. Because I suspect this

could be something that was just handled by personnel.

But I don’t know that.

And if I didn’t say it, for the record, this is Exhibit

No. 3. Which is a Report of Personnel Change dated

January 26th, 1980.

A. I may have seen it in my last deposition, but I

don’t recall it

Q. Oh, all right.

A. I know I hadn’t seen it before the last deposition

that took place two years ago.

A-12

Q. Okay.

So I would be correct in stating that you didn’t see

this in 1980?

A. That’s correct.

Q. This would be one, though, I think you have

seen. And this is Exhibit No. 4.

Q. Are you familiar with that?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you recall receiving this on or after

October 17th, 1979?

[p. 23] A. Yes.

Q. So you weren’t paid during that two-year

period?

A. That’s correct.

Q. The original leave of absence that you requested

to be effective ‘80 to ’82, did the National Guard require

you to take that leave of absence?

A. Yes.

Q. And how was it that they required you to take

that?

A. Placing me on orders.

MR. SIEBEN: Well, they didn’t care if you took

a leave of absence?

THE WITNESS: That's right.

A-13

MS. FUNDINGSLAND: Let me ask you this.

MR. SIEBEN: I don’t think that that’s really

accurate to say they required you to take a leave of

absence. They required you to accept your orders to go

on active duty. But they didn’t care what you did with

your civilian employment.

THE WITNESS: That's correct.

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. What were the date of your orders?

A. I think November of ’79 for two years.

* * »

[p. 25] Q. And when you requested a leave of

absence to run from 1982 to 1984, did the National Guard

require you to do that in order to stay employed with

them?

A. They didn’t require me to.

Q. Okay. And would the same be true for the leave

that you requested that ran from ‘84 to ‘86?

A. The same would be true.

Q. And that leave of absence that you requested

from 1984 to 1986 was also granted by the City, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And am I fair then in assuming that you

requested and got these leaves of absence from 1980

through 1986 so that you could remain in your position

with the National Guard on full time active duty?

A-14

A. Yes.

Q. Could you have resigned?

MR. SIEBEN: Wait.

(Witness conferred with his counsel.)

THE WITNESS: What was the question?

MS. FUNDINGSLAND: That’s a good question.

Maybe this gentleman can read it back.

(Requested portion of the record was read by the

reporter. )

[p. 26] BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. Let me ask a different question. Maybe it’s really

what I am driving at anyway. Could you have stayed

with the Minneapolis Police Department in the position

that you had been in in 1980 when you took your leave of

absence and still remained in your full time active duty

position with the National Guard?

A. No.

Q. Okay. So you had -

MR. SIEBEN: I guess that’s a legal question.

Of course he could. I mean, the federal law allows it.

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. I am not talking about just getting paid. I am

talking about, would you have been physically able to

continue working for the Minneapolis Police Depart-

ment?

A-15

MR. SIEBEN: I see.

A. No.

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. At the same time. Okay. So physically you had to

be one place or the other?

A. Yes.

Q. Is what I am driving at. And I guess my [p. 27]

questions about the leave of absence maybe kind of mis-

led you. And I didn’t mean to. Because there obviously

would be maybe other vehicles that you could have used

to not be working for the City and be with the National

Guard. But I was inquiring specifically about the leave.

But really what I am asking is, you had to have some

status with the City, or you had to have some position

with the City that would allow you to physically be with

the National Guard from 1980 to 1986, correct? I mean,

you couldn’t be both places?

A. That’s correct.

Q. So am I fair in assuming that it was your prefer-

ence from 1980 to 1986 to be serving active duty with the

National Guard as opposed to being physically working

for the Minneapolis Police Department?

A. Yes.

Q. In other words, did anybody force you to do

this?

A. Nope.

But it’s kind of like a commitment. If your ‘son is

swearing into the Army, they are going to come and take

A-16

him away if he is on orders. So I was committed to serve.

i left the department to go on

* . +

[p. 34] Q. Did you agree with the terms of that leave

of absence that were set forth by Mr. Isaacson in that

letter?

A. No.

Q. What did you not agree to?

A. One, that it was not just a leave of absence, it

was a military leave of absence.

Q. Okay.

A. There were some concerns apparently from the

Civil Service Commission because it was a voluntary -

Q. Lea ve?

A. - leave that it wasn’t military. But after the JAG

officer, the Army lawyer, talked to Bob Alfton, it was

changed to a military leave.

Q. And is there anything else about that letter that

you don’t agree with? Or didn’t at the time agree with.

A. The benefits I don’t agree with. And also if a

vacancy exists at the conclusion of your leave.

Q. I am sorry, what about the benefits that you

don’t — that no benefits will accrue?

A. Right.

Q. Did you do anything -

A.

A-17

It also says here you would be eligible to com-

plete a future promotional exam.

* * +

[p. 37] David Dobrotka, who I assume was Officer Dob-

rotka, Sergeant or officer?

A.

Q.

ee ee die, MR, tae

Officer.

Was he drafted, if you recall?

Yes.

And he served two years?

I believe so, yes.

He did not enlist?

I don’t know.

What is your best recollection?

I don’t know.

Did you ever speak with Chief Bouza or any of

his chief deputies regarding Isaacson’s decision not to

allow you to take the promotional examination?

A.

Q.

No.

All right, in 1985, and prior to that, did you

believe that you would be able to return to employment

with the Minneapolis Police Department?

A.

Q.

A.

Yes.

All right. And what made you believe that?

Because of the re-employment laws for Veterans.

A-18

Q. Okay, let’s make sure we are talking about the

same thing. Prior to — between 1980 and 1985.

A. Yes.

[p. 38] Q. Okay. Did you believe - I am sorry, let's

say 1980 through January of 1986. Did you believe that

you would be able to return to employment with the

Minneapolis Police Department?

A. Yes.

Q. During that time period?

A. Yes.

Q. And that was the time period that you were on a

leave of absence, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. So your status with the City was still leave of

absence?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. During that time period did you ever

request permission to return to employment with the

Minneapolis Police Department?

A. No.

Q. You were in fact employed full time by the -

MR. SIEBEN: Army.

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. Thank you, counsel. By the Army during that

period of 1980 to 1986?

A-19

A. Yes.

Q. You then tendered your resignation to the City

on December 15th, 1985, correct?

. * 7

[p. 45] exam?

A. No, that’s not so.

MR. SIEBEN: Maybe there is a time in question.

When was that Sergeant’s exam denial?

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. Was that upcoming?

Okay, tell me what I am missing.

A. Okay, I received information that a promotional

examination was going to be given. I requested that I be

allowed to take the test. They refusec. I requested it

again. They refused. I asked for two more years, or a few

more years of absence, because they wouldn’t allow me

to take the promotional examination.

Q. Okay.

A. So the promotional examination was here, the

leave request was here, the resignation was here (indicat-

ing).

Q. Okay.

Let’s try this again then. Because I think we are

saying the same thing, just a little different way. You

knew as of the time you tendered your resignation,

December 15th, 1985, that you could come back to work

as a Minneapolis Police Officer, correct?

A-20

A. Yes.

[p. 46] Q. But you believed at that time that if you

did go back as a Minneapolis Police Officer you would

not be allowed to take the next promotional exam for

Sergeant, right?

A. The next promotional examination - if I would

have taken the promotional examination, I would have

come back to work for the City of Minneapolis.

Q. Okay. But you believed you were not going to be

allowed to, correct?

A. I was already told I was not allowed to.

Q. That's my question.

A. I was told I was not allowed to.

Q. So would you have come back as a police officer

if you had thought you could take the next promotional

examination?

A. Yes.

Q. If it had not been for the fact that you had been

denied the right to take your promotional examination

you would not have requested the additional three-year

leave of absence?

A. That's correct.

Q. And when then would you have returned to

work?

A. Probably whenever my request was up, my pre-

vious leave of absence request. In other words, [p. 47] if it

was 1 January ‘84 to 1 January ‘86, I would have come

back 1 January ‘86.

A-21

Q. Yes. And I believe it was about January of ‘86

when it was up?

A. Yes.

Q. So when you state in your December 15th, 1985

resignation letter, Exhibit 8, and I quote, “but for the fact

I was denied the opportunity to compete in the recent

Sergeants’ promotional examination, my decision might

have been otherwise.” Are you stating now today that

that decision absolutely would have been otherwise?

A. Yes.

Q. So you are saying today that unequivocally had

you been allowed to compete in the Sergeants’ examina-

tion you would have come back to work for the City of

Minneapolis?

A. Yes.

Q. And you are saying that even though you know

there was absolutely no guarantee that you would have

received a promotion as Sergeant?

A. That's correct.

Q. So at the time that you tendered your resignation

you then intended to pursue a career with the Army?

[p. 49] A. Yes.

Q. In the same career basically that you had been in

from 1980 to that time?

A. Yes.

Q. When you resigned from the City of Min-

neapolis, and I will have you take a look at Exhibit No. 9

A-22

there, you then asked for your benefits to be sent to you

from the pension fund, is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And do you have any idea what the date of

Exhibit 9 would have been ball park-wise?

A. It was quite sometime after my resignation. As a

matter of fact, I believe I was snowmobiling with Ron

Kastner, and he said, “If you drop me a line I will give

you back a portion of your contribution.”

Q. So probably January, February, '86?

Yes.

And the Ron on Exhibit 9 is Ron Kastner?

A

Q

A. Right.

Q. From the Police Pension, Police Relief Associa-

9

A. Yes.

Q. And then look, please, if you would, look just at

Exhibits 10 and 11. Just tell me what these [p. 49] are.

A. Exhibit 10 is the Minneapolis Police Relief Asso-

ciation letter. Signed by Ron Kastner. Indicating I was

receiving $100 for each full year of service.

Q. And that $100 for each six full years of service,

did that, was that what the pension, the Relief Associa-

tion owed you as of February, ‘86?

A. It might have been what they owed me, but it

wasn’t all that I had paid in.

a a ae

A-23

Q. I understand. But under the plan as it was then,

the plan was $100 for every year of service?

A. Right.

Q. And then tell me what Exhibit 11 is, please.

A. Exhibit 11 is a Minneapolis Police Relief Associa-

tion letter dated February 28th, 1986, indicating that there

is a check enclosed, “that were withheld from your wages

at the beginning of your employment,” signed by Kathy

Nasi.

Q. And would I be fair in saying that your activity

in the National Guard has been continuous from 1965 to

September of this year?

A. Yes.

Q. And from ‘65 to January, ‘80, you were not active

duty?

[p. 50] A. That’s correct.

Q. And from January, ‘80 until September, 1994 you

were active duty?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And that was your employment?

A. That's correct.

MR. SIEBEN: Probably had a little active duty

in ‘65 and ‘66?

THE WITNESS: Right, there was some active

duty, various schools, two weeks of active duty.

A-24

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. Let me put it this way. Full time active duty?

A. Well, in 1969 I spent three months at Fort Ben-

nington, Georgia, various training -

Q. Okay.

A. -—- required.

Q. Let me ask you this then. From 1980 to Septem-

ber, 1994, were you continuously on full time active duty

with the Guard?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. And do you recall what salary you

were earning when you retired?

A. $57,600 i. my base pay.

[p. 51] Q. And can you now give me — you did this

in the beginning, but now I want you to put some dates

with them, your promotions up through the ranks. And if

you can’t give me months, years are fine, Colonel.

A. Can I look at my resume?

Q. Absolutely.

MS. FUNDINGSLAND: In fact if you are going

to refer to that, counsel, would you have any objection to

my having a copy and marking it as an exhibit?

MR. SIEBEN: Go ahead.

(Whereupon Deposition Exhibit 12 marked for identi-

fication.)

A-25

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. All right. Just take a look then, sir, if you would,

at Exhibit No. 12. And that’s your resume that you just

handed me?

A. Yes.

Q. Or a copy of it?

A. Yes.

Q. And everything on there is true and accurate?

A. To the best of my knowledge.

Q. And that reflects your movement throughout the

National Guard throughout the years? And your [p. 52]

achievements with that organization?

A. Yes.

Q. When we talk about POST certification, we both

know what that is, right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you want to just state, so it’s on the record,

what that means?

A. Police Officer Standards Training Board controls

licensing of police officers in the State of Minnesota. You

must be licensed to perform your duties.

Q. All peace officers within the State of Minnesota

must be licensed or POST certified, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And you are currently POST certified?

A-26

A. Yes.

Q. And you have been continuously since probably

when you started with Anoka, correct?

A. No, it was not in effect with Anoka. But with

Minneapolis.

Q. With Minneapolis. All right.

Now you resigned effective December 15th, 1955.

Can you tell me, please, when was the first time that you

sought re-employment with the City of Minneapolis in

your current position as a police [p. 53] officer?

MR. SIEBEN: Don’t guess at it.

THE WITNESS: Can we go off the record for a

minute?

MS. FUNDINGSLAND: Yes.

(Discussion had off the record.)

MS. FUNDINGSIAND: Back on the record.

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. All right, when did you first seek re-employment

with the City of Minneapolis?

May of 1994.

And do you recall the month?

iS

May.

Q. And what prompted you to then seek re-employ-

ment with the City of Minneapolis?

A. I was leaving active duty.

g

.

:

A-27

Q. And coincidentally that month is the same as

when you found out about the early retirement?

A. Yes.

Q. Is that when you made the decision to leave

active duty with the Guard?

A. Yes.

Q. And your leaving active duty at that point was

totally voluntary on your part?

A. Yes.

[p. 54] Q. In other words, you could have stayed

until the retirement age of 60?

That’s correct.

But you chose to take an early retirement?

Pp Snes

Yes.

Q. And prior to that time — well, did, at any time

prior to you starting with your — strike that.

Any time between 1985 and 1994, did you seek re-

employment with the City, May of 1994?

A. Did I seek prior -

Q. Did you seek employment with the City between

your resignation date of December 15th, 1985 and May of

1994?

A. No.

Q. And you were employed full time by the

National Guard up until May of 1994?

EE

A-28

A. Full time active.

Q. Full time active.

MS. FUNDINGSLAND: Okay, I don’t believe |

have anything further.

MR. SIEBEN: Not on the record.

(Discussion had off the record.)

MR. SIEBEN: I will just ask a couple questions to

clear that up.

EXAMINATION

[p. 55] BY MR. SIEBEN:

Q. Mr. Paisley, you were asked about how long you

could have stayed on active duty in the Army. And I

believe you indicated age 60. And apparently that’s one

of the deadline dates for active duty service. But what

was the effective deadline date that you were faced with,

and then what were the variables that could have cut

even that date short?

A. Mandatory retirement age is age 60. You also

serve at the discretion of the Commander, who has a

Selective Retention Board, could discharge you or termi-

nate your orders. And there is also a mandatory removal

date, which in my case was 1998. And it’s 30 years of

commissioned service or age, as a Colonel, age 55, which-

ever comes longer.

Q. Okay. And how about this 20 years of AGR sta-

tus?

A. AGR status, you can only serve 20 years as an

officer, and your tour will not be renewed.

or ee ee en Oe ee ee ee ee ae oe ee Es

'

i

i

i

A-29

Q. What would that date have been for you?

A. 1998.

Q. So under any circumstances under the current

federal law could you have served beyond 1998?

A. No.

[p. 56] Q. And you would be, in '98 you will be

what, 54?

A. Fifty-four.

Q. Fifty-four years old?

A. Yes.

Q. And the downsizing of the Army has been going

on in recent years, too? You have had some experience

with that with people in your command, haven't you?

A. Yes.

Q. And does that have the effect of kicking people

out short of their otherwise normal dates for retirement?

A. Yes, it does.

Q. And you had not been ordered yet to retire?

A. That's correct.

Q. But was there a downsizing going on in the

Army, the active duty Army people that were assigned to

the Minnesota National Guard, that had the potential of

affecting your longevity there?

A. Yes, it did.

Q. Did you want to go back to the City of Min-

neapolis as a police officer?

A-30

A. Yes.

Q. And do you still want to go back to the City [p.

57] of Minneapolis as a police officer?

A. Yes.

MR. SIEBEN: Let’s go off the record.

(Discussion had off the record.)

MR. SIEBEN: Let’s go back on the record.

BY MR. SIEBEN:

Q. Who is Santo?

A. Al Santo is an employee of the City of Min-

neapolis who went on an active duty tour, served, |

believe, three of four years, most of which was in Guam,

and came back to work for the City.

Q. As a cop?

A. No, he works for Housing, I believe, now, He

was in —

MS. FUNDINGSLAND: Public works.

A. Public works.

MS. FUNDINGSLAND: Still is.

BY MR. SIEBEN:

Q. As far as you know, are you legally qualified to

be a peace officer and a member of the Police Depart-

ment?

A. Yes.

Pe er me

A-31

Q. You have maintained your POST certification?

[p. 58] A. Yes.

MR. SIEBEN: That’s all I have.

EXAMINATION

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. Colonel Paisley, when you resigned from the

City of Minneapolis in 1985, I had asked you before

whether you had, at that time had chosen a career then

with the Army National Guard, and you said, yes, cor-

rect?

A. Yes.

Q. Could you have chosen another career if you had

wanted to?

I mean assuming you had the interest and were qual-

ified for it, could you have chosen a totally different

career?

A. Certainly.

MR. SIEBEN: Brain surgeon or something like

that.

BY MS. FUNDINGSLAND:

Q. So what you did when you resigned from the

City, basically it was voluntary on your part what career

you chose?

A. Yes.

A-32

MR. CIESLAK: If you object to the characteriza-

tion career, is her word, not your word

* * *

A-33

EXHIBIT NO. 5

DUANE D. PAISLEY

3151 BENJAMIN ST. N. E.

MINNEAPCLIS, MINN. 55418

7 December 1981

Mr. Brian Isaacson

Personnel Director

Personnel Department

Civil Services Commission

312 Third Ave. So.

Minneapolis, MN 55415

Re: Request for Military Leave

Dear Mr. Isaacson:

The purpose of this letter is to request that my mili-

tary leave from the Minneapolis Police Department be

extended for a period of two years from and after January

15, 1982, the date on which my present military leave

would otherwise expire. This request is made pursuant to

United States Code, Title 38, Part Il, Chapter-43, Sections

2021 to 2026 which requires the granting of such military

leave without loss of seniority, status, pay, and vacation.

The basis for this request is that I will have had two

years of active duty, as defined by United States Code,

Title 36, Section 2024(b)(1), as of January 15, 1982, and

said section provides that I may serve four years of such

active duty without loss of seniority, status, pay and

vacation.

I wish also to point out that my request would

appear to be in line with the suggestion of Mayor Fraser

that leaves of absence be encouraged in view of the

A-34

present difficult financial situation of the City of Min-

neapolis.

It therefore, would be appreciated if you would for-

ward to me written confirmation of the granting of my

request for military leave for the period of January 15,

1982 to January 15, 1984. If you desire any written evi-

dence of my military status, or if you wish any other

information relative to this request, please contact me

accordingly.

Thank you for your courtesy and consideration.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Duane D. Paisley

Duane D. Paisley

A-35

EXHIBIT NO. 6

DUANE D. PAISLEY

3151 BENJAMIN ST. N. E.

MINNEAPOLIS, MINN. 55418

18 October 1985

Mr. Brian Isaacson

Personnel Director

Personnel Department

Civil Service Commission

City of Minneapolis

312 3rd Avenue South

Minneapolis, MN 55415

Re: Request for Continued Military Leave

Dear Mr. Isaacson:

I am serving as a Commissioned Officer of the Min-

nesota Army National Guard on active duty under terms

of a Military leave of absence from the Minneapolis Police

Department. This leave extends to January 15, 1986. I

respectfully request that this leave be extended for a

period of three years from that date.

I have and will continue to pursue courses of con-

tinuing education for the purpose of maintaining my

Police Officers Standards and Training licence. An exten-

sion of my leave of absence will permit me to advance the

important work of the Minnesota Military Academy

where I am a Lieutenant Colonel, and the Training

Administrator. It will also offer a Battalion level Com-

mand. These opportunities for leadership and service to

our Community, State, and Nation are consistent with

and complement the duties and responsibilities I am

sworn to uphold as a Police Officer.

A-36

Thank you for your consideration in this regard.

Very truly yours,

/s/ Duane D. Paisley

Duane D. Paisley

A-37

EXHIBIT NO. 9

Duane D. Paisley

3151 Benjamin St. N. E., Minneapolis, Minn. 55418

Ron,

Please send me any benefits I am entitled to from the

Police Pension Fund.

Thanks you for your assistance.

Duane D. Paisley

A-38

EXHIBIT NO. 10

MINNEAPOLIS POLICE RELIEF ASSOCIATION

(POLICE PENSIONS)

312 South Third Street, Room 150

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415

(612) 341-8980

February 14, 1986

Mr. Duane D. Paisley

3151 Benjamin St. N.E.

Minneapolis, MN 55418

Dear Duane:

Minnesota State Statute 423.745 Sub. 2, entitles you to a

payment of $100.00 per full year of service. According to

Police Personnel Records you are entitled to $100.00 for

six years of service. Enclosed is a check for $600.00. The

following is the computation from the Personnel Records.

Date of Employment: 6/4/73

Date of Resignation: 12/15/85

Leave of Absence: 1/26/80-12/15/85

Total Leave of Absence: 5 years, 10 months, 19 days

Total on duty time is six full years. If you have any

questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ron

Ronald Kastner

Secretary

RK/rt

Enclosure

ee ee ens ne Seer Ce ee ee ee

A-39

EXHIBIT NO. 11

MINNEAPOLIS POLICE RELIEF ASSOCIATION

(POLICE PENSIONS)

312 South Third Street, Room 150

MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55415

(612) 341-8980

February 28, 1986

Mr. Duane D. Paisley

3151 Benjamin St. N.E.

Minneapolis, MN 55418

Dear Duane:

The enclosed check is the pension dues that were with-

held from your wages at the beginning of your employ-

ment. The city always withholds the first week’s salary.

If you have any questions, please contact me.

Sincerely,

/s/ Kathy Nasi

Kathy Nasi

Administrative Assistance

KN/rt

Enclosure

A-40

PAISLEY

EXHIBIT NO. 12

BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

DUANE D. PAISLEY

PERSONAL

Home Address: 2731 Mackubin Street #14

Roseville, Minnesota 55113

Date of Birth: 20 May 1944

Telephone: (612) 482-7882

EDUCATION

High School: Columbia Heights High

School

Columbia Heights, Minnesota

College: Metropolitan State University

B.A. Degree Public

Administration

Saint Paul, Minnesota

College of Saint Thomas -

M.M.B.A. Degree Business

Administration

Specialized Training: Minneapolis Police Recruit

School (1972)

Minnesota Bureau of

Criminal Apprehension (1973)

F.B.I. Academy, Quantico,

Virginia — Anti-Sniper, Rifle

Marksmanship, Officer

Survival, (S.W.A.T.) (1975)

Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms

School, Criminal

Investigator’s Course (1975)

|

t

:

A-41

Dignitary Protection School

(1977)

In-Service Training,

Minneapolis Police

Department (1974-1985)

Licensed Police Officer -

State of Minnesota

WORK EXPERIENCE

Minnesota National Guard - Military Support/Counter-

drug Program (1992-Present)

Minnesota National Guard — Full-Time Support Personnel

Officer -— The Adjutant General’s Office — Saint Paul,

Minnesota (1986-1992)

Battalion Commander — Ist Battalion, 136th Infantry

(November 1987-April 1988)

Minnesota National Guard - Training Administrator -

Minnesota Military Academy (1983-1986)

Minnesota National Guard - Recruiting and Retention

Manager (1981-1983)

Minnesota National Guard - Recruiting and Induction

Officer (1979-1981)

Minneapolis Police Department - Organized Crime -

Investigative Unit, Investigator; Sting Operations, under-

cover buying, surveillance, gambling and fencing opera-

tions (November 1978-September 1979)

Minneapolis Police Department — Street Crime Unit -

Selective Enforcement (July 1978-November 1978) (Dep-

uty Chief O’Mera)

A-42

Minneapolis Police Department - Second Precinct -

Patrol (March 1978-July 1978) (Captain Goodrie)

Minneapolis Police Department -— Special Operations

Division — Special Weapons and Tactics (November 1973-

March 1978) (Captain Mudge)

Minneapolis Police Department — Fourth Precinct — Patrol

(September 1973-November 1973) (Captain Finn)

Minneapolis Police Department — Recruit School — (June

1973-September 1973) (Captain Blanche)

Anoka Police Department — Patrol (September 1972-June

1973)

TEACHING AND LECTURING (ALL CURRENT)

Minnesota State Certified Police Instructor in defense

tactics, physical fitness, barricaded suspects, hostage situ-

ations, entry team tactics.

Defensive Tactics Instructor, Metropolitan State Univer-

sity, for the Minnesota Poiice Officers Standards Training

Board.

Nationally Certified Instructor for Police Self-Defense.

Criminal Justice Instructor at Normandale Junior College.

Instructor for the Minneapolis School System, Youth in

Pursuit of Criminal Justice.

Lecturer at Various Metropolitan Law Enforcement Agencies.

Guest Lecturer at numerous civic organizations (V.F.W.,

Exchange Clubs, ect.).

Instructor for Minneapolis Police Reserve.

et ee eee

A-43

AWARDS AND ACCOMPLISHMENT

Numerous Police Commendations and Letters of Merit

(1973 — Present)

Medal of Honor, Minneapolis Police Department (1974)

Commendation, Saint Paul Police Department (1974)

Red Cross Life Saving Award, signed by President Gerald

Ford (1975)

Appeared on the Merv Griffen Show and, with George

Kennedy and the Police Show, “The Blue Knight”, after

being selected as one of the top Police Officers in the

United States of America. (1976)

Appeared in Motorola training film, “Dealing with

Death” (1977)

Police Officer of the Year by V.F.W. Military Order of the

Purple Heart (1977)

Certificate of Appreciation - International Association of

Women Police (1978)

Letter of Appreciation - Stearns County Sheriff's Office

(1982)

President — Minnesota National Guard Officer’s Associa-

tion — 3 years

President — Twin Cities Garrison Club - 2 years

MILITARY ACCOMPLISHMENTS

Active Duty Tour - Military Support/Counterdrug Pro-_

gram (1992 — Present)

|

A-44

Promoted to Colonel (1988)

Active Duty Tour - Support Personnel Management Offi-

cer (1986 - 1992)

Battalion Commander - Ist Battalion, 136th Infantry (1987

- 1988)

Active Duty Tour ~ Training Administrator - Minnesota

Military Academy (1983 - 1986)

Promoted to Lieutenant Colonel (1984)

Active Duty Tour —- Recruiting and Retention Manager

(1981 - 1983)

Active Duty Tour ~ Recruiting and Induction Officer

(1979 - 1981)

Promoted to Major (1980)

Minnesota Adjutant General’s Aide-de-Camp (1979 -

1980)

State Provost Marshal, Minnesota Army National Guard

(1979 - 1980)

Commanding Officer, 257th Military Police Company

(1975 - 1980)

Promoted to Captain (1976)

Executive Officer, 257th Military Police Company (1975)

Executive Officer, 47th Infantry Division, Headquarters

Detachment (1974)

Tactical Officer, Minneapolis Military Academy (1972)

Promoted to First Lieutenant (1972)

A-45

Officer Candidate School, Minneapolis Military Academy

~ Graduated Second Lieutenant — Honor Graduate (1968)

Minnesota Army National Guard, United States Army,

Helicopter Crew Chief (1965 - 1967)

Educational Services Officer - 2 years

Employer Support Guard/Reserve Executive Director - 4

years

Escort Officer — Secretary of the Army (1986)

Commander of Troops - Swedish Exchange (1985)

Accompanied The Adjutant General to Ecuador (1987)

MILITARY SCHOOLS

Graduate of U.S. War College (1993)

Graduate of Command and General Staff College (1982)

Sales and Management Training of Atlanta, sponsored by

Minnesota Army National Guard (1980)

Recruiting and Retention Management School (1979)

National Guard Winter Operations Instructor School

(1978)

Military Police Officer Career Course (1977)

Military Officer Basic Course (1973)

Infantry Officer Basic Course (1969)

A-46

MILITARY AWARDS

Expert Infantryman’s Badge

Aircraft Crewmember Badge

Meritorious Service Medal with 2nd Award

Army Commendation Medal

Army Achievement Medal

National Defense Service Medal

Humanitarian Service Medal

Armed Forces Reserve Medal with 4th Award

Army Reserve Components Achievement Medal and

Hourgiass Device

Army Service Ribbon

Overseas Ribbon

Minnesota Commendation Medal

Minnesota National Guard Good Conduct Medal

Minnesota State Active Duty Ribbon with 9 Awards

Minnesota National Guard Distinguished Recruiting Rib-

bon with 5th Award

State Service Medal with 20 years Device

Army National Guard Master Recruiter Badge

Minnesota