Why Kyle has an acting police chief

I have seen questions as well as suggested answers to those questions floating around social media concerning the reasons the City Council felt it was necessary to temporarily appoint Kyle police Capt. Pedro Hernandez as its chief. These questions and mostly erroneous answers were in response to a newspaper headline that screamed "Kyle Police chief placed on leave." The automatic reaction of many who saw that headline was "What did Chief Jeff Barnett do that was so wrong?". The simple answer is "absolutely nothing."

I have written before about how, especially when it comes to the public’s view on government, perception reshapes reality. The explanation for why this action was taken was because the city did not want an action that’s about to take place viewed as petty retaliation and so city leaders took steps to shape the public’s perception of what is about to take place so that it more closely conforms to reality.

Let me explain by briefly going back to near the beginning of this drama — a drama featuring two lead characters, Chief Barnett and former Kyle Police Sgt. Jesse Espinoza. There are supporting characters involved, but right at the start, let’s concentrate on the dynamics between Chief Barnett and Sgt. Espinoza. I first met Sgt. Espinoza, who was then head of Kyle’s police association, early Saturday morning, Nov. 15, 2014, when the City Council was meeting in executive session to interview the finalists for the then-open position of city manager. Espinoza was actively seeking to talk to then acting city manager James Earp as well as anyone else he felt might give him a receptive ear claiming he held in his hand documents that so incriminated Barnett the city would have no other choice but to fire the chief. At the time, I had lived in Kyle only 31 days. I had just moved here from Dallas where for many years I held a rather prominent position with the City, a position that offered more opportunities than I would have wished for to interact with the internal politics of a police department, not only the Dallas PD but that of many of the nearby cities and towns as well. One of my takeaways from that interaction was the realization that, while certainly not a part of the written job description, it was the ultimate goal of the head of every police association known to mankind to get the police chief fired. The poor Dallas police chief had to deal with seven — count ‘em — seven different police associations within his department, most if not all of whom were hunting for his scalp. Nothing personal, mind you. It’s just what they did. On that particular Saturday morning I simply waved off Espinoza’s actions as nothing more than "That’s just what police association heads do."

I subsequently learned, however, there was more to it than that here in Kyle. Espinoza had actively campaigned against Barnett even being hired by the City of Kyle, for reasons I won’t go into now but you might get a better picture of by reading this.

As time went on, it came to the attention of certain individuals that Espinoza may have acted in a way that warranted disciplinary action being taken against him. The rule is, however, that kind of disciplinary action in connection with any police officer in just about any municipal police department must be meted out by the police chief. That’s where the perception problem came into play. The city was concerned, and justly so, the perception of Barnett disciplining Espinoza could be framed as retaliation. So to avoid that perception, the city placed Barnett on administrative leave (in other words, suggested he take a couple of weeks off) and brought in a former police chief from Waxahachie, Charles Edge, to conduct the investigation the city hoped would provide the necessary evidence to kick Espinoza off the force.

And Edge provided just that. Espinoza, however, appealed that suspension and that appeal was heard by an independent labor and employment administrator named Michael B. McReynolds of Fort Worth. Testimony in those appeal hearings ended last November and McReynolds said he hoped to have his written ruling on the matter prepared sometime during the first quarter of this year.

McReynolds, however, was in failing health and he died last month before he could officially announce his decision. That left the city with two options: It could either shell out of big chunk of (taxpayers’) money to make the situation disappear or it could start over from scratch. The city decided to pursue the second option.

Now here’s where I enter the realm of conjecture, which I must do because all parties involved in this case are obligated by things like attorney-client privilege, prohibitions against ex-parte communications, the sanctity of executive sessions, etc, so they can’t discuss any of this with me or any other outside parties. But this conjecture has, I believe, a solid foundation. The only logical conclusion one can reach from all this is that to "start over from scratch" doesn’t simply mean beginning the appeal process hearings again, it means going all the way back to the original disciplinary action Edge took against Espinoza. What’s different this time, however, is that Edge’s findings are part of the public record and while the truthfulness of those findings might be in question (hence the appeal hearing) their mere existence is not. So this time, the city can avoid the perception of "a chief personally retaliating against a officer with a personal grudge against that chief" without having to bring in an outside investigator, but simply by having a respected officer within the department to review Edge’s findings and to determine if they still warrant Espinoza’s suspension. As soon as that decision is made, one way or the other, Barnett will be reinstated, probably with thanks from many of those involved for being such a good sport about all this and a team player. I have the feeling, however, that if Edge’s findings are reversed by Hernandez, which I do not predict will happen, Barnett will not remain in town for long. But that’s just my feeling.

I hope this narrative clears things up and erases some of the wrong perceptions that came about because of the aforementioned newspaper headline. However, if you’re still confused by all this, my advice is simply forget about it, round up the family and take them to Evo to see the movie Zootopia. Trust me, by the time Shakira belts out her song at the end of the film, your head will be cleared and you’ll feel a whole lot better.