Sheriff's office employee found guilty of neglect of duty

Aug. 31—A Frederick County Sheriff's Office employee was found guilty of neglect of duty during a hearing Tuesday.

A three-person sheriff's office trial process board oversaw the hearing and recommended that Special Police Officer Scott Monaco be terminated.

Special police officers are under the sheriff's office and provide security in the Frederick County Courthouse, Monaco said in an interview. Though they are civilian employees, they have special powers within the courthouse, he said.

Sheriff Chuck Jenkins will decide the final punishment, said Capt. Jeff Eyler of the sheriff's office, the chairman of the board. Monaco can appeal the punishment for a trial in Circuit Court and argue it further if he chooses, sheriff's office spokesman Todd Wivell said.

Monaco represented himself in Winchester Hall as the board heard arguments from him and Ernest Cornbrooks, an attorney representing the sheriff's office.

The last time the sheriff's office held a trial process board was in November 2009, Wivell said.

According to documents related to the case, the sheriff's office accused Monaco of neglecting his duty on one particular day in October 2021 by showing up late for assignment out of uniform, and that he then didn't go to his assigned post.

There were 11 other instances listed in the charging documents that Cornbrooks said was indicative that this was repeated behavior.

During an exhausting five hours, Cornbrooks objected to Monaco's attempts to steer testimony toward a larger issue that Monaco says is the reason for the hearing in the first place.

Monaco has alleged a toxic work environment in the sheriff's office, as well as poor supervision and abuse of power.

Cornbrooks called witnesses to speak to the facts of Monaco not being at his assigned post between 8 and 8:24 a.m. on Oct. 25, 2021. He called sheriff's office Corporal Brian Merck, one of Monaco's supervisors at the courthouse.

Merck confirmed ongoing problems of punctuality with Monaco, as well as surveillance footage screenshots showing Monaco's absence and Monaco not being properly dressed for duty during the October incident.

When Monaco cross-examined Merck, Cornbrooks repeatedly objected to Monaco's questions about scheduling and semantics in documents.

"The facts are the facts, and we're not discussing that at this time," Cornbrooks said.

The push and pull between Monaco and Cornbrooks continued after the guilty verdict. The two parties started arguing over a recommendation of punishment.

Cornbrooks used the 11 other instances to argue for a recommendation of termination, once again using Merck to clarify the circumstances of each instance.

When Monaco again questioned Merck, he also tried to go down the line of the 11 instances. But like before, he diverged and asked broader questions regarding supervisor duty or treatment of other employees. Again and again, Cornbrooks objected.

"That's utterly irrelevant to the trial board and is irrelevant at this point in the proceedings," Cornbrooks said.

Monaco scoffed.

"If these accusations are correct, these are based on false information," Monaco said. "Where is the space for any employee to say this is not right?"

Asked about a possible punishment, Monaco tentatively mentioned verbal counseling.

In the end, Monaco said he was frustrated with how everything happened. He said he was ill-prepared because he didn't know what to expect.

"This was not what I thought it would be," he said.

He said he wished he could have argued broader issues that were repeatedly shut down.

"I wish my complaints had not been shelved," he said.

Follow Clara Niel on Twitter: @clarasniel