Advertisement
The Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission found a five-day suspension imposed on former Dodge Correctional Institution supervising officer Scott Dillman was excessive and should be replaced by a written reprimand.
The commission, in a decision made public last week, said Dillman violated numerous rules when he used pepper spray on his nephew in 2005 even though there was no immediate danger. But the commission also faulted the Department of Corrections management for putting Dillman in that position.
Department of Corrections spokesman John Dipko said Tuesday the agency was not planning to appeal the decision and was in the process of calculating how much back pay to award Dillman. He said Dillman resigned his job in April 2006.
Dillman had warned supervisors before the incident that he did not get along with his nephew and the two should be separated.
Nonetheless, a prison captain ordered Dillman to respond when his nephew covered his cell door window with paper, preventing him from being watched. When his nephew refused to put his hands through the cell to be handcuffed, Dillman shot bursts of pepper spray into the cell.
The department suspended Dillman without pay for five days for failing to follow procedures governing the use of force. Dillman did not negotiate with the inmate before using force and failed to call out to other officers as required, among other things, it said.
There also was no danger because the paper was no longer covering the window, the department concluded, and the men’s relationship inflamed the situation because Dillman’s nephew made numerous deragatory comments about him.
Dillman appealed the discipline, saying the department was negligent in failing to separate him from his nephew.
Dodge Correctional, based in Waupun, serves as the point of intake for inmates before they are assigned to other prisons. Dillman started working there in 1995 and had a good employment record.
His nephew was held there briefly in 2003 but sent to another institution after Dillman reported the relationship. The nephew was moved back to Dodge in 2005 after facing additional charges.
In an e-mail to supervisors days before the incident, Dillman called his nephew a deragatory name and said, “I would appreciate if he is removed ... ASAP before I have to deal with him.”
A supervisor agreed to move the nephew but failed to do so before the incident. Dillman was instructed to limit contact with his nephew in the meantime.
But Dillman took away his nephew’s phone privileges for violating prison rules. That prompted the nephew to threaten to kill him, which led to him being moved to a special cell, where he covered the window with paper.
Although a captain was aware of the relationship, he ordered Dillman to respond to the situation because he didn’t want to, the commission found. Reluctantly, Dillman did so.
The commission criticized the department for failing to discipline that captain.
“All things considered, management bears some responsibility for allowing (the inmate) to remain at the same facility with Dillman and for allowing Dillman to have interactions of any kind with him,” the commission wrote. “But Dillman also bears significant responsibility for allowing the incident to occur, as well.”
