East Liverpool City Council voted against a settlement agreement reached between the City of East Liverpool and former East Liverpool police officer Chris Green.

Green filed the suit against the City of East Liverpool, the city’s administration and multiple police officers in federal court in March of 2023. In the suit, he alleged he was wrongfully discharged as retaliation for reporting alleged misconduct of fellow officers to the FBI. He believed this to be a First Amendment Right violation.

For more than a year the attorneys for the city and Green have been in court multiple times with multiple motions against the other side. Green had originally elected for a jury trial, but both sides agreed to try to settle through mediation.

Both sides agreed to settle to avoid the continued cost to prosecute and defend the lawsuit. The settlement states that neither side admits to wrongdoings or liability and the agreement resolves all disputes, claims and defenses asserted.

The agreement covers all parties with exception of East Liverpool police officer Robert Ramsey, who declined to participate in the mediation process.

According to Mayor Bobby Smith, the city agreed to the terms in the settlement after sitting with attorneys for more than 12 hours in mediation and the judge telling them to at least get him the dog back.

Smith also noted that the part of the agreement which would have allowed Green to come back to the police department like he never left is because at that point Green was requesting $1.7 million and they got that down to $240,000 if they allowed him to come back.

The city, according to Smith, has already paid out approximately $180,000 in attorney fees and they told him the further this went the more money it was going to cost. Smith noted the city could easily spend another $300,000 to $400,000 on legal fees if this continues.

On the part of the agreement that would have allowed Green to come back to the police department, Smith said if it were up to him, even if he wanted to bring him back, he wouldn’t because the consensus of the city, residents and police department is he isn’t wanted back.

Smith said he is looking at the continued costs to the city to continue the lawsuit versus the settlement agreement.

“I don’t think that’s the right decision, but I get it. I get it,” Smith said. “In the grand scheme of life, I get it, but I’m doing what is best for the city. It’s a thin line and I hate doing it. I lay awake at night sick about it because I don’t think he should come back.”

The settlement would have awarded Green $235,000 which includes attorney and litigation fees to be paid to Green through his attorney within 14 days of council approving and signing off on the agreement.

The settlement also states that the city will purchase K9 Nero from the Henderson County, North Carolina, Sheriff’s Office by July 31. Green would have had to participate in the purchase at no cost to himself. K9 Nero would be deemed retired, and Green would have assumed ownership of Nero. Nero was sold for $9,050 to the Henderson County Sheriff’s Office in North Carolina, which agreed to sell the dog back to East Liverpool for $26,500.

Additionally, Green would have been eligible for reinstatement as a patrol officer with the East Liverpool Police Department. He would have to at his own cost, complete all recertification classes and/or OPATA training necessary for him to be certified as a police officer. His failure to obtain recertification by July 31, 2025, would relieve the city of its obligation to reinstate him.

The settlement also states that if reinstated, Green’s seniority will be restored, he will be reissued his former badge number and immediately eligible for promotion to a detective or captain position.

Per the settlement, Green agreed to be reinstated as a patrol officer and not a K9 officer and he would not have been able to apply for a K9 officer for five years from the date of reinstatement.

The city would have had to retract/rescind in writing all statements, findings, allegations, opinions and conclusions contained in the investigative report, termination letter, public statements and all discipline imposed against Green including the findings and results of the arbitrator’s decision. All documents referencing potential misconduct or discipline would have been required to be removed from his personnel file and placed in a separate file along with a copy of the lawsuit.

Green, according to the settlement, would have had to agree to not file any lawsuits, complaints, grievances, charges, claims, or arbitration demands against the city or individual defendants based on any claim in the agreement.

“Green and the city understand that neither admits any wrongdoing by signing this agreement and that nobody should interpret this agreement as an admission by either Green or the city, or the individual defendants that they did anything wrong or illegal,” the settlement agreement and release said.

A finance committee was held Monday right before a special meeting of council called to vote on whether to pass the legislation regarding the settlement agreement.

Fred Rayl, council member and Finance Committee chair, asked the committee to vote to pass the legislation through to the council meeting so that all council members could have a chance to vote on it.

Once the legislation was brought before the council, a vote to consider it passed and then a vote to place it on first reading passed with a five to two vote. The motion to suspend additional readings so the council could vote on the ordinance immediately failed when it did not receive a second. A second reading is not possible due to the next council meeting being scheduled for after the status hearing July 26.

Council President John Torma said he thinks the right decision has been made. Rayl said he had no comment. Council Member Scott Barrett said as a dog person himself, he believes Green should get the dog back.

The ordinance is considered dead in the water at this point. The Finance Committee could pick it up and represent it or it could head back to litigation where Green is requesting a jury trial.