MATTAWA - The City of Mattawa Civil Service Commission released on Dec. 12 a decision it made on Dec. 3 to back the firing of former police officer John Ingersoll.

Ingersoll attorney Steven Lacy of Wenatchee reacted by saying he will take the case to superior court.

"I knew going in that John would not get a fair hearing," Lacy said.

According to Lacy, Ingersoll's claim of conflict of interest on the hearing board was strengthened by events between the end of the hearing and the decision.

Lacy had charged conflict because one commission member was related to a council member and one was related to a city employee. Before the decision was rendered, he said, one remained married to a council member, and two were on the council.

"I really don't see a judge getting to the merits of the case," Lacy said. "I believe we'll get this overturned."

If there was a surprise, it was in the findings. The hearing board went to its members' observations to assess Ingersoll's character.

The commission wrote: "The conduct of Mr. Ingersoll during the hearing showed an immaturity and inconsistency regarding your ability to control your actions and emotions. This included comments during witness testimony, attempts to stare down citizens at the hearing and providing testimony totally denying any wrongdoing on his part."

Lacy said if there was any such conduct, it was not as extreme as claimed by the Commission and barely discernible. He was surprised the commission went that route and may force the commission to provide proof at court.

The commission's decision was based on that finding and four others:

• The Commission finds that Mr. Ingersoll's conduct in attempting to locate the safe house where his wife and children were housed was poor judgment and led to the making of a false missing person report.
• Mr. Ingersoll's conduct in an incident involving two Hispanic gentlemen at Ken's Corner evidences poor judgment.
• The testimony of other officers present at a DUI testing indicates Mr. Ingersoll lacked self-control in dealing with the matter.
• The Commission finds the report of (psychologist) Dr. Mays to be credible and the assessment to be consistent with conduct as stated above.

"The preponderance of the evidence establishes that as of June 3, 2013, Mr. Ingersoll was not fit for duty as a police officer, and termination of his employment was appropriate," the Commission decided.

Lacy said that if the case gets that far in Superior Court, he will demonstrate that the Mays report at no point said Ingersoll was unfit for duty.