The appeal hearing before the Carroll County Civil Service Board for a former employee of the county Animal Control Department has been extended at least for another week, with closing arguments to be given in writing.

The hearing for former animal control officer David LaCoste that began early Wednesday morning and lasted into the evening is the second such hearing he’s had before the Civil Service Board. The first came on April 16, when the board found in his favor, recommending to Commission Chairman Bill Chappell that LaCoste be reinstated to his position.

LaCoste was originally fired on Feb. 27, 11 days after he accused Tim Tant, the director of the Carroll County Department of Animal Control, of assaulting him.

LaCoste appealed the first termination based on grounds that the county violated its own regulations regarding employee discipline as outlined in the Carroll County Civil Service Personnel Policies and Procedures handbook, making his termination illegal and invalid. The board at that time ruled the county failed to follow due process guidelines, effectively making his termination invalid.

The day after this first hearing, LaCoste received a second notice of termination, at which point his attorney, Gary Bunch, filed a second appeal before the board, citing the fact that Chappell fired LaCoste for a second time prior to the Civil Service Board issuing a formal written recommendation regarding his first dismissal, making the second firing a violation of the civil service agreement.

At Wednesday’s appeal, Bunch initially made a motion for summary judgment in his client’s favor based solely on this premise alone. The board decided that nowhere was it required to issue a written recommendation, and the motion was denied.

County Attorney Cynthia Daley filed another motion arguing against allowing four former county employees fired by Chappell to testify on behalf of LaCoste. Those included former E-911 Director Debra Lanier, former Fire Chief Gary Thomas, former Recreation Department Director Ken Farmer and former Assistant Director Julie Ivey. All of the four were fired by Chappell under the premise of budget concerns.

According to Bunch, these witnesses would be used to show that Chappell has based past firing decisions not so much on fiscal necessity as much as from vindictiveness and a personal desire to see certain people without a job.

Daley in turn contended that because Tant was the person who brought about the adverse action that ultimately led to LaCoste’s initial firing, any attempt to bring Chappell’s character into question had no basis in the hearing. For the witnesses to be applicable to the case, Daley said, they need to be “similarly situated” to the plaintiff, and they need to have served under the same supervisor, and neither Thomas, Lanier, Farmer nor Ivey met those requirements.

“The persons that have been subpoenaed, not a one of them had been dismissed for cause. Their employment ended because of budgetary processes or something else. Not a one of them was dismissed for disciplinary reasons,” she said. “They’re so far apart from Mr. LaCoste, they’re from another universe.”

The board agreed, and the four witnesses who previously held positions with the county were prevented from testifying.

With the early motions out of the way, the hearing quickly turned into a question of character for both LaCoste and Tant. As the plaintiff, LaCoste’s camp painted Tant as a dictatorial supervisor, quick to anger with a penchant for yelling. On the other side, the county made LaCoste out as fundamentally rude, disrespectful and unable to accept authority.

Animal control officer Kitty Smith described being intimidated by Tant on multiple occasions, saying he “behaved in a threatening manner.” Comparatively, she said, LaCoste was a fine employee who simply fell victim to a supervisor who disliked him.

According to Smith, Tant made the comment on previous instances that he was “Chappell’s golden boy” and had unquestioned reign over the department without threat of punishment.

Bunch noted that Chappell did not conduct an independent investigation following LaCoste’s claim that Tant assaulted him, saying at that time that if the police were going to close the case that would be good enough for the county.

Daley said Tant had been hired as the first full-time director the department had ever had. In the past, Lee Gorman of planning and zoning had overseen the department, though he did not keep office hours in the shelter. When he was hired, Tant was told to make changes, Daley said, and that’s just what he did.

In response to those changes, she said, LaCoste rebelled, oftentimes questioning Tant’s authority in front of others and other times simply refusing to accept orders.

Since the beginning of the year, LaCoste has received a number of disciplinary citations, with one stemming from what Daley called a “rude” late-night conversation with a 911 operator and another coming after LaCoste reportedly slammed a door in a woman’s face.

Because the hearing went on well into the night Wednesday, the board moved to have all closing arguments presented in written form. According to Jim Wallis, this marks the first time in recent history the board has received written arguments. The arguments must be submitted to the board in a week, at which point the board will render a recommendation.

Wallis said that regardless of what happens, the board is only issuing a recommendation that may or may not be followed depending on the whims of the chairman and other county officials.

“Our function is advisory in nature and whatever we determine is strictly just an advisory opinion. They can do it or not do it,” he said. “We’re just an appellate review board. That’s all.”