Officer claims damage

A controversial issue that erupted last November when a city councilman accused a Chico police officer of racism is back in the news. Officer Todd Boothe has filed a claim against the city for damages related to personal injury and defamation. He is asking for an “unlimited civil claim,” which means $25,000 or more.

The trouble began when, during contract negotiations between the city and the Chico Police Department, Boothe called Councilman Randall Stone “incompetent” and an “asshole” on Stone’s Facebook page. Boothe also posted, “Feed the homeless and fund worthless programs and take your personal insurance to the best rate in the City! Complete incompetency by our city council and their hired henchmen.”

Stone allegedly retaliated by searching Boothe’s Facebook page, where he discovered what could be considered a racist Photoshopped image of President Obama as a witchdoctor with a bone through his nose and “Obambacare” running as a caption. Boothe had posted the image in 2009. Another more recent post was of a skull with a Confederate flag design and a caption that read, “Rebel ’till The Day I Die.” Stone also pointed to a comment in which Boothe called a friend a “fag.”

Stone shared the information he’d discovered with Police Chief Kirk Trostle and asked for an investigation. He also shared the information with the media, and on Nov. 11 Action News Now broke the story in an interview with Stone, who said Boothe was homophobic and “clearly harboring racist views.”

Both men were criticized in letters to the editor and in posts on social media. Stone said Boothe’s posts reflected poorly on the police department as a whole. In his claim, Boothe charges he was exercising his rights to free speech as a private citizen. The Police Officers Bill of Rights reads: “Except as otherwise provided by law, or whenever on duty or in uniform, no public safety officer shall be prohibited from engaging, or be coerced or required to engage, in political activity.”

However, the Chico Police Department’s policy manual does prohibit certain forms of communication: “Speech or expression that, while not made pursuant to an official duty, is significantly linked to, or related to, the Chico Police Department and tends to compromise or damage the mission, function, reputation or professionalism of the Chico Police Department.”

Further, as it relates to privacy, “Employees forfeit any expectation of privacy with regard to anything published or maintained through file-sharing software or any Internet site open to public view (e.g., Facebook, MySpace).”

In documents obtained by this newspaper, Boothe’s claim against the city, filed May 7, reads: “As a result of the defamatory statements and/or wrongful conduct made by Stone claimant was and continues to be harmed, including but not necessarily limited to harm to claimant’s business, trade, profession and/or occupation, as well as harm to claimant’s personal and/or professional reputation.”

Boothe, who is being represented by Sacramento attorney John Tribuiano, originally filed a discrimination and retaliation complaint with the Department of Fair Employment & Housing in February, and then immediately requested the “right to sue,” which was granted. The Department of Fair Employment & Housing policy says that it “maintains the authority to investigate complaints of discrimination in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations and hate violence.”

In his complaint, Boothe describes the incident that led to this point: “I called a Chico councilmember an asshole on his public Facebook page as a voting citizen and no affiliation to my employment. He then discovered my employment as a police officer and notified the media. He slandered me in the media and attacked me. I have undergone an internal investigation at my department and endured public scrutiny based on his allegations.”

He goes on to explain the reason for the complaint. “Due to this I have been disciplined which has prevented me from promotional and special assignment opportunities for at least 1 year.”

For his part, Stone said he could not comment on the matter at this time for legal reasons and Trostle echoed that sentiment. Boothe could not be reached for comment.

The city has 45 days to accept or reject the claim. If rejected, Boothe will have the opportunity to sue.