Marietta City Police Department Investigation Update

MARIETTA, OH — It is no secret that former Marietta Police Chief Rodney Hupp retired a few weeks ago. It’s also no secret that there had been an outside investigator brought in to investigate Hupp. However, the details on this were a little hazy, to say the least.

Live in Marietta? Click here to subscribe to our free breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox and mobile devices. Follow Marietta Patch on Facebook and Twitter, and download our free Patch mobile app on Android or iPhone.

Well, now the investigation is finished. And now that all employment matters are resolved for the participants in the investigation, a summary of findings has been released.

The investigation was conducted by a partner from a law firm in Columbus.

The investigator said that on March 23, 2021, a female Marietta Police Department sergeant came to Steve Wetz, Marietta Director of Public Safety and Service along with the Police Department Union President to make a complaint about then Police Chief Rodney Hupp. The outside investigator was retained so an impartial investigation could be conducted into possible violations of Marietta Police Department Policy 313 – Discriminatory Harassment.

The investigator went to work familiarizing herself with departmental policies then interviewed the female sergeant and 15 past and current officers, as well as city administrators, and non-police witnesses. The only redaction in the report had to do with specific legal advice.

This report stated that the female sergeant has been with the department since 2001. She was hired as a patrol officer and was promoted to sergeant in 2015. She alleged a history of sexual harassment and/or discrimination during her 20-year career. She said she complained once in 2013, and that complaint wasn’t responded to appropriately.

The investigation found that the female sergeant and Hupp had been close even before he was chief. A number of officers stated that Hupp may have actually given the female sergeant preferential treatment in the past because of their relationship. Hupp admitted as much to the investigator.

The female sergeant said there was an ongoing locker room atmosphere in the police department, and officers regularly talked dirty. She acknowledged her involvement in that atmosphere, but made the distinction between her and her peers talking like that, and her superior talking to her like that. She said a comment made by Hupp in March of this year was the straw that broke the camel's back.

The report detailed a number of crude and crass comments and references made by a number of participants in this investigation. But it wasn’t until Hupp said the female sergeant coddles her men and was too motherly. She stated that she was perfectly capable of handling her supervisory duties regardless of gender.

This was when the complaint was filed. And the female sergeant claimed Hupp retaliated against her. The investigator found that Hupp had spoken with two other sergeants about the complaint after he had been given the directive to specifically not do that because it could be perceived as witness intimidation.

The investigator stated that during the course of the investigation there were a number of credibility concerns that arose with the female sergeant as well as Hupp. The investigator also found that neither the sergeant nor Hupp had a good understanding of the department’s sexual harassment policy, or if they did, they actively chose to violate it and failed to report concerns.

Hupp said he didn’t believe the conversations he had with the female sergeant were harassing because of the nature of their friendship. He claimed that the way she spoke was as dirty as anyone on the shift and that she would bring up dirty subjects too.

However, the departmental policy requires supervisors to monitor the workplace and strive to ensure it’s free of unlawful discrimination, harassment, or retaliation. The investigator noted that Chief Hupp believed he had violated that policy. She concluded that by a preponderance of evidence, Hupp made comments that were crude, offensive, and stereotyping, at times based on the sergeant’s gender.

However, she noted that not all conduct contrary to departmental policy is discriminatory harassment. That would require it to rise to the level of a hostile or abusive work environment when the harassment is severe or pervasive. The investigation determined Hupp’s actions were not severe or pervasive. It also determined that the severity of the comments didn’t constitute a violation of the sexual harassment/discrimination policy.

However,the investigation found Hupp engaged in misconduct that was contrary to the Marietta Police Department’s Discriminatory Harassment Policy 313. It was also concluded that the misconduct didn’t rise to the level of discriminatory harassment. This means the sergeant’s complaint was partially substantiated (as it pertained to misconduct), and partially unsubstantiated (as it pertained to discriminatory harassment).

As a result, Hupp elected to end his career with the department and retire. Acting Police Chief Aaron Nedeff was promoted to be the new Police Chief. The City of Marietta is going to be naming an acting police captain to replace Nedeff, and they are going to create a lieutenant position. The city is also going to create a Community Advisory Committee to serve as a liaison to the Administration in an effort to improve Marietta.

Have a news tip or suggestion on how I can improve Marietta Patch? Maybe you're interested in having your business become one of our latest sponsors? Email any and all inquiries to me at christopher.schmitt@patch.com.