JANDURA v. Town of Schererville, 937 N.E.2d 814

Jandura, off-duty, drove a take-home patrol car to the station after a non-breathing child call and failed to radio in, despite being near the residence; the child died.
On June 5, 2007, the Department Chief filed formal disciplinary charges alleging neglect of duty and conduct unbecoming an officer.
Jandura sought to disqualify three Board members due to his political involvement with Myszak against an incumbent backed by those members and the Board's attorney.
Board ultimately suspended Jandura for ninety days (not terminated) after considering the charges.
Jandura filed a four-count complaint in September 2007; the trial court resolved counts one and two in November 2009 and granted summary judgment on counts three and four in April 2010.
On appeal, Jandura challenges the Board’s impartiality and whether political considerations improperly influenced the discipline.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the discipline was improperly motivated by politics	Jandura argues Board bias due to commissioners' political ties to Guetzloff and his own support for Myszak.	Town asserts no substantial bias; Board acted on duty neglect and evidence, not politics; interests were remote and Board impartial.	No reversible bias; discipline upheld; no improper political consideration shown.
Whether Board impartiality was compromised by political affiliations	Three commissioners supported Guetzloff; Myszak-backed actions present potential bias.	Remote, insubstantial interest; independent Board exists to remove politics from discipline.	Insufficient showing of actual bias; no need to recuse.
Whether the Board improperly considered political views in its decision	Board violated Indiana Code by considering political affiliation in its decision.	No direct evidence of political considerations affecting the outcome; facts show rule violations justify discipline.	No evidence that politics influenced the outcome; decision supported by substantial evidence and rule violations.

Fornelli v. City of Knox, 902 N.E.2d 889 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (due-process administrative hearing requires fair hearing before impartial body)
Sullivan v. City of Evansville, 728 N.E.2d 182 (Ind.Ct.App.2000) (administrative boards presumed unbiased absent demonstrated bias)
Peterson v. Borst, 784 N.E.2d 934 (Ind.2003) (appointing authority involvement does not automatically require recusal)
City of Evansville v. Conley, 661 N.E.2d 570 (Ind.Ct.App.1996) (burden on proving political motive in discipline; no direct evidence here)
Rynerson v. City of Franklin, 669 N.E.2d 964 (Ind.1996) (scope of judicial review in police disciplinary actions; substantial evidence standard)
Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., Inc., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (U.S. 2009) (recusal due process limits when interests are remote or insubstantial)