Rosen v. Saratoga Springs City, 288 P.3d 606

Rosen, a Saratoga Springs police corporal, was demoted to top step officer after a pants-dropping incident at the department.
Internal affairs opened; Sergeant Cole instructed Rosen to have only professional contact with Clerk until the investigation concluded.
Rosen sent a circus ticket to Clerk and entered her in a River Dance giveaway, actions Rosen argues were not prohibited by the orders.
Chief Hicken issued a verbal reprimand and later ordered professional contact only; subsequent incidents prompted further investigation.
Board of the City Employee Appeals upheld the demotion; the court vacates and remands for more precise findings on material issues.
Key issues include substantial evidence, proportionality/consistency of discipline, admissibility of missing recording, and pre-hearing board conduct.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was there substantial evidence Rosen violated orders?	Rosen asserts no explicit order to restrict all contact beyond professional; he complied.	Board found a professional-contact order was given on Jan 19 and was violated by ticket and giveaway.	Yes; substantial evidence supports the professional-contact order.
Did the Board rely on incorrect findings about the number of orders?	Board implied multiple orders restricting contact beyond professional; actual record shows two orders.	Board credibility resolves conflicts; findings support conduct constituting insubordination.	Findings were inconsistent; vacate and remand for correct findings on orders.
Did the Board adequately address proportionality and consistency?	Board failed to consider disciplinary history and consistency with other cases.	Board's proportionality finding was supported by evidence; no explicit consistency ruling.	Remand for explicit consistency findings; proportionality supported, but not clearly articulated.
Was the adverse-inference denial error or within discretion?	City's failure to preserve recording warrants adverse inference against City.	Existing testimony suffices; adverse inference not required; best-evidence rule not triggered here.	No abuse of discretion; adverse inference not required.

Lucas v. Murray City Civil Serv. Comm’n, 949 P.2d 746 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (substantial evidence and findings must be adequate for review)
Roods v. Roods, 645 P.2d 640 (Utah 1982) (best evidence rule not applicable to independent witness testimony)
Adams v. Board of Review of the Indus. Comm’n, 821 P.2d 1 (Utah Ct. App. 1991) (remand for adequate findings when agency lacks factual articulation)
Salt Lake City Corp. v. Salt Lake City Civil Serv. Comm’n, 908 P.2d 871 (Utah Ct. App. 1995) (consistency and proportionality considerations in agency decisions)
Harmon v. Ogden City Civil Serv. Comm’n, 171 P.3d 474 (Utah Ct. App. 2007) (abuse of discretion review standard for agency actions)