Some officers welcomed the changes immediately. Others complained privately that the new chief was making it impossible to do their jobs without filling out endless forms. Jordan listened to those concerns, too, because he knew paperwork could become a substitute for good judgment as easily as a poor excuse for avoiding it. He worked with Ortega and Lorraine to reduce duplicate reports, make complaint tracking simpler, and give officers clearer guidance on when a situation required intervention rather than an arrest.
He also introduced a requirement that officers report unreasonable uses of force by colleagues, with a process for bypassing a supervisor if the supervisor was involved. The policy was not complicated. It said that a uniform did not excuse conduct that would be unacceptable without one, and that an officer's responsibility to protect the public did not stop when the person causing harm was another officer. At the training session, Jordan asked Avery to sit with the rest of the patrol staff instead of placing him on display as an example.
Avery had been temporarily reassigned to administrative duties while the review examined his part in the driveway incident. He had not been cleared simply because he later told the truth, and Jordan made no attempt to arrange an easier outcome for him. What Avery had done to Jordan mattered, but so did what he had done afterward. The department would have to decide whether he could be trusted to return to patrol, and that decision would depend on independent findings, further training, and the behavior he demonstrated over time.
Near the end of the ten weeks, the outside investigators completed their report. Jordan received only the portions he was entitled to as the complainant, and the city manager handled the employment findings with independent counsel. The report concluded that Voss had no adequate basis to use force against a cooperative homeowner over the reported runoff, that the handcuffing was unjustified under the circumstances, and that his account of the incident omitted significant details. It also found that he had treated Karen's unsupported assumptions as a reason to question Jordan about ownership of a vehicle without first establishing facts that supported the suspicion.
Avery's conduct was addressed separately. He had assisted in the restraint without verifying a lawful basis, failed to intervene at the moment force was used, and only afterward raised his concerns. His subsequent cooperation and accurate testimony were noted, but neither erased the initial failure. The recommendation was for a substantial suspension, additional training, and monitored return to duty if he met the required standards.
The investigators examined the prior complaints as well. Several were too old or inadequately documented to support individual disciplinary findings, which frustrated the residents who had carried them for years. Others contained enough evidence to establish that management had failed to follow its own procedures. Most importantly, the report identified a pattern of informal preferential treatment in which calls from certain residents received quick and forceful responses while complaints about those responses were minimized or closed without proper review.
Voss appealed the employment findings and requested a hearing. It was his right to do so, and Jordan insisted that the city honor the process without either favor or unnecessary delay. The hearing was conducted by an independent panel under the town's personnel rules, with Voss represented by counsel and permitted to challenge the evidence. Jordan attended only when called as a witness, and his testimony was deliberately plain.