Northern Piper, given that he has had, as you have detailed, at least three opportunities to disabuse others of what you think is an incorrect assumption as to his meaning, and given that he has chosen not to do so, it may be the case that the person putting words into his mouth, so to speak, is you.
“Due process” has no application to the termination of civil service jobs.
Where does “innocent until proven guility” come from? Who accused him of a crime? What does “fair trial” mean, and where does the Constitution say people can’t be fired from civil service jobs without a trial. You say it doesn’t have to mean “jury trial,” but in the context of the other criminal justice language used in that post, that’s the obvious implication.
No, Hentor, Northern Piper is correct and you are wrong. If you were to read what I said, you’d see that I wrote that Powell is entitled to a hearing. Is this clear enough to disabuse you of whatever incorrect assumptions you have made?
On this you are simply wrong. There are established due process procedures for terminating civil service jobs.
A trial on what charges? Who accused him of a crime?
Due process applies to people who are accused by the state of having commited a crime, not to whether someone can be fired from a job.
There is an established procedure, but it’s not “due process” as defined in the Constitution.
I did suggest to you that you were cluttering the point you were trying to make with the language you were using. It should have been a fairly simple matter to say, “I’m not calling for a jury trial.” For some reason, you chose not to do that.
The need to clarify yourself is particulary true when you are also dragging in other unrelated concepts like eminent domain into the discussion, as you rightly corrected me that you had actually done.
Finally, when someone suggests a fair trial to determine guilt, I have to say that the first thing that comes to my mind is not a hearing with an arbitrator to determine whether the department had just cause to let this guy go. When you repeatedly tacitly agree about your intent, you can hardly accuse others of making a strawman argument.
Do you have a cite to support your argument that the constitutional requirement for due process is limited to criminal proceedings? or that it doesn’t apply to the process to remove a public employee from office?
The folks over at Findlaw don’t seem to agree with either of your propositions. To start with, check out the table of contents for their annotation on the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It’s way too long to quote here, but you’ll see that the due process clause applies to an extremely wide variety of topics, not just to the criminal law. A large swath of the civil law is potentially subject to constitutional requirements of due process, when the government is involved. Exactly what the due process clause requires in a particular context will vary a great deal, but there’s little doubt that it is not restricted to criminal matters.
In another part of the Findlaw Annotation, there’s some detail given about the application of the Due Process clause to civil matters:
(my underlining)
A key part of the analysis is that it is the Government that is taking legal steps against an individual. That’s what triggers the due process clause, not whether it is a criminal process. Granted, the constitutional protections of the due process clause are likely at their highest in criminal matters, where the state is going after the liberty and perhaps the life of the individual, but that’s not the same as saying the Due Process clause only applies in criminal matters.
The Findlaw annotation goes on to discuss cases where the Due Process clause has applied to the termination of welfare payments, to garnishment of wages and other creditors’ enforcement mechanisms under state law, and, of particular relevance here, to the termination of public employees:
(My bolding and underlining.)
So, it looks from these annotations that because he’s a police officer, which is a form of public employment, he does have due process rights under the Constitution when the state, in the form of the municipal police force, is looking to discipline him and possibly terminate him. Notice of the complaint, and an opportunity to respond, appear to be constitutionally required - which is exactly the process that the police chief in this case appeared to be following, prior to the officer’s resignation.
Due process is the general principle. It has a number of different aspects. If the government is trying to take away your job or seize your property or put you in prison, you’re entitled to some form of due process. Some people were essentially saying “Screw all that due process stuff. When the case is clear, the government should just go ahead and act.” I disagree and I was explaining why due process is important and why it’s bad to allow the government to act without it. And to make the point clear, I gave examples of where due process was good and a lack of due process was bad.
The problem with this is that some people, either willfully or due to confusion, cannot follow an argument by analogy. They get bogged down in the literal and can’t make the leap to metaphor. If back in 1991, I had said “It’s important to stand up to Iraq. This is like 1939.” then some literalist would argue “Wait a second. You’re claiming Saddam is going to invade Poland? No way. Iraq doesn’t have the military capability.” And I’d explain, “No, I’m explaining it’s like 1939.” and the literalist would continue “Exactly, Hitler didn’t invade Kuwait in 1939 so you must be talking about Poland. I insist you provide a cite that Iraq is planning on invading Poland or retract that claim.”
Now at this point, the people reading this post are divided into two groups. One group is thinking, “Yes, that’s pretty much the same situation we have here.” And the other group is thinking “Why is Little Nemo talking about Iraq and Poland? We were talking about some cop in Texas. I’m confused and it must be his fault.”
If you’re in this second group, sorry for the confusion but there’s nothing I can really do to help you.
Due process applies if the state wants to deprive a citizen of “life, liberty or property.” Firing somebody deprives them of none of those things. Due process has no application to this whatsoever. Neither does “innocent until proven guilty.” Neither does a “fair trial.”
The courts have generally found that loss of a job due to government action is a liberty interest and is covered under due process.
Well, that’s one way to look at it.
Matthew S. Buttacavoli, Must Post-Termination Procedural Due Process Include A Full, Trial-Like Evidentiary Hearing? A Critique Of Townsel V. San Diego Metropolitan Transit Development Board, 36 San Diego L. Rev. 1109 (1999).
Texas Judiciary Online - HTML Opinion
But
http://www.dallascityhall.com/civil_service/civil_service_rules6.html (Emphasis added).
Is that clear? 
And for those looking for a union contract, give up: