The transcript documents a special meeting of the City of Crossville Personnel Board, held as an advisory hearing to review the appeals of Lt. Andrew King and Sgt. Samantha Seay spoke out against their demotions by the city manager. The demotions stemmed from an internal affairs investigation revealing that, over a roughly six-week period in October and November 2025, Lt. King (then a lieutenant) visited Sgt. Seay’s home—located just outside city limits but surrounded by the city—on at least 14 occasions while on duty, staying for durations ranging from a few minutes to over an hour, totaling more than 13 hours.

These visits were tracked via AVL (automatic vehicle location) data from patrol vehicles, supported by pay records showing they were compensated during those times.

The city’s attorney and witnesses, including Police Chief Jesse Brooks and City Manager Valerie Hale (testifying later), argued that the conduct violated multiple department policies and general orders. Key violations cited included conducting private business while on duty, unauthorized absence from duty or jurisdiction without permission, wrongful use of department equipment (the patrol vehicle), failure to report violations, and actions reflecting poorly on the department.

The chief emphasized that supervisors must dedicate paid time to official duties, maintain leadership integrity, and set examples; he described the behavior as eroding morale, trust, and discipline through rumors and the appearance of impropriety, even absent a romantic relationship. He had recommended termination, but the city manager opted for demotion to officer rank, three-day suspensions, and six-month probation, viewing it as lenient given the facts.

Lt. King and Sgt. Seay defended themselves in opening statements and cross-examination. They described themselves as close friends (not romantically involved) and asserted that Lt. King visited primarily to provide security and reassurance for Sgt. Seay, who felt unsafe due to a prior expired order of protection against her child’s father and ongoing custody concerns, though no recent threats or contacts from him were documented.

They claimed many visits were brief, occurred near shift ends or off-duty periods (e.g., after ballgame security details), or involved Lt. King staying in the driveway while completing paperwork or providing a visible deterrent presence. Both insisted there was no dereliction of duty: Lt. King remained responsive to radio calls, dispatch, and subordinates, never refused service, and could return to the city quickly (within about a minute).

Chief Brooks expressed deep personal disappointment, having promoted and trusted both officers, but maintained that the actions breached policy regardless of intent or past performance. The city manager confirmed reviewing all evidence (AVL data, interviews, statements) and stressed the need for leadership, structure, and discipline across all city employees, deeming on-duty personal visits inappropriate.

After testimony, cross-examination, and board questions, the Personnel Board deliberated publicly. Members expressed appreciation for the officers’ prior service but emphasized higher expectations for leaders (lieutenant and sergeant ranks), the importance of appearance and integrity in policing, and the risk of setting poor precedents if such conduct were tolerated.

Most viewed the city manager’s discipline as lenient (short of the chief’s termination recommendation) and voted to uphold the demotions, probation, and suspensions, citing the need to maintain department standards, morale, and public trust. The board’s recommendation was advisory; the city manager affirmed the original decision.

The officers were advised of their right to seek judicial review in chancery court within 60 days via a petition for certiorari, limited to determining if the action was illegal, arbitrary, fraudulent, or unsupported by material evidence. The meeting then adjourned.