Former Pleasant Hills police chief Floyd Nevling will find out this summer if he is eligible for a civil service hearing.

After Pleasant Hills Council terminated him in July 2006, Nevling filed for and was denied a civil service hearing. The former chief challenged the ruling, and the result of proceedings held last week in county court will determine if a hearing will be granted.

Nevling is seeking back pay and full reinstatement with the department.

During proceedings in front of Common Pleas Judge Eugene Scanlon, Scott Lautner, Pleasant Hills civil service commission representative, said Nevling reviewed and approved all the commission's changes to the borough's civil service rules, which were made in 2001.

Changes included removing the phrase "except chief of police" from several sections of the rules. But the phrase remained in a section that denies a hearing for the position of chief, making Nevling exempt from a civil service hearing.

"Section 102 pertains to the entire applicability of the rules," Lautner said.

Nevling said it was a mistake, because the civil service commission did not have a solicitor in 2001 when the changes were made. During that time, borough solicitor Fred Jug was the acting civil service solicitor.

The Civil Service Commission denied Nevling's request for a hearing in August, claiming the commission's rules explicitly states such hearings do not apply to the position of police chief.

"This is a simple issue," Lautner said. "The rules don't provide coverage for the chief, which is what we have said since day one.

"The commission had no choice but to make the ruling made, but if the judge calls for us to have a hearing, we will have one."

Changes to the Pleasant Hills Civil Service Commission rules in 2000 could also be behind the commission's denial of a hearing for Nevling. A panel of community members makes up the civil service commission, which determines if a termination or disciplinary actions within the police department are justified. In Pleasant Hills, the commission has three members.

In 2006, Attorney Paul Krepps conducted a study of the police department to identify troubled areas. He presented Nevling with a list of several areas to update and correct.

The report's findings eventually led to Nevling's termination. But council President Robert Bootay III said Nevling's termination was a last resort.

Prior to Nevling's suspension in June 2006, Bootay said council offered him a retirement settlement, because Nevling would not be eligible for the department's pension plan.

All officers are required to serve the borough 25 years before they are eligible for a pension. Nevling served 15 years. However, retirement was an option he and council had discussed for "several years," Nevling said during the hearing.

Bootay, who took the stand last week, said council went to the Teamsters Local 205 bargaining unit to create a retirement benefit for Nevling.

"The union wasn't thrilled with the settlement, since it would come from the pension fund, but they were willing to work with us," Bootay said.

Bootay, who said his family and the Nevlings were friends, called Nevling before his suspension to warn him of further consequences if he didn't accept the settlement.

The borough's settlement provided a pension of $1,400 per month, without benefits, if he would agree to several terms, Nevling said. It would require Nevling to agree not to run for any elected office, and no member of the Nevling family could sue the borough.

Nevling said the settlement also required him to not publicly criticize any borough official or proceedings in Pleasant Hills. The intention was to sever all ties between Nevling and the police department, Nevling said, but he denied the settlement, believing it violated his civil rights.

"They wanted me to surrender basic rights given to me as an American," Nevling said.

Council terminated Nevling at a special meeting at the end of July, where Jug explained there were "a handful of charges" against him. Citing borough code, Jug said that Nevling was in "neglect of duty" because of his performance and levying disciplinary actions.

According to Nevling, all of the charges brought against him were the result of actions committed by other borough employees that he could not deal with because no policies or procedures were established handle the situations.

Nevling filed claims against the borough claiming his termination was "based on age and retaliation" with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

Nevling, 72, served as chief since 1992, and served more than 25 years with the Allegheny County Police Department.

Ron Koerner, Nevling's attorney, declined to comment on the proceedings.

After hearing testimony, Scanlon said he would return a ruling in June.

"This is typical for legal cases, I knew it would drag on," Nevling said. "But the whole thing is taking so long, and it is starting to take a toll on me and my wife.

"I just want to get all the facts out and clear. We're hoping for a resolution."