ShareThis Page

Pittsburgh police officer will stay in zone despite threat against supervisor that was videotaped

| Friday, March 1, 2013, 11:51 p.m.

A Pittsburgh police sergeant whose threat to beat up a superior was captured on camera will return to his post over the protests of his commander.

“I'm just flabbergasted at what's happened with this one,” Zone 3 Cmdr. Catherine McNeilly said.

She said Sgt. Stephen Matakovich was backing up a patrol officer on a traffic stop at Route 51 and Warrington Avenue sometime after 2 a.m. Jan. 12 when he began complaining to the officer about Lt. Michael Hajduk, a supervisor in an adjoining zone. The complaints eventually escalated to threats against Hajduk.

The in-car camera captured the conversation and when Hajduk learned of it, he asked that Matakovich be transferred to another zone, McNeilly said. She said Matakovich, who works in her station in Allentown, had posted a threat against Hajduk on a Fraternal Order of Police online message board.

Hajduk declined to comment. Matakovich declined to comment through FOP Fort Pitt Lodge No. 1.

McNeilly recommended that Matakovich be demoted. Then-Chief Nate Harper recommended suspension and transferred Matakovich to Zone 5 in Highland Park. Matakovich appealed to Public Safety Director Michael Huss.

Huss reprimanded Matakovich and will allow him to return to Zone 3.

“I made a decision and I stand behind it,” Huss said Friday. “The FOP was a part of it.”

FOP President Michael LaPorte said transferring Matakovich as punishment violates the union's contract. The appeal to Huss followed protocol, he said.

“She's not satisfied with following orders,” LaPorte said of McNeilly. “It was done 100-percent by the book.”

McNeilly said there's been a “breakdown in accountability.”

“How do you manage them when you have no say in controlling something of this magnitude?” she said.

Margaret Harding is a staff writer for Trib Total Media. She can be reached at 412-380-8519 or

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.