Dismissal of Denkin Overturned by Judge

An administrative law judge has overturned the dismissal of Marty Denkin, former state boxing official who was fired 2 1/2 years ago amid charges that he had accepted bribes from boxing managers and promoters.

Denkin was the California Athletic Commission’s assistant executive officer in charge of the Los Angeles office when he was fired from the $40,000-a-year job. He appealed and was given a four-day hearing by the State Personnel Board last January before Judge Byron Berry.

In a 14-page ruling released Tuesday in Sacramento, Berry agreed with Denkin’s contention that the promoters, managers and matchmakers who testified that Denkin had accepted cash and jewelry from them had conspired to have him fired. Berry directed there be an additional hearing if the parties can’t get together on back pay, if any, due Denkin under state law.

Denkin was dismissed June 14, 1989, by the California Department of Consumer Affairs. The director of the department at the time, Michael A. Kelley, cited a Consumer Affairs investigation which, he said, showed that Denkin had accepted jewelry and cash from boxing people in exchange for regulatory favors.

Denkin’s appeals hearing was conducted last Jan. 22-25 in Los Angeles.

Testifying against Denkin were retired matchmaker Ernesto Fuentes, managers Miguel Jara and Ricardo Maldonado, promoter Rogelio Robles, matchmaker Obdulio Munoz and commission staff member Carlos Lopez. All said under oath that they had either given Denkin cash or jewelry, or had seen him accept it or that he had violated state boxing rules.

Lopez testified that Denkin had conducted a rigged weigh-in before a 1988 fight at the Forum. Robles testified that he had given Denkin $2,000 for favors.

Denkin denied ever accepting cash or jewelry and said that all who were testifying against him had axes to grind, that he had disciplined all of them.

He called them “the lowest people we have to deal with in boxing.” He said he had once fined Maldonado $1,000 and suspended his license. He said he had fined Robles numerous times.

Denkin and his attorney, Jerome Mandel, repeated often during the hearing that those testifying against Denkin were conspiring to have him fired.

Said Berry in his ruling:

“There was strong and credible evidence to show that the appellant’s accusers had serious grudges against him because of his enforcement policies and because of the disciplinary actions taken by the appellant against them.”

Berry also noted that several of Denkin’s accusers had worked together in boxing, and that Robles and Maldonado had been fined by Denkin.

“The allegations of dishonesty and failure of good behavior . . . has not been established by the evidence,” Berry wrote. “The evidence points to a conspiracy by the appellant’s accusers to set him up and get him fired from his position.”

Denkin was surprised when a reporter told him of the judgment.

“I’m in a state of shock,” he said Wednesday. “I don’t know what to say.

“I don’t know what I’ll do about going back to the commission. I’ll have to talk to my wife, my attorney and my boss, Carl Dame. When you’re in the same business 40 years and you lose your reputation and your job for something you didn’t do, and then you have to look at living the rest of your life with that . . . well, this is a great day for me.”

Since his firing, Denkin has been the general manager of the Dame Boxing Club of Los Angeles.

Indications Wednesday were that Denkin won’t be able to reclaim his old job immediately; that the Department of Consumer Affairs, which oversees the Athletic Commission, would petition the State Personnel Board for a re-hearing.

Walter Vaughn, assistant executive officer of the State Personnel Board, said that Consumer Affairs has 30 days to file for one.

“The state is not obligated to put (Denkin) back on the payroll until the final decision comes on a re-hearing,” Vaughn said.

“A number of things can happen. The Board can deny a petition for a re-hearing, or it can grant a re-hearing. A re-hearing could be held to cover a limited number of issues in the case, or it could cover the entire case. And it could be sent back to the same administrative law judge or to another judge.”

“I would imagine we would appeal it,” Lance Barnett, chief deputy director of the Department of Consumer Affairs, said. “People around here feel very strongly about this case. People are very unhappy.”