To: City Council Members From: Lt, Estes Date: October 13, RE: Hostile Work 2009 nvironment Complaint This matter was presented to Mayor Ward on September 16, 2009. ‘The Mayor promptly turned the maiter over to Corporation Counsel for review and due diligence. Although | demanded an investigation into this matter. it appears it is destined to languish on the desk of Corporation Counsel which does not serve the best interest of the citizens of Bristol or members of the police departmentExecutive Summary In February 2009, Officer Chris Michaud complained to Chief DiVenere that a number of staff officers, including me, were “double-dipping” (working for an outside contractor on a private duty assignment while simultaneously being paid by the city). Officer Michaud threatened to go to the media with this allegation if the Chief failed to take appropriate action. The Chief conducted a limited investigation into this matter, which included an audit of all time sheets, time cards, and schedules, and found that there was no evidence to support Michaud’s claims. The Chief informed Michaud of his findings during a telephone conversation in March 2009. In April 2009, this matter was brought up at a staff meeting that was attended by all police licutenamts, captains, and the Chief, While discussing this issue. the Chief defended Michaud’s actions and referred to him as a “loyal employee and friend.” The Chief also told all those in attendance that Michaud had threatened to go to the press with his complaint if he (the Chief) failed to act on this complaint. In July 2009, Don Stacom from the Hartford Courant showed up at the front desk of the police department with an FOI request for all time eards, schedules, detail slips, worksheets, disciplinary notices, internal affairs files, and correspondence for Lt, Donn Watson and me for the months of February, March, and April of 2009. Stacom stated that he was looking into a complaint of “double-dipping.” Lt, Watson and I requested an internal investigation be initiated to find the party responsible for taking this matter to the press, especially since an internal audit had already cleared us of any wrong-doing, Both Lt.Watson and I believed there was ample reason to suspect Officer Michaud was responsible for going to the media in violation of our General Orders. The Chief initially denied the request, but was later persuaded to open the investigation. L1. Grimaldi began the investigation on 8/13/09, but on the same day he was ordered to suspend the investigation by Captain McIntyre per the Chief. On 08/14/09, Captain Melntyre visited Lt. Grimaldi and told him that he could restart the investigation, but he ‘was not to interview a key witness. In this second instance, Captain McIntyre told Lt.Grimaldi that these orders were from the Chief and the Personnel Director. Lt Grimaldi told the Captain that this was not a lawful order, and that he was obligated to follow up on all viable leads to find the truth of the matter, Lt. Grimaldi continued his investigation which clearly pointed to Officer Michaud as the party likely to have gone to the media. Before Lt. Grimaldi was able to complete the investigation, however, the Chief closed it without any official explanation other than to say he took this action after consulting with the Personnel Director. ‘The Chief" actions are in direct conflict with the department's general order on Internal Investigations. After being informed that the internal investigation was closed, I began my own investigation into this matter. | filed an FOI request for all documents, recordings, and notes related to this investigation, The Chief initially withheld some of these documentsbut told me had provided everything, After learning that these other documents existed, 1 was able to obtain them from the Chief's fi In addition, | spoke with the key witness that Lt. Grimaldi had been ordered not to speak with, My investigation clearly indicates that had this matter been pursued to its logical conclusion, Officer Michaud would have been found in violation of our Code of Conduct ues and Ethical Implications This matter ra ‘The allegations made by Officer Chris Michaud, if true, would amount to minal charges of Deirauding a Public Community (a felony) The Chief and Officer Chris Michaud have a special relationship which is clear in their phone conversation, The Chief refers to Chris as “partner” and shares with him privileged information regarding the outcome of his “investigation.” ‘The Chief also solicits new complaints from Officer Michaud, and discusses possible policy changes with him. In the April staff meeting, the Chief refers to Chris as a “friend.” After being served with my FOI request, the Chief withheld pertinent information covered in the request and then claimed in an e-mail to me that he had given me all the documentation that he had in his possession. ‘These documents were later found in the Chief's |.A. file, In another e-mail, the Chief stated that the I.A. was initially suspended and then closed after consulting with the Personnel Director. ‘This conflicts with his statement to Lt. Watson that the 1.A. was closed after consul with Lt, Grimaldi and Captain Osanitsch, Ina follow-up e-mail, the Chief states that he alone suspended and closed the LA, The General Order on Internal Investigations clearly states that “It is the responsibility of the investigator to pursue every legitimate course of action to determine the facts related to each complaint, remain objective at all times, and present a complete factual report to the Chief of Police.” The Chief violated this order by interfering with the investigation on several occasions. He instructed Captain McIntyre to stop the investigation on 8/13. On 8/14 the Chief, along with the Personnel Director, instructed Captain MeIntyre to tell Lt. Grimaldi to continue the investigation but not to contact a key witness, Cindy Weaver. Finally, on or about 8/27, the Chief terminated the investigation despite the fact that there were still viable leads to pursue and evidence to collect. No official explanation has ever been given for stopping the investigation, and there is nothing in the General Order on Internal Investigations giving the Chief the authority to stop an investigation once it has commenced. In fact, the order states that “The Chief of Police shal! ensure that all compl received are processed and/or investigated properly” es serious ethical concems and demands a thorough investigation by an impartial agency.To: Mayor Art Ward From: Et. Joel Estes Date: 09/13/09 RE: Hostile Work Environment Involving Police Chief. Director Diane Ferguson ohn Divenere and Personnel Complaint Synops Since February 2009, Chief Divenere has engaged in a pattern of deception and egregious ethical violations that has created a hostile work environment for me. In some instances he acted afier consulting with the Personnel Director and receiving her approval. Iam therefore demanding a full investigation into the Chief's actions by an outside ageney (perhaps the Connecticut State Police) along with the re-opening of an internal affairs complaint made by Lt. Watson and me. This investigation, 1.A. # 081309-14, should also be investigated by an outside agency in order to prevent any further tampering by the Chiet 081309-14 Detail Background In March 2009, I heard a rumor that 1, along with a number of other staff officers, had been accused of double-dipping (working for an outside contractor on a private duty detail while simultaneously being paid by the City of Bristol). I then spoke to Captain Osanitsch regarding this matter, and he confirmed that such a complaint had been received from an anonymous source, The Captain also stated that the anonymous party had threatened to go to the press with this complaint. I stated that I would like a full investigation into the matter in order to clear my name. Captain Osanitsch replied that the Chief had initiated a limited investigation, basically an audit, which was being handled by the Head Records Clerk Becky LaMarre. Becky later informed me that her audit had cleared everyone but I never received any official notification that I was being investigated nor that I had been cleared of any wrong-doing, During a conversation with Captain Osanitsch in March 2009, | informed him of a complaint involving Officer Michaud. The dispatchers had told me on several oc that Officer Michaud would regularly pass along calls to zone ears that he should have handled, needlessly tying up ears whose time could be better utilized in other patrol endeavors. The Captain asked me to review Michaud’ calls at the front desk for proof of this. While listening to recordings from the front desk phone, I stumbled upon a conversation between the Chief and Officer Michaud from March 11, 2009, which verified that Michaud was the anonymous party who made the double-dipping complaint. The following is a transcript of that conversation:Michaud: Bristol Police. Chief: Hi Partner. I had Becky pull the, uh, sheets for Watson, Nadeau, Estes. Tim Schaffrick Andy Langlais, and Eric Ouellette for the entire month of February and March. She checked the hours that they worked on construction and here and the amount of time they took EVT to make sure it all zeroed out properly and I got a report from her that says all their hours are accounted for. So, um, Donny Watson ~ all hours accounted for, Nadeau ~ all hours accounted for, Estes, all hours accounted for, Schaltick, Andy Langlais, Eric Ouellette ~ all hours accounted for. So if they came in and they went out they took EVT time or whatever else they were supposed to do in the meantime. /f you've got something else I can certainly take a look at it but | don't know what else to do with this (emphasis added). And I didn’t just take her word for it, I said “Give it to me on paper, Becky.” I got a written report from her. She went over to the Comptrollers and pulled all the sheets and checked all the job slips and everything else for that month, Michaud: Um-hmmh, Well, like I said, we looked at it and I’m not the only one that saw it. They would punch in and then go on a road job. Chief: Yeah, but then they're putting in for EVT time for the amount of time they work a road job. Now I'm thinking about not allowing them to split their shifts, but that way it might clear up some of that stuff. If they come and they are in here for eight hours and they have a road job for two. they are putting in for two hours of EVT Michaud: Right. Chief: So they are covering their hours, Michaud: O.K. Chief: Alright? Michaud: Alright Chief: OK, Chris, thanks. That the Chief refers to Officer Michaud as “partner” suggests a special relationship between the two. The Chief then goes on to discuss his findings with Michaud, and the Chief gives specific names which is a clear breach of ethies. More disturbing, however, is that after informing Michaud that there is no basis for this complaint, the Chief makes this statement: Ifyou ve gor something else I can certainly take a look at it but I don't know what else to do with this. The Chief is clearly importuning other complaints from Michaud.In April 2009, the Chief held a staff meeting in the Tunxis facility located at the North Side Square. All command staff were present, including all lieutenants, the two captains, and the Chief. During the meeting, the “investigation” into double-dipping was brought up, The Chief defended Officer Michaud’s action, calling him a loyal employee and friend. The Chief also stated that Chris Michaud had threatened to go to the press if nothing was done about this complaint, forcing the Chief to perform the audit. Hartford Courant FOI Request ‘On July 24, 2009, Captain Osanitsch came to my office and served me with a copy of an FOI request from Don Stacom at the Hartford Courant. ‘The request demanded all time ards, detail slips. worksheets, daily schedules, disciplinary notices, internal affairs files, scheduling memos, and correspondence for Lt, Watson and me for the months of February, March, and April 2009. On the same day at approximately 0945 hours, the Chief came to my office. He asked if ‘was aware of the FO] request, and when I responded that I was he implied that Officer Linskey was the party responsible for contacting the press. He stated that “the officer who tried to take him out with the WNFR press conference at the front of the building” was trying to get him again. I disagreed with his assessment, citing Linskey’s lack of involvement with the original complaint and that the FOI request targeted only two people, Lt, Watson and me. Linskey and I have never had any “bad blood” and I knew of no problems between Lt. Watson and Linskey. The Chief then said he was going to talk to Officer Michaud who was working a private duty assignment. This caught me by surprise since Chris Michaud’s name had not come up in our conversation to this point. At approximately 1100 hours, the Chief returned to my office and said that he had discussed the matter with Michaud. The Chief went on to say that Michaud denied any involvement in the FOI request. stating that he had learned his lesson after the making the first complaint. Michaud, according to the Chief, wanted to put the whole thing behind him, Michaud did say, however, that he believed Cindy Weaver was responsible for contacting the press. Michaud claimed that he had spoken to Weaver several weeks carlier and that Weaver told him how glad she was that he had brought the matter forward, She had believed for a long time that staff personnel were abusing the system and needed to be stopped. told the Chief that I found it difficult to believe that Weaver had anything to do with this issue, since I had practically no contact with her during her tenure at the Bristol Pol Department and 1 knew of no “bad blood” between her and Lt, Watson. Furthermore, she stood to gain nothing from making such a complaint so many months after leaving the department. The Chief then told me that he did not want a harassment complaint from Chris Michaud involving me. | explained to the Chief that | had said nothing to Michaud after he made his initial complaint, and I had no intentions of saying anything to him nowRequest For Internal Affairs Investigation Lt. Watson and I discussed this matter at length and believed there was sul evidence to warrant an investigation into the matter. 1.1. Watson prepared a memo stating our position and requested the investigation, which both of us signed. The Chief initially declined our request, but after speaking further with Lt. Watson he ordered the investigation opened and assigned it to L1. Grimaldi on August 13,2009. The Internal Affairs number was 081309-14. According to Lt. Grimaldi’s notes, at 1515 hours on August 13 he received a phone call from Captain Metntyre in which the captain directed him not to do anything with this LA. until further notice. Also according to Lt. Grimaldi’s notes, on 08/14/09 he was working in Scheduling when Captain Melntyre entered the office. The captain told Lt. Grimaldi to continue with the investigation, but not to interview Cindy Weaver per Chief Divenere and Diane Ferguson, Lt Grimaldi told the captain that he would be required to speak with her if her name came up in the investigation in order to find the truth (This second note was absent from the packet [initially received from the Chief after filing my FOL request even though both notes were on the same page in the Chief's file). Lt. Grimaldi requested and received reports from both Lt. Watson and me to begin his investigation, He also requested a report from the Chief due to the Chief's conversation with Officer Michaud regarding Weaver's involvement. After receiving these reports, [1 Grimaldi contacted Cindy Weaver via telephone on 8/17/09. Weaver told Lt, Grimaldi that she had not contacted anyone at the Hartford Courant for any reason. She reported, however, that on either July 17 or July 24, she had received a text message from Chris Michaud “out of the blue.” The text message Chief had just approached Michaud at a construction site and told him that Don Stacom. from the Hartford Courant had just served an FOI request on the police department for time cards, detail slips, records, and schedules for private duty jobs. The text message went on to ask, “Was that you?” Weaver didn’t reply to the message. According to Lt. Grimaldi’s notes, when Weaver didn’t reply, Michaud called her. Weaver didn’t answer the call, so Michaud called a second time and this time she did answer, Michaud immediately questioned her about whether she went to the press with the lieutenants” double-dipping on road jobs. When Weaver replied “No.” Michaud told her “If you happen to talk to Don Stacom, tell him about the lieutenants” double-dipping. Tell him to check the time cards and detail slips.” Michaud went on to give her a list of things for Don Stacom to cheek if she happened to call him. Weaver stated that she did not and would not call Stacom. Weaver offered to supply Lt. Grimaldi with her phone -ords to verify her account of these events. Also on 8/17/09, the Chief submitted his report to Lt. Grimaldi in which he states that on March 10, 2009, Officer Michaud related some concems regarding private duty jobs. He felt that jobs were not being given out fairly and that some staff officers were “stealing” from the city by fabricating time cards and abusing EVT. He particularly named Lt Watson and me. The Chief's report goes on to say that Michaud was considering going