RECEIVED : AUG 13 2010 \” Police Department City Manager's Office wa City of Greensboro GREENSBORO August 13, 2010 TO: City Manager, Rashad Young FROM: Captain C.E. Cherry, Commanding Officer, Patrol Bureau, Eastern Division SUBJECT: Continued Discriminatory, Retaliatory, Harassing, Unfair dating Investigations and Continued Hostile Work Environment Under The Direction and Orchestration Of Interim Chief Dwight Crotts Mr. Young, on or about May 20, 2010, Officer R. Reyes submitted a grievance continuation ‘memo to you. On June 23, 2010, you responded to Officer Reyes. Mr. Young, your response memo, to Officer Reyes is in italics and stated, “Thank you for your May 17, 2010 memorandum. You submitted to me in appeal of Assistant City Manager Michael Speeding. I have attached a copy of the employee complaint resolution policy. This policy authorizes me to designate a person (o serve as a final decision maker for employee complaints. I designated Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling to serve in this capacity for the department of Police/Fire/Human Resources/Guilford Metro 911. Therefore Mr. Speedling’s disposition of your employee complaint is final. Please be advised that there are no additional administrative appeals available, End of Response. It should be noted that Mr. Speedling responded to Officer Reyes’ grievance on May 10, 2010. On June 1, 2010, Officer Reyes received a complaint investigation findings response memo, from Captain Jane Allen, of the Professional Standards Division. This memo was a response to. an investigation of Sergeant A.J. Barwick, relating to Officer Reyes’ grievance complaints. ‘On or about August 9, 2010, Officer R. Reyes was placed on suspension without pay with a recommendation of termination. Officer Reyes allegedly committed violations of Truthfulness and Malicious Gossip. These charges are related to the June 17, 2010 e-mail I sent to the Greensboro Police Eastern Division. On August 10, 2010 Officer Reyes entered the Professional Standards Division to retrieve the case file relating to aforementioned investigation. SergeantMr. Young, please explain the following: * How can Professional Standards “hold” an investigation on Officer Reyes after Officer Reyes has been recommended for termination? The investigation/allegation began prior to Officer Reyes being recommended for termination. © Should Officer Reyes successfully complete the appeal process of his recommended termination, Officer Reyes could face the same dilemma again, because Professional Standards is “holding” an investigation. Please explain how this is fair to Officer Reyes. © Why would Professional Standards not complete all investigations relating to Officer Reyes prior to recommending Officer Reyes for termination? Why was this investigation not completed between June 23, 2010 and August 9, 2010? On May 10, 2010, Mr. Speeding, the final decision maker, according to you Mr. Young, responded to Officer Reyes’ grievance. What has occurred in Officer Reyes’ grievance between May 10, 2010 and August 8, 2010 that needs investigating? © Why was Officer Reyes not served with a notification of investigation memo, so that Officer Reyes would know the allegations against him and could prepare a defense? © Remember, Mr. Speeding stated that the results of an officer’s investigation was due to “discrimination or incompetence” by Professional Standards (Internal Affairs). Any officer or citizen investigated by the officers tenured during the time Mr. Speedling made his assessment have legitimate claims to have their cases re-invesitgated. Mr. Young, please explain how Interim Chief Crotts’ allowance and direction to “hold” the investigation on Officer Reyes is not corrupted, unfair, discriminatory, intimidating and a retaliatory action on the part of Interim Chief Crotts. Explain how this is not a continued hostile work environment. Mr. Young, on or about August 4, 2010, Officer J.L. Pryor was suspended without pay and recommended for termination. Similar to the scenario relating to Officer Reyes, Officer Pryor was also informed that he too would face the results of an incomplete administrative investigation, should he successfully complete the appeal process. Captain Allen stated that Officer Pryor had an additional investigation pending, but it has been suspended. Officer Pryor asked what the investigation was in reference to, Captain Allen stated it was in reference to Former Chief Bellamy being on the EEOC lawsuit. Again Mr. Young, please explain: ‘* How can Professional Standards “hold” an investigation Officer Pryor after Officer Pryor has been recommended for termination? The investigation/allegation began prior to Officer Pryor being recommended for termination. ‘* Should Officer Pryor successfully complete the appeal process of his recommended termination, Officer Pryor could face the same dilemma again, because Professional Standards is “holding” an investigation, Please explain how this is fair to Officer Pryor. * Why would Professional Standards not complete all investigations relating to Officer Pryor, prior to recommending Officer Pryor for termination? 2© Why was this investigation not completed between June 23, 2010 (When you Mr. Young responded to Officer Pryor through memo) and August 4, 2010, when Officer Pryor was suspended? © Why didn’t you alert Officer Pryor to the pending investigation when you conferenced with Officer Pryor regarding his grievance, in your officer on or about July 27, 2010? ‘* On May 10, 2010, Mr. Speedling, the final decision maker, according to you Mr. Young, responded to Officer Pryor’s grievance? © Why was Officer Pryor not served with a notification of investigation memo, so that Officer Pryor would know the allegations against him and could prepare a defense? © Remember, Mr. Speedling stated that the results of an investigation conducted on Officer Pryor was due to “discrimination or incompetence” by Professional Standards (Internal Affairs). Any officer or citizen investigated by the officers tenured during the time Mr. Speeding made his assessment have legitimate claims to have their cases re- investigated. In fact, we both understand that a re-investigation of these eases must occur. ‘* Remember, after making this assessment that Officer Pryor was victimized by Professional Standards, Mr. Speedling with no corrective action or changes in Professional Standards, sends the investigation back to Professional Standards to re- victimize Officer Pryor. Professional Standards obliges Mr. Speedling, and now Officer Pryor is suspended and recommended for termination, Mr. Young, please explain how Interim Chief Crotts’ allowance and direction to “hold” the investigation on Officer Pryor is not corrupted, unfair, discriminatory, intimidating and a retaliatory action on the part of Interim Chief Crotts. Explain how this is not a continued hostile work environment. Mr. Young on June 24, 2010, Sergeant AT. McHenry served me with a notification of administrative investigation. The notification, in italics, reads: According to your March 30, 2010 Grievance regarding Unfair Discriminatory Retaliatory Documenting of Performance Behaviors to Captain B.A. Cheek, you stated on page 2, paragraph 1: “In a past meeting of Commanders only, one Commander stated that he did not trust individuals involved in the indiscreetly publicized lawsuit, Assistant Chief Crotts stated he agreed with the Commander and felt the same. This meeting was facilitated by Terri Wallace, who was at the time an Interim Manager in the City of Greensboro’s Human Resources Department. "This information came from a series of meetings for which you signed a confidentiality agreement agreeing not to share ‘any content outside of this group. This information not only appeared in your grievance, but also in Officer Reyes’ grievance filed ‘on May 20, 2010 and in a letter constructed by the Reverend Brown and Reverend Johnson to the Greensboro City Council on May 30, 2010. An investigation has been initiated to determine if your actions violated Departmental Directive 41.5.1: General Conduct, Upon completion of this administrative investigation, you will be notified of the findings. End of Sergeant McHenry’s Notification Memo.