November 5, 2010

City Manager, Mr. Rashad Young

300 W. Washington Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27401

Reference: Complaint of Discrimination, Retaliation, Harassment and Unfair Treatment of

Citizen by City Manager Rashad Young (Rashad Young’s Response To June 22, 2010
Complaint Document) and Chief of Police Ken Miller (At Trotter Recreation Center Community
Meeting)

Dear Mr. Young:

On November 4, 2010, I received your response document to me with a reference (subject) of

“Employee Complaint Concerning Alleged Threats of Termination.” Your document is dated
November 2, 2010. Mr. Young you have been discriminatory, retaliatory, unfair and harassing in
your treatment of me, regarding the November 2, 2010 document in that:

• I was terminated by you on October 28, 2010. You constructed the response document, to
my complaint, five (5) days after you had already rejected my appeal and terminated me.
• I made the said complaints on or about June 22, 2010, as an employee of the City of
Greensboro. You did not respond to my complaint while I was an employee of the City of
Greensboro. You didn’t respond until I became a citizen (unaffiliated with the City by
employment).
• You responded to my complaint four (4) months after I made the complaint.
• You concurred with the fact that it was improper for Assistant Chief Holder to have
recommended that I take a medical retirement. This allegation was part of my appeal,
which was based upon many facts, to include Assistant Chief Holder’s ability to be fair to
me, being questioned, because Assistant Chief Holder was implicated in my grievances
and complaints. You could not have considered Assistant Chief Holder’s violation,
because your investigation was not concluded until after I was terminated.
• You did not indicate that any corrective action was taken as it relates to Assistant Chief
Holder. Thus, Assistant Chief Holder was not held accountable for her actions.

I will write your response letter to my complaint (in italics), and I will respond in normal print.
Your response letter (in italics) and my responses to your letter are as follows:

Dear Mr. Cherry, I write to address your employee complaint dated June 22, 2010. You alleged
Assistant Chief Holder threatened your employment for discriminatory and retaliatory reasons.
In particular, you claim that Chief Holder threatened you with termination if you did not release
certain medical records to Dr. Cuttler.

Directive 8.2.4 provides in pertinent part:

During evaluation and subsequent treatment, if deemed necessary, the employee will truthfully
answer all questions directed to him and provide complete information and documents deemed
necessary by the Department psychologist or any outside consultant to whom the member is
referred.

My investigation revealed that Chief Holder reminded you of your responsibility to provide
complete information and documents that are deemed necessary by the psychologist. Indeed,
your failure to cooperate with a referral for psychological assessment could have subjected you
to corrective action, up to and including dismissal from employment. It is entirely appropriate
for a supervisor to advise a subordinate of the potential consequences of their behavior. Charles
Cherry’s Response: Without regurgitating my entire complaint and grievance, to include the
conspiring of Assistant Chiefs Crotts and Holder and Dr. Cuttler, it is a fact that I did not provide
my personal medical records to Dr. Cuttler. These records were deemed necessary by Dr. Cuttler.
After Dr. Cuttler began to unethically assess me and was exposed, I was referred to a second
psychologist. If I didn’t provide the records to Dr. Cuttler and Assistant Chief Holder was only
“reminding” me of my responsibility, then why was I not investigated for refusing to provide the
records?

Next, you allege that Chief Holder said that “you are not going to be here long.” My
investigation revealed that Chief Holder did not threaten your employment. Rather, she opined
that if the administrative charges against you were sustained then your employment may well be
in jeopardy. Charles Cherry’s Response: Mr. Young, when Assistant Chief Holder made the
statement “Charles, let’s face it, you are not going to be here long,” there were not any pending
administrative charges against me. I was not even interviewed by Professional Standards until
June 24, 2010. Assistant Chief Holder made the statement on June 21, 2010.

You claim that she also suggested that you pursue a medical retirement. It is not the City’s policy
or practice to encourage an employee to retire for medical reasons. It is the City’s policy to first
provide a reasonable accommodation, if possible, so that an employee with a disability may
remain employed. I have directed the Human Resources Department to take appropriate steps to
remind all supervisors of the City’s obligations under our Separation for Disability and
Reasonable Accommodations policies. If an accommodation is not possible then a medical
retirement may be appropriate. Chief Holder is not a medical professional; and therefore, she
should not have recommended or suggested that you pursue a medical retirement. I do believe
that her reasons for doing so were not discriminatory or retaliatory. Charles Cherry’s Response:
Mr. Young, not only were her actions discriminatory, retaliatory, unfair, intimidating and
harassing, they were also criminal. Assistant Chief Holder was in violation of North Carolina
Law, Solicitation to commit a felony or misdemeanor. The felony or misdemeanor was
Obtaining property (medical retirement benefits and payment) by false pretense. Assistant Chief
Holder committed this act by doing the following:

• Assistant Chief Holder knew or should have known that I had no disability and had not
been diagnosed with a disability, at the time she solicited me to take a medical retirement.
• Assistant Chief Holder is not a medical professional.
• Assistant Chief Holder knew that I would have to provide false, fraudulent information to
the North Carolina State Retirement System to apply for and receive a medical
retirement, and payments.
My investigation did not reveal that Chief Holder threatened your job. She did advise you of the
potential consequences if you failed to cooperate with the referral for psychological assessment.

In the second instance, Chief Holder gave her opinion that if the investigations of you revealed
violations of departmental directives then your employment could be in jeopardy. Charles
Cherry’s Response: Mr. Young, when Assistant Chief Holder made the statement “Charles, let’s
face it, you are not going to be here long,” there were not any pending administrative charges
against me. I was not interviewed by Professional Standards until June 24, 2010. Assistant Chief
Holder made the statement on June 21, 2010.

I concur with you that it was not appropriate for Chief Holder to have recommended or
suggested that you pursue a medical retirement. However, the evidence did not suggest that her
motives were discriminatory or retaliatory. In any case, I am directing the Human Resources
Department to take steps to remind all supervisors of the City’s procedures under our Separation
for Disability and Reasonable Accommodation policies. Charles Cherry’s Response: Your
concurrence with me is acknowledgment that Assistant Chief Holder violated the law. Mr.
Young, you have exceeded your scope of authority. You cannot investigate the criminal
allegations against Assistant Chief Holder, as you are not a law enforcement officer. The
Greensboro Police Department’s Criminal Investigative Division would have to conduct that
investigation. I am of the opinion that the District Attorney’s office would prosecute, because the
alleged violation was carried out with malice. Please note that Attorney Thomas Loflin faxed a
letter to Former Chief Bellamy and Assistant Chief Holder on June 22, 2010, reporting Assistant
Chief Holder’s violation of North Carolina Law. In addition, Assistant Chief Holder
acknowledged receipt of the letter, by the City of Greensboro.

This reply concludes my review of this matter entirely. You have no additional appeals available
regarding this issue. Charles Cherry’s Response: Mr. Young, why would I contemplate an
appeal, when you terminated me prior to investigating my complaint?

End of City Manager Rashad Young’s November 2, 2010 response document and Charles
Cherry’s responses.

On November 4, 2010, at 6:30pm, I attended a community forum at the Trotter Recreation

Center, located at 3906 Betula Street. At approximately 8:15pm, Chief of Police Ken Miller
completed his speech to the community and opened the floor for questions and comments. I
reported to Chief Miller that his Assistant Chief Dwight K. Crotts, was on YOUTUBE violating
North Carolina Personnel Privacy Law.

Police Chief Ken Miller refused to take my complaint, investigate my complaint, allow me to ask
any further questions, or elaborate on my original question/reported violation. I even offered to
pull the audio recordings up on computer as there was internet and computer access at the
meeting. Police Chief Ken Miller discriminated, retaliated, intimidated and treated me
unfairly by not taking my allegation of misconduct against Assistant Chief Crotts. Police Chief
Ken Miller is also in violation of Greensboro Police Department Directive 1.5.12 Duty
Responsibilities, which states, “Employees shall perform all duties as required by law and
competent authority, regardless of their specific assignment or job description. They shall
perform their duties in such a manner as to effectively carry out the functions and objectives of
the Department. Employees assigned to specialized duties are not relieved of the responsibility
of taking prompt action in the matter of any violation of law or rules of the Department
coming to their attention, unless specifically authorized by competent authority, directive, or
procedure.”

Police Chief Ken Miller was further discriminatory, retaliatory and intimidating when he
informed the meeting attendees who I was, after I asked a question. I informed Chief Miller that
the fact that I was a former GPD employee was irrelevant. Chief Miller continued to use the fact
that I recently worked for the police department as a tool to incite the citizens against me, and
not allow me the right to ask questions and utilize police resources (namely himself). Chief Ken
Miller’s strategy to garner support of his discriminatory, retaliatory treatment of me was evident
as one (1) citizen told me to be quiet. Others applauded Chief Ken Miller’s actions. Chief Ken
Miller did not identify who any of the other citizens were that asked questions. Chief Miller
simply answered their questions. Only I was subjected to this treatment. Chief Ken Miller went
on to state that he would answer further questions unless they were posed by Charles Cherry. In
the event that I posed a question, the Chief expressed that he would not answer.

Chief Ken Miller subjected me to similar discriminatory treatment at a community meeting on

October 28, 2010. I have already reported this incident to you.

Chief Miller suggested that I needed to litigate. This is especially intimidating and discriminatory
in that:

• Chief Miller will continue to mistreat me and deny me my rights as a citizen until I
litigate. What if I don’t choose to litigate?
• Violations of laws, rules, regulations and policies must be addressed, regardless of the
fact that the reporting party also has an option to litigate with the City.
• Chief Miller conducted himself in this discriminatory, rude manner not only in front of
citizens, but also in front of his subordinate command staff. These subordinate command
staff members, can now mimic their leader’s actions, without fear of reprisal. This
attitude will soon permeate our entire police department.
• The community and GPD Command Staff witnessed their leader dismiss allegations of
misconduct.
• I have a legitimate concern that my family or I may be subjected to future mistreatment if
I simply exercise my right as a citizen to attend community meetings and ask questions.
• Chief Ken Miller threatened to ask me to leave the meeting, simply because I posed
questions that alleged violations of law, policy and rules by his staff. This is clear
retaliation, and an abuse of power, which will permeate our agency. What sense of fair
treatment does any citizen have against unbridled police authority?

Assistant Chief Crotts, in the four (4) minute audio, appears to be clearly violating North
Carolina General Statute 160A-168 Personnel Privacy, subsection (c2) (e) which states, in
italics, “A public official or employee who knowingly, willfully, and with malice permits any
person to have access to information contained in a personnel file, except as is permitted by this
section, is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and upon conviction shall only be fined an amount
not more than five hundred (500) dollars.”

Two (2) audio recordings of Assistant Chief D.K. Crotts were placed on the YOUTUBE website.
These recordings can also be located on the Beloved Community Center website,
www.belovedcommunitycenter.org. One (1) only needs to place DK Crotts in the search bar.
One (1) of the recordings is slightly over four (4) minutes and the other is slightly over five (5)
minutes. These recordings are related to an investigation regarding Greensboro Police Officer
Robert Reyes.

It should also be noted that Police Chief Ken Miller was rude to Reverend Randall Keeney of the
Saint Barnabas Episcopal Church. Chief Miller loudly scolded Reverend Keeney simply because
Reverend Keeney asked Chief Miller a question, in which it appeared Chief Miller did not
particularly like. Chief Miller stated that he had met with Reverend Keeney on a previous
occasion for two (2) hours and that Reverend Keeney expressed pleasure with the direction the
department was headed. Then Chief Miller scolded Reverend Keeney for “challenging him
(Miller) at a community meeting.” The Chief also made reference to it being “his (the Chief’s)
forum.” Please inform the Chief that he is a public servant and expected to treat all members of
the community with fairness, dignity, respect and consistency. In addition, the forum was the
community’s, not the Chief’s.

Mayor Bill Knight, Assistant City Manager Mr. Michael Speedling, and City Council Member
Trudy Wade were present and witnessed the violations by Chief of Police Ken Miller. Local
media was present and recorded the events as well as the Beloved Community Center located at
417 Arlington Street.

Mr. Young, our police leader, Chief Ken Miller has four (4) allegations of discrimination, etc.
against him, one (1) allegation of violation of GPD Directive 1.5.12 Duty Responsibility and
three (3) allegations of violation of GPD Directive 1.5.2 Conduct Towards the Public and
Employees against him. These complaints were made by three (3) different individuals.

Your prompt attention, to include investigation and accountability regarding my allegations is

greatly appreciated.

Charles E. Cherry (citizen)