Add one more name to the list of black police officers sueing the city of Greensboro for racial discrimination: Julius Fulmore.
Fulmore filed a separate lawsuit yesterday, which was served on the city today. In January, 39 other black officers sued the city for discrimination. A similar lawsuit filed by Fulmore against the city was dismissed by an NC Superior Court judge on sovereign immunity and statute of limitation grounds.
The new suit is based on a "right to sue" letter from the US Justice Department. Fulmore's complaint contains several new allegations about both the investigative methods of Detective Scott Sanders, a white colleague of Fulmore's, and about the roles of former Chief David Wray and former Deputy Chief Randall Brady.
Loretta King, acting assistant attorney general for the civil rights division, wrote Fulmore in February: "Because you filed the above charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and conciliation on that charge has failed, and because you through your attorney have specifically requested this notice, you are hereby notified that you have the right to institute a civil action under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended, 42 USC Section 2000e, et seq., against the above-named defendant [city of Greensboro Police]."
In July 2007, the Greensboro local office of the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission issued a determination in Fulmore's favor. Jose G. Rosenberg, director of the Greensboro office, wrote: "Testimonial and documentary evidence confirms that respondent's chief of police maintained a book which contained personal and confidential information on black police officers. Furthermore, there is evidence to support that said book was used to obtain incriminating evidence on black officers.
"A review of the record shows that non-black officers were not subjected to this type of treatment.
"Based on this analysis, I have determined that the evidence obtained during the investigation establishes a violation of the statute, and that the evidence as a whole indicates that charging party was discriminated against."
The central claim of Fulmore's lawsuit is that following Wray's appointment as chief in 2003, "Wray created and developed a pattern and practice of investigating and disciplining black officers, including Officer Fulmore, more harshly, and paying and promoting black officers, including Officer Fulmore, less favorably, than white officers in the GPD."
Here are some choice quotes from the complaint:
In or around 2003, Sanders directed Dana Bailey, an employee of the GPD, to create a photo lineup that included the photos of black GPD officers Fulmore, James Hinson, Norman Rankin, Steve Snipes and Allen Wallace (the "Five Black Officer Lineup").
Upon information and belief, Sanders was directed and/or authorized by Brady and Wray to create the Five Black Officer Lineup.
Upon information and belief, Sanders was not a part of any investigation in 2003 or later that properly required the creation or use of the Five Black Officer Lineup.
Upon information and belief, the Five Black Officer Lineup was shown to criminals or suspected criminals by the GPD in 2003, 2004 and 2005.
In March 2005, after nine months, a criminal investigation related to allegations that Fulmore had had sex with a prostitute named Brenda Weidman, was concluded. No criminal charges were taken out against Fulmore, but the officer was cited for an administrative violation for failing to document Weidman as an informant.
In the June 5, 2004 Conversation, Wray told [Captain Gary] Hastings that Brady had been working the investigation of Officer Fulmore and through Brady's hard work "they" had "taken down" Officer Fulmore.
Also in the June 5, 2004 Conversation, Wray told Hastings that Officer Fulmore had committed crimes involving prostitution, narcotics and association with criminals.
Wray's statements to Hastings that Officer Fulmore had committed various crimes were made before any serious investigation into Weidman's allegations against Officer Fulmore had occured.
During his suspension while the investigation was conducted, he worked at his auto body shop.
During that time, in an effort to frame Officer Fulmore on false charges of receiving stolen property, GPD directed and paid various people to come to Officer Fulmore's auto body shop and attempt to sell stolen property to him.
For example, during Officer Fulmore's suspension, Mr. Bob Stanley approached Officer Fulmore with an offer to buy a motor.
Stanley indicated the motor was stolen.
Upon information and belief, Stanley is a friend of Sanders.
Upon information and belief, Stanley served time in a federal prison.
Fulmore's lawsuit renames the so-called "Black Book," which has been a matter of controversy in the community, instead calling it the "Black Officers Lineup Book."
In and around February 2005, Sanders created a lineup book containing a series of photo arrays featuring only black GPD officers (the "Black Officers Lineup Book").
The city has alleged that the Black Officer Lineup Book was created pursuant to a prostitute's allegation that a black GPD officer, who had a white GPD officer as his partner, sexually harassed her.
Despite the city's allegations, no GPD investigation report or other GPD documentation from the time of the supposed sexual harassment allegations exists to substantiate that a prostitute ever made such allegations....
In March 2005, the criminal investigation into Weidman's allegations was complete and Officer Fulmore was cited for a single minor administrative violation for failing to document Weidman as an informant.
Upon information and belief, a non-black officer failing to document an informant is a common occurence in the GPD that typically is not even investigated.
Upon information and belief, the GPD has never undertaken an investigation lasting approximately 9 months against a non-black officer for failing to document an informant.
Officer Fulmore was reassigned [from special intelligence] to patrol division purportedly as punishment for this minor administrative violation.
Upon information and belief, no non-black GPD detective has ever been reassigned from any investigative division to patrol division as a result of failing to document an informant.
Upon information and belief, the issue of Officer Fulmore's failure to document an informant was merely a ruse or pretext for reassigning Officer Fulmore to a lesser position in that the GPD's actual motive in reassigning him was because he is black.
Vetting to come....
100 greatest NC songs, audio-visual companion
Yesterday, we published a list of our 100 greatest North Carolina songs. The more passionate you feel about North Carolina music, the more emotional you’re likely to feel in either agreeing with our picks or concluding that we don’t have a clue about our subject.
We want to celebrate these songs, some popular, others somewhat obscure. So here are links to a handful of cuts in our Top 10.
The music of the Rev. Gary Davis, the artist who landed our No. 1 spot, may be the most difficult to track down. Here’s a snippet of our favorite North Carolina song, “Samson and Delilah,” at Amazon.com.
Sonic Youth and John Coltrane are securely stationed in the popular music canon. You can listen to much of their music, including our picks, “Chapel Hill” and “A Love Supreme” (represented here in its first movement, for ease of navigation).
The Flat Duo Jets emerged in the 1980s and Nina Simone hit her stride in the late 1960s. Because of their timing their music has been amply documented in film, which has given a new generation of listeners an opportunity to check out their music through streaming video on the internet.
Here’s “Crazy Hazy Kisses” by the Flat Duo Jets:
And here’s “Ain’t Got No, I Got Life” by Nina Simone:
Can you dig it?
We want to celebrate these songs, some popular, others somewhat obscure. So here are links to a handful of cuts in our Top 10.
The music of the Rev. Gary Davis, the artist who landed our No. 1 spot, may be the most difficult to track down. Here’s a snippet of our favorite North Carolina song, “Samson and Delilah,” at Amazon.com.
Sonic Youth and John Coltrane are securely stationed in the popular music canon. You can listen to much of their music, including our picks, “Chapel Hill” and “A Love Supreme” (represented here in its first movement, for ease of navigation).
The Flat Duo Jets emerged in the 1980s and Nina Simone hit her stride in the late 1960s. Because of their timing their music has been amply documented in film, which has given a new generation of listeners an opportunity to check out their music through streaming video on the internet.
Here’s “Crazy Hazy Kisses” by the Flat Duo Jets:
And here’s “Ain’t Got No, I Got Life” by Nina Simone:
Can you dig it?
Response to Roch and Spags
So Roch Smith asks me for some stats regarding the GPD and race. Sure, I know it's a loaded question — the only reason he would ask me for statistical information about the GPD (instead of asking the source itself) would be if he thought either A) I didn't have those numbers, or B) I did have the numbers, but was not interpreting them correctly, in which case he was preparing to unload a big dose of smoking-gun truth on my ass after last week's editorial.
I'd call it "gotcha" journalism, but that would be an insult to Geraldo Rivera.
Roch's posts, among other things, accuse me of constructing an alternate reality, besmirching the good name of an elected official and misinterpreting poll results, insinuating that I have some sort of stake in the deal.
They also show a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of the unsigned editorial, which is designed to express the consensual opinion of the entire editorial board and not just the writer of that particular editorial.
And of course Spags jumped into the fray, because for Spags, I suspect, being disagreeable is a form of entertainment. I say this because Spags chose not to address the thrust of the editorial, which was that it is embarrassing for a sitting city council member to say, basically, that nothing good can come of a Department of Justice investigation in our city.
We can see why Spags ignored our core position, as a DOJ investigation might disturb his carefully constructed worldview in which every Northern transplant in the city — besides himself, of course — is complicit in a conspiracy to falsely accuse the locals of racism.
Admittedly, we're still trying to figure out Spagnola's true angle.
Roch agrees with our main point: that we should welcome a DOJ investigation so maybe we can finally fill in some of the gaping holes in the case.
He spent more space disagreeing with an ancillary point we made about Barber's transparency. Admittedly, we meant these words to describe the actions of the entire council during Barber's time serving. This could have been worded more carefully.
Still, it's hard to believe that Roch is defending a council member who floated the notion that the DOJ investigation might be the result of our mayor and police chief's visit to Harvard, suggesting that we shouldn't talk to outsiders about Greensboro's problems, like we're some kind of fight club.
Roch admits Barber is a client of his. We wonder if Roch designed Barber's website, which advertises his facility in dealing with zoning variances and government affairs.
We think it is inappropriate for a lawyer to advertise his services in dealing with local government when he is an elected member of that government. Just as we think it is arguable that Barber, as a sitting council member, could be practicing obstruction in asking 39 police officers to drop their lawsuit against the city in order to call of a DOJ investigation.
But then Roch pulls a stunt that, were Spag to try over at Ed Cone's blog, might make his head explode. On the subject of the racial demographics of the GPD, Roch moves the goalposts.
According to our numbers, which come straight from the city and Census estimates, sworn officers in the GPD are 20 percent African American and 2.5 percent Latino, while Greensboro itself is 39 percent African American and 6.5 percent Latino.
Roch makes the argument that GPD demographics fall in line with the percent of the population that has high school diplomas, which are required to join the force.
Which is all well and good. And if something as simple as that will satisfy the Department of Justice, which is investigating hiring practices and recruitment in the police and fire departments, then we can all have cake and ice cream.
But this is not our investigation. It is not the city's investigation or the loudmouth bloggers investigation or the cops' investigation. It is the purview of the DOJ; we caught their eye because 39 black police officers made a complaint. And like the DOJ, we think that everyone who is trying to impede this investigation has something to hide or is carrying water for those who do.
I'd call it "gotcha" journalism, but that would be an insult to Geraldo Rivera.
Roch's posts, among other things, accuse me of constructing an alternate reality, besmirching the good name of an elected official and misinterpreting poll results, insinuating that I have some sort of stake in the deal.
They also show a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of the unsigned editorial, which is designed to express the consensual opinion of the entire editorial board and not just the writer of that particular editorial.
And of course Spags jumped into the fray, because for Spags, I suspect, being disagreeable is a form of entertainment. I say this because Spags chose not to address the thrust of the editorial, which was that it is embarrassing for a sitting city council member to say, basically, that nothing good can come of a Department of Justice investigation in our city.
We can see why Spags ignored our core position, as a DOJ investigation might disturb his carefully constructed worldview in which every Northern transplant in the city — besides himself, of course — is complicit in a conspiracy to falsely accuse the locals of racism.
Admittedly, we're still trying to figure out Spagnola's true angle.
Roch agrees with our main point: that we should welcome a DOJ investigation so maybe we can finally fill in some of the gaping holes in the case.
He spent more space disagreeing with an ancillary point we made about Barber's transparency. Admittedly, we meant these words to describe the actions of the entire council during Barber's time serving. This could have been worded more carefully.
Still, it's hard to believe that Roch is defending a council member who floated the notion that the DOJ investigation might be the result of our mayor and police chief's visit to Harvard, suggesting that we shouldn't talk to outsiders about Greensboro's problems, like we're some kind of fight club.
Roch admits Barber is a client of his. We wonder if Roch designed Barber's website, which advertises his facility in dealing with zoning variances and government affairs.
We think it is inappropriate for a lawyer to advertise his services in dealing with local government when he is an elected member of that government. Just as we think it is arguable that Barber, as a sitting council member, could be practicing obstruction in asking 39 police officers to drop their lawsuit against the city in order to call of a DOJ investigation.
But then Roch pulls a stunt that, were Spag to try over at Ed Cone's blog, might make his head explode. On the subject of the racial demographics of the GPD, Roch moves the goalposts.
According to our numbers, which come straight from the city and Census estimates, sworn officers in the GPD are 20 percent African American and 2.5 percent Latino, while Greensboro itself is 39 percent African American and 6.5 percent Latino.
Roch makes the argument that GPD demographics fall in line with the percent of the population that has high school diplomas, which are required to join the force.
Which is all well and good. And if something as simple as that will satisfy the Department of Justice, which is investigating hiring practices and recruitment in the police and fire departments, then we can all have cake and ice cream.
But this is not our investigation. It is not the city's investigation or the loudmouth bloggers investigation or the cops' investigation. It is the purview of the DOJ; we caught their eye because 39 black police officers made a complaint. And like the DOJ, we think that everyone who is trying to impede this investigation has something to hide or is carrying water for those who do.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)