Former police Capt. Charles Cherry quotes Greensboro City Manager Rashad Young as writing, "I concur with you that it was not appropriate for [Assistant] Chief [Anita] Holder to have recommended or suggested that you pursue 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."
Cherry is not disabled. In June, Cherry was placed on administrative duty status and recommended for fit-for-duty evaluation after filing several grievances and assisting other officers with grievances, which is the right of any employee in the police department. Whether Holder anticipated at the time she is alleged to have recommended that Cherry pursue medical retirement that he would ultimately be found to be mentally unstable is unclear; in any case, two psychologists found exactly the opposite.
Cherry states in his memo to Young today: "Assistant Chief Holder was in violation of North Carolina law, Solicitation to commit and felony or misdemeanor. The felony or misdemeanor was obtaining property (medical retirement benefits and payment) by false pretense."
Cherry continues, "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."
Assistant City Manager Denise Turner said today that her boss, Rashad Young, would decline to comment on the matter, citing state personnel law. She referred back to a statement made by the city manager in August: "This administration will investigate any and all complaints and evaluate and respond to all grievances based on policy and best business practices."
Young's statement about Holder's recommendation that Cherry pursue medical retirement is in response to a complaint filed by on June 22. Cherry says that on the same day lawyer Thomas Loflin faxed a letter to Holder and then Chief Tim Bellamy "reporting Assistant Chief Holder's violation of North Carolina law."
Today's correspondence from Cherry to Young also references last night's community meeting led by Chief Ken Miller and attended by virtually all members of command staff, Mayor Bill Knight, Councilwoman Trudy Wade and a swarm of media representatives. Cherry was seated in center of the room a couple rows deep.
Following Miller's presentation, Cherry told Miller that Assistant Chief Dwight Crotts was documented on a YouTube video violating the NC Personnel Privacy Act. Miller informed the audience that Cherry was a former commander and refused to respond to any of his questions.
Crotts is quoted in an audio recording of a meeting to discuss preparation of a polygraph for another officer, Robert Reyes: "I will tell you, this is from another investigation, but it impacts yours. So it needs to be shared that in a statement Captain Cherry gave, in one of the documents, his statement was the reason he had shared this information with the folks in Eastern [Division] — and he copied [Officer Doug] Pinson by mistake. He meant to copy Pinson in Eastern and he copied Pinson in Western. That's why he got the e-mail. The reason that he did that is so that people could speak factually about his situation. And he gave as an example for that, Officer Pinson had contacted another employee and told that employee he'd been fired. And the employee had called him to speak to him about that to let him know that that was going on. And he had given him assurances that he hadn't been fired. That corroborated what Reyes said that he did."
NC GS 160A-168 holds that all information in a city employee's personnel file is confidential and shall be open to inspection only in limited instances specifically outlined by statute. A public official or employee who knowingly, willfully, and with malice permits access to information contained in a personnel file is guilty of a Class 3 misdemeanor and by law is fined no more than $500.
Miller told Cherry that the proper forum for him to seek redress for his grievances was in the courts, not at a public meeting. Earlier, he had mentioned that he doesn't approve of them being aired in the news media either.
"The community and GPD command staff witnessed their leader dismiss allegations of misconduct," Cherry said.
Greensboro Police Department Directive 1.5.12, Duty Responsibilities states, "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."
UPDATE, Nov. 8: Asked for a response to Cherry's allegation, Crotts said in an interview yesterday: “The only thing that I can tell you is that the allegation is completely false."
No comments:
Post a Comment