Three GPD officers appeal discipline to city manager

Officer Robert Reyes, Officer AJ Blake, Capt. Charles Cherry and Officer Joseph Pryor (l-r) attended a community meeting held to build support for them on Sunday.

Three Greensboro police officers, including two who have been terminated, have filed disciplinary appeals to City Manager Rashad Young.

I. Cherry

Capt. Charles Cherry was terminated on Monday by then-interim Chief Dwight Crotts for sustained violations of the department's general conduct, malicious criticism and gossip, and discretion directives, according to Crotts' personnel order.

As he has in the past, Cherry acknowledges in his appeal that he did take a comment by Capt. John Wolfe to the effect that he did not trust officers on a federal discrimination lawsuit out of the room after signing a confidentiality agreement, but Cherry contends, "The moment the comment became part of a discrimination allegation, that fact outweighed the confidentiality agreement."

Cherry responds to the finding that he violated the department's malicious criticism and gossip directive by noting that "interim Chief Crotts gave no reference in the Disciplinary Action Taken Memo as it relates to how I violated" the directive.

In responding to the third sustained violation, Cherry writes, "It should be noted that I was never originally alleged to have violated Departmental Directive 1.5.9: Discretion. Interim Chief Crotts would have to show the elements of discretion, and how I violated the specific directive."

Cherry quotes from a notification from Sgt. Alan McHenry, a professional standards investigator, outlining how he was placed under investigation for sending an e-mail to subordinate officers explaining his administrative status in the context of a pending fit-for-duty evaluation (later resulting in the captain receiving a clean bill of health from two different psychologists).

Cherry quotes McHenry as saying, "To provide this statement to members of the division under his command, Captain Cherry has encouraged their focus on his personal disagreements with personnel decisions made by his supervisors regarding his actions. In doing so, he has raised questions within the department regarding the competency of members of the command staff, which cannot be answered because of personnel privacy laws."

Cherry responds: "The e-mail does not speak of any disagreement I have with the decisions made. The e-mail relays accurate information regarding my fitness for duty and being banned from Maple Street. Mr. [Michael] Speedling [assistant city manager] has stated that an officer was the victim of 'discrimination or incompetence' by professional standards. Captain [Jane] Allen is the commander and approves all investigations conducted by professional standards, to include the investigation Mr. Speedling referred to. That would make Captain Allen incompetent, according to Mr. Speedling. Why would it not be expected that the citizens and officers would not question the competency of GPD command staff, especially if Mr. Speedling the assistant city manager over police makes such a statement?"

Cherry quotes McHenry as saying, "Due to Cherry's information being provided to the media, the Greensboro Police Department's credibility and ability to perform basic functions to the community are called into question. This is evidenced by comments from people in the community. Because this matter is a personnel issue, and therefore subject to NCGS 160A-168: Privacy of Employee Personnel Records, the department and city are unable to respond to the questions Captain Cherry has raised resulting in heightened community concern."

Cherry responds, in part: "The fact that it was given to the media is not a problem, because it is accurate."

Cherry references an e-mail from Councilman Zack Matheny, which he says "raises a myriad of concerns," including, "How can constituents simply asking a councilmember to investigate reports of corruptive behavior in our police department be harassing?

Cherry cites a News & Record article stating, "Young said he created the position (Michael Speedling's position) to deal with one of the city's most pressing issues — discipline and unresolved personnel problems, including what Young said were too many US Equal Opportunity Employment discrimination complaints."

Supported by a Dayton, Ohio area news story, Cherry writes, "Mr. Young, while in Dayton, if internet sources are correct, you have dealt with the Department of Justice, before, relating to a racial discrimination suit settled for four hundred fifty thousand dollars ($450,000)."

Supported by a post by a Dayton blogger, Cherry writes, "Mr. Young, if internet sources are correct, Mr. Bill Hill was paid for one hundred forty five thousand ($145,000) for wrongful termination."

Cherry also addresses an allegation that he violated the department's truthfulness directive, which Crotts eventually found to be not sustained. Cherry asks that the finding be changed to unfounded.

"Chief [Tim] Bellamy was caught lying to the board during the hearing," Cherry writes. "Former Chief Bellamy stated under oath that he had never been discriminated against while at the GPD, and had never completed an EEOC complaint form. Reserve Sergeant Steve Hunter, Attorney Ken Free and Federally Filed litigation paperwork states to the contrary of former Chief Bellamy." (For good measure, Cherry throws in a statement from Greensboro NAACP President Cardes Brown.

II. Pryor

Officer Joseph Pryor was terminated by Crotts on Aug. 26 for sustained violations of the department's truthfulness and malicious criticism and gossip directives.

Pryor's appeal does not explicitly state the department's articulated allegation that he violated the truthfulness directive, but references "the scanned, forged, copied or otherwise improper placement of my signature on a document."

Pryor states that "this same investigation was reviewed by Mr. Speedling who stated that the results was due to 'discrimination or incompetence' by professional standards."

Pryor says the sustained violation of the malicious criticism and gossip directive is also related to "me stating in grievances that someone in professional standards forged, scanned, copied or improperly placed my signature on a document."

Pryor writes to Young, the city manager, about a July 26 conversation between the two: "I informed you that I came forward with allegations regarding an investigation conducted on me. The findings in the investigation was changed (in my favor) from not sustained to unfounded. All of my allegations were not fully investigated and the investigation was then turned on me, improperly alleging that I was untruthful. The same allegation (regarding the document) was in my original grievance, in which the investigation was changed to unfounded. You, Mr. Young, replied, 'You kept pushing it.'"

III. Reyes

Officer Robert Reyes received a division-level reprimand from Crotts on Monday based on sustained violations of the department's conduct towards public and employees and discretion directives.

Reyes contends in his appeal that "interim Chief Crotts condoned the monitoring, following and 'shadowing' of me by officers of my rank and time in grade. The officers, unknown to me, took notes on my activities and gave the information to my supervisor, (then) Sergeant Barwick. Sergeant Barwick then used the information, detrimentally against me (with the ultimate goal of terminating me). Sergeant Barwick never confronted me on the information or attempted to foster my improvement. These actions were because I reported what I believed to be excessive force by a fellow officer. [emphasis mine]

An alleged violation of the truthfulness directive was found to be not sustained by Crotts. Reyes is appealing to have it changed to unfounded.

"I was truthful in all information given as it related to the investigation of Officer Pinson stating that Captain Cherry had been fired [in mid-June]," Reyes writes.

Reyes says, "Sergeant Isom and Captain Smith allowed a 'Gestapo Style' interrogation of me by Corporal Oligmueller. The 'Gestapo Style Interrogation' (which was administrative in nature) included: A polygraph that was not warranted because Captain Cherry was never interviewed, a total of six (6) hours of interrogation (the issue being one question (Did Officer Reyes hear Officer Pinson say that Captain Cherry had been fired), utilizing a polygraph machine with inoperable parts (non-functioning printer as stated to me by Corporal Oligmueller)."

The appeal continues, "Sergeant Isom and Captain Smith allowed a 'Gestapo Style Interrogation' of Officer Royal (which was administrative in nature), which included: A total of approximately six (6) hours, Officer Royal, body limp, was called a lie [SIC] approximately twenty (20) times, Officer Royal's job was threatened, asked the same question approximately thirty three (33) times, Officer Royal was lied to in attempts to get Officer Royal to change his (Officer Royal's) story, Officer Royal was called 'LYNCHMAN' by Corporal Oligmueller during Officer Royal's polygraph. Assistant Chief Ron Rogers and Captain BL James can attest to the inhumane treatment of Officer Royal. The polygraph of Officer Royal is on video."

In contrast, Reyes says, "Officer Pinson had taken medication (for anxiety) which relaxed his nerves approximately two (2) hours before taking the polygraph. Corporal Oligmueller had knowledge of this, and still conducted a tainted test."

Editorial note: Two independent, anonymous sources state that both Reyes and Royal failed the polygraph, while Pinson passed.

As for the two violations that were sustained against Reyes, the officer contends, "I was not originally charged with conduct towards public and employees. Interim Chief Crotts would have to elaborate on why I was charged with this particular violation.... I was not originally charged with discretion. Interim Chief Crotts would have to elaborate on why I was charged with this particular violation."

Reyes writes, "Lieutenant Brodie and Captain Smith informed me that I may be extended an additional ninety (90) days as it relates to the professional standards program. It should be noted that in my third quarter, fourth quarter (5.69 (Level 3)), and annual evaluation (5.16 (Level 3)), I am clearly performing at an acceptable level. Interim Chief Crotts through discrimination, retaliation and fostering a hostile work environment placed me in the professional standards in an attempt to terminate me.

"Please have interim Chief Crotts release me from the program immediately upon my physical return to regular duty."