City Manager Rashad Young presents his budget to the city council next Tuesday. He told District 5 residents at a community budget meeting at the Oak Ridge Meadows Club House on Thursday that he will recommend $13 million in cuts, with an additional $5 million in contingency cuts as a hedge for a worst case scenario in which the state of North Carolina makes severe cuts in revenue to local governments.
In community presentations since late March, Young has outlined three tiers of cuts. The third tier reaches only $15 million of the $18 million council has asked him to consider. Young said if the city is forced to cut an additional $3 million, the savings would be achieved through “personnel expense reductions.”
The proposed budget cuts assumes no change in the city’s handling of solid waste.
“I don’t pretend to know what decision the city council will make on solid waste,” Young said. Earlier this month, the council voted to narrow the list of companies considered for a contract to handle the city’s solid waste to three that are proposing to reopen the White Street Landfill. Estimated cost savings by reopening the landfill through a private company range from $7.5 million to $8.9 million. Under the city’s current schedule, a contract for the operation of the landfill could be in place as early as July 1, but the city has been threatened with an injunction. The council has scheduled a special meeting for Tuesday to go into closed session to discuss pending litigation.
“I am cautiously optimistic at this point that we’ll not have to go up to $18 million,” Young said, “but when [the state gets] to the end of the line and the budget’s still not balanced, then that’s when they start to do things that are distasteful to us all.”
Young said the city has historically maintained funds for vacant positions to give it a cushion to absorb unbudgeted expenses.
“We have a personnel liability that we do not budget for, to the tune of about $8 million,” he said. “Much of that occurs in public safety. Particularly in police we don’t directly budget for recruit classes. So when we bring in 30 recruits and it might cost $800,000, we have to eat that cost. When employees separate from service, we have to pay them out for any vacation time. We don’t budget for that.” He added that there are police overtime costs that are not budgeted.
Young said the city uses funds from vacant positions to cover those contingencies.
“It’s very difficult for the council when I tell them: ‘No, you can’t cut these vacant positions because if you cut them I’m going to have a budget problem in the next year,’” he said. “They don’t really like to hear that from me. So it’s going to be a multi-year strategy for us to deal with that unbudgeted expense.”
Young said out of an appropriated fund balance of $4 million for the current fiscal year, the city expects to have $1.5 million left over.
Out of the audience of about 15 people, two praised Young for his performance as city manager.
“My husband and I have seen a lot of city managers come and go,” Willie Taylor said. “I don’t think the city has seen leadership that equals the leadership you’re giving.”
The city manager received a round of applause.
A third resident complimented Coliseum Director Matt Brown for his handling of the 2011 AT&T US Figure Skating Championships.
In addition to staff, those attending the community meeting included District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade, at-large city council candidate Cyndy Hayworth, Downtown Greensboro Inc. President Ed Wolverton and political consultant Bill Burckley. No at-large members of council were present.
Showing posts with label Rashad Young. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Rashad Young. Show all posts
City manager: Hiring freeze considered ‘modified’
Addressing city employees at the Odeon Theater this morning in a presentation meant to assuage anxiety over $18 million in planned budget cuts, City Manager Rashad Young said a hiring freeze in place for more than two years should be considered “modified.”
Upwards of 200 employees were present at the Odeon for the talk. Assistant City Manager Denise Turner said 350 employees logged on to the city’s website to view a streaming video of the presentation, while employees also gathered in other locations to hear the talk. Young fielded questions from employees, who submitted them anonymous in writing to staff who gathered note cards from the audience.
The first out of the gate: “How are new employees continuing to be hired outside of police, fire and safety as we have been told we are under a hiring freeze? We continue to see administration hire new employees.”
“There are critical positions all across this organization, both from an administrative perspective and operational perspective,” Young said. “What we do is selectively make decisions about what positions need to be filled to deliver on the operational missions of various departments and agencies. We’ll continue to be judicious as we make those decisions. But we’re not going to be at a point where we say we’re not hiring anyone. Because turnover happens all across the organization and we need to be able to deliver on the expectations of our customers and citizens, and get work done. So that means all across our organization we’ll be making decisions on a case-by-case basis as to what to fill and what can’t get filled based on what we’re trying to get accomplished.”
Former City Manager Mitchell Johnson first imposed a hiring freeze in 2008, prior to Young’s hiring.
The city website indicates, “The city has enacted a hiring freeze for all positions except sworn positions in police, fire and Guilford Metro 911. Any other positions posted are those that have been reviewed and approved by the city manager as being critical to the operation of the organization.”
The city is currently advertising an open position for a planning and community development director, some summer parks and recreation jobs and part-time jobs at the coliseum without benefits, while directing prospective employees to the police and fire department websites for information about openings in those respective agencies.
Young discussed his Management, Accountability and Performance program, which is designed to analyze performance within departments to determine whether they are supporting various missions, including economic development, public safety and infrastructure, in a holistic manner.
“I know some of you have concerns that MAP is an effort to identify positions to eliminate in your organization or an employee evaluation tool,” Young said. “However, that view simply misses the boat. Instead, MAP represents our report card as an organization. It shows how we’re doing the heavy lifting…. Most importantly, it provides a strategic guide that cuts across every city department and agency so that we can see and understand our common focus.”
The city manager singled out a number of departments for “service excellence.”
Young said Greensboro has a “renowned parks and recreation department.” He spoke of a library system “that’s transformed itself to be a critical part of the social fabric of the community.” He lauded the city’s fire department as the only one in the state “to maintain the highest rating possible.”
“We maintain a bond rating that has consistently been among the highest rated,” Young said. “And we have a water system that is a billion-dollar asset that opens the doors for economic development and growth in our region.”
Young indicated that unless the city council reverses position on ruling out a tax increase and seeking significant spending cuts, employees shouldn’t get their hopes up about either merit raises or performance bonuses during the next fiscal year.
“I can tell you that if we, in fact, have to cut $18 million or 7 percent of the general fund, it’s highly unlikely we’re going to be able to afford another increase,” he said.
Young said senior staff have not given serious consideration to implementing employee furloughs to save money, but acknowledged that might be an option as the city nears a decision on the budget.
“I really want to find sustainable ways to reduce expenses so we can correct what I call a structural imbalance in our budget,” he said. “So we can’t have an over-reliance on one-time resources to resolve our budget. We’ve done that last year, and we’re going to do a little bit of that this year, but if we use one-time resources I’d rather that not be from the employee pay side of the house unless we absolutely have to, which means I would consider furloughs as a bit of a last resort.”
Some questions to the manager revealed a degree of interdepartmental envy or skepticism about efficiency that any taxpaying citizen might hold.
“When the fire chief talks about cutting $900,000 to save money, we hear the police chief wants to buy the old federal building for $900,000,” one anonymous employee said. “What’s up with that?”
Young said in response that while the two figures are the same, no inference should be drawn that they are connected. He said that the federal building is valued at $22 million, but the federal government would sell it to the city for $1. The $900,000 price tag would be the cost of renovating it and moving the police department in. Half of that cost would be funded by the federal asset forfeiture program. The cost to the city’s general fund would be only $450,000, which would be spread over three years.
Another employee asked how the coliseum complex has continued to undertake new building projects in an era in which the city’s budget has been strained.
Young responded that the aquatic center is being funded with $12 million in voter-approved bonds, and $6 million in certificates of participation, which is debt backed by the hotel-motel tax. Other building projects are supported by sponsorships and state funding.
Upwards of 200 employees were present at the Odeon for the talk. Assistant City Manager Denise Turner said 350 employees logged on to the city’s website to view a streaming video of the presentation, while employees also gathered in other locations to hear the talk. Young fielded questions from employees, who submitted them anonymous in writing to staff who gathered note cards from the audience.
The first out of the gate: “How are new employees continuing to be hired outside of police, fire and safety as we have been told we are under a hiring freeze? We continue to see administration hire new employees.”
“There are critical positions all across this organization, both from an administrative perspective and operational perspective,” Young said. “What we do is selectively make decisions about what positions need to be filled to deliver on the operational missions of various departments and agencies. We’ll continue to be judicious as we make those decisions. But we’re not going to be at a point where we say we’re not hiring anyone. Because turnover happens all across the organization and we need to be able to deliver on the expectations of our customers and citizens, and get work done. So that means all across our organization we’ll be making decisions on a case-by-case basis as to what to fill and what can’t get filled based on what we’re trying to get accomplished.”
Former City Manager Mitchell Johnson first imposed a hiring freeze in 2008, prior to Young’s hiring.
The city website indicates, “The city has enacted a hiring freeze for all positions except sworn positions in police, fire and Guilford Metro 911. Any other positions posted are those that have been reviewed and approved by the city manager as being critical to the operation of the organization.”
The city is currently advertising an open position for a planning and community development director, some summer parks and recreation jobs and part-time jobs at the coliseum without benefits, while directing prospective employees to the police and fire department websites for information about openings in those respective agencies.
Young discussed his Management, Accountability and Performance program, which is designed to analyze performance within departments to determine whether they are supporting various missions, including economic development, public safety and infrastructure, in a holistic manner.
“I know some of you have concerns that MAP is an effort to identify positions to eliminate in your organization or an employee evaluation tool,” Young said. “However, that view simply misses the boat. Instead, MAP represents our report card as an organization. It shows how we’re doing the heavy lifting…. Most importantly, it provides a strategic guide that cuts across every city department and agency so that we can see and understand our common focus.”
The city manager singled out a number of departments for “service excellence.”
Young said Greensboro has a “renowned parks and recreation department.” He spoke of a library system “that’s transformed itself to be a critical part of the social fabric of the community.” He lauded the city’s fire department as the only one in the state “to maintain the highest rating possible.”
“We maintain a bond rating that has consistently been among the highest rated,” Young said. “And we have a water system that is a billion-dollar asset that opens the doors for economic development and growth in our region.”
Young indicated that unless the city council reverses position on ruling out a tax increase and seeking significant spending cuts, employees shouldn’t get their hopes up about either merit raises or performance bonuses during the next fiscal year.
“I can tell you that if we, in fact, have to cut $18 million or 7 percent of the general fund, it’s highly unlikely we’re going to be able to afford another increase,” he said.
Young said senior staff have not given serious consideration to implementing employee furloughs to save money, but acknowledged that might be an option as the city nears a decision on the budget.
“I really want to find sustainable ways to reduce expenses so we can correct what I call a structural imbalance in our budget,” he said. “So we can’t have an over-reliance on one-time resources to resolve our budget. We’ve done that last year, and we’re going to do a little bit of that this year, but if we use one-time resources I’d rather that not be from the employee pay side of the house unless we absolutely have to, which means I would consider furloughs as a bit of a last resort.”
Some questions to the manager revealed a degree of interdepartmental envy or skepticism about efficiency that any taxpaying citizen might hold.
“When the fire chief talks about cutting $900,000 to save money, we hear the police chief wants to buy the old federal building for $900,000,” one anonymous employee said. “What’s up with that?”
Young said in response that while the two figures are the same, no inference should be drawn that they are connected. He said that the federal building is valued at $22 million, but the federal government would sell it to the city for $1. The $900,000 price tag would be the cost of renovating it and moving the police department in. Half of that cost would be funded by the federal asset forfeiture program. The cost to the city’s general fund would be only $450,000, which would be spread over three years.
Another employee asked how the coliseum complex has continued to undertake new building projects in an era in which the city’s budget has been strained.
Young responded that the aquatic center is being funded with $12 million in voter-approved bonds, and $6 million in certificates of participation, which is debt backed by the hotel-motel tax. Other building projects are supported by sponsorships and state funding.
Greensboro senior staff address firing of black officer
YoungI had the opportunity to sit down this afternoon with senior staff in the Greensboro City Manager’s Office today to discuss the termination of Greensboro police Officer Joseph Pryor, one of a cohort of employees whose protestations has put the city in the hot seat in recent months. Unfortunately, City Manager Rashad Young and Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling’s remarks did not come in time to meet the press deadline for tomorrow’s story (retroactive link), but these are the most extensive statements any senior staff member has made to me on the topic since early July, and I count that as a victory.
Pryor has said in an appeal document submitted to Young that a questioned document investigation conducted by Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department employee Jeffrey Taylor did not have an adequate scope to determine whether Pryor had signed an Notice of Administrative Investigation form. Pryor alleged that his signature was photocopied, scanned, forged or otherwise improperly placed on the form. First Assistant Chief Dwight Crotts and then Young found Pryor’s statement to be untruthful, and fired him as a result.
Young pointed to his termination review letter, which states, “Mr. Taylor concluded that the Notice of Administrative Investigation form contains your original signature and was not photocopied, scanned, forged or otherwise improperly placed on the form. Based on the audio recording of your interview with Cpl. [Jack Steinberg], the relative importance of the Notice of Administrative Investigation form, and most importantly, the conclusions of the forensic document examiner, I conclude that you did in fact sign the document in question.”
In an interview with YES! Weekly last week Pryor disputed Young’s statement that “the complainant described the officer who allegedly kicked him as being ‘6’0”-6’2” in height, dark complexion, with a close haircut” in a use-of-force investigation conducted on him. Those qualities describe Pryor. The former police officer continues to allege that the description was added to investigative documents after the fact and was never given by Lipscomb.
Pryor provided YES! Weekly with a copy of a criminal investigation memo authored by Cpl. Cheryl Cundiff that states that the complainant, Terrance Lipscomb, “was unable to give a description of the officer that he alleged kicked him,” and allowed me to listen to a recording of an interview conducted with Lipscomb by Sgt. Shawn Barnes for an administrative investigation in which the complainant.
“That was not the only interview with Terrance Lipscomb,” Young said. “That issue was reinvestigated and reconfirmed. We went out and interviewed him again and he confirmed well to [internal affairs]’s satisfaction.
Young quoted Lipscomb as saying in the re-investigation: “Yep, 6-2. And that’s what I said the first time.”
Pryor told YES! Weekly last week that the city has not investigated two allegations made by him, including that Barnes added his physical description. Later, Pryor provided a copy of a June 21 memo authored by then-Chief Tim Bellamy stating that the complaint against Barnes was investigated by Lt. MO Brodie.
“I concur there was insufficient evidence to support a violation of departmental directives,” Bellamy said.
Young also dismissed Pryor’s contention that professional standards should have dismissed Lipscomb’s complaint when two white officers who were on the scene at the time stated that Pryor had not kicked Lipscomb and that they, in fact, had struck him and piled on him.
“That’s easy,” Young said. “The complainant said by description who kicked him in the stomach. The fact that we had two other people who said, ‘I struck the blows,’ but the complainant says, ‘It’s this person,’ we can’t change the focus of the investigation because of that…. That is not even close to being an appropriate response. It’s all well and good that other officers said, ‘This is what he did and this is what I did.’ It turns out the citizen didn’t tell the truth. I think we would be in a world of hurt if we dismissed allegations on that basis.”
Speedling said he disputes an allegation repeatedly made by Cherry and Pryor that Speedling stated that the investigation conducted on Pryor was the result of either “discrimination or incompetence.”
Speedling said today that he told Pryor during a meeting earlier this year that “if, in fact, what you’re saying is true,” then that would be discrimination or incompetence.
“It has been allowed to perpetuate itself,” Speedling said. “And it’s been false.”
Speedling said that what prompted the remark about “discrimination or incompetence was Pryor’s statement about the allegedly fabricated description of him.
“I remember you telling me: ‘It ain’t on the tape,’” Young remarked to Speedling today.
Since that time, the two have concluded that Lipscomb did give that description.
Citizen Cherry
Former Greensboro police Cap. Charles Cherry discloses in a memo that City Manager Rashad Young has turned down his termination appeal. Cherry had been commander of the department's Eastern Division until the time he was placed on administrative duty status in June. He is the highest ranking officer to have been pushed out of the department this year.Cherry announces in the memo that a community meeting will be held on Nov. 11 at 6 p.m. at Bethel AME Church to "discuss police accountability and professionalism, among other things." Meanwhile, the police department holds an official community forum on the same night for citizens in the Western Division at Lewis Recreation Center. The main focus of that and three other community meetings will be crime statistics and call prioritization, but a press release also promises that Chief Ken Miller will "review changes in GPD including mission and core values revisions, the restructuring process, core strategies and discipline process revisions."
Color.
Continuing GPD grievances
Three new documents drafted by dissident Greensboro police officers have come my way in the past couple days. I'm preoccupied this week with some other stories and personal matters, so I haven't had an opportunity to thoroughly analyze these materials or seek comment from police administration, but I'm posting them for public perusal:
• To: City Manager Rashad Young / From: Captain CE Cherry, commanding officer, Patrol Bureau, Eastern Division / Subject: Continued discrimination, retaliation, harassment, unfair treatment and hostile work environment of Officer MD Royal, Sept. 7, 2010
• To: City Manager Rashad Young / From: Police Officer II, JL Pryor, Patrol Bureau, Eastern Division, Squad A / Subject: Additional information regarding appeal of disciplinary action (termination), continuing proof of the termination decision being based upon continued discrimination, retaliation, harassment, intimidation and continued hostile work environment, Sept. 7, 2010
• To: City Manager Rashad Young / From: Officer R. Reyes, Police Officer I, Patrol Bureau, Western Division, Squad B / Subject: Continued discrimination, retaliation, harassment, intimidation and hostile work environment to include after being reinstated to full-duty status, Sept. 9, 2010
• To: City Manager Rashad Young / From: Captain CE Cherry, commanding officer, Patrol Bureau, Eastern Division / Subject: Continued discrimination, retaliation, harassment, unfair treatment and hostile work environment of Officer MD Royal, Sept. 7, 2010
• To: City Manager Rashad Young / From: Police Officer II, JL Pryor, Patrol Bureau, Eastern Division, Squad A / Subject: Additional information regarding appeal of disciplinary action (termination), continuing proof of the termination decision being based upon continued discrimination, retaliation, harassment, intimidation and continued hostile work environment, Sept. 7, 2010
• To: City Manager Rashad Young / From: Officer R. Reyes, Police Officer I, Patrol Bureau, Western Division, Squad B / Subject: Continued discrimination, retaliation, harassment, intimidation and hostile work environment to include after being reinstated to full-duty status, Sept. 9, 2010
Greensboro city manager responds to claims of 'subculture of corruption' within GPD
Greensboro City Manager Rashad Young responds to claims of a "subculture of corruption" within the police department.
The Rev. Nelson Johnson is calling a rally for tomorrow at 8 a.m. outside the Maple Street substation "to support Officer AJ Blake, and to stand against the subculture of corruption and double standards within the Greensboro Police Department."
"I have repeatedly said that there is not a basis for a Justice Department review, as there is no evidence I have seen of a pervasive culture of corruption in the department or that there exists some conspiracy of actions and activities to subject black or Latino officers to disparate or unequal treatment," Young says.
Young writes that "with the exception of 2008, the imposition of discipline mirrors closely the demographics of the Greensboro Police Department." In that year, 47 percent of disciplinary actions meted out in the police department were reportedly imposed on minorities, compared to 53 percent on whites. Within the sworn ranks, 77 percent of employees are white, and 23 percent are white.
Other key excerpts from Young's response:
"I also want to address the issue raised that employees are subjected to negative repercussions if they avail themselves to the grievance or complaint processes. To be certain, employees can file a complaint or grievance without fear of reprisal. City of Greensboro policy and practice does not support disciplinary or adverse action taken against an employee for filing a complaint or utilizing the grievance process. This administration will investigate any and all complaints and evaluate and respond to all grievances based on policy and best business practices. However, we expect all employees to adhere to standards of professional conduct and truthfulness in following the grievance process or submitting formal complaints."
Notably, three officers who have filed grievances are facing termination for allegations that they were untruthful in their assertions: Capt. Charles Cherry, Officer AJ Blake and Officer Joseph Pryor. A fourth officer who has a pending grievance, Robert Reyes, faces termination based on a charge of "malicious gossip." Actually, according to available information, it appears that the officers' assertions are truthful, and that the activity for which Reyes is being disciplined is actually an effort to suppress malicious gossip.
Realistically, because North Carolina protects personnel records, it's difficult to impossible to gauge the merits of the department's allegation that the dissident officers have been untruthful.
"To be certain, no employee should be subjected to a fitness for duty evaluation based on the utilization of the grievance or complaint process. This would not comport with our organizational norms or values. The fitness for duty policy is codified in GPD directive 8.2. This directive provides a process of psychological evaluation based on a number of factors and criteria. In understanding the GPD's fitness for duty process it is important to also refer to Directive 7.5 Professional Standards Program. This program, by policy, is a non-disciplinary avenue to address problems as early as possible in a proactive manner. The Professional Standards Program provides for a process of evaluation by a panel who can then recommend the appropriate course of action, if any. Those recommendations can include referral to the department's psychological assignment program where the policy surrounding fitness for duty is located."
It's not clear how this explanation illuminates the reasons Capt. Charles Cherry was recommended for fitness for duty in June. Cherry raises questions about that decision here and here.
"The city of Greensboro's FMLA practices are codified in Personnel Policy F-6. It states in relevant part, 'When an employee notifies the supervisor of a potential FMLA event, or after the employee has been absent for five business days, the supervisor will send the FMLA Leave Request Form to the FMLA Coordinator in Human Resources so the FMLA packet can be sent to the employee. The FMLA packet is sent by certified mail.' Therefore, the city's practice of asking employees to fill out FMLA paperwork is based on the employee's leave status and is not related to fitness for duty or any other administrative action."
Cherry raises concerns about the city's use of the Family and Medical Leave Act here.
While five officers facing termination allege that the department is undertaking a preordained course to purge them from the ranks to silence their grievances, Young contends that the city has refined its disciplinary processes to ensure fairness and consistency.
"We have had detailed, thorough and rigorous reviews of virtually every aspect of structure, management, and operation of the Greensboro Police Department. We have proactively continued to review our policies and systems, making changes and modifications where necessary and appropriate. We have refined our promotional processes, disciplinary process, overtime assignment process, off duty detail process, internal investigations standards and processes, as well as improved the relationship with the complaint review committee (CRC). We have cooperated with all investigations and inquiries into the GPD. We have instituted mechanisms for employee discussion and feedback and have increased the number of available opportunities for employees in GPD in particular to communicate any workplace issues or problems they perceive. We have been exhaustive in making sure that the Greensboro Police Department is managed appropriately, structured efficiently and operates professionally and with integrity."
The Rev. Nelson Johnson is calling a rally for tomorrow at 8 a.m. outside the Maple Street substation "to support Officer AJ Blake, and to stand against the subculture of corruption and double standards within the Greensboro Police Department."
"I have repeatedly said that there is not a basis for a Justice Department review, as there is no evidence I have seen of a pervasive culture of corruption in the department or that there exists some conspiracy of actions and activities to subject black or Latino officers to disparate or unequal treatment," Young says.
Young writes that "with the exception of 2008, the imposition of discipline mirrors closely the demographics of the Greensboro Police Department." In that year, 47 percent of disciplinary actions meted out in the police department were reportedly imposed on minorities, compared to 53 percent on whites. Within the sworn ranks, 77 percent of employees are white, and 23 percent are white.
Other key excerpts from Young's response:
"I also want to address the issue raised that employees are subjected to negative repercussions if they avail themselves to the grievance or complaint processes. To be certain, employees can file a complaint or grievance without fear of reprisal. City of Greensboro policy and practice does not support disciplinary or adverse action taken against an employee for filing a complaint or utilizing the grievance process. This administration will investigate any and all complaints and evaluate and respond to all grievances based on policy and best business practices. However, we expect all employees to adhere to standards of professional conduct and truthfulness in following the grievance process or submitting formal complaints."
Notably, three officers who have filed grievances are facing termination for allegations that they were untruthful in their assertions: Capt. Charles Cherry, Officer AJ Blake and Officer Joseph Pryor. A fourth officer who has a pending grievance, Robert Reyes, faces termination based on a charge of "malicious gossip." Actually, according to available information, it appears that the officers' assertions are truthful, and that the activity for which Reyes is being disciplined is actually an effort to suppress malicious gossip.
Realistically, because North Carolina protects personnel records, it's difficult to impossible to gauge the merits of the department's allegation that the dissident officers have been untruthful.
"To be certain, no employee should be subjected to a fitness for duty evaluation based on the utilization of the grievance or complaint process. This would not comport with our organizational norms or values. The fitness for duty policy is codified in GPD directive 8.2. This directive provides a process of psychological evaluation based on a number of factors and criteria. In understanding the GPD's fitness for duty process it is important to also refer to Directive 7.5 Professional Standards Program. This program, by policy, is a non-disciplinary avenue to address problems as early as possible in a proactive manner. The Professional Standards Program provides for a process of evaluation by a panel who can then recommend the appropriate course of action, if any. Those recommendations can include referral to the department's psychological assignment program where the policy surrounding fitness for duty is located."
It's not clear how this explanation illuminates the reasons Capt. Charles Cherry was recommended for fitness for duty in June. Cherry raises questions about that decision here and here.
"The city of Greensboro's FMLA practices are codified in Personnel Policy F-6. It states in relevant part, 'When an employee notifies the supervisor of a potential FMLA event, or after the employee has been absent for five business days, the supervisor will send the FMLA Leave Request Form to the FMLA Coordinator in Human Resources so the FMLA packet can be sent to the employee. The FMLA packet is sent by certified mail.' Therefore, the city's practice of asking employees to fill out FMLA paperwork is based on the employee's leave status and is not related to fitness for duty or any other administrative action."
Cherry raises concerns about the city's use of the Family and Medical Leave Act here.
While five officers facing termination allege that the department is undertaking a preordained course to purge them from the ranks to silence their grievances, Young contends that the city has refined its disciplinary processes to ensure fairness and consistency.
"We have had detailed, thorough and rigorous reviews of virtually every aspect of structure, management, and operation of the Greensboro Police Department. We have proactively continued to review our policies and systems, making changes and modifications where necessary and appropriate. We have refined our promotional processes, disciplinary process, overtime assignment process, off duty detail process, internal investigations standards and processes, as well as improved the relationship with the complaint review committee (CRC). We have cooperated with all investigations and inquiries into the GPD. We have instituted mechanisms for employee discussion and feedback and have increased the number of available opportunities for employees in GPD in particular to communicate any workplace issues or problems they perceive. We have been exhaustive in making sure that the Greensboro Police Department is managed appropriately, structured efficiently and operates professionally and with integrity."
Two more black officers face termination from GPD
Two black officers who have filed grievances and who are plaintiffs in a federal discrimination lawsuit against the Greensboro Police Department have been suspended from the department with recommendations for termination in as many days.Capt. Charles Cherry, who was commander of the Eastern patrol division at the time he was placed on administrative leave in early June, faces termination for general conduct and for truthfulness and malicious gossip in grievances that he has filed, according a knowledgeable source who spoke on condition of anonymity. The general conduct charge relates to a June 17 e-mail Cherry sent out to members of his division providing details about his recommendation for fitness-for-duty evaluation, while truthfulness and malicious gossip infractions relate to a statement made by the captain to the effect that retired Chief Tim Bellamy was at one time a complainant in the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission matter that is now in the federal courts.
Cherry was placed on suspension today. Yesterday, Officer Joseph Pryor was also suspended without pay with a recommendation for termination, said the Rev. Cardes Brown, the president of the Greensboro branch of the NAACP and an advocate for the officers. Brown said Pryor was suspended on the basis that information in one of his grievances was allegedly untruthful and constituted malicious gossip. A third officer, AJ Blake, was placed on administrative leave and recommended for termination last month for allegedly making “inaccurate and incomplete” statements and engaging in “malicious gossip” when he spoke at a press conference held more than a year ago at Brown’s church in which the officer argued that he was the victim of disparate treatment in a disciplinary matter, and for purportedly displaying an “ongoing pattern of poor judgment.”
City Manager Rashad Young said that a fourth officer “had disciplinary service” this week. It is not known at this time whether the fourth case has resulted in a suspension without pay and recommendation for termination.
Should interim Chief Dwight Crotts render a decision in favor of termination, Cherry, like the other officers, will likely appeal it up to the city manager level. But Young indicated in a July 29 personnel memo to Cherry that he feels little sympathy for his position.
“You contend that your recitation of your fitness-for-duty memorandum was an effort to dispel gossip, build trust, and continue the bond you have with your officers,” the city manager wrote. “I find that explanation disingenuous. Your purpose in reading your fitness-for-duty memorandum along with your elaboration on its merits was for the express purpose for exposing what you believed to be the ‘ultimate plan’ to terminate your employment and attack you leadership, as you stated in your June 14 memorandum.
“Your decision to both e-mail members of the department and read from the memo at line-up was clearly to cause disruption, stimulate rancor and discontent, and advance your theory of motivation and intent,” Young continued. “That is not the appropriate venue to make your argument and does not comport with the established procedures in the complaint resolution or grievance process.”
Referencing an internal investigation of Pryor without mentioning the officer by name, Cherry told City Manager Young in an Aug. 2 memo that he has access to an interview “of a professional standards investigator omitting information in an investigation that absolutely changes the course,” and that certain individuals that should have been investigated were not put under scrutiny.
“Even after Mike Speedling, the assistant city manager, in reviewing Officer Pryor’s grievance, said that either IA was incompetent or discriminatory, he wrote in your paper that that was only applied to one case,” Brown said. “The man was suspended without pay even after the assistant city manager said with regard to Pryor’s case that IA was either incompetent or discriminatory?”
Speedling was quoted in a July 28 YES! Weekly article as saying that his comments referenced only one investigation. He added, “I do not make the leap of faith that Cherry does that if one investigation is investigatively insufficient that the entire professional standards division is incapable.”
Cherry and Brown have asked how Speedling could determine that one professional standards investigation reflected discrimination or incompetence, but remain unconcerned about whether any and all investigations undertaken by the same officers might have also been tainted. How can any officers under investigation by professional standards — currently including Cherry, Pryor and Blake — feel confident they will receive a fair and competent investigation, they ask.
“Comprehend that discrimination and incompetence are not technical errors you can change by sending an investigation back to the offenders,” Cherry wrote in a July 30 memo to Young. “Comprehend that you must correct and deal with (investigation, disciplinary action) the offenders, to include finding out why the discrimination and incompetence occurred.”
Cherry has stated in his correspondence to Young that after Speedling remanded the internal investigation of Pryor back to professional affairs, then-Assistant Chief Dwight Crotts changed the determination to “unfounded.”
“The whole process of this grievance was about a charge brought against Pryor that was declared by IA as unfounded,” Brown said. “Instead of Pryor letting it go, he said, ‘I can’t let it go because there were white officers who collaborated.’”
Cherry has urged the city, so far without avail, to request an outside investigation of the police department by the US Justice Department, contending that those in positions of authority within the department are so deeply implicated in the grievances that they no longer have the ability to render fair decisions.
Brown said that during a command review meeting, Capt. John Wolfe, remarked that he didn’t trust any of the officers who are plaintiffs in the federal discrimination lawsuit, and that Crotts, who is now interim chief, agreed, saying that he didn’t trust the officers either.
“Officer Pryor has to go before Dwight Crotts for his termination hearing,” Brown said. “He will likely uphold termination because he said he doesn’t trust the officers on the suit, and Pryor is one of them, just like Cherry and Blake are. The question should be asked of him: ‘Could you be unbiased?’”
Crotts told YES! Weekly today: “I can absolutely be impartial.”
Crotts said that he doesn’t recall the conversation in which he is alleged to have said that he doesn’t trust the officers on the discrimination suit. Wolfe, who was also reached by phone today, denied outright having made the statement, saying, “Those are not my words. I’m not going to comment on it.”
The city manager told YES! Weekly today that he has at least one outstanding grievance filed by Cherry that requires a decision on his part. That is a claim filed by Cherry on July 22 that an official decision by Assistant Chief Anita Holder deeming him fit for duty following two separate psychological evaluations confirmed a pattern of incompetency and unfair treatment.
“Interim Chief Crotts, through discrimination, retaliation and abuse of power, recommends me for a fit for duty psychological assessment, for which Chief Crotts cannot begin to justify,” Cherry wrote earlier this week.
Crotts declined to comment, calling the matter “a personnel issue.”
Cherry wrote, “Interim Chief Crotts utilizes as his reasoning (for fit for duty psychological evaluation), the fact that I wrote or assisted in writing grievances. This sentence alone is clearly an act of retaliation.”
Crotts told YES! Weekly he doesn’t consider his reference to Cherry’s grievances to be evidence of retaliation.
Cherry has protested to Young that his grievances are either not investigated or receive inadequate attention, while complaints against him appear to be zealously pursued. Cherry informed Young that on June 24 Sgt. AT McHenry notified him that he was investigating him for a possible violation of the department’s truthfulness directive. Cherry quotes McHenry’s notification memo as saying that Cherry stated in complaint that “Chief TR Bellamy was a complainant on an EEOC lawsuit filed originally by approximately 44 minority officers by former chief of police David Wray. Chief Bellamy, then an assistant chief, assisted in galvanizing officers together as it related to discriminatory, unfair practices of former Chief David Wray and former Chief Wray’s administration. Then Assistant Chief TR Bellamy applied to be chief of police just prior to appointment to chief of police, withdrew his name from the lawsuit. Chief Bellamy has denied that he has ever been part of the lawsuit.”
Cherry told Young, in response that lawyer Ken Free confirmed after Bellamy completed an EEOC complaint form that the future chief was on the lawsuit, that after Bellamy was appointed interim chief to replace Wray he instructed Sgt. Steve Hunter to destroy the EEOC complaint form, and that a footnote in a court document filed by Free contains information taken from Bellamy’s complaint form.
Hunter and Free could not be reached for comment for this story.
In closing his most recent correspondence with the city manager, Cherry wrote, “Mr. Young, you appear to be determined to be compliant to the political wheel of maintaining a vital lie, the necessary deception to maintain the social fabric of the community. Many seek the guerdon of authority but lack the courageousness for amelioriation. Never forget, the rules are the equalizer, thus, you can never abandon them.”
Young responded that, to the contrary, the only political pressure he’s felt has come from the NAACP and other segments of the community calling for the Justice Department’s intervention. Young said he has strived to make decisions objectively based on the information at hand, and will continue to do so.
“Certainly I want to limit the city’s risk and the city’s exposure,” he said. “I make decisions based on the policy direction that I get, what the right thing fundamentally is to do and the professional thing is to do. If we get sued because of that, then we’ll address that and deal with it.”
City responds to assistant chief's lawsuit
I missed the city of Greensboro's response about a week ago to Assistant police Chief Ron Rogers' lawsuit, but I thought readers would be interested to know the city's view of the plaintiff's claim that his due process rights were violated and his contention that there was nothing inappropriate about his relationship with a subordinate officer.
Rogers' lawsuit argues, “Recusal was constitutionally required because the city manager made the initial decision of discipline — to suspend the petitioner without pay — and then required the petitioner to appeal the city manager’s decision to the city manager!”
The city responds:
One thing is clear: Young took a special interest in the assistant chief's case. The city concedes, "It is true that the city manager, recognizing the inflammatory nature of the allegations and the high rank of Rogers, the accused, gave this matter his personal attention from the outset."
Rogers disputes an assertion by Young that he testified during his appeals hearing that he had an "inappropriate relationship" with Officer Latania Marrow.
Rogers also contends that he “did not testify about sexual conversations with Officer Marrow that he initiated. His testimony was to the effect that he mentored Officer Marrow — and many other lower-ranking officers — and that Officer Marrow would come to him for advice about how to handle off-duty relationships and how to overcome problems with her husband who was also a police officer.”
The key piece of lawyerese in the matter of sexual conversations seems to be "that he initiated."
The city says quite a bit about the nature of Rogers and Marrow's relationship in its response:
The city manager concluded that the investigation by the human resources and legal departments did not substantiate Marrow's allegation of sexual harassment against Rogers.
I'd be interested to know whether readers' think the details shared by the city indicate Rogers' relationship with a female subordinate officer was inappropriate. I have fairly strong feelings about this, but I'd prefer to let others go first so as to avoid steering the discussion.
Rogers' lawsuit argues, “Recusal was constitutionally required because the city manager made the initial decision of discipline — to suspend the petitioner without pay — and then required the petitioner to appeal the city manager’s decision to the city manager!”
The city responds:
Nothing in the charter, ordinance or personnel manual says the city manager cannot participate personally unless and until the matter is appealed. To the contrary: the process in the manual is merely a mechanism for funneling complaints so that the city manager is not required to address them all at their earliest levels. As referenced above, both the city's charter and its personnel ordinance give the city manager the authority to do so. Indeed, the ultimate responsibility for discipline lies, in all instances, with the city manager, and the Manual for Personnel Administrations makes clear that he will bypass the regular hearing procedure if he believes, as here, that it is in the best interest of the city.
One thing is clear: Young took a special interest in the assistant chief's case. The city concedes, "It is true that the city manager, recognizing the inflammatory nature of the allegations and the high rank of Rogers, the accused, gave this matter his personal attention from the outset."
Rogers disputes an assertion by Young that he testified during his appeals hearing that he had an "inappropriate relationship" with Officer Latania Marrow.
Rogers also contends that he “did not testify about sexual conversations with Officer Marrow that he initiated. His testimony was to the effect that he mentored Officer Marrow — and many other lower-ranking officers — and that Officer Marrow would come to him for advice about how to handle off-duty relationships and how to overcome problems with her husband who was also a police officer.”
The key piece of lawyerese in the matter of sexual conversations seems to be "that he initiated."
The city says quite a bit about the nature of Rogers and Marrow's relationship in its response:
Rogers was disciplined following the investigation of a sexual harassment complaint brought against him by a female subordinate officer [Marrow, who is married to another police officer in the department, as is Rogers.] Pursuant to the city's personnel policies, investigation of the complaint was assigned to two investigators, one from human resources and the other from the legal department. During the course of the investigation, both Rogers and the female officer (among others) were interviewed and cell phone records were reviewed. Rogers admitted that he had participated in numerous text and cell phone communications with the female officer, both while she was on duty and off duty. He admitted that they communicated about things outside of work such as her marital problems and dissatisfaction with her sex life. He admitted that he had called her after he had been drinking alcohol to talk about personal matters and that there were rumors circulating in the department about the two of them. He admitted that he had invited her to the [Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association] tournament in Charlotte and that she had told him that if she came to Charlotte she was not going to "give him any." When asked if he would be comfortable with his wife knowing the content of the communications with the female subordinate officer, Rogers acknowledged that she would not be pleased that he "messed up." Overall, however, Rogers maintained that the conversations between the female officer and himself were welcomed by her and were the communications of two consenting adults. He did not, apparently, take into consideration the disruption to the department that resulted from rumors of their relationships and the subordinate female's subsequent sexual harassment complaint. Even so, Rogers admitted that by virtue of his position as assistant chief, he is held to the highest standards of behavior.
The city manager concluded that the investigation by the human resources and legal departments did not substantiate Marrow's allegation of sexual harassment against Rogers.
I'd be interested to know whether readers' think the details shared by the city indicate Rogers' relationship with a female subordinate officer was inappropriate. I have fairly strong feelings about this, but I'd prefer to let others go first so as to avoid steering the discussion.
GPD captain to city manager: 'Lead this city'
Greensboro police Capt. Charles Cherry, who commands the patrol bureau of the Eastern Division, has been officially deemed fit for duty more than a month after Assistant Chief Dwight Crotts, the man who will lead the department beginning on Aug. 31, recommended him for evaluation.
Another assistant chief, Anita Holder, informed Cherry this morning that he is still on administrative duty, and with pay, but "pending the outcome of current administrative investigations."
The reason given for Cherry's recommendation for fitness-for-duty evaluation was a series of grievances that he had filed on behalf of himself and other officers. Now that two psychologists have confirmed that the captain is indeed fit for duty, the department is investigating the truthfulness of statements in the grievances.
In this memo, Cherry expresses his belief to City Manager Rashad Young that Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling, Chief Tim Bellamy and Assistant Chief Dwight Crotts are incompetent, discriminatory, retaliatory, harassing and creating a hostile work environment "for me and other officers."
I encourage you, readers of this blog and engaged citizens of Greensboro, to read the memo in its entirety and make up your own minds as to whether Cherry's allegations are factually supported, or, alternately, whether they raise sufficient concerns as to necessitate full and candid response from the city government.
Memo From Capt. Charles Cherry to City Manager Rashad Young
Rashad Young's response was succinct when I asked him if he would be inclined to comment on this memo: "No."
Another assistant chief, Anita Holder, informed Cherry this morning that he is still on administrative duty, and with pay, but "pending the outcome of current administrative investigations."
The reason given for Cherry's recommendation for fitness-for-duty evaluation was a series of grievances that he had filed on behalf of himself and other officers. Now that two psychologists have confirmed that the captain is indeed fit for duty, the department is investigating the truthfulness of statements in the grievances.
In this memo, Cherry expresses his belief to City Manager Rashad Young that Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling, Chief Tim Bellamy and Assistant Chief Dwight Crotts are incompetent, discriminatory, retaliatory, harassing and creating a hostile work environment "for me and other officers."
I encourage you, readers of this blog and engaged citizens of Greensboro, to read the memo in its entirety and make up your own minds as to whether Cherry's allegations are factually supported, or, alternately, whether they raise sufficient concerns as to necessitate full and candid response from the city government.
Memo From Capt. Charles Cherry to City Manager Rashad Young
Rashad Young's response was succinct when I asked him if he would be inclined to comment on this memo: "No."
GPD captain accuses assistant city manager of untruthfulness
Greensboro police Capt. Charles Cherry alleges in a grievance to City Manager Rashad Young that a statement Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling was untruthful in characterizing Cherry to YES! Weekly as being on "medical leave."
Also of interest in this grievance is references to an investigation underway by the professional standards division to determine whether statements made by Cherry were truthful:
Editorial note: The lawsuit referenced here is the federal discrimination lawsuit that is currently pending.
I haven't attempted to get the city's response to these allegations, because so far I've found official statements to be evasive and incomplete. I also have found that the community at large and readership has generally displayed a lack of curiosity about this story. I'll hold my investigative firepower until either the city becomes more forthcoming with answers or the community becomes more insistent on demanding them.
Also of interest in this grievance is references to an investigation underway by the professional standards division to determine whether statements made by Cherry were truthful:
On July 16, 2010, while I was in the Professional Standards Division, I spoke with Sergeant AT McHenry, and Corporal MJ Harris was present. Sergeant McHenry is investigating me regarding an alleged truthfulness violation. Sergeant McHenry stated to me that based on a complaint I had filed, he had spoken to Attorney Ken Free. Sergeant McHenry stated he needed me to waive attorney client privilege to confirm some allegations I had made in a document. I stated, "Why don't you just ask Ken if he told me that Bellamy was on the lawsuit, and he would have told you yes. Why didn't you just ask Ken if he told me that Bellamy was off the lawsuit and he would've told you yes."
Editorial note: The lawsuit referenced here is the federal discrimination lawsuit that is currently pending.
Sergeant McHenry then replied, "I did ask him, and you know what he said? He (Ken Free) said, "I don't recall. You (Cherry) need to get your facts straight." I then asked Sergeant McHenry, "If you asked Ken that question, then why do I need to contact him and waive attorney client privilege?" I believe that Sergeant McHenry is being untruthful. I also believe that Sergeant McHenry needs me to waive the attorney client privilege to try and cover allegations that I made in previous documents. At this time, I do not intend to waive attorney client privilege, with Mr. Free. Please investigate my additional allegation against Sergeant McHenry. I believe Sergeant McHenry's actions support Assistant City Manager Mr. Speedling's statement, to an officer, that the result's of the officer's investigation is due to "incompetence or discrimination," on the part of professional standards.
I haven't attempted to get the city's response to these allegations, because so far I've found official statements to be evasive and incomplete. I also have found that the community at large and readership has generally displayed a lack of curiosity about this story. I'll hold my investigative firepower until either the city becomes more forthcoming with answers or the community becomes more insistent on demanding them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)