Showing posts with label Ron Rogers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Rogers. Show all posts

Chief answers questions and outlines initiatives at community meeting

>>> A community forum led by Greensboro police Chief Ken Miller tonight at Trotter Community Center ranged over several topics, with a television reporter and a fired captain, along with his supporters, broadening the discussion in what was billed as a meeting geared towards the southern patrol division.

In response to one resident’s question, Miller said he would want to move cautiously on a police substation for High Point Road and outlined some reservations.

“Facilities cost a lot of money and I want to be careful before the city makes that investment because the city really doesn’t have money to pitch out the window in regard to that investment, and although there are people who might even be willing to donate space, there becomes an expectation that we’re there," Miller said. "And if we’re there, it means a person is in a building instead of in a neighborhood. I’m a little concerned about how we manage that. We have to manage a substation. I would rather have people in your neighborhood then sitting at a substation, and not have a substation, because when you put ‘Greensboro Police Department’ on the side of a building, there’s an expectation that you be able to go up and pull the door open and go in and see someone.”

A Lamrocton resident said his car had recently been broken into, and he wanted to know when he would see additional patrols in area neighborhoods.

Miller noted that the 26.2-square-mile division has a lot of road to cover and explained that his priority is to have a patrol force with adequate flexibility to move with crime rather than being tied down in a particular location.

“Where I want my people concentrated is where crimes are concentrated,” he said. “And that doesn’t mean that we’re not going to put people in your neighborhood. Crimes will move around. They’ll pop up over here. They may pop up in your neighborhood. And if they pop up with any volume – again, we’re looking at it week to week – we’re going to put cars in your neighborhood. I know that doesn’t help you because you were broken into. These people move around; they tend to move around in clusters. We’re trying to stay on those clusters.”

Another question centered on a license checkpoint on Phillips Avenue, which lies in the eastern patrol division, that the department operated on Election Day. The checkpoint raised concerns about voter suppression in a predominantly African-American neighborhood, and prompted numerous complaints to the department. Miller said the checkpoint was cut short as soon as the department was made aware of the conflict with voting.

Assistant Chief Ron Rogers, who oversees patrols for the department, took responsibility for the mistake.

“I absolutely missed the connection that it was Election Day,” he said. “I take full responsibility for that. Chief Miller had no control over it. Nobody in city government had control. It was a request through my chain of command. Every two weeks, that squad gets together to do a special assignment. They chose that location. I approved it. Looking back I wish I had put the two together because I would have canceled it. But as soon as I got word that it sent a negative message to the community, we broke it down."

A recent shooting in Greensboro’s downtown entertainment district prompted a news reporter to ask the chief whether had formulated a plan to address violent crime. Miller responded that he had met with nightclub owner Rocco Scarfone, Downtown Greensboro Inc. and members of city council, but reiterated that violent crime is down overall in Greensboro.

“You’ve got some very sensational crimes that have occurred in the past week or two that concern us, yes,” the chief said. “Are they the norm? No, I wouldn’t call that a trend yet. But they concern us. As far as a plan around the nightclubs… we’re working through a process quite frankly to address clubs. It’s not just the N Club. There are a number of clubs downtown that we’re going to have to pay attention to. And I think they’ll probably get some attention at the council meeting Tuesday night. So we’re not ignoring it.”

Much of Miller's presentation was taken up with changes to the department's discipline process that are now underway. The chief has appointed an 18-member committee led by Capt. Joe Smith and Capt. Wayne Scott. Miller said he hopes to implement the new discipline structure by January.

The chief outlined four basic areas of focus, starting with rules of conduct.

“Some of it was compressed together where you had insubordination, discourtesy, harassment and what I would equate to profiling all in one sentence," he said. "I wanted to have greater specificity because that doesn’t help me or this organization learn, one, where problems are happening, if they are lumped together like that.”

Next, he talked about the investigative process.

“Polygraph has come up around our investigative process," Miller said. "I think there’s a time and place for polygraphs. I just don’t think it’s all the time. And I think there are certain boundaries around polygraphs. And we’ve talked about that, and we’re doing it. We’ve laid out what those are. A polygraph is not something any supervisor in the organization ought to be able to order up. It should be me, because I’m accountable for it…. There are some things that I believe are out of bounds. I think deception in our investigative process internally is out of bounds.”

Miller said he sees it as a conflict of interest for him to both recommend discipline and hear appeals.

“When I say the police chief is a balance point, I don’t believe that I ought to be sitting in every hearing and deciding the cases because when I do that I’m not on the appeal track," he said. "I can’t balance the interest of the organization. And the only person who can balance the interest of the organization is either the city manager or the assistant city manager. They ought to be operating on different issues than discipline. That has consumed an awful lot of their time this past year.”

He said he wants discipline to be consistent, but cautioned against a "cookie-cutter" approach.

“I want people to be heard before we apply discipline," Miller said. "And I want discipline applied consistently, recognizing that most every situation that occurs in policing unfolds in a rather unique way. It’s not cookie-cutter, so a matrix just doesn’t work. Just like in the courts, is there an aggravating or mitigating circumstance – in this case, it’s an officer’s behavior – that affects the level of discipline…. To apply discipline fairly, you have to look at the aggravating and mitigating circumstances under which the employee acted. We’re they acting in the public interest or were they acting in their own self interests? Did they hijack the Constitution in the name of public [safety]? Did they make an unlawful search or arrest because they can’t get the goods on a bad offender any other way? Every now and again that happens around the country. But if you have a person who makes a mistake on an arrest that’s truly trying to do everything right, you don’t want to treat them the same way. Somebody’s trying to do everything right, and somebody’s trying to hijack the Constitution. They’re just very different situations."

The chief concluded, "There are still some management-employee relations issues. Some of those are race related. We're going to have some race-relations discussions in the department. We can't deal with it if it's not on the table. We can't stick our heads in the sand. Not saying anybody has in the past. But we can't."

Charles Cherry, a former captain who was recently fired, sat in the center of the room. After Miller’s presentation, Cherry made an allegation that Assistant Chief Dwight Crotts is documented violating state personnel policy in a YouTube video. Miller refused to engage Cherry, and similarly rebuffed questions posed by the Revs. Cardes Brown and Randall Keeney.

Miller also said the department is in the process of implementing CompStat management program, and to create a priority offender strategy in concert with the district attorney’s office.

One topic that did not come up is a recent Title VI civil rights complaint filed with the US Justice Department against the department on behalf of the North Carolina Latin Kings by the Southern Coalition for Social Justice. The complaint alleges that the department's gang unit has discriminated against the Latin Kings on the basis of race by bringing baseless charges against them, subjecting them to unlawful stops, non-consensual searches and false arrests often using excessive force.

"My position is they've reached out to Justice like they've done before, to say, 'We're a street gang and we're being picked on,'" Miller said. "We'll see what happens. We have complaints on file. We've tried to investigate, and they won't talk to us."

At the end of the meeting, supporters of black and Latino police officers who have been subjected to adverse action handed out fliers for a different kind of community meeting on Nov. 11. Among the items on the agenda is a discussion about filing additional complaints documenting discriminatory treatment of citizens to send to the Justice Department.

The flier state that officials from two different areas of the Justice Department are expected at the meeting, and that Mayor Bill Knight, City Manager Rashad Young and Chief Ken Miller have also been invited.

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:

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.

Assistant police chief sues city of Greensboro over disciplinary decision (full report)

Rogers

An assistant chief with the Greensboro Police Department has filed suit against the city of Greensboro seeking a court order to vacate a disciplinary action by the city manager.

Assistant Chief Ronald E. Rogers was suspended without pay for 21 days, or 15 working days, from the department by City Manager Rashad Young in February for conduct unbecoming of a police officer. Two months after Rogers returned to work, Young retroactively reduced the assistant chief’s suspension to five days. Thomas F. Loflin III, a Durham lawyer who represents Rogers, said his client received retroactive pay for 10 of the working days in which he had been suspended.

As noted in the new lawsuit, which was filed in Guilford County Superior Court today, Rogers is a plaintiff with 38 other black officers in a pending federal lawsuit “alleging a pervasive pattern of racial discrimination by the respondent city against African-American members of the city’s police department.”

Young

The new civil action filed by Rogers, a petition for writ of certiorari, takes issue with both the process by which the assistant chief was disciplined and the facts of the matter for which he was suspended.

The disciplinary action against Rogers arose from a sexual harassment allegation made against the assistant chief by a former police employee, Latania Marrow, at her termination hearing.

Young wrote in a Feb. 8 memo to Rogers that an internal investigation “did not substantiate Ms. Marrow’s allegations of sexual harassment,” but that as an assistant chief he was being “held to a more exacting standard than non-supervisory employees” and that Rogers had placed the city “at risk of a sexual harassment charge and other associated claims.”

In a May 14 memo, following Rogers’ appeal, Young wrote, “During your appellate hearing you admitted, under oath, that you had an inappropriate relationship with former police officer Marrow. While both police officer Marrow and a police corporal were being investigated for allegations of sexual misconduct, you had contact with both of them regarding the case. Your contact with police officer Marrow at some point included discussions of both her marriage and her sexual activity. This has particular significance in that police officer Marrow was married to a fellow Greensboro police officer while you were engaging in these sexual conversations. The nature of these conversations was such that you admitted during your appellate hearing that your wife, also a Greensboro officer, would be offended by their content.”

Young concluded that Rogers’ actions “not only reflect poorly on you and the GPD but also directly impacts the lives of four of your fellow officers.”

Loflin said the appeals hearing was recorded at his client’s request. He declined to release a copy of the recording, but predicted it will eventually become a part of the court record.

“We definitely contend the record will show not that he had an inappropriate relationship, but rather to the contrary,” he said.

The lawsuit states that Rogers “did not testify at the hearing that he had an ‘inappropriate relationship’” with Marrow, but rather that the assistant chief “steadfastly denied any ‘inappropriate relationship’” with her.

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.”

Also, the lawsuit contends that during the hearing Young asked Rogers if he had “engaged in ‘sexual banter’ with Officer Marrow, which the city manager defined as talking about sex acts with each other.”

Rogers says he “flatly denied engaging in such ‘sexual banter’ with Officer Marrow.”

In his May 14 letter, in which he advised Rogers that there were no further appeals available, Young acknowledged “the issues raised with regard to the documentation of investigatory findings in this matter,” adding that, “consistent with like and similar discipline, I am reducing your suspension from fifteen duty days to five duty days.”

In his notice of appeal, filed in February, Rogers alleges that he was called into a disciplinary hearing with the city manager on Feb. 11 without any formal notice, in contravention to city policies and procedures.

“The city of Greensboro failed to present me with any specific allegations of unacceptable behavior or actions on which my suspension from active duty with the Greensboro Police Department were based,” Rogers wrote. “I do not know the alleged conduct on which my suspension was based. The terms articulated by the city manager as ‘unacceptable behavior and actions adversely affecting the police department’ are broad vague terms and not specific in nature.”

The lawsuit contends that the city violated Rogers’ constitutional right to due process when Young told Rogers that he could appeal the initial disciplinary decision but refused to recuse himself as the hearing officer for the March 12 appeal hearing. The lawsuit contends that Young’s eventual decision and process for making it “were legally erroneous, did not afford petitioner constitutional due process and equal protection of the laws, [and] were arbitrary and capricious.”

The 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 lawsuit cites the US Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Caperton v. AT Massey Coal Co. in its argument that “there is an unconstitutional probability of actual bias — as well as clear legal bias — when a person entertains an appeal from his own decision.”

City Attorney Terry Wood said Monday that he had not seen the lawsuit. Noting that as a rule he does not comment on pending litigation, he said the city’s response would be in a formal filing.

“The denial of my rights as outlined above by the city manager continues the city’s pattern, practice and custom in place since at least 1997 of discriminating against African-Americans,” Rogers said in his appeal. “The city manager is biased in fact against me, as evidenced by his statement to me on February 11, when he delivered his decision to suspend me, and that he really preferred to fire me.”

Assistant chief files suit against city of Greensboro

Ronald E. Rogers, an assistant chief with the Greensboro Police Department, has filed a petition for writ of certiori in Guilford County Superior Court seeking to reverse a disciplinary decision by City Manager Rashad Young for allegedly engaging in conduct unbecoming of a police officer. Rogers was suspended from the department without pay for 21 days in February.

Rogers is among 39 black officers who are plaintiffs in a federal discrimination lawsuit against the city of Greensboro.

Developing...