Police DepartmentCity of Greensboro

September 3, 2010

TO: City Manager, Rashad Young

FROM: Captain C.E. Cherry, Commanding Officer, Patrol Bureau, Eastern Division

SUBJECT: Appeal Of Disciplinary Action Imposed (Termination) By Interim Chief D.K. Crotts

Pursuant City Policy H-1 Corrective Action, this memorandum serves as my official appeal document of disciplinary action imposed by Interim Chief of Police D.K. Crotts on August 30, 2010. That disciplinary action is termination of employment.

Mr. Young, please note that I requested the transcripts, of my August 25, 2010 General Board of Inquiry through memo. I requested that the transcripts be provided to me by August 30, 2010, at 5:00pm. I had to complete my appeal without the benefit of the requested transcripts.

Interim Chief D.K. Crotts’ Disciplinary Action Taken Memorandum to me states in italics:

On Wednesday, August 25, 2010, a General Board of Inquiry was convened to hear administrative charges against you as a result of your actions beginning March 30, 2010 through July 12, 2010. Assistant Chief A.L. Holder (Bureau Commander of the Management Bureau) recommended the following discipline and Interim Chief D.K. Crotts concurred:

Termination of Employment

Following a review of all relevant information, evidence, and testimony from involved witness/persons with knowledge; the Board made a recommendation to me concerning the disposition of your administrative investigation. I have considered this recommendation in making the following determination:

Findings:

It was determined that sufficient evidence did not exist to sustain the following charges against you: Directive 1.5.3: Truthfulness- Not Sustained

1

It was determined that sufficient evidence did exist to sustain the following charges against you:

Directive 1.5.1: General Conduct (as it relates to the Confidentiality Agreement)- Sustained

Directive 1.5.8: Malicious Criticism and Gossip- Sustained Directive 1.5.9: Discretion (as it relates to your attendance to Eastern Division Squad A’s line- up and an e-mail you sent to Eastern Division Personnel)- Sustained

Disciplinary Action Imposed:

Termination of Employment

End of Reference To Interim Chief D.K. Crotts’ Disciplinary Action Memo.

Mr. Young, it should be noted that I am one of approximately thirty nine (39) minority officers in on-going litigation with the City of Greensboro alleging discrimination. My actions beginning March 30, 2010 through July 12, 2010, are related to the submitting of grievances or the assisting of submitting grievances by subordinate officers, and also informing officers under my command that I was undergoing a Fit For Duty Psychological Assessment.

It is my contention that the investigations conducted on me, the sustaining of the allegations against me and my termination of employment with the Greensboro Police Department is due to the following but not all inclusive reasoning:

It is a retaliation against a Plaintiff (Charles Cherry) in a current lawsuit against the City of Greensboro.

An attempt to silence and get rid of me because I have filed grievances and assisted others in filing grievances that point out continuing discrimination, retaliation, harassment, intimidation, and hostile work environments.

These grievances and complaints expose the fact that a discriminatory, unfair investigative process exists within the Greensboro Police Department that adversely affects citizens and officers.

These grievances and complaints have allegations against approximately twenty two (22) City Employees, to include the Greensboro Police Department’s Professional Standards Division (Internal Affairs) that have not been investigated.

Prior to the General Board of Inquiry convening, a recommendation for my termination was made by Assistant Chief Anita Holder. It is my contention that because I had the following, but not all inclusive allegations, against Assistant Chief Holder, it is unrealistic to believe that Assistant Chief Holder could be fair, consistent and just in any disciplinary recommendations concerning me. These written and formally submitted (prior to my termination) allegations have not yet been investigated.

2

Assistant Chief Holder and Interim Chief D.K. Crotts conspired with City Psychologist Michael Cuttler to have me psychologically assessed without cause, with an unachieved goal of ultimately finding me unfit for duty and terminated.

Assistant Chief Holder threatened my employment. Assistant Chief Holder suspended me without cause (for taking a proper action that she

approved). Assistant Chief Holder solicited me to misrepresent my status to the North Carolina State

Retirement System, in an attempt to defraud the system. Assistant Chief Holder refused to investigate legitimate complaints I made against

another Commander. This is in violation of Greensboro Police Department Directives. For these and other reasons it is my assertion that Assistant Chief Holder should not be

allowed to and would not make a fair recommendation as it relates to any disciplinary action concerning me.

Interim Chief Dwight Crotts was the Chairman of the Board, and had final decision making power, as it related to my General Board of Inquiry, on August 25, 2010. It is my contention that because I had the following, but not all inclusive allegations, against Interim Chief Crotts, it is unrealistic to believe that Interim Chief Crotts could be fair, consistent and just in any disciplinary recommendations concerning me. These written and formally submitted (prior to my termination) allegations have not yet been investigated.

In a Command Staff only meeting, Captain J.E. Wolfe stated that he did not trust the individuals on the EEOC lawsuit. Assistant Chief Crotts stated he agreed with Captain Wolfe. Unless Assistant Chief Crotts and Captain Wolfe can explain why the distrust each of the thirty nine (39) individuals on the suit, then the statement is retaliatory. Assistant Chief Crotts has not explained why he distrusted the thirty nine (39) individuals (including me), all of which Assistant Chief Crotts has authority over.

Interim Chief D.K. Crotts and Interim Assistant Chief Holder conspired with City Psychologist Michael Cuttler to have me psychologically assessed without cause, with an ultimate but unachieved of finding me unfit for duty and terminated.

Interim Chief Crotts recommended me for a Fit For Duty Psychological Evaluation based upon writing grievances. This is clear retaliation.

Interim Chief Crotts came to my office and intimidated and harassed me as it related to assisting officers with writing grievances.

Interim Chief Crotts lowered my evaluation from a Level four (4) to a Level (1) without cause. I alleged that the changed evaluation was due to discrimination, retaliation, harassment and unfair treatment. Former Chief Bellamy changed (in my favor) the evaluation. One (1) of the reasons Interim Chief Crotts utilized for changing the evaluation was because of false statements in grievances. I was not sustained on a truthfulness violation as it related to my grievances. In addition, Interim Chief Crotts placed this information in my evaluation without a completed investigation being conducted on me as it related to a truthfulness violation.

Interim Chief Crotts condoned the following, monitoring and “shadowing” of an officer by non-supervisory officers. The shadowed officer was unaware of what was being done to him, and the information gathered was used detrimentally against the shadowed officer.

3

This shadowing technique on the officer is a link between complaints made by the thirty nine (39) minority officers and on-going current activities. Both occurrences happened under the knowledge and authority of Interim Chief Dwight Crotts. This is confirmed through documentation to include Interim Chief Crotts’ own documentation.

Interim Chief Crotts was untruthful, intimidated and harassed an officer as it relates to the officer filing a grievance. This is confirmed through documentation to include that of Interim Chief Crotts.

Interim Chief Crotts has been made aware of Professional Standards investigations (recorded interviews) in which information that would change the course of the investigation was omitted and added by investigators. Interim Chief Crotts took no corrective action.

Interim Chief Crotts was untruthful in stating to an officer that the entire Professional Standards Division (Because they all had access) would be investigated as it related to a forged, copied, scanned or otherwise improperly placed signature on a document.

Interim Chief Crotts is aware that Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling stated that the results of an officer’s investigation was due to “discrimination or incompetence” on the part of Professional Standards. Interim Chief Crotts took no corrective action.

Interim Chief Crotts has discriminated, retaliated, harassed and subjected me to unfair treatment. The preceding bulleted information is some but not all of the improper behaviors of Interim Chief Crotts.

Captain J.F. Allen was the Department’s Advocate as it related to my General Board of Inquiry on August 25, 2010. It is my contention that because I had the following, but not all inclusive allegations, against Captain J.F. Allen, it is unrealistic to believe that Captain J.F. Allen could be fair, consistent and just in any disciplinary recommendations concerning me. These written and formally submitted (prior to my termination) allegations have not yet been investigated.

Captain Allen is fully aware of allegations I made against Interim Chief Crotts, before Interim Chief Crotts made an allegation against me. Captain Allen would not investigate or have her subordinates investigate my complaints.

Captain Allen is fully aware of recordings in which two (2) of her subordinate sergeants change or omit information (that is recorded) that change the course and outcome on an investigation.

Captain Allen has been given documented proof of Sergeant McHenry being untruthful and has taken no corrective action.

Mr. Speedling stated that the results of an officer’s investigation was due to “discrimination or incompetence” on the part of Professional Standards (Internal Affairs). Captain Allen has taken no corrective action.

There are several other allegations made against Professional Standards through the grievance processes that I have assisted officers with.

Captain J. Smith was on my board as it related to my General Board of Inquiry on August 25, 2010. On or about August 11 and 13, 2010, I filed a complaint against Interim Chief Crotts as it related to the polygraph interviews of Officers R.Reyes and M.D. Royal. The department did not have the evidence to continue an investigation which every individual in the chain of command knew. These individuals identified as Sergeant Isom, Captain Smith and Interim Chief Crotts.

4

The officers, especially Officer Royal were subjected to harsh, unusual and clearly improper treatment as it related to the polygraph testing. Officer Royal was called a “LYNCHMAN,” a called a lie approximately twenty (20) times, asked the same question approximately thirty three (33) times, lied to so that he would change his story, and had his employment threatened, during the approximate seven (7) hour ordeal. The complaint I filed would naturally include Captain Smith, since he had knowledge of and was party to the event.

Captain T.J. Phipps was on my board as it related to my General Board of Inquiry on August 25, 2010. My hearing is directly related to grievances I wrote or assisted others in writing. One of the grievance writers, I assisted is Officer J.L. Pryor. Captain Phipps investigated Officer Pryor as it related to Officer Pryor’s complaint. Captain Phipps refused to investigate a number of other complaints as it related to Professional Standards (identified by Officer Pryor).

Captain Phipps informed Officer Pryor that he (Phipps) was directed to deal with one specific allegation. This is not proper policy and procedure, although Captain Phipps was allowed to do so, which led to many other complaints by Officer Pryor not being investigated.

In addition, Captain Phipps violated evidence handling procedures as it related to evidence in Officer Pryor’s case. It appears to be paramount to make the grievance writers the culprits for simply utilizing the City’s and the Department’s grievance process. All of the grievances and complaints are interrelated in that I assisted the officers. Captain Phipps’ unfair treatment of Officer Pryor as it relates to Officer Pryor’s grievance indirectly affects Captain Phipps’ unbiased opinion on my board.

Please accept the preceding evidence supporting the fact that on August 25, 2010, my General Board of Inquiry (Board Members) was discriminatory, retaliatory, unfair and biased.

I will now address the allegations against me. The first sustained allegation is an allegation of violation of Greensboro Police Department Directive 1.5.1: General Conduct (as it relates to the Confidentiality Agreement):

Sergeant McHenry’s notification states, “According to your March 30, 2010 Grievance Unfair Discriminatory Retaliatory Documenting of Performance Behaviors to Captain B.A. Cheek, you stated on page 2, paragraph 1: “In a past meeting of Commanders only, one Commander stated that he did not trust individuals on the indiscreetly publicized lawsuit. Assistant Chief Crotts stated he agreed with the Commander and felt the same. This meeting was facilitated by Terri Wallace, who was at the time an Interim Manager in the City of Greensboro’s Human Resources Department.”This information came from a series of meetings for which you signed a confidentiality agreement agreeing not to share any content outside the group. This information not only appeared in your grievance, but also in Officer R.Reyes’ Grievance filed on May 20, 2010 and in a letter constructed by the Reverend Brown and Reverend Johnson to the Greensboro City Council on May 30, 2010.

5

An investigation has been initiated to determine if your actions violated Departmental Directive 1.5.1: General Conduct.

Captain Cherry’s Response: Please note that Captain J.E. Wolfe was the Commander that made the original statement. Sergeant McHenry never interviewed Captain Wolfe regarding this investigation. This again confirms the discrimination and incompetence of Professional Standards, as assessed by Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling.

The August 11-17 edition of the Yes! Weekly, page twelve (12) states (in italics): The interim chief said that he doesn’t recall the conversation in which he is alleged to have said that he doesn’t trust officers in the discrimination suit. Wolfe, who was also reached by phone, denied outright having made the statement, saying, “Those are not my words. I’m not going to comment on it.” End of Yes! Weekly Excerpt.

Let me state that I did take the comment from the room after signing a confidentiality agreement. The reason is that the comment alone without explanation is discriminatory and retaliatory unless Captain Wolfe and Assistant Chief Crotts can explain why they do not trust each of the individuals on the lawsuit. In addition, once Assistant Chief Crotts began to discriminate and retaliate against me, Officer Reyes, Officer Pryor and others, the statement became an intricate part of articulating Assistant Chief Crotts’ actions and laying the foundation to support the allegations. The moment the comment became a part of a discrimination allegation, that fact outweighed the confidentiality agreement. An allegation of a violation of Federal Law outweighs the signing of a confidentiality agreement.

Greensboro Police Department Directive 1.1.2 Code of Ethics and Conduct states in part, “Whatever I see or hear of a confidential nature or that is confided to me in official capacity will be kept ever secret unless revelation is necessary in the performance of my duty.” Surely, reporting discrimination, retaliation, harassment and unfair treatment of another officer and me (violation of Federal Law) is within the official capacity of my duty.

Not only was I investigated as it relates to taking the comment from the room, I was sustained (the allegation is supported by sufficient evidence to indicate that the allegation is true) on the allegation. If Captain Wolfe stated to the Yes! Weekly that he did not make the statement and Interim Chief Crotts can’t recall, then how could I be investigated and sustained on taking a “phantom” statement from a confidential meeting? Exactly, Interim Chief Crotts and/or Captain Wolfe are lying. Interim Chief Crotts made the allegation against me. How can Interim Chief Crotts make the allegation against me, when Interim Chief Crotts cannot recall the statement and Captain Wolfe stated to the Yes! Weekly!, “Those are not my words. I am not going to comment on it.” That would mean that I should be investigated for truthfulness. Interim Chief Crotts can’t do that though, because he knows someone else in the meeting will confirm the statements.

As it relates to Reverends Brown and Johnson, I have spoken with them, regarding grievances and other matters, as my confidential counselors. This is allowed by City Policy H-5 Employee Assistance Program. Interim Chief Crotts referred me to the program (EAP), confirmed by Interim Chief Crotts’ May 26, 2010 Fit For Duty Recommendation Document. Not only did I seek two (2) clergy as my counselors, I also sought out a Ph.d. In addition, there were

6

approximately twenty (20) individuals in the room from which Reverends Johnson and Brown could have gotten the information. I did not compel Reverends Johnson and Brown to share information. Sergeant McHenry did not interview all of the other attendants at the meeting to find out if the information Reverends Brown and Johnson referred to came from them (other attendants). Sergeant McHenry did not interview Reverends Brown or Johnson to find out where they got the information from, although it does not matter. I attempted to explain City Policy H-5 to Sergeant McHenry and Corporal Stewart, even suggesting they refer to the policy on the computer.

It should be noted that I could not utilize the Employee Assistance Program through Human Resources because I have complaints against Human Resources Director Connie Hammond and her subordinate Terri Wallace that Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling will not investigate. These complaints are supported by a recorded conversation. This sustained allegation of General Conduct should be changed to Unfounded.

End of General Conduct Allegation Rebut.

The second sustained allegation is an allegation of a possible violation of Greensboro Police Department Directive 1.5.8: Malicious Criticism and Gossip.

Interim Chief Crotts gave no reference in the Disciplinary Action Taken Memo as it relates to how I violated Departmental Directive 1.5.8: Malicious Criticism and Gossip. That is because there is not a violation of Malicious Gossip and Criticism. The Malicious Criticism and Gossip violation was contingent on a bogus allegation of Truthfulness. Former Chief Bellamy lied on recording (there is also attached documented proof). The grievances and complaints, which are confidential were submitted to authorized persons. The grievances had valid information.

Prior to my hearing, there was an allegation of a possible violation of Departmental Directive 1.5.8: Malicious Criticism and Gossip as it related to Former Chief Bellamy making complaints of discrimination. Former Chief Bellamy lied to the General Board of Inquiry, under oath, and recorded. Former Chief Bellamy stated under oath that he had never been discriminated against while at 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. The charge of Malicious Gossip and Criticism should be changed from sustained to Unfounded.

In addition, the not sustained Directive 1.5.3: Truthfulness allegation should be changed to Unfounded. Again, Chief Bellamy was caught lying to the board during the hearing. Former Chief Bellamy stated under oath that he had never been discriminated against while at 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.

End of Malicious Criticism and Gossip Rebut.

7

The third sustained allegation is an allegation of a possible violation of Greensboro Police Department Directive 1.5.9: Discretion (as it relates to your attendance to Eastern Division Squad A’s line- up and an e-mail you sent to Eastern Division Personnel).

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. Please remove this sustained allegation from my disciplinary action taken memo, or change the findings to Unfounded.

Sergeant McHenry’s notification to me (Captain Cherry) states, “On June 9, 2010, you attended Eastern Division Squad A’s line-up and divulged your personal information in regards to your Fitness For Duty Evaluation. On June 17, 2010, you sent an e-mail to all Eastern Division personnel divulging the same information in regards to your Fitness For Duty Evaluation. In the e-mail, you informed Eastern Division personnel they could talk about your status and stated they were provided with “all the facts.” This information spread throughout the Department and ultimately into mainstream media.”

An investigation has been initiated to determine if your actions violated Departmental Directive 1.5.1: General Conduct. During the rebuttal of the third allegation, Sergeant McHenry’s words will be in italics.

To begin with, the June 17, 2010 e-mail sent to Eastern Division officers by me is appropriate, proper, accurate, informative and an act of leadership.

Sergeant McHenry uses as justification for sustaining the allegation the following assertions:

Captain Cherry stated that he distributed an e-mail to all hundred and five (105) Eastern Division personnel under his command that outlined his Fitness For Duty information (Two (2) of the officers that were recipients of the e-mail were not assigned to his division and were not under his command). Captain Cherry stated that he was given permission to disseminate the information from Assistant Chief Holder prior to the line-up he attended. Assistant Chief Holder stated that she gave Captain Cherry permission to speak freely about his own information, but envisioned it on a peer to peer basis. She further stated she wanted him to have healthy conversations on a peer support level, but not involving subordinates during work time on a Divisional level. Captain Cherry’s Response: I only requested Assistant Chief Holder’s approval as a courtesy. If I am not mistaken, Assistant Chief Holder stated in a recent publication of Yes! Weekly that a commander did not need to get approval to address their personnel. Assistant Chief Holder is correct in that statement. Once Assistant Chief Holder gave permission for me speak about my own information (which I did not need), any problems, issues or investigations must begin with an investigation of Assistant Chief Holder for approving the action. This confirms incompetence and discrimination of Professional Standards as assessed by Assistant City Manager Speedling.

Captain J.F. Allen, the Professional Standards Division Commander confirmed in a mandatory supervisory training class (June 14, 2010, at the Police Fire Training Center) that an individual was free to share their own personnel information, however, Captain Allen concurred with

8

sustaining me on this violation. This confirms the incompetence and discrimination of Professional Standards as assessed by Assistant City Manager Speedling.

Assistant Chief Holder stated that she gave Captain Cherry permission to speak freely about his own information, but envisioned it on a peer to peer basis. She further stated she wanted him to have healthy conversations on a peer support level, but not involving subordinates during work time on a Divisional level. Captain Cherry’s Response: Assistant Chief Holder never stated what she envisioned or what she wanted. Assistant Chief Holder gave no specific instructions as to how I was to deliver the information. The reality is what Assistant Chief Holder wanted or envisioned is actually irrelevant. I violated no City Policy or Departmental Directives in sharing my information. I can share my information with whomever I please, to include subordinates, which I did, as approved by Assistant Chief Holder. Officers can choose to take three (3) or (4) minutes to read about their commander’s status or two (2) seconds to delete the e-mail or scroll past it altogether. There is no correlation between a negative effect on work time and the e-mail. How many officers accessed the e-mail from home? How many e-mails were sent and read during work time relating to officers’ personal conditions (raising money, etc.), Christmas savings at Dillard’s, donating time to other employees, discounted Greensboro Bats Tickets, etc?

Following the line-up and prior to Captain Cherry sending an e-mail to his entire Division, Assistant Chief Holder informed him that it was inappropriate for him to take up employee’s work time with his personal issues. Captain Cherry’s Response: Officers were not forced to read the e-mail. It was their choice. What is inappropriate about the action that Assistant Chief Holder approved? How was employee’s work time taken up? How many radio calls were not answered or vehicles not stopped because of the e-mail I sent? I am their commander. It was fully appropriate to send them an e-mail regarding my status.

Captain Cherry’s e-mail contained the following key points: His perspective and rebuttals to statements and decisions made by his supervisors. Bureau level and above material and decisions that were presented without all of the

information on which the decisions were based. Allegations against an unnamed command officer

Captain Cherry’s Response: The e-mail did not contain my perspective and rebuttals. My perspective and rebuttal is that Interim Chief Crotts, Assistant Chief Holder and City Psychologist Michael Cuttler conspired together to have me psychologically assessed without cause, in an attempt to find me unfit for duty and terminated. That does not appear in the e-mail.

All of the information in which the decisions were based was present. Departmental Directive 8.2.3 Psychological Assessment Referral states in part, “If a psychological fitness for duty assessment is deemed appropriate, it will be coordinated through the Resource Management Division and the employee will be advised of the specific circumstances that prompted the action…” Interim Chief Crotts’ May 26, 2010 memo recommending me for the psychological assessment, relayed the specific circumstances that prompted the action. I referred to Interim Chief Crotts’ memo verbatim in my e-mail. The reason the Bureau Level and above material and decisions was presented without all of the information is that there was no additional legitimate information other than Interim Chief Crotts, Assistant Chief Holder and Dr. Cuttler entering into

9

a conspiracy against me. Again, the discrimination and incompetence by Professional Standards and assessed by Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling is confirmed.

The allegations against an unnamed commander just explained Interim Chief Crotts’ assertion that I filed two (2) complaints after being referred to the City’s Employment Assistance Program (EAP). The fact that Professional Standards confirms that I did make the allegation, however, the allegations were never investigated as a complaint, further confirms the discrimination and incompetence by Professional Standards as assessed by Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling. What is the issue with clarifying Assistant Chief Crotts’ assertion that I did make complaints on an unknown commander? Exactly, there is no issue.

Captain Cherry stated in his interview, “I mean they have all the facts that they need to know.” When asked about facts he did not include, he noted that he omitted allegations regarding discrimination. Captain Cherry’s Response: I also stated during the Professional Standards interview, “What I am telling you is that they (officers) had all the facts of the memo on fitness for duty and they had all the facts of the memo that banned me from the Eastern Division substation. If you look it says, by informing you, you can be free to speak about the situation, fitness for duty, with known facts or with all the facts of this memo (Crotts’ memo of recommendation). I read by the memo during the line-up, exactly what the memo said, so all the facts of the memo, you see what I am saying. All the facts of the memo. All the facts of the memo banning me. All the facts of the memo placing me on Fitness for Duty. Now, all the facts as it relates to intimidation, discrimination and all that-no, I didn’t give them all that and I didn’t plan on giving them all that because I want it to be a neutral environment. I want it to be a neutral discussion. So that is why I didn’t use names. That’s why I just told them the known facts of why I’m on fitness for duty.”

Captain Cherry stated to his subordinates, “Now that the Eastern Division is aware of my status, you can talk about it if you choose to, but you will have all the facts.” 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. Captain Cherry’s Response: 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.

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. Captain Cherry’s Response: Mr. Speedling has stated that an officer was the victim of “discrimination or incompetence” by Professional Standards. Captain 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 Manager over Police makes such a statement? Professional Standards, so incompetent and discriminatory that they will not concede that they must first investigate Assistant Chief Holder (approval of action taken) before they can investigate me.

10

Interim Chief Crotts’ memo, stating specific criteria (as required by Greensboro Police Department Directive 8.2.3) for placing me on fit for duty, clearly shows that there is no supportive evidence to place me in such a status. Personnel Privacy Law does not preclude the answering of the following questions:

Can an officer be deemed in need of psychological assessment for writing and assisting subordinates with writing grievances? How is that not retaliation, especially if there are allegations against Interim Chief Crotts in the grievances? The allegations against Interim Chief Crotts came before the Fit For Duty recommendation, but have never been investigated.

Was Captain Cherry investigated for the “physical reactions in front of subordinate officers?”

Describe what manner a document is constructed that would constitute a need for psychological assessment. Did Captain Cherry utilize standard City mandated memo format?

What is wrong with Captain Cherry filing two (2) complaints on another employee? Were the complaints legitimate violations of Greensboro Police Department Directives if found to be true? Were the complaints investigated as mandated by GPD Directives? Why or why not?

Answering these questions would lend a person to question the competency of Command Staff members, that placed me in a Fit For Duty Status (That is not my fault). The reality is it (recommendation and placement in Fit For Duty Psychological Evaluative Status) is a combination of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, unfair treatment, hostile work environment and incompetence.

Due to Captain 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. Captain Cherry’s Response: I was under the impression that e-mails were public record. In addition, whether I shared the information with one (1), ten (10), one hundred and five (105), or one thousand (1000) individuals, it is my information and approval was given (although not needed) by Assistant Chief Holder. What is the number of people you can share your information with that will make sharing your information not a violation? Once I shared the information with one (1) person there was a chance that others, to include the media, would know. The fact that it was given to the media is not a problem, because it is accurate. However, if the Department insists on making it an issue, they must deal with the officer that released the e-mail. What questions have I raised? I was unable to locate any questions I asked in the e-mail. What are the specific comments from the community? Are the comments from the community accurate? As relayed previously, there are a number of questions the Department and the City could respond to that are not governed by personnel privacy. What basic functions have the Greensboro Police Department not been able to perform, as a result of my e-mail?

11

In fact, writing the e-mail proved to be an appropriate action. Officer D.A. Pinson stated in a line-up that I had gotten fired. Officer Reyes called me to confirm Officer Pinson’s statement. I informed Officer Reyes that I had not been fired. I then suggested to Officer Reyes to read the June 17, 2010 e-mail I sent to the Eastern Division, and suggest to Officer Pinson do the same. The e-mail would give an accurate update of my status. Instead of filing a malicious gossip complaint on Officer Pinson, the e-mail was utilized in a positive constructive manner. I informed Assistant Chief Holder of this on or about June 19, 2010.

I am another victim of “discrimination or incompetence” by Professional Standards, as assessed by Assistant City Manager Michael Speedling. This investigation confirms discrimination, incompetence, retaliation, unfair treatment and a hostile work environment. Again, to attempt to allege a violation as it relates to the June 17, 2010 e-mail, you would have to first investigate and sustain a violation on Assistant Chief Holder, who approved the action.

End of Rebut of Third Allegation.

Mr. Young, Mr. Speedling stated that the results of an investigation conducted on Officer J.L. Pryor was due to “discrimination or incompetence” on the part of Professional Standards (Internal Affairs).

The July 28-August 3, 2010 edition of the Yes Weekly states on page eleven (11), (in italics): Cherry also alleges that during a meeting with an officer who had filed a grievance, Speedling told the officer that the results of an internal investigation were due to “incompetence and discrimination” by professional standards.

“The investigation is riddled with errors,” Cherry wrote. “At this point, Mr. Speedling has a duty and responsibility to take proper corrective action, to include a re-investigation of all investigations completed by the individuals assigned to the professional standards division during the time when Mr. Speedling made his assessment. Instead of that occurring, the officer (with the original grievance) is now being investigated for truthfulness, regarding the same investigation in which professional standards made so many errors [and] the findings were recommended changed (in the officer’s favor) by Assistant Chief Crotts.”

Speedling responded, “My comments having to do with an investigation have to do with one investigation, period. I do not make that leap of faith that Cherry does that if one investigation is investigatively insufficient that the entire professional standards division is incapable.”

Speedling added that he sent the investigation in question back to professional standards and ordered them to re-investigate it, and that the errors were corrected.

End of Excerpt From Yes Weekly.

This appeal clearly shows that Professional Standards has been “discriminatory and incompetent” for a second time, contrary to the belief of Mr. Speedling that discrimination and incompetence only occurred in dealing with Officer Pryor.

12

Mr. Speedling also refused to investigate Ms. Connie Hammond, Human Resources Director and Ms. Terri Wallace, Human Relations Manager, after I made allegations against them. A key evidentiary recording of Ms. Wallace interviewing me is in the possession of Mr. Speedling.

Mr. Young, please note the following:

Federal Law concedes that a person can discriminate against a person of the same race. Beginning approximately July 21, 2010, NAACP Local President, Reverend Cardes

Brown sent several e-mail cover letters to the Mayor and Greensboro City Council. The e-mail letters were the same, only the number referenced on the letter changed. Approximately eleven (11) of these cover letters were sent with different attachments detailing and alleging discrimination, retaliation, harassment, unfair treatment and hostile work environments, relating to the Greensboro Police Department. The NAACP e-mail cover letter stated:

I am assisting officers of color who have complained about discrimination, retaliation, intimidation, harassment, and a hostile work environment within the Greensboro Police Department (GPD). On August 13, 2010 we sent you a seventh letter requesting an investigation of the Greensboro Police Department by the Department of Justice. Attached to that request was documented evidence to support the need of such an investigation.

The eighth correspondence and the additional eighth attachment of documented facts are further confirmation that a Department of Justice Investigation is warranted. Please review the attached document and compel the City Manager to contact the Department of Justice to launch an investigation of the Greensboro Police Department.

Reverend Cardes H. Brown Jr.President Local NAACP

End of Referenced E-Mail Letter

Following the tenth e-mail letter, sent on August 23, 2010, Councilmember Zack Matheny sent the following e-mail in response:

I receive(d) another request from these people. I have responded four (4) times. Is there any precedent for legal action or charges of harassment that can be taken if they continue to harass me for something I have already responded to?

Rashad (Young) Denise (Turner) Dwight (Crotts)

Please respond,

Zack

End of Councilmember Zack Matheny’s Response E-mail to tenth alleged corruption complaint with different detailed attachment.

13

Councilmember Matheny’s e-mail was sent to several media outlets, the Mayor and Mr. Matheny’s fellow Councilmembers.

Mr. Matheny’s e-mail raises a myriad of concerns. I will refer to some of the most prevalent and important:

1. “These people” is a derogatory term, to many individuals. I am sure Mr. Matheny will publically explain why he referred to his constituents as “these people.” Mr. Matheny represents the entire Greensboro Community. I am sure Mr. Matheny will provide any corrections or apologies warranted.

2. How can constituents simply asking a councilmember to investigate reports of corruptive behavior in our police department be harassing? If there were ten (10) documents sent in roughly thirty (30) days (1 document every three (3) days) and the documents contained legitimate allegations, how could this be characterized as harassment?

3. The e-mail sent by Mr. Matheny would suggest that Mr. Matheny has not read the documents given to him by concerned citizens, that he represents.

4. This concern is most disturbing: Mr. Matheny, your superior, directs you and Assistant Chief Crotts (characterized as corrupt (Crotts) in the very documents provided for Mr. Matheny) to charge (criminally) citizens who are simply requesting Mr. Matheny to do his job, and address corruptive behaviors by Police Administrators.

5. If the Mayor and remaining City Councilmembers whom Mr. Matheny sent the e-mail do not publically denounce the e-mail and directive, is it safe to presume they are in agreement with his directive of you?

6. Has this directive been communicated to Interim Chief Crotts, specifically by you?7. That directive is being carried out in unlawful suspensions and or terminations of

Officers Blake, Pryor, Reyes, Royal and me.

On July 29, 2010, you sent me a memo which referred to the June 17, 2010 e-mail I sent Eastern Division Officers, relating to my Fit For Duty Psychological Evaluation. On August 2, 2010, I responded to you. Mr. Young an excerpt from my August 2, 2010 response to you with word from your July 29, 2010 memo to me in italics follows:

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. I find that explanation to be disingenuous. Captain Cherry’s Response: Mr. Young, the fact that my officers know the exact, specific reasoning that Assistant Chief Crotts recommended that I undergo a Fit For Duty Psychological Evaluation clearly dispels gossip. The fact that I was transparent enough and trusted my officers enough to reveal the information to them, clearly builds trust. That is simple leadership. I can expose you to messages received and officers that will confirm as much.

Your purpose in reading your fitness for duty memorandum along with your elaboration as to the merits was for the express purpose for exposing what you believed to be the “ultimate plan” to terminate your employment and attack your leadership as you so stated in our June 14 memorandum. Captain Cherry’s Response: Mr. Young, remember, as a courtesy, I informed Assistant Chief Holder of my intentions to share the memo with my officers. Assistant Chief

14

Holder approved the action . In addition, if I wanted to expose the “ultimate plan” I would have stated that to my officers, to include the fact that I was being discriminated and retaliated against. The following quoted excerpt is from my June 14, 2010 memo, regarding my June 9, 2010 conversation with my officers.

“I then stated I know you all have seen me around the past few days in plain clothes. The reason is that I am going through a Fit For Duty Evaluation. I informed them that as their Commander, I owed it to them to inform them. This way, they would have facts and could speak about the issue if asked. By informing my officers, it dispels malicious gossip/rumors and builds trust. I then informed them that a Fit For Duty evaluation was nothing to be ashamed of. With the stress related to our jobs, anyone could find themselves in this position. I then informed my officers that I would read from the memo, the criteria which recommended that I be placed in a Fit For Duty Evaluation Status. As I read the memo, I would elaborate slightly on the memo.” End of Excerpt From June 14, 2010 Complaint Document.

End of Excerpt From August 2, 2010 Response From Captain Cherry to Mr. Young.

Mr. Young, although on July 29, 2010, your response to my June 17, 2010 e-mail is duly noted, it is my desire that you fairly reconsider your opinion as it relates to the e-mail and utilize known facts.

A City Council Member at a well known restaurant in Greensboro asked me if the officers alleging discrimination were going to file a lawsuit.

On Monday, August 2, 2010, a Greensboro City Council Member stated at a meeting that the Council was about to meet and discuss settling the lawsuit relating to the discrimination and the thirty nine (39) minority officers. This particular Council Member stated that they were in support of settling the matter. Two (2) days later, the unlawful suspensions began.

Mr. Young, after you have a meeting with a member of the thirty nine (39) minority officers in litigation with the City, and discuss settlements and so forth, you should make the follow-up informational phone call as discussed in the meeting.

Mr. Young, the Greensboro News and Record article (Wednesday February 3, 2010) stated, “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 U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment discrimination complaints.”

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).

Mr. Young if internet sources are correct, Mr. Bill Hill was paid for one hundred forty five thousand ($145, 000), for wrongful termination.

Mr. Young, is there a pattern? Is this a conspiracy, because it is clear that I have committed NO VIOLATIONS of City Policy or Greensboro Police Directives. Maybe the other officers and I are being terminated because none of our allegations in grievances and complaints can be answered without investigating approximately one quarter (1/4) of your upper police administration and others.

15

Mr. Young, I appreciate you noting the preceding bulleted points. Although there appears to be a clear conspiracy as it relates to my termination, by Interim Chief D.K. Crotts, I make the following requests:

Full reinstatement to being Captain of the Eastern Division, changing all allegations against me to unfounded findings, to include the not sustained truthfulness allegation.

Halt all investigations, etc. relating to the grievances/complaints. Contact the Department of Justice and request an investigative team to investigate the

City of Greensboro, with the primary focus being the Police Department. Turn over all relevant materials to the DOJ. Get an estimated time table relating to the investigation.

Have the DOJ also depose the City Council and Mayor. Make a public statement, relating to the DOJ, when the investigation will begin and

anticipated length. Commit to a two week update relating to the investigation. Make any internal adjustments to ensure the best possible city services during this

challenging time. Think outside the box. This may even involve a temporary operational merger with other Law Enforcement Agencies (example Sheriff’s Department).

Once the investigation is concluded, make swift, fair, consistent, compassionate decisions as it relates to personnel. That can range from counseling to termination. This will be tough, but make it about right and wrong which will umbrella all other relevant factors.

Admit any mistakes made to include even if you made any. Make any public apologies warranted. Understand that your continued failure to act may have implicated you to a point of no

return. Truly give Chief Miller an opportunity to succeed. Direct Chief Miller to view the INHUMANE video recording of Officer Royal’s

polygraph and investigate all individuals involved to include ultimately , the diabolically sinister Assistant Chief Crotts.

Charles E. Cherry, CaptainGreensboro Police DepartmentPatrol Bureau, Eastern Division

Attachment #1: Personnel Order #2010-72 Disciplinary Action Taken Memo From Interim Chief Crotts to Captain Cherry Attachment #2: Gmail e-mail from Council Member Zack Matheny, responding to NAACP President, Reverend Cardes Brown’s eighth letter alleging Greensboro Police CorruptionAttachment #3: Copy of letter from Reserve Sergeant S.L. Hunter (Confirming Bellamy Untruthfulness)Attachment #4: Copy of Lawrence Alexander Jr., v. City of Greensboro (page 9 footnote) Plaintiff’s Response To Defendant’s Motion To Dismiss (Filed in Federal Court on May 20, 2010) (Confirming Bellamy’s untruthfulness) Attachment #5: Copy of letter from the Reverend Cardes Brown (Confirming Bellamy untruthfulness)

16

Attachment #6: Copy of letter from Attorney Ken Free (Confirming Bellamy untruthfulness)Attachment #7: Copy of Greensboro News and Record Article regarding hiring of Assistant City Manager Michael SpeedlingAttachment #8: Law Enforcement News ArticleAttachment #9: Esrati Article (How does nepotism happen in City Hall)

17