reyes- may 10,2011 appeal of disciplinary action imposed (termination) by chief of police ken miller

8/6/2019 REYES- May 10,2011 Appeal of Disciplinary Action Imposed (termination) by Chief of Police Ken Miller

1/14

Mr. YOW1g,please note that Chief of Police Ken Miller's termination of my employment isretaliation for complaints I made against City of Greensboro employees to include Chief Miller,and because I filed an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint. OnAugust 9,2010, I was suspended without pay and recommended for termination of employment,for allegations of violations of GPD Directives 1.5.3 Truthfulness and 1.5.8 Malicious Gossip. Ialleged that the suspension and recommendation for termination was retaliation, discrimination,harassment, etc. against me for filing complaints against GPD and City Personnel. As a result ofthat investigation, I was reinstated to work on August 30, 2010, however, I was disciplined, bybeing assessed a Division Level Reprimand. I appealed the discipline assessed me to your andAssistant City Manager Michael Speedling's office, on September 3, 2010.

Police DepartmentCity of Greensboro

M A Y 1 0 2 0 11

May 10,2011

TO: City Manager, Rashad Young

FROM: Police Officer I, Robert Reyes, Patrol Bureau, Western Division, Squad B

SUBJECT: Appeal Of Disciplinary Action Imposed (Termination) ByChief of Police Ken Miller

Pursuant City Policy H-l Corrective Action, this memorandum serves as my official appealdocument of disciplinary action imposed by Chief of Police Ken Miller. That disciplinary actionis termination of employment. I was given a written document, dated, April 19, 2011, onMonday, May 2, 20 11, notifying me of my termination.

Mr. Young, please note that all information contained in this appeal as it relates to complaintallegations of Discrimination, Retaliation, Harassment, Intimidation and Hostile WorkEnvironment have already been submitted to your office in documents dated: September 3(Appeal of Disciplinary Action, to include allegations of misconduct by City Staff, including

Lieutenant Colonel Dwight Crotts), September 9, September IS, September 23, October 8,October 25, and November 18, 2010. This document is a condensed regurgitation of theaforementioned documents.

1

Mr. Young, you never responded to my appeal submitted to your office on September 3, 2010.By not responding to my appeal, the following occurred:


2/14

2

('ll{' '.+ \, - : \~

I was discriminated against and retaliated against, in that until my instance, the CityManager, has never refused to answer a GPD employee's appeal of disciplinary actionimposed by the Chief/Interim Chief of Police, especially when the appeal involvedviolations of Federal, and State Laws, City and GPD Directives and Policies (Forexample, Lieutenant Colonel Crotts' violations, some capture in a four (4) and five (5)

minute YouTube clips. Put dkcrotts in the YouTube search bar.). I was placed in a position where the unwarranted discipline received (Division Level

Reprimand), set the stage for progressive discipline, in the future, should similarallegations be sustained against me.

Officer M.D. Royal, had been suspended without pay and recommended for terminationfor allegations of untruthfulness, in August of 20 10. Once a police employee is found tobe untruthful, the District Attorney is unable to utilize that employee to testify in court.That employee would have to be terminated. Chief Ken Miller, reinstated Officer Royal,on or about September 15, 2010, without requiring Officer Royal to attend a hearing(which Royal opted for in writing), but did not discipline Officer Royal. Officer Royalwas reinstated partly because of a discriminatory, intimidating, harassing, polygraph test,

which was clearly in violation of GPD rules and regulations. Officer Royal and I enduredthe same type of "Gestapo Style" polygraph testing, however, he (Royal) was reinstatedwith no discipline. This is clearly discriminatory.

During my General Board of Inquiry Hearing, on August 27, 2010, Union Attorney, andat the time, my Attorney Bill Hill, asked questions of officers testifying against me, thatresulted in untruthful responses, given by Officers, to include Officer D.A. Pinson.Because Attorney Bill Hill represents some of the officers that were untruthful in myhearing (as the Police Union Attorney), it would cause a conflict of interest for AttorneyHill to pursue the untruthfulness, futther than merely proving my innocence. Therefore,in my appeal, which you did not respond to, and subsequent other documents, theuntruthfulness and other violations were brought to your attention. However, they have

yet to be properly investigated.

It should also be noted that Lieutenant Colonel Crotts, who was Interim Chief at the time of mysuspension on August 9,2010, is recorded, orchestrating (setting up) the investigation on me tobe sustained. Lieutenant Colonel Crotts tells Sergeant Isom what is needed in the investigation toterminate me. The investigation that will be submitted to Lieutenant Colonel Crotts. If you go toYouTube and place dkcrotts in the search bar, you can hear the conversation between LieutenantColonel Crotts and Sergeant C.B. Isom, There is a four (4) minute clip and a five (5) minute clip.In the four (4) minute clip, at the 2:00 mark, Lieutenant Colonel Crotts goes as far as to violateNorth Carolina General Statute 160-168 Personnel Privacy Law. Lieutenant Colonel Crottsdivulges the confidential personnel information of Former GPD Captain Charles Cherry, as he

guides Sergeant Isom in how the investigation should transpire, so that Crotts can terminate bothme and Former Captain Charles Cherry. Please refer to a document submitted and stampedby your office on September 22, 2010, from Former Captain Charles Cherry, that outlinesLieutenant Colonel Crotts' violations of law, City Policy and GPD Directives, relating to aninvestigation against me.

It should also be noted that Chief of Police Ken Miller has instituted a new investigative processwhich allows officers that have been complained on to investigate themselves. This is confirmed


3/14

3

in a YouTube audio, in which you need only to place sgtdjdavis in the search bar. You will hear,Sergeant D.l Davis informing a subordinate that he (Davis) will investigate complaints thesubordinate made against Sergeant Davis. Sergeant Davis does indeed investigate himself,confirming it on the recording and with paperwork Sergeant Davis provided the subordinateemployee. It is my assumption that Chief Miller, Lieutenant Colonel Crotts, Officer D.A. Pinson

and others that I have made complaints against were allowed to investigate themselves, thus,clearing themselves of any wrongdoing. In fact, Officer Pinson confirms Chief Miller's decisionto allow officers to investigate themselves in Pinson's September 22, 2010 interview with theYES! Weekly. Pinson is quoted as stating, "If! was found to be lying I would not have ajob. If!lied about something petty like Cherry being fired, then what leg would I have to stand on in acourt of law? It didn't happen. I want it to be clear that I was not found to be unequivocallylying. It's detrimental to my career to have that out there, and it's not true. If! was, then I wouldbe investigated and there would be a hearing. Will there be an investigation and a hearing?No, there won't be." Officer Pinson made these statements on September 22, 2010, after Imade allegations against Officer Pinson regarding untruthfulness. Officer Pinson, was correct.He was not investigated regarding my documented allegations (regarding Officer Pinson being

untruthful in my recorded departmental hearing), and as you read in Officer Pinson's statementto the YES! Weekly, he (Pinson) cleared himself.

Mr. Young, even after being reinstated to work and given a Division Level Reprimand,retaliation, discrimination, intimidation, harassment and unfair treatment against me continued.Mr. Young, in my September 3, 2010 disciplinary appeal to you, I informed you, the CityManager (ultimately a part of Pinson's chain of command), in my disciplinary appeal, that,"Officer Pinson had taken mediation (for anxiety) which relaxed his nerves, approximately two(2) hours before taking the polygraph. Corporal Oligmueller had knowledge of this, and stillconducted a tainted test." On September 14, 2010, I was notified that I was being investigated forpossible violations of GPD Directives 1.5.1 General Conduct, and 1.5.4 Compliance t6 Laws and

Regulations.

Mr. Young, because of the continued discrimination, retaliation, harassment, intimidation, etc.against me, I also embarked upon utilizing the City of Greensboro's Employee AssistanceProgram (EAP), City Policy H-5. Organizational Rules Section 5.1, states: The EmployeeAssistance Program (EAP) is essentially a self-referral program but supervisors may recommend.An employee is encouraged to personally contact the EAP counselor or any community agencyfor confidential, referral or treatment. In accordance with the city policy, I solicited theReverend Nelson Johnson, Pastor of Faith Community Church and Executive Director of theBeloved Community Center, to provide me with confidential counseling. Reverend Johnson'scounsel did include me providing him with all information (documents, recordings, verbalrecollections, etc.) regarding the alleged acts of discrimination, retaliation, harassment,intimidation and hostile work environment, Mr. Young, my providing you with the informationregarding Officer Pinson's taking medication (for anxiety) is not a violation of departmentaldirectives, policies, law, etc. because of the following:

1 1 1Sergeant A.T. McHenry's March 7, 2011 document (page 5) to Captain Jane regardingOfficer Pinson's complaint against me, Sergeant McHenry states, "Officer Reyes wasnot required to sign a confidentiality form since it was his hearing."


4/14

4

I informed you in my September 23, 2010 document, and I quote, "Officer Pinson hadtaken medication (for anxiety) which relaxed his nerves approximately two (2) hoursbefore taking the polygraph. Corporal Oligmueller had knowledge of this, and stillconducted the tainted test." I informed you (Mr. Young) and Assistant City ManagerMichael Speedling that Officer Pinson had taken medication, supposedly, for anxiety.

This anxiety, I assumed was anxiousness prior to testing. Officer Pinson stated difforentlvin the Yes! Weekly. All of this information came from !!!y""General Board of InquiryHearing, The information that I revealed to you and Mr. Speedling does not come closeto violating Personnel Privacy of Officer Pinson. The information I provided you was toinform you of a tainted polygraph test. In addition, there is no malice, which you wouldhave to have to satisfy the statute. Also, you and Mr. Speedling are ultimately in Pinson'schain of command. Who else would I inform of a tainted, discriminatory polygraph test,that was an intricate part of my appeal, if the Chief of Police is aware and takes noaction?

In his March 7, 2011 document, Sergeant McHemy stated what Jordan Greene (Yes!Weekly reporter), and Dioni Wise (News and Record reporter) reported, Sergeant

McHemy did not state where the reporters received their information. It certainly was notfrom me, or by anyone at my direction or solicitation.

Lieutenant Colonel Dwight Crotts in on YouTube clearly violating Personnel PrivacyLaw (go to YouTube and place dkcrotts in the search bar). In the four (4) minute clip atthe 2:00 minute mark, the violation occurs. Lieutenant Colonel Crotts is not investigated,nor disciplined (Example of discrimination, in addition to other allegations).

Officer D.A. Pinson, spoke to journalist Jordan Greene of the Yes! Weekly, and gaveout his own confidential information, cursing and violating GPD Directive 1.5.1, GeneralConduct, in the process. Officer Pinson stated, "You're damn right. It's nobody'sbusiness. Officer Pinson stated that he takes Citalopram, an antidepressant sold under thebrand name Celexa. Other uses of the prescription drug, according to the National Center

for Biotechnology Information at the U.S. National Library of Medicine, are treatmentfor panic disorder and social phobia, which is defined as "excessive anxiety aboutinteracting with others." He (Pinson) said he takes a regular quantity of 10 milligrams ofCitalopram, half of the recommended dosage, which does not change his mood frommoment to moment. This is what Pinson told the Yes! Weekly. Because afwhat OfficerPinson told the Yes! Weekly, individuals may deduce that he is diagnosed with anxiety,versus, having anxiety (being anxious) before taking a polygraph.

Officer Pinson conducted an interview with the Yes! Weekly's Jordan Greene(September 22, 2010) discussing a (my) General Board of Inquiry Hearing, for which he(Pinson) signed a confidentiality agreement not to discuss (Example of discrimination} inaddition to other allegations).

Discussing my allegations of discrimination, retaliation, harassment, hostile workenvironment, etc., with my counselor through the City encouraged Employee AssistanceProgram, is 110ta violation of any GPD or City policy rule, regulation or directive.

Mr. Young, on November 16, 2010, on recording and on transcript (page 5), Sergeant A.T.McHenry stated to me, "Okay, And ah just for information, the other information regardingOfficer Pinson, it is completed. Ah .. .it is right now with Captain Allen. She is reviewing it atthis time so we should be getting the results back today, pretty soon."


5/14

5

Mr. Young this is significant in that I have made complaints against Chief of Police Ken Miller.During the time I made the complaints and the time all allegations against me were made, theGPD was under a disciplinary process, that allowed accused officers to be represented by anattorney, during General Board of Inquiry Hearings. I should have been adjudicated under

that previous process. On February 23, 2011, Chief of Police Ken Miller changed the process toexclude having an attorney during the process, so that obvious discriminatory, and other flaws,could not be readily and fairly addressed. Chief of Police Ken Miller, and other GPD personnelare guilty of the allegations I made against them. Chief Miller allowed unwarrantedinvestigations, and sustaining of those investigations against me to occur, and orchestratesadjudication under his new policy, so that an attorney could not reveal violations, as hadoccurred in my August 27,2010 General Board of Inquiry Hearing.

On March 2, 2011, in a memo entitled Disciplinary Action Recommended, written by LieutenantColonel Dwight Crotts and submitted to Chief of Police Ken Miller, Lieutenant Colonel Crottsstates, "On March 2, 2011 and March 7, 2011, complaint investigations were completed by

Sergeant A.T. Me Henry.' This untruthfulness by Lieutenant Colonel Crotts further confirmsChief Ken Miller's desire to take me through his newly created hearing process to alleviate therepresentation of an attorney. In addition, Sergeant McI-Iel11'Yubmitted a document on March 7,2011, to Captain Jane Allen entitled, Complaint Investigation Regarding Possible Violation ofDepartmental Directives 1.5.1, and 1.5.4. Although Sergeant McHenry had completed theinvestigation on November 16, 2010, he was deceptive in dating the document March 7, 2011.This would ensure that Chief of Police's Ken Miller's process could be implemented, whichdisallowed attorney representation for officers.

Mr, Young, on September 23,2010, I received a memo from you stating that you had reviewedmy grievance dated September 23,2010. First of all, Mr. Young, I did not submit a grievance to

you on September 23, 2010, I and many other city employees have been intimidated form filinggrievances, when former Captain Charles Cherry was mandated to undergo a psychologicalfitness for duty for filing grievances. Lieutenant Colonel Crotts made it clear what theconsequences for filling a grievance were. In his (Psychological Evaluation) RecommendationMemo regarding former Captain Cherry, Lieutenant Colonel Crotts, writes, "During the past twomonths, Captain C.E. Cherry has submitted and/or written seven (7) grievances. He has alsosubmitted and/or authored additional responses to the responses he has received." I submitted toyou a complaint, outlining and alleging complaints of misconduct (by City employees) to you.For example, I asked you to investigate Officer Pinson's release of personnel information (forwhich he signed a confidentiality agreement). I asked you to investigate Officer Pinson's cursingin the Yes! Weekly, and being untruthful in my General Board Hearing, Those are allegations of

misconduct, which in accordance with GPD Directive 7.1 Allegations of Misconduct, have to beinvestigated as complaints.

Mr. Young, your memo also stated, "There has been no determination of Discrimination,Retaliation, Harassment, Intimidation, or Hostile Work Environment as it relates to thegrievances you have submitted." Mr. Young, the September 3, (Appeal of Disciplinary Action,to include allegations of misconduct by City Staff, to include Lieutenant Colonel Dwight Crotts),September 9, September 15, September 23, October 8, October 25, and November 18,2010, all


6/14


7/14


8/14

8

chair of my hearing. The findings and disposition by Lieutenant Colonel Crotts and the Chief ofPolice (two (2) different documents), sustaining allegations against me and terminating myemployment are completed ten (10) days before my hearing, on April 19,2011. This is a clearexample of the discrimination, retaliation, harassment, hostile work environment, etc. that I havecomplained of.

Following a review of all relevant information, evidence and statements made by you at thishearing, the board made a recommendation to me concerning the findings of any possibleviolation of policy. I have considered this recommendation in making the followingdetermination(s) offact: Officer Reyes' Response: The disposition and findings were made ten(10) days before the hearing. My only statements were that I wanted to record the hearing andthat I did not want to sign a confidentiality agreement. I definitely did not want to sign aconfidentiality agreement knowing that Lieutenant Colonel Crotts had set up an investigationagainst me seven (7) months ago. I also knew that Lieutenant Colonel Walker had beenuntruthful and deceptive to Fonner Officer Deborah Thomas, approximately a week earlier(recorded and transcribed), when Lieutenant Colonel Walker informed Former Officer Thomas

that she could 110t tell an attorney about the proceeding in her hearing (if she signed aconfidentiality agreement).

I. Findings

On October 13, 2010, Officer Reyes was ordered by the Chief of Police to discontinuecorrespondences to City Manager Rashad Young in regards to his concerns. Chief Millerinformed Officer Reyes that Mr. Young had already addressed his concerns and the CityManager gave him (Officer Reyes) specific instructions not to grieve the same issues: OfficerReyes' Response: I am now aware of a YouTube audio (place sgtdjdavis in the search bar), inwhich a supervisor, Sergeant D.l Davis, investigates allegations against himself (Sergeant D.J.

Davis). Chief Miller has allowed this new type of investigative process. I did file a complaintagainst Chief Miller through channels, to the City Manager regarding the October 13, 2010memo, Chief Miller sent me. This was the first time Mr. Young received a complaint regardingthe October 13, 2010 document Chief Miller sent me. In addition, it was sent through channelsaffording anyone in my supervisory chain of command to respond to the document, prior to itreaching Mr. Young. Unless the Chief of Police cannot be complained on) any complaint againstthe Chief would have to go to the City Manager's Office. I was unaware of the Chiefs Policyregarding officers investigating complaints against themselves until viewing the YouTube audio.I have not written a grievance to the City Manager's Office since prior to September 3, 2010.From September 3, 2010, through the present, the City Manager has only received appeals ofdiscipline and complaints from me. Chief Miller's order is unlawful, if I or any other employeeneeds to file a complaint against the Chief. Chief Miller's ordering of the investigation regardinginsubordination is clear retaliation.

On October 25, 2010, Officer Reyes sent City Manager Rashad Young a memorandum titledComplaint of Discrimination, Retaliation, intimidation, Harassment and a Hostile WorkEnvironment by Chief of Police Ken Miller. This memorandum also discussed his (Reyes)September 31'd memorandum appeal and the reasons behind it . Officer Reyes' Response: TheOctober 25) 2010 (new) complaint (still uninvestigated to this date) is a complaint on Chief of


9/14

9

Police Ken Miller regarding the October 13, 2010 memo he sent to me. In addition, other(unresolved) violations are identified as foundational support for the new allegation regarding theOctober 13, 2010 document, Chief of Police Ken Miller sent me. Again, the memorandum wasthrough channels. The Chief investigating an employee for making complaints against the Chief(that the employee is terminated for, and the complaints never investigated, and the complaints

made prior to the Chief ordering the terminal investigation of the employee) is clear retaliation.The first word in the title explains everything. Complaint is that word.

On November 18, 2010, Officer Reyes submitted another memorandum to the City Managerwhich was titled "Complaint of Retaliation, Discrimination, Harassment, Intimidation andHostile Work Environment by Chief of Police Ken Miller (Chief Miller's treatment of me is inresponse to my October 25, 2010 complaint on Chief Miller for Discrimination, Retaliation,Intimidation, Harassment and Hostile Work Environment) (This is a 2

ndseparate complaint on

Chief Miller from the October 25, 2010, however, the same subject matter). " Officer Reyes'Response: The November 18, 2010 complaint was again sent through channels and relayed~, but continued foundational support for allegations made against Chief of Police Ken Miller.

The complaint further proved the retaliation, discrimination, hostile work enviromnent, etc. that Iwas experiencing. Again, unless the Chief of Police cannot be complained against, the complaintwould have to be submitted to the City Manager's Office. The first word in the title explainseverything. Complaint is that word.

Officer Reyes did not comply with the order given to him by Chief Ken Miller on October 13,2010. This was in violation of 1.5.35 Insubordination. Officer Reyes' Response: If an employeecomplains on the Chief of Police, the complaint would have to be made to the City Manager'sOffice. It is an unlawful order, to order an employee not to file a complaint on the Chief, and besubjected to discipline if you do. In addition, the October 13, 2010 and November 18, 2010complaints had information, not yet seen by you, Mr. Young. Also, the complaints were sent

through channels, giving every member of my chain of command an opportunity to respond toand forward the complaints. I was only just recently made aware that Chief Miller had theauthority to legitimize supervisors investigating themselves (refer to sgtdjdavis on YouTube). Ifand when Chief Miller conducted the investigations on himself, I was not made aware. Thus, Iforwarded complaints on Chief Miller to your office through channels.

In Officer Reyes' memorandum dated September 9, 2010 to City Manager Rashad Young,Officer Reyes wrote that to his knowledge the other officer took Benadryl "apparently becausehe was anxious before the test." (referring to the polygraph test). Officer Reyes further wrotethat it was his "assumption this officer took the Benadryl or maybe was instructed to take theBenadryl, supposedly because the operator knew that Officer Pinson was lying and could not

pass the polygraph test without his muscles being relaxed. " This memorandum was also postedas a document on September 9, 2010 on the Yes! Weekly website.

On September 14, 2010, Officer Reyes was interviewed by Professional Standards regarding thismatter; Officer Reyes agreed that he had no factual information to support his statementregarding the assumption noted in his (Reyes' memorandum). Officer Reyes' Response: Thefactual information is that Chief of Police Ken Miller disregarded the results of Officer Royal'sand my polygraphs administered in the investigations against us. The investigations included a


10/14

10

polygraph of Officer Pinson, by the same person, Corporal Oligmueller. The treatment of OfficerRoyal and myself was discriminatory, as compared to the treatment of Officer Pinson. Thefactual information is that Attorney Bill Hill caught Officer Pinson being untruthful (recorded)during my August 27, 2010 General Board of Inquiry Hearing. Pinson was never investigated,even though I filed complaints. Corporal Oligmueller was informed that Officer Pinson had

taken medication prior to taking the polygraph test, and still administered it. Lieutenant ColonelCrotts is on YouTube (place dkcrotts in the search bar) orchestrating an investigation/polygraphso that allegations against me would be sustained, and violating the law. Attorney Bill Hillrevealed during my General Board I-Iearing that Benadryl stays in a person's body anywherefrom twelve to twenty four hours, after consumption, and certain types of Benadryl relax themuscles. Officer Pinson was not exposed to the "Gestapo Type" polygraph session (threateningof employment, continued badgering, use of the word "Lynchman," seven (7) hour process, etc.)that Officer Royal and I were exposed to. All of that and other information, could result in aneducated assumption to be presented to the City Manager in a disciplinary appeal, to the CityManager. In addition, I nothing to do with information from my hearing or appeal going to theYes! Weekly. It is possible that my counselor through the City encouraged EAP Program may

have released information obtained through counseling, but not with my knowledge orsolicitation. Someone : 5 : 0 1 1 1 the Manager's office may have released the document. I did not,although it doesn't matter, because the release of my own appeal document would not constitutea violation.

Officer Reyes stated, "anybody can reach assumption or anybody could guess or anything. "Furthermore, when confronted with the information regarding the officer taking Benadryl acouple of hours before the test, as inaccurate, Officer Reyes stated, "it might be a typo on mypart, an expression. " Officer Reyes' Response: Lieutenant Colonel Crotts attempts, as usual, totwist words and offer only part of the conversation. When was my assumption regardingOfficer Pinson proven inaccurate? Officer Pinson was already caught being untruthful duringmy General Board of Inquiry on August 27, 2010. Because no follow-up investigation wasconducted regarding my allegations against Officer Pinson, does not mean that his word istruthful. Officer Pinson took Benadryl, prior to taking the polygraph. This Benadryl could haverelaxed Officer Pinson's muscles during the testing. Corporal Oligmeuller knew that OfficerPinson had taken medication, and still administered the test. Attorney Bill Hill pointed this out inmy General Board of Inquiry Hearing. Notice that Lieutenant Colonel Crotts only refers to bitsand pieces of my statement to Professional Standards.

Officer Reyes received confidential personnel information regarding another employee duringan administrative hearing. Officer Reyes used this information in the submission of amemorandum to the City Manager and that same document appeared on a local media outlet'swebsite. This was in violation of Departmental Directive 1.5.1 General Conduct andDepartmental Directive 1.5.4 (B) Compliance to Laws and Regulations. Officer Reyes'Response: Lieutenant Colonel Crotts is on YouTube (place dkcrotts in the search bar) trulyviolating NC Personnel Privacy (of Former Captain Charles Cherry), at the 2:00 mark of the four(4) minute clip. There is a five (5) minute clip also. Lieutenant Colonel Crotts is setting up aninvestigation/polygraph, so that allegations against me will be sustained. Officer Pinsonconducted an interview with the YES! Weekly's Jordan Greene, gave out his own confidentialpersonnel information (September 22, 2010 article), cursed, and violated the confidentiality


11/14

agreement he signed when he was a witness in my General Board of Inquiry Hearing 011 August27, 2010, when he discussed the hearing with a journalist. What confidential information frommy hearing did I use in submission of an appeal to the City Manager's Office? I had nothing todo with my appeal appearing on the YES! Weekly, and Professional Standards has not shown orproven otherwise. Even if I had released my appeal (although I didn't) to the YES! Weekly, it

would not have been a violation under the GPD rules that existed at that time. The statement,"Officer Pinson had taken medication (for anxiety) which relaxed his nerves approximately two(2) hours before taking the polygraph. Corporal Oligmueller had knowledge of this and stillconducted a tainted test," is not protected by Personnel Privacy. I can submit that information inmy appeal to the City Manager (ultimately in Pinson's chain of commandj.which I did. Inaddition, I was reporting a tainted polygraph amongst other violations to you, that Chief Millerwas aware of, but took no action. In addition as I informed you in earlier documents, that appealcould have been obtained by someone in your office and submitted to the YES! Weekly. Mr.Young, how can anyone be disciplined, especially terminated, for violation of confidentiality,when Lieutenant Colonel Crotts is on YouTube violating the law and a Former Commander'sconfidentiality, setting up an investigation and no corrective action takes place? Officer Pinson

conducts an interview with a YES! Weekly journalist, and divulges information from myconfidential General Board Hearing, for which Officer Pinson signed a confidentialityagreement, not to discuss. Mr. Young, how can I have violated General Conduct by submittingan appeal of discipline to your office, which happened to also have allegations of misconduct, aspart of the basis for the appeal? I had nothing to do with the local media having the document,and Professional Standards showed, displayed, or proved ally different.

11 Disposition

The disposition of these alleged violations of Departmental Directives are listed asfollows:

1.5.35: Insubordination is classified as Sustained1.5.1: General Conduct is classified as Sustained

END OF LIEUTENANT COLONEL CROTTS' FINDINGS AND DISPOSITION MEMOAND MY RESPONSES.

Mr. Young, I deny any claims that I have violated city policies, rules, regulations or directives. Ihumbly request the following:

All findings regarding the allegations against me be classified as unfounded, and my

record cleared to include the discipline imposed by Former Interim Chief of Police D.K.Crotts.

A return to full duty status, in the Patrol Bureau. Thorough, proper, fair and just investigations of all allegations I have made against city

employees and the GPD, to include those in this document. A return to a stabilized, fair and just work environment.

11


12/14

12

Mr. Young, within my case file is a document created by Lieutenant Colonel Dwight Crotts,entitled, Board concerns regarding the Bureau Level Hearing for Officer R. Reyes. I will writeexcerpts from Lieutenant Colonel Crotts' document in italics, and my response will be in TimesNew Roman. The document was dated April 30, 2011 and submitted to Chief of Police KenMiller.

Officer Reyes was then instructed to sign a confidentiality notice for the hearing. Officer Reyesrefused and stated that since it was his hearing, he did not feel he should have to keep itconfidential. I offered Officer Reyes another opportunity to sign his confidentiality agreementand he again refused. At that point; I excused Officer Reyes from the room and he was escortedto the lobby area of the Chief's complex where he remained until the Board deliberated theevidence that had already been presented Officer Reyes' Response: Remember, the terminationpapers had already been completed on Apri119, 2011, ten (10) days before the board convened.Also, I knew Lieutenant Colonel Walker had informed Fonner Officer Thomas, approximately aweek prior, in her hearing, that she could not consult even a lawyer (recorded and transcribed),after signing the confidentiality agreement. Although Lieutenant Colonel Walker was untruthful

and deceptive in what he told Officer Thomas this information, why would I sign the agreement?Lieutenant Colonel Crotts had already set up an investigation/polygraph against me only seven(7) months ago. This is on YouTube (place dkcrotts in the search bar). Why would I allow him asecond opportunity? It is a hearing regarding allegations against me. What does it matter if Iwant to or need to inform my attorney, the EEOC, or my EAP counselor? What rule, policy,law, etc. did I break by not signing a confidentiality agreement regarding a hearing of allegationsagainst me? Again, please note that in Sergeant McHenry's March 7, 2011 document, page five(5), he stated, "Officer Reyes was not required to sign a confidentiality form, since it was hishearing.

It is important to note that one of the matters before the Board was the release of confidential

personal information of another officer that had been provided in a previous hearing involvingOfficer Reyes. While Officer Reyes denies personally providing the information to the media, theinformation provided was the exact same document he produced and sent to the City Manager.The Board expressed extreme concern for the ability to retain an employee that in addition to thecharges being heard, would not conform to the procedures of the hearing. As with the intentdiscussed in the Discipline Philosophy and Discipline Recommendation, this act was also seenas intentional. Officer Reyes' Response: One of the matters before the Board was my statement,"Officer Pinson had taken medication (for anxiety) which relaxed his nerves approximately two(2) hours before taking the polygraph. Corporal Oligmueller had knowledge of this, and stillconducted a tainted test." This is 110tprotected by NC Personnel Privacy Law, as I am appealingdiscipline and reporting misconduct to Officer Pinson's superior, the City Manager, who is inOfficer Pinson's chain of command. In addition, Officer Pinson released specific informationregarding prescribed medications, etc. in his interview with the YES! Weekly. If the informationprovided was the exact same document I produced and sent to the City Manager, then someonein the City Manager's Office had to release it. Why would the Board express extreme concernfor the ability to retain me as an employee because I would not conform to the procedures of thehearing, specifically, not signing a confidentiality agreement, for a hearing regarding allegationsagainst me. Especially since Lieutenant Colonel Walker has stated that an employee cannot evenconsult an attorney after signing the agreement, and it is a hearing that could lead to termination.


13/14

I knew that I would at least want to speak with a lawyer, the EEOC, and my,'EAP counselor. Idid intentionally not sign the agreement, for the aforementioned stated reasons. What differencedoes that make, and why would that be held against me?

It was also brought to the Board's attention, through documentary evidence presented and

further deliberation that Officer Reyes expressed that he did not believe that I (Crotts) couldprovide a fair and impartial hearing as the Board chair in his previous hearing and objected tomy position for that process. However, it was explained to Officer Reyes on two occasionsregarding this current hearing that he could request an independent board comprised of othermembers of the Department, not in his chain of command. This would have eliminated myparticipation in the hearing as serving as the Board Chair. Officer Reyes elected not to makethat request. This is also viewed as an intentional act. Officer Reyes' Response: LieutenantColonel Crotts cannot and did not provide an impartial hearing as Board Chair on August 27,2010, or April 29, 2011. Please refer to YouTube (put dkcrotts in the search bar, and there willbe two (2) clips, one (1) is four (4) minutes and the other (5) minutes. The Chief mandated me toappear before a board. The Chief was aware of Lieutenant Colonel Crotts on You'Tube and the

multitude of other allegations against Lieutenant Colonel Crotts. It is the Department'sresponsibility to provide a fair impartial board for the employee. Approximately one (1) weekago, former Officer D.V. Thomas was mandated to go to a hearing, after opting on paper not tohave a hearing. She was afforded an independent board without request. In fact, every employeeat the GPD answers to Chief Miller, who made the final decision, and who I have uninvestigatedallegations against. Had I chosen an "independent board" they still ultimately report to ChiefMiller, whom I have several complaints against. In fact one of the allegations is retaliation byChief Miller for complaints I made against him to your office, Mr. Young. Although I have morespecific complaints against Lieutenant Colonel Crotts, the same scenario is created regardless ofwho is Chairman of the Board. Who would I choose, Lieutenant Colonel Rogers, whom youstated you wanted to terminate? Maybe Lieutenant Colonel Holder, who solicited former Captain

Cherry to commit a crime (her solicitation of former Captain Cherry to commit a crime, is still acrime, although former Captain Cherry did not partake), and you acknowledged concurrencewith former Captain Cherry's allegations, in a letter to him (former Captain Cherry), inNovember of 2010. Maybe Lieutenant Colonel Walker, who was untruthful and deceitful toformer Officer Thomas relating to her hearing, just a week prior to my hearing. In addition, Mr.Young, Lieutenant Colonel Crotts states my action (not requesting an independent board) isviewed as intentional. Why does he state it is intentional, what was the desired result of myactions, what difference does that make, and why is it held against me?

End of Lieutenant Colonel Crotts' Board Concerns memo and my responses.

Mr. Young, again, I deny any and all claims that I have violated city policies, rules, regulationsor directives. I humbly request the following:

All findings regarding the allegations against me be classified as unfounded, and myrecord cleared, to include the discipline imposed by Former Interim Chief of Police D.K.Crotts.

A return to full duty status, in the Patrol Bureau.

13


14/14

1 4

Thorough.iproper, fair and just investigations of all allegations I have made against cityemployees and the GPD, to include those in this document.

A return to a stabilized, fair and just work environment.

Your assistance in this matter is greatly appreciated.

R~/(~Robert Reye( Police Officer IPatrol Bureau, Western DivisionSquad B

reyes- may 10,2011 appeal of disciplinary action imposed (termination) by chief of police ken miller

Documents