District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade was recently added as a codefendant in an amended complaint brought by 40 African-American police officers, along with white Officer Scott Sanders, formerly assigned to special intelligence. The city of Greensboro, former Chief David Wray and former Deputy Chief Randall Brady were already named as defendants.
EEOC statistics posted on the agency’s website indicate that the agency finds in favor of employers in roughly two thirds of cases reviewed. The EEOC’s finding that there was reasonable cause to believe that racial discrimination occurred within the Greensboro Police Department puts the case in rare company; that determination was made in only 3.9 percent of the complaints received in 2006, the year the Greensboro officers filed their claim.
Plaintiffs include Capt. Brian James, who at one time served as Wray’s executive assistant; Detectives Norman Rankin and Ernest Cuthbertson, who served with Sanders in special intelligence; Of ficer
Ahmed Blake, who was recently found guilty of two counts of assault on a female; and John O. LeGrande, Calvin Stevens Jr. and Allen Wallace, who were investigated for an alleged 2007 assault.
The officers are suing the city for racial discrimination, civil rights violations, invasion of privacy and other alleged wrongs.
Central to the black officers’ allegation of widespread racial discrimination is the claim that a “black book” was used to target them and gather adverse information about them that would hurt their careers. After Wray became the chief and Brady the deputy chief, they allege, the two directed subordinate officers to gather pictures of black officers “for the use of line-up books or other visual aids… for the purpose of framing, embarrassing and wrongfully investigating and charging black officers with crimes, offenses and violations of both law and police policies.”
The lawsuit, which includes about 65 factual allegations, provides no evidence that Wray directed the investigative activities of Detective Scott Sanders in special intelligence that are alleged to constitute acts of racial discrimination. Tim Bellamy, an assistant chief appointed as interim chief following Wray’s resignation in January 2006, told YES! Weekly at the time that “some of those actions originated with that unit before Chief Wray.” The plaintiffs’ allegations contradict Bellamy, who is now the police chief, citing a letter of determination from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission that directly ties Wray to the lineups.
“Testimony and documentary evidence confirms that the chief of police maintained a book which contained personal and confidential information on black police officers, along with their pictures (hereinafter the ‘black book’),” the EEOC letter reads.
“The evidence shows that all black police officers were targeted by the chief of police for potential inclusion in this black book. Furthermore, the evidence supports that said black book was used by [the department] to obtain incriminating evidence on its black officer[s]. A review of the record shows that non-black officers were not subject to this treatment during their employment with respondent.
Therefore, the evidence shows that all respondent’s black officers were subject to discrimination based on their race, black.”
The 40 black officers contend that their photographs, likenesses and names were included in at least one version of the lineup books and visual aids. Their suit alleges that Sanders and other white officers “presented the lineup books to members of the general public, including known convicted criminals and criminal suspects, which, in some cases, upon information and belief, resulted in the exposure of black officers… who were working under cover.”
The lawsuit presents no information to support that allegation, but cites a July 2005 report made by consultant Gil Kleinknecht, who was brought in by Wray to review policies and procedures for special intelligence in the wake of critical media reports.
“The GPD should consider revising the photo line-up procedure to prevent access to photos of all police officers (including undercover detectives) by the criminal element,” Kleinknecht wrote.
“A bogus complaint by a narcotic or vice violators could be used as a ruse to identify undercover detectives!” The plaintiffs liberally cite statements by former City Manager Mitchell Johnson in their amended complaint. Johnson, who was removed by the city council earlier this month partly because of his handling of the police controversy, was thrust into a situation fraught with conflicting interests when Wray resigned amidst allegations of racial discrimination. On one hand, the manager had to justify his action and minimize the city’s legal exposure by showing that allegations of discrimination were being addressed; on the other hand he had to play down allegations of racial discrimination to avoid further increasing the city’s legal exposure.
The record shows that Johnson’s characterizations of the purpose of the black book evolved over the course of Jan. 10, 2006, the day after Wray’s resignation, from the time when the manager and city council met in closed session to whenhe read a prepared statement and answered questions from media outlets.
“Discussion was held with regard to the existence of a ‘black book’ in
the police department that included photographs of a number of
African-American male police officers and citizens,” the closed-session
minutes read, “the original purpose of the book to be viewed by a
complainant who made allegations against an African- American police
officer, whether the book was used for any other purpose/case, who had
possession/control of the book prior to and after Chief Wray’s
resignation, who had prior knowledge of the book’s existence, and
whether the manager had seen the book and its contents.”
The
minutes, along with other materials, were released in response to a
March 6 order by Guilford County Superior Court Judge John O. Craig
III, who ruled in a public-records lawsuit brought by lawyer Sam
Spagnola and blog aggregator Roch Smith Jr. against the city. Johnson’s
prepared statement displayed the same caution that he exhibited in
closed session.
“The often discussed ‘black book’ — which
contained pictures of African-American officers prepared and used in
response to victim complaints — was represented as an investigative
tool, and the chief described the possible existence of this sort of
document to the city manager, in theory, stating that he was unaware of
any actual documents that fit the description provided to the media by
black police officers,” the statement reads. “However, when the
possible existence of the black book became known to the public, Chief
Wray instructed a subordinate to hide and secure the book and did not
inform his superior of its true existence and actual purpose.”
But
statements the city manager made in the question-and-answer portion of
the press conference went further. “I think what I’m describing is
activity that targeted African-American officers,” YES! Weekly quoted Johnson as saying. “Whether it represents systematic racism is yet to be determined.”
The
black officers’ lawsuit cites other similar statements by Johnson that
appeared in local media outlets: “If I were a black officer, I would
have been damned uncomfortable to be in that book,” and “If I were a
black officer, I would certainly feel targeted.”
The lawsuit also cites a News & Record article
from January 2005 that quotes Johnson as saying that criminal
defendants were told, “If you ID an officer we might help you out.”
More than two years later, Johnson would swear out an affidavit in
response to the Spagnola and Smith’s lawsuit, that has been widely
cited by Wray supporters as evidence that the claims of discrimination
were trumped up by Johnson from the start.
“Based on
information and belief, the ‘Black Book’ requested by the plaintiffs
and in the possession of the State Bureau of Investigation is a photo
array or record purportedly compiled for the purpose of solving the
alleged sexual assault,” Johnson stated. “The city of Greensboro is not
aware of any documents or recordings in the possession of the city that
indicate any other use of the photo array… other than to purportedly
solve or prevent an alleged violation of the law.” The black officers
allege that “defendants have represented publicly, and continue to the
date of this filing to represent that only one version of the lineup
books ever existed, despite their knowledge that numerous such lineup
books, containing photographs, likenesses and/or names of additional
black officers… were created, maintained and/or presented to members of
the general public by Sanders.”
Seth Cohen, a lawyer who
represents Sanders, could not be reached for comment for this article.
Brady corroborated the black officers’ claim in a Nov. 16, 2005
interview with members of the city legal department and investigators
from Risk Management Associates, or RMA, a company hired by the city
manager’s office to investigate the police department under Wray’s
command.
“I’ve asked about exactly how many lineups have been
done with Greensboro police officers and I was told there was two,”
Brady said. “And I actually asked for that in writing.”
A memo
dated July 8, 2005 from Sanders to Brady entitled “Use of Photographic
Lineups” mentions the two sets of lineups. One set, Sanders said,
included three black males employed with the Greensboro Police
Department, and was shown to Bridgett Ekwensi. Another set, the
so-called “black book,” reportedly included 19 black male officers and
was used in a criminal investigation.
The black officers’
lawsuit attacks the credibility of assertions that the “black book” was
created as part of a legitimate investigation.
“Defendants
have represented publicly, and continue to the date of this filing to
represent publicly, that the lineup books include only uniformed black
officers of the Greensboro Police Department who were on duty when an
alleged sexual assault by a black officer of the Greensboro Police
Department occurred, despite defendants’ knowledge that no such sexual
assault by a uniformed black officer of the Greensboro Police
Department was reported or occurred and that none of the lineup books
were limited to uniformed black officers of the Greensboro Police
Department who were on duty on a particular shift,” the lawsuit states.
Closed-session minutes indicate, however, that then-interim
police Chief Tim Bellamy told council on Jan. 24, 2006 that “the police
department never has 19 black officers on duty at one time” and
mentioned “missing police files and financial files.”
Ken
Keller, one of Wray’s lawyers, told council in a February 2008 letter
that he believed there never was “a book with photographs of black
officers shown to numerous prostitutes and drug users,” adding that
“there is a black binder with photo arrays prepared in response to a
specific complaint by an informant-prostitute of misconduct by a black
uniformed police officer. Since the complaint was misconduct by a black
officer, the binder contains only photos of black officers.
The
photo arrays were shown only to the informant who made the complaint.”
Describing the alleged incident, Keller wrote that “the black officer
eventually had her remove her clothes in the bathroom, then fondled her
breast, then inserted his fingers into her vagina. When the informant
complained, the black officer told her to keep quiet, noted that no one
would believe her against him, and then left.” Keller also referenced a
description of the black officer, noting that Sanders and Sgt. Tom Fox,
who commanded the special intelligence section, conducted a digitally
taped interview with the prostitute on Jan. 13, 2005. The prostitute,
Keller said, “described the black officer as nice looking, in his late
20s early 30s, with dark skin.” Keller told council that Sanders had
included a computer-search printout identifying police employees on
duty at the time of the alleged assault in the so-called “black book.”
“The details of the preparation of the photo array can be corroborated
through the investigative specialist,” Keller wrote.
“If you
do not have her name, I will furnish it to you upon request. I
understand that she has been interviewed, both by the city of
Greensboro and by the SBI and that she verifies preparation of the CAD
reports both for calls in the vicinity and for the identities of the
black uniformed personnel working at the time in question.”
Neither
Sanders’ 2005 memo nor Keller’s 2008 letter to council references a
date when the prostitute alleged she was groped by a black officer, and
the city was also unable to identify a date in response to a public
records request by YES! Weekly.
“At this time, it seems
that the GPD does not have a date for this alleged event,” Public
Affairs Director Pat Boswell said in a February 2008 e-mail.
Police
Attorney Maurice Cawn added in another e-mail that the department had
no incident report documenting the alleged assault.
“The best
that we can determine is that the incident allegedly occurred in late
December 2004 or early January 2005,” he said. “I have checked with
several sources in the police department, and this is the best I have.”
Brady said in an interview with city legal staff and RMA investigators
that he assisted Sanders in putting together the photo array that would
come to be known as the “black book.”
Wray said in a prepared
statement days after his resignation that he “instructed Chief Brady to
secure for safekeeping the photo-array book. My concern was that this
was the only possible document that could constitute the rumored ‘black
book,’ and I wanted to be sure it was not being used and to safeguard
it in the event that it was need in the future to refute the rumor, if
necessary.”
Wray added, “Chief Brady initially secured the
photo array book by getting it from the detective and putting it in his
office. A few days later, Chief Brady became concerned that his office
may not have been the most secure location for this book (he could not
lock his desk and was uncertain as to the number of individuals who
might have opened his office door).”
Countering Johnson’s
assertion that he hid the “black book” from his boss, Wray said, “I did
not immediately notify the city manager concerning the particular photo
array book in question because I had already discussed with the city
manager the possibility that some type of legitimate photo-array book
may have been involved, and because I was uncertain whether the book
that Chief Brady secured was, in fact, the rumored ‘black book.’”
Special intelligence and moral turpitude
The lawsuit also raises questions about whether the special intelligence unit was used inappropriately under Wray’s command.
“Defendants
Wray, Brady, Sanders and Greensboro caused black officers… to be
investigated by the special investigation division instead of the
criminal investigation division, which primarily investigated white
officers,” the lawsuit alleges.
The lawsuit contends that
“SID,” or special intelligence, “was created for the purpose of
investigating criminal and/or subversive groups such as the Ku Klux
Klan, street gangs and terrorists… and was never intended to be used to
investigate officers of the Greensboro Police Department. Instead, the
CID and internal affairs units of the Greensboro Police Department were
intended and designed to investigate officers of the Greensboro Police
Department. Under instructions from defendants Wray and Brady, however,
and due to the actions of Sanders, SID became an instrument for
illegally investigating black officers of the Greensboro Police
Department.”
The Greensboro Police Department Directive Manual
describes investigations of the type carried out by Detective Scott
Sanders in his assignment to the special intelligence section —
including his alleged investigation into the allegation that a black
police officer groped a prostitute, which reportedly led to the
creation of the “black book” — as rightfully being handled by the
internal affairs division or the criminal investigation division.
Directive
7.1.1, referencing “allegations of employee misconduct,” effective Feb.
14, 2005, states that the “department conducts administrative
investigations into certain incidents” involving officers in the
performance of their duties “due to the sensitivity and/or magnitude of
the incident, even when an allegation of misconduct has not been
received.”
Directive 7.1.3 states that allegations of
violations of criminal law and “conduct involving moral turpitude” will
be referred directly to the internal affairs section.
With the
approval of the chief of police, investigative methods such as lineups
may be used by the internal affairs section. Also, “the chief of police
or his designee may authorize the surveillance, photographing, or
filming of employees during complaint investigations.”
Directive
7.1.6, which addresses allegations involving violations of criminal law
states, “Some investigations, due to their nature, will be conducted as
a criminal investigation prior to or concurrently with an
administrative investigation.”
In contrast, the department’s
Standard Operating Procedures do not specifically mention the special
intelligence section as having a role in conducting internal
investigations of police employees.
In the wake of allegations of racial discrimination publicized in the media in the summer of 2005, Wray brought in consultant Gil Kleinknecht to evaluate policies and procedures of the internal affairs division and the special intelligence section.
Kleinknecht recommended that the special intelligence section continue to gather information on activities that had a potential for violence or disorder, that might violate the constitutional rights of another group, that required coordination with other law enforcement agencies, that could have serious national and international ramifications should violence ensue, that involved deliberate and illegal behavior as a form of protest, that instigated inter-group hostilities, that involved groups instigating violence against the government, and that were related to organized vice, drug or other illegal activity.”
He added that special intelligence should also continue to provide VIP security. “These activities are very crucial to maintaining a safe community, especially during the current homeland security crisis and the expansion of organized crime,” Kleinknecht wrote, adding that because of the importance of these responsibilities and because of limited staffing in special intelligence, “investigations of employee criminal violations should not be assigned to this section unless there are extraordinary circumstances.”
As to whether allegations of misconduct by police employees could constitute extraordinary circumstances, Kleinknecht left his recommendations vague.
The consultant wrote that the results of an initial inquiry by the internal affairs division into an allegation of possible criminal misconduct by a police employee “will permit the chief of police to assign the allegation to the metropolitan operations bureau” to conduct a criminal investigation or to internal affairs section as an administrative inquiry.
By indicating that possible violations could be routed to the metropolitan operations bureau, the consultant allowed for an interpretation that they might be investigated by either the criminal investigation division or the special intelligence section.
A recommendation to update the department’s SOPs regarding lineups also allowed room for interpretation by not distinguishing between internal affairs and special intelligence.
“Both the internal affairs sections and the work units within the metropolitan operations bureau should adopt an SOP to formalize the procedures for conducting photo lineups during both criminal and administrative investigations involving a police employee,” he wrote.
Kleinknecht concluded his report with praise for the department under Wray’s leadership. “I found the GPD command and supervisory officers you have assigned to oversee the internal administrative and criminal investigation responsibilities are well qualified and knowledgeable and have a straightforward desire to perform at the highest professional level,” he wrote to Wray. A section detailing types of information gathered by special intelligence contains one plausible description of the kind of alleged activities of interest to Sanders in his investigation of various black officers.
The SOP states that “information will be gathered concerning those activities in which there is a reasonable possibility that they will be or tend to be involved in organized vice, drug or other illegal activity.”
Wray cited the clause in a set of responses to allegations compiled by City Attorney Linda Miles that he provided to the city manager and city council following his resignation.
Defending himself against an allegation by the city manager’s office that the special intelligence unit did not follow established procedures set forth in policies and directives to regulate the investigation of police misconduct, Wray cited Directive 7.2, which states that “the chief of police shall retain authority to authorize or supersede any administrative investigative procedure.”
Other SOPs referencing the activities and function of special intelligence make no mention of investigations of police employees or the use of lineup books.
The SOP for “special intelligence section information gathering methods,” effective March 15, 1999, makes no mention of lineup books as a method.
The lawsuit alleges that on numerous occasions Wray and Brady instructed Sanders and other white officers to investigate black officers without cause, using honesty tests to entrap them. For example, the lawsuit alleges, Sanders and other white officers in special intelligence “directed non-sworn Greensboro Police Department employees and/or hired informants to offer bribes, to offer prostitution, to offer to sell stolen goods, and/or to request restricted police-related information from such black persons, merely due to their race.” The lawsuit does not provide specific examples of honesty tests used against black officers.
The black officers also allege that Sanders also targeted numerous prominent African- American community leaders for investigation by illegally recording their conversations, at the direction of Wray and Brady.
Cathleen Vance, the non-sworn police
employee who made the
recordings, has refuted the allegation that the black leaders were the
target of investigation. Formerly a violent-crimes task force
coordinator for the department, Vance worked with Delilah Summers, a
colleague from High Point, to set up so-called “call-ins,” in which
violent repeat offenders would meet first law enforcement personnel who
would threaten them with jail time, and then with community leaders who
would offer support if they agreed to clean up their acts. “Delilah
Summers and her associates were the focus of these investigations,”
Vance wrote in a Feb. 2 e-mail to District 4 Councilman Mike Barber.
“Most often I did not know where she was going to take me. In one
instance you will hear Delilah Summers and I going into attorney
[lawyer] Joe Williams’ office, chit chat with hellos and ‘how are you,’
then speak with him about returning to the ‘call ins’ and stepping up
to the plate using his powerful presence to help ex-offenders and
convicted felons get acclimated back into society. Speaking with
members of the community to solicit their participation in our task
force program was a big part of my responsibility as the violent-crimes
task force coordinator. Delilah Summers knew I had access to police as
well as FBI files on convicted felons, some of which she told me were
her very close friends. These conversations with Delilah Summers and
her attempts to gain what was considered classified and restricted
information was the only reason this investigation took place.”
Chief Bellamy contradicts the plaintiffs’ claim that recordings of Williams and other black community leaders were illegal.
“The
following is an update of the investigation into the circumstances
surrounding recordings made by a police employee involving, in part,
members of the community being recorded without their knowledge,”
Bellamy wrote City Attorney Terry Wood on Jan. 29. “It was determined
that no criminal violations occurred relative to the taping.”
The lawsuit offers no evidence to support the conclusion that the recordings were made at the direction of Wray and Brady.
The
plaintiffs contend that the police department under Wray’s
administration continuously failed to promote black officers to
positions for which they were qualified and that they deserved to hold.
In regard to Wray’s promotion of Tim Bellamy and Annie Stevenson to
assistant chief positions, the plaintiffs allege that the former chief
excluded them from the decision-making process.
The plaintiffs
also allege that Wray and Brady undercut black officers’ authority and
influence through trickery. For example, the black officers allege,
Detective Ernest Cuthbertson, one of the two black officers assigned to
special intelligence, “was frequently instructed to investigate by
himself fabricated criminal activity concocted by white members of SID,
as a ruse so that in Cuthbertson’s absence the remaining members of SID
could investigate black officers of the Greensboro Police Department
under instructions from defendants Wray and/or Brady.”
Black
officers were frequently denied “opportunities for pecuniary gain and
for prestige” offered to others in the department, such as teaching
marksmanship at GTCC, teaching at the police academy and becoming a
certified instructor at the NC Justice Academy in Salemburg, according
to the lawsuit.
One of the plaintiffs, Steven A. Evans, who is
described as a master marksman in the US Army, was allegedly invited to
attend the Justice Academy’s certification program, but was denied the
opportunity by the department without justification. The following
year, the lawsuit alleges, Wray agreed to send Evans to attend the
certification program, “but supplied him only with enough ammunition to
get through the first day of the program and, to add insult to injury,
refused to pay for his lodging.”
The black officers allege
that Wray violated the NC Personnel Privacy Act numerous times to
embarrass, intimidate and discredit them. For example, they allege, “in
a meeting with the Greensboro Police Officers Association in about June
2005, Wray publicly discussed the details of investigations into
allegations of criminal conduct, identifying by name various black
officers of the Greensboro Police Department in connection with such
investigations.”
Wray reportedly pointed at plaintiff Norman
Rankin and stated, “We looked at you too, but cleared you.” Wray
acknowledged the incident in a set of statements in response to
allegations made by the city manager’s office that was provided to
Mitchell Johnson and members of the city council in February 2006.
“Questions and discussion arose that touched on information possibly
affected by personnel privacy regulations,” the response reads. “It was
Chief Wray’s belief that the circumstances facing the agency were
extreme, and that he properly limited the discussion to the degree
warranted.
The matters discussed had already either appeared in the media or were brought up by the officers or their counsel.”
‘Harass, intimidate, retaliate’
Later,
after Wray resigned and Brady retired, the plaintiffs allege that the
two routinely disclosed protected personnel information about black
officers to Jerry Bledsoe, a noted true-crime writer who has written an
extensive and ongoing series of articles about the police controversy
for The Rhinoceros Times.
Describing a “common scheme”
among the defendants, the plaintiffs allege that beginning with the
hiring of Wray as chief of police in 2003, black officers “were
subjected to disparaging remarks, interference with their
investigations and other duties, a failure to train, a failure to
compensate, denial of bonuses, unfounded disciplinary measures,
undesirable assignments, denial of benefits and retaliation due solely
to their race.” Following Wray’s resignation and Brady’s retirement,
the plaintiffs allege that the scheme continued with Bledsoe’s series.
“Wray
and Brady, by breaching state law proscribing the unauthorized release
of personnel information,” the lawsuit reads, “routinely caused or
aided and abetted in the publication of articles in the Rhino Times containing protected personnel information relating to black officers.”
The
articles have long been a source of frustration for the black officers,
and pressure mounted on the city to take action against The Rhinoceros Times’ sources
in late 2006. “The city manager reviewed for council the ongoing
process since the resignation of former police Chief David Wray,”
minutes from city council’s closed session on Sept. 19, 2006 read,
“i.e. the dissemination of personnel information by the former chief,
recent newspaper articles in which the additional personnel information
had been given, the impact the release of the information had on the
morale of the police department and individual officers, the legal
standing of the individual officers whose information has been made
public, and whether the city had any legal standing in the matter.”
The
city manager and interim police chief ultimately determined they did
not. “The manager expressed frustration that police officers want to
know when he and the city are going to address problems with
information being released,” the minutes continue, recording that
Bellamy told council members that the district attorney advised that
the city had no standing to bring lawsuits.
While the city has scrambled to locate documents in the wake of Wray and Brady’s departure, The Rhinoceros Times has gloated about its access.
Referencing
a police memo in the newspaper’s possession, Editor John Hammer wrote
in a Feb. 14, 2008 article timed to try to persuade council members to
fire the city manager: “The sad news for Johnson and his minions is
that we have lots of documents and we can play this game for months.”
The plaintiffs allege that the scheme underwent a further development when The Rhinoceros Times published
their names after the city council approved a confidential settlement
agreement, effectively scuttling the deal by forcing the council to
reverse itself when constituents besieged them with howls of protest.
The
lawsuit alleges that the disclosure was made “as part of an intentional
scheme to harass, intimidate, retaliate against and damage plaintiffs
due to their having engaged in constitutionally protected activities in
connection with the assertion of employment claims before the EEOC” and
“to cause plaintiffs to suffer injury that would likely chill persons
of ordinary firmness from… filing complaints” and pursuing redress from
the EEOC. The lawsuit accuses the city of Greensboro and Councilwoman
Trudy Wade of breaching the agreement and violating state law “in an
effort to derail the impending settlement agreement.”
Wade did
not return multiple phone calls for this story. The lawsuit contends
that in March 2008 the city and the plaintiffs signed a Stipulation of
Confidentiality, agreeing that all discussions of efforts to address
the officers’ allegations of racial discrimination would be kept
confidential. The agreement was signed by the plaintiffs, acting City
Attorney Terry Wood and Mayor Yvonne Johnson.
The lawsuit
alleges that the city council met in closed session on Oct. 21, 2008 to
discuss the claims, and that no plaintiffs or members of the media were
present.
In early November, the lawsuit alleges, as a result
of the closed-session discussion the city submitted a written offer to
the plaintiffs containing a specific monetary amount to resolve
matters.
The plaintiffs also allege that Councilwoman Trudy
Wade sought to confirm and publicize the names of the plaintiffs even
though the city attorney had told council members that he would not
provide the names to them because they were protected under the
confidentiality agreement.
On Nov. 13, The Rhinoceros Times published
the names of the black officers and the settlement amount. The
plaintiffs allege that the amount “was contained in no public document
but had been revealed to Wade” as a member of city council in closed
session.
An Oct. 31 e-mail from City Clerk Betsey Richardson to City Manager Mitchell Johnson describes how Wade obtained the names.
“Councilwoman
Wade called me this morning and has requested copies of the following:
all outstanding consulting and service contracts except for
construction and demolition contracts; all completed consulting and
service contracts since July 1, 2007; all current RFPs for consulting
and service contracts.”
Then Hammer submitted a public records
request to the city on Nov. 9, requesting “copies of all documents
which have been given to Councilmember Wade as a result of [her]
request.” Two days later, he followed up with a request to Wade herself
for the documents.
Hammer denied in a March 19 article that
Wade provided names of the black officers to him, but then wrote,
“Since the request made by The Rhino Times was the same as the request by Wade, a discussion was held with staff members about the best way for The Rhino Times to receive the documents in a reasonable amount of time. After The Rhino made
the request for the documents, it was discovered that no copies had
been made other than the copies that had been given to Wade. Since the
contracts came from several different departments and many different
locations and would have to be reassembled and recopied, it made much
more sense — to the staff and to The Rhino — to make a request to Wade, who still had the documents.
For the city, getting the documents from Wade would save hours of work and for The Rhino, it meant we would receive the documents weeks earlier.”
The
lawsuit argues, “To the extent that any public document was in
existence identifying the names of the plaintiffs at the time of
defendant Wade’s purported public records request, the identities of
the plaintiffs were placed in such a document or not redacted from the
public document in violation of the agreement and applicable law.”
Hammer said the list of names was included in a contract between the
Greensboro Police Department, the US Justice Department and the US
Treasury Department for federal forfeiture funds that required the city
to disclose any proceedings before courts or administrative agencies.
Remedies
for complaints against an employer of racial discrimination may include
back pay and promotion, along with damages for mental anguish, future
earnings losses and inconvenience, according to the EEOC website.
District 5 Councilwoman Trudy Wade is accused by 40 African-American Greensboro police officers of violating a confidentiality agreement to derail an impending settlement. (photo by Quentin L. Richardson)
‘To the extent that any public document was in existence identifying the names of the plaintiffs at the time of defendant [Councilwoman Trudy] Wade’s purported public records request, the identities of the plaintiffs were placed in such a document or not redacted from the public document in violation of the [confidentiality] agreement and applicable law.’— Plaintiffs in Alexander vs. Greensboro
