Post News . Share Ideas . Inspire Innovation . Get Informed . Get Involved



Wednesday, June 24, 2015

RECENTLY RETIRED POLICE CHIEFS' FINANCIAL TIES TO TASER INTERNATIONAL AFTER $MILLIONS IN CITY PURCHASES

CITY OF CHARLOTTE'S 'COMPETITIVE BID' FOR MILLIONS IN BODY CAMERAS


The message to Charlotte City Council and Citizens is that the most recent multi-million dollar contract with TASER was done through competitive bid process and received only one bid.  But a quick review of the Invitation to bid (scroll down to page 37) makes it clear that TASER was the only manufacturer considered:
Charlotte's "invitation to bid" for ONLY TASER products




TASER HIRED TWO RETIRED CHIEFS AS CONSULTANT AND IN TALKS WITH THIRD, AFTER EACH CHIEF RECOMMENDED PURCHASES IN THE $MILLIONS

Citynewswatch located this excellent article on TASER's ties to various police chiefs around the country who  have retired then signed consulting contracts  with TASER after recent retirements:

See   http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=33680550 by KTL from March 3, 2015 and read part of the article here:

IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — Taser International, the stun-gun maker emerging as a leading supplier of body cameras for police, has cultivated financial ties to police chiefs whose departments have bought the recording devices, raising a host of conflict-of-interest questions.
A review of records and interviews by The Associated Press show Taser is covering airfare and hotel stays for police chiefs who speak at promotional conferences. It is also hiring recently retired chiefs as consultants, sometimes just months after their cities signed contracts with Taser.
Over the past 18 months, Taser has reached consulting agreements with two such chiefs weeks after they retired, and it is in talks with a third who also backed the purchase of its products, the AP has learned. Taser is planning to send two of them to speak at luxury hotels in Australia and the United Arab Emirates in March at events where they will address other law enforcement officers considering body cameras.
The relationships raise questions of whether chiefs are acting in the best interests of the taxpayers in their dealings with Scottsdale, Arizona-based Taser, whose contracts for cameras and storage systems for the video can run into the millions of dollars.


CITY COUNCIL DEMANDS INVESTIGATION INTO POLICE CHIEF WITH TASER TIES AFTER HE RECOMMENDED $1.9 MILLION IN PURCHASES


Citynewswatch also located this excellent and detailed reporting on TASER's ties to Ft. Worth, TX (now former) Police Chief Halstead after Halstead recommended millions of dollars in purchases from TASER:

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/03/03/ap-former-fort-worth-police-chief-has-financial-ties-to-body-cam-maker/  (quoted in it's entirety below for educational purposes)


IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) — Taser International, the stun-gun maker emerging as a leading supplier of body cameras for police, has cultivated financial ties to police chiefs whose departments have bought the recording devices, raising a host of conflict-of-interest questions.
A review of records and interviews by The Associated Press show Taser is covering airfare and hotel stays for police chiefs who speak at promotional conferences. It is also hiring recently retired chiefs as consultants, sometimes just months after their cities signed contracts with Taser.
Over the past 18 months, Taser has reached consulting agreements with two such chiefs weeks after they retired, and it is in talks with a third who also backed the purchase of its products, the AP has learned. Taser is planning to send two of them to speak at luxury hotels in Australia and the United Arab Emirates in March at events where they will address other law enforcement officers considering body cameras.
The relationships raise questions of whether chiefs are acting in the best interests of the taxpayers in their dealings with Scottsdale, Arizona-based Taser, whose contracts for cameras and storage systems for the video can run into the millions of dollars.
IOWA CITY, Iowa (AP) —  Taser International, the stun-gun maker emerging as a leading supplier of body cameras for police, has cultivated financial ties to police chiefs whose departments have bought the recording devices, raising a host of conflict-of-interest questions.

>>WATCH: CBS 11 Investigative Reporter Mireya Villareal has been digging into this issue for weeks.  Click here to read her report<<

A review of records and interviews by The Associated Press show Taser is covering airfare and hotel stays for police chiefs who speak at promotional conferences. It is also hiring recently retired chiefs as consultants, sometimes just months after their cities signed contracts with Taser.

Over the past 18 months, Taser has reached consulting agreements with two such chiefs weeks after they retired, and it is in talks with a third who also backed the purchase of its products, the AP has learned. Taser is planning to send two of them to speak at luxury hotels in Australia and the United Arab Emirates in March at events where they will address other law enforcement officers considering body cameras.

The relationships raise questions of whether chiefs are acting in the best interests of the taxpayers in their dealings with Scottsdale, Arizona-based Taser, whose contracts for cameras and storage systems for the video can run into the millions of dollars.

As the police chief in Fort Worth, Texas, successfully pushed for the signing of a major contract with Taser before a company quarterly sales deadline, he wrote a Taser representative in an email, “Someone should give me a raise.”

The market for wearable cameras that can record arrests, shootings and other encounters has been growing fast since the killing last August of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri. President Barack Obama has proposed a $75 million program for departments to buy the cameras to reduce tensions between officers and the communities they serve.

City officials and rival companies are raising concerns about police chiefs’ ties to Taser, not only in Fort Worth but in such cities as Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Salt Lake City.

“Department heads need to be very careful to avoid that type of appearance of an endorsement in a for-profit setting,” said Charlie Luke, a Salt Lake City councilman. “It opens up the opportunity for competitors of these companies to essentially do what we’re seeing here — complaining about that public process.”

He said he was surprised when he learned last year that the city’s police department had purchased Taser cameras using surplus money, bypassing the standard bidding process and City Council approval. The department declined to say how much it has spent acquiring 295 body cameras and Taser’s Evidence.com video storage program and hasn’t responded to a month-old public records request.

The city’s police chief, Chris Burbank, said that his relationship with Taser, which includes company-paid travel to Taser-sponsored conferences, is appropriate. He recently recorded at the company’s request a promotional video in which he praised Evidence.com.

Burbank said he does not receive speaking fees and believes he hasn’t violated a city code prohibiting paid product endorsements on public time. He said he accepts Taser’s speaking invitations to promote the best ways of using body cameras. But Luke, the city councilman, questioned what value Salt Lake City gets from Burbank’s trips.

A Taser spokesman said the company has no control over how cities decide to award contracts. Taser says early adopters of technology are the best ones to discuss its benefits and drawbacks and share their experiences with colleagues.

“This is a pretty normal practice for police chiefs and other recently retired individuals to speak on behalf of the industry,” Taser chief marketing officer Luke Larson said.
Taser’s competitors say its cozy relationships are hurting their ability to seek contracts. They complain they have been shut out by cities awarding no-bid contracts to Taser and are being put at a disadvantage by requests for proposals that appear tailored to Taser’s products.
“Every time I do a presentation, as I’m standing there looking through the room, I wonder, ‘Who is tainted by Taser?'” said Peter Onruang, president of Wolfcom Enterprises, a California body camera maker.

Taser reported Thursday that orders for body cameras and Evidence.com soared to $24.6 million in the final three months of 2014 — a nearly fivefold increase from the same quarter in 2013. The company said it had contracts with 13 major cities and is in discussions or trials with 28 more.
A no-bid contract in Albuquerque and Taser’s relationship with the police chief prompted an investigation by the city’s inspector general.

City Council members demanded the inquiry after learning that Chief Ray Schultz, who had supported the $1.9 million contract for Taser cameras and storage, became a company consultant shortly after stepping down. A U.S. Justice Department investigation last year blasted Albuquerque’s rollout of the body cameras, saying it had been so hasty that officers had not been properly trained.

Today, Schultz speaks in an online promotional video about Albuquerque’s experience with Evidence.com. Although he has recently been hired as assistant chief in the Houston suburb of Memorial Villages, Schultz said he will be paid by Taser to speak at the international conferences in March.

Former New Orleans Police Superintendent Ronal Serpas confirmed he signed a Taser consulting agreement after he stepped down in August and has spoken at company-sponsored events in Canada and Arizona. Less than a year earlier, in December 2013, the city agreed to a $1.4 million contract with Taser for 420 cameras and storage.

In an interview with the AP, Serpas declined to detail how the consulting deal came about but said it did not violate a state ethics law because he is not lobbying his former employer. He also said he was not on the committee that recommended Taser for the contract.

Serpas said his role is to speak about how technology affects policing and not to promote products. Taser marketing materials reviewed by AP, however, quote him as calling the company’s Axon cameras and Evidence.com “a game changer for police departments here and around the world.”
In Fort Worth, emails obtained by the AP under Texas’ open records law show that then-Police Chief Jeffrey Halstead was seeking 400 more body cameras for officers last year and that Taser promised a discount if the deal could be approved before the end of the company’s sales quarter.

“Close of the month? I do not wear a cape or have x-ray vision you know,” Halstead wrote a Taser representative.

But over the next three weeks, Halstead successfully pushed the city to approve a no-bid contract worth up to $2.7 million. He kept Taser representatives aware of his progress, adding at one point that he deserved a raise.

In the following months, Taser had Halstead speak at events in Phoenix, Miami and Boston, covering his airfare and lodging, records show. The four-day Boston trip for Halstead and a companion cost Taser $2,445.

Halstead said he reached an oral agreement during the contract negotiations to travel to three other cities at Fort Worth’s expense to talk about his experience with Taser cameras. In one email, he told a Taser representative he believed he could persuade San Antonio to buy its cameras, “but my fee is not cheap! LOL.”

Halstead, who retired from the department in January, said he hopes to become an official consultant before he travels to speak at overseas events in March. He said he discussed such an arrangement during the end of his city employment, but had nothing promised.

He defended his ties to Taser as a “good business relationship” with a company that supports law enforcement.

Fort Worth City Manager David Cooke said he does not believe Halstead violated rules that prohibit employees from accepting job offers or other benefits that might influence the performance of their official duties. But he said the episode might reveal “gaps that we need to fill” in the code.

(© Copyright 2015 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.)    **for educational purposes, fully credited



BONUSES:

An interesting exchange about paying for body cameras from TASER INTERNATIONAL from the full TASER purchase discussion which can be found here: 
        Charlotte City Council Minutes Jan. 26, 2015:

Mr. Barnes said I think this might answer it; in an earlier slide, either the Chief or Mr. Harrington noted an intent by the Manager and by CMPD to make asset forfeiture contributions as possible and I think to Ms. Lyles question our historical experience has been that we get much more than $100,000 per year in asset forfeiture funds. For the sake of simplifying this exercise tonight and getting through this process I think if we leave it the way it is, if the Council is comfortable with it, I was trying to get us to actually draw down the capital contribution and increase the amount of money coming from another source, but if you want to leave it the way it is and take their word for it that they will contribute the asset forfeiture funds as allowed and as possible I’m fine with that as well. But I think the Chief was confident that he could contribute $100,000 per year for those three years throughout this process. 

Mr. Phipps said I was wondering would we apply that same thing if we happen to get grants that we would apply for; would we apply those as a reduction from the capital if we did that? 

Mr. Barnes said if I might Mr. Mayor, Mr. Phipps I think no grants are listed here as an opportunity so I don’t know if the Manager would be thinking that. I think we are operating strictly within what the staff laid out for us and the potential for contributions within those sources. 

Ms. Kinsey said I might be able to hold my nose and vote for this with $100,000 in there; I don’t know why we wouldn’t be able to leave it in there if you can look at $324,880 in the year 2019 and project that why not $100,000 each year? 

Mr. Carlee said would you repeat the question? 

Ms. Kinsey said I said I could probably hold my nose and support this with $100,000 from asset forfeiture in the years 2016, 2017 and 2018 and I did raise the question if we could project $324,880 in year 2019 why not $100,000 each year? 

Mr. Carlee said we don’t have a problem with that. 

Mayor Clodfelter said I think the Manager has endorsed the restructured motion. 

Ms. Lyles said I just want to say sometimes I’m really hesitant because my memory is not what it used to be, but I recall that asset forfeiture funds are governed strictly by a set of regulations that are federally imposed upon us to protect local communities from estimating revenues and causing police actions to go and purpose those revenues because it is projected in a future year. I don’t remember if that has changed or not but I’m just curious if that intent of estimating future revenues for asset forfeiture is really compliant with the intent or the regulations stated, and if it is not then I would agree, but my recall is that there was a great deal of caution about that so that communities wouldn’t go out and seize assets from citizens so that they could meet their project that year. That has been by concern and I don’t know if anyone can address that and if the rules have changed or the intent has changed, I’m very comfortable with the motion. If it hasn’t I would make a substitute motion to accept the recommendation as it is. 

Motion was made by Councilmember Barnes, seconded by Councilmember Howard, to (A) Approve a five year contract with Taser International in an amount not to exceed $5,491,186 for hardware, software license, services, storage, and ongoing maintenance for the implementation and support of Body Worn Cameras; (B) Authorize the City Manager to approve contracts for additional purchases in an amount not to exceed $1,551,058 for ancillary hardware, software, and services for the implementation and configuration of Body Worn Cameras; (C) Accept a donation form the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Foundation, in the amount of $250,000, to be used for the Body Worn Camera project, and (D) Adopt Budget Ordinance No. 5563-X appropriating $6,724,880 as follows: $5,900,000 from capital fund reserves, $574,880 from assets forfeiture funds and $250,000 from the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Foundation. The remaining balance of $317,364 will be funded within the future operating budgets with an amendment to include the $100,000 per year for FY16, FY17 and FY18 from asset forfeiture and reducing the capital contribution by a corresponding amount to take the capital down to $5.6 million and the asset forfeiture contribution would go up to $874,880 as available. January 26, 2015 Business Meeting Minute Book 137, Page 878 mpl 

Mayor Clodfelter said Chief you heard the question from Ms. Lyles; are we allowed to appropriate future asset forfeiture funds that we don’t yet know whether we are going to have or not? 

Chief Monroe said that is correct. 

Mayor Clodfelter said we are or we are not allowed to do that? 

Chief Monroe said we are not. 

Mayor Clodfelter said we are not allowed to do that, by Federal law? 

Chief Monroe said yes sir. 

Ms. Kinsey said then why can they put in $324,880? 

Mayor Clodfelter said Ms. Kinsey asked the quite appropriate question that in the out year of 2019 you have $324,880. 

Chief Monroe said that should be appropriated now. 

Mayor Clodfelter said from currently available funds? 

Chief Monroe said correct. 

Mayor Clodfelter said so Chief are you saying that the item before us really should have $574,880 of currently available asset forfeiture funds in the present fiscal year appropriated. 

Chief Monroe said in order to comply that needs to be loaded now or committed now. 

Mayor Clodfelter said Mr. Harrington, do we have that? 

Mr. Harrington said yes, and that is reflected in your budget ordinance under Section 4, the $574,880. 

Mayor Clodfelter said so that is exactly right so Councilmember Lyles needs to speak up so everybody understands what the point is and why everybody is getting confused by this chart. 

Ms. Lyles said the chart on Page 6 is a schedule of expense; you must appropriate the entire amount to encumber this. All you are seeing in this chart is when it is going to be scheduled. That is why I’m very reluctant to add money where it is not shown; what we are actually doing is appropriating $7,042,000 plus today; the chart shows when it will be expensed, but you have to by law encumber the amount of the contract and you must show that those revenues are there. It will show up in the asset forfeiture account of encumbrance of $574,000 which I am sure is in the account now. 
Mayor Clodfelter said otherwise you would not be requesting the action, correct? 

Ms. Kinsey said this is exactly why we should be doing this through the budgeting process or have more time to talk about it and to understand it. This is very confusing; I am not the dumbest person in the world and not the smartest either, but it is just very confusing and we are spending a lot of money in the overall scheme of things; $7 million is not like some we have spent but we really have not studied this as a Council and I hope we never do this again because it makes us look stupid and I don’t like looking stupid even if I am. I hope we don’t do this again because it is not pretty. 

Mr. Barnes said may I amend my motion? 

Mayor Clodfelter said I think it might be in order.



CLICK HERE for CMPD's new body-worn camera policy

Some Citynewswatch related articles











Wednesday, June 17, 2015

Charlotte Announces New Police Chief Kerr Putney

EDITORIAL

SEEKING INPUT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
City Councilperson Claire Fallon said 'we know him' and 'we don't have time to search for a new chief.''  Kerr Putney has been named the new Chief of Police for the City of Charlotte.  

The FOP (Fraternal Order of Police) was surveyed and the majority said they believe there should have been an external search.  The CMPD rank and file were ignored in favor of choosing a guy that would continue the Rodney Monroe plan. If you assume CMPD/FOP members have their own aspirations of being promoted from within, you may think that a passable candidate (according to CMPD members) would have been supported strongly.  It wasn't even a question about Putney, but the writing was on the wall and the answer was "look somewhere else."  

The City Manager explained we were in a hurry and didn't have the money to search for someone else.  Has this City Manager never heard of "Interim Chief?"

If Putney were named Interim Chief, all the things the City Manager and Council say about what is needed could have been tested.  He still could have been named Chief.  Removing someone as Chief has proven difficult and this rash hiring is not good management.


COUNCIL RESPONSIBILITY FOR OVERSIGHT
Everyone must educate themselves and vote in a responsible City Council who will hire competent City Management and insist on a police department run with integrity and which is accountable to Charlotte's citizens.
  

ONE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUTNEY TO PROVE HIMSELF
Unless Kerr Putney enters his new position and opens a significant number of Internal Affairs investigations for all the things he has known and didn't do anything about before, he has a vote of No-Confidence from many.  This would include everything hidden by his predecessor from retaliation against great officers, covering up for terrible officers (did you mean it when you said you don't want 'criminals with badges?', financial irregularities, and bad hiring/promotion/training practices that have led to generally bad morale in the ranks.  And investigating CMPD finances should be top on someone's list.  It would be a surprising change if Putney rises to challenge.

Good luck to us all.  
The Chief is retiring. Long live the new Chief.


Monday, May 25, 2015

Veteran's Day 2015

Make a special effort today to thank any veterans you know and those you don't.  Most are quite humble and don't want credit for their service, but we are free because of their sacrifices. 

Thank you to each and every person who has served or is serving with great honor.

We wish you peace and comfort always.



Monday, November 10, 2014

City of Charlotte Won't Release Records about CMPD Officer Arrests, Internal Affairs, Policies


Citynewswatch decided to publish a response from City of Charlotte Attorney Robert Hagemann received after asking City Manager Ron Carlee to give correct information about arrests of CMPD officers and Internal Affairs complaints about CMPD officers.

While Citynewswatch sent a request for comment and additional information only earlier today to Carlee, Hagemann answered in his stead and made it clear he had no intention of providing the public records or requisite legal reasons for denial.  He simply expressed a personal “satisfaction” that others have been “appropriately responsive” to requests.

The only appropriate response to a Public Records request is to provide the records or a correct reason to deny or provide redacted records. 

Redacted Internal Affairs complaints have been denied completely without explanation.

After plenty of time to respond, the list of police officers who have been arrested was stated as complete by CMPD Public Information Officer, but proven incorrect.  This causes concern over how many other arrests may be yet undiscovered, as well as how much of the disciplinary action list provided may be true or may be missing.   Hagemann has ignored requests for policies and other regular records.  He wants an attorney to call and have a chat with our city's attorney.  A conversation isn't documentation.  It doesn't meet the public record requirement, either.  The request submitted does not need clarification.  It needs to be met.

How much longer will the City Council allow the City Manager to run the staff in this manner over issues as serious as crimes alleged or committed by police officers?  Please see the full list of information requested, including policies designed to promote transparency and fairness within the ranks of the police department. 

Citynewswatch will post responses – or lack of responses – as they develop.




citynewswatch charlotte <citynewswatch@gmail.com>
From:  Citynewswatch.blogspot.com
To: City of Charlotte Manager Ron Carlee
Date:  November 10, 2014

CMPD Arrests and Discipline Public Records Request

Dear City Manager Carlee,

Our Editorial Staff has received information that CMPD Information Officer Brian Cunningham gave information responsive to a Public Records Request which was either intentionally false, missing obvious information, or which may contain numerous false or missing pieces of information about criminal charges against Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Officers during 2013 and 2014 and disciplinary action taken related to those arrests and other disciplinary action. Specifically, multiple arrests of officers are known to be missing from the list provided as "complete" so all the information provided is suspect.

Also, requests for redacted copies of Internal Affairs complaints and redacted copies of disposition of those complaints have been denied by Brian Cunningham and CMPD Attorney Judy Emken.  City of Charlotte Attorney Robert Hagemann was contacted October 23, 2014 on these issues and it appears you have been copied prior to this as well, but records have not been forthcoming.

1.      Initially,  please provide immediate comment on:

a.      Why Senior Attorney Robert Hagemann has not even responded to requests for Public Records, and
b.      Why the Public Information Officer for the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department is giving out incorrect information about which police officers have been arrested, and
c.      Whether all CMPD officers arrested are processed in the same manner as other citizens, with fingerprinting and photographing, posted to the Sheriff’s public web site, and
d.      Whether the list of disciplinary action provided is accurate and truthful, or also must be corrected.

2.      Following soon, please give a projected completion date and provide these PUBLIC RECORD ITEMS:
a.      Provide a complete and accurate list of all CMPD officers arrested during 2012, 2013 and 2014.
b.      Provide a copy of disposition of those criminal charges
c.      Provide a complete and accurate copy of all termination letters for each CMPD officer terminated/separated during 2012, 2013 and 2014.
d.      Provide an appropriately redacted copy of all CMPD Internal Affairs complaints submitted and their associated dispositions for 2012, 2013 and 2014.
e.      Provide a copy of any and all policies relating to criminal charges against a City of Charlotte employee (CMPD or otherwise), including but not limited to CMPD employees and especially  concerning:
 i.     Criteria and who makes the determination for paid or unpaid leave or suspension,
ii.     Criteria and who makes the determination whether City of Charlotte will pay  for a criminal defense if necessary,
iii.     Criteria and who makes the determination whether City of Charlotte will pay for a  civil attorney if necessary,
iv.     Criteria and who makes the determination of when and what to notify the DA’s office of cases involving an arrested officer,
v.     What criteria and timing determine if an officer is relieved of their gun when arrested and when they may be reissued their service gun or permitted to have other weapons,
vi.     Whether any convicted criminals are permitted to be CMPD officers,
vii.     Any policies related to hiring of officers with arrest records (ie, may an officer with record of arrest be hired? And if so, under what circumstances?),
viii.     Any other policies related to arrested officers

Please explain why no action is being taken to provide these records and give any comment you wish.

Thank you,
Citynewswatch Editorial Staff
Citynewswatch.blogspot.com
Citynewswatch@gmail.com

CC:  dclodfelter@charlottenc.gov,
rhagemann@charlottenc.gov,
jemken@cmpd.org,
bcunningham@cmpd.org,
rmonroe@cmpd.org
sharrison@charlotteobserver.com,
rthames@charlotteobserver.com



received from:
Hagemann, Robert

to Ron, Daniel, me, Judy, Brian, Rodney, sharrison, Rick

To Whom it May Concern:

Following is the substance of an email that I just sent <name withheld>, the “individual” who I am confident made the requests you are referring to.  I refer you to that by way of explanation.
----------------------------------
<name withheld>
I have discussed this matter with Ms. Emken and Cpt. Cunningham and am satisfied that they have been appropriately responsive to your public records requests.   Cpt. Cunningham will supplement the documents previously provided for 2013 and 2014 to include 2012 now that you have made that request.

Cpt. Cunningham has asked me to pass along his phone # so you can speak directly with him regarding this matter - 704-336-4098.  Should you or your attorney wish to speak with an attorney for the City, Ms. Emken is your point of contact - 704-353-1062.

Bob
Robert E. Hagemann
CITY ATTORNEY
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
PH:704.336.2651
FAX: 704.632.8331
rhagemann@charlottenc.gov
www.charlottenc.gov

From: citynewswatch charlotte [mailto:citynewswatch@gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 1:47 PM
To: Carlee, Ron
Cc: Clodfelter, Daniel; Hagemann, Robert; Emken, Judy; Cunningham, Brian; Monroe, Rodney; sharrison@charlotteobserver.com; Rick Thames
Subject: CMPD Arrests and Discipline Public Records Request

citynewswatch charlotte <citynewswatch@gmail.com>

to barnesforcharl., cfallon, info, vlyles, pkinsey, aaustin, lmayfield, gaphipps, jautry, krsmith, ed, Robert, Ron, Daniel, Judy, Brian, Rodney, sharrison, Rick
Mr. Carlee, Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,

Mr. Hagemann has sent an email which does not address the fact that multiple arrests were not documented by Brian Cunningham on what was presented as complete and truthful, how that was allowed to happen, or whether there are similar inaccuracies in the disciplinary statements provided.  Also not addressed is whether CMPD officers are given special treatment when arrested. 

These questions were addressed to you, Manager Carlee, as were the questions in section 2 which requires PUBLIC RECORDS of INTERNAL AFFAIRS COMPLAINTS and DISPOSITIONS, redacted as appropriate, POLICIES, and the other items listed, along with a projected time these items will be provided.  Mr. Hagemann has again ignored the PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST for these items.  Please provide a correct legal response to each item rather than his general thoughts or perception that he thinks what seems to be avoidance of the law will be proper by the City Attorney on behalf of the City of Charlotte, the City Manager or its representatives.

Please reply to each issue addressed.

Thank You,

Editorial Staff Citynewswatch