CMPD SAYS 50 NEW CARS MISSING, COUNCIL APPROVES $5,000,000 FOR MORE POLICE CARS
Well, tonight’s City Council meeting was another non-surprise from the usual crazy logic presented by the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department, followed by Council passing the motion to give CMPD Five Million Dollars more of our money.
Deputy Chief Katrina Graue was asked where 50 brand new cars were. She said she didn’t know. (read below for one possible location they should check). Council promptly voted to give $5,000,000 for 212 more police vehicles, including Crown Victorias and 50 Dodge Chargers—maybe. Numbers are not the strong point of the CMPD. At one point, Graue said there would be 18 Dodge Chargers, an increase from the original 2 purchased for the “Officer of the Month” program. According to records, though, those original “program” cars had been purchased with Asset and Forfeiture funds.
This doesn’t appear to be an approved use of A&F funds which falls under very strict federally-defined guidelines. Neither does having large buckets of other money lying around for the Chief’s “Special Projects,” but that hasn’t stopped it from happening. It hasn’t stopped the CMPD from forging ahead unchecked, no matter that questions have been directed to the proper people (see list below) who have refused to answer whether A&F funds have been doled out under the spending rules allowed by Federal Law. If the answer is “yes,” that would be simple enough to clear up. The elaborate steps taken to avoid answering questions on any number of topics related to the police department go past normal political support or busy schedules.
During tonight’s stumbling answers, Deputy Chief Graue explained that CMPD planned to buy a number of cars they didn’t really want because the manufacturer was going to make them… or something like that. Please watch it yourself (here's a link to Council video -- go to both items marked "21 - police vehicles, it was split during the meeting) because it’s truly hard to describe. Andy Dulin seemed to push for buying MORE Chargers and said they were just great-looking. Someone asked about the cost of equipping the cars and it really still isn’t clear whether the estimated $16,000 or $17,000 per vehicle given by the DC to move old equipment into new cars would be a separate future cost or a non-existent cost, and nobody bothered to clear it up. Almost no answer given by the Deputy Chief made any sense.
The only thing less sensible was the quick approval by Council to spend another $5,000,000 of our money on police vehicles without forcing them to go find the other missing ones first. They should also have a competent negotiator investigate the type of cars that need to be purchased, if there even is a need.
MAYBE THIS IS WHY THEY CAN’T “FIND” THE POLICE CARS
All of this may explain the adamant refusal by every City official and CMPD representative to explain what the heck is happening with their fleet, when presented with public records requests for many weeks now.
This might be a good time to interject that citynewswatch has been inundated with frustrated readers forwarding copies of public records requests refused, denied, deflected, ignored, given the most outrageous replies… While efforts are undertaken to get legitimate responses from city personnel, it seems they are choosing to keep information hidden. Others have sent requests for help, and received not one reply. More on both later.
Here’s a partial exchange regarding the Police cars, and maybe a reason why some are "missing." Maybe the fight and refusal to answer the public information requests related to police cars are related to the missing vehicles. Please write and ask for the same information and let citynewswatch know how it turns out—whether they follow the law or not. :
One letter is out of order, as you can see that the first letter to the Mayor, acknowledged through his assistant Peggy Huffman is dated September 21st. Note: acknowledgment was inadvertantly left out of original post but is included now, from September 26th. The rest are in order.
To "Huffman, Peggy M." phuffman@ci.charlotte.nc.us,
"Foxx, Anthony" afoxx@ci.charlotte.nc.us,
"Setzer, Kelly S." ksetzer@ci.charlotte.nc.us,
"Tufano, Robert" rtufano@cmpd.org,
"Cunningham, Brian" bcunningham@cmpd.org
Sep 21, 2011
Re: INFORMATION RELEASE: Effort to increase take home cars for safety
Thank you Ms. Huffman,
I wanted to let you and Mayor Foxx know that Captain Cunningham finally provided a response of some sort, but has not answered the questions fully at hand: Who is it that is driving around in our police cars, and at times they are not taking care of police business? That is the core issue being avoided here. I think the Mayor and the City Manager should be interested in asking the question.
Below is the response I did receive, and my response back to Captain Cunningham. Please have someone follow up with him and I would appreciate being kept in the loop. Thank you for letting me know that the Mayor is reviewing the matter.
From Huffman, Peggy M. phuffman@ci.charlotte.nc.us
To (name withheld)
Mon, Sep 26, 2011
Subject RE: INFORMATION RELEASE: Effort to increase take home cars for safety
Thank you for your note to Mayor Foxx. This is to confirm that your email has been received in the Office of the Mayor and will be reviewed by Mayor Foxx.
Thank you again,
Peggy
Peggy Huffman
Administrative Officer
Office of the Mayor
City of Charlotte
600 East Fourth Street
Charlotte, North Carolina
704-336-2241
Aug 24, 2011, Cunningham, Brian <bcunningham@cmpd.org> wrote:
Our Directives are on our website at www.cmpd.org please let us know if we can assist further in anyway. Thanks Brian
to Brian Cunningham, Kelly Setzer, Robert Tufano, Rosalyn Harrington, Robert Fey
Aug 25
Dear Mr. Cunningham,
I have pulled up the Directives and searched through them, but here is the only information I could find:
Directives 600-001:
I. Employees participating in the officer home loan program may be assigned a take home car based upon availability and current distribution of take home cars within the immediate neighborhood or area where the officer has purchased the home.
Continued residence at the home is a requirement in order to remain eligible for a take home car and assignments of take home cars may be adjusted as neighborhood status shifts.
J. The CMPD Administrative Services Group major will conduct an annual review of all take home vehicles to ensure policy objectives are being met.
This is not very helpful in answering the questions submitted. Would you please reply to the questions:
To Officer R. Harrington, (Sent Aug 11 to Public Inf. Officer Harrington)
There was a story in the press last week that Chief Monroe wanted to get more police cars into the public eye and increase the take-home program of cars by officers. Can you tell me what the current policy is for officers taking home cars? Is it volunteer or are there requirements for officers to be allowed to take a car home? How many cars/officers are already on a “take-home” policy? How many do you expect to incorporate into an increased program? Will that require buying more police cars?
Are you saying that only officers currently participating in the home loan program are eligible for a take home car, and only then if there are not too many other officers in that area who already have take-home cars? Must the officers be full-time officers? Are there restrictions on when, where, and how they can use them off-duty?
I asked how many cars/officers are involved in the "take-home policy" already: do you have a list of names available? Will increasing a program require purchase of additional cars? If yes, how will that be funded and how much would it cost? It's difficult that what could have been a direct about what you advertised to be a positive program turns into a flip answer of "go read the directives" or spell out every last possible question you could need us to tell you in order to get honest information. Now that I see the e-mail address used for RHarrington2@cmpd.org was correct, I have to wonder why there was no response for two weeks, only to receive an answer like this: "go read the directives."
You were aware before sending me to read the directives that the answers to the questions sent to Officer Harrington were not contained there. It really makes one wonder.
Thanks so much for your quick response with information regarding my question.
Thu, Sep 1, 2011
Subject RE: Effort to increase take home cars for safety
There hasn’t been any miscommunication on this end. We are reviewing your questions to determine what is public record so we can be responsive to your request. Thanks Brian
To "Cunningham, Brian" <bcunningham@cmpd.org
Mon, Sep 12, 2011
Subject Re: Effort to increase take home cars for safety
Captain Cunningham,
I am at a loss as to why it would take over a month to determine what you are doing with our police cars, particularly when there must have been some review of that program that prompted you to put out a very public press release about how you needed to increase that program. Maybe whoever did that review and made that recommendation has all the answers to all questions below and should be in charge of answering. Everything in my questions is public information, dealing with policies, procedures, and budgets. Thanks.
"Cunningham, Brian" bcunningham@cmpd.org
Sep 16, 2011
Subject HOLD UP ? Effort to increase take home cars for safety
Captain Cunningham, really, what is the issue here? Please give the information requested or have the correct personnel provide it. Thank you.
Sep 21
Captain Cunningham,
You did not answer these questions you have had for weeks:
Are there requirements for officers to be allowed to take a car home?
Are you saying that only officers currently participating in the home loan program are eligible for a take home car, and only then if there are not too many other officers in that area who already have take-home cars? Must the officers be full-time officers? Are there restrictions on when, where, and how they can use them off-duty?
I asked how many cars/officers are involved in the "take-home policy" already: do you have a list of names available? Will increasing program require purchase of additional cars? If yes, how will that be funded and how much would it cost? It's difficult that what could have been a direct about what you advertised to be a positive program turns into a flip answer of "go read the directives" or spell out every last possible question you could need us to tell you in order to get honest information. Now that I see the e-mail address used for RHarrington2@cmpd.org was correct, I have to wonder why there was no response for two weeks, only to receive an answer like this: "go read the directives."
I have read the directives, as I pointed out weeks ago. I would appreciate it if you would quit wasting my time and answer the questions.
Who decides which officers are allowed to have the cars? Are there part-time officers on the list and if so, please identify them. Are there retired officers on the list, and if so, please identify them. If the answer is yes to the last two questions, please explain why we would be sending those officers home with police cars. Please also outline for those personnel and for all personnel any restrictions on use, as I asked before.
Is that all clear? I feel certain after waiting for these answers all of this time, you should have all these answers available and expect an answer in the next couple of hours.
Thank you.
"Foxx, Anthony" afoxx@ci.charlotte.nc.us,
"Cunningham, Brian" bcunningham@cmpd.org,
"Tufano, Robert" rtufano@cmpd.org,
"Setzer, Kelly S." ksetzer@ci.charlotte.nc.us,
Tue, Sep 20, 2011
Subject INFORMATION RELEASE: Effort to increase take home cars for safety
Mayor Foxx,
Why is there still no answer on this police policy and procedure? As previously highlighted, this is a matter which has been reviewed and documented thoroughly enough to have a change made and then a press release quite a while ago. This is an issue extremely well-vetted and extremely public--additionally promoted by the police department. There is no reason for this delay.
Saying the "request is still being reviewed" makes no sense and seems like no more than a delay tactic, when all information requested is obviously compiled long ago.
Please explain the reason you are refusing to release the information requested or give the information now.
Thank you so much
"Cunningham, Brian" bcunningham@cmpd.org
"Tufano, Robert" rtufano@cmpd.org
Tue, Oct 4, 2011
Re: Effort to increase take home cars for safetyCaptain Cunningham
In two additional weeks since the last time I asked, you still haven't answered these questions. This has been going on since August 11th. You are clear on what the issues are. Please answer the questions.
Thank you.
PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS and PUBLIC RECORDS LAW
If you are able to find answers by searching CharMeck.org, then please save the tax dollars and check by yourself. It can be a useful web site. This blog site has a link to the specific search areas for City Council Meeting minutes and City Council Videos, which are very helpful.
Beyond that, however, when you call or write to city employees in any area for answers about government activities and spending, you are entitled to answers and documentation, in many forms.
Send your requests to City Manager Curt Walton, Mayor Anthony Foxx, all City Council Members, and Corporate Communications Director Kimberly McMillan. As appropriate per the content of your request, send to City Attorney in charge of Public Records Mujeeb Shah-Khan, City Clerk Stephanie C. Kelly, Human Resources Director Cheryl L. Brown, Finance Director Greg Gaskins, or Captain of Public Affairs for the Police Department Brian Cunningham. If you need something related to the Police Department and do not get a response, you may consider copying Police Chief Rodney Monroe.
Please copy citynewswatch@gmail.com to help track progress. If you do, please indicate whether your preference is to keep your name/email address private. Please also indicate any responses or other information you may have on the topic.
To each of those City personnel above, please familiarize yourself with the requirements of the Public Records Law, which clearly defines the information pertaining to the running of our government as belonging to the people. It is to be turned over upon request—verbal or written (though obviously written proof of both your request and their answer is preferable)—by whomever has the information, under all except a few limited exceptions. If it is denied, you are required to give a statutory reason for the denial of the information.
We can all hope some answers start coming. It’s the law.
UPDATE: The link to last night's video has been added within the text of this post, but links to City Council Video and Meeting Minutes are always available on this site at the right-hand column. They have a search feature which is very useful and you should take advantage--before making records requests. Sometimes you get exactly what you were looking for. Sometimes it helps you prepare a more precise request to save the City employee time. Sometimes you will be very surprised at what the search turns up.
At this point, would it be appropriate to file for an emergency hearing on the records request based on the lack of cooeration, since they are getting ready to spend 5M on new cars?
ReplyDeleteHow many subpoenas will be issued? Look at the list of informed consent to this travesty.
ReplyDeletewhat we need here is a lawyer to write in and explain what needs to be done when the city's lawyers and cmpd and CC won't "cooperate" as you say
ReplyDeleteSo was a response ever given to these questions? Im curious regarding the policies regarding take home vehicles as well. For example, are officers allowed to ride around in these cars with their family/children? That would appear to be a misuse of already tight government funds. We pay for the car and gas for their personal use? And yes I havr witnessed this...
ReplyDeleteNo response was ever given. City Council continues to hide the truth from Walton and Monroe, even though it violates public records law. They have no problem doing that now or for DNC2012 (as they made a point of saying they make no apology for it).
ReplyDeletePlease email w/some details. thanks.