Human Resources Rep. also Refuses to Answer RE: CMPD Promotions

There's no way to know yet how many others have asked the questions of Human Resources, of Curt Walton, of Rodney Monroe, City Council, or the Mayor concerning some seemingly very-unusual hiring and promotional practices within the CMPD.  One thing is clear:  Walton has set a definite wall of silence up around the department.  If anyone dare ask a question, such as "Was a job for a highly-paid, previously non-existent position, which is not covered anywhere in the directives you point to for coverage on hiring and promotion practices ever POSTED?"...

Well, you can read the responses for yourselves.  The answer is to continue to let Rodney Monroe operate as usual, ignore the possibility of problems, and deny the supervisory responsibility of checking on complaints or concerns. 

Is there a number of people that have to issue a complaint in order for it to be assessed properly by Human Resources?   Is that number more than 1? More than 100?  How many?

Is there a particular format? 

Is there a form?

Is there a venue?  

Must people "out" themselves to air concerns about possible discriminatory practices by their boss--especially when their boss is a Police Chief himself?

Could openly filing a complaint make a difficult and stressful job more dangerous, considering all the associated dangers inherent in that job even when things are going well and you have the full support of all Staff, your normal shifts, and all regular operating modes?

Wasn't asking the Human Resources Personnel the place to find these answers?

I would like the Council and Mayor to ask the questions.  I would like the Fraternal Order of Police to support the Officers by asking the questions. 

Almost all officers were first told they would receive no raise--again--but then thrown a bone out of lump sum compensation out of City surplus funds available.  I say "most" because Monroe gave some heftier raises to his command staff--and then wrote a letter to the rest of his officers explaining that he and Curt "wish there w(ere) more to be given."

 Read Cedarposts.blogspot story here

Sent to Cheryl L. Brown August 3, 2011 regarding Curt Walton's statements that he would not respond about hiring and promotion practices in the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department, from his August 3rd request letter shown in post here

Ms. Brown,

With regards to Mr. Walton's response, he has clearly not responded to the questions below.  I have chosen to highlight them in the text and ask for your response as HR representative, rather than restate them all, too avoid creating unnecessary confusion.  Let me slightly re-state this question, though: are there any valid reasons you are aware of as HR manager which would allow for discriminatory hiring or promotional practices to be conducted in any City Department?  And, particularly if pointed out as a potential problem to supervisors, would the supervisor then be required to review and investigate whether there is a possible problem, based on some sort of factual analysis?

Please see the highlighted questions below.   (Editor's note: referencing highlighted portion of the letter shown in the post on the link here )

I know that none of these questions will take more than a couple of minutes to answer, since they are policy--or the simple job posting of two jobs which have had advance notice of. 
Thank you so much.  

Cheryl L. Brown's Response August 4, 2011:

"The City has responded to your request.  I have nothing to add."

Curt Walton Will Not Review Promotion Concerns in CMPD

It seems that Mr. Walton, Chief Monroe, Human Resources, nor perhaps anyone else in our city is interested in reviewing the policies of hiring and promotion which have been taking place within the police department. It causes one to wonder: WHY?

Why was such an elaborate letter (see below) designed to avoid answering a couple of direct questions related to promotion practices released a week after it was requested? More interesting, it was sent only a few minutes after the writer identified the release of an announcement of the predicted promotions were made available on www.cedarposts.blogspot.com  ?

Sent July 28, 2011:

Dear Mr. Walton,

There are questions regarding the announced intention by Chief of Police Rodney Monroe to promote RAC’s (Response Area Commanders) to Captain, and to make a number of other promotions. As far as I am aware, the RAC changes have not yet happened.

Also, there seems to be very strong concern among at least some of your rank and file officers particularly over certain Majors that maybe up for promotion. The expressed concern is that if these promotions were made, they would not be justified and would be extremely harmful to morale—possibly more, in terms of implementing and assuring fair practices. Are you aware of this? As City Manager, are you involved in the process of review/promotion of officers? The issue seems to be one of fairness, equal opportunity, and qualification for jobs and promotions.

Are there guidelines/criteria or promotions within the Police Department? Are seniority, quality of service, supervisory reviews, disciplinary issues, peer evaluation, or other specific items considered? Are there legal considerations?

Is there a timeline (ex: an annual date of promotions or reviews of employees) for any changes to happen? Has a timeline for promotions been announced yet?

Thank you for your interest.

Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:17 AM

Mr. Fey, Mr. Tufano, Mr. Walton,

You never replied to the questions herein, yet today there are reports that some pretty unusual promotions came out in the brass sections of your CMPD.

Does that mean that no one considered the information below, that I was assured an answer to?

Please send a response to my questions and now I guess I can add the following: are these all the promotions that will be announced? Do you feel these promotions represent fair promotions of the most qualified and deserving personnel in the best positions? Have you taken the time to review, in any way, past promotions--or now current promotions--to consider if they are being done with proper standards?

Please do not delay in responding. Thank you

City Manager Curt Walton’s response, in its entirety, is printed here. Despite multiple efforts beginning the week prior through CMPD PIO and Public Affairs, and copying Rodney Monroe, trying to get an earlier response, he would not provide one until after “brass” promotions were announced… the following arrived:

Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 10:31 AM

RE: Promotions within the CMPD

The Charlotte – Mecklenburg Police Department has a very specific policy with regard to the evaluation and selection of personnel for promotion to sworn ranks. CMPD directive 300-011 Promotional Procedures (available on line at www.cmpd.org ) outlines the procedures, eligibility requirements and process for promotion to the sworn ranks of Sergeant, Captain and Major.

The promotional process for the ranks of Sergeant and Captain is defined in the promotional process announcements for those ranks. The promotional process announcement includes information about the process components, their relative values, eligibility requirements and details of testing administration. All candidates who complete the full process for the ranks of Sergeant and Captain, as defined by the respective promotional process announcements, will be placed on a promotional eligibility list in the rank order as determined by cumulative scores. Promotions to the rank of Sergeant, Captain and Major must also be approved by the Civil Service Board.

Promotions to the rank of Sergeant will be made in rank order as established by the final promotional eligibility list. The current Sergeant’s eligibility list expires on 11/30/2011.

Promotions to the rank of Captain will be made from the final eligibility list by use of a rule of five. For each promotion to be made, the Chief of Police may select from the top five candidates without regard to rank order. Any candidates not selected for promotion will remain on the list in the original rank order and will be eligible for future promotions. To aid in this selection, the Chief of Police may use additional examinations or interviews, and he or she may require the production of any documentation or other materials the Chief considers appropriate. The current Captain’s list expires on 11/30/2012.

Promotions to the rank of Major and Deputy Police Chief will be made at the discretion of the Chief of Police.

It is my understand that the Chief will be making the promotional process announcement for the rank Lieutenant in the very near future, with the announcement regarding the Sergeant’s process shortly after. The criteria and eligibility requirements for the rank of Lieutenant and Sergeant will be stated in the announcements.

Key Business Executives throughout the City organization have the authority to make hiring decisions and promotions on the basis of merit and organizational need. I wholeheartedly support Chief Monroe and the Charlotte –Mecklenburg Police Department’s decisions regarding promotion to sworn ranks.

All received this letter in response, including HR, (not highlighted at the time):

Mr. Walton--with assistance from HR & CMPD:

Thank you so much for your belated response. However, you did not address this issue: Do you feel these promotions represent fair promotions of the most qualified and deserving personnel in the best positions? Have you taken the time to review, in anyway, past promotions--or now current promotions--to consider if they are being done with proper standards?

Your comment: “Key Business Executives throughout the City organization have the authority to make hiring decisions and promotions on the basis of merit and organizational need” is not supported in the directives that you pointed me to, unless you explain further. How do you define“organizational need?” Please be specific.

Does your statement: “I wholeheartedly support Chief Monroe and the Charlotte – Mecklenburg Police Department’s decisions regarding promotion to sworn ranks” indicate that you have in fact reviewed the issues I have pointed out, and allowed the practices to proceed as Chief Monroe has undertaken them, or that you have chosen not to investigate possible inconsistencies with hiring, retention, and promotion issues in the police department? The directives you have pointed me to state clearly that all elements used in the promotional process will be job-related and nondiscriminatory.

Also, none of these policies refer to the hiring or promotion of an “Executive Officer” or “Executive Assistant.” Is there some other policy concerning those? Was there a job posting that went up for those positions? If so, I would like to have a copy of that posting—though if it will cause a delay in your answer to the few questions above, let’s consider that a separate request to be handled. Considering the timing of your answer to this e-mail and the vague reference to more eminent announcements of promotions, I think it’s only fair to request that you answer these questions now.

Thank you so much.

Response from Curt Walton August 3, 2011:

“I’ve addressed the issue with you and have nothing further to add.”

There has been no answer to any of the issues in highlighted above. I have sent a follow up request specifically to HR, still copying the rest of the group, and will let you know what response comes—if any.

Dangerous Security Risk? Mandatory Yearbook Photos of CMPD Officers

CMPD has put out a mandatory order for all officers to have their photographs taken for a yearbook.

Are they going to include undercover officers on their own special page?  What about gang units--will you index them so they can be specially targeted?  Don’t do this stupid thing that is potentially very dangerous for officers and citizens!

All it takes is one copy to the MS13's.

All it takes is one copy in the hands of terrorists trying to sneak one of "theirs" behind the scenes at the DNC2012 Convention, so they can get a close match.

This is some epic security leadership brainpower we have in charge of Charlotte.

GOOD JOB MONROE.

If you honestly can't think of any better way to spend this money, at least choose not to cause a potentially monumental security problem.

Mayor Foxx, Council, Curt Walton, please ask the Feds if they think this is a good idea.  Maybe one of them fully attended the college they claimed to earn their degree from-- and actually earned a degree in Criminal Justice. 

CMPD Fuzzy Math and Crime

The Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department released a “2011 CMPD Citizen Survey “ last week, complete with accompanying exclusive interview on a local TV station, which seemed nothing more than a promotional piece to sing the praises of Chief Rodney Monroe, no matter what.  There was no analysis of the data.  There were no hard-hitting questions.  Right or wrong, it seemed everyone in the room was of one purpose…  so let me pose a question to Rodney Monroe:

If the “vast majority of those surveyed has a positive impression of CMPD”, as this PR fluff piece by WSOC tried to help Monroe convey, then why did 80% state that they needed better police protection?     (See question #12 “The need for Police has increased in the past year”)

Statistical analysis requires proper data to begin with.   Calculating 650 as the proper number of random participants requires that you confirm they are indeed properly randomized from the study population. 

Skewing the data toward those who are available to speak by landline negates the validity of the data.  Add to that, 45% of the respondents are listed as living in the Southeast Division, and check the income levels…  

And, 72% live in a single-family detached home, with another 11% in a condo or townhome. 


Any one of these things means you need more data to be accurate… BUT WAIT, THERE’s MORE.

On some questions, there are as few as 19 people shown as “able to respond.”  Even on the questions where they threw out only 40 or 50 answers out of 650, the numbers make no sense on a population study of approximately 800,000.  Asking 27 victims of violent crime about their experience with police in order to rate themselves when there are nearly 1 MILLION calls to 911 per year seems completely preposterous. 

In short, this survey is a junk science, taxpayer-funded promotional piece put together to benefit Rodney Monroe and his cronies.  

There’s an extra question this year, and don’t forget we are paying for the survey, to ask the following question:  “Have you seen police patrolling in your neighborhood in the past year?” 

Are they serious? 

And the answer to that question is presented on a huge pie chart on a page all by itself.  Guess what: 76% of people able to answer have seen a police car in their neighborhood at some point in the last year.  Brilliant use of taxpayer money to find that out.

Other very notable presentation pages seem to be desperately clamoring for women and for minorities to fill out the ranks—maybe in a specific capacity.  Could this be related as well to the sudden mandatory pictures by all officers in a CMPD yearbook to be produced and published (at even further expense)?

It seems like the whole completely-without-charm offensive may be designed to support an upcoming announcement regarding long-rumored personnel changes.

If not, a real leader and Police Chief would be more concerned about Murder, Rape, Home Invasions, Break-Ins, and the fact that 80% of people (607 answered) either strongly agree (54%) or agree (26%) and even more rated ‘mid-range’ (13%)  feel the need for more police presence. 

·       Fear of Break-ins and Burglary JUMPED from  25%  in 2008 to  38%  in 2011

·       Fear of Assault, Rape,  & Robbery SKYROCKETED from  12%  in 2008 to  37%  in 2011

·       Fear of Murder has gone up, too

Those numbers should be the topics of a conversation about perception of safety.  But this Chief doesn’t seem very good with accurate numbers so far.

 Read the complete CMPD Survey Report here 


WSOCTV story here

2011 CMPD Citizen Survey Released in PR push, but numbers don't add up

CMPD and Chief Monroe seemed to go on a Campaign of Convincing last night--all on our tax dollars paying the tab, with a little help from WSOC who did a wonderful promo piece on Monroe and the job he's doing.

The simultaneous release of a report entitled "CMPD Citizen Survey" was interesting, to say the least.  There are numerous reasons why the accuracy of the data itself should be questioned as statistically irrelevant--more on that later.

The stated purposes of this report have to do with increasing people's perception of safety, not their actual safety.  Too bad.

There are enormous pages that appear to present a demand from the community for Women and Non-White officers, regardless of qualifications, which really give one pause.  Listening to concerns from field officers who do not expect the next round of promotions to come in a way that is fair  and commensurate with abilities, tonight's show and tell along with this powerpoint report feels more like a propaganda machine carefully paving the way for some announcements that won't go down well. 

In addition, 45% of respondents are from the Southeast division.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the lowest crime area in all of Charlotte?  I'd feel pretty positive in that area, too.

Maybe there should be some high level discussions at City Manager level to be sure that appropriate considerations are reviewed before changing rank and pay.   Maybe there should be a look backward, in terms of positions acquired.   Let's get this right.  Let's not lose our good officers.


Here's a link to see the report for yourself: here



also, SEE     www.cedarposts.blogspot.com     for valuable information

CRVA Letter of Agreement with PricewaterhouseCooper -- expenses over $ 25K ?

Mr. Derick Close, Chairman, Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority (CRVA), signed an Engagement Letter for services with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) on May 2, 2011 to “serve as an independent advisor to the CRVA Board in support of the Board’s own internal audit, review, and assessment of the CRVA’s operating policies and procedures and organizational structure.  PwC will provide consultation to include research of existing documents, participate in discussions with CRVA Board members, and industry insights…”

The letter further states:  “It is understood and agreed that PwC will not be responsible for any review and/or audit of the CRVA’s operating policies or organizational structure.”

WHAT???  Is this the understanding of the public, the Council, Mayor, and City Manager before we paid $25,000 for Consultation with PricewaterhouseCoopers?

But, did we pay $25,000?   So far, no representative of CRVA or the City will answer that question—and upon reading the agreement letter, it seems a fair question:

(PwC) “We estimate our fees for this engagement will be $25,000… At the time the fees for the engagement reach $25,000, PwC will so notify Client in writing, and Client will elect in writing whether to receive additional services.  In addition to professional fees, PwC also will bill Client for our reasonable out-of-pocket expenses, any applicable sales, use or value added tax, and internal per-ticket charges for booking travel.”

They agreed upon a $25,000 retainer up front and the remainder to be invoiced on May 27^th, 2011.

It seems that someone in the position Senior Director of Communications would be already know or be able to find out whether PwC was paid $25,000—or more… but she has insisted she doesn’t know and would not get the answer as of this posting, despite being designated by the City to release the information requested.   Refusing to give an answer before Monday’s vote doesn’t feel like transparency.

I would like to know what additional monies have been paid.  I would like to know if the Mayor, Council, City Manager, or any other City Employees knew all this money would not be spent to actually audit the CRVA. 

Would you?

View the entire Letter of Agreement  here

UPDATE: 7/28/2011  Monday night's vote by Council and the Mayor was unanimous to give millions more of our money away to a group which has demonstrated stellar poor judgment in operating themselves, their budget, and our City-owned facilities.   As far as Cooksey's strong words of support leading up, I'm not surprised that the Hospitality Community supports having buckets more tax money coming their way at our expense.

Open all the books.  When even children could explain what was wrong with your bonus and other related policies, you need to stand up, admit the decisions you have made poorly, then get on with fixing them to move forward...  calling in the City Attorney (why is this the only time we consider the CRVA a City Agency?--when they need attorney's dollars?) to claim there was no ethical problem just wasn't the way to go.  Mea culpas and plans to change in short order would have likely sufficed.

See the concerns and views stated during the Council Meeting on July 25th by going to this link 


You can "JUMP TO" "Citizen Comments" for some strong comments from Wayne Powers and then "JUMP TO" "CRVA Vote" to get to that debate.   Just because that vote is over doesn't mean it's too late to express your concern or viewpoint to our elected officials and City Manager Curt Walton, who is not elected, but serves at the pleasure of the Council/Mayor.  Manager Walton has responsiblity for running most of the City (details to follow in another "get to know your government" post for newcomers).   

But do write about what you want to happen with the organization(s), facilities, and other related items.  There's much ahead to be done.  Bottom line, we want this to be successful.







Really, could we get a response to