MORE ABOUT MISSING CMPD RECORDS

TIP OF THE ICEBERG AT CMPD ACADEMY?

Following extensive research and inquiry, citynewswatch discovered that the initial report of hundreds of Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department Officer records was just the beginning.  It turns out the first 499 out of 501 Officers’ records on the AUDIT list which indicated a problem were merely out of the first 501 checked…   it seemed CMPD and the NCDOJ Criminal Justice Standards Division were happy to leave the impression after many questions about a full audit of CMPD that those were all the problems found.  This would have been bad enough, but was only the first < 1/3 they checked out of 1782 officers’ files.

For details and copies of memos sent a year ago from Deputy Chief Katrina Graue ordering officers to come in and have fingerprints re-done and obviously admitting the missing records, see these previous citynewswatch posts here and here.

WHAT IS THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY DOING?

The NCDOJ CJSD has said they have no answer from Chief Monroe or any surrogate for him on what the heck happened in the first place, even for multiple officers who had to be pulled from duty by the State because they were working without certification standards—some for years.  Recent NCDOJ CJSD Director Wayne Woodard and current Deputy Director Pam Pope had issued letters to CMPD demanding immediate removal from active duty of the officers and a list of requirements for those officers (names blacked out here) before they could be reinstated.  However, the same agency says they don’t have any such letter from Monroe—but have reinstated the officers.   Hmm.  

One of the requirements was clearly to explain what the heck is going on in CMPD and the management issues.  You can read for yourself in some of the letters found below, including that multiple officers were working uncertified, that Chief Monroe was required to issue letters explaining the lack of management control was missed in his agency, and a recommendation in July, 2011 that CMPD should contact the District Attorney's Office, advise of the separations involving these officers and then “it is up to them whether they believe any action may be warranted.”  These are exactly the type of issues raised by citynewswatch a year ago, but there’s still no answer what action, if any, has been taken.

FULL AUDIT RESULTS VERY CONCERNING

When the full audit was complete, results show in a letter in September, 2012, that:

·        41 officers are deficient in some manner with mandated in-service training required in previous years; and

·        47 officers are deficient with Certification requirements of the Commission

The completion and report of audit findings does not preclude further Commission action as deemed appropriate.

When asked if this statement on his letterhead by Deputy Director Pope meant that 47 CMPD officers were now considered out of Certification and would be removed from active duty status, current Interim Director of the NCDOJ Criminal Justice Standards Division, Robert Yow, has said “the issues included in the final audit report (for all 1792 files) have been referred for further inquiry, and I cannot comment upon them.”

CONCERNED DIRECTOR FROM NCDOJ

Former NCDOJ CJSD Director Wayne Woodard expressed his concerns before the final audit was complete:

From: Woodard, Wayne

Sent: Monday, October 24, 2011 4:50 PM

To: kgraue@cmpd.org

Cc: Pope, Pam

Subject: CMPD Issues

Deputy Chief Graue,

I would like to talk with you in regards to several issues involving your agency. First, there is a need to follow-up with you concerning the audit of officer certification files that our staff recently conducted at your agency. Secondly, there are several other issues that have come up, both before and since the audit which merit our discussion. I will tell you I am very concerned about these other issues and concerned about the actions of some members of your agency regarding these issues.

Please let me know if you are available anytime within the next several days for a phone conversation. If so, what is a good time and at what number may I reach you. I do plan to ask my Deputy director, Pam Pope, to join us since she was involved in the audit process and has relevant information to share.

Thank you,

Wayne Woodard, Director

Criminal Justice Standards Division

North Carolina Department of Justice

919-661-5980

SUMMARY OF FIRST OFFICER RECORDS AUDITED

To get an idea the extent of the problem, here is a summary of the issues with the first 501 records reviewed:

From: Marrella, Teresa

Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 3:41 PM

To: Pope, Pam

Subject: CMPD Audit Stats

Pam,

Below are the stats of files which were missing items or the wrong form was used.

I have attached the spreadsheet.

Proof of Minimum Age of 20

13 Missing

Proof of Education

27 Missing

Proof of Citizenship

15 Missing

Results of FP Record Check

111 Missing

Medical History F-1

397 Missing

Medical Exam Report F-2

417 Missing

Personal History Statement F-3

13 Missing

Qualifications Appraisal

22 Missing

Mandated Background Investigation F-8

16 Missing

191 CMPD form

Firearms Qualification

379 Missing

---

Sent: Wednesday, July 06, 2011 4:23 PM

To: Pearsall, Sherie

Cc: Little, Jenny; Sauber, Jason; jcfields@cmpd.org

Subject:

Major Pearsall,

Per our earlier telephone conversation, we are requesting the following documents to straighten out the information and correct status on the above persons with your agency/formerly with your agency:

XXXXXX

• need an amended Form F-5B with corrected identifying information (DOB, SSN, Oath of Office)

• Letter from Chief Monroe that has not separated from your agency and that has been working full time since XXXXXX date of hire on whatever specific date.

• Copies of all certification paperwork ("F" forms from our office)

• Letter from Chief Monroe stating status of employment with CMPD including rank, current assignment, etc. Also, please include how this was missed on your agency profile since 1998.

• Date of drug test for employment or copy of same

• Training for in-service has been received by email and we will notify you if we need additional information

• Copies of all certification paperwork ("F" forms from our office)

• Letter from Chief Monroe stating status of employment with CMPD including rank, current assignment, etc. Also, please include how this was missed on your agency profile since 1998.

• Date of drug test for employment or copy of same

• Training for in-service has been received by email and we will notify you if we need additional information

Again, these officers are not to work until properly certified through our Division. Additionally, as I mentioned, CJ Standards recommended that CMPD contact your District Attorney's Office and advise of the separations involving these officers and then it is up to them whether they believe any action may be warranted.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me at 919-779-8204.

Pam

Pam Pope

Deputy Director

Criminal Justice Standards Division

ppope@ncdoj.gov

919-661-5980

---

From: Pearsall, Sherie [mailto:spearsall©cmpd.org]

Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2011 8:26 AM

To: Pope, Pam

Cc: Kukowski, Rebecca L. (Becky); Graue, Katrina; Monroe, Rodney

Subject: RE: XXXXXX and XXXXXX

Importance: High

Sensitivity: Confidential

Deputy Director Pope, first thank you once again for your prompt attention to this matter.

All items have been pulled and copies are on their way to you this morning. In addition a member of our H/R staff, Thyssen Brawley will be accompanying Sgt. Ray Williams this morning with each employee's complete file for your review and extraction of any additional data that you may require in order to expedite this process.

• We are currently attempting to locate the original drug screen form with date for XXXXXX and as soon as we have it in hand it will be delivered to you.

• I am unable to provide a comprehensive explanation about how XXXXXX and XXXXXX were missed on our agency profile at this time. This issue is currently being researched by one of our current H/R supervisors. There appears to be some discrepancies regarding actual receipt of the profiles by our agency.

Rebecca Kukowski will be contacting Jenny Little today regarding same so that we may better coordinate our efforts moving forward.

Please feel free to contact me once you have these items in hand should we need to coordinate any additional efforts throughout the day. I can be reached at 704.619.2995.

Major Sherie E. Pearsall

CHARLOTTE-MECKLENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT

1770 SHOPTON ROAD

CHARLOTTE. N.C. 28217

704.432.1641

SPEARSALL@CMPD.ORG

"...PEOPLE WILL FORGE I WHAT YOU SAID, PEOPLE WILL FORGET WHAT YOU DID, BUT PEOPLE WILL NEVER FORGET HOW YOU MADE THEM FEEL."

AUTHOR." MAYA ANGELOU

---

From: Pope, Pam

Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2011 1:03 PM

To: mhannan@cmPd.org

Cc: Woodard, Wayne

Subject: FW: Audit results needing important follow up response

Importance: High

Miriam,

As I mentioned to you on the telephone the other day, we felt that it was important to send you information in writing on three of your officers where there were serious issues found during our audit of your certification files.

XXXXXX:

XXXXXX failed to complete his 2007 mandated in-service training as reported by your agency as deficient on the Form F-9 was suspended as of April 10, 2008 and a certified letter was mailed to him.  XXXXXX signed for this letter on April 18, 2008. At that point in time, XXXXXX should have ceased performing any law enforcement actions. My understanding is that this had not happened as of September 28, 2011. Per my conversation with Captain Bannerman, must immediately cease performing law enforcement actions until ill has complied with the following and has received a letter from this office rescinding. XXXXXX 's suspension:

• XXXXXX.  needs to write a statement to address why XXXXXX continued to work as a law enforcement officer after receiving a letter of suspension. Also, this statement needs to address whether, XXXXXX discussed XXXXXX s suspension with any member of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department including who XXXXXX spoke with, when XXXXXX spoke with them and what was XXXXXX told.

• XXXXXX must complete the 2007 mandated in-service training which XXXXXX failed to complete (everything but firearms) or provide verification in the form of a certificate of completion with date, title, and hours of the course or a roster with the same information.

• XXXXXX must also provide documentation that XXXXXX has completed all of the 2008, 2009 and 2010 mandated in-service training. The same documentation noted in the second bullet must be provided.

XXXXXX

XXXXXX was separated by an F-5B (Report of Separation) which was filed by your agency on May 15, 2008. We did not receive any additional information from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department requesting XXXXXX be moved to a reserve status instead of separated. Therefore, XXXXXX has not been certified since May 2008 and should not have been working in a law enforcement capacity. My understanding is that did not happen and IMO XXXXXX has been working actively as a reserve officer. Per my conversation with Captain Bannerman, XXXXXX must immediately cease performing law enforcement actions until XXXXXX has complied with the following and has received a letter from this office rescinding XXXXXX separation and reissuing le certification:

• A letter from Chief Monroe to Criminal Justice Standards Director Wayne Woodard addressing the request to rescind the separation of XXXXXX which would restore his certification. Additionally, include in the letter how did the error of separation happen.

• XXXXXX must provide documentation that'll-las completed all of the 2008, 2009 and 2010 mandated in-service training. XXXXXX must provide verification of completion of this training in the form of a certificate of completion with date, title, and hours of the course or a roster with the same information.

XXXXXX

XXXXXX was separated by an F-5B (Report of Separation) which was filed by your agency on September 5, 2008. We did not receive any information from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department requesting XXXXXX be moved to a reserve status instead of separated. Therefore, has not been certified since May 2008 and should not have been working in a law enforcement capacity. My understanding is that did not happen and XXXXXX has been working actively as a reserve officer. Per my conversation with Captain Bannerman, XXXXXX must immediately cease performing law enforcement actions until has complied with the following and has received a letter from this office rescinding XXXXXX ',separation and reissuing XXXXXX certification:

• A letter from Chief Monroe to Criminal Justice Standards Director Wayne Woodard addressing the request to rescind the separation of XXXXXX which would restore her certification. Additionally, include in the letter how did the error of separation happen.

• XXXXXX must provide documentation that XXXXXX has completed all of the 2008, 2009 and 2010 mandated in-service training. XXXXXX must provide verification of completion of this training in the form of a certificate of completion with date, title, and hours of the course or a roster with the same information.

If you should have any questions about this issue, please feel free to contact me.

Pam Pope

Pam Pope

Deputy Director

Criminal Justice Standards Division

ppope@ncdoj.gov

919-661-5980

---

From: Pope, Pam [mailto:ppope@ncdoj.gov]

Sent: Monday, October 10, 2011 2:11 PM

To: Hannan, Miriam

Cc: Woodard, Wayne

Subject: RE: Audit results needing important follow up response

Importance: High

Miriam,

I hope that you are doing well this Monday afternoon. I am following up on the below email which was sent to you last Wednesday reference CMPD officers who were to be pulled from active law enforcement duties.

My Director, Wayne Woodard, has requested confirmation that Officers  XXXX, XXXX and  XXXX   have been reassigned to duties which do not require law enforcement action to be taken. Would you please advise ASAP when these officers were reassigned and by whom in the Command Staff was this action taken by?

Additionally, who will be responsible for forwarding the requested information to me?

I appreciate your time in advance as I know how busy that you are.

Pam

Pam Pope

Deputy Director

Criminal Justice Standards Division

ppope@ncdoj.gov

919-661-5980

---

As of June, 2012, Major Sheri Pearsall of the Administrative Services Group is paid $98,642/yr.  Deputy Chief Katrina Graue of the Administrative Services Group is paid $112,785/yr.  Chief Rodney Monroe is paid $190,550/yr.  These amounts are according to the Charlotte Observer and DO NOT include free cars and plenty of other benefits and perks.  An interesting point is that Monroe promoted both Pearsall and Graue on August 2, 2011—after the problems of officers working without being certified were reported on their watch (and Monroe’s).  Correction noted Oct. 4: Graue was actually promoted to the position in Administrative Services Group May 12, 2010, different from most recent pay increase.

Costs to City of Charlotte tax payers for lawsuits generated by Monroe have been tremendous.  Spending has exploded.  Maybe he could at least keep track of which police officers are certified to do the job.

Maybe they could find those 50 missing new police cars, too.

Charlotte City Council, um, Budgeting and Planning?

Kevin Siers of the Charlotte Observer published this today after Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx made a preemptive offer to the Charlotte Panthers NFL to give away more tax money to fund fancy upgrades to benefit owners of the privately-owned stadium.  

Many on City Council have also indicated they are considering it. 

Kevin Siers from the Charlotte Observer 9/21/12

At a time when Charlotte is under the heaviest tax burden in the state, our elected leaders are salivating to fork over more of our money, with big talk about a Superbowl future as well, while also putting off important safety and education projects for lack of funding.

Council already voted to spend millions to buy the closed-down Eastland Mall.  They said it was for purposes of consolidating the property so it could be redeveloped as a whole, but now Councilman Patrick Cannon told WSOCTV "he'd like to see multiple buyers, thinking it could become something like the Ayrsley area, with homes and businesses."   It is not a comparable site.  This is not the plan City Council said they were promoting, whether it would be more or less successful than the movie studio plan that was promoted.


Beth Pickering seems to be volunteering more money up front as well, making these comments to the Observer:  "Pickering said she’s open to the city taking a greater financial role in the project, in possibly paying for the mall’s demolition. 'The devil is in the details but I’m open to that.' ”

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/09/21/3544914/movie-exec-pitches-150-million.html#storylink=misearch#storylink=cpy

When will voters demand responsibility and make a change?

Why Are We Still Paying Tim Newman? Will DNC Scrutiny Finally Bring CRVA Accountability?

UPDATE:

WFAE has done an interview with CRVA CEO Tom Murray on September 13th, 2012, discussing the outside firm hired to evaluate the economics of the DNC Convention.  With prior talk of public funding for a mammoth hotel downtown, the expected results we are paying for already seem suspect:

"Clearly there were people that felt they had to go too far to stay here (during the DNC)," says Murray.  "If we find that we'd love to do lots of more DNCs, than how would we be better at delivering a DNC-type convention? We might say we'd have more hotels closer to the center.   But we're not ready to say that yet."

Will he be "ready to say that" when the study he has commissioned to lend credibility is complete?  Is this just another consultant to prepare inflated numbers to justify more huge tax expenditures?  Call on City Council and Mayor Foxx to force the CRVA books open NOW.   The records belong to the public.  

See email addresses at the right of this column. 

Mr. Murray also didn't mention the prostitution and crack dealing alleged on the in-town hotels that press representatives highlighted at the National Review.  Chief Monroe and Mayor Foxx may want to focus on that first.

ORIGINAL POST:

PUBLIC RECORDS OF CRVA SPENDING

A recent set of requests to find out what money, why, and for how long the CRVA (Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority) will be paying Tim Newman went to City of Charlotte Attorney Hagemann, the CRVA Board, and the CRVA Board’s attorney (Cameron Furr), asking again for that public information.  No one yet seems to have legal concerns for refusing to answer.  Is it possible no larger media outlets have been asking?  Or have they been rebuffed as well and gotten tired of asking?

What about Mayor Foxx and City Council who have proclaimed their interest in a more transparent CRVA for many months?  Do they know already…

The CRVA has already been highlighted here in previous Citynewswatch posts and more recently in a series of Charlotte Observer stories about “overestimating” millions of dollars in profit impact the CRVA has claimed.  Check this article, which provides links to the whole series.  The Observer explained that 

The Charlotte Convention Center has cost taxpayers as much as $30 million annually for construction debt, operating losses and incentives worth of hundreds of thousands of dollars to win business. The promised payback from the investment hasn’t materialized.

and

In the past, the CRVA has inflated attendance by tens of thousands of people, which in turn led to claims of tens millions of dollars of economic impact. Much of that money likely never materialized.

In other instances, the CRVA added millions of dollars of visitor spending for no apparent reason, as was the case with the 2010 National Rifle Association Convention.  For that convention, the CRVA increased its estimate of spending by 600 percent.

Now we are paying an outside consulting company $25,000 to determine a better method and identify whether and how much was net by the DNC Convention.  So the full-force denial about Newman’s payments is really puzzling.  The Observer also quotes Mayor Foxx:

“We have pushed for change at the CRVA in a very public way,” Foxx said in a statement. “The new leadership team has had less than a year to get established, and I have confidence that we’ll see good results and better accountability from them. After the Convention, I will ask them to update us on their efforts to date.”

We’ll see if Mayor Foxx answers all the questions, including why former CEO Tim Newman, who left under a cloud of revelations about lavish and possibly reckless spending, is still receiving huge sums of money from tax-funded CRVA.  In the wake of conventioneers leaving town, we need to take accurate stock of the effects on life and economic impact at all levels. 

Despite promises that Charlotte’s taxpayers will not have a negative effect, it’s safe to say that the real impact on City and County staff, budget, and businesses has been great and must be counted on the balance sheet.  Mayor Foxx also swore Charlotte tax payers would not be on the hook for any leftover DNC bills, no matter what fundraising goals were met or missed.  With word out now (via Bloomberg news) they missed by $15 million, people are nervous about managing and reporting the finances.

LAWYERS AND BOARD MEMBERS WILL NOT SUBMIT RECORDS

The latest request letter concerning just Newman’s payment information reiterates some points made in earlier letters, and there has been no response since the CRVA received this:

The Resolution shown below, sent to you again, establishes the CRVA and shows:

"This First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement, made July_' 2009 by and between the CITY OF CHARLOTTE, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina (the "City"), and the CHARLOTTE REGIONAL VISITORS AUTHORITY, a unit of local government and political subdivision of the City of Charlotte (the "CRVA")."  **(SEE FULL RESOLUTION AT THE END OF THIS POST)

Mr. Hagemann's statement that "the CRVA is a legal entity separate and distinct from the City of Charlotte" is not quite correct and the "clear legal facts" are that the CRVA is a municipal corporation, making the records and terms I have asked for public.  Please release the records immediately.  Your continued efforts to hide this information are not acceptable and cause a great deal of increased concern regarding the spending of public money.

Robert Hagemann’s terse reply on August 28^th says he believes the CRVA is not an entity which is part of the City of Charlotte:

Although I previously provided you the following response, I am resending it for the benefit of the members of the CRVA board who you have copied:

I am going to repeat what I previously advised – the CRVA is a legal entity separate and distinct from the City of Charlotte and I am not its legal advisor.  Your repeated assertions to the contrary do not change these clear legal facts.  And I do not intend to debate the matter.

Robert E. Hagemann

CITY ATTORNEY

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

PH:704.336.2651

FAX: 704.632.8331

rhagemann@charlottenc.gov

www.charlottenc.gov

Mr. Hagemann does not assert the records are not public—only that he says he does not have them.  It seems obvious he could get them.  When consulted, is it his responsibility?

Also, Mr. Hagemann seems to be stating he will not involve himself in anything having to do with the CRVA, based on his argument.  But isn’t that part of his job responsibility to be chief legal adviser for matters pertaining to City business?  It would be good to hear Mayor Foxx’s position and the rest of City Council’s position on this.

BEFORE THE CITY ATTORNEY STATED THE CRVA IS SEPARATE FROM CHARLOTTE…

After asking for all the pay, settlement, retirement, or other salary or benefit information for some time, the CRVA responded with this:

On Thu, Jul 26, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Cameron Furr <cfurr@grierlaw.com> wrote

Mr. Newman began working for the CRVA on November 29, 2004 as the Chief Executive Officer.  He served in that position until December 14, 2011, when he became Chief Marketing Officer.  Mr. Newman resigned on February 24, 2012.  There was no "dismissal, suspension or demotion for disciplinary reasons taken by the municipality" and therefore there is no "written notice of the final decision of the municipality setting forth the specific acts or omissions that are the basis of the dismissal." 

As noted above, Mr. Newman was employed as CEO.  He became Chief Marketing Officer, a position which reported to the CEO.  He then resigned.  There was no promotion for which we can provide a date and general description of the reasons for the promotion.

"Current Salary,"  "For purposes of this subsection, the term 'salary' includes pay, benefits, incentives, bonuses, and deferred and all other forms of compensation paid by the employing entity."  We have provided you with amounts paid to Mr. Newman from March 16, 2012 through July 6, 2012 (see below).  If there is another period during which Mr. Newman was paid by the CRVA for which we could provide that information, we will gladly provide it.

As noted above, Mr. Newman resigned his position with the CRVA on February 24, 2012.  He is no longer an employee of the CRVA.

Pay Date          Pay                  Car Allowance   Total Payment

07/06/2012      $9,461.54                                 $  9,461.54

06/22/2012      $9,461.54         $694.58            $10,156.12

06/08/2012      $9,461.54                                 $  9,461.54

05/25/2012      $9,461.54         $694.58            $10,156.12

5/11/2012        $9,461.54                                 $9,461.54

4/27/2012        $9,461.54         $694.58            $10,156.12

4/13/2012        $9,461.54                                 $9,461.54

3/30/2012        $9,461.54         $694.58            $10,156.12

3/16/2012        $9,461.54                                 $9,461.54

Again, since the CRVA did not release the full information requested, so:

If you maintain there was no settlement for Mr. Newman, then is he still an employee?  Or would you define the amount of money he is being paid as some sort of other payment or benefit?  That must be defined.  Is he still an employee?  Is he a consultant?  Is this a gift?  Is this money being paid out of regular salary budget?  This is public information.

When will these payments stop?  Is he under contract so that they will stop, or do you plan to pay him indefinitely?  If you don't define these payments as part of a "settlement," do you define them as part of a "contract?"  If so, please provide that contract which would be public record. He is either salaried and a current employee, contracted (in which you must provide the contract), received some sort of settlement (or if you wish to title it differently, such as separation agreement) to leave, or is being paid as a gift of some sort.

Is Mr. Newman currently employed or contracted by the CRVA?  Is he performing any work for you?

Thanks for clearing this up and providing all the information required by law without further delay.

On Fri, Aug 17, responding to Cameron Furr’s email, another request was sent:

Dear Mr. Furr,

I assume you are "unable to understand anything in this email that is different from ... prior emails" because the law has not changed.  My request has not changed.  I did highlight your own statements back to me, hoping you that would help you understand, as you and members of your organization had indicated your difficulty understanding the law and struggle to find information.  However, I believe you have had ample time to discover the very issues you cited back to me and the basic information about contracts and settlements which are also included.  

All issues of pay, benefits, incentives, bonuses, and deferred and all other forms of compensation paid by the employing entity are salary and must be disclosed.  Also, any contracts must be disclosed as public documents.  Also, any settlements must be disclosed as public documents.  So, no matter what the source of the reason for the payment, you must disclose.  Please provide the information I have asked for.

Aug 21, 2012  Cameron Furr <cfurr@grierlaw.com> wrote:

I continue to attempt to understand what information or document you might be requesting that falls under a North Carolina statute which allows or requires disclosure.  While you have not asked for this specifically, following are the amounts paid to Mr. Newman since July 6th, the date of the last payment we reported to you.  These amounts are disclosed pursuant to Section 160A-168(b)(7) of the North Carolina General Statutes.  Other than the following, the CRVA does not have any other information which falls within your request, as we can understand it, and which is disclosable under the North Carolina General Statutes.  Thank you. 

Pay date                                Pay    

07/20/2012                         $9,461.54 plus car allowance $694.58                

08/03/2012                         $9,461.54

08/17/2012                         $9,461.54

Mr. Furr gives no rebuttal to what seems to be a misstated personnel exclusion—where there is no specific reason he feels the terms of payments and car allowances would be permitted to be held as confidential when the law clearly allows for release of that information. 

Mr. Furr even points out himself that “the public information of ‘salary’ defined includes pay, benefits, incentives, bonuses, and deferred and all other forms of compensation paid by the employing entity."  Also, see North Carolina § 132‑1.3. Settlements made by or on behalf of public agencies, public officials, or public employees; public records (a) Public records, as defined in G.S. 132‑1, shall include all settlement documents in any suit, administrative proceeding or arbitration…   But his email on August 24^th states:

I have tried to explain to you the personnel records exceptions to North Carolina public records laws and how that limits the disclosure of documents.  We have provided you with "salary" paid to Mr. Newman to date as required by law. 

This led to yet another clarification to attorney Furr:

The money you are paying to Mr. Newman falls into a category which you must disclose, including if it is salary, a benefit package, incentive package, bonus package, deferred compensation package, contract payment, settlement payment, or other type of compensation.  The TERMS of those agreements are PUBLIC INFORMATION, including how much the payments are and when they will stop (if ever).

So far, then, CRVA has confirmed at least $117,011 in some kind of payments and car allowances to former CEO Tim Newman.  If he has continued on schedule, that number would be $136,629.  That’s not bad money for ten or twelve weeks of not working somewhere.

Citynewswatch will update you when editorial staff receives word that the CRVA or City of Charlotte replies.  Or, ask them yourself:

cfurr@grierlaw.com

rhagemann@charlottenc.gov

http://crva.com/contactinfo/contact.aspx

REFERENCES

Here is a portion of Chapter 132, the Public Records Law Chapter of North Carolina General Statutes.  Read the entire chapter and other statutes at www.ncleg.net.  Also check out N.C. Sess. Laws c. 169 (HB 961)(the Act) enacted by the General Assembly July 10, 2010, which broadened and defined release of information concerning public employee records and information.

Chapter 132.

Public Records.

§ 132‑1. "Public records" defined.

(a) "Public record" or "public records" shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, photographs, films, sound recordings, magnetic or other tapes, electronic data‑processing records, artifacts, or other documentary material, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance in connection with the transaction of public business by any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions. Agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions shall mean and include every public office, public officer or official (State or local, elected or appointed), institution, board, commission, bureau, council, department, authority or other unit of government of the State or of any county, unit, special district or other political subdivision of government.

(b) The public records and public information compiled by the agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people.

§ 132‑1.3. Settlements made by or on behalf of public agencies, public officials, or public employees; public records.

(a) Public records, as defined in G.S. 132‑1, shall include all settlement documents in any suit, administrative proceeding or arbitration instituted against any agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions, as defined in G.S. 132‑1, in connection with or arising out of such agency's official actions, duties or responsibilities, except in an action for medical malpractice against a hospital facility. No agency of North Carolina government or its subdivisions, nor any counsel, insurance company or other representative acting on behalf of such agency, shall approve, accept or enter into any settlement of any such suit, arbitration or proceeding if the settlement provides that its terms and conditions shall be confidential, except in an action for medical malpractice against a hospital facility. No settlement document sealed under subsection (b) of this section shall be open for public inspection.

(b) No judge, administrative judge or administrative hearing officer of this State, nor any board or commission, nor any arbitrator appointed pursuant to the laws of North Carolina, shall order or permit the sealing of any settlement document in any proceeding described herein except on the basis of a written order concluding that (1) the presumption of openness is overcome by an overriding interest and (2) that such overriding interest cannot be protected by any measure short of sealing the settlement. Such order shall articulate the overriding interest and shall include findings of fact that are sufficiently specific to permit a reviewing court to determine whether the order was proper.

(c) Except for confidential communications as provided in G.S. 132‑1.1, the term "settlement documents," as used herein, shall include all documents which reflect, or which are made or utilized in connection with, the terms and conditions upon which any proceedings described in this section are compromised, settled, terminated or dismissed, including but not limited to correspondence, settlement agreements, consent orders, checks, and bank drafts. (1989, c. 326.)

The following resolution regarding the formation of the CRVA, which may be key, is even provided to the Board and attorneys:

 July 27, 2009

Resolution Book 42, Page 42

STATE OF NORTHCAROLINA

COUNTY OF MECKLENBURG

First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement

This First Amendment to Interlocal Agreement, made July_' 2009 by and between the CITY OF CHARLOTTE, a municipal corporation organized under the laws of the State of North Carolina (the "City"), and the CHARLOTTE REGIONAL VISITORS AUTHORITY, a unit of local government and political subdivision of the City of Charlotte (the "CRVA").

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the parties hereto are authorized pursuant to Article 20 of Chapter 160A of the North Carolina General Statutes to enter into contracts or agreements with each other in order to provide for the joint exercise or the contractual exercise by one for the other of any power, function, public enterprise, right, privilege, or immunity of local government; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to, inter alia, G.S. 160A-489 the City is authorized to establish and support public auditoriums, coliseums, convention centers; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 5, Article II of the City Charter (Session Law 200-26), the Authority is vested with the authority to control, manage, and operate City-owned auditoriums, coliseums, and convention centers; and

WHEREAS, on January 13, 2003 the City and the CRYA signed an Interlocal

Agreement to confer upon the CRVA the powers, functions, rights, privileges, and immunities of the City for purposes of the management and operation of City-owned auditoriums, coliseums, and convention centers in order to facilitate the more economical operation of the same and to

better serve the public; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Session Law 2005-68, the CRVA was vested with the additional authority to control, manage, and operate the NASCAR Hall of Fame Museum; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to confer upon the CRYA the powers, functions rights, privileges, and immunities of the City for purposes of the management and operation of the NASCAR Hall of Fame Museum in order to facilitate the more economical operation of the same and to better serve the public.

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the premises and the fulfillment of the terms of this Agreement, the parties hereto agree that the Interlocal Agreement between the City and the CRVA dated January 13, 2003 is amended to read as follows:

I. In addition to the powers, functions, rights, privileges, and immunities directly provided to the CRYA by law, in fil1filling its responsibility to control, manage, and operate City-owned auditoriums, coliseums, convention centers and the NASCAR Hall of Fame Museum, the CRVA shall have in addition thereto, and not in substitution thereof, all of the powers, functions, rights, privileges, and immunities of the City.

July 27, 2009

Resolution Book 42, Page 43

2. The CRVA may exercise or act upon the powers, functions, rights, privileges, and immunities conferred on it pursuant to paragraph I of this Agreement either unilaterally or jointly with the City.

3. This Agreement shall continue in perpetuity unless and until it is terminated by operation of law, by mutual consent of the parties, or unilaterally by either party, with or without cause, upon six (6) months written notice to the other party. The parties may amend this Agreement by mutual consent.

4. If the parties jointly exercise or act upon the powers, functions, rights, privileges, and immunities conferred pursuant to paragraph I of this Agreement, the manner of appointing any personnel necessary to the execution of the undertaking and the method of financing the undertaking, including the apportionment of costs and revenues, shall be set forth in the Instrument that constitutes the joint exercise. If the CRVA unilaterally exercises or acts upon the powers, functions, rights, privileges, and immunities conferred upon it pursuant to paragraph I of this agreement, the CRYA shall be responsible for appointing any personnel necessary to the execution of the undertaking and for the financing of the undertaking.

5. Ownership and title of any coliseums, auditoriums, convention center, and the NASCAR Hall of Fame Museum real property that might be the subject of the CRYA's exercise or actions upon the powers, functions, rights, privileges, and immunities conferred upon it pursuant to paragraph I shall remain vested solely in the City, and under no circumstances shall the CRVA have the power or authority to unilaterally convey an ownership interest in such properties.

Executed as of the day and year first above stated by authority duly granted by the government boards of the parties hereto.

CITY OF CHARLOTTE

Curt Walton, City Manager

CHARLOTTE REGIONAL

VISITORS AUTHORITY

Tim Newman, Chief Executive Officer

July 27, 2009

Resolution Book 42, Page 44

CERTIFICATION

I, Stephanie C. Kelly, City Clerk of the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and exact copy of Resolution adopted by the City Council of the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, in regular session convened on the 27th day July, 2009, the reference having been made in Minute Book 128, and recorded in full in Resolution Book 42, Pages (41-44).

WITNESS my hand and the corporate seal of the Ci~~~~1I'

     (CITY OF CHARLOTTE SEAL)