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



Showing posts with label Department of Justice. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Department of Justice. Show all posts

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











Monday, January 2, 2012

CMPD Emails Permanently Deleted from Public Record?

Citynewswatch has uncovered this email originally sent from the computer technical support team to every CMPD employee, then sent by CMPD Captain of Public Affairs for Chief Rodney Monroe, Brian Cunningham to CMPD Attorney Judy Emken.  Given recent events and the ongoing denials of public information from the City about the Police Department, it’s a little difficult to tell if this is a warning on how not to lose information or instructions on how to be sure something gets deleted permanently:

Attached Message
From:
Cunningham, Brian <bcunningham@cmpd.org>
To:
Emken, Judy <jemken@cmpd.org>
Subject:
FW: What happens to emails you delete - and a caution
Date:
Fri, 30 Sep 2011 14:55:06 -0400
OK
From: Horton, Ron
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 11:02 AM
To: _CMPD everyone
Cc: Hampton, Denise; Sterrett, Todd
Subject:
What happens to emails you delete - and a caution

We have received numerous Help Desk tickets concerning items that were deleted by accident and cannot be recovered.   It will help to understand how the City email system now handles Deleted emails, as it is different from how CMPD used to do it - and different from how standard Microsoft installations of Outlook (such as you may have at home) do it.

The MOST IMPORTANT thing to understand is:  

Each time you exit Outlook, your deleted folder is emptied.

If you want to find an item you deleted and you have exited Outlook since you deleted it, then it will NOT be in the deleted folder. The next step is to go to "Tools" then "Recover Deleted Items." If the item was sent or received in the last few days, it may be there. If it is not, you'll have to open a Help Desk ticket and give as many details as possible for us to pass on to the City so they can search for your deleted item in the Vault.

"But don't we have an Enterprise Vault that stores every email ever sent?" you may ask - and we do have such a vault.
But the rules of what gets in there are tricky.  For example, yesterday when I looked in the Vault for a particular deleted email, there were no items in there for April, May, or June.

It's still worth a try - click on the "Search Vaults" or "Archive Explorer" icons in the very top menu bar in Outlook - they are on the right beside the "?" Help icon. If you can't find it there, then submit the Help Desk ticket.

"So how do I avoid completely losing items when I accidentally delete them?" One way to do this is to create a folder that you label "Deleted storage" or something like that and then if you get ready to delete an item you MIGHT want to recover (I know, it's a judgment call) then instead of deleting it, just drag it over to that folder.  Then periodically go into that folder and delete items that are old enough that you feel comfortable you will never need them.

Just remember - consider the Delete key permanent, and handle your email accordingly.

If you have any questions please direct them to me or Cheryl Campbell.

Ron Horton
Computer Technology Solutions
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department
Work 704.336.7252
Cell 704.619.4016
rhorton@cmpd.org

The law regarding record retention is in conflict with this email forwarded to every CMPD employee.  Especially in light of the atrocious behavior in Mayor Foxx’s office with at least four acknowledged written demands for business-class upgrades for his recent trip to China—only uncovered because of media requests for the emails from his assistant, Tracy Montross—policies and ethics need to be reviewed.  It’s a sad statement that ethics need to be reviewed instead of being automatic, but that is the leadership of Charlotte at this time.

There have been calls to review the Foxx/Montross situation to see if a crime was committed, but Curt Walton and Mayor Foxx, who could be implicated if a crime was committed, conveniently had their own attorney declare in short order that no crime was committed.  They then made a quick announcement to that effect on Friday just before the long holiday weekend.  Surely they are hoping that will be the end of it. 

If there is any real concern for ethics on this City Council, Friday’s announcement will not be the end of it.

Andy Dulin called for an investigation and there should be a proper investigation.  Dulin said, "A Quid Pro Quo demand from a public official has got to be illegal," Dulin wrote in the email.  (Quoted from the Charlotte Observer)  "If it is not, it sure should be. For an employee of the city to demand action and in this case money from an individual or agency for services rendered (or yearly budgets altered) is not only a fireable offense but as I said, maybe illegal."   He has said he wants to know: 

·       Who knew about the email?

·       Was there a quid pro quo demand concerning city monies that fund that agency's budget? Is a quid pro quo demand illegal?

·       What is going to be done about it?

Let’s hope they follow through and that the rest of City Council joins them whole-heartedly.  Michael Barnes said “"I don't expect staff to be threatening anyone over their budgets."

If this email represents CMPD policy, it should be reviewed and amended immediately  as well.  If it doesn’t, it should be corrected among all employees also.  The CMPD communication above comes across as a tacit notification that employees can now eliminate all traces of any emails they wish they hadn’t sent and sets up a time frame be sure that happens.

This may explain the perpetual delays and denials of public records requests for so many items, but especially for emails.  Is the plan to wait long enough to delete them safely from the system?   Or maybe this is an actual display of concern about unintentional deletion, so…

Whatever the intention here, Public Records law section § 132‑6.1.a states that:  Electronic data‑processing records:

“After June 30, 1996, no public agency shall purchase, lease, create, or otherwise acquire any electronic data‑processing system for the storage, manipulation, or retrieval of public records unless it first determines that the system will not impair or impede the agency's ability to permit the public inspection and examination, and to provide electronic copies of such records.”

The law also states the requirement to have an index for the database:  “The index shall be a public record and shall include, at a minimum, the following information with respect to each database listed therein:

·         a list of the data fields;

·         a description of the format or record layout;

·         information as to the frequency with which the database is updated;

·         a list of any data fields to which public access is restricted; AND

·         a description of each form in which the database can be copied or reproduced using the agency's computer facilities”

This would include emails as they are stored and classified.

This would include crime data as it is stored and classified.

This would include numerous other information known and processed by all City of Charlotte employees, especially CMPD employees, who are charged with enforcing the law.

Nearly $90 million of the City’s budget goes toward policing.  Then there’s another $50 million in DNC 2012 Security Fund Grants doled out to Charlotte.  There is other Grant money, too, and Asset Forfeiture money.  We deserve accountability.

As a man who influences and decides how hundreds of millions of dollars of public money are spent, among other things, it is the public’s right to know how Charlotte’s Chief of Police is conducting business.


Rodney Monroe’s Travel

A public records request was input in an effort to find out these things about Chief Rodney Monroe’s travel since he arrived in Charlotte:

·       Where he has traveled

·       Who traveled with him

·       What the purpose of the travel was

·       How much it cost

·       Who paid for it

Citynewswatch has obtained a long string of emails beginning September 15th, 2010, sent to ask about travel expenses for the Chief and anyone who traveled with him since he became Police Chief in Charlotte.  The first was sent separately from a request for expenses for a trip the Chief and his wife, along with others, took to Orlando, Florida in October, 2010.  Separate emails were sent the same day so other travel records for that single trip could be handled quickly.  However, three-and-a-half months later CMPD had completely denied the request, blocking public records and prompting a plea for help from the Department of Justice to intervene.

To: bcunningham <bcunningham@cmpd.org>
Sent: Thu, Sep 15, 2011 2:33 pm
Subject: Chief's travel expenses

Dear Captain Cunningham,

As promised, here is a separate request to ask for all travel expenses incurred by the Chief and anyone who traveled with him, by year and itemized. I'm sure there is a code to indicate the Chief so that this should be fairly easy to locate the records.

This NCDOJ assist did result in some action.  However, CMPD has still only sent partial records that show this information for FY11 only:

·       One year instead of all the years that Chief Monroe has been here, as requested

·       For that one year, only CMPD employees that traveled with Chief Monroe, not inclusive of non-CMPD employees (such as the Chief’s wife) that traveled with him and any possible expenses incurred

·       For that year almost no expenses for food or other lodging, car rental, credit card charges, etc… are included.   If someone else covered those expenses, that should be stated.

·       All of these issues for all years requested should be stated.

Chief Monroe, all the City Council members (pre-election) and Mayor, City Manager, Public Affairs, City Finance Manager Greg Gaskins, and the City Attorney in charge of Public Records, Mujeeb Shah-Khan, and Cheryl Brown in Human Resources were all notified of the violation of public records law in connection with hiding the expenses related to travel of Chief Monroe, but continued to allow it.

With this kind of prolonged, intentional covering up of possible wrong actions on the part of the Office of the Chief should be questioned, examined, and corrected.  It is another in a long line of similar actions.  And what is the reason for it?  Why is there no response at all from Mayor Foxx or Council again?

Are there contacts with vendors happening on this travel?  Are vendors involved in paying expenses?  Is there anything inappropriate going on?  Are the employees and non-employees traveling on these trips going for business purposes?



Let’s Play a Game:  Where’s Rodney?

Let’s make a list of all the trips we know the Chief of Police has taken since he arrived in Charlotte, and keep working until we match it up with expense reports—including the source of funds for those expenses.  Don’t forget the times he slips out of town without telling anyone, like the recent trip to Washington DC that CedarPosts.blogspot.com caught when Monroe’s head popped up behind Eric Holder at a Congressional hearing--for moral support, I guess?

How is it possible that our Chief of Police is on CNN sitting behind Attorney General Eric Holder, who is testifying at a Congressional Hearing about Fast and Furious, and nobody in local network media reported about it?  How is it possible that only local blogger, Cedarposts.blogspot.com, reported it?  CMPD didn’t put out a press release to inform anyone.  Who paid for his trip to Washington, D.C.?  Did the Chief take vacation time or was it considered work-related for him to babysit Eric Holder?

Until the CMPD and the City of Charlotte decide to be open and honest, follow the law of Open Records, we must assume there is a reason for the ongoing secrecy.  Mayor Anthony Foxx seems to follow the same philosophy for himself as well as approving of this for Monroe.

Is intimidation involved? Or just secrecy?

To read just a few of the denials, delays, and concerns expressed so far, read below.  After contact with the NC Department of Justice finally produced a few incomplete records, several more notices were sent, but it looks like more intervention from NCDOJ will be required to get Chief Monroe and the City of Charlotte to comply with the law.  The deficiencies of the items finally sent after 3 ½ months and DOJ help have been laid out expressly.

-----Original Message-----
From: (name withheld)>
To: ggaskins <
ggaskins@charlottenc.gov>; mshah-khan <mshah-khan@ci.charlotte.nc.us>; kmcmillan <kmcmillan@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Cc: bcunningham <
bcunningham@cmpd.org>; cwalton <cwalton@ci.charlotte.nc.us>; afoxx <afoxx@ci.charlotte.nc.us>; councilmancannon <councilmancannon@gmail.com>; barnesdistrict4 <barnesdistrict4@aol.com>; jasonburgess <jasonburgess@ci.charlotte.nc.us>; n3157w <n3157w@yahoo.com>; warren <warren@warrencooksey.com>; adulin1 <adulin1@carolina.rr.com>; info <info@davidhowardclt.com>; jamesdistrict2 <jamesdistrict2@aol.com>; pkinsey <pkinsey@carolina.rr.com>; epeacock <epeacock@ci.charlotte.nc.us>; district3_turner <district3_turner@yahoo.com>; kmcmillan <kmcmillan@charlottenc.gov>; cityclerk <cityclerk@charlottenc.gov>; clbrown <clbrown@ci.charlotte.nc.us>; rmonroe <rmonroe@cmpd.org>

Sent: Mon, Oct 31, 2011 5:30 pm
Subject: Re: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTED SEPT 15, NOT PROVIDED for Chief's travel expenses and those who traveled with him




Mr. Gaskins, Mr. Shah-Khan, Ms. McMillan,


For over six weeks now, the Office of the Chief has refused to fill this request exposing travel records for the Chief of Police and anyone who may have traveled with him. The attorneys responsible for knowing the law and the rights of the public to have these records which belong to the public have been informed. The Chief’s Manager has been informed. The Finance Manager, who has all the records and should be the one to release them has been informed. To date, no one has provided these records or the requisite statutory reason for the denial of the records.

Please provide the records in full today. Thank you.


-----Original Message-----
From: (name withheld)>
To: clbrown <
clbrown@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Sent: Tue, Nov 8, 2011 8:39 pm

Subject: Re: PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTED SEPT 15, NOT PROVIDED for Chief's travel expenses and those who traveled with him

Dear Ms. Brown,

I have written this to you:

Please see that the travel records for Police Chief Rodney Monroe and those of any possible co-travelers have not been provided for nearly two months. It seems there is a concerted effort to block information about what has occurred, who has paid for it, etc... There are numerous City of Charlotte employees involved who are not following the public records law to respond to this, and I believe you should take this up as a complaint and investigate. Perhaps there is pressure being exerted to keep these records from being released (which would be no excuse) and perhaps these employees should be interviewed to find out why they will not release the records, and also simultaneously to secure any records involved.

and asked that you respond to the issues at hand: It seems that City of Charlotte employees are under pressure not to release the travel records of the Chief of Police and those who traveled with him.

Are you responding to me that someone else is investigating that issue of the pressure possibly exerted on employees not to reveal these records? If so, who would that be? Please give me the name and position of that person.

Also, again, whatever you have been told, these public records have not been provided for multiple requests over a two month period. So telling me that you have been informed the request is "being handled" is not a satisfactory resolution. If they handled it, I would have the records and would have had no reason to contact you in the first place. I do not understand your denial as an HR Representative to investigate possible pressure into covering up what may be potential wrong behavior on the part of highly-powered official(s) in the City. Please respond.

Please see that the travel records for Police Chief Rodney Monroe and those of any possible co-travelers have not been provided for nearly two months. It seems there is a concerted effort to block information about what has occurred, who has paid for it, etc... There are numerous City of Charlotte employees involved who are not following the public records law to respond to this, and I believe you should take this up as a complaint and investigate. Perhaps there is pressure being exerted to keep these records from being released (which would be no excuse) and perhaps these employees should be interviewed to find out why they will not release the records, and also simultaneously to secure any records involved.

NC Department of Justice to the Rescue

First, see documents CMPD sent, claiming that Rodney Monroe’s travel for FY2011 amounted to only $5,902 (even though it wasn’t the total requested, it’s still interesting reading).  Also, see that CMPD says only $5,981 were the travel expenses for all CMPD employees who traveled with Rodney Monroe during FY2011 (again, not what was requested but still interesting).  Part of the expenses included a trip to Orlando, Florida.  Chief Monroe and his wife had specifically accepted an invitation to an Orlando reception for the production company that filmed the First 48 television show in Charlotte.  It’s unknown whether Vicki Foster or others who went to Orlando attended that reception, but Ms. Foster had a special interest in the show and possibly another show she and her partner were trying to pitch during the time Chief Monroe signed the City of Charlotte to a contract for the First 48 show.  Details of both are in this previous post.

Then see the deficiencies and know that apparently CMPD will continue to deny them until forced to turn over the information by NCDOJ or perhaps others:

The message to Captain Cunningham read in part:

“Please see the original request made in early September for ALL travel expenses by the Chief and anyone who traveled with him, by year, and itemized.

Aside from taking many months, many requests, and a plea through the DOJ to get a response, you have given me only one year of expenses.  Thank you for the single year of expenses.  Please send the expenses prior to that year.  Please send the expenses since July 2011.

Please also certify that there were no additional expenses charged to the department and no other City or non-City employees traveling with the named personnel, or provide the names and expenses of those who did travel if that is the case.  There were also requests to clarify the purposes of travel.”

Possibly other expenses were included in conferences or there is another explanation, but the continuous attempts to refuse answers and the overall activity cause concern.



Different Inquiries About a trip to Puerto Rico

Citynewswatch received two different sets of routed inquiries regarding what was called a CMPD Recruiting Trip to Puerto Rico in May, 2010.  Rumblings among a wide swath of the department and some of the community at large have questioned why CMPD personnel would travel so far to a tropical island where the United States has noted terrible human rights violations among the police in order to recruit for CMPD… and apparently come back empty-handed on top of that. 

The specific allegations are that this island trip was more about a reward for some employees than a work trip, but all efforts to ask for any positive information directly from the source were met with contempt. 

The recruiting staff refused to say they recruited anyone or were “successful.”  Public Affairs denied any answer for a long time.  Judy Emken said the travel records and other information were not public information—which isn’t true.  Chief Monroe never answered.  Curt Walton said he didn’t want to say the trip was successful, but that the rest of the information was public.  After an enormous amount of writing back and forth, they finally released a spreadsheet of some expenses, while still refusing to say if any traveling companions went on the trip, or if a single Puerto-Rican recruit was developed.  No word on any tanning that developed.

Why, in these difficult financial times, did someone make the decision to spend at least $9,800 to increase the Spanish-speaking level of recruits on the force when Charlotte is approximately 12% Spanish–speaking already?  What about the veterans leaving the armed forces, many of whom are already highly-trained and highly-motivated, and have a high rate of Spanish-Speaking personnel available to recruit in the area? 

When you consider that this single trip cost about double what they claim the whole year’s expenses for the Chief cost, it just all doesn’t add up.



Call on City Council to Adhere to Open Records

Monroe has been to everywhere from the West Coast to Australia since coming to our town, and has been responsible for doling out untold millions in contract awards.   City Council is still refusing to tell us the most limited information about how he spent $600,000 on rearranging the furniture, or some such thing, at police headquarters.  They still won’t say where a couple of million dollars’ worth of new police cars went.  And we still don’t have access to our real crime data.

How much longer will this continue?

It seems it will continue as long as hiding the real crime data will allow politicians to say crime is down without any evidence of it.