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

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

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

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

Redacted Internal Affairs complaints have been denied completely without explanation.

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

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

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

citynewswatch charlotte <citynewswatch@gmail.com>

From:  Citynewswatch.blogspot.com

To: City of Charlotte Manager Ron Carlee

Date:  November 10, 2014

CMPD Arrests and Discipline Public Records Request

Dear City Manager Carlee,

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

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

1.      Initially,  please provide immediate comment on:

a.      Why Senior Attorney Robert Hagemann has not even responded to requests for Public Records, and

b.      Why the Public Information Officer for the Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department is giving out incorrect information about which police officers have been arrested, and

c.      Whether all CMPD officers arrested are processed in the same manner as other citizens, with fingerprinting and photographing, posted to the Sheriff’s public web site, and

d.      Whether the list of disciplinary action provided is accurate and truthful, or also must be corrected.

2.      Following soon, please give a projected completion date and provide these PUBLIC RECORD ITEMS:

a.      Provide a complete and accurate list of all CMPD officers arrested during 2012, 2013 and 2014.

b.      Provide a copy of disposition of those criminal charges

c.      Provide a complete and accurate copy of all termination letters for each CMPD officer terminated/separated during 2012, 2013 and 2014.

d.      Provide an appropriately redacted copy of all CMPD Internal Affairs complaints submitted and their associated dispositions for 2012, 2013 and 2014.

e.      Provide a copy of any and all policies relating to criminal charges against a City of Charlotte employee (CMPD or otherwise), including but not limited to CMPD employees and especially  concerning:

 i.     Criteria and who makes the determination for paid or unpaid leave or suspension,

ii.     Criteria and who makes the determination whether City of Charlotte will pay  for a criminal defense if necessary,

iii.     Criteria and who makes the determination whether City of Charlotte will pay for a  civil attorney if necessary,

iv.     Criteria and who makes the determination of when and what to notify the DA’s office of cases involving an arrested officer,

v.     What criteria and timing determine if an officer is relieved of their gun when arrested and when they may be reissued their service gun or permitted to have other weapons,

vi.     Whether any convicted criminals are permitted to be CMPD officers,

vii.     Any policies related to hiring of officers with arrest records (ie, may an officer with record of arrest be hired? And if so, under what circumstances?),

viii.     Any other policies related to arrested officers

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

Thank you,

Citynewswatch Editorial Staff

Citynewswatch.blogspot.com

Citynewswatch@gmail.com

CC:  dclodfelter@charlottenc.gov,

rhagemann@charlottenc.gov,

jemken@cmpd.org,

bcunningham@cmpd.org,

rmonroe@cmpd.org

sharrison@charlotteobserver.com,

rthames@charlotteobserver.com

received from:

Hagemann, Robert

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

To Whom it May Concern:

Following is the substance of an email that I just sent <name withheld>, the “individual” who I am confident made the requests you are referring to.  I refer you to that by way of explanation.

----------------------------------

<name withheld>

I have discussed this matter with Ms. Emken and Cpt. Cunningham and am satisfied that they have been appropriately responsive to your public records requests.   Cpt. Cunningham will supplement the documents previously provided for 2013 and 2014 to include 2012 now that you have made that request.

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

Bob

Robert E. Hagemann

CITY ATTORNEY

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

PH:704.336.2651

FAX: 704.632.8331

rhagemann@charlottenc.gov

www.charlottenc.gov

From: citynewswatch charlotte [mailto:citynewswatch@gmail.com]

Sent: Monday, November 10, 2014 1:47 PM

To: Carlee, Ron

Cc: Clodfelter, Daniel; Hagemann, Robert; Emken, Judy; Cunningham, Brian; Monroe, Rodney; sharrison@charlotteobserver.com; Rick Thames

Subject: CMPD Arrests and Discipline Public Records Request

citynewswatch charlotte <citynewswatch@gmail.com>

to barnesforcharl., cfallon, info, vlyles, pkinsey, aaustin, lmayfield, gaphipps, jautry, krsmith, ed, Robert, Ron, Daniel, Judy, Brian, Rodney, sharrison, Rick

Mr. Carlee, Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,

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

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

Please reply to each issue addressed.

Thank You,

Editorial Staff Citynewswatch

CHANGES TO CHARLOTTE'S CRIME MAPPING SYSTEM

Spotcrime.com is a company that sends out free crime alerts, customized to whatever area is requested.  They sent out an email today to Charlotte area residents about the decision to convert Charlotte Mecklenburg Police Department’s crime data from the difficult-to-use public data system to a private system the city (we) will pay for.  Citynewswatch will be on the lookout for information about any purported cost savings and welcomes input from the CMPD, as always. 

For years, citizens have noted and complained about the disappearing data from the CMPD site.  This is separate from the concern than not being user-friendly.  So a newer, easier-to-use system won’t help the missing and possibly inaccurate data problem.  In fact, Spotcrime.com contends it will cause a bigger transparency problem.  Here is the content of the email they sent (with emphasis added):

spotcrime.​com (system@spotcrime.com)

Earlier this month, the Charlotte Mecklenburg PD decided to privatize your crime data.

What this means is the information about crime which occurs in your community is now regulated by an outside vendor called crimemapping.com. Crime Mapping, a company based in California, now has control over of how, when, and if you will have access to crime affecting your neighborhood. 

And the irony is, you're paying them to control it and limit your access.

I wish there was a less painful way to describe it, but the truth is you pay to fund a police department, they collect information, they pay the vendor crimemapping to take it, and the community is left holding the bag.

Six years ago, Charlotte was on the forefront of being transparent with its data. But, as technology has gotten much less expensive and the demand for transparency increased, the Charlotte Mecklenburg PD has elected to move backwards. 

The paid vendor has specifically objected to SpotCrime providing you crime data in alert format. And,  the Charlotte Mecklenburg PD has expressed the need to "control" the data to the public by using a proprietary vendor. This type of control may be an effective way of limiting crime information and the perception of crime, but it is by no means in the spirit of this democracy. 

In the six years that SpotCrime has been mapping crime data in Charlotte, we have sent over 3 million SpotCrime alerts to Charlotte area residents at no cost to the department or the public. In that time, we have never received any criticism from Charlotte Mecklenburg PD. 

Thankfully, most cities in the US are moving to an open source unrestricted method of delivering crime data to the public. I implore you to reach out to Chief Monroe, your elected officials, and your governor. Ask them to make the crime data available for anyone to use.

Chief Monroe
Phone: 704-336-2337
Feedback form: http://bit.ly/1eXR2bk

City Manager Ron Carlee
Phone: 704-336-2241
Email: rcarlee@charlottenc.gov

Governor Pat McCrory
Phone: 919-814-2000
Email: http://bit.ly/1d0vLRx

We are all in this fight together, and there is no reason why everyone should not have equal access to this crime data. Why would any police agency take steps to limit how the public shares information and how the press reports on crime data?

Sincerely,

Colin Drane
Founder
SpotCrime.com
877.410.1607

ReportSee Inc., 300 E Lombard St., Suite 840, Baltimore, MD 21202

Any questions about the process of Spotcrime.com, signing up for free crime alert subscriptions, what changes will affect their reporting, etc… can be directed to Spotcrime at the contacts they provide freely. 

All feedback is welcome.  Many Charlotte residents are still looking for the Significant Event Logs and other public information Chief Rodney Monroe removed from Charmeck.org with promises in August, 2010 to have it back up in the near future.

See these other related prior blog posts, too:

citynewswatch: Significant Events inCrime Reporting (Part 2)

MORE PROOF THE CRIME STATISTICS WERE REMOVED BY CHIEF MONROE

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?

TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS

MONDAY NIGHT’S CITY COUNCIL MEETING SURPRISED MAYOR FOXX

Mayor Foxx’s temper was on display when his nearly $1 Billion CIP that would have resulted in a tax increase was voted down by a 6 to 5 count at Monday’s City Council meeting.  If you missed the action live or live feed, you can watch the video here.

There is also a document to the right which has some agenda details. 

Time will tell whether this vote was purely political or if the Council is serious about forcing City Manager Curt Walton to make sensible cuts.   


Mark Pellin of PunditHouse.com has an astute analysis and comments from City Council here.   He included an explanation that this proposed budget included "$119 million to extend the streetcar project line by 2.5 miles.  The initial 1.5 mile leg of the streetcar is scheduled to open in 2015.  The whole 10-mile streetcar line would cost upward of $450 million to build and an estimated $1.5 million a year to operate."     

MEETING MINUTES STILL FOUR MONTHS BEHIND

You can see here that the City Clerk has not updated the City Council Meeting Minutes since February 20^th, 2012.  This is completely unacceptable when the minutes are supposed to be available promptly to the public.  What excuse is there that they are four months behind? 

This issue has been brought up before by Cedarposts.blogspot.com, who received no response from the City Clerk when asking about the delay back on March 26^th.  At that point, minutes were merely 16 weeks behind in the bloated City Manager’s department.  After Cedar’s inquiry to City Clerk Stephanie Kelly and a plea for assistance to City Councilman Andy Dulin, nothing happened. 

Several months have passed and the Clerk is… still 16 weeks behind.

You can search for any video or agendas, by date or keywords here, but having the written documents available is important.

AND NOW FOR SOMETHING COMPLETELY DIFFERENT

After you have enjoyed Mayor Foxx saying the Charlotte City Council has “just become Washington” and is “disgusting,” enjoy something else…

Take a break with this video.  Maria Popova curates a great site called Brainpickings.org.  Here’s a warning:  If you enjoy creative exploration of science, history, music, design, art, technology, and innovation of all types, you’ll have a hard time turning this site off.  Meanwhile, enjoy the dark side of the Muppets.

She introduces the video this way:

Remix culture is a frequent fixation around here and a central premise of my beliefs about combinatorial creativity. But while intellectual, academic, and legal debates about the role of remix in creative culture certainly have their place, the best way to appreciate the art of remix is through a brilliant manifestation. Case in point: Cookie Monster sings Tom Waits’ “God’s Away on Business” in the best mashup I’ve seen in ages.

“Who are the ones that we kept in charge?”

 “There's always free cheddar in
a mousetrap, baby
It's a deal, it's a deal”

Trolleys, streetcars, more to come.

POTTIES AND PARTIES ALSO “TOP SECRET” IN EYES OF CITY OF CHARLOTTE, DNC2012?

Mayor Foxx and the City Council admitted that they voted at the end of last year (new members were not in place yet) to give City Manager Curt Walton complete, singular control over all spending decisions for the $55 Million in “Security Grant” spending given to Charlotte because of the DNC 2012 September convention.

There would be no public debate, discussion or disclosure—according to Walton.

The former issue is a complete abdication of responsibility by our Mayor and Council and a violation of the public’s rights to give their input and have debate about spending our money.

The disclosure issue is a violation of Public Records Law G.S. 132 which requires those expenditures to be disclosed.  The bids, contracts, and other processes must also be handed over when requested.  If there is not a matter of national security involved, or some other statutory justification given, the information must be given. 

Citynewswatch has received documents demonstrating the City of Charlotte has refused to give DNC 2012 contracting information.  Months have gone by… The only information coughed up by public records attorney Mujeeb Shah-Khan is awards to Porta-Jon and Party Reflections, Inc.  After much public outcry, a couple of rough numbers were doled out of money already spent on a couple police items, but they are still refusing to say exactly how the money was spent or what the selection process was.

Shah-Khan refused give even the bid information or contract copies for potties and parties.

Really. 

Is the claim a national security threat? 

Or should we conclude the possibility that there were no competitive bids… that costs have not been nailed down… that the other contracts requested are being denied without legal cause… which has become the standard mode of operations in Charlotte?

Read the emails obtained below and decide for yourself.  But also consider that if we can’t even get the full truth about a Porta-Jon and a party tent, imagine what CMPD is doing with the mention of private security teams, surveillance cameras, secret weapons, huge sums spent on buildings and equipment downtown, and more. 

Tampa officials have had no problem discussing their spending from the same grant for the Republican National Convention.  The Pentagon frequently discloses their spending itemization for National Security.  Charlotte should not have a higher level of secrecy.  

President Obama and DNC 2012 organizers continue the refrain that this will be the “most transparent and accessible convention in history.” 

Why won’t they follow basic open records laws already in place before, and tell us how they are spending our money?  Why won’t they say how much fundraising has been achieved, as Republicans have done for the Tampa convention? 

Just as in local Charlotte politics, words don’t meet actions.

Courtesy Matt Weurker, Politico  Universal Uclick

-----Original Message-----

To: mshah-khan <mshah-khan@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
Cc: cljennings <cljennings@ci.charlotte.nc.us>; madams <madams@cmpd.org>
Sent: Wed, Jan 25, 2012 8:03 pm
Subject: Re: DNC contracting

Dear Mr. Shah-Khan, Ms. Jennings, and Captain Adams,

I have read what Mr. Shah-Khan sent below which in summary seems to say that the only spending the City of Charlotte will make in conjunction with the DNC 2012 Convention coming to Charlotte will be charged against the $50 Million Security Grant which has now been approved.

He has also stated that that two non-security bids have been awarded: one for Porta-jon who had no competition for bids and one to Party Reflections which beat out one competitor. However, there are no amounts assigned to the contracts other than "as needed." May I please have a copy of all three (both accepted and the rejected) contracts? May I also have a copy of whatever advertisement what done for these services and a statement of how it was advertised, including the time period, if that is not obvious?

How were the security-related contracts advertised? May I have a copy of the advertisement and time period for the security-related contracts, as well as the bids?

One item I do know was in the news as charged against the $50 Million Grant prior to its approval, but in anticipation of its approval, is the $600,000 renovation of police headquarters. Is this one of the two items you refer to, or is this a separate third item?

There is no reason not to disclose the contracts and I am asking for them again as they are public information. Thank you.

-----Original Message-----
From: Shah-Khan, Mujeeb <mshah-khan@ci.charlotte.nc.us>
 
Cc: Jennings, Carol <cljennings@ci.charlotte.nc.us>; Adams, Michael <madams@cmpd.org>
Sent: Fri, Jan 13, 2012 4:36 pm
Subject: RE: DNC contracting

Here are the answers to your questions in red below. I will point out that your questions are not a public records request, but rather a request for information that the City is responding to:

Sent: Monday, November 14, 2011 5:23 PM
To: Shah-Khan, Mujeeb
Subject: DNC contracting

Mr. Shah-Khan,

Ms. Jennings sent an e-mail that you are the person to handle the questions I sent her below. I believe she sent it to you, but in case she did not, here are the questions I have:

1. Do you know at this time the estimated dollar amount of contracts to be awarded for work for the DNC 2012 Convention? No Aside from the $50 or $55 million in security contracts from the DOJ which is expected, how much other money is expected to be used for contract expenses and what are the sources? None
2. Can you describe the bid process for those contracts and how the decision to award the contracts is made? We follow the City’s procurement guidelines in accordance with state and federal law. For goods, equipment, and construction, this requires advertising and awarding to the lowest responsible bidder. For technology and services, it requires advertising and awarding based on qualification and best overall value.
3. Which contracts have been awarded already, for what dollar amounts, and what vendors lost those contracts? I am assuming you are retaining copies of all bids, both awarded and not, is that correct? For clarification sake, I’d like to note that in some cases we have bids, in others, proposals, depending on the what type of contract is involved. The City has awarded four contracts. Two of the contracts are for portable toilets (to Porta-Jon) and tents, tables and chairs (to Party Reflections and Classic Party Rentals) as needed by the City. No dollar amount has been assigned to those two contracts. The other two contracts are security related, and we will not disclose the contract amount at this time. Of course, the City is retaining copies of proposals or bids. For the portable toilets contract, there was only one bid or proposal. For the tents, tables and chairs, there were only two bids or proposals. With respect to the security related contracts, the contracts had only one bid or proposal each.
4. How were the already-awarded contracts and how are the contracts to be awarded being advertised or put out for bid (or whatever terminology you use)? See the answer to question 2.
5. How many more contracts (roughly in dollars and in any other description you are able to give) are left to be awarded? We have awarded very few contracts to date, and I have no idea how many more will be awarded from the federal security grant. Whatever remaining contracts are awarded will be covered by the federal security grant.
6. Are security contracts being handled separately than non-security contracts? All of our contracts fall under the security grant and therefore are security related. Are they being reviewed by DOJ/Homeland Security personnel? No, but we are communicating with the Department of Justice on a regular basis.
   
   Thank you so much.

S. Mujeeb Shah-Khan

SENIOR ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY

PH:704.336.5803

FAX: 704.632.8326

mshah-khan@charlottenc.gov

www.charlottenc.gov

Chief Monroe & City of Charlotte Fight NC DOJ Request for Crime Data, too

 Maybe other members of the press or attorneys can ask for this information and get answers: Chief Monroe, Curt Walton and the rest still refuse to release basic public crime data afforded by public record law and specifically requested.  citynewswatch has records forwarded and confirmed that even the NC Department of Justice and FBI have been unable to pry the statistics from CMPD. 

See the complete list requested from CMPD Attorney Mark Newbold below.  What is the reason that Ms. Nguyen, who runs CMPD computer analysis can’t simply send the information upon request?  There is no legitimate reason. 

There’s probably a huge amount of wasted money and even just computer processing time and storage space on ridiculous repeated requests for information that City officials are fighting.  There’s only one reason to try to keep this secret and it’s not good.

Date: Mon, Nov 14, 2011

Subject: UCR statistics

To: mnguyen@cmpd.org

Dear Ms. Nguyen,

I have read an article where DC Putney said that the FBI found some errors on CMPD reports.  Do you have a quantification of those errors? 

I don't know if it's related to those same numbers or not, but since the CMPD does its own review, are there any reports that show the adjustments made at the end of the year after CMPD makes any corrections to reports vs. what was reported during the year? 

I would appreciate any information.  Thank you.

Here is the article.  I just need the numbers I asked for and the audit report or reports involved, whether FBI review and/or CMPD review.  DC Putney did not respond, so I sent my request to the personnel who track all the crime numbers, according to your website.

Thanks very much.

Police: Crime stats accurate

Cleve R. Wootson Jr.

cwootson@charlotteobserver.com

Posted: Friday, Jan. 07, 2011

Charlotte-Mecklenburg police use the same crime-tracking system that has come under fire for accuracy problems in other cities, but department officials say they believe their crime statistics are accurate.

Local police are thoroughly trained in how to accurately classify and record crime, says Deputy Chief Kerr Putney. Supervisors review officers' initial crime reports to help ensure accuracy, and the department conducts periodic audits.

"You've got to trust your people...," says Putney. “We don't have a lot of instances where people are misclassifying or falsifying or underreporting crime."

The FBI recently reviewed a small sample of CMPD crime reports and made only minor suggestions to improve uniformity of reporting, Putney said. But the FBI's review did not raise questions of accuracy.

Putney says the department sees no need for an independent audit of Charlotte's crime statistics like the one underway in New York. Critics there and elsewhere say the "Comp stat" computer crime-tracking system encourages officers to underreport and misclassify crimes- so they don't face possible consequences for reporting increases in crime. 

Putney says CMPD is confident that the dramatic decline they’ve recorded in Charlotte crime is accurate. The department has recently reported record lows in crime since the department began keeping uniform records in 1977. Chief Rodney Monroe has said the decline stems from a variety of factors including improved police tactics, better crime-mapping and other socio-economic shifts.

On Tue, Nov 22, 2011

Captain Cunningham,

I HAVE USED CAPITAL LETTERS TO MAKE READING EASIER.

THESE ARE THE NUMBERS I AM LOOKING FOR FROM MY ORIGINAL REQUEST:

I have read an article where DC Putney said that the FBI found some errors on CMPD reports. Do you have a quantification of those errors?

I don't know if it's related to those same numbers or not, but since the CMPD does its own review, are there any reports that show the adjustments made at the end of the year after CMPD makes any corrections to reports vs. what was reported during the year?

PLEASE ASK MS. NGUYEN FOR THE DATA.

THESE ARE THE AUDITS:

Supervisors review officers' initial crime reports to help ensure accuracy, and the department conducts periodic audits. 

"You've got to trust your people...," says Putney.  "We don't have a lot of instances where people are misclassifying or falsifying or underreporting crime."

The FBI recently reviewed a small sample of CMPD crime reports and made only minor suggestions to improve uniformity of reporting, Putney said. But the FBI's review did not raise questions of accuracy.

ARE YOU SAYING THE CMPD DOES NOT HAVE THE FBI REPORT?

PLEASE GIVE ME THE NUMBERS I HAVE ASKED FOR.

THANK YOU.

On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 4:10 PM,

Mr. Walton,

Is there any difficulty in understanding the reports and numbers exactly as I have described them? Captain Cunningham says he doesn't understand what has been requested. Please find someone who does and have them send the numbers and reports.

On Thu, Dec 1, 2011

Mr. Walton,

I am asking for very little information, all of which should be available.

Please send the information promptly. It shouldn't be necessary to keep asking, and to be refused.

If you refuse to send it, then you must give me an explanation for the denial, as Public Records Law dictates.

to: rmonroe@cmpd.org

date: Sat, Dec 3, 2011

Chief Monroe,

I have sent this request and been patient for weeks trying to get this information, but your Public Affairs officer Captain Brian Cunningham wrote to me that he doesn't understand anything about the numbers I asked for.  Kerr Putney, who said he reviewed the data, didn't respond.  Ms. Nguyen--who should have the information also--didn't give the data.  Please assign whoever has the data to send it. 

Thank you.

Date: Wed, Dec 7, 2011

Subject: Re: FW: Public Info Request -- FW: UCR statistics
To: cwalton@ci.charlotte.nc.us, bcunningham@cmpd.org, rfey@cmpd.org, kmcmillan@ci.charlotte.nc.us, kputney@cmpd.org, ksetzer@ci.charlotte.nc.us, kmrichardson@ci.charlotte.nc.us

Mr. Walton,

Captain Brian Cunningham has still not provided this information. This is public information which you are required to provide.

Sent: Thursday, December 08, 2011
To: Cunningham, Brian
Subject: Re: CMPD Year-End UCR Statistics

Officer Cunningham,

I'm sure you are aware that the report sent by Officer Williams is not the information I have asked you for.

Officer Williams obviously has the information, and I suspect you do by now as well. He said "I compile the UCR reports for CMPD. Captain Cunningham asked that I contact you and provide you with the 2010 Year-End UCR Summary Report." This obviously isn't what I asked you for. He also said "Please let me know if you need any further assistance," but when I did, he continues to refuse to do that.

He is in the "Crime Analysis Division, UCR/NIBRS" so he should have the numbers.

Please send to me what I asked for instead of having your officer run interference. Thank you.

It seems Captain Cunningham really didn’t like it that other people were notified about his blocking the information for Chief Monroe, but you should interpret for yourself the email he sent in giant, obnoxious type, saying that nobody understood the items Deputy Chief Putney referred to in the article or basic crime statistics:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Cunningham, Brian <bcunningham@cmpd.org>
Date: Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 9:21 AM
Subject: RE: CMPD Year-End UCR Statistics

I will explain this again and keep it real simple so we can work through this. Call me at 704-336-4098, I will try to help you anyway possible. No one knows what you are talking about so please just focus on dealing with me and not emailing others. All Public Records requests come through my office for approval. I hope you can understand and I hope to hear from you soon. Brian

Captain Brian Cunningham

CMPD-Public Affairs Director

704-336-4098

Requests for assistance have involved the NC Department of Justice.  Ms. Narcissa Woods has made a clear request for the list of public information below to CMPD Attorney Mark Newbold:

Woods, Narcissi Nwoods@ncdoj.gov

Jan 11, 2012

I have emailed your request to Mark Newbold of the Charlotte City Attorney’s office.

Regards,

Narcisa Woods

Victims & Citizens Services Section

North Carolina Attorney General's Office

(919) 716-6780

(919) 716-6705 Fax

 E-mails in connection with public business, are public records and may be disclosed to third parties

Sent: Wednesday, January 11, 2012

To: Woods, Narcisa

Subject: List of items-- thanks.

Dear Ms. Woods,

Here is a partial quote from the full Charlotte Observer article already provided to CMPD and City of Charlotte officials in which Deputy Chief Kerr Putney discussed crime statistic audits, changing crime reports, and the accuracy of crime statistics.  After that is a bulletized list that I hope simplifies things and if there are any more questions, please do not hesitate to contact me again.  Thank you so much for your assistance.

Partially quoting the newspaper article:

"We don't have a lot of instances where people are misclassifying or falsifying or underreporting crime."  

The FBI recently reviewed a small sample of CMPD crime reports and made only minor suggestions to improve uniformity of reporting, Putney said. But the FBI's review did not raise questions of accuracy.  Putney says CMPD is confident that the dramatic decline they've recorded in Charlotte crime is accurate. 

·       DC Putney clearly stated that there is an internal audit of these reports– I would like a copy of the audit

·       How many instances was he referring to when he said “we don’t have a lot of instances … misclassifying or falsifying or underreporting crime?"

·       Putney said there was an FBI review – I would like a copy of that FBI review or any results from their review

·       Putney said that supervisors review the numbers as well, and that changes are made to indicate corrections.  I would like to see all of those reports that were changed so that I can see why they were changed and how they were changed by supervisors.

·       I would like the annual numbers of reported crimes by category as they were reported before corrections were made and then as they were reported after corrections were made for 2010 and 2011   

·       I would like the totals by classification and numbers of CALLS FOR SERVICE for all calls, and how they relate to classification and numbers of CRIMES REPORTED, also for 2010 and 2011

Thank you very much

You can see that this last item is maybe the most important in discerning what is going on with the reporting of crime in Charlotte.  Comparing what citizens are reporting to what Chief Monroe is reporting is important and relevant, and perhaps why he is fighting so hard not to release information.

Here we stand in mid-February, 2012.  It is over a year since Cleve Wootson wrote his article about the questionable crime statistics.  It has been three years since Chief Monroe stood up on in front of Charlotte’s City Council and claimed there was a legitimate drop in crime, with no changes in the way CMPD was reporting, and no pressure on officers to underreport crime. 

It has been three ½ months since this latest specific request was input, but Monroe, Walton, and lawyers we are paying for are fighting even the North Carolina Department of Justice to keep the real numbers secret.

The one piece of information turned over was a State Audit which found A state audit found regarding CMPD “State Program had staff assigned to conduct audits:  NO”, deficient of standards.  Also, only 61 reports were reviewed from CMPD.

Also, the state found that “CMPD did not correctly submit Quarterly Hate Crime Reports.”

This public information must all be turned over immediately in an attempt to lend any legitimacy to Monroe’s claims of huge drops in the crime rate here.

It is incumbent upon City Council to produce this information, which could be done in a matter of minutes with the multi-million dollar computer information system Monroe guided Charlotte to purchase from his old business associate.