It took $111K in her attorney’s fees,
another amount yet undetermined from the extremely expensive outside firm of
Robinson, Hinson, & Bradshaw hired by the City of Charlotte to defend the
suit (unsuccessfully) filed by former Response Area Command Sergeant Tammy
Hatley regarding a lack of due process when she was unfairly demoted after 28
of her 30 years of service as a dedicated CMPD officer.
In addition, there were many
hours of internal billing for attorneys that work for the City & CMPD, and
countless other hours of CMPD & HR personnel time to have a judge explain
to Police Chief Rodney Monroe that he must follow due process dealing
with his employees.
While the monetary award directly
to Sgt. Hatley was only $12,000 of back pay after all of this expense and time,
it is a proper victory to be sure but a difficult to understand fight against
her own department. That’s because even
now, no one from her Chief Rodney Monroe to City Manager Curt Walton or any
other representative has given any explanation as to why this happened to a
30-year veteran officer who received nothing but glowing and excellent PRD's
(Performance Review and Development) her entire service and earned the respect
of many officers she trained and worked with. The only issue that
developed was a sudden and seemingly artificial complaint from command in the
midst of great crackdown on crime in one of the high-crime neighborhoods in her
Response Area which Hatley credited to the hard work of her team, as always.
Strange, Sudden Orders to Change PRD's?
See below the summary of events
submitted, and it defies any rational explanation. RAC Sgt. Hatley had the #1 Crime Statistics
out of the 39 RAC’s in the City, but was reamed out at a Compstat meeting for
two things: 1) She and her team had
merely arrested 7 armed robbery suspects since the last Compstat meeting (and
the crime statistics had stayed the same in burglary in the neighborhood of
Enderly Park, rather than dropping—but did not increase) and 2) The Deputy Chief also berated her because
she was not familiar with a Crime Bulletin that was emailed. The problem is, that Bulletin had been sent
to a completely different RAC who was sitting next to her but remained silent
at the meeting with the DC. It was
identified later, but damage done.
These hardly seem reasons to
change someone’s performance rating after 28 years from “exceptional” to
“marginal” to “unacceptable performance” then force them out of their job, move
them to a third shift position, and demote them to a different rank. All of these things happened to Sgt.
Hatley. Also, she did not receive
incentive pay and longevity pay she should have been eligible for 2010, which
will affect her retirement.
Here is a summary of events submitted regarding Tammy Hatley:
Timeline of Issues Regarding
Performance Probation and Demotion
9/17/08: Signed yearly PRD for the performance period
7/7/07 through 7/5/2008. Rated as Exceptional Performance.
The next review date was scheduled
for 7/4/2009.
9/18/08: Promoted to the rank of RAC with no change in PRD rating period.
7/4/09: Captain Bellamy did not
complete a PRD during 2009.
3/10/10: Captain
Bellamy came to my office and gave me a PRD for the rating period of 7/5/08
through 7/3/09. He rated me as Performance Exceeds Expectations and had no conversation with me regarding concerns
for my job performance.
3/19/10: I was called to Major Graue’s office and
told that Capt. Bellamy and she had generated a PRD
rating me as marginal and placing me on performance probation for the
next 90 days. I was given a list of
expectation and told I would receive feedback from Capt. Bellamy every two
weeks regarding my progress.
4/12/10: Capt. Bellamy came to my office and gave me
the back page of a PRD and told me sign it stating that he was told to change my evaluation
from “marginal” to “unacceptable performance” to have me placed on
performance probation. I was not given a
copy of the entire evaluation or the page I signed. I later obtained a copy of this evaluation
from Human Resources and found that no performance dimension in this PRD was
rated at unacceptable. Only the back,
and I assume the front, pages had been changed.
During
this time I sought medical attention for the extreme stress I was suddenly
being put under with no notice. My
physician completed the appropriate paperwork for me to take 2 weeks of sick
leave. I received a copy of the FMLA Eligibility
and Designation Notification to the Employee approving my time to be recorded
as FMLA. This form was dated 5/4/10.
4/23/10: Major Graue met with me to discuss my progress. The document stated “Sgt. Hatley has shown
significant improvement in the areas that Major Graue and I (Capt. Bellamy)
asked her to focus on.” The document listed five positive behaviors and no
negative one. It further stated “I
(Capt. Bellamy) would like to commend Sgt. Hatley for seizing the opportunity
to improve while demonstrating a positive attitude.
No further communication took place
with Major Graue (who had been promoted to DC) or Capt. Bellamy until sometime after the June 10th
Compstat. The document is not
dated but states “This is the second review with RAC Hatley for her Performance
Probation. Sgt. Hatley has continued to
show improvement in the areas that Major Graue and I asked her to focus
on.” Four positive behaviors were listed. One negative comment was made as the result
of the Compstat. The final comment is “I
would like to comment Sgt. Hatley for seizing the opportunity to improve while
demonstrating a positive attitude but encourage her to continue to seek new
ways to address ongoing issues in the Enderly Park Community.
6/16/10: Chief
Monroe approved the request from DC Putney to have me relieved of my
assigned. His memorandum to the Chief is
dated 6/8/10.
For the year to date crime
reduction ratings among the 39 City response areas,
RAC Sgt. Tammy
Hatley’s area was ranked #1
with a 28% reduction in part
one crimes for the period of 1/1/10 to 6/13/10.
Three days later, Chief
Monroe approved her removal from assignment and demotion.
Grievances, Policies & Procedures
Sergeant Hatley had tried to file
a grievance with the City of Charlotte HR department before filing a lawsuit,
but was instructed to wait until the end of the 90 day performance probation
period. She has filed a grievance now,
but he City continues to drag their feet in responding. Maybe a several hundred thousand dollars in
expenses and the loss of an excellent officer and trainer aren’t sufficient yet
to cause a review of Monroe’s policies and procedures.
Several officers have complained
off record of the “new” policies from CMPD management that “PUSH AND DIRECT”
management are leading to some bad decisions within CMPD, and bad
outcomes. Threats, transfers, and
demotions are not a good way to way to run any organization, especially one so
critically dependent on teamwork and communication for survival—literally.
Thirty Years of Service Deemed Exceptional (until someone ordered otherwise)
Tammy Hatley was a SWAT
Negotiator for 22 years. Since she
was promoted to Sergeant in 1998, she worked one of the most challenging areas
of Charlotte as Patrol Sergeant, then Administrative Sergeant, working her way
to a 24 hour/day RAC Sergeant position that Monroe credited with bringing down
crime across the City. He later claimed
the positions weren’t real positions, but that has been proven wrong by
Hatley’s lawsuit—a precedent now set for other RAC Sergeants.
Hatley worked for many different
supervisors and always received excellent reviews. As a supervisor, she has earned respect of
those she trained, helped them achieve status as #1 crime reduction in some of
the toughest areas of town, and helped many go on to be selected for
specialized positions.
Maybe an Internal Affairs
complaint would be the best way to discover possible lack of truthfulness
and/or failure to follow Policy and Procedure issues with Captain Bellamy,
Major Graue, and Deputy Chief Putney, regarding letters requesting a demotion
and related items. The IA process would
instigate an investigation into the promotion/demotion/transfer processes used
and determine what prompted Hatley’s apparent targeting.
Sgt. Hatley reflects now, “I
would just have liked to have retired as an employee who did a good job for
thirty years. If nothing else, I hope those officers that I worked with
and supervised over the years learned something from me.”
Sgt. Hatley deserved respect for
the way she conducted herself on the job.
She deserved a paycheck, fair treatment, and answers to what was behind
the decision to change her stellar performance reviews from “Exceptional” to
“Unacceptable” after 28 years--at someone’s instruction.
Why?
