Greetings. To start off the newsletter, I ask that any member who has
not received an invitation to the Policemen’s Ball to please contact
the GPOA office immediately if you wish to attend. The Policemen’s
Ball will be held May 18th at 7:00 pm at the Airport Marriott. If you
have not received your invitation, we probably have an old address for
you. Please contact us any time your personal information (address,
telephone number, assignment) changes so that you wont miss out on
important mailings!
I want to report that Craig, Jason
and I met with Chief White and discussed several issues. We spoke of the
below-mentioned legislation. We also spoke to him of problems
encountered by officers who were injured in the line of duty. We spoke
about how officers were having trouble with the City and Key Risk
Management on Worker’s Compensation claims. We also mentioned that
some officers had possibly missed promotions or transfers, because their
application letters had been lost in the process. A solution may be
forthcoming. We spoke of the proposed PO III and PO IV positions. As of
now, it is still in the GPD’s 2001-2002 Budget Proposal. The problem
is, with the State’s Budget shortfall, it now has a 50/ 50 chance of
being removed by the City Manager or the city’s bean counters.
We also told Chief White we
appreciated the way the Police Department had handled the death and
memorial service for Chris Beane. We also advised Chief White that we
hoped a similar occurrence would never happen again, but should it, the
GPOA would be willing to again set up a memorial account for incoming
contributions to the officer’s survivors.
On Thursday, June 7th,
at our regular GPOA Board meeting, 1730hrs, we will be taking
nominations for President, Vice President and Secretary/ Treasurer of
the Greensboro Police Officer’s Association. Please plan to attend.
We attended the International
Union Police Association’s annual conference in Washington DC. Craig
Hewlett will have a more complete report. We met with our federal
legislators, or representatives of their staff, about five pending bills
that would impact the law enforcement family. See Craig’s legislative
article in this issue for more information about these bills and how
they could possibly affect you.
Locally, let me tell you what the
City Council and the politicians have done concerning the Police-Citizen
Review Board issue. Grab a seat, I hope you can stay with me on this.
This may take awhile to read.
On June 6th, 2000, a
motion was made by Councilwoman Johnson for a Police-Citizen Review
Board. The motion was voted down. Then Mayor Holliday proposed a nine
point motion with point nine being a change in state personnel laws to
open our personnel files to the Human Relation’s Complaint Review
Committee or a complainant in a complaint investigation. This failed for
lack of a second. Then Councilman Perkins made a motion that had three
parts. (1) The complaint process would receive greater publicity. (2)
Complaints could be made to both the Human Relations Commission or the
police department with the police department still investigating the
complaints on police officers. And (3) the Human Relations Commission
will report back to the Council on the complaints investigated. This
passed on a 6-3 vote and became city policy.
Life went on and I believed the
City Council had heard our concerns and had acted on them. Foolish me. I
had continued to monitor the agenda items and had read the minutes of
the Council meetings since that time and had not seen any further
discussion on a Police-Citizen Review Board.
In January 2001, I attended a
meeting, held in the Council chambers, of the Guilford County Delegation
to the North Carolina General Assembly. In attendance were
Representatives Adams, Boyd- McIntyre, Jeffus, Jarrell, Culp, Bowie and
Blust. Senator Martin attended as well. I attended this meeting to
introduced myself to our legislators and to ask for their support on the
upcoming bill for a 25-year retirement.
While waiting to speak, I heard
Mayor Holliday ask the Guilford County delegates for support in a
proposed change in state law concerning a police officer’s personnel
files.
The next day I began trying to
find out when the Council had made this decision. The City Clerk’s
office confirmed that no discussion had been made in any Council meeting
since that time. She even sent me a copy of the last meeting minutes in
which this was discussed, June 6th, 2000. I called city
attorney Linda Miles’ office to ask her for any information about the
proposed change was met with, “She’s in a meeting and will get back
to you.” A later visit to her office was acknowledged with an email
stating, “Send me your address and I’ll send it to you.” I did.
She didn’t.
Then on February 6th,
2001, I attended the City Council meeting and spoke on behalf of our
members. On the agenda, was the proposal to the Guilford County
Delegation. I told the Council that first, I really didn’t know how to
respond to their proposal since I had not received a copy that I had
requested from the City Attorney’s Office. I then stated our members
were against any change in State law to open any of our personnel files.
I asked when was the Council going to tell the officers that the officer’s
files were being opened to the public and when had the Council discussed
this proposal. I stated that rank-and-file officers should not be
treated differently than other city employees since the city doesn’t
want to treat us differently, on our request, on other issues such as
pay.
I was told that the Council had
talked about the proposed change in Council briefings not normally
attended by citizens and that we were being treated differently because
of the greater opportunity of harm to public trust. I was told that this
would “add creditability to the complaint process.” I stated this
would not add credibility to a process that some individuals, a very
small group, found suspect and always would unless they had control of
the process.
The Council voted unanimously to
approve the proposal to the Guilford County Delegation. Back room
politics at its best.
On February 8th, the
GPOA finally received the requested proposal along with an apology by
way of our General Counsel, Bill Hill. Attorney Miles refuses to speak
with me but will speak with Bill. Attorney Miles knows we oppose this
proposal because she was in attendance when I spoke to the Council on
February 6th. Bill has also told her we are opposed.
On February 14th,
Jason, Bill Hill and I traveled to Raleigh to attend a meeting of the
Guilford Delegation to ask them not to support this proposal. This was
their first meeting of the new session. The proposal was not on the
Delegation’s agenda so we did not speak, but we did have a moment to
make our pitch to Senator Kay Hagan, the Vice-Chairwoman of the
Delegation. She told us she would like to hear our position because she
prefers to hear both sides of an issue before she made a decision on the
proposal. We left Raleigh believing this would happen.
On March 1st, I emailed
each of the Guilford Delegation’s members asking them not to support
the Council’s proposal. It was then that I found out Representatives
Adams, Bowie, Boyd- McIntyre, Jeffus and Jarrell of Guilford County
along with Representative Womble of Forsyth County had entered House
Bill 423 to change state personnel laws to give access of a complaint’s
findings to the Human Relations Commission’s Complaint Review
Committee. Should these CRC members release this personal information it
would be a misdemeanor punishable by a fine not to exceed $500.
The bill has been referred to the
House Subcommittee on Highways and Law Enforcement chaired by
Representative Andrew Dedmon and vice-chaired by Representative Joe
Kiser. I have since called Representative Dedmon’s and Representative
Kiser’s office repeatedly, to inquire when they would discuss H 423
and to offer our opposition to this bill. We had planned to attend their
Subcommittee meeting on H 423.
Then, on March 8th, I
learned that Senator Kay Hagan had entered SB 388 in the Senate with no
co- sponsors. This bill has been shelved at this time. So much for
Senator Hagan hearing both sides of the issue before making a decision.
The GPOA has also requested the
support of the State PBA in opposing H 423. On March 11th,
PBA State President John Midgette met with Representative Adams and
advised her that the PBA was joining the GPOA in opposing H 423.
On March 27th, I met
with NC State AFL-CIO President James Andrews. I advised Mr. Andrews of
our concerns and opposition to both bills. Mr. Andrews stated he had
attended a Local Government Subcommittee meeting March 22nd
and that Representative Adams had spoke concerning H 423. He stated
Representative Adams was asked if she knew of any opposition to H 423
and she said she knew of no opposition. Mr. Andrews stated also in
attendance was an attorney with the City of Greensboro who he believed
to be Linda Miles. The Subcommittee of Local Government then voted to
support H 423. This Subcommittee is chaired by none other than
Representative Jarrell, and the member who asked Representative Adams
the question was Representative Womble, both co- sponsors of H 423.
I asked when the bill had changed
Subcommittees and how could it have been moved. I found out that the
bill had changed on March 12th, and it would only have been
moved with the approval of the primary sponsor, Representative Adams.
Obliviously, Representative Adams, after speaking with John Midgette on
the 11th, understood the growing opposition and had it moved on the 12th
to her friend’s subcommittee. Representative Adams failed to recall
the opposition and Attorney Miles failed to correct her.
Then, as on cue, Senator Hagan had
her shelved bill, SB 388, assigned to the Senate Judiciary II
Subcommittee, you guessed it, in which she is the Chairwoman. Politics
at its best... or worst.
We don’t support H 423 or SB 388
because (1) that by opening any of our personnel file, a Court could
rule that it’s all or none and since they are already open, allow
access to it all. (2) We know the present law allows the City Manager to
open our personnel file, with concurrence by the City Council, to
maintain “public confidence” in the city. (3) We believe that should
the City Council or City Administration lose creditability in the
complaint process, they can correct it with the Chief of Police. (4) We
believe this allows for a broad- brush approach to complaints, grouping
excessive force complaints with rudeness complaints. Then it allows
review, of those complaints, by individuals who have not or do not
follow guidelines for membership on the Complaint Review Committee.
We have been told by City
Officials that this piece of legislation is in the best interest of the
officers, a fair compromise to avoid a formation of a review board. I am
hesitant when the City starts implementing change without telling their
employees and while attempting to fast track this law through the
General Assembly. Honestly, this would not be a bad law change if I
believed it would end the review board issue. Or, if I thought there
would not be someone appointed, with a radical or suspect opinion of the
present compliant process. Or, if I believed the members of the
Complaint Review Board would be extremely hesitant to release the
complaint file to the general public or press. In reality, I believe
this is just ammunition for a small radical group to gather support for
a review board and there will be controversial individuals appointed to
this board. I further believe that once on the CRB, they would not
hesitate, even under a threat of being charged with a misdemeanor and
fine, to leak information to further their cause.
In a recent article on Mayor
Holliday in the News & Record astounded me. The article spoke of his
willingness to meet with both sides of an issue before choosing his
position. The article specifically cited his work during the
Police-Citizen Review Board issue and his meeting with both sides. I don’t
know which officers he met with but I haven’t spoke with any officer
who he had consulted prior to him taking a position.
I hope all officers will remember
these Council Members, Representatives and Senator’s statements and
actions when they come asking for votes.
The GPOA will keep you advised on
this piece of proposed legislation. I told you to have a seat, that it
was a long explanation.
Lastly, please attend our
meetings on the first Thursday of the month, 1730 hrs. We need you to be
there.
Stay safe,
Eddy Summers
President - Greensboro Police
Officers Association
Editor’s Note: Despite our best
efforts, the bill was passed into law on April 17th. Remember this next
time you go to vote. We will definitely be publishing a list of
legislator’s who have shown themselves to be anti-law enforcement
during the upcoming elections. We STRONGLY urge you to send a message
and vote against them.