Police Department

City of Greensboro

September 3, 2010

TO: City Manager, Rashad Young

FROM: Police Officer I, Robert Reyes, Patrol Bureau, Western Division, Squad B

SUBJECT: Appeal Of Disciplinary Action Imposed (Termination) By

Interim Chief D.K. Crotts

Pursuant City Policy H-1 Corrective Action, this memorandum serves as my official appeal
document of disciplinary action imposed by Interim Chief of Police D.K. Crotts on August 30,
2010. That disciplinary action is a division level reprimand.

Mr. Young, please note that Captain Cherry (per my request) requested the transcripts, of my
August 27, 2010 General Board of Inquiry through memo. He requested that the transcripts be
provided to me by September 1, 2010, at 5:00pm. I had to complete my appeal without the
benefit of the requested transcripts.

Interim Chief D.K. Crotts’ Disciplinary Action Taken Memorandum to me states in italics:

On Friday, August 27, 2010, a General Board of Inquiry was convened to hear administrative
charges against you as a result of your actions on June 25, 2010. Sergeant C.B. Isom
recommended the following discipline and Interim Chief of Police D.K. Crotts (Bureau
Commander of the Patrol Bureau) concurred:

Termination of Employment

Following a review of all relevant information, evidence, and testimony from involved
witnesses/persons with knowledge; the Board made a recommendation to me concerning
disposition of our administrative investigation. I have considered this recommendation in
making the following determination.

Findings:

It was determined that sufficient evidence did not exist to sustain the following charges against
you:

Directive 1.5.3: Truthfulness- Not Sustained

It was determined that sufficient evidence did exist to sustain the following charges against you:
1
 Directive 1.5.2: Conduct Toward Public and Employees- Sustained

Directive 1.5.9: Discretion- Sustained

Disciplinary Action Imposed:

Division Level Reprimand

End of Interim Chief Crotts’ Disciplinary Action Taken Memo To Me.

It is my contention that the investigations conducted on me, the sustaining of the allegations
against me and the division level reprimand imposed by Interim Chief Crotts are due to the
following but not all inclusive reasoning:

• It is a retaliation against me as the discrimination and actions taken against me are a key
link in a current lawsuit against the City of Greensboro, by thirty nine (39) minority
officers.
• An attempt to silence me because I have filed grievances that point out continuing
discrimination, retaliation, harassment, intimidation, and hostile work environments.
• These grievances and complaints expose the fact that a discriminatory, unfair
investigative process exists within the Greensboro Police Department that adversely
affects citizens and officers.
• These grievances and complaints have allegations against a number of Greensboro Police
Officers and other City Employees.

Prior to the General Board of Inquiry convening, a recommendation for my termination was
made by Sergeant C.B. Isom. It is my contention that it is unrealistic to believe that Sergeant
Isom could be fair, consistent and just in any disciplinary recommendations concerning me.
Please review the following as it relates to the Western Division chain of command, to include
Sergeant Isom.

Remember also that Mr. Speedling stated that the results of an investigation conducted on
Officer J.L. Pryor was due to “discrimination or incompetence” on the part of Professional
Standards (Internal Affairs).

The July 28-August 3, 2010 edition of the Yes Weekly states on page eleven (11), (in italics):
Cherry also alleges that during a meeting with an officer who had filed a grievance, Speedling
told the officer that the results of an internal investigation were due to “incompetence and
discrimination” by professional standards.

“The investigation is riddled with errors,” Cherry wrote. “At this point, Mr. Speedling has a
duty and responsibility to take proper corrective action, to include a re-investigation of all
investigations completed by the individuals assigned to the professional standards division
during the time when Mr. Speedling made his assessment. Instead of that occurring, the officer
(with the original grievance) is now being investigated for truthfulness, regarding the same

2
investigation in which professional standards made so many errors [and] the findings were
recommended changed (in the officer’s favor) by Assistant Chief Crotts.”

Speedling responded, “My comments having to do with an investigation have to do with one
investigation, period. I do not make that leap of faith that Cherry does that if one investigation
is investigatively insufficient that the entire professional standards division is incapable.”

Speedling added that he sent the investigation in question back to professional standards and
ordered them to re-investigate it, and that the errors were corrected.

End of Excerpt From Yes Weekly.

This appeal clearly shows that Professional Standards (who proofed and presented Sergeant
Isom’s completed report at the hearing) has been “discriminatory and incompetent” for a second
time, contrary to the belief of Mr. Speedling that discrimination and incompetence only occurred
in dealing with Officer Pryor.

• Sergeant Isom and Captain Smith concurred with the original sustaining of Departmental
Directive 1.5.8: Malicious Gossip and 1.5.3 Truthfulness against me. Sergeant Isom and
Captain Smith knew at the time that Sergeant Isom had not interviewed Captain C.E.
Cherry as it related to the allegations. An interview with Captain Cherry would have
immediately nullified any elements of an alleged violation of the aforementioned
departmental directives.
• I could not be committing Malicious Gossip if the comment was about Captain Cherry
and I went to Captain Cherry to verify the statement, and Officer Pinson to correct
Officer Pinson.
• Sergeant Isom and Captain Smith allowed a “Gestapo Style” interrogation of me by
Corporal Oligmueller. The “Gestapo Style Interrogation” (which was Administrative in
Nature) included: A polygraph that was unwarranted because Captain Cherry was never
interviewed, a total of approximately six (6) hours of interrogation (the issue being one
question (Did Officer Reyes hear Officer Pinson say that Captain Cherry had gotten
fired), utilizing a polygraph machine with inoperable parts (non functioning printer as
stated to me by Corporal Oligmueller). My polygraph, improper in nature is on video.
• Professional Standards (Internal Affairs) reviewed this “Gestapo Style Interrogation” and
took no action.
• Sergeant Isom and Captain Smith allowed a “Gestapo Style Interrogation” of Officer
Royal (which was Administrative in Nature), which included: A total of approximately
six (6) hours, Officer Royal, body limp, was called a lie approximately twenty (20) times,
Officer Royal’s job was threatened, asked the same question approximately thirty three
(33) times, Officer Royal was lied to in attempts to get Officer Royal to change his
(Officer Royal’s story), Officer Royal was called “LYNCHMAN” by Corporal
Oligmueller during Officer Royal’s polygraph. Assistant Chief R.E. Rogers and
Captain B.L. James can attest to the inhumane treatment of Officer Royal. The
polygraph of Officer Royal is on video. Officer Royal’s polygraph occurred on July 23,
2010.

3
 • Although he should not have, Corporal Oligmueller had prior knowledge of the
investigation. Sergeant Isom had provided this information.

End of Information As It Relates To the Fairness of Sergeant Isom and Captain Smith.

Interim Chief Dwight Crotts was the Chairman of the Board, and had final decision making
power, as it related to my General Board of Inquiry, on August 27, 2010. It is my contention that
because I had the following, but not all inclusive allegations, against Interim Chief Crotts, it is
unrealistic to believe that Interim Chief Crotts could be fair, consistent and just in any
disciplinary recommendations concerning me. These written and formally submitted (prior to my
termination) allegations have not yet been investigated.

• In a grievance, I complained of Interim Chief Crotts’ actions against me placing me in a

hostile work environment in addition to retaliation, discrimination, intimidation, and
unfair treatment. Mr. Young, you responded to me stating that the ultimate decision was
Mr. Speedling’s. After making a ruling on my allegations without ever speaking with me,
Mr. Speedling referred me to Lacy Deberry in Human Relations. Mr. Deberry who
appeared to agree that I was in a hostile work environment did not make contact with me
after one (1) interview. It should be noted that Captain Cherry who assisted me with
filing my allegations has an open complaint on Ms. Connie Hammond (Human
Resources Director) and Terri Wallace (Human Relations Manager), both of whom have
supervisory authority over Mr. Deberry.
• Interim Chief Crotts intimidated me and was untruthful with me, through memo, in an
attempt to prevent me from filing a grievance.
• Interim Chief Crotts through a clear abuse of power placed me in the Professional
Standards Program. This action was clearly unwarranted. Reminiscent of Captain Cherry
being recommended for a psychological assessment by Interim Chief Crotts.
• Interim Chief Crotts condoned the monitoring, following, and “shadowing” of me by
Officers of my rank and time in grade. The officers, unknown to me took notes on my
activities and gave the information to my supervisor, (then) Sergeant Barwick. Sergeant
Barwick then used the information, detrimentally against me (with the ultimate goal of
terminating me). Sergeant Barwick never confronted me on the information or attempted
to foster my improvement. These actions were because I reported what I believed to be
excessive force by a fellow officer. The “shadowing” can be confirmed by Interim Chief
Crotts’ and Sergeant Barwick’s own documentation.
• Interim Chief Crotts understands that I am link between alleged “shadowing, following,
etc.” against thirty nine (39) minority officers. Interim Chief Crotts had supervisory
authority of the “shadowing” officers in both instances.

End of Information As It Relates To Interim Chief Crotts Chairing My General Board of

Inquiry.

I will now address the allegations against me.

The first allegation is that of Directive 1.5.3: Truthfulness. This allegation is not sustained. The
results of this allegation should be unfounded. I was truthful in all information given as it related

4
to the investigation of Officer Pinson stating that Captain Cherry had been fired. Please note the
following:

• Interim Chief Crotts does not refer to what I was not sustained on as it relates to the
truthfulness allegation. The reason is that Interim Chief Crotts has no evidence to refer to.
Interim Chief Crotts would have known the truth had Sergeant Isom contacted Captain
Cherry.
• Officer Pinson was untruthful (recorded) in my hearing on August 27, 2010.
• Officer Pinson had taken medication (for anxiety) which relaxed his nerves
approximately two (2) hours before taking the polygraph. Corporal Oligmueller had
knowledge of this, and still conducted a tainted test.
• Corporal Oligmueller asked Officer Pinson different than were asked of Officer Royal
and me.
• Corporal Oligmueller was not consistent in his polygraph process as it related to Officer
Pinson and myself.
• Corporal Oligmueller had never administered an administrative polygraph, for which
Captain Allen stated she would take full responsibility, stating she would bring Corporal
Oligmueller up to speed.
• Interim Chief Crotts had to not sustain the truthfulness on me because he wanted to
protect Officer Pinson, who still ended up being untruthful.
• Interim Chief Crotts has and still is discriminating, retaliating, unfair and places me on a
hostile work environment.

I am requesting that the findings of a possible violation of Directive 1.5.3 Truthfulness be

changed from not sustained to unfounded.

The second allegation is that of Directive 1.5.2: Conduct Towards Public and Employees- This
allegation is sustained. The results of this allegation should be unfounded. I was not originally
charged with Conduct Towards Public and Employees. Interim Chief Crotts would have to
elaborate on why I was charged with this particular violation. Please note the following:

• Officer Pinson made a statement regarding Captain Cherry’s work status. I simply
verified the statement with Captain Cherry and corrected Officer Pinson. How could this
possibly be a violation of conduct?
• Officer Pinson is recorded being untruthful at my August 27, 2010 hearing.
• Interim Chief Crotts nor Professional Standards has articulated the elements of a violation
of Conduct Towards Public and Employees.
• Interim Chief Crotts has to sustain some allegation for imposing progressive discipline
and to nullify the discriminatory, retaliatory, and unfair treatment of me during this
investigative process.

The third allegation is that of Directive 1.5.9 Discretion- This allegation is sustained. The results
of this allegation should be unfounded. I was not originally charged with discretion. Interim
Chief Crotts would have to elaborate on why I was charged with this particular violation. Please
note the following:

5
 • Officer Pinson made a statement regarding Captain Cherry’s work status. I simply
verified the statement with Captain Cherry and corrected Officer Pinson. How could this
possibly be a violation of conduct?
• Officer Pinson is recorded being untruthful at my August 27, 2010 hearing.
• Interim Chief Crotts nor Professional Standards has articulated the elements of a violation
of Discretion.
• Interim Chief Crotts has to sustain some allegation on me, so that later, he can impose
progressive discipline. This, to nullify the discriminatory, retaliatory, and unfair treatment
of me during this investigative process.

I was originally charged with an alleged violation of Directive 1.5.8 Malicious Criticism and
Gossip. This allegation should be on Personnel Order #2010-74, Disciplinary Action Taken
against Officer Reyes. This allegation does not appear on the document. The findings should be
Unfounded. Please have Interim Chief Crotts make the appropriate changes to Personnel Order
#2010-74.

Lieutenant Brodie and Captain Smith informed me that I may be extended an additional ninety
(90) days as it relates to the Professional Standards Program. It should be noted that in my third
quarter, fourth quarter (5.69 (Level 3)), and annual evaluation (5.16 (Level 3)), I am clearly
performing at an acceptable level. Interim Chief Crotts through discrimination, retaliation and
fostering a hostile work environment placed me in the Professional Standards Program in an
attempt to terminate me.

Please have Interim Chief Crotts release me from the program immediately upon my physical
return to regular duty.

Mr. Young, please forward complaints made in this document and in previous
grievance/complaint documents to Chief Miller for proper investigation of Interim Chief Crotts.
In addition, under the same Command Staff (Interim Chief Crotts, Captain Smith, Lieutenant
Brodie) that concurred to have me terminated through a discriminatory, retaliatory, improper and
unfair investigative process, I remain in a hostile work environment.

Mr. Young please consider a Department of Justice investigation as it relates to the Greensboro
Police Department’s Administration. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.

Robert Reyes, Police Officer I

Greensboro Police Department
Patrol Bureau, Western Division, Squad B

Attachment #1: Personnel Order #2010-74 Disciplinary Action Taken Memo From Interim Chief
Crotts To Officer Reyes
Attachment #2: 2009/2010 Fourth Quarter Evaluation of Officer R.Reyes
Attachment #3: 2009/2010 Annual Evaluation of Officer R. Reyes

6
7