Appeal of Disciplinary Action Imposed (Termination) Imposed by Chief of Police Ken Miller - Deborah Thomas-April 29, 2011

8/4/2019 Appeal of Disciplinary Action Imposed (Termination) Imposed by Chief of Police Ken Miller - Deborah Thomas-April 2

1/13

Police DepartmentCity of Greensboro GREENSBORO

April 29, 2011

TO: City Manager, Rashad YoungFROM: Senior Police Officer, Deborah V. Thomas

SUBJECT: Appeal Of Disciplinary Action Imposed (Termination)Imposed By Chief of Police Kt!lMiller

Pursuant City Policy H-l Corrective Action, this memorandum serves as my official appealdocument of disciplinary action imposed by Chief of Police Ken Miller. That disciplinary actionis termination of employment, April 20, 2011. I appealing the decision and the disciplineMr. Young, please note that all information contained in this appeal as it relates to complaintallegations of Discrimination, Retaliation, Harassment, Intimidation and Hostile WorkEnvironment have already been submitted to your office in documents dated: September 13,2010, October 8,2010, October 22,2010; December 14, 2010, January 18,2011, and January 27,2011. This document is a condensed regurgitation of the afore.nentioned documents.

~~Mr. Young, please note that I requested physical copies of all documents, notes, recordings,transcriptions, investigations, etc. (entire case file) as it relates to the allegations I was terminatedfor. On or about April 12th (e-mail toCaptainJ.Smith); April 13th (recorded conversation withCaptain J. Smith), April 15th (through documentation to Chief of Police Ken Miller), April 20th(conversation with Captain J. Smith), and April 21, 2011 through memo to your (Mr. RashadYoung's) office.I was denied this information, which creates the following:

It is discriminatory and retaliatory against me, as all other previous employees have beenprovided with complete copies of their case files in order to defend allegations againstthemselves that resulted in termination. For example, recently terminated GreensboroPolice Officers Charles Cherry and Joseph Pryor were provided with copies of their casefile to defend themselves against allegations. In fact, when I was recommended fortermination in August of 2010, 1 was provided with the entire case file, regardinginvestigations leading to the recommendation of termination, Thus, without the case file,I cannot entirely defend the allegations against me and 'prepare my appeal.

North Carolina General Statute 160A-168, c (6) states: "An employee may sign a writtenrelease, to be placed with his personnel file, that permits the person with custody of the

1


2/13

2

file to provide, either in person, by telephone or by mail. information specified in therelease to prospective employers, educational institutions, or other persons specified inthe release."Mailing provides a physical copy. I can have copies of the entire case file,of investigations, resulting in my termination. I was denied my case file upon verbaland written request. .

Mr. Young, please note that Chief of Police Ken Miller's termination of my employment isretaliation for complaints I made against City of Greensboro employees to include Chief Miller.On August 3, 2010, I was suspended without pay and recommended for termination ofemployment. I alleged that the suspension and recommendation for termination was retaliationand harassment against me relating to an EEOC and other ccmplaints, I had filed against GPDpersonnel.In accordance with Greensboro Police Departmental Directives, I requested/opted to have aGreensboro Police General Board of Inquiry Hearing, in writing. The hearing, which is dueprocess, would have allowed me to expose GPD employees that I had made complaints against,as well as confirm my allegations. This would include showing that I had committed noviolations. Then newly appointed (September 1, 2010) Chief of Police Ken Miller understood theconsequences of allowing me to have a hearing, related to those allegations. On September 3,2010, Chief Ken Miller reinstated me with the Greensboro Police Department, denying me theopportunity to have a hearing. Chief Miller's reinstatement of me without a hearing proves thathe knew that the suspension/recommendation for termination was done unjustifiably. AlthoughChief Miller was aware of what had transpired he did not reinstatement me in good standing andallowed me to be disciplined outrageously with two (2) Departmental Reprimands. Chief ofPolice Ken Miller's actions resulted in the following:

Chief Miller discriminated and retaliated against me by denying me the due process ofthe hearing, which I opted for by written notification. No other police employee, prior tome has ever been denied a General Board of Inquiry Hearing after submitting a writtennotification, of that due process choice. By disciplining me with the departmentalreprimands, and denying me due process, Ken Miller set the stage to terminate myemployment, at a later date, with claims of progressive discipline.

Officer M.D. Royal, had been suspended without pay and recommended for terminationfor allegations of untruthfulness, August of 2010. Once a police employee is found to beuntruthful the District Attorney is unable to utilize that employee to testify in court. Thatemployee would have to be terminated. Chief Ken Miller, reinstated Officer Royal, on 01'about September 15, 2010, denying Officer Royal a hearing (which he opted for inwriting), but did not discipline Officer Royal. This is clear discrimination, as OfficerRoyal's charges of untruthfulness were actually worse than the allegations against me.

On September 13; 2010, I appealed the disciplinary action imposed by former Interim ChiefD.K.Crotts (approved by Chief Ken Miller) to you (Rashad Young); however, you never responded.Sergeant Darrin (DJ.) Davis was my supervisor during the time in which I appealed thedisciplinary action(s) against me (two (2) departmental reprimands and suspension). After Iutilized procedure in appealing the disciplinary actions taken against me to proper authority (CityManager) Sergeant Darrin Davis claimed the appeal was sent to him and that he would be


3/13

3

responding. Sergeant Darrin Davis knew that he had no authority to hear the matter. SergeantD.J. Davis ordered me to report to his office; while threatening and harassing me approximatelyone- hour and forty minutes simply because I had formally complained about the unfairtreatment and because my appeal was also a complaint that implicated higher authority,

Because I continued to file complaints, Sergeant Davis subsequently, began to discriminate,harass, intimidate, and retaliate against me, clearly placing me in a hostile work environment. Ifiled complaints against Sergeant Davis, however, Sergeant Davis was allowed to investigatehimself, and clear himself of any wrong doing. Sergeant Davis did state, in a recordedconversation, that you (City Manager Rashad Young) directed him to investigate himself. I alsohave two (2) documents from Sergeant Davis, to me, responding to my complaints againstSergeant Davis. Sergeant Davis also referred to previous allegations against me and approvedby Sergeant Heard and other commanders as "bullsh*t," referred to my complaints againstSergeant Davis as "crap," informed me that I probably would not receive due process andthreatened me with discipline if I continued to file complaints.Sergeant Davis' and others' clear retaliation and discrimination against me, caused such anintense stress, it prompted me to utilize the City of Greensboro's Employee Assistance Program(EAP), City Policy H-S. Organizational Rules Section S . 1 . states: The Employee AssistanceProgram (EAP) is essentially a self-referral program but supervisors may recommend. Anemployee is encouraged to personally contact the EAP counselor or any community agency forconfidential, referral 01' treatment. In accordance with the city policy, I solicited the ReverendNelson Johnson, Pastor of Faith Community Church and Executive Director of the BelovedCommunity Center, to provide me with confidential counseling.On or about December 23,2010, I was ordered to meet with I-Iuman Resources Employee LacyDeberry. Mr. Deberry was allegedly investigating all of my complaints of discrimination,harassment, retaliation, hostile work environment, etc. On February 23, 2011, Mr. Deberry sentme a document entitled "Hostile Work Environment Allegations Summary," after he completedhis alleged investigation. Mr. Deberry's document and his investigation were fraudulent. Thedocument was addressed to me, however in the last paragraph, Officer Banks' name, rank andsituation were addressed in the document. Officer Banks informed me that she had filed a hostilework environment complaint with Human Resources in the summer of 2010. Mr. Deberry hadsimply cut and pasted or otherwise inappropriately utilized a generic response from OfficerBanks' document and placed it in mine. I filed a complaint against Mr. Deberry with InternalAffairs Sergeant Nathaniel Davis and Chief of Police Ken Miller (in writing).The retaliation against me resulted in administrative allegations also being made against me.Those allegations were a possible violation of the following:

GPD Directive 3,9.2: Procedural Steps (Use 3.9.2 Grievance Procedure when filinggrievances)

GPD Directive 1.4.S-0bedience To Order (Sergeant Davis ordered me not to file anymore grievances unless I go through him). GPO Directive I.S.1-General Conduct (Release of You Tube audio sgtdjdavis)


4/13

4

I was officially notified by memo, of the allegations against me (Procedural Steps andObedience To Orders) on December 6, 2010. I was officially notified by memo of theallegation against me (General Conduct) on January 25, 2011. At the time the allegationsagainst me were made, the standing disciplinary policy, allowed employees, to have an attorneypresent, during General Board of Inquiry Hearing.Chief of Police Ken Miller, changed the disciplinary policy on February 23, 2011. This changedisallowed attorneys being present at any stage of the disciplinary process, to include anyhearings. Ken Miller proceeded to force me into being adjudicated under his new policy, whenthe allegations against me, were made while the previous policy was in place. The proper actionwould have been to deal with all allegations against me, under the previous policy, prior to theimplementation of the new policy (February 23, 2011). However, this violation of due processwas done, because, Chief Ken Miller understood that to allow an attorney to be present in ahearing regarding allegations against me would have revealed that I had committed no violationsand would have confirmed my allegations against city personnel. Disallowing an attorneyexcludes the opportunity for flaws in tainted investigations to be exposed. The employee is alsoplaced in an intimidating situation, and reluctant to confront flaws in investigations. An exampleis when Lieutenant Colonel C.N. Walker was untruthful to me on April 19, 2011 by informingme that I could not divulge information regarding my disciplinary hearing, to my attorney; thistranspired after he had told me it was mandatory for me sign a confidentiality agreement.Under Chief Miller's policy, GPO employees can choose to or not to take part in anadministrative hearing (board convened to hear charges against an employee), however, ifdeemed appropriate, the Chief can mandate that an officer appear in a hearing. On or about April13, 2011, Captain J. Smith informed me that the discipline regarding the current allegationsagainst me could result in termination (Please be reminded that this progressive discipline wasput into motion when Chief Ken Miller brought me back to work, denied my due process of ahearing and allowed me to be disciplined me with two (2) departmental reprimands. My appealof that discipline was never answered by the City Manager.On March 24, 2011, in accordance with GPD Directives, I notified Captain 1. Smith of theInternal Affairs Division, in writing, that I did not want to participate in a departmental hearing.Chief Miller assembled a hearing board, not comprised of my chain of command, referred toas an independent review board. The individuals on the board were Captain Raymond Reese,Lieutenant Renae Sigmon, and Sergeant Michael Terry. These individuals were provided withconfidential information regarding administrative investigations against me. This flaw in ChiefMiller's disciplinary process is also a violation of North Carolina General Statute G.S. 160A-168Privacy of Personnel Records, subsection (c) (1), (3), and (6) which states, in part, "Allinformation contained in a city employee's personnel file, other than the information madepublic by subsection (b) of this section, is confidential and shall be open to inspection only in thefollowing instances:

(1) The employee or his duly authorized agent may examine .(2) A city employee having supervisory authority over the employee may examine all

material in an employee's file.


5/13

5

(6) An employee may sign a written release, to be placed with his personnel file, that permitsthe person with authority over the file to provide either in person, by telephone, or bymail, information specified in the release perspective employers, educational institutions,or other persons specified in the release.

Thus, because I didn~t opt for a hearing, although I could be mandated to go to a hearing, thefollowing occurred. Providing individuals (Captain Reese, Lieutenant Sigmon, and Sergeant Terry), on the

independent review board, not in my chain of command, with confidential informationfrom my personnel files is a violation of personnel law. Chief Ken Miller could only mandate providing my personnel files, to individuals outside

my chain of command, if I had opted for a hearing. I gave no authorization to individuals outside of my chain of command to review my

files, and this is confirmed in writing.

On April 19, 2011, I reported to the Chief's conference room at the Melvin Municipal Building,to attend the mandated hearing, to answer to allegations against me. Upon arrival, I walked intothe room, greeted by Lieutenant Colonel/Assistant Chief Christophel' Walker. I informed thosepresent that I would be recording the hearing. In accordance to departmental procedures theboard had recording devices on the table; with which to record hearing. Those in attendance wereLieutenant Renae Sigmon, Captain Raymond Reese, Sergeant Michael Terry, Internal AffairsSergeant's Alexander Rickets, and Nathaniel Davis.Upon being seated, Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Walker directed me to a confidentialityagreement, and informed me that it was mandatory to sign it. I read the agreement, and wasunsure who I was prevented from talking to, if I signed the confidentiality agreement. Inrecorded conversation I asked Lieutenant Colonel Walker, "Is it mandatory for me to sign this?"Lieutenant Colonel Walker replied; "It is mandatory for you to sign it." I then asked, "I can'ttalk to anyone, even an attorney?" Lieutenant Colonel Walker stated, "No Maam, and it ismandatory." I then informed Lieutenant Colonel Walker that I did not wish to sign aconfidentiality agreement (especially since I was facing termination). Lieutenant ColonelWalker informed me that I had to sign the agreement, to participate in the hearing. I informedLieutenant Colonel Walker that I did not wish to participate in the hearing, (knowing that I mayhave needed legal assistance later and that Lieutenant Colonel Walker was untruthful).Lieutenant Colonel Walker then allowed me to leave the hearing. The attempted mandatorysigning of a confidentiality agreement to participate in the hearing resulted in the following:

Lieutenant Colonel Walker being untruthful to me and attempting to deceive me byinforming me that signing the confidentiality agreement was mandatory and I could notspeak to an attorney. This also confirms my allegations of why Chief Miller changedthe policy and took an attorney out of the disciplinary process. In the not too distant past,when Lieutenant Colonel Walker served as a Captain, did he face revocation of hiscertification by the North Carolina Training and Standards? I am not surprised LieutenantColonel Walker was untruthful and attempted to deceive me, but I am disappointed.


6/13

6

I am unaware of any law that would prevent me from discussing my personnel hearinginformation with anyone, to include an attorney, counselor, physician, or the EEOC.

Chief of Police Ken Miller's disciplinary process is flawed, violated due process, andviolates personnel privacy law, as I stated earlier.

On April 20, 2011, I was notified to report to the Internal Affairs Division, at 8:00, authority ofLieutenant Colonel C.N. Walker. At approximately 10:00am I met with Chief of Police KenMiller, Lieutenant Colonel Christopher Walker, Captains 1. Smith and Reese, Lieutenant RenaeSigmon and Sergeant M.G. Terry. Chief of Police Ken Miller then informed me that the chargesof violation of Grievance Procedures, Obedience To Orders and General Conduct againstme had been sustained and I was terminated from the Greensboro Police Department. The entireboard members had witnessed Lieutenant Colonel Walker's untruthfulness at the beginning ofthe hearing. On April 20, 2011, Internal Affairs Division Commander Jonathain Smith providedme with a document entitled "Findings and Disposition for the Complaint InvestigationInvolving Senior Police Officer D,V. Thomas Regarding Violation of Departmental Directives1.4.5 Obedience to Orders, 3.9.2 Procedural Steps and 1,5.1 General Conduct.I will now address the termination document. I will write Lieutenant Colonel Walker's documentin italics. My responses will be in normal Times New Roman Print. The termination documentand my responses are as follows:On April 19, 2011, an administrative hearing was held to hear administrative charges as a resultafyour actions documented in a memo dated March 22 , 2011, and December 6 , 2011. Boardmembers present at this administrative hearing besides me (Lieutenant Colonel Walker) were,Captain R.F. Reese, Lieutenant R.G . Sigmon and Sergeant MG. Terry. Following a review of allrelevant information, evidence, testimony from involved witnesses/persons with knowledge andstatements made by you at this hearing, the board made a recommendation to me concerning thefindings of any possible violation of policy. 1have considered this recommendation in making thefollowing determination of fact: Officer Thomas' Response: Lieutenant Colonel Walker'sopening paragraph confirms the violation of personnel privacy committed when Captain Reese,Lieutenant Sigmon and Sergeant Terry, not in my chain of command, were allowed to reviewand were informed of confidential investigations contained in my personnel file, I, in writing,declined a hearing and thus did not authorize the information to be released to those individuals.Findings:On October 14, 2010, Officer Thomas was ordered by her supervisor, Sergeant D..! . Davis, tocomply fully with Departmental Directive 3.9 regarding the filing of any other grievances.Officer Thomas' Response: I have reviewed copies of all documents I filed, or that were filed onmy behalf, since October 14, 2010. In all titles of each document I am unable to find a documentthat has the word "grievance" in the title, There is no evidence that I filed a grievance. I actuallymade complaints of misconduct as directed by the GPD complaint process (prior to changes byChief Miller). If an allegation against an officer would result in a violation of departmentaldirectives, it must be investigated as a complaint. For example: Sergeant Davis investigatinghimself, Sergeant Darrin Davis (in recording) referring to Sergeant Heard's investigation/a)conducted against me "bullsh"t," Sergeant Darrin Davis referring to my complaints against him


7/13

7

as "crap," Sergeant Darrin Davis investigation of me for going home sick after I had receivedhis approval and was later untruthful in stating to me that he had not conducted an investigation,Sergeant Darrin Davis threatening me with discipline for filing complaints, and Sergeant DarrinDavis informing me that I probably would not receive due process (all recorded) are actuallyviolations of departmental directives and complaints of misconduct. Sergeant Darrin Davisactually informed me that I should file any complaints or grievances (recorded) through him.Although I did not file a grievance, Sergeant Darrin Davis delivered an unlawful order whenordering me to only file complaints or grievances through him, especially when some allegationswere against him. Lieutenant Colonel Walker conveniently left out that Sergeant Darrin Davisordering me to not file complaints unless they went through Sergeant Darrin Davis, The ordergiven by Sergeant Darrin Davis is actually retaliatory, unlawful, discriminatory, andincompetent. All of the aforementioned transgressions by Sergeant Darrin Davis are in violationof federal law, city policy and departmental directives, In addition Mr. Young, in March of2010,I filed a grievance directly to your office, and no disciplinary action was taken nor was Ithreatened or told it was improper, In addition, Sergeant Darrin Davis cannot investigate acomplaint against Sergeant Darrin Davis, which also implicates Chief of Police Ken Miller.On October 22,2010, a grievance was filed by Officer Thomas entitled (in part) "Complaint ofcontinued discrimination, retaliation, intimidation, harassment, hostile work environment,threats of unwarranted disciplinary action", " directly to the City Manager's Office without firstbeing directed to her supervisor or the Resource Management Division or City HumanResources. This action was in violation of the direct order by Sergeant Davis as well asDepartmental Directive 3.9.2. Officer Thomas' Response: Mr. Young, please check with youroffice staff and the City camera system. There will be no evidence of me filing anything to youroffice on October 22,2010. Mr. Young, as you can see, I wrote exactly what Lieutenant ColonelWalker wrote in his termination letter. I do not know what he means by "without first beingdirected to her supervisor." Who was I going to file the complaint to that would direct me to mysupervisor? In addition, the title and nature of the complaint, which involved Sergeant Davis,would necessitate by passing Sergeant Davis. However, the document was addressed to you,through channels. Through channels means that everyone in the supervisory chain of commandcan see and respond to the document, in order, starting with your supervisor. I attempted to givea copy of the October 22,2010 complaint to Sergeant Davis, at the WROC (2602 S. Elm EugeneStreet). Sergeant Davis refused to take the document and later admitted in writing that Iattempted to give him the document. I never delivered a complaint or any other document toyour office, dated October 22, 2010. Sergeant Davis also violated then GPD directive forwardingcorrespondence, when he refused to take the document from me, a subordinate. LieutenantColonel Christopher Walker is untruthful when he states that I filed a grievance or any otherdocument to your office on October 22,2010, On October 22, 2010, a complaint was apparentlydelivered to your (City Manager Rashad Young) office by my confidential counselor, throughthe city's encouraged EAP Program, the Reverend Nelson Johnson. I was later informed thatReverend Johnson felt that the discrimination, retaliation, harassment and hostile workenvironment I was enduring was at such a level that it was in my, the City's and theDepartment's best interest that he inform you, I was also informed that Reverend Johnson hasinformed you that I did not solicit him to inform you of anything regarding our city approved,city encouraged counseling sessions. When Lieutenant Colonel Walker writes the title of theOctober 22, 2010 complaint document, because it is a complaint, the word grievance does not


8/13

8

appear in the title. In fact, Lieutenant Colonel Walker's own writing confirms that thedocument was a complaint. There is no proof that the document is a grievance because it is acomplaint. In reality the question is, do the allegations have merit, which they do.On January 12, 2011, a video entitled "Greensboro Police Corruption Continues-Sergeant D.J.Davis, Chief Ken Miller, City Manager Rashad Young" (Young) was posted on a public website"You'Iube." This video contained what appeared to be three separate audio recordings ofconversations between Sergeant D.J. Davis and Officer D. V . Thomas concerning administrativepersonnel matters. During an administrative investigation, by her own admission, OfficerThomas admitted to personally releasing this information to a private citizen. Officer Thomas'Response: Mr. Young, the "private citizen" Lieutenant Colonel Walker refers to is myconfidential counselor, through the City of Greensboro's, encouraged and approved EmployeeAssistance Program, Reverend Nelson Johnson. I informed Sergeant Nathaniel Davis that I hadgiven my information to my confidential counselor, through city EAP, Reverend NelsonJohnson, in an interview on January 25,2011. I also informed Sergeant D.J. Davis (see YouTubevideo clip). Additional recorded interviews regarding this investigation were conducted bySergeant Nathaniel Davis on February 2nd, 4th, and 10th, 2011. Lieutenant Colonel Walker doesnot want to divulge, on paper, that I was speaking to a Pastor regarding my issues, and stresscaused by acts of discrimination, retaliation, intimidation and a hostile work environment. I havelistened to the YouTube audio when you place sgtdjdavis in the search bar, and I did not releaseinformation to Reverend Nelson Johnson in that form. I allowed him to maintain and listen torecordings of conversations between Sergeant Darrin Davis and me so that he could providecounseling regarding the hostile work environment Sergeant Darrin Davis and others continuedto create for me. Please explain my options, Mr. Young. Sergeant Darrin Davis is allowed toinvestigate himself, threatens me, informs me that I probably won't get due process, conducts aninvestigation on me because I called in sick and later falsely stated he did not conduct one, callsmy complaints against him crap, states that investigations against me by Sergeant Heard were"bullsh'"t", etc. I attempted to send a complaint through channels to you and he retaliates byinvestigating me. I then utilize the city's encouraged EAP Program, and am terminated for doingso. I have been informed that Reverend Johnson and the Beloved Community Center placed theinformation on YouTube. This was done without my knowledge or solicitation. I was alsoinformed that Reverend Johnson informed you and Chief Ken Miller that I had no knowledge ofthe making of and did not solicit the making of or posting of the YouTube audio. I am not awareof a law or rule that would preclude an employee from informing their counselor of their ownadministrative personnel matters. Sergeant Davis, my supervisor never informed me of any suchlaw when I informed him (recorded) that I was utilizing the EAP Program.Mr. Young, regarding Internal Affairs Sergeant Nathaniel Davis' investigation we met Januaryzs" , February 2nd , February 4th , and February 10, 2011. Sergeant N. Davis recorded all fourinterviews. Sergeant N. Davis did give me an unlawful order as outlined in his January 25, 2011Administrative Notification, which is addressed to me. Furthermore, Sergeant N. Davis utilizeddeceptive tactics during the interviews and he knew I was aware of his deception and hadrecorded him. Why would any employee need to be interviewed four (4) times? The case fileshould included four (4) evidentiary recorded statements of the aforementioned dates, whichinterviews were held between Sergeant Nathaniel Davis and me. Sergeant Darrin Davis also


9/13

9

recorded me during his interviews on October 11, 2010, October 14, 2010, and December 6,20ID.In a Yes! Weekly newspaper article dated September 22, 2010, Officer D.A. Pinson conductedan interview and spoke of administrative personnel matters to include taking Citalopram, anadministrative investigation regarding other officers, allegations of a "rigged" polygraph test andalso cursed in the interview. Officer Pinson is not only working, to my knowledge received nodisciplinary action. Officer Pinson spoke to a iournalist! In a YouTube audio, LieutenantColonel Crotts is heard divulging information from a confidential investigation located in formerCaptain Cherry's personnel file, to a subordinate Sergeant Isom, that was not in former CaptainCherry'S chain of command. This apparent violation of North Carolina Personnel Privacy Law,to my knowledge has never been investigated, even after a formal complaint was filed. Ionlybring these incidents to your attention to show that disciplining me for utilizing the City ofGreensboro's encourage and approved 'Employee Assistance Program is clear example ofdiscrimination, retaliation, harassment and placing me in a hostile work environment.The public release of this administrative personnel information hinders the department's effortsto achieve its goals, violates its policies, and brings discredit upon the department and itsemployees. This act is a violation of Departmental Directive 1.5.1 General Conduct: OfficerThomas' Response: Mr. Young, as stated earlier, I did not publically release the informationspoken of by Lieutenant Colonel Walker. Officer Pinson's release of information, or LieutenantColonel Crotts' violation of law yielded no discipline for them. Again, my EAP counselor,through the City's encouraged and approved Employee Assistance Program, Reverend NelsonJohnson and the Beloved Community Center, apparently released the information. This was donewithout my knowledge or solicitation, and Reverend Johnson informed you and Chief Miller ofsuch, through written correspondence. Mr. Young, Reverend Johnson and the BelovedCommunity Center's release of the information does not hinder the Department's efforts toachieve its goals as Lieutenant Colonel Walker suggests. The violations committed by SergeantDarrin Davis and other members of the Greensboro Police Department, unchecked,uninvestigated, unaddressed and not corrected is actually what brings discredit to the agency andits employees. Reverend Johnson and the Beloved Community Center, to my knowledge are notgoverned by the GPD's directives and cannot violate the Department's policies. LieutenantColonel Walker's untruthfulness to a subordinate facing termination, in front of othersupervisory subordinates brings discredit to the agency.Disposition:The disposition of these alleged violations of Departmental Directives are listed asfollows:1 .4 .5 O bed ien ce to O rd ers is classified as Sustained. Officer Thomas' Response: Mr. Young, toreiterate, amongst other concerns already mentioned; I never filed a grievance, after October 14,20 I0, and there is no document filed by me, that indicates that I filed a grievance during thealleged time period. Lieutenant Colonel Walker states in his own writing that I filed a complaint.Documents filed by me, after Sergeant Davis gave me the unlawful order, were filed throughchannels. This means Sergeant Darrin Davis received the document first. Again Sergeant DarrinDavis admits, in writing that I had attempted to give him the document dated October 22,2010


10/13

10

which is a complaint. Although he refused to physically accept and forward my complaintdocument, I never filed it at your (Mr. Young) office. Lieutenant Colonel Walker is untruthfulwhen he states that I filed a complaint to your office on October 22, 2010. Sergeant Darrin Daviscannot answer a complaint which implicates the Chief of Police Ken Miller.

3.9.2 Procedural Steps is classified as Sustained. Officer Thomas' Response: Mr. Young, toreiterate, amongst other concerns already mentioned; I never filed a grievance, after October 14,2010, and there is no complaint filed by me, on October 22, 2010, to your office, that indicatesthat I filed a grievance, during the alleged time period. Lieutenant Colonel Walker is untruthfulwhen he states that I filed a complaint to your office on October 22, 2010. Any document filedby me or on my behalf clearly indicates the documents are complaints. Sergeant Darrin Davisinvestigated himself, advised me that I probably would not receive due process, threatened me,investigated me for going home sick and was untruthful when he could not get the outcome hedesired, called my complaints on him "crap," spoke to me in an inappropriate manner, and this isall recorded. Human Resources provided me a fraudulent document with Officer Banks' name,rank and situation in the document. Mr. Deberry obviously did not investigate my complaints,especially ifhe would create a fraudulent response document relating to my complaints.1.5.1 General Conduct is classified as Sustained. Mr. Young, I never made or solicited to bemade, a YouTube audio (sgtdjdavis) which reveals Sergeant DJ. Davis' retaliation,discrimination, harassment and perpetuation of a hostile work environment towards me. Youhave correspondence from the Reverend Nelson Johnson which confirms that I had nothing to dowith the YouTube audio recording. I simply utilized the City of Greensboro's approved, andencouraged Employee Assistance Program (EAP). I released my own personnel information tomy EAP counselor Reverend Nelson Johnson, so that he could provide the counseling service Irequested of him. Sergeant Davis' actions and Lieutenant Colonel Walker's continueduntruthfulness is actually what discredits the agency. No disciplinary action taken in thesematters against Chief of Police Ken Miller, Lieutenant Colonel Walker, Sergeant Davis(especially listening to Sergeant Davis on YouTube, when you put sgtdjdavis in the searchbar)and others, discredits the agency. Investigating employees that utilize the City'S encouraged andapproved EAP Program, discredits the agency, and allowing Chief Ken Miller to discriminateand retaliate against employees discredits the agency.On April 20, 2011, Chief Miller informed me that the board unanimously voted for me to beterminated. The chair of the board was Lieutenant Colonel Walker. Lieutenant Colonel Walkerwas untruthful to me (recorded) in front of the board, at the beginning of the hearing. Knowingthis, and that their decision could rest with the chair of the board (Lieutenant Colonel Walker),the board still voted to terminate me. That is an example of the subculture of corruption withinthe GPD. As Sergeant Davis stated in a recorded conversation (YouTube sgtlijtlavis)when Isimply asked for due process; "Well you probably are not going to get it. You probably arenot going to get it."Mr. Young, I deny any claims that I have violated city policies, rules, regulations or directives,especially the grievance policy. I and many other city employees have been intimidated fromfiling grievances, when former Captain Cherry was mandated to undergo a psychological fitnessfor duty for filing grievances. Lieutenant Colonel Crotts made it clear what the consequences for


11/13

11

(Psychological Evaluation) Recommendation Memo, "During the past two months, Captain C.E.Cherry has submitted and/or written seven (7) grievances. He has also submitted andlor authoredadditional responses to the responses he has received."I am not sure why Sergeant Davis would even suggest that I had filed a grievance, when:

Lieutenant Colonel Walker states in his findings and disposition memo to me that thename of my October 22, 2010, memo was "Complaint of continued discrimination,retaliation, intimidation, harassment, hostile work environment, threats "

In the YouTube clip sgtdjdavis, Sergeant Davis refers to the October 22, 2010 document,multiple times, as what it is, a complaint. Please see slide twelve (12) of the sgtdjdavisYouTube presentation. I have not submitted a grievance to you under Sergeant Davis'supervision. On December 10, 2010, Sergeant D.J. Davis in acknowledged in a documenthe created, SUbject/title, "Officer D.V. Thomas second 30~Day Evaluation," that theOctober 22, 2010 complaint, was a complaint. Sergeant Davis' document states, inparagraph 3, "On October 22, 2010, Officer Thomas did allow another complaint to befiled through the City Manager's Office." On January 10,2011, Sergeant Davis deliveredto me a document he entitled, "Officer D.V. Thomas 30-Day evaluation." Sergeant Davisstates, "Officer Thomas authored and filed two complaints directly to the CityManager's Office. The first was dated October 8, 2010, and the second one was datedOctober 22, 2010. Sergeant Davis further states, "The complaint filed directly to the CityManager's Office on October 22,2010, was filed after Officer Thomas was given a directorder in writing and in person to fully utilize all sections of D.D. 3.9 when filingcomplaints and grievances. Mr. Young, at the time of the complaint filings, GreensboroPolice Department Directive 7.1 covered complaints and specifically stated, "If the"ALLEGATIONS"constitute employee misconduct, (which would consist of any violationof Departmental Directives, Rules or Standard Operating Procedures), the mater shouldbe classified and handled as a complaint investigation." Sergeant Davis investigatinghimself, calling my complaints against him crap, calling investigations against mebullsh*t, harassing me for going home sick, to include investigating me and lying about itwhen I challenged him, informing me that I probably won't get due process, etc. areallegations of misconduct.

On December 23, 2010, Captain D.K. Ingram confirmed in writing that my October 22,2010 complaint was a complaint. Captain Ingram delivered to me a document titled,"Response to complaint dated December 14, 2010. RE: Complaint of continuedretaliation ..... " Captain Ingram states in the body of the document (page 2, 3rdparagraph), "On October 22, 2010, a complaint was received in the manager's office thatwas directed to the City Manager and contained what appears to be your signature. Onpage 2, last paragraph, Captain Ingram writes, "In this complaint, you indicate that Sgt.Davis is investigating you for filing of a complaint against him and determining how theOctober 22,2010 complaint reached the Manager's Office."

Mr. Young, I humbly request the following:


12/13

12

All findings regarding the allegations against me be classified as unfounded, and myrecord cleared, to include the discipline imposed by former Interim Chief of Police D.K.Crotts and approved by Chief Ken Miller on September 3, 2010.

A return to full duty status and School Resource Officer Position Thorough, proper, fair and just investigations of all allegations I have made against city

employees and the GPD, to include those in this document. A return to a stabilized, fair and just work environment.

Your assistance in this matter is appreciated.Attachment: Letter from (Employee Assistance Counselor) Reverend Nelson Johnson (datedApril 17, 2011)

Senior Police Officer, Deborah.V. Thomas


13/13

13