The RMA Report and Wray's Kafkaesque Adventure

The RMA report is a remarkable document.  The main body of the report is 31 pages long.  Its index includes an appendix with about two dozen documents, but I was not provided with the appendix.

There was also a second report provided to me that was 44 pages long.  It had a completely different appearance than the RMA report.  I am presuming that it was prepared by the city's legal department, although my copy does not indicate who prepared it.  I will address the RMA report today, and address the presumed legal department report at a later date.

In any event, the RMA report was remarkable because of its relatively narrow scope.  It appears that its sole purpose was to prove that David Wray was being untruthful when he was confronted with allegations during early to mid-June, 2005.  Information was provided with regard to the periods before and after that time frame, but with the main objective of disproving his truthfulness during that pivotal month.

It should be noted that Jerry Bledsoe's report regarding this time period has not yet been published.  However, my belief is that the RMA report was slanted toward the objective of finding fault with nearly every aspect of Wray's management of this issue; and simultaneously extending ample grace and deference toward Lt. Hinson with respect to what his activities might have been.  The report was biased.

At this point, I want to review the key findings of the Bledsoe series thus far regarding Hinson's actions.  Bledsoe stated that:

• Hinson was passed over for promotions on two occasions by Wray, and shortly thereafter was found to be engaging in activities in the community of a political nature, highlighting work the department should be doing;
• That he was aware of Turnbull's drug activities; that Withers, his girlfriend, worked for Turnbull and was a dancer at a strip club; that he rented a house to Withers and later sold it to Turnbull, aware that he was receiving drug money;
• That he was involved in a motor vehicle accident on duty with his girlfriend in the car;
• That he insufficiently reported another motor vehicle accident;
• That he made accusations that changes to staffing rules for off duty and special events were racially motivated, and that an instance during which he was stopped in traffic was an example of racial profiling;
• That he was part of the handling of the case of former Chief Robert White's son's incident;
• That he was a friend of at least one GPD employee who was convicted, apparently based on connections to the Turnbull organization;
• That he was engaged in various publicity-related ventures, but tended not to follow through on initiatives in which he engaged, even though he was allegedly using on-duty hours;
• That he and his closest friends within the department consorted with and engaged in sex acts with strippers and prostitutes;
• That he may have assaulted Ms. Withers at his bachelor party;
• That he was a part of the racial factionalization of the department; and,
• That he may have been seeing his girlfriends while on duty hours.

In view of all of this information that came to Wray's attention, he probably knew he had a major problem on his hands.  He knew he had to act on these issues, but also that it would be highly sensitive.  He probably knew that if he did not attend to these issues, he could be accused of negligence or of not properly supervising or managing his department if anything bad happened.  He had responsibility for what was happening among his employees.

On the other hand, he had reason to believe from his previous interactions with the City Manager and the City Attorney that he would not be supported if he took any type of personnel action against Hinson or certain others under suspicion.  He therefore had to develop a record that would justify beyond doubt any personnel action he may have to take in the future.  Bledsoe and the RMA report are in agreement that criminal involvement by Hinson in Turnbull's drug enterprise was not an issue.

The RMA report made considerable reference to the fact that previous criminal and administrative investigations of Hinson did not reveal substantial or credible evidence against him.  The issue is that some of the information against Hinson came from women who were prostitutes and who were also running drugs for Turnbull-- including Hinson's former mistress.  They gave information in the midst of a federal investigation and prosecution, and ultimately were convicted and sent to prison.  It was their understanding that providing information would help their situation. 

Bledsoe and the RMA report seem to disagree on whether this information should be believed.  The RMA report seems to discount the words of these women.  Bledsoe does not discount them, and it is unclear whether Bledsoe has corroborated the information they provided with material from other sources. 

Bledsoe says that Hinson knew that Turnbull was a drug kingpin, that Withers was working for him, and that drug money was used to purchase the house he sold to Turnbull.  The RMA report suggests otherwise. 

What is clear, however, is that the quality and quantity of evidence against Hinson was not enough to implicate him in a criminal investigation; or in a previous Internal Affairs administrative investigation.   The words of these two women alone would not be nearly enough to convict anyone.  Relying on the words of Withers and Ekwensi was not considered sufficient to recommend taking action. 

So again, Wray had a problem on his hands.  He probably felt there were various problems with respect to Hinson's behavior and attitude that Wray felt were inappropriate for a police officer, but apparently he did not have enough to do anything about it-- particularly with Johnson over him administratively.  So he elected to continue monitoring Hinson, which appears eminently justifiable. 

The RMA report expends considerable verbiage contesting Wray's version of events as represented to the media and the public around mid-June, 2005.  Hinson had discovered the tracking device on his police car about ten days earlier, and had gone to the media.  Wray was represented as implying that Hinson was an ongoing target of a federal investigation that prevented him from giving specifics.   But Wray was being deliberately vague.  He knew he could not breach confidentiality, but had been placed in the midst of a media maelstrom.  He could not respond with all the details publicly.  He was attempting to convey that he was acting based on information obtained from a federal investigation.  He may have conveyed that imprecisely, but it must be understood there was little he could reveal to the public.  Confidentiality concerns essentially choked off his ability to defend what he was doing.

The report also criticizes Wray for providing personnel information to the police union during a meeting around this time.   It was represented as a possible violation of the Personnel Privacy Act. 

I have recently read that public sector unions in North Carolina are permitted to exist, but collective bargaining is not allowed.  It is not unusual for unions to intervene with management on behalf of employees who are being disciplined or targeted in some way.   In fact, my understanding is that unions would be considered to be failing their members if they do not at least nominally support them in such circumstances.   But when the union intervenes with management, information that otherwise would be considered confidential necessarily must be discussed if the union is to fulfill its function.  This clearly was not collective bargaining.   I am not expert on the Personnel Privacy Act, but would be interested to know whether it truly would prohibit the type of discussion Wray had with the union.

Interestingly, the RMA report takes Wray to task for his vagueness in his statements to the press, which are alleged to have created a false impression-- but remedying that situation would have required a more expansive explanation that would have violated confidentiality.  But he is criticized for precisely that-- violating confidentiality-- in a closed meeting with the union.

We need to remember that Mr. Wray during much of his career was a police officer, underpaid and at times placing his life in jeopardy to protect others-- black and white.  He, and the other officers beneath him, were not trained in Clintonian war room spin tactics.  They were utterly unprepared for the steamroller that leveled them.

There is more, but I need to continue tomorrow evening. 

Comments

[PotatoStew]

"my belief is that the RMA report was slanted toward the objective of finding fault with nearly every aspect of Wray's management of this issue; and simultaneously extending ample grace and deference toward Lt. Hinson with respect to what his activities might have been. The report was biased."

RMA was an out-of-town, independent firm. What plausible motivation would they have for any bias one way or the other?

[David Hoggard]

Joe,
So, your pre-conceived notion is being confirmed in your narrative. Handy things, those preconceptions. And you continue them with this... "its sole purpose was to prove that David Wray was being untruthful".

How's about saying like this?... "its sole purpose was to DISCERN IF David Wray was being untruthful".

There is a HUGE difference.

Your underlying assertion is that RMA was employed to rubber-stamp someone's agenda. We'll need some proof of that before I'll give your analysis its due consideration.

A couple of things according to the report...

In justifying the GPD's ongoing and redundant investigation of Hinson, Wray said that Hinson was part of a "multi-jurisdictional investigation". Johnson and the public took that as the gospel. It wasn't.

Even RMA agrees that the "black book" was a perfectly proper investigative tool, but when he was questioned about it by his superiors, Wray said something to the effect, "Black book?, There is no black book". There obviously was.

There are 38 "conclusions" that RMA arrived at through their investigations - any one of which would be reason enough for concern and further investigation and administrative action. I trust you will address them all.

While it is proper to parse the RMA report for perceived bias and context, and to hash and re-hash all of the "facts";in the end, we are going to come down to a question of trust.

Did Mitch Johnson and the city council trust David Wray? The report offers 38 reasons why it was proper for them to at least question that trust.

[Bubba]

"So, your pre-conceived notion is being confirmed in your narrative>"

As is your pre-conceived response in defense of your conclusion.

"Did Mitch Johnson and the city council trust David Wray? The report offers 38 reasons why it was proper for them to at least question that trust"

Did David Wray trust Johnson? No.

Johnson had given Wray many reasons not to trust him and the process.

It's a witchhunt. Bledsoe's articles document that well.

The foul smell continues......and no amount of push-back by you and others who are trying to rationalize the city's motivations, influences, and actions will change that fact.

It's an absolute disgrace, and it reveals the rottenness of the way things are done in our local government.

We deserve better-- MUCH better.

[David Hoggard]

On this we agree, Bubba, "It's an absolute disgrace, and it reveals the rottenness of the way things are done in our local government."

As for the rest, we'll have to see.

[Brenda Bowers]

Thank you Joe. I will stay tuned for the rest of your analysis. Ex-chief Wray certainly had reasons to distrust city hall, whereas city hall had no reasons to distrust him and order this report. The black book issue came up long after the report was ordered. As to his not remembering it, the incident was over since the accuser could not identify her alleged rapist. It was a done deal and nothing came of it and he had ordered the book "secured". This is commonly used term by police officials to dismiss a piece of an investigation and have it filed until further need arises. Nothing is ever permitted to be destroyed according to my retired Police Chief cousin. By the way, John is following this case with "shock and awe" you might say. Even as dirty as politics were/are in his much larger city he never ran into this sort of blatant smearing of an outstanding police officer. He feels that if it is not personal revenge then there is a much larger city hall/police department cooperative venture involved. Just offered this as a knowledgeable outsider's opinion. BB

[David Hoggard]

Brenda, on what evidence do you base this statement, "..city hall had no reasons to distrust him (Wray) and order this report."?

Also, we are agreed on the deifinition of "secured", but it is not usually "secured" in the trunk of a car of a subordinate, and then, when specifically asked about its existence by superiors, denied knowledge of its existence.

Read the report then let's discuss further.

[Joe Guarino]

Thanks everyone for commenting so far. It has been a very busy Monday. I have much more to post tonight. I do not take anything in (or about) this report at face value; and I think that journalistic skepticism, and telling truth to power, requires that we not do so.

I will refrain from addressing individual comments until I complete my posting on this report. But feel free to continue commenting.

[Ed Cone]

If the report is correct that Wray said Hinson was the subject of an ongoing multi-agency investigation, and no such investigation existed, that alone would seem to be grounds for serious trust issues with his bosses.

[Tony Ledford]

David H., didn't you know that Raleigh was in on the conspiracy against David Wray? And not just RMA, but every other company and government agency in Raleigh?

And RMA turned over my trash can, too! And RMA is why the dog ran off!

:-)

Someone please tell me why RMA would have an axe to grind in this whole thing.

[sound of crickets chirping]

Have a good evening, all.

Regards,
TL

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Consultants and such exist and thrive by making their clients happy. They get called back and make more $$$ when they make their clients happy . . . or tell them what they want (or what they think they want) to hear.

From what I know of "Raleigh", the boys there do their damnedest to stay out of local messes unless they absolutely get dragged in kicking and screaming. Besides they have enough overturned trash cans of their own to deal with these days . . . Black . . . Geddings . . . etc.

[Bubba]

"Consultants and such exist and thrive by making their clients happy. They get called back and make more $$$ when they make their clients happy . . . or tell them what they want (or what they think they want) to hear."

Imagine that!

We already know that our city government had the motive to pre-ordain a negative report on Wray. Why would we be surprised that they may have carried it out?

[Brenda Bowers]

Sorry David but I must be the only person in G-boro who doesn't have a copy of the report. I am quite willing to accept Joe's analysis however as I have found him to be accurate in the past on reports, ect. that I did have access to. On the other hand I have found lately that you seem to be lacking in perspicacity. By the way, very much enjoyed your latest N&R article. It was your best to date so you are getting comfortable with the position-----Good. Now as for distrusting city hall: the Morton case was a BIG reason not to trust any of them to back him. If this officer had been White instead of Black there isn't a doubt in my mind that he would have been crucified. Being Black he was given a pat on the back for attacking a hand cuffed prisoner who was being held by another officer who didn't seem to need to get physical with his prisoner. When Johnson recinded Wray's order on that issue a message was sent that he was on his own, and quite possibly on his way out.

[Tony Ledford]

Reading paranoids is SO entertaining!

:-)

Have an even better evening!

TL

[Bubba]

"Reading paranoids is SO entertaining!"

Gee, Hoggard didn't come off as parnoid to me.

[Tony Ledford]

No, he didn't, did he?

:-D

Have a unbearably wonderful evening,
TL

[David Hoggard]

Bubba, serious question...

You said, "We already know that our city government had the motive to pre-ordain a negative report on Wray."

What motive are you speaking of?

[Ed Cone]

Brenda, you are aware that Bledsoe's account of the Morton incident included significant errors, and that Jerry admitted in print that he did not report it correctly?

[David Brown]

The purpose of the report WAS obviously to find out about Wray's methods in getting dirt on Hinson. The purpose was stated in the narrow question in the report. It was not about Hinson, nor was it intended to be another investigation him. RMA was paid to answer that question; the city is the responsible party to this narrow line of questioning. They needed justification to off Wray. They got it. Bledsoe's research is about the question "Is Greensboro on a witch hunt?" All the other details are important to that question. Hopefully he has most of them correct, because this town is about to be torn apart, and we just need some truth. The only clear truth to date is that Wray went to extreme means to get the dirt he needed to do Hinson in. Too extreme? Obviously. But there is corruption in our PD. "Fight fire with fire" was Wray's MO. How can we get rid of the rest of the bad ones? THAT is what we should all be hashing out.

[Bubba]

"What motive are you speaking of?"

They needed an excuse to get rid of him.

Wray angered too many people politically over previous investigations, and over management decisions, and he angered the city manager because he wouldn't play the "I'm the boss, you're the employee" control freak game.

[David Hoggard]

Bubba,

Are you suggesting that the chief of police should not be answerable to the city manager?

If you have an employee and that employee wouldn't give you straight answers on important issues, I'm gathering that that would be fine with you.

[Brenda Bowers]

Ed, I am indeed aware of Morton's version via his attorney. I simply am not buying it. Too many holes! A police officer leaves his own prisoner unattended to go to another officer’s cuffed prisoner with the "intension of reasoning with him". Get real. Morton violated protocol and put them all in danger by leaving his prisoner before disabling and cuffing him. For this alone Morton should have been severely reprimanded and in some police forces would have been fired on the spot. But Morton went further and slugged a disarmed and cuffed prisoner which is a legal violation of the prisoners civil rights and the prisoner could have sued the city big time. Wray was right to fire Morton. Bledsoe apologized for taking the word of a court official as to ther outcome rather than checking the records himself. He did NOT apologize for his account based on his interviews with people who were at the scene. Morton wouldn’t have had a case to take to court if not for Johnson’s actions. Johnson, I believe, has his own agenda here for some reason that we haven’t heard yet.

[David Hoggard]

My guess Brenda... and this is just a guess... is that if the Pope himself refuted something you read in the Rhino you would call him a partisan liar.

Have you read the RMA report yet? Go see Greensboro101.com and start your own line of thinking.

[Bubba]

"Are you suggesting that the chief of police should not be answerable to the city manager?"

In ordinary circumstances, of course not. This was no ordinary circumstance.

"If you have an employee and that employee wouldn't give you straight answers on important issues, I'm gathering that that would be fine with you."

Wray is not responsible for Johnson's character weaknesses, and his incompetence as a manager of high level people who report to him.

[David Hoggard]

This back and forth would probably best be done with a phone call, Bubba, but...

What do you percieve as Johnson's "character weaknesses" in light of these "extraordinary circumstance" and what evidence do you have for his "incompetence as a manager"?

Is this all Bledsoe based innuendo or do you have independent information?

[Brenda Bowers]

David I have read the RMA report as postedcc on G-boro101; every last word of it, twice. It is, in my opinion, blatantly biased. They chose carefully those individuals to be interviewed, and even in light of these engineered interviews I have problems with some of their conclusions. I also have a lot of doubts about the integrity of the city legal department so am inclined to discount much that is offer from that source.
I do not accept anything or anyone at face value David. Never have and never will. In fact as an instructor that was the one point I hoped to convey to my students: never accept what you read, hear or see as gospel. Consider all the facts presented and use your own intelligence to form your own opinion. THEN, even doubt that and be ready to revise your conclusions.
The Rhino is I believe the only near trustworthy news paper in the G-boro area however, so I do tend to use it more than the N&R. I also read other blogs belonging to people I have come to trust, and principally go to county and city records for verifying information. Then I voice my opinion/conclusions/theories on the internet on others sites and my own just as you do. As the old saying goes, Opinions are like “butts” everyone has one. You and I are just more vehemently attached to our own.

[David Hoggard]

That last statement is undeniably true, Brenda.

You point to this as a problem with RMA's proceedures: "They chose carefully those individuals to be interviewed".

How should they have chosen whom to interview? At random? Non-implicated parties?

We paid $140.00 per hour for their services. I for one would get even more upset if RMA just chose people at random to subject to questioning and lie detector tests. Makes no sense, fiscally or logically.

[Bubba]

"Is this all Bledsoe based innuendo or do you have independent information?"

Is that your standard response when you don't want to address the issues raised, or do you have independent information that supports your position?

Your biases are showing. You accept the RMA report as gospel, while arbitrarily rejecting the Bledsoe information.

You have now become part of the problem, rather than part of the solution.

You need to do MUCH better than that.

The whole debacle of the obvious politicization and mis-management of the controversy by the city from day one still does not pass the smell test, regardless of what you think the RMA says.

[David Hoggard]

No Bubba. well... yes it is. My stock answer is going to be from now on something like this...

Provide some evidence.

What evidence do you have to support accusations of "incompetence" and "character weaknesses" on the part of Johnson. Flip side: Is there any evidence, anywhere, of those named traits showing up on the part of Wray?

I have rejected none of Bledsoe's facts, but I have pointed out many times that he is writing from a certain point of view and bent (as he should). No one has challenged that assertion to date but you can be the first.

[Fred Gregory]

Brenda,

Thank you for knocking down Cone's red herring/smoke screen about the Morton incident. You are spot on. If the situation was reversed the ACLU or other organizations would be taking the officer and the city to federal Court alleging 42 United States Code, Section 1983, Violation of Civil Rights, and Morton would have been working for that prisoner the rest of his days.

[The CA]

"I have rejected none of Bledsoe's facts, but I have pointed out many times that he is writing from a certain point of view and bent (as he should)."

Provide some evidence.

[The CA]

The whole notion that Wray lied in his June 17th press release is very dubious as I have pointed out at http://theconalt.wordpress.com/2006/10/16/what-did-wray-really-say/

[Stormy]

"Are you suggesting that the chief of police should not be answerable to the city manager?

If you have an employee and that employee wouldn't give you straight answers on important issues, I'm gathering that that would be fine with you."

Posted by: David Hoggard | October 17, 2006 at 07:27 AM

Does this logic apply to David Wray dealing with James Hinson? Should James Hinson have been answerable to the Chief of Police?

My opinion is while reading the RMA Report is that it uses language designed to bias readers toward what seems to have been a preordained conclusion. As was indicated above, they were commissioned to provide an answer to a very narrow question. They delivered an answer, but that answer doesn't adequately address the broader issues that existed and still exist.