Not Taking the RMA at Face Value-- Yet

The RMA report’s focus on David Wray’s June, 2005 communications must be viewed within context.  And the context was multi-layered, with Wray’s obligatory concerns over confidentiality;  his knowledge of the worrisome behaviors among Hinson and his compatriots;  a developing rebellion among a subgroup of employees over rotating shifts;  media coverage of explosive allegations regarding race;  the previous issue of the Project Homestead case with Miles and Johnson, and certain levels of mutual distrust they had with Wray;  and whatever political manipulations were beginning to occur at that time.

Sam Spagnola from the Conservative Alternative has an excellent new blog.  Sam brings a sharp legal mind to an examination of the issue of Wray’s statements repeatedly cited in the RMA report.  It is well worth reading.

In fact, Wray’s statements appear completely defensible, but they were magnified in the RMA report beyond recognition.   Jerry Bledsoe’s series cites the multi-agency involvement that the RMA found so incorrect.  Bledsoe specifically lists the FBI, DEA, GPD, Customs and ATF.   He describes the OCDETF as being composed of “federal, state, county and city officers”-- i.e., multi-agency, multi-jurisdictional involvement. 

I wish to address some of the other issues in the RMA report:

1. Much is made of the fact that then-DA Stuart Albright, retired GPD Captain Al Stewart, and SBI Assistant District Supervisor James Bowman expressed concerns regarding the GPD special investigations.  There is an implicit suggestion in the report that they must have been right, and that Wray must have been wrong.  But we cannot make that assumption.  Wray was uniquely in a position to know the entire context regarding the overall concerns he had with his employees and how that related to the Turnbull investigations.  The other three gentlemen cannot be automatically assumed to possess unique or special wisdom or knowledge in that regard.  Nor can we assume that Wray was required to bow to their protestations.  Wray had to do what he thought was best based on the entire picture he understood regarding his employee population and the political environment he faced with Mitchell Johnson.  And remember-- Albright has previously been Simkins-endorsed, and punted on the Project Homestead investigation when he could have referred it to the state Attorney General’s office.

2. The references to the “black book” in the RMA report carry connotations of racial bias.  In fact, it was a line-up book.  It is possible to debate the proper uses of a line-up book, and whether procedural violations may have occurred with its use, but my understanding is that it is not unusual for line-up books to be used.  The question is whether its use was justified, and it probably was.  The labeling of it as a “black book” inflamed racial sensitivities, and RMA followed this pattern.

3. The meeting with the union included a discussion of a quid pro quo.  The union offered to relent with respect to any concerns on the racial controversy in exchange for Wray compromising on the rotating shifts.   We cannot exclude the possibility that this meeting may have been a set-up.  But even assuming that it was not, the RMA report suggested Wray may have violated the law by engaging in collective bargaining with a public sector union.  In fact, Wray made no such agreement.  But what I found interesting was the RMA report’s complete lack of interest in the flip side of this issue-- that the union felt the racial controversy was of such little concern that it was willing to trade it for the change on rotating shifts. 

4. Considerable discussion in the report was made of accreditation standards for police agencies.  The report suggested it was a violation of these standards to conduct internal investigations using special intelligence sections.  It is important to understand the nature of accreditation requirements.  Typically, organizations that seek accreditation are evaluated on numerous parameters.  It is not necessarily required that each parameter be met.  Instead, the organization has to achieve a certain number or percentage to be accredited.   Deviating from an accreditation standard is not nearly the degree of violation it has been represented to be; and Wray presumably had reasons for doing so. The use of special intelligence to look at police employees was discussed in the report with certain theoretical concerns;  but it has not been represented to be illegal to my knowledge.   The RMA report neglects to mention that Wray was one of the key people responsible for the GPD initially attaining accreditation.  Much consternation has been expressed over the “secrecy” of the unit, as if its existence  somehow suggested evil intentions.   But imagine if confidentiality had been breached, and the problems that would have ensued.  The unit's activities had to be secret.

5. The report stressed the importance of assuring fairness in the public sector workplace, and of emphasizing employee rights.  The implication was that Wray’s management of the Hinson/Special Intelligence matter violated these principles.  The report does not indicate, however, that North Carolina is an employment-at-will state, in which private sector employees lose their jobs frequently for little reason, or for no reason at all.  It is difficult, under these circumstances, to muster concern that public sector jobs have to be rendered near untouchable, or that public sector employees cannot be held accountable.   The interests of the general public are nearly lost in this type of discussion.  Moreover, the discussion over employee rights tends to discount the tradition that police departments are typically organized in a quasi-military framework.  There are probably very good reasons this should be the case.

6. The decision to suspend Hinson, and all the other events of early-to-mid June of 2005, will likely be the subject of future Bledsoe reporting.  But Wray was faced with a very difficult quandary once Hinson went to the media.  Even though he perceived problems with Hinson’s behavior as a policeman, he would have to make an incontrovertible case in order to convince Johnson to agree to any personnel action.  Hinson’s continued presence in the department after the media reported the situation likely was going to be a major problem.  How could Wray direct Hinson’s activities under these circumstances without feeling that he was going to be undermined?  Recall that in our local DA’s office, Douglas Henderson fired an assistant DA because she was planning to run in the Democratic primary against him.  He was obviously concerned about the workplace dynamics if she remained on board.  The potential problem Wray faced with Hinson’s continued presence under the circumstances was arguably greater than that which Henderson faced.

7. The report made reference to the “legitimate business relationship between Turnbull and Hinson.”  Ahem.

8. The report emphasizes that Hinson was not a target of the federal investigation.  But was he ever a potential target?  For instance, why was so much information given by the prostitutes against him?  And why was it received by the investigators at such length?

As noted above, I look forward to Jerry Bledsoe’s reporting on the spring and summer of 2005.  This might clarify many of the issues lingering in our minds which cannot be settled by the RMA report.   I have intended for these two extended posts on the RMA report to demonstrate why I felt it was not an objective document, and why I felt it was on track toward a certain outcome.

But several things are becoming increasingly clear-- unless we later learn of serious, unquestioned violations on Wray’s part-- until we see direct evidence.  First, Wray was effectively removed from office by aggrieved subgroups of his employees, and the City Manager and City Council allowed it to happen.  Second, June 2005 was an opportunity to clarify police activities and make adjustments  behind closed doors.  Instead, because of the dysfunctional, distrustful relationships between Johnson, Miles and Wray, the situation was allowed to escalate uncontrollably and to lose all sense of proportion, and an inquisition was launched.  Third, I believe the politics changed dramatically when the allegations were made public.  It was a time when the local political scene became bloodsport, and various imperatives dictated how things had to happen.  Fourth, Johnson was a rookie City Manager when Ed Kitchen was easing out of his position, and this was probably exploited by Wray’s adversaries.   Finally, the handling of this matter was an unfortunate display of cowardice and venality on the part of the City Council.

I will post, according to custom, on Thursday night summarizing Mr. Bledsoe’s new installment.  And thereafter I hope to depart from my recent all-GPD-all-the-time mode, and focus on various local and state issues and races until the election.

Comments

[The CA]

RE: the black book. It is interesting to note that in the Duke rape case, the police included no black persons in the police line up because there was no allegation that the alleged rape involved a black person.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

Joe:

I understand much of your analysis. Point seven got me as well, especially since Bledsoe's series (nine or 10) had lengthy reference to Hinson telling one of the prostitutes "I told you not to get involved with that guy." If he knew the money he got from the home sale was drug money, what "legitimate business relationship" could he possibly have with the dealer?

I can't avoid saying that I don't understand why Wray did not stand up to Johnson and Miles and tell them "Yes I have a line-up book with black officers in it because we have a complaint from a woman against a black officer" instead of playing games and semantics. So far, that is one thing I can see that could lead to the trust issues.

I agree with your characterization of the post-tracking device on Hinson's car period as an "inquisition." It seemed to me from the first story in GNR the articles were framed in a bias way. I emailed John Robinson after one of the first articles and expressed that to him.

Blood-sport is also an apt description of this entire situation.

[Fred Gregory]

Having read the full report as it appears on 101, it srikes me that perhaps the single most grotesque and comical thing in the entire text ( page 9 )from these hired guns ( RMA )was the not so subtle and hyperbolic implication that the Special Intelligence Division under former Chief Wray was somehow eerily similar to " the abuses of the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover " Ooh ! What an overdone sopohmoric characterization from so called objective professionals. Pulleze. Oh, and Joe, hear , hear.

[Jim Caserta]

Sam, the Duke law professor on 60 minutes stated the rape-case lineup was unlawful. The line-up needed to include known innocent people so that there would be a chance for a reliably known error. If there were 70-100 known innocent people in the lineup, the probability of just picking one at random is 2/3 or 3/4 and her picking someone that was not at the party would have immediately cast question on the identification. The police line-up book at least should have included 2-3 times as many random faces. I wouldn't use the duke lacrosse line-up as a legal standard.

The police have a goal of seeing justice, which means finding the guilty and clearing the innocent. How long do departments normally keep line-up books? The line-up serves the goal of a possible identification, but also it is powerful in exonerating an innocent suspect.

[David Hoggard]

You make some excellent observations, Joe. You also make the case (better than anyone) that political context is an important consideration - blood sport is an apt descriptor.

I called Mitch Johnson yesterday to make sure I had my timelines right and for him to explain what happened, in detail, during the events that led to the locking of Wray's office and why it was handled the way it came off.

He said, "I'll tell you, but no one will believe it." And he did. I'll post it soon and I'm sure I'll get labeled as more of a mule for Johnson and Miles than I already have been - but whatever. Facts are verifiable.

My point is this. While all of the sordid details are parsed and the statements are dissected, we are going to get down to this: Did Johnson and the city council lose confidence in David Wray's ability to lead the department?

[Jeffrey Sykes]

David:

I think it is clear Wray mislead his superiors about the book. He is gone. I think folks now need to turn to cleaning up your police department. Who is going to have the guts to clean it up and make the tough political choices to survive the racial outcry without folding?

Johnson? Bellamy? Hinson?

That's where this conversation needs to go.

[David Hoggard]

I'm with you Jeffrey.

[Fred Gregory]

Mule ? No David, scribe would be more accurate. You seem to have unfettered and exclusive access. More so than anyone else.
Why ? The answer is fairly obvious

Not so fast there fella, or should I call you the Queen of Hearts.It is not as clear as you wish it to be. You are swallowing the kool-aid/ snakeoil reoprt at face value. There other folks that could be heard from on the numerous inaccuracies, distortions and in some cases outright fabrications in this document . Not to mention the BS.

[Joe Guarino]

If there was not anything substantively wrong with the use of the line-up book, then whatever Wray and Johnson and the RMA report allege about where it was, and whether it existed, are of less importance. We do not know precisely what Wray knew about it around June of 2005, nor do we know what he represented about it at that time. We need contemporaneous documentation to even begin to address that issue. It will be interesting to see what Bledsoe writes about this question.

And we really do not know whether there was a decrease in trust for Wray as a result of his response to the media allegations. There were already trust issues between Wray and Johnson; and Johnson and the City Council certainly had other potential motives for acting in the manner they did.

In addition to Sam's legal background, we have comments from Fred, who has had a career in law enforcement.

And I would emphasize that this is not even remotely a partisan matter. My recollection is that Wray is a Democrat, and Johnson is a Republican. We are dealing with human nature here, and shades of representation that have not even remotely been verified scientifically.

[Brenda Bowers]

I read the RMA report twice and should have just waited for your digest Joe. It took me quite a while because in memory of my mother I had to keep stopping to wash my mouth out with soap! (Well, actually I used Listerine.)

The question has come up as to where do we go from here. First we have to determine what the motives behind this witch hunt were and we haven't yet found those motives or the culprits. My fondest dream is that the FEDS come in on their white horses and make some mass arrests in City Hall and GPD and then we put David Wray back into the office he was forced out of. He was an exceptional police officer and would be an outstanding Chief of Police if given an honest chance. Perhaps he did make some mistakes in his handling of these problems, but he was under extraordinary pressure and knew he was being prepared for execution. Under these circumstances mistakes would be inevitable.
Thursdays can’t come soon enough for me now. BB

[Bubba]

"There were already trust issues between Wray and Johnson"

Along with Johnson's lack of experience, and his lack of personel management skills, that provides yet another motive for Johnson to want to submarine Wray.

"And I would emphasize that this is not even remotely a partisan matter."

Not within city government, for sure. But for the outside influences who stand to gain from painting Wray as a racist, most certainly it IS a political issue.

[The CA]

Jim, I only referred to the Duke case for the racial aspect- that is that there were no blacks in the lineup because there were no black suspects. The composition of the actual lineup that was used vis-a-vis known suspects vs. stand ins is another matter.

[The CA]

Jim, I only referred to the Duke case for the racial aspect- that is that there were no blacks in the lineup because there were no black suspects. The composition of the actual lineup that was used vis-a-vis known suspects vs. stand ins is another matter.

[The CA]

"Did Johnson and the city council lose confidence in David Wray's ability to lead the department?"

Hoggard, that is an oversimplification. That may be true, but it begs the question "why?" and did they take unreasonable measures and unfairly malign Wray to justify booting him?

Yeah, I know "he resigned", but nobody really believes that he wasn't forced to resign.

[Wendell Sawyer]

Joe:

I enjoyed reading your summary (and commentary) on the RMA report. A few questions come to mind:

1. I have read many comments (both pro and con) about the "RMA report." However, I haven't seen much discussion about the firm, Risk Management Associates, itself. Most of us know that it is a "consulting firm" hired by the city to investigate and compile a report on the David Wray controversy. What (or who) is RMA?

2. Why was this particular firm selected by the city to conduct such an investigation and file a report on Chief Wray?

3. Who were the specific individuals within the city government who promoted the engagement of this specific firm?

4. Who were the specific city leaders who discussed with RMA about the perimeters and the focus of the investigation and the report?

5. Did the city leaders present to RMA a summary of their own concerns regarding Chief Wray before RMA began its work?

6. Did RMA consult with or interview David Wray to ensure a balanced report? If so, did RMA investigate Wray's allegations?

7. What was the total sum paid to RMA for this report?

[The CA]

Wendell asks some good questions. Sounds like he has spent some time in a courtroom and has some experience dealing with "paid" experts.

[Bubba]

Mr. Sawyer's questions deserve answers.

Perhaps Mr. Bledsoe already knows the answers.

If not, perhaps we can impose upon Mr. Hoggard to ask them of Mitch Johnson, et al.

[Joe Guarino]

Wendell, those are great questions. I have wondered about many of them myself. Indeed, we do need to know the answers to the questions you raise. CA talks about the world of paid experts, and unfortunately it is true that sometimes consultants can be hired to assist in arriving at a given conclusion.

I believe Ben Holder has previously posted a while back that the GPD folks under investigation were polygraphed by RMA under duress.

RMA has a website at rmasecurity.com, but of course it will not discuss in a frank way the types of issues you raised.

[Roch101]

Great questions, Wendell.

[David Hoggard]

From the "scribe",

I can partially answer #2 and #3.

Asst. city attorney Blair Carr recommended them to management. She was the police department attorney for another jurisdiction (I forget which) and had worked with RMA before.

On #7... I don't know the total bill, but it was high. They billed @ $140.00 per hr. I'll try to find the total.

Back in May, the N&R published background info on the RMA investigators who handled the GPD investigation... seemed solid to me. I remeber one was former head of internal affairs for the Raleigh PD (But then again, I'm a mouthpiece for city hall, so what do I know?)

I've heard, and so far this is simply hearsay, that city management may have employed a PR firm two weeks before all of the Wray stuff hit the fan. Don't know the significance to all of this, but... worth mention..., er... scribing.

Wendell... good luck in the election.

[David Hoggard]

Oh, and allow me to scribe about #5...

Yes, the city did provide a list of concerns to RMA in advance of their investigations.

Unlike the version of the report posted on GSO101, my copy (yours too, Joe?) contains 45 pages of background investigations and findings that were compiled by the city attorney's office.

Johnson told me that he wanted independent verification of those findings before taking any administrative action.

That's when RMA came into the picture.

[Bubba]

"Johnson told me that he wanted independent verification of those findings before taking any administrative action."

Smells like a smoking gun to me.

[Joe Guarino]

David, my copy of what I am presuming to be the city attorney's report has no cover sheet. It is not labeled, nor is it dated. But if it preceded the RMA report, all I can say is that there were many details included in the city attorney's report that were not addressed in the RMA report. That would not be surprising given the primary focus of the RMA report on Wray's statements during June, 2005.

I have read through the city attorney's report once, and will wade through it further as time permits.

[David Hoggard]

From my understanding, the city attorney's inquiry begins with "I. Inception of Investigation" right after page 29 of RMS's report.

Someone correct me if I'm mistaken.

[Joe Guarino]

I have looked again at my copies. You are right that there is a description of the City Attorney's investigation beginning on page 30 of the RMA report. This suggests the City Attorney's report preceded the RMA report. But I do not see specifically that the RMA report comprehensively sought to verify, or represented that it was independently verifying, the City Attorney's report. Maybe I am missing it, and if I am, please point it out.

[David Hoggard]

I think you've got it right, Joe.

From my read, the city attorney's lengthy inquiry was a used as a source - perhaps a 'jumping-on' place for RMA's investigations.

It is interesting to me that some question Johnson's decision to employ an outside agency to investigate the city attorney's inquiry.

If he had acted on the city attorney's report as a stand-alone, last-word, inquiry, the howls of protest would have been deafening - and with good reason.

But now, because an independent and well-regarded agency was hired for verification, that has only brought that agency and their findings under dispute by many folks with cries of bias.

Damned if you do, but even more damned if you don't - I suppose.

[Joe Guarino]

To avoid that outcome, RMA would have had to produce an unbiased document; and would have needed to produce a document that demonstrated severe, objective wrongdoing on the part of Wray and his subordinates. But it did not do that. It relied on shades of alleged miscommunications, deviations from procedure and other picayune stuff.

[David Hoggard]

So, RMA should have started from scratch and not used the city attorney's inquiries?

Misrepresentation (lying) to your boss is "picayune stuff"?

[Joe Guarino]

We do not know that Wray misrepresented anything to Johnson-- or to anyone. We only know what Johnson has alleged. It is one person's word against another unless Johnson produces contemporaneous documentation.

[meblogin]

..."But now, because an independent and well-regarded agency was hired for verification, "

Please provide the references that support RMA being well regarded.

Could we see a couple of other reports they have prepared in the past few months?

This report is so full of opinions that it reads more like fiction.

thanks,

meblogin

[Joe Guarino]

Meblogin, thanks for your comments, and I tend to agree.

[David Hoggard]

Until this comes out in a court of law we are just pissin' in the wind trying to convince each other of things that are otherwise unprovable.

Each of us has to trust what and who we trust.

Been fun, though.