Assistant Chief Ron Rogers has sued the city over his previous suspension. Jordan Green reports regarding the city's response, which includes the following:
Rogers was disciplined following the investigation of a sexual harassment complaint brought against him by a female subordinate officer [Marrow, who is married to another police officer in the department, as is Rogers.] Pursuant to the city's personnel policies, investigation of the complaint was assigned to two investigators, one from human resources and the other from the legal department. During the course of the investigation, both Rogers and the female officer (among others) were interviewed and cell phone records were reviewed. Rogers admitted that he had participated in numerous text and cell phone communications with the female officer, both while she was on duty and off duty. He admitted that they communicated about things outside of work such as her marital problems and dissatisfaction with her sex life. He admitted that he had called her after he had been drinking alcohol to talk about personal matters and that there were rumors circulating in the department about the two of them. He admitted that he had invited her to the [Central Intercollegiate Athletic Association] tournament in Charlotte and that she had told him that if she came to Charlotte she was not going to "give him any." When asked if he would be comfortable with his wife knowing the content of the communications with the female subordinate officer, Rogers acknowledged that she would not be pleased that he "messed up." Overall, however, Rogers maintained that the conversations between the female officer and himself were welcomed by her and were the communications of two consenting adults. He did not, apparently, take into consideration the disruption to the department that resulted from rumors of their relationships and the subordinate female's subsequent sexual harassment complaint. Even so, Rogers admitted that by virtue of his position as assistant chief, he is held to the highest standards of behavior.
I think it is important to note that, as far as I know, Rogers is still employed with the city, and has not been demoted. He only had a brief suspension.
Last year, when the A.J. Blake situation was brewing, Mike Barber asked a question during a council meeting that, by my recollection, incredulously inquired as to what level of offense is required to get a Greensboro police officer fired or demoted. Now, since then, we have seen hired our new city manager and Mr. Speedling; and it appears we have similar problems with the Rogers case.
What should Greensboro citizens expect of its police officers-- and especially of its command staff? Would most private employers have allowed Rogers to retain his position, given the circumstances in the above passage?
Remember the manner in which sexual harassment was talked up during the early 1990's. It became the cause du jour after the Clarence Thomas/ Anita Hill hearings. In the city of Greensboro, however, it appears that gender politics is bumping directly up against racial identity politics; and it is evident that the latter has won out.
When a person in a high supervisory position who can exert power over a subordinate (and affect their career) engages in sexually oriented behavior with a subordinate it is a de facto abuse of power. A subordinate is unconsciously coerced to participate or else risk a career. Hence the original sexual harassment complaint.
This is the same kind of forced sexual activity we saw in a presidential power-monger, Bill Clinton.
People who do this have no place in a leadership position in government.
Posted by: jaycee | July 27, 2010 at 12:31 PM
Seems there has to have been "some" sexual conversation as she had to go to the extreme to tell him "he aint getting any!" Or, well maybe they were talking about snickers bars! Right! Beau
Posted by: Beau D. Jackson | July 27, 2010 at 02:43 PM
she was not going to "give him any."
What a tool this fool is! Is this really the type of conversation we would expect a person of reasonable professional responsibility have?
Posted by: blah blah blah | July 27, 2010 at 02:45 PM
I agree, Jaycee. It is interesting that when sexual harassment is committed by someone perceived to be a conservative figure, it has been depicted as an outrage. But if it is committed by someone perceived to be within the liberal/Democratic coalition, it is regarded as less problematic.
Beau and blah, if the city's description of events is anywhere close to the truth, the whole thing is pretty worrisome.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 27, 2010 at 03:27 PM
Joe, as always, my time in the old hometown is the prism though which I view stuff like this.
First of all, what does it say about our legal system that a lawyer will (and can) actually file a lawsuit of this nature? Or that, given the facts on record, the city actually has to spend time and money defending it?
As for sexual entanglements in the workplace, I once worked for a local hospital whose Chief of Obstetrics was openly conducting an extramarital affair with one of the LDRP nurses on the unit (children were involved on both sides of the equation).
As a female physician on staff, I confronted him about his behavior - and made a mortal enemy for my trouble. Hospital officials turned a BLIND EYE until they could not anymore (after all, he was a big money-maker for the hospital) - in this case when the nurse turned on the doctor when he would not leave his wife - and after he aborted their baby at home without benefit of anesthesia.
His privileges were not revoked until he was disciplined by the Medical Board.
(Yet yours truly was fired after saving the life of the child of one of his practice's patients - makes PERFECT SENSE to me).
The OB resigned his practice and ultimately left town. The cherry on the topping of this story is that the nurse/doctor divorced their respective spouses and got married.
The affair (which definitely affected morale on the unit) is one of a number of things about which I was unhappy (the uglier aspects I did not know about until after the fact and I had already been fired) - and complained about - only to be told to shut-up or else.
It was all so "embarrassing" for the hospital.
These things are a matter of record at the Asheboro Courthouse and with the Medical Board - if anyone cares to check their facts.
And I know that, most of the time, they do not.
The moral of my story (no pun intended) is that sexual misconduct - in any venue (public or corporate) - only matters if one gets caught. Nothing surprises me any more.
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | July 27, 2010 at 03:32 PM
Let me get this straight... the Assistant Chief (who has a pending lawsuit citing discrimination even though he was promoted to this position by the department he cites as a problem) KEEPS his job, his salary and ranking... while the woman he played text tag... and who knows what else with.. gets terminated???? Niiiiiice.....
Posted by: Holly Wood | July 27, 2010 at 03:48 PM
Mary, that type of thing has been known to have occurred in the medical field.
"First of all, what does it say about our legal system that a lawyer will (and can) actually file a lawsuit of this nature? Or that, given the facts on record, the city actually has to spend time and money defending it?"
I agree with that statement wholeheartedly, Mary. It is utterly wrong that this suit was filed, and that the city has to defend it.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 27, 2010 at 03:48 PM
Holly, that would be a pretty serious injustice. And yes, we should not forget the fact that he is one of the approximately 40 officers that initiated the original EEOC-related suit against the city.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 27, 2010 at 04:07 PM
It is a given that these events occurred prior to the administration of Rashad Young as city manager. But it now is clearly his responsibility, directly or indirectly, to see that it is dealt with properly. Given this backdrop, it soon will be very clear what the future holds under Mr. Young and the new police chief. Hoping for the best.
Posted by: Ken Hill | July 27, 2010 at 05:20 PM
"I agree, Jaycee. It is interesting that when sexual harassment is committed by someone perceived to be a conservative figure, it has been depicted as an outrage. But if it is committed by someone perceived to be within the liberal/Democratic coalition, it is regarded as less problematic."
The Republican Party holds itself out as the party of "Family Values". There has been plenty of implication here that the local liberal churches are inferior in morality to conservative churches. If you hold yourself up to be the moral party, you are going to get it when someone is caught (George Alan Rekers, Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, Newt G (a three time winner), Mark Sanford, John Ensign, David Vitter, etc....). Dems don't claim the moral authority like Repubs do, plain and simple.
Posted by: Sgt. Slaughter | July 27, 2010 at 05:34 PM
Sarge, I got so ashamed at the number of such incidents in both parties that I now am registered unaffiliated. Those rascals cannot take my loyalty for granted. For the reasons stated, My choice for President was Mike Huckabee. Looks like those of similar persuasion are very few.
Posted by: Ken Hill | July 27, 2010 at 05:38 PM
"If you hold yourself up to be the moral party, you are going to get it when someone is caught....."
Which party has been responsible for the most damage to the cause of family values over the last half century?
Posted by: bubba | July 27, 2010 at 05:54 PM
"Dems don't claim the moral authority like Repubs do, plain and simple."
I'm not trying to play "gotcha", I'm just amused by that statement (and for the record, I've been registered as unaffiliated for years - having been screwed over royally by both political parties - Republicans at the local level and Dems in Raleigh & Washington). But I do seem to recall that a certain never-ending Democratic Presidential candidate from North Carolina and (his saintly wife) ran on the family values theme . . . and exuded all kinds of moral authority . . .
. . . until the Enquirer (as opposed to the N&R or the N&O) caught him with the love-child.
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | July 27, 2010 at 06:03 PM
The question you might ask yourself Dr. Guarino is what value do you place in the US Constitution? That document provides the right of procedural due process for American citizens, which includes police officers- even the ones who allegedly screw up.
Jordan Green reports the City's position is that the "Manual for Personnel Administrations makes clear that he (the City Manager) will bypass the regular hearing procedure if he believes, as here, that it is in the best interest of the city." First: You better double check the manual to make sure it actually says that! Even if it does, a recusal is a reasonable request don't you think to help satisfy due process? The City of Greensboro local government is not a dictatorship, right?
I'm afraid you could be disappinted here because the City will never go to court on a due process violation that is so clearly evident. Even junior high students in America know that a judge doesn't hand down a sentence and then hear the appeal! Do you find any coincedence that Terry Wood announced his retirement? Do you find any coincedence that sweeping changes have been announced recently to address deficiencies in the disciplinary process in the COG? Many of the changes stem from managers making bad decisions related to their employees, not the other way around.
Posted by: Karen | July 27, 2010 at 06:33 PM
With sympathies for the lack of due process (even if allowed by city rules), a standard that allows an employee to be disciplined for actions that "discredit the employee" is pretty darn vague and ripe for selective application.
Posted by: Roch101 | July 27, 2010 at 06:57 PM
Karen, due respect, I'm in this blogosphere because I NEVER got a fair hearing (not once) or "due process" from a "non-profit" (after I was fired for doing the right thing). In fact, my entire experience with both the hospital referenced above and now the Randolph County's DA's office has been a "due process violation".
Yet lawyers (not to mention noble defenders of the right of the public to have access to public records) right here in this blogosphere have sneered and spit at me.
On the other hand, this police officer can have sex with a subordinate and be promoted within the Department and still have an ambulance-chaser present a complaint that presents the ridiculous and frivolous allegation that he was discriminated against? And expect the taxpayer to eat it? At you kidding me?
I'm a just a little bit sick and tired of people who behave reprehensibly having all the rights.
"Allegedly screw up"??? Huh?
There are standards of professional behavior that, if not met, merit suspension/termination. PERIOD. It appears to me from what I've read so far that this police officer got a fair review.
OBTW, last I heard, North Carolina is a "right-to-work" state. An employer can fire you if your nose is blue and they don't like blue.
If the "sweeping changes" in the disciplinary process did not include very clear guidelines to employees as to what is right and what is wrong and what will not be tolerated (and will get them fired without much discussion), then there's still work to be done.
I have to wonder what is going on in our junior-highs and law schools these days that the U.S. Constitution can be interpreted in the fashion it has been here?
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | July 27, 2010 at 07:04 PM
I'm hating it for Rogers' wife, who I know and like, a lot. Sometimes we forget the family members and the effect that this kind of very public situation has on them. I'm not suggesting that the City should hide anything, just saying that I'm sad for her.
Posted by: michele | July 27, 2010 at 08:10 PM
All of you angry bloggers could have your way with Mr. Rogers if only he had been given due process which would have allowed him to question witnesses, including the City Manager. In the court system he will be able to question any and all of the City employees prior to any judgement. All of you seem to wish he could just be fired without exhausting his constitutional rights! Doesn't make sense. Are you tired of people having constitutional rights Dr. Johnson? For all you know some of the officers that you dislike may have taken criminals off the street that could have harmed you or your loved ones at some point in time. Yet, you want to fire immediately for a irresponsible alleged relationship that hasn't run its course in the disciplinary process. Prove Mr. Rogers shouldn't have due process and I'll be satisfied. Remember, its almost guaranteed by the US Constitution.
Posted by: Karen | July 27, 2010 at 08:19 PM
By the way Dr. Johnson, what do you mean exactly by "US Constitution can be interpreted in the fashion it has been here?" Explain for clarity and I'll address it by Amendment, Chapter, and legal precedent.
Posted by: Karen | July 27, 2010 at 08:22 PM
Karen, it appears that if the US Constitution guarantees citizens due process rights, and that limits the ability of employers to terminate employees, then there are many employees of private businesses being fired every day in violation of the Constitution. Somehow, I doubt it. In fact, the premise is absurd. I am afraid we have created far too many procedural protections for civil service employees; and African-American civil service employees enjoy additional protection because of their race.
Ken, I am not overly optimistic about the future of the GPD when I see how the Rogers situation has been handled.
Sarge, if we are concerned about equality, then we should be willing to discipline offenses consistently regardless of whether we perceive there has been hypocrisy, and regardless of what the perceived political affiliation might be.
Mary, I fear that the changes in the disciplinary process might be merely cosmetic, and might have little real teeth. And yes, it is insane that an Assistant Chief can sue his employer after having his wrist slapped for an offense that seems to have warranted more severe discipline.
Michele, I agree. I feel badly for his wife, also.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 27, 2010 at 08:44 PM
Michelle, I don't like it when family gets caught in the crossfire either. Of course, I have a lot of personal experience with that. My Mom and Dad suffered horribly for/with me.
Karen, in an employment situation, you work at the pleasure of your employer and you follow their rules. A job is not "property". Rogers was not deprived of his freedom. As I understand it, he did not even lose a job.
Please don't twist what I'm saying here. I think North Carolina could stand some reform and protections for employed professionals - especially professionals with special duties. I'm most certainly an advocate of due process and fair hearings (especially since I didn't get any such thing in Asheboro - despite the government agreement that I was recruited under having that requirement). But if you, as a professional (particularly a professional with power over others) brazenly break the rules - especially in a fashion that might get your employer/city sued - and there's good evidence of conduct unbecoming, then's that's pretty much the ballgame.
Employers cannot hold a tiny "trial" every time they have to make a disciplinary decision.
Rogers was interviewed. He admitted to what he did. He knew it was wrong. Interview witnesses? Question "any and all city employess prior to judgement"??? Why? Again, as I understand it, he was NOT fired, only suspended. For clarity. where's the lack of due process?
Feel free to quote whatever you'd like to quote. I'm sure we'd all love to hear it. Tell us why the city of Greensboro and its citizens should have to put up with garbage like this in the Police Department. And pay the bill?
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | July 27, 2010 at 08:48 PM
Dr. Johnson,
Have you ever heard of the legal term "property interest"? I believe you will find it in the Fourteenth Amendment. Government employees, whether you agree with it or not, can be found to have a "property interest" in thier job as if they own it and therefore they cannot be deprived of it without due process. While the State of NC is an at will employment state, many government employees in this at will state have a property interest in their jobs. These are facts that you cannot debate. You can disagree with the Fourteenth Amendment though. But, how would you like it if you werent allowed to finish telling us why you don't like the Fourteenth Amendment? In a sense, that would be similar to a due process violation. Because I don't want to hear anymore from you, I tell you that you cannot finish your sentence. What happened to Ron Rogers? We wasn't able to properly finish the disciplinary process afforded him by the City, not you. No he wasn't fired, but I thought that's what you bloggers wanted. He wanted a fair hearing and full disciplinary process I suspect to clear his name if possible. At least thats what the lawsuit seems to suggest. Thank you.
Posted by: Karen | July 27, 2010 at 09:22 PM
michelle, you make a very important point, especially with respect to what we might call "traditional Christianity" based on literal Biblical interpretations. It is that the innocent always suffer as the result of sin, with Christ as the most significant example.
Posted by: Ken Hill | July 27, 2010 at 09:25 PM
The Fourteenth Amendment does not differentiate between public and private employees, as far as I know.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 27, 2010 at 09:30 PM
"All of you angry bloggers could have your way with Mr. Rogers if only he had been given due process...."
"He wanted a fair hearing and full disciplinary process I suspect to clear his name if possible."
Tell us specifically how was he denied "due process" and a "fair hearing" under the law.
Posted by: bubba | July 27, 2010 at 09:35 PM
Karen, I will say to you the same thing I said to Brandon a few days ago. Please do not put words in my mouth.
OBTW, it's not your blog and I don't care if you don't want to hear from me. I seem to be completing sentences just fine - with periods and everything.
Or maybe not
Read for comprehension. I'm not debating the 14th Amendment. I'm debating you.
And I am, in fact, VERY familiar the with 14th Amendment. And the 5th. And the 6th.
And, As I indicated, NONE of them apparently applied to a doctor in state and Federal public service working for a "non-profit" in Asheboro who was fired without a hearing or due process or recourse or review for saving a child's life.
Based on your statements here, I'm supposing you would agree that a physician recruited back to her hometown with taxpayer-dollars to serve-the-underserved might have a "property interest" in her job/practice? Yes? You might also extrapolate that, as a citizen defrauded of fair restitution for the loss of said property interests by perjury/contempt/fraud in a civil action, might have good reason to be pissed off and want to see the CRIME prosecuted?
Because nobody in government oversight or law enforcement cared in 1998. They don't care now (pssst . . . Roch doesn't either but it's a secret).
In stark contrast, this poor-put-upon Greensboro police officer was interviewed, he admitted to his transgressions - which are supported by both the evidence obtained during a departmental review AND the testimony of the subordinate he harrassed. Again, he was not fired. There's nothing "vague" or "selective" about it. Moreover, he was only suspended. There's been NO loss of property (unless you count beer money).
I know I'm a really stupid blogger and cannot complete sentences and everything, but I'm still not getting the due-process violation. So maybe you could explain it to me like I'm a five-year-old?
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | July 27, 2010 at 10:36 PM
Which party has been responsible for the most damage to the cause of family values over the last half century?* Bubba
Easy! Your neo-con party Bubba. It's not the numbers, Bubba but it's the hypocrisy that just keeps on giving! The examples just keep poping up in your party everyday...
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/smith-had-affair-with-580581.html
Posted by: Focus On The Hypocrites | July 29, 2010 at 12:31 AM
Focus, strictly speaking, we are all hypocrites. Every one of us falls short in some way. But there is one political party that has done far more damage on matters related to life, marriage and family from the standpoint of policy.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 29, 2010 at 08:52 AM
"All of you seem to wish he could just be fired without exhausting his constitutional rights!" -- Karen
Not all.
Posted by: Roch101 | July 29, 2010 at 09:16 AM
Karen, can you cite a court case which specifically makes these 5th and 14th Amendment protections legally applicable to an in-house admin (non-criminal, non-courtroom) action by a police department?
Posted by: jaycee | July 29, 2010 at 11:25 AM
To hopefully clear some things up, the due process provision implicated here is substantive due process. Our courts have held over and over again, that in our state, Public employees do not have a property interest in continued employment, unless done so by Ordinance. The issue Mr. Rogers is raising is Substantive due process by which avenue he can argue that once given "process" it must be fair and not arbitrary and/or capricious. To give him his position back based on what has been released is a joke.
Joe, a few weeks ago, I posted about the GPD disciplinary process and legal flaws therein. This is a case wherein Mr. Rogers is raising that very issue - basically stating that his appeal can't fairly be held by someone wo has already decided his fate. In his case, I think he has problems because Mr. Young reduced the discipline, taking the sting out of the argument. Please do not get me wrong. I am not supporting his cause nor condoning his law suit. For whatever it is worth though, he has a lawyer who is very good in this field. Perhaps the scariest part of this whole mess is that he attained that rank to begin with.
Posted by: william hill | July 29, 2010 at 09:07 PM
Thank you, Mr. Hill. And I'd have to agree with your last sentence.
Your analysis of this situation is all the more interesting to me because the hospital that did me wrong in Asheboro fell all over itself insisting that it was not a "public entity", but a PRIVATE "not-for-profit" (translation, they were not subject to public records laws, etc.).
It seemed to suit their purposes at the time.
The thing is that I also labored under a Federal agreement (dare I liken it to an ordinance?) which specifically said that, (1) adequate peer review mechanisms (which include due process - due process I never got) had to be in place, and (2) my practice was mine to transition if I wished . . . and that transition could not be interfered with or impeded in any way by the hospital.
Of course, the government being the government, that aspect of the agreement was not ever enforced by the government.
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | July 29, 2010 at 09:41 PM
Thanks, William, for your very interesting comments.
Posted by: Joe Guarino | July 29, 2010 at 10:24 PM
Dr. Johnson: I do not know enough about your situation to comment. However, I wish you the best.
Posted by: william hill | July 30, 2010 at 08:18 PM
Thank you, William. That's actually to your credit - considering that there are some in this blogosphere in the same boat, who have still felt the need to let fly with the negative commentary.
Their ignorance has not been my bliss.
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson | July 30, 2010 at 08:42 PM