Observations on the Wray issue

Opinions and rumors are widespread about the recent investigation into the Greensboro Police Department and the resignation of Police Chief David Wray. Those range from praise and support from community members such as Congressman Howard Coble and Albert Som-Pimpong who love and respect the good David Wray they know, from newspaper editors like Allen Johnson who are totally puzzled by his apparent actions, and from other members in our community who are leveling strong charges of systemic racism. Some say the city waited too long to act on officers' complaints; some say the city wasted its time and resources by pursuing this effort, and others charge that the investigation was a politically and/or racially motivated witch hunt. Whether these conclusions and observations are accurate or not, one thing is clear -- Greensboro is deeply divided on yet another issue that is showing us in a harsh light.

While there will probably never be 100% agreement even if all the facts become publicly known, I see many good people reaching erroneous conclusions based on the limited information they do have. That's truly unfortunate, but under the current legal restrictions, that's all that is available at this time. With that in mind, I'll share whatever information I legally can gathered from the city manager's written and oral briefings, newspaper articles, and some personal interpretations in an attempt to clarify some of the key questions and issues.

Why was Chief Wray investigated in the first place? Was it politically motivated?
The investigation focused on allegations of unfair treatment and targeting of black officers within the Greensboro Police Department. Lorraine Ahearn's article in Sunday's News & Record provides a good accounting of the sequence of events that led city officials to take a closer look at those concerns. The initial examination was conducted by the city attorney's office, but once evidence of problems was uncovered, an independent firm from Raleigh headed by a highly-respected retired SBI agent was hired to avoid any conflicts of interest or appearances of bias or favoritism. Those investigators examined the actions of various divisions and officers within the department who were potentially involved in the alleged misdeeds, not just "the man in charge." Chief Wray's misleading statements and questionable actions attracted attention that led to deeper probes, resulting in the eventual report findings.

I strongly disagree with those who are saying this investigation was politically motivated. As I stated above, the investigation originally focused on the DEPARTMENT, not an individual. The city administration (both former city manager Ed Kitchen and new city manager Mitchell Johnson) strongly supported David Wray during his tenure as chief and lost confidence in him only AFTER substantial evidence was presented that implicated him. Councilmembers thought highly of him, and I had heard no criticism of him from my colleagues until this summer after the Hinson tracking incident and the allegations that followed it .

As I stated in a previous post, I know and respect David Wray. As a friend and a member of Greensboro's "police family," I believed that there just had to be a reasonable explanation of the GPD's activities and his actions. Sadly, it appears I was wrong. Believe me, that is an extremely difficult admission for the wife of a retired officer and mother of a current one to make.

What problems are associated with the Special Intelligence Division?
The Special Intelligence Division is responsible for a number of necessary, legitimate functions, including monitoring of gangs and hate groups and providing security for the city council and other dignitaries as needed. Its duties have evolved over the years, and according to Sunday's newspaper article, it was moved under Deputy Chief Brady's direct control in 2004 and began doing corruption investigations of GPD officers, one of the Internal Affairs division's normal duties. The unit was dubbed "the secret police" and black officers have complained they were unfairly targeted by this unit.

Findings in the investigation note that SID was operating outside the normal chain of command and failed to follow established departmental rules and procedures. Credible representatives of outside law enforcement agencies had expressed concerns to Chief Wray, but he neither acted on them nor informed the city manager of those concerns.

Acting Chief Tim Bellamy has reassigned SID to the Criminal Intelligence Division and restructured its duties in order to restore the needed system of "checks and balances" to this process.

How reliable is testimony given against Chief Wray, considering that many of the rank and file officers were unhappy with rotating shifts and may have been "out to get him?"
While I have no doubt there was a wide variety of motives involved, most of the persons who were interviewed are sworn law enforcement officers. Call me naive if you like, but I do rely on their truthfulness and code of ethics to rise above any personal considerations.

Evidence and testimony came from a variety of people (black, white, male, female, various levels of rank) in addition to those who filed the complaints or "had an axe to grind," including:

* officers who were not members of the Greensboro Police Association,
* officers who were not on the rotating schedule because of their rank or work assignment,
* officers who were not involved in any of the incidents or personally affected by them,
* former officers,
* agents of state and federal law enforcement agencies,
* and civilians.

Few, if any, had anything to gain by "taking the chief down" and some likely put their careers on the line by daring to step forward and speak up.

What is the "black book" and how was it used?
The ORIGINAL use of this photo array of 19 black police officers was routine and legitimate -- a tool to assist a female in identifying her alleged assailant after complaining of being fondled and inappropriately touched during a search by a black officer. These photo line-ups of persons who match the general description of a suspect are used frequently in police work. However, it is also standard procedure that the book be dismantled or placed into an evidence file once the victim or witness has reviewed it. If that had been done in this case, there should not have been any problem whatsoever.

However, there is ample evidence that the book was used in inappropriate ways several times in efforts to implicate black officers in exchange for favorable treatment for crime suspects. Why? Is this technique used for white officers as well?

Chief Wray's caginess about the book's existence and his instructions for it to be secured and HIDDEN -- it ended up in the trunk of a Deputy Chief Brady's car -- indicates to me he knew the "black book" and its other uses were not acceptable.

Was the investigation and surveillance of Lt. James Hinson appropriate and justified?
Lt. Hinson underwent a thorough criminal investigation that included outside law enforcement agencies in 2002-03 that examined his interaction with a known drug dealer; he was totally cleared of those charges (meaning "not guilty" for those who have questioned the use of the term "cleared"). He was also cleared in a GPD-conducted administrative investigation in 2004. The Guilford County District Attorney had informed Chief Wray that it would not be involved in any prosecution of Hinson, and that he should look elsewhere (the SBI) for any further investigations of this officer. This important information was not shared with the city manager's office.

In Chief Wray's infamous "connect the dots" statement in his June press conference, he cited an ongoing investigation of Lt. Hinson by outside law enforcement agencies. That statement was false, and the city manager, city council, and the public were deliberately mislead. Why?

There is other evidence of other attempts to "get" Lt. Hinson.

Are these the only problems that were identified?
No. In RMA's second investigative report, there are other findings of significant unequal treatment. I was thoroughly sickened when I was briefed on the specifics of those findings.

Why did the city manager take the unusual steps of restricting the chief's ability to hire/fire/promote and of locking him out of his office instead of outright firing him?
The investigation was still ongoing at the time Mitchell Johnson restricted Chief Wray's authority to make personnel decisions within the GPD. Remember that Mitch had deliberately removed himself from the investigation process and did not have access to the evidence or preliminary findings in that developing document. There were officers within the department who had cooperated with the investigation and the potential existed that they could be inappropriately "punished" using personnel actions. Mitch did not have facts at that point to know if the chief was guilty of anything that would justify firing him, so he moved to protect the officers by inserting a step into the chief's personnel process (i.e., clearing any moves with the city manager first). I believe that to be a responsible move that protected the rights of both the chief and the officers serving under him.

The locking of Chief Wray's office, thus restricting access to his files and computer, was straight out of standard police procedures to protect potential evidence. (The chief still could have entered his office under appropriate supervision.) Mitch met with him on Friday afternoon, presented the report's findings to him, and gave him until Monday morning to respond to and/or dispute those findings prior to any further personnel actions being taken. It makes perfect sense to me that steps were taken to make sure the chief would not be able to remove or alter any potential evidence in his office now that he was aware of the evidence against him. In my opinion, it would not have been appropriate to take disciplinary action against the chief until he had the opportunity to respond and defend himself.

The chief made the decision to resign Monday morning rather than respond to the findings. I'm puzzled as to why he later released his statement about the "black book" to the press instead of submitting it (and other explanations) to the city manager as part of his defense.

There was never any intention to embarrass the chief by publicly announcing the locking of his office. However, someone leaked the information to the press, and it became necessary for Mitch to respond without revealing the findings of the report (which the city council had not at that time approved for public release according to restrictions in the state personnel law).

I am upset by the repeated comments I receive about PERCEPTIONS of Mitch's poor handling of this situation, him making a heavy-handed power play, inappropriately focusing on this issue in the first place, etc. It appears to me that the manager acted professionally at every step of the way, bending over backwards to be fair and protect the rights of all involved, including and especially, Chief Wray's.

Will there be criminal charges filed against Chief Wray or others?
According to the city manager, all the report's findings were administrative in nature, violations of city policies and procedures, but no criminal violations were identified. Thus, the city will not be pursuing criminal action.

However, the FBI is launching an inquiry to see if civil rights violations occurred. The city did not request their involvement; they are pursuing it on their own after federal authorities saw media reports on this matter. They have not requested copies of the city's investigative reports and would have to use a court order to obtain them. (Since the city's investigation was administrative in nature where the rules of evidence are much less restrictive than those in a criminal investigation, state law prohibits the release of administrative findings for use in criminal proceedings unless ordered by the court.) The city has no control or jurisdiction over what the FBI decides to do.

My personal observations --
The media reports have mainly focused on the activities of the Special Intelligence Division, the "black book, the repeated investigations into Lt. Hinson that led to the chief's resignation. Those issues are indeed disturbing and they must be addressed.

[I offer the following comments as a private individual, not as an elected official who has no legal jurisdiction over this personnel matter.]

Just as disappointing to me is the chief's (and others') apparent actions to mislead the manager, city council and the public about their activities and cover them up. Citizens expect our police officers to be shining examples of honesty and integrity, to live and breathe the standards they are expected to enforce on citizens. Even if reasonable explanations could be offered in defense of the offensive actions that have been documented, my trust and confidence in David Wray has been destroyed by the untruths and cover-up attempts.

Assistant City Manager Bob Morgan summed it up nicely in a conversation with me last week -- "There are plenty of city employees who have goofed up or made errors in judgment who continue to be city employees because they acknowledged those mistakes, accepted responsibility for them, and worked to correct them. "

If only....

I am just as puzzled, shocked, saddened, disappointed, frustrated, sickened (take your pick) by the allegations and findings as you are. I don't have any good responses for the comments and questions such as "How and why could this have happened?" or "There has to be a mistake, there's no way someone this caring and respected could have done these things!" What I DO know is that we cannot ignore this situation and hope it will go away -- we have to acknowledge it and find ways to work together to repair the damage.