Bad Links?
Other glitches?
Notify Webmaster

Chief shut down F’ville K-9 unit for spite?

By BEN NELMS
bnelms@TheCitizenNews.com

Is former Fayetteville Police Officer David Neal just another disgruntled employee with an axe to grind or is the grievance he filed in October 2001 another example of a hostile and threatening work environment that extended from former Police Chief Johnny Roberts all the way to City Hall?

Neal served as a patrol officer and K-9 animal handler from late 1998 until the day in mid-October 2001 when he received a letter from City Manager Joe Morton stating that the city would not accept his grievance that cited numerous policy violations by then-Chief Roberts and Maj. Steve Ledbetter.

In a heavily detailed Oct. 12, 2001, written grievance to Morton citing numerous violations against Roberts and Ledbetter, Neal provided a chronology that began with a confidential conversation with Ledbetter that resulted 10 days later in the temporary suspension of the department’s K-9 program, of which Neal was one of three members.

The days in between, Neal said, he encountered deceit, dishonesty, fabrications of the truth, loss of self-control, irrational behavior and job threats from Roberts and Ledbetter.

Morton returned the Oct. 12, 2001, grievance without acting upon it, stating in an Oct. 16, 2001, letter that the city’s policy requirements for filing a grievance had not been met.

Morton strongly encouraged Neal to attempt to resolve the problems with Roberts and Ledbetter. Neal resigned upon receipt of Morton’s response letter.

A copy of Neal’s grievance, obtained by The Citizen under the Georgia Open Records law, alleged five departmental code of conduct violations and 10 departmental standard operating procedures (SOP) violations by Roberts and Ledbetter.

Cited in chronological order, the grievance referenced a Sept. 26, 2001, meeting with Ledbetter, an Oct. 1, 2001, meeting with Roberts, a second meeting with Roberts on Oct. 3, 2001, and concluded with Special Order 10-10 on Oct. 5, 2001, in which the K-9 program was temporarily suspended.

Neal said he met with Ledbetter at the major’s request on Sept. 26 regarding a recently completed survey of all officers of the department.

“Maj. Ledbetter asked me to speak freely and honestly without concerns of disciplinary action or other negative repercussions and he assured me that my comments would remain anonymous,” said Neal. “Relying on his assurance of confidentiality, I spoke honestly and candidly for more than an hour on of my views and perspectives on the department.”

Neal said he heard nothing else of his conversation with Ledbetter until Oct. 1, when he was called to a meeting in Chief Roberts’ office and “was confronted with my criticisms expressed to Maj. Ledbetter under promises of anonymity.”

“Chief Roberts had in his possession a written summary of my comments Maj. Ledbetter claimed I’d made,” said Neal, adding that his name was clearly on the document along with the other officers who had taken part in interviews with Maj. Ledbetter.

“Chief Roberts was not concerned with Maj. Ledbetter’s method of extracting my thoughts and opinions. He focused more on the fact that I had the audacity to criticize the administrative aspects of the department, after being asked to do so by a superior officer,” the grievance said.

“Chief Roberts told me that my comments had angered him and that he’d come close to firing me on the previous Friday when he first reviewed Maj. Ledbetter’s written summary.”

Following his conversation with Roberts, Neal filed a written complaint against Ledbetter and gave it to Roberts.

The complaint, also obtained by The Citizen, addressed Ledbetter’s “blatant dishonesty and the fabricated statements he’s claimed I’d made in his written report to Chief Roberts.”

Though he requested a written response to the complaint, Neal said Roberts chose to respond verbally in an Oct. 3 meeting with the officer. Neal’s grievance indicated that Ledbetter, Lt. Lynn Crawshaw and Maj. Harold Simmons were also present at the meeting.

Contacted earlier this week, Simmons acknowledged that he was present at the meeting and substantiated Neal’s allegations.

During the Oct. 3 meeting Neal asserted that Roberts “verbally assaulted” him, stating that his complaint was unfounded and that he had wasted Robert’s time and that of the department.

Roberts said that “if I filed a complaint of this type in the future, termination proceedings would begin immediately against me.”

Roberts added that Neal obviously had a problem following orders, according to the grievance.

At the end of the meeting, Neal said he left Robert’s office and began his patrol duties. Shortly after going on duty, Neal said he was called back to the department and spoke with Crawshaw and Simmons.

Crawshaw said “she had been told to ask me if I had a tape recording device hidden on my person during the meeting with Chief Roberts,” the grievance said.

Two days after the meeting Neal was informed that Roberts had suspended the department’s K-9 unit. The unit was composed of Neal and two other officers. Special Order 01-10 was presented to Neal by Maj. Simmons.

The order, also obtained by The Citizen, specified that effective Oct. 5, all K-9 activities were temporarily suspended until further notice. “Maj. Simmons informed myself and the two other K-9 officers that this was due to the events that transpired in the (Oct. 3) meeting.

Special order 01-10 also stated that, effective Oct. 5, Neal could not longer drive his patrol car home to Pike County, even though Neal had been allowed to do so prior to the Oct. 3 meeting with Roberts.

A significant portion of the grievance contained Neal’s comments on his treatment by Roberts and Ledbetter and the ways that treatment had negatively impacted his job. He cited his first-hand experience of deceit, deviousness, irrational behavior and revenge.

“The manner in which my complaint (against Ledbetter) was ‘handled’ was absurd. The presence of the supervisor, who was the subject of the complaint, was completely inappropriate,” the grievance stated.

“The desire of Chief Roberts to violently berate a subordinate by attacking to the point of losing all self-control and do so before an audience of my peers is deeply disturbing to me,” Neal wrote.

“As a superior officer, Maj. Ledbetter’s deceit has compromised the integrity of every officer under him and has undermined the value of quality leadership in the police department,” Neal said.

“His actions were devious and deliberate, and his willingness to carry out such a contemptuous scheme against a subordinate officer damages my trust beyond repair,” Neal’s complaint said. “Clearly it would be understandable to think that this is of a concern not only to myself but also to other officers as well as the citizens of Fayetteville.”

“As for Chief Roberts, I am convinced that his actions amply demonstrate his obvious inability to control his temper. I do not wish to be placed at risk because others are afraid to speak their mind out of fear of the consequences within the police department. Chief Roberts disabled an entire and invaluable section of the police force (two days after the Oct. 3 meeting) in order to carry out his irrational revenge for my daring to speak my mind when asked to do so by a superior officer and for having filed a complaint against Maj. Ledbetter,” Neal wrote.

“The decision to remove the dogs from the road punished all three K-9 officers for violating no policy, procedure or law. I believe Chief Roberts’ behavior is at times irrational and out of control,” Neal wrote.

“I am outraged at Maj. Ledbetter’s actions; it is difficult to be outraged by the chief’s actions because his behavior was so incredibly irrational. I am, however, shocked and alarmed.”

Neal’s grievance letter cited numerous alleged code of conduct violations by Roberts and Ledbetter. Those included Basic Employment Standards Number 1, Section 1.02 Unbecoming Conduct, Section 1.21A Abuse of Position, Section 1.25 Courtesy and Section 1.26 Requests for Assistance. Most of the 10 alleged SOP violations included Neal’s comments explaining the reason for his grievance.

Neal said he was subject to a violation of Section 5-1(III,C) Unlawful Harassment: conduct that has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive work environment; Section 5-8(5) regarding the prohibition of retaliation against an employee for filing a harassment complaint; Section 19-6(6) regarding internal investigations where it is the duty of employees to report violations that come to their attention; Section 19-7(1) requiring a written response to a complaint; and Section 19-8(2) relating to the questioning of persons that might have information relevant to an investigation.

Section 19-8(4) concerns the review of evidence to determine if an employee’s action was appropriate or in violation of laws or policies; Section 19-2(II) regarding the department’s policy to investigate all complaints; 19-8(9b) relating to unfounded allegations or complaints or those that lack credible evidence; Section 6-2(IV,A,1) which states that each member of the department “is charged with the responsibility to conduct themselves in accordance with the law, code of Conduct and department policy rules and regulations.”

The final violation, Section 19-3(2) alleged by Neal states, “The Chief of Police has the overall responsibility for the effective and professional administration of the complaint process.”

In his grievance, Neal did not request that the two ranking officers be suspended or fired or suffer some form of disciplinary adverse action. He did ask that a “thorough investigation of the matter set forth be conducted by an external and unbiased agency.” He requested the right to call witnesses that may have had similar experiences and that they be allowed to speak freely without repercussions.

Unmistakable throughout the grievance was his accounting of workplace hostility and his claim that the actions of Roberts and Ledbetter were those of deceit, threat and retribution.

“The incidents described (in the grievance) have had a tremendous affect on my ability to perform my duties as a Fayetteville Police Officer without feeling concerned about my future within the department. The utter disregard for policies and procedures by Chief Roberts and the administration of the department has shattered any faith I had in my superiors and has caused concern with numerous officers within the department,” the grievance said.

In his Oct. 16, 2001, response to Neal’s written grievance, Morton said he had reviewed the information provided and had determined that it did not meet the procedural requirements outlined in the city’s grievance policy, Section 11.010 Grievance Procedures.

“Specifically, the grievance statement must state the specific claim and the specific relief desired. Although your letter alleges a number of violations of Police Department and City of Fayetteville Policies, it does not specifically state how you have been negatively impacted or the specific relief desired,” Morton replied.

In his letter, Morton said the city encourages all employees to make every effort to resolve any grievance informally before initiating a formal process. “I would strongly encourage you to make a concerted effort to resolve these issues with Major Ledbetter and Chief Roberts prior to initiating the formal grievance process.”

Morton added that he was returning the grievance and complaint letter along with his response to Neal. Copied at the end of the response letter was Chief Roberts.

Neal resigned the day he received Morton’s Oct. 16, 2001, response letter.

Roberts submitted his retirement request May 19 with no explanation offered by the mayor and city council. Ledbetter resigned the same day.