8/6/2019 REYES- October 25,2010 Complaint Discrimination and retaliation by Chief of Police Ken Miller

1/6

.

R . E C E I V E DPo li ce Depar tmen tC ity o f G re en sb oro O C T 2 5 2 0 1 0

C i ~ M a n a g e f s O f f i c eOcto ber 2 5, 2 01 0

[",< ~ : : : ; . ~ i )TO : C ity M anager, Rashad Young (Through Channels) 7" wled gem en t, a nd fo rw ard 'W i th i n a .reasonable perio d of tim e." T his docum ent is addres~ ~.~tity M anager R ashad Young.throughchannels, w hich m eans it w ill be subm itted throu~y'chain of com mand to you, Mr. Young .

f;,''.,(', (" '

8/6/2019 REYES- October 25,2010 Complaint Discrimination and retaliation by Chief of Police Ken Miller

2/6

2

~ .

In ad ditio n, C ity P olicy H -l S ectio n 6.3 D isc iplin ary A ctio n A ppeal P ro cess S ection E Step 5states, " App eals bey on d the D epu ty or a n app ro priate A ssista nt C ity M a nag er are app ealab le toth e C ity M a nag er o nly incases o f dism issal o r th ose inv olv ing a D ep artm ent D irector."O n Septem ber 3, 2010, I subm itted a disciplinary appeal docum ent to you for the follow ingreasons:

The discipline im posed upon m e is an act of retaliation for reporting acts {Qf,..d is crim i na tio n, e tc . to in clu de As sis ta nt C h ie f C ro tts c on do nin g n on -s up erv iso ry o :t;p .~ ep s)fo llow , m onitor and "shadow" m e. These officers' actions were in r espons~ \wmere po rting a p ossible exc essiv e fo rce on ano the r officer ag ainst a citizen. 1 ).~~ ~ 6o vertactio ns (by o ffic ers) w ere also u tilized in a n a ttem pt to d etrim en ta lly a g ~ . e f ) f u yworkstatus. T hese actions appear to be a direct l ink to imp ro pe r me th od s o t'-t\b Iu to rin g, e tc .alleged b y th i r ty nine (39) m inority officers in on-going litigatio~}:~ tli the C ity ofG reensboro . The discipline im posed upon m e is re taliation ( e ( r ~ t f u . g to a dd itio na la lle ga tio ns I h av e m a de to in clu de in tim id atio n, a ga in st A ssis~ ~A ,9 fe f C ro tts.

e I am b ein g d isc rim in ate d a nd re ta lia te d a ga in st. h ~ " ' 1 : . > ' "De ce ptio n o f th e emp lo yee b y th e p oly gra ph o pe ra to r.

O n or about Septem ber 15, 2010, Officer M .D . R oyal w as reinstated to work by Police ChiefK en M iller. O fficer R oyal had been suspended and recommended for term ination by InterimC hie f C ro tts. T his w as d ue to tru th fu ln ess alle ga tio ns ag ain st O ffic er R oy al ap pa re ntly co nfirm edby O fficer R oyal's polygraph results. T o m y know ledge, C hief M iller brought O fficer R oyalback to w ork w ith out a departm en tal G en eral B oard of Inquiry H earing. A pparently, the tw o (2)issues C hief M iller had w ith the p olygraph test (as given to th e N eigh borho od C ongress) is w hy

8/6/2019 REYES- October 25,2010 Complaint Discrimination and retaliation by Chief of Police Ken Miller

4/6

, .

4

O ffic er R oy al w as rein stated . In fact, they would have to have been, because Chief M illerco ntin ues to assert th at no th in g w as d on e inth e p oly gra ph th at w ould c on stitu te a n in ve stig atio no f th e p oly gra ph o pera to rs an d th ose re sp on sib le fo r th e p olyg ra ph o pe rato r's ac tio ns.It sh ou ld b e n oted th at th e p olyg rap h o perato r comm itted th e sam e "v io lation s" ag ain st m e as hed id O ffic er R oya l, a s it re la tes to th e p olyg ra ph . T ho se tw o v io latio ns b ein g:

O fficer Royal and I had approximately the same pre polygraph test tim e, prior to t p . ! t . .actual test beingadm inistered. ,,' . h..: ; : i / . T he polygraph operator engaged ind ece ptio n w hen a dm in isterin g th e te st to m e. { S : S ?