Public Enemy Number 1

-----Original Message----- From: ben holder To: ken.miller ; michael.speedling Sent: Sun, Jan 29, 2012 11:07 pm


Greetings!


On Jan. 10, 2006, a document called a memorandum of understanding was created by the City of Greensboro and signed by James Hinson and Mitchell Johnson. The understanding was Hinson would come back to work and his personnel file would be purged. According to the document, Hinson's record would be purged because "the investigation of these events has determined to be fraudulent and inappropriate.” Mitch Johnson and Linda Miles decided what was fraudulent and inappropriate. In return, Hinson agreed, "the city of Greensboro, other than certain officials in the police department, exercised due diligence in the investigation of the events that lead to his suspension as soon as this matter was brought to their attention.”


How can Chief Miller continually tell the people anything about the allegations against Captain James Hinson if Hinson's personnel file has been purged? What documents has Miller reviewed regarding Hinson? Who has he talked to about Hinson? What evidence has he reviewed that made him feel comfortable writing, "none of those allegations were ever sustained and most were unfounded?"


I am also concerned about the newly formed racial profiling committee that was featured in the N&R. I would like to request any and all communications regarding this committee. How was it formed? How were the members chosen? What credentials were required? I want any and all meeting notes, schedules, emails, voice mails as well as all researched materials regarding the creation and operation of this committee. I also require any and all information regarding all police disciplinary actions that has taken place in the Greensboro Police Department over the past 30 years. 


At a community meeting, Miller reported to a crowd that the disciplinary process followed for Charles Cherry was the same process followed for any other employee in the department for the last thirty years. I would like to see the documents Miller has reviewed to back that claim up. 


I have included section 18.(f) of the Government Ethics & Campaign Reform Act of 2010 to hopefully avoid possible future frustrations. SECTION 18.(f) G.S. 160A‑168(b) reads as rewritten: "(b) The following information with respect to each city employee is a matter of public record: (1) name; Name. (2) age; Age. (3) dateDate of original employment or appointment to the service;service. (4) the The terms of any contract by which the employee is employed whether written or oral, past and current, to the extent that the city has the written contract or a record of the oral contract in its possession;possession. (5) current position Current position. (6) title;Title. (7) current salary;Current salary. (8) dateDate and amount of the most recenteach increase or decrease in salary; salary with that municipality. (9) dateDate and type of the most recent each promotion, demotion, transfer, suspension, separation, or other change in position classification; and classification with that municipality. (10) Date and general description of the reasons for each promotion with that municipality. (11) Date and type of each dismissal, suspension, or demotion for disciplinary reasons taken by the municipality. If the disciplinary action was a dismissal, a copy of the written notice of the final decision of the municipality setting forth the specific acts or omissions that are the basis of the dismissal. (12) theThe office to which the employee is currently assigned.


Thank you, Ben Holder