INTRODUCTION
Previously, CJ's Street Report covered a case of Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines harassing and railroading an African American Deputy with Multiple Schlerosis and veteran out a job over the bogus charge that he stole a $2 baseball card. CJ's Street Report then reported on cases of sexual harassment filed against the Escambia County Sheriff's Office (ECSO), in which Sheriff David Morgan and Chief Deputy Eric Haines by virtue of their positions were defendants.
One particular case, that of former Lieutenant Laura MONTOYA is still working its way to a conclusion in the court system. Chief Deputy Eric Haines is in the hot seat because he is alleged to have given an illegal order to destroy documents covered by Florida's Sunshine Law. In fact, lawyers for the ECSO who were involved in the incident, are now defendants in the case and have lawyered-up, because their testimony could sink Haines's career. One of the other casualties in that sexual harassment lawsuit is Sheriff Sergeant (now former) Philip NIX--a senior sergeant, in fact, with a very high call sign, number 66.
Sergeant Nix is the former vice president of the Northwest Florida Police Benevolent Association--essentially the union for the sheriff deputies. It was Sergeant Nix who, operating as the union representative, stood shoulder-to-shoulder with Lt. Montoya, defending her, and claiming that Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines arranged to task Lt. Montoya with conducting an Internal Affairs investigation of her subordinate that she was not fully trained to do. In short, they set Lt. Montoya up for failure, thus creating some of the grounds on which to terminate her from otherwise outstanding service to the taxpayers of the county.
In retribution to Sergeant Nix standing up for Lt. Montoya, the Sheriff's Office, specifically Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines, concocted charges and evidence based on sworn testimony from two deputies that are demonstrably false. Sergeant Nix was subject to two separate Internal Affairs investigations that were running simultaneously in 2016. Sergeant Nix was terminated on December 9, 2016.
One of the Internal Affairs investigations revolved around a Sheriff Deputy, Joan SAVAGE, who threatened to arrest Nix's mother in late January 2016 over a civil dispute that SAVAGE claimed to be a party to, but, in reality, had no standing to intervene in. In fact, the Internal Affairs investigation is noteworthy for not demanding proof from Deputy Savage that she had any legal standing in the civil dispute--a dispute she claimed involved felony grand theft of a food trailer. In fact, when the facts of the case were presented to the State Attorney's Office, they rejected the felony criminal referral from the ECSO on the grounds that the matter was civil, not criminal in nature. Nevertheless, using bogus accusations and evidence of a felony and abusing a disabled elderly person, Sergeant Nix was fired.
The other deputy in the other Internal Affairs investigation, Lt. Frank FORTE, perjured himself in testimony to the IA because he and LTC Hardy believed there was no physical evidence that could contradict his sworn testimony and show he was lying under oath. Despite there being documentary evidence proving perjury, Lt. Forte is still employed at the ECSO.
THE PERJURY OF LT FORTE (2nd Internal Affairs Investigation)
This second Internal Affairs investigation began five days after Thomas Williams, the Assistant State Attorney, sent an email to Chris Rabby, Sergeant Nix's lawyer. The very same email was sent to Gerry Champagne, the ECSO's general counsel. On pdf page 83 of Part 1 Nix Philip, the documentary record of the first Internal Affairs investigation, the email from the State Attorney's Office stated for the record [emphasis added]:
"We have concluded our investigation of Phillip Nix regarding his involvement in removing a food truck/trailer and attempted recovery of lease/rental fees. This matter is civil in nature and we will not be proceeding with a criminal investigation. Nix has disclosed the location of the food truck/trailer and will not proceed in treating it as security for any money he believes is due."
Thomas Williams
Assistant State Attorney
Office of State Attorney
190 Governmental Center
Pensacola, FL 32501
In other words, the ECSO leadership knew that the results of the SAO's examination of the records sent from the ECSO had resulted in the SAO determining that Sergeant Nix had committed no crime, felony or otherwise, and that the matter regarding the food trailer was a civil matter that did not involve the SAO.
The second Internal Affairs investigation centered on one central question: did Sergeant Nix in his testimony state that the Escambia County Sheriff's Office had for years been writing illegal tickets at a specific area in Pensacola Beach?
The basic facts are these. Sergeant Nix was working a side job in Pensacola Beach. He gave permission to three vehicles to park in a "Loading Zone" area. Sergeant Nix knew that there was no Florida statute prohibiting parking in such a zone (there is now). Sergeant Nix advised Deputy Cripe that he had given the car owners permission to park there and that it was legal. Deputy Cripe complained to Lt. Frank Forte who instructed Deputy Cripe to write the tickets. Once Nix left his side job, Cripe wrote two tickets on Saturday and one ticket on Monday. The three tickets involved two car owners.
Sergeant Nix was subpoenaed to appear as a defense witness, as was Deputy Cripe as a for the prosecution. Lt. Forte attended as an observer.
After Nix's testimony had concluded, Lt. Forte told Col Hardy that Sergeant Nix had violated ECSO guidelines in his testimony. In the June 28, 2016, memo from Col Hardy to Chief Deputy Haines, Hardy wrote: "Following the hearings, I was contacted by Lt. Forte and he informed me that it was his belief that the testimony given by Sgt. Nix against the Sheriff's Office during the hearings rose to the level of Unbecoming Conduct in violation of ECSO policy."
In the very same memo from Hardy to Haines, Col Hardy informed the Chief Deputy that he had checked to see if there were any evidence that could contradict or corroborate Lt Forte's belief. There was no such evidence. Thus, the second Internal Affairs investigation began.
It is important to note that this second Internal Affairs investigation proceeded once Hardy and Haines were assured there was no evidence that could contradict Forte's statement. It would be an officer's word against a sergeant's word, backed up by a deputy, Cripe who was in the courtroom.
Unbeknownst to Haines, Hardy, Forte, and Cripe, Sergeant Nix, already in the gun sights of the ECSO due to the ongoing first Internal Affairs investigation seeking to charge him with felony grand theft, paid for a court reporter to record the proceedings of the traffic court.
Unfortunately, I do not have an electronic copy of the second Internal Affairs documentation. However, I do have hard copy of Lt. Forte's sworn recorded statement regarding IA # I2016-012 dated July 22, 2016.
On page 9 of his sworn to be true testimony, Lt Forte told ECSO investigators, "...and the exact words, I can't remember but I can tell you that part of it was, I was assigned to that beach for a long time and I'm aware that deputies have a habit of writing illegal tickets there. And I couldn't believe that he made that statement in court. First of all, it's not a true statement. But to make that statement is bad enough....Our deputies sitting there shaking their heads. Got their heads down shaking their heads like they can't believe those words just came out of Nix's mouth."
On page 10, Lt. Forte's sworn to be true recorded testimony reads: "POLLOCK: And is this opinion of these illegal tickets or did he just kind of make some blanket statement? FORTE: Nix blurted the statement I gave you. Uhm. He was never asked, what is your opinion or anything of that nature. I didn't hear that. What I heard was Philip Nix explaining how he gave them permission and then he continues on to say something to the effect of, I'm very familiar with that red curb because uh there's been numerous deputies that have written tickets on that, uh illegal parking tickets on that red curb. Uhm, and when he made that statement uhm I can assure you no one asked him his opinion or asked him any of that. He, that was, that was solely on him."
Pretty damning stuff. Except not one word of what Lt. Forte swore to be true under oath under the penalty of perjury was true. He lied through his teeth believing there was no way his perjured testimony could be challenged by Sergeant Nix.
According to the transcript of the traffic court hearing, here is exactly what was said in the exchange between Mr. Chris Rabby, the lawyer for the car owners, and Sergeant Nix, witness for the defense:
"Question: So the Escambia County Sheriff's Department has been illegally ticketing people for years for parking in front of The Dock?"
"Answer [NIX]: "I don't--if there is no statute for it, I don't know what they are being ticketed for."
Mr. Rabby: "I don't have any further questions of this witness."
Maybe in an alternate universe there is a Sergeant Nix transforming a question from a lawyer into his own statement, but in that traffic hearing on that day, Sergeant Nix answered in the negative. Lt. Forte's sworn to be true testimony is false. He perjured himself. Surely there is some violation of ECSO policy for bringing a false accusation against a fellow law enforcement officer, providing false testimony, and wasting the ECSO's resources on a fake crime.
Was Lt. Forte investigated or otherwise disciplined for making a false accusation, providing false testimony, and wasting ECSO resources? In the voice of an insurance company model, "No."
Here, outsiders can see clearly two standards of justice. If you are a favorite of the ruling class--Morgan and Haines and Hardy--you can lie under oath, as long as your lies are in the service of the ruling class. In that case, you are golden. But, if you stand up for ordinary residents being falsely accused by the ECSO of parking their cars in a prohibited loading zone, well, you better have a lawyer and a court reporter on your side. But what is legal and what is true are of no concern to Morgan and Haines. What counts for them is blind obedience--the law and truth be damned.
Any resident should be able to understand this case and the jeopardy that puts you in. If Sheriff Morgan wants you to be fined and/or prosecuted, there are deputies willing to perjure themselves to keep their jobs. And Morgan will protect them. We know that because Sergeant Nix advised Sheriff Morgan as to the lies told and Morgan did absolutely nothing.
THE FALSE TESTIMONY OF DEPUTY SAVAGE (1st Internal Affairs Investigation)
This Internal Affairs investigation is a bit more complicated. The investigation took up 462 pages divided into two pdf files. Unfortunately, those two pdf files (Part 1 262 pages and Part 2 200 pages) cannot have pages removed or the pages marked because they are file protected by the ECSO.
There are five key actors in this action:
Sheriff Deputy Joan SAVAGE. She claimed she owned the food trailer due to loaning the Brundidges $18,000 in January 2013. Some time probably between July and September 2016, but at undetermined time, she crafted a "business agreement" with the two Brundidge's that made her a "partner" of the business entity called "Oh My Grill." She admitted to the ECSO Internal Affairs investigators that she threatened Ms. Brenda NIX with arrest for grand theft (see Part 2, page 32, Savage statement; see Part 1, page 125, Savage statement; see Part 1, page 123, Philip Nix statement). She is the goddaughter of the Brundidges (see Part 1, page 231).
Darryl BRUNDIDGE. A bishop of the Prophetic Worship Center International Inc. He may or may not have signed the purchase contract (see Part 1, page 81). But, the contract was between the church and Ms. Angela Summerlin. Brundidge knows Sheriff Morgan "personally" (see Part 1, page 224).
Sheila BRUNDIDGE. A pastor of the Prophetic Worship Center International Inc. She clearly signed the purchase receipt for the food trailer in January 2013. Angela SUMMERLIN sold the food trailer to Sheila Brundidge (see Part 1, page 81 and Summerlin's testimony, Part 2, page 59).
Brenda NIX. The mother of Philip NIX. She and her sister co-owned property at the corner of W Street and Van Pelt Lane. Brenda Nix leased part of that corner lot to the Brundidges for six months, from January 2013 to August 2013 (see Part 1, page 105).
Philip NIX. As his mother's only child, he had a General Power of Attorney (see Part 1, page 193). His involvement was minimal before January 2016. In January 2015, or the very early part of 2015, he posted on the vacant food trailer a neon green paper notice (Part 2, pages 118-120). It is not clear from the documentary evidence whether this was a property abandonment notice or an eviction notice. He became completely involved once Deputy Savage called his mother Brenda NIX in January 2016 and threatened to arrest her for grand theft (see Savage above).
SOMETHING ROTTEN IN ESCAMBIA COUNTY
First of all, the Brundidges did not go to the Escambia County Sheriff's Office to file a complaint against Brenda Nix or Philip Nix for stealing the food trailer. Lt. Jones visited the Brundiges in early February 2016 and suggested to Darryl Brundidge that he file a criminal complaint for theft (Part 1, page 9).
Here is exactly what the Internal Affairs Report states (Part 1, page 9): "On February 1, 2016, 1st Lt. Carl Jones and I made contact with the Brundidges to inquire who actually owned the food trailer. They provided the information stated above and were asked why they had not filed a police report on the matter. Darryl Brundidge explained he was a man of God and they were trying to work it out with Brenda Nix before filing one."
One might very well wonder why if you had a business partner who was also a Deputy Sheriff (Savage), why would you wait seven months to file a police report over the theft of a trailer worth at least $18,000? Well, you might not file a police report because (a) you did not have such a business partner or (b) because you knew you did not have a leg to stand on.
Second, what grand theft is the ECSO talking about? There was No. Theft. Ever.
Let's consider what happened on the day the food trailer was moved by a towing company to an undisclosed location. This was not the Baltimore Colts leaving in the dead of night to arrive in Indianapolis, their new home.
The food trailer was moved off the Nix property in late July 2015. Joan Savage was present on the day it was towed away. Sheila Brundidge was present on the day it was towed away. They saw it being prepared to be towed away.
In Part 1 page 206, Sheila Brundidge stated she was driving by the property where the food trailer was, saw the tow truck, got out and asked what was going on. On page 209, she is asked by the IA investigators if she raised any objection to the food trailer being moved with the two people moving the trailer. She replied, "I did not." She then left and did not see the trailer moved.
When Joan Savage arrived, Savage saw the tow truck and asked Sheila Brundidge what was wrong. Sheila Brundidge told the investigators she said, "I don't know." Of course Sheila Brundidge knew. In-between asking the tow truck driver and Ms. Brenda Nix's brother, Gary Willis, and talking to Joan Savage, she had talked on the telephone with Ms. Nix who told her that her sister had an order to move the food trailer off the property.
So, why would Sheila Brundidge tell Joan Savage that she did not know what was going on, if Joan Savage was your business partner that had loaned you $18,000? Because the most likely reason was that Joan Savage was not your business partner and you did not feel like having her get in your business.
In Part 2 page 26, Joan Savage is asked what happened. Savage states that she had driven by and saw the tow truck. Then, Sheila Brundidge drove by and stopped. Savage asked Brundidge what was going on. Brundidge told her that Ms. Nix (nee Willis) is having it moved. Savage then leaves.
There is another witness to the event and conversations that day, Gary Willis, the brother of Ms. Nix and a former lieutenant of the ECSO.
In Part 2 pages 83-88, Willis told the IA investigators in sworn testimony that Sheila Brundidge spoke to him and he told her the trailer was being moved because the trailer was blocking the view of drivers. Sheila Brundidge understood. Deputy Savage then drove up (page 84) and spent perhaps up to 30 minutes in her sheriff's vehicle talking to Sheila Brundidge.
In Part 2 page 85, the IA investigators asked Willis if either Sheila Brundidge or Joan Savage "say that they didn't want the trailer moved" or "Did they disagree with the moving of the trailer?" To both questions, Willis answered in the negative. On page 88, Willis is asked, "Did they ever ask uh where it was going?" Willis replied, "Never did ask me where it was going. No, she never did."
And, on the same page, just before that question and answer, Willis told the IA investigators that Sheila Brundidge asked him "what do we have to do to get it back (inaudible) what do we have to pay Brenda and Debra...?"
Here we have Sheila Brundidge and Joan Savage both seeing and knowing that the food trailer is going to be hooked up to a tow truck and moved off the property. Neither one objects either to Ms. Nix or to the tow truck driver or to Gary Willis. Neither one asks by what authority are you moving the trailer. Neither one asks where the food trailer is going to end up. Sheila Brundidge only wanted to know what she had to do or pay to get the trailer back.
And that is supposed to constitute grand theft by Philip Nix who was not present, had not initiated the movement of the food trailer, and had no knowledge that the food trailer was being moved--a move that had originated with his aunt, not his mother.
And yet Philip Nix is dismissed from the ECSO for grand theft. Yes, see Part 1 page 2. Nix is dismissed from the ECSO for "grand theft"--a property worth more than $10,000 but less than $20,000. Oh, and he supposedly "abused" the elderly Darryl Brundidge and disabled (supposedly blind) Darryl Brundidge and exploited Darryl Brundidge by taking his property.
But, I wonder why Morgan and Haines did not get into their squad cars, put the lights a blinking, and the sirens a screaming and go arrest Wells Fargo Bank for foreclosing on the Brundidge home (case 2010 CA 002419) for $413,868.84 and Marcus Pointe Golf for foreclosing on the Brundidges (case 2012 CC 001324) for $3,935.90.
We know why. Because they followed law and cannot be touched. Philip Nix, on the other hand, followed the law but he can be abused by the Internal Affairs system, his family threatened by a deputy without any legal standing in the civil matter, and his career terminated because that is how Morgan and Haines operate.
Do you want to see something really scary? Read how Morgan and/or Haines got the State Attorney's Office to doctor an email so that the unsuspecting reader would be lead to believe that Philip Nix had been investigated for a felony, but there simply was not enough evidence to prosecute.
This is the entire email sent from the State Attorney's Office by Thomas Williams to Chris Rabby, Philip Nix's lawyer, as well as to Gerry Champagne, the ECSO general counsel, on June 23, 2016 [emphasis added]:
Chris [RABBY],
We have concluded our investigation of Phillip Nix regarding his involvement in removing a food truck/trailer and attempted recovery of lease/rental fees. This matter is civil in nature and we will not be proceeding with a criminal investigation. Nix has disclosed the location of the food truck/trailer and will not proceed in treating it as security for any money he believes is due.
Thomas Williams
On Part 1 page 83 you can see the top email. On the same page you can see that the SAO sent a second email to comport with the witch hunt that Morgan and Haines were conducting against Nix. In this email dated June 27, 2016, Thomas Williams writes [emphasis added]:
"We have completed our felony criminal investigation of Philip Nix and have decided not to proceed with a prosecution. Pls let me know if you have any questions regarding this matter."
In the first email, the SAO determines that the issue is a civil matter and no criminal investigation is warranted and therefore no criminal investigation was started. In the second email, the SAO claims they completed their "felony criminal investigation" and "decided not to prosecute."
It is blatantly obvious why Morgan and Champagne needed the second email to cover their fully exposed asses. Without a "felony criminal investigation" to hang their Internal Affairs investigation on, the whole rotten process looks like a premeditated witch hunt against a former labor leader.
The real question is why the State Attorney's Office agreed to this miscarriage of justice? If those two emails do not suggest a breach of ethics, I don't know what would. The second email is a blatant lie.
Now, if those two emails do not suggest to the average resident of Escambia County that your rights under the law mean absolutely nothing to the Escambia County Sheriff's Office and the State Attorney's Office, then you have not been paying attention in civics class.
On the other hand, in Part 2 page 163, when Nix is read the first email, he objected that he had never agreed to give up the food trailer before being paid around $12,000. Nix had no knowledge of how that agreement was decided, not between his lawyer Mr. Rabby and the SAO Mr. Williams, or between Mr. Williams and Mr. Gerry Champagne, the ECSO's general counsel.
Think for one minute. In a civil case in which one party has shown themselves to be completely unreliable; their word not worth spit; their promises disappearing faster than the wind; why would you agree to give back a food trailer for the empty promise that they would pay you? Why would you trust the promise of two people who had lost two mortgage foreclosures? You would have to be a complete idiot to do that. And, as the Power of Attorney, Nix would have to do everything in his power to protect his mother's fiduciary interest. He could not willy-nilly give up an account receivable in exchange for absolutely nothing but hot air.
In fact, what had been agreed between Rabby and Williams was that the Brundidges would be charged a daily rental fee of $12 instead of the asked for $18 per day, from the time the lease expired until they moved it off the property. The trailer was illegally on the property a total of 717 days. At $12 per day, the rent due was $8,604. In fact, Nix stopped the clock at 630 days, yielding a rent due of $7,560. He actually saved the Brundidges about $1,100 in rental fees.
Thus, in terms of the law, the SAO found that no theft had occurred. Therefore, the elderly and supposedly blind Darryl Brundidge could not possibly have been the victim of grand theft; he could not possibly have been abused; and, he could not possibly have been exploited. And, if those findings are true, then why did Morgan proceed to terminate Nix for doing what he clearly had not done? Because Morgan does not care what the law is; he does not care what the facts are; and, he does not care what the public thinks because the public will never discover his dirty laundry.
DEPUTY SAVAGE, PRIME MOVER OF 1ST INTERNAL AFFAIRS INVESTIGATION
Now, the prime mover for all the activity in this Internal Affairs investigation are the words of Deputy Joan Savage. She is the major antagonist in this unnecessary drama. She lies to Brenda Nix about owning the trailer. She lies to Philip Nix about owning the trailer. In fact, she has no legal standing in the entire matter. She never produced evidence that she had loaned $18,000 to the Brundidges or the Prophetic Worship Center International. She did not have a "business agreement" with the Brundidges until most likely after July 2016.
Not only is she an employee of the ECSO, meaning she can be fired by Sheriff Morgan, she is also the goddaughter of Darryl Brundidge (Part 1 page 231) and Darryl Brundidge knows Sheriff Morgan "personally."
Why is this important? Because in the second IA investigation discussed above, Col Hardy mentions in his memo to Chief Deputy Haines that "the ECSO could have provided information to the hearing officer regarding Sgt. Nix's personal relationship with both Smith and Rabby so that the hearing officer could consider that when weighing the testimony provided by Nix."
So, the fact that Nix knew a defendant (and his own lawyer) was material, but Darryl Brundidge's relationship with Sheriff Morgan, and, Joan Savage's relationship with the Brundidges was not material. Again, two sets of rules in the ECSO all depending upon the person who is the target of the attack.
At no time did Joan Savage "own" the trailer.
In her "sworn statement" to the State Attorney's Office, she is asked by Thomas Williams, "You bought it for eighteen thousand ($18,000) dollars?" Savage replied, "Yes" (Part 1 page 158). On Part 1 page 162, she told Williams about her conversation in January 2016 with Philip Nix: "...I told him exactly what happened when I purchased the trailer..."
In Part 1 page 158, Williams from the State Attorney's Office asked Savage, "And that was in one check, correct?" "Yes," she answered.
At no point is Savage asked to produce the check, nor does she provide the check as corroboration for her verbal story.
However, this story is contradicted by the sworn testimony of Angela SUMMERLIN, the woman who owned the food truck and then sold it for $18,000. In Part 2 page 59, the ECSO IA investigators asked Summerlin how the food trailer was purchased. She explained that on January 23, 2013, "They did write me a check and then I had a problem getting the check cashed, so a deputy that's supposed to be part owner with them, that works here, do not know her name, uhm she got it cashed somehow, I guess through her bank or, they ended up bringing me cash."
The IA investigators then asked who had written the check out: "...was the check written out by the deputy in her name or was it through the church or?" Summerlin answered, "It was through the church." And Summerlin agreed with the IA investigators that "they actually brought you eighteen thousand in cash."
If Summerlin who actually sold the trailer first saw a check written out on the church's account and then was paid $18,000 in cash--an amount of money and greenbacks that is difficult to forget--then how did Savage pay for the trailer in "one check" for "$18,000"?
It only gets more curious and rotten.
On July 20, 2016, the Brundidges gave a sworn statement to the ECSO's IA investigators. In Part 1 page 183, Darryle Brundidge states the food trailer was "purchased by the church, Prophetic Worship Center International." He states that Joan Savage "loaned the church the money." Asked how much she loaned the church, the amount is $18,000.
In Part 1 page 183-184,the ECSO IA asked them if there was a contract with Joan Savage or had she donated the money to the church as a tithe. Sheila Brundidge stated that Joan Savage was "a partial owner." But, Darryl Brundidge admits that Joan Savage was not on the bill of sale, though she was a "silent partner." When asked by IA, "So she was considered by the church a partner? Is that recorded anywhere in the records?" Sheila Brundidge replied, "Yes it is."
Yet at no point did the IA investigators ask the Brundidges to produce those church records, nor did the Brundidges supply those church records.
But, there are two important points to note. First, whatever deal there was between Joan Savage and the Brundidges, it was actually a contractual arrangement between Joan Savage and the Prophetic Worship Center International. Darryl Brundidge stated that Joan Savage loaned the money to the church and Sheila Brundidge claims that relationship is recorded in church records. Second, the Brundidges agree that Joan Savage loaned them $18,000.
In Part 2 page 19, the IA investigators asked Joan Savage (27 JUL 2016 sworn interview), "Who actually purchased the trailer, who actually signed the bill of sale for the trailer?" Savage answered, "She did." And when the IA investigators asked Savage, "Now did you loan her an amount or the church or her personally an amount of money?" Savage answered, "It was her." The IA investigator clarified, "So it wasn't the church it was her." Savage replied, "It was her." Savage also agreed that it was "a personal loan to Sheila Brundidge." She was asked, "Was there any paperwork drawn up for?" Savage replied, "No." When asked the amount of the check she wrote to Sheila Brundidge, Savage replied, "Eighteen thousand."
So, we have interesting contradictions of material facts. The Brundidges claim that Savage loaned the money to the church, the church bought the food trailer, and that the church recorded her "silent partner" relationship in church records. And, the amount of money loaned was $18,000.
Savage claimed that she made a personal loan to Sheila Brundidge for $18,000. There was no contract.
In Part 2 page 20, Joan Savage admits that she is not the owner and was never the owner of the food trailer. The IA investigator, Pittman, states to Savage, "if you give her money and she signs the bill of sale, she's actually the one..." Savage interrupted, "The owner." Pittman, "The owner." Savage, "Yes."
Pittman then sought to clarify the relationship again, "Do you have any, do you have any documents, cancelled checks or anything for the, on this transaction?" Savage replied, "I have a contract that was drawn up later on."
In Part 2 page 21, Savage is asked when the contract with the Brundidges was drawn up. Savage replied, "August, September." That would be August or September of 2013.
In Part 2 pages 47-49, a "Business Agreement" is produced. It is an agreement between Joan Savage and two separate partners, B and C, B being Darryl Brundidge and C being Sheila Brundidge. The loan amount is now $20,000. The date of this "Business Agreement" is January 23, 2013. It is not notarized. It is not recorded in any Escambia County Court records.
With the production of the "Business Agreement," all the assertions of fact collapse like a house of cards in a hurricane. For the Brundidges, what was a contract between the church and Savage is now a business contract between the Brundidges and Savage. For Savage, what was a personal loan only to Sheila Brundidge becomes a business contract with Darryl and Sheila Brundidge. And, what was only $18,000 according to the Brundidges and Savage has now become $20,000. And, we must remember that Savage claimed that she had paid $18,000 in "one check" for the food trailer, but Angela Summerlin who sold the trailer to the church stated that the church's check had failed to clear the bank and that she was paid in cash.
The only facts that remains standing after all these words is that at no time was Savage an owner of the food trailer and that the only owner of the food trailer was Sheila Brundidge. We cannot be certain that Darryl Brundidge ever signed the bill of sale.
Moreover, the "Business Agreement" commenced on January 22, 2013, but
was signed on January 23, 2013, and supposedly drawn up in August or
September 2013. And, no one who is a party to this "Business Agreement"
remembered that the amount loaned was $20,000 and not $18,000. And, we
have no idea when this "Business Agreement" was actually executed
because it is not notarized and not recorded. It is simply a convenient
piece of paper not accompanied by any church records, bank records, or
cancelled checks.
And, here is the main point, if Joan Savage was never an owner of the food trailer, then calling up Ms. Brenda Nix and threatening to arrest her for theft is an abuse of her authority. But, being golden, just like Lt. Forte, she is not investigated and not disciplined.
But, it is her false claim that she was the owner of the food trailer and her false claim that the food trailer had been stolen that set the first Internal Affairs investigation into motion.
Whether she knew it or not, intended it or not, Deputy Joan Savage gave Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy the thinnest of pretexts to launch a vindictive witch hunt against Sergeant Philip Nix, the former union representative who had defended Lt. Laura Montoya--a case that is almost certain to cost the ECSO a big dollar settlement and who could ruin Chief Deputy Haines's career.
THIS IS WHAT A POLICE STATE LOOKS LIKE
This is what a police state looks like. Internal Affairs show trials
using perjured testimony from one deputy and false statements from another
deputy who was linked to the civil dispute by family ties, but had no
legal standing to be involved in the civil dispute. Lt. Forte perjured himself without penalty because he was testifying on behalf of Morgan and Haines against senior Sergeant Nix, the former union representative and leader. Even when Deputy Savage admitted under oath that she threatened Ms. Brenda Nix,
Nix's mother, no disciplinary action was taken against her for abusing her
office. The ECSO used contradictory evidence manufactured out of thin air; the ECSO ignored a
legal opinion from the State Attorney's Office that Sergeant Nix had not committed any crime and that the matter was a civil dispute. Sheriff Morgan or Chief
Deputy Haines apparently pressured or persuaded the State Attorney's
Office to re-word an email in order to fit their preconceived narrative
that Nix had committed a felony. Morgan and Haines needed some kind of
fig leaf to cover up their own illegal actions in a wrongful
termination.
If an exemplary Sergeant can be
railroaded out of a career--and a former union representative/leader no
less--then no citizen and no labor leader or representative in this
county is safe.
One of the bedrocks of American society
is that we believe in the rule of law. We believe that no official,
from the president to the lowliest elected official, is above the law.
We believe in due process. We believe that individuals accused of a
crime are afforded the protection of their constitutional rights. We
believe that when you are accused of a crime, that the investigators
will look at all the evidence that points towards your innocence and
guilt and make a fair determination of whether or not to proceed. In
the case of former Sergeant Philip Nix, all those bedrock beliefs
were pulverized by Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines abusing their
authority and power for personal and political revenge.
Showing posts with label Sheriff David Morgan. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sheriff David Morgan. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Friday, June 24, 2016
MCCORVEY VOTES IN DISTRICT 4 NOT DISTRICT 3
UPDATE (29 JUNE 2016): According to the Supervisor of Elections office for Escambia County, on May 20, 2016, Elvin McCorvey changed his voter registration address from 1708 E Scott Street, which is in District 4 (see below), to 201 W Scott Street, which is in District 3. So, he was elected to represent District 3, somehow registered to vote or found himself registered to vote in District 4, realized his error, and changed his voter registration one month before the closing qualifying deadline. Is this not unusual? Does this not call into question his eligibility to represent District 3? How about all the votes he took on the ECUA Board while living in District 4? Are those votes legal? End Update.
UPDATE (29 JUNE 2016, 1451H): Here is the official response from the Supervisor of Elections for Escambia County:
"According to our records:
Prior to May 29, 2013, Mr. McCorvey was registered to vote at 1770 E Baars Street, Pensacola.
On May 29, 2013, he updated his registration to 1708 E. Scott Street, Pensacola.
On May 20, 2016, he updated his registration to 201 West Scott Street, Pensacola."
In other words, he was registered to vote in District 3 before May 29, 2013. Then, on May 29, 2013--after he had won re-election to ECUA Board District 3--he registered to vote in District 4, since 1708 E Scott Street is in District 4 (see below). Then, while still registered to vote in District 4, he filed paperwork with the SOE appointing himself and his ex-wife as deputy treasurer and treasurer, respectively. While still registered to vote in District 4, he filed candidacy papers with the SOE (see below) to run for re-election in District 3. And none of this unusual in Escambia County politics. End Update.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
According to Florida Statute, Title IX, Chapter 101, Section 101.045(1), "A person is not permitted to vote in any election precinct or district other than the one in which the person has his or her legal residence and in which the person is registered."
According to Chapter 104, Section 104.011(1) on "Election Code Violations, Penalties," "A person who willfully swears or affirms falsely to any oath or affirmation, or willfully procures another person to swear or affirm falsely to an oath or affirmation, in connection with or arising out of voting or elections commits a felony of the third degree."
Elvin McCorvey is attempting to be elected to his sixth term as District 3 representative for the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority Board.
According to candidate information through the EscambiaVotes.com website, his "contact information" is listed as "201 W Scott Street" in Pensacola.
When McCorvey appointed his ex-wife, Joyce McCorvey as his Campaign Treasurer, he listed his address as "201 W Scott Street." When McCorvey appointed himself as Deputy Treasurer, he listed his address as "201 W Scott Street." And, when McCorvey filed his first Campaign Treasurer's Report Summary, he listed his address as "201 W Scott Street."
The registered voters at "201 W Scott Street" in Pensacola are Willie F. McCorvey and Margie P. McCorvey. It is not known what relationship they are to Elvin McCorvey. They are also registered as taxpayers at that address. There is no Elvin McCorvey associated with this address in terms of voter registration or property taxes. This is simply his mail drop for his campaign.
So where exactly is Elvin McCorvey registered to vote?
McCorvey is actually registered to vote in Escambia County at 1708 E Scott Street in Pensacola. He shares that address with a woman named Modeste M. McCorvey.
According to the voter registration data, that address, 1708 E Scott Street, is actually in County District 4 and School District 4. In fact, if you query "1708 E Scott Street" on myescambiavotes.com to find your precinct, that is Precinct 41. According to an official map, Precinct 41 is in District 4. And, in the Democratic National Committee Vote Builder for Florida, McCorvey resides at 1708 E Scott Street with a Modeste McCorvey. They both vote at the Bayview Senior Resource Center and they reside in Commission District 4 and School District 4.
In short, while McCorvey is running for ECUA District 3, he resides in and is registered to vote in District 4. This would make him ineligible to vote in District 3 and to run for office in District 3.
UPDATE (29 JUNE 2016, 1451H): Here is the official response from the Supervisor of Elections for Escambia County:
"According to our records:
Prior to May 29, 2013, Mr. McCorvey was registered to vote at 1770 E Baars Street, Pensacola.
On May 29, 2013, he updated his registration to 1708 E. Scott Street, Pensacola.
On May 20, 2016, he updated his registration to 201 West Scott Street, Pensacola."
In other words, he was registered to vote in District 3 before May 29, 2013. Then, on May 29, 2013--after he had won re-election to ECUA Board District 3--he registered to vote in District 4, since 1708 E Scott Street is in District 4 (see below). Then, while still registered to vote in District 4, he filed paperwork with the SOE appointing himself and his ex-wife as deputy treasurer and treasurer, respectively. While still registered to vote in District 4, he filed candidacy papers with the SOE (see below) to run for re-election in District 3. And none of this unusual in Escambia County politics. End Update.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE:
According to Florida Statute, Title IX, Chapter 101, Section 101.045(1), "A person is not permitted to vote in any election precinct or district other than the one in which the person has his or her legal residence and in which the person is registered."
According to Chapter 104, Section 104.011(1) on "Election Code Violations, Penalties," "A person who willfully swears or affirms falsely to any oath or affirmation, or willfully procures another person to swear or affirm falsely to an oath or affirmation, in connection with or arising out of voting or elections commits a felony of the third degree."
Elvin McCorvey is attempting to be elected to his sixth term as District 3 representative for the Emerald Coast Utilities Authority Board.
According to candidate information through the EscambiaVotes.com website, his "contact information" is listed as "201 W Scott Street" in Pensacola.
When McCorvey appointed his ex-wife, Joyce McCorvey as his Campaign Treasurer, he listed his address as "201 W Scott Street." When McCorvey appointed himself as Deputy Treasurer, he listed his address as "201 W Scott Street." And, when McCorvey filed his first Campaign Treasurer's Report Summary, he listed his address as "201 W Scott Street."
The registered voters at "201 W Scott Street" in Pensacola are Willie F. McCorvey and Margie P. McCorvey. It is not known what relationship they are to Elvin McCorvey. They are also registered as taxpayers at that address. There is no Elvin McCorvey associated with this address in terms of voter registration or property taxes. This is simply his mail drop for his campaign.
So where exactly is Elvin McCorvey registered to vote?
McCorvey is actually registered to vote in Escambia County at 1708 E Scott Street in Pensacola. He shares that address with a woman named Modeste M. McCorvey.
According to the voter registration data, that address, 1708 E Scott Street, is actually in County District 4 and School District 4. In fact, if you query "1708 E Scott Street" on myescambiavotes.com to find your precinct, that is Precinct 41. According to an official map, Precinct 41 is in District 4. And, in the Democratic National Committee Vote Builder for Florida, McCorvey resides at 1708 E Scott Street with a Modeste McCorvey. They both vote at the Bayview Senior Resource Center and they reside in Commission District 4 and School District 4.
In short, while McCorvey is running for ECUA District 3, he resides in and is registered to vote in District 4. This would make him ineligible to vote in District 3 and to run for office in District 3.
Wednesday, June 22, 2016
NO EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR LOCK IT KEEP IT BILLBOARDS
UPDATE: This article is in error. I submitted a public records request for call incidences coded 19-0. While Chief Deputy Haines certainly complied with that request, he took great sadistic pleasure in not informing me that in October 2015 the ECSO had added the codes 19-2 and 19-3 to reflect whether or not the vehicle was locked or unlocked. I have submitted a public records request for more data regarding these new incident codes.
If the 19-2 and 19-3 data would have supported Sheriff Morgan's spending of $130,000 during an election year, one would think that Chief Deputy Haines would have provided that data. That strategic option would have shown political sophistication and finesse. That would have shown loyalty to his boss's mission--to get re-elected and gracefully silence one critique. But, Chief Deputy Haines had to secure a small psychic victory for himself. He had to secure some kind of notch in his belt. Better to humiliate me in public than to inform the public. With malice aforethought he withheld crucial data simply because I had not specifically asked for incident codes I did not know existed. Got it. Lesson learned. But, he revealed his true nature.
Chief Deputy Haines is a petty, vindictive, manipulative, small bureaucratic tyrant. This is how he runs the day-to-day operations of the ECSO. This is the internal face of the ECSO that Chief Deputy Haines tries so hard to hide from the public. He does not want the public to know how he runs the ECSO. He does not want to be held accountable. Game on, indeed, Chief Deputy.
OLD ARTICLE
In a previous post, I reported that Uniform Crime Report data for calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 provided to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement demonstrated that "Larceny from Motor Vehicles" rose and fell significantly without Sheriff Morgan spending any money on anti-crime billboards or instituting any special policies or programs. From 2011 to 2012, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" fell -7.7%; from 2012 to 2013, such larcenies increased +20.4%; from 2013 to 2014, such larcenies decreased -28%; and, from 2014 to 2015, such larcenies rose +15.1%. This data is indisputable.
But, keep in mind that this data is submitted to the FDLE a couple months after the calendar closes. So, this finished data is not available to the ECSO, and especially not to the public.
Still, many people, this author included, believed that the expenditure of $130,000 on anti-crime billboards was driven by political considerations rather than fighting crime considerations. The question is how to support this hypothesis with evidence.
The only available evidence would be data within the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, that is, incident reports. This data is available to Sheriff Morgan and his faithful sidekick Chief Deputy Haines for any period they desire. They could compare, for example, car burglaries for the month of May for any year to see if there were a seasonal effect.
The Escambia County Sheriff's Office has "Incident Disposition Codes." The purpose of a Deputy responding to a call is coded. The code "19-0" is for "Burglary: Vehicle." There are codes for "Grand Theft" (79-0) and "Theft Petit" (80-0) but there are no sub-codes for vehicles. Thus, 19-0 is the operative incident code. Deputies also code what happened on these calls. The codes of interest are: A: "Arrest made (offense report & arrest report required);" B: "No arrest made (offense report required);" S: "Referred to other Sheriff's Office section/unit;" X: "Followup investigation--warrant affadavit prepared (supplement required);" and Z: "Followup investigation--arrest made (supplement required)."
With these codes Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines would have the empirical data to know if "Burglary: Vehicle" (code 19-0) was going up or down on a weekly or monthly basis.
This CJ's Street Report is based upon an analysis of all 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z coded incidents between May 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016. The data for 19-0B runs 91 pages. The other codes are one- or two-pages long (A here, S here, X here, Z here). While those other codes could be duplicate incidents, I checked, and they are not.
But, before we examine the empirical data, let us first review how Chief Deputy Haines explained the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards to the Sheriff-friendly crowd on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page on May 18, 2016. Chief Deputy Haines was disputing the first CJ's Street Report post (May 18, 2016) challenging the billboard program on the grounds that, according to a Department of Justice best-practices study, billboards were the least effective means of changing the target audience's behavior, in this case, car owners.
Here is Chief Deputy Haines defending the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards: "Last May at a LE seminar, I spoke with several Chief Deputies who had started this lock it or lose it type campaign and were seeing success. It took a few months to get it off the ground but it started in August with the ECSO bringing up the topic to the media every chance we got. We then went on to social media, YouTube and press releases. I can post the web addresses or you can do a search and see this step got going around September. We then printed cards in the shape of a key and air vent car fresheners and went to the neighborhoods most affected to hand them out. We then started with the roadside message boards which caused all the “outrage”. We have put the messages on all our kiosks. We are now at billboards. All these things are still ongoing and there is more in the lock it or lose it campaign to come."
Notice that the impetus comes in May 2015 (the reason I asked for that starting point of the data) from a seminar the Chief Deputy had attended. Keep in mind, that by May 2015, the Chief Deputy knew for fact certain that for calendar year 2014, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" had fallen -28% without the Escambia County Sheriff's Office doing anything expensive or particularly novel. Notice also that the Chief Deputy did not state that he was alarmed or concerned about any rise in burglaries from motor vehicles in May 2015. No. Instead we have unspecified chief deputies from unspecified counties producing unspecified results with the program.
In fact, if you Google "Lock It, Keep It" you find lots of police departments using the program and no scientific data that the program produces results, that is, excluding a multitude of factors that could also account for drops in crime.
The fact that property crimes, for example, have dropped throughout Florida between 1994 and 2014 suggests that one must be extremely cautious in ascribing drops in crime to police practices. And, the fact that Escambia County's per capita property crime rate steadily rose between 2009 and 2013 and then dropped in 2014, while Florida and other larger counties also experienced drops, suggests we need to be cautious in stating that the ECSO has accomplished something unique. In fact, the data in the chart below shows that on a per capita basis, larger counties (Duvall, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, and Pinellas) had significantly larger drops in per capita property crime rates (20% to 40%) than Escambia County (0%) over the 2009-2014 time period.
Also, in Chief Deputy Haines's explanation is that the billboards do not start until March 2016. In between, there is social media, going into neighborhoods, roadside message boards, advertising on kiosks, and finally the billboards.
The empirical data demonstrates that there was no need to spend $130,000 on billboards that would splash Sheriff Morgan's picture on billboards across Pensacola. In fact, in the five months before Sheriff Morgan committed himself to the billboard contract, the number of 19-0 ("Burglary: Motor Vehicle") had been declining significantly, in some months by 40% to 50%. In fact, if one were to extrapolate from the 19-0 incident reports for January through April 2016, there would be a record low of such reports--360 total.
Here is the data (codes 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z):
2015: MAY 126; JUN 156; JUL 177; AUG 151; SEP 213; OCT 110; NOV 64; DEC 35.
2016: JAN 24; FEB 26; MAR 24; APR 46; and up to May 19, 18.
Between September 2015 and October 2015, vehicular burglaries declined -48%. Between October 2015 and November 2015, vehicular burglaries fell an additional -41%. And, between November 2015 and December, motor vehicle burglaries fell another -45%. Then, fell again in January (-31%) and held steady in February. From September 2015's 213 code 19-0 incidents to February 2016's 26 code 19-0 is a mind-boggling 88% drop in monthly incidents. Ironically, the billboards are correlated with a rise in car burglaries in April 2016, +92%.
Undoubtedly, the Chief Deputy is going to say, "Look at the data, our efforts resulted in a lowering of car burglaries. Thus, the billboards were necessary."
But, the data show that car burglaries fell significantly in October, November, and December 2015. The billboards could not have had any effect on these dramatic declines--since they did not appear until March 2016. Now, whether the decline in October, November, and December was due to the other advertising of the "Lock It, Keep It" is unclear. A possible explanation would be deputies going into neighborhoods to talk to folks about locking their cars and distributing literature reminding them to lock their cars. But, that is just good community policing. If that were the cause of the decline, then the billboard expenditures are not necessary.
But, those explanations are not satisfying. On September 17, 2015, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Pensacola Police Department had arrested 37 teenagers over the preceding two weeks who had been involved in car burglaries. While not members of gangs, they saw unlocked cars as targets of opportunity and took valuables out of the cars. On January 22, 2016, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Escambia County Sheriff's Office had arrested five teenagers, including two with gang ties, that had been burglarizing cars since December 2015.
Thus, the decline in code 19-0 motor vehicle burglaries appears most likely to be the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers starting September 1, 2015 and Escambia County Sheriff's Office arresting 5 teenagers in January 2016.
Thus, we are left with these empirical facts: the significant and dramatic declines in 19-0 (A, B, S, X, Z) incidents started five months (October 2015) before the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign began (March 2016); the drop is most likely due to the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers involved in car burglaries in September 2015; there may be some small influence from ECSO community policing efforts and possibly social media and kiosk advertising; in January 2016, the ECSO arrested an additional 5 teenagers who had been burglarizing cars since December; and, in the month after the billboard campaign started, car burglaries rose 92%. Perhaps, instead of alerting car owners to lock their cars, the billboards were alerting teenagers to a lucrative source of easy cash. While correlation is not causation, the rise in April is not good news for car owners or the ECSO. But, the perception that the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign is driven by Sheriff Morgan's political calculations rather than anti-crime considerations is borne out by the empirical data. There is virtually no empirical ECSO data to support the need to spend $130,000 on the "Lock It, Keep It" campaign.
I think any reasonable Escambia County voter and county commissioner would conclude that Sheriff Morgan spending $130,000 on billboards throughout Escambia County, starting in March 2016 and ending just ten days before his tough primary race, is really intended to boost his political campaign, and not any particular anti-crime effort. The dramatic drop in car burglaries appears to be more the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers in September 2015 than any anti-crime publicity campaign undertaken by the ECSO. This analysis will not convince Sheriff Morgan, Chief Deputy Haines, and their ring of cheerleading supporters on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page. The issue is whether or not reasonable Republican voters will see through Sheriff Morgan's manipulation of crime data for political gain. I believe that a reasonable law enforcement officer would have examined the 19-0 incident report data from October 2015 to February 2016 and concluded that spending $130,000 starting in March 2016 to deter a crime that had significantly declined (-88%) from 213 incidents in September 2015 to 26 incidents in February 2016 to a nuisance level (projected 360 for 2016) was not necessary. But, that's just me, a Democrat who cannot vote in the Republican primary for sheriff.
If the 19-2 and 19-3 data would have supported Sheriff Morgan's spending of $130,000 during an election year, one would think that Chief Deputy Haines would have provided that data. That strategic option would have shown political sophistication and finesse. That would have shown loyalty to his boss's mission--to get re-elected and gracefully silence one critique. But, Chief Deputy Haines had to secure a small psychic victory for himself. He had to secure some kind of notch in his belt. Better to humiliate me in public than to inform the public. With malice aforethought he withheld crucial data simply because I had not specifically asked for incident codes I did not know existed. Got it. Lesson learned. But, he revealed his true nature.
Chief Deputy Haines is a petty, vindictive, manipulative, small bureaucratic tyrant. This is how he runs the day-to-day operations of the ECSO. This is the internal face of the ECSO that Chief Deputy Haines tries so hard to hide from the public. He does not want the public to know how he runs the ECSO. He does not want to be held accountable. Game on, indeed, Chief Deputy.
OLD ARTICLE
In a previous post, I reported that Uniform Crime Report data for calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 provided to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement demonstrated that "Larceny from Motor Vehicles" rose and fell significantly without Sheriff Morgan spending any money on anti-crime billboards or instituting any special policies or programs. From 2011 to 2012, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" fell -7.7%; from 2012 to 2013, such larcenies increased +20.4%; from 2013 to 2014, such larcenies decreased -28%; and, from 2014 to 2015, such larcenies rose +15.1%. This data is indisputable.
But, keep in mind that this data is submitted to the FDLE a couple months after the calendar closes. So, this finished data is not available to the ECSO, and especially not to the public.
Still, many people, this author included, believed that the expenditure of $130,000 on anti-crime billboards was driven by political considerations rather than fighting crime considerations. The question is how to support this hypothesis with evidence.
The only available evidence would be data within the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, that is, incident reports. This data is available to Sheriff Morgan and his faithful sidekick Chief Deputy Haines for any period they desire. They could compare, for example, car burglaries for the month of May for any year to see if there were a seasonal effect.
The Escambia County Sheriff's Office has "Incident Disposition Codes." The purpose of a Deputy responding to a call is coded. The code "19-0" is for "Burglary: Vehicle." There are codes for "Grand Theft" (79-0) and "Theft Petit" (80-0) but there are no sub-codes for vehicles. Thus, 19-0 is the operative incident code. Deputies also code what happened on these calls. The codes of interest are: A: "Arrest made (offense report & arrest report required);" B: "No arrest made (offense report required);" S: "Referred to other Sheriff's Office section/unit;" X: "Followup investigation--warrant affadavit prepared (supplement required);" and Z: "Followup investigation--arrest made (supplement required)."
With these codes Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines would have the empirical data to know if "Burglary: Vehicle" (code 19-0) was going up or down on a weekly or monthly basis.
This CJ's Street Report is based upon an analysis of all 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z coded incidents between May 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016. The data for 19-0B runs 91 pages. The other codes are one- or two-pages long (A here, S here, X here, Z here). While those other codes could be duplicate incidents, I checked, and they are not.
But, before we examine the empirical data, let us first review how Chief Deputy Haines explained the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards to the Sheriff-friendly crowd on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page on May 18, 2016. Chief Deputy Haines was disputing the first CJ's Street Report post (May 18, 2016) challenging the billboard program on the grounds that, according to a Department of Justice best-practices study, billboards were the least effective means of changing the target audience's behavior, in this case, car owners.
Here is Chief Deputy Haines defending the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards: "Last May at a LE seminar, I spoke with several Chief Deputies who had started this lock it or lose it type campaign and were seeing success. It took a few months to get it off the ground but it started in August with the ECSO bringing up the topic to the media every chance we got. We then went on to social media, YouTube and press releases. I can post the web addresses or you can do a search and see this step got going around September. We then printed cards in the shape of a key and air vent car fresheners and went to the neighborhoods most affected to hand them out. We then started with the roadside message boards which caused all the “outrage”. We have put the messages on all our kiosks. We are now at billboards. All these things are still ongoing and there is more in the lock it or lose it campaign to come."
Notice that the impetus comes in May 2015 (the reason I asked for that starting point of the data) from a seminar the Chief Deputy had attended. Keep in mind, that by May 2015, the Chief Deputy knew for fact certain that for calendar year 2014, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" had fallen -28% without the Escambia County Sheriff's Office doing anything expensive or particularly novel. Notice also that the Chief Deputy did not state that he was alarmed or concerned about any rise in burglaries from motor vehicles in May 2015. No. Instead we have unspecified chief deputies from unspecified counties producing unspecified results with the program.
In fact, if you Google "Lock It, Keep It" you find lots of police departments using the program and no scientific data that the program produces results, that is, excluding a multitude of factors that could also account for drops in crime.
The fact that property crimes, for example, have dropped throughout Florida between 1994 and 2014 suggests that one must be extremely cautious in ascribing drops in crime to police practices. And, the fact that Escambia County's per capita property crime rate steadily rose between 2009 and 2013 and then dropped in 2014, while Florida and other larger counties also experienced drops, suggests we need to be cautious in stating that the ECSO has accomplished something unique. In fact, the data in the chart below shows that on a per capita basis, larger counties (Duvall, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, and Pinellas) had significantly larger drops in per capita property crime rates (20% to 40%) than Escambia County (0%) over the 2009-2014 time period.
The empirical data demonstrates that there was no need to spend $130,000 on billboards that would splash Sheriff Morgan's picture on billboards across Pensacola. In fact, in the five months before Sheriff Morgan committed himself to the billboard contract, the number of 19-0 ("Burglary: Motor Vehicle") had been declining significantly, in some months by 40% to 50%. In fact, if one were to extrapolate from the 19-0 incident reports for January through April 2016, there would be a record low of such reports--360 total.
Here is the data (codes 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z):
2015: MAY 126; JUN 156; JUL 177; AUG 151; SEP 213; OCT 110; NOV 64; DEC 35.
2016: JAN 24; FEB 26; MAR 24; APR 46; and up to May 19, 18.
Between September 2015 and October 2015, vehicular burglaries declined -48%. Between October 2015 and November 2015, vehicular burglaries fell an additional -41%. And, between November 2015 and December, motor vehicle burglaries fell another -45%. Then, fell again in January (-31%) and held steady in February. From September 2015's 213 code 19-0 incidents to February 2016's 26 code 19-0 is a mind-boggling 88% drop in monthly incidents. Ironically, the billboards are correlated with a rise in car burglaries in April 2016, +92%.
Undoubtedly, the Chief Deputy is going to say, "Look at the data, our efforts resulted in a lowering of car burglaries. Thus, the billboards were necessary."
But, the data show that car burglaries fell significantly in October, November, and December 2015. The billboards could not have had any effect on these dramatic declines--since they did not appear until March 2016. Now, whether the decline in October, November, and December was due to the other advertising of the "Lock It, Keep It" is unclear. A possible explanation would be deputies going into neighborhoods to talk to folks about locking their cars and distributing literature reminding them to lock their cars. But, that is just good community policing. If that were the cause of the decline, then the billboard expenditures are not necessary.
But, those explanations are not satisfying. On September 17, 2015, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Pensacola Police Department had arrested 37 teenagers over the preceding two weeks who had been involved in car burglaries. While not members of gangs, they saw unlocked cars as targets of opportunity and took valuables out of the cars. On January 22, 2016, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Escambia County Sheriff's Office had arrested five teenagers, including two with gang ties, that had been burglarizing cars since December 2015.
Thus, the decline in code 19-0 motor vehicle burglaries appears most likely to be the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers starting September 1, 2015 and Escambia County Sheriff's Office arresting 5 teenagers in January 2016.
Thus, we are left with these empirical facts: the significant and dramatic declines in 19-0 (A, B, S, X, Z) incidents started five months (October 2015) before the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign began (March 2016); the drop is most likely due to the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers involved in car burglaries in September 2015; there may be some small influence from ECSO community policing efforts and possibly social media and kiosk advertising; in January 2016, the ECSO arrested an additional 5 teenagers who had been burglarizing cars since December; and, in the month after the billboard campaign started, car burglaries rose 92%. Perhaps, instead of alerting car owners to lock their cars, the billboards were alerting teenagers to a lucrative source of easy cash. While correlation is not causation, the rise in April is not good news for car owners or the ECSO. But, the perception that the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign is driven by Sheriff Morgan's political calculations rather than anti-crime considerations is borne out by the empirical data. There is virtually no empirical ECSO data to support the need to spend $130,000 on the "Lock It, Keep It" campaign.
I think any reasonable Escambia County voter and county commissioner would conclude that Sheriff Morgan spending $130,000 on billboards throughout Escambia County, starting in March 2016 and ending just ten days before his tough primary race, is really intended to boost his political campaign, and not any particular anti-crime effort. The dramatic drop in car burglaries appears to be more the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers in September 2015 than any anti-crime publicity campaign undertaken by the ECSO. This analysis will not convince Sheriff Morgan, Chief Deputy Haines, and their ring of cheerleading supporters on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page. The issue is whether or not reasonable Republican voters will see through Sheriff Morgan's manipulation of crime data for political gain. I believe that a reasonable law enforcement officer would have examined the 19-0 incident report data from October 2015 to February 2016 and concluded that spending $130,000 starting in March 2016 to deter a crime that had significantly declined (-88%) from 213 incidents in September 2015 to 26 incidents in February 2016 to a nuisance level (projected 360 for 2016) was not necessary. But, that's just me, a Democrat who cannot vote in the Republican primary for sheriff.
NO EMPIRICAL BASIS FOR LOCK IT KEEP IT BILLBOARDS
In a previous post, I reported that Uniform Crime Report data for calendar years 2012, 2013, 2014, and 2015 provided to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement demonstrated that "Larceny from Motor Vehicles" rose and fell significantly without Sheriff Morgan spending any money on anti-crime billboards or instituting any special policies or programs. From 2011 to 2012, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" fell -7.7%; from 2012 to 2013, such larcenies increased +20.4%; from 2013 to 2014, such larcenies decreased -28%; and, from 2014 to 2015, such larcenies rose +15.1%. This data is indisputable.
But, keep in mind that this data is submitted to the FDLE a couple months after the calendar closes. So, this finished data is not available to the ECSO, and especially not to the public.
Still, many people, this author included, believed that the expenditure of $130,000 on anti-crime billboards was driven by political considerations rather than fighting crime considerations. The question is how to support this hypothesis with evidence.
The only available evidence would be data within the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, that is, incident reports. This data is available to Sheriff Morgan and his faithful sidekick Chief Deputy Haines for any period they desire. They could compare, for example, car burglaries for the month of May for any year to see if there were a seasonal effect.
The Escambia County Sheriff's Office has "Incident Disposition Codes." The purpose of a Deputy responding to a call is coded. The code "19-0" is for "Burglary: Vehicle." There are codes for "Grand Theft" (79-0) and "Theft Petit" (80-0) but there are no sub-codes for vehicles. Thus, 19-0 is the operative incident code. Deputies also code what happened on these calls. The codes of interest are: A: "Arrest made (offense report & arrest report required);" B: "No arrest made (offense report required);" S: "Referred to other Sheriff's Office section/unit;" X: "Followup investigation--warrant affadavit prepared (supplement required);" and Z: "Followup investigation--arrest made (supplement required)."
With these codes Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines would have the empirical data to know if "Burglary: Vehicle" (code 19-0) was going up or down on a weekly or monthly basis.
This CJ's Street Report is based upon an analysis of all 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z coded incidents between May 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016. The data for 19-0B runs 91 pages. The other codes are one- or two-pages long (A here, S here, X here, Z here). While those other codes could be duplicate incidents, I checked, and they are not.
But, before we examine the empirical data, let us first review how Chief Deputy Haines explained the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards to the Sheriff-friendly crowd on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page on May 18, 2016. Chief Deputy Haines was disputing the first CJ's Street Report post (May 18, 2016) challenging the billboard program on the grounds that, according to a Department of Justice best-practices study, billboards were the least effective means of changing the target audience's behavior, in this case, car owners.
Here is Chief Deputy Haines defending the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards: "Last May at a LE seminar, I spoke with several Chief Deputies who had started this lock it or lose it type campaign and were seeing success. It took a few months to get it off the ground but it started in August with the ECSO bringing up the topic to the media every chance we got. We then went on to social media, YouTube and press releases. I can post the web addresses or you can do a search and see this step got going around September. We then printed cards in the shape of a key and air vent car fresheners and went to the neighborhoods most affected to hand them out. We then started with the roadside message boards which caused all the “outrage”. We have put the messages on all our kiosks. We are now at billboards. All these things are still ongoing and there is more in the lock it or lose it campaign to come."
Notice that the impetus comes in May 2015 (the reason I asked for that starting point of the data) from a seminar the Chief Deputy had attended. Keep in mind, that by May 2015, the Chief Deputy knew for fact certain that for calendar year 2014, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" had fallen -28% without the Escambia County Sheriff's Office doing anything expensive or particularly novel. Notice also that the Chief Deputy did not state that he was alarmed or concerned about any rise in burglaries from motor vehicles in May 2015. No. Instead we have unspecified chief deputies from unspecified counties producing unspecified results with the program.
In fact, if you Google "Lock It, Keep It" you find lots of police departments using the program and no scientific data that the program produces results, that is, excluding a multitude of factors that could also account for drops in crime.
The fact that property crimes, for example, have dropped throughout Florida between 1994 and 2014 suggests that one must be extremely cautious in ascribing drops in crime to police practices. And, the fact that Escambia County's per capita property crime rate steadily rose between 2009 and 2013 and then dropped in 2014, while Florida and other larger counties also experienced drops, suggests we need to be cautious in stating that the ECSO has accomplished something unique. In fact, the data in the chart below shows that on a per capita basis, larger counties (Duvall, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, and Pinellas) had significantly larger drops in per capita property crime rates (20% to 40%) than Escambia County (0%) over the 2009-2014 time period.
Also, in Chief Deputy Haines's explanation is that the billboards do not start until March 2016. In between, there is social media, going into neighborhoods, roadside message boards, advertising on kiosks, and finally the billboards.
The empirical data demonstrates that there was no need to spend $130,000 on billboards that would splash Sheriff Morgan's picture on billboards across Pensacola. In fact, in the five months before Sheriff Morgan committed himself to the billboard contract, the number of 19-0 ("Burglary: Motor Vehicle") had been declining significantly, in some months by 40% to 50%. In fact, if one were to extrapolate from the 19-0 incident reports for January through April 2016, there would be a record low of such reports--360 total.
Here is the data (codes 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z):
2015: MAY 126; JUN 156; JUL 177; AUG 151; SEP 213; OCT 110; NOV 64; DEC 35.
2016: JAN 24; FEB 26; MAR 24; APR 46; and up to May 19, 18.
Between September 2015 and October 2015, vehicular burglaries declined -48%. Between October 2015 and November 2015, vehicular burglaries fell an additional -41%. And, between November 2015 and December, motor vehicle burglaries fell another -45%. Then, fell again in January (-31%) and held steady in February. From September 2015's 213 code 19-0 incidents to February 2016's 26 code 19-0 is a mind-boggling 88% drop in monthly incidents. Ironically, the billboards are correlated with a rise in car burglaries in April 2016, +92%.
Undoubtedly, the Chief Deputy is going to say, "Look at the data, our efforts resulted in a lowering of car burglaries. Thus, the billboards were necessary."
But, the data show that car burglaries fell significantly in October, November, and December 2015. The billboards could not have had any effect on these dramatic declines--since they did not appear until March 2016. Now, whether the decline in October, November, and December was due to the other advertising of the "Lock It, Keep It" is unclear. A possible explanation would be deputies going into neighborhoods to talk to folks about locking their cars and distributing literature reminding them to lock their cars. But, that is just good community policing. If that were the cause of the decline, then the billboard expenditures are not necessary.
But, those explanations are not satisfying. On September 17, 2015, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Pensacola Police Department had arrested 37 teenagers over the preceding two weeks who had been involved in car burglaries. While not members of gangs, they saw unlocked cars as targets of opportunity and took valuables out of the cars. On January 22, 2016, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Escambia County Sheriff's Office had arrested five teenagers, including two with gang ties, that had been burglarizing cars since December 2015.
Thus, the decline in code 19-0 motor vehicle burglaries appears most likely to be the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers starting September 1, 2015 and Escambia County Sheriff's Office arresting 5 teenagers in January 2016.
Thus, we are left with these empirical facts: the significant and dramatic declines in 19-0 (A, B, S, X, Z) incidents started five months (October 2015) before the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign began (March 2016); the drop is most likely due to the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers involved in car burglaries in September 2015; there may be some small influence from ECSO community policing efforts and possibly social media and kiosk advertising; in January 2016, the ECSO arrested an additional 5 teenagers who had been burglarizing cars since December; and, in the month after the billboard campaign started, car burglaries rose 92%. Perhaps, instead of alerting car owners to lock their cars, the billboards were alerting teenagers to a lucrative source of easy cash. While correlation is not causation, the rise in April is not good news for car owners or the ECSO. But, the perception that the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign is driven by Sheriff Morgan's political calculations rather than anti-crime considerations is borne out by the empirical data. There is virtually no empirical ECSO data to support the need to spend $130,000 on the "Lock It, Keep It" campaign.
I think any reasonable Escambia County voter and county commissioner would conclude that Sheriff Morgan spending $130,000 on billboards throughout Escambia County, starting in March 2016 and ending just ten days before his tough primary race, is really intended to boost his political campaign, and not any particular anti-crime effort. The dramatic drop in car burglaries appears to be more the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers in September 2015 than any anti-crime publicity campaign undertaken by the ECSO. This analysis will not convince Sheriff Morgan, Chief Deputy Haines, and their ring of cheerleading supporters on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page. The issue is whether or not reasonable Republican voters will see through Sheriff Morgan's manipulation of crime data for political gain. I believe that a reasonable law enforcement officer would have examined the 19-0 incident report data from October 2015 to February 2016 and concluded that spending $130,000 starting in March 2016 to deter a crime that had significantly declined (-88%) from 213 incidents in September 2015 to 26 incidents in February 2016 to a nuisance level (projected 360 for 2016) was not necessary. But, that's just me, a Democrat who cannot vote in the Republican primary for sheriff.
But, keep in mind that this data is submitted to the FDLE a couple months after the calendar closes. So, this finished data is not available to the ECSO, and especially not to the public.
Still, many people, this author included, believed that the expenditure of $130,000 on anti-crime billboards was driven by political considerations rather than fighting crime considerations. The question is how to support this hypothesis with evidence.
The only available evidence would be data within the Escambia County Sheriff's Office, that is, incident reports. This data is available to Sheriff Morgan and his faithful sidekick Chief Deputy Haines for any period they desire. They could compare, for example, car burglaries for the month of May for any year to see if there were a seasonal effect.
The Escambia County Sheriff's Office has "Incident Disposition Codes." The purpose of a Deputy responding to a call is coded. The code "19-0" is for "Burglary: Vehicle." There are codes for "Grand Theft" (79-0) and "Theft Petit" (80-0) but there are no sub-codes for vehicles. Thus, 19-0 is the operative incident code. Deputies also code what happened on these calls. The codes of interest are: A: "Arrest made (offense report & arrest report required);" B: "No arrest made (offense report required);" S: "Referred to other Sheriff's Office section/unit;" X: "Followup investigation--warrant affadavit prepared (supplement required);" and Z: "Followup investigation--arrest made (supplement required)."
With these codes Sheriff Morgan and Chief Deputy Haines would have the empirical data to know if "Burglary: Vehicle" (code 19-0) was going up or down on a weekly or monthly basis.
This CJ's Street Report is based upon an analysis of all 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z coded incidents between May 1, 2015, and April 30, 2016. The data for 19-0B runs 91 pages. The other codes are one- or two-pages long (A here, S here, X here, Z here). While those other codes could be duplicate incidents, I checked, and they are not.
But, before we examine the empirical data, let us first review how Chief Deputy Haines explained the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards to the Sheriff-friendly crowd on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page on May 18, 2016. Chief Deputy Haines was disputing the first CJ's Street Report post (May 18, 2016) challenging the billboard program on the grounds that, according to a Department of Justice best-practices study, billboards were the least effective means of changing the target audience's behavior, in this case, car owners.
Here is Chief Deputy Haines defending the "Lock It, Keep It" billboards: "Last May at a LE seminar, I spoke with several Chief Deputies who had started this lock it or lose it type campaign and were seeing success. It took a few months to get it off the ground but it started in August with the ECSO bringing up the topic to the media every chance we got. We then went on to social media, YouTube and press releases. I can post the web addresses or you can do a search and see this step got going around September. We then printed cards in the shape of a key and air vent car fresheners and went to the neighborhoods most affected to hand them out. We then started with the roadside message boards which caused all the “outrage”. We have put the messages on all our kiosks. We are now at billboards. All these things are still ongoing and there is more in the lock it or lose it campaign to come."
Notice that the impetus comes in May 2015 (the reason I asked for that starting point of the data) from a seminar the Chief Deputy had attended. Keep in mind, that by May 2015, the Chief Deputy knew for fact certain that for calendar year 2014, "Larceny from Motor Vehicle" had fallen -28% without the Escambia County Sheriff's Office doing anything expensive or particularly novel. Notice also that the Chief Deputy did not state that he was alarmed or concerned about any rise in burglaries from motor vehicles in May 2015. No. Instead we have unspecified chief deputies from unspecified counties producing unspecified results with the program.
In fact, if you Google "Lock It, Keep It" you find lots of police departments using the program and no scientific data that the program produces results, that is, excluding a multitude of factors that could also account for drops in crime.
The fact that property crimes, for example, have dropped throughout Florida between 1994 and 2014 suggests that one must be extremely cautious in ascribing drops in crime to police practices. And, the fact that Escambia County's per capita property crime rate steadily rose between 2009 and 2013 and then dropped in 2014, while Florida and other larger counties also experienced drops, suggests we need to be cautious in stating that the ECSO has accomplished something unique. In fact, the data in the chart below shows that on a per capita basis, larger counties (Duvall, Hillsborough, Miami-Dade, and Pinellas) had significantly larger drops in per capita property crime rates (20% to 40%) than Escambia County (0%) over the 2009-2014 time period.
The empirical data demonstrates that there was no need to spend $130,000 on billboards that would splash Sheriff Morgan's picture on billboards across Pensacola. In fact, in the five months before Sheriff Morgan committed himself to the billboard contract, the number of 19-0 ("Burglary: Motor Vehicle") had been declining significantly, in some months by 40% to 50%. In fact, if one were to extrapolate from the 19-0 incident reports for January through April 2016, there would be a record low of such reports--360 total.
Here is the data (codes 19-0 A, B, S, X, and Z):
2015: MAY 126; JUN 156; JUL 177; AUG 151; SEP 213; OCT 110; NOV 64; DEC 35.
2016: JAN 24; FEB 26; MAR 24; APR 46; and up to May 19, 18.
Between September 2015 and October 2015, vehicular burglaries declined -48%. Between October 2015 and November 2015, vehicular burglaries fell an additional -41%. And, between November 2015 and December, motor vehicle burglaries fell another -45%. Then, fell again in January (-31%) and held steady in February. From September 2015's 213 code 19-0 incidents to February 2016's 26 code 19-0 is a mind-boggling 88% drop in monthly incidents. Ironically, the billboards are correlated with a rise in car burglaries in April 2016, +92%.
Undoubtedly, the Chief Deputy is going to say, "Look at the data, our efforts resulted in a lowering of car burglaries. Thus, the billboards were necessary."
But, the data show that car burglaries fell significantly in October, November, and December 2015. The billboards could not have had any effect on these dramatic declines--since they did not appear until March 2016. Now, whether the decline in October, November, and December was due to the other advertising of the "Lock It, Keep It" is unclear. A possible explanation would be deputies going into neighborhoods to talk to folks about locking their cars and distributing literature reminding them to lock their cars. But, that is just good community policing. If that were the cause of the decline, then the billboard expenditures are not necessary.
But, those explanations are not satisfying. On September 17, 2015, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Pensacola Police Department had arrested 37 teenagers over the preceding two weeks who had been involved in car burglaries. While not members of gangs, they saw unlocked cars as targets of opportunity and took valuables out of the cars. On January 22, 2016, the Pensacola News Journal reported that the Escambia County Sheriff's Office had arrested five teenagers, including two with gang ties, that had been burglarizing cars since December 2015.
Thus, the decline in code 19-0 motor vehicle burglaries appears most likely to be the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers starting September 1, 2015 and Escambia County Sheriff's Office arresting 5 teenagers in January 2016.
Thus, we are left with these empirical facts: the significant and dramatic declines in 19-0 (A, B, S, X, Z) incidents started five months (October 2015) before the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign began (March 2016); the drop is most likely due to the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers involved in car burglaries in September 2015; there may be some small influence from ECSO community policing efforts and possibly social media and kiosk advertising; in January 2016, the ECSO arrested an additional 5 teenagers who had been burglarizing cars since December; and, in the month after the billboard campaign started, car burglaries rose 92%. Perhaps, instead of alerting car owners to lock their cars, the billboards were alerting teenagers to a lucrative source of easy cash. While correlation is not causation, the rise in April is not good news for car owners or the ECSO. But, the perception that the "Lock It, Keep It" billboard campaign is driven by Sheriff Morgan's political calculations rather than anti-crime considerations is borne out by the empirical data. There is virtually no empirical ECSO data to support the need to spend $130,000 on the "Lock It, Keep It" campaign.
I think any reasonable Escambia County voter and county commissioner would conclude that Sheriff Morgan spending $130,000 on billboards throughout Escambia County, starting in March 2016 and ending just ten days before his tough primary race, is really intended to boost his political campaign, and not any particular anti-crime effort. The dramatic drop in car burglaries appears to be more the result of the Pensacola Police Department arresting 37 teenagers in September 2015 than any anti-crime publicity campaign undertaken by the ECSO. This analysis will not convince Sheriff Morgan, Chief Deputy Haines, and their ring of cheerleading supporters on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page. The issue is whether or not reasonable Republican voters will see through Sheriff Morgan's manipulation of crime data for political gain. I believe that a reasonable law enforcement officer would have examined the 19-0 incident report data from October 2015 to February 2016 and concluded that spending $130,000 starting in March 2016 to deter a crime that had significantly declined (-88%) from 213 incidents in September 2015 to 26 incidents in February 2016 to a nuisance level (projected 360 for 2016) was not necessary. But, that's just me, a Democrat who cannot vote in the Republican primary for sheriff.
Wednesday, June 8, 2016
MORGAN MISUSED LETF FUNDS FOR BILLBOARDS?
Trying to pin Chief Deputy Haines and Sheriff Morgan down is like the proverbial problem of nailing jello to the wall. You interpret their billboard signs to read that it is about vehicle thefts and they come back and state on the Escambia Citizens Watch Facebook page that it is really about car burglaries. Go to the FDLE website and burglaries are aggregated at a level that is useless. All burglaries are lumped together, from homes, cars, businesses, and other. When you finally get to the disaggregated Uniform Crime Report (UCR) data it is not car burglaries but "Largency from Motor Vehicles" that is apparently the relevant reportable index crime. And, when I asked for the analytical products that drove the decision to spend money on the billboards, I received the disaggregated FDLE UCR data.
So, let us examine the UCR data reported by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office to Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for "Larceny from Motor Vehicles." This appears to be the only relevant crime data germane to the problem.
For calendar year 2012, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle declined -7.7% between calendar year 2011 (2,119) and 2012 (1,956).
For calendar year 2013, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle increased +20.4%, going from 1,956 larcenies to 2,355 larcenies in 2013.
For calendar year 2014, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle decreased -28%, falling from 2,355 in 2013 to 1,654 in 2014.
For calendar year 2015, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle increased +15.1%, rising from 1,654 in 2014 to 1,904 in 2015.
Let us make a number of observations. After larcenies from a motor vehicle rose +20.4% in 2013, Sheriff Morgan did not authorize spending $130,000 for billboards. We know of no special programs, policies, or procedures that were instituted to reduce these motor vehicle larcenies. The following year, larcenies from motor vehicles declined -28% without Sheriff Morgan apparently instituting anything special that the public would have noticed. Certainly, had the ECSO done something different in 2014, it would almost certainly had duplicated those programs, policies, and techniques in 2016. To the contrary, Chief Deputy Haines stated on Facebook that they started the overall billboard campaign in August 2015--several months before they knew what the actual level of "larcenies from a motor vehicle" would be. In 2015, larcenies from a motor vehicle rose +15.1%, significantly less than in calendar year 2013 (20% less) when the same crime category rose +20%, yet this year--faced with a tough reelection campaign against highly qualified challengers--Sheriff Morgan authorized spending $130,000 in a billboard publicity campaign using a police publicity campaign considered by the Department of Justice to be the least effective method of changing the behavior of car owners. In short, Sheriff Morgan has seemingly used the plausible cover a 15% rise in larcenies from a motor vehicle to spend $130,000 to promote his image on billboards around the county from March 2016 to just ten days before the election in August.
Escambia County taxpayers need to know that the $130,000 initially comes from the General Fund account. Sheriff Morgan needs to submit the documentation for the billboards to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to be reimbursed from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund. Should the BOCC find that the money is not consistent with the purpose of the LETF, they could decline to reimburse the Sheriff. The same is true for all other expenditures that the Sheriff requests reimbursement for from the LETF. I am not suggesting that the BOCC will not reimburse the Sheriff. I am only stating that initially the Sheriff spends funds from his own General Fund account. Only later does the money come from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund.
As the issue now stands, Sheriff Morgan is spending in excess of $130,000 from his General Fund account to apparently boost his re-election campaign. Whether or not the expenditure was justified is up to the BOCC and the voters to decide. But, the evidence suggests that this expenditure was driven first and foremost by political considerations and only secondarily by crime data considerations. Instead, it appears that Sheriff Morgan is using the rise in larcenies from a motor vehicle as cover for an underhanded re-election publicity campaign. After larcenies from motor vehicles rose +20% in 2013, Sheriff Morgan did not resort to a publicity campaign. Why not then and why now?
So, let us examine the UCR data reported by the Escambia County Sheriff's Office to Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) for "Larceny from Motor Vehicles." This appears to be the only relevant crime data germane to the problem.
For calendar year 2012, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle declined -7.7% between calendar year 2011 (2,119) and 2012 (1,956).
For calendar year 2013, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle increased +20.4%, going from 1,956 larcenies to 2,355 larcenies in 2013.
For calendar year 2014, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle decreased -28%, falling from 2,355 in 2013 to 1,654 in 2014.
For calendar year 2015, the number of larcenies from a motor vehicle increased +15.1%, rising from 1,654 in 2014 to 1,904 in 2015.
Let us make a number of observations. After larcenies from a motor vehicle rose +20.4% in 2013, Sheriff Morgan did not authorize spending $130,000 for billboards. We know of no special programs, policies, or procedures that were instituted to reduce these motor vehicle larcenies. The following year, larcenies from motor vehicles declined -28% without Sheriff Morgan apparently instituting anything special that the public would have noticed. Certainly, had the ECSO done something different in 2014, it would almost certainly had duplicated those programs, policies, and techniques in 2016. To the contrary, Chief Deputy Haines stated on Facebook that they started the overall billboard campaign in August 2015--several months before they knew what the actual level of "larcenies from a motor vehicle" would be. In 2015, larcenies from a motor vehicle rose +15.1%, significantly less than in calendar year 2013 (20% less) when the same crime category rose +20%, yet this year--faced with a tough reelection campaign against highly qualified challengers--Sheriff Morgan authorized spending $130,000 in a billboard publicity campaign using a police publicity campaign considered by the Department of Justice to be the least effective method of changing the behavior of car owners. In short, Sheriff Morgan has seemingly used the plausible cover a 15% rise in larcenies from a motor vehicle to spend $130,000 to promote his image on billboards around the county from March 2016 to just ten days before the election in August.
Escambia County taxpayers need to know that the $130,000 initially comes from the General Fund account. Sheriff Morgan needs to submit the documentation for the billboards to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to be reimbursed from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund. Should the BOCC find that the money is not consistent with the purpose of the LETF, they could decline to reimburse the Sheriff. The same is true for all other expenditures that the Sheriff requests reimbursement for from the LETF. I am not suggesting that the BOCC will not reimburse the Sheriff. I am only stating that initially the Sheriff spends funds from his own General Fund account. Only later does the money come from the Law Enforcement Trust Fund.
As the issue now stands, Sheriff Morgan is spending in excess of $130,000 from his General Fund account to apparently boost his re-election campaign. Whether or not the expenditure was justified is up to the BOCC and the voters to decide. But, the evidence suggests that this expenditure was driven first and foremost by political considerations and only secondarily by crime data considerations. Instead, it appears that Sheriff Morgan is using the rise in larcenies from a motor vehicle as cover for an underhanded re-election publicity campaign. After larcenies from motor vehicles rose +20% in 2013, Sheriff Morgan did not resort to a publicity campaign. Why not then and why now?
Friday, May 27, 2016
THIRD SHERIFF DEBATE VIDEOS WITHOUT COMMENTARY
INTRODUCTION
On Thursday May 26, 2016, the Women for Responsible Legislation, a non-partisan conservative group, hosted the third Sheriff of Escambia County debate at Pensacola City Hall. Participants included Ron McNesby, former Escambia County sheriff; John Johnson, retired DEA agent; Doug Baldwin, Sr., retired Pensacola Police Department lieutenant; David Morgan, incumbent Sheriff; and, Rex Blackburn, retired Escambia County deputy sheriff. All except Blackburn are running as Republicans.
The following videos are published in the following order: a welcome statement from Donna Clark for the WRL. Opening and closing remarks for each of the candidates. The Question & Answer session. In the latter, all of the candidates answered the same question. Each candidate was given two minutes for a response. There is only one break in the Q&A session. The moderator went to the next question before David Morgan answered. These videos have not been edited. Nor is there any editorial comment.
The actual order of the Opening statements was: David Morgan, John Johnson, Doug Baldwin, Ron McNesby, and Rex Blackburn.
The actual order of the Closing statements was: Ron McNesby, Doug Baldwin, John Johnson, David Morgan, and Rex Blackburn.
During the Q&A sessions, the moderator eventually went to a round-robin format where each panelist rotated into the opening slot.
Watch and listen to the videos and make your own mind up.
WELCOMING STATEMENT
OPENING AND CLOSING STATEMENTS, DAVID MORGAN
On Thursday May 26, 2016, the Women for Responsible Legislation, a non-partisan conservative group, hosted the third Sheriff of Escambia County debate at Pensacola City Hall. Participants included Ron McNesby, former Escambia County sheriff; John Johnson, retired DEA agent; Doug Baldwin, Sr., retired Pensacola Police Department lieutenant; David Morgan, incumbent Sheriff; and, Rex Blackburn, retired Escambia County deputy sheriff. All except Blackburn are running as Republicans.
The following videos are published in the following order: a welcome statement from Donna Clark for the WRL. Opening and closing remarks for each of the candidates. The Question & Answer session. In the latter, all of the candidates answered the same question. Each candidate was given two minutes for a response. There is only one break in the Q&A session. The moderator went to the next question before David Morgan answered. These videos have not been edited. Nor is there any editorial comment.
The actual order of the Opening statements was: David Morgan, John Johnson, Doug Baldwin, Ron McNesby, and Rex Blackburn.
The actual order of the Closing statements was: Ron McNesby, Doug Baldwin, John Johnson, David Morgan, and Rex Blackburn.
During the Q&A sessions, the moderator eventually went to a round-robin format where each panelist rotated into the opening slot.
Watch and listen to the videos and make your own mind up.
WELCOMING STATEMENT
OPENING AND CLOSING STATEMENTS, DAVID MORGAN
OPENING
CLOSING
OPENING AND CLOSING STATEMENTS, JOHN JOHNSON
OPENING
CLOSING
OPENING AND CLOSING STATEMENTS, DOUG BALDWIN, SR.
OPENING
CLOSING
OPENING AND CLOSING STATEMENTS, RON MCNESBY
OPENING
CLOSING
OPENING AND CLOSING STATEMENTS, REX BLACKBURN
OPENING
CLOSING
QUESTION: PROGRAM TO COMBAT DRUG CRIME
QUESTION: WHY DO YOU WANT THIS JOB?
QUESTION: STRATEGY TO DEAL WITH COUNTY JAIL
QUESTION: DEPUTIES QUESTIONING AND THE RIGHTS OF CHILDREN
QUESTION: COUNTY SHERIFF SUPREMACY AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
QUESTION: LAW ENFORCEMENT TRUST FUND SPENDING
QUESTION: SCOPE OF SUPERVISION QUALIFICATION
QUESTION: PROUDEST ACCOMPLISHMENT IN ESCAMBIA COUNTY
Thursday, May 26, 2016
GENDER AND RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN THE ECSO IS NOT A JOKE
INTRODUCTION
In the previous CJ's Street Report blogpost, Sheriff Morgan's retaliation against Deputy Ozell Powell was discussed. The blogpost emphasized two key points. One, after Deputy Powell filed an internal EEOC complaint against Sheriff Morgan, Sheriff Morgan personally ordered the initiation of an Internal Affairs investigation of Deputy Powell for stealing a $2.00 baseball card. That IA investigation found that the accusation by Sheriff Morgan was "unsubstantiated." And two, that such a retaliatory investigation was meant to punish Deputy Powell and intimidate other deputies.
But, this pattern of retaliation after filing a complaint of discrimination was not limited to Deputy Powell, an African American Army veteran with Multiple Sclerosis. Beyanca Cannon, a corrections officer and Black woman, filed a complaint against a senior officer and suffered retaliatory punishment. Rhonda Ray, a public information officer and white woman, filed a discrimination complaint and suffered from retaliatory actions. Former Lieutenant Laura Montoya, Colonel of Investigations and a Hispanic (Latina) woman, complained of racial and gender harassment, and was put under investigation. Mindy Pare, a white woman, was fired for missing one duty assignment and claimed that she received a more severe punishment than male deputies in the same situation. Master Deputy Jacquelyn Gulley, a Black woman, filed a complaint (I have not read it) and was put under Internal Affairs investigation for "liking" Facebook posts that were critical of Sheriff Morgan.
All five women, were outstanding law enforcement officers or correction officers. They claimed they experienced gender and/or racial harassment. They claimed they suffered mental duress and physical pain. Their careers were either terminated or jeopardized. And, after they filed a complaint, most of them were met with overt hostility from Sheriff Morgan by being placed under very stressful Internal Affairs investigations. Whether the IA investigations found that the accusations were substantiated or not is irrelevant. The IA investigations are seen as retaliatory and further evidence of racial and/or gender discrimination. At least four cases are under court ordered mediation. Only Deputy Gulley's complaint has not resulted in the filing of a state or federal lawsuit while it is under review inside the ECSO.
The evidence to be discussed below is drawn from court records and Internal Affairs investigation files. Since all these court cases or complaints are active, I have not interviewed any of the plaintiffs or complainants, or sought their perspectives. Any observations or conclusions drawn are my own.
That said, I think that when you find that five different women at five different times complaining of racial and/or gender discrimination and they are then subjected to retaliation via Internal Affairs investigation (or other investigation or near-immediate termination), then I believe you have the factual basis to conclude that there may be a pattern and practice of creating a hostile work environment for women of color (and women), a pattern and practice of racial and/or gender discrimination, and a pattern and practice of retaliation against those very same women. None of this apparently makes into the box score when judging the merits and qualifications of Sheriff Morgan's candidacy for office.
Sheriff Morgan joked that once you become a Sheriff your new job title is "Defendant." He laughed. But it is not a joking matter. These five women have suffered. Deputy Powell suffered. Undoubtedly, others have suffered in silence, too afraid to complain. Once a woman files a complaint to protect their rights, dignity, and career, it appears that the full force of the office of the Sheriff is dedicated to beating these women down into submission.
And, you the county taxpayers should not be laughing. At least four of these cases are under court-ordered mediation. There is a possibility that the Sheriff's Office is going to have to pay for its laughing, cavalier attitude towards racial and/or gender discrimination and creating and maintaining a hostile work environment.
BEYANCA CANNON
Beyanca Cannon filed her lawsuit against Sheriff David Morgan and the Escambia County Board of Commissioners on August 28, 2014. Cannon, a Black woman who formerly worked as a corrections officer before being employed by the BOCC, is suing for at least $75,000 plus costs and interest.
She complained that since she was hired on February 14, 2011, she had been "mercilessly harassed and discriminated against by Lieutenant Reagan Phillips, who has since retired." She asserted that Phillips applied different standards to her compared to "white employees," demeaned her, and created a "hostile work environment" by inflicting "taunts by Phillips on an almost daily basis." As a result, she claimed she developed "Bruxism Clentching" which is the product of "severe stress" that causes migraine headaches which led to sleep deprivation. Cannon was the "subject of vicious rumors that she was 'too friendly' with inmates. These rumors, upon information and belief were created and spread by Phillips. Anonymous false reports were filed against Plaintiff and her car was shot into and the windows were broken. The false misconduct reports filed against Plaintiff were investigated and unsubstantiated."
In addition, "after filing several discrimination complaints against Phillips, Plaintiff began to receive unfair discipline on contrived allegations by the person she accused of racial harassment. On or around August 7, 2013, Plaintiff was retaliated against and suspended for 28 days without pay for a violation of a rule she did not commit. Plaintiff continues to work with for the Defendant Board and still deals with the residue of the treatment she was subjected to by Phillips."
Cannon's complaint further alleged Sheriff's Morgan own actions tolerating the racial harassment of her contributed to the racial harassment of Anita Hemphill. Her complaint stated, "Furthermore, Defendant Sheriff knowingly condoned and ratified the differential treatment of Plaintiff as more fully set forth above because it allowed the differential treatment and participated in same not only of the Plaintiff but of at least on other employee of the Defendant, Anita Hemphill." And, as we shall see below in the case of Laura Montoya, Montoya's involvement in the Hemphill case--under cover of protected speech--resulted in retaliatory disciplinary action against Montoya.
The federal court ordered mediation on November 29, 2014, for case 3:14cv439-MCR-CJK.
RHONDA RAY
On July 2, 2015, Rhonda Ray, a white woman hired in 2001 as a public information officer, sued Sheriff Morgan for gender discrimination related to working in a "hostile work environment and retaliation for reporting the discriminatory acts."
Ray's complaint centers around the behaviors of David Craig, one of Sheriff Morgan's most trusted confidants who was hired in 2009 to work in the public information office, and Lt. Spears (a female) who was Ray's supervisor in the Community Relations Unit (CRU) and a later male supervisor. Craig and Spears created a hostile work environment so severe that Ray transferred to the Crime Stoppers Division. After Craig agreed not to harass Ray, Ray transferred back into the CRU in January 2011.
In February 2013, Ray transferred to the Public Information Office. In August 2013, Sheriff Morgan "personally tasked Plaintiff [Ray] with a video production assignment." Craig responded to this self-perceived slight by "harassing, bullying, threating [sic] with career suicide and demeaning" Ray. Ray reported this harassment directly to Sheriff Morgan and filed a complaint with the Human Resources Division. After being told by an unspecified person to keep the complaint to herself, Ray "was informed that her services on the Wanted Fugitives T.V. show, which she had been a part of
since 2005, were no longer needed."
In January 2014, the ECSO created a "position description" for a "Community Relations Coordinator" (CRC). According to the complaint, the position description matched the duties that Ray had fulfilled and "very few" if any of the tasks Craig had performed in the CRU. Both Ray and Craig interviewed for the position. Between January 2014 and March 2014, at least two people, including her then male supervisor and the personnel hiring committee, quizzed her on how she planned to balance her professional and personal lives. In April 2014, the position was awarded to Craig. And, despite having "essentially similar duties and responsibilities" Ray was paid less than a male Video Production Specialist. After filing her EEOC complaint, Ray has been "continually harassed and subject to a hostile work environment including having her office location changed and relocated." She was also punished with the lower amount of pay than her male colleague.
On May 23, 2016, the U.S. District Court had the case in mediation.
LAURA MONTOYA
On March 3, 2016, Laura Montoya, a Hispanic, sued Sheriff David Morgan, Chief Deputy Eric Haines, Commander Ricky Shelby, and Captain Fred Alford for racial and gender discrimination, as well as illegal termination, and creating a hostile work environment. She was reduced in rank from Colonel to Lieutenant in November 2014 and then terminated on August 14, 2015. Up until the time she was terminated she was a "stellar employee" for more than 16 years.
She was promoted to Colonel on May 29, 2013, and served under Commander Shelby. Shelby told her soon after her promotion that "he did not agree with her promotion to Colonel of Investigations and the most she should be was a First Lieutenant because she was a woman." He then "routinely berated, cursed, yelled at and chastised" Montoya. Shelby kept important information about the budget and narcotics unit from on the grounds that a woman did not need to know those details. Shelby criticized her for talking "too much" in staff meetings and "not enough" in staff meetings.
Montoya took her concerns directly to Sheriff Morgan on a "number of occasions." She also told Sheriff Morgan that Shelby had other harassment issues with other women. Morgan, according to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court, advised her that he was "aware of the problems with Shelby because Colonel Hardy, a white male, had discussed similar problems he had with Shelby." The solution in the case of Colonel Hardy was to transfer Hardy to the Administration Division. Morgan advised Montoya to "'stay the course'" and that "he would 'deal with Commander Shelby.'"
Instead of transferring out and keeping her rank, as Colonel Hardy had done, in April 2014 Senior Commander Shelby provided Montoya with a "Notice of Performance Deficiencies" and in November 2014 Sheriff Morgan gave her the option of "voluntary demotion" or an "involuntary demotion," as well a list of "performance deficiencies."
Now reduced to her permanent rank of Lieutenant, Montoya then had her authority undermined by a reporting Lieutenant who had refused a direct order to release a suicide note to the next of kin. Chief Deputy Haines subsequently criticized Montoya's investigation of the insubordination incident and eventually the male Lieutenant was promoted to First Lieutenant.
Montoya, now voluntarily demoted to Lieutenant, transferred to Courthouse Security under Captain Fred Alford. Alford, according to the complaint, "has been the subject of numerous internal complaints, yet has never been demoted from his Captain rank."
On February 13, 2015, Montoya was subpoenaed to testify in a deposition in a lawsuit brought by Anita Hemphill against Sheriff Morgan as the sheriff regarding "racial and gender discrimination."
During the deposition lawyers for Hemphill asked for the documents Montoya had in a manila folder that she had intended to use to refresh her memory, if necessary. The two ECSO lawyers representing the Sheriff approved the release of the documents in the folder.
One of the documents in the folder was a November 2013 email from Chief Deputy Haines (defendant in this case) to Montoya regarding the Hemphill case in which the Chief Deputy instructed Montoya to "'please delete this after you review it.'"
Two months later (April 2015), Montoya was advised she was the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation for keeping the email from the Chief Deputy and for releasing the documents to Hemphill's lawyers. Also in April 2015, Montoya was advised that she was also under administrative investigation for "gender discrimination" against white male employees. Captain Alford contended that Montoya was assigning more overtime hours to female employees than male employees.
The gender discrimination charge was not substantiated. The "insubordination and improper dissemination of information were sustained." Instead of Level 4 punishment as recommended by Commander Tharp, 20 hours of suspension according to the ECSO's Disciplinary Matrix, Montoya was given Level 8, termination by the Disciplinary Review Board that was approved by Morgan.
However, in her federal complaint, Montoya's lawyer contended that destruction of the email would have violated at least three ECSO policies, if not the Florida Sunshine law, and, that when she testified under subpoena that was "protected speech," and that her complaint of racial and gender discrimination was also "protected speech."
Her lawyer contended that the "ESCO has engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination. Other minority and female employees have been subjected to systemic discrimination within ESCO and have suffered adverse employment actions."
On May 16, 2016, a mere two months after filing her federal complaint, the U.S. District Court issued an order for mediation. The original complaint asked for a "trial by jury."
MINDY PARE
On January 21, 2014, Mindy Pare filed a gender discrimination lawsuit in the First Circuit Court of Florida. She alleged gender discrimination on the basis that she is "aware of other similarly situated male deputies that have missed their duty assignments and were not terminated" and that "Pare was disciplined more harshly than similarly situated male deputies."
Pare was hired as a deputy in January 2006 and in March 2011 she transferred from patrol to court security. One of her duties was to stand watch at the Juvenile Justice Center two weekends every six months. She missed the Sunday duty in June 2011 because she did not remember the assignment and had not been given the reminder email from her superior. In September 2011 she was terminated.
On March 18, 2016, the First Circuit Court issued a "Notice of Mediation Conference."
JACQUELYN GULLEY
Deputy Gulley's complaint of gender discrimination or harassment is with the ECSO and has not been released in response to a public records request.
It is understood that some time after filing her complaint, she was the target of an Internal Affairs investigation for "liking" several Facebook posts that had been posted by former Chief Deputy Bill Chavers. The same "liking" of Chavers's posts was undertaken by then Deputy Donald 'Buddy' Nesmith Jr., now retired. He, too, was the target of an Internal Affairs investigation. In fact, both investigations were started on the same day and use identical language. Chavers's comments were highly critical of Sheriff Morgan and challenged the Sheriff's qualifications as a candidate for Sheriff.
On February 8, 2016, Sheriff Morgan commenced Internal Affairs investigations against Nesmith and Gulley for violating "General Order 236 Personal Use of Social Media, 236.1 Precautions & Prohibitions (1), (2)."
General Order 236.1(1) apparently deals with "Sexual Harassment" and states that "Inappropriate postings that may include discriminatory remarks, harassment, and threats of violence or similar inappropriate or unlawful conduct will not be tolerated and may subject the member to disciplinary action up to and including termination" (page 4 pdf).
General Order 236.1(2) deals with a general prohibition: "Members are free to express themselves as private citizens on social media sites to the degree that their speech does not impair working relationships of the ECSO for which loyalty and confidentiality are important, impede the performance of duties, impair discipline and harmony among coworkers, or negatively affect the public perception of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office."
This area of the law--the free speech rights of a public employee--is quite complicated and depends upon the interpretation of several U.S. Supreme Court decisions which lower courts do not always get right. This is especially the situation when it involves sheriff deputies versus correctional deputies. Here I must rely upon lawyers and court decisions to explicate the delicate balancing tests necessary to establish the boundaries of constitutionally protected speech.
We begin with the established fact in Florida that by law and statute that sheriff deputies are appointed and can be terminated by the sheriff "at will." Though they are not public employees, it is arguable that they cannot be denied their constitutional rights of free speech on matters of "public concern."
In the Nesmith and Gulley Internal Affairs investigation, there is no doubt that Sheriff Morgan took umbrage at the comments of former Chief Deputy Bill Chavers.
The statement of "Findings," officially signed by First Lieutenant Carl Jones and Sergeant James Barnes, sounds like it was dictated by Sheriff Morgan.
The IA report summarized Chavers' comments and the reaction of Sheriff Morgan: "These comments challenge Sheriff Morgan's integrity and character. They state he is 'uncaring' and 'politically motivated.' They describe his administration as 'terrible,' and call him the 'face of evil.' They refer to him as 'King David,' and describe his term as Sheriff as a 'reign of terror.' They state he has 'no true experience and is the least qualified person to ever hold the office of Sheriff.' They state he is the 'worse [sic] person to ever hold the office of Sheriff' and 'possibly a bigger crook than his self claimed friend Sheriff Charlie Morris from Okaloosa County.' These comments have not been supported by evidence. They are egregiously disloyal, reckless, and maliciously untrue. They bring discredit upon the Sheriff and negatively affect the public perception of the ECSO. Gulley, a current member of the ECSO, clicked the 'Like' button on these public comments. Although she did not intend to offend the Sheriff or the ECSO with her actions, she did. If the Sheriff and other members of the ECSO found these actions offensive, it is not unreasonable to conclude that others did as well. These actions do not reflect favorably upon the Sheriff or the ECSO" (page 5 pdf).
On page 10 of the Gulley pdf document, the IA report goes into some detail into the meaning of the "Like" button on Facebook.
According to the IA report: "Clicking like is a form of speech because its use conveys a message. Just as flipping the middle finger is a form of speech, so too is giving a thumbs-up, or like. Facebook defines the like button as, 'a way to give positive feedback and connect with things you care about.' Gulley explained her use of like had several different meanings, but she did not hit like to show support for anything negative or disparaging against the Sheriff or ECSO. However, the Sheriff and other members of the ECSO, found her use of like offensive. Use of the like button is subjective. What one person might feel is an acceptable application of like, another person may not."
The case that is highly relevant here is Bland v. Roberts decided by the Fourth Circuit's Court of Appeals.
It is especially relevant because Facebook, Inc. filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of six plaintiffs who were fired after an election by the Sheriff of Hampton city in Virginia.
Facebook explained that it had a vital interest at stake in the case: "Facebook, for itself and its Users, has a vital interest in ensuring that speech on Facebook and in other online communities is afforded
the same constitutional protection as speech in newspapers, on television, and in the town square" (page 7 pdf). Thus, its intervention was a matter of serious financial and constitutional concern.
Facebook explained that a "like" was constitutionally protected speech. According to Facebook's brief (page 8 pdf), "When a Facebook User Likes a Page on Facebook, she engages in speech protected by the First Amendment.... Liking a Facebook Page (or other website) is core speech: it is a statement that will be viewed by a small group of Facebook Friends or by a vast community of online users."
Facebook (page 15 pdf) also explained that the lower district court had erred in its decision on whether a "like" was speech: "Contrary to the district court’s understanding, Liking a Facebook Page (or a non-Facebook website) is speech: it generates verbal statements and communicative imagery on the User’s Profile (or Timeline) Page – i.e., a statement that the User likes a particular Page, accompanied by the Page’s icon – as well as similar statements and imagery in the News Feeds of the User’s Friends."
Facebook (page 17 pdf) emphasized that the U.S. Supreme Court had stressed that speech during political campaigns was especially protected. On page 18 Facebook noted that the "use of social networking and other online communities to rally support for political candidates and causes is a contemporary example of quintessential political speech." Facebook pointed out that both the Republican National Committee and President Obama utilized Facebook to rally supporters.
Furthermore, Facebook noted that "Facebook thus provides a convenient and effective way for millions of voters to express support for the candidates of their choice and to become more personally involved in the political process as a result" (page 18 pdf).
Facebook argued that a simple "like" was protected speech and as such a basis for contesting an unlawful termination: "Carter’s Liking of the Adams campaign’s Facebook Page – and the statements that appeared on Carter’s Profile, in the News Feeds of Carter’s Friends, and on the campaign’s Page – was no different from telling friends that he supported Adams, putting an Adams bumper sticker on his car, or planting an Adams campaign sign in his front yard. Carter’s Like on Facebook can form the predicate of his claim against Roberts for unlawful termination" (page 21 pdf).
Facebook also noted that in order for a public employee's speech to be protected "'need only be upon a matter of public concern'" (page 21 pdf). Facebook (page 23 pdf) concluded its brief by noting that "The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the 'private expression of one’s views' from retaliatory employment action."
The American Civil Liberties Union also submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs in Bland v. Roberts.
The ACLU wrote a vigorous defense of the plaintiffs and the use of a Facebook "Like" as an expression of substantive and symbolic speech that is constitutionally protected. The ACLU noted (pages 11-12), "'Liking' something on Facebook expresses a clear message – one recognized by millions of Facebook users and non-Facebook users – and is both pure speech and symbolic expression that warrants constitutional protection.... In this way, an individual who uses the 'Like' button is making a substantive statement. That is especially the case when a user “Likes” a political candidate, as that is a clear sign of support for that candidate.... Or if a user 'Likes' another user’s comment or post, he or she is expressing approval of the information conveyed by that other user."
The ACLU further argued that the U.S. Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education protected speech by public employees on matters of public concern (page 21 pdf): "Public employees do not 'relinquish the First Amendment rights they would otherwise enjoy as citizens to comment on matters of public interest'...The First Amendment thus protects the speech of public employees when they speak on matters of public concern."
The ACLU also argued that speech related to the qualifications of a sheriff for office were a matter of public concern and thus protected speech: "Indeed, this Court has repeatedly held that the subject matter of plaintiffs’ speech – the merits of a candidate for political office – is a matter of public concern....(speech regarding who was most qualified to be Sheriff is 'undoubtedly' protected). This case is no different. The campaign for the Sheriff’s office was the subject of a highly contentious and very public debate that dominated the community for a period of time" (page 24 pdf).
The ACLU pointed out that the Pickering balance test requires a Sheriff to provide evidence and substantiate that the operation of the Sheriff's Office was disrupted by the speech of his or her deputies: "That is especially true here because there has been no legitimate claim that plaintiffs’ speech caused any disruption to the Sheriff’s office or its ability to operate efficiently...(an employer wishing to defend against allegations of impermissible retaliation must present evidence that the speech actually interfered with the functioning of his office, and may not merely assert 'speculative and unsubstantiated' charges of disruptions)" (page 28 pdf).
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals apparently was convinced by Facebook, Inc.'s and the ACLU's amicus curiae briefs and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions that a "Like" was constitutionally protected speech. The Appeals Court reasoned (pages 41, 42, 44, 45): "Once one understands the nature of what Carter did by liking the Campaign Page, it becomes apparent that his conduct qualifies as speech.... Aside from the fact that liking the Campaign Page constituted pure speech, it also was symbolic expression.... In this way, it is the Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one’s front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is substantive speech.... The Sheriff does not dispute that Carter’s speech, if it was speech, was made in his capacity as a private citizen.... And, it is well established that an employee can speak as a private citizen in his workplace, even if the content of the speech is 'related to the speaker’s job.'... Carter’s speech was political speech, which is entitled to the highest level of protection.... Indeed, the public’s interest in Carter’s opinions regarding the election may have had particular value to the public in light of his status as a Sheriff’s Office employee."
Examining another plaintiff who went on the opposing candidate's Facebook page and posted his own picture as a supporter was also constitutionally protected speech, according to the Court of Appeals. The Court wrote (page 47 pdf), "Certainly a posting on a campaign’s Facebook Page indicating support for the candidate constitutes speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. For the same reasons as applied to Carter’s speech, McCoy’s speech was made in his capacity as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, namely, whether Adams should be elected Hampton Sheriff."
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision speaks to the situation Nesmith and Gulley found themselves vis-a-vis Sheriff Morgan (pages 45-6 pdf): "In contrast, despite the Sheriff’s reference to the need for harmony and discipline in the Sheriff’s Office, nothing in the record in this case indicates that Carter’s Facebook support of Adams’s campaign did anything in particular to disrupt the office or would have made it more difficult for Carter, the Sheriff, or others to perform their work efficiently."
On page 8 (pdf) of the Internal Affairs report, the investigators noted that Gulley "normally accesses Facebook via Ipad at home." Other than Sheriff Morgan and unnamed others, there is no evidence in the Internal Affairs that "liking" the comments former Chief Deputy Chavers posted on Facebook had caused any disruption to the ECSO's working environment or relations between deputies. And, given the statements that Chavers made, it is difficult to fathom how they could be considered a form of "Sexual Harassment." That Sheriff Morgan was miffed to the nth degree is undeniable.
Thus, Sheriff Morgan was absolutely correct that "Clicking like is a form of speech because its use conveys a message." What the General Counsel of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office neglected to tell him was that it was constitutionally protected speech.
In the previous CJ's Street Report blogpost, Sheriff Morgan's retaliation against Deputy Ozell Powell was discussed. The blogpost emphasized two key points. One, after Deputy Powell filed an internal EEOC complaint against Sheriff Morgan, Sheriff Morgan personally ordered the initiation of an Internal Affairs investigation of Deputy Powell for stealing a $2.00 baseball card. That IA investigation found that the accusation by Sheriff Morgan was "unsubstantiated." And two, that such a retaliatory investigation was meant to punish Deputy Powell and intimidate other deputies.
But, this pattern of retaliation after filing a complaint of discrimination was not limited to Deputy Powell, an African American Army veteran with Multiple Sclerosis. Beyanca Cannon, a corrections officer and Black woman, filed a complaint against a senior officer and suffered retaliatory punishment. Rhonda Ray, a public information officer and white woman, filed a discrimination complaint and suffered from retaliatory actions. Former Lieutenant Laura Montoya, Colonel of Investigations and a Hispanic (Latina) woman, complained of racial and gender harassment, and was put under investigation. Mindy Pare, a white woman, was fired for missing one duty assignment and claimed that she received a more severe punishment than male deputies in the same situation. Master Deputy Jacquelyn Gulley, a Black woman, filed a complaint (I have not read it) and was put under Internal Affairs investigation for "liking" Facebook posts that were critical of Sheriff Morgan.
All five women, were outstanding law enforcement officers or correction officers. They claimed they experienced gender and/or racial harassment. They claimed they suffered mental duress and physical pain. Their careers were either terminated or jeopardized. And, after they filed a complaint, most of them were met with overt hostility from Sheriff Morgan by being placed under very stressful Internal Affairs investigations. Whether the IA investigations found that the accusations were substantiated or not is irrelevant. The IA investigations are seen as retaliatory and further evidence of racial and/or gender discrimination. At least four cases are under court ordered mediation. Only Deputy Gulley's complaint has not resulted in the filing of a state or federal lawsuit while it is under review inside the ECSO.
The evidence to be discussed below is drawn from court records and Internal Affairs investigation files. Since all these court cases or complaints are active, I have not interviewed any of the plaintiffs or complainants, or sought their perspectives. Any observations or conclusions drawn are my own.
That said, I think that when you find that five different women at five different times complaining of racial and/or gender discrimination and they are then subjected to retaliation via Internal Affairs investigation (or other investigation or near-immediate termination), then I believe you have the factual basis to conclude that there may be a pattern and practice of creating a hostile work environment for women of color (and women), a pattern and practice of racial and/or gender discrimination, and a pattern and practice of retaliation against those very same women. None of this apparently makes into the box score when judging the merits and qualifications of Sheriff Morgan's candidacy for office.
Sheriff Morgan joked that once you become a Sheriff your new job title is "Defendant." He laughed. But it is not a joking matter. These five women have suffered. Deputy Powell suffered. Undoubtedly, others have suffered in silence, too afraid to complain. Once a woman files a complaint to protect their rights, dignity, and career, it appears that the full force of the office of the Sheriff is dedicated to beating these women down into submission.
And, you the county taxpayers should not be laughing. At least four of these cases are under court-ordered mediation. There is a possibility that the Sheriff's Office is going to have to pay for its laughing, cavalier attitude towards racial and/or gender discrimination and creating and maintaining a hostile work environment.
BEYANCA CANNON
Beyanca Cannon filed her lawsuit against Sheriff David Morgan and the Escambia County Board of Commissioners on August 28, 2014. Cannon, a Black woman who formerly worked as a corrections officer before being employed by the BOCC, is suing for at least $75,000 plus costs and interest.
She complained that since she was hired on February 14, 2011, she had been "mercilessly harassed and discriminated against by Lieutenant Reagan Phillips, who has since retired." She asserted that Phillips applied different standards to her compared to "white employees," demeaned her, and created a "hostile work environment" by inflicting "taunts by Phillips on an almost daily basis." As a result, she claimed she developed "Bruxism Clentching" which is the product of "severe stress" that causes migraine headaches which led to sleep deprivation. Cannon was the "subject of vicious rumors that she was 'too friendly' with inmates. These rumors, upon information and belief were created and spread by Phillips. Anonymous false reports were filed against Plaintiff and her car was shot into and the windows were broken. The false misconduct reports filed against Plaintiff were investigated and unsubstantiated."
In addition, "after filing several discrimination complaints against Phillips, Plaintiff began to receive unfair discipline on contrived allegations by the person she accused of racial harassment. On or around August 7, 2013, Plaintiff was retaliated against and suspended for 28 days without pay for a violation of a rule she did not commit. Plaintiff continues to work with for the Defendant Board and still deals with the residue of the treatment she was subjected to by Phillips."
Cannon's complaint further alleged Sheriff's Morgan own actions tolerating the racial harassment of her contributed to the racial harassment of Anita Hemphill. Her complaint stated, "Furthermore, Defendant Sheriff knowingly condoned and ratified the differential treatment of Plaintiff as more fully set forth above because it allowed the differential treatment and participated in same not only of the Plaintiff but of at least on other employee of the Defendant, Anita Hemphill." And, as we shall see below in the case of Laura Montoya, Montoya's involvement in the Hemphill case--under cover of protected speech--resulted in retaliatory disciplinary action against Montoya.
The federal court ordered mediation on November 29, 2014, for case 3:14cv439-MCR-CJK.
RHONDA RAY
On July 2, 2015, Rhonda Ray, a white woman hired in 2001 as a public information officer, sued Sheriff Morgan for gender discrimination related to working in a "hostile work environment and retaliation for reporting the discriminatory acts."
Ray's complaint centers around the behaviors of David Craig, one of Sheriff Morgan's most trusted confidants who was hired in 2009 to work in the public information office, and Lt. Spears (a female) who was Ray's supervisor in the Community Relations Unit (CRU) and a later male supervisor. Craig and Spears created a hostile work environment so severe that Ray transferred to the Crime Stoppers Division. After Craig agreed not to harass Ray, Ray transferred back into the CRU in January 2011.
In February 2013, Ray transferred to the Public Information Office. In August 2013, Sheriff Morgan "personally tasked Plaintiff [Ray] with a video production assignment." Craig responded to this self-perceived slight by "harassing, bullying, threating [sic] with career suicide and demeaning" Ray. Ray reported this harassment directly to Sheriff Morgan and filed a complaint with the Human Resources Division. After being told by an unspecified person to keep the complaint to herself, Ray "was informed that her services on the Wanted Fugitives T.V. show, which she had been a part of
since 2005, were no longer needed."
In January 2014, the ECSO created a "position description" for a "Community Relations Coordinator" (CRC). According to the complaint, the position description matched the duties that Ray had fulfilled and "very few" if any of the tasks Craig had performed in the CRU. Both Ray and Craig interviewed for the position. Between January 2014 and March 2014, at least two people, including her then male supervisor and the personnel hiring committee, quizzed her on how she planned to balance her professional and personal lives. In April 2014, the position was awarded to Craig. And, despite having "essentially similar duties and responsibilities" Ray was paid less than a male Video Production Specialist. After filing her EEOC complaint, Ray has been "continually harassed and subject to a hostile work environment including having her office location changed and relocated." She was also punished with the lower amount of pay than her male colleague.
On May 23, 2016, the U.S. District Court had the case in mediation.
LAURA MONTOYA
On March 3, 2016, Laura Montoya, a Hispanic, sued Sheriff David Morgan, Chief Deputy Eric Haines, Commander Ricky Shelby, and Captain Fred Alford for racial and gender discrimination, as well as illegal termination, and creating a hostile work environment. She was reduced in rank from Colonel to Lieutenant in November 2014 and then terminated on August 14, 2015. Up until the time she was terminated she was a "stellar employee" for more than 16 years.
She was promoted to Colonel on May 29, 2013, and served under Commander Shelby. Shelby told her soon after her promotion that "he did not agree with her promotion to Colonel of Investigations and the most she should be was a First Lieutenant because she was a woman." He then "routinely berated, cursed, yelled at and chastised" Montoya. Shelby kept important information about the budget and narcotics unit from on the grounds that a woman did not need to know those details. Shelby criticized her for talking "too much" in staff meetings and "not enough" in staff meetings.
Montoya took her concerns directly to Sheriff Morgan on a "number of occasions." She also told Sheriff Morgan that Shelby had other harassment issues with other women. Morgan, according to the complaint filed in U.S. District Court, advised her that he was "aware of the problems with Shelby because Colonel Hardy, a white male, had discussed similar problems he had with Shelby." The solution in the case of Colonel Hardy was to transfer Hardy to the Administration Division. Morgan advised Montoya to "'stay the course'" and that "he would 'deal with Commander Shelby.'"
Instead of transferring out and keeping her rank, as Colonel Hardy had done, in April 2014 Senior Commander Shelby provided Montoya with a "Notice of Performance Deficiencies" and in November 2014 Sheriff Morgan gave her the option of "voluntary demotion" or an "involuntary demotion," as well a list of "performance deficiencies."
Now reduced to her permanent rank of Lieutenant, Montoya then had her authority undermined by a reporting Lieutenant who had refused a direct order to release a suicide note to the next of kin. Chief Deputy Haines subsequently criticized Montoya's investigation of the insubordination incident and eventually the male Lieutenant was promoted to First Lieutenant.
Montoya, now voluntarily demoted to Lieutenant, transferred to Courthouse Security under Captain Fred Alford. Alford, according to the complaint, "has been the subject of numerous internal complaints, yet has never been demoted from his Captain rank."
On February 13, 2015, Montoya was subpoenaed to testify in a deposition in a lawsuit brought by Anita Hemphill against Sheriff Morgan as the sheriff regarding "racial and gender discrimination."
During the deposition lawyers for Hemphill asked for the documents Montoya had in a manila folder that she had intended to use to refresh her memory, if necessary. The two ECSO lawyers representing the Sheriff approved the release of the documents in the folder.
One of the documents in the folder was a November 2013 email from Chief Deputy Haines (defendant in this case) to Montoya regarding the Hemphill case in which the Chief Deputy instructed Montoya to "'please delete this after you review it.'"
Two months later (April 2015), Montoya was advised she was the subject of an Internal Affairs investigation for keeping the email from the Chief Deputy and for releasing the documents to Hemphill's lawyers. Also in April 2015, Montoya was advised that she was also under administrative investigation for "gender discrimination" against white male employees. Captain Alford contended that Montoya was assigning more overtime hours to female employees than male employees.
The gender discrimination charge was not substantiated. The "insubordination and improper dissemination of information were sustained." Instead of Level 4 punishment as recommended by Commander Tharp, 20 hours of suspension according to the ECSO's Disciplinary Matrix, Montoya was given Level 8, termination by the Disciplinary Review Board that was approved by Morgan.
However, in her federal complaint, Montoya's lawyer contended that destruction of the email would have violated at least three ECSO policies, if not the Florida Sunshine law, and, that when she testified under subpoena that was "protected speech," and that her complaint of racial and gender discrimination was also "protected speech."
Her lawyer contended that the "ESCO has engaged in a pattern and practice of discrimination. Other minority and female employees have been subjected to systemic discrimination within ESCO and have suffered adverse employment actions."
On May 16, 2016, a mere two months after filing her federal complaint, the U.S. District Court issued an order for mediation. The original complaint asked for a "trial by jury."
MINDY PARE
On January 21, 2014, Mindy Pare filed a gender discrimination lawsuit in the First Circuit Court of Florida. She alleged gender discrimination on the basis that she is "aware of other similarly situated male deputies that have missed their duty assignments and were not terminated" and that "Pare was disciplined more harshly than similarly situated male deputies."
Pare was hired as a deputy in January 2006 and in March 2011 she transferred from patrol to court security. One of her duties was to stand watch at the Juvenile Justice Center two weekends every six months. She missed the Sunday duty in June 2011 because she did not remember the assignment and had not been given the reminder email from her superior. In September 2011 she was terminated.
On March 18, 2016, the First Circuit Court issued a "Notice of Mediation Conference."
JACQUELYN GULLEY
Deputy Gulley's complaint of gender discrimination or harassment is with the ECSO and has not been released in response to a public records request.
It is understood that some time after filing her complaint, she was the target of an Internal Affairs investigation for "liking" several Facebook posts that had been posted by former Chief Deputy Bill Chavers. The same "liking" of Chavers's posts was undertaken by then Deputy Donald 'Buddy' Nesmith Jr., now retired. He, too, was the target of an Internal Affairs investigation. In fact, both investigations were started on the same day and use identical language. Chavers's comments were highly critical of Sheriff Morgan and challenged the Sheriff's qualifications as a candidate for Sheriff.
On February 8, 2016, Sheriff Morgan commenced Internal Affairs investigations against Nesmith and Gulley for violating "General Order 236 Personal Use of Social Media, 236.1 Precautions & Prohibitions (1), (2)."
General Order 236.1(1) apparently deals with "Sexual Harassment" and states that "Inappropriate postings that may include discriminatory remarks, harassment, and threats of violence or similar inappropriate or unlawful conduct will not be tolerated and may subject the member to disciplinary action up to and including termination" (page 4 pdf).
General Order 236.1(2) deals with a general prohibition: "Members are free to express themselves as private citizens on social media sites to the degree that their speech does not impair working relationships of the ECSO for which loyalty and confidentiality are important, impede the performance of duties, impair discipline and harmony among coworkers, or negatively affect the public perception of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office."
This area of the law--the free speech rights of a public employee--is quite complicated and depends upon the interpretation of several U.S. Supreme Court decisions which lower courts do not always get right. This is especially the situation when it involves sheriff deputies versus correctional deputies. Here I must rely upon lawyers and court decisions to explicate the delicate balancing tests necessary to establish the boundaries of constitutionally protected speech.
We begin with the established fact in Florida that by law and statute that sheriff deputies are appointed and can be terminated by the sheriff "at will." Though they are not public employees, it is arguable that they cannot be denied their constitutional rights of free speech on matters of "public concern."
In the Nesmith and Gulley Internal Affairs investigation, there is no doubt that Sheriff Morgan took umbrage at the comments of former Chief Deputy Bill Chavers.
The statement of "Findings," officially signed by First Lieutenant Carl Jones and Sergeant James Barnes, sounds like it was dictated by Sheriff Morgan.
The IA report summarized Chavers' comments and the reaction of Sheriff Morgan: "These comments challenge Sheriff Morgan's integrity and character. They state he is 'uncaring' and 'politically motivated.' They describe his administration as 'terrible,' and call him the 'face of evil.' They refer to him as 'King David,' and describe his term as Sheriff as a 'reign of terror.' They state he has 'no true experience and is the least qualified person to ever hold the office of Sheriff.' They state he is the 'worse [sic] person to ever hold the office of Sheriff' and 'possibly a bigger crook than his self claimed friend Sheriff Charlie Morris from Okaloosa County.' These comments have not been supported by evidence. They are egregiously disloyal, reckless, and maliciously untrue. They bring discredit upon the Sheriff and negatively affect the public perception of the ECSO. Gulley, a current member of the ECSO, clicked the 'Like' button on these public comments. Although she did not intend to offend the Sheriff or the ECSO with her actions, she did. If the Sheriff and other members of the ECSO found these actions offensive, it is not unreasonable to conclude that others did as well. These actions do not reflect favorably upon the Sheriff or the ECSO" (page 5 pdf).
On page 10 of the Gulley pdf document, the IA report goes into some detail into the meaning of the "Like" button on Facebook.
According to the IA report: "Clicking like is a form of speech because its use conveys a message. Just as flipping the middle finger is a form of speech, so too is giving a thumbs-up, or like. Facebook defines the like button as, 'a way to give positive feedback and connect with things you care about.' Gulley explained her use of like had several different meanings, but she did not hit like to show support for anything negative or disparaging against the Sheriff or ECSO. However, the Sheriff and other members of the ECSO, found her use of like offensive. Use of the like button is subjective. What one person might feel is an acceptable application of like, another person may not."
The case that is highly relevant here is Bland v. Roberts decided by the Fourth Circuit's Court of Appeals.
It is especially relevant because Facebook, Inc. filed an amicus curiae brief in favor of six plaintiffs who were fired after an election by the Sheriff of Hampton city in Virginia.
Facebook explained that it had a vital interest at stake in the case: "Facebook, for itself and its Users, has a vital interest in ensuring that speech on Facebook and in other online communities is afforded
the same constitutional protection as speech in newspapers, on television, and in the town square" (page 7 pdf). Thus, its intervention was a matter of serious financial and constitutional concern.
Facebook explained that a "like" was constitutionally protected speech. According to Facebook's brief (page 8 pdf), "When a Facebook User Likes a Page on Facebook, she engages in speech protected by the First Amendment.... Liking a Facebook Page (or other website) is core speech: it is a statement that will be viewed by a small group of Facebook Friends or by a vast community of online users."
Facebook (page 15 pdf) also explained that the lower district court had erred in its decision on whether a "like" was speech: "Contrary to the district court’s understanding, Liking a Facebook Page (or a non-Facebook website) is speech: it generates verbal statements and communicative imagery on the User’s Profile (or Timeline) Page – i.e., a statement that the User likes a particular Page, accompanied by the Page’s icon – as well as similar statements and imagery in the News Feeds of the User’s Friends."
Facebook (page 17 pdf) emphasized that the U.S. Supreme Court had stressed that speech during political campaigns was especially protected. On page 18 Facebook noted that the "use of social networking and other online communities to rally support for political candidates and causes is a contemporary example of quintessential political speech." Facebook pointed out that both the Republican National Committee and President Obama utilized Facebook to rally supporters.
Furthermore, Facebook noted that "Facebook thus provides a convenient and effective way for millions of voters to express support for the candidates of their choice and to become more personally involved in the political process as a result" (page 18 pdf).
Facebook argued that a simple "like" was protected speech and as such a basis for contesting an unlawful termination: "Carter’s Liking of the Adams campaign’s Facebook Page – and the statements that appeared on Carter’s Profile, in the News Feeds of Carter’s Friends, and on the campaign’s Page – was no different from telling friends that he supported Adams, putting an Adams bumper sticker on his car, or planting an Adams campaign sign in his front yard. Carter’s Like on Facebook can form the predicate of his claim against Roberts for unlawful termination" (page 21 pdf).
Facebook also noted that in order for a public employee's speech to be protected "'need only be upon a matter of public concern'" (page 21 pdf). Facebook (page 23 pdf) concluded its brief by noting that "The Supreme Court has held that the First Amendment protects the 'private expression of one’s views' from retaliatory employment action."
The American Civil Liberties Union also submitted an amicus curiae brief in support of the plaintiffs in Bland v. Roberts.
The ACLU wrote a vigorous defense of the plaintiffs and the use of a Facebook "Like" as an expression of substantive and symbolic speech that is constitutionally protected. The ACLU noted (pages 11-12), "'Liking' something on Facebook expresses a clear message – one recognized by millions of Facebook users and non-Facebook users – and is both pure speech and symbolic expression that warrants constitutional protection.... In this way, an individual who uses the 'Like' button is making a substantive statement. That is especially the case when a user “Likes” a political candidate, as that is a clear sign of support for that candidate.... Or if a user 'Likes' another user’s comment or post, he or she is expressing approval of the information conveyed by that other user."
The ACLU further argued that the U.S. Supreme Court in Pickering v. Board of Education protected speech by public employees on matters of public concern (page 21 pdf): "Public employees do not 'relinquish the First Amendment rights they would otherwise enjoy as citizens to comment on matters of public interest'...The First Amendment thus protects the speech of public employees when they speak on matters of public concern."
The ACLU also argued that speech related to the qualifications of a sheriff for office were a matter of public concern and thus protected speech: "Indeed, this Court has repeatedly held that the subject matter of plaintiffs’ speech – the merits of a candidate for political office – is a matter of public concern....(speech regarding who was most qualified to be Sheriff is 'undoubtedly' protected). This case is no different. The campaign for the Sheriff’s office was the subject of a highly contentious and very public debate that dominated the community for a period of time" (page 24 pdf).
The ACLU pointed out that the Pickering balance test requires a Sheriff to provide evidence and substantiate that the operation of the Sheriff's Office was disrupted by the speech of his or her deputies: "That is especially true here because there has been no legitimate claim that plaintiffs’ speech caused any disruption to the Sheriff’s office or its ability to operate efficiently...(an employer wishing to defend against allegations of impermissible retaliation must present evidence that the speech actually interfered with the functioning of his office, and may not merely assert 'speculative and unsubstantiated' charges of disruptions)" (page 28 pdf).
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals apparently was convinced by Facebook, Inc.'s and the ACLU's amicus curiae briefs and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions that a "Like" was constitutionally protected speech. The Appeals Court reasoned (pages 41, 42, 44, 45): "Once one understands the nature of what Carter did by liking the Campaign Page, it becomes apparent that his conduct qualifies as speech.... Aside from the fact that liking the Campaign Page constituted pure speech, it also was symbolic expression.... In this way, it is the Internet equivalent of displaying a political sign in one’s front yard, which the Supreme Court has held is substantive speech.... The Sheriff does not dispute that Carter’s speech, if it was speech, was made in his capacity as a private citizen.... And, it is well established that an employee can speak as a private citizen in his workplace, even if the content of the speech is 'related to the speaker’s job.'... Carter’s speech was political speech, which is entitled to the highest level of protection.... Indeed, the public’s interest in Carter’s opinions regarding the election may have had particular value to the public in light of his status as a Sheriff’s Office employee."
Examining another plaintiff who went on the opposing candidate's Facebook page and posted his own picture as a supporter was also constitutionally protected speech, according to the Court of Appeals. The Court wrote (page 47 pdf), "Certainly a posting on a campaign’s Facebook Page indicating support for the candidate constitutes speech within the meaning of the First Amendment. For the same reasons as applied to Carter’s speech, McCoy’s speech was made in his capacity as a private citizen on a matter of public concern, namely, whether Adams should be elected Hampton Sheriff."
The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals decision speaks to the situation Nesmith and Gulley found themselves vis-a-vis Sheriff Morgan (pages 45-6 pdf): "In contrast, despite the Sheriff’s reference to the need for harmony and discipline in the Sheriff’s Office, nothing in the record in this case indicates that Carter’s Facebook support of Adams’s campaign did anything in particular to disrupt the office or would have made it more difficult for Carter, the Sheriff, or others to perform their work efficiently."
On page 8 (pdf) of the Internal Affairs report, the investigators noted that Gulley "normally accesses Facebook via Ipad at home." Other than Sheriff Morgan and unnamed others, there is no evidence in the Internal Affairs that "liking" the comments former Chief Deputy Chavers posted on Facebook had caused any disruption to the ECSO's working environment or relations between deputies. And, given the statements that Chavers made, it is difficult to fathom how they could be considered a form of "Sexual Harassment." That Sheriff Morgan was miffed to the nth degree is undeniable.
Thus, Sheriff Morgan was absolutely correct that "Clicking like is a form of speech because its use conveys a message." What the General Counsel of the Escambia County Sheriff's Office neglected to tell him was that it was constitutionally protected speech.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)