KLEIN « BUSSELL 2m aT MEMORANDUM. TO: Members, Metro Board of Ethical Conduct ©! * FROM: Saul Solomon Kevin Klein ‘Allison Buceoll DATE: ebruary 21, 2018 RE: Evaluation and Recommendation on Theeda Murphy Hthies Complaint PRELIMINARY STATEMENT (On February 7, 2018, Davidson County resident Theoda Murphy filed a Complaint with the Metropolitan Government's Board of Rthical Conduct (the "Board against Mogan Barry, Mayor.of the Metropolitan Government of Nashvillo and Davidson County (Metropolitan Government”). Broadly, the Complaint alleges that Mayor Barry violated the Metropolitan Government's Standards of Conduct and Executive Order 005 through her ‘extra-marital relationship with former Metropolitan Nashville Police Department (MNPD") ‘Sgt, Robert Forrest, dr. and other actions or insetions related to MNPD business and police policy. "The Metropolitan Department of Law retained Klein Bussell, PLLC to evaluate the ‘Complaint and make recommendations.! Upon review of the Complaint, in eanjunetion with applicable state and local law, this office concludes and recommends as follows: © The Board lacks jurisdiction to examine alleged violations of Metropolitan Government executive orders. Thus, the portion of tho Complaint alleging violation of Executive Order 005 should be dismissed, + The Complaint contains allegations concerning (1) an improper relationship botwoon Mayor Barry and Sgt. Forrest and (2) actions or inactions by Mayor Barry ‘on specific police poly issues. While allegations of an improper relationship ‘coupled with government action could give riso to a violation of the Standards of Conduct under certain circumstances, the Complaint here contains no facts ‘connecting Mayor Barry's relationship with Sgt. Forrest to her action or inaction fan the ensimaratad iestioe ‘This, the facts alleged, even iftme, soled not astsblish that Mayor Barry violated the Metropolitan Government's Standards of Conduct through action or inaction on those iseues. Moreover, the allegations regarding ‘Mayor Barry’ relationship with Set. Forrest, standing alone, would not establish 1 The Department of Law retained outside counsel to conduct an independent analysia of the Complaint and provide a recommendation to avoid any appearance of bias. The Department of Law in ro way dicated the rosultsof our review, andthe conclusions herein are entirely ur own. ate newer | asi T5798 | wan 6550479 | YbustconReport on Murphy Bihies Complaint obraary 21,2018 Page 2010 admitted sexual relationship, standing alone and coupled with various actions or inactions by Mayor Barry relating to MNPD business and police policy, violates Executive Order 005 4 violation of the Standards of Conduet, Those portions of the Complaint, therefore, should be dismissed. ‘The allegation in the Complaint that Sgt. Forrest was paid “excossive amounts of overtime,” if true, would give rise to a violation of the Metropolitan Government's Standanis of Conduct. The Board, therefore, should conduct a hearing on that ‘Tur CompLarsr ‘The essence of Ms. Murphy's Complaint is that Mayor Barry and Sgt. Forre ‘and the Metropolitan Government's Standards of Conduct. ‘The fllowing allogatio ‘his office's conclusions or recommendations: ‘The Complaint, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, alleges the following concerning ‘Mayor Barry's tolationship with Sgt, Forrest: © On January 31, 2018, Mayor Barry made a public admission of a sexual relationship with Sergeant Robert Forrest, Jt. who, atthe time, wae serving as her chief of security while emplayed with the Metro Nashville Police Department (MNPD). Sergeant Forrest had been an employee of MNPD for 30 years, working as a lead investigator for drug and prostitution cases before transferring to the Office of the Mayor as part ofthe security team fourtoen (14) ‘years ago. They have bath admitted that the relationship began in 2016. It is unclear when the relationship enced.” (Compl. at 1.) ‘The Complaint contains numerous allegations relating to Mayor Batry’s actions ‘or inactions on specific MNPD-related issucs. Thoee allogations are summarized, 2 follows: © In September 2016, without a public hearing, “Mayor Barry unilaterally ‘approved an allocation of $1.6 million of Metro's general equipment fund to buy militarized ballistic protection for MNPD.” (Compl. at 1) © “In October 2016, Gideon's Army, a grassroots organization, published a report ‘entitled Driving While Black’ The report provided strong empirical euidence that MNPD routinely harassed and intimidated Black drivers. One of the recommendations in the report wae that the city needed to establish a ‘community-based board to provide eiiian oversight of police poliey including training and discipline. MNPD immediately repudiated the findings of the report with the Mayor's support." ld.) © “On February 10, 2017, MNPD officer Joshua Lippert killed an unarmed Black ‘man, Jacques Clemmons." (Id) + -MNPD cleared Officer Lippert of wrongdoing "fulithin a week of the shooting." (ld.) se drawn directly from the Complaint, and do not constituteaport oa February 21 Page Sot 10 Murphy Ethie Complaint + The Davidson County Distriet Attorney asked the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TBI) to investigate. The investigation ‘found no basis, "upon which to bring eriminal charges against the offcer” but concluded “that MNPD demonstrated significant institutional bias during their investigation.” (Id.) ‘+ When the DA referred the Clemmons case to the TBI, “MNPD was instructed to tand dawn and cease its investigation." Te DA later ‘made 4 public statement” “when it became clear that MNED had been conducting a parallel investigation which overlapped the TEI's investigation.” “Mayor Barry did not respond," though Chief Anderson “reports directly to her.” (id) + The TBI and DA's office held a press conference and invited Chief Anderson. The Chief did not attend and held a separate press conference ‘at which he “announced that he would release any disciplinary actions that may be taken within the department as s00n asthe Use of Fore report was complete." (ld. at 1-2.) + “The Mayor reprimanded the DA in a subsequent press conference and recounted instructing the Chiof to talk to her instead of making publie statements." The Mayor also stated "that there would be tritial next steps but provided no further detail. Currently, there is no reeord of follow up nor any announcement regarding the Chief's disciplinary deeision."(Ud. at 2) + Officer Lippert remains employed at MNPD, He was permitted to take the eergeant's exam despite “his post disciplinary record,” including a ‘suspension of twenty (20) days between May 2018 and October 2015. (Id.) + InaFune 2017 report, the Davidson County grand jury recommended that the Metropolitan Government “should give eivians oversight authority in eases of deadly force and suggested de-escalation training. The Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division has supported civilian ‘oversight efforts as wel.” (d.) + The Clommons family attempted 10 meet with the Chief of Police during 12017, to no.avail, resulting in ‘press coverage” and ‘publicembarrasement for MNPD and the city.” Mayor Barry would not facilitate a meeting or otherwise try to resolve the situation, nor did she intervene or comment ay Following the Clemmons investigation, several community groups combined to form the Community Oversight Now Coalition (the Coalition”) (Compl. at 2.) + The Coalition “researched and developed legislation for establishing a ‘community oversight board in Nashcill beginning in March 2017." (Id) + The Coalition held public hearings, which Council representatives ‘attended. The Coalition presented to the Minority Council, and invited the ‘Mayor and her staff the Chief of Police, and the entire Council. A staffReport on 7. Page dot 10 Muephy Behis Complaint ‘member from the Mayor's office met with the Coalition and acknowledged the importance of involving MNED, but the Mayors office would not Facilsave such a meeting. (Td. at 2-3.) + The Coalition initially received no response from the Mayor's office after requesting in August 2017 to meet with the Mayor. After being scheduled, the meeting was delayed until afer legislation wae already filed with Council (Id. at 3.) + ‘instead of mosting withthe Coalition, the Mayor connected with an ‘organization Based tn New York which studios policing policy». " The organization met with MNPD officials, including the Chief of Police. The Caton was not included. (dl) + In October 2017, the Mayor publicly stated that she “would support a task force to discuss the need for civilian oversight.” Before the scheduled ‘meeting with the Coalition, the Mayor “suddenly announced that she ‘would no longer be convening a task force” and would not support the Council's efforts to do so. (ld) In November 2017, when legislation was introduced in Council, MNPD officers/ FOP members who were on the Council attempted to block the first reading ofthe bil. (Compl. at 8) + In December 2017, the Mayor finally met with the Coalition. She would not allow discussion of the detaile of the bill or how it could be adjusted 10 ‘address concerns of MNPD or Metro Legal. (Id.) + During the meeting, the Mayor reiterated things she had done forthe city in iw of civilian oversight but would not support the bill. When Coalition ‘members expressed concern about ‘possible surveillance and intimidation by the FOP, the Mayor looked extremely uncomfortable and took some notes.” A pastor in the meeting questioned the Mayor “about the public disrespect that the Chief had shown her” by holding his oun press conference," asking “What does he have over you?” The Mayor anxiously Tooled aver the room and abruptly left (Id) © The Mayor ‘has shown a consistent pattern of protecting the interest of MNPD whenever MNPD's interests were a odde with members of the public or other {government inatitutions and their representatives.” (Compl. at 3.) + "101 became increasingly apparent that Chief Anderson and MNPD felt comfortable in ignoring any authority she attempted to exereise over their actions.” id.) + "10t does not appear that [the Mayor] has made any eredible attempt to reprimand or censure the Chief for his actions which publicly flouted her authority." dd.) “he complainant] feelfs} that Moyor Barry may have been improperly influenced against the community oversight board due to her relationship with Sgt. Forrest.” (Compl. at 4)‘Report on. Murphy Hehies Com February 21,2018 Page Sof 10 ‘6 The complainant contends that Mayor Barry “violated the provisions of Section 2 subparagraph Il, setion 1 of Executive Order 005 in that her relationship ‘with Sgt. Forrest created the appearance of giving preferential treatment (payment of excessive amounts of overtime), lasing complote independence or Impartiality as will be further explieated below, and affecting adversely the ‘confidence of the public in the integrity of Metro Government." (Compl. at 4.) + ‘This unknown at this time whether Chief Anderson or anyone else in MNPD knew of the relationship botwwen the Mayor and the Sergeant, however, it i8 not unreasonable 10 assume that knowledge of such relationship could have been used as leverage against the Mayor." Id.) ‘+ “Regardless of whether anyone was aware or actively advocating to influence har decisions regarding any issue of public sajety policy which twas at odds with theofficial MNPD position, the simple fact is she knew there was at least one officer who could air her dirty laundry at a moment’: notice and that fact alone brings into question her ability to be an honest broker in any discussion or consideration of these issues.” Id.) ANALYSIS: A. Local Law Requirements for Evaluation of Complaint. Under Metropolitan Code § 2.222.040(C\()(e), the Department of Law (or, in this instance, its designee) must evaluate the Complaint to determine whether the facts alleged, if true, could be deemed a violation of the Metropolitan Government's Standards of Conduct. ‘The same provision requires the Department of Law to fle with the Metropolitan Clerk and sue to the Board a report that does the following: + States whether the facts alleged in the Complaint, if truo, would give rise to a violation of the Standards of Conduct; and + Recommends that the Complaint bo dismissed or that a hearing be held on the matter. ‘After the Department of Law issues its report and recommendation to the Board, the Chair of the Board must call a public meeting concerning the matter. At the publie meeting, the Board must evaluate the Department of Law's report and decide whether to accept or ‘eject ts recommendation. In addition, the Board must decide at that public meeting whether to dismiss the Complaint or hold a hearing on the matter. B, The Board's Jurisdiction. Metropolitan Code § 2.222.040 ereates the Board of Ethical Conduet and sets forth the Board's jurisdiction, membership, and duties and responsibilities. Section 2,222,040(0) establishes "[p]rocedures for evaluations and hearing of complainta regarding conduct ....” ‘Td, Subseetion (C)(Ma) states that “falay person may submit complaint alleging that any ‘one or more Metropolitan Government elected officials or members of a metropolitan overnment board or commission have violated the standards of conduct.” Id. ‘The Complaint alleges that Mayor Barry's conduct violates both the Standards of Conduct and Executive Order 005. (Compl. at 4.) By the plain language of Metropolitan CodeReport om. Marphy Etice Complaint ebeuaey 21,2018 Page of I {§ 2.292.040, the Board has jurisdiction over any complaint alleging violations of the Standards of Conduct, Likewise, the Department of Laws charge in Metropolitan Code § 2.922, 040(C\(1)@) is to examine “whether the facts alleged in the complaint, if true, would tive rise to a violation of the standards of conduet . .. ” Id. (emphasis added). The Department of Law does not, on the other hand, have any designated authority to examine ‘whether the facts in the Complaint would give rise to a violation of Metropolitan Government ‘executive orders, Infact, nothing in the Metropolitan Code—Chaptor 2.222 or otherwise— provides the Board or Department of Law the authority to examine and offer Fovommondatione concerning whether Metropolitan Government ampleynea have vioitad an executive order. Thus, the Board doos not have jurisdiction over alleged violations of ‘Metropolitan Government exeoutive orders. Because the Board does not have jurisdiction to examine alloged violations of ‘Metropolitan Government executive orders, the Board should dismiss the Complaint insofar ag it alleges a violation of Mayor Barry's Executive Order 006. C. The Merits of the Complaint. 4. Ethical Standards of Conduct. ‘The Metropolitan Standards of Conduct were adopted in response to stato logislation mandating that Iecal governmental entitics adopt ethical standards for all officials and ‘employees of such entities, See Tenn. Code Ann. § 8-17-108. The state legislature explained its intont as fallows: [tis the intent ofthe general aasembly that tho integrity ofthe processes of local government be secured and protected from abuse, ‘The general assembly recognizes that holding public office and public employment is a publie trust and ‘that citizens of Tennessee are entitled to an ethical, accountable and incorruptible government. ‘Tenn, Code Ann, §8-17-101. ‘Tenn. Code Ann. § §-17-102(a)(3), which defines "ethical standards,” also provides in rolovant part: “Behical standards” includes rules and regulations regarding limits on, andlor reasonable and systomatic disclosure of, gifts or other things of value recsived by officials and employees that impact or appear to impact their discretion, and shall, include rules and regulations regarding reasonable and systematic disclosure by officials and employees oftheir personal interests that impact or appear to impact, thoir dinerotion. ia. "The Standards of Conduet adopted by the Metropolitan Council provide, among other things, that “employees”: Bmployee” ie defined as "any oficial, whether elected or appointed, ofior, employee or soevant, oF ‘any member of any board, agency, comission authority ar conporation (whether dompensated ot not), trany office, employee of sarvant thereof, ofthe Metropolitan Gaveramient of Nashville and Davidson‘Report on. Musphy Bthios Complaint Fobraary 21,2018 Page Tot 10 ‘& Shall not receive or use for personal purposes any property, services or funds of ‘metropolitan government unless authorized by law; 4, Shall not use their metropolitan government positions improperly to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for themselves, relatives or others, provided, however, that this provision does not preclude employees from acting in ‘a manner consistent with their official duties or from zealously providing public Services to anyone who is entitled to them: [and] k, Shall not give reasonable basis by their conduct for the impression that any: person ean improperly influence, or unduly enjoy their favor in, the performance of their official duties, or that they are unduly affected by the kinship, rank, ‘position or influence of any person. Metropolitan Code § 2.222.020(8),(), 9. ‘These Standards of Conduct, when read in conjunction with the state law requiring the adoption of ethical standards, are clearly intended to protoet and secure the intogrity of the processes of loeal government from abuse and corruption. The Standards of Conduct are aimed at financial improprietis, improper influence over officials, and officials’ improper ‘scceptance or provision of benefits, 2 Whether the Facts, If Proven True, Could Establish Violations of the Standards of Conduct. ‘Metropolitan Code §§ 2.222. 040(C)(1(b)(ii}-(v) state that an ethics complaint must contain a “[s]ummazy of the facts giving rise to the complaint” and an “[elxplanation of why those facts constitute a violation of the standards of emduct." Id. Here, the Complaint alleges that Mayor Barry and Sgt, Forrest's relationship, standing alone and coupled with Mayor Barry's involvement or lack of involvement in certain police policymaking, violates the Standards of Conduct. @ Allegations Concerning Sexual Relationship ‘Standard of Conduct 2.222,020(&) prohibits Metropolitan Government officials from {v{ing] reasonable basis by their conduct for the impression that any person can improperly influence, or unduly enjoy their favor in, the peeformance of their official duties, or that they are unduly affected by the kindship, rank, position or influence of any person." Id. The Ghislence ofa consensual sexwal relationship between Mayor Barry and Sst. Poreeat, ovon if improper, does notin itself give a reasonable basis forthe impreseion that Mayor Barry would be improperly influoncod in the performance of her official duties, or that she would be unduly affected by Se, Forrest's rank, position, or influence. Thus, the relationship, standing alone, docs not violate Standard of Conduet 2,2222020¢k). Couaiy Metropolitan Code § 2.222.010(8). Thus, “employes” includes the Mayor of the Metropolitan ‘Government,Report on T: Murphy Behe Complaint Page 8 of 10 i) Allegations Concorning Police Polieymaking ‘The analysis then turns to whether Mayor Barry and Sgt. Forrest's relationship, coupled with other facts alleged in the Complaint, if proven true, would constitute a violation of the Standards of Conduct. As eet forth above, the Complaint alloges a litany of situations in which the Mayor deelined to support or offer input into various actions taken by the Coalition to ereate civilian oversight over MNPD. Tho Complaint also alleges that the “Mayor's office would not facilitate meetings or cooperation between the Coalition and MNPD. ‘The Complaint goes on to state that the Mayor has “shown a consistent pattern of protecting the interest of MNPD whenever MNPD's interests wore at odds with members ofthe public of other government institutions and their representatives.” (Compl. at 3.) Missing from the Complaint, however, are specific facts connecting Mayor Barry's selationship with St. Forrest to hor action or inaction on MPD policy issues, Indeed, the only allegations in the Complaint that even conoern Set. Forrest are that (1) he was having ‘ sexual relationship with the Mayor, and (2) had been an MNPD employee for many years. But these facta, viewed collectively and in the light most favorable to the complainant, would not, if proven true, establish that Mayor Barry violated the Standards of Conduct, Even if Mayor Barry supported MNPD policies that others opposed, while at the same time having tan extra-marital relationship with her security officer who is an MNPD Sergeant, those tireumstanoos do not establish an impression of improper influence, There is simply no allegation that Sgt. Forrest had any opinion, dese, or position concerning any of the policy issues set forth in the Complaint, much less that he used his relationship with Mayor Barry toinfluence her on those issues. And the fact that the two had a relationship doos not in-and- obitelfereate an impression that Mayor Barry was improperly influenced or swayed to favor MNPD on policy issues. ‘The closest the Complaint comes to connecting Mayor Barrys relationship with Set. Forrest to Mayor Barty’s actions regarding MNPD ia the following statement: “Itis unknown at this time whether Chief Anderson or anyone else in MNPD knew of the relationship hetwoen the Mayor and the Sergeant, however, it is not unreasonable to assume that ‘knowledge of such a relationship could have been used as leverage against the Mayor.” (Id. at) While, in theory, a complaint could give rise to a Standards of Conduct violation where it alloged that an elected official was making decisions about a government department based {in part on the influence of a relationship with someone in that department, there must be facts alleged that support a finding of influence. That is, an assertion of influence must be See, ea, Webb Nashville Aree Habita! for Humanity, Ine, 846 S.W.34 422, 427 (Tean. 2011) (stating that to survive a motion to dismiss, [t]he fact plesded, and th inforenoos reasonably drawn from these facts, must raise the plosdors right to relief beyond the speculative level”; PNC ‘Muttfomily Capital Ineitational Pundl XXVI Lid. Pip v. Bluff City Cty. Dev. Corp. 387 S.W 3 525, 550 (Fenn, Ct App. 2012) (stating that “civil conspiracy claims must be pled with some degree ‘of specificity in onder to survive 4 motion to diamiss;conslusry allegations unsupportod by material facta wll not he sulcent to state a claim, Bell Atlantic Corp. vs Twombly, 560 US. 544, 586.57 (@007) (eating that “when allegations of parallel conduct are eat out. they must be placed in @ context that raises a suggestion ofa preceding agreement, not merely parallel conduct hat ould just wel be independent action’)Report on 7 Murphy Bohie Complaint February 21,2018 Page 9 f 10 based on something more than speculation or possibility. And on its face, the statement above is entirely speculative At bottom, the Complaint does not allege facts establishing, or even suggesting, a connection between Sgt. Forrest and any of the MNPD issues alleged. Regariless of Chief ‘Anderson, the FOP, or MNPD’s views on any given policy decision, and regardless of whether “Mayor Barry supported those issues, nothing in the Complaint connects Sgt. Forrest to any of those instes. The fact that Sgt. Forrest worked for MNPD, standing alone, does not eroate ‘8 connection sufficient to create an impression of improper influence. Gi) Allegations Concerning Overtime (On the other hand, the Complaint makes out a rudimentary claim that Mayor Bary violated the Standards of Conduet in permitting Sgt. Forrest to be paid “excessive amount of ‘overtime.” (Compl. at 4.) While the Complaint contains no additional facts concorning the allegation of “excessive” overtime, accepting that fact as true could constitute a violation of several Standards of Conduct. If, for example, “excessive” overtime means that Set. Forrest received more overtime than was needed or advisable for business purposes, that fact, ‘coupled with his sexual relationship with the Mayor, could create an impression of improper influence, in violation of Section 2.222.040(8) Additionally, construing the allegations in the light most favorable to the complainant, the payment of excessive overtime to Spt. Forrest, ‘coupled with his improper relationship with Mayor Bary, could constitute the “use for personal purposes. . . of funda of metropolitan government.” Metropolitan Code. § 2,202,020), Likewise, the fact that Sgt, Forrest was paid excessive overtime, if true, could iso constitute a violation of Metropolitan Code § 2.222.0204), which prohibits use of ‘metropolitan government. positions improperly to cocure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for. others, provided, however, that this provision does not preclude employees from acting in'a manner consistent with their official duties or from zealously providing public servieos to anyone who is entitled to them.” Because the Complaint alleges facts sufficient to state a viable claim for a violation of Standards of Conduct (),(@, of (k) relating to the purported payment af excessive overtime to St. Forrest, thi office recommends that the Board examine that claim in a properly- noticed public meeting, Conciusion ‘This office concludes that the allegations set forth in the Complaint, if proven true, could constitute a violation of the Metropolitan Government's Standards of Conduct in one respect—namely, the allegation that Sgt. Forrest was paid “excossive amounts of overtime.” ‘Mayor Barry's sexual relationship with Sgt. Forrest, coupled with the allegation that he was paid “excessive” overtime, if true, could ereate an impression that Mayor Barry was {improperly influenced, that she used her position to secure privilogos for Sg. Forrest, or that. ‘she used public funds for personal purposes, in violation of Metropolitan Code § 2.222.020(@), 6), ar (ik). This docs not mean that the allogations are true or that any violation has occurred, But the Complaint satisfies the threshold requirement to justify a Board hearing on the matter. This office recommend that the remainder of the claims set forth in the Complaint be dismisaed.Report on T- Murphy Behies Complaint Page 10010 Accordingly, this office recommends the fellowing: 1, ‘The Board should diamiss the Complaint insofar as it alleges vilation of Bxecutive Order 005 for lack of jurisdiction; 2. ‘The Board showld dismiss the Complaint insofar as it alloges that Mayor Barry and Sgt, Forres’ relationship, standing alone, would constitute a violation of the Metropolitan Government's Standards of Conduet; 8. The Board should dismiss the Complaint insofar as it alloges that Mayor Barry and Sgt. Forrest’s relationship, coupled with Mayor Barry's action or inaction on MNPD business and police poliey, would constitute a violation of the Standards of, Condit 4, ‘The Board should schedule and conduct « hearing on the limited issue of whether Mayor Barry’ relationship with Sgt. Forrest “ereated the appearance of giving preferential treatment” due to "payment of excessive amounts of overtime,” a ‘alleged in the Complaint.EXHIBIT 1"e canetton thi Const Farge: oa, 208 Fe: Canpotinbe Cott Mr Magen. ED This ethics complaints being fled by Theda Murphy, residing at 269 dle Street, Madison, Davidson County, Tenressoo, pursuant to Secon 2.222.040 ofthe Metropolitan Code of Laws. This complaints boing fled against Mayor Megan Barry. The speci facts ae detaled below. (On January 31,2018, Mayor Bary made a public admission ofa sexual relationship wit ‘Sergeant Robert Forres, J. who, atthe ime, was sorving as hor chef of security while ‘employed wih the Meo Nashville Police Department (MNPD), Sergeant Forrest had been an ‘employee of MINPO for 20 years, working asa lead investigator for drug and prostitution cases. before tranfeting othe Offce ofthe Mayor as art ofthe security team fourteen (14) years ago. They have bth admitted tat the relationship began in 2016, Its unciear when te relationship ended During September 2016 Mayor Bary unlateraly approved an allocation of $1.6 millon of Metros geneva equipment fund to buy mitarized basic protection for MNPD. This allocation was not subject oa pubic hearing PUEFEB 7.4: gy In October 2016, Gideon's Army, a grassroots organization, published a report ented “Driving \While Black’. The report provided strong empirical evidence that MNPD routinely harassed anc Intimdatod Black drivers, One ofthe recommendations in the report was thatthe city needed to ‘establish a cemmunty- based board to provide cvlian oversight of police pocy including taining and dseipine, MNPD immediatly ropudiatod the finaings ofthe report with the Mayor's suppor. (On February 10, 2017, MNPD ofcer Joshus Lippot kite an unarmed Black man, Jacques Clemmons, Within @ week, MNPO had cleared the offer of ll wrongdoing. The investigation conduc by the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation (TB!) al the request of te Davidson ‘County Distt Aemay (DA) found no basis upon which o bring erminal chargos against tho fice, however cd nd that MNNPD demonstrated significant insttutional bias during their Investigation ‘The DA refered the Clemmons case tothe TBI and MNPD was instructed to stand down and cease its investigation. Whnitbecame cear that WNPD had been conducting a parallel investigation whch overlapped tho TBs invostgation, the DA made a public statement to that fect, to which Mayor Bary did not respond eventhough Chief Anderson reports directly to hoe \When a public sparing match occurred atthe conclusion of the Investigation in May 2017 [MND was again in conflct vith another Met departnont. The TBI andthe DAS office held a ‘ress conference to which the Chief was invited, and which the Mayor attended, where findings ‘were announced They included sharp crtcism ofthe process of MNP, joint stating that [MNPO's actions coined to eroding confidence i is ability to be unbiased. The Chet dé not attond and, instead, held a separate press conference acoss town. The Chie announced that hho would release any ciscipinary actons that may be taken within ine department as soon athe Use of Force report was complete. The Mayor reprimanded the DA ina subsoquent pross conference and recounted instructing the Chit ttalk to her instead of making public Statements. Sho ended with saying that there would be "cite nest steps" but provided no further deta. Cunenly, there is no record of folew up nar any announcement rogarding the Chie’ ciscipinary decision, Current, Officer Lippert ssl employed at MNPD and was recently allowed to ifr the sergeants exam without regard to his past ascipinary record (he had been suspended for ]@ total of twenty (20) days botweon May 2013 and October 2016). MNPO issued a statement in Tesporsa to rules royardiay wy Uppe was allowed to ake the examination which sated {hat he had nat had any disciplinary actions for tho last two (2) years, since 2018, which, pe the eter of MNPD policy, permite him tsi forthe examination. The fact that he had boon volved in a highly publicized and stl controversial shooting was obwcusly not taken into consideration, That slatoment further stipulated that he is currently assigned tothe police archives department. Inthe June 2017 report, the Davidson County Grand Jury recommended hat Matro should ve ivllans oversight author in cass of deadly force and suggested de-escalation taining. The Department of Justice's Cl Rights Division as supported civilian oversight efforts a8 wo. In ‘mid-July 2017, was repored that the Mayor had not announced support forthe expectod fing ‘of community oversight legistaton. ‘The family of Jooques Clammons wae understandably disappointed atthe outcome of the investigations and raquested a meeting withthe Chef trough every avenue avaiable inthe ‘months inmedately afer the conclusion ofthe investigations. They recaived no response for ‘months (rem May through September 2017). Mayor Barry was not wailing to faciitato ts ‘meeting and offered only platitudes aven aller her own sors ife was agially lost a an ‘attempt to eta response fom MNPD, the family began asin outside of East Precinct in ‘September 2017, This station culminated in November 2017 wien the family, along with a handful of supporiers, wont the tompocary MND headquarters fo request a meeting withthe Chie. MNPO was nenzesponsive tothe family and instead called the bulding owner wo requested that he group leave, The stuaion escalatod nto absurdity when the bulking owner ttveatened to call MNPD to arrest the group or tespassing on his property Even though the incident was being reported inthe press as it happened (rsultng in publc embarrassment for [MNPD tnd the ei), Mayor Bary did nothing to allem to resolve the situaton. Eventual the family mat wih arepresentatve, however, atoms to meet wih the Chi lator that week fll trough whan the Chief would not alow the Clemmons famty 1 bring a counselor int the ‘meeting with them fr emotional suppod,inseed insisting they meet alone without atic pary ‘wines, Allo thi was reported inthe press andthe Mayor didnot intervene or comment Inthe wake ofthe Clommane invactgation, eavaral community groups came together and formed the Cornmity Oversigt Now Coalilon (Coalition which resoarched and developed legistaton for estalshing a community oversight board in Nashville beginning in March 2017. ‘The Metro Counc was ateady fully engaged inthe process. Tho Coalton held public hearings in the community which many Council representalves attended anc made a presentation to the Minory Caves to which the entre Council the Mayor and her staf, andthe Chi wore invited “The Mayor cl not make timo to attend ary ofthe events. n July 2017, Coston members met wth a member ofthe Mayors sta who Indicated the importance of ivelving MNPD but stated Page 2016that tho Mayor's office would not asistin faciitating such a meeting and that they wore doubtful the Chief would even comply witha request fom the Mayor to tend ‘in August 2017, a request was made on behalf ofthe Coalton fora meeting withthe Maya ‘Besides receiving a standard response stating that there was 2 ganeral vo (2) week window between request for a meeting and the actual schedulng af @ meeting, there was ne thor response fom the Mayor's offew for over two (2) months. The scheduling of tre meeting was ‘onsistontly delayed andthe Coaltion was net granted a meting untl fo tho bill was fled ‘wth Counel, During that timo, end instoad of mosting with the Coalton, the Mayor comectod with an ‘organization based in New York which studs poling poley and arranged for thelr CEO to ‘meet wit various, hand-picked people fom the Nashvile community and with MNPD ofits, including the Chit. The Coation was not induded. The New York organization does not ‘address community oversight and spestcally stated that they would research aff stops and IMNPO's pokey regarcing afc stops (01 October 29,2017, wih no formal communication between hersolf andthe Coalition, she ‘made a public statement that she would suppor a task force fo discus the need for civisan ‘oversight. However, before the scheduled mocting with the Coalition, she suddenly announced ‘hat she would no longer be convening a task force, nor would she support Counc in thelr ceforts to do so. (On Novernbor 7, 2017 whon the bil was st nreduced In Counc former MNPD officers whe {are now Coun members took te unprecedented poston of attempting to block the fst reading of the Bil, Supported by the FOP, they demonetratod tat they would stop at nothing to keep 10 the bil from passing, ‘The mayoral mesting with the Coalition finaly occurred on December 21, 2017 with about @ dozen representatives. When the Mayor atved atthe meting, she would not alow any tlscussion ofthe deta ofthe bil or how it could be adjusted io address the stated concerns of [MNPO or Metro Logal, though Jon Cooper, Metro's Law Director, was in attondance. Instaad ‘he trated aol the things tat she has done forthe ety in ie of civilan oversight and refused Dutight to support tho bil, While Coaltion members were expressing concern about possible ‘suvoilance and intimidation by the FOP, the Mayor looked extremly uncomfortable and took ‘some notes, Atone point pastor asked her Naty about the public disrespect thatthe Cie! had shown herby holding @ separate press conference than to TBI, DA and herself, asking "What does he have over you?" she survayed the room with an anxious ook and soon after, abruptly left the mesting In instance after instance, she has shown a consistnt pattern of protecting the interest of TMNPO whenover MNPD's interests were at odd vith membors ofthe publc or athor {government insttuions and tnelr representatives. She has aso shown a pattern of inconsistency in hr statements and postions regarding community oversight which seemed ‘rrate and capricous. Furthermore, became increasingly apparent that Chi Anderson and TMNPD felt comfortable in ignoring any authorty she attempod to exorcso over tol actions and it does not appear that she has made any credible temp a reprmand or censure the Chit for his actions which pubic luted her authori. Page 3 ofSection 2.222.020 ofthe Metro Code stats in subparagraph (k that employees “Sha not give reasonable basis by their conduct forthe Impression that any person can improperyinfuence, ‘or unduly enjoy tek favorin, the performance oftheir ofcal duos, oe that they are unduly flected by the Kinship, ank, postion or influence of any person ‘Seutton 2 of Executive Order 005, insted by Mayor Bary effective February 24, 2016, provides in subparagraph Il, secon t: Employee Responsibilies that each employes of Metro ‘Government * shall ent nny ation, whathar or not specteally prohibited by thie order, deparimenta codes of etics, F Metro Code of Laws Section 2.222.020, which might result in, ‘or creat the appearance of: using a publ office for private gain; ». giving preferential treatment io any person; -empeeding goverment eiioncy or economy: paral «2. making a Metropolitan Goverment decision ouside of fal channels; or £ affecting adversely the confidence ofthe publ inthe integrity of the Metropottan Government” ‘Subparagraph I, section 3 of Executive Order 005 special states: “This order applies to the Mayor..." ‘We fee! that Mayor Bary may have been impropery influenced agaist the community oversight boar cue to her relationship with Sgt. Forest. Addtionaly, we contend that she violated the provisions of Secon 2, subparagraph I, section tof Executive Order 005 n that her ‘elatonship with Sot Forest created the appearance of giving preferential treatment (payment cof excessive amaunts of evertine, losing complete independence or impartlty as wl be further explicated below, and afecting adversely the confidence ofthe publc in the integrity of Metro Government. {tis unknown at this time whathor Chief Anderson or anyone else in MNPO knew ofthe felatonship betwoen the Mayor and the Sergeant, however, tis not unreasonable to assume that knowledge of sucha relationship coulé have been used as loverage aga! the Mayor. Regardless of whether anyone was aware or actly advocating to influence her decisions regarding any Issue of publ safety policy which was at odds wth to oficial MNPD position, the simple fac is sho krow thore was at least one officer who could airher ay laundry ata moments poice ane tna fact alone rings ito question Her aby Be an nonest Broker in any tiscussion or considraton of these issues. Furthermore, his rvelstion has created a cimate in which sho wi now have no ability to back _any form of cian oversight or any reform of RANPO policy, investigations or ccpnary processes without opening the doo io questions regarding why her view has softened oF ‘changed enely. At ths point, any shit would alow the opposing sie to legitimately interagate hor statoments of object 4. losing completo indopondonce Page of‘The MINPD has freely opposed oversight and has created a threatening, intimidating “atmosphere where opponents ofthe bil aro afraid o speak up. Members ofthe Minodly Caucus have clearly felt uncomtrtabe in suppating and advocating forthe bil as evdenced by the ‘ovonwheling abstention from the second hearing vote which would have allowed a public hearing 50 thatthe voices of Nashuillans who are impacted dally by nose decisions could be heard, Inan anonymous letter written to all ouncll membors days before introduction of the bil at est ‘reading, by an officer who was ony ieriied asa member of te FOP, pets sia tia ‘sts by Coaltion members wee referenced, evidence that ether MNPO or the FOP or both ‘organization are conducting surveltance of Coaltion members. The Cosion communicated thelr concerns about police intimidation and surveillance tothe Mayoral the December 21st meeting, [No matter te intent of her dacisions, tne resis stereing from ther have impeded the efforts ‘of Nashvillans seeking to recy the 63% trustworthiness rating fet by Davidson County residents who are not white people. This pus the eferts of Coalition and te ether eitzens who suppor a process of transparency and accountabilly, which dazens of other cies have Implemented and operated with for decades, in an impossible predicament. The log: term effect ofthe Mayor's actor and stalomonts regarding palcing have had a lastng inpacton the relationship between Metro government and its residens, eroding tust and creating a wall of suspicion which may be impessible for her to Breach, Citzons of col, in particular, have fot Uunsean and unheard throughout his prosess an in thelr eyes, the Mayor has abeohitly no credit, ‘Gwvon that thatthe FOP, acting as a surrogate for MND, has not hesitated in using intimidation ‘and veiled threats as tactics against the imposition of oversight is reasonable to infer that the ‘Mayor's relaionship to Sgt. Fonesthad some influence over her decisions and her actions in regard to evilan oversight Her conic lf th impression, for anyone who was aware ofthe relationship, hat she could be inpropery influenced. Now that the relatonship has been made publi, we, a5 clizens, ean have no clear assurance tat her decisions and her ations, particulary around publi safety and poling, were not made under dures, We are requesting that a ful investigation be made into possible ethics wolations bythe Mayor and by Sat. Forest We are hoping that such an investigation will pravide some answers and some misch Needed arty which could go far in e-esibishing trust in public stitutions and government, Please contact: Thaeda Murphy, phone number (615) 473-7038, mall address: theoda2012ame.om, Lhe "Thoeda Miarphy Signature: ate: February 7,2018 Page 506‘State of Tennossoo County of Davidson (On his 7th day of February, 2018, before me personally appeared Thoeda Murphy o me ‘known to be the person described in and who executed the foregoing insur, ‘acknowledged that such person executed the same as such persons fre act and deed, Waness my hand, a office, this 7h day of February, 2018, ‘Soon When Nal Notary’ Signature Seat My commission expres: Page 6of6