Fort Worth Police Department Complaints Investigation Report of Findings and Recommendations SUMMARY

Presented by

Coleman & Associates Consultants

© 2014 Coleman & Associates Consultants • Investigative Report Summary • City of Fort Worth Police Department

1|P a g e

The Executive Summary Coleman & Associates Consultants (CA) was contracted to identify the issues existed that created and or were driving the allegations of race-based discriminatory treatment and harassment in the City of Fort Worth Police Department. The goal was to seek and find the facts and report them in order that appropriate action can be recommended to create a wholesome, harassment-free work environment. There were three complaints filed, one complaint was filed by a first line supervisor in the Police Department, the second complaint was filed by a second level supervisor in the Police Department, and the third complaint was filed by an officer of the Fort Worth Black Police Officers Association (FWBPOA). Individually the complaints alleged race-based discriminatory treatment and harassment by supervisory and senior level officers, and relevant Chain of Command members. While there is some overlap in the allegations presented, the complaints did not necessarily present a class-action context, although recognizing common patterns of treatment. Face to face meetings were held in the City Manager’s office in which the City Manager Tom Higgins, Assistant City Manager Charles Daniels, Chief of Police Jeffrey Halstead, and Coleman & Associates Consultants were present. The direction from City Manager Tom Higgins was to find out what issues existed that were driving the allegations of race-based discriminatory treatment by the City of Fort Worth Police Department. Chief Halstead discussed the issues related to the complaints/grievances involving two of the named complainants. The Chief stated that he had met with one complainant in June 2013 and advised him that he (Chief Halstead) had “failed him and that the Fort Worth Police Department had failed him” as well. Chief Halstead continued by stating that as the Chief of Police he primarily deals with the community, and his Assistant Chiefs’ deal with the department issues. He advised that he would provide any information we needed, that his personnel (sworn/non-sworn) would be made available, and that any request for information be made via his office. He stated that he would assign an individual from the Chief’s office to coordinate any request for data or personnel. Chief Halstead welcomed our assistance and CA moved forward. After CA reviewed the allegations presented in each complaint, documents were requested to help with understanding the organizational context. The lead focus was on the policies, procedures, practices, and structure aimed at general administration and leadership of the department, and identifying the steps and processes that might be available to address the allegations of race discrimination and harassment. CA wanted to know if there were sufficient policies and procedures in place to safeguard against harassment and discrimination in the department. The Chief of Police committed to having staff available to respond to requests for data and interviews. CA requested to interview individuals who may have had direct insight and familiarity with the subject complaint issues and related relationships. In addition, our request for interviewing individuals or witnesses who may have had knowledge of the issues presented in the complaints was fulfilled by department staff. © 2014 Coleman & Associates Consultants • Investigative Report Summary • City of Fort Worth Police Department

2|P a g e

Persons Interviewed CA requested and sought to confirm 26 interviews. Of the 26 people originally sought, 24 were scheduled for interviews, 23 were actually conducted, and there was one scheduled, but did not attend the interview session. Two interviews were requested, but the invitations were declined. The breakdown of those interviewed showed:



16 men 7 women o 10 Blacks (Men and Women) o 12 Whites (Men and Women o 1 Latino (Male)

Again, there were two additional interviews requested, but the invitations were not accepted. Both individuals were retired and were under no obligation to participate. Nature of the Interviews Each of the interviews lasted approximately 45 minutes. All the interviews were held in a location independent of City of Fort Worth facilities. In part, the interviews stressed privacy and confidentiality to assure that there would be no need to fear retaliation for the employees’ involvement in the investigation process. CA asked that the persons interviewed would sign an “Investigation Notice Form”, which included a statement that CA would maintain the confidentiality of information shared in the interview, and that they would commit to maintain that confidentiality as well. The interviews were based on a series of standard questions. Other questions were prompted by responses to the standard questions. The line of questioning extended as follows:








Tenure in the department, Current and previous work assignments, Knowledge of events and circumstances related to the complaint(s), Knowledge of efforts by complainants to seek relief or mitigate issues surrounding the complaint(s), Knowledge of the dynamics in the department surrounding the complaint(s), Knowledge of complaint issues influencing individual and work group productivity, Knowledge of rules, procedures, practices, laws that might govern behavior alleged in the complaint(s)

© 2014 Coleman & Associates Consultants • Investigative Report Summary • City of Fort Worth Police Department

3|P a g e

Investigative Process Activities The investigative process involved:




Review and discussion of the behavior involved in the complaint presentations, Review of the actions that were required as outlined in the appropriate and relevant statutes and guidelines, Review of the actions that were taken or not taken as a response to the attempts by the complainant(s) to use internal resources to mitigate the circumstances, and find relief from the perceived harassment, intimidation, and other acts contributing to a Hostile Work Environment.

Findings Interviews, and the review of the policy documents revealed the following:




















Formal complaints were presented to supervisors alleging hostile, intimidating behavior. The complaints alleged in writing that the behavior occurred on multiple occasions over the three year period. From the interviews conducted with the Fort Worth Police Department’s sworn and nonsworn personnel, there was a consistent theme that complainants were repeatedly subjected to behavior that was hostile, carried out publically over a period of more than three years, and witnessed by higher and lower ranking officers. The behavior, as described by the staff interviewed, indicated that intimidating behavior occurred with the knowledge of supervisors, other employees in the Traffic Division, and witnessed by higher and lower ranking officers. It was reported that the complainant identified as Complainant One indicated that supervisors stated they would “look into” the allegations presented in his formal complaint. This was brought to the attention of the members of his Chain of Command in 2011. It was also stated that the Chief told the Complainant, in a later meeting in June 2013 with the Chief that he (the Chief) had failed him, and the Chain of Command failed him. In a separate interview in 2014 with a high ranking officer, the incidents and the statements attributed to the Chief of Police by the complainant were confirmed to have occurred as presented by the complainant. In interviews with other officers, statements made by supervisors in the Traffic Division described the social and physical acts of harassment, and the denigration of Black employees and supervisors. One of the statements attributed to another Traffic Division supervisor who indicated publically that the Complainant “was not in jail because he was Black”. This statement referenced allegations made by this supervisor who alleged that the Complainant was mishandling STEP funds. The department provided information stating that the department’s response to the complaint of harassment and hostile work environment conditions involved transferring the

© 2014 Coleman & Associates Consultants • Investigative Report Summary • City of Fort Worth Police Department

4|P a g e













employee identified as the perpetrator of the “hostile acts” and the complainant out of the Traffic Division. One supervisor, when interviewed, indicated that the supervisor accused of perpetrating the hostile and offensive acts had been telling other officers and staff to not work with Complainant One. This type of behavior, when acted on may present a safety challenge. In interviews with sworn and non-sworn personnel, interviewees expressed belief that the transfers were in response to the ongoing conflict between the two supervisors. This notion is based on a review and discussion of the department’s past practices. In other interviews with sworn and non-sworn personnel, it was indicated their concerns about the motivation for the involuntary transfer of the second level supervisor who had been over the entire Traffic Division was motivated by his having supported Complainant One. When interviewing staff about the allegations of the “Meet and Confer” violation brought forward by the officer of the BPOA, high ranking and lower ranking officers, expressed the belief that the investigation conducted by IAD was not appropriate. Other interviewees indicated that using IAD for allegations for alleged violations of civil or administrative issues sent a message that did not promote trust.

When CA reviewed the policies, rules, procedures, and related guidelines relevant to the issues presented in the complaint(s) allegations, it was determined that the body of policy guidance appears consistent with Title VII law, and local and state statutes, and is sufficient and adequate to guide behavior toward a workplace environment that would be free of harassment and discrimination. Based on interviews conducted, and the review of policies and procedures documentation, CA does not find substantial evidence to prove that race discrimination occurred. However, it was found that there was substantial concern and consistent documentable evidence indicating that members and leaders of the Fort Worth Police Department did not operate in a manner that is congruent with the pronouncements set forth in the department policies and guidelines:





It appears that Fort Worth Police Department Code of Ethics was not followed. Beginning with the events that occurred in February 2010, with the “snowman incident”. The matter was reported, beginning with an immediate supervisor in the Chain of Command. Based on the information provided by the department, two of the three officers named in the incident/complaint received documented disciplinary actions. The individual who appears to have been spared disciplinary action was the individual who had been identified as having a major role in the harassment. Hostile and harassing behavior was introduced and continued for more than three years by the primary supervisory officers named in the complaint. The persons interviewed indicated that the harassing behavior was widespread, and it was widely known throughout the department that the behavior was recurring, and it was known who was initiating the action. It appears that Fort Worth Police Department General Orders, 703.00 (Neglect of Duty), and 429.01 (F), (G) were not followed. Based on the widespread knowledge of the hostile behavior, insufficient actions were taken by members of the Chain of Command to stop the harassment, thereby allowing the behavior to continue. In the specific section of the General

© 2014 Coleman & Associates Consultants • Investigative Report Summary • City of Fort Worth Police Department

5|P a g e




Orders, it states that “No officer shall ridicule, mock, deride, taunt, or belittle any person. Neither shall the officer knowingly embarrass, humiliate, or shame any person nor do anything that might incite such person to violence”. In Section 708.00 of the General Orders, Harassment-Free Workplace, it states that A. It is the responsibility of each employee to engage in and promote work place behaviors that create and maintain an environment of respect and that promote effective team work. Employees shall report behaviors of a harassing nature to a supervisor. Employees have a cause of action for a hostile work environment when: 1. The employee was subjected to unwelcome harassment based on a protected trait such as race, gender, religion, age, and disability; 2. The harassment affected a term, condition, or privilege of the employee's employment; 3. The employer knew or should have known of the harassment; and 4. The employer failed to take prompt remedial action. B. Any supervisor who learns of an allegation of hostile work environment has a duty to take prompt remedial action to protect the alleged victim and to investigate promptly and thoroughly all claims of harassment whether; 1. A complaint is made in writing or verbally. 2. The complainant wants an investigation. 3. No actual complaint has been made; however, the supervisor has a constructive knowledge of the harassment.

Based on the interviews with department employees, the harassment occurred with the knowledge of upper management throughout the three year period initially outlined in the prior parts of this report. With that, it appears that Section 708.00 of the General Orders was not followed. Summary The initial mission with the complaint investigation was not to find fault or blame. The assignment was to find facts and report them along with recommendations to improve the workplace climate. The CA investigative process did not yield a hard finding of race-based discrimination. CA did identify situations where supervisors and leaders in the Fort Worth Police Department’s Chain of Command had reason to know about behaviors and actions that were central to the complaints, and they failed to take action that would stop the harassing behavior and correct the course of events. With this knowledge, supervisory personnel had opportunities to mitigate the conditions central to the complaints, but did not take sufficient action to stop the harassing behavior. In addition, actions considered to be retaliatory could have been pre-empted had the supervisors followed the prevailing and relevant policies and procedures. According to city policy, department Code of Ethics, and department General Orders (429.01 (F), (G) and General Order 708, department leadership failed in its responsibilities. © 2014 Coleman & Associates Consultants • Investigative Report Summary • City of Fort Worth Police Department

6|P a g e

Title VII law defines harassment, in essence, as “any verbal or physical conduct known to be, or should be known to be unwelcome, found to be offensive, that denigrates or shows hostility towards an individual, that creates an intimidating, humiliating, hostile or offensive environment”. While discrimination on the basis of race was not clearly determined, it appears that the harassment and demeaning behavior does, in fact, meet the definition of harassment under local and state statutes as well as Title VII. The Act goes on to prescribe that the organization, or its agents will have a “duty to provide prompt and effective corrective action against employees who engage in harassing conduct”. The review of this set of events and circumstances shows that this “prompt and corrective action” did not occur, even after documented, formal attempts to mitigate the circumstances were sought by the complainant(s). Recommendations 1. Design and conduct training and coaching to the members of the Chain of Command, and hold the members accountable for taking appropriate action to prevent conditions that support harassing behavior, and “initiate prompt inquiry”, and stop harassment in the department once such behavior is brought to the attention of the department. 2. The department leadership should also be held accountable for creating an environment where an individual may file a complaint when he or she feels aggrieved, without fear of reprisal or retaliation. Department leaders must make sure that such harassing or retaliatory behavior is prohibited, and is immediately addressed with appropriate, corrective action. 3. Expunge from the complainants’ official department and City of Fort Worth personnel files, any negative or derogatory information directly associated with filing their complaints, or for participating in the complaint process. (This action was completed.) 4. Take steps necessary to improve inter-organizational communication, build trust, build or rebuild positive relations between the associations and the Chief of Police, and the associations with each other. Incorporate the direct involvement of the department’s associations in crafting the direction for improving the climate of the Fort Worth Police Department contributing to a more wholesome, inclusive workplace for all employees. 5. Design and provide programmed, high accountability training and professional development for all department associations and members focusing, in part on, leader effectiveness and development, effective communication and collaboration, building and strengthening department and work team cohesiveness, and managing differences and promoting inclusion in the Fort Worth Police Department. The associations, along with the Chain of Command, should be positioned for ownership in the responsibility for redefining the culture of the department in some very positive ways. This team should be positioned to “model the way” for other employees in the department to follow. The training should become a priority for the department. The training should focus on the following: © 2014 Coleman & Associates Consultants • Investigative Report Summary • City of Fort Worth Police Department

7|P a g e

a. Defining harassment, with foundational examples of harassing behavior, b. Outline for the processes and procedures for reporting behavior believed to represent harassment, and clarify the commitment to prevent reprisal or retaliation, c. Describe the process and guidelines allowing for the prompt and effective inquiry into harassment allegations, d. State the department’s commitment to prompt corrective action when harassment occurs, e. Describe steps for preventing harassment, f. Outline the roles for the Fort Worth Police Department’s and its leaders’ commitment to fulfilling the duty to provide a work environment free of harassment and discrimination, g. Evidence of successful completion of this training report should be presented to and reviewed by the City Manager’s Office within six months from the date of the issuance of this report. 6. Review and revise the Fort Worth Police Department’s rules and General Orders pertaining to fairness, equity, Equal Employment Opportunity, and workforce diversity and inclusion so that these documents and policies speak directly to the responsibility, personal accountability, and consequences for each employee, supervisor, and department leader to ensure that all employees are treated fairly, equitably, and with respect, and that all employees have the opportunity to a “healthy workplace”. The policies must also focus attention on how the treatment of employees in the department translates to how employees may treat citizens and customers during the routine fulfillment of their duties and responsibilities. This policy direction should also consider limiting the organization’s liability should such behavior occur, and it should consider limiting the effects of a poor public image. The steps and considerations may be driven by the department’s Code of Ethics. Consideration needs to be directed to transforming the culture of the department to help improve relations in the department and in the community. (This action is currently being reviewed.) 7. Design and implement an aggressive EEO and succession plan for the department. Semiannually measure and report on efforts and pathways for the movement and treatment of employees as the Chief of Police reassures their fair and equitable treatment in the department. 8. Incorporate EEO and diversity/inclusion/harassment-free measures through the supervisory performance management processes for all employees in the rank of Police Sergeant and above. The performance on these identified measures must be weighted and evaluated appropriately to ensure total and timely compliance with established performance standards. © 2014 Coleman & Associates Consultants • Investigative Report Summary • City of Fort Worth Police Department

8|P a g e

9. Review and revise competency-based supervisory training and leader development (required to be conducted bi-annually) for all sworn and non-sworn supervisors) to incorporate at least the following major topics of emphasis: a. Leading peers by example b. Personal ownership, personal accountability and responsibility for results c. Overcoming team dysfunction and managing conflict d. Communicating openly, honestly and empathically e. Managing difficult conversations f. Building and maintaining honesty and personal integrity g. Managing employee performance h. Maximizing interpersonal and inter-operational communication, collaborating for results i.

Resolving and managing employee disputes

10. Require that all supervisors must attend training on General Orders updates annually. The focus of the training and the critical intent is to keep department managers and supervisors apprised of the content of the critical General Orders governing fairness and equity, and to ensure they fully appreciate their responsibilities and accountabilities for influencing their work units to comply with those General Orders, in addition to all other General Orders. 11. Review and revise the department’s Anti-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment Policy a. Define discrimination and harassment with defining examples b. Define and discuss impact and implications for discriminatory treatment and harassment c. Outline expectations for employee and supervisory roles preventing discrimination and harassment d. The Chief of Police must take an active role in the dissemination of policy and in communicating top level commitments to create and maintain a wholesome and healthy work environment free of harassment and discrimination. e. Prepare and implement an anonymous climate survey involving all department employees annually to assess the department’s culture to determine appropriate steps toward transformation and quality of worklife enhancements, and the effects on performance and productivity. The results will be reported to the City Manager and City Council by the Chief of Police. © 2014 Coleman & Associates Consultants • Investigative Report Summary • City of Fort Worth Police Department

9|P a g e

f. Provide specific training to incorporate a new anti-harassment policy, and to promote immediate and prompt inquiry into harassment allegations with a bent toward prompt and positive resolution. CA has been advised that the City Manager’s Office and the Chief of Police are committed to the principal of fair and equal treatment for all employees and will take the steps necessary to implement these recommendations in the most expedient manner possible.

© 2014 Coleman & Associates Consultants • Investigative Report Summary • City of Fort Worth Police Department

10 | P a g e