CO-0311

NATURE OF COMPLAINT: On January 4, 20111 was made aware of a cartoon style video on YouTube that involved an exchange of dialogue between an officer and a jailer who was represented by a clown. This video went by at least two different names on YouTube and was critical of the relationship between the Department and SCORE, SCORE Employees and other members of the Department, It is believed that both of you were involved in, or had knowledge of, the creation and posting of this video on YouTube. As a result of this initial posting on YouTube, a series of additional videos were posted this past week. EMPLOYEE INVOLVED: Deputy Chief Sergeant Sergeant] A/Sergea

HHflHB

ALLEGATIONS: Violation of General Orders 26.1.1.11.B Unbecoming Conduct 26.1.1.II.K Unsatisfactory Performance 26.1,1.II,AA Courtesy 26.1,1.11.FF Public Statements 26.1.1.II.YY Ethics Violation of City Policy 340-02 Unlawful Discrimination, Harassment, and Retaliation

MEMORANDUM Mercer Island Police Department

9611 SE 36th Street Mercer Island, WA 98040-3732 (206)275-7610 FAX (206) 275-7641

DATE: TO: FROM: RE;

May 18,2011 Chief Kevin Milosevich Chief Ed Holmes Renton Internal Investigation CO-0311 '

As per your request, I have reviewed Renton's Internal Investigation CO-0311 to determine if the investigation is complete. I reviewed the written materials as well as the associated video. My findings are as follows:

All of the involved employees were interviewed. All of the appropriate witnesses were interviewed. All of the relevant questions were asked. All germane information is present for you to make a decision relating to afinaldisposition of this investigation.

I find that this investigation is thorough and complete, with no further investigation needed,

Chief of Police

FINDINGS OF FACT 1 Sgt H^B hired on 3/2/1998 as a lateral officer; he was. promoted to Sergeant In January of 2008; he has other leadership roles and responsibilities as a Team Leader on the Valley CDU; and is a Department Emergency Driving Instructor. 2. H
l s w a s

currently assigned to Patrol Operations as the Sergeant for Squad 1A.

3. DC was hired on 2/1/1993 as a lateral officer; he was promoted to Sergeant in 1998; Commander in 2003; and to his present rank of Deputy Chief in 2007. 4. responsible for the Field Operations Bureau which includes Patrol Operations since January; previously he was responsible for the Support Operations Bureau than included Investigations.
, s

5. Sometime in the middle of December 2 0 1 0 , | H created a cartoon style video about the interactions between the Jail and Patrol. 6. Sornetime in December of 2 0 1 0 , H informed | that he was creating a video. 7. Sometime in the middle of D e c e m b e r , | B shared this video with 8. At about this same time, attempted to show Commander B ^ B F using his personal cell phone. This attempt was not successful due to some technical difficulties. vas able to only see a-couple of characters, but was told by | video was about SCORE and that it was funny.
t h i s v i d e o

*andA/S

I that the

10, At about the same time, m showed this video to Commander provided the link and the two of them viewed It in the officers report writing room. 11. m and had a discussion regarding the posting of this video on YouTube before it was posted. H i wanted to remain anonymous, so B | told him to go the library like everyone else does to keep it a secret. (To post the video) 12. | B posted ^ i s video on YouTube 13. On January 3, 2011 at 1506 h o u r s , received an email on his Department email account titled, "Unicornmovies sent you a video: "A Penny Tale brought to you by. SCORE". The sender was "YouTube Service".

14. On January 3, 2011 at 1515 hours, S g t l ^ M ^ B r e c e i v e d an anonymous email titled, "Unicornmovies sent you a video: "A Penny Tale brought to you by SCORE". The sender was "YouTube Service". 15. During his interview, admitted to beingthe creator of this video and emailing it to his Department email address and t o j J U ^ u n d e r an anonymous sender. 16. On January 4, 2 0 1 1 ^ J ( ( f distributed this video to a wide variety of folks within the Department via Department email. 17. Accordmg to m statement, he was confronted by the remark, "Good Job" by (Inferring that he created the video.) H | ^ | in his statement stated he told ie didn't create the video.
f

if he created the video, 18. I n l ^ ^ H s t a t e m e n t , he did not have any idea who anathat toldf(BP he did not create the video, created the video.
w a s a s l < e d b

t h a t

19. After seeing the negative reaction from Commander McClincy and others, | c a l l e d H and told him to take the video down. 20. On January 4, 2011 at 0901 Chief Milosevich sent an email to the city's IS Director Mehdi Sadri advising him of the video and asking to see if this video was uploaded on a Department computer. 21. At our weekly command staff meeting, this video was discussed and it should have been obvious to others that the video was inappropriate. 22. On January 4, 2011 at 1809 hours, I received an email from Sadri. The messaged basically stated that the city does not track Internet activity to that level, but he will check further. 23. On January 5, 2011 at 0718 hours, I forwarded this email string noted in Finding 19 and 21 to both and DC Troxel with a "FYI" in the message area. 24. On January 5, 2011 at 0736 hours, I received a response from | stated, "This was the same problem with thd^^investigation. They stopped tracking a few years ago, presumably over storage room and concern for public disclosure requests, I would have been surprised if they had switched back. I complained to Jorge at the time." 25. At some point in the next day or so, this video was reposted on YouTube under the title of "SCORE Parody" by emperornaked. B o t h | ^ | and | ^ ^ | | stated that this was the same video that was posted as "A Penny Tale brought to you by SCORE".

26, Both

and

deny re-posting this video.

27. On January 6, 2011 at 1500 hours the monthly Department Leadershipmeetlng was held in the Council Chambers. It is believed present.

that |^|HIHiflH^ 'VP

nc!

Wre

28. At the January Leadership meeting, Milosevich discussed this video and that it was inappropriate. 29. In mid-January, after seeing the SCORE Parody video on Y o u T u b e 4 j J P ^ ealized that the characters in the video were similar to w h a t H H I attempted to show him back in D e c e m b e r . ^ U ^ b r o u g h t this issue to my attention. 30. On January 18, 2011 at 1656 hours, I received an email from Sadri. The email contained a document that showed that the original video, "a Penny Tale" was sent by YouTube to b o t h a n d ^ H f e o n January 3, 2011. 31. On February 7, 2011 at 1348 hours I received an email from Mayor Law. The email was an email that was forwarded from the Mayor of Auburn - Pete Lewis. The email had the link to* the YouTube site to see the SCORE video and was sent to the mayor of Tukwila and j
!

32. On February 28, 2011, DC Troxel faxed a request to Google requesting information about the video. DC Troxel received a response shortly thereafter stating that they would need a subpoena or warrant in order to release information. 33. On April 16, 2011 at 1810 hours, I received a phone call from a former Renton Police Officer that several new videos were posted on YouTube by "Mr Fuddlesticks."

-^jJ((((^^J|stated

34. Later that day, I reviewed the new videos that also included the original SCORE Parody that was now posted by "Mr Fuddlesticks." 35. On April 19, 2011 at our command staff meeting at 0900 hours we discussed the new videos,flmirealized that brought to Milosevic's attention that ^ 1 ^ 1 knew who created the original SCORE Parody,
n e v e r

36. On April 20, 2011 in the morning, McClincy came to my office to discuss a potential responsible party for posting the new videos, 37. In the afternoon on the 20 ^J|jJ ^traveled into work on his day off to confront At the end of the conversation, agreed to contact Milosevich and state that he had knowledge of who created the first video ~ A Penny Tale aka SCORE Parody.
th

a n d

38. On the 20 at 1640 hours, I met with B I B created the original video and posted it on YouTube. couple of days later, m told me that he woulc knowledge if he was asked directly.
th i n h i s

On April 25,2011 at approximately 0830 hours, I notified B I B he was the subject of an internal investigation. became visibly angry; stated others were behind this; he stated he did not lie; and that he did the right thing. 40.

a. He was goingto bring up everything he knows about the command staff that they have not been held accountable for. b. He was going to bring up the allegation of untruthfulness he submitted against c. He believes members of the command staff are mentally unstable. 41. HI was interviewed by Leibman. In this i n t e r v i e w | ^ | stated: a. That he created the Penny Tale video. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. I j. k. I . m. n. o. p, That Sergeants ^JpJU ^nd D C | m was aware of the video. That they agreed to keep It a secret. That B H i was aware of the video prior to it being posted on YouTube. That he shared the video with That H H I thought it was funny and did not provide any direction to him. That he posted it on YouTube,

That he sent it to J/g^ That he removed it from YouTube at the request of | | That he did not re-post it. That the video resonated with some department members, That it gives the perception to others that there are problems with SCORE, That it could impact our relationship with the Jail. That the cloWQ in the video represents the Jail. That he left open the possibility of a second video. That he and m never discussed disclosing the creator after the video became a controversy. q. That this action is not consistent with his role as a sergeant. r. That his actions fall under the definition of Unbecoming Conduct. s. That he did not create the second series of videos. stated:

42r I interviewed

a. That he received a phone call f r o m ^ H stating he was putting together an "epic" video, b. T h a t l l sent him a link on his personal email. The link was to a video that was similar to the one that w^s released. c. That he thought the video was funny. d. T h a t t o l d him that he was going to send it tc e. That he gave advice t o | | h conceal his identity by posting it from a library, f. That he shared the video w i t l J B p B a n d he thought it was funny. g. That he tried to show it t o ^ B R b u t had some technical difficulties and does not recall j ^ ^ J H ^ r e a c t i o n . h. That he d i r e c t e d B l to remove the video. I . That he did not come forward since he was hoping the situation would "blow over". j. That he did not think there was an investigation. k. That the actual time that the video was posted b y ^ i minimal, I . That we discussed this first video at our Tuesday morning staff meeting in regards to the harm to the relationship with the Jail, m, That he knew who created the video but did not come forward, n. That he and the Chief discussed the videos, yet he did not come forward, o. That he was present at our monthly leadership meeting two days later; that we discussed the video; and yet he did not come forward, p, That the video had both a negative and a positive impact on the Department, based on who you discuss it with, q, That it reflecte^ooHvon operational issues with SCORE, r. That he t h i n k s ^ H H p f c i suspect in the additional videos. This is based on his institutional knowledge, obsessive behavior, and that he thinks he has mental issues. s, That he did not come forward due to his prior frustrations with the Chief oyer his perceived lack of an investigation into an allegation of untruthfulness b^j t. That his conduct meets the definition of Unbecoming conduct, u. That these new videos had a significant impact on the Department, v. That he did not create the new videos, w. That there was not intent to be deceptive.
o n w t 0 w a s

43. SCORE'S reputation was harmed by the video. 44. The relationship between SCORE and the Renton Police Department was negatively impacted by this video, 45. This video was the topic of discussion at a monthly SCORE Operations Board meeting. 46. Public officials in other cities viewed this video and inquired as to the creation and issues surrounding the video. _ 47. Leibman interviewed both S g t ^ J ^ a n d A/Sg\ 48^HH^stated That H i created the original video and posted it on YouTube.

b. That he discussed w i t h a l the desire to keep the knowledge of the creator to themselves. c. That he did not want to have the "fallout" over this if somebody's feelings got hurt. d. H i told him that the video was posted on YouTube. e. That he did not think the video impaired the functioning of the Department.

49. jHfrstated
a. T h a t j H j told him that he was creating a video. b. T h a t ^ H posted the video on YouTube. c. d. e. f. g. ThatHi That he may have shown it at his squad briefing. That H i ^ request of | H H That he did not believe the video impacted the relationship with the Jail. That the only harm was that it was causing a controversy with the administration. h. That he felt he was not required to notify someone in his chain of command that he knew the creator of the video.
t o o k ! t d o w n a t e c a l l e d h i m t o t e l l h i m t h a t t h e v , d e o

INVESTIGATION 1-4-11 I was advised by DC Troxel of a SCORE parody that was posted on YouTube called "A Penny Tale". I viewed the video and later advised! I emailed Mehdi Sadri inquiring about search capabilities and was advised that the function was turned off. 1-4-11 1809 hours I received an email from Mehdi regarding my request for IS to determine if the video was uploaded via a Department computer. In his email, he stated that the city does not track this information at this level of detail. 1-5-11 0718 hours I emailed a copy of Medhi's reply to both Deputy Chiefs with a "FYI". 1-5-110736 hours I received a response from

DCjI ^Hiil^

w a s

a l s o

s e n t

t o

D C

Troxel.

| H | stated that this

was the same problem he had with the^J^investigation. 1-6-11 At the monthly leadership meeting, I briefly discussed the presence of the video and that It was inappropriate at a time that we are trying to improve relationship between the jail which Is now part of SCORE and our officers 1-10-110900 hours I called Mehdi and discussed the search capabilities of our email and internet system. Mehdi stated he would conduct a search upon receiving a formal request through Iwen. We discussed options and direction of the investigation. Mid-January
I discussed the SCORE Parody video with C o m m a n d e r p H | | ^ ^ ^ B H | H ^ s t a t e d that about two weeks prior to the posting of the video on Y o u T u b e T D C ^ H B i tried to show this video to him on his phone. Later w h e n J U | s a w the video on YouTube, he recognized it as the same one that ^ ^ H H attempted to play on his phone weeks prior.

1-18-111656 hours I received an email from Mehdi Sadri. Mehdi conducted a search of the city's email server in regards to this investigation. According to Mehdi's email; The first YouTube email was titled, "A Penny Tale brought to you by SCORE" was sent by "Unicornmovies" to S g t H H Y > ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ The second email with the same title and sender was sent to S g t j f l j j ^ ^ ^ H p a t 3:15 PM on the same date. S g t ^ H never distributed the email; however Sgt rfHfedid January 4, 2011.
o n J a n u a r 3 2 0 1 1 a t 3 : 0 6 P M o n

2-7-11 1348 hours I received an email from Mayor Law. Attached to the email was an email string from the Mayor's of Auburn, Tukwila, Renton, ' H | H H H titled SCORE Parody. The video was attached with a comment by Mayor L e w i s t o ^ c l i e c k o ^ video".
a n c

2-28-11 1119 Hours Deputy Chief Troxel faxed a request to Google to obtain information regarding the SCORE Parody video. His request and response is noted below. The actual documents are located in the correspondence section of the investigation. On February 28,2011,1faxed a preservation request to Google reference the YouTube video titled SCORE Parody, (also originally posted as, A Penny Tale), The preservation request not only asked Google to retain records, but to release records to the city of Renton. Within a couple of hours, I had received a phone call/voicemall from an employee at Google. She advised that they had received our Preservation Request, and noticed that we were also requesting release of records, Google's policy requires that they do not release records until proper legal process (subpoena or warrant) and protocol has been followed, She added that they would gladly release records once that process was received,

4-16-11 1810 hours I received a phone call from ^ f l H f l M f l B ^ that there were several new SCORE Parody type videos that have been posted^on YouTube. 4-20-11 Morning | and Commander Katie McClincy came into my office, McClincy explained how an
employee had commented on the YouTube "Channel" to the creator of the latest videos.
s t a t e <

McClincy had a suspicion of whom it might be ~ ^ M B B B B B B H I ^ ^ H i P of the discussion and agreed with the logic as to why it w a a ^ ^ ^ H M p r e c e n t l y was unhappy with
public disclosure request of a previous sustained internal investigation. The theory was that

w a s

a r t

was going to act out, and the videos were his response.

1640 hours After returning to the city from my monthly administrative board meetings, DC| If I was available via email. I went to his office to speak with him,
s a i c

I asked

HH l he wanted to fall on his sword. He stated he knew who developed the initial SCORE Parody video. After it was published on YouTube he suggested to the employee to remove it, He was told it was removed, but someone else reposted it on YouTube. I asked him who posted it, he stated -HHB flH stated that I never asked him the right question or a specific question if he had knowledge of the creator of this video. 4-2141 1700 I discussed this investigation with CAO Jay Covington. 4-22-11 0930 I discussed this investigation with HR Administrator Nancy Carlson. 4-24-11 1736 Hours I sent an email to Commanders] previous conversations with | 4-25-11 0830 I advised H H of the internal investigation where both he a n d ^ l were named as a subject. H H started showing signs of anger. | ^ ^ ^ | stated he wanted to give his statement right now, I told him that I was not ready and this it was scheduled for Friday, During this meeting I I stated: ' requesting documentation of their

He was very disappointed That he believes others are behind this - inferring DC Troxel He stated he did not lie, and looking back at his actions he would not have done anything different. I did the right thing ~ I wouldn't change a thing,

| asked if he was a suspect In the second series of videos, I told him that we would discuss that on Friday.

I also told H H [ | that I need the on-going internal into the Flag football game on Thanksgiving involving several members of the Department includingHB ' ' d him that I would reassign the Loudermill hearings for the remaining officers to another member of staff. As he left the room, in anger stated, "I am not a member of your command staff I"
t 0

Later in the morning he asked some clarifying questions regarding representation and If he was on a gag order. I told him he was instructed not to discuss this incident w i t h | ^ | and via email I told him he had the right to representation. At some point, H H B downstairs to^peak with Commanden the information that was prepared byj Chief On Monday morning 04-25-11 Deputy C/?/e /||HH ^ y ff was a subject of an Internal Investigation and he was not given a "Gag order" other than not to discuss It with I
c a m e m ice t o v e n t H e t o l d m e h e w e n t

I have attached

He said the internal was referencing the videos that were recently released, He was extremely upset/offended that the Chief thought he was behind the videos, He knew who created the first SCORE video, H I H He eluded that he knew who created the other videos; it is a rank and file member of the department. He did not divulge their name, He was going to bring up everything he knows about command staff, everything that they have done and not be held accountable for. He is going to bring up the "iying" complaint he sent to you about j not taking care of an incident with KCSO in which he said he did. How he believes some members on the command staff are mentally unstable. He Is offended t / 7 a t | ^ H | internal for pre-discipline interviews was taken away from him, His perception is now the Chief does not trust him to do his job in an impartial manner. He should be placed on Administrative leave, since he is not being trusted to do his job, He is trying to get the department together not tear It apart, so why would he create or be part of the second set of videos that are hateful. When this internal Is done and his name is cleared he Is out of here, he will take a $90l< year job this is not worth it. He is going to have a lot more question for the Chief during the interview than the Chief has for him. Is It a discoverable PDA request for the documentation he sent to you regarding the lying Incident regarding! requested to take the rest of the day off since he stated he was not going to be productive.

1000: I received the requested documentation from Approximately one to two weeks before the original video was posted on the internet (I think in late December) Deputy C / ? / e / H H H came into my office. He told me that someone had sent him a video and he wanted me to see it He said it was pretty funny and he started to try and get It to play on his personal cell phone and then was trying to show It to me. It would play for a couple of seconds and then freeze. He would try to get it running again and start to show it to me and then it would freeze again. I believe he tried three times, I was able to see the image of the two characters in the "Penny Tale" video that was later posted on the internet, When it would not show without freezing after several attempts he gave up. He indicated that the video was funny and that it was about SCORE. The morning of the "Penny Tale" video showing up on the Internet It was pulled before I could view it After the Staff meeting I saw the video and realized they were the same characters that were on the video that Deputy Chieff////^ had tried to show me a week or so prior. I felt at that time he had prior knowledge of who was Involved in the production of the video, I shared what I have described with you on a couple of occasions including the Interview you did with me regarding Staff Communications and after the multiple video postings this past week. 1010 (Approx): I notified Sgt H i of the internal while in Cmdr Leibman's office, 1141: I received an email from H H H requesting that this investigation be forwarded to an outside agency. Chief Milosevich, I respectfully request that this Investigation be handled by an outside and independent Investigator, My reason for this is that I take it very personally you believe that I had anything to do with the most recent videos. I shared my knowledge with you that I knew who produced, the original, and in my opinion non-offensive video, You have made it clear, through your words, that you believe that I have not been truthful. In my 30 plus years of police work, I have never lied or had my veracity called Into question. Continuing with you as the Investigator will only serve to further deteriorate our working relationship, beyond what your accusations have done, I intend to continue my employment with the City of Renton after this investigation and I believe that going head to head on false accusations will create a substantially uncomfortable work environment

At the end of this Investigation, I will expect a heartfelt public apology for questioning my Integrity, believing that I would have produced or participated in the latest videos, and accusing me of something that I did not do. Respectfully submitted,

1320 Hours I received an email from j J J J ^ r e g a r d i n g his conversations with m pasted below: H
T

^ e information is

Sometime this mid-winter (November/December)DC^////^ walked into my office shortly after I arrived at work, and told me he had a video he wanted to show me, I believe he gave me a link to try on my computer, but the video wouldn't run, We went Into the officers' report writing room, and he was able to bring the video up on one of the work stations. The clip was the original animated SCORE video, where the jail was satirized for various reasons, I asked D C ^ H I ^ either who he got the video from, or who made the video. He said something about not wanting to tell me because the person who made It didn't want the word to get around. I went on with my day and didn't give the video any additonal thought At least two weeks later, an officer asked me if I'd seen the video about the jail. (Edwards is the person I vaguely recall being that officer; I'm not positive.) At that moment it didn't occur to me that he was talking about the SCORE video, so I said I hadn't seen it The officer began playing the video on what I believe was an officer work room computer, and I realized it was the original SCORE clip. I told him I already saw it He turned it off and I went back to work, By the end of that day or perhaps the next, news of the video was everywhere, and it was clearly causing problems. At around the same time, we discussed the video at a staff meeting, where the consensus was that the video was inappropriate, damaging to working relationships, and was generally unprofessional. I watched D c H | / Y 9 tfwf ^ 9 9 disclose his previous knowledge, and saw none. Even so, I believed he would eventually handle the situation appropriately. The video immediately disappeared from Youtube and the controversy passed. In the end, I made the assumption that D C f / / / / ^ must have given you whatever information he had at the time.
o r an sl n e w a s oln to

On Sunday April 17 , Offlcerf////j[texted me that there was a new SCORE video on Youtube. I couldn't initially find it, but on Monday I finally located app. eight videos, which I found to be offensive on many levels.

th

The next day at our staff meeting, there was an extensive discussion about the new videos, and how completely offensive and inappropriate they were. Based on your statements and reaction, It was obvious D C ^ m had never told you anything about the original videos. I can't recall exact words in the meeting, but he expressed his reservations about trying to Investigate the videos further.

DC^^mi|

Following the meeting, CommanderWtthnd I drove to lunch with D C ^ l th during the ride and at the beginning of lunch, was adamant that there should be no investigation; that doing so would only give credibility/attention to the video creator. He equated investigating this to the excessive fuss the accred sticker investigation caused years ago, I brought up the differences, ie; the significance of the personal attacks here vs, the Impersonal loss of some stickers then. He continued to draw parallels which seemed Indefensible to me, and he continued to try and sell the argument of not investigating or taking this further. He downplayed the significance of the videos and said he was sure someone smart enough to post the videos was smart enough to cover their tracks with blind accounts. I brought said I thought we owed It to the people who were offended to go as far as we were able, even if we weren't successful. At that point he said that he hadn't seen the new videos, andwe moved on to another topic. Also present during part of the conversation was .Commander

The next day, Wednesday the 20 , I was on a day off but came in specifically to speak to DC H U B about the whole situation, I told him I had something very serious to discuss, then reminded him that he had shown me the original SCORE video before it had become available to others, and that he had implied knowing where it came from, D C | H m | ^ ^ f ^ he knew that he'd shown both Commandet^/f/ffand I the video in advance. After some discussion, he told me he did know who made the video but hadn't disclosed the information to you. I didn't ask who the person who made the video was and he didn't offer it to me,
s a ! c a t c o s e

th

I told him that I wouldn't lie or hide my knowledge regarding the initial video, and by the end of the conversation, he told me he would go to you with the full story. Later that evening, D C f / / / ^ called me on my personal cell to let me know he'd talkedjo you, and that you hadn't seemed upset, I thanked him for the follow-up, Commander\

1330: I discussed this investigation with Mayor Law and CAO Covington. I provided a copy of all SCORE related videos, 4-27-11 0945 Hours stopped by my office. He stated that:

He has decided not to have Terri Vickers act as his representative. That he thought it was not a good Idea due to the relationship issues he feels exists between Vickers and Nancy Carlson. He is not sure who if anyone will be present with him during the interview. He wanted to know the role of Nancy Carlson was.... I told him that she participated in a previous interview with Troxel. He said that he was upset with me in regards to something I said and that he had hoped at some point we could discuss our previous conversation-. 1050: I spoke with Commander McClincy. McClincy stated that S g t ^ m confronted the day that the first SCORE Parody was discovered. McClincy stated that | B H denied this to |
o n

1110: I spoke '

w t l l

^ 0 P

have attached his statement below.

During the first week of January 2011,1 opened my emaii at work and viewed a video which had been sent to me via YouTube, The email was tltled-SCORE, a Penny Tale, The video was a cartoon depicting a conversation between a police officer and a SCORE jailer. The "script" of the video was closely related to what were the perceived interactions between Jail staff and an officer inquiring about booking someone and the perceived employment in SCORE. Several other department members had viewed this video also. Due to the content of the video, it was "the talk" of the department for several days, After watching the video I asked several people if they were the author of the video or knew who the author was. One of the individuals I asked was Deputy ChiefJJttKL ^ ^ ^ P who made the video and did not have any idea who was, Several others denied being the author or having any involvement in the making of it Unfortunately, there have been other, similar video's released that have discredited Individuals in the department While not naming them specifically, the video's refer to incidents which others know of, and have knowledge of the specific individuals involved. At this time, I do not have any specific knowledge of who may be involved in releasing the second set of videos, Respectfully
t o m e e w a s n o t e e r s o n

4-29-11 0904 Hours Leibman interviewed in Conference Room A. During this i n t e r v i e w H i stated: That he created a cartoon-style video called, "A Penny Tale", and posted it on YouTube.

That D C H I H S e r g e a n t s ^ a n d 4 f l ^ w e r e aware, and that they agreed to keep this information between the four of them. That he shared the video with flHHin December. That he sent the video to Sergeant (jj ^from anlfcsite email address. That told him to pull it off of YouTube, and he did remove it. That he has no Idea who re-posted it. Did not admit to creating the video since he was not specifically asked. Knowing this incident met the definition of unbecoming conduct.

a n d

0955 Hours HR Administrator Nancy Carlson and I interviewed | in the HR Conference room. | admitted to: Having prior knowledge of the video f r o m | B before it was posted on YouTube. Attempting to show the draft video to Commanders | f l B l and? A s s i s t i n g | B posting the video "anonymously Discussing this video with Sergeant's Failing to come forward hoping it would just "blow over". Making a series of poor decisions. Being present at numerous meetings where the video was discussed, knowing that he knew who created the original video. Not disclosing who created the video since he was not directly asked if he was involved in the creation of the video, Knowing that the video had a negative impact on the department, SCORE and other SCORE cities. Knowing this incident met the definition of unbecoming conduct.
, n

5-8-11 Commander Leibman interviewed Sergeant'sJ Sgt^BHistated: T h a t | ^ | created the original video and posted it on YouTube. That he discussed with | ^ the desire to keep the knowledge of the creator to themselves, That he did not want to have the "fallout" over this if somebody's feelings got hurt. HI told him that the video was posted on YouTube, That he did not think the video impaired the functioning of the Department.

Sgt H p stated: T h a t j H I l d him that he was creating a video.

t o

T h a t d l posted the video on YouTube. T h a t l l called him to tell him that the video has been posted. That he may have shown It at his squad briefing. That|B k the request of That he did not believe the video impacted the relationship with the Jail. That the only harm was that it was causing a controversy with the administration. That he felt he was not required to notify someone in his chain of command that he knew the creator of the video.
t 0 d o w n a t

5-9-11 | entered my office, shut the door, and wanted to find a way to reduce the "uneasy" feeling he has with our relationship. I discussed with him the next steps. Finish my findings Obtain transcripts of interview with( Forward to an outside chief for review Return to Jay for discipline and Loudermill hearing 5-11-11 I sent an email to SCORE Director VI^BHBPThe purpose of the email was to determine what the impact that this original video had on her organization. 5-12-11 0940 hours I met Ed Holmes, Mercer Island's Police Chief in Burien. I made the request that he review this investigation for completeness once the investigation has concluded. Chief Holmes agreed to assist. 1300: I returned to the station and received an inter-office mail envelope that contained memorandums f r w

An email received b that he knew about the video.

r o m

Pete Lewis (Auburn Mayor) acknowledging f (Issaquah Jail j

An email received b y 4 f l H H H ^ acknowledging that he knew about the video

memorandum stated: That theoriginal SCORE Parody video is sarcastic, demeaning to SCORE as an agency, to Correctional Officers, and to her personally. That she has been contacted by numerous officials from outside agencies inquiring about the video. That this video has caused a spirit of distrust between SCORE and members of the Renton Police Department. That the video was a topic of discussion at the SCORE Operations Board meeting. memorandum stated: TFie depiction of a SCORE employee as a lazy clown by a member of an owner agency has created a lack of distrust between SCORE staff and the Renton Police Department. This video could have had a negative impact on potential correctional officer recruits during a time of increased hiring activity. He received an email from a SCORE employee that stated, '7 did not like being emulated as a Clown. The definition of a clown is a rude ill-bred person, afoot and one who plays the buffoon. I do not believe they were Intending to show us as a comedian who entertains people. It was meant to make us look like fools." [memorandum stated: That numerous officials in Auburn had viewed the video and were all laughing at the expense of SCORE. * 5-16-11 The investigation has been completed, and will be submitted to Ed Holmes, Mercer Island Police Chief for review.

RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT Investigation Report - Summary

CASE NO: CO-0311 Date Time Description Chief Milosevich asked me to assist him with this investigation by an interviewing Sergeant |^HH interview time and date was set for Friday April 29 at 10:00 hours. Through Sergeant Sjolin, the interview time was changed to 09:00 instead.
T h e th

04/29/11

09:04

Sergeant was represented by attorney Hillary McClure. During the interview, Hi related the following information: As a "spoof", H i created the original video in question, "A Penny Tale" and posted it on YouTube, He accurately described things in the video, confirming we were talking about the same video. He later said he did not do any additional video(s), _ D C a n d Sergeants^|BB ^flHHB he created it. He told H about making the video prior to its release. H i said he accidentally sent an e mail with the video to his work computer from his screen account "Unicorn Movies" from an off- site e mail address. t o l d H | to take the video down once it went up on YouTube. |H pulled it off right away. HI doesn't know how the video was re-posted to YouTube. Hi conceded that the video could impact the relationship with the jail and SCORE. HI said that he and HH talked about keeping the video a secret, and that his being Involved with the video wasn't consistent with his leadership role, No one specifically asked H i If he created the video; therefore he never really answered those who asked him about it. He and talked about keeping the video secret, and not saying anything once the video became controversial. He didn't come forward once he knew the chief brought it up at a meeting because he didn't want to admit it. | H didn't know who created the latest videos under the name "Mr. Fuddlesticks." He doesn't know who did. He found out about them about two weeks before people at the department knew about them after learning of them from his wife, who was told by a Kent PD Sergeant. Hexlidn't say anything to anyone about the finding the new videos except for
a n d l < n e w

|HH

HHii

flHkflH^d

Investigator Leibman

^^^Igj^iber

Page 1 of 11

RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT Investigation Report - Summary

CASE NO: CO-0311 Date 05/02/11 Time NA Description Chief Milosevich asked me to interview ^ J J a n d ^ J J ^ e g a r d i n g this Investigation, Neither tor came in to work tonight
t h e

05/02/11 05/03/11

NA

16:00 I served S e r g e a n t ^ P p w i t h pre-interview notification and internal affairs officer notification forms. I set the interview for Monday, May 9 at 17:30 hours, ordered him not to talk about this w i t h d H U M l or I
th

05/04/11

NA

As this was a day off, I asked Commander Wilcox to serve Act. S e r g e a n t J J P v i t h the pre-interview notification and internal affairs officer notification forms. I set the interview for Sunday May 8 at 18:15 hours. Commander Wilcox emailed me and let me know that he delivered the notification at 18:45 hours, (e mail in packet) He also said might want to change the date of the interview to accommodate the attendance of the guild attorney.
th

tha^jj^

19:07

I phoned the Chief to confirm that there was no duty to alter the interview specifically to allow one particular attorney to attend. The RPD front counter couldn't reach ^ H R b y paging. I p h o n e d g ^ V handed his phone to ^pf could interview on Thursday the 5 until 16:00, Saturday or Sunday. He said he would e mail me his choice.
1t 0 , d h i m w e th w h o

19:15

19:55

I e mailed H V t h a t addition to the dates I offered, he could also come in on the following Monday or Tuesday. mailed me to let me know that the original interview time would work, (e mall In packet) I asked^m if we could interview on the 8 since I was going to interview] anyway. He agreed,
th

l e t

h l m

in

05/05/11

01:08

NA

05/08/11

17:56 I interviewed ^ ^ t ^ J f c . Attorney Hillary McClure represented him. During related the i n t e r v i e w , J ^ ^ H ' d tithe following information:
r e a t e

S e

Investigator Leibman

ID Number Page 2 of5

RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT Investigation Report - Summary

CASE NO: CO-0311 Date Time Description said he knew in advance t h a t J H was creating the video in question, and although he couldn't recall the name, described some of it's content. H i told him when he put it on You Tube. Heknew t h a t j j a l s o told H f l H a n d H f l P b o u t the video. H f l M ' d that H i told him to keep knowledge of the video between them. flHflfsaid there was nothing wrong with the videos but felt H i wanted to keep his involvement quiet in case someone's feelings got hurt. ^ ^ ^ l l u d e d to having some knowledge of who put the video back on You Tube after it was taken down, but in the end said it was an unknown individual. There was no group discussion about keeping knowledge of the video secret. However.^JJ^said that said he was asked if he knew if he had something to do with, or knowledge of the video, and he told whoever it was that he didn't know. He conceded this was not true, and a better answer would've been that he couldn't discuss it. m^lidn't come forward with his knowledge of the video because he didn't believe there was a violation of GO or procedure that warranted it, ^ m p d i d n ' t think withholding his knowledge of the video impaired the efficiency of the department. flH^iad nothing to do with the new videos, and doesn't know who created them. He did view them; he thought it was about the same time as everyone else in the department did. He deferred t o H H description of being notified by((twoweeks before the videos came out He did have a conversation w i t h f i H B H i ^ B I ^ about them. He didn't believe |HI created them.^H|j:onceded that knowing about the new videos two weeks earlier could've aided in an investigation or mitigation of the videos.
a n a

05/08/11 18:50

I interviewed Act, S e r g e a n t J ^ P Attorney Hillary McClure represented him. During theinterview, J ^ H e l a t e d the following information: Hfl^ of the video and its title, "A Penny Tale." He described some of the contents of the video. He said he knew of the video about two weeks before it was posted. told him about it. He knew t h a t ^ U | a n d | also knew about it, H H told him the video was on You Tube. Lmay have shown the video in briefing.
n e w

Investigator Leibman

ID Number Page 3 of5

RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT Investigation Report - Summary

CASE NO: CO-0311 Date Time Description

faid his opinion on why H U H asked H i off You Tube was because people were receiving it unfavorably. H B knew nothing of how the video got re-posted on You Tube. became evasive during questions on how the video possibly affected the department or was perceived by others, and whether anyone asked if he had knowledge of the video. H P didn't think he needed to come forward with his knowledge of the video because there wasn't any formal investigation going on at that time. H H denied withholding knowledge of this video again, because there was no formal investigation. He did not think the video impaired the efficiency of the department. ^ H f evasive throughout the majority of the remainder of the interview, and wouldn't answer most questions directly, HP & with^Hi f being notified of the new videos two weeks before they came out to the rest of the department. He didn't initially look at the videos because H wouldn't give him the link. ppp}conceded that knowing about the videos two weeks in advance might've been helpful in an investigation. Much of^HPIgeneral demeanor general evasiveness can be gleaned by listening to the recording.
w a s a r e e d timellne b r i e f | a b o u t t h e t h e

t a l ( e t h e

v i d e o

05/08/11

19:30 I spoke w i t h j H R I Y investigation. I told him that p e r H I videos were viewed by members of Kent PD two weeks before they were widely known here. H P P s a i d that his belief he saw the videos about the same time as everyone else was based on the fact that he noticed the videos had been watched several times already. He conceded that the hits he saw on the website could've been caused by whoever was watching the videos in the time leading up to when they came to the general attention of RPD.

19:45

I e mailed the HfljPpecording

t 0

sherry Smith for transcription.

Investigator Leibman

ID Number Page 4 of 5

RENTON POLICE DEPARTMENT Investigation Report - Summary

CASE NO: CO-0311 Date 05/09/11 Time NA Description Shen^toiith r e t u r n e d ^ J J p t r a n s c r i p t i o n to me, and said she hadn't received ' t last night. I sent it to Sherry and she had it back to me by the end of the day.
d i s c o v e r e d 1f a i l e d t 0 s e n d

05/11/11

NA

I turned over ali documents pertaining to this investigation to Chief Milosevich.

Investigator Leibman

ID Number Page 5 of 5

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: SCORE VIDEO April 27 2011 Chief Milosevich
th

During the first week of January 2011,1 opened my email at work arid viewed a video which had been sent to me via YouTube. The email was titled-SCORE, a Penny Tale. The video was a cartoon depicting a conversation between a police officer and a SCORE jailer. The "script" of the video was closely related to what were the perceived interactions between jail staff and an officer inquiring about booking someone and the perceived employment in SCORE. Several other department members had viewed this video also. Due to the content of the video, it was "the talk" of the department for several days. After watching the video I asked several people if they were the author of the video or knew who the author was. One of the individuals I asked was Deputy Chief |[HH who told me he was not the person who made the video and did not have any idea who was. Several others denied being the author or having any involvement in the making of it. Unfortunately, there have been other, similar video's released that have discredited individuals in the department While not naming them specifically, the video's refer to incidents which others know of, and have knowledge of the specific individuals involved. At this time, I do not have any specific knowledge of who may be involved in releasing the second set of videos, Respectfully,

Chief On Monday morning 04-25-11 Deputy Chief H I H by my office to vent. He told me he was a subject of an Internal investigation and he was not given a "Gag order" other than not to discuss it with
c a m e

He said the internal was referencing the videos that were recently released. He was extremely upset/offended that the Chief thought he was behind the videos. He knew who created the first SCORE video, H i He eluded that he knew who created the other videos; it is a rank and file member of the department. He did not divulge their name. He was going to bring up everything he knows about command staff, everything that they have done and not be held accountable for. ^^^^^^^^^ He is going to bring up the "lying" complaint he sent to you a b o u t H H U i m R not taking care of an incident with KCSO in which he said he did. How he believes some members on the command staff are mentally unstable. He is offended that | H I H ' l fr pre-discipline interviews was taken away from him. His perception is now the Chief does not trust him to do his Job in an impartial manner. He should be placed on Administrative leave, since he is not being trusted to do his job, He Is trying to g.et the department together not tear it apart, so why would he create or be part of the second set of videos that are hateful. When this internal Is done and his name is cleared he is out of here, he will take a $90l< year Job this is not worth It, He is going to have a lot more question for the Chief during the interview than the Chief has for him. Is it a discoverable PDA request for the documentation he sent to you regarding the lying incident regarding!
n t e r n a

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Video Incident 04/25/2011

Sometime this mid-winter (November/December)DCHHM walked into my office shortly after I arrived at work, and told me he had a video he wanted to show me, I believe he gave me a link to try on my computer, but the video wouldn't run. We went into the officers' report writing room,, and he was able to bring the video up on one of the work stations. The clip was the original animated SCORE video, where the jail was satirized for various reasons. I asked DC H H H either who he got the video from, or who made the video. He said something about not wanting to tell me because the person who made it didn't want the word to get around. I went on with my day and didn't give the video any additonal thought. AtJeajyjflK) weeks later, an officer asked me if I'd seen the video about the jail, [the person I vaguely recall being that officer; I'm not positive.) At that moment it didn't occur to me that he was talking about the SCORE video, so I said I hadn't seen it. The officer began playing the video on what I believe was an officer work room computer, and I realized it was the original SCORE clip. I told him I already saw it. He turned it off and I went back to work, By the end of that day or perhaps the next, news of the video was everywhere, and it was clearly causing problems. At around the same time, we discussed the video at a staff meeting, where the consensus was that the video was inappropriate, damaging to working relationships, and was generally unprofessional. I watched D C H H i f y sign that he was going to disclose his previous knowledge, and saw none. Even so, I believed he would eventually handle the situation appropriately. The video immediately disappeared from Youtube and the controversy passed. In the end, I made the assumption that D C H l H i have given you whatever information he had at the time.
r a n m u s t

On Sunday April 17 , OfficerH^^Mtexted me that there was a new SCORE video on

th

Youtube. I couldn't initially find it, but on Monday I finally located app. eight videos, which I found to be offensive on many levels. The next day at our staff meeting, there was an extensive discussion about the new videos, and how completely offensive and inappropriate they were. Based on your statements and reaction, it was obvious D C H H B had never told you anything about the original videos. I can't recall D C H H exact words in the meeting, but he expressed his reservations about trying to investigate the videos further. Following the meeting, Commander^^pand I drove to lunch with D C | ^ H H during the ride and at the beginning of lunch, DC adamant that there should be no investigation; that doing so would only give credibility/attention to the video creator. He equated investigating this to the excessive fuss the accred sticker investigation caused years ago. I brought up the differences, ie; the significance of the personal attacks here vs. the impersonal loss of some stickers then. He continued to draw parallels which seemed indefensible to me, and he continued to try and sell the argument of not investigating or taking this further. He downplayed the significance of the videos and said he was sure someone smart enough to post the videos was smart enough to, cover their tracks with blind accounts.
w a s B o t h

I brought said I thought we owed It to the people who were offended to go as far as we were able, even if we weren't successful. At that point he said that he hadn't seen the new videos, and we moved on to another topic. Also present during part of the conversation w a s f ^ The next day, Wednesday the 20 , I was on a day off but came in specifically to speak to D C H about the whole situation. I told him I had something very serious to discuss, then reminded him that he had shown me the original SCORE video before it had become available to others, and that he had Implied knowing where it came from. D C H H B d that of course he knew that he'd shown both C o m m a n d e r ^ U J a n d I the video in advance. After some discussion, he told me he did know who made the video but hadn't disclosed the information to you. I didn't ask who the person who made the video was and he didn't offer it to me.
s a , th

I told him that I wouldn't lie or hide my knowledge regarding the initial video, and by the end of the conversation, he told me he would go to you with the full story. Later that evening, D C ^ H I called me on my personal cell to let me know he'd talked to you, and that you hadn't seemed upset. I thanked him for the follow-up.

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Conversation and observation of and with Deputy Chief | regardingflHKand SCORE videos. April 25,2011 Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police

Approximately one to two weeks before theoriginal video was posted on the internet (I think in late December) Deputy Chief H | came into my office. He told me that someone had sent him a video and he wanted me to see it. He said it was pretty funny and he started to try and get it to play on his personal cell phone and then was trying to show it to me. It would play for a couple of seconds and then freeze. He would try to get it running again and start to show it to me and then it would freeze again. I believe he tried three times. I was able to see the image of the two characters in the "Penny Tale" video that was later posted on the internet. When it would not show without freezing after several attempts he gave up. He indicated that the video was funny and that it was about SCORE. The morning of the "Penny Tale" video showing up on the internet it was pulled before I could view it. After the Staff meeting I saw the video and realized they were the same characters that were on the video that Deputy Chief had tried to show me a week or so prior. I felt at that time he had prior knowledge of who was involved in the production of the video. I shared what I have described above with you on a couple of occasions including the interview you did with me regarding Staff Communications" and after the multiple video postings this past week.

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: SCORE VIDEO April 2 7
th

2011

Chief Milosevich

During the first week of January 2011,1 opened my email at work and viewed a video which had been sent to me via YouTube. The email was titled-SCORE, a Penny Tale. The video was a cartoon depicting a conversation between a police officer and a SCORE jailer. The "script" of the video was closely related to what were the perceived interactions between jail staff and an officer inquiring about booking someone and the perceived employment in SCORE. Several other department members had viewed this video also. Due to the content of the video, it was "the talk" of the department for several days. After watching the video I asked several people if they were the author of the video or knew who the author was. One of the individuals I asked was Deputy Chief who told me he was not the person who made the video and did not have any idea who was. Several others denied being the author or having any involvement in the making of it. Unfortunately, there have been other, similar video's released that have discredited individuals in the department. While not naming them specifically, the video's refer to incidents which others know of, and have knowledge of the specific individuals involved. At this time, I do not have any specific knowledge of who may be involved in releasing the second set of videos. Respectfully,

SCORE
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: SCORE PARODY VIDEO May 11,2011

SOUTH CORRECTIONAL ENTITY

Serving the Cities or Auburn, Burien, DBS Moines, Federal Way, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila Memorandum

Kevin Milosevich, Renton Chief of Police

On January 4, 2011,1 was made aware of a video that had been posted on You Tube. The video was titled something like "SCORE Parody." The video portrays a police officer and a Jail staff member, who is characterized as a clown. The video is sarcastic and demeaning to SCORE as an agency, Correctional Officers, and towards me personally. Since the video was posted, I have been contacted by employees of multiple agencies inquiring about the video, Those inquiries have come from Mayors on the Administrative Board and members from other agencies. The consistent theme In those inquiries was that the video was an embarrassment to SCORE as an organization and its employees. Additionally, I had several conversations with members of SCORE who were universally offended by the video. They felt It was derogatory towards SCORE and them personally. All of the staff that viewed the video were trying to figure out who did the video, and why. This has caused a spirit of distrust between the SCORE employees and member of the Renton Police Department. It has also made SCORE employees feel they are not welcome at the Renton Police Department, experiences. He had conversations with the jail staff in general where everyone was frustrated, offended, and embarrassed about the video. He had a specific conversation with S e r g e a n t ^ J H R w h o was offended by the video. has indicated that he was personally offended by the video because of the degrading portrayal of Corrections Officers, He also indicated that he was contacted by members of the Auburn Police Department regarding the video and what it was about
h a d s i m i l a r

1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 8B057- SCOREjailora

SOUTH CORRECTIONAL ENTITY Serving the Cities of Auburn, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Ronton, SeaTac and Tukwila M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT:

May 12, 2011

SCORE You Tube Video

On May 11, 2011,1 was asked to provide information on the negative impact that the SCORE video posted on You Tube had between SCORE staff and the Renton Police Department mainly patrol operations. When initially told of the video on You Tube and the content contained in the video, I had no desire to view the video. However, as more staff and others from outside agencies asked me about the video, I did view it and was disappointed in what I saw. The depiction of a corrections officer as a clown who has no desire to perform there job is not only offensive but Inaccurate, SCORE officers routinely go out of there way to help patrol officers in any way they can while staying within policy, procedure and the law. When asked if this video had any "negative" impact on SOCRE and its operations my reply is yes. In speaking for the staff currently assigned to SCORE south, being depicted as a lazy clown by a member(s) of one of the owner agencies has created a lack of trust between the staff and the Renton Police Department, Although the video does not specify who the patrol officer is or from what agency, the staff In SCORE south are aware of the department from which it came. In a time when we (SCORE) are trying to build relationships within our own agency and with other agencies, this video did nothing but set us back, In addition, because this video was posted on You Tube, the potential for prospective applicants interested in joining SCORE and seeing our agency depicted in such a negative light by the Renton Police Department could have changed opinions about joining our team. Below is a message I received from Officer Officei^m^s the senior officer in SCORE south with 39 years of experience. In reading the message, he does not separate SCORE from Renton and Auburn but feels that the video was meant to make "us" look like fools. This does not help in the fostering of relations between the Renton Police Department and SCORE.

I have watched the SCORE Parody on YouTube. I thought It was funny and entertaining. However, I did not like being emulated as a Clown. The definition of a clown is a rude Ill-bred person, a fool and one who plays the buffoon. I do not believe they were intending to show us as a comedian who entertains people, It was meant to make us look like fools. O f f i c e r ^ ^ H P & O R E South

C:\Users^UiAppData\Local\Mlcrosoft\Wlndows\Temporary Internet Flles\Content.Outlook\CQ0F765V\SCORE Memo Form youtube.doc SCORE002 3/16/2010

SCORE
BATE: May 11,2011
TO:

SOUTH CORRECTIONAL ENTITY

f, Burien, Des Moines, Federal Way, Renton, SeaTac, and Tukwila
MEMORANDUM

FROM:j SUBJECT: SCORE VIDEO

The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to your request regarding the impact of the "SCORE Video* on staff or SCORE as an entity.
5

I do recall a couple of the current SCORE North Correctional Officers (formerly Renton Jailers "1 a n d | | M H H B b e i n g highly upset regarding the "SCORE video", I do not recall the date, but do remember going to Auburn and having some police department staff (a couple of Commanders and one of the Assistant Chiefs) show me the "SCORE video" for which they thought was "hilarious". In a joking way, I then had the Court Administrator, Probation Manager, and other court staff mention the "SCORE video" to me. Keeping in mind that SCORE must serve these agencies and after seeing the video and probably imagining to themselves if they were going to receive the same type of service from SCORE as displayed on the "SCORE video". This did have a tremendous impact as I could only imagine that if the "SCORE video" had been shown around Auburn like a wildfireout of control and spreading. Then who Icnows what other agencies were also laughing at SCORE? If you recall at the time of the video coming out, SCORE was a new entity with new employees and correctional officers, and did not need or deserve the displayed unprofessionalism the "SCORE video" created. Respectfully Submitted,

1055 South Grady Way, Renton, Washington 08057-SCOREJalLorp

Renton Police Department

CO-0311

Discipline

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: August 11,2011 Sergeant Kevin Milosevich, Chief Discipline CO-0311

I have reviewed the information in CO-0311. This includes the information you provided in the interview conducted by Commander Leibman. I have also reviewed the findings and discipline recommendations provided by Commander Leibman and Commander Curry. Based upon all of the information-provided, 1 issued my preliminary intent to demote you to the position of officer. This preliminary intent was based upon the following information. The investigation revealed that: Sometime in the middle of December 2010, you created an 8:42 minute cartoon . style video about the interactions between the Jail and Patrol. In your statement, you created this video as a "spoof/' During that same month you notified Deputy Chief Sergeant) and A / S g t . ^ U that you were creating a video. You had a conversation with J H H regarding the posting of this video on YouTube before it was actually posted. You wanted to remain anonymous. I B H H suggested that you to go to the library if you wanted to keep it a secret. . You went through significant efforts to conceal your involvement by creating an anonymous email account from a location that would be difficult to trace back to . its origins. You eventually posted the video on YouTube. You were reluctant during your interview.to indicate the medium that was used to post the video by stating in your interview: "...but, I think from an offsite email address/' You sent a link of the video to your department email account and to Sergeant ^ m H I department email a cm< count^ You conspired with to keep your involvement and their knowledge about the creation and posting of the video a secret You removed the video from YouTube when advised to by | In your interview you stated:

fl||imm ^H

KeviaMilosevich Page2of7 August 8,2011

That the content of the video gives the perception to others that there are problems with SCORE, o That the video could impact the Department's relationship with the Jail, o That the video could impact the Department's relationship with SCORE, o The clown in the video represents the Jail as an entity, o That you left open the possibility of a second video. You stated that you would'fess up' to the video if you were confronted directly. That when others asked you if you had something to do with the video, you * avoided answering honestly and directly. You agreed that your actions are not consistent with your role as a sergeant. You agreed that your actions fall under the definition of Unbecoming Conduct. The video was the topic of discussion at a monthly SCORE Operations Board meeting, given its disparaging and demeaning representation of the Jail. Public Officials in other cities viewed this video and inquired as to the creation and issues surrounding the video.

Your conduct violated the following General Orders: General Orders 26.1.1.II.B - Unbecoming Conduct Members of the Police Department shall conduct themselves at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the Department Unbecoming conduct shall include that which brings the Department into disrepute or reflects discredit upon the individual as a member of the Police Department, or that which impairs the operation or efficiency of the Department or the individual. Finding: Sustained

General Orders 26.1.1.II.K - Unsatisfactory Performance Commissioned members of the Police Department shall maintain sufficient competency to properly perform their duties, and assume the responsibility of their positions. Members shall perform their duties in a manner which will maintain the highest standards of efficiency in carrying out the functions and objectives of the Department Unsatisfactory performance may be demonstrated by a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced, an unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks, thefaiiure to conform to work standards established for the officer's rank, grade, or position, thefaiiure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder or other condition deserving police attention, or absence without leave. In addition to other indicators of unsatisfactory performance, the following will be considered prima facie evidence .of unsatisfactory performance: repeated poor evaluations, or a written record of repeated infractions of rules, regulations, directives, or orders of the Department

Kevin Milosevich Page 3 of7 August 8,2011

Finding:

Sustained

General Orders 26.1.1.H.FF - Public Statements Members of the Police Department shall not publicly criticize or ridicule the Department, its policies, or other members, where such speech, writing, or other expression is defamatory, obscene oris made with reckless disregard for truth or falsity and undermines the effectiveness of the Department or interferes with the maintenance of discipline. Members of the Police Department shall not address public gatherings, appear on radio or television, prepare any articles for publication, act as correspondents to a newspaper or a periodical, release or divulge Investigative information or any other matters of the Department while presenting themselves as representing the Department in such matters without proper authority. Members may lecture on police, or other related subject, only with prior approval of the Chief. ^ Finding: Sustained

The creation and dissemination of this original "Penny-tale" video has clearly impaired your ability to perform the duties that is expected of a sergeant Some of these supervisory duties include:, Supervise, evaluate, and motivate subordinates. Establish and maintain cooperative and effective interpersonal relationships. Assign, instruct, and review the work of subordinates in an effective working relationship. Supervise and evaluate the performance of subordinates and interpret evaluation for correcting deficiencies in a positive manner. Enforce laws with firmness and tact Deal effectively with violations of rules, policies, and procedures on an impartial basis. Learn specific duties and responsibilities of individual assignments and apply and carry out as required. In addition, your disrespectful behavior toward another division of the Department as well as SCORE and its administration has substantially impeded your ability to perform your essential functions as a supervisor of this organization, created discord amongst the agencies and significantly impaired the proper functioning of the Department. These findings are based on the following: You created, shared and posted a video that was demeaning, demoralizing and ridiculed members of the department and other King County agencies.

Kevin Milosevich Page 4 of7 August 8,2011

The video reflected poorly on our agency and its good reputation, your coworkers, supervisors and the relationship between the organizations. You stated that the result of this video may have a negative impact on your career and conspired to keep your identity and involvement a secret. It was only after ^ ^ H i forward that you admitted to your involvement The video deliberately distorted and exaggerated the jail's operations to cause the viewer to conclude that the jail operations and jail personnel were incompetent, ignorant and less valued than commissioned members of the police department The speech was defamatory and made with reckless disregard for the truth clearly undermining the effectiveness of the organization. You publically demeaned and ridiculed certain department staff causing harm to those relationships between organizations.
c a m e

The video impacted the relationship^

Renton Jail and with SCORE,

Specifically f r o m ^ m | ^ ^ P ^
The original SCORE Parody video is sarcastic, demeaning to SCORE as an agency, to Correctional Officers, and to her personally. It has caused a spirit of distrust between SCORE and members of the Renton Police Department. She has been contacted by numerous officials from outside agencies inquiring about the video. Several members of SCORE were offended by the video. They felt it was derogatory towards SCORE and them personally. ^ i m H I I H ^ advises that the jail staff in general were frustrated, offended and embarrassed. Specifically from|||PPP There has been a negative impact on SCORE and its operations. The depiction of a SCORE employee as a lazy clown by a member of an owner agency has created a lack of distrust between SCORE staff and the Renton Police Department The video could have negative impact on potential correctional officer recruits during a time of increased hiring activity. Documented receiving an email from a SCORE employee that read:. "/ did not like being emulated as a Clown. The definition of a clown is a rude ill-bred person, a fool and one who plays the buffoon. I do not believe they were intending to show us as a comedian who entertains people. It was meant to make us look likefools."

Loudermill hearing with Commander Curry This meeting was held in conference room 519 on June 20 at 1400 hours. During this meeting several defenses were raised by Guild Attorney Hilary McClure on your behalf.

Kevin Milosevich Page 5 of 7 * August 8,2011

That this video is protected under the 1 Amendment. . That the investigation and potential discipline is a result of your position in the Guild. That the intent of this investigation is to punish someone for the second set of videos. I disagree with all three issues that were raised in this meeting with Commander Curry. You have never indicated how this self-described "satire" implicates First Amendment protection. Your "parody" of the jail and ridicule of it did not raise a matter of public concern. Rather, as you stated during your interview, this was a.joke to you. Even if it did somehow implicate First Amendment protection, the Department's interest in maintaining the efficiency of its operations, interagency relationship with SCORE, and respect and trust amongst officers clearly outweighs any interest you may have in ridiculing your colleagues. Your "satire" was detrimental to the mission and functions of this Department and SCORE, and brought the City, the Auxiliary Services Division (Jail) and its current and former officers into disrepute. Nor is there any evidence that the recommended discipline is in any way related to your union activities. Finally, there is no evidence that your recommended discipline relates to the other eight videos. Rather, it is based upon your admitted decision to ridicule and demean another Department, conceal the fact you were the creator of the video, and then your repeated efforts to avoid responsibility for your involvement until directly asked. It was your disrespectful and insubordinate conduct-nothing else that has precipitated, my preliminary decision to demote you.

st

Prior to issuing my preliminary notice of intent, I also took into consideration your recent suspension of forty-eight (48) hours for Neglect of Duty and Unsatisfactory Performance. This investigation is another example of a pattern of sub-standard behavior, policy violation and on-going overall unwillingness or inability to perform as a supervisor. Following issuance o f the preliminary notice of intent to discipline, we held your Loudermill hearing on August 4, 2011. During this meeting, you were represented by Guild Attorney McClure; also present in the room with us was A/Deputy Chief Curry. During this meeting your attorney stated: That this form of speech is protected under the 1 Amendment. That there are several cases that have supported the freedom of speech in the work place, and specifically named the "Garcetti" case as an example. That this video that was produced falls under political satire on the inefficiencies of government
st

Kevin Milosevich. Page 6 of7 August 8,2011

That law enforcement employees do not give up constitutional rights when they become employed. That this discipline's intent is to stifle discussions of union leadership. That the real intent of this discipline is to hold you accountable for the second series of videos that were displayed on YouTube. That the police department does riot require self-reporting. That this incident does not meet the "Just Cause" definition regarding fairness. That this was a parody, a joke, and that it would be unfortunate to work in an environment where humor was not allowed. That you did not cross the line, your intent was not to be hurtful of others. Arbiters look at the long-term financial impacts of promotions, and that they use a higher threshold of clear and convincing evidence in these cases.

I asked you a few questions, and your attorney responded: 1. I asked why didn't you email me the video in the first place if your intent was to give notice of government efficiency? Your attorney replied that the process that you used was similar to an anonymous letter to the editor. 2. In regards to your concept of protected speech, I asked whether you ever considered getting legal advice prior to posting the video? Your attorney thought that was an inappropriate question. 3. I asked how this discipline is associated with your duties as a Guild Vice President? Your attorney stated that the timing of this investigation is close to the recently completed collective bargaining agreement. It is my understanding that the last scheduled meeting regarding the contract negotiations was December 9, 2010 and the contract was signed on February 1, 2011. 4. And last, I asked what you thought was the appropriate discipline in this matter? Your attorney stated - no discipline. Based upon all of the information provided, including the information provided by you at the Loudermill hearing, my decision is as follows: Discipline Decision: Demotion to the position of Officer and reassignment to Shift IB South effective immediately. A rotation schedule will be developed. You are eligible to participate in future promotional exams provided you meet the eligibility requirements. The decision as to whether to promote you to the rank of sergeant in the future will be based on both your performance during your .career with the city and ranking on an eligibility list.

Kevin Milosevich Page 7 of7 August 8,2011

I discussed with you the difference between mistakes and misconduct That in this case, you had designed a plan to develop a video that was disrespectful and demeaning of another division / government entity. You obtained a pre-paid credit card, created an anonymous email account, posted this information from a local anonymous "IP" address all while knowing that your conduct was unbecoming an officer - let alone a supervisor and could lead to discipline. In your position as a Sergeant, you are formally one of the Department's leaders. This leadership role which you desired comes with a series of expectations, some formal and some informal. As a department leader, you have the responsibility and obligation to look out for the best interests of the police department, the City of Renton, and the citizens that we serve. As a department leader, you are expected to establish and maintain cooperative and effective interpersonal relationships. Clearly the creation of this video harms our relationships with not only the former Renton City Jail, but the.other six cities who are members of SCORE. This investigation has demonstrated on numerous occasions where you have failed.as a leader. The issues that were raised in our Loudermill meeting were very similar to those that were raised in your meeting with A/Deputy Chief Curry, which I addressed above. I concur with the recommendations for demotion.

The Department's General Orders and the collective bargaining agreement outline your appeal rights.

I have received a copy of the discipline memorandum.

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 16, 2011 ^ ^ ^ ^ Sergeant i

Kevin Milosevich, Chief fyr \ intent to Discipline CO-0311

I have reviewed the information in CO-0311. This includes the information you provided in the interview conducted by Commander Leibman. I have also reviewed the findings and discipline recommendations provided by Commander Leibman and Commander Curry. This memorandum sets forth my preliminary intent to demote you to the position of officer. This preliminary intent is based upon the following information. The investigation revealed that: Sometime in the middle of December 2010, you created an 8:42 minute cartoon style video about the interactions between the Jail and Patrol. In your statement, you created this video as a "spoof." During that same month you notified Deputy Chief ^ i ^ H Sergeant^ and A/Sgt J | ^ ^ t h a t you were creating a video. You had a conversation with regarding the posting of this video on YouTube before it was actually posted. You wanted to remain anonymous. suggested that you to go to the library if you wanted to keep it a secret. You went through significant efforts to conceal your involvement by creating an anonymous email account from a location that would be difficult to trace back to its origins. You eventually posted the video on YouTube. You were reluctant during your interview to indicate the medium that was used to post the video by stating in your interview: "...but, I think from an offsite email address." You sent a link of the video to your department email account and to Sergeant ^ m m m d e p a r t m e n t email account. You conspired with | ^ ^ | | | ^ H B l f l H B t ^ P Your involvement and their knowledge about the creation and posting of the video a secret. You removed the video from YouTube when advised to by | In your interview you stated:
a n c 0 e e

Kevin Milosevich Page 2 of 6 M y 6,2011

That the content of the video gives the perception to others that there are problems with SCORE, o That the video could impact the Department's relationship with the Jail, o That the video could impact the Department's relationship with SCORE, o The clown in the video represents the Jail as an entity, o That you left open the possibility of a second video. You stated that you would 'fess up' to the video if you were confronted directly. That when others asked you if you had something to do with the video, you avoided answering honestly and directly. You agreed that your actions are not consistent with your role as a sergeant. You agreed that your actions fall under the definition of Unbecoming Conduct. The video was the topic of discussion at a monthly SCORE Operations Board meeting/given its disparaging and demeaning representation of the Jail. Public Officials in other cities viewed this video and inquired as to the creation and issues surrounding the video.

Your conduct violated the following General Orders: General Orders 26.1.1.II.B - Unbecoming Conduct Members of the Police Department shall conduct themselves at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the Department Unbecoming conduct shall include that which brings the Department into disrepute or reflects discredit upon the individual as a member of the Police Department, or that which impairs the operation or efficiency of the Department or the individual. Finding: Sustained

General Orders 26.1.1.ILK - Unsatisfactory Performance Commissioned members of the Police Department shall maintain sufficient competency to properly perform their duties, and assume the responsibility of their positions. Members shall perform their duties in a manner which will maintain the highest standards of efficiency in carrying out the functions and objectives of the Department Unsatisfactory performance may be demonstrated by a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced, an unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks, thefaiiure to conform to work standards established for the officer's rank, grade, or position, thefaiiure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder or other condition deserving police attention, or absence without leave. In addition to other indicators of unsatisfactory performance, the following will be considered prima facie evidence of unsatisfactory performance: repeated poor evaluations, or a written record of repeated infractions of rules, regulations, directives, or orders of the Department.

Kevin Milosevich Page 3 of6 July 6,2011

Finding:

Sustained

General Orders 26.1.1.II.FF - Public Statements Members of the Police Department shall not publicly criticize or ridicule the Department, its policies, or other members, where such speech, writing, or other expression is defamatory, obscene or is made with reckless disregard for truth or falsity and undermines the effectiveness of the Department or interferes with the maintenance of discipline. Members of the Police Department shall not address public gatherings, appear on radio or television, prepare any articles for publication, act as correspondents to a newspaper or a periodical, release or divulge investigative information or any other matters of the Department while presenting themselves as representing the Department in such matters without proper authority. Members may lecture on police, or other related subject, only with prior approval of the Chief. Finding: Sustained

The creation and dissemination of this original "Penny-tale" video has clearly impaired your ability to perform the duties that is expected of a sergeant Some of these supervisory duties include: Supervise, evaluate, and motivate subordinates. Establish and maintain cooperative and effective interpersonal relationships. Assign, instruct, and review the work of subordinates in an effective working relationship. Supervise and evaluate the performance of subordinates and interpret evaluation for correcting deficiencies in a positive manner. Enforce laws with firmness and tact, Deal effectively with violations of rules, policies, and procedures on an impartial basis. Learn specific duties and responsibilities of individual assignments and apply and carry out as required.

In addition, your disrespectful behavior toward another division of the Department as well as SCORE and its administration has substantially impeded your ability to perform your essential functions as a supervisor of this organization, created discord amongst the agencies and significantly impaired the proper functioning of the Department. These findings are based on the following: You created, shared and posted a video that was demeaning, demoralizing and ridiculed members of the department and other King County agencies.

Kevin Milosevich Page 4 of 6 M y 6,2011

The video reflected poorly on our agency and its good reputation, your coworkers, supervisors and the relationship between the organizations, You stated that the result of this video may have a negative impact on your career and conspired to keep your identity and involvement a secret. It was only after | | B H f a r d that you admitted to your involvement. The video deliberately distorted and exaggerated the jail's operations to cause the viewer to conclude that the jail operations and jail personnel were incompetent, ignorant and less valued than commissioned members of the police department. The speech was defamatory and made with reckless disregard for the truth clearly undermining the effectiveness of the organization. You publically demeaned and ridiculed certain department staff causing harm to those relationships between organizations, The video impacted the relationship with the Renton Jail and with SCORE. o Specifically from The original SCORE Parody video is sarcastic, demeaning to SCORE as an agency, to Correctional Officers, and to her personally. It has caused a spirit of distrust between SCORE and members of, the Renton Police Department. She has been contacted by numerous officials from outside agencies inquiring about the video. Several members of SCORE were offended by the video. They felt it was derogatory towards SCORE and them personally. ^ ^ | ^ H H H 0 M v i s e s that the jail staff in general were frustrated, offendpH and embarrassed.
c a m e r w

Specifically There has oeen a negative impact on SCORE and its operations. The depiction of a SCORE employee as a lazy clown by a member of an owner agency has created a lack of distrust between SCORE staff and the Renton Police Department. The video could have negative impact on potential correctional officer recruits during a time of increased hiring activity. Documented receiving an email from a SCORE employee that read: "/ did not like being emulated as a Clown. The definition of a clown is a rude ill-bred person, a fool and one who plays the buffoon. I do not believe they were intending to show us as a comedian who entertains people. It was meant to make us look likefools."

^ 4RHHHHP

om

Loudermill hearing with Commander Curry This meeting was held in conference room 519 on June 20 at 1400 hours. During this meeting several defenses were raised by Guild Attorney Hilary McClure on your behalf.

Kevin Milosevich Page 5 of 6 July 6,2011

That this video is protected under the 1 Amendment That the investigation and potential discipline is a result of your position in the Guild. That the intent of this investigation is to punish someone for the second set of videos.

st

I disagree with all three issues that were raised in this meeting with Commander Curry. You have never indicated how this self-described "satire" implicates First Amendment protection. Even if it did, the Department's interest in maintaining the efficiency of its operations, interagency relationship with SCORE, and respect and trust amongst officers clearly outweighs any interest you may have in ridiculing your colleagues. Nor is there any evidence that the recommended discipline is in any way related to your union activities. Finally, there is no evidence that your recommended discipline relates to the other eight videos. Rather, it is based upon your admitted decision to ridicule and demean another Department, conceal the fact you were the creator of the video, and then repeated efforts to avoid responsibility for your involvement until directly asked. It was your disrespectful and insubordinate conduct-nothing else that has precipitated my preliminary decision to demote you.

Prior to making my discipline recomrriendations, I have taken into consideration your recent suspension of forty-eight (48) hours for Neglect of Duty and Unsatisfactory Performance. This investigation is another example of a pattern of sub-standard behavior, policy violation and on-going overall unwillingness or inability to perform as a supervisor. Discipline Recommendation: Demotion to the position of Officer In your position as a Sergeant, you are formally one of the Department's leaders. This leadership role which you desired comes with a series of expectations, some formal and some informal. As a department leader, you have the responsibility and obligation to look out for the best interests of the police department, the City of Renton, and the citizens that we serve. As a department leader, you are expected to establish and maintain cooperative and effective interpersonal relationships. Clearly the creation of this video harms our , relationships with not only the former Renton City Jail, but the other six cities who are members of SCORE. This investigation has demonstrated on numerous occasions where you have failed as a leader.

Kevin Mflosevich Page 6 of 6 July 6,2011

The Department's General Orders outlines your appeal rights. Please notify Melissa Day within five (5) days of receiving this memo if you wish to discuss this discipline recommendation or request to exercise your appeal options. After notification, I will schedule the appropriate meeting or review board. I will then notify you of my final decision. I have received a copy of the intent to discipline memorandum.

7/16/)/ Date

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June.27, 2011 Kevin Milosevich - Chief of Police K. M . Curry-Police Commander Findings and Recommendations CO-0311 Sergeant ^H

I have reviewed the information contained in the investigation conducted by Commander Leibman. I have also reviewed the findings and recommendations provided by Commander Leibman regarding S e r g e a n t ^ S involvement in the allegations made resulting in the internal. The investigation revealed that:

Sometime in the middle of December 2010, S e r g e a n t J ^ created a cartoon style video about the interactions between the Jail and Patrol. During that same month

notified

^IHB Sergeant^mjand A/Sgt.

jH^that

he was in the process of creating a video. shared the video with |BHH wanted to remain anonymous,

During that same month H

S e r g e a n t H had a conversation with | B B regarding the posting of this video on YouTube before it was posted. H i secret. suggested t h a t ^ | to go to the library if flH wanted to keep it a
w e

S e r g e a n t J H n t through significant efforts to conceal his involvement by creating an anonymous email account from a location that would be difficult to trace back to its origins. S e r g e a n t J J eventually posted the video on YouTube. S e r g e a n t J B didn't use his home computer to post it, he didn't use a department computer to post it. | H was eve reluctant to indicate the medium he used to post by stating in his interview: "...but, I think from an offsite email address."

Sergeant

ij^Bsent^ink

of the video to his department email account and to

SergeantSBHH^department email account.

S e r g e a n t J ^ conspired with keep his involvement and their knowledge about the creation and posting of the video a secret. S e r g e a n t | ^ only took it down when advised to by | In his interview S e r g e a n t H H stated:

fl^HMBHP tiii0

inc

co

Kevin Milosevich Page 2 of7 June 27; 2011 .

That the content of the video gives the perception to others that there are problems with SCORE, o That the video could impact our relationship with the Jail, o The clown in the video represents the Jail, o He had left open the possibility of a second video. S e r g e a n t ^ i only agreed that he would 'fess up' to the video if he were confronted directly. Even though I B knew that members of the management team were looking into the identity of the people responsible for the video he demonstrated deceitfulness by remaining silent as to his involvement. Even when others asked him if he had something to do with the video he avoided answering honestly and directly. H I agreed that his actions are not consistent with his role as a sergeant. SergeantBB agreed that his actions fall under the definition of Unbecoming Conduct. SCORE'S reputation was harmed by the video The relationship between SCORE and the Renton Police Department was negatively impacted by this video. The video was the topic of discussion at a monthly SCORE Operations Board meeting. Public Officials in other cities viewed this video and inquired as to the creation and issues surrounding the video. Violation of General Orders 26.1.1.II.B - Unbecoming Conduct Members of the Police Department shall conduct themselves at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the Department Unbecoming conduct shall include that which brings the Department into disrepute or reflects discredit upon the individual as a member of the Police Department, or that which impairs the operation or efficiency of the Department or the individual. Finding: Sustained

Violation of General Orders 26.1.1.II.K- Unsatisfactory Performance Commissioned members of the Police Department shall maintain sufficient competency to properly perform their duties, and assume the responsibility of their positions. Members shall perform their duties in a manner which will maintain the highest standards of efficiency in carrying out the functions and objectives of the Department Unsatisfactory peiformance may be demonstrated by a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced, an unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks, thefaiiure to conform to work standards established for the officer's rank, grade, or position, thefaiiure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder or other condition

Kevin Milosevich Page 3 of7 June 27,2011

deserving police attention, or absence without leave. In addition to other indicators of unsatisfactory performance, the following will be considered prima facie evidence of unsatisfactory performance: repeated poor evaluations, or a written record of repeated infractions of rules, regulations, directives, or orders of the Department Finding: Sustained

Violation of General Orders 26.1.1.11. AA - Courtesy Members of the Police Department shall be courteous to the public. Members shall be tactful in performance of their duties, shall control their tempers and exercise the utmost patience and discretion, and shall not engage and exercise in argumentative discussions, even in the face of extreme provocation. In the performance of their duties, members shall not use coarse, violent, profane or insolent language or gestures, and shall not express any prejudice concerning race, sex, religion, politics, national origin, life style, or similar personal characteristics. Finding: Sustained Violation of General Orders 26.1.1.II.FF - Public Statements Members of the Police Department shall not publicly criticize or ridicule the Department, its policies, or other members, where such speech, writing, or other expression is defamatory, obscene or is made with reckless disregard for truth or falsity and undermines the effectiveness of the Department or interferes with the maintenance of discipline. Members of the Police Department shall not address public gatherings, appear on radio or television, prepare any articles for publication, act as correspondents to a newspaper or a periodical, release or divulge investigative information or any other matters of the Department while presenting themselves as representing the Department in such matters without proper authority. Members may lecture on police, or other related subject, only with prior approval of the Chief. Finding: Sustained Violation of General Orders 26.1.1.H.YY Ethics Members of the Police Department shall not conspire or knowingly engage in any activity which deprives any person of their civil rights, due process, equal opportunity for employment, advancement, job opportunities, or any constitutionally or statutory guaranteed right No member of the Police Department shall disseminate confidential poiice-reiated information to any unauthorized person for any purpose.

Kevin Milosevich Page 4 of 7 June 27,2011 -

Findings: Sustained These findings are based on the following: S e r g e a n t | B created, shared and posted a video that was demeaning, demoralizing and ridiculed members of the department and other King Cou nty agencies. The video reflected poorly on our agency and its good reputation. Sergeant demonstrated pre-knowledge that the impact of this video may have negative professional impacts on his career and conspired to keep his identity and involvement a secret. It was only after Sergeant admitted to his involvement. The video deliberately distorted and exaggerated the jail's operations to cause the viewer to conclude that the jail operations and jail personnel were incompetent, ignorant and less valued than commissioned members of the police department. The speech was defamatory and made with reckless disregard for the truth clearly undermining the effectiveness of the organization. S e r g e a n t ^ B publically demeaned and ridiculed certain department staff causing harm to those relationships between organizations. The video impacted the relationship with the Renton Jail and SCORE. o Specifically from J The original SCORE Parody video is sarcastic, demeaning to SCORE as an agency, to Correctional Officers, and to her personally. It has caused a spirit of distrust between SCORE and members of the Renton Police Department She has been contacted by numerous officials from outside agencies inquiring about the video. Several members of SCORE were offended by the video. They felt it was derogatory towards SCORE and them personally. J ^ m B ^ m ^ a d v i s e s that the jail staff in general were frustrated, offended and embarrassed. o Specifically from There has been a negative Impact on SCORE and its operations. The depiction of a SCORE employee as a lazy clown by a member of an owner agency has created a lack of distrust between SCORE staff and the Renton Police Department The video could have negative impact on potential correctional officer riecruits during a time of increased hiring activity. Documented receiving an email from a SCORE employee that read: "/ did not like being emulated as a Clown. The definition of a clown is a rude ill-bred person, a fool and one who plays the buffoon. I do not believe they were intending to show us as a
:

|HHH

came

t 0

t h e

c h i e f t h a t

Hi

Kevin Milosevich Page 5 of7 June 27,2011

comedian who entertains people. It was meant to make us look likefools." Sergeant equated his behavior with conduct that was unbecoming. S e r g e a n t | B admitted that his actions were not consistent with his leadership role in our organization because they created controversy. Sergeant |^B also admitted that withholding his involvement and knowledge of the video was inconsistent with his leadership role.

First Loudermill Prior to making findings and recommendations in this internal I met with ^ | and Hillary McClure, RPOG Attorney, This meeting was held in conference room 519 on June 2 0 at 1400 hours.
th

During this meeting Attorney McClure presented the following information: That Sergeant ^B has a 1 Amendment right to 'public speech' o Public employees are not prohibited from 'public speech' and shouldn't be disciplined for expressing concerns regarding governmental efficiencies. o That the City has not prqved a disruption to governmental interest or activity based u p o n | ^ l display of 'public speech' That the RPOG has some concern that Sergeant ^B receives certain protections because of his position in the Guild as Vice President. o The Guild is suspicious of the timeline of the intent to d i s c i p l i n e | ^ | as he recently was part of a team that negotiated the latest collective bargaining agreement and that S e r g e a n t ^ H position in the Guild requires that he files grievances against the city on behalf of his membership. The Guild is concerned that the department's policies and expectations are not clear to self-disclosure and because they are not clear then we should not be disciplining our members. Ms. McClure is concerned that the city has created a conflict of interest suggesting that the integrity of Commander Leibman is compromised because he was asked to investigate subordinate members involved in alleged wrong doing. Ms. McClure is also drawing a conclusion as to the department's motive for this internal. She suggested during the meeting that a timeline she presented indicates that our organization really wants to punish someone for the 2 set of videos and as such we have selected S e r g e a n t J J to impute this punishment upon because of his involvement with the first video. o She references two (2) emails from the Chief, the first alluding to there may be first amendment considerations to observe and secondly a memo
n d st

Kevin Milosevich Page 6 of7 June 27,2011

to the Mayor advising him that things have died down regarding the posting of the first video, o She purports that this issue only flares back up with the posting of the second set of videos. McClure implies that an arbiter will mitigate any discipline if the city does not directly tie findings and discipline to supervisor duties. Stated in another way that the employer needs to prove the link between supervisor duties and the failure to perform those duties and that the discipline is related. She notes that in Commander Leibman's findings and recommendations that substandard issues are documented in probationary evaluations and since his is . no longer on probation those issues mentioned are inconsequential, o She expressed concerns that Commander Leibman is holding an evaluation for S e r g e a n t H from last year, o That an action plan that Commander Leibman referred to is not in his personnel file and that the department is keeping 'secret files on their employees.
7

Sergeant ^B offered the following dialogue to the meeting: That being involved in this internal has certainly changed the way he looks at matters. That because of the family implications resulting in potential discipline being recommended he finds himself having to involve the guild attorney arid create the best possible defense to now mitigate the severity of the recommendations. He iterated that the measures that are being taken are to protect his employment interests and that they seem to contradict his willingness to demonstrate to the department that he has accepted responsibility for his actions. He still does not believe that his actions were in violation of department policy. That he will not produce any more videos. That he didn't see the Harm in the video because the issues that were discussed in the video were talked about at staff meetings. Recommendations: During the first Loudermill hearing S e r g e a n t ^ d stated that he still does not believe that his actions were a violation of department policy and that he didn't see the harm in the video. This incident was clearly initiated by SergeantJB and as documented in this investigation clearly violated policy on several different levels. It is concerning that S e r g e a n t | H i has demonstrated that he is reluctant to accept this responsibility and understand the impact of his actions.

Kevin Milosevich Page 7 of 7 June 27,2011

The actions discussed in this internal specifically related to S e r g e a n t H demonstrate his inability or unwillingness to perform his assigned tasks or to conform to the work standards established for his rank. As a supervisor S e r g e a n t J J is required to establish and maintain cooperative and effective interpersonal relationships, his actions clearly demonstrates an inability or failure to conform to the standards of his rank. Commander Leibman documents four separate instances where Sergeant performance history has been below standard. (See Leibman's Findings and Recommendations) recent

S e r g e a n t | B B involvement in this most recent incident continues to demonstrate a pattern of sub-standard behavior, policy violation and on-going overall unwillingness or inability to perform as a supervisor. Although I believe the pattern of poor performance and his most recent violations of department policy support grounds for a recommendation of termination i am only recommending demotion from Police Sergeant to Police Officer. I further recommend that Sergeant ^B be temporarily removed from the CDU team and be removed as an Emergency Vehicle Operator Instructor. I recommend that s h o u l d ^ l be able to demonstrate the ability and willingness to perform at the Police Sergeant level that he should be given the opportunity to test for the position in the future.

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 6, 2011 Sergeant Commander K. M. Curry Copy of Internal Investigation CO-03-11 & First Loudermill Opportunity

Attached is a copy of the internal investigation CO-03-11 which you were listed as a subject of the complaint Commander Leibman's findings and discipline recommendation are also provided. Prior to formulating my findings and recommendations you have the opportunity to review the investigation and meet with me to share any additional information that may help me in the decision process. This opportunity is voluntary, if you are interested in meeting please contact me within five business days to schedule a meeting. You will find two copies of this memorandum in your packet Please sign and date one of the copies and return to my office. The signed copy will become part of the official record and filed with the complaint. The other copy is for your records.

Date

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 6, 2011 Sergeant Commander K. M. Curry Copy of Internal Investigation CO-03-11 & First Loudermill Opportunity

Attached is a copy of the internal investigation CO-03-11 which you were listed as a subject of the complaint Commander Leibman's findings and discipline recommendation are also provided. Prior to formulating my findings and recommendations you have the opportunity to review the investigation and meet with me to share any additional information that may help me in the decision process. This opportunity is voluntary, if you are interested in meeting please contact me within five business days to schedule a meeting. You will find two copies of this memorandum in your packet Please sign and date one of the copies and return to my office. The signed copy will become part of the official record and filed with the complaint. The other copy is for your records.

Sergeant

Commander K. M. Curry

Date

Date

Renton Police Department

CO-0311

Discipline

Discipline Review Material

POLICE DEPARTMENT

CO-0311 DRB/DR EXHIBIT A

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 8, 2011 Kevin Milosevich - Chief of Police via Sherry Smith Deputy Chief ^^BBIIi^^^'
e

'd Operations

Bureau

Selection of Appeal Process CO-0311

I am providing you with my request to appeal the intended discipline through the Disciplinary Review Board process, as out lined in General Order 26.1.6.

Copy received:

Sherry Smith

Date

MlLL

Kent M Curry
From: )nt:
io:

DRB / DR jAW^V
EXHIBITB Kevin Milosevich Wednesday, June 08, 2011 10:18 AM Kent M Curry; Clark E Wilcox; Charles Karlewicz Nancy Carlson Discipline Review Board CO0311 Intent final.doc U

CO-0311

Cc: Subject: Attachments:

DC has selected the Discipline Review Board for the purpose of his pre-discipline hearing. The board will consist of the three of you With Kent being the Chair. HB advised that the purpose of this meeting will be to argue the discipline recommendation. I asked | H if he intends to call me as a witness, and he stated no, therefore it can be scheduled in my absence. The responsibilities of this board is found in General Order 26.1.6. This policy states that the board shall be convened within 15 days of notice. HR Administrator Carlson will attend the hearing so please add her to the discussion when determining a date. I will attach my intent to discipline memo that was provided t o ^ ^ | and 1 will send electronic copies of the internal to you Chad since the other two already have it Thanks

CO-0311 DRB/DR EXHIBIT C

/ \

ti/kA

J~ W

Renton Police Department

General Orders Manual

26,1.6 Discipline - Appeal Procedure

With the exception of reprimands, a member shall have the right to appeal any disciplinary action imposed by the Chief of Police or his/her designee, to the Civil Service Commission as provided for in the Commission's rules, regulations and procedures. A member shall have the right to request review, by the disciplinary Review Board, of any intended action, except reprimands, by the Chief of Police or his designee. A. The Disciplinary Review Board shall consist of three members of the Police Department, all of whom shall be command officers. 1. Two selected by the Chief of Police; a. 2. B. One of which is designated as the Department Representative;

II.

One selected by the appellant;

Both the appellant and the Department representative shall have the right to cross-examine any witness who testifies. . 1. The Board may exercise discretion as to the acceptance or rejection of any testimony by a non-department member who refuses to cooperate in the process.

C.

The Board shall sit as an informal Review Board, and as such, strict rules of . evidence shall not apply. The Board's Department Representative shall rule on admissibility of all evidence and testimony, except as may otherwise be limited by this document.

HI.

Procedure A. In the event of a "sustained allegation", the Chief of Police shall review the investigation (including all investigative materials and recommendations), and shall perform one of the following: 2 Effective Date: 07/01/2000

Renton Police Department

General Orders Manual

1.

Provide written notification to the accused member of the intended disciplinary action, affording that member a five-day period to request either a personal review by the Chief of Police (in the members presence), or a review by the disciplinary Review Board. The request must be in writing to the Chief of Police. In addition, the member shall be advised that if the Chief of Police grants a review, any subsequent review by the Board is waived. Order that the disciplinary Review Board be convened.

2. B.

The Disciplinary Review Board shall convene within 15 days of the member's request, or if no such request is made, within 15 days of the receipt of the Chiefs order to convene. The Disciplinary Review Board shall: 1. Review and investigate reports, statements and material concerning the original allegation of misconduct, or any other allegation of misconduct, which may be discovered as a result of the investigation; Hear the testimony of witnesses, and also summations of the accused member and/or the Department representative; Enter into executive session to discuss the testimony and investigative material presented for the purpose of: a. Deciding by a majority vote whether disciplinary action is or is not appropriate; 1. In accomplishing this objective, the Board shall consider only that information or material presented to the Board in the presence of both the principal member and the Department representative.

C.

2. 3.

b.

Deciding by a majority vote what disciplinary action, if any, shall 2 Effective Date: 07/01/2000

-ll

Renton Police Department

General Orders Manual

be recommended to the Chief of Police; 1. In this stage of the procedure, the Board may consider the principal member's official disciplinary history in determining the severity of the recommended disciplinary action.

. 4.

Forward to the Chief of Police and to the accused member, within five days of the conclusion of the hearing, the Board's specific recommendation as to disciplinary action. .

D.

Upon receipt of the Disciplinary Review Board's recommendation, or if the Board ' had not been ordered to convene and the accused member'sfive-dayperiod to request the Board's review has expired, the Chief of Police shall render, in writing, his/herfinaldecision. 1. Copies of all disciplinary action taken against a member shall be placed in the member's personnel file and in the Department's internal investigation file.

2 Effective Date: 07/01/2000

DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT:

June 1, 2011

B H H H H H Deputy Chief
Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police Intent to Discipline CO-0311

This memorandum sets forth my preliminary intent to demote you to the rank of Sergeant. This preliminary intent is based upon the following: Sometime in the middle of December, 2010 Sergeant created a video that was directed at members of the City of Renton Jail. This video was in a cartoon style, and ridiculed and demeaned the members of both the Renton Jail and the SCORE Jail. During this same time period, you were aware of the creation of this video and had previously reviewed the video. Effective on January 1, 2011, the Renton Jail became the SCORE North Jail operated primarily by jailers previously employed by the City of Renton. On January 4, 2011 the Department was made aware that this video was posted on YouTube, and was emailed to certain members of the Department. This video was a topic of discussions at various leadership meetings, and attempts were made to determine who posted and circulated the video. Four months after the video was posted, you eventually came forward at the direction of a subordinate to admit your prior knowledge of the creation and posting of this video. An internal investigation was conducted where it was determined that you failed to act in your role as a Deputy Chief on numerous occasions. Specifically, your conduct violated the following Department policies: Violation of General Orders 26.1.1.II.B - Unbecoming Conduct Members of the Police department shall conduct themselves at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the Department Unbecoming conduct shall include that which brings the Department into disrepute or reflects discredit upon the individual as a member of the Police Department, or that which impairs the operation or efficiency of the Department or the individual. Finding: ) Sustained

Violation of General Orders 26.1.1.II.K - Unsatisfactory Performance Commissioned members of the Police Department shall maintain sufficient competency to properly perform their duties, and assume the responsibility of their positions. Members shall perform their duties in a manner which will maintain the highest standards of efficiency in carrying out the function and objectives of the Department Unsatisfactory performance may be demonstrated by a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced, an unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks, thefaiiure to conform to work standards established for the officer's rank, grade, or position, thefaiiure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder, or other condition deserving police attention, or absence without leave. In addition to other indicators of unsatisfactory performance, the following will be considered prima facie evidence of unsatisfactory performance: repeated poor evaluations, or a written record of repeated infractions of rules, regulations, directives, or orders of the Department. Finding: Sustained

The above findings of misconduct are based upon the following: You admittedly approved of the content of the video, despite its demeaning, disrespectful and unprofessional portrayal of the Renton and SCORE staff. You reviewed several iterations of the video created by Sgt .HH and had several opportunities to advise him that it was inappropriate. You failed to do so. Your actions purported to authorize and allow members of the Department to publically humiliate and demean another division of the Police Department. You attempted to conceal the source of the video by advising 5 g t ^ | in how he could post this video on YouTube by using an anonymous location. You then agreed with Sgt. that you would not disclose the source of the video unless specifically asked. Once you were aware of the damage caused by the video, you directed S g t H to remove the video from YouTube. As you admitted during the investigation, you could have avoided this damage by performing your job duties in the first place by directing Sgt .|H not to create and circulate this inappropriate material. This video was directed at both the Renton Jail and the newly formed SCORE Jail of which the City of Renton is an owner agency. Your failure to exercise your leadership responsibilities, and advise Sgt. not to post or circulate the video has caused damage to both entities, harmed the Department's relationship with SCORE and the City's relationship with the other owner agencies. You concealed your participation in the creation and posting of the video and failed to come forward on numerous occasions to admit that you were involved

in the video and knew who created and posted it. Specifically, you failed to provide this relevant information: o Once I made it clear the video was inappropriate during our first meeting on this issue on January 4, 2011. o On January 4, 2011, when you knew that I had asked Information Services (IS) to review City email to determine if this video was posted via department computer. o On January 5, when you were notified that IS did not have the capability to track this information, and offered that you had the same problem in another investigation you were performing. o On January 6, 2011, after we discussed at the monthly leadership meeting that the video was inappropriate. o After you knew that someone else used the same technology to create numerous other viscous videos about other department members several months later. These additional videos were homophobic, anti-female, based on rumors, and described previous internal investigations both sustained and not-sustained. You were aware of these additional videos and yet still did not come forward with information regarding these videos or your knowledge of the source of the original video. In fact, you were adamant in your discussion with Commander Leibman that these videos should not be investigated (potentially disclosing your involvement) because you believed they were similar to the original video. o After Commander McClincy and you entered my office to voice an opinion of who may have created the additional videos. It was nearly five months after the video had been posted, and only after Commander Liebman advised you that he would be required to disclose your involvement in and knowledge of the creator of the original video if you did not voluntarily do so that you finally brought this information to my attention.
:

Discipline Recommendation: Demotion to the rank of Sergeant The essential functions of the position of Deputy Chief include: Plan, organize, coordinate, and manage the operations of the Department. Supervise the training and discipline of subordinates; coordinate activities within the Department. Establish and maintain effective working relationships with staff, other agencies, news media, elected officials, administrators, and the general public. Assume command of the overall operations of the Police Department in the absence of the Chief, or as designated. Attend meetings and represent the Department and /or the Chief as requested.

You failed to perform these essential functions and indicated an inability to do so by reviewingand effectively authorizing a video that ridiculed and demeaned an entire division of the Police Department. This video by title referenced the newly created SCORE organization. The video demeaned this organization and was the topic of discussion of the SCORE Operations Board, and the Administrative Board consisting of the elected officials of the seven owner agencies. This video created distrust between SCORE employees and the employees of the Renton Police Department. As a Deputy Chief, you failed to understand the negative impact that this video would have on both the Department and SCORE, failed to take appropriate action to prevent such harm, and then failed to promptly disclose relevant information, thus impairing the investigation. Such conduct clearly violates General Orders 26.1.1.11, B and K, and is grounds for demotion under Civil Service Rules 16.01(b). As part of this investigation, I that this video had on her organization. <

asked^^B^IBIi^lH^IK

110

discuss the impact

"As a startup agency, we are trying to provide excellent customer service to our member cities and establish a culture of cooperation. It is difficult to try to make thing (this) happen in a positive arena when SCORE staff feels that they are subject to sabotage by members of the very agency that we serve." Upon notification of this investigation, that you never represent the Police D e p a r t m e n ^ U n ^ r i o n t h l y SCORE Operations Board. This is based on the contempt of her organization you have displayed. Your actions have significantly harmed our relationship with SCORE. As a Deputy Chief, I expect loyalty to both the organization and to me. This investigation has clearly violated that loyalty. You purposely chose sides by aligning yourself with S g t ^ | in demeaning the members of the City/SCORE Jail staff over the organization as a whole. As part of this investigation, you have stated that you did not lie but stated that if I had only asked the right question that you wbuld have told me. As the police chief, I do not have the time to ensure that I ask the exact question in order to receive information that is obviously relevant. I expect that the deputy chief will proactively respond to issues within the department without being specifically asked. This discipline recommendation is significant. However, the information describes a Deputy Chief with displaced loyalty; one who will willingly demean another department workgroup/agency; and who will withhold relevant information unless specifically asked so as to conceal the poor judgment he exercised.

jH||^HH||[^H||J|^Brequested

I cannot have you as a member of my command staff with the expectations to act as the Chief in my absence. The Department's General Orders outlines your appeal rights. Please notify Sherry Smith within five (5) days of receiving this memo if you wish to discuss this discipline recommendation or request to exercise your appeal options. If you choose a traditional Loudermill hearing, this will be held by Jay Covington, the City's Chief Administrative Officer. This decision was based on your email dated April 25, 2011 where you requested an outside and independent investigator. After notification, I will schedule the appropriate meeting or review board. You will then be notified of.the final decision. I have received a copy of the intent to discipline memorandum.

Deputy Chief

Date

City of Renton - Class Specification Bulletin

Page 1 of3

Police Deputy Chief

CITY OF RENTON Established Date: Feb 1,1995 Revision Date: Nov 5, 2010

Class Code:

CO-0311 DRB/DR EXHIBIT F SALARY RANGE $9,035.00 - $11,009.00 Monthly $108,420.00 - $132,108.00 Annually

BASIC FUNCTION: Under the direction of the Police Chief, plan, organize, coordinate, and manage the Police Department requiring highly developed skills and experience in communications, management, judgment, and law enforcement; supervise and evaluate the performance of assigned personnel.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES, KNOWLEDGE, AND ABILITIES: *Plan, organize, coordinate, and manage the operations of the Department. * Evaluate and determine training needs of the Department and assure Police standards and certifications are maintained. * Coordinate the assignment of subordinate personnel; delegate work for appropriate and efficient use of resources. "Supervise the training and discipline of subordinates; coordinate activities within the Department. "Assist in preparation and administration of the Department budget. Coordinate repairs, purchases, and maintenance of Department space and equipment. "Establish and maintain effective working relationships with staff, other agencies, news media, elected officials, administrators, and the general public. "Respond to, evaluate, and resolve internal and citizen complaints and personnel problems. "Review reports of subordinates to assure continuity and content; evaluate methods and procedures and recommend changes for increased efficiency of the Department. "Assume command of the overall operation of the Police Department in the absence of the Chief, or as designated. "Attend meetings and represent the Department and/or the Chief as requested. Perform the essential duties and tasks of Police Officer, Sergeant, and Commander as required. Perform related duties as assigned. * Denotes an essential function. KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES:

http://agency.governmentjobs.c^

5/20/201 1

City of Renton - Class Specification Bulletin

Page 2 of 3

KNOWLEDGE OF: Advanced budgeting and purchasing techniques. Extensive knowledge of management principles and practices, and human, public, and community relations. Municipal, state and federal criminal and related laws, ordinances and codes. Rules, regulations, policies, procedures and General Orders of the Police Department Content, intent, and application of criminal law. Adult and juvenile judicial procedures and the criminal justice system. Civil and constitutional rights. Organizational and planning concepts. Budget preparation and control. Principles and practices of supervision and training. City ordinances, Civil Service regulations, labor agreements, and related federal and state law, and WAC rules. Laws of arrest, search, and seizure. Techniques of investigation and interrogation. Criminal case preparation and procedures. Interpersonal skills using tact, patience and courtesy. Oral and written communication skills. Report writing and case preparation. Crime scene supervision. ABILITY TO: Plan, organize, coordinate, and manage personnel, operations, and activities of a major division in the Department Assume overall responsibility or command of Department when required. Manage the day-to-day operations of the Police Department. Prepare dear and concise written reports. Communicate effectively, both orally and in writing. Assign, instruct, and review work of subordinates in an effective working relationship. Supervise and evaluate performance of subordinates and interpret evaluation for correcting deficiencies in a positive manner. Analyze dangerous situations rapidly and accurately and adopt an effective course of action. Enforce state, municipal, and other applicable laws. Determine appropriate level and scope of Police response. Exercise authority in a positive manner for the maintenance of discipline and Departmental objectives. Instill confidence in and compliance with Department rules, regulations, policies, procedures, and general orders. Learn specific duties and responsibilities of individual assignments and apply and implement as required.

EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS:

Any combination equivalent to: graduation from high school and at least two years experience as a Commander in the Renton Police Department, including probationary time. If there are no applicants available or eligible from within the Department, the examination shall be open to Sergeants who have served at least six and one half years as an officer of the Renton Police Department and who meet the

http://agency'. government

5/20/2011

City of Renton - Class Specification Bulletin

Page 3 of 3

minimum standards for promotion at the time of examination. LICENSES AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS: Valid Washington State driver's license. Incumbents must meet requirements set forth by Washington State and the City for law enforcement officers. WORKING CONDITIONS: Work is performed in an office environment but may involve hazardous law enforcement work.

CLASSIFICATION DETAILS: Established Date: July 1996 Revised: March 2001 Original Title: FLSA: Exempt Bargaining Unit: Non Represented

http://agency.governmentjobs.co^

5/20/2011

City of Renton - Class Specification Bulletin

Page 1 of3

Police S e r g e a r _
o

Class Code:
0 3 1 1

CITY OF RENTON Established Date: Jul 1,1996 Revision Date: Nov 5, 2010

DRB / DR EXHIBIT G SALARY RANGE $7,022.00 - $7,373.08 Monthly $84,264.00 - $88,477.00 Annually

BASIC FUNCTION: Under the direction of a Police Commander, perform first line supervisory police work in directing a squad or section of police personnel in the performance of their duties on an assigned shift, or perform nonsupervisory police work of comparable responsibility.

REPRESENTATIVE DUTIES, KNOWLEDGE, AND ABILITIES: "Supervise and have responsibility for the work assigned to a squad or section of commissioned or non-commissioned police personnel. "Supervise patrol, traffic, investigations, specialty units, crime prevention, training, records, jail services, or other police functions. "Conduct and participate in training activities; study and instruct personnel in modern police science methods and techniques. "Write case reports, maintain logs, court dockets, and other related reports; develop and coordinate work schedules. "Evaluate employee performance, both orally and in writing, at specific designated intervals; provide career and personal counseling to subordinates when necessary or requested. "Maintain equitable discipline among personnel under command; administer and initiate necessary disciplinary action; when conditions warrant, order the temporary suspension of an employee pending further disciplinary action. "Identify and assist in providing training programs for department personnel; assist in development of department regulations, policies, and procedures. "Participate in department staff and supervisors' meetings and other meeting as required. "Assume command at any incident requiring the presence of subordinate police personnel. "Inspect and evaluate traffic problem areas for correction or improvement; coordinate traffic situations or incidents with Transportation Systems; recommend changes in traffic patterns to improve traffic safety and flow. "Attend meetings and conferences pertaining to department operations, the criminal justice system, and the general public. "Respond to traffic situations, both routine and emergency, including serious injury, fatality

http ://agency .government) obs ,com/rentonwa/default.cfm?action=specbulletin&ClassSpecI... 5/20/201 1

City of Renton - Class Specification Bulletin

Page 2 of 3

accidents, hazardous spills, and officer-requested response. Maintain continual contact with other police agencies dealing with similar case assignments and responsibilities. "Coordinate response of units to specific situations; determine need for additional assistance, follow up for investigative personnel; provide back up and vehicle patrol when necessary. "Assist department field training officers in the development and maintenance of FTO manual. "Assume responsibility for the Police Department's operation in the absence of command personnel. "Determine workloads; anticipate budgetary needs for squad or section. " Review the quality of reports completed by subordinates. "Investigate and resolve citizen complaints involving assigned personnel. "Perform all duties and tasks required in the rank of Police Officer. Perform related duties as assigned. * Denotes an essential function. KNOWLEDGE AND ABILITIES: KNOWLEDGE OF: Rules, regulations, procedures and General Orders of the Police Department. City ordinances, Civil Service regulations, labor agreements, and related federal and state laws and WAC rules. Content, intent, and application of criminal law. Adult and juvenile judicial procedures and the criminal justice system. Civil and constitutional rights content, intent, and application. Organizational and planning concepts. Basic budgeting and purchasing techniques. Supervisory practices and performance evaluation techniques. Department regulations, policies, and procedures, and General Orders. Laws of arrest, search, and seizure. Techniques of investigation and interrogation. Criminal case preparation and procedures. ABILITY TO: Supervise, evaluate, and motivate subordinates. Deal with the public courteously, firmly, and effectively. Establish and maintain cooperative and effective interpersonal relationships. Maintain accurate and complete files and reports. Maintain control in stressful and hazardous situations. Analyze dangerous situations rapidly and accurately and adopt an appropriate course of action. Enforce all applicable laws.

http://agency.goverinnentjo^

5/20/2011

City of Renton r Class Specification Bulletin

Page 3 of3

Determine level and scope of police response. Prepare clear and concise written reports and prepare cases. Supervise at the scene of any major incident Communicate effectively, both orally and in writing. Assign, instruct, and review the work of subordinates in an effective working relationship. Plan schedules and coordinate work of piersonnel in assigned squad or section. Supervise and evaluate the performance of subordinates and interpret evaluation for correcting deficiencies in a positive manner. Enforce laws with firmness and tact. Make rapid and accurate decisions under stressful conditions. Assist subordinates in setting goals and planning and coordinating their work. Deal effectively with violations of rules, policies, and procedures on an impartial basis. Learn specific duties and responsibilities of individual assignments and apply and carry out as required; Assume overall responsibility or command of department when required.

EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS: Any combination equivalent to: graduation from a standard high school, vocational school, or equivalency. Applicants for this class must have completed at least five years commissioned law enforcement experience, with the last three years as a Police Officer in the Renton Police Department at the time of examination. LICENSES AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS: Valid Washington State driver's license. Must be able to qualify for CPR, first aid, and Access certification. WORKING CONDITIONS: Work is performed in the office and in the field, often in dangerous or emergency circumstances requiring vigorous physical activity and exertion.

CLASSIFICATION DETAILS: Established Date: July 1996 Revised: March 2001, May 2008 Original Title: FLSA: Non Exempt Bargaining Unit: Renton Police Officers Guild, Commissioned

http://agency.govern^

5/20/2011

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D
DATE: TO: FROM: June 13, 2011 | Deputy Chief

DRB/DR

EXHIBIT H

\'

K. M. Curry, Commander Discipline Review Board Representative Discipline Review Board Schedule Hearing CO-0311

SUBJECT:

On June 8, 2011 you notified Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police that you wanted to bring your discipline matter before a Disciplinary Review Board (DRB) which is established under G.O. 26.1.6. You are advised that the hearing is scheduled for June 16, 2011 @ 1300 hours currently scheduled for Human Resources/Risk Management Conference room. I will need you to provide to me the information listed below by 1700 hours on June 14, 2011: A copy of all material evidence you wish to be considered for admissibility in the hearing. A list of all witnesses with a brief summary of testimony that you wish to call and be heard in this matter. If you plan to have representation; provide the name and contact information of that person.

POLICE DEPARTMENT
CO-0311 DRB/DR EXHIBIT I

M E M O R A N D l
DATE: TO: June 14, 2011 Commander Kent Curry Discipline Review Board Chair Deputy Chief

FROM: SUBJECT:

Submission of Material for Review Board

I haVe attached copies of all of my performance evaluations, dating back to my promotion date to Deputy Chief. While I believe the entire 19 years of my performance evaluations are similar in nature, I am submitting these as a representative sample of my performance over my time at the Renton Police Department. Copies receive

Comnrranden^ent Curry

CO-0311 DRB/DR Kent M Curry rom: W: fo: Subject:

c

^^W*~^

' Charles Karlewicz Sunday, June 12, 2011 3:56 PM Kent M Curry Re: Discipline Review Board

EXHIBIT J

I have received and read the entire internal investigation and intent to discipline letter.

From: Kent M Curry To: Clark E Wilcox; Charles Karlewicz Cc: Nancy Carlson; Kent M Curry Sent: Sun Jun 12 13:01:20 2011 Subject: Discipline Review Board It's looking like the afternoon of the 16 is lining up to conduct the hearing. (Nancy can you check to see if your conference room is available that day?) I have from 1200 to 1700 blocked out on my calendar but expect to start at about 1300 and I don't know how long this will take.
th

Clark and Chad - According to G.O. 26.1.6.3.1 -The DRB shall review and investigate reports, statements and material concerning the original allegation of misconduct. I understand that both of you have received copies of the completed internal and the Chiefs intent to discipline letter to Deputy Chief Please respond to me in writing or email format that you have reviewed the internal as set out by our General'Orders. I have a copy of the original video and the follow-up videos. Rather than creating additional copies of this material you can get it from me to preview it I plan on providing a memorandum to Deputy Chief tomorrow advising of the date/time of the hearing and requesting a list of potential witnesses along with any material he wants to present as evidence. As the Department Representative it is my intent to enter into record the entire internal investigation along with the Chiefs intent letter as evidence on behalf of the department. If you have any questions or concerns please don't hesitate to call me. Kent

Patrol Services Commander Renton Police Department 425.430.7555

CO-0311 DRB/DR Kent M Curry rom: W: To: Subject:

c ;

EXHIBIT K

Clark E Wilcox Monday, June 13, 2011 1:09 PM Kent M Curry RE: Discipline Review Board

Kent, I have received the internal investigation, intent to discipline and read GO 26.1.6.3.1. Thanks Clark From: Kent M Curry Sent: Sunday, June 12, 2011 13:01 To: Clark E Wilcox; Charles Karlewicz Cc: Nancy Carlson; Kent M Curry Subject: Discipline Review Board It's looking like the afternoon of the 16 is lining up to conduct the hearing. (Nancy can you check to see if your conference room is available that day?) I have from 1200 to 1700 blocked out on my calendar but expect to start at about 1300 and I don't know how long this will take. ^'ark and Chad - According to G.O. 26.1.6.3.1 - The DRB shall review and investigate reports, statements and material Jncerning the original allegation of misconduct. I understand that both of you have received copies of the completed internal and the Chiefs intent to discipline letter to Deputy Chief | Please respond to me in writing or email format that you have reviewed the internal as set out by our General Orders. I have a copy of the original video and the follow-up videos. Rather than creating additional copies of this material you can get it from me to preview it. I plan on providing a memorandum to Deputy Chief H ^ H tomorrow advising of the date/time of the hearing and requesting a list of potential witnesses along with any material he wants to present as evidence. As the Department Representative it is my intent to enter into record the entire internal investigation along with the Chiefs intent letter as evidence on behalf of the department. If you have any questions or concerns please don't hesitate to call me. Kent
th

Patrol Services Commander Renton Police Department 425.430.7555

POLICE DEPARTMENT

sate!

City of

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 5, 2011 Deputy Chief Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police Discipline CO-0311

This memorandum sets forth my decision to demote you to the rank of Sergeant This is based upon the following: Sometime in the middle of December, 2010 Sergeant created a video that was directed at members of the City of Renton Jail. This video was in a cartoon style, and ridiculed and demeaned the members of both the Renton Jail and the SCORE Jail. During this same time period, you were aware of the creation of this video and had previously reviewed the video. Effective on January 1, 2011, the Renton Jail became the SCORE North Jail operated primarily by jailers previously employed by the City of Renton. On January 4, 2011 the Department was made aware that this video was posted on YouTube, and was emailed to certain members of the Department This video was a topic of discussions at various leadership meetings, and attempts were made to determine who posted and circulated the video. Four months after the video . was posted, you eventually came forward at the direction of a subordinate to admit your prior knowledge of the creation and posting of this video. An internal investigation was conducted where it was determined that you failed to act in your role as a Deputy Chief on numerous occasions. Specifically, your conduct violated the following Department policies: Violation of General Orders 26,1.1.11.B - Unbecoming Conduct Members of the Police department shall conduct themselves at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the Department Unbecoming conduct shall include that which brings the Department into disrepute or reflects discredit upon the individual as a member of the Police Department/or that which impairs the operation or efficiency of the Department or the individual. Finding: Sustained

Violation of General Orders 26.1.1JI.K - Unsatisfactory Performance Commissioned members of the Police Department shall maintain sufficient competency to properly perform their duties, and assume the responsibility of their positions. Mernbers shall perform their duties in a manner which will maintain the highest standards,, qf efficiency in carrying out the function and objectives of the Department Unsatisfactory performance may be demonstrated by a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced, an unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks, thefaiiure to conform to work standards established for the officer's rank, grade, or position, thefaiiure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder, or other condition deserving police attention, or absence without leave. In addition to other indicators of unsatisfactory performance, the following will be considered prima facie evidence of unsatisfactory performance: repeated poor evaluations, or a written record of repeated infractions of rules, regulations, directives, or orders of the Department Finding: Sustained

The above findings of misconduct are based upon the following: You admittedly approved of the content of the video, despite its demeaning, . disrespectful and unprofessional portrayal of the Renton and SCORE staff.
a n d

You reviewed the video created by S g t . ^ 1 had several opportunities to advise him that it was inappropriate. You failed to do so. Your actions purported to authorize and allow members of the Department to publically humiliate and demean another division of the Police Department, You attempted to conceal the source of the video by advising S g t | B I how he could post this video on YouTube by using an anonymous location. You then agreed with Sgt. H that you would not disclose the source of the video unless specifically asked, Once you were aware of the damage caused by the video, you directed S g t H to remove the video from YouTube. As you admitted during the investigation, you coujd have avoided this damage by performing your job duties in the first place by directing S g t . ^ | not to create and circulate this inappropriate material.
i n

This video was directed at both the Renton Jail and the newly formed SCORE Jail of which the City of Renton is an owner agency. Your failure to exercise your . leadership responsibilities, and advise S g t . | B I P circulate the video has caused damage to both entities, harmed the Department's relationship with SCORE and the City's relationship with the other owner agencies. You concealed your participation in the creation and posting of the video and . failed to come forward on numerous occasions to admit that you were involved in the video and knew who created and posted it. Specifically, you failed to provide this relevant information:
n o t t o o s t o r

Once I made it clear the video was inappropriate during our first meeting on this issue on January 4, 2011. o On January 4, 2011, when you knew that 1 had asked Information Services (IS) to review City email to determine if this video was posted via department computer. o On January 5, when you were notified that IS did not have the capability to track this information/and offered that you had the same problem in another investigation you were performing. o On January 6, 2011, after we discussed at the monthly leadership meeting that the video was inappropriate. o After you knew that someone else used the same technology to create numerous other viscous videos about other department members several months later. These additional videos were homophobic, anti-female, based on rumors, and described previous internal investigations both sustained and not-sustained. You were aware of these additional videos and yet still did not come forward with information regarding these videos or your knowledge of the source of the original video. In fact, you were adamant in your discussion with Commander Leibman that these videos should not be investigated.(potentially disclosing your involvement) because you believed they were similar to the original video. o After Commander McClincy and you entered my office to voice an opinion of who may have created the additional videos, It was nearly five months after the video had been posted, and only after Commander Liebman advised you that he would be required to disclose your involvement in and knowledge of the creator of the original video if you did not voluntarily do so that you finally brought this information to my attention.

The essential functions of the position of Deputy Chief include: Plan, organize, coordinate, and manage the operations of the Department. Supervise the training and discipline of subordinates; coordinate activities within the Department Establish and maintain effective working relationships with staff, other agencies, news media, elected officials, administrators, and the general public. Assume command of the overall operations of the Police Department in the absence of the Chief, or as designated. Attend meetings and represent the Department and /or the Chief as requested.

You failed to perform these essential functions and indicated an inability to do so by reviewing and effectively authorizing a video that ridiculed and demeaned an entire division of the Police Department. This video by title referenced the newly created SCORE organization. The video demeaned this organization and was the topic of discussion of the SCORE Operations Board, and the Administrative Board consisting of

the elected officials of the seven owner agencies. This video created distrust between SCORE employees and the employees of the Renton Police Department. As a Deputy Chief, you failed to understand the negative impact that this video would have on both the Department and SCORE, failed to take appropriate action to prevent such harm, and then failed to promptly disclose relevant information, thus impairing the investigation. Such conduct clearly violates General Orders 26.1.1.11, B and K, and is grounds for demotion under Civil Service Rules 16.01(b). As part of this investigation; I asked fl^^Hfli^^lHiH^ that this video had on her organizationT^fiftstated:
0

discuss the impact

"As a startup agency, we are trying to. provide excellent customer service to our member cities and establish a culture of cooperation. It is difficult to try to make thing (this) happen in a positive arena when SCORE staff feels that they are subject to sabotage by members of the very agency that we serve." Upon notification of this i n v e s t i g a t i o n , ^ | [ ^ P | ^ m ^ | m f r e q u e s t e d that you never represent the Police Department at the monthly SCORE Operations Board. This is based on the contempt of her organization you have displayed. Your actions have significantly harmed our relationship with SCORE. As a Deputy Chief, I expect loyalty to both the organization and to me. This ' investigation has clearly violated that loyalty. You purposely chose sides by aligning yourself with S g t ^ l demeaning the members of the City/SCORE Jail staff over the organization as a whole.
i n

As part of this investigation, you have stated that you did not lie but stated that if 1 had only asked the right question that you would have told me. As the police chief, I do not have the time to ensure that 1 ask the exact question in order to receive information that is obviously relevant. I expect that the deputy chief will proactively respond to issues within the department without being specifically asked. The information in this investigation describes a Deputy Chief with displaced loyalty; one who will willingly demean another department workgroup/agency; and who will withhold relevant information unless specifically asked so as to conceal the poor judgment he exercised. Pre-discipline Hearing (Loudermill) You were given two options for a Loudermill hearing. The options included a meeting with the City of Renton's CAO Jay Covington, or the Department's Disciplinary Review Board as outlined in our General Orders, You selected the Disciplinary Review Board. This board convened on June 16,2011. A summary of the report states:

The Board has decided by a majority vote that the specific recommendation as to disciplinary action shall be demotion from the rank of Police Deputy Chief to the rank of Police Sergeant

A full copy of the Board's report has been provided to you and a copy has been placed in the investigative file. I concur with the recommendations of the Discipline Review Board.

Discipline:

Demotion to the rank of Sergeant effective immediately.

Rule 16 of the Renton Fire and Police Civil Service Rules provide your appeal options.

I have received a copy of the discipline memorandum.

- 7 W Date

Renton Police Department

CO-0311

Discipline

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Discipline CO-0311

I have reviewed the investigation and the discipline recommendations of both Commander Wilcox and Commander Curry. The investigation revealed that: You were aware that a video was being created by S g t . | ^ You knew the video was going to make fun of the Jail and its staff. You were aware t h a t ^ ^ posted the video on YouTube. You knew that the video was controversial with the department management team. You were in attendance at the January 6 , 2011 Staff/Supervisors meeting when. I discussed the controversy surrounding the video. You never felt compelled to disclose his knowledge a b o u t i n v o l v e m e n t . You do not believe the video posting impaired the operation and efficiency of the department. You k n e w ^ H t o ' d remove the video because it was received unfavorably by others. You did not feel it was your responsibility to share your knowledge of the investigation since there was not a formal investigation initially being conducted.
th w a s t 0

Your conduct violated the following Department General Orders: General Orders 26.1.1.II.K - Unsatisfactory Performance Commissioned members of the Police Department shall maintain sufficient competency to properly perform their duties, and assume the responsibility of their positions. Members shall perform their duties in a manner which will maintain the highest standards of efficiency in carrying out the functions and objectives of the Department. Unsatisfactory performance may be demonstrated by a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced, an unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks, thefaiiure to conform to work standards estabiishedforthe officer's rank, grade, or position, thefaiiure to

Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police Page 2 of3 August 12,2011

take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder or other condition deserving police attention, or absence without leave. In addition to other indicators of unsatisfactory performance, the following will be considered prima facie evidence of unsatisfactory performance: repeated poor evaluations, or a written record of repeated infractions of rules, regulations, directives, or orders of the Department Finding: Sustained

Loudermill hearing with Commander Curry According to Commander Curry's memorandum, you presented the following information: You did have knowledge of the video back in December and found it funny. The video over exaggerated the situation to make points. You didn't see any issues with it being disseminated. In your point of view, there has not been a disruption to the department as a result of this incident. You never felt a need to divulge his knowledge about the video because there was not a formal or informal investigation. Had I put out an email about the first video requesting members with knowledge to come forward, that you would have come forward. That you were unsure why there is an expectation to come forward with the information about the creator of this first video. That you feel that the General Orders that were sustained are overly broad in their language. Letter of Reprimand

Discipline Intent:

August 4,2011 Loudermill Hearing During this brief meeting, you were represented by Guild Attorney McClure. During this meeting your attorney stated: There is a lack of a clear rule violation in this incident; that there should be a policy that clearly defines what is expected of a supervisor and what is not. That you should have had prior knowledge of what is right or wrong. That not everything rises to the level of misconduct, that there can be disappointments in decisions etc. that does not meet the misconduct threshold. That I should take into consideration your history with the department, and your lack of discipline.

Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police Page 3 of3 August 12,2011

Discipline Decision:

Verbal Reprimand

At the time of this incident, you were an acting Sergeant. Because of this position, I will not hold you to the same level of accountability as a promoted sergeant. I am taking into consideration the fact that you do not clearly understand your role as a supervisor or leader with the department. By your actions, you have sought the leadership track with the Department. You have been selected as a Field Training Officer, an Officer-in-charge, and have participated in two sergeant examinations. As a result of your desire to become a sergeant and your ranking on the previous sergeant's exam, you were appointed as an Acting Sergeant last fall. In your capacity as an Acting Sergeant, you are formally one of the Departments leaders. This leadership role which you desire comes with a series of expectations. As a Department leader, if you were to observe conduct by an officer that is not consistent with Department policy or may jeopardize the safety of an officer there is an. expectation that you will intervene. It is expected that as a supervisor your responsibilities include documenting incidents where the city may incur liability. These two examples are what I define as the caretaking role of Department leaders. In this caretaking capacity, you have the obligation to look out for the best interests of the Department and the City. As a Department leader it is unacceptable: To have knowledge that others were developing a video that was'demeaning of another work group within.the department without notifying your supervisor. To not bring to the attention of your supervisor of the creator of this video knowing that the "administration" was not pleased with its creation. That you have the opinion that you must be asked a specific question rather than be pro-active to resolve this issue.

Your actions are mitigated in that this incident involved two other sergeants and a deputy chief. The Department's General Orders and the collective bargaining agreement outline your appeal r i g h t s j i a v y copy of the discipline memorandum.

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Discipline CO-0311

I have reviewed the investigation and the discipline recommendations of both Commander Wilcox and Commander Curry. The investigation revealed that: You were aware that a video was being created by Sgt. | 0 You knew the video was going to make fun of the Jail and its staff. You were aware t h a t l l posted the video on YouTube. You knew that the video was controversial with the department management team. You were in attendance at the January 6 , 2011 Staff/Supervisors meeting when I discussed the controversy surrounding the video. You never felt compelled to disclose his knowledge a b o u t j ^ m involvement You do not believe the video posting impaired the operation and efficiency of the department. You k n e w ^ B ' d to remove the video because it was received unfavorably by others. You did not feel it was your responsibility to share your knowledge of the investigation since there was not a formal investigation initially being conducted.
th w a s t o

Your conduct violated the following Department General Orders: General Orders 26.1.1.II.K - Unsatisfactory Performance Commissioned members of the Police Department shall maintain sufficient competency to properly perform their duties, and assume the responsibility of their positions. Members shall perform their duties in a manner which will maintain the highest standards of efficiency in carrying out the functions and objectives of the Department Unsatisfactory performance may be demonstrated by a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced, an unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks, thefaiiure to conform to work standards estabiishedforthe officer's rank, grade, or position, thefaiiure to

Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police Page 2 of 3 August 12,2011

take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder or other condition deserving police attention, or absence without leave. In addition to other indicators of unsatisfactory performance, the following will be considered prima facie evidence of unsatisfactory performance: repeated poor evaluations, or a written record of repeated infractions of rules, regulations, directives, or orders of the Department Finding: Sustained

Loudermill hearing with Commander Curry According to Commander Curry's memorandum, you presented the following information: You did have knowledge of the video back in December and found it funny. The video over exaggerated the situation to make points. You didn't see any issues with it being disseminated. In your point of view, there has not been a disruption to the department as a result of this incident. You never felt a need to divulge his knowledge about the video because there was not a formal or informal investigation. Had I put out an email about the first video requesting members with knowledge to come forward, that you would have come forward. That you were unsure why there is an expectation to come forward with the information about the creator of this first video. That you feel that the General Orders that were sustained are overly broad in their language. Letter of Reprimand

Discipline Intent:

August 4,2011 Loudermill Hearing During this brief meeting, you were represented by Guild Attorney McClure. During this meeting your attorney stated: There is a lack of a clear rule violation in this incident; that there should be a policy that clearly defines what is expected of a supervisor and what is not, That you should have had prior knowledge of what is right or wrong. That not everything rises to the level of misconduct, that there can be disappointments in decisions etc. that does not meet the misconduct threshold, That I should take into consideration your history with the department, and your lack of discipline.

Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police Page 3 of3 August 12,2011

Discipline Decision:

Verbal Reprimand

At the time of this incident, you were an acting Sergeant. Because of this position, I will not hold you to the same level of accountability as a promoted sergeant. I am taking into consideration the fact that you do not clearly understand your role as a supervisor or leader with the department. By your actions, you have sought the leadership track with the Department. You have been selected as a Field Training Officer, an Officer-in-charge, and have participated in two sergeant examinations. As a result of your desire to become a sergeant and your ranking on the previous sergeant's exam, you were appointed as an Acting Sergeant last fall. In your capacity as an Acting Sergeant, you are formally one of the Departmients leaders. This leadership role which you desire comes with a series of expectations. As a Department leader, if you were to observe conduct by an officer that is not consistent with Department policy or may jeopardize the safety of an officer there is an expectation that you will intervene. It is expected that as a supervisor your responsibilities include documenting incidents where the city may incur liability. These two examples are what I define as the caretaking role of Department leaders. In this caretaking capacity, you have the obligation to look out for the best interests of the Department and the City. As a Department leader it is unacceptable: To have knowledge that others were developing a video that was'demeahing of another work group within the department without notifying your supervisor. To not bring to the attention of your supervisor of the creator of this video knowing that the "administration" was not pleased with its creation. That you have the opinion that you must be asked a specific question rather than be pro-active to resolve this issue.
c

Your actions are mitigated in that this incident involved two other sergeants and a deputy chief. The Department's General Orders and the collective bargaining agreement outline your appeal rights. I have received a copy of the discipline memorandum.

V Date/

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 7, 2011 Officer Kevin Milosevich, Chief Intent to Discipline CO-0311

I have reviewed the investigation and the discipline recommendations of both Commander Wilcox and Commander Curry. The investigation revealed that: You were aware that a video was being created by S g t . ^ H You knew the video was going to make fun of the Jail and its staff. You were aware t h a t | m posted the video on YouTube. . You knew that the video was controversial with the department management team. You were in attendance at the January 6 , 2011 Staff/Supervisors meeting when I discussed the controversy surrounding the video. You never felt compelled to disclose his knowledge a b o u t ^ U involvement. You do not believe the video posting impaired the operation and efficiency of the department. You k n e w i j j ^ was told, to remove the video because it was received unfavorably by others. You did not feel it was your responsibility to share your knowledge of the investigation since there was not a formal investigation initially being conducted.
th

Your conduct violated the following Department General Orders: General Orders 26.1.1.11.K- Unsatisfactory Performance Commissioned members of the Police Department shall maintain sufficient competency to properly perform their duties, and assume the responsibility of their positions. Members shall perform their duties in a manner which will maintain the highest standards of efficiency in carrying out the functions and objectives of the Department Unsatisfactory performance may be demonstrated. by a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced, an unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks, the failure to conform to work standards established for the officer's rank, grade, or position, thefaiiure to

Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police Page 2 of3 M y 1,2011

take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder or other condition deserving police attention, or absence without leave. In addition to other indicators of unsatisfactory performance, the following will be considered prima facie evidence of unsatisfactory performance: repeated poor evaluations, or a written record of repeated infractions of rules, regulations, directives, or orders of the Department Finding: Sustained

Loudermill hearing with Commander Curry According to Commander Curry's memorandum, you presented the following information: ~ You did have knowledge of the video back in December and found it funny. The video over exaggerated the situation to make points. You didn't see any issues with it being disseminated. In your point of view, there has not been a disruption to the department as a result of this incident. You never felt a need to divulge his knowledge about the video because there was not a formal or informal investigation. Had I put out an email about the first video requesting members with knowledge to come forward, that you would have. That you were unsure why there is an expectation to come forward with the information about the creator of this first video. That you feel that the General Orders that were sustained are overly broad in their language.

Discipline Recommendation:

Letter of Reprimand

By your actions, you have sought the leadership track with the Department. You have been selected as a Field Training Officer, an Officer-in-charge, and have participated in two sergeant examinations. As a result of your desire to become a sergeant and your ranking on the previous sergeant's exam, you were appointed as an Acting Sergeant last fall. In your capacity as an Acting Sergeant, you are formally one of the Departments leaders. This leadership role which you desire comes with a series of expectations. As a Department leader, if you were to observe conduct by an officer that is not consistent with Department policy or may jeopardize the safety of an officer there is an expectation that you will intervene.

Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police Page 3 of3 July 1,2011

It is expected that as a supervisor your responsibilities include documenting incidents where the city may incur liability. These two examples are what I define as the caretaking role of Department leaders. In this caretaking capacity, you have the obligation to look out forthe best interests of the Department and the City. As a Depiartment leader it is unacceptable: To have knowledge that others were developing a video that was demeaning of another work group within the department without notifying your supervisor. To not bring to the attention of your supervisor of the creator of this video knowing that the "administration" was not pleased with its creation. That you have the opinion that you must be asked a specific question rather than, be pro-active to resolve this issue.

Your actions are mitigated in that this incident involved two other sergeants and a deputy chief. The Department's General Orders outlines your appeal rights. Please notify Melissa Day within five (5) days of receiving this memorandum if you wish to discuss this discipline recommendation or request to exercise your appeal options. After notification, I will schedule the appropriate meeting. I will then notify you of my ' final decision. I have received a.copy of the intent to discipline memorandum.

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: CC: SUBJECT: July 5, 2011 Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police K, M. Curry, Commander*^*-^ ^m^, Officer Recommendation for Discipline CO-0311

On July 1, 20111 sent you finding and recommendation for O f f i c e i ^ ^ ^ i n the above matter. For clarification purposes, my recommendation for discipline in this matter for Officer reprimand" and not "written warning". I used the wrong language and I apologize for any confusion in this matter.

fm|shouid have read "written

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: July 1, 2011 Kevin Milosevich - Chief of Police K. M. Curry - Police Commander Findings and Recommendations CO-0311
A c tn g

' tBBBBBB
i n

I have reviewed the information contained in the investigation conducted by Commander Leibman. i have also reviewed the findings and recommendations provided by Commander Wilcox regarding Acting S e r g e a n t ^ J J | | ^ ^ i n v o l v e m e n t the allegations made resulting in the internal. The investigation revealed that: A / S g t j B H B w a s aware that a video was being created by S g t . ^ m He knew the video vyas goingto make fun of the Jail and it's staff. A/Sgt ^U ^vas aware t h a t ^ ^ P$ted the video on YouTube. He became aware that few people were upset about the contents of the video. He knew that the video was controversial with the department management team. He entered into an agreement w i t h ^ ^ ^ m t H V divulge their knowledge about the creation and posting of the video. A / S g t . J U P f V a s in attendance at the January 6 /2011 Staff/Supervisors meeting when the Chief discussed the controversy surrounding the video. A / S g t . ^ m never felt compelled to disclose his knowledge about involvement. A / S g t ^ j j ^ s t a t e s that if he was directly asked he would have come forward. He does not believe the video posting impaired the operation and efficiency of the department. He k n e w ^ B was told to remove the video because it was received unfavorably. He did not feel it was his responsibility to share his knowledge of the investigation since there was not a formal investigation initially being conducted.
th a n d t 0 n o t

Violation of General Orders 26.1.1.II.B - Unbecoming Conduct Members of the Police Department shall conduct themselves at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the Department Unbecoming conduct shall include that which brings the Department into

Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police Page 2 of4 July 1,2011

disrepute or reflects discredit upon the individual as a member of the Police Department, or that which impairs the operation or efficiency of the Department or the individual. Finding: Sustained

Violation of General Orders 26.1.1.II.K- Unsatisfactory Performance Commissioned members of the Police Department shall maintain sufficient competency to properly perform their duties, and assume the responsibility of their positions. Members shall perform their duties in a manner which will maintain the highest standards of efficiency in carrying out the functions and objectives of the Department. Unsatisfactory performance may be demonstrated by a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced, an unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks, thefaiiure to-conform to work standards estabiishedforthe officer's rank, grade, or position, thefaiiure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder or other condition deserving police attention, or absence without leave. In addition to other indicators of unsatisfactory performance, the following will be considered prima facie evidence of unsatisfactory performance: repeated poor evaluations, or a written record of repeated infractions of rules, regulations, directives, or orders of the Department. Finding: Sustained

Violation of General Orders 26.1.1.II.YY- Ethics Members of the Police Department shall not conspire or knowingly engage in any activity which deprives any person of their civil rights, due process, equal opportunity for employment, advancement, job opportunities, or any constitutionally or statutory guaranteed right. No member of the Police Department shall disseminate confidential police-related information to any unauthorized person for any purpose. Findings: Sustained These findings are based on the following: It is unreasonable to conclude that A / S g t ^ J p l J i d n ' t believe there was anything wrong with the contents of the video. He conspired with | ^ to keep it a secret. Inefficiencies were created by A/Sgt ithholding information from the Chief. The video was created for the purpose of ridiculing and demeaning other members of the department and then personally shared and posted to YouTube

Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police Page 3 of4 July 1,2011

and it certainly impacted our organization. The investigation into this incident has consumed members of the department turning our focus from our daily service to citizens towards attempting to identify who had created and posted this video. This not only wasted time of our membership but also cause others outside the police department to waste their energy, efforts and time. The conspiracy hiding the creating and posting of the video and all those involved has caused an adverse impact between SCORE and our department. You made your objectives clear by informing the management team your intent to find out who posted the video. As such A / S g t ^ H did not perform his duties in a manner which maintained the highest standards of efficiency in carrying out the functions and objectives of the Department.

First Loudermill Prior to making findings and recommendations in this internal I met with O f f i c e ^ ^ p and Derrick Isaekson, Attorney for Vick, Julius, McClure Office. This meeting was held in my office on June 28, 2011 at 1143 hours. During this meeting Sergeant^JJJpresented the following information: He did have knowledge of the video back in December and found it funny. The video over exaggerated the situation to make points. He didn't see any issues with it be disseminated. In his.point of view, there has not been a disruption to the department as a result of this incident. He never felt a need to divulge his knowledge about the video because there was not a formal or informal investigation. Had the Chief put out an email requesting about the first video requesting member with knowledge to come forward he would have. He is not sure why he would have been expected to come forward with the information. He feels that the General Order that were sustained against him are overly broad in their language.

Recommendations: I find it very disturbing that we have leaders in our department that would conspire to withhold information from the Chief when the Chief had communicated his dissatisfaction with the video and the negative impact of the video on the organization. It is clear that A / S g t . ^ B J B ^ h o s e his allegiance to his colleagues over his dedication and allegiance to the organization.

Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police Page 4 of 4 July 1,2011

A / S g t . J ^ p a c t i o n s to c o n c e a l i n g | m involvement were deliberate. He knew or should have known to divulge this secret but chose otherwise. A / S g t . ^ ( P knew or should have known the impacts of this video on our department and on members ridiculed in the video. When advised of the negative impacts he should have come forward with the information he was concealing. After the Loudermill hearing I'm not convinced that Officer^BP vould do anything different today, which indeed is disturbing on many different levels. I recommend that you issue a written warning to him forthe above sustained findings.

POLICE DEPARTMENT

City of,

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 15,2011 Acting

Sergeant ^m^

Commander K. M. Curry Copy of Internal Investigation CO-03-11 & First Loudermill Opportunity

Attached is a copy of the internal investigation CO-03-11 which you were listed as a subject of the complaint Commander Wilcox's findings and discipline recommendation are also provided. Prior to formulating my findings and recommendations you have the opportunity to review the investigation and meet with me to share any additional information that may help me in the decision process. This opportunity is voluntary, if you are interested in meeting please contact me within five business days to schedule a meeting. You will find two copies of this memorandum in your packet. Please sign and date one of the copies and return to my office. The signed copy will become part of the official record and filed with the complaint. The other copy is for your records.

imarader K. M , Curfy Comma

Date

4
Date
1

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M E M O R A N D U M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: June 16, 2011 Commander Curry A/sgt.ms First Loudermill Hearing

Commander Curry, The purpose of this Memorandum is to request the opportunity to meet with you as part of the first Loudermill hearing. Prior to scheduling the meeting I would like to request a copy of the audio recording of my taped interview conducted by Commander Leibman on 5/8/11. In Commander Leibman's Investigation Report Summary he indicates additional information can be gleaned by listening to the recording. Therefore I would request a copy so that I could review all of the information prior to the meeting.

Respectfully,

POLICE DEPARTMENT

M
DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT:

E M

O R A N D U

June 15, 2011 Kevin Milosevich, Chief of Police Clark Wilcox, Commander Patrol Operations Findings and Recommendations CO 03-11

I have reviewed Internal Investigation CO-03-11 regarding A / S g t ^ m f ^ F involvement. The allegations of this investigation include the following violations of the General Orders of the Renton Police Department. General Order 26.1.0 sections B - Unbecoming Conduct, K - Unsatisfactory Performance, YY - Ethics,

A / S g t ^ K ^ w a s aware that a video was being created by SgtH^^ called "A Penny
Tale". He describedthe video as a parody of some incidents that had occurred in the Renton Jail. A / S g t ^ H k / v a s aware the video had been posted to the internet called "You Tube", by S g t | ^ | He went to "You Tube" and watched the video. In his opinion of the video was funny and many members of the police department including members of the jail .staff also thought the video was funny. He did become aware that a few people were upset about the contents of the video but most thought it was humorous. He did not specifically hear that any one person had a problem with the video. The only controversy he was aware of regarding this video was with police department administration. Conversations with Deputy Chief ^BHI Sgt|HH Sgt and himself centered on they knew who created the video and would not disclose who the author was unless they were specifically asked. The creator/author of the video was to be anonymous. , 2011 Staff/Supervisors meeting when Chief Milosevich brought the video topic up and how it was causing controversy within the department and in SCORL A/Sgt ^JJ (|was present when the Chief stated the video was inappropriate. A / S g t ^ m ^ s a i d that he believed the controversy was with police department administration and no one else. When A/SgtjJJ^became aware of the controversy with the video he did not feel obligated to make a disclosure to his commander or any other administrator referencing his knowledge of S g t | H creating and posting the video on "You Tube". If he would have been directly asked he would have stated he knew who created and posted the video on "You Tube". He does not believe the video impaired the operation of the efficiency of the police department.

A/Sgtfl^^was in attendance at the January 6

th

Kevin Milosevich Page 2 of3 June 13,2011

A/Sgt ^ J ^ s t a t e d he did not have any part of creating or posting the original video "Penny Tale". He was aware that S g t ^ ^ H was told to remove the video from "You Tube", probably by Deputy Chief being received by some people as unfavorable. The original video had been removed from "You Tube" by S g t f ^ l * ^ does not know who reposted the video as a 'SCORE parody on "You Tube".
a s ! t w a s a n ( 7

A / S g t ^ J ^ s a i d he was aware of the controversy over the "Penny Tale" video, knew there was not a formal investigation and chose not to disclose his knowledge of who the author was i.e. Sgt | H ^ H He was never asked by any member of the command staff if he had knowledge who the creator of the video was and did not feel it was his responsibility to share his knowledge as no formal investigation had been initiated. Based upon all of the information provided, I find; following policies: jonducted violated the

General Order 26.1.1.11 sections B - Unbecoming Conduct, K - Unsatisfactory Performance B. Unbecoming Conduct - Members of the Police Department shall conduct themselves at all times, both on and off duty, in such a manner as to reflect most favorably on the Department. Unbecoming conduct shall include that which brings the Department into disrepute or reflects discredit upon the individual as a member of the Police Department, or that which impairs the operation or efficiency of the Department or the individual. Unsatisfactory Performance (Commissioned members) Commissioned members of the Police Department shall maintain sufficient competency to properly perform their duties, and assume the responsibility of their positions. Members shall perform their duties in a manner which will maintain the highest standards of efficiency in carrying out the functions and objectives of the Department. Unsatisfactory performance may be demonstrated by a lack of knowledge of the application of laws required to be enforced, an unwillingness or inability to perform assigned tasks, the failure to conform to work standards established for the officer's rank, grade, or position, the failure to take appropriate action on the occasion of a crime, disorder, or other condition deserving police attention, or absence without leave. In addition to other indicators of unsatisfactory performance, the following will be considered prima facie evidence of unsatisfactory performance: repeated poor evaluations, or a written record of repeated infractions of rules, regulations, directives, or orders of the Department.

K.

h:\pat_serv\cmdr curry\internal investigations^ 1 l\co 03 1 l^J^^tindings and recommendations clark.docx