To: Kevin Robinson, Assistant Chief of Police Date: April 5, 2010

Phoenix Police Professional Standards Bureau

City Auditor

CC: ASPTEA
Ms. Kathryn Baillie P.C. of the Napier Law Firm.

From:

Subject: POSSIBLE MULTIPLE FELONY VIOLATIONS OF A.R.S PUBLIC RECORDS

LAW, CITY ADMINISTRATIVE REGULATIONS, POLICE OPERATIONS
ORDERS, LYING AND INTERFERENCE WITH AN INVESTIGATION BY
COMMAND LEVEL STAFF, AND MISUSE OF PUBLIC FUNDS IN THE
PHOENIX POLICE DEPARTMENT

Regretfully, I am forced to write you about misconduct occurring in the Phoenix Police
Department Computer Services Bureau, and request your help.

FACTS:

Public Record guidelines are established by the Director, Arizona State Library, Archives
and Public Records pursuant to ARS § 41-1345.A.1 for the management (creation,
maintenance, access and use, and disposition) of e-mail messages in accordance with
state and federal legal requirements. Public officials and other custodians of public
records (hereafter referred to collectively as “agencies”) shall preserve and protect
public records in accordance with these guidelines and to maintain documentation as
evidence that these standards are being met. These guidelines apply to state and local
government agencies and political subdivisions in the State of Arizona.

1. E-mail messages created or received by a government employee are public

records under ARS 41 1350 if it documents the organization, functions, policies,
decisions, procedures, operations or other activities of the political organization.
2. An e-mail record includes metadata (minimally the sender, all recipients, date
and time sent, subject), the body of the message, any attachments,
documentation of all recipients. If an e-mail record is sent to a distribution list, it
must be possible to demonstrate who received the message, not just the name of
the distribution list
3. Agencies must make all e-mail records available to the public upon request
under the Arizona Inspection of Public Records Law (ARS 39-121) during the
required retention period, unless the content of the message falls under one of
 the exceptions contained in the law or in any other statute, regulation, Executive
Order, or rule of court.
4. Agencies must retain e-mail records for the period of time specified on the
records retention and disposition schedule approved by the Arizona State Library,
Archives and Public Records. Retention or disposition of e-mail messages must
be related to the information they contain or the purpose they serve. Agencies
may not routinely delete all e-mail after an arbitrary amount of time.
5. Agencies must suspend destruction of all records relevant to any reasonably
foreseeable legal action, audit, or government investigation until the conclusion
of such action, even if their retention period has passed. Agencies should
suspend destruction of potentially relevant records as soon as there is
reasonable expectation of such action, regardless of whether a legal notice of
such action has been served.
6. Police Chief Jack Harris was notified of EEOC case 540-2009-00388 on
November 25, 2008 in a memo by EOD Director Lionel D. Lyons. Police Chief
Jack Harris subsequently informed CSB Bureau Administrator Ms. Rhyons of the
EEOC case by telephone.
7. In the Phoenix Police Department the person responsible for the retention of e-
mail records, fulfillment of electronic mail public records requests is the
Administrator of the Computer Services Bureau, Ms. Rhyons, she has delegated
some of her authority to Ms. Hamilton. However she retains all responsibility.
8. In violation of Operations Orders 2.15.13 which specifies only Sent Mail and
Deleted Mail folders will be purged, bulk e-mail purges are being done on all
employee folders, unless the folder is created in an email archive(.pst file), which
most users are not unaware of, and most users do not how to create.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers provide accommodations for any
employee with a disability who would otherwise be able to perform their job. The
Americans with Disabilities Act also prohibits retaliation against an employee who
requests an ADA accommodation.
City of Phoenix Administrative regulation 2.35 prohibits discrimination based on age,
gender or disability. In addition they prohibit retaliation against an employee filing an
EOD or EEOC complaint.
City of Phoenix Police Department Operations orders 3.14 prohibits discrimination
based on age, gender or disability. In addition they prohibit retaliation against an
employee filing an EOD or EEOC complaint.
The City of Phoenix Charter, Chapter XXV, Section 9, states “The City shall administer
the Personnel system in a manner consistent with federal, state and local laws, rules
and regulations concerning equal opportunity and affirmative action.” Section 12 of
chapter XXV makes it a class 1 misdemeanor to violate any provisions of the chapter.

1. The City of Phoenix Equal Opportunity Department has substantiated charges

against Ms. Rhyons for discriminating and retaliating against employees based on
their disability, and for engaging in protect actions.
2. Since City AR 2.35 is patterned after Federal and State law it follows that Ms.
Rhyons is also guilty of violations of State and Federal equal opportunity laws, and
operations orders 3.14 and City of Phoenix Charter Chapter XXV, section 9.
3. Since the same information was given to and discussed by Dawn Ramos, Jill Ceyela
and Assistant Chief Tracy Montgomery who all assisted in denying accommodations,
it follows that they are also in violation of State and Federal laws, City of Phoenix AR
2.35, Operations order 3.14, and City of Phoenix Charter Chapter XXV, section 9.

Narrative:
I exercised my right to file an EEOC claim against the City of Phoenix in November
2008, after the City failed to obtain ADA accommodations at which point the City by and
through its agent Ms. Rhyons retaliated against me. It must be noted that Ms. Rhyons
was not the only City of Phoenix employee who retaliated against, but Ms. Rhyons
friends Ms. Hamilton, Dawn Ramos, Jill Celeya, Christina Collins and Assistant Chief
Tracy Montgomery, all conspired and did retaliate against me for filing my EEOC
complaint. In EEOC complaint 540-2009-00388, Ms. Rhyons was accused of disability
discrimination and retaliation. On November 25th 2008, EOD Director Lionel D. Lyons
sent a memo to Public Safety Manager Jack Harris informing him of the investigation
and EEOC charges. Ms. Rhyons was subsequently informed by telephone of the
investigation/legal action. As of this date the legal action is still pending.

During ASPTEA’s recent public records request (PTRS# 245500) the Phoenix Police
Department failed to properly comply even when given five months and three requests.
ASPTEA made the public records request at my request. I had filed and had denied
ADA accommodations three times. The requests start on September 24 2008. The
second request was returned on May 15th 2009. The last request of ASPTEA seeking
public records information arrived in the Computer Services Bureau of the Phoenix
Police Department on July 7 2009.

Disreputable, Possible Criminal And Brady v. Maryland (1963) 373 U.S. 83, 87
Qualifying Conduct By Assistant Chief Tracy Montgomery.

Assistant Chief Tracy L. Montgomery sent an email to Joyce Grossman of EOD on May
7 2009 in which she lies. The email appears to have the purpose of influencing an
investigation by EOD into Ms. Rhyons treatment of employees in the Computer
Services Bureau. The May 7th email was not disclosed to ASPTEA during their public
records requests, however EOD did turn it over as part of the final report. For Instance
Ms. Montgomery states:

“Currently Xxxxxx Xxxxxxx is wearing headphones all day and ignoring his peers
and supervisor anyway”

This claim is simply not true. To the best of my knowledge Ms. Montgomery never
visited my area, and certainly not while I was present, so she could not have seen me
wearing headphones much less have seen it “all day”, yet she represents it as fact to
the lead investigator of the City of Phoenix Equal Opportunity Department.
Had Ms. Montgomery visited my area she would have only seen me wearing
headphones if I were trying to drown out the loud abusive hallway conversations of Ms.
Rhyons, the subject of multiple EEOC and EOD complaints. EOD found multiple
witnesses to confirm these loud abusive conversations. On the occasions I had to wear
headphones I was careful to never ignore my peers or supervisor, as they will attest.

Lastly, wearing headphones is expressly permitted per Ms. Rhyons email with a subject
of “Office Etiquette”, sent on 9/24/2008, even though the city at large discourages or
prohibits it. Indeed most of the IT staff wear headphones at some point to eliminate
distractions while programming, even IT Project Managers like Xyxyxy Xyxyxy, who
wears them quite frequently. Joyce Grossman would have no way of knowing this and
would naturally trust an Assistant Chief to tell the whole truth, and only the truth. Ms.
Montgomery appears to be purposely implying I was violating general city policy and
neglecting my job duties to do nothing but listen to music.

Next Ms. Montgomery states:

“In addition, Xyxyxy Xyxyxy, the target of this group's claims of preferential
treatment for women has been the victim of two “pranks” this week one resulting
in damage to her office and the other resulting her being locked out of her office
with no way to get in.”

Assistant Chief Montgomery thereby insinuates I and the Systems staff pranked Xyxy
Xyxyxy and caused damage to her office, which would be a criminal offense. Xyxyxy
Xyxyxy was never the “target” of any claims of preferential treatment, Ms. Rhyons was
however formally accused of discriminating against men, especially over the age of 40.
Xyxyxy Xyxyxyx was only one of several women hired and promoted by Ms. Rhyons.
As it happens I have a good working relationship with Xyxyxy Xyxyxy, and asked her
about the “pranks”. In one case she was accidentally locked out of her office and Xxxxx
Xxxxx assisted facilities personnel trying to open her office. They were ultimately
successful with the help of some material I supplied. I am told she later locked herself
out of her office again.

As for “damage” done to Ms. Xyxyxy’s office by the second “prank”? It simply appears a
whiteboard on the same wall as Ms. Donovan’s door fell at some point, probably when
the door was closed for the night, and dented the molding. To top it off Ms. Xyxyxy
doesn’t believe that I or anyone on my team pranked her.

Following that Ms. Montgomery states:

“The electrician and industrial hygienist have expressed thanks to Ms. Hamilton
for her efforts to Ms. Hamilton for her efforts to escort them in and out of this work
group’s area due to their hostility towards those whom enter”

This is an utter and complete fabrication. I spoke to the electrician and he has never felt
any hostility, and never expressed thanks to Ms. Hamilton. To the contrary he was told
he had to be escorted by Ms. Hamilton due to an investigation, and was only allowed
into the systems area when we were not present, so there was no need for an escort in
any case.
I can only imagine the “hostility” Ms. Montgomery refers to is the natural questioning of
actions which seem bizarre or out of place. One example is when Ms. Hamilton came
into our area on April 30th 2009 and ordered us remove our lights, and then offered to
order one and only one of two preselected lights for each cubicle, lights which would
not accommodate my disability. Her actions violated a pre-existing agreement between
EOD and the involved ADA parties, see Dave Deneau email April 30th at 11:33 am:

“At the last agreement we were in firm agreement that the overhead lights had to
come out. After that, I thought your industrial hygienist was going talk to them to
see what their individual lighting needs were before going out and actually buying
anything. My understanding was that what they had rigged up individually at
their own desks would work until there was an agreement on a possible better
arrangement and before any lamps were actually purchased.”

I and other members of my team were distressed by Ms. Hamilton’s actions but we
complied, resulting in our area being lightless from early morning April 30th until 1:00
PM on May 5th when we were again allowed to use our agreed upon lights. No one
was hostile, there were no threats communicated to Ms. Hamilton although she was
certainly quite rude and unresponsive when questioned.

In the last paragraph Ms. Montgomery writes

“Lori and I WILL not be mentioning these incidents to the team, however it is a
matter of concern to us and no matter how we address it, it will be identified as
retaliation”

Contrary to Ms. Montgomery’s statement Ms. Rhyons confronted the team supervisor,
Xxx Xxxxxx, accusing us of being hostile, even though it was Ms. Hamilton and Ms.
Rhyons who violated the agreement with EOD, and removed accommodations for my
disability.

From reading Ms. Rhyons email of April 30th1, and May 1st at 7:33am it is appears she
deliberately planned both her and Ms. Hamilton’s actions in order to precipitate a
“crisis”. Ms. Rhyons mentions having taken a statement from a “visibly shaken” Ms.
Hamilton and placing it on the record. She also mentions using this incident to prove I
and my team created a hostile work environment, something the EEOC charged her
with six months earlier, indicating the motive and at least part of the reasoning behind
her actions. It appears Ms. Hamilton was sent to order us to remove our lamps instead
of Ms. Rhyons who had been a party to the EOD agreement in hopes of having us
refuse; when we complied a “crisis” was manufactured where there was none.

On April 30th Ms. Rhyons claims to be acting to pursue a reasonable accommodation

even as she violates an agreement with EOD on accommodations. Later on May 7th
(email 05:34 pm) she refuses to remove Xxx Xxxxxx from the area when his
requirement for “normal” light is the largest impediment to providing a suitable
accommodation. It is Ms. Rhyons originally ordered Xxx Xxxxx to move into the area,

1 See Email Included in EOD final Report.

therefore creating the situation where his vastly different lighting needs would be
opposed by other lighting needs. Please note Ms. Montgomery’s e-mail is at 5:42 pm
on May 7th 2009, only eight minutes after Ms. Rhyons’s which strongly implies a level of
cooperation and coordination.

Again none of these emails were given up during a public records request to the police
department and city during May through July of 2009, however EOD was able to include
them at the end of the report. It is very interesting the police department was unable to
supply these emails when asked, because they should have been available during the
30 day retention period. However, at the time of ASPTEA’s public records request Ms.
Hamilton was involved in the public records process. It is unfortunate we don’t have
any earlier emails to see the full thought processes of Ms. Rhyons and Ms. Montgomery
at work. Since ongoing EEOC and EOD investigations were underway, destruction of
documents relating to the case were required to halt as per the guidance of the Arizona
State Library Archive and Records division, mandated by the Arizona Revised Statues.
This includes email, and it was not done. As you know, the above information as well as
the information below gives rise to Brady v. Maryland issue. Due to Brady v. Maryland
prosecutors are required to notify defendants and their attorneys whenever a law
enforcement official involved in their case has a sustained record for knowingly lying in
an official capacity. Brady evidence also includes evidence material to credibility of a
civilian witness, such as evidence of false statements by the witness.

Disreputable And Possible Criminal Conduct By Computer Services Administrator

Lori Rhyons.

I believe Ms. Rhyons violated public records law or allowed violations between
November 25th 2008 and the present by allowing the bulk destruction of e-mail, by not
stopping the destruction of e-mail related to the ADA and EEOC cases, most of these
emails also fall under a two year retention period as general correspondence, in
addition to the 30 day retention period for electronic mail. Said mail also falls under the
legal guidance of the Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records Division (#5
above). Ms. Rhyons destroyed or knowingly allowed to be destroyed public documents
in violation of the law and without proper authorization: ARS 38-421. Ms. Rhyons
obstructed an official governmental investigation and benefited from the destruction of
said documents, her activities also violate Phoenix Police Operations Order 3.13.B.(1).”
Fraud/Reports/Official Paperwork”, and Operations Order 3.13.6.B(5) by committing
acts where elements of felony or misdemeanor crimes are met.

Charges against Ms. Rhyons were sustained in two City of Phoenix Equal Opportunity
Department cases, for violating AR 2.35. These violations would almost certainly be
violations of State and Federal ADA/EEOC laws and the City of Phoenix Charter.

Ms. Rhyons emails and correspondence were conspicuous in their absence from public
records requests. Public records requests were unable to locate virtually any email
for Ms. Rhyons or Ms. Montgomery. The reason for this may be the behavior of Doreen
Hamilton, discussed in the next section. In any case emails included in the EOD final
investigation report and mentioned but not included were not returned in response to
multiple public records requests.
On July 8th 2009 immediately upon receiving a public records request involving any and
all correspondence about my ADA case; Ms. Rhyons had her computer replaced with
specific instructions to the computer technician that her computer be wiped and
salvaged. It is doubly unusual that she skipped the manager and supervisor in charge
of the computer technicians, and selected the least experienced technician who
presumably not be informed on the finer points of public records law.

Allowing the destruction of documents and obstructing public record requests was to
Ms. Rhyons advantage avoiding any scrutiny over her abuses of power, and denying
important information about the case to the EEOC and State of Arizona Equal
Opportunity department. Because these documents were destroyed and requests
obstructed it shifts the burden of proof to the City of Phoenix to prove no documents of
importance were destroyed.

Ms. Rhyons is also the wife of former Executive Assistant Chief David Brewster of the
Phoenix Police department and friends with most of the higher level command staff of
the department. Her position, connections and history of prior retaliatory behavior make
retaliation a near certainty.

Disreputable And Possible Criminal Conduct By Information Technology Project

Manager Doreen Hamilton.

I believe Ms. Hamilton violated public records law by obstructing Public Records
Requests when she instructed help desk personnel performing e-mail searches not to
search e-mail archives unless the public records request specifically mentioned
the .PST files. In addition a procedure was developed which allowed the subjects of
public records requests to chose which emails to redact and how much to redact, a
clear conflict of interest and a violation of the Arizona Revised Statues.

I discovered Ms. Hamilton’s involvement on or about July 7th 2009, when I and another
colleague working in the same area realized one of us possessed email archives
containing information which should have been disclosed on a Public Records Request,
and had not been disclosed. I subsequently asked Information Technology Project
Manager Miles Buker to explain the inconsistencies. When Xxxxxx Xxxxxx could not
resolve the issue, he asked one of his staff, Xyxyxy Xyxy, who actually performed e-mail
searches about the issue. She revealed Ms. Hamilton had given her instructions to not
search email archives. The exact date of Ms. Hamilton’s original instructions are not
known, however it was at least several months.

Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, realizing the instructions to be a major breach of email search protocol
and public records law, questioned Ms. Hamilton’s instructions by email where she
admitted to issuing the instructions, and claimed ignorance of the law and the City’s
Administrative Regulations. Ms. Hamilton caused untold numbers of public records
requests to be improperly filled, allowing the destruction of documents which should
have been reported on public records requests. The City of Phoenix is responsible
under ARS 39-101.12. Should the extent of the failure of the City of Phoenix’s Police
Department to comply with public records law become public knowledge a rash of
expensive lawsuits could result costing the city untold desperately needed dollars.

I believe Ms. Hamilton secreted, destroyed or knowingly allowed to be destroyed public

documents in violation of the law and without proper authorization: ARS 38-421, a class
6 or class 4 Felony. The City of Phoenix A.R. 1.63.f.2, and guidelines established by the
Director, Arizona State Library, Archives and Public Records pursuant to ARS §
41-1345.A.1, and Operations Order 3.13.6.B(5) by committing acts where elements of
felony or misdemeanor crimes are met. She obstructed an official governmental
investigation and benefited from the destruction of said documents.

My EEOC related public records requests made through ASPTEA were among those
record requests improperly filled. Under A.R.S 39-121.02.c “Any person who is
wrongfully denied access to public records pursuant to this article has a cause of action
against the officer or public body for any damages resulting from the denial.” I believe
the actions of Ms Rhyons and Ms. Hamilton have damaged my Federal EEOC case by
denying me access to public records, and subsequently allowing their destruction.
Under the Arizona Revised statues I am entitled to file a special action in superior court
to stop the destruction of records and I am entitled to damages for the actions of Ms.
Hamilton and Ms. Rhyons for their destruction of evidence.

Gross Mismanagement And Misuse Of City Funds.

Ms. Rhyons, the Computer Services Bureau Administrator, has abused her position of
authority and misused and wasted city funds. When I asked for ADA accommodations
costing which could have been accomplished for less than $100 she instead moved me
and my entire team in a fit of retaliation. The move alone cost more than the
accommodations would have.

When employees complained to EOD of harassment and retaliation she used city
money to create new positions and transfer power and responsibility from the
individuals complaining to the new positions.

In the case of Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, Xxxxxx was removed as the manager of the help desk,
hardware technicians and removed from police headquarters, with supervision of just
the MDT technicians. This despite the generally held opinion of most of CSB that his
performance in making these groups work together had resulted in greatly increased
efficiency and reduced work load for the rest of the bureau. The hardware technicians
were transferred to the supervision of Information Technology Project Manager Ms.
Hamilton, and the excuse given was “so Doreen could get some experience supervising
people”. A new Information Technology Project Manager was hired to supervise the
help desk and one additional person who handled “COTS” software. This results in the
city retaining an additional expensive IT Project Manager($100,000/yr +benefits), as a
form of retaliation. A gross misuse of money.

In the case of Techniques group, the group within CSB responsible for the critical CAD/
911 and PACE systems, Ms. Rhyons completely removed individuals in this group from
any role in the new CAD/911 system. The new CAD/911 system runs using database
software on a high performance IBM UNIX box. Despite several people in the
techniques group being trained and experienced in UNIX and trained and experienced
as database administrators Ms. Rhyons transferred responsibility for the hardware to
another group and sent people with no UNIX experience and no desire to administer
UNIX systems to training. She created positions to deal with the new system, including
a Database Administrator position filled by an employee from Ms. Hamilton’s previous
employer. This position is also approximately $100,000/yr plus benefits. Members of
the Techniques team including myself have UNIX and Database Administrator
experience and would have only required a refresher course to take over administration
of the new CAD/911 system. The only reasonable explanations for her behavior is a
desire to retaliate against two members of the techniques workgroup who filed EOD
complaints against Ms Rhyons when she refused ADA accommodations and retaliated,
possibly by eliminating their jobs.

Ms. Rhyons also denied ADA accommodations and retaliated against people filing ADA/
EOD/EEOC requests such as myself. In my case I was moved to the most undesirable
area in the bureau, denied accommodations, my medical information was
inappropriately shared with people, my case was misrepresented. I was denied access
to training, while people with little or no skill in the same subject areas were sent to
training. Ms. Rhyons failed to uphold and comply with the Americans with Disabilities
Act. Under EEOC law I am entitled to sue or attend mediation. Ms. Rhyons actions
have subjected the city to a very large financial liability for damages in at least three
EEOC cases. This is in addition to hundreds, if not thousands, of hours of city
employee time spent dealing with the cases so far.

Conclusion.

Ms. Rhyons wrongdoing under EEOC/ADA law has been investigated by EOD, and
allegations of discrimination and retaliation against her have been upheld. Ms. Rhyons
is wasting taxpayer money in an apparent effort to retaliate against personnel filing ADA
requests. Ms. Rhyons knew or should have known of the public records wrongdoing in
her department, by her assistant no less. Finally Ms. Rhyons and Assistant Chief
Montgomery appear to have cooperated to improperly influence an EOD investigation
into Ms. Rhyons behavior by lying.

Ms. Hamilton has actively assisted Ms. Rhyons in retaliating against people filing
EEOC/ADA cases. She has actively participated in subverting of public records laws
and her potentially felony level behavior is not appropriate or any employee of the City
of Phoenix, any manager, absolutely not for a member of the Phoenix Police
Department.

ASPTEA has previously tried to address the ADA/EEOC and retaliation issues though
the Phoenix Police Department’s chain of command with no success. Their lack of
success is probably related to Ms. Rhyons being married to former Executive Police
Chief David Brewster, and her social connections to other members of the command
staff.

Having advised you of possible violations of Arizona State Revised Statues, Federal
Civil Right laws (ADA/EEOC) violations, Brady v. Maryland issues, gross
mismanagement and having provided specific information about the offenses including
dates they occurred, the nature of the offenses and my name, I have met all the
requirements of Arizona Revised Statue 38-532. I request protection from prohibited
personnel practices and retaliation, A.K.A. Whistle Blower protection.

Respectfully,

Xxxxxx V. Xxxxxx
April 5th, 2005