Scribd Logo
Încărcați

Bine ați venit la Scribd!

  • Gulf Rd. Trails - Parks' Denial Email - 07-11-08 - PG 1

    Încărcat de

    PRMurphy
    98 vizualizări1 pagină
    Gulf Rd. Trails - Parks' Denial Email - 07-11-08 - Pg 1 Mede discloses during the meeting in the sergeants office 07-10-08 that he had been 'directed' by Parks and Cooley, both of whom were present, according to him, when he was called in to Cooley's office about the Gulf Rd. trails event. This email is Park's prompt denial that anyone 'ordered' Mede to discipline me over the matter. ie; Parks understands the CBA distinction between a supervisory log entry and a staff initiated 'reprimand,' as well as the need to cover his tracks now that Mede has let the cat out of the bag. Mede later, in two subsequent phones calls, both of which were witnessed, that he had in fact been 'ordered' to discipline me over the Gulf Rd. trails observation, that he okayed that night, and that Parks and Cooley were both present when the directive was given.. So here we have at least two WCSO supervisory level personnel, one of which is command staff level and now Elfo's #1, caught in an obvious bold faced lie about whether or not anyone had been 'ordered' to discipline me, not to mention Mede's crumpling under pressure and denying that he okay'ed the course of action that night. Note the 'CC:' line. Now did anyone get to the bottom of this? Did anyone launch a full scale Class 1 investigation over this? Was anyone 'Brady'ed' about it? I really don't know the answer to any of those questions, but after the discovery conducted in my case there's no record of it. I'd rather doubt it anyway because neither Parks, Cooley or Mede were the targets. If so, I never heard about it, but in light of other discoveries during my case that really isn't surprising either. Yet whenever it came to me, oh we absolutely MUST exhaust every resource and expend every effort to make sure to get right to the bottom of whether or not I'M being upfront and honest? I mean, Elfo is right, the ability to testify in court and the ability to be credible before the public is crucial. Changing gears for a second, does it really surprise anyone that I would eventually come to the conclusion that there must have been a racial-bigoted-prejudicial motivation behind these obvious double standards? I mean, after weighing everything out out and objectively evaluating what is known now, to the best of my ability anyway, the only real difference I can see between these many instances of double standards, is that one party is Caucasian and the other party is American Indian. The political aspect and incidences of corruption complicate it somewhat, but doesn't explain it away and I'm still left with the feeling that there was a certain deep seated 'againstness,' for lack of a better word, amongst certain key people at the WCSO, chief of those being Bill Elfo. It was an againstness that I was never going to overcome and was never going to be able to prove myself above, no matter what I did. As another example, no one there has a better record of stolen vehicle/stolen equipment investigations and recoveries than I do, including a record number of 'rolling stolen' self-initiated activity cases, but you'll never find a record of that there. Not even in any of my annual evals. Note 1: As this was a response to a previous email I sent the previous day, I only put up Parks' response (page 1) since the rest is the same.

    Titlu original

    Gulf Rd. Trails - Parks' Denial Email - 07-11-08 - Pg 1

    Drepturi de autor

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formate disponibile

    PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd

    Vi se pare util acest document?

    Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

    Raportați acest document
    Gulf Rd. Trails - Parks' Denial Email - 07-11-08 - Pg 1 Mede discloses during the meeting in the sergeants office 07-10-08 that he had been 'directed' by Parks and Cooley, both of whom were present, according to him, when he was called in to Cooley's office about the Gulf Rd. trails event. This email is Park's prompt denial that anyone 'ordered' Mede to discipline me over the matter. ie; Parks understands the CBA distinction between a supervisory log entry and a staff initiated 'reprimand,' as well as the need to cover his tracks now that Mede has let the cat out of the bag. Mede later, in two subsequent phones calls, both of which were witnessed, that he had in fact been 'ordered' to discipline me over the Gulf Rd. trails observation, that he okayed that night, and that Parks and Cooley were both present when the directive was given.. So here we have at least two WCSO supervisory level personnel, one of which is command staff level and now Elfo's #1, caught in an obvious bold faced lie about whether or not anyone had been 'ordered' to discipline me, not to mention Mede's crumpling under pressure and denying that he okay'ed the course of action that night. Note the 'CC:' line. Now did anyone get to the bottom of this? Did anyone launch a full scale Class 1 investigation over this? Was anyone 'Brady'ed' about it? I really don't know the answer to any of those questions, but after the discovery conducted in my case there's no record of it. I'd rather doubt it anyway because neither Parks, Cooley or Mede were the targets. If so, I never heard about it, but in light of other discoveries during my case that really isn't surprising either. Yet whenever it came to me, oh we absolutely MUST exhaust every resource and expend every effort to make sure to get right to the bottom of whether or not I'M being upfront and honest? I mean, Elfo is right, the ability to testify in court and the ability to be credible before the public is crucial. Changing gears for a second, does it really surprise anyone that I would eventually come to the conclusion that there must have been a racial-bigoted-prejudicial motivation behind these obvious double standards? I mean, after weighing everything out out and objectively evaluating what is known now, to the best of my ability anyway, the only real difference I can see between these many instances of double standards, is that one party is Caucasian and the other party is American Indian. The political aspect and incidences of corruption complicate it somewhat, but doesn't explain it away and I'm still left with the feeling that there was a certain deep seated 'againstness,' for lack of a better word, amongst certain key people at the WCSO, chief of those being Bill Elfo. It was an againstness that I was never going to overcome and was never going to be able to prove myself above, no matter what I did. As another example, no one there has a better record of stolen vehicle/stolen equipment investigations and recoveries than I do, including a record number of 'rolling stolen' self-initiated activity cases, but you'll never find a record of that there. Not even in any of my annual evals. Note 1: As this was a response to a previous email I sent the previous day, I only put up Parks' response (page 1) since the rest is the same.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    98 vizualizări1 pagină

    Gulf Rd. Trails - Parks' Denial Email - 07-11-08 - PG 1

    Încărcat de

    PRMurphy
    Gulf Rd. Trails - Parks' Denial Email - 07-11-08 - Pg 1 Mede discloses during the meeting in the sergeants office 07-10-08 that he had been 'directed' by Parks and Cooley, both of whom were present, according to him, when he was called in to Cooley's office about the Gulf Rd. trails event. This email is Park's prompt denial that anyone 'ordered' Mede to discipline me over the matter. ie; Parks understands the CBA distinction between a supervisory log entry and a staff initiated 'reprimand,' as well as the need to cover his tracks now that Mede has let the cat out of the bag. Mede later, in two subsequent phones calls, both of which were witnessed, that he had in fact been 'ordered' to discipline me over the Gulf Rd. trails observation, that he okayed that night, and that Parks and Cooley were both present when the directive was given.. So here we have at least two WCSO supervisory level personnel, one of which is command staff level and now Elfo's #1, caught in an obvious bold faced lie about whether or not anyone had been 'ordered' to discipline me, not to mention Mede's crumpling under pressure and denying that he okay'ed the course of action that night. Note the 'CC:' line. Now did anyone get to the bottom of this? Did anyone launch a full scale Class 1 investigation over this? Was anyone 'Brady'ed' about it? I really don't know the answer to any of those questions, but after the discovery conducted in my case there's no record of it. I'd rather doubt it anyway because neither Parks, Cooley or Mede were the targets. If so, I never heard about it, but in light of other discoveries during my case that really isn't surprising either. Yet whenever it came to me, oh we absolutely MUST exhaust every resource and expend every effort to make sure to get right to the bottom of whether or not I'M being upfront and honest? I mean, Elfo is right, the ability to testify in court and the ability to be credible before the public is crucial. Changing gears for a second, does it really surprise anyone that I would eventually come to the conclusion that there must have been a racial-bigoted-prejudicial motivation behind these obvious double standards? I mean, after weighing everything out out and objectively evaluating what is known now, to the best of my ability anyway, the only real difference I can see between these many instances of double standards, is that one party is Caucasian and the other party is American Indian. The political aspect and incidences of corruption complicate it somewhat, but doesn't explain it away and I'm still left with the feeling that there was a certain deep seated 'againstness,' for lack of a better word, amongst certain key people at the WCSO, chief of those being Bill Elfo. It was an againstness that I was never going to overcome and was never going to be able to prove myself above, no matter what I did. As another example, no one there has a better record of stolen vehicle/stolen equipment investigations and recoveries than I do, including a record number of 'rolling stolen' self-initiated activity cases, but you'll never find a record of that there. Not even in any of my annual evals. Note 1: As this was a response to a previous email I sent the previous day, I only put up Parks' response (page 1) since the rest is the same.

    Drepturi de autor:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Descărcați ca PDF, TXT sau citiți online pe Scribd
    Indicator pentru conținut neadecvat
    din 1

    Paul R.

    Murphy
    From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jeff Parks <jparks@co.whatcom.wa.us> Friday, July 11, 2008 9:45 AM Paul Murphy; ah2wa@hughes.net Bill Elfo; Carey James; Don Boyd; Kevin Mede; Steven Cooley; Spencer Kope RE: Security Sensitive Information - Reminder

    Deputy Murphy, I will keep this brief, to the point, and will be happy to discuss this with you when I return from vacation. 1) No one was "ordered" to "reprimand" you. If your sergeant, using his best discretion and judgement, chose to document issues and concerns regarding "how" this was handled, and the implications involved, that is his perogative. I have not seen any "letter of reprimand", and have not seen what was written. 2) If you had simply written a report, routed information through proper channels, and kept your supervisor informed we most likely would not be having this exchange. 3) I believe I acknowledged appreciation for your proactive efforts. 4) We will not engage in debate with you about system security, county email, etc. You need to use the tools, protocols and systems that are provided to you by your employer - that you are being paid to use. We welcome suggestions and the channels are open for communication regarding concerns, however this is not license to develop or implement your own. Sincerely,

    Chief Jeff Parks Whatcom County Sheriff's Office Bureau of Enforcement and Investigations 311 Grand Avenue / Public Safety Bldg Bellingham, WA 98225 (360) 676-6650 jparks@whatcomcounty.us >>> "Paul R. Murphy" <ah2wa@hughes.net> 07/11/08 3:25 AM >>> Chief Parks, Firstly, what I discovered was a result of a proactive random patrol approach that should be commended, not discouraged by a letter of reprimand, for what amounts to a paperwork violation. On 07-05-08, I found 1 improvised trail into a heavily wooded area of no apparent consequence to any nearby facilities. It was not and could not be determined if the trail was legitimately there as a geologic, survey, or pipeline inspection access, a riding trail made by local juveniles for motorsports purposes, or dozens of other possible reasons that are not
    1

    S-ar putea să vă placă și