Brandon Huntley Moved out of FIB

I received a copy of this memo, that came from Jeffeory Hynes, commander of FIB. (this BTW is the most bizarre way to spell the name “Jeffrey” …and I ought to know). It appears that Brandon Huntley is out of FIB, and a new guy is in. We just can’t figure out where Brandon’s new home is or where they will be hiding him.

Congratulations to all you poor souls who had to suffer at the hands of an inept manager and a poor leader, like Brandon Huntley. Hopefully your new manager won't be as lame as Brandon Huntley, and you actually might learn something from your new boss.

Can anyone out there comment on where Brandon Huntley is going?

We have selected the two DV Sgt positions through a selection process.

Sgt Derek Elmore & Randy Hutson are the two coming.

Sgt Elmore to Sgt Huntley’s old squad and Sgt Hutson to the to be promoted Sgt / Lt Tina Gonzales’ squad… (Well no official announcement has been made for Tina yet but she sits number one on the current list that expires at the end of August, and we wish her positive promotional thoughts)

This was a very competitive process with many great applicants.

Please welcome these two to our Bureau.

Jeff
Jeffeory G. Hynes, Commander
Family Investigations Bureau
602-5XX-XXX4
602-3XX-XXX0

An Open Letter to Jack Harris - Sergeant Ron Snodgrass (#2141)

This one came across my desk today. Another cover up. This came to me from three different cops! Thanks guys & dolls!

It looks like Jack and the 4th Floor are covering up again with Sergeant Ronald Snodgrass and the porno on his computer and the nude pictures on his desk.

First we had dildos on the desk with Martin...now pictures of women on stripper poles on the desk with Snodgrass?

What's next, giving free rides to drunks/DUIs to and from work and to lunch, all at the tax payers' expense?

Nice job Jack Harris! You and your group are showing some great leadership skills and a great deal of respect for women in the Phoenix PD!!

June 16, 2008

Jack F. Harris
Public Safety Manager
Phoenix Police Department
620 West Washington Street
Phoenix, AZ 85003

In regards to: PSB Investigation #PSB07-0060, and DRB #07-40

Sir:

In a memorandum dated October 24, 2007, Professional Standards Division Assistant Chief James Piña wrote to inform you that PSB investigation number PSB 07-0060 contained two sustained allegations against Sergeant Ronald Snodgrass #2141:

(1) That Sergeant Snodgrass saved, placed, or displayed inappropriate images on the City computer in his Professional Standard’s Bureau office, and

(2) That Sergeant Snodgrass displayed inappropriate images to a subordinate (me) in violation of Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) standards.

On March 13, 2008, Disciplinary Review Board number 07-40 decided that Sergeant Snodgrass’ actions warranted an eight hour suspension. In a memorandum dated March 17, 2008, DRB Chairman Assistant Chief Blake McClelland presented the DRB’s recommendation of an eight hour suspension to you. Executive Assistant Chief Lannon endorsed the memorandum with the words “I agree.”

A nearly identical memorandum was generated on March 28, 2008, also from DRB Chairman McClelland, also with the DRB’s recommendation of an eight hour suspension. You endorsed this memorandum with the words “Written reprimand.”

Your unilateral decision to soften the DRB’s recommendation from the mildest suspension possible to an even milder written reprimand is a slap in the face to me and to the other women who serve under your command.

Perhaps I could have accepted your decision had you taken the time to explain it to me. Now I may never know what motivated you to give Sergeant Snodgrass a break. Was it based on your philosophy to mentor, coach, and train rather than to discipline? Was it the fantasy-based rebuttal statement Sergeant Snodgrass attached to his PSB investigation?

I have taken great pride serving our department since starting the Academy in October of 1999. When I took my oath at our graduation I promised to serve and protect and to conduct myself with the utmost integrity. I kept my promise, but it troubles me to know that others have not, and have done so with what appears to be your tacit approval.

With over 3,000 employees to oversee, you may not be familiar with my work ethic and work history. It may not have occurred to you to wonder why, after seven years of documented exemplary service, Sergeant Snodgrass should find my attitude to be problematic. All my previous supervisors declared me to be a hard worker and an asset to our department in both my monthly performance notes and in my annual reviews. I demonstrated my allegiance to management by placing number 37 on the sergeant promotional process; an honor I could not wait to fulfill.

Perhaps you were unaware that, compared to Sergeant Snodgrass’ checkered past, I have never received discipline more serious than a coaching for a minor collision, and a written reprimand for missing court. It chills me to know that you place Sergeant Snodgrass’ egregious behavior on par with missing court.

During his misconduct interview and in the rebuttal he attached to the resultant investigation, Sergeant Snodgrass tries to deflect blame from his shameful actions by casting aspersions on my character. His dodging tactics seem to have worked considering the DRB gave him the shortest possible suspension which his Chief watered down to a written reprimand.

This troubling episode began in July of 2006. I was initially ecstatic to learn that I was chosen to be the Personnel Assessment System (PAS) administrator in the Professional Standards Bureau. I couldn’t think of a better addition to my career resume than to work in PSB, the pinnacle of integrity.

However, I had the misfortune, unbeknownst to me at the time, to be assigned to Sergeant Snodgrass, the consequences of which ended my police career and still plague me today. At first Sergeant Snodgrass treated me as I was used to being treated by our departmental managers. But things quickly soured between us.

Perhaps Sergeant Snodgrass grew disenchanted with my “attitude” when I would not treat him in the unprofessionally familiar way that my predecessor, Toye Nash, had. It is indicative of the cozy relationship they had that Sergeant Snodgrass kept what can only be characterized as an intimate photograph of Ms. Nash and his then-wife Crystal on his desk in full view of PSB management. Perhaps his managers found this photograph rather tame compared to the one Sergeant Snodgrass had posted in his office of Crystal topless and another of her straddling a stripper’s pole.

Sergeant Snodgrass’ blatant display of so prominent an artifact of his inappropriate supervisor-subordinate relationship shows that either PSB management was wholly incapable of controlling Sergeant Snodgrass or that they were wholly ignorant of the relationship he enjoyed with Ms. Nash. In either case, Sergeant Snodgrass may have been emboldened to attempt to force a similar supervisor-subordinate relationship on me and then to retaliate against me with unfavorable performance notes when I would not acquiesce.

I can not expect you to have read Sergeant Snodgrass’ misconduct investigation or to have listened to his interview, but I did. He reveals his lack of integrity and veracity when he claims not to have had pornography on his work computer when in fact he was found to have in excess of 80 pornographic images there. His assertion that he was collecting these images for PowerPoint presentations is specious.

In his PSB interview, Sergeant Snodgrass stated that he tried to “maintain a very professional demeanor as far as a supervisor and her being my subordinate” referring to me. This is absolutely ridiculous since he had no problem showing me photos of Crystal’s breasts as well as other inappropriate images.

It is troubling to me, and should be to you too, that Sergeant Snodgrass’ transparent lies went unchallenged by PSB investigators. For example, during his February 14, 2007 PSB interview, Sergeant Snodgrass states “I have no pornography on my computer” just seconds after describing the eye-ball-in-vagina photo. Sergeant Snodgrass tries to brush off the presence of this photo by saying that he and Ms. Nash were going to use it as part of a “joke” PowerPoint presentation for Lieutenant Dan Olsen because Lieutenant Olsen is “laid back.” He also tries to deflect blame for the photo by telling investigators that Ms. Nash obtained it. But this does not explain how it came to be on his City computer, and the investigators did not pursue this point.

Sergeant Snodgrass skillfully brushes aside a direct question as to whether or not he kept questionable images on his “C” drive with a rambling dialog concerning whether or not I was offended by the images. The investigators never redirect him to the question of whether or not he was secreting questionable images on his “C” drive. It should be noted that storing files on the “C” drive (the computer’s internal hard drive) is one way to circumvent the City’s ability to archive files that are not kept on City servers.

In this same interview Sergeant Snodgrass tries to wiggle out of his responsibilities as a police manger by acting bemused when asked if the nude images he kept on his City computer were a violation of City policy. He gives a “now-that-you-mention-it-maybe” answer that one would not expect from a veteran supervisor. Even when pressed by the investigators as to what other pornographic images Sergeant Snodgrass may have had on his City computer he demurs again and launches into a rambling narrative that never answers the question.

Sergeant Snodgrass appears to successfully deflect blame by maintaining that he was merely the recipient of questionable images sent to him by others, or that any images, even images of eyeballs in vaginas, were somehow not pornographic.

The PSB investigators missed an opportunity to reveal Sergeant Snodgrass’ lack of truthfulness by failing to interview his former subordinate and my predecessor, Toye Nash. Ms. Nash could have debunked his claim that he had only shown me photos of Crystal’s naked breasts after I initiated a conversation about breast augmentation which is absolutely untrue. It could be construed that her compelled statements would have cast her former PSB managers in a bad light.

In fact, Sergeant Snodgrass showed me the nude photographs of Crystal in the front seat of his vehicle in the Professional Standards Bureau parking garage. When questioned about this by PSB investigators he claimed that this could not have happened because he cannot get his wallet out of his pocket while seated in the car which was a complete fabrication.

Sergeant Snodgrass gives several versions of the “truth” in his interview, first admitting that he showed me nude photos of Crystal, then denying that he has nude photos of her. Later in his interview, Sergeant Snodgrass apparently became comfortable enough to drop his pretense when he confides to the investigators that he refers to the nude photos of his then-wife as “Crystal trading cards,” and offers to show them to the investigators. The reason for Sergeant Snodgrass’ easy and confident air during this inquiry was initially confusing to me but became clear after you reduced his punishment.

Sergeant Snodgrass tried to weasel out of his culpability by insinuating to the PSB investigators that I was disgruntled due to his supervision of me. However, during my initial internal investigative interview, I mentioned only Sergeant Snodgrass’ most salient policy violations and choose not to expound on the other things that Sergeant Snodgrass had done to me because I had no way to prove them. His supervision was never an issue per se but his flagrant disregard for supervisor-subordinate protocol was.

Examples of what I did not mention during my PSB interview include allegations that I could not prove because he and I were the only ones present when they occurred. I could not prove that Sergeant Snodgrass asked me to drive him home where he invited me in and showed me his bedroom with nude pictures of his wife with another woman. I could not prove that Sergeant Snodgrass told me how he loved watching his wife swim naked with other women in their pool. I could not prove that while I sat at lunch with Sergeant Snodgrass and Toye Nash they confided that they both loved it when Toye wore her see-through lacy shirt to work so that Sergeant Snodgrass could see her nipples. I could not prove that Sergeant Snodgrass would set me up for failure by holding meetings that I should attend, but not telling me about them, only to denigrate me about my nonattendance in my monthly performance notes. Nor could I prove Sergeant Snodgrass held regular closed door intimidation sessions with me.

Unchecked by his managers, Sergeant Snodgrass exposed me to what can be characterized as grooming behaviors that are commonly used by sexual predators. The PSB investigation documents only a portion of his intrusive actions.

You may ask why I did not report Sergeant Snodgrass’ outrageous behavior sooner. There are four primary reasons: 1) I was fearful and intimidated by him because of his position and standing on the department, 2) I felt that I would be ostracized once I became a “whistle blower,” 3) Sergeant Snodgrass and his supervisor, Lieutenant Dan Olsen, enjoy a close and long term working relationship, and lastly 4) fear that Sergeant Snodgrass would be untruthful.

As the Police Chief, and as a veteran officer, it does not enter into your psyche to be intimidated by Sergeant Snodgrass. But as a junior and female employee it was intimidating to me to know that Sergeant Snodgrass had been on the department for well over thirty years, was a member of management, was a member of the pension board, and had a certain level of influence beyond the positions he held. I was advised I could not return to patrol and leave my position in the Professional Standards Bureau for several months until I trained my replacement.

Faced with the prospect of continuing to suffer in silence I turned to my employee association for help. I told them that my PSB managers couldn’t or wouldn’t do anything about Sergeant Snodgrass that working conditions were unbearable, and that Sergeant Snodgrass put terrible things in my notes that were of a personal nature unsubstantiated by facts.

Thanks to my association’s intervention, Sergeant Snodgrass was moved out of the Professional Standards Bureau (it should be noted that he was moved to another specialty assignment without having to compete in a selection process). Sergeant Snodgrass’ departure, however, did not alleviate the hostile atmosphere of my workplace because his supervisor, Lieutenant Dan Olsen, made it clear to me that he was not pleased with Sergeant Snodgrass’ departure.

For example, Lieutenant Olsen angrily wagged his finger in my face while declaring that calling on my employee association was a “veiled threat.” Lieutenant Olsen smugly sat in my office to announce that the Bureau was throwing a going-away party for Sergeant Snodgrass and added that I was not invited (as if I would have gone). Lastly, Lieutenant Olsen started burying me in “busy work” that had never been required of my position previous to my complaint. Lieutenant Olsen’s intimidating behavior follows a pattern for which he was previously reprimanded and for which the City was forced to pay damages due to his mistreatment of a subordinate employee.

Professional Standards Bureau Commander Kim Humphrey had to intervene to direct Lieutenant Olsen to destroy negative performance notes Sergeant Snodgrass kept on me that were based on his personal opinion rather than on observable facts.

Sergeant Snodgrass was given an opportunity that I was not afforded; the ability to attach a very long memorandum of mitigating factors to his investigation after his initial PSB interview. It should have appeared extremely suspect that Sergeant Snodgrass could remember detailed information about incidents that occurred eleven months after the incident, but denied remembering he had over 80 pornographic images on his City computer a mere four months after the fact when being questioned by the investigators. It should have also appeared suspicious that Sergeant Snodgrass had his City computer replaced just prior to the investigation.

After reading the contents of Sergeant Snodgrass’ “mitigating factors” memorandum, I am both sickened and angered at the utter disregard for truthfulness, complete fabrication, and his disgusting attempt to make me look bad and to minimize his actions into appearing somehow appropriate and invited. Sergeant Snodgrass has a history as a very successful negotiator and has a very persuasive personality. He has used these “talents” to taint, misinform, and downright lie to the Discipline Review Board so as to minimize and deflect his actions.

I find it objectionable that his spurious “mitigating factors” memorandum has gone through the chain of command up to the Police Chief and has been seen by people I have worked with during my career on the department with no counterbalance in the form of a clarification memorandum from me. Sergeant Snodgrass has used his rebuttal memorandum to further humiliate and to embarrass me in a cruel attempt at character assassination. Your choice to reduce his punishment from a suspension to a written reprimand indicates that Sergeant Snodgrass played his cards right. It is a victory for him but a humiliating defeat for me and for the other female police employees under your stewardship.

Therefore I am submitting this letter to you and to all the people who may have been involved in this sordid investigation not only to clear my name but to formally request that Sergeant Snodgrass be investigated for being untruthful during his PSB investigation and for continuing to misuse City computers by querying me (on three different occasions since my resignation) and others in the PAS system long after he was relieved of this duty. This stalking behavior, which continues even after he received a mere written reprimand for his inappropriate treatment of me proves that he thinks of himself as untouchable, a feeling you no doubt helped instilled in him by your failure to follow the recommendation of your policy, of your Discipline Review Board, and of your Executive Assistant Chief.

Respectfully,
Officer Linnea G. Knowles R0950

cc: Members of DRB #07-40:
Assistant Chief Blake McClelland
Commander Emmett Quill
Commander Jeffeory Hynes
Sergeant Douglas Hardin
Sergeant Natalie Simonick
Mr. Phil Scheel
Ms. Karen Broadway