Rader faces questions for his role in police chief investigation

(To see the entire accompanying video, which includes seven short clips, visit: http://www.youtube.com/user/jagatton)

When relatively little information was available about Cops for Kids and the discrepancies in the organization’s financial records, Commissioner Frank Rader had no problem taking a stance on the issue – showing up at “roll-call meetings” at the police department to tell officers that the “only story making sense” was that of then-Police Chief John Crone, who had sole discretion over the Cops for Kids funds.

But now that more information has been made available – and now that the town has fired the police chief – Rader refuses to take a stance on the issue, citing ongoing investigations and “personnel policies” that supposedly prevent him from talking.

At his “ToM Discourse” meeting last night, Rader repeatedly contradicted himself and gave half-answers to pointed – and many times, confrontational – questions from the 20-some attendees.
Rader admitted that he attended the police department staff meetings and told officers that they could write letters of support for Crone – who was on paid suspension at the time and the subject of active personnel and criminal investigations – as long as they did so in their own time and using their own personal resources. Rader also admitted that he told officers that “the only story that was making sense” was Crone’s.

Rader said his visits to the police department were “in line with what I’ve done before.” He said he visits the police department on a “fairly routine” basis and has “cooked hot dogs” for police officers and oftentimes rides along with them on weekend nights.

Rader displayed for the attendees at Wednesday night’s meeting the anonymous letter that was mailed to John Crone before he was suspended – the same letter that Rader distributed to the media, shared with police officers, and has speculated as the cause for launching the media probe into the Cops for Kids records.

His display of the letter – and his coining of it as “vile” – kicked off 45 minutes of lively discussion at the meeting on Wednesday evening.

Rader said he shared the letter with officers during the roll-call meetings at the police department because the anonymous letter was “the first documentation anyone saw” about Cops for Kids.

But that is not true.

The Gatton Report posted its first entry on Cops for Kids on June 27 (http://thegattonreport.blogspot.com/2008/06/what-is-cops-for-kids.html). The first mention of the anonymous letter was more than a week later, on July 7, when Crone showed a copy of it on camera to a WSOC-TV reporter (http://www.wsoctv.com/news/16813270/detail.html). That very night, the town placed Crone on paid suspension.

Commissioners – including Rader – were unaware of the anonymous letter until that time; in fact, the town didn’t have a copy of the letter until after July 14.

Here’s how we know: After Crone mentioned the letter in television newscasts, the Report e-mailed Town Attorney Steve Gambill on July 10, asking for a copy of the letter, a public record. Gambill responded on July 11: “I do not have it nor have I seen it. I also do not know in what capacity (Crone) received it or where it was received.”

Responding to a second request for a copy of the letter, Gambill stated in a July 14 e-mail: “I have no details regarding the anonymous letter.”

It wasn’t until July 17 – almost three weeks after the Report’s first Cops for Kids entry … 13 days after the Report and Tribune published the first articles about Cops for Kids … and 10 days after Crone was placed on paid leave – that Gambill provided the letter to the Report. Therefore, he must have provided the letter to commissioners sometime between July 14 and July 17 – long after the Report and the Tribune had published their articles that detailed Cops for Kids’ financial discrepancies. Rader acknowledged on Wednesday that it was Gambill who provided the town board with a copy of the letter.

This proves the letter had nothing to do with the initiation of the Cops for Kids investigation by the media, the public or the town. But Rader continues to insist otherwise because he believes the “vile” letter, which is angry and accusatory and a bit over-the-top, casts all of Crone's critics as unhinged and ill-informed.

Rader was also dishonest in his responses to attendees who repeatedly asked the at-large commissioner if he had ever seen the May 2008 deposit slip showing money had been moved from the police department evidence room into the Cops for Kids account. “I’ve never seen it,” Rader said. “No means no. I have never seen the deposit slip.”

But that is not exactly true either. Commissioners, collectively, were shown the deposit slip on July 7.

Rader was asked during Wednesday’s meeting why he saw fit to distribute the anonymous letter … but didn’t see fit to circulate any of the evidence that points to wrongdoing on Crone’s part. Rader was asked if the anonymous letter “carries more weight” than the deposit slip, but Rader failed to answer, responding only with: “It’s under investigation.”

One resident, from the back of the room, quipped: “So is the police department, but you talked to them.”

Local attorney Cliff Homesley asked Rader if he considered that his actions – specifically, telling officers that they could write letters of support for Crone – was undermining the acting police chief, Carl Robbins, who had previously instructed his officers to stay out of the situation. Rader responded that he does not believe his actions undermined Robbins and his orders.

When asked by local pastor and community activist Larry Green: “who invited you to the police department to make the presentations?” Rader responded: “Me.” When asked what gave him the right or the authority to make those presentations, Rader pulled a town identification card from his pocket and said “this.”

He said the reason he took it upon himself to attend the roll-call meetings without the knowledge or consent of fellow commissioners or the police department is “because I’m a commissioner” and because “morale (at the police department) was pretty d-a-m-n low.”

But Michael Roessler, a former investigative reporter for the Mooresville Tribune, asked Rader exactly how passing around a “vile” letter to police officers was supposed to boost morale.

Rader didn’t offer a clear explanation.

Roessler asked if Rader would now disavow the statement he made to officers – that Crone’s story was the only one that made sense. But Rader wouldn’t answer that question, either, saying only that he had limited information at the time. Roessler asked: “Knowing now what you know now, do you stand by your statement?” But Rader still refused to answer, saying instead: “I’m not going to go there.”

Rader consistently hid behind “personnel” whenever he was asked tough questions – even when those questions were about policy and not personnel. He found it acceptable to address police officers about a pending personnel matter that was also an active criminal investigation. In fact, he said: “I see it as my job.” But when asked to address policy-specific concerns, such as to form an opinion on whether the assistant town manager position should be eliminated – or to provide an opinion about standards that the town manager should be given to determine when an employee should be terminated – Rader declined to comment, citing “personnel."

Roessler called Rader to task on that, saying: “You can’t hide behind personnel on one hand and use it as justification for your actions on the other.”

Rader “congratulated” Roessler, saying on more than one occasion: “You must have done well in Inference 101.”

But Roessler remained focused on the matter at hand, telling Rader: “You are talking out of both sides of your mouth.” Citing the commissioner’s “double-talk and nonsense,” Roessler said: “This is just unacceptable, sir.”

Rader admitted that he has not so much as asked Assistant/Interim Town Manager Erskine Smith about why he fired Crone. Instead, Rader insists that he has absolutely no curiosity about it … even though one short month ago, Crone’s version of the story was the only one that Rader found legitimate.

Rader also said that he believes that Smith – who has been serving as interim town manager since February – is not under the control or authority of the town board, thereby suggesting that Smith is absolutely immune from discipline from anyone until a new town manager is in place.

Green asked Rader about the proper procedure for citizens to file complaints against Erskine Smith for his role in the Cops for Kids fiasco – and how the citizens can demand Smith’s resignation. Rader told Green he could write a letter to commissioners. Green said he had already written a letter, and that “the response has been nothing.” Rader said no response “is another way of saying ‘no,’” but he told Green to feel free to write another letter.

Regarding the disciplining of the interim town manager, Rader said “that’s why we have town managers.” A citizen responded: “No. That’s why we have you.”

Rader said that as a commissioner, he deals with only two positions – the town manager and the town attorney. He continually said that “until the investigations are complete, I have no opinion.” At one point during the meeting, someone asked Rader what his standards are for employees, to which Rader responded: “I’m an elected official. I have no standards.”

A little commentary:

At the end of the day, the “ToM Discourse” was a demonstration of democracy at its finest – a spirited and robust debate between an elected official and his constituents, many of whom are dissatisfied with Rader’s performance and leadership – or lack thereof.

On the one hand, my hat is off to Rader for making himself available for such discourse. But on the other hand, the disingenuous nature of many of his responses left much to be desired.

Rader admitted to holding the meetings at the police department – which his critics rightfully find appalling. They criticize Rader for inappropriately injecting himself into a delicate process and potentially committing obstruction of justice by tainting the opinions of police officers, all of whom are potential witnesses in the matter.

Through his selective evasiveness – through his many contradictions – through his double-speak and half-answers – through his willingness to cite “personnel” to justify his actions, then hide behind “personnel” when the questions got tough – Rader demonstrated an abdication of his duties as a public official to answer questions from his constituents and thereby show them the respect they are owed.

Albeit, some people – including Rader – may claim that those in attendance last night were disrespectful themselves, simply because they firmly demanded answers from their elected official. At times, that meant that the attendees interrupted Rader. And occasionally, they raised their voices. If last night’s meeting had been a dinner party, then such behavior would rightfully be deemed rude. But it wasn’t a dinner party. It was democracy. It was an example of the people letting their elected official know that half-answers and nonsense from elected leaders are no longer acceptable to the citizens of Mooresville.

When those in power refuse to level with their constituents, then the constituents have every right to escalate and make demands and interrupt and raise their voices, individually or collectively.

To hide behind “decorum” – as Mayor Bill Thunberg attempted to do last month when trying to silence protestors who marched on Town Hall when they clapped and cheered for speakers who challenged the behavior and decisions of Crone, Smith and others – is the strategy of someone who fears the people … and for good reason.