I can only speculate how this happened but here are my theories;

1) It was intentional - Not likely but with Portsmouth one never knows..

2) The Helmsman/Captain (driver) was not properly trained and had limited boat handling skills (as I am a former US Navy Sailor this would be my guess).

3) The weather - well that typically goes back to number 2 above. If you are the Helmsman/Captain of a vessel you are responsible for taking the weather into consideration before placing you vessel in the water or if it’s already in the water putting it in a hazardous situation.

US Coast Guard statistics indicate that “Operator errors account for 70% of boating accidents”. So my question is this, was the Captain of the boat a trained and qualified boat operator???

Below is the Executive Summary from the US Coast Guard Recreational Boating Statistics 2008 that indicates most of the causes of boating accident.  Take a look at Number 5, that’s my bet .. Another embarrassment involving the Management of the Portsmouth Police Department.

US Coast Guard Executive Summary from Boating Statistics 2008

City Attorney Tim Oksman requests Margarita Mixer

In an email I obtained via the Virginia Freedom of Information Act from City of Portsmouth, City Attorney Tim Oksman makes a request to the Commander of the Police Training Unit Lt. Scott Burke to obtain information about “any good margarita mixers”. This was in response to Lt Burke’s email he sent soliciting information requests from the Police Department for any items/products the Police Department might be interested in him gathering information about while he is at the IACP (International Association of Chief of Police) Conference.

Now does anyone think that this might be inappropriate?

We have enough problems in the City of Portsmouth and the Portsmouth Police Department management then to make requests for items that are at the least not appropriate for the work place. They would be City of Portsmouth policy violations and an automatic termination if used in the work place by an employee.

That brings me to some other interesting information. It appears that the City of Portsmouth Police Department’s Detective Bureau Management likes to encourage team-building. A noble concept if used in an appropriate manner and setting. But somehow I just don’t see how they can justify having supervisors and management go to a Norfolk Tides baseball game, consume alcohol and then put it on their time sheets with the taxpayers of the City of Portsmouth having to pickup the tab. Well from what I have been told that is exactly the case. Whatever happened to morals and ethics?

So perhaps alcohol use is in fact an accepted on the job/on duty endeavor given the City Attorneys email?

I can tell you first hand that the City of Portsmouth Management and the Executive Management of the Portsmouth Police Department follow whatever rules they feel like and disregard those they don’t. Actually this doesn’t just go with City and Police Department Policies but they have routinely broken the very laws that they are sworn to protect. It’s a very said state of affairs for the City of Portsmouth and the Portsmouth Police Department. The actions of a select few individuals in management give a bad name and reputation to a large group of honest City Employee’s and Police Officers that are hard working and dedicated to their jobs.

I have more to follow on these issues including some very interesting photo’s that the Federal EEOC might want to see.

“The Certified Crime Prevention Community Program. Based on a study conducted by the Virginia State Crime Commission in 1993, the goal of the program is to publicly recognize and certify localities that have implemented a defined set of community safety strategies as part of a comprehensive community safety/crime prevention effort.

One of the first of its kind in the nation, the program encourages localities to develop and implement collaborative community safety plans within a flexible framework designed by the Commission. Furthermore, it provides an ongoing process by which communities can reassess and update their plans to address emerging community safety issues. To obtain certification, a locality must meet 12 core community safety elements/strategies augmented by a minimum of seven approved optional elements. DCJS runs and monitors the program.”

Significant lack of leadership and questionable decision making by the Portsmouth Police Department Executive Staff contribute to a department that is spiraling to a meltdown.

Below are the minutes from the Criminal Justice Services Board meeting from June 11, 2009. It provides incite into the problems and the lack of progress after 4 years. One of the main issues that the board has is the significant lack of progress in Portsmouth becoming certified involving a major certification body. The two choices under the Certified Crime Prevention Community Program are either the “Virginia Law Enforcement Professional Standards Commission” (VLEPSC) or “Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies” (CALEA). As somebody who has participated in a certification process when I worked for the Virginia Beach Police Department I can attest to the stringent requirements and the high caliber that either of these two organizations expect to see from any agency making application for certification. The Portsmouth Police Department doesn’t have what it takes and never will with the current executive management in place. The new Chief of Police appears to be a “tool”, he seems to be relying on his executive staff subordinates and I can tell you from first hand experience that they are not looking out for the Department, the new Chief of Police or the citizens of the City of Portsmouth. They lack any resemblance to real leaders and the majority of the rank and file officers of the Police Department have no respect for them. Their agenda is Me Me Me and CYA, they have no clue what real leadership is all about and don’t lead by example.

Criminal Justice Services Board

June 11, 2009

Vice-Chairman Green called upon Mr. Walter McFarlane to give a brief report on the Certified Crime Prevention Community Program.

Mr. McFarlane reported that the Subcommittee met on June 9, 2009 and reviewed three items. The Subcommittee members present were Chairman McFarlane, Sheriff Phelps, Mr. Vaughn, Mr. Quagliator (proxy for Ms. Decker) and Chief Lavinder (via teleconference). Minutes were taken by Rick Arrington, DCJS Program Analyst, who also presented the 3 items to the
Subcommittee for action. He reported the following:

Item 1: Vice-Chairman Green stated that it had been motioned and seconded that the Board approve the recertification of the City of Hampton as a Certified Crime Prevention Community.  Representatives from the City of Hampton were acknowledged and thanked the Board for their  re-certification.

Item 2: The City of Portsmouth was originally due for re-certification in September 2008. On  August 12, 2008, Interim Police Chief William Corvello requested the Subcommittee extend its  opportunity to apply for recertification until February 20, 2009. This  request was granted and Chief Corvello was notified of the new due date on August 22, 2008. As of February 20, 2009,  only 5 elements had been completed as final and a substantial amount of essential materials and  information had not been received. Portsmouth was granted a further extension from the March 2009 CJSB meeting until June to allow it time to complete its submissions. Mr. McFarlane mentioned that although Portsmouth provided information on a number of exemplary programs, the Subcommittee was very much troubled by Portsmouth’s failure to meet Core Element 12 which deals with Accreditation. When it originally applied for and received its initial certification, it had noted that it was then seeking Accreditation. Four years have passed from the time of its original certification and it has yet to be accredited. Program guidelines for the original certification stated, “Local Law Enforcement agency must either be accredited or seeking accreditation from the Virginia Law Enforcement Professional Standards Commission (VLEPSC) or Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies (CALEA).
Mr. McFarlane further mentioned that extensive discussion by the Subcommittee focused on the fact that Portsmouth had been given ample opportunity to become accredited. Based upon the foregoing, a motion to decertify the City of Portsmouth was Reluctantly made and was carried unanimously. This vote was undertaken with the further caveat that, due to the City Police Division’s recent change in leadership and the importance of the role that a strong leader plays in accreditation, the Subcommittee granted Portsmouth an exception to the normal provision that the applicant start all over, and thereby, initiate the process as if it was its first application. By granting this exception, Portsmouth may reapply as if its request is a request for recertification by June 2010, if it has received its accreditation at that time.

By way of a motion, Mr. McFarlane asked the Board to accept the recommendation of the Subcommittee to decertify the City of Portsmouth and to grant them the exception to allow them to take advantage of the opportunity to reapply for recertification by June, 2010 if they had received its accreditation at that time. Mr. Webb seconded the motion.

Recusals: Ms. Marlene Randall

At this time it was noted that the City of Portsmouth had representatives in the audience of whom were prepared to speak on behalf of their accreditation process. Present was Captain Sean Dunn and Mr. Joe Giltner, Accreditation Manager. Mr. Giltner gave a brief report on the history of the accreditation process and the challenges of the program. He stated that they believe they could achieve accreditation by December, 2011 however, they do not believe they could accomplish this within a 12 month period. Captain Dunn asked that the Board consider accreditation to the City of Portsmouth and to work with them on this issue, given the  circumstances.

Mr. Bushnell made a comment and stated that he was impressed with the report of the City of Portsmouth regarding accreditation and the importance of it. He then put a substitute motion on the table that the Board re-certify the City of Portsmouth. Ms. Randall then made a comment on behalf of Portsmouth and stated that the City has had some serious challenges with the numerous changes in leadership over the last couple of years. She appealed to the Board in favor of recertification of the City of Portsmouth.

Mr. Leon Baker, Division Director, Law Enforcement and Regulatory Services, DCJS made a brief comment and asked that Mr. Rick Arrington, Accreditation Manager, DCJS to take the podium and to speak to the accreditation process and the efforts of the City of Portsmouth.  Mr. Arrington stated that Portsmouth did have policies in place to reach accreditation, however, they have had many obstacles in the process. He also reminded the Board of the reason for, and the importance of accreditation. There were several comments and questions made by the following Board members: Mr. Bushnell, Mr. Hodges, Mr. McFarlane, Mr. McGrady, Mr.
Green, Mr. Vaughn, Delegate Miller, Mr. Macon and Mr. Dion. The questions that were posed by the Board were satisfactorily answered by Mr. Arrington and Mr. Joe Giltner. After much discussion and hearing the comments, questions and answers, the Board took a vote to replace the original motion with the substitute motion. The substitute motion failed by a vote of 10 to 8
in favor of the original motion to decertify the City of Portsmouth. All was in favor. Vice-Chairman Green stated that it had been motioned and seconded that the Board de-certify the City of Portsmouth with an exception to the normal provision as stated above. By granting this exception, Portsmouth may reapply as if its request is a request for re-certification. Accordingly, the City may take advantage of this opportunity to reapply for re-certification by June 2010 if it has received its accreditation at that time. Vice-Chairman Green thanked the representatives from the City of Portsmouth for their report and encouraged them to continue their efforts in seeking re-certification.

Item 3: Mr. McFarlane reported that the Town of Christiansburg has been in the process of  putting together its application for an original certification but has been unable to complete its certification due to its coordinator having personal and medical issues preventing his working on the certification. Chief Sisson advised DCJS that the coordinator had just returned to work and requested an extension for the opportunity to apply by the March 2010 meeting of the CJSB. The Subcommittee voted unanimously to extend Christiansburg the opportunity to submit its application no later than February 15, 2010. Submission by this date will allow review by the Subcommittee so that it may make a presentation for approval or disapproval by the Board at its March 2010 meeting. Mr. McFarlane, on behalf of the Subcommittee, thanked Mr. Arrington for the very extensive work he did in preparing the materials for presentation to the Subcommittee.
He then made a motion for the Board to accept the recommendation of the Subcommittee to
grant an extension to Christiansburg. Mr. McGrady seconded the motion.

Recusals: None

Vice-Chairman Green stated that it had been motioned and seconded that the Board accept the recommendation of the Subcommittee to grant an extension to the Town of Christiansburg until February 15, 2010.

Vice-Chairman Green thanked Mr. McFarlane for his report and mentioned that in light of the extensive discussions that the Board had regarding the program guidelines for re-certification, perhaps the department should go back to review and update the guidelines.

If you want to read more about the Criminal Justice Services Board “Certified Crime Prevention Community Program” click on this link.

Below is a passage from the City of Portsmouth’s Professional Occupational Medical Management Services contract last approved on April 13, 2006. I have a question for all, why would an employee ever have to pay for occupational health services? I can’t think of any, you’re going there because the City has sent you there for a medical exam, fit-for-duty test etc or you were injuried on the job and covered under the “Virginia Workers’ Compensation Act” where you select a city approved doctor from the Workers Comp Panel.

Are you one of the City of Portsmouth Employee’s that ended up receiving an overdue medical bill for some type of Occupational Health Services while an employee of the City of Portsmouth? I received numerous late/non-payment notices from just one on the job injury incident. I also ended up with a negative credit entry because the City of Portsmouth or Bon Secours (don’t know which) didn’t take care of the bill in a timely matter.

I can’t think of any instance why the City should be giving Bon Secours/Maryview Occumed permission to bill a City of Portsmouth employee. What is even more appauling is that they state that they will assist Bon Secours in billing the employee by providing “adequate documentation and other information necessary for prompt and accurate billing for denied services being billed to the City’s employees”. If you read the whole contract their is nothing included that provides any information about criteria to deny a claim. It appears they can deny it for any reason they want and don’t have to justify it to anyone.

I spoke with Susan A. MacLeod, executive vice president and administor for Bon Secours Maryview Medical Center in her office at the beginning of August. She told me that Maryview/Bon Secours tries to lookout for the Police and Firefighters. Sorry I just don’t see it given this contract and the number of people that have negative credit entries on their credit history because of either billing issues by Bon Secours or the City of Portsmouth not paying their bills in a timely manner.

I am interested in hearing from anyone that is a past or present employee of the City of Portsmouth who received any late payment notices involving Occupational Health services that was rendered by Bon Secours under the City of Portsmouth contract. If you are one of the people that have negative credit or received a late payment notice for a City of Portsmouth Occupational Health incident please click this link or send an email to mvh<at>portsmouthvapolice.com with the information and a way to contact you, email would be best.

Lets see if we can get the City of Portsmouth and Bon Secours to address this unacceptable level of service the employees of the City of Portsmouth have received. I am going to ask the Portsmouth City Council why its employees are treated like this.

1.4    Compensation and Billing

1.4.1    Amount of Payment.    In consideration of the Service rendered under this Agreement, the city will pay Contractor a monthly fee pursuant to the fee schedule attached hereto as Exhibit “A,” or such other fee agreed upon by both parties for additional services requested by the City. The City agrees to provide payment to the Contractor within forty-five (45) days of receipt of a properly submitted invoice and according to the terms delineated in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

1.4.2    Billing.      In the event the City has denied payment for a services rendered hereunder by Contractor, Contractor shall have the sole right to bill the City’s employees or responsible third-party payors for any billable Services rendered by Contractor to such employees. All fees collected for such services will be the sole property of the Contractor. The City will cooperate with and assist Contractor in providing adequate documentation and other information necessary for prompt and accurate billing for denied services being billed to the City’s employees or responsible third-party payors.

Click link to the right if you want to read the entire Bon Secours P05/04 Occumed Contract April 13, 2006 Professional Occupational Medical Management Services contract.

Below is a link to an Internal Affairs Complaint I made in 2006 on several issues. While the issues were not of monumental importance it involved basically what I identified as liability issues that could expose the City of Portsmouth and it’s employee’s to lawsuit or other legal action. This included mistakes made by 911 Dispatchers,  suspected misuse of government funds, harassment by supervisory personal and a threat made against me personally via a third party because I made Freedom of Information Act request for 911 Center financial documents which is my right as a citizen of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

City of Portsmouth Policy states that you can be terminated for threatening another employee. You would think that the Chief of Police might be concerned and look into matters. Apparently not, at least not from any evidence I have seen. As far as I can tell the complaint was never investigated. The principle witness involving the threat was never contacted by Internal Affairs to be interviewed. In a meeting I had with Former Interim Chief Corvello last year he told me he could not find a record of the complaint nor any investigation. The incident occurred after Chief Corvello’s first departure.

Because I am not bitter in the least but on a quest for justice and to demonstrate just how lacking several members of the Portsmouth Police Executive Staff is I’m going to share the pivotal moment when I came to realize that not everyone believes in doing the right thing in the Portsmouth Police Department Management. I believe, as do many others at my level in the department that we should do the right thing even if it means standing up and saying that I messed up, made a mistake or to respond to an accusation, “Yep, I did that”. Law Enforcement Personnel must be above reproach and set the example to society to be effective. Police Officers at all levels must be above reproach and be able to self-police themselves. My peers at the Portsmouth Police Department for the most part do that, the same can not be said of a number of our leaders.

In the very near future I am going to be revealing evidence and documentation that supports the claims I made above and will demonstrate the issues described. For the moment take a look at the beginning of my quest for justice and the pivotal point in my career with the Portsmouth Police Department. I realized I was naive, that their are Police Officers and sadly those in management that are not interested in doing the right thing but only protecting themselves and there turf.

Click here to read the Internal Affairs Complaint made 01/17/2006 that started my quest for justice.

Issues discussed at this meeting;

- Voluntary Removal of several police officers from the promotion list - Approved

- Request to Reinstate Brian K. Hall to the Police Department - Approved

- Portsmouth Fire Departments request to institute a no tobacco use policy both on and off duty. I expect this will pass the next time presented if the city institutes the changes the Civil Service Commission members wanted. - Tabled

- Presentation by Dr. Ford involving a new entry level Firefighters exam due to Department of Justice Agreement. Dr. Ford was with CWH Research, Inc. 9360 Teddy Lane Suite 203 Lone Tree, Colorado 80124

I have spent much time researching the rules and laws involving the City of Portsmouth Civil Service Commission. It is so important that I have decided that each meeting which is open to the public by law will be video taped and made available for all to see how the commission functions and the decisions that they make. Those decisions effect every single public safety employee in some way.

Below is the video of the May 29th, 2009 meeting. Most of the meeting is taken up with McCann and Associates explaining the statistics and appeals process for the recent public safety promotional exams given this year. At the end Chief of Police Edward G. Hargis makes a short presentation to the commission on some proposed changes in the department and the hiring process.

I am going to attempt to FOIA the McCann Associates reports presented to the Civil Service Commission about the recent promotional testing and make that available as well.

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=disarray
* S: (n) confusion, mental confusion, confusedness, muddiness, disarray (a mental state characterized by a lack of clear and orderly thought and behavior) “a confusion of impressions”
* S: (n) disarray, disorderliness (untidiness (especially of clothing and appearance))

I have a question for all;

Who does an agency answer to that is charged with protecting and investigating complaints against child and elder abuse when it is alleged that they are the abuser, or the cause/continuation of the neglect?

I thought it was the Police, but apparently that is not the case.

The truth must be controlled and hidden at all costs to preserve the status quo and for those in public service to NOT be held accountable for their actions. What has our government come to that they can not accept responsibility for their actions? FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) has become riddled with exemptions to preserve the hidden secrets that those in power can not afford to reveal lest they find a revolt at there feet and the common people realize just how terrible a government can become, even one that is a republic.

Eventually the scales will tip from one side to the other and that will be a terrible day indeed. What does this all mean I can not tell you as it is a forbidden secret. Click here for a clue…FOIA_041109_email