Once again Pres OBAMA does just want he wants to do with his "Pen and his Phone" as CONGRESS stands by in awe observing him doing just as he wants to do.
This time it's AMNESTY for the 2016 General Election.
While most American Voters are in total agreement with Comprehensive IMMIGRATION REFORM being enacted by CONGRESS and a Sitting U.S. President, NO American Voter (in their right mind) agrees it should be enacted via a KING'S Fiat by a Sitting U.S. President.
The United States of America is NOT a Monarchy.
It is a Democracy with a Constitution which must be adhered to.
President Obama in a prime-time address to the nation Thursday night trumpeted his executive action to protect 5 million undocumented immigrants from deportation, saying the most extensive overhaul to the immigration system in decades would limit "real amnesty" in the United States.
Ignoring GOP cries of executive overreach, the president opted to move ahead with unilateral action that adds fuel to the simmering feud over the limits of his executive authority.
The centerpiece of Obama’s executive blueprint is the deferral of deportations for roughly 4.1 million undocumented immigrants whose children are American citizens or permanent residents. Under the president’s plan, the parents must have lived in the U.S. for at least five years to receive work permits.
"I know some of the critics of this action call it amnesty," Obama said. "Well, it’s not. Amnesty is the immigration system we have today — millions of people who live here without paying their taxes or playing by the rules, while politicians use the issue to scare people and whip up votes at election time."
While Obama’s move alienated conservatives, progressives largely fell in line with the president, arguing his hand was forced by House Republicans' unwillingness to take up a Senate-passed immigration bill.
"Had the House of Representatives allowed that kind of a bill a simple yes-or-no vote, it would have passed with support from both parties, and today it would be the law," Obama insisted. "But for a year and a half now, Republican leaders in the House have refused to allow that simple vote."
Under the presidential directive, the Obama administration is also expanding a program that granted certain Dream Act-eligible immigrants a reprieve from deportation, saying that minors who arrived in the U.S. before 2010 would not face prosecution. Previously, Obama limited such protections to young immigrants who arrived in the country before 2007.
However, the parents of so-called Dreamers do not qualify for the new benefits outlined by the president.
The federal government will begin taking applications from undocumented immigrants in the spring 2015, administration officials said.
For their part, Republicans accused the president of killing any hopes of bipartisan compromise on the hot-button issue.
“Instead of working together to fix our broken immigration system, the president says he’s acting on his own. That’s just not how our democracy works,” said House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio. "The president has said before that he’s not [a] king and he’s not an emperor, but he’s sure acting like one. And he’s doing it a time when the American people want nothing more than for us to work together.”
The unilateral action is part of a broader campaign by the Obama administration to reserve deportations for the most violent criminals, not those convicted of lesser offenses. Obama’s plan will replace the Secure Communities law-enforcement program, which checks the fingerprints of all inmates with the Department of Homeland Security to verify their immigration status — and requires the detention of undocumented immigrants for lengthy periods of time.
Obama is also making more high-tech visas available, a provision long sought by Silicon Valley. The administration will grant visas to the spouses of H-1B visa recipients without it counting against the overall limit.
Obama’s high-profile address was delayed until after the November midterms, part of a failed attempt to retain Democratic control of the Senate. The president faced major pressure from Latino activists to flex executive muscle on immigration, though some advocates insist Obama could have done even more to halt a record number of deportations under his watch.
A major challenge Obama faced Thursday night was convincing the American public of the legality of his actions — he framed them as a matter of prosecutorial discretion.
"The actions I’m taking are not only lawful, they’re the kinds of actions taken by every single Republican president and every Democratic president for the past half-century," Obama said. "And to those members of Congress who question my authority to make our immigration system work better, or question the wisdom of me acting where Congress has failed, I have one answer: Pass a bill.”
Yet, multiple recent polls have shown that many Americans are opposed to his executive action. Aware of that political reality, Obama will travel to Las Vegas Friday to promote his immigration efforts.
But Republicans predict Obama will regret going it alone on immigration.
"President Obama is not above the law and has no right to issue executive amnesty,” Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said. “His actions blatantly ignore the separations of powers and the principles our country was founded on. I will not sit idly by and let the president bypass Congress and our Constitution."
Disappointed congressional Democrats Tuesday night continued to blast the White House's tax deal with Republicans despite a spirited argument by President Barack Obama that concessions were preferable to higher taxes for millions of Americans.
"I'm not here to play games with the American people or the health of the economy," Obama said of his day-old deal, which is designed to avert a scheduled Jan. 1 expiration of tax cuts at all income levels.
In a remarkable political role reversal, Republicans lined up to support the package, while lawmakers of the president's party said they were prepared to oppose it. Liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., pledged to "do everything I can to defeat this," including a filibuster to prevent a final vote.
The deal includes an extension of expiring Bush-era tax cuts for all income levels — not just for lower and middle-income taxpayers, as Democrats wanted. It also contains a renewal of jobless benefits due to expire in a few weeks, and a one-year cut in Social Security taxes paid by workers.
Other elements would loosen the estate tax and provide breaks for businesses to spur hiring. Officials said that overall, the proposal could add $900 billion to the federal deficit over two years.
Dem leader: Compromise is 'not done yet' Democratic opposition focused chiefly on two parts of the deal that marked concessions to Republicans — the decision to let expiring tax cuts remain in effect for people in upper incomes, and a change in the estate tax that the GOP has long sought.
After meeting with other Democratic leaders, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that "so far the response has not been very good" to the proposed deal.
She was described to NBC News as having a poker face during a Tuesday night closed-door caucus meeting in which other members said they had problems with Obama's compromise.
House Democratic leader, Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, said afterward he cannot recommend the package to his colleagues.
"The question is what is the best deal you can get and whether you really needed to have, for example, this provision with respect to the bonanza for the wealthiest estates in the country," he said, according to NBC News.
Pelosi called the estate tax provision "a bridge too far."
Overall, officials said, the proposed compromise deal could increase federal borrowing by $900 billion.
"I don't think that the president should count on Democratic votes to get this deal passed," said Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York. "It's a bad deal that wasn't skillfully negotiated."
Among other caucus members expressing concerns, NBC News said, were Ways and Means Committee Chairman Sander Levin, D-Mich., Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D-Calif., outgoing co-chair of the Progressive Caucus, and Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., who called the compromise "just not acceptable to people."
The compromise is "something that's not done yet," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "We're going to have to do some more work," he said after a closed door meeting with Vice President Joe Biden and members of the Democratic rank-and-file.
At his hastily called news conference, Obama bristled at times, casting himself in the role of compromiser-in-chief with the best interests of the economy and public in mind.
"This isn't an abstract debate. This is real money, It will make a real difference in the lives of people who sent us here," Obama said.
The presidential news conference was part of a full-scale defense of the agreement, which the White House said would pump billions into the economy at a time it is recovering from the worst recession in eight decades and unemployment stands at 9.8 percent.
President critical of both sides of the aisle The president was critical of Democrats and Republicans, saying that if purely partisan attitudes rule, compromise would be impossible.
At one point, he appeared to liken Republican lawmakers insisting on tax cuts for the wealthy to terrorists.
"I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers, unless the hostage gets harmed. In this case the hostage is the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed," he said.
But he also rejected criticism from Democrats. "I know there are some who would have preferred a protracted political fight," he said. But he added he had decided that compromise was preferable to letting taxes rise on Jan. 1.
The events left Democratic leaders struggling to avoid a major fight with the president, at a moment that they are hoping to complete work on several measures before Republicans take control of the House in January. Most prominently, Obama wants the Senate to ratify a new arms control treaty with Russia.
Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, a Democrat-turned-independent, urged support for the plan. "This tentative agreement is an example of Washington working across party lines to confront the challenges facing our nation," he said.
But organized labor, the liberal group MoveOn.org and others criticized the deal.
In public and private, Democrats expressed anger that Obama had bowed to Republican demands to extend the expiring tax cuts on the wealthy and make additional concessions to the GOP on estate tax relief.
Some Democrats who met with Biden quoted him as saying the deal was the best the White House could obtain from Republicans, who had staunchly blocked legislation over the weekend to extend tax cuts only on incomes below $200,000 for individuals and $250,000 for couples.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said he intended to oppose the new proposal barring changes. "It didn't wind up in a good end. The deal as struck is not the best deal for our country," he said.
Others questioned whether the deal would spur the economic growth enough to outweigh the additional damage it would do to the already disastrous debt situation.
"If we don't vote for this, what happens — not politically, but economically? If we do vote for it, how sure can we be that it will, in effect, spawn jobs and pump the economy?" said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
Other parts of the plan Besides holding current tax rates in place for all, the proposal would extend unemployment benefits and reduce payroll taxes for a year, avoiding a threatened cutoff in checks to two million over the holidays and as many as another five million next year.
The proposed Social Security tax cut would apply to virtually every working American. For one year they would pay 4.2 percent of their income, instead of 6.2 percent, to the government retirement program, fattening U.S. paychecks by $120 billion in 2011.
Someone earning $40,000 a year would receive a $800 benefit, and a $70,000 earner would save $1,400, officials said. More than three-fourths of all Americans pay more in these so-called payroll taxes than in federal income taxes.
The White House said money from other sources would be shifted so the Social Security trust fund loses no revenue.
Obama said he reluctantly made another concession to Republicans, concerning the estate tax. It would tax estates worth more than $5 million at a rate of 35 percent, a GOP goal. Democrats favored a $3.5 million threshold, with a 45 percent tax on anything higher.
Obama's willingness to compromise with Republicans comes a month after the GOP won resounding victories in congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative elections.
President Barack Obama said Friday he's confident that Congress will pass a compromise tax package despite the objections of House Democrats.
"Nobody -- Democrat or Republican -- wants to see people's paychecks smaller on January 1 because Congress didn't act," Obama said in an interview with National Public Radio.
"And I think that the framework that we've put forward, which says not only that people's taxes don't go up on January 1, but also that we extend unemployment insurance for a year, that we make sure that key provisions like the college tax credit, the child tax credit, the earned-income tax credit are included -- that that framework is going to serve as the basis for compromise."
The debate over taxes in the waning days of a lame-duck session of Congress illustrated the mistrust and animosity that has built up in the deeply partisan environment on Capitol Hill.
Democrats voted Thursday against considering the tax package that Obama negotiated with Republicans, raising questions over the president's influence in his own party.
Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-New York, told CNN Friday that the tax plan will need Republican support to pass so that voters in 2012 will know it was not Democrats who approved the measure's projected $857 billion cost.
Obama will have to "get more Republicans than Democrats to make it go through," Ackerman said.
So far, Republicans "haven't said that they're all going to vote for it. They haven't said how many votes they're going to provide," Ackerman said. "This is on our (Democrats') watch. Then they're going to attack us in the next election for increasing the deficit when most of them are going to vote against it. ... Why should the Democrats get all the blame? The Republicans are very good at this. ... They get the credit for everything we do. We get the blame for everything they did that went bad."
Also Friday, conservatives Republicans questioned the tax and benefit package, warning it went against the campaign mantra from November of holding down the deficit.
U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minnesota, told CNN that the package would increase the deficit, adding that "investors are reacting to the increases in the deficit and so we're concerned about that. We want to get on a sound financial footing."
Sen. Jim DeMint, R-South Carolina, vowed earlier this week to filibuster the tax and benefit package to prevent a vote on the Senate floor. He noted that those who ran from the right in the election had said they would oppose anything that increased the deficit.
The Senate will consider the tax package first. On Thursday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, released the first version of legislation to implement the negotiated deal and said the first vote on it, a procedural one to open debate, would occur Monday.
The Senate version made public by Reid was largely the same as the deal announced by Obama, but it added a one-year extension of a program that provides cash grants in lieu of a tax credit for construction of new solar and wind energy projects. The Treasury Grant Program was part of the 2009 economic stimulus bill.
White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters Friday that the additional clean energy provision added $3 billion to the cost of the package. Meanwhile, a letter to House Democratic leaders signed by at least 79 Democratic members called for the provision to be extended for two years.
The negotiated package includes a two-year extension of Bush-era tax cuts set to expire at the end of the year, as well as 13 months of unemployment benefits and a cut of 2 percentage points in the payroll tax. In addition, the plan extends current tax breaks for students and lower-income Americans, and adjusts the estate tax in a way that Democrats believe benefits the wealthy.
However, Bachmann and other conservatives complained that the compromise resurrects the estate tax, which had expired for 2010 but was set to be restored in 2011 at a rate of 55%, with inheritances under $1 million exempted. A bill that passed in the House set the tax rate at 45% and exempted inheritances under $3.5 million, while the provision in the tax deal would exempt estates up to $5 million and set the tax rate at 35%.
To Obama, the bottom line is that legislators from both parties will prevent a tax increase on January 1 by accepting the main components of the negotiated package, including the extension of unemployment benefits.
"At the end of the day, people are going to conclude we don't want 2 million people suddenly without unemployment insurance and not able to pay their rent, not able to pay their mortgage, not able to pay their house note," Obama said, adding that the package also will bolster the so-far sluggish recovery from a recession that has unemployment still near 10%.
"I think that people are also going to understand that the single most important thing we can do for all of our constituencies is to make sure that the recovery that is taking place right now gets stronger," he said, adding that economists have noted the negotiated package would increase growth and could mean more jobs, a development that "has got to be the highest priority for everybody."
He called for legislators "to act responsibly and to think not in terms of abstract political fights here ... on Capitol Hill, but to think about those families that, in the middle of the holiday season, are trying to figure out -- are they still going to have unemployment benefits at the end of this month?"
"I'm confident that we're going to be able to get this resolved by the end of the month," Obama said.
Thursday's vote by the House Democratic caucus was a defiant rejection of both the agreement on tax and benefit measures, as well as what many Democrats in the chamber perceived as being marginalized in the talks by the White House.
"This message today is very simple. That in the form that it was negotiated, it is not acceptable to the House Democratic caucus," said Democratic Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, who represented House Democrats in the negotiations. He pledged to "work with the White House and our Republican colleagues to try and make sure we do something right for the economy and right for jobs."
During their meeting, caucus members chanted "Just say no," according to two Democrats in attendance, and Rep. Laura Richardson of California later asked reporters outside the room: "Did you hear us saying 'Just say no'?"
Overall, Republicans generally appear supportive of the package, which White House advisers noted gave them their two main priorities -- an extension of the lower tax rates from the Bush era to everyone, including the wealthiest Americans, and setting a lower-than-expected estate tax rate only on inheritances of more than $5 million.
Both provisions angered liberal Democrats, who oppose extending the lower tax rates enacted in 2001 and 2003 to the wealthy. Some said Obama should have forced a showdown with Republicans over the tax cut extensions by holding out longer to force more GOP concessions.
However, Obama and White House aides said the deal reached in negotiations was the best they would get from unyielding Republicans, who will take control of the House and enjoy a stronger minority stake in the Senate when the next session of Congress begins in early January.
Gibbs told reporters Thursday that he expected Congress to pass a package this year because the alternative was higher taxes for everyone after December 31.
"At the end of the day, members are not going to want to be in their districts, senators are not going to want to be in their districts, when their constituents find out their taxes have gone up by several thousands of dollars," Gibbs said, noting that the deal is a compromise with elements unpalatable to both sides. "If everybody took out what they didn't like, we'd have nothing. And we know the consequences of doing nothing."
A top Democratic adviser to the White House added that Senate Democrats "have several vehicles they can use" as the legislative base for the tax plan, and are working on a plan to pass a tax bill and "then jam the House" with that legislation.
Some House Democrats say they will support the tax package as a compromise made under tough circumstances.
"If it passes the Senate and this is the compromise the president of the United States has committed to, what are we going do in the House, hold this up?" said Rep. Shelley Berkley of Nevada.
Senate Republicans' threat to hold up legislation for everything not related to tax cuts or the budget is either standing up for principles or a "congressional temper tantrum," depending on your point of view.
Thousands of CNN.com readers responded to news that all 42 Senate Republicans signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, vowing to prevent a vote on "any legislative item until the Senate has acted to fund the government and we have prevented the tax increase that is currently awaiting all American taxpayers."
The letter came the day after President Obama met with congressional leaders from both parties, and all parties pledged to work together to solve the nation's economic problems.
Some readers said Republicans' tactics are a continuation of the "obstructionism" they have practiced since Obama took office.
"Republicans lose an election and stick to their obstructionism, Republicans win an election and stick to their obstructionism," commented a reader who identified himself as "joesmith007."
Others said Democrats acted with a similar heavy hand.
"Sounds alot like the passage of the healthcare bill to me," commented a reader who called himself "pedrosanchez."
Many likened the ultimatum to a "temper tantrum."
Right, because throwing temper tantrums and keeping other important issues from being addressed is the way to solve problems," wrote reader "lmmmr." "Did we really elect a bunch of 3 year olds?"
The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted by former President George W. Bush will expire after December 31 if Congress fails to reach an agreement on their extension. Top Democrats and Republicans disagree sharply over whether the current tax rates should be extended just for families earning $250,000 or under per year, or for everyone, regardless of income.
Republicans contend that a failure to extend all of the tax cuts would hamper an already sluggish economy. Obama and Democratic congressional leaders argue that the roughly $700 billion price tag attached to an extension of the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans would be fiscally irresponsible.
Readers accused Republicans of being more interested in paying back campaign donors than helping lower-income Americans in hard times.
"The people making over $250,000 are generally not having problems paying their bills. [Senate Minority Leader Mitch] McConnell must think the American people are seriously stupid in trying to sell that they are attempting to help the average American with this maneuver," wrote a reader who called himself "rapier."
"ocscorpio78" wrote, "Good to know that the GOP thinks tax cuts for millionaires is the most important issue facing our country right now."
But a reader who identified himself as "rukidding1" countered that "Democrats are just as bad. They just voted not to ban special pet projects called earmarks. There all politicians."
Political analysts were split along ideological lines on the Republicans' tactic and on the fiscal impact of extending tax credits for those above the $250,000 threshold.
"What you're doing will take additional tax revenues from individuals who can do something positive," Republican strategist and CNN contributor Ed Rollins told CNN's "John King USA" on Wednesday. "It's not like there's a shortfall, because you take taxes away from us. That's the other side of the story. You're not cutting any spending.
"We for four years have had to sit here and deal with how Democrats can do whatever they want. They can't do that now. Republicans aren't going to give up what they've been fighting for."
But Democratic strategist and CNN contributor James Carville said extending the cuts for all in return for extending benefits for the long-term unemployed is a deal that Democrats shouldn't agree to.
"Remember, when you extend it for people making over $250,000, you're adding $700 billion to the deficit," he said. "To deal with it -- we're going to cut the deficit, but the first thing we'll do is add $700 billion to the deficit and we're going to extend unemployment compensation. But don't worry, we're going to freeze federal pay.
"I mean, it's -- does anybody see it? Is it just me that sees if we cut the deal, we're going to spend money on both sides and talk about cutting the deficit? I don't know."
While the debate over extending the tax credits to all goes on, the stalemate feeds public perception that lawmakers are more driven by party politics than finding solutions, said CNN contributor Jon Avlon, an independent.
"There are two parallel tracks here. The argument Republicans are making is that this will create a stimulus for the economy rather than a tax cut in the middle of a recession," he said. "But clearly, I mean, Republicans beginning the day with this kind of bargain is what gives bipartisanship a bad name in Washington. If you agree 100 percent of the time and cave in, then you're being bipartisan. There's something disingenuous about that."
A reader who called himself "Brational" also decried leaders' lack of ability to compromise.
"Whether we are Republican or Democrat we all need to send the message to both sides of the aisle that constructive compromise is more important to us than sound bites and ideological nonsense," he wrote. "I manage to get things accomplished in my job, working with people I don't always agree with. Don't you? These bozos (on both sides of the aisle) will continue to act like three year olds until we demand better behavior. Let's stop defending them based on the (R) or (D) after their name and start expecting them to get to work, damn it!"
Some readers advocated not paying lawmakers if they're not getting anything done.
"So if I showed up to work and said that I have no intention of doing anything for the next 2 months and prevent everyone else from doing anything as well then I would be fired in a heartbeat," wrote a reader identified as "AliTny." "Does it make it ok if you are a US congressman. At a minimum can we at least not pay them for the period they are not working?"
The U.S. Justice Department has opened a formal investigation into North Carolina's struggling mental health system, the first step in a process that could trigger a federal edict for sweeping reform.
The probe is the result of a complaint filed in July by the advocacy group Disability Rights North Carolina, which contends that the state is violating the Americans With Disabilities Act for failing to provide proper housing for people with mental illness.
Nearly a decade after the state Department of Health and Human Services closed thousands of beds in government-run psychiatric hospitals as part of a reform effort, more than 6,400 people with severe mental illness are housed in adult care homes scattered across the state, living in sometimes squalid and dangerous conditions.
The mental patients, their care typically paid for with taxpayer money, are often far younger than the elderly residents with whom they are housed. In the last two years, at least four residents with mental illness have been killed by fellow patients who had histories of severe mental illness and violence.
Vicki Smith, the executive director of Disability Rights, said the federal investigation could force the state to take actions to fix the mistakes made during North Carolina’s 2001 reform effort, which has also resulted in people with mental illness routinely languishing for days in emergency rooms because no bed in a psychiatric facility is available.
Word of the federal investigation also comes as the state is debating further cuts to the state’s mental health system and moving to close Dorothea Dix Hospital.
“Now DHHS is going to have to answer a whole series of questions about why mental health reform has failed,” Smith said. “This is huge, from our point of view. Huge.”
The Justice Department informed the state of its pending investigation through a five page letter received by DHHS administrators in Raleigh on Thursday. However, the state department did not publically reveal the news until it issued a three-sentence media release earlier today, hours before the start of the Thanksgiving Holiday.
Renee McCoy, a spokeswoman for the state agency, said there would be no comment beyond the media release, which said the state will “work with the Department of Justice to provide all necessary documents and information in response to the complaint.”
Diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, bi-polar disorder and social anxiety disorder, Vinh Gazoo has been in a psychiatric hospital five times.
Recently released from jail after a six-month sentence stemming from a crime resulting from his mental health issues, Gazoo says he now survives week to week because of the Mental Health Association in North Carolina.
nonprofit association that helps mental health patients, the organization helps pay for his medication. Its employees and volunteers drive him to doctor's appointments and therapy sessions.
Gazoo was notified this week that those services have been dropped because of state budget cuts.
The $19 billion state budget resulted in a nearly 12.75 percent or $738 million decrease in the Department of Health and Human Services' anticipated $5.54 billion budget for the fiscal year.
About $75 million of DHHS's community services $390 million budget, which helps fund the Mental Health Association was cut, according to executive director John Tote.
"The cuts we have been waiting on from the General Assembly, they're here now, and they're hitting with a vengeance," he said.
Now, the Mental Health Association is laying off approximately 40 percent of its employees.
"Those 175 folks – in the positions they have – affect the lives of about 2,000 individuals across the state (who have) significant mental illness," Tote said.
He estimates approximately 4,000 mental health providers across the state will soon be out of work. The result, he says, will be thousands of patients without services.
Tote blames lawmakers, saying they were much more concerned with politics than providing services for DHHS.
Rep. Verla Insko, D-Orange, who serves on the state House Appropriations Subcommittee on Health and Human Services and also chairs the mental health legislative committee, agrees.
Insko says she doesn't think most lawmakers fully grasped the budget cuts and the impact they would have. For many people with mental illness, she says, there is no safety net other than emergency rooms and mental hospitals.
"As an advocate, it's galling," Tote said. "As a person, it's sad – terribly sad."
For Gazoo – now, his option is a walk-in clinic, but he says he has no way to pay for the services he needs and no way to get there. He says he'll likely either wind up back in jail or in a psychiatric facility.
"That's the two choices I have, because without my medication, I get pretty violent," he said.
The former leader of a Charlotte nonprofit mental health agency has been indicted on charges that he embezzled nearly $150,000 from the program.
Prosecutors said in court documents Wednesday that 50-year-old Edward Gerard Payton directed employees of Mecklenburg Open Door to provide him loans or payment advances. Authorities contend he actually embezzled the money, and only repaid part of it.
The court documents also say Payton used agency credit cards and vehicles inappropriately.
The documents contend that Open Door shuffled funds that belonged to clients when regular funds ran short because of Payton's activities. One charge says Payton was warned about the seriousness of his activities by the agency's former CFO, but continued to embezzle. The indictment claims Payton used the money to pay alimony, child support, and tax liens.
Mecklenburg Open Door ran several group homes and helped manage finances for many mentally ill and homeless clients. Payton was the agency's executive director from 2006 to August of this year. He was fired after the board of directors confronted him about the money.
Mecklenburg County severed its relationship with the agency in Nov. 1. They have since hired a new agency called Monarch to take over its responsibilities.
Payton was arrested Wednesday. Court records don't list an attorney, and a message left at a phone number listed in his name was not returned. He faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine on each of his five counts.
Mecklenburg County has reacted to the scandal by changing its standards for county contractors like Mecklenburg Open Door. Outside agencies will now be required to have yearly audits of finances.
"We're actually going beyond what general accounting standards require to make sure that Mecklenburg County residents know we are watching their money," said Jennifer Roberts, chairwoman of the Mecklenburg County Commission.
Carolinas Medical Center/ Carolinas Health Care System has been previously sued on numerous occasions by several African-American families for Racist Medical practices leading to premature, medically preventable deaths.
Many of those lawsuits were quietly settled with families of those Black patients who died due to intentional improper care or NEGLIGENCE.
Such lawsuits and bad reputation is the reason why Carolinas Medical Center/ Carolinas Health Care System now exist instead of Charlotte Memorial Hospital, the old CMC.
Thus its safe to say Carolinas Medical Center and Charlotte Memorial Hospital are one in the same.
How do I know this?
I always do my research and I talk to people personally affected by what I post on my Blog.
People will tell me things they might not disclose to the Charlotte Observer because the Charlotte Observer has a history of practicing Biased reporting and Discrimination in its publication of articles.
Kenneth Jermaine Chapman was an African-American Charlotte citizen who recently killed three members of his family and later himself.
Prior to his destructive actions he desperately sought Mental Health Care assistance from Charlotte's Carolinas Medical Center.
In fact he sent out an S.O.S. which was intentionally ignored.
Mr. Chapman clearly, verbally expressed to CMC Staff he had thoughts of hurting others and killing himself.
Did CMC Staff report his thoughts to Charlotte DSS even though they knew this man had minor children in the home?
NO!
They didn't give a darn because Ken Chapman was Black and wasn't an affluent citizen.
Now if Ken Chapman had connections with an Affluent, Politically-connected Black Charlotte citizen, than of course they may have taken Mr. Chapman's situation more seriously, but because he was just a poor Black man they didn't give a darn!
The result?
A Black Man who killed his wife, two of his children and than later himself.
If you think Jennifer Roberts (board chair) and the other Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Commissioners are seriously concerned about this matter or seriously concerned about investigating Mr. Chapman's case...DON'T BET ON IT!
If you think Charlotte's weak, scared Black Leaders are going to speak up...DON'T BET ON IT!
The only two Charlotte-Meck. County Commissioners who do really care, Harold Cogdell Jr. & Vilma Leak (both African-Americans) will be blocked from doing anything constructive by Jennifer Roberts (board chair), "Ms. N.C. Corruption" herself.
This tragic incident helps to further demonstrate how Racism is deeply woven into all facets and levels of Charlotte, NC's community, including the Health Care System.
Charlotte's other main Medical Center, Presbyterian Hospital isn't much better.
Its a private facility where Blacks go in but don't come out.
Presbyterian Hospital also has a long history of Black Patients needlessly dying but that's a story for another day.
As I was saying Carolinas Medical Center's staff intentionally did NOT prevent Mr. Chapman's death, nor did they help protect his family however.....
I'll bet Mr. Chapman's surviving relatives receive a huge bill for his so-called "treatment".
In fact thousands upon thousands of African-Americans within the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Region have Carolinas Medical Center Medical Bills on their Credit Reports.
Many of those bills are decades old.
Many of those bills are due to Billing errors from Carolinas Medical Center.
Many of those bills are due to Carolinas Medical Center INTENTIONALLY overbilling Black patients.
How does Carolinas Medical Center skirt Federal Law as it relates to Medical Bills which are older than 7 years old?
Carolinas Medical Center pays Equifax, Experian and Trans Union Credit Reporting agencies to sell those old Medical bill accounts to Debt Collectors, who create new account numbers for those decades old bills and continue screwing up the Credit Ratings for hundreds of thousands of North Carolina's Black citizens.
Is this really Racism you ask??
Yes!
For White Patients treated by Carolinas Medical Center staff everything is handled entirely different.
White Patients who visit Carolinas Medical Center for treatment receive proper care regardless of their situation and...
They aren't intentionally overcharged, neither are their Credit Reports damaged even if they don't possess Medical Insurance because NOT every White patient has Private Medical Insurance, just like there are many Black patients treated at CMC who DO possess Private Medical Insurance.
I'd say its time for the Federal Gov't including the FTC, to take a look at how Carolina Medical Center intentionally provides inadequate treatment to its Black patients, how they consistently & intentionally overbill Black patients and how they are paying big bucks to 3 major Credit Reporting agencies (mainly Equifax) for the sole purpose of selling Medical Bill Accounts which are decades old to Debt Collectors.
Just watch the Levine Family, old Charlotte money and one of Carolinas Medical Center/ Carolinas Health Care System largest contributors, use their big bucks to help defend CMC in any possible lawsuit.
The Levine Family is Charlotte's "Savior".
They often come to Charlotte's aid in a crisis however ONLY after the crisis occurs.
They run Charlotte's so-called Leaders including Jennifer Roberts and Anthony Foxx.
The Levines are most likely indirectly involved in most of Charlotte's Racist activities being carried out however, because they are super rich everyone is afraid of them.
If Ken Chapman were a White Man residing in Charlotte, NC neither he nor his family members would be dead today.
Or at least his family members would be alive today.
Both Carolinas Medical Center/ Carolinas Health Care System, Charlotte DSS and quite possibly the Levine Family are ALL legally Responsible for the Chapman Family's death stemming from total NEGLIGENCE.
If I were related to Mr. Chapman's family I would most definitely SUE and demand a Federal Probe to be conducted.
Sadly enough Kenneth Jermaine Chapman's relatives are probably uneducated or too afraid of Charlotte's Racist, Unfair systems to take legal action.
Charlotte's Racist, Scared Leaders know this which is why nothing will probably change.
Recent reports of patient abuse and neglect at Cherry Hospital in Goldsboro is more proof that the state's troubled mental health-care system needs restructuring and more funding, patient advocates say.
"There isn't a system of psychiatric facilities in this state," said Vicki Smith, executive director of Disability Rights North Carolina. "What we have are individual hospitals."
Smith said there needs to be a consistent standard level of care across the state's four psychiatric hospitals and that right now, hospitals only try to meet the minimum standards of care to receive funding.
She blamed that on job vacancies, lack of training, lack of supervision and oversight and inadequate pay. Many state agencies also rely on a temporary work force, and that means the quality of patient care is not always the same, she said.
Better recruiting and retention are needed, she said, to attract more qualified and attractive job candidates.
It's something the state's mental health oversight committee also suggested at a meeting earlier this week. John Tote, with the Mental Health Association in North Carolina, says the General Assembly needs to make more funding available.
Advocates believe Health and Human Services Secretary Dempsey Benton has taken aggressive steps to overhaul the system since taking over last year.
For example, he's starting to hold workers more accountable, Smith said. His recent decision to close a ward at Cherry Hospital in Goldsboro in the wake of a patient's death sends a big message, she said, partly because there aren't enough beds for patients there.
On Thursday, Benton said the Division of Mental Health must find an independent hospital management firm to evaluate Cherry Hospital.
However, Smith and Tote are concerned that any progress Benton is making could suffer a setback when a new governor is elected in November and if a new DHHS secretary is appointed.
"Four months left scares me," Smith said. "What concerns me is that with a new administration, the tendency will be to study the problems."
That would not be true if the gubernatorial candidates are already investigating and discussing the problems the mental health system faces. Advocates say they have not heard any specific plans from either candidate so far, however.
"Folks are going to be behind the eight ball, and if that's the case we'll see a perpetuation of the situation," Tote said.
The Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Health and Human Services says workers at a troubled state mental hospital will be retrained following an allegation of abuse that went unreported for several days.
"The patient was not harmed. The issue was that they handled it improperly, so we're going to make sure that we're restructuring a whole bunch of training at Cherry Hospital," Lanier Cansler said Thursday. "It really gave us a clue to the fact that they thought they were doing it right."
The intensive training will be for everyone who works at the Goldsboro facility and involve a list of prohibited actions that result in immediate termination, Cansler said.
Cherry Hospital is in jeopardy of losing approximately $800,000 in federal funding following the incident last month in which a mental health technician dragged a 22-year-old male patient and covered his face with a pillow to keep him from spitting while staff tried to restrain him.
Among the findings in a report by the U.S. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, the hospital "failed to provide care in a safe setting by failing to investigate the allegation of patient abuse in a timely manner" by allowing the same staff member to continue caring for the patient for 19 days after the allegation was reported.
Cansler told members of the Mental Health, Developmental Disabilities and Substance Abuse Joint Legislative Oversight Committee Thursday morning that the incident went unreported for so long, not because staff tried to hide it but because they didn't know they did anything wrong.
No one will lose their job over the case, Cansler said, despite a zero-tolerance policy he put in place soon after taking over the department in 2008.
"I will not hold an employee responsible for doing something improperly if they've never been trained to do it right," he said. "That's our responsibility, and we're going to make sure it happens."
DHHS must now submit a plan of correction detailing the new training by May 21 to CMS, which oversees the federal insurance plans and reimburses hospitals for treating patients under the programs.
The federal agency revoked Cherry Hospital's certification in 2008, when a 50-year-old patient died after staff left him sitting unattended in a chair for nearly 24 hours. The hospital lost an estimated $8 million to $10 million in federal funding as a result.
Three employees were ultimately fired, two resigned and 10 others were disciplined in that incident. Several former employees were also charged with and convicted of physically and sexually assaulting patients in other cases.
Mental health advocates and state officials have blamed a lack of training and inadequate pay as contributing factors to the problems the hospital has faced.
Canser said Gov. Bev Perdue's proposed budget for the next fiscal year provides $500,000 for additional training at state facilities. A federal match would bring the total to around $800,000.
Charlotte’s Center City Partners has backed away from asking City Council for up to $1 Million in Tax Dollars for an Uptown Farmer’s Market to be placed in the former location of Reid’s Fine Foods on Seventh Street.
The proposal floated two months ago in a PowerPoint presentation by CEO Michael J. Smith, got a cool reception from local elected officials struggling with tight budgets and impatient Taxpayers.
Before a public hearing designed to boost interest and solicit ideas for the project, Smith said Center City Partners and backers of the market will first look to private funding, the US Department of Agriculture and corporate sponsors before the group “may return to Council.”
Outgoing County Commissioner Dan Murrey, a backer of the public market, said, “That doesn’t mean there will never be a request.” But first, Murrey said, promoters of the project will figure out what’s possible with private dollars.
Center City Partners has pitched the market as both a small-business incubator for farmers, butchers and chefs as well as a source of fresh local produce for less affluent neighborhoods with no full-service grocery, referred to as “food deserts.”
“What we’re talking about is really small business development,” said Commissioner Murrey. “We’re not talking about a handout here or some kind of downtown bauble.”
But former County Commissioner Dan Bishop ridiculed the idea of a “food desert” - as he put it - “downstairs from a $3 million condo.”
Center City Partners plans to incorporate the market as a separate entity and provide back-office support for the market to pursue grants and private funding.
Smith says Carolina’s Health Care Systems has signed on as a “founding sponsor” and pledged to support the market financially for five years, but Smith said the amount of the pledge is “not public.”
The City Council’s Economic Development Committee is scheduled to meet tomorrow but Smith says any request for city funds will be postponed while backers “listen and learn” and secure new funding.
Two of Charlotte’s oldest, richest and most historic neighborhoods are engaged in a kind of behind-the-scenes, tug-of-war over tax dollars generated by special municipal tax districts.
The dispute arose after the Historic South End merged with uptown’s Center City Partners. Now some South End property owners complain their tax dollars are going to promote uptown rather than their own neighborhood.
“Their priorities are uptown,” said Wayne Powers, who ran a tea shop in the South End called “Tea Rex.” “They took us on as a poor cousin. Oh yeah, you can be in the club but sit in the balcony.”
Powers accuses Center City Partners of merging with the South End “…to expand their power base; It’s not where their commitment lies.”
The special “municipal service districts” were created more than 30 years ago by state lawmakers to allow main street businesses to tax themselves to boost development. Charlotte has five of the districts – three overlapping in uptown, one in the South End and one in the University City area.
The South End will generate more than $560,000 in special taxes from its service district this fiscal year, according to the city’s Department of Neighborhoods and Special Services. But according to documents provided by Center City Partners in the last year the group spent less than half that amount, or about $273,000, directly on the South End.
The remainder goes to administrative costs at Center City Partners, which in turn raises a quarter million dollars in private grants and sponsorships, a portion of which goes to the South End.
Administrative employees spend a portion of their time working on South End projects but do not report their time by district.
When Center City Partners began lobbying for a million dollars in local taxpayer funding for a public market uptown at the site of the former Reid’s Fine Foods, some South End property owners took it as a slap in the face. South End already hosts a fledgling public market in Atherton Mill without taxpayer funding.
“If these uptown financial wizards want an uptown lobbying group, let ‘em do it with their own money,” said Powers.
But Michael J. Smith, the CEO of Center City Partners, says his organization provides a valuable service for the South End.
“We have a unique program of work for uptown and a unique program of work for South End,” said Smith. “Those dollars by statute have to be invested in that district.”
Smith says Center City Partners can promote public markets in both uptown and the South End at the same time.
“We do represent Atherton Market. We're big fans of the market. We promote the market,” said Smith, adding that the proposed uptown public market is “something different.”
“You know what?” counters Powers. “If I were making $350,000, I’d come up with that kind of story too.”
Powers is referring to Smith’s salary, $88,000 bonus and benefits totaling $347,000 this year, recently reported by WCNC’s news partners at the Charlotte Observer.
Some South End property owners complain that inequities were built into the structure of the merger. The Historic South End contributes about 18 percent of the property taxes which support Center City Partners but gets only 8 percent of the votes on CCCP’s board of directors, holding only two of 25 voting seats.
Tony Pressley, a developer who led the way in turning Charlotte’s oldest industrial district into a distinct neighborhood of condos and design centers.
“Two board positions; that’s not adequate,” said Pressley.
Pressley says it’s time for his neighbors to re-evaluate the merger.
Five Apple iPads are now in the hands of staffers in Charlotte-Mecklenburg County government as officials examine whether the devices can help reduce printing costs.
At a cost of about $500 each, the recent purchase drew the ire of some county employees who contacted NewsChannel 36. The employees, who did not want to be named, question the spending on new technology at a time when Mecklenburg's government is slashing its budget and laying off workers.
The touchscreen tablets are being tested by Mecklenburg's budget director and staff in the county manager's office who will examine the practical use of sharing documents electronically, according to Danny Diehl, a county spokesperson.
Diehl said the cost of printing documents for one meeting of county commissioners can top $500.
Some taxpayers said they were concerned the county is purchasing a new device that has not yet been proven as a tool for business.
"The iPad is an absolutely wonderful thing but it’s just a toy for me and I don’t think I would be able to put it to any good practical use," said Charlotte resident Nelson May.
Commission Chair Jennifer Roberts said she has been viewing documents for meetings electronically for about a year, using a laptop computer while sitting at the dais.
"I can find my files much better electronically than I can find on paper," Roberts said, adding the push to run "paperless" meetings has been in the works for years and has the potential to save a substantial amount of money.
"It saves a lot of paper, so that’s saving our environment. And when you think about the ink that goes into that, the toner, the printer cartridge, the repair guy to fix the copier, it adds up."
Other county commissioners contacted by NewsChannel 36 said they were not aware of the iPad purchase and were hoping to learn more details of the potential savings.
What's even more disturbing is due to how this situation was mishandled by Mayor Anthony Foxx and Curt Walton (City Manager), Turner may have just cause to sue for Defamation of Character.
(You can read the full Investigative report results on PDF file here at this link.)
Results of this $35,000 report provide juicy details about how Turner has been Harassing Women in the Workplace since 1988.
How was Warren Turner able to get away with this horrible behavior for so many years?
Turner is an "Uncle Tom" previously protected by White North Carolina officials and Elite Black friends.
You know sort of like how Mayor Anthony Foxx tried to do when he sent that lame e-mail warning Charlotte City Council members "Sexual Harassment will not be Tolerated".
Please!
That was just a "smoke & mirrors", Cover up gimmick.
No doubt when the Charlotte City Council voted to hire a Private Investigator at $35,000 a pop, they probably thought it would uncover dirt on the Accuser.
Boy were they shocked when the report revealed otherwise!
5 Female employees who work for the City of Charlotte (mainly African-Americans) squealed on him and accused him of Sexual Harassment.
In addition it was reported he repeated similar behavior years ago while a Cadet at Charlotte's Police Academy.
This dirty scumbag who is also Married, was creeping on the side with his Female co-workers and Subordinates.
Don't be surprised because I warned you about what type of person Warren Turner was via a post I published last Fall entitled: "Warren Turner Absentee Politician".
This is an elected official (I've never voted for Warren Turner) who spent $10,000. last year on what he claims were "City Council related Business Trips".
Yeah I bet!
This is an elected official who treats the Black Constituents in his district (Southwest Charlotte) like dirt and does NOTHING to help improve the Quality of Life for them.
Especially for people who reside on Arrow wood and Nations Ford rds.
I'm talking NOT much Economic Development. (for Black Business Owners)
Very few Sidewalks, No Beauty, No Parks, No Neighborhood Revitalization, Terrible Segregated Schools, etc.,
Just mainly Blight, High Crime, Poverty and Ugliness.
In fact there are ONLY two positive things about Southwest Charlotte (Arrow wood rd and Nation Ford rd sections):
1) Access to the Light Rail (thanks to former Charlotte Mayor Pat McCrory)
And...
2) Victory Christian Center Church (a Ministry of Integrity) - which creates Jobs, provides Financial help & Tutoring for Charlotte's Underprivileged Youth, Helps to prevent Homelessness in coordination with Charlotte's Salvation Army and operates a successful Accredited School & Community College.
That's It Folks!
Other than that Southwest Charlotte (Arrow wood rd and Nations Ford rd sections) doesn't have much going for it.
If you think I'm exaggerating just drive through that area of Charlotte-Mecklenburg and tell me what you see.
As I stated above: NOT much Economic Development. (for Black Business Owners)
Very few Sidewalks, No Beauty, No Parks, No Neighborhood Revitalization, Terrible Segregated Schools, etc.,
Just mainly Blight, High Crime, Poverty and Ugliness.
I believe its due to Political backlash but I'll discuss that topic on another day.
Warren Turner is a Slimeball and needs to be thrown out of office on his bald head.
However Turner isn't the only elected official who more than likely won't be returning to Public Office that is unless...
Stupid Straight Ticket Voters who don't read what issues Political Candidates support before continuing to elect them.
One more thing....
Did I mention Mayor Anthony Foxx cried upon learning the results of Warren Turner's Sexually Harassment Investigation?
Yeah he sniffed a little while trying to hold back tears, why?
Because upon hearing results of the Investigation Foxx realized he messed up BIG time!
I bet he now wished the City of Charlotte's Human Resource Department had handled this situation.
Guess that Law degree didn't teach Anthony Foxx common sense as it relates to Employment Law and Personnel Matters.
Mr. John Lassiter, Anthony Foxx's Republican Mayoral challenger would have known this and NOT stuck his nose in this mess!
Well "Uncle" Foxx that's what you get for thinking only White people have real Intelligence.
Isn't John Lassiter Caucasian?
Yes he is but don't get it twisted!
Lassiter's ethnicity doesn't make him smarter about handling such sensitive matters.
Instead his more than 20 years of Small Business Experience makes him smarter about such matters.
Which is the reason why I voted for John Lassiter.
You see folks the bigger someone is, the harder they can fall.
Just because Charlotte City Council members claim they have no policy to discipline elected officials, NONE of that matters when it comes to Sexual Harassment.
Sexual Harassment complaints are protected by Federal Law under Title VII. (EEOC)
Since Turner is a State of North Carolina employee (Probation Officer) he can still be heavily reprimanded, even up to Termination for demonstrating such despicable, Illegal behavior in the Workplace.
I smell a HUGE Lawsuit brewing: Racial Discrimination and Sexual Harassment.
Both are protected from Retaliation by Federal Law. (EEOC)
In case your wondering Warren Turner is also NOT the elected Charlotte Politician currently serving in Public Office I'm closely blood-related to but your guesses are getting warmer.
Oh well, we can't choose our blood relatives whether we wish to claim them or not right?
Check out all videos (above & below) and articles below to learn more more about how this sad saga most certainly spells the end of Warren Turner's Political career.
Five Charlotte City employees told an investigator that Charlotte City Council member Warren Turner made sexually inappropriate comments to them, including a female staffer whose complaint sparked the probe, according to a report released Monday night.
Turner, who attended the dinner meeting when the report was read, told investigators he didn't do anything wrong. He said Monday night he would have a detailed response in the future.
Turner, a Democrat who has represented west Charlotte since 2003, is also a state probation officer.
Turner once tried to become a police officer, but he was "involuntarily terminated" from the Charlotte Police Academy in 1988, according to the report. A female cadet said Turner "repeatedly" made sexually inappropriate comments to her, and then later physically threatened her, the report said.
The highly unusual investigation of a council member could lead to the council censuring Turner, as some members discussed. But the city's policy against sexual harassment doesn't apply to elected officials, meaning Turner can't be removed from office or suspended.
The female employee whose complaint touched off the probe -- who is not the former cadet -- told investigator Valecia McDowell that on Dec. 14 of last year that she met with Turner in council member James Mitchell's office.
She said that Turner had been looking for her, and when she asked if he needed anything, she said Turner said: "I just wanted to make sure you were doing your job."
The female staff member, known in the report as Employee A, told the investigator that as she was leaving the office, Turner pulled at her sweater at waist level.
Afterward, she said, Mitchell called her and said what Turner had done was "inappropriate."
Mitchell, who told investigators he is "very close" with Turner, told McDowell he didn't say that and doesn't remember Turner touching the employee's clothing.
Soon after, the female employee told City Manager Curt Walton and another city employee about the incident. The employee then met with the city's human resources director, Tim Mayes, though she said she didn't want to make a formal complaint.
According to the report, Mayes told the employee: "I can't sit on this even if (Employee A) doesn't want to go forward."
Mayes then discussed the situation with Mayor Anthony Foxx, who was unsure how to handle the allegation, according to the report.
In March, Walton asked Foxx to address the allegation because there was an upcoming National League of Cities meeting that Turner and the employee would both be attending.
On March 14, Foxx sent an e-mail to all 11 council members warning them not to sexually harass city staff. The e-mail prompted the council to investigate.
McDowell, an attorney with the law firm Moore & Van Allen, interviewed 18 people. She said the probe will likely cost the city $35,000.
She wrote that "there is sufficient evidence" to support a finding that Council Member Turner made unwanted sexual and gender-related comments to and about Employee A.
After McDowell read her report, Republican Edwin Peacock criticized how Foxx, a Democrat, handled the situation by sending the e-mail.
Peacock said Foxx and city staff should have handled the issue with a private meeting.
Foxx was visibly upset when he defended how he handled the allegation.
"I think you are reaching, frankly," Foxx said:
"This is Monday morning quarterbacking. There is one mayor of the city, exactly one person who had this thrust on his lap. I dealt with it. I have a five-year-old daughter. I want her to grow up in a world where she can go to work. That's what was behind it."
The staff member who said Turner grabbed at her clothing also said Turner made other unwelcome comments.
In February 2008, the staff member said Turner stopped in her office. He asked the staff member about a mug on her desk that had a photo of the actor Shemar Moore.
Turner asked whose photo was on the mug, and the employee said, "That's my motivation!"
Turner then said, according to the employee, "You don't need that, I should be your motivation. You need a real man to be your motivation!"
The employee then said Turner asked where she went undergraduate and graduate school, and Turner then said: "See, that's your problem right there: they don't have any real men at those schools! Your real motivation is right here."
Turner told investigators that he didn't say those things.
The female employee told her supervisor about the comments, and also discussed the incident with McCarley and human resources director Tim Mayes, according to the report.
The employee said that in September 2008, Turner met her fiance, and then later said to her: "I need to know who would marry you! He needs to come and talk to me so I can give him advice on how to deal with you!"
McDowell also interviewed other city staff members, and asked if they had witnessed any council member speak inappropriately.
The only council member who was identified as behaving inappropriately was Turner.
One female employee, described in the report as Employee B, said that on a 2006 trip to Reno, Turner made a sexually explicit comment to her as they passed a hotel store
displaying pornographic magazines. The employee told investigators that she worked to avoid being alone with Turner.
Turner told the investigators he never made any such comments.
Another female employee, described as Employee C, said Turner made sexually inappropriate comments to her more than once.
She said she didn't want to disclose the comments because she felt they might identify her.
A female employee described as D, said she had heard about Turner's inappropriate comments from other female staff members, and that Turner had once approached her and said: "If I wasn't married," The employee then said she cut him off.
The investigators interviewed an employee of the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, who was in the Charlotte Police Academy with Turner in 1988.
The former police cadet told investigators that Turner made "repeated sexually inappropriate comments" while they were in the academy.
Turner told investigators that he resigned from the academy before graduating because he had a ticket for an expired automobile tag and because he had physically threatened a cadet. He said he hadn't made sexually inappropriate comments.
The investigators, however, reviewed Turner's employment records and found he was "involuntarily terminated" from the Charlotte Police Department.
The report said that it "appears Council Member Turner was less than fully truthful when responding to questions."
The report said it found that Employee A's comments appear "to be credible and consistent, especially when viewed in light of the substantial number of unrelated but factually similar incidents recounted by other witnesses."
The investigation wasn't tasked with verifying the accounts of other staff members; they were included as supporting witnesses to Employee A's claims.
Attorney Valecia McDowell on Monday delivered a 20-page report detailing her investigation into allegations of inappropriate conduct by a city council member.
McDowell, an attorney with the law firm Moore & Van Allen, interviewed 18 people. She said the probe, which focused on Councilman Warren Turner, will likely cost the city $35,000.
McDowell wrote that it appeared at times during the investigation that Turner "was less than fully truthful when responding to questions from the investigative team."
She also found it "especially troubling" that Turner asked a female city employee about her involvement in the investigation as it was under way.
Welcome to the BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog. (Established 2008)
My name is Laurel. (Author & Publisher)
I Blog with a focus on POLITICS, Business, and occasionally Entertainment.
FACTS ABOUT LAUREL:
Wife,
Mother of a U.S. Soldier,
Sister,
Woman of GOD,
Loyal Friend,
Creative,
Blood-related to a nationally known Charlotte Politician.
Black Female, Intelligent,
Married,
Love to Travel,
Credentialed by the RNC and DNC.
Political Blogger/ Commentator
Grassroots Activist,
PROFESSIONAL STATUS:
Credential Political Blogger/ Commentator,
Registered Independent Voter
Original Native of BROOKLYN, NY
Currently reside in CHARLOTTE, NC
I’m Nice but don’t get it twisted because my Mind is Sharp!
Since You’ve Chosen to Visit and Read the Contents of this Blog by Personal Choice, and of Your Own Free Will,
Please don’t ask me to Compensate you for Expressing individual commentary/ Posted Articles, which are protected by the First Amendment, citing Freedom of Speech & Freedom of Expression.
No Intentionally Malicious Slander, Libel or Defamation of Character content will be published and I will always Credit all Sources.
NOTE TO ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS, APPOINTED OFFICIALS & PUBLIC FIGURES:
Per the Landmark U.S. Supreme Court Case: 1964 case of New York Times v. Sullivan………
The Public has a Right to Criticize the People who Govern them, so the least Protection from Defamation is given to Public Officials. When officials are accused of something that involves their behavior in office, they have to prove all of the above elements of defamation and they must also prove that the defendant acted with “actual malice.” (For a definition of actual malice, see the “History of Defamation and the First Amendment, below.”)
People who aren’t Elected but who are Still Public Figures because they are influential or famous — like Actors, Actresses, Movie Stars, Singers & Entertainers, Journalists, TV Hosts, Bloggers, etc., — also have to Prove that Defamatory statements were made with Actual Malice, in most cases.
To the Associated Press and other Media Organizations:
When I use your Content Links., I’m also citing the Fair Use Doctrine (Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107) for further Copyright permission.
Posts and Links published on Black Political Buzz are not endorsed by Black Political Buzz Blog Author Laurel’s Employer, nor the Employers of other Black Political Buzz employees.
This includes Links, Posts and Comments posted on Black Political Buzz’s Facebook and Twitter account pages.
Comments, Links and Opinions of site visitors are Independently-Owned and not endorsed by Black Political Buzz employees, Blog Author Laurel or Laurel’s Employer.)
(No Personal Offense intended) Please know that Black Political Buzz is not responsible for nor do I endorse Requests for Donations from Third Parties on this Blog.
I will Only Endorse Requests for Donations made on behalf of BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ Blog for Business Purposes & Operating Expenses.
I will also Only Endorse Requests for Donations on behalf of Legitimate Politicians and Legitimate Political Candidates. PERIOD!!
If anyone else or another Organization wishes to post a link to Request Donations, I am NOT endorsing ANY of those Requests!
Unless I receive a personal Request to do so and I have Professionally Confirmed that the Third Party Organization or Charity is indeed a Legitimate Entity.
NOTE: Anyone who chooses to give to any Third Party Organization NOT Endorsed by BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ is doing so at his or her own risk.
BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ does NOT Discriminate against Politicians, Political Candidates, Organizations or Charities based on Race, Color, Nationality, Ethnicity, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Religion, Faith, Disability, Political Affiliation, Creed, Education, Social Status, Age.
This disclaimer applies to ANY and All requests for Donations on this Blog. Thanks for understanding. Again No Personal Offense intended.
For Story Tips….Corrections…….. or Requests for Endorsements:
Please contact me via e-mail: blackpoliticalbuzz@gmail.com
or via my Facebook page: facebook.com/blackpoliticalbuzz
Thanks for stopping by
God Bless
Laurel @BLACK POLITICAL BUZZ
LINKS: POLITICAL PERSPECTIVE & INFORMATIONAL SITES
.jpg)
