WORKPLACE
SOLUTIONS
NORTHWEST

Jill Goldsmith, J.D.
Workplace Solutions NW
6327-C SW Capitol Hwy, P.MB 208

Phone: (503) 977-9099
Mobile (503) 329-5158
E-mail: jill@workplacesolutionsnw.com

Portland, OR 97239

FACT FINDING REPORT
City of Portland/Complaints of Captain Mark Kruger
BACKGROUND
I was retained through the office of the Pordand City Attorney to perform an investigation into two
complaints filed by Pordand Police Bureau (PPB) Captain Ma.rk Kruger. However, because the
complaints were pardy related to actions and advice of some in the City Attorney's office, I worked
through Anna Kanwit, the City's Human Resources Director, to access witnesses and documents.1

I interviewed 14 witnesses: Kruger, Constanrin Severe (Director of the Independent Police Review
or IPR), Mary Hull Caballero (City Auditor and Severe's supervisor), Mark Amberg, Judy Prosper
and EUea Osoinach (aU attorneys with the City Attorney's Office), Chief Mike Marshman, Captain
Mike Crebs, Assistant Chiefs George Burke and Donna Henderson, former Chief Larry O'Dea,

Captain Derek Rodrigues (all of the PPB), Christopher Paille (a PPB employee and Coordinator of
the Police Review Board or PRB), and Ann Pressendn (a contract facilitator for the City).
This case arose out of correspondence between Severe and Kruger relative to an officer's

disciplinary process which culminated in a Cidzen's Review Committee meetmg at which Kruger
was subjected to disrespectful behavior by members of the audience. One of the IPR's roles is to
oversee and report on PPB accountability. Currendy, complaints against PPB officers are
investigated by either Internal Affairs (IA) or the IPR, but factual findings are made by the officer's
captain. IA and IPR have an opportunity to disagree with the captain's findings. If there is
disagreement, the case is heard by a Police Review Board (PRB). Either the complainant or the
officer may appeal from the PRE to the CRC meeting, which is a public meeting before members of
the CRC who are citizen volunteers.
The citizen complaint underlying Kruger's complaints was made by Robert West, a citizen who
makes it a practice to videotape members of law enforcement. West had an interaction with Officer
Groshong in which Groshong put his hand up to West's camera. West claimed that Groshong
grabbed his camera, Kruger disagreed that Groshoag grabbed the camera and did not sustain

' Mark Amberg of the City Attorney's Office seat an email infofming some City employees that I had been retained by
the City.
2 Marshman was the Strategic Services Division Captain at the tkne of the interview.
3 Henderson has since retired.
4 O'Dea has since retired.
5 I was unable to interview Kristin Malone, Chair of the Citizen's Review Committee.

Page 1 of 22

 West's complaint. Interactions between Kruger, Severe and

during the course of this

complaint process are the subject ofKruger's complaint.

ALLEGATIONS
Kruger filed two complaints. In the first, filed March 4, 2016 (Exhibit 1), he alleged:

B. Severe has treated Kruger discourteously, offensively or engaged in conduct unbecoming or
engaged ia bullying that demeans, humiliates or indfflidates him.
1. Continuous and systematic effort through his written statements related to the IAD

#2015-0-0325 (Groshoag), spedficaUy:
a) Severe wrote a memo on December 17, 2015 in which Severe called Kruger s
statement that the incident should not have been investigated corrosive.
b) Severe s 2-1-16 memo said Kruger was hostile and combative at the PRB, among
other things.
2. Severe placed these comments into the public record -with the purpose of undermining
Kruger s professional position, mischaracterizing his role, intimidating him, subjecting

him to hutniliation
C.

Severe

brought t

views to the attention of the DOJ in an

attempt to intimidate him, mischaracterize his role.
D. IPR wants RU to rubber stamp their views
After a March 30, 201 6 Citizen's review Committee meetmg, Kruger filed a second complaint on

April 3, 2016 (Exhibit 2). In that complaint he alleged:
A. Kruger and PPA president Daryl Turner were subject to degrading and humiliating insults.
B. No dty official took steps to prevent or midgate the behavior and he could not excuse
himself from it.

-CUeat Privilege Page 2 of 22

 C. Severe did nothing [and] Hull Caballero who was. the senior city official present with
authority over the CRC process but did nothing.
D. The City did not follow up right away on Kruger's first complaint.

SUMMARY
1.
2. Kruger's allegations against Severe are substantiated in part and unsubstanriated in part.
3. Kruger's allegations concerning the manner in which he was treated at the CRC are
substantiated.
4. City officials who were present at the CRC did not have the power to usurp the Chair's
authority and the Chair did not believe she had the power to exclude unruly audience members,
leading to increasingly poor behavior throughout the CRC meeting. After reviewing video tape
of the meeting and listening to witness descriptions, I conclude that no employee should have
been subjected to the treatment endured by those present, particularly Kruger, towards whom
the vitriol was especially disrespectful. There are several factors which explain what happened:
a. First, the City had been enjoined on December 31, 2015 from prospecdvely excluding
individuals who disrupted pubUc meetings. Rightly or wrongly, at the rime of the March 30,
2016 CRC meeting, the City Attorney's Office was unsure about how exacdy that injunction
should be interpreted and gave conseryadve advice about the ability to exclude individuals
from City meetings. Between the date of the injunction up to and including the March 30,
2016 CRC meeting, there were no exclusions from City meetings for this reason. The Chair
of the CRC, Kristen Malone, was advised immediately before the meeting that she did not
have the right to exclude audience members from the meeting.
b. Second, every person I interdewed who was present at the CRC meeting on March 30,2016
was personally dismayed by the behavior of many of the citizens present. Citizens were
loudly interrupting, wandering the aisles, yeUing insults, calling derogatory names at both
Kmger and the poUce union president Daryl Turner and singiag loudly. The meeting
cukninated with one of them throwing a glass of water into the face of one of the CRC
members, Robert Young.6 Every person I interviewed stated that although there has been
some unruly behavior from time to time in the past at CRC meetings, the March 30, 2016
meeting was far worse. Those interviewed stated that they had no personal control over the
meeting, or in the case ofMalone, had been admonished not to exclude those behaving in
this manner.

c. Third, because the March 30, 2016 meeting was so much worse in terms of cidzen behavior
as compared to previous meetings, I believe that those who could have done something
different did not consider alternatives, perhaps out of shock or not knowing that they could

6 There was a separate crkrunal case against this individual.

-CUent Privilege Page 3 of 22

 have taken action. For example, Henderson and Burke were present with Kruger and could
have told him to leave the meetmg. Malone could have adjourned the meedrig. However,
they did not think of doing this at the dme, and it is difficult to fault them due to the nature
of the behavior experienced at this meeting.
d. Fourth, whether because of Kruger's complaint or because others agreed that the behavior
at the March 30, 2016 meettng was not acceptable, the CRC has had new ground rules put in
place to which former Chief O'Dea agreed.

FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
I. Factual Background
A. Department of Justice Setdement Agreement

The City of Pordand's PPB has been working with the US Department of Justice (DQJ) for several
years because of a setdemeat agreement (SA) which requires certain actions from the City and the
PPB. Coastandn Severe, who is the Dicector of the Independent PoUce Review and responsible for
police accountability to the cotnmunity, has many responsibilities under the SA, including improving

public perception of the accountability of his office and the PPB. The SA specifically provides:
"This Agreement further requires that the City and PPB put in place more effective systems of
oversight and self-correcdon that will identify and correct problems before they develop into
patterns or practices of unconstitutional conduct and/or erode community trust.
"This Agreement further identifies measures, to be met withia fixed periods of time, that -wiU
assist the Parties and the community in determming whether: (1) the City has changed its
procedures and taken the actions Usted in this agreement; (2) community trust in PPB has
increased; and (3) the improvements wtU be sustainable".
Severe and his department have made changes and proposed more changes to increase poUce
accountability. Based on my interviews with Severe, he strongly beUeves in providing transparency
and accountability to the community.
B. Groshong-West Interaction

On October 20, 2015, Robert West, a citizen, had an interaction with Officer Groshong at the
Police Parking Garage on Second Avenue (Exhibit 4). On October 21, 2015, West attended a
community meeting which Assistant Chief Mike Crebs andjonas Geissler of the DOJ also attended,

and West played his video of the interaction for Crebs (Exhibit 5).

7 After this meeting, former Chief O'Dea stated he would not allow his employees to attend CRC meetings until he
could be assured of their safety and a respectful working environment (Exhibit 3).
8 http://www.pordandoregon.gov/ipr/26646?.
9httos://www.iusdce.eov/sites/default/files/crt/leeacv/2013/ll/13/ODb orooosedsetde 12-17-12.odf.
10 https: / /•www.youtube.com/watch?v=KGaULIBkqOk.

-CUeat Privilege Page 4 of 22

 Crebs told me his initial reaction was to wonder if Officer Groshong might have committed a
crime. Crebs made a video of West's video by taping it on his ceU phone and shared the video and
the incident with Captain Derek Rodrigues of PPB Professional Standards the next morning.
Together, Crebs and Rodrigues called Severe to talk to him about the West-Groshong interaction.
Severe was able to find a video of the interaction on line and after discussion, it was agreed that
Professional Standards would investigate the case as a non-use of force.
The matter was invesdgated and the factual findings and allegation were submitted to Groshong's

Responsible Unit (RU) manager, the Captain of the Dmgs and Vice Division (DVD), Captain Mark
Kruger (Exhibit 6). Kruger wrote a findings memo (Exhibit 7) and Actkig Assistant Chief George
Burke concurred with Kruger's findings (Exhibit 8). The PPB process on citizen complaints such as
these is that the Professional Standards Captain and the Director of the IPR (Severe and Rodrigues)
both have a chance to read the RU manager's findings memo and decide if they agree with it. In this
case, both Severe and Rodrigues did not agree with Kruger's finding and both decided to
"controvert" meaning that they disagreed. Both wrote memos explaining their reasoning (Exhibits 9
and 10). When an RU manager's findings memo is controverted, the case is sent to the PRE.
II. Kruger's Findings Memo dated December 9, 2015
The specific allegation against Groshongwas: "Officer Scott Groshong acted unprofessionaUy
when he grabbed the leas of Mr. West's video camera" (Exhibit 7, page 2). The RU manager's job
in writing a findings memo is to determine whether the evidence supports the allegation as framed
by Internal Affairs (IA). Chief Marsbnan, who was then Captain of the Strategic Seryices Division
and the PPB's primary contact with the DOJ on implementing the SA, told me that an RU manager
is required to evaluate the evidence of a case against the allegation as framed by IA. Marshmaa
pointed out that it is possible to ask IA to re&ame the allegation, but it is not possible write a
findings memo that holds an officer accountable for a "lesser included" violation while not finding
the officer accountable for the actual allegation.
Kruget recommended a finding of not sustained in response to West's complaint (Exhibit 7). The
last Une ofKruger's findings memo states:
" Officer Groshong even goes to the trouble of writing a report, which, in the conjunction
with a review of the video, should have resulted in the rejection of this complaint in the first instance"

(Exhibit 7, page 3) (emphasis supplied).
Kruger believed the video footage plainly showed that the camera had not been "grabbed" as alleged
in the LA invesdgation but at most had been blocked by Groshong's hand. Kruger credited
Groshong's explanation that he put his hand up to block the camera when West pushed it in his
face. As a result, Kruger believed that the allegation should not be sustained. Kruger further
reasoned that there should not have been an invesdgadon of the allegation as framed by the

11 It was ultimately determined that the interaction was not criminal. Furthermore, although Crebs inidaUy thought this
interaction was a use of force. Severe and Rockigues determmed that it was not.

-CUent Privilege Page 5 of 22

 complainant because he believed the video showed no grab" of the lens. Burke concurred that
Groshong did not grab the camera or inidate physical contact \vith West (Exhibit 8).
Crebs, on seeing the same video, initially believed that Groshong might have committed a crime.
There were others aside from Burke who agreed \vith Kruger throughout this case and there were
others who did not agree with him. In other words, reasonable people (including Kruger) viewed
the same evidence quite differently.
Burke, who concurred in Kruger's findings memo, told me he did not register the last sentence
when reviewing Kruger's findings memo: he simply didn't nodce it (Exhibit 7, page 3). Burke told
me that if he had noticed this sentence, he would have told Kruger to remove it. Burke explained
that this complaint came in originally as a use of force complaint and the PPB cannot simply refuse
to ignore such a complaint. Burke said that Kruger was not aware of the original characterization of
the complaint.
Burke was standing in for former Assistant Chief Donna Henderson who was on vacation and to
whom ICruger reported at the time. Henderson told me the same thing Burke did: that if she had
seen the comment about not investigating West s complaint, she would have told Kruger to take it
out of his Endings memo. She said that the PPB cannot refuse to investigate courtesy complaints.
O'Dea agreed with both Burke and Henderson that the final comment in Kruger s memo should
not have been made. O'Dea told me that he instructed Henderson to counsel Kruger to make it
clear that courtesy complaints would not be declined.13 O'Dea said he didn't want a captain thiaking
that this kind of complaint shouldn t be investigated.
In other words. Burke, Henderson and 0 Dea aU agreed that Kruger should not have opined that
the West complaint shouldn't have been invesdgated. No one gave Kruger this feedback at the
rime he wrote the memo or prior to the PRB on January 20, 2016.
I agree that Kruger should not have opined that a citizen's complaint should not have been
investigated in his findmgs memo. The findings memo is the wrong venue for such a sentiment and
the comment indicates a lack of awareness of the wider context of poUce accountability.
III. Contcovert Memos
A. Rodrigues' Controvert Memo

Rodrigues did not concur with Kruger and decided to coatcovert his findings. Rodrigues wrote a
memo on December 17, 2015, in which he explained:

12 Those who did agree with Kruger's view of the video evidence disagreed with the statement that IA/IPR should not
have invesdgated the complaint in the first instance.
13 O'Dea told me that he instructed Headerson to make an entry to this effect in Kruger's EIS (an internal PPB
documentation system) but according to Anna Kanwit, no such entry was made. I note that at the time, O'Dea was on

leave and both he aad Headerson were retiring so it is possible this was forgotten due to other events which ecUpsed it.
111 Crebs and Marshman also indicated thetc belief that such a statement does not belong in a findings memo.

-Clieat Privilege Page 6 of 22

 "My account of the video conflicts with Captain Kruger, A/C Burke and Officer Groshong
in that it appears to me that Officer not only walks towards Mr. West, but extends his left
arm out, then either grabs, attempts to grab, blocks or in some other manner, covers up the

lends [sic] of the camera as was evidence by the video almost entirely blocked out by
Officer Groshong s hand, until he pulled back a little which was evidenced by the picture

reappearing" (Exhibit 9).
B. Severe's Controvert Memo

Severe also viewed the video evidence differendy than Kruger did and believed that Groshong
approached West rapidly and not the other way around. Severe reasoned:
"Mr. West when he was videotaping outside of Central Precinct was on a sidewalk open to
the public, engaged in activity protected by both the Federal and State Constitutions.
Officer Groshong initiated contact with the complainant and attempted to prevent Mr.
West from videotaping him with no support or legal justification that I can find in either in
[sic] the directives or in state law. It is my beMef that this episode, if it were known to the
\vider public, would in fact diminish the Police Bureau's standing with the populace"

(Exhibit 10, page 2).15
Severe also objected to Kruger's opinion that the video evidence along with Groshong's report
should have resulted in West's complaint being rejected without the necessity of an investigation.
Severe wrote:

"An additional matter is Captain Kmger's inappropriate comment staring that this
complaint should not have been investigated by Internal Affairs. Given Captain Kruger's
high rank and position as the head of a critical unit -within the Bureau, his editoriali2ing on
the appropriateness of the opening of an Internal Affairs investigation that he was later
assigned to write the findings is corrosive and sets an unfortunate precedent. If other
members of command staff engage in such behavior it has the potential to undermine the
Police Bureau's efforts to hold its members accountable and further weaken the public's

trust" (Exhibit 10, page 2) (emphasis supplied).
Severe objected to Kruger stadng that IA should not have investigated a citizen complaint. Severe
told me he wrote this paragraph and used the word "corrosive" because it is his duty and role to
provide accountability to the public. Severe beUeved that a captain opining that an investigation
should not take place was whoUy improper. Severe strongly beUeves in his role to provide police
accountability to the public and viewed Kruger's statement as minimizing the officer's behavior.
Severe also believed that the PPB command staff approved Kruger's statement because Burke
concurred in the findings memo and allowed it to be issued.
Following Severe's coatrovert memo, no discussions took place between Severe and Kruger or

others at PPB either to find out more about why Severe objected so strongly to Ki-uger's findings

15 Severe also noted that he would recommend that the allegation against Groshong be modified at the Police Review
Board meeting.

-CUeat PrivUege Page 7 of 22

 memo. Furthermore, no one spoke to Kruger about his opinion in the findings memo that the
investigation should not have taken place.
I find that Severe objected to Kruger's comment that the matter shouldn't have been invesdgated
and reacted by railing it "corrosive." Severe also assumed that PPB command staff agreed -with
Ki-uger's opinion. I view Kruger's comment and Severe's response as roughly equivalent to each

other in the sense that the comment should not have been made and Severe objected and reacted to
it dicecdy.

IV. PRE January 20, 2016
A. Function and Role of PRE
According to City Code 3.20.140, the PRE is an advisory body to the Chief of Police. The PRE
makes recommendations about findings and proposed officer discipline to the Chief. The PRE is
composed of voting members and advisory members. The five votkig members are a cidzea, a peer
officer, the IPR Director, the RU manager and the Assistant Branch Chief of the involved officer.
In this case, the vodng members were a citizen, a peer officer, Kruger, Burke and Severe. A number

of others attended either to observe or as advisory members, including Crebs, Rodrigues and City
Attorney Mark Amberg.
The PRB is facilitated by a non-employee contractor with experience in facilitating meetings; in this
case, the facilitator was Ann Pressendn.

B. ConfidendaUty ofPRB facts, discussions and deliberations
The City Code directs the PPB and IPR to develop a Bureau Directive estabMshkig confidendaUty
provisions for the PRE. PPB Dicecdve 336.00 (which was last revised in 2014 during Severe's
tenure as IPR Director) provides that the facilitator of the PRE "shall maintain strict coafidendalit^
of all case file information and Police 'Review Board discussions and deliberations" (Exhibit 11, page 4)

(emphasis supplied).
In addition, PPB Directive 336.00 provides:
"12.1 Information regarding case files and PoUce Review Board discussions and
deliberations is stricdy confidential.
"12.2 AU individuals involved in the Police Review Board process shaU strictly maintain the
confidentiality of aU case file information and Police Review Board discussions and
deliberations and shaU only discuss case file information and PoUce Review Board
discussions and deliberations as necessary for purposes of the Police Review Board process
or as otherwise authorized in accordance with their position \vith the City (Exhibit 11, page

5).
These PPB directive provisions provide for confidendaUty with respect to aU. mformatioa,
discussions and deliberations of the PRB unless otherwise authorized by a City employee's position
\vith the City. There is no specific written exception for the IPR director to dispense with dlls
directive.

-Client Privilege Page 8 of 22

 Christopher PaUle, the PRE coordinator, told me that everything associated -with the PRB is
confidendal, including what is said during the meeting, presentations, deliberations and even the
demeanor of the people involved. Paille provides a check list and handouts to the participants to
orient them to the process. Paffle provided me with a copy of these materials, which includes a
statement of the Review Board process (Exhibit 12). This process statement includes a welcome
and explains the PRB purpose and rules - which are read aloud (Exhibit 12, page 3). The faciUtatof
script on the board purpose and rules provides:
"1. AH information and discussions are confidential and will only be discussed amongst

participants of the particular review" (Exhibit 12, page 3) (emphasis in original).
Paille also personally discusses PRE rules including confidentiality with aU PRE members. In other
words, by City Code, Police Bureau Directive, PRB poUcy, individual discussion with Paille and by
virtue of the facilitator reading the rules out loud during the PRE meeting itself, it is made clear to all
PRE participants that all facts, discussions and deliberations of the PRB are confidential.
C. Witness Perceptions of Kruger's Behavior and Demeanor
1; Severe's Perception
Following this PRE meedng. Severe wrote a memo describing Kruger's demeanor and actions in the

PRE and published this memo on the IPR website (Exhibit 13). In this memo. Severe provided his
rationale for appealing the PRE decision (discussed separately below). In addition. Severe criticized
Kruger's demeanor and behavior in the PRB:
"* * * I was disappointed by the tone of the PoUce Review Board session in this case. The
involved member's superior officer Captain Mark Kruger behaved in a manner akin to
defense counsel for the officer as opposed to a neutral fact-finder. Even more disturbing
was Captain Kruger's description of the Internal Affairs investigation as "petdfogging" and
not worthy of an administrative investigation. Captain Kruger's behavior at the Police
Review Board was hostile and combarive. Captain Kruger was disrespectfal to Internal
Affairs and openly disdaiaful towards IPR.
<^ ^ ^;

[describing Crebs actions and the Internal Affairs invesdgadon].

"Unfortunately, that admirable spirit of inquiry and self-examinatioa dissipated with Captain
Kruger's findings and continued into the PoUce Review Board session. * * *" (Exhibit 13,
pages 1-2).
Severe told me he viewed Ki-uger's behavior and demeanor was "unprecedented" at the PRE.

Severe said that Kruger was blunt and dismissive of the IA investigation. Severe recalled that
Kruger mentioned Severe's comment in his controvert memo in which he used the word
"corrosive" and said that the investigadoa itself was "corrosive." Severe said that if a sergeant or an

officer had done what Kruger had done, there would have been another investigation because

-Client Privilege Page 9 of 22

 Severe beUeved Kruger's conduct was unprofessional while engaging in his dudes. Severe said that
the only person who spoke up at PRE was Rodrigues despite some members of the command staff
being present.
2. Other Witnesses' Perceptions of Kruger's behavior and demeanor.
No other witness at the PRB thought Kruger's behavior exceeded the bounds of professionalism.
Some witnesses thought he was professional, articulate, focused and appropriate \vithout conditions.
Other witnesses thought he verged on bemg personal at times towards Severe; or in the words of
the facilitator, was somewhat "cocky". However, no one thought he crossed the Une of being

unprofessional or inappropriate during the PRB. According to the witnesses:

• Mark Amberg of the City Attorney's Office was present at the PRB. Amberg did not beUeve
Kruger was unprofessional. Amberg said that the purpose of the PRB is to have a robust
discussion. He said Kruger was straightforward and articulate and behaved like most RU
managers would behave.

• Burke was present at the PRE. Burke said that Kruger was detailed and well-prepared to discuss
each of the points m the case. Burke believed that Kruger was too personal towards Severe and
directed too much of his argument towards Severe. Burke said that Kruger wasn't out of line or
unprofessional, but that he detracted somewhat from the purpose of the PRE by inserting what
appeared to be his own personal issue into the proceeding. Burke described it as Kruger
"defending his honor." Burke said that Kruger spent too much tkne addressing Severe's
coatrovert memo in his presentation, trying to prove Severe wrong instead of focusing on the
facts of the case. Burke said he later told Kruger that he would not have approached the PRB in
the way Kruger did.

• Mike Crebs was present at the PRB. He said that Kcuger was fully prepared to convey his view to
the PRE members and persuade them that he was correct. Crebs said that if he were going to a
PRB and Kruger was there to oppose him on a finding, Crebs would make sure that he was fully
prepared and had a grasp of all the details because Kruger does his job thoroughly. As Crebs put
it, if you are going against Kruger in a PRB, "you better be prepared." Crebs wasn't persuaded by
Kl-uger's arguments, however, because Crebs beUeved Groshong should never have gotten out of

the car in the first place. Crebs said he was disappointed by the lack of presentation on the part
of both Severe and Rodrigues. Crebs said they did not seem prepared and did not say much in
support of their controvert memos. Crebs said that the PRB is a mini-hearing and those making
presentations are expected to know the facts and argue their view points. Crebs found nothing
unprofessional in Kruger's demeanoi: or presentadon.

16 I note that City Code 3.21.070 D provides IPR with broad powers to inidate administrative complaints against any
sworn ofEcer or supervisor of a sworn ofEcer. http://\vww.portlaadoregon.gov/dtycode/axticle/479661. I read this
provision to entide Severe to initiate an investigation against Kruger if Severe believed Kruger was unprofessional in
performing his dudes at the PRB.

-CUent Privilege Page 10 of 22

 • Hendersoa was present at the PRE. She said that Kruger was matter of fact, organized and laid
out his case point by point. She said this is how Kruger approaches things generally.

• Paille was present at the PRB. Paille said that he had an ttnpressioa that he was watching an
argument in a court of law and that usually the RU managers just state the facts. PaUle thought
Kruger was more emphatic than is typical, but as PaiUe doesn't work with Kruger closely, he did
not know if this was his typical demeanor. PalUe said that it was clear that Kruger is impassioned
about leadership and values his team. PaiUe said that another thing that was sUghdy different
about this PRE was that the documents in the case (referring to Kruger's findings memo and
Severe's controvert memo - Exhibits 7 and 10) had a slighdy unprofessional tone. However, at
the PRE, he did not beUeve that Kruger was unprofessional; in fact, he beUeved everyone
remained professional. Paille did not perceive that Kruger referred to Rodrigues, IA or Severe in
a disrespectful or dismissive manner.

• Ann Pressentm was the PRB facilitator in the Groshong case. She said that this PRE was fairly
typical. Pressentin has facilitated other PRBs where Kruger was a presenter. She said that Kruger
takes them seriously, speaks clearly and is prepared. She said that Severe is also clear and
prepared. Pressenrin recalled that Kruger used the word "pettifogging" and was making the
argument that the allegation didn't rise to the level of being reviewed by the FEB. She said she
hasn't heard that from other RU managers before, but that Kruger was not being dismissive or
disrespectful. She said she noted that Kruger and Severe didn't seem "warm and fuzzy" and
weren't making eye contact, but that there was nothing disrespectful happening between them.
Pressendn said Kruger was not hostile or combarive, but that he was confident, unyielding and
perhaps a bit "cocky."

• Rodrigues was present at the PRB. Rodrigues felt that Kruger was disrespectful of the PRB
process because he veered off the facts of the case to refer to Severe and Severe's controvert

memo. Rodrigues said that the RU manager's job is to give the rationale for the recommended
findings in a succinct way, but that Kruger was going on for quite a while talking about things
that were unrelated to the West-Groshong interaction. Rodrigues did not believe that Kruger was
personally disrespectful of anyone but said Kruger did "take a couple of jabs" at Severe and refer
to him by name in his presentation.
A note taker took notes of the discussion at the PRB (Exhibit 14). According to the notes, the
citizen member of the PRB, Kate Von Ter Stegge said "there seemed to be some kind of internal
Bureau conflict being expressed in the discussion of this case. She said it was important to her to
focus on the video" (Exhibit 14, page 4).

17 According to those notes, Kruger said Severe described the interaction between Groshoag and West as corrosive

(Exhibit 14, page 3). However, if this is true, it is a misunderstanding. Severe was not describing the interaction
between Groshoag and West as "corrosive. Severe thought Kruger's opinion that the case should not be invesdgated
was "corrosive."

-CUent Privilege Page 11 of 22

 Based on the above witness descriptions and notes of the PRE, it appears that all \vitnesses thought
Ki-uger s presentation and derneaaor were professional, but PaiUe, Burke, Pressentin and Rodrigues
thought some of his presentation was sUghdy atypical for a PRE particularly with respect to his
points about Severe's contcovert memo and the use of the words "corrosive" and "petdfogging".

The citizen member of the PRE also appears to have noticed that there was some sort of conflict
brewing based on the notes (Exhibit 14). Although Kruger was professional, he also reacted to
Severe s comment in the coatrovert memo which mentioned the word "corrosive." However, this

aspect of Kruger's presentation was subtle enough that Amberg, Henderson and Crebs didn't notice
anything.
I find that Kruger's behavior and demeanor were professional in the PRB. I also find that he veered
into defending himself from what he perceived as a personal attack and also into proving Severe
wrong; in other words, Kmger's presentation included some elements of personalizing without
crossing the Une of becoming unprofessional or being out of bounds.
I find that Severe's perceptions of Kruger's behavior and demeanor at the PRB were not
substantiated by the witnesses. Severe over-reacted to those elements of personaUzadon within
Kruger s presentation which were not viewed by anyone other than Severe as unprofessional.

VI. The Appeal from the PRE
A. The IPR Director has no Standing to Appeal from the PRE
At the PRB, Kruger, the officer, the cid2en and Burke aU voted not to sustain the allegation (Exhibit
14, page 5). Severe voted to sustain and recommended Command Counseling (Exhibit 14, page 5).

18 O'Dea spoke to Henderson, Amberg and a couple of other people.

-CUent Privilege Page 12 of 22

 On January 27, 2016, Pressentin wrote a memo to then Chief 0 Dea iaforming him of the PRB

Recommended Findings (Exhibit 15).
Severe appealed the PRE recommended finding of not sustained on February 1, 2016 (Exhibit 13).

Severe indicated in the appeal that he had the authority to do so under City Code 3.20.140 (G) (3).
City Code 3.20.140 (G) describes the process to appeal PRB recommendations:
"1. As provided in Code Chapter 3.21, once the Board has prepared a statement of proposed
findings relatmg to complaints of alleged misconduct of an officer during an encounter involving
a citizen, the complainant or involved officer •ma.j have the opportunity to appeal the recommended
findings to the Citizen Review Committee.

"3. The Director ofIPR, the Chief of Police, or Commissioner in Charge may request an expedited
bearing^ the Citizen Review Committee of an appeal when deemed necessary due to the nature of

the underlying complaint" (emphasis supplied).
City Code 3.20.140 (G) (1) and (3) provide only that the Director of the IPR has the right to request
an expedited hearing of an appeal which has already been made by either the involved officer or the
complainant. Robert West, the complainant, made his appeal on February 11, 2016 within the time

frame allowed for making an appeal pursuant to City Code 3.21.140 (B) (Exhibit 16). West's appeal
cured the defect of Severe lacking standing to appeal.
B. Publication of Severe's Description ofPRB Deliberations and Discussions
Severe wrote his February 1, 2016 appeal and published it on the IPR website. As noted above, this
appeal specifically included a description of Severe's perceptions about Kruger's presentation at the
PRB which are confidential by City Code and PPB Directive. Kruger learned that this document
had been written and made pubUc when he received a caU from the Pordand Tribune about the
content of Severe's memo which resulted in a newspaper ardcle in M'arch 2016 (Exhibit 17).
Severe told me that he beUeved he was justified in making his comments about the PRE discussions
public because he beUeved, as IPR Directof, that it was in the pubUc interest to release the
infoi-madon. Severe explained that the Auditor is trying to make IPR more bcansparent. He noted
that IPR has an obligation to report on police accountability, something they haven't always done in
the past. He said that when incidents are made public and it becomes known that IPR was aware of
the situation and did nothing, IPR has been heavily cridcized for not having said something at the
tune. In other words. Severe beUeved that PPB Directive 336.00 authorizes him to discuss the PRE
in accordance with his position as IPR Dicector (Exhibit 11, page 5).
The Auditor recalled that Severe wanted the Citizen's Review Committee to be aware of Kruger s
conduct at the PRE. The Auditor also indicated that she believed that Kruger's behavior at the PRB
was different from the facts of the West-Groshoag case. She did not appear to be aware of the
provision in the PPB Directive holding aU PRB deliberations and discussions confidential.
However, the CRC would not be able to consider unsupported allegations about Kruger in a PRB
appeal memo la the Groshong case. The only way the CRC would be able to consider Severe's
-Client Privilege Page 13 of 22

 allegations about Kruger were if Severe opened an investigadon into Kruger's conduct. If Severe
truly beUeved that Kruger's behavior had crossed the line of unprofessional conduct, he has broad
authority to open an invesdgarion on Kruger directly which would have been a more direct response
to Kruger s alleged uaprofessionaUsm than making criticisms of him in an appeal memo (Exhibit
13).19
I believe Severe has a sincere and genuine belief la the knportance of transparency and safeguarding
the community. However, I find that Severe's comments about Kruger in the appeal memo were

unsubstantiated, made in reaction to perceived personal slights and not for the purpose of
promoting police accountability. I find that Severe must have been aware that publishing those
comments about Kruger would lead to some sort of negative attention for Kruger given the past
media attention on Kruger of which Severe was aware. I End that there was no justification for
publishing those comments because they derived solely from confidential PRE deliberations and
discussions and were not required or authorized by Severe's position with the City.
Kfuger alleges that Severe published these comments to undermine ICcuger's professional position,
mischaracterize his role, intimidate him and humiliate him. With respect to Kruger's professional
position, I find that his reputation for integrity, honesty and competence is high and contkiues to be
intact with \vitaesses within both the Bureau and City Attorney's Office.
I do not beUeve that Severe made these comments in retaliation for Kruger's difference of opinion
at the PRE. The seeds of this coafUct were sown with Kruger's opinion about not invesdgadng the
complaint and Severe's return salvo caUing that opinion "corrosive." This conflict arose from both
parties personalizing each other's actions. However, Kruger did not make his views pubUc.
G. Involvement of the DOJ in the Groshong case
When Kruger received Severe's emaUed appeal memo dated February 1, 2016 (Exhibit 13), he
forwarded the memo to his supervisor. Donna Henderson, on February 2, 2016 (Exhibit 18).
Ktuger copied Severe, Burke and Rodrigues on this email. The email stated Kruger's opinion that
Severe had no standing to appeal from the PRB. Kruger's emaU also reacted to the personal aspects
of Severe s appeal memo:
After reading Severe's memo to Capt. Rodrigues I am left with the clear personal
impression that IPR is most interested in mbber stamped approval by RU commanders of
IPR rational and decision making and not interested in a vigorous review of the actual facts
present in the case. I am also left with the clear impression that Severe is attempdng to
intimidate me as a division commander from carrying out my rightful duties related to the
good order and discipline of members under my command. I find this intolerable. The
crux of this case centers on the reasonableness of Officer Groshong's behavior, and I think
the vote of 4 to 1 against Severe at the PRE speaks for itself. I request that you take this
matter up with the Chief at your earliest possible convince [sic]. I am more than happy to

19 Severe said he had the faU support of his supervisor to publish the appeal memo, and I beUeve that the Auditor does
support him. However, the Auditor was not aware of the con&denriaUty provisions relevant to PRE discussions at the
rime the memo -was published.

-CUent Privilege Page 14 of 22

 provide further detail to the Chief if needed. A most important point to consider ia this
case is that when reason leaves the discussion regarding bureau discipline, we risk in
substantial measure the loss of engagement by our rank and file. That is an engagement that
we cannot afford to lose, and such a loss will affect the city ofPordand in a real and very
tangible fashion in terms oflivabiUty and community safety. Reason must prevail in
disciplinary proceedings if we are to be successful in delivering effective public safety
services. I will respect the Chiefs final decision regarding this case, not the preemption of

the case by IPR" (Exhibit 18).
After Severe received a copy ofKruger's February 2, 2016 email, he contacted Jonas Geissler of the
DOJ, one of the chief DOJ attorneys involved in monitoring the SA with the City ofPordand.
Severe forwarded Geissler a copy of his contcovert memo and Hs appeal memo in the Groshong

case on February 3, 2016 (Exhibits 10 and 13; Exhibit 18).20
Severe explained to me that he was concerned about the content of Kruger's emaU of February 2,
2016 and was disturbed that Kruger felt Severe was trying to intimidate Kmger. Severe explained
that he (Severe) is a black male, a child of immigrants and he is aware of "Kmger s history" and was
concerned that Kruger seemed very emotional in his February 2, 2016 email (Exhibit 18).21 Severe
believed that Kruger's email - especially with Severe being copied on it - was inappropriate and
lacking in discretion. Severe explained that he was worried that Kruger would attempt to confront
him personally and so he wanted Geissler at the DOJ to be aware of the situation.
Part ofSevere's job is to Uaise with the DOJ and he cannot be faulted for communicating with the
DOJ. However, I beUeve that Severe overlooked the fact that Kruger was reactmg in his February 2
email to critical comments Severe made about Kruger in Severe's February 1, 2016 appeal memo
(Exhibits 13 and 18). As noted in detail in this report, both Kruger and Severe have reacted to each
other's statements throughout the Groshong case.

According to Marshman, the PPB liaison with the DOJ prior to being selected as Chief, it is highly
unusual to have the DOJ interested in an ongoing case for which the discipline has not been
finalized because the facts and reasoning can be taken out of context. Marshraan said that
disciplinary cases should be driven by process and accountability, rather than reviewing only some
particular cases before the decisions were final.
I find that Severe involved the DOJ not because he hoped to harm Ktuger or intimidate him but
because Severe felt personally intimidated by Kruger. I do not beUeve there was ever an actual
personal danger to Severe. Rather, Severe and Kruger had been involved in mounting iaterpersonal
conflict throughout the Groshong case.

20 After Severe seat his controvert and appeal memos (Exhibits 10 and 13) to Geissler, Geissler attempted to interview
Kruger, but the interview did not occur.
21 Severe was referring to past newspaper accounts which labeled Kruger a Nazi.

-Client Privilege • Page 15 of 22

 VII. .March 30, 2016 CRC Meeting
. A. Meetings in Advance of the CRC Meetmg
Once Severe s February 1, 2016 appeal memo became public (Exhibit 13), O'Dea told me he met
with EUen Osoinach and Mark Amberg because he was concerned about the possibility that citizens
with an incUnadoa to disrupt public meetings might attend the CRC meeting specifically to target
Kruger, who would attend to provide his reasoning not to sustain the allegations against Groshong.
Amberg recaUed some discussion about the possibility of disruption at the CRC. Araberg also
recalled being concerned about the CRC staying withm its parameters of review and not becoming
involved in any interpersonal conflict between Severe and Kruger.
Osoinach also recalled meeting in advance of the CRC meeting. She recalled that there was concern
about whether individuals would be more disruptive since the complainant, Robert West, was part
of a group of people who regularly fikn poUce and regularly appear at pubUc meetings and are often
disruptive. In other words, there was concern that this group of citizens would possibly be more
disruptive since the complainant was "one of their own."

B. Walsh v. City of Pordand
On December 31, 2015, Judge Simon granted Plaintiff Joseph Walsh's petition for injuacdv-e reUef
against the City, finding that City Code 3.15.020B.5.b (allowing prospective exclusion) was
unconstitutional. This injuncdon resulted in some confusion for the City of Pordand about how it
should be interpreted. For a period of time, the City Attorney's office took a very conseryative view
of the opinion and gave advice that exclusions could not be effected. According to the Auditor and
Judy Prosper of the City Attorney's Office, the CRC Chair, Krisria Malone, was advised immediately
prior to the March 30, 2016 meeting that she should not exclude audience members.
Linda Law of the City Attorney's Office confmned that between the date of Judge Simon's
injunction and the March 30, 2016 CRC meeting, no exclusions were issued pursuant to the City
Code 3.15.020.B's admkustcative exclusion authority. Law noted that some individuals may have
been asked to leave a building and if they did not may have been charged with criminal trespass

(Exhibit 19).
C. March 30, 2016 CRC Meeting
Witnesses who attended this CRC meeting described audience behavior which shocked and appaUed
them. As Kruger explained to me, as a member of the poUce, he expects negative treatment from
the public from dme to time. However, in a professional business setting, where a cid2en
committee was attempting to evaluate an officer's conduct, he expected basic respect for the process
and the people involved.
I watched the video of the meeting, and I have watched several other videos which were posted
online of things occurring before or during breaks in the meeting (Exhibit 20). These videos show
that a smaU group of individuals at the March 30, 2016 CRC meeting were utterly disrespectful to
the CRC process. The CRC was attempdng to make a determiuation about an officer's
performaace in an atmosphere of yelling, singing, insults, audience members wandering around and
standing offensively close to other audience members while videotaping them. In addition,
-Clieat Privilege Page 16 of 22

 particular individuals were singled out for vile treatment, specifically Kruger. The meeting
culminated in one of the audience members throwing a glass of water into the face of one of the
CRC members.

In reviewing the video of the entire meeting (which was a video taken apparently by one of the
audience members who may have been engaging in some of this conduct and did not include

footage of anything that happened during the breaks), I noted the following:

-1'imeiv\., :TDes(^pi@a,,,;^],. ;,„....:,,;,.. -. ,. •..^.;J-'.:^.^^.K^^i?-'.^'-':^^ :::.^:-.^..^.1\

statnp In
video"

prf.2^
@ 4:00

During pubUc comment, an individual stated that Ktuger "worships at a Nazi

[minutes]

shrine."

@ 6:50

During public comment, an individual uses the term, "bullshit stuff and no
comment is made by anyone that this is inappropriate language for a public
meeting. Durmg his public comtneat, he becomes more and more itate and begins
screaming.

@ 11:04

An individual who spoke after Daryl Turner mentioned that he was speaking after
someone who is an advocate for "thuggery

@ 50:30

Audience members yeUing at Datyl Turner until 51:40 when a break was taken.
The yeUing appears to continue.

@ 54:50

Audience member calls "you lying prick"

@ 1:03:00

UniateUigible audience interruption

@ 1:07:20

Kruger is attempting to present his case while audience member begins to sing
"Deutschland". Malone says they wffl take a break. Kruger asks to condnue and
asks her to manage this "undignified spectacle."

@ 1:19:42

Audience outburst while Burke is speaking

@ 1:21:05

Audience outburst whUe Burke is speaking

@ 1:54:40

During public comment, audience member personally attacks Kruget.

There were other videos of behavior that occurred during breaks, including someone filming Kruger
whUe another person sings "Edelweiss" nearby; another person standing close to Kruger and filming
him while speakmg to Hendersoa and when Henderson stepped in front of Kruger to shield him the

22 It is possible that other things were done which did not appear in this video or that not all interruptions were audible
on this video.

Page 17 of 22

 filmer dropped the camera to focus on her chest; and numerous videos of these individuals filming
each other while they state their opinions.
In addition, the witnesses to a person told me that this CRC meetmg was the worst they had ever
attended in terms of audience behavior. For example:

• Prosper said that in terms of the vitriol and invective being hurled at Kruger and the CRC, the
March 30, 2016 CRC meeting set a new low. Prosper said that the individuals who engage in this
sort of behavior do so to try to goad people to get a reaction, but what they were doing to Ktuger
was especially personally insulting.

• Amberg described this CRC meeting as "a mess" with out-of-contcol audience members.
Amberg said he has seen pubUc meetings where people have been loud, vociferous and profane
but this one was to a much greater degree and the disruptions were occurring while the CRC was
trying to conduct its meeting.

• Burke described the CRC meeting as the most unprofessional public meeting enviconment he had
ever been in. Burke said that he thought it would be perhaps worse than other meetings but did
not imagine that it would be as bad as it was.

• Henderson said that the atmosphere at the CRC meeting was horrid" and described some of the
audience members as running around the room, shoving cameras at others while they Slmed
them, yelling and calling Kruger a Nazi.

• Rodrigues described the meeting as a "circus" and said that the behavior was out of control.
Rodrigues said that the behavior was inappropriate and disrespectful but that Ktuger never
flinched or answered back to anyone.

• Severe described the audience behavior at the meetmg as "disgusting" and "far beyond the pale"
in terms of the personal comments aimed at Kruger and Turner.

Former Chief O'Dea wrote a letter to Severe the foUcwing day expressing his concerns about the

March 30, 2016 CRC meeting (Exhibit 3). O'Dea described the meetmg as subjecting his command
staff, PPA's labor representative and the CRC itself to intknidadon, harassment and fear for their
safety. O'Dea characterized the behavior at the meeting as involving "name caUiag, ridicule,
disruption, and physical assault or [creating] fear of assault" (Exhibit 3, page 2).

23 Many of these references appaready drew from past newspaper articles which framed Kruger in a negative light.

-Client Privilege Page 18 of 22

 D. Reasons for the Bad Behavior
Prosper thought that one of the reasons behavior was particularly bad at the CRC meeting could
have been that the current Chair, Maloae, runs a meetmg with more focus on the rules than the past
chair did, so people might have been reacting against tighter boundaries. Amberg told me that the

CRC meeting on March 30, 2016 was held in an auditorium which would have made it difficult from
a practical perspective to enforce good behavior because there was more room for the audience
members to move around.

O'Dea told me that he believed that because of Severe's February 1, 2016 appeal memo which
particularly criticized Kruger (Exhibit 13), he believed that Kruger's name alone would draw some
people in who would like to have a chance to attack him due to past negative publicity. Amberg
agreed that Kruger is a "bit of a target" for this reason. Finally, the fact that the complainant,
Robert West, is a friend and compatriot of others who view themselves as advocates and spend time
filming the police would naturally draw in others who are like minded to the meeting.
All of the above, in addition to the Simon injunction and the belief that no exclusions were possible
created a perfect storm in which particularly bad behavior occurred and those with the power to do
something did not beUeve they had the power to exclude disrespectful citizens.
E. Alternatives to What Occurred
The two most obvious things that could have been done with the after the fact knowledge of how
the endre meeting went would have been to adjourn the meettog or for Kruget to leave. Kruger's
direct supervisor Donna Henderson was there as was Acting Assistant Chief Burke. Burke told me
that he should have told Kruger to leave, but did not think of it at the tkne.
With respect to allowing Kruger to leave, I beUeve his superiors simply didn't think of doing this
because they were all focused on getting through the hearing and hoping that the behavior at the
meeting would improve. The behavior did not improve, but I ana reluctant to fault individuals who
have Kruger's best interests at heart for not having done more because it is not apparent to me that
anyone would have made a different decision.
With respect to the decision not to adjourn the meeting, one factor mllitating against adjourning the
meeting would have been the DOJ SA which requires disciplinary processes to be completed within
a certain time frame. Had the meeting been adjourned, the case might not have been heard within
the timeUnes depending on other agenda items coming before the CRC.
FinaUy, Kruger suggests that the Auditor, the City Attorney or some other City Official could have
done something to ensure that the behavior would cease. However, once the CRC is in session only
the Chair, Kristen Malone, had authority over the CRC meeting. HuU Caballero, Severe and every
City Attorney intemewed explained that only the CRC Chair has control over the CRC meeting; no
City employee (or elected official) would have the power to usurp that authority.
The Auditor told me that she had had a conversation with Malone before the meeting in which she
reminded Malone that she could exclude individuals who exhibited unacceptable behavior.
However, HuU CabaUero later learned that after her conversation with Malone, Malone was advised
she should not exclude anyone. During the meetkig, HuU CabaUero believed that Malone was

-Client Privilege Page 19 of 22

 choosing not to use exclusion for reasons of her own because HuU CabaUero was not aware at the

time that Malone had been advised she should not exclude anyone.
I am reluctant to place blame on CRC members who are citizen volunteers. CRC members undergo
training which includes training on pubUc records and meetings law, exclusions and other aspects of
semng on a volunteer citizen's committee, but the reaUty is that they are volunteers. The members

of the CRC give theit time and energy to the City. It would be unfair to fault them for not doing a
better job of controlling the meedag when the Chair was attempdag to do the best job she could
with the tools she believed she had.
Finally, the decision not to exclude audience members was based on legal advice from the City
Attorney's Office. Legal advice weighs risk factors which may later turn out to be less important in
hindsight but this does not mean that the legal advice was given with any malicious intent. There is
no evidence that anyone intended any harm to Kruger, CRC Members or others attending the CRC
meetmg.

F. CRC Decision
The CRC voted 5-2 to sustain the allegation against Groshong. O'Dea disagreed \vith that
recommendation (Exhibit 21). However, Acting Chief Donna Henderson later agreed with that
recommendation (Exhibit 22).

VIII. Aftermath of the March 30, 2016 CRC Meeting
O'Dea. refused to aUow PPB members to attend the CRC after the JMarch 30 meeting because he did
not want his employees subjected to the behavior which Ktuger had to endure. However, the
Auditor, Severe and former Chief O'Dea soon agreed that procedures put in place would protect

City employees (Exhibit 23).
The Auditor has apologized to the CRC for the behavior it was subjected to on March 30, 2016
(Exhibit 24). However, no one has apologized to Kruger (or for that matter. Turner) for what he
had to endure in that meeting.

SPECIFIC ALLEGATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS
With respect to Severe, I have substantiated many
of the facts Kruger alleged, but not the motives he attributes to Severe.

-CUent Prn-ilege Page 20 of 22

 2. AUegadon: Severe has treated Kruger discourteously, offensively or engaged in conduct
unbecoming or engaged in bullying that demeans, humiliates or intimidates him,

specifically:
a) Allegation: Severe wrote a memo on December 17, 2015 in which Severe caUed
Kruger's statement that the incident should not have been investigated "corrosive.
Conclusion: Severe's December 17, 2015 controvert memo which employs the term "corrosive"
was a reaction to Kruger's statement that the Groshoag case should have been dismissed in the first
instance after reviewing the video and Groshong's memo. Kruger should not have opined that a
courtesy complaint should not be investigated. I view Severe's response as an equivalent reaction to
Kruger's opinion.

b) Allegation: Severe's 2-1-16 memo said Krugerwas "hostile and combadve at the
PRE, among other things.
Conclusion: Severe's negative comments about Kruger in his February 1, 2016 were not based on
objective fact but rather on his personal perceptions which were not substantiated by \vitaesses at
the PRB. I believe the memo was an overreaction to Severe's perception that Kruger had personally
slighted Severe in the PRE. As noted, witnesses did not support this view, but there were some
witnesses who detected an underlying and subtle personaUzarion between Severe and Kruger.
c) Allegation: Severe placed these comments [from the February 1 appeal memo] into
the public record with the purpose of undermining Kruger's professional position,
mischaracterizing his role, inttmidadag him, subjecting hitn to humiliation
Conclusion: Severe publicized his personal and unsubstantiated comments about Kruger by
making his February 1, 2016 CRC appeal memo pubUc. If Severe truly believed that Kruger had
engaged in the behavior alleged, he should have opened a professionalism invesdgation on Kruger.
Furthermore, Severe violated the PPB directive and City Code providing that PRE discussions and
deliberations are confidendal by making them public.
Kruger claims that Severe did this to subject him to humiliation and intirnidadon. I beUeve that
Severe publicized his memo as part of the interpersonal conflict that he and Kruger had been
engaging in. However, Kruger had confined his remarks to PPB correspondence and the PRB
presentation. Severe's publication of the appeal memo used Us position to place unsubstantiated
negative comments about Kruger into the public record.
d) Allegation:

Severe t

brought

views to the attention of

the DOJ in an attempt to intimidate him and mischaracterize his role.

-Client Privilege Page 21 of 22

 Conclusion:
Severe believed, righdy or wrongly, that Kruger might confront him personally
after receiving the February 2, 2016 email (Exhibit 18). Severe took Kruger's email out of the
context of Severe's February 1, 2016 memo which critici2ed Kruger. Severe did not contact the
DOJ as a means of attacking Kruger but because he felt indmidated by Kruger.
e) Allegation: IPR wants RU to "rubber stamp" their views
Conclusion: I do not believe that IPR wants RU to "rubber stamp" their views. Rather, I beHeve
that this situation arose out of personalization of a disagreement over an officer's discipline.
A. Second Complaint
1. AUegadon: Kruger and PPA president Daryl Turaef were subject to degrading and
humUiatmg insults at the March 30, 2016 CRC meeting.
Conclusion: Substantiated.
2. AHegadon: No city official took steps to prevent or midgate the behavior and he could
not excuse himself from it.

Conclusion: It is true that no city official took steps to prevent or midgate the behavior at the
meeting, but it is not true that Kruger could not be excused from it. Burke indicated that he did not
think of teUtng Ktuger to leave at the time but that in hindsight he wished he had.
3. Allegations: Severe did nothing [and] CabaUero was the senior city official present with
authority over the CRC process but did nothing.
Conclusion: Severe, Caballero and City Attorneys were present but did nothing to stop the
behavior at the ffleedng because the CRC Chair was the only person with the authority to do so.
4. Allegation: The City did not foUow up right away on ICcuger's first complaint.
Conclusion: The City has followed up on both ofKruger's complaints.

-Clieat Privilege Page 22 of 22