OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL CITY OF BALTIMORE Isabel Mercedes Cumming Inspector General Investigative Report Synopsis OIG Case 21-0011-1 Issued: October 1, 2020 OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL Isabel Mercedes Cumming, Inspector General City Hall, Suite 635 100 N. Holliday Street Baltimore, MD 21202 October 1, 2020 Dear Citizens of Baltimore City, The Of?ce of the Inspector General (OIG) received a complaint alleging inappropriate behavior by a Baltimore City Recreation and Parks (BCRP) employee (Employee 1). The complaint alleges that Employee 1?s destruction and removal of a Black Lives Matter (BLM) art exhibit from Patterson Park (the Park) on July 31, 2020 was racially motivated. The complaint also states that multiple concerns about Employee 1?s behavior have not been addressed by BCRP management. The OIG interviewed Employee 1, former and current BCRP employees, and BCRP middle and upper managers. The BCRP Human Resources department assisted with the interviews. The OIG could not substantiate the allegation that Employee 1?s removal of the BLM exhibit was racially motivated. Also unsubstantiated are the portions of the complaint alleging that BCRP management failed to address other alleged instances of Employee 1?s racially and culturally insensitive behavior. However, the OIG does ?nd that Employee 1 engaged in other behaviors that violated BCRP protocols and that BCRP management may not have properly addressed those behaviors. Concerns about Employee 1?s Behavior Two BCRP employees informed the OIG that Employee 1 was heard using a homophobic slur referring to members of the community, but neither employee reported the incident to BCRP management. The employees also alleged that Employee 1 is racist based on their removal of the BLM art exhibit, discussed below, and on their offensive statements about individuals of Latinix2 decent. The two employees claimed they informed BCRP management of Employee 1?s offensive statements about Latinix individuals, but BCRP management denied being informed. Another BCRP employee (Employee 2)3 initially thought Employee 1 was racist based on the opinions of other BCRP employees and because Employee 2 heard Employee 1 used an offensive word when referring to a Latinix place of business. However, Employee 2 reversed their opinion of Employee 1 after working closely with them for over a year. Employee 2 now believes Employee 1 is uneducated about cultural and racial differences and unaware that certain comments and behaviors can be offensive to individuals from other ethnic groups, cultures, stands for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, or Queer. 2 Latinix describe a person of Latin American origin or descent and is a gender-neutral or non-binary alternative to the terms ?Latino? or ?Latina?. 3 Employee 2 is African American and is a member of the community REPORT RA UD, WASTE AND ABUSE HOTLINE: 443-984-3476/800-417-0430 EMUL: WEBSITE: and the community. Employee 2 stated when they educated Employee 1 about the insensitivity of some of their comments or actions, the behaviors stopped. Some BCRP employees informed the OIG that Employee 1 would, at times, engage in behaviors that were beyond his scope of duties. The OIG determined BCRP management was informed of these behaviors, but it could not determine whether corrective actions were taken. In response to the above allegations, Employee 1 denied making any homophobic or racist remarks and denied engaging in any racist behaviors. Employee 1 con?rmed they are engaged to an African-American individual and are a member of the community. Employee 1 further denied working beyond their scope of employment. The Removal of BLM Artwork On July 31, 2020, Employees 1 and 2 were partnered together. At the beginning of their shift, Employee 1 reviewed the BCRP permit list and informed Employee 2 that a BLM art exhibit was not on the authorized artwork permit list.4 Employee 2 reviewed the list and con?rmed the BLM exhibit was not on the permit list. Employees 1 and 2 jointly decided to review the exhibit once they arrived at the Park. The employees decided to remove the art, based on BCRP regulations, and loaded ?ve pieces into their vehicle before leaving the Park. According to BCRP policy, if artwork or exhibits are displayed in a public park without authorization, it should be removed. Around 9:30 am, BCRP management contacted Employee 1 and informed them to stop dismantling the BLM artwork and to reinstall the previously removed pieces. The two employees returned to the Park and reinstalled the artwork with the assistance of another BCRP employee. Employee 2, who is African-American, explained to the OIG they were a willing participant in the removal of the BLM artwork because the artwork was not on the permit list provided by BCRP management. Accordingly, removing the exhibit was consistent with BCRP Rules and Regulations Rule #27 and was within the scope their job duties. According to Employee 2, the removal of the BLM art exhibit was not racially motivated but resulted from a lack of communication. OIG Findings With regard to Employee 1?s July 31, 2020 removal of BLM artwork in the Park, the OIG is unable to substantiate the allegation that the removal was racially motivated. The OIG also did not ?nd any substantial and independent evidence to corroborate other allegations that Employee 1 is racist and/or homophobic. Furthermore, based on a lack of credible and corroborating statements or written documentation, the OIG is unable to substantiate the allegation that BCRP management was made aware of Employee 1?s alleged racist and/or homophobic remarks and failed to take appropriate action. 4 By Sunday of each week, these BCRP employees receive a permit list for the upcoming week that lists all items, events, and activities permitted within a City park. In this instance, the BLM artwork was not on the initial permit list but was subsequently included on an updated list that Employees 1 and 2 had not received. REPORT RA UD, WASTE AND ABUSE 443-984-3476/800-417-0430 EMAIL.- WEBSITE: OIG.BALTIMORECITY.GOV However, the OIG did substantiate the allegation that on at least two occasions, Employee 1 engaged in actions while on-duty that were outside the scope of their authority. The OIG found that BCRP management was made aware of these actions and BCRP provided the attached response. Sincerely, Isabel Mercedes Cumming, Inspector neral Of?ce of the Inspector General Cc: Hon. Bernard C. ?Jack? Young, Mayor of Baltimore City Hon. Brandon Scott, President, City Council Honorable Members of the Baltimore City Council Hon. Dana P. Moore, Acting City Solicitor Hon. Joan M. Pratt, Baltimore City Comptroller REPORT FRA UD, WASTEAND ABUSE HOTLINE: 443-984-3476/800-417-0430 EMAIL: WEBSITE: Baltimore City Recreation and Parks Director Response Case 21-0011-1 DEPARTMENT OF CITY OF BALTIMORE RECREATION AND PARKS REGINALD MOORE, Dim/or Dr. Ralph E. Building 3001 East Drive - Druid Hill Park Baltimore. Maryland 21217 410-396-7900 BERNARD C. YOUNG, MAYOR Wednesday, September 23, 2020 Isabel Mercedes Cumming, Of?ce of the Inspector General (OIG) 100 North Ilolliday Street, Suite# 635 Baltimore, MD 21202 RE: OIG Management Alert Case 21-001 l-I Dear Inspector General Cumming, The City of Baltimore, Department of Recreation and Parks has received and reviewed the September 11, 2020 memo and related documentation pertaining to the Of?ce of the Inspector General (016) complaint Case 21-0011-1. The complainant alleged inappropriate behavior by a BCRP employee, More speci?cally, the complaint alleged that - destruction and removal of the Black Lives Matter (13th) art exhibit from the Patterson Park on july 31, 220 was racially motivated. Furthermore, the complainant alleged that has failed to address several concerns regarding . - that have been brought to his attention. Due to the nature of the allegations, Resources (HR) Of?ce along with the OIG conducted an investigation to determine if actions were racially motivated, if - - failed to address concerns and if any policies were violated. Based on the ?ndings of the investigation, temporary employment with the City has been ended. The investigation revealed poor leadership on behalf of which also resulted in his termination.? As a result of the investigation, BCRP management has prohibited the rangers from using equipment commonly associated with law enforcement functions until they receive proper training and there are updated BCRP Park Ranger guidelines. BCRP management is currently in the process of evaluating the ranger program to determine if the program best ?ts the City?s and need. BCRP is committed to ensuring that it holds all employees accountable for their actions, that employees are well trained and equipped for their positions and that all our programs are in the best interest of the City and its residents. I investigation revealed that? knowingly allowed two employees involved in a personal relationship to work in a supervisory and employee capacity. Furthermore, he inappropriately communicated with his staff and repeatedly failed to address concerns that were bought to his attention. Hamil}: mm ?lm =31mur mime maxi Raglim?d Mum.- .Dz'mimr (lit-y mif- Biltr?unnmm; ?Ucpamunmir 0f varrmmimn 8:13am {15?