Filing seeks release of LR chief inquiry
Rebuffed after using the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, attorney Robert Newcomb is now seeking a court order to make the city disclose the results of a human-resources investigation into Little Rock Police Chief Keith Humphrey.
The move was made as Humphrey’s lawyer, representing the chief in a federal lawsuit against his detractors both within the police force and outside the department, has informed city officials that Humphrey is preparing to expand that litigation to include the city. In the almost year-old suit, Humphrey claims he is the target of a conspiracy meant to oust him from Little Rock’s top police job.
Newcomb has been trying
to get a hold of the human-resources findings for more than a month, and recent court filings show his new tack to obtain the results after an attempt failed using the Freedom of Information Act.
A circuit judge ruled earlier this month that the state’s open-records law does not require city officials to disclose the human-resources findings because authorities have not decided what to do with them.
Those findings — a 25-page report with about 5,000 pages of supporting documentation — have been designated as an employee evaluation, and such job-performance reviews are kept secret from the public unless used as grounds to fire or suspend a government worker.
In his Freedom of Information effort, Newcomb was acting on behalf of four officers he’s representing who have accused Humphrey of making their working conditions difficult because they have complained about how he’s treated them.
In the latest development, Newcomb is now arguing that a fifth client, former officer Charles Starks, is entitled to see the findings as part of Starks’ 15-month-old civil-rights lawsuit against the chief and Mayor Frank Scott Jr.
Humphrey fired Starks after Starks fatally shot a cartheft suspect, Bradley Blackshire, in February 2019. Starks won back his job on appeal, only to quit because he said the mayor and the chief made working conditions unbearable to get even with him.
Since Starks’ accusations against Humphrey also involve retaliation and hostile-work environment complaints, Starks should be allowed to see the findings of the human-resources investigation because the review “may lead to admissible evidence from others who have been subjected to [similar] conduct” as Starks, Newcomb states in a pair of motions to compel discovery.
“The admissible evidence could be … showing a common plan or scheme or design … by Chief Keith Humphrey in retaliating against individuals who contest his judgments,” Newcomb states.
Since April 2020, Newcomb asserts in court filings, eight officers have accused the chief of retaliation: Assistant Chief Hayward Finks, Sgt. Christopher McCauley, Maj. Russell King, Lt. Rusty Rothwell, Lt. Christine Plummer, detective Beth McCauley, Sgt. John Trent, and David Mattox, an officer who has since been fired.
To bolster his arguments, Newcomb included a June memo written by Finks, at the direction of the chief, describing instances in which Finks asserts Humphrey has treated some staff members better than others, notably Lt. Michael Ford and Mark Edwards, the department’s civilian public-information officer.