Judge rules on police chief file

Lawyer, plaintiff in suit allowed to see personnel report

Attorney Robert Newcomb is going to be the first person outside of a select few Little Rock city administrators to see the results of a human-resources investigation into Police Chief Keith Humphrey.

One client, former police officer Charles Starks, who is suing the chief and Mayor Frank Scott Jr., will be the second to see the findings, a 27-page report, after Pulaski County Circuit Judge Chip Welch’s ruling Tuesday.

No one is completely happy with the decision.

Newcomb is unsatisfied because under the terms set by the judge, Newcomb can’t provide the findings to any of his other clients aside from Starks unless he gets Welch’s permission to do so, a process that likely will require a hearing.

The complaints of another client, David Mattox, a recently fired Little Rock officer, formed the basis for the inquiry, and Newcomb said he wants to use the report at next week’s Civil Service Commission hearing where Mattox is challenging the chief’s decision to fire him.

Also disappointed are the mayor and the chief who don’t want the findings made public. Their lawyers oppose turning over the report, and its roughly 5,000 pages of supplemental documentation. Humphrey’s attorney, Khayyam Eddings, has not seen the report yet.

The secrecy is built into the law governing public-employee job performance. Work reviews can be made public only if they are used to form the basis of a decision to fire or suspend a worker. Otherwise, the public is not entitled to see those materials, which means they are withheld more often than not.

There had been some negotiations to let Newcomb see the findings under conditions but the secrecy demands of the mayor had been unreasonable, he told the judge. For instance, he could see the report but he couldn’t tell any client anything about it, he said.

Newcomb is entitled to see the findings because they might provide him with evidence in Starks’ lawsuit, the judge ruled. However, Newcomb can’t use the findings beyond the Starks suit unless he petitions the court for permission, which will allow the

mayor and chief to respond.

In a victory for them Tuesday, the judge said any petition should be sealed if it discloses material information about the human-resources investigation. Consequences for public disclosure of the findings, especially to the media, could be as severe as dismissal of Starks’ suit, the judge warned.

Exactly when Newcomb will get the findings has yet to be decided. The judge’s ruling was broad, but he told the sides to negotiate the specifics of an agreement, known as a protective order, to turn them over by Friday or he will impose the details himself Monday. That order also would include the chief and Starks, the judge said.

Newcomb has been after the report for some time. He’s twice tried to use the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act to get the findings on behalf of Mattox and other clients whose complaints about the chief contributed to the investigation. His third try is a motion before the Civil Service Commission on Mattox’s behalf.

Newcomb argued that he was entitled to see the findings because among the claims in Starks’ suit is that the chief retaliated against Starks because Starks challenged the chief’s decision to fire him and got his job back, although he later quit. The human-resources investigation involved accusations of retaliation against the chief by other officers, so the findings might include evidence that would help Starks’ suit, the attorney said.

Arguing against disclosure, the mayor’s lawyer, Susan Kendall, told the judge that not all retaliation claims are the same, and Starks’ are different from Mattox’s. Mattox, who is white, claims he’s the victim of racial retaliation by black supervisors, including the chief, she told the judge.