Audit notes provide additional allegations and open questions for all involved

Editor's note: Due to the nature of this topic and the need for further investigation, this will be the first in a multi-part series on the audit notes generated during conversations with officers in the Polk County Police Department and County Attorney Brad McFall. More articles will follow in the weeks to come to further explore the allegations made within after documents requested in an effort to follow up more thoroughly are delivered and can be fully examined. Since the allegations made during the audit contain unproven allegations, we will not be including the name of any officer at this time.

When County Attorney Brad McFall provided his assessment of what has been happening at the Polk County Police Department following the letter sent by Sheriff Johnny Moats making allegations against fellow law enforcement officers, he told the County Commission before the release of those notes they wouldn't be a pleasant read.

He wasn't joking.

McFall, who released a short summary of what was included in the audit from officers, did cite the overwhelming problem of pay and manpower with the department. But it's not that simple, and the notes themselves provide as many questions as they do answers.

After a thorough look at the officer's notes, it was found within that though McFall's assessment that a majority of the department believed command staff received positive remarks and that pay and manpower are the problems, but they are not the only ones.

Starting off with his first interview dated May 18, McFall initially followed the questionnaire he developed when providing notes to later be distributed to the county commission, but after that diverted from the format.

Officer No. 1' s interview did contain admissions that they believe that favoritism, criminal activity and cover- ups, retaliation, lying and gossiping are problems within the police department, but didn't specifically elaborate as others did.

That interview also specifically pointed McFall to previous officers to interview who would be willing to give more specifics on those activities, however, and several of those former employees were part of the interview process later on.

McFall explained his reason for not continuing with the first interview's format for notes as correcting an early mistake in the process.

"I conducted the first interview before I had prepared the questionnaire, and I realized that I needed to have an objective sampling of questions for all officers, and prepared the questionnaire after that first interview," McFall said.

Following that first note from the process, the summaries take on a more conversational tone, the result of McFall dictating his notes to paralegals to translate into the notes, which also left some open questions.

For instance, in an interview with Officer No. 11, McFall stated at the end that the officer didn't know the Sheriff "that well, but does know his son and that ( name redacted) was not uncomfortable at all in speaking to me about this topic."

Though it sounds like McFall is stating that this particular officer had information to share about Moats' son, that was not the case according to follow-up statements by the county attorney.

He said that his notes did not mean to inspire speculation about the meaning of the phrase, but that he was simply stating that Officer No. 11 had no problems speaking with McFall himself about the police department.

Other officers did have that problem, but those we reina minority compared to the overall majority who were surprised and/ or upset by the letter, and didn't have any complaints at all.

For instance, Officer No. 2 specifically to McFall that they didn't want to speak to him at all about anything for fear it would get back to the County Commission and potential retaliation would follow.

Other officers expressed their discomfort - at least four others - over having to be interviewed at all and considered it a waste of time, and another four officers were specifically angered by the charges of corruption made in Moats' May letter, citing they would not tolerate it at all.

There were also complaints from a few officers about a lack of communication between the command staff and the patrol division,

One officer - included in online notes as Officer No. 9 - claimed to McFall in their interview numerous complaints and allegations, McFall wrote in the summary that he had difficulty "taking notes because (name redacted) had so many different topics on (name redacted) mind..."

This officer - who is also responsible for the drafting of a letter to a County Commissioner - claimed that along with one former officer having proof of another's time card fraud and another evi- dence of cover-ups, that he knew of "shady stuff going on" and that one member of the command staff spends all their time "writing romance novels."

This officer also admitted to being one of Moats' 18 anonymous officers to complain to him, and that "I have a horrible reputation at the PD, I have been labeled as a whistleblower and I am not well liked."

This officer's specific comments also included the note that since the letter was sent by Moats, the "command staff professionalism has taken a 180 degree turn."

McFall said that so far, no one has come forward with specific evidence to back up any claims.

A trio of officers made one of the more specific charges, but not against the department. Instead, the three officers all in separate sessions told McFall they had knowledge of a meeting that occurred between an officer, County Commissioners Jennifer Hulsey and Scotty Tillery, and Moats at one of the Polk School District middle schools.

According to McFall in an interview after the release of the notes to discuss issues within, he said that he received no evidence provided by the officers to back up the claim of this meeting, nor did they provide any specific times or dates of when it might have happened.

Additionally in one of the three officer's who reported the meeting, McFall said in his summary that the meeting had been confirmed with the second officer's interview, but that again none of them provided concrete proof during their meetings to move further on the issue.

Those three officers - along with several others - also accuse Moats of writing the letter in an attempt to derail the early candidacy of Chief Kenny Dodd for the post of Sheriff in a potential 2020 election bid.

According to several officers, Moats sent his letter on May 5 only after an alleged stare down between the Sheriff and Chief at an April 25 County Commission session that was held to take care of May's business early.

The details of that staring contest were included in the summary generated by Officer No. 25'ws interview, who stated that the officer recalled the exchange between the two law enforcement commanders during the meeting after Dodd was "expressing frustration with some actions that the Sheriff had taken and indicated he might run for Sheriff."

At least 8 different officers asserted that Moats sent the letter to the County Commission and sought investigatory efforts based off of Dodd's announcement to Hulsey he might run for Sheriff.

In total, 19 different officers provided at least one name of a person they believed responsible for why the audit was being completed. Another 8 of that number also believed that 18 was too big of a number for all those who complained.

And one particular officer made a point to McFall that if there had been 18 officers threatening to walk out, they didn't do so when promised at the end of May.

Officers were also quick to point to one of their brothers in arms as the main problem with issues like gossiping within the department, and also cited him as the main problem. 13 of those officers who named anyone in their interview with McFall cited this particular officer as the problem.

McFall also was asked by one officer why Moats wasn't interviewed as part of the process. Moats replied by pointing out that the Sheriff wasn't part of the police department, and t herefore hadn't been subject to any questioning.

Of all the officers that McFall spoke to, only a few out of the 38 in total were no longer employed with the department.

One of those officers made specific complaints about the department, with Officer No. 36 going so far as to point out previous letters they had sent to both Dodd and County Manager Matt Denton about specific issues they had with the department.

Another of those former

officers complained about previously being terminated on allegations later found unwarranted, and worked for the police department for 2 more years after winning an appeal to their firing before quitting and taking another job at a department elsewhere i n Northwest Georgia.

They specifically stated that they "worked scared the whole time before (name redacted) finally left to ( name redacted) current employer."

The officer did agree with other's assessment that 18 officers at one time was a high number, and believed instead it might have been 18 officers over a number of years that came to Moats disgruntled and with complaints.

In McFall's summary of the audit presented to the commission previously and obtained from the county without specific request, he cited a majority of the department giving the command staff a positive review.

Based on review of the notes, that number is closer to 14 officers in the documents provided by the county. McFall didn't say either way if each officer gave a review, but didn't include specific ratings in every report.

In some notes he did, and in those cases the numbers ranged from poor - in one case a 3 for two of the administrators and in another a 6.5 - but weren't enough specifically to provide a average as was done in the summary, which gave the command staff an overall 7.9 out of 10.

McFall's summary also pointed to a meeting he had with District Attorney Jack Browning about the Sheriff's letter and the audit, which took place on May 16 for 18 minutes according to billing information received as part of the process.

The summary stated that Browning didn't believe there was enough evidence to move forward with any prosecution at the time based on the letter Moats sent alone.

All total, McFall charged the county $5,075 for the audit, which included the 23 hours of interviews of 38 different current and former officers. The end billing resulted in a total of 28.98 hours of work completed by McFall.

Check this week's edition for official responses from parties involved in the latest round of audit notes, and go online to Polkstandardjournal.com to read about letters also sent to Commissioners Hulsey and Tillery by officers involved in the audit process with further allegations.