Trina Baughn
By Oak Ridge City Council member Trina Baughn
Given that there is some confusion over recent events, I offer the following summary about where we are, how we got here, and where we are headed with regards to the Oak Ridge Police Department investigation.
The ORPD has seen a total turnover rate of 45 percent in the last four years, having lost 34 of our 76 employees. Five of those individuals have departed in the last four months. Since February, all Council members have received communications from at least seven former officers, three current officers, and countless citizens expressing concerns about leadership and a potentially hostile work environment. Others have communicated anonymously citing similar concerns and attributing their anonymity to fears of retaliation.
On February 9, during a five-hour televised meeting, and in front of the largest audience any of us had ever seen, City Council formally committed to investigate the root causes behind the turnover, morale, and policy issues in the Police Department.
The resolution that was ultimately approved was brought forward by Council member Kelly Callison who stated that “We think that’s a broad, a very broad term that allows an investigator, an independent investigator to look at the issues that might be present…â€Â At the end of the meeting, councilmember Chuck Hope stated, “The investigation that we’ve come to an agreement among the seven of us was reached unanimously…there’s enough information that it warrants an investigation…â€
During this same meeting, Council committed to ensure that the investigation would allow for the anonymity of all participants and would include both current and past employees. Mr. Callison also suggested that council select Municipal Technical Advisory Service, specifically Rex Barton, to perform the work. Council did not select MTAS at the time, but agreed to hold a special meeting to select an entity to conduct the investigation and define its parameters. Information regarding the other resolutions that Council rejected can be found here.
On March 27, Council held an untelevised special meeting and voted down all proposed parameters; thus none were established. No vote was taken to allow requests for proposals because Council immediately went on to approve the MTAS proposal, which Mr. Callison repeatedly claimed to be free. The MTAS proposal was accepted in a 5-1-1 vote and would allow only for a “limited review†that would include a random sampling of individuals including ambiguous “community leaders.â€
On April 15, Rex Barton (the MTAS investigator) emailed the names of all of his intended interviewees directly to the chief of police, disregarding Council’s promise of anonymity for participants. On that same date, Margaret Norris, also of MTAS, declined a former officer’s request to be interviewed. Again, a complete contradiction of what council had committed to in the February 9 meeting.
On April 20, City Manager Mark Watson called for a second special meeting to be held on April 21. Again, the meeting was untelevised, and this time Council formally voted to  “include all ORPD employees as well as former officers who had departed since Akagi’s arrival.†The city attorney warned that MTAS is subject to Open Records law and would likely not be able to guarantee anonymity.
In response to the April 21 changes, MTAS informed Mayor Warren Gooch that their investigation/review into the ORPD issues would not be free as originally pitched but would cost up to $26,500. On May 20, Mayor Gooch set the agenda and called for a third special meeting (also untelevised) to be held on May 21.
The first item on the May 21 agenda, after slight modification, was approved 4-3 with Gooch, Charlie Hensley, Ellen Smith, and Callison voting in favor of continuing with MTAS at a cost of $22,700. The remaining two agenda items (one of which was to solicit other proposals) were not allowed to be brought to the floor per Mayor Gooch’s stipulations in his agenda. Should MTAS agree to this new contract, they will embark on a study that will not conclude until October. You can view this meeting in its entirety here, here, and here.
The question of whether or not MTAS is conducting an investigation or a review appears to be answered. Contrary to what the citizenry demanded and what Council promised, MTAS, at a price tag of over $22,700, will simply study our issues for they, by state law, exist “to provide studies and research†(TN Code 49-9-407).
What’s more, MTAS, by that same statute, is an “official agency†of the Tennessee Municipal League (TML) to whom this city awards an annual, no-bid contract of over $1.24 million. TML services, paid for by the taxpayer, include providing the city with insurance and legal defense in cases brought against the city from citizens and employees.
Should MTAS, who states “in cooperation with the TML†at the bottom of all of their letters to the city, find fault on the part of the city, it could result in TML having to pay out large sums of money to plaintiffs. Thus, it is in the best financial interest of both TML and the city to use MTAS to conduct a “review†as opposed to an “investigation.â€
MTAS aside, four other agencies will investigate our police department. As was announced last month, the POST commission has requested that the U.S. attorney for East Tennessee, the Anderson County district attorney general, and the Blount County district attorney general investigate whether or not the Oak Ridge police chief “violated federal and state law involving the possession of a firearm while under the authority of an active order of protection.†A serious issue of precedence is at stake as all three offices must essentially answer the question: Are those whom we entrust to serve and protect held to a different standard than the rest of us?
This past week, the Police Benevolent Association confirmed that they, too, will investigate these issues on behalf of their members, citing an inability to trust the city’s investigation to address officer complaints.
Finally, there are a handful of individuals attempting to invalidate these issues by maligning citizens and officers. These same individuals have accused me of authoring emails sent to council under the name Bobby Hill. I attest here, and would do so under oath, that I did not send these emails, nor do I know the identity of the individual who did. I have posted the emails in question to my website, trinabaughn.com, as they are a matter of public record and have already been released in response to an Open Records request.
Trina Baughn says
For those seeking the Bobby HIll emails, they are posted here at the very end: http://trinabaughn.com/2015/05/22/orpd-investigation-updateresults-of-52015-3rd-special-meeting-bobby-hill-emails/
Joseph Lee says
Ms. Baughn, We have seen Bobby emails. We want to meet Bobby. Where’s Bobby?
Trina Baughn says
Why? Do you want to threaten him like you did me?
Matt Bailey says
So u apparentlyknow who bobby is??Otherwise, you are too smart to put your political office and reputation in the hands of an unknown anonymous emailer. No one doubts you’re an intelligent person. To base so many claims on an anonymous emailer makes no sense. You ran with his emails when others ignored them or gave them little credence. You however keep using them as your foundation, thus leading many to believe there must be some familiarity with ole bobby. To believe otherwise defies logic.
Emilee Howington Smith says
I’m just curious, Ms. Baughn. Since you purport to represent ALL citizens, and since I am a citizen, just how did Mr. Lee threaten you?
Sam Hopwood says
Why Emilee, he threatened to kill her… you know…put her six feet under. But since Joe is the village idiot, no one really takes him seriously. Does that answer your inquiry?
Matt Bailey says
Now there’s a classy comment.
Joseph Lee says
Say Sam, My attorney takes me seriously. How about yours?
Sam Hopwood says
Well Joe, did you or did you not? Yes or no…
Joseph Lee says
Nice try Sam. If you want to be a party to the pending litigation simply indicate by saying yes or no. Thank you.
Sam Hopwood says
This just in, Joe…. Andrew Howe is still here, remember him? He has stated in Bob Fowler’s KNS column dated April 15, 2014 ( Oak Ridge council votes against booting board member for remarks ) that he did, indeed, hear your threat. The moving van is still ready!!
Matt Bailey says
Oh NOW THERE”S two people I’d put my trust in. I’m surprised you’d use Andrew’s name…Since Trina kicked him to the curb during the BOE election, I thought you “Trina-ites” couldn’t even mention his name! That’s really sad, Sam. You can do better.
And Bob Fowler? Really? Aren’t most people under the impression that he’s TB’s mouthpiece?
Sam … you gotta put that Kool-Aid down. It’s embarrassing.
Joseph Lee says
We will take that as a yes. Thank you.
Emilee Howington Smith says
Really, Bob Fowler? There’s someone whose column I will not lend credibility to.
Sam Hopwood says
But better yet Emilee, why not go right to the horse’s – ahem – mouth and ask Joe if he has ever threatened her. I am sure he will respond… 🙂
Emilee Howington Smith says
Sam, thank for answering for others, but I already know the answer. My questions were directed to Ms. Baughn. Are you another one of her mouthpieces?
Joseph Lee says
Ms. Baughn, Have you always be a liar or is it a skill set you have adapted to advance your political positions? Do tell. Where’s Bobby?
Matt Bailey says
Trina, Trina, Trina. There u go again. Twisting words to try to fan the “conspiracy flame”. I talked to bbt tv yesterday. Council meetings are easy for them to televise on Mondays but difficult or impossible on other days. You keep writing about “untelevised meetings ” as if it’s some kind of conspiracy to keep the citizens in the dark. It’s just these kinds of details that you try to twist – and they inevitably destroy your credibility. Is the need to damage oak ridge so severe that you will continue to twist even the slightest details to fit your agenda?
Trina Baughn says
Mr. Bailey,
I twisted nothing and spouted no conspiracy theories. It is a fact that some meetings were not televised and those same meetings only allowed for a 24 hour notice to the public.
As usual, thanks for all the unwanted attention you and yours give me. Maybe one day you’ll realize how that actually works against your intentions.
Trina
Matt Bailey says
Oh, our intentions are fairly obvious. Every time you print something or claim something that’s twisted or fabricated, supported by “questionable” or non-existent “facts”, we’re going to call you out on it. Which we’ve done. Repeatedly.
Much like last night. Once again, you questioned the situation with Keys and his involvement with the Grand Jury. And, once again, he pointed out that the judge appoints that position, at the judge’s discretion. BUT…you tried. Unfortunately, the whole room groaned when you walked across the floor to the podium. I did notice that after you posed for John to get your picture you turned to the audience and addressed them. Which allowed Channel 15 to videotape your every move. (Likely it won’t make it to WATE, but we’ll wait and see). While everyone else addressed the BOE members, you addressed the audience.
Keep on truckin’. We’ll be there.
Trina Baughn says
Well you certainly see and hear quite selectively, Mr. Bailey. That, or your obsession with me has caused your imagination to deceive you.
No, last night I simply pointed out that the school system’s processes were far from reliable given what happened to the kindergarten teacher who had her career destroyed a few years ago. And let’s not forget the Willowbrook Principal who was removed from her position three weeks from the end of the school year and ordered her not to return to the school property. She was then placed on administrative leave AFTER the super conducted his own investigation into an incident involving ” inappropriate treatment of a student” during TCAPS. The following year, without explanation, she was placed at Robertsville Middle School as a teacher where she remains to this day.
These past incidents coupled with the fact that Keys Fillauer, the BOE chairman, is also the Grand Jury Foreman, neither Mr. Anderson nor the public can possibly expect to ever learn the truth.
According to Wikipedia:
Grand jury proceedings are secret. No judge is present; the proceedings are led by a prosecutor…Individuals subject to grand jury proceedings do not have a constitutional right to counsel in the grand jury room, nor do they have right to confront and cross-examine witnesses….Furthermore,
all evidence is presented by a prosecutor in a cloak of secrecy, as the
prosecutor, grand jurors, and the grand jury stenographer are prohibited from
disclosing what happened before the grand jury unless ordered to do so in a
judicial proceeding. According to the American Bar Association (ABA), the grand
jury has come under increasing criticism for being a mere “rubber
stamp” for the prosecution without adequate procedural safeguards. Critics
argue that the grand jury has largely lost its historic role as an independent
bulwark protecting citizens from unfounded accusations by the government.[50] Grand juries provide little protection to
accused suspects and are much more useful to prosecutors. Grand juries have
such broad subpoena power that they can investigate alleged crimes very
thoroughly and often assist the prosecutor in his or her job.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States
Matt Bailey says
I’m obsessed with things I enjoy, like baseball. Actually, your antics would be classified as entertainment if they didn’t affect so many people’s lives in such a negative way.
I’m not surprised you would use Wikipedia as a source of information. Once again, I find your research lacking in accuracy. Please see below, as it fits perfectly:
Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous volunteers who write without pay. Anyone withInternet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.
Trina Baughn says
What did I state or quote that was inaccurate? Perhaps you could try staying on point instead of trying to divert attention away from the issue. Is Mr. Fillauer not the GJF? As such, does he not operate under a complete cloak of secrecy? Do you think Mr. Anderson will get a fair trial if it were to come to that?
Matt Bailey says
I think I’m completely on point. I may not agree with keys on many things but I trust him. I personally have no reason not to. I have multiple reasons to question you however as a council member, your intent, motivation, and business ethics.
I absolutely would expect a fair trial. I have complete faith in his attorney. I just hope you would not be on the jury! The grand jury foreman has nothing to do with a trial !!!
Let’s move on to something productive. Battling this constant negativity is boring.
Trina Baughn says
I think you’re right – your point is crystal clear. Probably not the one you meant to make, but it is clear no less.
Emilee Howington Smith says
Ms. Baughn, please tell me that you are smarter than to use Wikipedia as your source.
Keys Fillauer says
Ms. Baughn, Since you decided to use a public forum to challenge my credibility, I feel like I need to present accurate facts. Yes, I am the Grand Jury Foreman and I am appointed to two year terms by Judge Don Elledge. Secrecy is important because there are times when the DA is making a direct presentment, meaning that no arrest have been made and will not be made unless an indictment occurs. This protects the officers who are making the arrest and keeps those who are being arrested from fleeing. The person or persons presented for indictment are not present in the Grand Jury room……only a witness who will present evidence and the DA who guides the jury through the law. A person who is presented generally has passed through General Sessions Court before the case is received by the Grand Jury and as mentioned above in some instances a direct presentment can occur. The Grand Jury only determines if there is probable cause that a crime did occur. We do not investigate. When a vote is taken the Grand Jury Foreman does not vote unless the vote is 11 to 1 and the Foreman feels the case should move on. A Grand Jury is not a trial court. That would occur if a person is indicted and that would happen in Criminal Court. If a case comes to the Grand Jury that would cause the Foreman to have a potential personal conflict, then the Foreman would remove himself from that case.
Trina Baughn says
Mr. Fillauer,
I appreciate your offering to participate in these discussions and thank you for this insight. You say that the GJF does not vote unless the vote is 11-1. Does the GJF still participate in the discussions? Are not the rest of the jurors generally inexperienced to the process and thus reliant on your and the DA’s guidance?
As for personal conflict, do you customarily recuse yourself from the process when school matters are involved? i.e. matters involving employees, students, financial fraud involving school finances, etc.?
Charlie Jernigan says
Aren’t these the kinds of questions that needed to be answered before apparently concluding that the process likely would be unfair?
Matt Bailey says
Well no, Charlie. That might eliminate the opportunity to resurrect the Alex Heitman “never ending speculation” that there was a huge conspiracy among everyone in Anderson and Cocke Co.
Of course, Ms. Baughn understands that Mr. Fillauer likely can’t discuss what goes on inside the grand jury, but she’s already found a way to jump start this conspiracy theory conversation again, using the Eddie Anderson situation as she did last week. There’s no end to it. I’ve yet to see much evidence that her supporters were too concerned about Mr. Anderson, but a few of her supporters showed up at the BOE meeting to hear her rant against Keys Fillauer.
What her supporters have done to Mr. Heitman’s widow and child is appalling. If you read the widow’s letter and what all she’s been through, it would break your heart. Yet it doesn’t fit “the agenda”, so they push on. One of her supporters apparently showed up unannounced and uninvited to question the widow’s family in Wisconsin, then apparently used an alias to continue the pursuit while here in OR, with a credit union and the Chief of Police.
Has the city ever had a more polarizing figure in public office? Do you wonder who’s next on the list?
Joseph Lee says
Mr. Bailey,
Regarding your first question: The answer is NO.
Regarding your second question: the answer is YES.
Thank you.
Keys Fillauer says
Ms. Baughn, The GJF responsibility is to guide the process. The GJF is there to answer questions, make sure the jurors stay on task and follow the guidelines for GJ as prescribed by law. The GJF does not offer an opinion on how the case should be decided. Any matter that has a direct impact on my position as Board Chr., I would recuse myself.
Tracy Stout-Powers says
You are a real piece of work, lady. I have served on the grand jury with Keys. There is a reason Keys is respected in this county. People here know him for decades, trust him, have dealt with him as a teacher, coach, friend, in business, church, the many charities and organizations he is closely involved with. We know he takes his responsibilities seriously and that he is a man the citizens of this area knows we can depend on.
On the other hand, there is you. A drama queen of the worst kind because unfortunately for Oak Ridge, you somehow got elected to CC. That you have the audacity to say that the truth won’t come to light partly because Keys is the Grand Jury foreman and the Chairman of the BOE only proves how far from reality you have strayed.
It’s well known that liars always think everyone else is a liar, just like a cheater believes everyone else cheats. Your way of thinking tells us more about your untrustworthiness and character than you probably wanted known.
You would be wise to step back and take stock of your poor behavior and accusations. Your personal multiple vendettas and poor attempts at character assassination will surely backfire on you.
Mark Caldwell says
I’d imagine anonymous emails are worth every penny we spend for them.
But, it’s good to hear that a labor union (PBA) will investigate. I believe it’s helpful to society when workers are represented by unions and can bargain in a collective, socialized manner.
Not quite sure what their methodology will be.
Emilee Howington Smith says
No conflict of interest there.
Emilee Howington Smith says
Ms Baughn, you keep using that word “investigate”. You and I both know that while you keep saying “city formally committed to investigate the root causes behind the turnover, morale, and policy issuesin the Police Department.” They, including you, voted to review. It really doesn’t matter what word you use. What does matter to me is all of the money, manhours, time and resources that have been wasted because of anonymous emails, false accusations, conspiracy theories and erroneous information. Have you ever met any of these people that have sent you the anonymous emails? I’m just curious. As one of the citizens that you always claim to represent, I want to know what is it going to take to make you happy and make you start working for the City instead of against it?
Joseph Lee says
Ms. Smith, Don’t hold your breath.