Ritcey destroyed police survey notes, claims he wasn't told by city to retain them

.
I spoke with Dr. Larry Ritcey earlier today, reference the confidentiality issue; to wit: did police employees speak with Ritcey for his survey with the knowledge that their responses would be confidential or were they told that what they said would be identifiable and made public record?

City Manager Isaac Turner is now claiming that he told police employees that their responses would be confidential. Minutes of an FOP meeting that Turner attended last year state the opposite, and an email from Captain Dave Dunaway to all police employees that was sent prior to the survey interviews likewise warned employees that their statements would be public record.

At issue is how to interpret the minimal data that was provided to the city by Ritcey (two typed pages of mostly anecdotal material -- PDF; cost -- $7,646.20 total just for the police survey*). If employees were told that their remarks would be made public and attributable, how likely were they to state any negatives about the department or their supervisors?

Ritcey's summary notes a warm, glowy feel from those that did participate, which has been used by the police chief, city manager, and mayor as hard proof that the department is one big Woodstock lovefest with one or two malcontents, despite the fact that 75% of patrol officers declined to participate in the survey.

As to my conversation with Ritcey, he stated earlier today that in each interview, he never guaranteed anonymity, and he states that he told each individual that their words MIGHT be attributed back to them, but that if it was something that they believed strongly in, they should take a stand.

In his notes, he took down the name of each individual, the answers to his questions, notes about their comments, etc.

He noted that those who were willing to talk with him stated that they were largely satisfied with the department.

He could not and would not speculate on what he wasn't told to him by those who would not participate or those that didn't answer key questions.

After all of the interviews, Ritcey stated that he compiled his work into his report and submitted the report to the city. Sometime after the project closed out (Ritcey is uncertain exactly when), Ritcey destroyed his supporting notes and documentation. He states that he does not have any copies of those original notes.

When asked, Ritcey stated that he was unaware of any requirement to maintain those documents, that nobody from the city advised him to either retain his notes or to turn them over to the city for archiving.

I advised Ritcey that he might want to give a read-through of Florida's Public Records laws and give a look at First Amendment Foundation's web site. Ritcey stated he was unaware that neither Isaac Turner or Julie Williams had tried to give him this information.

This knowledge that Turner failed to advise Ritcey to secure the documents would appear to be the most likely reason for Turner's recent about-face on whether or not police employees were told that the results would be confidential. Of course, Turner is claiming that he has not changed his story at all, but even there his story keeps changing -- watch the video below, the first four minutes show Turner's denial followed by Turner being confronted by me with documents that say... well, that Turner is just flat-out not being truthful.



Hmmmm........................