Memorandum

City of Lawrence

City Attorney’s Office

TO:	Thomas M. Markus, City Manager
DATE:	April 27, 2017
FROM:	Toni Wheeler, City Attorney
RE:	Crystalee Protheroe

On April 18, 2017, Crystalee Protheroe (“Ms. Protheroe”) appeared at a City Commission meeting for public comment requesting to be placed on a future City Commission agenda to discuss the accountability of the Human Relations Division. Ms. Protheroe stated that she requested that the Human Relations Division investigate a complaint she filed previously but that due to a conflict of interest – and alleging incorrectly that staff did not conduct an investigation because the person complained of is a “buddy” of staffs – her complaint was not acted upon.

The purpose of this memo is to identify each time Ms. Protheroe has reached out to City staff within the previous year and to show the careful attention and responsiveness staff has provided to Ms. Protheroe. Ms. Protheroe’s complaints against the City can be divided into four categories, as outlined below.

Human Relations Investigation

On April 12, 2016, Ms. Protheroe filed a discrimination intake form requesting that the City’s Human Relations Division investigate allegations that her and her children’s civil and human rights were violated in “the Douglas County Municipial (sic) Court” by a district court judge. (Attachment A reflects the front page of intake form). Notably, there is no such court in Lawrence – there is a Douglas County District Court and the Lawrence Municipal Court. The Lawrence Municipal Court, an entity of the City of Lawrence, does not have jurisdiction over child custody cases.

Ms. Protheroe’s intake form also briefly alleged that the Lawrence, Kansas Police Department (LKPD) failed to investigate a complaint regarding domestic abuse. City staff immediately analyzed Ms. Protheroe’s complaint. An Assistant City Attorney requested the Police Chief to look into Ms. Protheroe’s intake form statement about LKPD and advised the Human Relations Investigator that the office is looking into the claim against LKPD. (Attachment B & Attachment C).

After a thorough, independent review of the complaint, however, the Human Relations Investigator determined that Ms. Protheroe’s complaint could not be investigated by the City due to a conflict of interest. That conflict of interest related to the Investigator also acting as the Supervising City Prosecutor who works closely with the police department in her capacity as a prosecutor, as well as working closely on a committee for establishing solutions for mental health issues in Douglas County with the district court judge named in the intake form. Due to these conflicts of interest the Human Relations Investigator wrote a letter to Ms. Protheroe on April 14, 2016 referring her to the Kansas Human Rights Commission or her attorney to discuss options of pursuing the matter further. (Attachment D). While not a written policy, it has been the practice of the Investigator to refer a person to the Kansas Human Rights Commission when there is a conflict of interest or a perceived conflict of interest that may impair the Division’s goal of conducting neutral and unbiased investigations. The Kansas Human Rights Commission is well suited to handle complaints of this nature, as it specializes in enforcing state laws prohibiting discrimination. It is unknown whether Ms. Protheroe contacted the Commission to pursue her complaint.

Allegations Against LKPD

Although the Human Relations Division could not formally investigate Ms. Protheroe’s complaint and referred her to an outside agency that could help, LKPD – in its pursuit of accountability and transparency – conducted an independent follow-up into Ms. Protheroe’s allegations that the department failed to investigate a complaint regarding domestic abuse. On May 2, 2016, a sergeant from LKPD’s Office of Professional Accountability (OPA) emailed the Assistant City Attorney advising that police previously responded to a domestic dispute call, which Ms. Protheroe did not initiate. A police report was not filed. Extensive additional investigation was conducted by LKPD after Ms. Protheroe met in person with the City Manager and City Attorney on June 23, 2016 regarding her complaints against LKPD. During that meeting, the City Manager explained to Ms. Protheroe the reasoning behind referring her to the Kansas Human Rights Commission.

In a June 11, 2016 letter following up on the meeting, the City Manager stated that the Police Chief had looked into the claims with the information provided by Ms. Protheroe. Two incidents were discovered, the first of which was a call initiated by Ms. Protheroe’s former husband in 2012. Two sergeants responded and found no evidence of a crime and therefore no report or charges were filed. The second incident was a call in 2015 from a person that was not Ms. Protheroe, who reported an act of domestic battery against Ms. Protheroe occurring in 2008. After a full conversation with the caller (at the time of the call) LKPD could not have taken action on the allegation as the statute of limitation for the crime of domestic battery was five (5) years. (Attachment E).

On July 12, 2016, Ms. Protheroe completed the LKPD Formal Complaint of Officer(s) Conduct form, alleging that her civil rights were violated because a report she made was not forwarded to the District Attorney’s Office. (Attachment F). An LKPD sergeant met with Ms. Protheroe in person to discuss her complaint, and learned during the interview that Ms. Protheroe’s complaint was related to her dissatisfaction that her original complaint against the district court judge and her allegation of the judge violating Ms. Protheroe’s civil rights was not investigated. The allegations Ms. Protheroe raised during the interview were similar to those she raised in a federal civil lawsuit that Ms. Protheroe had recently filed (discussed below). Ms. Protheroe’s complaint was then filed at LKPD as an inquiry. The LKPD policy definition for inquiry is: “An examination based upon a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of acceptable or desired conduct, procedures, or practices which a supervisor is able to resolve with the complainant and the department member.”

Federal Civil Complaint

On June 6, 2016, Ms. Protheroe filed a civil complaint in federal district court listing the Lawrence Police Department as a defendant in the case, among other agencies and persons including the district court judge listed in Ms. Protheroe’s earlier discrimination intake form. The complaint again alleged LKPD’s failure to follow up with Ms. Protheroe on previous allegations of abuse. (Attachment G includes the first pages of the complaint). However, on November 18, 2016 and in response to the City’s “Motion to Dismiss,” the federal district court dismissed Ms. Protheroe’s civil action against LKPD, in addition to dismissing the action against all other defendants. (Attachment H). The court held that Ms. Protheroe failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Ms. Protheroe did not appeal that ruling and the case remains closed.

Non-Profit Organization

Ms. Protheroe advised staff last summer that she was working to organize a non-profit organization that would assist victims of domestic violence navigate the judicial system. On July 7, 2016, Ms. Protheroe contacted the City Manager’s office to ask how she could be added to the City Commission Agenda regarding that nonprofit organization. A few weeks later, on August 2, 2016, Ms. Protheroe addressed the City Commission during public comment regarding the treatment of victims of domestic violence by the court system. Upon direction from the City Commission to meet with Ms. Protheroe, an Assistant City Attorney and Management Analyst from the City Attorney’s Office met with Ms. Protheroe at City Hall on August 8, 2016 to discuss Ms. Protheroe’s non-profit organization. During the meeting, Ms. Protheroe asked that the City coordinate with outside entities to help Ms. Protheroe further establish the organization. After reviewing Ms. Protheroe’s request and discussing it internally, the Assistant City Attorney wrote a follow-up letter to Ms. Protheroe on August 17, 2016 explaining that while the City is not in a position to help Ms. Protheroe establish her organization, there may be other agencies or persons that may be able to assist her. (Attachment I).

Conclusion

It is clear from the numerous contacts Ms. Protheroe has had with the City since last spring that staff has been responsive to Ms. Protheroe and timely in responding to her concerns and questions. Despite staff’s inability to formally investigate Ms. Protheroe’s allegations regarding discrimination or assist her in her non-profit endeavors, staff timely responded with ideas on how Ms. Protheroe could pursue interests that were important to her.