CAROLINA BEACH — Town Manager Lucky Narain is responding to claims made by Carolina Beach’s Police Advisory Committee, including allegations that he misled a candidate for the town’s police department and that he may have dealt inappropriately with the town’s police department during a mandatory meeting.
Related: Carolina Beach committee alleges town manager lied to police candidate, forced officers on PT run
In a three page letter, Narain went line by line responding to the complaints laid out in the PAC’s letter to the Town Council.
Falsified information?
The first of the many complaints laid out by the Police Advisory Committee (PAC) was the that Narain supposedly told a potential candidate that he would not be considered for employment due to the fact he had scored the lowest amongst all of the candidates interviewed.
A police captain later allegedly refuted these claims and said that the candidate had in fact, scored the highest, according to the PAC.
To this, Narain responded by saying he was unaware of any cumulative scoring process and said that prior to his hiring the department was “full of administrative issues” so he decided to get personally involved with the hiring of police candidates — a role not usually taken by the town manager.
“The weeks prior to me on-boarding were chock full of administrative issues within the police department. The issues were complex. You might say they represented a veritable hurricane of events resulting in a number of officers leaving before my start date. There may have been systemic issues within the organization that created the situation resulting in their departure. As the Chief Administrative Officer for the Town and consistent with the authorities of the office of Town Manager, I sought direct involvement with all police officer hires and promotions. I created my own un-biased and entirely neutral ranking. I had zero knowledge of a committee ranking throughout my ranking process,” Narain said.
Narain did address his actual meeting with the candidate, and did not confirm or deny, whether or not he told the candidate he had scored the lowest.
No obligation to explain himself to candidates
When the candidate attempted to get a meeting with Narain to further explain why he had not been offered the job and to discuss his score, he could not. It was only as a private citizen the candidate was granted a meeting with Narain.
To this, Narain simply claims that he is not obligated to explain his hiring (or not hiring) reasons to a candidate and that the town manager outranks a committee recommendation.
“A Committee’s ranking is not the conclusive element in a hiring decision. The PAC ranking may be one of many elements considered in the hiring of a person. The Town Manager’s ranking is the de facto ranking of the organization – not the PAC,” Narain said.
However, the PAC never interviewed the candidate nor did they rank him, in fact, in the PAC’s initial letter they admitted that most of the committee had never met the candidate.
A rescinded offer
After much ado, the candidate was offered a position with the police department only to have it rescinded before he could start. The candidate in question was a former police officer with the town and had experience according to the PAC.
But according to Narain, previous employment with the town has little bearing on future employment.
“Previous applications to the Town are not weighted and are not generally a significant factor in the re-hiring of that individual. No one is entitled to work for the Town because they have worked for the Town in the past,” he said.
He did not, however, give any reason in his response for the rescinded offer.
Narain also fought back against claims that he was unqualified to directly oversee law enforcement saying that his experience with the military, being an attorney, and a member of civilian oversight for law enforcement made him qualified.
“‘Hands being restricted by staff unqualified in law enforcement’ is a charged statement. I have personal experience working in law enforcement oversight as a civilian, as an attorney, and a military officer. The Town’s HR Director and Town Attorney have experience with law enforcement related administrative issues. Is the expectation that the Town Manager, HR Director, and Town Attorney have some other qualifying law enforcement experience?” he said.
Internal strife
Narain did not respond to the concerns of internal issues between the police department and human resources but did respond to the allegations that test results were falsified.
He questions what results were falsified and challenges that any lies were told, instead, he chalks it up to not understanding a process.
“There is a difference between not understanding processes or different ranking lists and being lied to. Candidates throughout various industries and organizations are frequently extended conditional offers of employment. To have those offers rescinded during the screening process is not jerking an applicant around,” Narain wrote.
A forced PT
One of the other concerns listed by the PAC was the mandatory run and physical training Narain forced members of the police department to do with him.
He claims that his experience with the military gave him the experience needed to require this.
“(My) Qualifications already stated above. The state of the PD already discussed above. The community wants leadership. When leadership is exercised, it’s questioned. It’s confusing,” he said.
While the town manager is the head administrative officer of the town, the police department already has its own leadership structure. It is not typical for the town manager to oversee the actual training of the police department’s rank and file.
Narain also goes on to call the Carolina Beach Police Department, an organization of peace officers, a ‘paramilitary organization’ with security concerns.
“The Town of Carolina Beach has a fair number of security concerns. The extremely close proximity to one the premier ammunition facilities in the world, coastal hurricane threats, increased violent activity in surrounding jurisdictions, an exponential population growth during tourist season, (potentially rogue alligators-kidding), etc. Every good leader (esp. with military experience) taking over a paramilitary organization with security concerns of this magnitude will want to immediately test the emergency alert roster – particularly in a situation where staffing shortages exist. Is the roster up to date? Does it work? Are there any deficiencies that we need to address? These are all questions that it’s better to address sooner rather than later. The chain of command was present – and, I was there. Getting into the nuances of leadership strategy and management techniques – it seems is outside the scope of the inquiry,” Narain said.
Most police departments are not considered “paramilitary” – which usually refers to offensive military-style forces outside the traditional armed forces but with comparable organization, firepower, and missions. Some SWAT units are considered paramilitary units. However, law enforcement officers are not the same thing as offensive military forces, they are only expected to enforce laws.
In conclusion, Narain said he was concerned that the PAC did not approach him to discuss their concerns instead of airing their grievances to the public and encourages residents, as well as committee members, speak to him with any concerns in the future.
You can read the full correspondence from Narain below the cut line. It has not been edited except for formatting.
While the police department is struggling with multiple issues, this letter primarily addresses the recent interview process for an officer candidate, herein referred to as The Candidate. PAC represents statements made in the letter, and TM represents the Town Manager’s response to those statements.
PAC: The Candidate, along with other candidates, completed an in-person interview before the hiring committee. All candidates were scored by each member of the committee and subsequently ranked based on their cumulative scores. Subsequent to the interviews The Candidate was notified that he would not be considered for employment because he had scored the lowest among the interviewed candidates.
TM: The weeks prior to me on-boarding were chock full of administrative issues within the police department. The issues were complex. You might say they represented a veritable hurricane of events resulting in a number of officers leaving before my start date. There may have been systemic issues within the organization that created the situation resulting in their departure. As the Chief Administrative Officer for the Town and consistent with the authorities of the office of Town Manager, I sought direct involvement with all police officer hires and promotions. I created my own un-biased and entirely neutral ranking. I had zero knowledge of a committee ranking throughout my ranking process.
PAC: Seeking clarification, The Candidate made multiple calls to our Town Manager, leaving messages and requesting a return call. After several attempts at contacting the Town Manager went unanswered, The Candidate called town hall as “a citizen” and requested a meeting with the Town Manager. Ironically, this resulted in a meeting the next day.
TM: It’s my understanding, and consistent with general human resource practices – the Town is not obligated to explain the reasons as to why an applicant was not selected.
PAC: During this meeting The Candidate was again told that the reason he was passed over was that his score was well below the other candidates. When the Candidate questioned the accuracy of the Town Manager’s claim, a police department Captain was called-in to confirm the scoring. The Captain refuted the Town Manager’s representation, confirming that not only had The Candidate not scored the lowest, he had scored the highest, and by a significant margin.
TM: FALSE/MISLEADING: A Committee’s ranking is not the conclusive element in a hiring decision. The PAC ranking may be one of many elements considered in the hiring of a person. The Town Manager’s ranking is the de facto ranking of the organization – not the PAC.
PAC: This should not be news to any council members, as you have received numerous calls and texts regarding these questionable happenings. Who did the Town Manager receive the incorrect information from? Our leadership is hired with the expectation of honesty and integrity, surely, he would not intentionally present false results to a very qualified candidate? After further consideration, The Candidate was eventually offered employment; an offer he accepted.
TM: FALSE/MISLEADING: Police officer candidates are offered conditional letters of employment. The offer of employment is contingent upon an applicant successfully passing all phases of screening process.
PAC: The Candidate was well qualified and was a former CB Officer who was ready to come back. It is our impression that both CBPD and Chief Spivey were excited to have this officer joining the CBPD, especially considering The Candidate was a trained LEO and former CB officer, and would therefore be able to be effective in an expedited timeframe. There were no issues with hiring him before, therefore the whole process around The Candidate’s experience gives an appearance of impropriety.
TM: MISLEADING: Previous applications to the Town are not weighted and are not generally a significant factor in the re-hiring of that individual. No one is entitled to work for the Town because they have worked for the Town in the past.
PAC: Unfortunately, a few days before The Candidate’s projected start date on Monday, May 27, he received a call saying that “something had come up” and he would not be hired. No other explanation was offered. Not only should applicants be able to rely on a transparent and fair hiring process, if an applicant does fall short in a given area, they should be given the reason they failed to meet our hiring standards. Our PD administration should be able to hire good qualified candidates without their hands being restricted by staff unqualified in law enforcement.
TM: “Hands being restricted by staff unqualified in law enforcement” is a charged statement. I have personal experience working in law enforcement oversight as a civilian, as an attorney, and a military officer. The Town’s HR Director and Town Attorney have experience with law enforcement related administrative issues. Is the expectation that the Town Manager, HR Director, and Town Attorney have some other qualifying law enforcement experience? What about members of the PAC given that they create a ranking? How exactly is calling candidates to personally inform them that they would not be hired not fair? Would having an applicant wait for an automatically generated rejection letter be more fair or transparent?
The expectation addressed of a fair and transparent hiring process is noted. To the extent members of the community and the PAC have recommendations on improving processes and/or practices in the Town, we would happily evaluate them for legality in accordance with North Carolina law and consider adopting them. As I do with staff, I would also encourage any member of the public interested in this course of action to do some research. If there is a problem, come to me with some solutions…. Are there any other municipalities in NC that are doing what you propose? How long have they been doing it? Does it work? What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) involved in implementing this course of action? And, if there is a cost associated with the training and implementation of the change – where does/should that money come from?
PAC: In addition to issues with The Candidate, we believe Council is aware of broader problems within the police department, and potentially with the HR Departments interaction with the Police Department. Why then; is this Council unwilling to address issues of this level of importance, including the manner The Candidate was treated? If we allow these issues and actions to stand, where will it stop? Who will be the next person lied to or mistreated? We do not want to believe that this Council feels it is okay to falsify test results, lie to applicants and otherwise jerk an applicant around by offering them a job, only to retract the offer, but neither have we seen any effort on the part of any council member to intervene.
TM: FALSE: “Council feels it is okay to falsify test results…” What test results were falsified? Who exactly is being accused of falsifying results? What lies are being referenced? There is a difference between not understanding processes or different ranking lists and being lied to. Candidates throughout various industries and organizations are frequently extended conditional offers of employment. To have those offers rescinded during the screening process is not jerking an applicant around.
PAC: As you know, our police department is severely under-staffed. Over the Memorial Day Weekend, we had 3 officers patrolling per shift; our normal is 5 officers per shift. It takes 3+ months from the first interview to get a qualified candidate in uniform and on the street. Since January 2018, we have lost 14 officers related to conflicts and operational concerns within town hall, including conflicts between the officers and the HR Director. Twelve of the fourteen officers left because they were displeased with working conditions for various reasons; the other 2 were forced out by either resignation or firing as well as both of our K-9 officers. One of these officers was our Carolina Beach Elementary Resource Officer and promises were made to the parents and students that were never kept.
TM: FALSE: Although still an alarmingly high number, the actual count for the time referenced is 12. The stated reasons are hearsay and are inconsistent with staff information. PAC: To add to our community’s loss, as a direct result of losing officers, the Bike Rodeo has been cancelled and we suspect National Family Night Out may be next on the list. We are going backwards – not forwards.
With regards to the two K-9s we retired earlier this year due to their handlers leaving the CBPD, one of those K9s will be starting as a working K-9 with the Brunswick County Sheriff’s office in the next few days. Both K-9s were retired and sold to their respective handlers for $1. The K-9s cost the taxpayers $12k each plus the costs of training and equipping. BCSO will be putting a K-9 to work at the expense of Carolina Beach taxpayers because no contract was written to keep the handlers from putting them to work elsewhere.
TM: FALSE
PAC: It was also brought to our attention that recently all members of the CBPD were called in for a mandatory meeting with the new Town Manager. During this meeting the officers were directed not to communicate with PAC members or Council. They were made to run PT as a “readiness” activity. Some were in full gear and others where here on their day off after working the previous night shift. What experience does our TM have that would warrant him personally directing our officers’ actions? Where was the chain of command when this happened? It has been confirmed the TM has since apologized to some present due to the inappropriateness of this requirement.
TM: MISLEADING: Qualifications already stated above. The state of the PD already discussed above. The community wants leadership. When leadership is exercised, it’s questioned. It’s confusing. The Town of Carolina Beach has a fair number of security concerns. The extremely close proximity to one the premier ammunition facilities in the world, coastal hurricane threats, increased violent activity in surrounding jurisdictions, an exponential population growth during tourist season, (potentially rogue alligators-kidding) etc.
Every good leader (esp. with military experience) taking over a paramilitary 4 organization with security concerns of this magnitude will want to immediately test the emergency alert roster – particularly in a situation where staffing shortages exist. Is the roster up to date? Does it work? Are there any deficiencies that we need to address? These are all questions that it’s better to address sooner rather than later. The chain of command was present – and, I was there. Getting into the nuances of leadership strategy and management techniques – it seems is outside the scope of the inquiry. Suffice it to say – I was very impressed with the response time and the caliber of talent in the Police Department.
PAC: When we lose 14 officers in a short timeframe – we would think both the Town Manager and you, our council members, would be hyper-vigilant in your efforts to establish WHY and how to make corrections, yet that does not appear to be the case. It should be noted that most of the officers who left took pay cuts at their new positions. Contrary to the narrative, it’s not all about money.
TM: MISLEADING: Career growth opportunities equate to money. Is it true that the officer that left took pay cuts? Was overall compensation taken into account (family insurance benefits, tuition reimbursement, etc.)? If there was indeed a pay cut, was it taken within the context of increased career progression opportunities and more salary potential?
PAC: Up to this point most of the PAC members have never met or communicated with The Candidate. However, just having the knowledge of these events is reason enough to cause concern. Almost every member of this committee has been approached by residents asking what is going on with our Police Department. Town staff has said they cannot comment on employee matters, and we respect that such a chain of command must be followed.
In that regard, staff reports to Department Heads and they report to the Town Manager. The Town Manager reports to Council. So, the end of the chain is Council. You report to, and represent, the residents. So, we understand that the police Chief and police department employees do not work directly for Council. But the Town Manager works for Council, and Council has every ability to insist that he address these issues and that he do it in a truthful and professional manner, to the satisfaction of Council and in the best interest of the community.
TM: It is comforting that members of the Committee understand how the reporting structure works. It’s concerning though that the Committee did not schedule an appointment to discuss these concerns with me. I’m approachable. I don’t bite. I’m freaked out by Palmetto bugs just like the next guy and may sometimes wail like a 3-year-old when I see one. And, most importantly – – – I’m committed to working with staff and residents to advance Council-set initiatives/policies.
