Cmdr McNeilly's Open Letter: UPDATE

Fresh Details

New Development: The Post-Gazette confirms it will publish the McNeilly letter, but now says it will not be able to publish the letter until next week. It appears that newspaper layout considerations, not content, are the reason for the delay.


The Pittsburgh police commander who fought her demotion with a whistleblower lawsuit is about to reveal what she'll do with the money the city is paying her to settle the battle. First, she is going to use her free speech rights to write city residents a message.

The city's settlement of Commander Catherine McNeilly's whistleblower/first amendment lawsuit awards McNeilly $85,000. I've learned that McNeilly is spending $4,000 of that money to publish an open letter to Pittsburghers in the Post-Gazette next week. As I reported on Channel 4 Action News, I've obtained a copy of that letter. It's available in its entirety on the Pittsburgh Channel.

In the letter, McNeilly writes that the money addresses what she calls "the injustice done" for actions "taken in good faith and in the public interest, according to the law". She says, however, it was "only a redress for a time consuming and expensive diversion from the core issues".

McNeilly quotes the federal judge's ruling that her whistleblower case was about "allegations of wrongdoing and improper and undue influence by the mayor's office in the police department matters." The commander's letter appears to urge U.S. Attorney Mary Beth Buchanan and Pennsylvania Attorney General Tom Corbett and his public corruption unit to investigate.

Commander McNeilly writes that 'I would be greatly disappointed if..(they) chose to ignore the findings of the federal court '... "especially in light of the fact that so much remains unchanged to this day". Her open letter says "I can only hope that our criminal justice system has duly noted the federal court's findings and i have faith and confidence that the system will take up the task".

Former city Operations Director Dennis Regan resigned, even though Mayor Ravenstahl said a probe by the city solicitor did not prove allegations Regan intervened in police discipline of a police officer. That officer, Frank Rende, is the brother of the woman with whom Regan lives--the mayor's Executive Secretary Marlene Cassidy. The city has always insisted McNeilly was disciplined only for including Officer Rende's personnel data in an e-mail to city council complaining about Regan.

Referring to Mayor Ravenstahl's office, McNeilly writes that she remains convinced that "this administration genuinely believes there has never been any wrongdoing emanating from that office, regardless of what has been said in federal court."

U.S. Attorney Buchanan acknowledges receiving McNeilly's letter, and says she will take a look at the public record in the McNeilly court case.

McNeilly's public letter maintains the case began when she was trying to start disciplinary action against Officer Rende, whom she alleges was abusing sick time and off-duty employment privileges. She writes that the alleged abuse was detrimental to other officers and to public safety. In her letter, she describes it as an "irony" and "charade" that the officer has never been disciplined, and she maintains that he is getting higher pay and status as an 'acting detective'. McNeilly says the officer's actions have been "rewarded rather than reprimanded". She faults the Ravenstahl administration for keeping Cassidy as the mayor's executive secretary during and since the controversy. McNeilly's letter describes Cassidy as holding what McNeilly calls "an influential and sensitive position within the mayor's office, making her privy now, as she has been throughout, to all aspects of this situation". Despite extensive references, McNeilly's letter never uses Regan's, Rende's, or Cassidy's names.

In her letter, McNeilly writes that "I do not intend to become enriched personally as a result of this redress of justice". The commander says she has decided to create an charitable endowment from the settlement money that will make donations to several charities for years to come.

She writes that among those benefiting will be: the American Civil Liberties Union, two churches, a convent, a retirement community, a group called "Concerns of Police Survivors, Inc" (which assists families of officers killed in the line of duty), and the Allegheny Chapter of the Multiple Sclerosis Society. McNeilly says her husband, former Pittsburgh Police Chief Robert McNeilly, her brother--city police chaplain Father Lou Vallone--, and her attorneys are also making personal non-tax-deductable donations to the endowment. Vallone is the is pastor of one of the churches to benefit from the planned endowment. McNeilly's letter invites Mayor Ravenstahl, Police Chief Nate Harper, and their attorneys to make donations as well to charities of their choice.

Prior to the Channel 4 Action News story, the Mayor's Office said it had not yet seen the letter.

Read More...

Summary only...

Point/Counter-Point: The McNeilly Settlement

The Pittsburgh Channel has details from my Channel Four Action News report. Here's a point/counter-point from comments made outside Council Chamber.


Jim Malloy, President, Fraternal Order of Police:


"Council made a decision today. I disagree with that decision. I don't think that you reward somebody with 85-thousand dollars when they freely admit that they violated the contract, they violated the rules and regulations."


"They never attempted--and I talked to Commander McNeilly--I explained to her. We were in the federal courthouse. If she thought there was skullduggery going on in the administration, all she had to do was walk down the hall and see the U.S. Attorney and tell them. They'd have sent a task force down to investigate, like they do everything else."


"She didn't do anything except what she wanted to do. She helped write the rules and regulations, but she in turn ignored them when it met her need. That's what I object to. You write these agreements, you work on these contracts, and what we're opening the door to now is that."


"Police officers, they're sworn to keep the privacy of individuals to themselves. You all understand exactly what policemen do out there. They get involved in the intimate parts of many people's lives. And they live with those secrets and keep their mouths shut. Are we saying now that because Cathy McNeilly could the rules and regulations, so can they? I hope not. I think that there's an obligation on the part of a police officer to abide by rules. And there's a greater responsibility when you write the damn things, you must abide by the rules."


".... I think when somebody comes up to you and says 'yeah, I violated the rules, sure, I violated the contract, but I did it for good reasons'--let the court decide whether those reasons have value or not. Not because you're afraid you're going to line the pockets of her attorneys. They're going to spend over a quarter-million dollars on this case, and never put a glove on to get in the ring."


"...I mean, if you do that with every case that comes to city council, and you just simply blindly follow the law department and say 'yeah, well, they think we can lose this case'. You can lose any case, you can win any case. You guys have been around this business long enough to know that some you win, some you lose. But at least you get in a fight."



Bill Peduto, Pittsburgh City Councilman:


"I'm convinced that if we would have pursued this in court that we would have lost. The Whistleblower Law is there for a reason. It's to protect employees. Even those that make decisions that go against union rules."


"Always remember that the U.S. Constitution trumps any agreements. The civil rights of Catherine McNeilly were violated, and if we went to court, we would have lost more than just the 85-thousand dollars that we had to agree to today, and the hundreds of thousands of dollars we're going to have to agree to in legal fees. This city would have lost its integrity."


"From the very beginning, when Dennis Regan was first nominated for public safety director, I said it was the wrong decision. When the investigation went out against Catherine McNeilly, and then the actions were taken against her, I said it was the wrong decision, it would end up costing the city money. These were a series of missteps, of very serious issues that needed to be addressed outside of politics. Unfortunately, the only response from the administration at that time was that I was being political."


"...If that trial were to continue, we would lose. We'd lose a lot more taxpayer dollars than the 300-thousand or so that we're going to lose. This city would have lost its integrity by denying an employee their civil rights--guarantees that are provided to every single citizen in this country."


"Union rules do not trump the U.S. Constitution . They don't trump the Whistleblower Law. That is why we have the Whistleblower Law, so that somebody--an employee-- who feels that there is no other course of action, who feels that the entire system is up against them, has the ability and the right to go and pursue what they know to be right in their heart."


"...Yes, she broke the rules of the union agreement, but we took away her civil rights. Something that's guaranteed to everybody through the U.S. Constitution. We had no chance to win this. We had to fold the tent now, with 300-thousand dollars or so on the table of taxpayers money, because of missteps that were made throughout this process."

Read More...

Summary only...

Q-and-A: The Mayor On The McNeilly Settlement

The mayor sends the deal to council

Here's a question-and-answer session with Mayor Ravenstahl on the city's planned deal to end Commander Catherine McNeilly's Whistleblower/First Amendment lawsuit. (You can see video of my Channel 4 Action News story here.) I joined in an interview by KQV's Elaine Effort that was already under way. The mayor was answering her question about what he had learned from dealing this case.

Mayor Luke Ravenstahl: It was a decision that the chief made that he felt was appropriate at the time, when the initial investigation was completed and I supported him in that endeavor. As we know now, the judge and the court felt differently. And we respect that, and have moved on, and felt this was in the best interest of everybody to move forward from this point.


Q: Have you signed off on a settlement with Commander Catherine McNeilly?

A: We've introduced legislation to council, yes, to settle the McNeilly case.


Q: It's reported that includes--according to a published report--a mayoral acknowledgment city employees have free speech rights. What exactly do you acknowledge, and how is that different from where we had been before?

A: All the specifics will be discussed once the legislation is introduced to council tomorrow. and I felt more than comfortable making that statement because I believe in it. And as far as I'm concerned every employee has the right--I've said this from the beginning--has the right to voice their opinion on anything related to city government and I fully support that.


Q: Was Catherine McNeilly a whistleblower in this case?


A: Well, once again we've--the case has been well-documented. We've determined at this point that the chief made a decision, the court felt differently. and it was in the best interest of the residents of the city and the taxpayers, it was in my interest, not to line--further line--the pockets of attorneys and pile up legal fees at the expense of taxpayers. So we felt it was fiscally prudent to settle this case and move on.


Q: To clarify, in addition to the settlement with Commander McNeilly, is there going to be a second phase--a second hit to taxpayers for this? Legal bills for her attorneys, separate from the settlement with her?

A: Well, we will-- sure, there will be legal fees associated as well. And it's my understanding that will take place sometime later, separate from this settlement that we have here today.


Q: Why do it in two parts?

A: I believe that's a question the attorneys can probably better answer than I. There are legal questions that--in terms of what those fees are--and we need to make sure that we are paying for only the fees that were encumbered. And we want to make sure that we do so in a very thorough manner, without simply agreeing to a number without having some third party or third entity come in and take a look at what's appropriate.


Q: What's different as we stand here today than back in January, right after the judge granted her that initial ruling in her favor? What's different that has changed your mind?

A: I don't know that anything's changed my mind. When you have and receive a judgement from a judge and she made it quite clear that it looked as if the commander would be successful in this trial, and had to make a decision. And like I said, it's more important for me to protect the financial interest of the residents and the taxpayers of the city, and not simply line the pockets of an attorney, and that's what we made a decision to do. We respected the judge's decision. I've said that then, and I'll say that now, and we look forward to moving forward.


Q: Wouldn't that suggest, though, that you didn't think the city's case was going to hold up? I mean, because you wouldn't have had to pay her attorneys' fees if you had won.

A: Well, we--the chief made a decision based on a rule that was broken. The judge clarified and felt differently, and we said then we respected that opinion, and we're moving on and we'll go from there.


Q: Do you have to have the judge sign off on this? Do you take this agreement into court?

A: I believe that has already taken place.


Q: She's already signed off?

A: I believe that she's been involved in the entire process to this point.


Q: Is it likely that what the city may pay in legal bills, apart from the settlement with her, may be that much and more?

A: I can't speculate on that at this point. I really don't know.


Q: Would it be less than a million or more than a million?

A: No, it will be far less than a million dollars.


Q: Will it be another hundred-thousand?

A: I don't know. I really don't know.

Read More...

Summary only...

Q&A: Solicitor Specter Speaks Out

“The investigation was conducted in a fair and thorough fashion.”
–Acting City Solicitor George Specter

Here are some excerpts from my question-and-answer session with Acting City Solicitor George Specter concerning the Dennis Regan investigation.

Q: "Why the decision to talk to the media now about this case?"

A: "I wanted to talk to the media because of the accusations that were made against me in public."

Q: "What accusations?"

A: "The accusation that I attended a meeting on August 16, 2006 at which I heard Dom Costa discuss carrying out Regan's order, or vice versa, Regan ordering him to promote officer Rende to detective. And that's not true. I never heard anything like that. There was an August 16th meeting, but it had nothing to do with that matter."

(A technical problem interrupted the videotaping, and we started again for the camera.)

Q: "Again, why the decision to talk to the media now?"

A: I wanted to talk to the media because there have been some accusations made to media that--in public--about me and about my prior involvement in the Rende matter. Apparently stemming from this meeting on August 16, 2006. That meeting did not relate to the Rende matter; I never heard of the Rende matter prior to that time, and was unaware of it after that meeting ended."

Q: "Did you witness firsthand any evidence that Dennis Regan was pressing Chief Costa to promote an officer who Costa believed was not qualified?"

A: "Not at all."

Q: "Your report to the mayor appears to indirectly acknowledge that you were present for this. You recount that Costa says you were at the meeting. You don't say 'Costa says this, but this isn't true'? "


A: "What happens is, it's very simple. A couple of weeks before the meeting, I receive an e-mail from Chief Costa, asking me to attend a meeting with him and Officer Degler. A week or so after that he sent me an e-mail saying that he had scheduled a meeting at Dennis Regan's office on August 16 with himself, Dennis Regan, Officer Degler, and me. I put it on my calendar and went to the meeting. ...(Editor's Note: Specter details the meeting with Degler.)... After which, Degler got up and left. I followed immediately. I got up and said 'do you need me for anything else', and they said no, and I left."

Q: "Costa's statement puts you in the room interacting with Regan and with him as part of the incident, doesn't it?"

A: "It appears to, yes."

Q: "His statement, he said, places you in the room. He describes her leaving, and then he said over the course of the discussion 'Regan asked why, and George Specter said "Well, contract. They don't have graded detectives because of the contract."' So he actually describes you interacting with Dennis Regan and with him. Is that a lie? "

A: "I have to tell you. He may have said to Dennis Regan something along those lines, but I will tell you absolutely, Bob, I didn't even know what a graded detective was at the time, and I never had occasion to read the police contract. So, I wouldn't have said that."

Q: "So you were not in the room when this alleged activity took place?"

A: "That's right."

Q: "... If you weren't in the room, in your report to the mayor, why didn't you say, 'I'm falsely being represented as being witness to this'? Isn't that in itself important information?"

A: "That was an oversight on my part. In retrospect, do I regret not saying that? Absolutely. But, as far as the discussion about a detective is concerned, I wouldn't have known that. And frankly, if Costa or Regan, if Costa said to Regan as I was standing there, 'I took care of that matter', it would have been a meaningless statement to me. He might as well have said anything. I was leaving."

Q: "But the Costa statement not only has that. The Costa statement goes much further, and describes the entire exchange about 'I want him to be a detective now', places you in the room witnessing that. That's all an extended--misrepresentation? False statement? What, from the former chief?"

A: "I wouldn't want to accuse Dom Costa of making a -- of misrepresenting intentionally, or speaking falsely or anything. I think that my recollection is just very clear. I got up and said, do you need me for anything, and they said 'no'. And that--end of story."

(Later in the interview...)


A: "...the allegation that he (Regan) had sought to pressure Chief Costa into better positions for Officer Rende. On that one, as you correctly noted, 'I said credence has to be given, despite Regan's stout denials, credence has to be given to what actually happened. Costa said 'he told me to do it, and I did it'."

Q: "So then, your next and closing statement is 'the facts speak for themselves.' And in that context, what do those facts say--about Chief Costa's assertions, about Dennis Regan's assertions?"

A: "The fact that Costa did this, and says that he did it at the insistence of Dennis Regan, coupled with the record of transfers during the Costa regime, tell me that something--that there was some interaction between them that led him to move Rende so often in a short period of time."

Q: "So, did your investigation provide, in light of that, quote-- 'no conclusive evidence'--unquote?"

A: "I thought there was substantial evidence, but you still had Dennis Regan saying 'I never said it'."

Q: "So in order for there to be conclusive evidence, there'd have to be an admission on Dennis Regan's part?"

A: "Something like that. to be absolutely conclusive. But you know what's interesting here, Bob? I in a sense came to the same conclusions as Cathy McNeilly did. Recall, she said that she had no absolute proof that Dennis Regan had done these things. But she looked at the big picture. I, on the other hand, said 'let the facts speak for themselves'. There's essentially no difference between those conclusions."

Q: "But the mayor had to act on that. He said 'no conclusive evidence'. Is that an accurate interpretation of the findings that you made to the mayor?"

A: "If you're using the word conclusive, yes it is. But look at the overall result. What you have is, as a result of this investigation and the mayor's action on it: Dennis Regan is no longer employed by the City of Pittsburgh. Cathy McNeilly remains employed. Albeit, she was demoted. That demotion has been vacated by the district court; she is now back as a commander. But if you look at the bigger picture here, and what has actually happened: Regan is gone and she is still here. "

(Later in the interview...)

A: "I would like to say that the investigation was conducted in a fair and thorough fashion. I think that my report to the mayor evidenced that, and I think the mayor saw that in his reading of the report. And I think he acted properly in what he did. You have to remember, these things did not happen on his watch. And here he was, a relatively new, very new mayor, confronted with this issue and these allegations. And you have to look at the end result. So, I think it was a fair investigation and the result has been fair to everyone. "

Q: "Mr. Regan acting as--and signing off as--public safety director to reverse a dismissal of a police officer: that happened while the current administration was power?"

A: "That is correct. He should not have done that."

Q: "Was that within the scope of your investigation? It was an action that he took in police matters?"

A: "It was not made part of the investigation. Quite frankly, by the time we learned about it, he had already done it and the officer in question was back on the job. So that got into the very difficult question of 'do we try to reinstate the original disciplinary action'."

Read More...

Summary only...

Mayor Ravenstahl Q&A & New McNeilly Case Documents

Podcast: Mayor Answers Reporters Questions On
Latest McNeilly Case Developments;
Evidence From Court Case Now Online

You can listen to Mayor Ravenstahl field reporter questions about issues raised in the McNeilly court case. I’ve posted the audio; you can click here to go to my latest podcast page.


Over at the Pittsburgh Channel, you can now read two of the newly available court documents. I’ve annotated these copies.

This one is the city law department’s memo to the mayor on the Regan investigation.


The other concerns Commander RaShall Brackney’s alleged counter with Dennis Regan.


Meanwhile, the ACLU has posted more than a dozen additional memos, letters, and reports at its web site.



Here’s a link to the Mayor’s Office web site for press releases. As of this post, the administration has not issued any written statements on this story.


You can read the city’s response in court to the McNeilly lawsuit in this earlier post to The Busman’s Holiday.

Read More...

Summary only...

McNeilly Case: The Judge’s Words

“The chilling effect of discipline and demotion to a police officer who makes a good faith report of what she believes in good faith to be wrongdoing and inappropriate influence in Government never serves the public interest.”

Here are excerpts of the preliminary injunction ruling by U.S. District Court Chief Judge Donetta Ambrose in the Commander Catherine McNeilly case.


• "Initially I make a finding that Plaintiff's speech at issue here was made by her as a citizen..."

• "Second, I find that Plaintiff's speech touched on a matter of public concern. Plaintiff's e-mail and the attached disciplinary action report were sent to inform city officials of her belief that the nominee for the position of Public Safety Director had improperly interfered with her attempt to discipline a police officer, who was the brother of the woman with whom Regan lived, and her concerns that Regan because of his improper interference was a poor candidate for the high-ranking position of Public Safety Director, which position would give him supervisory authority to control police officers and the entire Police Department, among other things. This was clearly a matter of public concern..."


• "...She knew, for one thing, that Regan had interfered with Commander Brackney's attempt to cite Duke's Tires, and that Regan had told Commander Brackney that Duke's Tires had friends in the Mayor's office, and that Commander Brackney would be walking a beat if she did not cooperate. She knew that Regan had interfered in the discipline of another police officer who, through the chain of command, received termination that was later overturned. She knew that Regan had interfered in the Police Department by ordering Chief Costa to promote Rende to detective even when Costa knew Rende did not have a record meriting promotion to detective; specifically, that Rende had an extensive disciplinary history and had, in fact, once been fired and then reinstated..."


• "... I find that Plaintiff had a good faith belief that Regan had improperly interfered in Police Department matters; and that because of his nomination to be Public Safety Director, Plaintiff's concerns were also a matter of public concern..."


• "... having found that Plaintiff's speech was that of a citizen on a matter of public concern, her demotion was unconstitutional unless the city had adequate justification for the demotion..."


• "As to the confidentiality matters, Plaintiff made every effort to keep the e-mail and attached DAR confidential. Indeed, she marked the e-mail confidential and disclosed the information only to those individuals who themselves had a duty to keep it confidential. It was someone to whom Plaintiff disclosed the information, not the Plaintiff herself, who revealed the information to the public..."


• "...the Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of her First Amendment claim. She also has a claim under the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law which prohibits public employers from retaliating against an employee who makes a good faith report of wrongdoing to appropriate authorities. For the reasons already stated, I find that the Plaintiff made a good faith report of wrongdoing."


• "I also find that Exhibit 24 clearly establishes a causal connection between her good faith report and her demotion. Therefore, the Plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits per the Pennsylvania Whistleblower Law claim."


• "The second consideration for a determination of whether or not to issue a preliminary injunction is whether or not Plaintiff will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is not issued. The law is clear. The loss of First Amendment freedoms even for the smallest amount of time constitutes irreparable harm."

• "...let me make something very clear. Contrary to how some may perceive this case, this case is not about corruption in the Police Department. It is about allegations of wrongdoing and improper and undue influence by officials within the Mayor's office in Police Department matters."

• "...The public interest is always served by disclosure of wrongdoing and undue and/or inappropriate influence by public officials in Police Department matters. The chilling effect of discipline and demotion to a police officer who makes a good faith report of what she believes in good faith to be wrongdoing and inappropriate influence in Government never serves the public interest."

Read More...

Summary only...

McNeilly Case: The City's Answer

"Plaintiff had every right to criticize Dennis Regan’s pending appointment to whomever she wanted. She just did not have the right to include the confidential personnel information”





As promised, here's a link for you to read the City's response to Catherine McNeilly's lawsuit.
The Pittsburgh Channel is hosting a copy of the file, which I've annotated to highlight key points.

I'm not going to recap the coverage of the daylong hearing here in the blog. My interest is in offering items online that may not make it into the news of the day.

Among the key points argued by the city:

• "Plaintiff’s demotion was not based on her personal views towards the appointment of a candidate for a particular position in City government, but rather was based on her knowing and intentional violation of specific Pittsburgh Bureau of Police rules and regulations that prohibit the release of confidential employee information."

..and...

• "In Chief Harper’s initial notification of her demotion on November 28, 2006, Chief Harper cites to no less than eight separate rules and regulations that Plaintiff violated by releasing confidential information. In fact, Chief Harper’s final demotion memorandum, written on December 6, 2006, specifically reiterates that Plaintiff did not deny releasing the confidential employee information in contravention of numerous Bureau rules and regulations, some of which Plaintiff herself authored. Chief Harper further states that Plaintiff had ample opportunity to discuss the potential release of confidential information with the then Acting Chief of Police before doing so."

• "Plaintiff had every right to criticize Dennis Regan’s pending appointment to whomever she wanted. She just did not have the right to include the confidential personnel information from PARS and OMS systems when doing so."

• "Interestingly, Plaintiff alleges in her Verified Complaint that no other commander or police officer has been suspended for 'allegedly disclosing confidential information.'"

•"As evidence in the hearing will show, the reason no other commanders have been suspended pending an investigation into such circumstances surrounding a release of confidential information, let alone have been demoted, is because no other commanders or similarly-ranked superior officers have ever intentionally breached departmental confidentiality and security in such a fashion."

Now that I've figured out how to post and link to pdf files, I'm revising the earlier post so that the blog isn't cluttered with screenshots of court papers.

Read More...

Summary only...

McNeilly V. Ravenstahl: New Twists

Tonight there are new developments in Pittsburgh Police Lieutenant Catherine McNeilly's Whistleblower Law/First Amendment suit against the city and Mayor Luke Ravenstahl. They come on the eve of a federal court hearing in the case.


First: this morning, U.S. District Chief Judge Donetta Ambrose had to preside by phone over a discovery dispute when lawyers for the city and McNeilly clashed over access to important evidence.

Court papers show the judge ordered that "the entire files should be produced immediately" in advance of Thursday morning's hearing. Here's a link to that court document.


I've confirmed that the disputed documents include what Mayor Ravenstahl had previously described as a "thirty page report" on former Director of Operations Dennis Regan and former Commander McNeilly. I've also confirmed that they include "everything in the investigative files relating to the Regan and McNeilly investigations".

Attorneys tell me they expect that all of these documents will be entered into evidence at the 10:00 a.m. hearing and will become public records.

Second: McNeilly's attorneys filed a new brief today citing additional legal precedents for their request that the judge reverse McNeilly's demotion.

It argues that:

–"a government employee's speech may be entitled to First Amendment protection even if the speech violates a facially valid workplace regulation".

–"a government employee's speech may be entitled to First Amendment protection even if found to be incorrect".

Click here to view the full brief.

A city official told me before Christmas that he believed Pittsburgh's law department would soon be filing documents in this federal court case. So far that hasn't happened–but when it does I hope to post them to the Busman's Holiday blog.

Read More...

Summary only...

Inside the McNeilly Lawsuit

The complete
McNeilly lawsuit
against the city is
available online






Sometimes, googling for background on news stories can turn up interesting nuggets.

The latest example, which I'm linking here: the complete text of the Whistleblower Law/Free Speech lawsuit by former Commander (now Lieutenant ) Catherine McNeilly.

(We'll look at some excerpts in a second.)

The suit targets the City of Pittsburgh, Mayor Luke Ravenstahl, and Police Chief Nate Harper. The complaint alleges that she was the target of retaliation for speaking out against the nomination of Dennis Regan for public safety director. These sorts of documents are routinely available online for a fee via the PACER system for eight cents per page; generally speaking, it seems that only attorneys and reporters check them out.

To my surprise, a high-ranking hit on my Google search for "McNeilly Pittsburgh" produced the ACLU's news release on the lawsuit ...





and a copy of the complaint itself, free for the public to see.





One passage in the McNeilly lawsuit quoted below refers to an alleged threat to Commander Rashall Brackney by Dennis Regan.






"14. At the time such nomination was made, McNeilly also had information, upon which she reasonably relied, that Regan had allegedly threatened a fellow Commander with adverse personnel action if such Commander enforced criminal statutes against a purported political supporter of the Administration. "


I've gotten e-mails asking me what had become of the investigation of that allegation. This reference raises the possibility that more information about it could come to light in federal court.

Pages 4-to-7 lay out McNeilly’s timeline of the events.

Her attorneys assert that she notified the Mayor of her concerns first, then
e-mailed City Council three days later. The lawyers write that she did not provide the news media with the e-mails or attachments with confidential material. They do acknowledge that she sent...





"copies to ... her husband (the Pittsburgh Chief of Police until January 3, 2006) and her brother (the Police Bureau's current Chaplain). "

Read More...

Summary only...