Deputy Monitor Douglass Under Fire: Response from Consent Decree Monitor to EOS’ Allegations Corruption and Conflict of Interest

On October 8, 2024, at a community meeting hosted by the Consent Decree Monitors, where Deputy Monitor David Douglass responded, for the first time, to allegations of corruption raised by Eye on Surveillance (EOS). Since August 18, EOS has been working to pressure the Consent Decree judge, the monitors, and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to open an investigation into Douglass.

To that end, we recently met with the DOJ who asked us to send us a memo they could use for the purposes of looking into the allegations. At the core of our memo is Paragraph 464 of the Consent Decree, which explicitly prohibits monitors from accepting employment or providing consulting services that would present a conflict of interest. The paragraph states:

"Unless such conflict is waived by the Parties, the Monitor shall not accept employment or provide consulting services that would present a conflict of interest with the Monitor's responsibilities under this Agreement."

Deputy Monitor Douglass has engaged in several activities that present a clear conflict of interest:

1. Douglass is the founder of Effective Law Enforcement for All (ELEFA):

• ELEFA recently secured a contract to oversee Minneapolis' Consent Decree, largely based on the claim that under Douglass' monitoring, the New Orleans Consent Decree has been a success.
• ELEFA's success in acquiring new contracts, including those overseeing Consent Decrees in other jurisdictions, is directly tied to the perceived success of the New Orleans Consent Decree under Douglass' watch.
• This creates a situation where Douglass' ability to be an impartial monitor may be compromised, as ELEFA's success is contingent on the New Orleans Consent Decree being viewed as successful.

2. Hiring Practices:

• Through ELEFA, Douglass has hired former NOPD, DOJ, and monitoring team leaders. One such employee, Arlinda Westbrook (formerly of NOPD), recently attended a community forum led by Douglass. EOS believes her actions at this forum constituted lobbying on behalf of Douglass without disclosing her financial ties to ELEFA.

At the October 8th meeting, Douglass offered two reasons why he believes there is no conflict of interest:

1. A conflict only exists if someone has a claim against the city.
2. The individuals in question are not current employees.

However, these justifications are problematic for several reasons:

• That definition is invented. The Consent Decree never defines conflicts of interest in this manner. A more grounded definition comes from DOJ guidelines which forbid employees from working with anybody who has “substantial interest that would be directly affected by the outcome of the investigation or prosecution”.
• Employees are involved. Douglass is an active member of the Consent Decree monitoring team. Michael Harrison, former NOPD superintendent and current ELEFA employee, has an active contract where he works on a joint DA-NOPD program. Although this program violates Chapter 147, Section 147-2 of the New Orleans Municipal Code, Douglass and the other Consent Decree monitors have done nothing to stop NOPD’s participation.
• The monitors are not impartial. At this same meeting, the Head monitor, Jonathan Aronie, who is also under contract of the Consent Decree, argues that ELEFA’s existence has not created a conflict. This amounts to another instance of a conflict of interest, seeing as Aronie works for the same law firm as Douglass.
• The public disagrees. Monitor’s opining about whether or not they feel their acts constitute a conflict of interest is anemic to addressing the public’s concerns about Douglass’ conflict of interest.
• EOS has filed a claim against the city as formally as possible through letters to the judge. Douglass himself told EOS members at a community meeting, that there is no further action they can take.
• Potential conflicts must be waived. According to Paragraph 464, the City and DOJ must explicitly waive potential conflicts such as this, even if it is believed that the conflict is immaterial.

What you can do:

1. Submit a public comment to the monitor’s office before the next community meeting hosted by the monitor’s at 2:00pm on 10/22/2024 at clerk@laed.uscourts.gov. Some of are key points are:
   1. Potential conflicts must be waived. According to Paragraph 464, the City and DOJ must explicitly waive potential conflicts such as this, even if it is believed that the conflict is immaterial.
   2. The public disagrees. Monitor’s opining about whether or not they feel their acts constitute a conflict of interest is anemic to addressing the public’s concerns about Douglass’ conflict of interest.
2. Email the DOJ, and representatives in New Orleans and Minneapolis by signing this petition.

Demands:

1. The DOJ must conduct a thorough investigation into all DOJ, NOPD, and Minneapolis employees that are now affiliated with ELEFA.
2. Douglass, and any other monitors with a conflict, must be removed from office and replaced with new monitors in both New Orleans and Minneapolis, ensuring they are free from any conflicts of interest.
3. Representatives from Sheppard Mullin are forbidden from addressing the conflict of interest in public meetings without a member of the DOJ or City being there to corroborate their statements.