~
from here on July 22, 2008
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/9603/exec.htm
~
From the Office of the Inspector General, United States Department of Justice:
~
Good O' Boy Roundup Report
Executive Summary
March, 1996
I. Introduction
In July 1995, national attention focused suddenly on an annual private gathering
in southeastern Tennessee known as the "Good O' Boy Roundup" (Roundup). News
stories reported that the Roundup was a "whites-only" gathering of Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) and other federal law enforcement officers
that resembled a "Klan rally" and at which these agents discriminated against
blacks by posting racist signs, wearing racist T-shirts, performing racist
skits, and playing racist music. A widely-publicized excerpt from a home video
allegedly filmed at a Roundup showed a sign that read, "Nigger check point." In
addition, allegations of criminal conduct, including narcotics distribution and
rape, were raised at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing held within ten days
of the original news stories.
The initial allegations of racist conduct were made in an article in the
Washington Times on July 11. The two primary accusers were Jeffrey Randall and a
person identified only as a "former Alabama police official," whom we later
determined to be Richard Hayward. Although not identified as such, Randall and
Hayward proved to be members of a militia group based in Alabama that sought to
discredit the ATF. In media interviews, Randall and Hayward stated that they
went to the site of the 1995 Roundup with the intention of finding racist
conduct to report. Hayward had previously attended several Roundups as a
registered attendee, until he was banned for his own racially offensive conduct.
Once Hayward and Randall's allegations were made public, one former and several
current black ATF agents made allegations that the Roundup was a "whites-only"
event and that no black agents had ever been invited to attend. In addition, two
local women provided affidavits to the Senate Judiciary Committee alleging,
among other things, that a woman had been gang-raped at a Roundup, a "drug
enforcement officer" had offered one of them drugs during a Roundup, and a goat
had been purchased for bestiality purposes.
Regardless of their source, if true, these allegations threatened to seriously
undermine the ability of these agents to perform their critical missions,
particularly enforcing federal criminal law, upholding civil rights laws, and
providing equal protection under the law. These allegations also threatened to
taint the public reputation of the agencies that employed these agents.
II. The OIG Investigation
In response to a request of the Deputy Attorney General, the Department of
Justice Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted a wide-ranging
investigation to determine whether any Department of Justice (DOJ) employees had
attended the Roundup and, if so, whether they engaged in or approved of racial,
criminal, or other kinds of misconduct at any of the sixteen Roundups from 1980
through 1995. Furthermore, members of the Senate Judiciary Committee in public
hearings emphasized the need for a comprehensive investigation because the
allegations implicated numerous law enforcement agencies in the criminal justice
system.
In conducting this investigation, the OIG's principal purposes were (1) to
determine whether DOJ employees had committed acts that might warrant sanction
by their components and (2) to determine whether existing standards of conduct
provide adequate guidance as they relate to off-duty conduct or whether any
changes in administrative policy or practice should be made. Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) regulations prohibit federal employees from engaging in
"criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously disgraceful conduct
prejudicial to the government." When the investigation began, concern was raised
that federal employees might have used government time and resources to promote
racist activities, in violation of Office of Government Ethics standards. DOJ
regulations also prohibit employees from engaging in "disrespectful conduct."
Furthermore, because of their duty to fairly investigate and prosecute
violations of the law, DOJ law enforcement officers are held to even stricter
application of these standards of conduct. These standards apply to employees'
off-duty conduct in addition to their conduct on the job.
Under applicable precedents, DOJ employees could be punished if they were found
to have directly engaged in racist acts even while off duty. OIG believes
further that employees bring disrepute to the Department and adversely affect
their ability to perform their law enforcement mission if they knowingly attend
an event whose purpose is to encourage or promote racist activity. On the other
hand, simply attending a private, unofficial event at which a few participants
engage in racist conduct and at which such behavior is not the purpose of the
event should not, in most circumstances, merit punishment for the employee who
attends. But the inquiry is, by necessity, highly fact-specific. It must take
into account the known facts of the egregious behavior, what the employee saw
and did, and how the misconduct was handled by the event's organizers. Only
through a full understanding of the context of the event and the employee's
participation in it can a fair assessment be made of whether punishment is
appropriate.
Our initial task was to identify DOJ employees who attended any of the Roundups.
At our direction, DOJ components canvassed their employees to determine whether
any had either attended or been invited to a Roundup or knew anyone who had. In
addition, because our evaluation of DOJ employee conduct required the fullest
and most accurate reconstruction possible of what had actually occurred at the
Roundup, we sought to identify as many attendees of the various Roundups as we
could.
OIG subpoenaed computer and bank records relating to the Roundup from Gene
Rightmyer, the former ATF agent who had organized and led the Roundup from 1980
through 1995. We also coordinated with a number of other law enforcement
agencies that were conducting investigations into participation by their own
personnel in the Roundup, most notably the Department of Treasury Office of the
Inspector General (Treasury OIG). Through these efforts, OIG identified nearly
1400 persons who attended the Roundup between 1980 and 1995. During the course
of this investigation OIG interviewed over 500 witnesses, including participants
in the Roundup, people who were invited but did not attend, vendors to the
Roundup, DOJ employees based in Southeastern offices, river raft guides, local
Tennessee residents, and others. OIG also reviewed the testimony of hundreds of
witnesses provided during interviews conducted by other agencies. All told, our
investigation took into account the statements of nearly 900 witnesses,
including 560 who attended a Roundup.
OIG interviewed every DOJ employee, current and past, who attended at least one
Roundup, and many of their colleagues and supervisors, with a particular
emphasis on minority employees, to determine what they knew about the Roundup.
Many of the central figures involved in staging the Roundup over the years were
also interviewed. Rightmyer was interviewed by OIG twice, including an all day
on-the-record interview in the latter stages of the investigation. OIG made
special efforts to interview persons from many federal, state, and local law
enforcement agencies, and to interview a large number of participants who had no
law enforcement affiliation. This interviewing strategy was designed to ferret
out as much information from as many different sources as possible to minimize
the chances that racial or other kinds of misconduct might be concealed from us.
Moreover, OIG interviewed residents in the area near where the Roundup was held
to learn what relevant evidence they might possess.
In addition to Roundup participants, OIG made significant efforts to interview
the persons who alleged misconduct against the Roundup and its participants.
Although OIG was able to interview the local residents and the current and
former ATF agents who made allegations, the militia members did not cooperate.
Hayward, who made the videotape with the "checkpoint" sign and who in an
affidavit submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee claimed to have witnessed
a broad array of racist acts at a number of the Roundups, refused for several
months to cooperate with the OIG investigation, submit to an interview, or
surrender the original videotape. Finally in October he relinquished the
videotape for analysis by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and agreed
to an on-the-record interview. Hayward and his attorney terminated the interview
shortly after the questioning turned to Hayward's own white supremacist views
and activities. (Subsequently, the FBI concluded that Hayward's video taken at
the 1990 Roundup was authentic and had not been altered.)
Randall was even less cooperative, refusing to answer more than a few basic
questions in the presence of other militia members in late July and refusing our
requests for a subsequent interview. Randall was served with an OIG
administrative subpoena for photographs of the Roundup and the original
videotape, which Hayward had turned over to him. He refused to comply with any
aspect of this subpoena. When he believed that OIG intended to seek court
enforcement of the subpoena he publicly threatened bloodshed. When several
months later OIG requested that he submit to an interview on a range of topics
including his supposed discovery of a "nigger hunting license" at the 1995
Roundup or the militia plan "Operation Achilles Heel," whose stated goal was to
discredit ATF, Randall refused and renewed these threats in more graphic terms.
In addition to the persons who brought allegations of racism to light, OIG
sought to interview persons who were identified as having committed racially
offensive acts. In some instances these persons cooperated; in others they
refused to answer any questions.
Overall, OIG interviewed large numbers of people who attended the Roundup,
particularly in those years for which there were extremely serious allegations
of racist and other misconduct. However, in an investigation that examined
events occurring over a sixteen-year period and involving well in excess of
1,000 participants, we cannot be sure that we have uncovered every objectionable
incident. Indeed, we recognized that the persons who attended the Roundup may
have had a motive to conceal or minimize the instances of racial or other kinds
of misconduct in order to make their attendance at a Roundup appear more benign
than it might have been. Our investigative and interviewing strategy was
designed to get beyond potentially self-serving accounts.
We encountered numerous witnesses who were unable to supply very much
information, particularly those who attended a Roundup in its earliest years. We
not only had to deal with weak recollections due to the passage of time but also
faulty or incomplete memories because so many participants had consumed so much
alcohol during the Roundup. Even where we developed substantial evidence that
acts of misconduct took place, we have not in every case been able to identify
who was responsible, despite determined efforts to do so. Nonetheless, OIG
expended considerable time, energy, and resources to determine as best we could
what happened at the Roundup. We believe we have developed a fair and accurate
picture of what occurred.
III. Principal OIG Findings
After conducting a comprehensive investigation of the Roundup from
1980-95, we conclude that the Roundup was not, as it was portrayed in the media
stories, a "Klan rally," an intentionally "whites-only" racist gathering, or a
haven for criminal conduct. Nor, as the initial news accounts suggested, was the
Roundup dominated by federal law enforcement personnel. We determined that what
began in 1980 as an unofficial gathering of 58 law enforcement officers and
their friends evolved over the years into an event that by the early 1990s
attracted close to 500 people, only ten percent of whom had any federal law
enforcement affiliation. Over the sixteen years of the Roundup, only three
percent of the total estimated number of attendees were DOJ employees. Indeed,
by 1990, law enforcement officers -- federal, state, and local -- were
outnumbered by participants who had no such affiliation.
Although we conclude that much of the early Roundup news coverage was overblown
and distorted, our investigation revealed ample evidence of shocking racist,
licentious, and puerile behavior by attendees occurring in various years. We
also found that an atmosphere hostile to minorities -- and to women -- developed
over time because inadequate action was taken by the Roundup's organizers to
appropriately deal with instances of racial or other kinds of misconduct. In
addition, we found that because the central activity during most Roundups was
the consumption of large quantities of Roundup-supplied alcohol, the organizers
knowingly sacrificed the ability to control the conduct of participants.
We found no evidence, and indeed received no allegations, that any current or
former DOJ employee directly engaged in racist or other misconduct -- other than
one inappropriate comment by an FBI agent. We have referred to the Director of
the FBI a report with respect to this one current FBI employee for whom we
recommend that punishment be considered for his behavior at the Roundup. In our
view, this employee demonstrated poor judgment that falls below applicable
standards because he attended the Roundup after knowing of racist incidents at
the event and his other actions evinced a toleration for, and encouragement of,
such racist behavior. Solely on our findings, an appropriate sanction would be a
reprimand, either written or oral. His component, however, must assess this
conduct in light of the employee's history. Greater punishment could be
warranted, therefore, if the behavior evidenced in this investigation is part of
a pattern of documented racial insensitivity. To assist the Director of the FBI
in his determination of punishment in this case, we are also forwarding
additional information from our investigative files and will provide further
information as requested. With respect to a second individual, formerly employed
by INS but now an employee of Treasury, we are transmitting information to the
applicable Department of Treasury component by which he is now employed for
consideration of possible discipline. The OIG report contains a summary of our
findings with respect to these and all other DOJ employees who attended.
Even though our assessment is that an inadequate evidentiary basis exists to
recommend discipline for any of the other DOJ employees whose conduct we
considered, we are extremely troubled by many of the excesses committed by
non-DOJ attendees at the Roundup that developed during the mid-1980s and grew
far worse during the years 1990-95. We are disturbed that an event characterized
by rampant public drunkenness, widespread public lewdness, and in later years
episodes of racist conduct drew participants from DOJ and other law enforcement
organizations.
A. DOJ Participation
OIG identified forty-four past or present DOJ employees who attended at least
one Roundup. Thirty-six were DOJ employees when they attended; eight went prior
to becoming DOJ employees. This group of participants affiliated with DOJ
constitutes approximately three percent of the estimated total number of
attendees at the sixteen Roundups. The largest number of DOJ employees in
attendance in any given year was eleven, a level reached twice, once out of
approximately 400 attendees in 1986 and then again out of 520 attendees in 1994.
Twenty-three of the forty-four DOJ employees attended only one Roundup; eight
more went only twice. Half of the DOJ participants did not go to any Roundups
after 1988 -- a significant fact because no egregious racist misconduct was
alleged to have occurred prior to 1989. The public drunkenness began far earlier
and was a reason cited by many DOJ employees and others for not returning to the
Roundup.
Our investigation found that DOJ employees played a minor role in the official
activities and organization of the Roundup. Only one DOJ employee, now retired,
served in an official organizational capacity as an "MOB," which stood for the
"members of the board" or "mean old bastards," the group with responsibility for
cooking, registration, and official recreational activities. No DOJ employee
ever served on the "REX" (Roundup Executive Committee), the group responsible
for setting Roundup policies. No DOJ employee ever won Redneck of the Year,
Ugliest Good O' Boy, Liar's Contest, or Beer Enduro competitions. And no DOJ
employee was ever elected to be president or vice-president of the Roundup.
Thus, DOJ participation in the Roundup was relatively insignificant both
numerically and organizationally. Nevertheless, because the investigation
established some episodes of egregious racist conduct in certain years, we tried
to determine which DOJ employees attended the Roundup in those years, and
whether they participated in or encouraged such conduct.
B. Findings Regarding Specific Racist Misconduct
OIG investigated every allegation of specific racist misconduct made by Hayward,
Randall, several current and former black ATF agents, and witnesses who were
interviewed during the course of this investigation. For most of the
allegations, no physical or documentary evidence was available. Verifying the
allegations, therefore, required assessing the accuracy and reliability of
testimony given by witnesses. We could not escape making judgments concerning
their credibility. Some witnesses we found to be extremely credible; others to
be wholly incredible. Many fell somewhere in between. In Hayward's case, for
example, the important kernels of truth contained in his 1990 videotape and in
his allegation regarding a particularly egregious racist skit in 1990 were
combined with other allegations that were embellishments of actual events and in
many cases distortions and outright fabrications.
From our careful review of the evidence as to the specific allegations of racist
misconduct, we found substantial credible evidence of blatantly racist signs,
skits, and actions in 1990, 1992, and 1995. We also found substantial credible
evidence of racially insensitive conduct in 1985, 1987, 1989, and 1993.
OIG found no evidence that any DOJ employee -- or federal employees from other
agencies -- participated in such conduct. When the conduct was brought to the
attention of Roundup organizers it was criticized and terminated. But by failing
to eject or punish any of the people known to have engaged in the misconduct,
the Roundup organizers failed to deliver a strong, unequivocal message that
racist conduct would not be tolerated. This failure, together with the
availability of massive amounts of alcohol, no doubt contributed to the
recurrence of such incidents.
Furthermore, the failure of the Roundup organizers to take any action regarding
conduct that was less blatant, but still offensive to many, created a racially
hostile environment such that blacks who attended would not have felt welcome.
Such conduct included playing music with racist lyrics at campsites; wearing,
trading, and selling T-shirts with racially insensitive messages; telling
racially offensive jokes during official competitions; and, in the context of
particular facts found, displaying Confederate flags.
1. Substantiated Allegations
a) Racist signs
Racist signs were posted in at least two years: 1990 and 1992. In 1990, the
investigation determined that racist signs, including the sign shown in the
Hayward video, were posted on a tree in the campground for parts of one day.
These signs read, "Nigger check point," "Any niggers in that car?," and "17¢
lb." Near these signs, and also visible in the video, was a drawing of a
likeness of an African American with a circle around it and a red slash across
the circle. The preponderance of the evidence suggested that local police
officers from Florence and Boone County, Kentucky, were responsible for posting
these signs. When the organizers of the Roundup learned about the signs, they
ordered the signs taken down. The signs were removed and destroyed. We are not
aware of any effort that was made to establish who posted the signs. In any
event, no one was punished for posting them.
In 1992, two different signs were displayed at the campground. The day before
the Roundup opened a small sign that read, "no niggers," was observed posted on
a stake alongside the road into the campground. The person who observed the sign
reported that it was gone within half an hour. We found no information as to who
was responsible for this sign. A second sign, this one reading, "nigger
checkpoint," was reported to have been posted across from the registration area
early on the morning the Roundup began. When the persons in the registration
area observed the sign, it was removed. We found no information to identify who
was responsible for this sign.
b) Checking Cars
In 1990 and 1992, the same years as these signs appeared, and near where they
were posted, persons whom we could not identify were checking to determine if
any blacks were in any of the cars driving through the campground. The phrase
used by the persons engaged in the activity was "checking cars for niggers." We
were unable to establish how long this conduct lasted or how many people may
have been involved in it. For the 1990 incidents we found no evidence that any
Roundup leaders were notified or were aware of such conduct or that any action
was taken to stop these persons. In 1992 the same persons who ordered the sign
taken down pulled the responsible person away from the car and told him to stop
what he was doing.
c) Racist Skits
Racist skits were performed in 1990 and 1992. In 1990 officers from Florence and
Boone County, Kentucky, and a civilian from Ohio performed a skit as part of the
Redneck of the Year contest in which a dog was traded for a man in blackface who
then pretended to perform oral sex on a person in mock Ku Klux Klan garments.
Immediately after the skit, Rightmyer publicly criticized its participants but
took no other action, such as ejecting them from the Roundup.
In 1992, a Fort Lauderdale, Florida, police officer competing in the Redneck of
the Year contest performed a skit where he claimed to have found a watermelon
which had fallen off the back of a passing truck, struck it until it broke open,
and then pulled out a doll he had painted black. He described the doll as a seed
and told the audience that one must "kill the seed when it is young," and
proceeded to beat the doll. Although Rightmyer again criticized the officer who
performed this skit, he took no other action.
d) Racist Confrontation
In 1995, one current and three retired Fort Lauderdale police officers
confronted a white ATF agent who had come to the Roundup with two black law
enforcement officers. Taunting the ATF agent about the presence of the two
blacks, one of the Fort Lauderdale officers stated, "ATF fucks up everything
they touch. . . . Now you are bringing niggers to the Roundup." Other attendees
intervened and broke up the confrontation. Contrary to the media accounts of
this incident, the black agents were not turned away from the Roundup. The next
day Rightmyer told the offenders that blacks were welcome at the Roundup and if
they did not like it, they should leave. That same day several of the Fort
Lauderdale officers left the Roundup. Rightmyer also announced generally that
everyone in law enforcement was welcome at the Roundup, and those who disagreed
should leave. Sometime after the confrontation some unidentified persons painted
the words "niggers go home" and "whites only" on toilets in the campground. When
the organizers learned about it, they covered over the graffiti.
e) Hayward's White Supremacist Literature
In 1992 and 1993, Richard Hayward brought to the Roundup David Duke for
President campaign literature and souvenirs, and materials publicizing the
National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a pro-Duke
organization whose Michigan chapter Hayward had founded. In 1992, he left a pile
of these materials at the registration desk, which the people at the desk
promptly discarded. Hayward also brought a large David Duke for President banner
to hang in the campground, but it was up only briefly before Roundup organizers
ordered that it be taken down. The banner was thrown in the trash. Hayward also
brought some bumper stickers and hats to sell, without much success.
In response to this activity and an article Hayward published about the Roundup
the following month in the NAAWP Newsletter, in which he claimed that numerous
David Duke supporters attended the Roundup, the event's organizers instituted
new policies for 1993 prohibiting political and racist activity. In 1993,
Hayward arrived at the campground with his car plastered with racially offensive
and political materials. One witness also recalled that Hayward was wearing a
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. mask with a bullet hole in the forehead. Hayward was
told he could not enter the campground unless all of these materials were
removed. He eventually parked his car off to the side, removed the offensive
clothing, and was permitted to enter. He left the Roundup a few hours later.
f) T-shirts
We found evidence of the unofficial sale of T-shirts during several Roundups
that some persons found to be racially insensitive. In 1991, officers from the
Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C. brought to the Roundup shirts
that depicted three police officers around a police car and two persons being
held face down on the hood of the car. The caption read, "Boyz on the Hood."
Officers from Cobb County, Georgia, brought a similar shirt. In 1992, T-shirts
with a pocket drawn on the upper left of the shirt, a drawing of the head of the
character Buckwheat from the old television show "Little Rascals," and the words
"Good Ole Boys '92" written on the pocket were offered for sale by some
unidentified person or persons. In 1995, T-shirts with a crude drawing of the
figure used in the children's game, "Hangman," and the initials "O" and "J"
beneath the figure were sold by two officers from Fort Lauderdale.
g) Display of Confederate Flag
In a number of years, but certainly in 1990 and 1992, Confederate flags were
displayed at various locations in and around the Roundup campground. The display
of the Confederate flag is a controversial matter. Although we heard conflicting
views as to whether this conduct was intended to send a benign message of
"Southern heritage" or a message of racism and intolerance, especially towards
African Americans, we conclude that such displays had the effect, whether
intended or not, of adding to a racially charged and hostile environment. One
particular display in 1992, captured in a photograph we obtained during the
investigation, included a group surrounding the flag whose members are shown
making obscene gestures and raising their fists. A future Roundup president and
Hayward can be readily identified. We found no evidence that any federal law
enforcement personnel appears in the photograph. We found no evidence that
anyone complained about such displays or that any action was taken to remove
them.
h) Other Incidents
Other isolated but nevertheless significant evidence of racially offensive or
insensitive conduct occurred in a number of years. In 1985, an unidentified
local deputy sheriff pulled a statue of a black figure, referred to as a "lawn
jockey," out of his camper and tied his dog to it before being told to put it
back in his camper.
In 1989 and other unspecified years we found evidence that cassette tapes of
music by a performer named David Allen Coe were played at various campsites,
including a song named "My Wife Ran Off With a Nigger." The only identifying
information we received was that an unspecified person from Ohio and another
from Mississippi possessed one of these tapes. Although Hayward alleged that the
tape also contained a racist "comedy" routine and was for sale at the
campground, we found no corroboration for these additional claims.
2. Unsubstantiated Allegations
a) 1989 Allegations
For 1989, we received numerous allegations of racist conduct, most of which were
made by Richard Hayward. He contended that racist signs and an effigy of a black
person were displayed at the registration desk for the entire Roundup. He also
alleged that ATF agents surrounded cars entering the campground and shouted,
"Got any niggers in that car?" In addition to Hayward, two other witnesses had
vague and indeterminate recollections of some type of racist sign being posted
in the campground for a short time in 1989. Based on our review of the
statements of over 150 attendees at the 1989 Roundup and our credibility
determinations regarding the various witnesses, we concluded that no racist sign
or effigy was displayed at the registration desk for any portion of the 1989
Roundup and that the claim that ATF agents were "checking cars for niggers,"
although similar to conduct reported in other years, is unsubstantiated. OIG
also found insufficient evidence to conclude that a racist sign was displayed in
any part of the campground during the 1989 Roundup.
b) Randall's 1995 Allegations
For 1995, Randall contended that "nigger hunting licenses" were openly available
on the Roundup campground. We found no evidence that such "licenses" were widely
available at the Roundup; indeed, we found no one other than Randall who claimed
to have seen one in the campground. Moreover, we found Randall's claim to have
found the "license" in a Roundup bathroom not to be credible.
Randall also alleged that a T-shirt with a picture of Dr. Martin Luther King,
Jr., with a target superimposed over his face, was offered for sale. Although
one other witness believed he saw a T-shirt similar to the one described by
Randall worn by one person at the 1995 Roundup, OIG found insufficient credible
evidence that such shirts were for sale at the Roundup.
C. Findings Regarding General Allegations of Racist
Intent and a "Whites-only" Policy
Although our investigation established that the Roundup was nothing like a "Klan
rally," the fact that specific acts of racist misconduct occurred in three
different years made more difficult our assessment of the general charge that
the Roundup had a "whites-only" attendance policy. Our review of Roundup
policies and practices established by Rightmyer and the Roundup organizers
revealed no evidence of an intent to create or maintain a "whites-only" event.
We discovered, however, a huge gap between these policies, on the one hand, and
actual attendance at and perceptions about the event, on the other.
We conclude that the name "Good O' Boy" was not selected or used with the intent
to send a message that the event was racially exclusive. Nevertheless, we found
that, regardless of intent, some minority agents perceived a message that they
would not be welcome or considered a "good o' boy," and that indeed they might
face racial intolerance and hostility if they attended. We also conclude that by
the time racist conduct began to appear at the Roundup and persons began to
attribute racist tendencies to it, the Roundup organizers should have been aware
that the name itself may have sent a less-than-welcoming message to all
potential attendees.
Some minority agents also expressed a reluctance to attend because the Roundup
was held in the woods of an all-white county in Eastern Tennessee. Because of
the historical connections between similar sites and racist activities, these
agents attributed racist intentions to the Roundup due simply to its location.
We determined, however, that because the Roundup campground was not isolated or
well-secured, it was ill-suited for secretive racist gatherings. Importantly as
well, there were not many options given the initial objective of finding a site
for an overnight camping and whitewater rafting trip near Rightmyer's duty
office in Knoxville. We thus concluded that in choosing the Roundup's location,
its organizers did not have a racist intent, although the perceptions among
minorities that they would not be welcome was an unintended consequence of the
selected site.
We found no evidence that the invitations to the Roundup, either written or
oral, made explicit references or even allusions to racial restrictions on
attendance or that racist activities were available or welcome at the event.
These invitations were distributed to law enforcement agencies in the Southeast,
where they were posted on bulletin boards, announced generally, or handed out to
those who were interested. We found no evidence that any racial restrictions,
either explicit or implicit, were placed on the distribution of these
invitations. Personal written invitations were sent only to those who had
previously registered for a Roundup. Because of the lack of controls placed on
the distribution of fliers once they reached particular offices, the extent to
which they were brought to the attention of the agents in these offices varied.
The official activities of the Roundup were centered on athletic events,
drinking, and what were intended to be humorous performances by participants
vying for such titles as Redneck of the Year. On two occasions the Redneck of
the Year contest contained blatantly racist material.
While we conclude that the organizers did not specifically intend for the
Roundup to be a "whites-only" racist gathering, we were able to identify only
twenty individual members of minority groups, including four blacks, who ever
attended a Roundup. And although we were able to identify more who had been
invited to attend, most chose not to -- some merely because the name and
location suggested to them that they would not be welcome there. Thus, whether
intended or not, the Roundup was in fact predominantly a gathering of whites.
D. Findings Regarding Other Misconduct
In addition to charges of racism, allegations of criminal or other misconduct
were also raised. OIG investigated each of these claims as well, most of which
were initially contained in affidavits of two women submitted to the Senate
Judiciary Committee in July. None of the allegations of criminal conduct were
substantiated, although activity inappropriate for a gathering with a
substantial number of law enforcement officers took place.
1. Substantiated Allegations
We found substantial evidence that the campground was a hostile environment for
women especially in the later years of the Roundup. Even male attendees told us
that would not have wanted any female family member or friend to attend the
Roundup because of how women were treated. Apparently, the same concern and
solicitude did not extend to the relatively few female law enforcement personnel
who went to a Roundup. Extremely demeaning language and inappropriate sexual
touching occurred. Several women in law enforcement who attended the Roundup
reported feeling uncomfortable due to the vulgarity and demeanor of the male
attendees. Although in earlier years we found efforts by Rightmyer to ensure
that women were treated appropriately and these women reported no problems, we
found little evidence of concern in the later years when the objectionable
conduct became pervasive.
We found substantial evidence that strippers performed at the campground year
after year beginning around 1988. Despite evidence that the Roundup organizers
officially discouraged such performances, their efforts to exercise control were
half-hearted at best.
Finally, public nudity was commonplace at various Roundups. The accounts of
nudity reported to us included men on their way to and from the showers, women
dancers, women baring their chests, a retired officer exposing himself with his
badge displayed on his penis, people pulling trousers off other attendees, and
other similar behavior. Remarkably, we found no one in attendance who appeared
to be offended by such activity or who sought to curb it.
Although not raised initially as allegations, OIG found substantial credible
evidence of rampant alcohol abuse and extreme cases of juvenile and shocking
behavior. Unlimited access to beer twenty-four hours a day led to extreme
drunkenness. In the early years a contest called the Beer Enduro took place,
requiring participants to drink a specified quantity of beer at regular
intervals. The last person to be able to consume the required amount without a
break was the winner. Performances in the skit competitions included
participants who bit off the head of a dead snake; ate a whole raw fish soaked
in beer; defecated on stage; soiled their trousers on stage; and pulled chewing
tobacco out of their trousers pretending it to be excrement and put it in their
mouths. For a period of time substantial effort was made to see who could be the
most vile and disgusting. Although we found credible evidence that Rightmyer
gave speeches exhorting participants to stop such behavior, his efforts were
sporadic at best and essentially went unheeded. Other substantiated allegations,
such as the playing of games for monetary stakes and the consumption in isolated
instances of moonshine, are addressed fully in the report.
2. Unsubstantiated Allegations
One of the Senate affiants alleged that during the 1990 Roundup a "drug
enforcement officer" offered her some unspecified drugs in Grumpy's, a bar
adjacent to the campground that was frequented by many Roundup attendees.
Another Ocoee area resident claimed he had requested and been handed some
cocaine powder while in the campground during a Roundup in the late 1980s. A
third local resident made a vague and contradictory claim that marijuana was
used in the campground during one unspecified Roundup. Based on our interviews
of each of these witnesses, our conclusions regarding their credibility, and all
the testimony of a number of credible witnesses, we concluded that none of these
allegations were supported by substantial credible evidence.
In their affidavits to the Senate, the two Ocoee women claimed to have heard
that a woman was gang-raped by a large number of Roundup participants. Another
local resident professed to have actually seen the rape during the 1988 or 1989
Roundup. Each of these persons identified the same woman as the alleged rape
victim. This woman denied that she was raped. Ultimately, the purported
eyewitness recanted his claim. In addition, a former ATF agent in an interview
subsequent to his Senate hearing testimony alleged for the first time that in
1987 he heard from another ATF agent that a woman had been raped by an ATF agent
at the Roundup. OIG investigated these allegations and concluded that none of
the claims that a woman was raped at a Roundup were supported by the evidence.
In addition OIG concluded that the claims of bestiality, sex on Grumpy's stage
during the 1995 Roundup, and naked men jumping out of trees onto women passing
below were all unsubstantiated. Despite reports that prostitutes were present
during various Roundups, we found no evidence that anyone was solicited for
prostitution or that sex was exchanged for money. Although numerous liaisons
between Roundup participants and local women were reported, we found no evidence
that these liaisons were anything but consensual and non-remunerative.
OIG received no allegations and found no evidence that any DOJ property was used
to support the Roundup. We also found no evidence that any DOJ employees
attended the Roundup without taking appropriate leave.
E. OIG Recommendations
We conclude that specific disciplinary action is not warranted for the vast
majority of DOJ employees who attended the Roundup in one or more years.
Although the Roundup was plainly not the type of event that brings credit to its
participants, we developed no evidence that any significant role was played in
the Roundup by any DOJ personnel past or present. And in many cases, DOJ
employees acted as one would hope they would -- they saw an event marked by
excessive alcohol consumption and puerile behavior and never returned. However,
the respective components may wish to consider counseling for some of their
employee participants based on our findings. As we have noted, we are forwarding
information to the Director of the FBI for consideration of discipline against
an FBI agent and to the applicable Department of Treasury component for one of
its employees who used to be employed by DOJ.
This investigation involved a murky and difficult area -- the responsibilities
of federal employees generally, and federal law enforcement personnel in
particular, to conduct themselves in a manner consistent with their law
enforcement responsibilities even when they are off duty. Many DOJ employees
believe that what they do off duty is their business and not a proper concern of
their employer. In our view, the existing standards of conduct are broad enough
to regulate off-duty conduct when it could impair the effectiveness of DOJ
employees or bring discredit on their employing agency. We further believe that
such regulation is wholly appropriate. Being a federal law enforcement officer
within the Department of Justice is a privilege not a right; it can
appropriately be conditioned on maintaining a proper level of behavior at all
times.
We believe that such off-duty responsibilities are not well-understood by many
DOJ employees. In part this lack of understanding is the result of very general
provisions that govern off-duty conduct. Accordingly, we recommend that the
Department of Justice do the following:
1) explicitly advise its employees that off-duty conduct is subject to
regulation and review and that sanctions can be imposed for off-duty misconduct;
2) examine the existing standards of conduct that apply to the off-duty behavior
of DOJ law enforcement components, and provide further guidance for what
constitutes conduct that brings the Department or one of its agencies into
disrepute;
3) educate and train its law enforcement officers concerning how participation
in events that are characterized by racist misconduct in particular can
interfere with their ability to effectively do their jobs, such as opening up
lines of inquiry relating to racial prejudice when law enforcement officers
serve as witnesses in criminal cases; and
4) provide further training on the role of federal law enforcement officers in
our society and the reasons why it is critical for law enforcement personnel to
be held to extremely exacting standards of conduct to earn and maintain the full
confidence of all citizens.
F. Conclusion
Other than one inappropriate comment by one FBI agent, we found no evidence that
any DOJ employee engaged in racist or other misconduct while at the Roundup.
Although we found that in certain years egregious acts of racism occurred, in
most cases we concluded that the DOJ employees in attendance those years were
either unaware of such conduct or had learned that the organizers had taken
action to terminate it.
An exhaustive investigation and a full report of the Good O' Boy Roundup was
important for several reasons. First, the allegations of racist conduct
contained in the initial media accounts and Congressional testimony were truly
shocking. If true and if committed by DOJ law enforcement officers, we would be
confronted with very serious questions about the officers' fitness to serve,
their ability to discharge their law enforcement duties, and their right to wear
a federal badge.
We had a responsibility to set the record straight as to what actually occurred
at the Roundup during a sixteen-year period. The initial allegations brought in
their wake a blanket condemnation of all federal law enforcement personnel who
attended the event. When these allegations were first made public, the public
criticism was broad and harsh. Our investigation established that DOJ employees
had quite diverse experiences at the Roundup. Some spent little time at the
campground where the misconduct took place; others hardly stayed at the Roundup
for any period of time. Blaming these people for the sins of others would have
been unfair. Others witnessed or heard enough that they showed poor judgment in
not taking appropriate steps to satisfy themselves that the objectionable
conduct would not recur. Thus, we had a responsibility to gather as much
evidence as possible on the experiences of the DOJ personnel who attended the
Roundup so we could absolve the innocent as well as blame the guilty.
Second, although our primary task was to assess the allegations of racism as
they reflected on DOJ employees, we learned that the Roundup in fact had been
marred by a number of serious and disturbing incidents of racial and other kinds
of misconduct. Those incidents helped create and perpetuate a climate that was
not welcoming towards African Americans, other minorities, or women.
An important part of the climate was established by the availability of
unlimited amounts of alcohol. This fact contributed substantially to the
degeneration of the Roundup over the years from an innocuous open-air camping
and recreational gathering into a playground for large numbers of the drunk,
tasteless, and immature. Our report describes many of the crude and disgusting
incidents that were related to us during our interviews. We have reported these
not for their shock value but instead to give an accurate picture of what the
Roundup was like. Without these examples, the texture of the event could not be
adequately communicated. However, we found no evidence linking DOJ employees to
acts of public drunkenness, public lewdness, or any of the other sordid aspects
of the Roundup in any specific or persistent way.
Finally, a full investigation of the Roundup was necessary because these
allegations had a large potential impact on the administration of the federal
criminal justice system and the character and reputation of federal law
enforcement officers -- a particular responsibility of the Department of
Justice. Extra effort was made to take the report beyond simply a conclusion
that, "It wasn't one of ours." We hope that our effort to deal fully and
carefully with disturbing allegations against officers responsible for enforcing
our federal criminal laws will promote the fair administration of justice and
the public's confidence in the ability of the Department of Justice to police
itself.
#####
(end government report on the Good Ol' Boys Roundup events in east Tennessee.)
~
Additional: Google searches for "Gene Rightmyer, ATF" and "Good Ol' Boys":
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Gene+Rightmyer%2C+ATF&btnG=Google+Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22Good+Ol%27+Boys%22%2C+%22ATF%22&btnG=Search
Los Angeles Times article of July 22, 1995 - http://www.waco93.com/latimes7_22_95_2.htm
New York Times article of July 22, 1995 - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE0D8133AF931A15754C0A963958260
Washington Times article of July 11, 1995 - http://www.elfie.org/~croaker/goodboys.html
~