Is former Fayetteville Police Officer David Neal just another disgruntled employee with an axe to grind or is the grievance he filed in October 2001 another example of a hostile and threatening work environment that extended from former Police Chief Johnny Roberts all the way to City Hall?

Neal served as a patrol officer and K-9 animal handler from late 1998 until the day in mid-October 2001 when he received a letter from City Manager Joe Morton stating that the city would not accept his grievance that cited numerous policy violations by then-Chief Roberts and Maj. Steve Ledbetter.

In a heavily detailed Oct. 12, 2001, written grievance to Morton citing numerous violations against Roberts and Ledbetter, Neal provided a chronology that began with a confidential conversation with Ledbetter that resulted 10 days later in the temporary suspension of the department's K-9 program, of which Neal was one of three members.

The days in between, Neal said, he encountered deceit, dishonesty, fabrications of the truth, loss of self-control, irrational behavior and job threats from Roberts and Ledbetter.

Morton returned the Oct. 12, 2001, grievance without acting upon it, stating in an Oct. 16, 2001, letter that the city's policy requirements for filing a grievance had not been met.

Morton strongly encouraged Neal to attempt to resolve the problems with Roberts and Ledbetter. Neal resigned upon receipt of Morton's response letter.

A copy of Neal's grievance, obtained by The Citizen under the Georgia Open Records law, alleged five departmental code of conduct violations and 10 departmental standard operating procedures (SOP) violations by Roberts and Ledbetter.

Cited in chronological order, the grievance referenced a Sept. 26, 2001, meeting with Ledbetter, an Oct. 1, 2001, meeting with Roberts, a second meeting with Roberts on Oct. 3, 2001, and concluded with Special Order 10-10 on Oct. 5, 2001, in which the K-9 program was temporarily suspended.

Neal said he met with Ledbetter at the major's request on Sept. 26 regarding a recently completed survey of all officers of the department.

"Maj. Ledbetter asked me to speak freely and honestly without concerns of disciplinary action or other negative repercussions and he assured me that my comments would remain anonymous," said Neal. "Relying on his assurance of confidentiality, I spoke honestly and candidly for more than an hour on of my views and perspectives on the department."

Neal said he heard nothing else of his conversation with Ledbetter until Oct. 1, when he was called to a meeting in Chief Roberts' office and "was confronted with my criticisms expressed to Maj. Ledbetter under promises of anonymity."

"Chief Roberts had in his possession a written summary of my comments Maj. Ledbetter claimed I'd made," said Neal, adding that his name was clearly on the document along with the other officers who had taken part in interviews with Maj. Ledbetter.

"Chief Roberts was not concerned with Maj. Ledbetter's method of extracting my thoughts and opinions. He focused more on the fact that I had the audacity to criticize the administrative aspects of the department, after being asked to do so by a superior officer," the grievance said.

"Chief Roberts told me that my comments had angered him and that he'd come close to firing me on the previous Friday when he first reviewed Maj. Ledbetter's written summary."

Following his conversation with Roberts, Neal filed a written complaint against Ledbetter and gave it to Roberts.

The complaint, also obtained by The Citizen, addressed Ledbetter's "blatant dishonesty and the fabricated statements he's claimed I'd made in his written report to Chief Roberts."

Though he requested a written response to the complaint, Neal said Roberts chose to respond verbally in an Oct. 3 meeting with the officer. Neal's grievance indicated that Ledbetter, Lt. Lynn Crawshaw and Maj. Harold Simmons were also present at the meeting.

Contacted earlier this week, Simmons acknowledged that he was present at the meeting and substantiated Neal's allegations.

During the Oct. 3 meeting Neal asserted that Roberts "verbally assaulted" him, stating that his complaint was unfounded and that he had wasted Robert's time and that of the department.

Roberts said that "if I filed a complaint of this type in the future, termination proceedings would begin immediately against me."

Roberts added that Neal obviously had a problem following orders, according to the grievance.

At the end of the meeting, Neal said he left Robert's office and began his patrol duties. Shortly after going on duty, Neal said he was called