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
The initial allegations of
racist conduct were made in an article in the
Once
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.
#####
Good O' Boy Roundup Report - March, 1996
Table of Contents
http://www.usdoj.gov/oig/special/96-03/index.htm