Reserve Police Officers Association, RPOA, Brooke Webster, Michael Webster, Michael B Webster, Michael Brooke Webster fundraising charity Yonkers New York
For anyone thinking about joining the Reserve Police Officers Association or contributing money to it, you should know the information below as you're making your decision. If Michael B. Webster a/k/a Brooke Webster is still the president of this organization or has some other high-level position there, you might want to know that he was dismissed from the NYPD Auxiliary Police program after an Internal Affairs investigation into him and the RPOA. I'm not going to personally comment on why he was dismissed. I'm going to let the report speak for itself (you can read it below). Because Webster sued to try to force the NYPD to take him back, all this information is now in the public record for anyone who wants to to see it. I used to work with Brooke and thought everyone should know this in case you get a false impression of him or this organization.
First of all, here's the court case showing he was dismissed by the NYPD and that his dismissal was upheld by the courts. This is a public website of the New York State court system and this is a public record. The case is WEBSTER VS NYPD, File Number 107302-06:
http://decisions.courts.state.ny.us/fcas/fcas_docs/2007sep/3001073022006001sciv.pdf
The below is an exhibit that is actually on file with the New York County Court in the case of WEBSTER vs NYPD, file number 107302-06. The case is public info and anybody can see it, but you would have to actually go there to see these documents (a friend of mine copied this and used OCR to convert it back to text). The court clerk is at 60 Center Street in Manhattan, room 103B (in the basement). You could call them at 646-386-5942 (the official phone number of the County Clerk's records room) to make sure they have the file.
--------------------------------------------
POLICE DEPARTMENT
CITY OF NEW YORK
November 17, 2004
From: Commanding Officer, Internal Affairs Bureau, Group 51 PIIU
To: Chief, Internal Affairs Bureau
SUBJECT: INVESTIGATION OF OG 80-04, LOG 04-03329
AUXILIARY SERGEANT MICHAEL B. WEBSTER, HIGHWAY 1
1. On February 2, 2004 Detective Donald Mounts, tax #909846 assigned to IAB Group 51 was assigned to investigate a complaint initiated by a telephone inquiry from Chief Peter Warrick of the Florida Highway Patrol. Chief Warrick alleged that a NYPD Auxiliary Sergeant is the President of THE RESERVE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION INC. (RPOA), a police affiliated charitable organization operating in numerous states including Florida. Chief Warrick identified the individual as "BROOK WEBSTER and alleged that Webster and the organization are engaged in the following conduct in his state as well as other states around the country.
a. The RPOA has schemed to defraud the citizens of Florida and other states by engaging in fundraising in which the telemarketers impersonate law enforcement officers from various states and local police departments to raise money for the organization. The telemarketing is done from several locations inside the state of Florida.
b. The RPOA hires telemarketing companies that have current civil injunctions against them for improper fundraising practices.
c. The RPOA hosts an internet web site in which the S/O appears in a photo wearing a NYPD Auxiliary uniform. The site additionally displays the NYPD logo, Auxiliary patch and photos of NYPD officers.
d. Webster has appeared in a NYPD uniform at more than one RPOA fundraising event in Florida including a ceremony at the US Park Police Office located at Everglades National Park.
e. Webster hosts a training seminar every April in New York City where he invites Reserve Police Officers from around the United States to attend for a fee. Webster appears in full NYPD Auxiliary Uniform at this seminar and arranges tours of NYPD facilities, NYPD Aviation Unit helicopter rides and Harbor Unit boat rides for the attendees.
2. On February 11, 2004 the subject officer was identified as Auxiliary Police Sergeant MICHAEL B. WEBSTER, shield #1168, tax #407070 assigned to Highway 1. Detective Mounts reviewed Webster's personnel file maintained by the Auxiliary Police Section with the permission of the Integrity Control Officer Sgt. Rucinski. The personnel file indicates that Webster was accepted as an Auxiliary Police Officer on June 30, 1982 and assigned to the 050 precinct. Webster has several commendations and was served charges for conduct unbecoming and failure to supervise on September 7, 1984 after he was involved in a high speed chase with a moped. Additionally, New York DMV files show Webster surrendered his NY State drivers license on July 3, 1993 and obtained a Connecticut drivers license in which he lists his residence in Madison Connecticut.
3. On March 3, 2004 Detective Mounts spoke to Chief Warrick by telephone and advised him that the S/O had been identified and provided him with the current information on Webster. Chief Warrick requested that Webster not be interviewed at this time as his agency had an ongoing internal investigation on members of his department. Warrick stated that he would provide Detective Mounts with a synopsis of their investigation in the form of a 500 page booklet as soon as he received permission from the Director of The Florida Highway Patrol.
4. With the approval of Chief Warrick, Florida Highway Patrol, on Tuesday November 9, 2004 Detective Mounts interviewed the S/O at 315 Hudson Street. The S/O agreed to the interview and the allegations were outlined to him. Auxiliary Sgt. Michael B. Webster gave the following statement in regards to this investigation:
a. Webster stated that he is the current president of the RPOA and has been the president since early 2002. The organization is incorporated in the State of Delaware and is registered as a charity with the New York Attorney General Office under #7A67708 expiring on May 15, 2005. The business address is 105 Fullerton Avenue, Yonkers, New York 10705. The RPOA currently fundraises by telemarketing and is currently in contract with two telemarketing firms. Webster, when ask to provide a copy of his current contract with the two telemarketing firms stated that he does not believe that the NYPD is entitled to the copies because the RPOA does not call inside New York City. Upon further questioning Webster did confirm the name of one of the telemarketing companies is Nationwide Fundraiser Inc., formerly of Naples Florida. Webster refused to provide the name of the other fundraiser, however he did state that the RPOA's current contract with Nationwide is 10% and the other gives the organization $1000.00 per week. Detective Mounts informed the S/O of the department's policy on telemarketing and Webster responded "That is the only way we make money and I don't intend on changing that policy." Webster states that he does not receive a personal salary, but he does have an expense account as indicated on the organizations IRS form 990. In regards to the practices of the telemarketing firms, he says, that it is the firm's responsibility to adhere to the script he provided them and that he is not responsible nor can help it if some of the telemarketers impersonate police officers. He added that he has never heard a complaint of any impersonations taking place while fundraising for the RPOA. Webster informed detective Mounts that he is registered with the Better Business Bureau in Florida but has never met their approval for the giving guide. He stated that the RPOA can not meet their standards because of its fundraising practices.
b. The S/O said that he is aware that one of his current telemarketing companies has been in trouble with the Attorney General's Offices of several States and that Nationwide recently moved from Florida to Arizona because of the current investigation by the Florida Attorney General's Office and the Florida Department of Agriculture which oversees charities.
c. The S/O was aware that his photos and the NYPD logo were used on the organization's web site. He stated that when he found out he requested that they remove his photo and crop photos of any NYPD patches that appear there now.
d. The S/O stated that he does not recall appearing in uniform at any fundraising event in Florida. He did admit to wearing his NYPD uniform while making a presentation to the US Park Police at their headquarters in the Everglades National Park in 2003 but stated that their were no fundraising activities taking place. The S/O was asked if he had received permission to wear the NYPD Auxiliary uniform other than when on patrol and he stated that he had not received any such permission. The S/O further stated that he always wears his NYPD Auxiliary uniform the first day of any RPOA event including while hosting the organizations annual training seminar in New York City.
e. The S/O admitted to the RPOA hosting an annual training seminar in New York City every April. The 2005 seminar is currently scheduled for April 6 to April 9, 2005. He stated that at all previous seminars that visiting ''Reserve Police Officers" are routinely given "VIP tours" of department facilities. He refused to elaborate further as to which facilities or units had been visited.
5. At the conclusion of the interview the S/O stated that if he were to be disciplined for any of the allegations that had been made he would request to be allowed to resign from the NYPD Auxiliary Force to keep his 22 year record unblemished. Detective Mounts informed the S/O that he would be advised of the outcome of the investigation.
6. The investigation further reveals that Nationwide Fundraising Inc., has numerous violations in Florida for its telemarketing practices. The company is rated as one of the lowest in terms of percentage given to the charity. Nationwide currently fundraises for two additional police affiliated organizations. The American Deputy Sheriffs Association and the American Police Officers Association, both of which were targeted by the CBS television show 60 minutes as police charity scams.
7. Allegations made against Auxiliary Sgt. Webster are substantiated. I recommend that the he be dismissed from the NYPD Auxiliary Police Force.
8. It is also recommended that the New York City Police Department formally disassociate itself from the Reserve Police Officers Association specifically its Spring Training Seminar scheduled for NYC in April, 2005.
9. Forwarded for your consideration and approval.
(signed) John V. Zerillo
Lieutenant
--------------------------------------------
1st ENDORSEMENT
Chief, Internal Affairs Bureau, to Police Commissioner, November 18, 2004. Contents noted. Investigation has established that Auxiliary Police Sergeant Michael Webster misused his auxiliary police status in connection with his position as president of the Reserve Police Officers Association ("RPOA"). The fundraising practices of one of the two telemarketers that the organization employs are highly questionable and possibly fraudulent. Auxiliary Sergeant Webster refused to identify the second telemarketer when questioned by IAB investigators. His unauthorized appearance in uniform and use of the Department logo on the organization's Internet site creates the misrepresentation that the RPOA is affiliated with the NYPD and that the Department sanctions its activities. Mr. Webster's conduct indicates that he is not suited to continue in his position with the auxiliary police and, as such, it is recommended that he be terminated from the program. It is further recommended that the Department deny any request by the RPOA to tour Department facilities as part of the organizations scheduled April 2005 seminar or at any other future event and that the Department disassociate from the RPOA.
(signed) Charles V. Campisi
Chief of Internal Affairs
APPROVED
(signed) Raymond W. Kelly
Police Commissioner
SECOND ENDORSEMENT
Commanding Officer Police Commissioner's Office to Chief of Department attn: Chief of Patrol, December 17, 2004: Please note the Police Commissioner's APPROVAL of the First Endorsement and the recommendation to terminate the services of Auxiliary Police Sergeant Michael Webster from NYPD's Auxiliary Police program. Additionally, any request made by the Reserve Police Officer's Association to tour either One Police Plaza or Department facilities is to be denied. Forwarded for necessary attention.
(signed) Lowell Stahl
Assistant Chief
LS
cc: Chief, IAB (1)
File (1)
3rd ENDORSEMENT
Chief of Department to Chief of Patrol, December 21, 2004. Contents noted. Please note the Police Commissioner's approval of the First Endorsement and the recommendation to terminate the services of Auxiliary Police Sergeant Michael Webster from N.Y.P.D's Auxiliary Police Program. Additionally any request made by the Reserve Police Officer's Association to tour either One Police Plaza or Department facilities is to be denied. Forwarded for your necessary attention.
(signed) Joseph J. Esposito
CHIEF OF DEPARTMENT
Mike
New York, New York
U.S.A.
Click here to read other Rip Off Reports on various Police Departments
3 Updates & Rebuttals
anonymous
Other,USA
MR WEBSTER HAS BEEN REINSTATED TO THE AUXILIARY POLICE
#4UPDATE EX-employee responds
Sun, November 28, 2010
In response to "Shelton's" post, Mr. Webster has successfully completed the Basic Training Course and has been reinstated to the auxiliary police as indicated in the the letter below. It appears "Shelton" and others are using a "consumer protection" issue as smear campaign against Mr. Webster.
POLICE DEPARTMENT
AUXILIARY POLICE SECTION
120-55 QUEENS BOULEVARD 2nd.F1oor KEW GARDENS, N.Y. 11424
February 5, 2010
Michael Webster
80 Rockland Avenue
Yonkers, New York 10705
Dear Mr. Webster:
In order to proceed with your reinstatement to the position of Auxiliary Police Officer, you must complete the enrollment process outlined in the Auxiliary Guide. The purpose of this procedure is to update all necessary forms and data, and is applicable to all participants who have been. inactive for a substantial period of time.
Thereafter, you will be scheduled .for the Borough based Basic Training Course scheduled for March 2010; This course will provide up-to-date relevant training in the basic skills and techniques needed to function effectively as an Auxiliary Police Officer. Upon completion of the Basic Training Course, you will be issued your shield and identification card.
Please contact the undersigned or Lieutenant Brian Connolly as soon as possible at (718) 520-9243 to initiate the reinstatement process.
Angelo J. Maroulis
Deputy Inspector
COURTESY PROFESSIONALISM RESPECT
Website: http://nyc.govinypd
One Who Knows
Shelton,Connecticut,
USA
Appeal granted on technical grounds only?
#4General Comment
Thu, November 11, 2010
I came across this posting and noticed Mr. Webster's rebuttal, which states that his dismissal from the NYPD Auxiliary Force was reversed by the New York appellate court.
Something that is worth noting is that the reversal was granted on technical grounds only, based on the fact that Mr. Webster was not granted sufficient opportunity to be heard in his own defense. Nothing in his response suggests that the investigation conducted by NYPD Internal Affairs, which found that his organization uses deceptive fundraising practices, or that he misused his police uniform, or that he charged people a fee for a "VIP tour" of restricted NYPD facilities without any authorization, plus a number of other allegations, was falsified or inaccurate.
What the New York appellate court seems to have done is to grant Mr. Webster an opportunity for a full hearing. Since this all happened a year ago, presumably he has had that opportunity by now.
Mr. Webster: what were the results of that hearing and on what public site are they posted? Have you been reinstated as an NYPD Auxiliary Sergeant? Did the hearing find that the results of the internal investigation were inaccurate or falsified in any way? Anyone who reads this posting, especially if they are considering making a contribution to your organization, is going to want to know these things.
Anonymous
Yonkers,New York,
U.S.A.
MR WEBSTER DISMISSAL HAS BEEN REVERSED BY THE SUPREME COURT OF NY COUNTY
#4UPDATE EX-employee responds
Sun, April 05, 2009
Mr. Webster dismissal from the NYPD auxiliary has been REVERSED by the Supreme Court of NY County, Appellate Division, First Department because the NYPD and Commissioner Kelly denied Mr. Webster his due process rights. SEE BELOW. The initial report is not a consumer complaint against the RPOA. It was posted by Michael DePalma, NYPD auxiliary officer, who for unknown reasons has a grudge against Mr. Webster. PLEASE NOTE-since the court has reversed the previous decision , the decision referenced by Michael DePalma is VOID and if this rebuttal is not posted immediately, RPOA legal counsel will take legal action against all parties. It would be in the best interest of all parties involved to remove the entire posting. Thank you.
Decided on February 24, 2009
Andrias, J.P., Sweeny, McGuire, DeGrasse, JJ.
5321 107302/06
[*1]In re Michael Brooke Webster, Petitioner-Appellant,
v
Police Department of the City of New York, et al., Respondents-Respondents.
Stuart Salles, New York, for appellant.
Michael A. Cardozo, Corporation Counsel, New York (Cheryl
Payer of counsel), for respondents.
Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Alice Schlesinger, J.), entered on or about September 10, 2007, which, in an article 78 proceeding challenging respondent Police Department's determination to dismiss petitioner as an Auxiliary Police Officer, after a hearing, granted respondent's cross motion to dismiss the petition as barred by the statute of limitations, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the cross motion denied, and the matter remanded for further proceedings.
Petitioner testified, without contradiction, that several months after being told not to go out on patrol, he was instructed to attend a "fact-finding" interview with the Internal Affairs Bureau, that the interview concerned the engagement of fundraisers by an auxiliary police association of which petitioner was president, and that petitioner was assured that there would be a second interview at which he would have an opportunity to bring in additional information he did not have with him because he was not informed in advance of the subject of the interview, but that the second interview never took place. Instead, about six weeks later, petitioner received a phone call instructing him to turn in his badge and ID. The Commanding Officer of the Auxiliary Police testified that when petitioner called him next day for an explanation, he told petitioner that he was being terminated because of the results of the IAB investigation into petitioner's association with an internet telemarketing company, that the termination could not be changed to a resignation, and that the order came straight from the Commissioner himself. The Commanding Officer also testified that he did not share with petitioner a report about the investigation and other items of information in his possession because the conversation was "too quick" to "go into specific[s]," that an instruction to turn in a badge and ID is consistent with a suspension, and that the process of termination for disciplinary reasons, which would ordinarily involve an administrative hearing with notice of charges, in this instance was "totally out of the ordinary." Petitioner, for his part, denied the substance of the Commanding Officer's testimony, testifying that the latter made it clear that he simply had no information to give.
Supreme Court did not explicitly credit the Commanding Officer's testimony that he had told petitioner that he was being terminated. Instead the court found that the Commanding [*2]Officer "confirmed" the instruction to petitioner to turn in his badge and ID, and that such instruction, together with petitioner's inactive status and the IAB interview, had to have given "any reasonable person in [petitioner's] position" notice that he was being terminated. We disagree. The instruction was admittedly consistent with a suspension, and was especially ambiguous here since petitioner had already been placed on inactive duty, an apparent de facto suspension. Furthermore, respondent's own Auxiliary Patrol Guide provides for specific due-process procedures to be followed when charges are brought seeking dismissal of an Auxiliary Officer, including a hearing at which the testimony is to be taped, but none of these procedures were followed here. Assuming, as respondent argued before Supreme Court, that the Commissioner, who made the decision to terminate petitioner, need not comply with these procedures, the failure to do so added to the ambiguity of the purported notice. In short, we find that respondent failed to carry its burden of demonstrating that it gave petitioner unambiguous notice of his termination. Accordingly, the four-month statute of limitations began to run, not on the date in late December 2004, when petitioner spoke with the Commanding Officer, but on January 30, 2006, when petitioner's counsel was advised that he had been
terminated (see Matter of Vadell v City of New York Health & Hosps. Corp., 233 AD2d 224, 225 [1996], citing, inter alia, Matter of Matter of Biondo v New York State Bd. of Parole, 60 NY2d 832, 834 [1983]; see also City of New York v State of New York, 40 NY2d 659, 670 [1976]).
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER
OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.
ENTERED: FEBRUARY 24, 2009
CLERK