the Department ’ s reform measures and whether the Department was holding officers responsible for the new policy that had not been trained . Ultimately , the Hearing Officer found that the evidence did not support the discipline and recommended reinstating the officer .
As the Phoenix City Charter prescribes , the Civil Service Board convenes regular meetings for an official determination of the appeals that come before the Board . What transpired during the recent board meeting was far from fair and impartial . Each side was allocated 15 minutes to summarize their case , which wouldn ’ t have been problematic if the Board had utilized the Hearing Officer ’ s report for the intricate details to form the foundation of its decision . The Board considered each side ’ s 15 minutes of arguments and ended that portion of the meeting . Immediately following those presentations and before public discussion , board member Arroyo remarked that he felt compelled to support the Department but struggled to articulate this in legal terms . This statement suggested a potential bias before public deliberations began , raising alarm bells about impartiality .
Due to Arroyo ’ s remarks , the Board immediately moved to enter into a privileged executive session to confer with the Board ’ s attorney . After approximately 15 minutes , the Board reconvened and swiftly voted to uphold Interim Chief Sullivan ’ s decision to terminate the officer , seemingly disregarding the detailed concerns raised in the Hearing Officer ’ s report . This outcome is particularly disheartening as it is not an isolated incident ; it underscores a worrying trend of the Board , discounting the task delegated to the Hearing Officers of spending hours poring over the evidence . The Board did not have any idea of what evidence was presented during the hearing . They made their uninformed determination and did not provide any explanation to the officer or the public .
The Board ’ s processes must be transparent and grounded in fairness . The Maricopa County Attorney ’ s Office findings revealed no criminal misconduct by this officer , and the Critical Incident Review Board concluded that the officer acted within policy guidelines . Yet , the Board ’ s decision appeared heavily influenced by outside pressures , including political factors relating to a substantial settlement of the lawsuit filed by the suspect ’ s family in the incident .
It is noteworthy , and indeed ironic , that the City vigorously defended the officer ’ s actions during the civil lawsuit filed against both the officer and the Department , yet later adopted a drastically different position regarding the officer ’ s termination . This abrupt reversal has only served to deepen the community ’ s confusion and mistrust .
Simply stated , the City supported the officer ’ s actions in court when it served its interests , only to later assert in the appeal process that the officer should be terminated for those same actions .
This inconsistency sends a troubling message to officers : they should not expect the Department ’ s support in use-of-force incidents . Officers cannot rely on the benefit of their training , the protections afforded by statute , or the objective reasonableness standard articulated by the Supreme Court and reinforced in their training . Instead , officers face termination , judged not by the realities of the situation they encountered but by the subjective opinions of the Chief and elected officials formed with the luxury of hindsight and from the comfort of their offices . Moreover , should the City Council have already settled a related civil suit , the outcome for the officer becomes all the more precarious .
Worst of all , after you have asserted your rights and appealed the discipline , you still won ’ t have a clear understanding of how you violated the Department ’ s policy or the rationale that supported the Board ’ s determination to deny your termination appeal .
IMMEDIATELY , THE CIVIL SERVICE BOARD SHOULD CEASE UTILIZING HEARING OFFICERS IF THEY WILL NOT GIVE THEIR REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS THE APPROPRIATE WEIGHT THEY DESERVE .
The full Board should conduct those hearings , as that is the only way they will actually consider all aspects of the investigation .
PLEA firmly supports the principle that personnel matters must be decided based on evidence and merit without favoritism or external influences . In response to these developments , PLEA lacks confidence in the Civil Service Board and is actively exploring options to ensure transparency and accountability in future hearings . We are committed to advocating for reforms that will restore trust in the Board ’ s oversight processes and guarantee that all relevant evidence admitted is considered in disciplinary matters .
If you have any questions or comments , you can reach me at the PLEA office or by email at dkriplean @ azplea . com .
7 • AZPLEA . COM