The Pima County Board of Supervisors was put on notice by an attorney for the Pima County Deputy Sheriff s Association and the Pima County Correctional Officers Association of impending legal action that the members intend to take against the County.
The attorney for the deputies and correctional officers, Tim LaSota, advised the Board during the Call to the Audience portion of the Board of Supervisors’ meeting that the groups will sue the County to keep promises made about pay. Those promises have been broken over the years under the leadership of former Sheriff Clarence Dupnik, current appointed Sheriff Chris Nanos the Board of Supervisors through County Administrator Chuck Huckelberry.
LaSota presented a letter to the Board which reads in part:
Click on image to read letter
I write to inform you of impending legal action that the members intend to take against Pima County. I explain the basis for this legal action below. This letter would constitute a notice of claim under Arizona Revised Statutes §12-821.01, but the legal action will seek prospective mandamus relief only, rather than monetary damages for past actions, so no such notice of claim is legally required.
As you know, for years controversy has surrounded the compensation packages that were provided to the Deputy Sheriffs and Correctional Officers. The issue has been the fact that the Deputy Sheriffs and Correctional Officers, for years, have been promised annual increases, but these have never been provided.
The pay package approved on July 5, 2016 does provide some relief, but it is simply insufficient.
Over the years, the promise of annual increases has been held out numerous times. As the attachments attest to, the Board has approved these annual step plans, and this fact has been widely circulated and even advertised to current Deputies and Correctional Officers and potential new hires. The promised increases have been used as an inducement to both continued and new employment. And they simply have not materialized. On July 5, 2016 this Board approved a new pay package.
However, it falls far short of adhering to the contractual promises that have been made.
In addition, for years, pay ranges have been advertised in the monthly publication. As we have stated before, even if the failure to provide promised increases could be excused over the short term, it does not follow that the County can continually promise increases as an inducement to new and continued employment and continually use the same excuse for failing to meet its contractual obligations.
The Deputy Sheriffs and Correctional Officers have sacrificed continually to help the County operate within budgetary restraints in some challenging times. However, it is clear that the County has simply taken this assistance for granted, and has for far too long chosen to balance its budget on the backs of the law enforcement officers who risk life and limb to protect the people of Pima County.
As the evidence at trial would show, the Deputies and Correctional Officers could reasonably conclude there was a commitment by the County and in fact did reasonably conclude this. And they did so simply because the County did make this commitment. The fact that the Deputies and Correctional Officers have long chosen to try to work collaboratively with the County to address these issues rather than take the matter up in court does not change the fact that this is a real commitment, and it has not been honored.
Not only were members of the Sheriff’s staff unhappy with the Board, the supervisors were assailed by a resident for the “greed that has insidiously overwhelmed” the area by County officials. Speaker after speaker dressed down the Board majority during the Call to the Audience portion of the meeting.
Another resident, Merritt McGlothlin of Oro Valley told the Board that Miller has “never deviated from what she promised the voters and has served them with principles, honesty, and courage against enormous odds. However the Power Elite, Special Interests, Advocates for the Defeated Bonds, and the Favored Cronies of Pima County feel very threatened.”
“They therefore recruited, bought and paid for a naïve, unqualified, malleable, candidate in hopes of maintaining their long time unfettered stranglehold over Pima County,” McGlothlin continued referring to Miller’s Republican Primary challenger, John Winchester. “This Sham Candidate is well financed and if his handlers so order he gladly performs as directed. He’s been totally disingenuous on every issue.”
From speakers in favor of a $15 minimum wage, to those concerned with the County’s questionable business dealings, residents had few kind words for supervisors Sharon Bronson, Richard Elias, Ray Carroll and Ramon Valadez.
When the discussion began of Supervisor Ramon Valadez’s agenda item, which focused on public records, the tone of the meeting did not improve. After being embarrassed by a release of damning emails to the ADI through a Freedom of Information Act request, supervisors Bronson, Valadez, Carroll and Elias as well as Huckelberry had hoped to limit what information should be available to the public.
The issue first arose when Miller was accused of withholding public records from reporters. Although she has insisted that in fact she had complied with the law, Carroll and reporters had insisted she had not. Carroll, in service of his political agenda which includes destroying Miller, went so far as to have Huckelberry refer the issue to the County Attorney.
Because his attack has not been effective, Carroll turned his attention to the confidentiality agreements signed by Miller’s staff. He and Elias claimed that the agreements were contrary to County policy. That approach failed when Miller revealed that the agreements were approved by the Board’s attorney and were based on agreements the County used regularly.
According to Miller she has her staff sign confidentiality agreements to prevent them from discussing or sharing protected information of constituents. Elias implied that the agreements made one former staff member unwilling to turn over information. According to Miller, nothing in the agreement could or would prevent a County employee from complying with the laws, including public records laws.
For her part, Miller made it clear that the County’s practices and policies are a mess. She advised the Board that in fact just recently due to an apparent misunderstanding of law; County staff had violated HIPPA and residents’ privacy rights. Apparently, staff had released emails which included residents’ personally identifiable information, and in one case, released an email from one woman who was discussing her health issues.
Later in the meeting, Huckelberry revealed that the County has only been keeping email records going back 60 days. That revelation caused a stir and concerns were elevated when it was discovered that emails are the responsibility of each individual office with every email having a shelf life of only 60 days. After that 60 day period the email would be automatically deleted if the office to which it was sent did not mark it for saving.
Huckelberry claimed that the County could not afford to preserve email records.
After the meeting, John Backer, a candidate for District 4 supervisor and Information Technology professional told the listening audience of the James T. Harris show that the cost of storage should not be an issue. He pointed out that the cost of storage has consistently been reducing through the years. Later, Backer told the ADI, “Most clients I’ve worked with talk of retention policies in terms of years, not months. Keeping emails and other data for a reasonable amount of time is an important part of the transparency Pima County desperately needs.”
After much discussion, the Board voted to delay action another 60 days.