Joey: rev-ore Maricooa Eounty Sheriff?s Qf?ee Efrer?r?' Pl): 602~376-l801 Fax: 602-251-3877 Switchboard: 602?876-3000 190 West Washington, Suite 1990 - Phoenix,AZ85063 A DATE: August 1 7, 2918 T0: Joseph M. Arpaio Marisopa County Sheri? FROM: Frank B. Mormon Deputy Chief Petrol Bureau Commander i RECOMMEND THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SUBJECT: SAFETY CONDUCT A FORMAL INVESTIGATION REGARDING 0F seasons mscoNoUcr, MSMANAGEMENT, UNLAWFUL Acre, AND Home WORK ENVIRONMENT AGAINST cams DEPUTY DAVE) A. Dear Sheriff Arpaio, Over the past year, Chief Deputy David Henders'hott has knowingly taken several actions that create a very hostile and work environment for several Sheriff?s employees as well as myself. This situation has become untenable and has had a severe negative impact on my morale, emotiooal wellbeiog, and day?to-day working conditions- Compounding this'situation is the ongoing efforts by Hendershott to convince you that after nearly ten years of loyal service as your Deputy Chief, that have suddenly become disgruntled in my assignment as the Chief of Patrol. I assure you that I am very proud to serve you and the deputies under my command and 1 consider being the Chief of Patrol as the most proud moment in my nearly thirty-year career with this great organization. - - Sadly, as a result of Hendershott?s deception and dishonesty, it is very apparent that have fallen out of favor with you and I am likely perceived as disloya] and a threat. To what do I owe this misfomtne? My reported cooperation with state and federal investigators looking inth variety of allegations concerning this o??iee and more speci?cally, David l-leodershott1 that assure you are more than warranted. on that any assertion that am seeking to undermine this office or Sheriff, 1 can assure know, 1 have County Sheriff is categorically untrue. As you well In the earliest days of your tenure as Sheriff Without question?~ and ?nancially. Unlike seek your removal as Mancopa been a loyal supporter of yours fro 5 given you my very best efforts professionally, personally I have alway lied to you, or put my personal interests above these your Chief Deputy, have never misled yo of you, our employees, and the public. However, 1 now ?nd myself the subject of it is very likely that Hendershon wi ll again attempt a very hostile work situation- I am well aware that by submitting this memorandum to you, to remove me as your Chief of Patrol or retaliate in some other rs that on February 26, 2010, Hendershott unsuccessfully attempted to tern Patrol due to information he received that was weperating with the FBI. anner. You should be aware ove me as your Chief of Rest assured, I did not wait to apprise you of this information until now as a result of Hendershot?t?s recent attempts to retaliate against me. Nor is this a response to the fact that Hendershott is aware that i recently met with Deputy County Attorney Clarisse McCormick regarding bringing these allegations to your attention. I learned the other day that Hendershott was demanding that McCormick give him any information that I previded her- This is obviously ive information before I meet with you. Any reasonable person an attempt to View this sensit would agree that these e?orts are entirely inappropriate and unethical. The fact is that I wrote the ?rst draft of this memorandum last year in anticipation that Hendershott, Black, and Fox would be indicted as a result of the Arizona State Attorney Generalls investigation into the. SCA matter. by Hendershott to retaliate against me, it has been In addition to the previous attemp urrently discussing moving Deputy Chiefs to new brought to my attention that Hendershott is assignments. This appears to be nothing more than a term Hendershott is proud of calling the ?pebble on the beach? theory. As he would describe it, a several grains of sand, including the sand pebble (person) targete ave crashes to shore and moves so they can?t claim they were discriminated against- Hendershott recently discussed removing Deputy Chief Bill Knight as the Chief of Detectives and i would believe that would likely be removed as the Chief of Patrol. It would be my opinion that Hendershott seeks the transfer of Chief Knight as a result of th MACE investigations and Hendersho'tt?s unorthodox and unethical method of eir friction regarding investigative management. in addition to officially notifying you regarding the hostile work environment created by your Chief Deputy, feel it is my obligation to bring to your attention several allegations of serious miscondum, mismanagement, and Criminal conduct againSt David Hendershott, and his subordinates Captain Joel Fox and Director Lawrence Black, As you will read, these allegations are very serious and threaten the very stability and reputation ofyour great organization. Although these employees profess their loyalty to you, it is my belief that you will be outraged by their unethical and reckless behavior, Although the Arizona State Attorney General and the Federal Bureau of Investigation are currently involved in criminal probes related to the SCA and allegations of abuse of power, it is my recommendation that you formally request the Arizona Department of Public Safety to conduct an administrative investigation into the mismanagement, hostile work environment, and multitude of Code of Conduct allegations against David Hendershott, Joel Fox, and Lawrence Black. Although the federal investigation focuses on abuse of power, any DPS investigation should focus on Chief Deputy Hendershott?s well~l removed from, or declined an offer to supervise this specialized unit include: Lieutenant Bruce Tucker, Lieutenant Travis Anglin, Lieutenant Rich Burden, Lieutenant Fred Aldorasi, Lieutenant Steve Bailey, Captain James Miller: Captain Ken Holmes; Deputy Chief Bill Knight, and Executive Chief Scott Freeman. The primary reason for such an extensive list of personnel movements in such a short time for a specialty Unit is Hendershott?s irnpatieriCe and irritation with commanders who do not agree with his motives or methods. Another reason for this serious turnover problem is the intense pressure, continual interference, and absolute political nature of the investigations initiated by Hendershott. The most blatant abuse of power by Hendershott was the March 2009 removal horn the MACE Unit of several detectives and commanders. Sergeant Jeff Gentry, Lieutenant Rich Burden, Deputy Chi ef Bill Knight, and Chief Scott Freeman were removed from their supervisory position over the MACE Unit for refusing to write an illegal search warrant ordered by Hendershott to be served on several members of the Ma?copa County Board of Supervisors. Hendershott orders search warrant to be written against County Boa rd of Supervisors without probable cause. On or about March 19, 2009, Hendershott approached Chief Bill Knight and instructed him to complete a search warrant a?idavit right away to conduct a search of all members of the Maricopa Cotmty Board of Supervisors. Hendershott?s justi?cation Was a media report that the Board of Supervisors (BOS) had paid ten thousand dollars ($10,000) to a vendor to search their of?ces at 30] West Je?erson, for any listening devices the Sheriff?s Of?ce might have installed after the execution ofthe initial search warrant for the Stapley investigation. The crime, according to Hendershott, was misappropriation ofgovemment Funds. - Chief Knight did not believe there was suf?cient evidence to request a search warrant so he wanted to discuss the matter with his supervisort Chief Scott Freeman and the new Commander of the MACE Unit, Lieutenant Rich Burden (Burden had just assigned to the Mace Unit as its new supervisor, two weeks earlier). Freeman and Burden concurred with Knight?s opinion that su?icient evidence for a search warrant was lacking. During a subsequent meeting with Burden questioned Hendershott about the source of the information for the proposed search warrant= Hendershott told Burden to ?read the goddamn paper!" Burden even countered to Hendershott that we (as in MCSO) swept our own of?ces at Wells Fargo (19m Floor) for listening devices, which is the same offense we were attempting to investigate the Board of Supervisors doing. I Hendershott continued to pressure and convince Burden to cooperate by insisting an even more ridiculous theory to establish probable cause for the warrant. He told Burden that the 808 believed that we (M SO) had left listening devices in their o?ices, so the crime was attempted theft of our listening devices. Hendershott then said they would have damaged the devices so it would also be attempted criminal damage. Burden replied that we did not install any listening devices, so it clearly could not be used as a potential crime for the purposes of obtaining a search Warrant- When Hendershott learned that Burden, Knight, and Freeman did not agree with his decision to proceed with an immediate search warrant, codershott then sought out the sergeant for the Mace Unit= Sergeant Jeff Gentry who reported directly to Lieutenant Burden. While Gentry Iwas enroute to-see l?lendershott; Freeman, Knight, and Burden were all sitting in Chief Knight?s of?ce and Freeman decided that he did not want Gentry to he ambushed by Hendershott. Therefore, Freeman called Gentry to come to Knight?s office, befOre reporting to Hendershott so the four of them could discuss their predicament. Hendershott becarm impatient waiting for Gentry to arrive and learned that he was in the building; Hendershott walked down the hall and entered Knight?s of?ce AHenderslrott sat down and Chief Freeman began to discuss why there was not enough information and facts to complete a search warrant. Hendershott replied to Freeman that he did not want to hear from him. Lieutenant Burden then started to laugh, and went into great detail to 3i explain that there were not enough supporting facts to establish probable cause for a warrant. At 1 one point, Hendershott replied that he wouldwrite it (the search warrant) himself. Hendershott was so upset that nobody present would agree with him abouL-the search warrant that he ultimately stood up and left the of?ce. After this refusal by his subordinates to write the warrant, Hendershott commented to Freeman ?l?rn fresh out of loyal guys, who am I going to get to do this? Hendersbort threatens to ?machinogun? Borden, Knight, and Freeman At about 2000 hours that evening, Burden received the ?rst of several threatening phone calls from Hendershott. He threatened that Freeman, Knight, and Burden had ?better get on board? and threatened to ?machine gun? every ?fucking? or ?mother-fucking one of them? before hanging up on Burden. Hendershott called Burden back a second time and again threatening to ?machine-gun? all of them and hung up. Burden then called Hendershott back and tried to be non-threatening to his Chief. Hendershott again replied that that they had better get on board or he would ?machine gun? all of them. Burden then told Hendershott to go ahead and do it, and hung up on the Chief. Burden said he was very upset by what had happened and was unable to sleep that night. Meeting with Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon The following Monday, March 23, 2069, a meeting was arranged with Maricopa Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon at the Wells Fargo Building on the 18?h Floor to discuss the 808 search warrant that Hendershort wanted- Present in this meeting: Lieutenant Rich Burden, Sergeant Jeff Gentry, Sergeant Rich Johnson, Sergeant Brandon Luth, and a Sheri??s ?nancial analyst named Beverly Owens. This was a very contentious meeting in which Aubuchon told MCSO investigators rouse ?creative writing? to author the warrant. Burden was incredulous- He pointed to each of his subordinates one at a time, and told them if he found out that any one of them used creative writing or wrote a warrant without the facts, he would fire them. Burden then I and asked his subordinates if they understood Burden reiterated that facts must be used to establish probable cause for all warrants. He also told each of them that if any of them wanted to come forward after the meeting he would I meet individually to straighten the manor out and that he would protect themif they did something wrong or was told to do something wrong. lfthere were anything immoral or unethical, he would take care of them and ?x it right now. During the meeting Aubuchon showed the previously written search warrant used for the Stapley case as an example for them to follow. Burden countered that the warrant looked like a ?Press Release? and not a valid search warrant. When she insisted that MCSO had authored the warrant, Burden countered that we (MCSO) had written about six pages of that warrant: but the County Attorney?s Of?ce added the additional infomation and it was now about seventeen pages in length. Burden added that told her that he had the Original warrant to prove it. Burden said that he was glad that he did not have to go to suppression or quash hearing reference that ?rst warrant- Aubuchon said it wasn?t her job to author search warrants and said ?why don?t you just do good police work.? Burden replied that good police work would begin that day. The most shocking moment of the meeting took place when Aubuchon, who is supposed to be an impartial and ethical prosecutor, stated during the meeting, to the effect that if they couldn?t get charges on Stapley, that he would be tried in the media. The result of this contentious meeting was that Burden and the Sheriff?s perSonnel present in the meeting refused to author a warrant to search the of?ces of all the members of the Maricopa County Board of supervisors and the meeting was concluded. Hendersbott removes Freeman, Knight, Burden, and Gentry from their duties as the MACE Unit chair; of command. The very next day following the Aubuchon meeting, Burden was working to establish probable cause for'the Search warrant Hendershort wanted written by following?up on the vendor who had been contracted to sweep the County 808 of?ces for listening devices. All of the sudden, Burden received a called from Chief Scott Freeman and was directed to stop. He then told Burden to meet with him and Chief Knight. At this meeting, Burden was told that they had all been ?red from the MACE Unit and that Burden was being reassigned to the Enforcement Support Division. Hendershott commented that only Captain Miller could effectively manage th remaining detectives assigned to the MACE Unit and the primary investigators were transferred back under Miller?s command reflective immediately. in addition, to the MACE Unitbeing removed from under the command and supervision of Freeman, Knight, and Burden, Sergeant ieft? Gentry and his detectives were also removed from the MACE Unit and returned to the Special Investigations Division. This left the remaining MACE detectives, Sergeant Rich Johnson, and Sergeant Brandon Luth under the command of Captain Miller. Captain Miller was not pleased with the decision to?retom MACE back under his command and he retired not long a?er the MACE group was placed back in his Division. Chief Hendershott?s removal ofall of his command staff and their personnel because of their tmwillingness to permit, conduct, or participate in an illegal search is a textbook example of management malfeasance; Only a fewidays after he had ?cleared the decks? at MACE, I Hendershott met with you and casually reported that he had made some changes in the MACE unit to move some of the ?lazy? deputies out of it. This could not have been farther from the truth and serves as a further example of Hendershott failing to provide you with legitimate, factual information regarding the operation of your of?ce- The case against Supervisor Don Stapley; Hendershott orders his arrest As the newly assigned commander of the MACE unit, Lieutenant Rich Burden took it upon himself to carefully review the original Stapley indictment. After this review, Burden came to the conclusion that the case was weak and that multiple charges had been ?stacked? against Stapley. Burden expressed his concerns toChiet? Hendershott during the calls in which Hendershott threatened to ?machine gun? him and the other comand staff associated with the MACE unit- His assessment was so alarming that Hendershott ordered Burden and his detectives to review the Stapley case the entire previous weekend, burning nearly onemhundrod (100) hours of overtime. On September 2 l, 2009, only days after all criminal charges were dismissed against Stapley, Hendershott ordered the probable cause arrest of Stapley on new fraud charges related to his position as President of National Association of Counties MCSO had never made a probable cause arrest in any ?white collar? case prior to that time and our standard pattern and practice was to work closely with the prosecutor (this time the Yavapai County Attorney?s Of?ce). This last minute decision to arrest Stapley on new charges was inappropriate for several reasons. First, the case had already been submitted to the Yavapai County Attorney for review. Second, the Sergeant Rich Johnson, the supervisor of the MACE unit did not believe the case 34 was completed and ready for prosecution. Third, the outside appearance was that the timing of the arrest was/connected to the previous dismissal. The sole reason given for the urgency of conducting a probable cause arrest was ciaimed existence of victims who deservediustice, which is debatable at best. This arrest took place after Chief Hendershott contacted Sergeant Johnson on the Saturday morning prior to the Monday arrest, ordering him to make the probable cause arrest. Hendershott also informed Johnson that he was not to call Deputy Chief Terry Young (Johnson?s Bureau Chief) to discuss the matter. Johnson, believing the case was not ready because there was llow?up to be completed and the arrest was not coordinated with still additional investigative fo gin a panic to discuss the situation. Ultimately: the Yavapai County Attorney, called Chief Your: a decision was, made to comply with Chief Hendershott?s decision because probable cause did exist and the arrest was made the following Monday- This unorthodox arrest created a great deal of negative publicity. In the court of public opinion, that arrest appeared to be an abuse of power, exercised for political purposes only. As a result of the wili?il mishandling of the case, the improper probable cause arrest, and the subsequent attempt to hire of out?of?state attorneys as special prosecutors, it well may be that a successful prosecution of Supervisor Don Stapley will be very difficult, if not impossible. in addition to these examples of Hendershott?s misconduct, there are other acts of ll not disclose related to the investigation because they are currently misconduct that i wi not include examples 0r under criminal investigation with that agency and therefore will provide the names of the employees involved at this time. Hendershott furthers his personal interest in Facial Recognition at the County?s expense For more than a decade, Chief Deputy Hendershott has devoted a considerable amount of and money into the Facial Recognition project. A compilation of man-hours expended by tirn i, supervisory staff, and detention of?cers= deputy sheriff?s, ?nance personnel, civilian personne ct would be certainly be in the millions of dollars. In command personnel in support of the proje the hardware, software, addition, a considerable amount of RICO money has been spent 0 travel, and other reiated expenses; possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars- This project has never been in the best interests of MCSO. Nor would it be objectively viewed as being a return on investment for RJCO, Detention, and General Fund lg.) Ln monies. Nevertheless. there has been good reason to-helicve that the Facial Recognition project 05: of was in the best personal interests of Hendershort and his business associates, much, if not which is at county expense. in fact. Chiefllendershott was quoted by a MCSO employee that, upon their retirement from the Sheriff's Of?ce, they assoeiated with the project as sratin were going to make lots of money. acial Recognition involved the use of cameras to photograph The original concept of l3 actual people and comparing them with databases of wanted individuals. Although this technology was purchased and installed by Con?Tents to identify work furlough and work ?here were often frequent delays as release inmates on a daily basis- it was never reliable. the sysoem because the of?cers repeated the time-consuming process elm-enrolling inmates into system had failed to recognize them. In addition: when the equipment malfun did not respond in a timely manner and overall provided poor service. Because 1 lems, instructed the it was soon discovered that the vendor was the Deputy. Chief responsible for that facility and was informed olthese recurring prob facility commander to maintain daily log books to document the repeated problems and experienced with that equipment. In addition, inmate-grooming policies had to be changed because the equipment was incapable ofidentifying the same inmate from day to day due to facial hair growth. The most egregious waste of public and RICO monies associated with Facial Recognition was the Honduras project. As saw it, what occurred was nothing more than a ed Cross" Show designed to detract from the real purpose olmalting trips to which believe was to promote the Facial Recognition system with the Honduran government as pan of a ?test eting" ellort to prove that this system was viable, With a Honduran government mark could recruit other getvernments and other customers to endorsement as a marketing tool. they purchase the technology and equipment from Hummingbird and it?s vendor Steven Not only was the Honduras experience expensive and unwarranted it brought great criticism (once discovered) from the media. Public records revealed also revealed this ollice spent an additional $122,144.89 towards the construction ola ?Honduran GOvemment fusion center.? Michael Ciaverella CEO of DarComm Network Solutions stated that the entire 20,000.00 payment from MCSO was passed on directly to Hummingbird Defense Sysrems which was not an approved vendOr of the County. Hmnminghird?s CEO is Steve ?reschner. In addition to the Honduras travel, Hendershott also traveled to China for brief trips, and was accompanied by Steven Greshner. The purpose of the trip was unknown, but its extremely short duration suggested thatit was made for business purposes, not for pleasure. It has been reported that Hendershott also wanted to travel to Guadalajara, Mexico regarding Facial Recognition matters, but you refused to authorize this travel at county expense due to negative media reports regarding Hendershott?s activities in Honduras. Hendershott may have made the trip to Mexico anyway at his own eXpense. As of this date, Hendershott has repeatedly refused to discuss his relationship with Greschner and obvious con?ict of interest. Hendershon has created a full time Facial Recognition'Unit, stalled with full-time MCSO personnel. It is true that Facial Recognition, by now using photo comparisons, is far more reliable than live camera technology. Nevertheless, when viewing the project in its totality, for all ofthe effort and money spent, only about fifteen (15) or tvtenty (20) cases or identi?cations have been made. Considering these facts, it would be dif?cult to argue that the Facial 4 1 Recognition system has brought a positive return on investment. Nearly a year ago, Hendershottapproved the expenditure of dollars worth of Facial Recognition equipment from the bankrupt DarComm Company to be installed in the Wells Fargo l9th Floor lobby for security reasons. As of this date, it should be noted that the system has yet to be activated and is still not in use. Suf?ce it to say, this wasteful expenditure of RICO Funds was most impractical since history has shown that this type of Facial Recognition system is unreliable and nieffective. This purchase appears to be nothing more that another method to provide ?nancial aid to a business associate of David Hendershott. Hendershott promotes Facial Recognition over Mobile Data Computers for Patrol Deputies It is very clear that Facial Recognition has been an important priority to Hendershott and his business associates. Over the past decade, he has spent a great deal of time and money supporting it. Unfortunately, he failed to exert even a fraction of that eflon to provide our deputies with Mobile Data Computers for our patrol vehicles. In fact, MCSO was the very last agency in Maricopa County to provide these essential tools of law enforcement to our sworn deputies. Last year, when the Of?ce of Management and Budget rejected our 37 budget request to purchase the MDC units for the remaining patrol districts, 3 contacted Chief Hendershott who told me they ?were offthe table.? one point I spoke with you about the MDC project along with Lisa Allen. When i. . mentioned that we were spending a great deal of money on Facial Recognition and we were not getting the MDC units for the deputies your very first comment was ?l hate Facial Recognition.? Because the MDC was my highest priority program and because l-lendershott demonstrated such an absolute lack of interest in pursing this (MDC) matter, took the initiative and sent a very direct e?mail to detailing the reason why MDC equipment was needed for the safety of our deputies and the citizens of Man'copa County. OMB subsequently approved the necessary Funding for the project: a fact you acknowledged during your phone call with James Can?eld, Don Stapley?s assistant. it should also be noted that? the Mancopa County Sheriff?s Of?ce does not have a full- time Crime Analysis Unit- At the present time, only one dedicated Information Technology employee provides crime statistics to our patrol districts and to our contract cities. However, an agency our size should have a fully staffed unit with state?of-the-art crime analysis technology and software that is critically needed for crime analysis. This is yet another one of many I important functions of the organization that has been neglected in favor of Facial Recognition, clearly putting the ?nancial interests of his business associates ahead of the safety and welfare of our deputies who put their lives on the line each and every day protecting the public. Hendersbott?s failure to adequately support the men and women of patrol The most egregious example of David Hendershott?s neglect of the of the dedicated men and women assigned to patrol is the prohibition on overtime. Although the public would expect that a responsible overtime budget would be primarily directed towards first line deputies and detention of?cers= it is not. In fact, overtime has been prohibited in both the Custody Bureaus and the Patrol Bureau. At Hendershott?s direction, any overtime that occurs in patrol must be justi?ed as an emergency situation and the shi? supervisormust write a memorandum documenting the overtime. On the contrary, although most professional law enforcement agencies would not authorize overtime for white-collar criminal investigations such as the MACE unless there were exigent circumstances, Hendershott has clearly provided detectives related to these cases an unlimited overtime budget. For example, during the pay period ending .lanuary 24, 2010. Sergeant Barry Hamill was paid $3,721.55 in Overtime alone. The reason for his overtime, he was tasked with reviewing e?mails pertinent to the Chicanos Por La Causa investigation involving Marieopa County Board Member Mary Rose Wilcox. Although Sheriffs records often would indicate that a large amount of overtime was charged to my Patrol Bureau during each pay period, found the records to be incorrect. I finally began keeping a separate record of actual overtime accrued'by patrol. On many occasions, Hendershott would question me as to why patrol overtime was so high, and I would then provide my. own records for Hendershott that would cerrectty indicate the non~patrol assignment where the employee truly worked. These were always Specialty units, such investigations, human smuggling or animal cruelty. I recently conducted a staffing studyfor sworn deputies within the Sheriff's Office. Asl suspected, the Patrol Bureau has the lowest staf?ng ratio for sworn deputies in the entire office. Since my assignment as the Patrol Bureau Commander in July of 2007, there has been a routine transfer of personnel ?rom patrol into specialty assignments without regard to patrol district staf?ng ratios or even discussing potential transfers with me. Under Chief Deputy Hendershott, the mandated responsibilities of the Patrol Bureau are not a priority and the bureau is simply used as a labor pool to provide deputies for his Special interests and other special assignments. At a time when I have squads that utilize Deputy Sheri ft" 5 as acting supervisors- on patrol squads, Chief Hendershott has assigned 3 Sergeant with the primary responsibility of driving him around. For obvious reasons, this lack of personnel and proper sopervision has negatively impacted the safety of our deputies and the public. Another example of the absolute disregard for the proper use of office resources occurred in 2008- Due to budget issues, although overtime was restricted, purchases were limited, and there were shortages of amniunition for of?ce employees. David Hendershott arranged for Attorney Mark Goldman to be picked up by the Sheriff's Helicopter and flown to the Sheriff?s Rapge to tire machine guns all at County expense. (It should be nOted that Andrew Thomas named Goldman a Special Deputy COunt?y Attorney in 2005 after serving as his campaign. manager in 2004. Hendershott: Nepotism keeps friends and members ofhis family employed. Nepotism is defined as the practice, on the part of a person possessing hiring authority, of displaying preferential treatment to family members when making job appointments without regard to questions of merit or quali?cation. That same principle and practice also occurs when it relates to the hiring of friends, political allies, and the like. Over the years, Chief Hendershott has systematically used his position as the Chief Deputy to benefit family members friends, and political allies alike by filling or creating jobs for them in pesitions that (mere properly) should have been held by other existing Sheriff?s employees more justi?ably quali?ed for such appointments. He has repeatedly manipulated this agency?s hiring and promotional process to advance applicants that are family members, friends, or are politically connected by providing subordinates with the names of preferred candidates for a variety of positions. There have been too many people appointed because of their association with Hendershott to mention in this memorandum, but here are some notable examples: Michael Rayballt Chief Hendershou created the Computer Crimes Unit but did not follow the standard practice of assigning a sworn Captain or Lieutenant, as it?s ?rst commander. instead, Chief Hendershott assigned Michael'Rayball, his brother-in-law as the ?rst commander. Mr. Rayball had no previous law enforcement experience and was reportedly a part-time teacher at Scottsdale Connitunity College. When other MCSO employees in the unit would ask Rayball about his relationship to Hendershott: he initially denied any. Subsequently Rayball explained his misleading denials by saying that his wife was only the halfasister of Lorraine Hendershott, Chief Hendershott?s wife. Later, Mr. Rayball left the Sheriff?s O?ice following a divorce from Hendershott?s sister-in-Iaw. David Hendershot! Jr.: Once the Computer Crimes Unit was established, Hendershott - created a series of well?paid positions in this unit, including a position for his son David Hendershott Jr. who apparently chose not to apply for a deputy sheriff position. This is a civilian criminal investigator position withthe reSponsibility of conducting forensic computer examinations. In this position: Hendershott Jr. was under the command ofhis uncle, Michael Rayball. it has also been reported that MCSO is the only local law enforcement agency that hires non?sworn employees in this type of investigative position 40 A third civilian investigator named Joann Kennedy was hired who was not associated with the Hendershott family. Kennedy had extensive previous experience while assigned to the prestigious Rocky Mountain information Network and had impeccable credentials. She was- st talented forensic investigator within the Unit. considered the most experienced and mo his father was by his ?Brat? like behavior However, endershott Jr. who let everyone know who and who didn?t like being told what to do, often clashedwith the more experienced Kennedy who did not hesitate to stand up for herself. It was after some kind of disagreement between the two that Kennedy was abruptly transferred to the Special Investigations Division. I This unWarranted transfer personally devastated Kennedy, who was verypassionate about her reSponsibilities in the Computer Crimes Unit. Chiefllendershott then fabricated a cover story that Special investigations had requested her to be transferred to that division. 'In fact, her transfer was a complete surprise to all in the Special Investigations Division. However, they were very happy to receive such a talented asset to their operation. The result of the sudden transfer of Joanne Kennedy effectively reduced the manpower assigned to computer forensics by one third. However, the workload remained signi?cant and as a resolt, David Hendershott Jr. often worked a large amount of overtime. The type of cases the MACE unit investigates requires a great deal of computer forensic work. In fact, the Sheri?? 5 Office Detail of Overtime Worked for the Pay Period Ending Febmary 8, 2009 revealed that Hendershott Jr. was the top overtime earner for the entire Sheri??s Office; His overtime paid for that pay period totaled forty-six hours, which came to a grand total of two thousand, one hundred and twenty?one dollars and six cents. Adam l/ecchi: Once David Hendershott Jr. was hired as a civilian investigator, l-lendershott then hired another family friend named Ferrest Mark Anderson for another criminal investigator position, but he did not make probation and was terminated. Hendershott then hired Adam Vecchi, who was a high school friend of David Hendershott Jr. and is currently assigned to work alongside Hendershott Jr. in the Computer Crimes Division. Patricia Cardova: COrdova was hired and placed in the Personnel Division where she received several promotions within a relatively short period. She was eventually assigned as the commander ofthe Division, responsible for all of the hiring and management of Sheriff?s Of?ce personnel. in this capacity, she was reportedly overbearing, a poor manager, and had a negative impact on morale. Due to the fact she was ill suited as the Commander of Personnel, she was at eventually reassigned by Chief Sheppard to a newly created Employee Relations Section {a lesser position) and then assigned to yet another position before she eventually resigned from the Sheriff 5 Of?ce. While assigned as the commander of Personnel, the Sheriff's Of?ce had begun a major recruiting effort to staffthe new jail facilities that were under construction. .lail tax monies were budgeted to purchase recruiting materials. COrdova reportedly arranged for her boyfriend to receive a contract to create and apply recruiting advertisement graphics to Sheriff? 5 Of?ce vehicles as well as other promotional materials. it is believed that this contract was in excess of ten thousand dollars it is not known whether Cordova?s arrangement for such a contract to be provided to her boyhiend was violated the Arizona State Procurement Code. Lyzondm one: Ms. Ovist, before coming to the Sheriff?s Of?ce, had worked at the office ofa public school district as the administrative assistant to Lorraine Hendershott. She was hired as, and currently serves as Chief ,l?lendershott?s administrative assistant and supervisor of two other administrative assistants. lt was clear that she was hired pursuant to a special arrangement since a standard recruitment notice for the position was never opened up or posted for existing employees. Other MCSO more quali?ed and worthy potential applicants, such as your assistant Helen Gonzales, who had over twenty-?ve years experience working for this of?ce, were excluded from consideration. Ms- Ovist was eventually hired at a rate of over thirty- dollars ($30.00) per hours, a rate well beyond the pay range of the existing administrative assistants for command staff. Gag Cress: Gary Cress is a civilian employee responsible for the management of the Sheriff?s vehicle fleet. At the time Cress was employed by the Sheriff?s Of?ce, Mr. Cress" daughter was reportedly engaged to be married to David Hendershott Jr- The pair has since ended their relationship- Karl Gosclr: Karl Gosch iscurrently? assigned as the DOD Procurement Manager. lt is reported that Gosch is related to Yvonne Fedderson who, together with Sara Omeara, founded Child Help. The Federson?s Paradise Valley residence was the location of two of your major Fundraisers, one in l996 and another in 2004. Gosch was initially hired on September 23, 2003 as an administrative assistant. It was reported, however, that Gosch made it known that he wanted more money but did not want to apply for a detention of?cer or deputy position. 42 Chief Hendershott then directed Personnel to hire Gosch for a position in the warehouse that was to pay him over twenty/?two dollars ($22.00) per hour. Problems arose along the way, which prevented his promotion to such a high paying job. The ?rst problem was that Gosch lacked the quali?cations and/or certification necessary for him to qualify for the position. The second problem was that personnel failed to realize that Gosch was still on his initial probation in his lesser paying administrative position, and was therefore, ineligible for the promotion. During this same recruitment period, George Graves, an exceptional employee with a long and impressive work history as the manager of the Sheriff?s Distribution Section, also applied for the position and actually received a letter informing him that he was the sole candidate on the Madcapa County Personnel certi?cation list; However, the position opening was suddenly closed for the second time without anyone being hired. Graves was very unhappy He suspected that someone in a that he was not promoted after being the only person on the list. deprived him high command position was holding the job for someone special, and had unfairly 5, who was making of this promotion. This would have been a signi?cant pay increase for Grave between ?fteen and eighteen dollars an hour at the time and was selected that year as the Sheriff's Civilian Employee of the Year. Ultimately, Hendershott ensured that recruitment for the position be opened up for a third time and Gosch was ?nally promoted into that position on July 20, 2004- Attempt to create a position within the Sheriff?s Office for Lisa Auhucbon In April of this year, Hendershott attempted to create a position within the Sherifl?s Office for Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon. When news of the attempt to hire Aubuchon became public, Hendershott was furious and confronted Karen Andrews, the administrative assistant for Executive Chief Loretta Barkell and pointedly accused her of having a leak in her boat, in essence accusing her of being responsible for the release of information. Andrews was so upset about the hostile encounter with Hendershott that he went home and cried about the incident to her husband. 'Chief Barkell was not happy with the rude and accusatory tone Hendershott took with her assistant and advised Hendershott, that in fact she (Barkell) had provided the information to County of?cials regarding the creation of a position for Aubuchon and that Karen Andrews had nothing to do with the release of information. 43 Chief Deputy David Hendershott: A career of Misconduet, Politics, and Unethical behavior. I feel it is my obligation for the good of this of?ce and it?s dedicated employees, the citizens of Matteona County, and to you, to bring, to your attention several allegations of misConduct: malfeasance, onprofessionalr and overall unethical behavior on the part of Chief Deputy David l-iendershon during the course of his career. I was transferred into the Community Services Division, later renamed the Enforcement Support Division. in the summer of 1994. This division was?under'the command ofDeputy Chief Hendershott. My transfer was at the request of the new lieutenant Rollie Seebert. He was transferred there to replace the ousted Lt. Roy Reyer, who had written a memorandum accusing Hendershott of various acts such as allowing citizens with criminal backgrounds to be accepted into the posse program. According to Jade! Roe, the Chief Deputy of the Office at that time, a decision had been made to transfer and discipline Hendershott over the matter, but soon after you met with Hendershott: to her surprise, Lieutenant Beyer and SergeantGary Godbehere were quickly transferred out ofthe division and Lieutenant Seebert and were sent as their replacements. In fact- I was present at the very posse commanders meeting- in front of everyone, you threw Lieutenant Reyer's memorandum on the ?oor in from of the commanders and announced to all of them that you didn?t care what some Lieutenant thought However, I did not have to wait long to witness ChiefHendershott engage in the same type of unethical behavior that Lieutenant Roy Reyer complained about. in one case. i met with him to discuss a former attorney who Was disbarred for committing fraud. When asked Hendershott why it was so important that person be allowed tojoin the posse he replied. ?you- don't want to know" and he was allowedto join the posse. I soon learned why when attended :3 l9% reelection campaign meeting at the residence of one of Hendershott?s in?laws and noticed the disbarred attorney was in attendance. ?34 Hendershott rallies Posse and sworn ?eputies for Symington Reheleetioo anhovncemeet under the rose Symington was going to sign a crime bill. MW in the fall of l994, l-lendershott summoned our division personnel and stated that we needed to setup a display of our Sheriffs Of?ce vehicles and uniformed personnel at the State Capitol because Governor Fife Symington was going to sign a crime bill. We rushed to get our vehicles, displays; and our personnel to the plaza adjacent the Capitol building. When we arrived, we soon found out that the event was actually a political campaign rally where Symington was announcing he was nmning for re?election. it was obvious that Hendershott used the crime bill signing as a rose used to get our Of?ce resources to this event. I was not alone about being intentionally misled. After the event= Hendershott had the audacity to call Robert Bailey, the Commander of the Sun City West Posse and chastise him for not showing up at the event and not supporting the Sheriff. In his letter of response written to Bender-short dated October 6, 1994, Bailey not only mentioned the enormous support his posse had provided to the Sherist Of?ce during that year, but said it would have been very dif?cult to put together a ?signing? mission due to their current commitments. In addition, he wrote to Hendershott the following: have trouble that you do not think that the event was political. ?What I read in the Republic, the following day certainly sounded political too me- i believe 1 made it clear that this posse does not tie itselfto any political event.? Hendershott uses Of?ce resources for his own ?nancial bene?t In addition to political activity, Hendershott has used his position as a Sheriff?s employee to bene?t himself ?nancially by inappropriately using Of?ce resources and the services of our volunteers. It is my opinion that Hendershott coordinated the following off~duty jobs, earlier in his career; due to the ?nancial pressure he was experiencing. I: was in this period that you created a Director position for Hendershott, which resulted in a considerable pay increase. Despite his promotion to Director, the additional income from coordinating posse related security jobs, and obtaining a second mortgage of approximately one hundred and twenty??ve thousand dollars (3 he eventually filed for personal bankruptcy. Far from being embarrassed by his second bankruptcy, he later told me himself that his bankruptcy attorney fees were the ?best five-thousand dollars I ever spent.? 45 Header-shod uses the Posse at Pine Ridge Apartments for security In l997, Hendershott requested that Brian Sands-and I meet him at the Pine Ridge Aparnnents, located at 43?! Avenue and Thomas Road in Phoenix. Upon arrival, Hendershott, Sands, and I went on a walking tour with the manager ofthc property. It was clear that Hendershott was considering some type of oil?duty job providing security at the property. However, while I SpOlte speaking privately with the manager, she informed me that the complex was considered so dangerous by the Phoenix Police Department that the had enacted a policy requiring that two patrol units respond there for calls for service. After the tour was completed, we discussed that our posse members would patrol the complex with a single deputy as a supervisor. I told Hendershott that was very concerned about a single deputy being in charge, and that my main concern was that this type of assignment for the posse, who are untrained and ill suited for what even Phoenix PD considered a hostile environment, we were placing them harms way. He replied thatwe could ask for another deputy at a later date, indicating that he wanted this detail to proceed without further delay. As Sands and I returned to our yehicle,l told Sands that believed that Hendershott was going to be paid somehow for this detail. As I learned later, Hendershott was paid seven hundred and. ?fty-dollars ($750) a month to coordinate thisjob. The posses were paid for their time as well. Additionally, Hendershott had the Enforcement Support Staff also provided community service events such as clean-up events that were not reimbursed by the management of the complex- For example, each year the Sheriff?s Of?ce conducts a weeklong summer program in Gila County called ?Camp Future Force? and approximately one hundred children are selected from various county schools as part of our DARE. program. However, due to Hendershott?s business relationship with the Pine Ridge Apartments, approximately thirty chi who resided at the Pine Ridge Property were selected to attend camp displacing children who were entitled to attend from valley schools. Hendershott hired by the Phoenix Roadrunners as security director uses Of?ce equipment during the hockey season. The Phoenix Roadmnners hired Hendershon as the security director; during the'same time, he was coordinating the security for Pine Ridge, to '46 Veterans Memorial Coliseum. Robert Sigholz, (whose wife is Sara Omeara of Child Help, and is tied to Karl Gosch mentioned earlier) was employed by the Coliseum and apparently hired Hendershott. During the same time, Hendershoo hired Sigholz?s granddaughter named Whitney Sigholz as an employee of the Enforcement Support Division. The inexperienced young employee was paid at a higher rate than the other civilian employees causing serious morale issues within the division- The Coliseum security job also used posse personnel whose services were paid to their posse Organization. The facility did not provide radios for our personnel; therefore, Hendershott made portable radios from the Sheriff's Of?ce available and they were assigned to the facility during the hockey season. Hendershort was paid approximately fifteen hundred ($1,500) dollars a month for this off?duty job- Although the season began with several deputies, four Arizona State Liquor Control of?cers, and Six Phoenix Police Officers for traf?c control, due to budget problems, it wasn?t long before the only security personnel assigned to the venue were posse members, supervised by myself, Sands, and Hendershott. Posse Baseball Team; Hendersbott?s family, his friends, and their trip to Alaska Another serious abuse of the posse program to personally bene?t Hendershott was the Posse Baseball team. This team consisted of both of Hendershott?s sons and their friends. This team was posse by name only, and a great deal of Of?ce and volunteer resources were expended to bene?t this group- In addition to using Sheriff?s distribution trucks and supplies to support a tournament in California, the entire Enforcement Support Division was ordered by Hendershott to raise money for the team?s travel to a tournament in Alaska. Hendershott informed my staff and me that the Posse Baseball Team would be attending a tournament in Alaska and we were to coordinate a golf tournament to raise approximately li?een thousand dollars ($15,000) to pay for their trip. Hendershott ?s ridiculous plan was a ?Gorilla Golf" tournament to he held in the middle of summer We were told to ?nd a golfclub to donate the use of their course and recruit sponsors to for the tournament. After Hendershott ft, we were all shaking our heads, and as we expected, we could not ?nd a course for free man}! sponsors for the golf tournament resulting- As a solution, and an act of last resort, I approached the Sheriff's Posse Foundation and asked if they would allow the posse to sell pink underwear and donate sixty/?percent of the 47 proceeds to the baseball club. The board agreed. even though they would not make any pro?t on ear sold, and overtime: ensured that nearly eighteen thousand dollars ($8,000) were the underw the players who benefited from this donation didwinually raised for thebaseball club. Of course, none of the sales. The members ofthe club did travel to Alaska for an entire week, along with Hendershott. his wife, two sons, and possibly their daughter. ?l'he Posse Baseball club also received several thousands of dollars from the Jeep Posse for their operations and later borrowed approximately seven~thou5and from? the Sheriff?s Posse Foundation that was never repaid. This lack of repayment became an issue in your 2000 reelection campaign and Hendershon later instructed me to contact the State Mine lnspector Doug Martin= who was a member ofthe Sheriffs Posse Foundation Board= and obtain a letter from him stating that the loan was forgiven and did not need to be repaid. Hendershott family bene?ts from the Pink Underwear sales Members of the Hendershott family also apparently directly benefited from the sale of the pink underwear by the posse. Hendershott told Rollie Seebert and me that his son had helped design the logo that was silk-screened on each pair ofpinlt boxers and that he was receiving a royalty from each sale. I do not know the amount of that royalty and to my knowledge; it was never paid out of posse sales proceeds. It may have been paid to Hendershott directly from the Leslee Scott Company Hendershott directed a Reserve Deputy underwear totaling approximately seventy-?ve thousand dollars ($75,000) from the l- Company. This purchase was not necessary and the Sheriff?s Posse Foundation Board Members rersy over and their representative Evan 'l?rornrner. lt shouldrbe noted that named Ed Arnold to make a major purchase ofpirtk eslee Scott upset that the order was made without their knowledge. During the controx were very responsibility to Arnold for placing such a large order. the purchase, Hendershott tried to assign Hendershott lies about his involvement in the sales of Pink Underwear Although Chief Hendershott coordinated the initial purchase and sale of the pink ked into Chief Hendershott?s of?ce - underwear back in l995, my involvement began when wal and a female posse member asked him what to do with a bag of cash proceeds from the sale of pink undenvear. l?lendershott told her to give the bag to me. I then told Hendershott that the the distribution and sales should be handled entirely by posse members and I didn?t vt'ant that as andcollection of revenue from the underwear sales. ater date and again told him that I did not wan! to be of the Posse he Posse Foundation 1 me: with Hendersho? on a reSponsible fer the sales. Further, I considered myself the ?de facto treasurer Foundation because I was making all of the cash deposits and was tracking i ?nances on my county computer. Hendershott countered that since I did not actually Sign the checks wn'?en on the Posse Foundation account, that I wasn?t the eeasurer, and again refused my requesl Io turn over Ihe responsibility ofthe pink underwear sales effort to total volunteer control. During {hi-S Time, Hendersho? was very closely involved in the coordination of {he pink underwear sales offer! and o?en made phone calls 30 me and other employees regarding such all the way from the Enforcement Supper: Division (on aradise Valley Mall. media related to {he sales ofpink another employee respond, immediately, Durango Street) and bring more underwear to the 'We routinely provided sales infonnaiion to Eh nanoes of the Sheri??s Posse Foundation, one day, on! of now where, underwear end the f? Hendersho? told me we no longer would provide such 1' i then ?led 3 Upon arrival, his desk and stated ?thanks for-sticking it up my ass?!? ll briefly tried :0 explain mySelf and 49 quickly left his o?ice. was very upset by Hendershott?s anger that was directed at me, and was furious that he actually expected me, a sworn law enforcement officer, to withhold information or lie during a sworn deposition to protect him. On March 17, 1998, Superior Court Judge Albrecht in a summary judgment ruled in favor of the Sheriff?s Posse Foundation and the Sheri H?s Of?ce. This ruling was probably in large measure to the sworn affidavit ?led by our attorneys that included a sworn statement by Hendershort stating that he did not directly participate in the sales of the underwear. However, when Hendershott was later deposed under oath, he ?nally admitted that he was involved in both the traHSportation and sales of the pink?underwear. Hendersho? directs a Sheriff?s employee to write a bogus letter of explanation regarding late charges to save him $400 a month on his mortgage payment. Sometime around 1999, Hendershott hired Derrick Deegan as a civilian employee and assigned him to the Enforcement Support Division to assist in service activities. His prior employment was with a major cellular phone company. While Deegan was still employed at Verizon, Hendershott had made contracts with Deegan for a couple of cellular phones for his children. According {o Deegan, Hendershott was consistently late paying the phone bills and he often had to track down Hendershott to collect money to pay the bills. During the same time, Hendershott was in the process of purchasing his current residence in Peoria. H'OWever, Hendershoti discovered that the late payments for the phone bills were reported to the credit bureaus. end?ershott contacted Deegan in a panic, telling him that his house payment would be four?hundred dollars ($400) a month more unless a letter was written to the credit bureaus stating that the late payments were not the fault of Hendershott, but some type a of error on the part of the cell phone company. Deegan, now a new ?rst line employee of the Office, had little choice but to comply with the direction given to hint by the Chief Deputy, and he wrote the letter loathe credit bureaus. lbis?rnpt to mislead the lender appears to be a a Violation Residential Mortgage Fraud: 3 Class Six Felony. . Smile You?re Under Arrest television program Producers from a company a?iliated with the FOX Network approached you and Hendershott about a producing a segment for a police series where the TV crew 50 would ?lm the actions being taken hy our law enforcement o?icers during a special warrant operation. ChiefBarkell was not invited initially to the meeting but was brought in at the last minute as money issues .were being discussed. She had always advised Hendershott that any time mooey was to be paid to staff, the operation should be on after duty hours and the company pays the officers participating in the program. In fact, the production company involved offered to pay the officers involved in the operation, but Hendershott irresponsibly stated that this was an operation that would normally be done and the salaries of the deputies and the office would cover their expense. When Overtime was discussed, Hendershott further stated that there would be no Overtime and officers would ?ex any overtime worked. lrlowevert at a time when jail facilities and patrol deputies were restricted to using overtime for emergencies only, there was no such restriction on the deputies assigned to the production crew for the show. In fact, the commanders overseeing the operation were so concerned about the potential negative media due to the huge overtimes costs associated with the filming, a decision was made to begin routine warrant attempts that were not associated with the program. Sources close to the operation and Chief Barkell estimate that over $300,000 was paid in overtime from the Sheriff? Office general fund account during ?lming. When Chief Barkell brought the situation to the attention of Hendershote Barkell was told not to worry about it as the show had completed their work and there was no the Sheriff?s Of?ce would get reimbursed frOrn the show?s producers. When news of this program came to the attention of the various media outlets, this office stonewalled releasing any specific expense information regarding the exorbitant cost of the operation and ultimately claimed such records did not exists, when clearly they could have been provided. County Records Request The County Manager and Deputy County Manager requested documents relating to the assignment of personnel within?the Sheriff?s Office as well as ?nancial records on all accounts as far back as 2005. This request was made in November 2009 via memo. Chief Barkel] was instructed by the Hendershott to ignore thercquests and not respond to the memo. The County 51 continued making the request without receiving any response until March 2030. In March 2010, the County Board of Supervisors served a subpoena on the Sheriff to produce the documents. Upon receipt of the subpoena Barkell irmnediately had ?nance sta?begin thepulMtg and copying of all procurement, accounts payable and receivable accounts. This required the leasing of two additional copy machines and overtime by sta?". The response to the subpoena was due within 7 days. All copies were made, redacted and ready to be delivered the Thursday afternoon before the Friday due date. During production of docmnents= you and Header-shod met with attorneys who advised turning over the documents. Barkell advised you to turn over the documents as they were all public record and had been provided in small amounts to media requests. ignoring everyone?s advise, Hendershott decided late Thursday afternoon not to release the documents and instructed Barkell and other staff not to release or discuss the issue with anyone. The attorneys for you wrote a letter stating that the request was onerous and could not be completed in the time provided by county. The County responded by subpoenaing the you and his Chief Financial Of?cer, Loretta Barkell as being in contempt of the original subpoena and ordered both of you to appear at a hearing on May 10. you did not appear, you would be arrested or contempt. Upon receipt of the second subpoena, Loretta Barkell was provided a letter from Ogletree regarding joint representation ofyou, Chief Deputy and Barkell. Barkell could be represented by this law ?rm so long as her views on the entire matter were in full agreement with you and Hendershott otherwise she would need to seek counsel elsewhere. Ms. Barkell decided to obtain independent counsel and the County agreed to provide counsel requested. Ogletree prepared Court actions and hearings were heard by a judge in Pima County- The judge ?rst determined that the contempt hearing could not proceed as the County did. not have procedures in place to conduct such a hearing. The release of records was delayed white the judge reviewed legal submissions from both sides. However, the County still proceeded with a hearing to discuss not only. the Sheriff" 5 O??ice non?compliance with the subpoenas but to review the Sheri??s budget and impose sanctions against the Sheriff?s Of?ce budget accounts- The judge ?nally ruled in July 2010 that the Sheri??s Of?ce argument against the Board was not substantiated and ordered the release of the records 52 Sheriff. again, this is a case where sound legal advice was not followed and as a result, the Sheriff's Of?ce wasted additional unnecessary legal fees and gave the public the impression that we had something to hide. I was recently informedthat you were very surprised to learn that David Hendershott had actually made the decision not to release these records, not legal counsel In fact, Attorney Eric Dowel} told Lisa Allen that headvised this other: to release the records, as there was no legal basis not too. However, according to Allen, Hendershort pointedly told Dowell that he is his (l-lendershott?s) attorney and will do what Hendershott tellshirn. What is the true reason your Chieir Deputy resists releasing our ?nancial records? Is it to. conceal potentially embarrassing expenditures similar to the credit card charges of over ?ve thousand dollars to provide a paid vacation for of?cials of the Honduran lt is reckless decisions like these that have cost this of?ce and the public hundreds ofthousands of dollars in unnecessary legal expenses and continually give the media and public the idea that we have something to hide. David Hendershott?s propensity to disregard sound legal advice provided by attorneys representing this of?ce has been to the detriment of this organization- Hendershott recently sent a letter to the law firm of lones?Sltelton dismissing them from representing this of?ce any further. Although it has been reported that Hendershott told you that the ?rm would still be representing this of?ce, it appears that he lied to you became Jones personally stated to Jack that the letter sent to him by Hendershott stated that MCSO would never use them again for any matter; This reckless decision is considered very detrimental to this organization because the ?rm had been very successful in representing our interests in a variety of cases. It is unknown as to why Hendershott unilaterally ended the contract. But I do know that Deputy Chief lack spoke to you about the matter and that Hendershott chewed him out for bringing the matter to your attention. As you will read, David Hendershott has in fact engaged in a history of misconduct that is clearly unacceptable in a professional law enforcement organization. .53 Hendershott?s laclt of Professiooalism and Ethics Division, Hendershott very During my many years assigned to the Enforcement Support often displayed a serions lack of professionalism and ethics in the presence of our employees. to the winter of 996, MCSO conducted Operation Butt~0ut involvirig the use of pressure on me, juveniles to purchase cigarettes. Hendershott put tremendous and unreasonabl upset and my staff, to continue to inerease the number of citations issued and he became very with our lack of juvenile volunteers. On February 22, I997, the final operation for Operation Bon~0ot was planned and a press conference and kick?off was held at the Enforcement Support Division building. Because of Hendershott?s pressure to have high nmnbers of volunteers for the media, we had far too many posse members than we could possibly use and had to keep them in two separate areas of the building- ln preparation for the press event that Attorney General Grant Woods attended, a large signboard was made to show the media all of the operation?s statistics for the operation. ln from of two o?ice employees, Hendershott changed the number of posse members participating in the event from one hundred and sixty?seven (167) to Sixrhundred and sixty-seven by changing a number with a marker. Sgt. Lee Lugistbuhl witnessed this falsi?cation of a public record and brought it to my attention, stating that Hendershott wanted the Sheriff to believe the number of I posse members participating in the Operation was larger. These statistics were intended to inform the media and the public of the committed resources to our law enforcement operations. believe the falsi?cation of those statistics constitutes a violation of ARS 132407, Tampering with a Public Record, a Class Six Felony. Hendersho? lies (tithe media regarding live ordinance and places public in jeopardy during the Saville arrest. There is no question that the arrest oflames Saville (for attempting to assassinate you by? using a bomb) was ?high profile.? The Saville arrest occurred at a local hotel and the media was present interviewing Chief Hendershott- During the course of the interview, Hendershott was lo and hotel asked about whether bringing live explosives into the hotel created a risk to the pobl guests- Chief Hendershott implied that no risk or danger existed betause that portion of the hotel had been evacuated. According Executive Chief Brian Sands who was at the scene, this 54 se and he couldn?t beiieve that he made it. There had been no statement by Heedershott was fal it should be noted that Hendershott directly evacuation regarding any area of the hotel. le for live explosives. being supervisedshe Seville investigation and was therefore responsib brought into a public area. It should be noted that this conviction was overturned and the Seville isvestigation that Hendershon persooally supervised resulted in thc'Courity paying a settlement of i .3 million dollars. Hendershott lies to you about the arrests of Phoenix New Times executives Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin on October 37, 2007. On October 17, 2007, Phoenix New Times executives Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin to our request of the Phoenix New violated a court order not to make public a subpoena relate Times to provide subscriber information. After the pair were arrested and booked into. jail, this Of?ce received a ?restorm of criticism and negative publicity. As a resale County Attorney ic statement that he did not agree with or authorize the direction the Andrew Thomas made a publ case had taken against the New Times and quickly dismissed the charges- ?er the arrests had taken place, David Hendershot?t-rnet with you in your However= a of?ce and you asked Hendershott who had ordered the arrests. Hendershott lied to you by stating that Dennis Wilenchik later, after Hendershott had left your of?ce, Wilenchik himse ave that order. However, aboutthirty minutes if met with you in your of?ce and directly asked you who had ordered the arrests. As we now know, Hendershott actually mad davitunder oath. By stating that he ?made the decision? and ?In or consult with Maricopa the decision to make the arrests and ?nally admitted so in a signed a?i hing this decision and giving these directions (Hendershot't) did it reac ?nor did he consult with any member ofthe of?ce of COunty Attorney Andrew Thomas," Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas including Attorney Dennis Wilenchik.? Hendershott fails to complete required Arizona Police O?ker Standards and Training (AZPOST) for a ten-year period. Although David Hendershott is a civilian Chief Deputy, he has maintained retained his Reserve Deputy status with the Ma?copa County Sheriff?s Of?ce in violation of AZPOST 55 regulations due to his faiiure to complete annual mandatory AZPOST required training; These regulations also call for a person to be decerti?ed if the required training has not been completed {or a period ofthree years. As of March l5, 2010, Hendershotthas failed tocornplete his required training for a period of approximately ten years- As a result, the Sheriff?s training staid? has been tasked to develop curriculum for a catch up training module to he held at the Sheriff?s Range in which Hendershott will be the only student. It should be noted that the Sheri?? Training Division stat? in 2009 had to coordinate a similar curriculum for Joel Fox who had not completed his required AZPOST training {Or a period of about three years, which should have resulted in his AZPOST certi?cation being suspended. David Hendershott attempts to retahiate against Munnetl for cooperating with FBI On February 25, 2010 at about l045 hours, i met with Lisa Allen and Loretta Barkell in. Barkell?s of?ce. At this time AJlen advised me that on February 16, 20l 0, David l-lendershott had come into her office, closed the door, sat close to her, and said that he had received a call stating that was a Bl source and that I was trying to get the Sheri?. He warned her that I might be wired and to watch what'she said around me- He warned her not {0 discuss the matter with anyone and concluded the conversation with his typical ?this conversation never happened.? Allen added that Hendershott had the same conversation with Chief of Custody Jerry Sheridan who Hendershott kn0ws is a very close friend of mine. Allen asked me at the time not to discuss the matter with anyone to avoid any trouble with Hendershott- Although Allen was told by Hendershott not to discuss this matter with anyone, she was extremely nervous and upset and contacted Chief Barkell for guidance. Barkell did advise me during this meeting that no one could retaliate against me due to merit system and whistleblower rules- On the morning oil?s/larch 8, 2010, I met with Lorena Barkell in her of?ce. She advised me that on Friday, February 26th, 20l0, she was summoned to meet with Chief Hendershott and Deputy Chief Ray Churay. Hendershott advised Barkell and Churay that he had received a phone call stating that was coriperating with the FBI. He said that he needed everyone to be careful while he ?gured'out to do with Frank. When Hendershott proposed removing me as Chief of Patrol under?Chief Brian Sands and transferring me to report to Churay, Churay spoke ?rst stating that it was not a good idea and 56 that by taking action against me, it could be considered retaliation under the whistle blower laws and that I had certain protections. Barkell then stated that she understood the law the same and advised l-lendershott not to transfer me. Asaresult ofthis meeting and the refusal of Churay and Barkell to cooperate the proposed retaliatory transfer did not take place. Hendershott took their advice and said he would consult with counsel. On the morning ofMarch lot?, 2010: i stopped by Loretta Barkell?s of?ce and her assistant Karen Andrews accompanied her. Barkell was visibly upset and on the verge of tears asking me whom I had spoke with regarding the meeting she had with" Churay and HendershOtt. was at a loss as to how Hendershott knew that Barkell had advisedmc of Hendershott?s ill? advised attempt to retaliate against are. Barkell stated that on Monday, March 153?, 2010, Hendershott angrily came to her of?ce and summoned her to meet with you in your of?ce and brought along Chief Jack Macinryre as a witness. As you know, Hendershott angrily admonished her in front of you for talking to me about that meeting, because I could have interpreted that meeting as a ?retaliation? attempt, which it clearly was. Barkei] tried to explain that her responsibilities as the Executive Chief outer Personnel obligated her to advise me of Hendershott?s actions. However, Hendershott would have none of it and when Jack Macintyre attempted to speak he was silenced by Hendershott who told him he didrft want any legal advice. Hendershott was livid, frothing at the month, and spitting as be dressed Barkell (low. Barkel'l stated that in her professional capacity she advised an employee (Munnell) of his rights in a grievance situation and he did not need to worry about retaliation. Hendershott stormed on and on about how his counsel told him he needed to be on record talking will? her. Barkell said that he didn?t see why Hendershott was. so upset as any employee is entitled to know their rights and she believed she was doing her job as the Human Resources Executive Chief. However, Hendershott then ordered her to write a memorandum to you explaining what had occurred during her conversation with me. She then provided a memorandum to you and you told her not to worry about the matter. What should be very troubling to you is the fact that Hendershott met with Chief Barkell and Chief Ray Chnray on Febnrary 26m, 2010 and attempted to retaliate against me for cooperating with the FBI, but was rebuffed. However, that very same day, Attorney Tom Crow I who was retained to represent MCSO in matters related to the Orr-going Federal Grandluries, 57 made a call to the US. Attorney?s Of?ce proclaiming that no MCSO employee, and Specifically mentioned Frank Marine?, would be retaliated against for cooperating with the FBI. it appears that Hendershott madea panicked call to Mr. Crow after his aborted attempt at retaliation and directed him to call the US. Attorney to cover his tracks. As any reasonable person can imagine, the unethical actions of David Hendershott have created a very hosule work environment for me. I have previously advised my immediate supervisor Chief Brian Sands and Chief Loretta Barkell of the hostile work environment created by Hendershott, his improper actions directed at me, and that I try to avoid any situations where i may come in contact with him. Hostile Treatment of Executive Staff and Executive Chief Loretta Barkell After the 2008 election, the Sheriff delegated all operational responsibility and power to the Chief Deputy. Even though there were deputy chiefs and executive chiefs tasked with the Day?to?day operations of the office, the Chief Deputy imposed that all decisions, actions, etc required his approval and signature. The only exception was the administrative ?inctions of budget, ?nance and human resources. Those areas continued their day?to?day operations without interference by the Chief Deputy. This was allowed as you had insisted those areas report separately to yon and keep you fully informed of ?nancial and personnel matters. This did not keep the Hendershott from interfering with all budgeting and ?nance decisions as well as hiring decisions. In spite of this constant badgerng and interference, the staff continued to perform their functions. it was common for the Hendershott to communicate his suspicions that someone was a leak to the County budget office and how he wanted Barkell to find out where the leak was. Barkell told the Hendershott that she was the leak as the information requested by the County was not unreasonable and within their purview to request. - A tenuous relationship between Chief Deputy Hendershott and Executive Chief of Business Operations Loretta Barkell existed. Barkell was approached and questioned by the FBI and the US. Attorney beginning September 2009. She also received a subpoena to appear before the federal grand jury and appeared before the federal grand jury for three hours in January 2010. Hendershott was aware that this individualthad been duestioned about him and the office situation in general. 58 The tenuous relationship quickly deteriorated further when Barkell requested her own counsel when the County subpoenas were issued. Barkell, as well as other chiefs, were --subjected-to a ?no talking rule? during your Sheriff?s sta?? meetings. If wewanted to-discuss any of?ce issue at Sheriffs staffmeetings, all outlining exactly what required discussion and only after his approval were the chiefs allowed bring issues to the you in this were required to prepare a memo to Hendershott to bring up the item to you. Only the Hendershott was allowed to Of?ce. Al of communications with County, rules, Hendershott would place the chief under internal investigation or directly reprimand the chiefs were told not to go directly to the you. Restrictions were imposed on any type media and between staff. If stallr ignored any ofthe special 7 chief for whatever small in?action took place. Every individual having direct contact with the Hendershott feared the worst and knew he would ?nd a way to punish you professionally, publicly or politically. Hendershott constantly badgered the Executive Chief of Business Operations on every: memO, policy and ?nancial action that was taken. Hendershott dictated what County meetings the Barkell could or could not attend, dictated who or who not to talk to at the County and also within the Of?ce. She was instructed not to Communicate to County or sta?C via email. She was requested to find a spy at the County for the Sheri??s O?ice. Barkell witnessed the temper of the Hendershott when he spoke to attorneys, other chiefs and P10 sta??. Basically ifyou aduised Hendershott in any way other than what he wanted, he was furious. If you did not tell ng words and him exactly what he wanted to hear, you were subjected to a triad of damni threats- After months of abuse, Barkell started experiencing physical problems. The Executive the Mayo Clinic. Tests were run and the only thing wrong with her was her blood Chief went to There was no physical reason why she was experiencing pressure and getting it under control. all the various and aliments. All the problems, including the blood pressure issue, resulted from severe stress and Constant fear of reprisal experienced on the job. On June 24, a eventually returned to work last week- doctor placed Barkell. on FMLA and situation, I know that Deputy Chief Macintyre, Sheriff, in addition to my personal 7 Executive Chief Loretta Barkell, and Communications Director Lisa Allen have all recently approached you David Hendershott?s abusive and improper conduct towards them and 59 asked for you to personally intervene, but to no avail. it is very obvious that Hendershott has severely damaged my relationship with you as well as other command staff on the nineteenth floor. it is aniabsolute shame that the loyal command?stall" that work hard to do the right thing, to try and protect you and our valued employees, are now the ones wearing the black hats in this organization. Lisa Allen recently approached a Deputy Chief and challenged the all the Deputy Chiefs to put together a petition of?no confidence? to present to you to remove Hendershott as your Chief Deputy due to the ruinous direction he is taking your organization. Allen has also recently told you that you are sacrificing the entire organization for the sake of one person. . .Hendershott. You and I both know that some of your closest advisors have been very critical of Heudershort and the ruinous direction he is taking this organization. You need to know that good command officers have left this organization due to the actions of David Hendershott, and others are actively looking for career opportunities elsewhere. Your Chief Deputy does noi have the support of the majority of your conunand staff and are looking to you to hold him accountable for his misconduct and abusive management style. Sheriff, as you well know, every law enfomement organization must be vigilant regarding the conduct of its employees in order to merit public trust. This public trust includes high standards regarding ethical behavior, law?abiding activities, truthfulness, and openness regarding employee misizonduct. For more than a decade, David Hendershott has conducted his professional and personal activities in a manner bringing controversy, discredit, and extreme embarrassment to this Of?ce. Throughout his infamous career with the Maricopa County Sheriff?s Office he has earned a reputation in this Of?ce for willful misconduct, coercion, nusmanagement, and inappropriate behavior. His performance has led to poor employee morale, negative publicity, and costly litigation that is now being charged our own budget and may result in our employee?s being forced to take additional furlough days. I strongly disagree that our employees should be responsible for ?nancing frivolous, counterproductive, and unnecessary lawsuits against the Marieopa County Board of Supervisors. More importantly, David Hendershort?s reckless actions, lack of fairness, and serious lack of ethics has had a serious negative impact on many Sheriffs employees, both emotionally and ?nancially. 60 Chief Hendershott?s style of management depends on large measure upon intimidation and the pervasive fear of retaliation. The oppressive environment that Hendershott has cultivated has caused most Sheri??s employees to reliant from bringing complaints to you about his misconduct and mismanagement. For far too long, Hendershott has maintained cozy and questionable relationships with vendors with County contracts and your political supporters. He reportedly hides his daywto?day activities by requiring his personal assiStant Lyzandra Ovist to keep some events on his daily can be discarded at the end of the day leavingfno of?cial calendar on Post-1t Notes, so they as told the Public record of his activities or the identities of the persons he has met with. He lnlorrnation Of?cers that his calendar as the Chief Deputy is private and not a public record. In addition, he uses a personally corned notebook com conduct of?ce business. This is hardly appropriate for any pub puter and a personal e?rnail account to lie servant, especially the Chielr Deputy of a law enforcement agency. i believe that your loyalty and commitment must be to your dedic not to a person who has clearly demonstrated aetion ated and long suffering employees and the citizens of Marioopa County, his lack of ethics and honesty. For far too long, David Hendershott has run this organi utilizing sheer intimidation and promulgating fear of retribution for not being blindly loyal to him and his decisions. This overwhelming fear has?kept many command staff members and their subordinates from bringing complaints about Hendershott?s misconduct and mismanagement to your attention. Therefore, I am requesting that you immediately place these employees, including Chief Deputy David l-lendershott on administrative leave and request the Arizona Department of Public Safety initiate the appropriate investigation of the allegations of misconduct outlined in this memorandum to determine any violations of Maricopa County Sheri??s Office Policy and I Procedures and/or Arizona Revised Criminal Statutes. Should you initiate such an investigation, will provide the investigatms with the additional infOrmation and investigative leads necessary to conduct a thorough investigation of all allegations made against these employees. vestigations related to the SCA Fund, it hasbeen addition, as result of the continuing in nchik and Grant Woods have brought to my attention that very prominent attorneys Dennis Wile been providing legal counsel to Hendershott, Black, Fox, and several otheremployee and ices from Advisory Posse donors- It is my belief that any Sheriff?s employee utilizing legal serv these two very capable and prominent attorneys shonld be personally reSponsible for the payment of any and all legal fees related to the SCA matter. Farther, due to obvious con?ict of interest concerns, there should be an investigation into Hendershott, Black, and Fox?s ties with any law ?rm that has a contract to represent the interests of Maricopa County or is retained by any of your political supporters. Unfortunately? have had to retain my own personal legal representation (at my own expense) due to Hendershott?s vindictive attempt at retribution and anticipatiOn of a future attempt as well. Sheriff, 1 have been a loyal and dedicated employee of this great "organization for nearly this Of?ce and your command thirty years. have always been very proud to be a member of this great organization, Staff, and have always given my best efforts to serve you well. i conside its many employees as family; in fact, both of my. children proudly wear the Sheriff?s Of?ce uniform. I However, my dedication and'loyalty to you and this organization is no a Chic}r Deputy who consistently places his own interests above those of our employees and the longer afforded to public. His reckless, morally bankrupt, and incompetent decision-making has greatly damaged this great organization and your dedicated employees. Now is the time to return to value driven leadership, rather than leadership by fear, intimidation, and politics. We need a Chief Deputy who performs his duties in an impartial manner, {Tee from bias caused by his own ?nancial interests or the ?nancial interests of persons or businesses who support you. We need a Chief Deputy who will not make a habit of coercing his subordinates to take the blame for actions that he clearly devised or caused others to'perforrn, always attempting to extricate himself from blame, or accountability of any kind because of his poor decision? making- in my opinion: David Hendershott has systematically corrupted this O??ice for his own good, not for the best interests ofyou, our employees, or the public. He has also betrayed" your trust by willfully ?ltering, controlling, or provided false information to you regarding his activities as the Chief Deputy. Despite my full knowledge of Hendershott?s vindictive reputation, I disregarded his verbal directive that not cooperate with the Arizona State Attorney General?s Criminal investigation. believethat was my obligation as a law enforcement officer to fully c00perate with the Arizona State Attorney General?s criminal investigation into the SCA Fund. As a result, 62 before Hendershott will learn via discovery all I do know that it will be only a matter of tirn statements and evidence I have provided that may be used should the Attorney General?s . ongoing criminal investigation result in indictments. Arizona State Attorney General?s Of?ce and my As a result of my cooperation with the o?icial brnit this memorandum containing numerous allegations of serious yself from being subjected to Hendersbott?s retribution should he decision to so misconduct, I cannot protect In Chief Deputy with the authority to wield management power against deprive you of the opportunity to retain his position as a you; me. Nevertheless, if I continued to remain silent, wool Sheriff?s O?ice. I believe that would constitute a correct the serious matters that exist within the ll not allow that to worse act than disloyalty, as 1 would be indifferent to all of these matters. 1 wi I do, it will enable the likes of Dave Hendersbott to continue his self?serving happen; because i destruction of your organization. an absolute obligation to bring these allegations of our attention. On behalf of the many pa County, I believe that you have As I have previously stated, I have Criminal activity: misconduct, and mismanagement to dedicated employees of this Of?ce and the citizens ofMarico an obligation to take the only right and appropriate course of action. That action is to ive leave, pending immediately remove these employees from duty and place them on adminith ons and me of the Arizona State Attorney General?s and Federal Bureau of lnvestigati allow an outside agency to initiate the long overdue adntinistmtive investigation into these lack: and lful misconduct of Chief Deputy Dave Hendershott, Director Larry the outco allegations of wil Captain Joel Fox. Sincerely, Frank D. Munnell Deputy Chief Patrol Bureau Commander 63