King County Ombudsman’s Office FINDINGS Whistleblower Case # 2016-01504 Complainant: Tiffany Atwood Respondent: John Urquhart, King County Sheriff March 16, 2017 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Former King County Sheriff’s Office employee Tiffany Atwood alleged that Sheriff John Urquhart falsely certified that his chief of staff, Chris Barringer, had met all the requirements necessary for Mr. Barringer to attend the state Criminal Justice Training Center (CJTC) as a police cadet in 2015. The allegation focused on whether Mr. Barringer had passed a required polygraph examination. The Ombudsman’s Office investigated the matter. As explained below, we find that the applicable laws and rules did not characterize polygraph results in pass/fail terms, that the polygraph examiner did not find that Mr. Barringer lied, and that Sheriff Urquhart truthfully certified to Mr. Barringer’s eligibility to attend the CJTC. We find that Sheriff Urquhart did not engage in “improper governmental action” pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Code. AUTHORITY The King County Ombudsman’s Office was created by the voters of King County in the County Home Rule Charter of 1968 and operates as an independent office within the Legislative Branch of King County government. The Office is authorized to investigate employee whistleblower complaints under KCC 3.42 and to investigate the administrative conduct of King County agencies and employees in response to complaints from the public, or on its own initiative, under KCC 2.52.1 The Office promotes public confidence in King County government by responding to issues in an impartial, efficient and timely manner. ALLEGATION Ms. Atwood alleges that the law and CJTC certification form require that prospective police officers “pass” a polygraph examination, but that Mr. Barringer “failed” his polygraph. Therefore, Ms. Atwood alleges, Sheriff Urquhart falsely certified under oath that Mr. Barringer had met the legal requirements for admission to the CJTC as a cadet and employment as a 1 The Ombudsman’s Office investigates alleged violations of the King County Employee Code of Ethics (KCC 3.04) and the Lobbyist Disclosure code (KCC 1.07). FINDINGS Whistleblower Case # 2016-01504 March 16, 2017 Page 2 of 4 sheriff’s deputy, constituting “improper governmental action” under the King County Whistleblower Protection Code.2 PROCEDURAL HISTORY On September 15, 2016, Atwood submitted her whistleblower complaint to the Ombudsman’s Office via fax, along with a whistleblower retaliation complaint currently pending separately (Ombudsman Case # 2016-1505). Due to an equipment malfunction, the Ombudsman’s Office did not receive Atwood’s fax until October 4. The Whistleblower Protection Code designates the Ombudsman as an appropriate investigating official for alleged improper governmental actions occurring within executive branch agencies except KCSO. The appropriate investigating official for whistleblower complaints arising from KCSO is the Internal Investigations Unit (IIU). KCC 3.42.020(A) and KCC 3.42.030(D)(3). Accordingly, the Ombudsman’s Office reviewed the complaint for jurisdictional sufficiency, then transmitted it to IIU on October 11, notifying Atwood on October 12. On November 8, KCSO requested that the Ombudsman’s Office investigate Atwood’s complaint instead of IIU, to ensure the appearance of an independent and impartial investigation due to the reporting relationship between IIU and Sheriff Urquhart. The Ombudsman’s Office accepted the case and commenced the investigation on November 10. As part of this investigation, the Ombudsman’s Office reviewed state laws and rules, and KCSO standard operating procedures, relevant to peace officer hiring, including regarding the polygraph process for law enforcement employment candidates. We reviewed materials submitted by Ms. Atwood with her complaint. We also interviewed Ms. Atwood and Virginia Gleason, who previously directed the KCSO Background Unit’s parent division. The Ombudsman’s Office transmitted a draft of these findings to Ms. Atwood on February 24, 2017, and offered her the opportunity to comment on them in writing by March 3, 2017. The Ombudsman’s Office did not receive written comments from Ms. Atwood. 2 In a separate case, Ms. Atwood alleged that KCSO terminated her in retaliation for reporting the above-stated allegations. The Ombudsman’s Office investigated Ms. Atwood’s retaliation allegations separately, in Case # 201601505, and found no retaliation. FINDINGS Whistleblower Case # 2016-01504 March 16, 2017 Page 3 of 4 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION CODE The Whistleblower Protection Code is an avenue for King County employees to report improper governmental action and retaliation. KCC 3.42.010 et seq. Relevant to this investigation, “improper governmental action” means an action by a county officer or employee that is undertaken in the performance of official duties, and: a. b. c. d. e. violates any state or federal law or rule or county ordinance or rule; [or] constitutes an abuse of authority; [or] is gross mismanagement; [or] creates a substantial and specific danger to the public health or safety; [or] results in a gross waste of public funds . . . . KCC 3.42.020(F)(1). KEY FACTS AND ANALYSIS The Ombudsman’s Office makes findings based on a preponderance of the evidence standard of proof. A preponderance means we are persuaded that the facts at issue are more likely true than not, based on the available evidence. 1. Tiffany Atwood was employed as a detective in the King County Sheriff’s Office (KCSO) Background Unit at the time she submitted this whistleblower complaint on September 15, 2016. 2. The law does not require a peace officer candidate to “pass” a polygraph, but rather requires that the hiring agency must use the results of a polygraph or similar assessment, along with a background investigation and psychological examination, in determining suitability for employment. RCW 43.101.095; WAC Chapter 139-07. The KCSO Background Unit Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) in effect at the time characterized polygraph results in “pass/fail” terms. According to the SOP, a “fail” meant that the polygrapher determined that an applicant had lied during the examination. 3. Mr. Barringer submitted to two polygraph examinations. The first was in November 2012 to be hired as Sheriff Urquhart’s civilian chief of staff, and was conducted by an examiner employed by the Seattle Police Department. The second was in August 2015 to enter the CJTC as a police cadet, and was conducted by an examiner who was a retired KCSO employee. Ms. Atwood does not allege that either examiner was not FINDINGS Whistleblower Case # 2016-01504 March 16, 2017 Page 4 of 4 qualified to conduct polygraphs for law enforcement, and we are aware of no evidence suggesting that they were not. 4. According to the 2012 polygraph examiner’s written report provided to our office by Ms. Atwood, the polygraph examiner did not determine that Mr. Barringer had lied during his polygraph. According to Virginia Gleason, then the manager of the KCSO Professional Standards Division, the 2012 polygraph examiner transmitted Mr. Barringer’s results by telephone to Ms. Gleason. She concluded that Mr. Barringer’s 2012 results were satisfactory and should be deemed a “pass”, without reservation. Ms. Gleason informed the Sheriff of her conclusion. 5. Ms. Atwood contends that Ms. Gleason’s and the Sheriff’s process for handling Mr. Barringer’s polygraph examinations deviated from KCSO’s ordinary practices. She said polygraphs would normally be handled in-house, and the assigned background detective would review the written polygraph results. Ms. Gleason indicated a different understanding. She said that the polygraph examiner would ordinarily share summary results orally and that background detectives would not usually review the written report. Ms. Gleason also explained that Mr. Barringer’s polygraphs were handled by outside polygraph examiners because it would have been awkward in a hierarchical organization like KCSO for detectives to know possibly intimate or embarrassing details about senior-ranking KCSO officials’ lives. There is no need to resolve the discrepancy between Ms. Atwood’s and Ms. Gleason’s recollections, however, as nothing in the law or KCSO rules prohibited Ms. Gleason or the Sheriff from handling the matter in the way that they did. 6. Mr. Barringer submitted to a second polygraph in August 2015, as an applicant to the CJTC. Ms. Atwood does not allege that Mr. Barringer failed that polygraph. The Sheriff’s Office and Sheriff Urquhart stated that he passed. The evidence we reviewed does not suggest anything to the contrary. FINDINGS Based on the foregoing, we find that Sheriff Urquhart truthfully certified that Chris Barringer met the requirements for employment as a peace officer and for attendance at the CJTC. We therefore find that Sheriff Urquhart did not commit improper governmental action pursuant to the Whistleblower Protection Code. CONCLUSION The Ombudsman’s Office appreciates all witnesses’ time and attention to this matter.