'eano" STATE OF WASHINGTON Amended vr HARUMNIHG Complaint in Case PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION 112 Henry Street NE, Suite 300, Olympia WA 98506 PO Box 40919, Olympia WA 98504-0919 Phone: 360.570.7300 Email: filing@perc.wa.gov Web: UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT Applicable Rules: Chapters 10-08, 391-08, and 391-45 WAC PARTIES Include information for all parties involved. COMPLAINANT Contact Address City, State, ZIP Telephone Email RESPONDENT Contact Address City, State, ZIP Telephone Email EMPLOYER Contact Address City, State, ZIP Telephone Email Puget Sound Police Managers Association Carl Cole P.O. Box 33679 Burien, WA 98166 253-405-4427 Ext. ail.com King County Sheriff Iohn Urquhart 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 206-296?3311 Ext. John.urq uhart@kingcounty.gov King County Sheriff lohn Urquhart 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 206-296-3311 Ext. john.urquhart@kingcountygov ALLEGED VIOLATION Indicate if the alleged violation is against: Employer Union Both* *Note: lfthe violation is against both the union and employer, two separate complaints must be filed with two statements of facts describing the alleged violation against each. STATEMENT OF FACTS and REMEDY REQUESTED Attach on separate sheets of paper in numbered paragraphs a brief statement of the facts regarding the alleged unfair labor practice(s). 0 Include times, dates, places, and participants of occurrences. - Indicate statutes allegedly violated. - State whether a related grievance has been filed. - Describe the remedies requested. - For more information refer to WAC 391-45?050. BARGAINING UNIT *Note: If the alleged violation relates to more than one bargaining unit, a separate complaint must be filed for each unit. Identify Bargaining Unit Captains Department or Division Sheriff's Department Collective Bargaining Agreement El The parties have never had a contract. A copy ofthe most current contract is attached. AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE FOR COMPLAINANT Print Name Address City, State, Zl James M. Cline 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle. WA 98101 Telephone 206-838-8770 Ext. Email I Signaturelalfg?c?d?g?r/ mm 0% Date 6/19/17 Form (3/2013) STATEMENT OF FACTS 1.1 The Puget Sound Police Managers Association (PSPMA) represents two bargaining units which include all Lieutenants, Captains, Majors with the King County Sheriff?s Of?ce. (KCSO). The Lieutenants and Captains are in one unit, and the Majors are in another bargaining unit. 1.2 Sheriff John Urquhart became the King County Sheriff in November 2012. Urquhart?s actions resulted in several lawsuits against King County, including King County Superior Court Cause No. 15?2-09687-7, a lawsuit by three former deputies who complained about Urquhart?s conduct and his retaliation against them for reporting the misconduct. Urquhart repeatedly intervened in internal investigations and used the Internal Investigations Unit (IIU) to retaliate against of?cers with whom he disagreed. In addition, Urquhart directed the IIU unit not to investigate rape allegations that had been presented against him. 1.3 In the years following Urquhart assuming of?ce, PSPMA leadership became aware of various allegations against Urquhart. PSPMA leadership was concerned that Urquhart?s issues were impairing the morale and function of the entire KCSO and complicating their work as KCSO managers. They also had a concern about the ability of KCSO to advance its public safety mission. As PSPMA leadership attempted to speak with Urquhart about these issues informally, Urquhart then began to retaliate against the PSPMA leadership and interfere in PSPMA affairs. Urquhart speci?cally targeted union leadership and probationary members for his campaign of retaliation, intimidation, and surveillance in a manner described below. Some of these actions occurred as early as 2014, and a campaign of retaliation accelerated more recently STATEMENT OF FACTS - 1 CLINE CASILLAS 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838-8770 - Fax: (206) 838?8775 over the course of 2016 and especially in the past few months. This Complaint presents Unfair Labor Practices for action by the Public Employment Relations Commission which have occurred during the past six months but describes the incidents back to 2014 as relevant background, especially as to Urquhart?s intent and a pattern and practice of retaliation. 1.4 Captain Carl Cole is PSPMA president and a member of its Executive Board. In December 2014 Urquhart began an investigation into a complaint about Cole?s conduct while off duty in Portland, Oregon. IIU had previously concluded that there was no basis for the off-duty conduct complaint against Cole. Nonetheless, Urquhart began another investigation of Cole shortly after Cole had given testimony in the King County Superior Court discrimination case involving Urquhart. 1.5 Captain Bryan Howard is an executive board member of the PSPMA. In late 2015 and early 2016, Urquhart contacted Howard directly about allegations of an improper Twitter posting that was apparently created through some hacking effort. Urquhart did not allow Howard union representation at this initial investigatory meeting. Urquhart also did not follow the IIU investigation policies or the CBA with regard to allegations against Howard. Despite evidence the post was a result of outside hacking, Urquhart personally directed a criminal investigation into PSPMA Board Member Howard?s activities. 1.6 Captain Scott Somers is a PSPMA Board Member. In April 2016, Urquhart directed that IIU conduct a ?major investigation? into allegations that PSPMA Board Member Scott Somers had not returned a phone call to a member of the KCSO Ombudsman?s Of?ce. A ?major investigation? is one that can lead to suspension or discharge. After evidence emerged the Somers had done nothing wrong, Urquhart ordered yet another investigation into the matter. STATEMENT OF FACTS - 2 CLINE CASILLAS 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838-8770 - Fax: (206) 838-8775 ?major investigation? to investigate an alleged unreturned phone call was perceived as retaliatory by the PSPMA. The perception was fueled by various instances in which it appeared that Urquhart would investigate various employees for minor events shortly following their making a complaint about his conduct. 1.8 In June 2016, Urquhart attempted to transfer PSPMA member Rodney Chinnick to manage the IIU section. Rodney Chinnick was a recently promoted Probationary Captain and member of the PSMPA prior to June 2016. Captain Chinnick had signi?cant ethical concerns with Urquhart and how he had interfered in the past IIU proceedings. These included what would be later reported as the Sheriffs attempts to manipulate complaints that had been lodged against Urquhart. Chinnick attempted to decline the assignment. Urquhart still insisted on the transfer. In response, Chinnick reluctantly requested a voluntary demotion to Sergeant rather than accept the transfer. Sherriff Urquhart accepted the voluntary demotion. 1.9 A few days later, after consulting with the PSPMA about his situation, Chinnick asked to rescind his voluntary demotion which had not yet taken place. He learned that there was language in the CBA that permitted him to have his request for a different assignment given due consideration and it appeared that Urquhart had not followed that CBA requirement. Urquhart refused to rescind the demotion even though it had not yet taken place. The PSPMA then ?led a grievance on behalf of Chinnick regarding both the transfer and refusal to rescind the voluntary demotion. That grievance is currently pending and awaiting arbitration. 1.10 In the summer of 2016, the PSMPA and KCSO engaged in contract negotiations. During the negotiations, the PSMPA of?cers heard rumors that Urquhart was considering implementing a Watch Commander system. This system would signi?cantly change the working STATEMENT OF FACTS - 3 CLINE CASILLAS 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838-8770 . Fax: (206) 838-8775 conditions of a number of PSPMA members. These changes include changes in working hours and duties. The PSPMA speci?cally asked the KCSO negotiators whether such a system was being considered. The KCSO speci?cally told the PSPMA that no such system was being considered for the duration of the next contract. Contract negotiations reached an impasse and were later certi?ed to mediation. 1.11 On January 27, 2017, after contract negotiations had reached an impasse, Sheriff Urquhart released a General Information Bulletin which announced that will be starting a Watch Commander system.? See Attachment 1 to this Complaint. This bulletin was directly released to the general membership of the PSPMA. By then Urquhart had not conveyed to the PSPMA his intention to adopt such a program and, in fact, had denied it. A Watch Commander program inherently involves a change in working hours for the members of PSPMA, although those details were not identi?ed in Urquhart?s Bulletin. 1.12 On February 21, 2017, the PSPMA sent a letter to Urquhart regarding what it felt were ethical problems Urquhart faced. See Attachment 2 to this Complaint. Those problems included rape accusations that were reported by the Seattle Times in December 2016. Urquhart denied both rape and consensual sex allegations involving a female employee that had been his subordinate at the time of some of the alleged conduct. The PSPMA continued to be concerned about the impact of Urquhart?s problems on KCSO morale. The PSPMA later learned that the former Chief of Police for the City of Bellevue had identi?ed the same problems with the way Sheriff Urqhart had conducted IIU investigations and the way Urqhart handled allegations into his own misconduct as the PSPMA had previously been concerned. See Attachment 3 to this Complaint. STATEMENT OF FACTS - 4 CLINE CASILLAS 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838-8770 - Fax: (206) 838-8775 1.13 Immediately after the letter went to Urquhart, Chris Barringer, Chief of Staff for Urquhart, interrogated Probationary Captain and PSPMA member Rick Bridges about the letter. Chief of Staff Barringer told PSPMA member Bridges that the letter was a ?declaration of war? between the PSPMA and Urquhart. 1.14 On March 1, 2017, PSPMA Board Member Scott Somers placed a call to King County Councilmember Kathy Lambert?s of?ce asking to discuss PSPMA matters with the Councilmember. Within minutes of receiving a call back from the Council Member?s staff, Somers received a phone call from Chief of Staff Barringer. Barringer angrily asked Somers ?Why are the Captains are calling the County Council,? or words to that effect. 1.15 By early 2017, the Chinnick grievance had worked its way through the grievance steps and the PSPMA had announced its intentions to arbitrate. 1.16 In March 2017, Urquhart told Rodney Chinnick?s new supervisor that Chinnick would be ?sergeant for a very long time,? or words to that effect. In April 2017, Chinnick had the highest score on the test to be promoted to Captain. In May 2017, Urquhart announced he was passing over Chinnick to promote someone to Captain who scored lower on the promotion exam. Urquhart?s statements and actions were inconsistent with statements he had made before Chinnick ?led his grievances. When the Association initially discussed this issue with Urquhart in 2016, he had relayed that Chinnick would be eligible to test and reapply for Captain and would be promoted if successful in testing. On May 30, 2016 personnel orders were distributed announcing Sergeant Marenco would be promoted to Captain, con?rming Urquhart?s statement he would be skipping Chinnick. STATEMENT OF FACTS - 5 CLINE CASILLAS 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838-8770 - Fax: (206) 838-8775 1.17 On April 5, 2017, Urquhart appeared on the ?Ron and Don? radio program. Urquhart attacked the union during his appearance. He claimed that some PSPMA members are part of the ?old guard? and did not want to held ?accountable.? He implied that the PSPMA had leaked information to the press. Urquhart also stated that current contract negotiations were the reason for the tension between the PSPMA and Urquhart?s of?ce. Urquhart knows or should know that all these allegations are false and were intended to disparage the PSPMA. 1.18 PSPMA members are all salaried exempt employees under wage and hour laws. As a result, they work ?exible hours. Article 19 of their CBA speci?cally grants PSPMA ?exibility to conduct union business during daytime hours. 1.19 On April 20, 2017, the PSPMA held one of its regularly scheduled meetings. The PSPMA has routinely held union meetings during the day without incident from 2008 until April 2017. 1.20 By April 2017, the union had learned that Urquhart?s Chief of Staff, Chris Barringer had failed his background and polygraph examinations. Cole had previously asked Urquhart whether the rumors regarding Barringer?s background check were true and Urquhart denied it. Some members of the PSPMA knew this was not true as apparently physical copies of failed results were circulating. 1.21 At the April 20 PSPMA meeting, one of the topics of conversation was Urquhart?s deliberate lie to PSPMA President Cole regarding whether or not Barringer had failed his background polygraph examination. Speci?cally, the rumors were that Barringer had failed to disclose past drug use on his background information and Barringer has not passed a polygraph question regarding being involved in bribery. STATEMENT OF FACTS - 6 CLINE CASILLAS 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838-8770 - Fax: (206) 838-8775 1.22 Urquhart told Cole when asked that Barringer had passed his polygraph ?with ?ying colors? or words to that effect. Sometime later, a summary of Barringer?s ?rst polygraph exam was widely disseminated within Urquhart?s of?ce. It con?rmed that Barringer had not passed the exam. PSPMA President Cole felt it was important to share this information with the union membership at the April 20 meeting. 1.23 On the day after the union meeting discussing Urquhart?s credibility, April 21, 2017, the PSPMA received a letter from Patti Cole-Tindal, Chief of Technical Services in Urquhart?s of?ce. See Attachment 4 to this Complaint. The letter stated the KCSO would issue an order directing PSPMA members not to attend the regular PSPMA meetings during ?core working hours.? Cole?Tindal?s letter claimed that KCSO Majors are not bargaining unit members and therefore not entitled to attend union meetings. Contrary to Cole-Tindall?s letter, in January 2017, the Majors in the KCSO had petitioned and joined the PSPMA. The day time union meetings were a long established practice. The County had always accommodated the ability of union members to attend these meetings. PSPMA members had long ?exed their exempt work hours around this meeting and their other KCSO duties. The Sheriff and senior command of?cials had on occasion attended the meetings. Tindall later partially retracted portions of her letter. See Attachment 5 to this Complaint. 1.24 By late April rumors were circulating that Urquhart would have an opponent in his 2017 re-election effort. On or about May 1, 2017, Chief of Staff Barringer tried to schedule a meeting with Major and PSPMA executive board member, Mitzi Johanknecht. Major ohanknecht made it clear she was busy that day and would need to see him some other time. A short time later, Barringer arrived uninvited at Major Johanknecht?s of?ce and closed the door. STATEMENT OF FACTS - 7 CLINE CASILLAS 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838?8770 - Fax: (206) 838-8775 Barringer attempted to interrogate Maj or ohnknecht about her intention to run for Sheriff. Major ohanknecht told him the conversation was inappropriate and refused to engage in conversation about campaign activities. When Chief of Staff Barringer asked why the Major would run against Urquhart, Major Johanknecht was on duty at the time in her county of?ce. Barringer?s questioning violated King County policies regarding election activity in the workplace. 1.25 The IIU management had long been assigned solely to members of the Captains bargaining unit. On or about May 1, 2017, Urquhart issued an order assigning work for Law Enforcement Oversight and IIU to a newly promoted Major, Noel Fryberger, transferring the work away from the Captains? bargaining unit. See Attachment 6 to this Complaint. Urquhart took this action unilaterally without consulting or bargaining with the PSPMA. Based on information and belief, the PSPMA believes that Urquhart moved this work to sow dissension between the Captains? bargaining unit and the Majors? bargaining unit. 1.26 On or about May 10, 2017, PSPMA Board members Mitzi ohanknecht and Scott Somers received Complaint Noti?cation from the KCSO that they were witnesses into an IIU investigation into Urquhart?s Chief of Staff Barringer?s conduct during the meeting with Johanknecht where Barringer inquired about Johanknecht?s election plans while Johanknecht was on duty and in her County of?ce-facility. Neither Johanknecht nor Somers had ?led a complaint with the KCSO regarding Barringer?s behavior. Based on information and belief, the KCSO investigation of this matter is an imprOper attempt to intimidate PSPMA of?cers. 1.27 On or about May 8, 2017, Noel Fryberger, whom Urquhart had recently promoted, contacted PSPMA Vice-President Marcus Williams. Williams and Fryberger discussed PSPMA STATEMENT OF FACTS - 8 CLIN CASILLAS 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838-8770 - Fax: (206) 838-8775 Board member Scott Somers being interrogated by Chris Barringer about the call Somers placed to King County Council Member Kathy Lambert on behalf of the PSPMA. 1.28 Fryberger said to Williams, ?Scott Somers better be fucking careful, his days are numbered.? Fryberger went on to tell Williams, ?You can tell all your little friends at the Captains? Union that if anyone goes all in for Mitzi [Johanknecht], John [Urquhart] will destroy them.? Williams asked ryberger to clarify what he meant. Fryberger responded that ?If anyone 77 puts all of their chips on the table for Mitzi, they?re done. Based on information and belief, Fryberger was acting at Urquhart?s direction in this May 8 meeting with Williams. Also based on information and belief, at Urquhart?s direction, Fryberger has regularly passed information from PSPMA meetings to Urquhart and his agents. 1.29 On or about May 10, 2017, PSPMA President Carl Cole received a Complaint Noti?cation informing him that IIU under Urquhart and Fryberger was investigating him for activities which took place at the April 20, 2017 PSPMA meeting. See Attachment 7 to this Complaint. Speci?cally, the complaint appeared to allege that President Cole had improperly shared background check information regarding Chief of Staff Barringer during a union meeting. 1.30 Under standard KCSO protocols, such allegations would be assigned to an outside agency without a con?ict of interest to investigate. But on May 24, 2017, the second in command at Urquhart?s of?ce, Chief Deputy Jim Pugel personally participated in the IIU interview of President Cole. 1.31 Prior to the interview, President Cole and PSPMA counsel warned Pugel that ordering President Cole to answer questions about what happened at the union meeting constituted an unfair labor practice. Despite the warning, Pugel declined the invitation to seek STATEMENT OF FACTS - 9 CLINE CASILLAS 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 83 8-8770 - Fax: (206) 838-8775 legal counsel or postpone the interview. Pugel proceeded to order President Cole to disclose his intent in sharing information with the PSPMA membership about Chief of Staff Barringer during the union meeting. The order was understood by the union and Cole to be one that he had to follow upon threat of termination of employment. Despite the apparent illegality of the order, President Cole complied. He told Chief Deputy Pugel that the information was related to Urquhart?s credibility with the PSPMA. This was because the information about Barringer directly contradicted what Urquhart had told President Cole about Barringer?s background check. 1.32 The net effect of Urquhart and his agents harassing, retaliating against, and interfering with PSPMA of?cers and members has been to interfere with the collective bargaining rights of the PSPMA. In addition, Rodney Chinnick has suffered damages as a result of being discriminated against for ?ling a grievance related to Urquhart?s actions. II. LEGAL CLAIMS 2.1 The County?s subjecting PSPMA members to surveillance during union meetings constitutes interference in violation of RCW 41 2.2 The County?s interrogation of PSPMA members about union meetings and activities, at times under threat of termination, constitutes interference in violation of RCW 2.3 Hours of work are a mandatory subject of bargaining. By unilaterally altering the ability of PSPMA bargaining unit members to ?ex their time to attend union meetings, the County unilaterally changed a working condition and refused to bargain in violation of RCW STATEMENT OF FACTS - 10 CLINE CASILLAS 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838-8770 - Fax: (206) 838-8775 unilaterally altering the ability of PSPMA bargaining unit members to ?ex their time to attend union meetings during daytime hours, the County interfered with the PSPMA and its members, in violation of RCW 41 .56. 140(4). 2.5 The County?s use of the IIU process to intimidate and interrogate PSPMA members is in reprisal for union activities protected by Chapter 41.56 and constitutes interference in violation of RCW 2.6 The County?s failure to promote Rodney Chinnick is in reprisal for union activities protected by Chapter 41.56, including the ?ling and processing of grievances, and constitutes interference in violation of RCW 41 .56. 140(1). 2.7 The County?s decision to unilaterally implement a watch commander system after speci?cally telling the PSPMA that it would not be implementing the system constitutes a failure to engage in collective bargaining in violation of RCW 41 2.8 The County?s decision to directly communicate a proposed watch commander system after speci?cally telling the PSPMA that it would not be implementing the system constitutes a failure to engage in collective bargaining in violation of RCW 41 2.9 The assignment and transfer of bargaining unit work is a mandatory subject of bargaining. By unilaterally removing the work from the assignment and transfer of IIU work from the Captain?s bargaining unit to the Major?s bargaining unit, the County refused to bargain in violation of RCW 41 STATEMENT OF FACTS - 11 CLINE CASILLAS 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838?8770 - Fax: (206) 838-8775 RELIEF REQUESTED For the foregoing Violations, the Association seeks the following: 3.1 Findings of fact and conclusions of law consistent with the foregoing; 3.2 An order requiring KCSO, King County, and Urquhart cease and desist from surveilling PSPMA members and meetings; 3.3 An order that the County cease and desist from discriminating and interfering with the collective bargaining rights of the Association and its members; 3.4 An order requiring that the County restore Rodney Chinnick to the rank of Captain and award him make-whole relief; 3.5 An order directing make whole relief including 12% interest; 3.6 An award requiring publication of the ?ndings, including a posting of notices, and publication in the Seattle Times and The Stranger, and a reading at the King County Council next regular meeting; 3.7 An order requiring that the Employer pay the Associations? attorney fees and related costs associated with this action; 3.8 Any other remedy deemed equitable and just. STATEMENT OF FACTS - 12 CLINE CASILLAS 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838-8770 - Fax: (206) 838-8775 CERTIFICATE OF FILING SERVICE WW I certify that on June x017, I caused to be ?led via electronic mail a true and correct copy of the foregoing UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICE COMPLAINT and this CERTIFICATE OF FILING SERVICE in the above-captioned matter with: PERC PO Box 40919 Olympia WA 98504-0919 I further certify that on this same date, I caused to be served via electronic mail true and accurate c0pies of the same above-referenced documents on the party below: John Urquhart, Sheriff King County Sheriff 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 ohn.urquhart@kingcounty.gov Respondent I hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the states of Washington that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this {11y of June, 2017, at Seattle, Washington. on CASILIAS Guthrie, Legal STATEMENT OF FACTS - l3 CASILLAS 520 Pike Street, Suite 1125 Seattle, WA 98101 Phone: (206) 838-8770 - Fax: (206) 838-8775 GIB, Subject: GIB 17-019 SHERIFF KlN(,j GENERAL INFORMATION BULLETIN GIB 17-01 9 Notices in this GIB: NOTICE 17-053: Captain?s Assessment NOTICE 17-053: ASSESSMENT A recent GIB announcement for the upcoming Captain?s test included ?base pay? calculations for that rank. Unfortunately those amounts are somewhat misleading because they did not incorporate longevity or educational incentive amounts. Of the current 22 captains working now, the top earner made $145,208 last year. The lowest amount was $128,192. I hope to increase the number of captains in 2017 by two, since we will be starting a Watch Commander system. That number will likely increase by two more within the next two years after that. Remember the closing date for applications is Monday, January 30th. John Urquhart Published January 27, 2017 ATTACHMENT2 Puget Sound 5' I 9 PG 301 Burien, WA 58156 February 21, 2017 Sheriff John Urquhart 516 3rd Ave Seattle. WA 98104 Dear Sheriff Urquhart: I am writing because my Association is deeply troubled by the ongoing allegations of misconduct against you. I cannot. in good conscience, remain silent while public trust and confidence in the King County Sheriffs Of?ce continues to erode with ea ch new. unanswered allegation. Since your election, the Sheriffs Of?ce has endeavored to become a more accountable and transparent agency: misconduct, where discovered. has been swiftly remedied. Members of the Sheriffs Of?ce routineiy endure difficult, thorough examinations of their actions for any and all allegations of misconduct. We are held accountabie to this very high standard because it is critical for this agency to retain its legitimacy in the eyes of the oornmunity we swore to serve. We do this because it is necessary to sustain public trust and confidence and because it is necessary to eliminate corruption. misconduct and abuse of authority. How can a Sheriff who insists ali members of his agency are held to these high standards forsake this responsibility for himself? How can citizens remain con?dent in a Sheriff?s Of?ce when its highest of?cer and most visible member abdicates any obligation to this standard of conduct? ~t'ou have stated. am accountable only to the voters of King County." I must respectfully disagree with this statement: yoor actions reflect directly on each member of this agency. Your conduct creates consequences for every member of this office and has the potential to make the job more difficult and potentially more dangerous. We share the same desire to have a professionai and accountable Sheriffs Of?ce of which we can all be proud- You have over 500 years of police and management experience available to help you in the membership of the PSPMA- [speak for my members I.yhen I say that we want to assist you in returning the focus of the Sheriff?s Of?ce to issues of public safety. i strongly encourage you to take steps to see these allegations thoroughly and transparently investigated by an independent authority. I am eager to help clear your name and wiltingly offer earnest advice and assistance to that end. i am available. at your convenience. to meet on this topic with the goal of working to restore public trust and confidence in the Office of King County Sheriff. Sincerely. Carl Cole President. PSPMA 1 ATTACHMENT3 The Honorable Mariane C. Spearman Date of Hearing: December 9, 20l6. 9:00 am. SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON FOR KING COUNTY AMY SHOBLOM, individually, DIANA NEFF. individually. and LOU CABALLERO. NO- 15-2-09637-7 SEA individuall DECLARATION OF D.P. VAN Plaintiffs, BLARICOM v. KING COUNTY. a political subdivision of Washington State Defendant. D. P. VAN BLARICOM. and hereby declares the following under penalty of perjury: 1. My name is D.P. Van Blaricom, and I have been retained as an expert by the Plaintiffs in this matter. Diana Neff, Amy Shoblom and Lou Caballero. have been asked to provide my opinions on issues related to liability and damages. Ex.) A true and correct copy of my CV is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. In brief, my quali?cations as an expert in this matter are as follows: I am a graduate of the University of Washington with a Bachelor of Arts degree. I have a Masters in Public Administration from Seattle University. I am a graduate of the National Academy and Law Enforcement Executive Development programs. I am a 29 year veteran of law enforcement. I was the Chief of Police for the City of Bellevue for 11 years. In my capacity as Chief of Police for the Bellevue Police Department I was instrumental in the hiring of women to serve as patrol of?cers. In my capacity as the Chief of Police was responsible for handling all personnel matters, including hiring and firing. disciplinary proceedings, reviewing EEO investigations, and reviewing internal affairs investigations. have extensive training, education and experience in the ?eld of police administration and police practices. I am the co-author ofthe Washington State Standards on Internal Discipline CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC DECLARATION OF D. P. VAN BLARICOM - I Tacoma, WA 98403 {253) 5?J3-5Illtl I?lmnt? - (253) 593-033? Fm: Law Enforcement Agencies. I regularly attend training offered to law enforcement Chiefs and officers to stay current and up to date on recent developments in all aspects of law enforcement. 4. To date, I have reviewed the following materials provided to me: the Third Amended Complaint, and attachments thereto; KCSO General Orders Manual provisions regarding the Internal Investigations Unit, EEO investigations, internal discipline procedures. and other relevant policies; deposition transcripts, and exhibits attached thereto, of Amy Shoblom, Lou Caballero, Diana Neff, Katie Larson, Sheriff Urquhart, Captain Jesse Anderson, Captain DJ Nesel, Sergeant Mike Mullinax. Chris Barringer, Anne Kirkpatrick, and Dan Pingrey. I have reviewed two declarations authored by DJ Nesel regarding the threats that he was subjected to by the Sheriff?s attorney, Mark Stockdale. I have reviewed two pages of notes authored by Captain Jesse Anderson documenting various conversations he had with Sheriff Urquhart during Anderson?s tenure as IIU Commander: Chris Barringer?s ?rst polygraph examination and the memo of Tiffany Atwood that summarizes the results of that polygraph; KC SO Backgrounding Unit Standard Operating procedures. and IIU Standard Operating Procedures; RCW 49.60.010-040; RCW 49.60.021; Dewey Bums arbitration testimony Urquhart arbitration testimony Jessie Anderson arbitration testimony Deposition of Diana Neff Deposition ofAmy Shoblom Deposition of Lou Caballero Deposition of Dewey Burns KCSO General Orders Manual, current edition Burns IIU investigation summary (author McSwain) 9/17/13 Memo from Urquhart to Nesel Inquiry Preliminary IIU Received 4/14/15 Inquiry 10/17/14 Memo from Pugel to Anderson 6/1/14 Memo from Anderson to Urquhart Supervisor Action Log SAL2014-0287 1: 3/2/15 Memo from Pugel to Anderson Requests for Admission to Defendant King County, and answers thereto McSwain follow up report 0549-601 Jutilla Burns Loudermill Memo Letter to Burns post Loudermill (indicating termination) Letter to Caballero post Loudermill (indicating termination) Letter to Shoblom post Loudermill (indicating termination) Defendant?s response to RFP 3 (two page document) WPI 33000, 33001, 33005, 33022, 33023, 3300101 5. I have reviewed the declarations of Diana Neff. Lou Caballero, Amy Shoblom, and Katie Larson, that I understand are to be attached to CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC DECLARATION OF D. P. VAN BLARICOM - 2 Tacoma, A 98403 (253) 593?5100 Phone (253) 59341330 Fax Plaintiffs? Response in Opposition to Defendant?s Motion for Summary Judgment. 6. have reviewed the tort claims ?led by Nefl? on 0/8/14. Shoblom on 10/ 1 WM. and Caballero on 8/6/15. indicating their respective intent to ?le suit. 7. My opinions are offered on a more probable than not basis. and to a reasonable degree of certainty in my stated ?elds of expertise: Police executive administration and operations, Police Administration and practices, and law enforcement generally. My opinions are based upon the aforementioned materials I have reviewed, as well as my knowledge, training, education and experience in the field of police executive administration and operations, police administration and practices and law enforcement generally. Loudermill Chief and Loudermill hearings: 8. As the Chief of Police for the City of Bellevue, was responsible for administering discipline, where appropriate, against members of the department who were found to be in violation of policies, procedures, or laws. Prior to imposing any discipline, 1 was required to conduct a Loudermill hearing. The purpose, in part, ofa Loudermill hearing is to give the accused employee due process. The Loudermill hearing is required so that the accused employee can present their side of the story. present any mitigating factors. or materials. As Loudermill chief, it is the standard of care of a reasonably prudent police executive to listen in an open, fair and impartial manner to the evidence presented by the accused employee, and to review any investigation ?le into the alleged acts of misconduct. 8a. [t is a violation of the standard of care for a reasonably prudent police executive: to make up his/her mind prior to the Loudermill hearing; to make public statements about a pending investigation into alleged acts of misconduct by an employee prior to imposing discipline; to involve himself/herself in the investigation into the alleged acts of misconduct; to solicit or encourage an individual to ?le a complaint against an employee; and to use the internal investigations process as a means to target or retaliate against an employee. 8b. It is highly improper, and a violation of the standard of care for a reasonably prudent police executive to engage in any ofthe foregoing acts because such actions: violate the accused employee?s right to due process; violate the employees right to a fair hearing; give rise to the appearance of, and the opportunity for, actual abuse/misuse of the internal investigations process by the police executive; subject the police executive to claims that he/she is using the internal investigations process to retaliate against accused employees. 8c. The Loudermill hearing is important. As the Loudermill chief, I could not go into the hearing with my mind made up about the outcome of the hearing. As the Loudermill chief, I certainly could not have participated in the investigation into the accused employee by: contacting the investigator. or contacting the complaining witness, or receiving updates on the incomplete investigation. In fact, to do any ofthese things would be. in my professional experience. training and opinion, a violation of an accused employee?s due process rights. and CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC DECLARATION or D. P. VAN BLARICOM - 3 23?? Tacoma, WA 98403 {253) 593-3100 Phone - (253} Fax thereby result in unlaimess, bias, and give rise to real claims of retaliatiOn. Sheriff Urquhart abuses IIU investigation process to retaliate against employees: 9. It is my opinion, based upon my training, experience and education on the field of police executive administration and police practices, and based upon my review of the materials provided to me, that Sheriff Urquhart more probably than not used the process to retaliate against plaintiff employees who came forward with complaints about mistreatment, and in so doing would have violated the standard of care of a reasonably prudent police executive, and would have violated the standard of care for reasonably prudent police administration and practices. My opinion is based upon the following, and the excerpts of testimony attached hereto as Exhibit 2 to Kays Dec. 9a. Captain Jesse Anderson testified that as Commander of IIU, he witnessed at least live different instances in which Urquhart became so involved in a pending llU investigation into an employee that Sheriff Urquhart was shaping the outcome ofthe case. and provided examples. Several of the examples given by Captain Anderson shared common elements - that Sheriff Urquhart held a grudge against the accused employee or that the accused employee had exposed a problem within the KCSO and the Sheriff was using the investigation to get back at the employee. to retaliate or settle a score. is my opinion that such actions by the Sheriff would violate the standard of care of a reasonably prudent police executive, and indicate a retaliatory motive and ?score settling" on the part of the Sheri ff. 9b. Captain Anderson and Captain Nesel stated that Urquhart ordered them to take certain actions, or not take certain actions, in llU investigations. Such actions (orders by the Sheriff cannot be ignored by subordinates) by a police executive undermines the integrity of an investigation. and gives rise to claims of misuse of internal investigations to retaliate against employees. These actions by the Sheriff would violate the standard of care of a reasonably prudent police executive. 9c. Captain Anderson and Captain Nesel both testified that Urquhart had weekly meetings requesting updates on particular IIU investigations. In my training and experience as police executive, it is my opinion that this conduct by the Sheriff would violate the standard of care of a reasonably prudent police executive and would violate basic principles of fairness for the accused employee who must be afforded a fair and impartial Loudermill hearing. The Loudermill chiefcannot be fair and neutral if lie/she is involved in, and receiving updates for input on incomplete investigations. 9d. Urquhart allowed for a civilian employee, Chris Barringer, to have access to pending IIU investigations, and to have input on ongoing investigations. Urquhart allowed a civilian employee to review evidence on pending llU investigations and to file complaints against an employee (Shoblom). In my opinion such actions by Urquhart would violate the standard of care for a reasonably prudent police executive. and the standard of care for reasonably prudent police administration. To permit a civilian to have access to pending internal investigations and to cull through evidence looking CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC DECLARATION OF D. P. VAN BLARICOM - 4 23?? North 30"'3trcet Tacoma, WA 98403 (253) 593-5100 Phone - (253) 593-0330 Fax for violations of policy by employees undermines the integrity of the IIU process, and gives rise to claims of retaliation. In this case, Barringer reviewed evidence concerning Shoblom?s sexual harassment complaint, and lodged an complaint against Shoblom. It is my opinion that such actions by Barringer were highly improper, would violate the standard of care for a reasonably prudent police executive and were more probably than not acts of retaliation against Shoblom for coming forward with a complaint of sexual harassment. 9e. Sheriff Urquhart more probably than not took actions to intimidate Detective Sergeant Katie Larson while she was investigating an IIU case. Captain Nesel testified that Urquhart would scream and yell at IIU investigators. Captain Nesel testified that Urquhart had to be repeatedly asked to stay Out of IIU investigations but he ignored those requests. Captain Nesel and Sgt. Larson testified that Urquhart referred to IIU as ?his rat squad." It is my opinion that such conduct by the Sheriff directed at investigators would be a violation of the standard ofcare for a reasonably prudent police executive, and would violate the standard of care for reasonably prudent police practices and administration. The aforementioned conduct of the Sheriff would be an abuse ofthc internal investigations process. 9f. Urquhart ordered Captain Nesel to not investigate Major Sean Ledford for making false statements/telling lies 10 investigators. Captain Nesel was required to follow that order, and Major Ledford was not investigated nor was he tired for telling lies to IIU investigators. It is my Opinion that the conduct of Sheriff Urquhart in ordering llU n_ot to investigate Major Ledford making false statements to IIU would be a violation of the standard of care for a reasonably prudent police executive. This ?order" by the Sheri ff would be improper because it evidences favoritism to Major Ledford, and a discriminatory application of the rules and policies of the department. The conclusion would be that Urquhart?s friends do not get investigated but those he holds a grudge against, or wants to target, do get investigated. 9g. Major Ledford and Captain Nesel testified that Sheriff Urquhart was aware of an ?off the books? 7-month long investigation into Sgt. Diana Neff. Major Ledford supervised this ?off the books? investigation, with Urquhart?s approval. The ?off the books" investigation into Sgt. Neff was commenced after she reported to Human Resources that Ledford had engaged in discrimination against Neff and other women. It is my opinion that the ?off the books? investigation into Sgt. Neff. supervised by the very person she accused of discriminatory conduct, would be an act of retaliation for Neff lodging a complaint against him. It is my opinion that the ?offthe books" investigation into Neff, which was condoned by the Sheriff. would be a violation of the standard of care for a reasonably prudent police executive. There is no reason for an "off the books? investigation. A prudent police executive would have never approved of the ?off the books" investigation because it violates basic police practices, and creates the opportunity for command staff to retaliate against subordinates. It also violates the collective bargaining rights of the individual being investigated ?offthe books." 911. At the conclusion of the ?off the books" investigation, Urquhart and Nesel were informed of the results, and Urquhart reportedly stated ?oh good we've got something on her [Neft Dee. Neff. A formal IIU investigation was CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC DECLARATION OF D. P. VAN BLARICOM - 5 2301 Tacoma, WA 98403 (23) 593-5IUU l'hom: (253] 593-03HU Fax then commenced into Sgt. Neff, with the complainant being the Sheriff. It is my opinion, that this statement by Sheriff Urquhart is evidence that he was using the ?off the books" investigation and the MU investigation into Neff to more probably than not retaliate against her for bringing the discrimination complaint against Ledford. It is my opinion that the Sheriff?s conduct in bringing a complaint against Sgt. Neff would be a violation of the standard of care for a reasonably prudent police executive. There is no fair way for a police executive to both be the complainant and then later the Loudermill chief for the accused employee. 9i. Captain Nesel was threatened by Sheriff's attorney, Mark Stockdale. if Nesel were to testify truthfully concerning statements made by the Sheriff during the time Nesel was the commander of IIU. Captain Nesel was threatened with termination if he testified truthfully. Captain Nesel testified that he feared retaliation from the Sheriff for testifying truthfully in this case. Captain Anderson fears retaliation from the department for providing truthful testimony concerning his time as Captain of IIU. It is my Opinion that, if the Sheriff uses fear and intimidation and abuse of the investigation unit as a means to intimidate, bully, and retaliate against individuals, those actions would be a violation of the standard of care for a reasonably prudent police executive, and of police administration. 9j. Slteriff Urquhart ordered Captain Anderson not to document or investigate a rape allegation made against Urquhart by a former employee. Sheriff Urquhart ordered Captain Anderson not to investigate or document a complaint that Urquhart engaged in sexual harassment ofa subordinate. Sgt. Larson and Captain Anderson testified that Sheriff Urquhart stated the ?rules don?t apply to me? as it relates to the policies and procedures ofthe KCSO. it is my opinion that the actions of Sheriff Urquhart in ordering that IIU not document or investigate a rape allegation made against him and not document or investigate the sexual harassment allegation made against him, would violate the standard of care for a reasonably prudent police executive. The Sheriff?s statements that the ?rules don?t apply to him" would violate the same standard of care. A police executive cannot hold himself above the law or the policies and procedures of the department. The Sheriff?s actions in telling IIU Captain Anderson and Sgt. Mullinax to not document and to not investigate a rape allegation lodged against him appears to be an effort to circumvent Washington State?s Public Disclosure law, in that, if the allegation is not documented and not investigated, it can?t be subject to public disclosure. Public of?cials in Washington State have an obligation to comply with and not circumvent public disclosure laws. 9k. The Sheriff was not investigated when serious allegations of sexual harassment and criminal sexual assault were made against him. Major Ledford was not investigated for lying to It is a violation of the standard ofcare for a reasonably prudent police executive to apply the rules of the department in a discriminatory manner. 10. Sgt. Neff was subjected to an ?off the books" investigation and an IIU investigation after she complained about Major Ledford?s discriminatory behaviors. [t is my opinion that the Sheri ft?s knowledge ofthe ?off the books" investigation. his reported remark of, ?Oh good we?ve got something on her [cht'J?. and his personal filing of a formal IIU complaint against Neff were more probably than not acts of CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC DECLARATION or D. P. VAN BLARICOM - 6 33?? Tacomn,WA 98403 (253} 593-51th l'l?ionc - (253) 593-0380 Fax retaliation by the Sheriff and would violate the standard of care for a reasonably prudent police executive. 1 1. Amy Shoblom (a female) was subjected to an llU investigation based upon the complaint of the Sheriff?s Chief of Staff, Barringer, after she had reported sexual harassment. Amy Shoblom was subjected to yet another investigation after the Sheriff contacted the complaining witness. The Sheriffordered to not investigate Major Sean Ledford (a male) for lying in an investigation. and yet tired Shoblom for allegedly doing the same thing. it is my opinion that the actions of the Chief of Staff Barringer and the Sheriff were more probably than not done in retaliation for Shoblom reporting sexual harassment and would violate the standard of care ofa reasonably prudent police executive. 12. Lou Caballero was subjected to repeated llU investigations after he reported sexual harassment complaint on behalf of Amy Shoblom. Caballero was subjected to an llU investigation after the Sheriff contacted the complaining witness- The Sheriff ordered to NOT investigate Major Sean Ledford for lying in an [lU investigation. and yet tired Caballero for allegedly doing the same thing. It is my opinion that the actions of the Sheriff were more probably than not done in retaliation for Caballero reporting sexual harassment and would violate the standard ofcare ofa reasonably prudent police executive. 13. Based upon my review of the aforementioned evidence, it is my opinion that Sheriff Urquhart has more probably than not repeatedly violated the standard of care for a reasonably prudent police executive, if he uses and abuses the investigation process as a means to retaliate against employees who have reported violations of the law (sexual harassment. discrimination, retaliation). Sheriff Urquhart?s statements about women: 14. I have reviewed the testimony of Sgt. Katie Larson. and Captain Nesel. as well as the summary of the investigation conducted into then Sergeant Urquhart for creating a hostile work environment for women. Captain Nesel testified that it was common place for the Sheriff to make disparaging remarks about women on a regular basis and Nesel said it happened so often he lost count of the times. Sgt. Larson testified that the Sheriff referred to former Sheriff Sue Rahr as a ?bitch?, and the woman who counseled him following the hostile work environment allegation as a ?lazy fat slob.? The Sheriff admitted that he referred to the three female SAU detectives (who brought a successful lawsuit against the department alleging sexual harassment, discrimination and retaliation) as ?those women." The Sheriff reduced the recommendation of eight days suspension and only imposed one day of without pay for the primary sexual harasser of the three SAU detectives. The Sheriffdid not terminate Sgt. Burns for sexual harassment ofAmy Shoblom. See Exhibit attached hereto. 14a. [t is my opinion that the conduct of Sheriff Urquhart in making crude. disparaging and sexist remarks about women in front of his employees would be a violation of the standard of care for a reasonably prudent police executive. It is also a violation of the standard ofeare for reasonably prudent police CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC DECLARATION or o. P. VAN BLARICOM 7 23?? 3?"?5?rt?t?t Tacoma, WA 98403 (253) 5?13-5ll1l1 l?hnnc (253) 593-tl3Hll Fax administration. I was the ?rst Chief of Police in the State of Washington to hire women as police officers. There is absolutely no place for the language the Sheriff has reportedly used to describe and disparage women. It is my opinion that an open practice of diSparaging women, over a period of decades, can only create a culture of disrespect and hostility towards women in the department. I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT. Signed this 27th day of November, 20] 6, a CONNELLY LAW OFFICES, PLLC DECLARATION 0F 1). P. VAN BLARICOM - 230? North Tacoma. WA 98403 (253} 593-5100 Phone - (2.53] 593-0380 Fax EXHIBITA EXHIBIT D. P. VAN BLARICOM, INC. MFA, FBI-NA, CLS, CHIEF OF POLICE (RETJ POLICE PRACTICES EXPERT 835 - 915T LANE N.E. BELLEVUE, 98004-4811 [425) 453-0082 FAX (425) 453-3263 E-Mail dvbilic?t?'atllxom SUMMARY of QUALIFICA TIONS . Retained as a police practices expert by both plaintiffs and defendants in over 1,900+ lawsuits alleging police liability throughout the United StatesTestified in several hundred depositions, federal court trials, state court trials and arbitrations. . Prevailing parties' police practices expert in appellate decisions from the United States 15?, 7th, and 10'? Circuits; State Supreme Courts and Appeals Courts total of 69. . Recognized as an expert on the following issues and all of the cited appellate court decisions were decided in favor of my client: 1. pm POLICE ADMINISTRATION, POLICY, PRACTICES, PROCEDURES and STANDARDS of CARE (9?1 Cir. Gulliford v. Pierce Countv 1998, 6th Cir. Carter v. Citv of Detroit 2005, 9th Cir. Hall V. Hughes 2007, Cir. Montano V. Citv of 2000, Cir. Tensle}: v. City of Spokane 2008, 9"1 Cir. Howell v. Yavapai Countv Attornev 2008, 9'h Cir. DeLew v. Adamson 2008, 9"1 Cir. Tennison v. City Countyr of San Francisco 2009. 9Hi Cir. Rosenbaum v. Washoe County 2011, 9m Cir. Hartrim v. City of Las Vegas 2015, 9th Cir. Bradford v. Citv of Yakima 2015); POLICE INTERNAL INVESTIGATION and POLICE USE of FORCE - Including 000+ Of?cer-Involved Shootings and TASER Deployments (quoted in Deadly Force: What We Know 1992, 9"1 Cir. Davis v. City of Ellensburg 1009, Cir. Reed v. Hov1989, Cir. Davis v. Mason County 1001, a consultant to federal prosecution task force in United States v. Koon, et al. 1993, Rodney Kinq v. Citv of Los Anqeles 1994, 15t Cir. Rev v. Citv of Lewiston 1994, ID Kessler v. Pavette Countv and State of ID 1997, WA App. Lee v. Citv of Spokane 2000, 9th Cir. US Hauoen v. Citv of Puvallup 2003/2004, Cir. Wilkins v. Citv of Oakland 2003, Cir. Marsall v. Citv of Portland 2004, Cir. Craiohead v. Citv of St. Paul 2005. Cir. Davis v. City of Las Vegas 2007, s.Ct.rs"? Cir. Lehman v. Citv of Reno 2007/2000. 0? Cir. Kiles v- Citv of North Las Veoas 2008. Cir. Tubar V. City of Kent 2008, AZ App. Celava v. Citv of Phoenix 2008, 10th Cir. Rhoads Bio Horn Countv 2009, Brvan v. Citv of Las Vqu 2009, Cir. Jefferson v. Citv of Flint 2010, Cir. Bletz v. lonia County 2011, AK Russell v. Citv of Kotzebue 2011, 9th Cir. Glenn v. to Washington County 2011, Cir. Haley y. City of Elsmere 2011, Cir. Kita v. City of Seattle 2012, Cir. US denied cert. Rutherford v. City of Seattle 2013, 6 Cir. Jones y. Sandusky County 2013, Cir. Peatross v. City of Memphis 2016, Cir. Petersen v. Lewis County 2016); 4. CONTROL of POLICE VEHICULAR PURSUIT and EMERGENCY DRIVING Including 250+ Accidents (my policy was recommended by the Public Risk and Insurance Management Association of Washington, DC. as being among the 4 best in the United States 1984, quoted by 2 CA App. Payne v. City of Perris 1993 and Barman v. City of Daly ?y 1993, OR Lowrimore v. Marion County 1990, MS Mosby_v. Jeffries 1998, CO Tidwell v. City 8 County of Denver 2003, WA App. Brooks v. City of Washouqal 2007, CO App. Meyer v. City of Evans 2008 and GA App. McCobb v. Clayton County 2011): 5. SPECIAL DUTIES to PROTECT and 911 RESPONSES (WA Bailey v. Town of Forks 1987, 9th Cir. Wood v. Ostrander 1988, WA Roy v. City of Everett 1992, AZ Hutcherson v. City of Phoenix 1998, MT Nelson v. Driscoll 1999, 9m Cir. Kennedy v. City or Ridgefield 2005, Cir. Tamas y. WA DSHS 2010, AK City of Hooper Bay y. Judy 2015). 6. DOMESTIC VIOLENCE (quoted by the National Law Enforcement Policy Center in their model policy 1991, 9?'1 Cir. Beier v. City of Lewiston 2004, WA App. Osborne v. Seymour 2011, WA Washburn v. City of Federal Way 2013); 7. POLICE RESPONSE to the MENTALLY ILL (listed in the FBI Academy?s Subject Bibliography, Cir. Gibson y. Washoe County 2002, us MD PA Schorr y. Borouoh of Lemoyne 2003, 9th Cir. Herrera v. City of Las Vegas 2004); 8. EXCITED DELIRIUM and RESTRAINT Including 50+ Deaths (10th Cir. Cruz v. City of Laramie 2001. AZ App. Oscielowski y. City of Benson 2003, Cir. Arce y. City of North Las Vegas 2008 and 10th Cir. Weigle v. State of WY 2008. NM App. Bustos v. City of Clovis 2015); 9. AMERICANS with DISABILITIES ACT (10?h Cir. oayoll y. City of oenyer 1996, 9th Cir. Cripe v. City of San Jose 2001, US PA Schorr v. Borough of Lemoyne 2003); 10. DISCRIMINATORY ENFORCEMENT or EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES (6?h Cir. Muniz-Muniz v. US Border Patrol 2013). . Served 29 years in municipal policing with the last 11 as Chief of Police (until retirement and election to the City Council) in Bellevue, Washington - the State's then fourth largest and fastest growing city. . Directed development of a progressive police department and created several model programs, including: control of vehicular pursuits, alternatives to deadly force, fully integrated emergency response team operations, domestic violence reduction, affirmative action employment of minorities and women, comprehensive crime prevention, lateral recruitment of experienced officers, police canine operations, multi-city narcotics unit and others. Additionally, co-authored the Washington State Standards on Internal Discipline of Law Enforcement agencies. . Served on many professional commissions and committees, including: Washington Criminal Justice Education Training Center Steering Committee, Bellevue Community College Local Advisory Council and Chairman Law Enforcement Program Advisory Board, Washington Attorney General's Committee on Security and Privacy, consultant to US. Department of Justice La) Community Relations Service, consultant to the National Consultation on Safety and Force, intern with 94th Congress, Governor's appointee to Community Task Force for Corrections Development, Washington State Council on Crime Delinquency's Adult Criminal Policy Committee and Ad Hoc Committee on Board of Prison Terms/Paroles, Youth Eastside Services Board of Trustees, Eastside Community Mental Health Center Advisory Board, King County Executive's appointee to E911 Task Force, US. Attorney?s Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee, Governor's appointee to Select Committee for Police/Fire Pension Review, Education 81 Training Committee, IACP's Organized Crime Committee, Assessor Team Leader for 1 of 5 Pilot Projects of the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, Governor's appointee to the Emergency Commission on Prison Overcrowding, IACP book reviewer, Suburban Cities Association's Jail Advisory Committee, Governor?s Advisory Group on Personal Harassment, Portland, Oregon Chief's Committee on Police Use of Force. Assisted the appointing authorities at various times in selecting Chiefs of Police for Cities of Longview, Everett, Bellingham, Richland, Bremerton, Kirkland, Redmond, Clyde Hill, Kent (1991), Bellevue (1996) a Sheriff of King County and the Security Administrator of Seattle City Light (all in the State of Washington), King County Regional Justice Center Citizens Site Advisory Committee, Solutions To Tragedies of Police Pursuits Advisory Board, Superintendent of Public Instruction's Washington State Safe Schools Advisory Committee, King County Civil Rights Commission, Bellevue College Criminal Justice Program Advisory Board, Voices Insisting on Pursuit Safety. G. Hold a Secret security clearance from the U. S. Government. H. Maintain an extensive and current library of standards, policies, procedures, references, and information on other experts, with subscription services to update professional/legal developments in my areas of expertise. EDUCA TION and CERTIFICATION University of Washington - Bachelor of Arts degree with magna cum laude honors l973 Seattle University - Master of Public Administration degree 1976 Graduate of the FBI's National Academy and Law Enforcement Executive Development programs University of Washington Certificate in Forensics 2000 Americans for Effective Law Enforcement Certi?ed Litigation Specialist (Police Practices) CONTINUING TRAINING Police Civil Liability AELE 1987, Deadly Force and the Police Officer NWU 1987, Police Liability for Policies and Practices AELE 1988, PR-24 Side Handle Baton BPD 1988, Police Civil Liability AELE 1989, Sexual Harassment and the Consequences FS 1989, Wrongful Discharge RIMS 1989, Police Practices and Use of Expert Witnesses AELE 1989, Expert Witnesses, Litigation Consultants and Attorneys NFS 1989, Police Discipline and Labor Problems AELE 1990, Assessment Center Selection Process HRA 1991, Rodney King Incident and Policing SWLEI 1992, Role of Expert Witnesses in the 1990?s SEAK 1992, Critical Liability Issues AELE 1992, Pursuit Driving and Managing Use of Force ILM 1992, AFIS Live ID HP 1993, Police/Medical Investigation of Death IACP 1993, Medical Records Review for the Legal Professional PES 1994, Devel0ping Policies, Procedures and Rules NLEPC 1994, Civil Rights Trial Advocacy ATLA 1994, Family Violence and Police Policy SLEI 1995, Investigation of Excessive Force Incidents IACP 1995, Police Civil Liability and Defense of Misconduct Complaints AELE 1996, Use of Force and Pursuit Driving Policies SLEI 1996, Critical Incident Dispatching NWU 1996, Police Officer Survival Tactics NWU 1997, Police Civil Liability AELE 1998, Criminal Justice WSBA 1999, Critical Incident Trauma and Legal Survival CP 1999, Traffic Stops and Racial Profiling PI 2001, Racial Profiling NWU 2001, Police Liability LES 2002, Cap-Stun ZARC 2002, Masters in Trial ABOTA 2002, Discipline and Internal Investigations AELE 2003, Critical Incident Response Management and Liability AELE 2003, Police Civil Liability AELE 2003, Police-Involved Shooting Reconstruction NWU 2004, Police Liability AELE 2005, Shooting Reconstruction AAFS 2005, Police Misconduct Litigation SULS 2005, Use of Force TASER 2006, Lethal and Less-Lethal Force AELE 2006, TASER AAFS 2006, Excited Delirium SPD 2007, Winning Extreme Encounters from Street to Court FSRC 2007, Sudden Death, Excited Delirium ln-Custody Death IPICD 2007, Discipline Internal Investigation AELE 2008, Police Liability LES 2009, Legal, and Biomechanical Aspects of Officer-Involved Lethal and Less-Lethal Force AELE 2009, Use of Force 1 Domestic Violence I Community Policing I Emotional Intelligence IACP-PCN 2009, Gunshot Residue Gunshot Wounds AAFS 2010, Active Shooter I Bloodborne Pathogens Applied Ethics Ethnic and Sexual Harassment IACP-PCN 2010, Arrest-Related Excited Delirium Sudden Death IPICD 2010, Discipline and Internal Investigations AELE 2010, ECD Forensic Analyst IPICD 2010, Police Liability LES 2011, Police Pursuit Policy Instructor IADLESTIALERT 2011, Police De-Escalation Strategies for Veterans in Crisis FBINA 2012, Federal Training Resources IADLEST 2012, Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. USA FLETC 2012, Pursuit Policy Course 2012, How to be a Good Expert Witness NIJ 2012, Dealing with Persons with Mental Illness NWUCPS 2012, Active Shooter: Issues and Updates NTOA 2013, Management, Oversight and Monitoring of Use of Force (emphasis on TASER) AELE 2013, Less-Lethal: Current Trends and Initiatives NTOA 2013, Negotiations: Understanding the Incident Assessment Process NTOA 2013, Connecting: CIT and SWAT Crisis Negotiation CIT 2013, Searches Incident to Arrest and Cell Phones FLETC 2014, Use of Force (Legal Aspects) FLETC 2014, Developing Legally Defensible Policies for Effective and Constitutional Policing I Use of Force Internal Affairs and Investigating Misconduct Force of Weapons Parts 1 and 2 DLG 2014, Shooting Reconstruction: The 4 Elements of Trajectory RTI 2014, Meaning and History of the US. Constitution HC 2014, Lethal and Less-Lethal Force AELE 2014, Death Investigation 2015, 21"?t Century Policing IACP 2015, Discipline and Internal Investigation AELE 2015, Agitated Chaotic Events and Arrest- Related Deaths IPICD 2015, Recognizing Agonal Breathing Instructor IPICD 2015, Total Appendage Restraint Instructor IPICD 2015, Brady v. Maryland Disclosure JC 2016. TEACHING and TRAINING EXPERIENCE Washington State Vocational Education Certificate for teaching Police Supervision, taught law enforcement courses at the Bellevue Police Academy, Washington Criminal Justice Education and Training Center, Bellevue Community College, Seattle University, Northwestern University's Traffic Institute and International City Management Association's Training Institute. Lectured on police- related issues before the University of Washington School of Law and Graduate School of Public Affairs, Simon Fraser University, American Civil Liberties Union, Washington State Bar, Seattle-King County Bar, Washington State Court Administrators, Washington Association of Legal Secretaries, American G. I. Forum, United States Justice Department Community Relations Service, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, U. S. Attorney General's Task Force on Family Ur Violence, Montana Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services, Washington Advisory Committee to the US. Commission on Civil Rights, American Society of Criminology, debated California Highway Patrol Commissioner on police pursuit before National Association of Police Planners and International Association of Police Planning and Research Officers in 1990, Labor Relations Information System, City of Bellevue's Management Certificate Training Program, lectured for Association of Trial Lawyers of America?s Civil Rights Section and the National College of Advocacy on excessive force from the expert's perspective in 1994 and domestic violence litigation liability arising from failure of prevention and response in 1995, lectured on loss prevention civil liability to Washington/Alaska Region in 1997, demonstrated expert witness testimony to the American Board of Trial Advocates in 2002. Additionally, served on the Law Enforcement Education Advisory Committee to the Washington State Board for Community College Education in developing their statewide curriculum, achieved the first college accreditation of a Basic Law Enforcement Academy in the State of Washington, testified before the California State Senate on police vehicular pursuit in 2005, testified before the City of Oakland Citizens' Police Review Board on police vehicular pursuit policy in 2007, lectured at the Henry C. Lee Institute of Forensic Science on Investigation of Officer-Involved Shootings in 2010, lectured at the Crisis Intervention Team International Conference of Prevention of Police-Involved Deaths of the Mentally in 2013. PUBLICA TIONS "Recruitment and Retention of Minority Race Persons as Police Officers" in September 1976 issue of The Police Chief magazine. "An Overview of Police Service Today" in the April 18th and May 2nd, 1978 issues of Law Enforcement News, "Kids Meet Cops Through Basketball Trading Card Program? in the July 9th, 1979 issue of Law Enforcement News, Police Chiefs View of Deadly Force" in the National Institute of Law Enforcement Criminal Justice January 1979 booklet on Police Use of Deadly Force, "Career Development: The Next Step to Police Professionalism" in the November 1979 issue of The Police Chief magazine, "Crime Prevention Cuts Insurance Cost? in the August 1980 issue of Center City Report, Sensible Alternative to Those High-Speed Chases" in the November 25, 1980 issue of The Seattle Times, "Chiefs Should Chase Sane Pursuit Driving Guidelines" in the December 22, 1980 issue of Law Enforcement News, "Commercial Crime Prevention Can Earn Discounts" in the February 1981 issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, ?Enforcing Malicious Harassment Laws" in the January 1983 edition of Washington Council on Crime and Delinquency News, "Reducing Crime, Traffic Accidents - Bellevue Shows It Can Be Done" in the May 10, 1983 issue of The Seattle Times and the June 27, 1983 issue of Law Enforcement News, "Carrying A Gun - It Depends On You" in the February 3, 1985 issue of the Journal-American, "When To Use Deadly Force" in the Winter 1985 issue of the Washington Law Enforcement Executive Journal, "Domestic Violence - A New Approach to an Old Problem" in the June 1985 issue of Police Chief magazine, "It's Time for Police To Re-Examine Their Role In Society" in the October 1, 1989 issue of The Seattle Times, "Shaking The Pillars of Police Tradition" in the October 31, 1989 issue of Law Enforcement News, "Training-The First Hundred Years" in Law Enforcement In Washington State: The First Hundred Years 1889?1989, Use of Force: A Biting Example of Questionable Policy" in the July/August 1992 issue of Law Enforcement News, ?Police Pursuit: Uncontrolled Deadly Force" in the February 28, 1993 issue of Law Enforcement News, Bulletin Alert on a "Hair-raising Comb" in the June 1994 issue of the FBI Law Enforcement Bultetin, "Excessive Force The Expert's Perspective" in the Association of Trial Lawyers of America July 1994 Annual Convention Reference Materials Volume I, ?Domestic Violence Litigation: Liability Arising from Failure of Prevention and Response" in the Association of Trial Lawyers of America July 1995 Annual Convention Reference Materials Volume I, "Shades of Blue: What White Police Of?cers Can - and Must - Learn from Minority Officers" in the January/February 1996 of the Police Executive Research Forum's Subiect to Debate, ?Doing Something About Excessive Force" in the January 15, 1998 issue of Law Enforcement News (republished by San Diego State University 2003), ?The Consistent Law Enforcement Expert? in the NovemberIDecember 1998 issue of The Forensic Examiner, ?To Pursue or Not to Pursue: THAT is the Question" in the November 1998 issue of Police, ?Handling the Mentally in the March 2000 issue of Police. "Building a Bridge" in the September 30, 2000 (25th Anniversary) issue of Law Enforcement News, ?The Media: Enemies of Allies?" in the April 2001 issue of The Police Chief, "Control of Police Vehicular Pursuit" in the 2004 (1) issue of the _La_w Enforcement Executive Forum, ?Preventing Officer-Involved Deaths of the Mentally in the Third Quarter 2004 issue of The Law Enforcement Trainer, ?Suicide-by?Cop? in the September-October 2006 issue of American ?Police Response to Excited Delirium" in the January 2008 issue of the IADLEST Newsletter (republished by Americans for Effective Law Enforcement 2008), ?Policing in the 1950?s? in the January-February 2009 issue of National Academy Associate, ?Investigation of Officer-Involved Shootings" in the 19?? Annual Markle Symposium program guide September 27-28, 2010 program, Co-Author (with Dr. Cyril Wecht, Dr. Henry Lee and Chief Mel Tucker) of INVESTIGATION and PREVENTION of OFFICER-INVOLVED DEATHS 2011 CRC Press, ?Implementing Change" in Fall 2012 issue of Seattle University Magazine, "Letter of the Month" in December 2015 issue of Leatherneck, "Bellevue Sniper" in Summer 2016 issue Off the Cuff. NATIONAL TELEVISION and RADIO APPEARANCES NBC News special report on the dangers of police vehicular pursuit. NBC Today Show: 1. Personal protection against criminal attack; 2. Misuse of pepper spray to punish; 3. Police use of force (opposite Rev. Al Sharpton), 4. Officer-involved shooting. NBC ?You Be The Judge? on the dangers of police vehicular pursuit. NPR ?Cops and the Mentaliy CKNW World Today: 1. 2. Restraint KOGO Clear Channel on police vehicular pursuit. KHOU-TV (CBS) on police vehicular pursuit. QUOTED In MAJOR NEWSPAPERS USA Today, Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, The Baltimore Sun, Los Anqeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Times, The Oregonian, Toronto Sun, The Virgin Island Dai y_News ("Deadly Force? won ABA's 2004 Silver Gavel Award), The Tennessean, Christian Science Monitor, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Vancouver (30.) Sun, Ottawa Citizen, Louisville Courier?Journal, Chicago Tribune. PROFESSIONAL MEMBERSHIPS American Academy of Forensic Sciences (AAFS), International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) - Life Member. Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), Americans for Effective Law Enforcement (AELE), Association of Certified Litigation Specialists (ACLS). FBI National Academy Associates, Washington Association of Sheriffs Police Chiefs (WASPC) - Life Member, International Association of Directors of Law Enforcement Standards and Training (IADLEST), National Tactical Officers Association (NTOA), Association of Professional Law Enforcement Emergency Vehicle Response Trainers International (ALERT), CIT (Crisis Intervention Team) International. AWARDS USMC Expert Rifleman, FBI "Possible Club" (of the 19,130 police officers who attended the FBI National Academy during the 50 years from when it started to the year of my retirement, I was 1 of only 165/.0086% who fired a perfect score on the PPC or TRC), Appreciation from the Drug Enforcement Administration, Outstanding Community Service from Bellevue Jaycees, Human Rights (Implementing Law and Order with Justice) from Baha'i Communities of Bellevue and Eastside, Youth Service from the Chief Seattle Council of the Boy Scouts of America, Program Innovation from the King County Domestic Violence Coalition, Support and Service from Bellevue Cadet Squadron Auxiliary USAF, Law Enforcement Appreciation from the Puget Sound Chapter of the American Society for Industrial Security (presented by the Governor of the State of Washington), Outstanding Volunteer Service from the Salvation Army, Outstanding Service as a Public Official Citizenship Award from the Bellevue Kiwanis Club, Appreciation from the United States Secret Service, Award for Public Service from The U.S. Department of Justice, Recognition for 30 Years of Public Service from the City of Bellevue, Recognition and Commendation Resolution by the Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, Appreciation for Service from the Woodland Park Zoo Bond Oversight Committee, Appreciation for Service from the King County Executive, Appreciation for Personal Contribution to Developing Bellevue Convention Center from the City of Bellevue, Outstanding Support of the Arts (jointly with wife) from the City of Bellevue Arts Commission, Commendation for Outstanding Service from the City of Bellevue. CURRENT PHOTOGRAPH D.P. Van Blaricom - November 28, 2012 EXHIBIT - Memorandum Date: May 24. 2013 To: Sergeant Anthony Provenzo Via: Direct From: Captain D.J. liU Commander Re: ATI FILE or! All a result of a euetained ?nding In an lntamal investigation. a alien hoe been made to the Sheriff from your Chain of Command that you receive an eight (6) day suepenslon without pay along with being placed on a one-year pedomence improvement plan and pennonentiy removed from the SAU. Furthermore. you shall receive training in ?Emotional Intelligence and workplace sensitivity. as well as training for sexual i hostile workplace and basic supervision. Alienation Rules of Conduct. Serious Misconduct. Discrimination. and Bigotry: Membere willie tin-duty ehall not engage in discussion or conduct that belittles other: or dleo'lmlnatee against others on the heels of race. color. age. sex. eexuai orientation. religion. national origin or the pretence of any eeneory. mental or phyeloal disability. GUM Hon-Sustained Allegatlon Rules of Condud. Serious Misconduct. Harassment based on race. ethnicity. gender. religion. disability'or sexual orientation. GUM 3.00.015t?llih) Non-Bustlined Allegation 3: Rules of Conduct. Misconduct, Ridicule: Members shall not ridicule or make remarks that would tend to jeopardize working relationships with members. membere of other King County departments. or other public or private agencies. GUM Suatalned Allsgatlon 4: Rulee of Conduct. Misconduct. Conduct Unbeooming GOM sir-trained You are entitled to a hearing with Sheriff Urquhart to respond to this recommendation and provide any lnfonnation you would like him to consider before making a final decision in this matter. Sheriff Urquhart may impoee no discipline. or discipline up to and including lamination of employment for sustained findings. Your hoe been scheduled for June 26. 2013 at 3:00pm. it you cannot attend on this date. or do not Meh to attend. please contact Johnaon ?205-263-2555 no later than June 5. 2013. A copy of the Inuewgallon will be provided to the King County Police Oti'icer'e Guild. You are entitled to bring a of your choosing to the hearing. A copy of the ?le can be provided to you if you choc-ea to bring another representative to the hearing. I acknowledge receipt ofthle document erg-t WilfonWroyenzo) Date) 5 For 4'5- 7 .. WMIIHM F- emu-d.? . - .Loucemrlon"" . .. 1 ll 7&1? lam Memorandum Date: May 24. 2013 To: Sergeant Paul Mahlum Vie: Direct From: Captain llU Commander Reresult of a sustained ?nding in en lntemel investigation. a recommendation has been made to the Sheriff from your Chain of Command that you receive an eight (2) day suspension without pay along with being placed on a one-year perfonnance improvement plan and pennanently removed from the SAU. Furthermore. you shall receive training in 'Emotionel intelligence and workplace sensitivity. as well as training for sexual harassment i hostile workplace and basic supervision. Allegetlon Rules of Conduct. Serious Misconduct. Discrimination. and Bigotry: Members while err-duty shall not engage in or conduct that beliides others or discriminates against others on the basis of race. color. age. sex. sexual orientation. religion. notional origin or the presence of any sensory. mental or physical disability. GOM Non-Bustlined Allegation Rules of Conduct. Serious Misconduct. Harassment based on race. ethnicity. gender. religion. disability or eeme orientation. GOM 3.00.015l1)lh) Non-Sustained Allegation I 3: Rules of Conduct. Misconduct. Ridicule: Members shall not ridicule or make remarks . that would tend to leopardize working relationships with members. members of other King County departments. or other public or private agencies. GUM Sustained Allegatlon r! 4: Rules of Conduct. Misconduct. Conduct Unbecoming GOM 3.00.015l2xk) Sustained You are entitled to a Louderrnili hearing with Sherill' Urquhart to respond to this recommendation and provide any information you would like him to consider before making a ?nal decision in this matter. Sheriff Urquhart may impose no discipline. or discipline up to and including termination of employment for sustained ?ndings. Your Louderrniil has been scheduled for June 25. 2013 at 2:00pm. If you cannot attend on this date. or do not wish to attend. please contact Film Johnson at 206-283-2555 no later than June 5. 2013. A copy of the investigation will be provided to the King County Police Of?cers Guild. You are entitled to bring a representative of your choosing to the hearing. A copy of the file can be provided to you if you choose to bring another representative to the hearing. document 5 ?gz (Paul Mahlum) 3 I acknowledge reoel meson-11s norm 1mm HI I Memorandum Deter May 20. 2013 To: Chief De uty ne Kirkpatrick We: Direct From: Major Tina. ensland. CID Re: FINDINGS uu 3913-021 I have reviewed the case ?le prepared by Cept DJ Nesel regarding the above referenced IIU investigation. and make the following ?ndings and recommendations: Allegetion Personnel Conduct: Rules of Conduct: Misconduct: Ridicule: IOH 3.00.016 (2) Sgt. Provenzo and Sgt. Mahlum over a period of time and in many corroborated incidents made comments that would tend to Jeopardize working relationships with subordinates. Therefore i recommend that the allegation be BUBTAINED against both. Aliegetion Personnel Conduct: Rules of Conduct: Misconduct Conduct Unbeoomlng: eon 3.00.015 123(k). Sgt. Provenzo and Sgt. Mehlum over a period of time and in Iserious Incidents and conversations engaged in behavior and allowed 9 culture to develop that tended to diminish respect for individual members of the unit and the Sheriffs Of?ce. diminish con?dence in the operation of the Sheritf's cities. and adversely affect or impair the efficiency. morale and discipline of the SAU Unit. I recommend that the allegation be SUSTAINED against both. its to my raoommendation tor discipline. both Sgt. Provenzo end Sgt. Mahlum were removed from the SAU Unit. and have slnoe voluntarily transferred to other assignments. I reoommend that they both receive training In ?Emotional intelligenoa' and workpisoe sensitivity. For Sgt. Mahlum. as this is his first sustained complaint of this nature. I reoommend 3 Written Reprtmand. For Sgt. Provanzo. as this is the eeoond sustained oompisint in a short period of time regarding relationships with subordinates. I recommend a one day suspension without pay.?a?LI-de .4 {ff-Co?r-td-Q I - ?l?rr?ul?" Ah? . 1'6 Jaw? QNJACF. #707 no A 52 '7 . :1 ?5'er our?. to ?err. Jr5:- ?1 {If?eventJam. of #110 At' ?Lu-p9 a? 3 we. ..- 5 Jot-n! .14Hm: 6,24?; 11.15 hr A (c I 774%! '5 ?11? at Min. nose rem From: r, were. ?ssile Plge I on s"/o 1/10/4' a. Kfelfr/K via. Memorandum gob?a. Date: May 23, 2013 M4 To: Chief Dep Anna Kirkpatrick VII: Direct From: Major anslandAikgl?on Rules of Conduct. Serious Misconduct. Discrimination. inciyility. and Bigotry: Members while on-duty shall not engage In discussion or conduct that others or discriminates against others on the basis of race. color. age. sex, sexual orientation, religion. national origin or the presence of any sensory. mental or physical disability. GUM 3.00.015f?mg} Non-Bushinsd for both Sergeants. All-gluon Rules of Conduct. Serious Misconduct, Harassment based on race. ethnicity. gender. religion. disability or sexual orientation. GUM 3.00.015t1lth} Non-Sustained for both Sergeants. Please refer to my earlier memo dated May 20. 2013 for my ?ndings and recommendations of the two Misconduct Allegations of Ridicule and Conduct Unbecomlng. Fluid? Byers Anderson Court Seattlel'l'acoma, Washington SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON IN AND FOR KING COUNTY AMY SHOBLOM, individually, DIANA NEFF, individually, LOU CABALLERO, individually, Plaintiffs, NO. 15-2-09687-7 SEA VS. KING COUNTY, a political subdivision of Washington State, Defendant. VIDEOTAPED DEPOSITION OF SHERIFF JOHN W. URQUHART October 3, 2016 Seattle, Washington Byers Anderson, Inc. Court One Union Square 2208 North 30th Street, Suite 202 600 University St. Tacoma, WA 98403 - Suite 2300 (253) 627-6401 Seattle, WA 98101 (253) 383?4884 Fax (206) 340?1316 scheduling@byersanderson.com (800) 649-2034 Serving Washington's Legal Community since 1980 Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers Anderson Court Seattlefl'acoma, Washington Pagez APPEARANCES For the Plaintiffs: Julie A. Keys Evan T. Fuller Connelly Law Offices 2301 North 30th Street Tacoma, WA 98403 253.593.5100 253.593.0380 Fax Jkays?connelly?law.com For the Defendant: Also present: Steven H. Winterbauer Winterbauer Diamond PLLC 1200 5th Avenue Suite 1700 Seattle. WA 98101 206.676.8440 206.676.8441 Fax Steven@winterbauerdiamond.com Diana Neff Patty Shelledy, King County Sheriff's Office Lincoln Beauregard Michael Hehenkamp videographer, Byers Anderson, Inc. Court Reporters Video Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 8. Anderson Court SeattlefTacoma, Washington Page52 Apparently. He talked about the size of his penis in the workplace? Yes. He had a picture of his young son or sons with Hooters waitresses displayed in his office? Yes. He commented on the size of Belinda Ferguson's thighs and rear end in the workplace? Yes. He commented on the size of Belinda Ferguson's breasts as well as the size of Janette Luitgaarden's breasts in the workplace? Yes. He engaged in acts of retaliation against the women after they came forward with their complaints? I don't know if that's true or not. He was founded for committing an act of retaliation against Marylisa Priebe-Olson by IIU. DO you recall that? No. If the records bear that out, would you have any reason to disagree with that? No. And for the totality of this conduct, the punishment that you imposed against Mr. Provenzo was what? Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 Byers 8; Anderson Court SeattlelTacoma, Washington Page53 transfer. Is that it? It was one day off without pay? Uh-huh. Is that a yes? Yes. That's a yes. I'm sorry. UhrhUh. And he was transferred from SAU during the course of the investigation? Let me back up, if I could, on my answer. You said for the -- your question was for the totality of the circumstances, he received a day off without pay, and I am paraphrasing and that's not correct. He received a day off for the conduct during the 180 days that we could prove, not for the totality of the circumstances. I was exceedingly limited as to what I could do by the guild contract and the investigations that came before me. One of the first things within the first two or three months that I did when I became sheriff was transfer him out of that unit, and Paul Mahlum as well, because that hadn't happened. So when it finally came Loudermill for discipline, I did the best I could to set the precedent for him, for the both of them going forward, but I was handcuffed by what had happened before. Sheriff John W. Urquhart October 3, 2016 ATTACHMENT4 KING COUNTY KING COUNTY OFFICE 5 I 6 Third Avenue.W? I6 Seattle.WA 98 04 John Urquhart Sheriff April 21, 2017 Carl Cole, President Puget Sound Professional Management Association PO Box 66379 Burien, WA 98198 I am communicating with you as the representative of the Sheriff on labor relations matters. On April 20th, there was a critical incident in Seattle involving a barricaded suspect in the downtown federal building with another suspect at large in the downtown core. Three Seattle Police Officers were shot and another injured during this incident. King County had deputies on scene immediately and a command post was established. Numerous King County resources were deployed. The Chief Deputy and the Communications Center were monitoring the event. King County had no one above the rank of sergeant on site as all Captains and Majors were at the Communication?s Center at a union meeting. The commissioned Chiefs were in all day training in lssaquah. No command staff were available to respond except for the Sheriff and Chief Deputy. As a result, a sergeant had to be assigned as the incident commander instead of a command level person. The Captains bargaining unit?s collective bargaining agreement states: ARTICLE 11: MISCELLANEOUS Section 5. The County and Sheriff Department recognize that Association members may from time to time need to conduct Association business related to collective bargaining matters during their core hours of work. This time must not create undue interference with normally assianed duties. (Emphasis, added.) No person could argue that the union meetings as conducted during core business hours do not create an undue interference with your normally assigned duties. PSPMA has been conducting two hour union meetings during the workday. Furthermore, some commanders spend considerable work time commuting to and from the meeting. Yesterday was a good example of how these meetings are interfering with the performance of important duties of your positions. in regards to the majors who attend these meetings, the above cited contract language is inapplicable to them. As such, majors have no contractual right to conduct union business during their core hours of work. Through the appropriate Chief, the captains and majors will be notified individually that these mid- work day offsite meetings unduly interfere with normally scheduled assigned duties and are no longer to occur during the normal core hours of the work day. If you have questions or wish to discuss, please let me know. air-WM Patti Cole?Tindall Chief, Technical Services Division Cc: Sheriff John Urquhart Chief Deputy Pugel Chief Daniel Pingrey Chief Robin Fenton Diane Taylor ATTACHMENT5 Kl NC (YOU NTY KING COUNTY OFFICE 5 I6 Third Avenue.W? l6 Seattle.WA 98 04 John Urquhart Sheriff" April 28, 2017 Carl Cole, President Puget Sound Professional Management Association PO Box 66379 Burien, WA 98198 Dear Carl, Given the amount of confusion and questions that have arisen from my letter to you dated April 21, 2017, I thought I would clarify some important points. The intent of my letter was not to prohibit or restrict the discussion of union business during the work day. The scope of the letter was intended to address general union membership meetings that include a large majority of your membership during the daytime core work hours. We've had a couple of conversations about PSPMA meetings during core work hours, the first after I . had heard a rumor about a 4-hour meeting. I conveyed to you some concern about that much time taken from the middle of a business day, and you assured me that the meeting was not scheduled for 4 hours. Then we had an Assist/Mutual Aid situation in the City of Seattle during the meeting you had convened that included (or invited) all Captains and all Majors, which placed a large number of command staff in one location, which in this particular circumstance, unfortunately happened to'be some distance from the shooting event in downtown Seattle. In this particular case, the scope and timing of your meeting interfered with your normally assigned duties. When we talked on Wednesday, April you advised us that you have held these meetings for 20 years, and that sergeants often take on the role of incident commander (as occurred in this case until Major Jutilla arrived). You also indicated that the KCPOG holds similar meetings during work time. In addition, you said that the meetings you hold include discussions of operations and could be characterized as "work" meetings. We appreciate the additional information, and are clarifying our instruction regarding Article 11.5 of the Captain's contract. We expect you to be mindful when you plan future meetings of whether the scope and timing of such meetings creates undue interference with normally assigned duties. We appreciate your attention to our concerns, which arose at this time due to a shooting incident that resulted in injury to Seattle police officers and K080 responded to assist. Our initial directive clearly caused some confusion, but it is our hope that you will be mindful of Article 11.5 in your planning going forward. There won?t be any specific directives sent out to Command Staff. I believe this communication to you as the President of the PSPMA is sufficient in providing notice that the prohibition is in regards to the large?scale general membership meetings during core work hours, and any other union business that complies with (as referenced in) your contract is permitted. As we indicated earlier this week, we are happy to discuss this further with you, so please let us know if you have changed your mind about that. Please let me know if you have questions or need further clarification. Thank you. 70M Patti Cole?Tindall Chief, Technical Services Division Cc: Sheriff John Urquhart Chief Deputy Jim Pugel Chief Daniel Pingrey Chief Robin Fenton Diane Taylor Lance King ATTACHMENT6 NOTICE 17-191: CONGRATULATIONS TO OUR NEW MAJOR Noel Fryberger has been promoted to the rank of Major, effective May 1, 2017. Major Fryberger is assigned to Sheriff?s Office Administration, working with the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight and IIU, among other duties. My congratulations to Noel on his promotion and new assignment! John Urquhart, Sheriff ATTACHMENT 7 Internal Investigations Unit Complaint Notification Date Time IIU Number 05/10/17 11:45 SUBJECT 2017?050 Employee(s), PeopleSoft Captain Carl C. Cole #71261 Date of Incident Time Case Number 04/20/17 o/a 1230 Location District RCECC Complainant Name Chief of Staff Christopher R. Barringer Summary You are the SUBJECT employee of an internal investigation. It is alleged the following occurred: Chief of Staff Barringer alleges that on the above date you distributed portions of his employment background investigation file to attendees of a Puget Sound Police Managers Association meeting. Attached you will find a copy of your Garrity rights, and for Commissioned employees, a copy of the ?Police Officer Bill of Rights.? This is an official notification of those rights. Additionally, you have the right to consult with your Labor Representative before providing a written or recorded statement or before discussing this matter with the investigator. It is the member's, responsibility to confirm representation is present during any interview on this matter. GOM 3.03.100 requires all Department members to fully cooperate in Department investigations. Failure to cooperate in an internal investigation may result in discipline up to and including termination. GOM 3.03.090 requires you to maintain the confidentiality of this investigation. Disclosure of any information, prior to the completion of the investigation, may result in disciplinary action. You are directed to report to for an interview on 05l17l17 at 9:00 If you have a schedule conflict or you have any questions contact me at: via email . e' Number Rank Ass:gned Of?cers T'm th tt 71 700 Se rgeant ig atU re I I I Office. email=timolhy gillette@kingcounty gov. Date: 2017 05 10 11:49:17 -07'00' KCSO A450 02/2017 IIU File Number 2017-050 Page 1 of1