KING COUNTY

KING COUNTY OFFICE
5 6Third Avenue.W?l l6
Seattle.WA 98 04

John Urquhart
Sheriff

August 3, 2017

Amy Calderwood, King County Ombudsman

Jon Stier, Senior Deputy Ombudsman

Office of the Ombudsman

516 Third Ave., Room 1039

Seattle, WA 98104

VIA EMAIL: Amy.Calderwood@kingcounty.gov
Jonathan.Stier@kingcountygov

RE: Case 2017-00201

Dear Ms. Calderwood and Mr. Stier:

Thank you for sending me the draft of your findings and recommendations in Case #2017?00201. I
appreciate the thought and effort you put into your report and the courtesy extended to give us time to
respond.

As the elected Sheriff, it is my privilege to serve the citizens of King County. It is also my responsibility to
ensure the integrity of the Office of the Sheriff and the Sheriff?s Office, at every level of the organization,
including myself. As an elected official, I am directly accountable to the citizens we serve. The staff in my
organization are accountable as well, but I bear ultimate responsibility for their conduct. I fully support
institutional and structural systems to support and guide the many discretionary decisions land my
employees must make.

To that end, the focus of my response is the Om budsma n?s Recommendations. All or part of the
underlying allegations or the issues you identified have been reviewed by different entities within their
respective authority, in various forums, over several months: the FBI, the Seattle Police Department
(SPD), the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (OLEO), an expert in police policies and procedures, as a
subject in litigation, in the press, and now by your office. I have provided the history of the matter and
my reasons for my actions in a deposition and directly to the press. Several news articles have covered
the topic.

I will not belabor the facts other than as needed to discuss the recommendations. First, I want to review
the status of those investigations. Initially, the FBI reviewed the underlying allegations and decided the
accusations were not credible. The FBI did not contact me directly, and my staff told me the FBI staff
thought the accusations did not have enough credibility to tell me about them, and, they asked my staff

not to tell me about them. Later, the alleged victim contacted OLEO, who contacted me, and 
recommended OLEO suggest to her that she report the matter to the SPD. She did or already had, and
ultimately, the SPD investigated the underlying accusations with the help of a Deputy Prosecuting
Attorney, and concluded, that no crime occurred. As you note, when SPD forwarded the initial police
report, the matter was Blue Teamed at my request. As of now, two outside independent law
enforcement agencies and the prosecutor?s office have reviewed or investigated the matter and have
reached the same conclusion. Throughout this, the Sheriff?s office has never received a written or verbal
complaint directly from the alleged victim making these accusations.

It is clear that, some entities and people, including the Ombudsman, are critical of my decision not to
Blue Team the information from the FBI or initiate a separate investigation. I have listened to the
criticisms, understand them, and have considered them. And, I appreciate that your observations and
criticisms are constructive. I take them seriously. As noted, I am ultimately responsible to the citizens for
my decisions.

I noticed that while the accusations in the complaint are against me, the recommendations affect all
employees of the sheriff?s office. i will address whether I believe those recommendations should affect
all employees, but as written, i need to consider the impact of your recommendations on the office as a
whole, how they may affect employees, operations, and how or whether my position as an elected
official and the head of the agency warrants implementation of different procedures.

I am going to take the recommendations in the reverse order. The second recommendation is that:

The Sheriff?s Office should clarify its rules and procedures to ensure that review and investigation of
all complaints against Sheriff?s Office employees are documented through Blue Team with
appropriate security classifications.

I agree with this recommendation, with clarification and comments.

First, you are correct that ?all complaints? are to be Blue Teamed, third parties may also file
?complaints,? and Sheriff?s Office employees must report known and suspected criminal or
administrative policy violations which would be Blue Teamed.

As have contemplated my own decisions, and thought about and shared other incidents that were not
Blue Teamed or investigated, I realized a couple of things. First, there can be questions whether
something is a "complaint.? Our manual and your recommendations presuppose that this is clear at all
times, and there is no discretionary decision making necessary to ascertain whether something is
actually a ?complaint.? In fact, this determination is quite straightforward when a citizen contacts IIU
and "files a complaint? or sends a "complaint? over the Sheriff?s office email, or walks into a precinct
and says they want to file a ?complaint.?

But, these determinations are not always straightforward when the citizen has not made a formal
complaint. I believe the office could benefit from clarification about when a matter is a ?complaint? or
reportable misconduct under the manual when a citizen has NOT filed a formal complaint with our
office. Clearly, you and others disagree with my assessment of the matter in my own case, and my
decision to make that call when I was the accused. To move forward, I accept that criticism. However,
whether a matter should be Blue Teamed is a regular topic of conversation and deliberation among

Page 2 of 9

command staff. While I don?t have all the answers about what those policies should be at this point, I
agree that clarification and guidance is needed.

Ironically, while the manual, the Ombudsman, I, and others have proclaimed that "all complaints?
should be Blue Teamed, myself and my office have been and are being sued for Blue Teaming and/or,
investigating members for what I or others have concluded are ?complaints? or allegations of
misconduct. The lawsuits have asserted that among other things, certain allegations are not
"complaints,? or are not cognizable complaints because they involve off-d uty time, or were initiated to
retaliate against certain members, or should have been handled as a performance matter not rising to
the level of a Blue Team entry, let alone an investigation.

Myself, and the Office, are simultaneously criticized for under- and over- entering matters into Blue
Team, whether or not they were investigated. To put it plainly, we often find ourselves in a ?damned if
you do, damned if you don?t? situation when determining whether to document and investigate
allegations.

Some additional policy and procedures may help guide us when a matter should be Blue Teamed and/or
investigated.

Second, the recommendation seems to suggest, that assuming it is clear that a matter is a "complaint?
or allegations of misconduct, that it must be ?Blue Teamed? all the time, anytime, no matter what. I
recognize I have contributed to that interpretation. And, while in most cases, that is true, the notion
that there is NO discretion within the system, and that there SHOULD be no discretion within the
system, is faulty. Policies and procedures need to guide and structure discretion, and with or with regard
to misconduct allegations, that discretion should be narrow, and placed with appropriate personnel. But
I cannot envision a system without any discretion. Rather, myself, and others need to be held
accountable for the discretionary decisions we make. But I do not believe that discretion can or should
be entirely removed.

The main areas, and there may be others, where ambiguity may arise, include the following:

- Allegations made during the course of litigation .

0 Repeated allegations by the same person of the same misconduct or allegations that in context
appear to be made by a mentally ill person not in touch with reality.

- Allegations over social media and comments made in response to on- line news stories

. Allegations made related to labor union activities

- Allegations made in public records requests

- Allegations that have been resolved through the criminal justice system, either definitely
because a conviction has occurred, or because it is clear through the criminal investigation that
no crime occurred, or because adding multiple administrative allegations is unnecessary and can
delay resolution of the IIU investigation

I Allegations where employees or citizens are ?complaining? about their boss, citizens, their
supervisor, or the way things are in the office, provided those accusations do not rise to the
level of EEO violations or other policy violations.

0 Allegations that appear to be made as a tactic to deflect or counter an investigation of that
employee, and the IIU process is being abused

Page 3 of 9

Let me give you some actual examples:

1. During the course of public disclosure litigation, the plaintiff, an employee, alleged in
correspondence and/or pleadings, that a former IIU Captain had ?lied? and "sought to cover up
all the evidence? related to the employee?s public records request. The employee had not filed a
formal complaint with IIU, and it was clear the employee knew how to do that because the
employee had filed a complaint previously. The matter was being litigated, discovery had been
conducted, the prosecutor?s office had completed interviews, the office has a substantial history
with the employee, and therefore, the office was well aware of how the public disclosure
request was handled. Although the allegations were serious dishonesty and tampering with
evidence the conclusion was that the attorney?s and plaintiff?s allegations were baseless and
self ?serving made in the context of litigation. They were not entered into Blue Team or
investigated.

2. A woman who lives 2500 miles away from King County made dozens and dozens of allegations
against a KCSO Sergeant, claiming among other things, that he had implanted a device into her
body which made her unable to sleep. The woman?s complaints were not entered into Blue
Team or investigated.

3. The office received a public records request, in which the requester made comments that at
least one or maybe two members of the office, a Captain and a Sergeant, may have engaged in 
inappropriate behavior off-duty but while at a work related conference. The public records
request was given to a former captain of who determined that it wasn?t a "complaint?, and
that the requestor had not submitted a formal complaint to IIU. The allegations were not Blue
Teamed or investigated. During a different IIU investigation of an allegation made by the
requestor?s husband, who was an ex-employee, he made similar remarks during the IIU process
but did not file a formal complaint. Those comments were also not Blue Teamed. A few months
later, he made a formal complaint alleging the same and additional allegations, at which time
the additional allegations were addressed through the IIU process. I was unaware of the original
decision by the MU Captain, and if I had known of his decision, I would have over-ruled it.
However, upon learning of that decision, i did not make a Blue Team entry against the Captain
or the investigating Sergeant for failing to make a Blue Team entry. The Captain was a person in
a position to exercise that discretion, and while I disagreed with how he handled that particular
case, I did not Blue Team or investigate him for it.

4. During a criminal investigation of a deputy, by my office and the DEA, the accused deputy made
allegations implicating one of our sergeants. The USAA in consultation with the investigators
decided that the accusations should be investigated through the criminal process. During that
process, the investigators determined that there was no basis to believe the Sgt. had engaged in
misconduct, and the accused deputy was trying to deflect blame from himself onto the Sgt.
Satisfied with that investigation, I determined that it was not necessary for further investigation
through IIU because, the criminal investigation determined that the allegations were false,
therefore there were no policy violations to investigate. Conducting another investigation was
unnecessary and unwarranted, and would have been a costly and time consuming expenditure
of limited IIU investigation resources.

Page 4 of 9

10.

A cursory review of citizen comments at the bottom of published news reports and in Facebook
and Twitter posts show numerous "complaints? and "allegations? against KCSO staff that
haven?t been entered into Blue Team. One comment was related to a news story about a deputy
who was in an accident on his way home. The commentator stated that since it was 2 AM, he
must have just come from a bar. A Blue Team entry was not made against the deputy.

During a criminal investigation of a member of our office that resulted in a plea, numerous
allegations were made against the deputy that could also be policy violations. The deputy was in
custody, and under due process rules, could not be terminated while the IIU investigation was
pending. Although llU could have investigated every single potential policy violation, I made the
determination that was unnecessary, given the status of the criminal case, the certainty that the
most serious, terminable offenses would be sustained as a result, and the extraordinary amount
of time, resources, and delay that would occur if every accusation was investigated while the
deputy remained on paid leave. Although the IIU investigators were uncomfortable not
investigating every accusation, I was not, and directed them to finish the investigation based
upon what the criminal investigators had provided. The deputy was terminated more quickly as
a result, saving my office time and the taxpayers? money.

On a regular basis, there are labor relations related formal and informal allegations or
"complaints,? made against KCSO management by union representatives and employees, which
are not entered into Blue Team. A recent example involves an employee who alleged that he
was being spied on. The allegation was baseless and was not entered into Blue Team.

During the election season, there have been allegations in speeches or on social media that
arguably could fall within the parameters of a "complaint" or accusation of misconduct. Upon
consideration, the accusations appear to be political rhetoric and either have not been entered
into Blue Team or investigated.

A young man, who over time, appeared to be suffering from some form of mental illness, kept
emailing numerous members of the Sheriff?s Office, with multiple and duplicative inquiries
about the employment process. If a staff person engaged in an email exchange with him, he
would never be satisfied with the response and would continue to ask questions. The gentleman
apparently obtained all of the employee?s email addresses and would then start emailing
someone else. After a while, the gentleman?s contacts became extremely disruptive and
interfered with my staff getting their work done. While he ?complained? vociferously, and
repeatedly, ultimately made the decision that our office should stop responding to him, and,
that we would not entertain, Blue Team, or investigate his accusations.

A former in our office made a domestic violence accusation against her boyfriend, who was
also a deputy in our office. A criminal and internal investigation of him ensued, and our
investigators believed our Sgt, not the deputy. The deputy started to accuse the of multiple
acts of misconduct, mostly off duty but some on-duty. The office made a preliminary check to

Page 5 of 9

determine whether her command was aware of any concerns about her on-duty conduct, and
they were not. We concluded that his allegations were a defensive tactic to attack a DV victim,
dissuade her from cooperating in the criminal case, drop a civil protection order, and damage
her reputation within the office among her peers and with the public. Having determined that
he was trying to abuse the MU process and intimidate her, the decision was made not to Blue
Team or investigate her further. Nonetheless, that tactic worked, the damage was done, and she
dropped her protection order petition and refused to cooperate with the criminal investigation.

These types of allegations are made across the entire spectrum of employees, not just command staff.
The Ombudsman?s recommendation is not limited to me, and is not limited to command staff? it is very
broad and affects all the staff and the operations of the office. The breadth of the Ombudsman?s report
and this event, has prompted and expanded my thinking about providing additional guidance on these
types of matters, which could include accusations against anyone in the organization, including the
sitting Sheriff.

Anyone, including the Ombudsman, the public, media, litigants, are free to conclude that every single
accusation described above should have been Blue Teamed, and perhaps investigated, regardless of the
absurdity of the accusation, the known context in which it is made, the waste of resources that would be
expended, and even if it resulted in abuse of the IIU process and employees, either because the
"manual? says ?all complaints? and all accusations of misconduct must be Blue Teamed and
investigated, or, because they hold the opinion that there should be no discretion whatsoever.

For this discussion, i want to set aside the accusation against me that I had a conflict and should not
have made the decision about accusations levied against myself. I am speaking for the organization and
the broad recommendation that the Ombudsman has made. I agree with the Ombudsman that our
policies and procedures and perhaps definitions, need clarification. If what the Ombudsman is saying is
that there may not be and should not be ANY discretion in the system, no matter what, then I disagree. I
do not believe it is feasible or wise, to attempt to characterize any and all comments, criticisms, or
"complaining" as "complaints? that should be Blue Teamed and investigated when a formal complaint
has not been filed. Certainly some and perhaps most should be, have been, and will be. Internally we
will continue to have many discussions about those decisions, with deliberation, and explore manual
amendments. Individuals granted the discretion will be limited, and held accountable for the exercise of
theirjudgment.

The "first? recommendation is as folloiws:

The Sheriffs? Office should establish a written policy requiring the appointment of an external,
independent official to investigate serious complaints against the Sheriff or other senior command
staff. That official should have appropriate expertise and jurisdiction to investigate the elements of
the alleged offense.

I agree with parts of this recommendation and disagree with others.

i agree, that as general matter, an investigation should be referred to another entity when there is a
conflict of interest that cannot be addressed internally. While we have already done that on occasion, I
agree that we should adopt a manual section that addresses that issue specifically. However, this
manual section would have to be crafted carefully to avoid labor issues and may have to be bargained

Page 6 of 9

with the affected collective bargaining units. Those units include the King County Police Officers? Guild
because the investigation work is done by their members. And it may have to be bargained with the
accused member?s collective bargaining unit, since it might affect working conditions.

I agree that criminal investigations should be done by entities with jurisdiction over those matters. I
believe that generally happens but that we should adopt an express manual section that covers it.

I disagree, as a blanket rule, that when the Sheriff?s office has jurisdiction, criminal or administrative
investigations of "serious complaints? against the senior command staff must be referred to an
?appropriate? official outside the Sheriff?s office, who has "expertise? to investigate the "elements of
the offense?. Serious investigations of command staff should be investigated by the Sheriff?s office as a
matter of course, absent a conflict, jurisdiction issues, or other compelling reasons.

I do not agree that the Ombudsman should be making recommendations regarding investigations of
senior command staff, since the complaint is directed towards myself, the Sheriff. The breadth of the
recommendations seem to be outside the scope of the complaint.

Administrative investigations of misconduct against Sheriff?s Office employees, including the command
staff and the Sheriff, are the sole and exclusive work of the King County Police Officers Guild bargaining
unit. Under RCW 41.56, the KCSO could not unilaterally appoint an external investigator to investigate
complaints against senior command staff or the Sheriff as a standard practice. The sole exception is
investigations into alleged violations of GOM 3.01.000, which was bargained and mutually agreed upon
with the Guild.

Regardless of labor issues, the Sheriff remains responsible to the public for the conduct of ALL the
Sheriff?s Office staff, including command staff. I would not abdicate my responsibility to the public to
investigate, correct, and potentially discipline my staff, at whatever rank. I can and have delegated some
decisions to my Chief Deputy when appropriate, again regardless of rank. I agree, that in some cases,
investigations and/or findings and disciplinary recommendations should be referred outside in case of a
conflict or other compelling reasons. I do not assume, nor agree, that there is an automatic conflict
simply because the accused member is in the command staff.

There is an additional recommendation that I agree with, which is:

That appropriate security classifications must be adopted and implemented regarding access to Blue
Team and IAPRO, the database in which entries, investigations, and other document are entered.

Unfortunately, there have been a couple of incidents in which staff with access to Blue 
have improperly accessed their own files contained within Blue Team/ IAPRO, and in one case, access to
other employees? files. In addition, there are current allegations that staff have improperly obtained,
disseminated and discussed a staff person?s background investigation. As a result, there is concern that
data in the IAPRO is insufficiently secure and that we need to take steps to increase security. These
abuses and lack of security in IAPRO was one factor, certainly not the only one, which influenced my
decision not to enter the FBI information into Blue Team. i also need to be able to guarantee to my
employees, that information concerning them is not improperly accessed or prematurely or improperly
released. Consequently, I have instructed my staff to examine and implement ways to increase the
security of the information in Team.

Page 7 of 9

And finally, I address the recommendation that serious investigations against the Sheriff should be
referred to an outside entity.

I agree, that members of my own staff are not in a good position to investigate the person that holds the
office of the Sheriff, absent an outside investigator assisting them, as is currently done in EEO cases, or
in some cases, entirely. And I believe, that even if they do the investigation, "disciplining? an elected
official under policies and procedures that apply to non-elected staff, does not make sense. i agree that
this is an institutional question of significance, which should involve considerable thought, review and
input. It needs to be done with recognition that as an elected official, there are certain procedures and
processes that do not apply to the position of the Sheriff, because it is an elected position. Specifically,
even if there would be ?finding? that the Sheriff committed misconduct by an internal or external entity,
it would ultimately be the voter?s decision whether to retain that Sheriff.

My understanding is that the Ombudsman does not have the authority to investigate council members,
their staff, the Executive or his staff, or other separately elected officials. And, that the current
Ombudsman?s authority to investigate the "Sheriff,? as opposed to its members and the office, is a
remnant of the days when the Sheriff was not separately elected. Nonetheless, I am sure there are some
institutional systems in place in the County, or elsewhere, that address best practices about how to
investigate separately elected officials, who are not subject to all of the policies and procedures that
apply to non?elected employees in their organization. have asked my staff to start exploring those best
practices and obtain the input and advice of the prosecutor?s office and others. I am amenable to
implementing them to ensure the integrity of the Office of the Sheriff and the Sheriff?s Office. As I have
said, in many forums, and for several months, i believed I had legitimate reasons to make the decision I
did. I currently believe the matter has been investigated and no further administrative investigation is
necessary. Nonetheless, I am sensitive to and understand the concerns raised by the Ombudsman in this
report, as well as others, and support adopting policies and procedures that help alleviate those
concerns.

One final note: In your draft conclusions, you write, "Sheriff Urquhart and ?Us conflict of interest,
paired with their decision not to follow policies and procedures, lead to an appearance that they sought
to prevent proper scrutiny of the complainant?s allegations. Their decisions call into question Sheriff
Urquhart?s and the Sheriff?s Office commitment to ?ensure [that] the high standards of the law
enforcement profession are maintained.?

Like every allegation against a member of the Sheriff?s Office, the IIU commander and I exercised our
discretion of whether it needed to be logged into Blue Team and investigated. We agreed that it did not
need to be investigated for reasons already set forth. The commander disagreed with me that it did not
need to be logged. That was my decision at the time, and I must live with it. A former police chief and
expert on internal investigations who was hired by the King County auditor to evaluate KCSO IIU
practices later completely agreed with my decision. But to call into question mine and my staff?s
commitment to protecting the high standards of the Sheriff?s office is inaccurate and unfair, and I
respectfully ask that this section be re-worded or removed.

Page 8 of 9

I thank you for your review and input and look forward continuing the discussion about these very
important matters.

Respectfully,


hn Urquhart

King County Sheriff

Page 9 of 9