King County OMBUDSMAN Amy Calderwood, Ombudsman - Director 516 Third Avenue, Suite W1039 Seattle, WA 98104?2317 Phone: (206) 477-?1050 Fax: (206) 296?0948 ombudsman@kingcounty.gov August 8, 2017 Re: Ombudsman's Reply to Sheriff?s Response Letter in Case 2017-00201 Dear Sheriff Urquhart, Thank you for your August 3 letter responding to our draft findings and recommendations in the above- referenced case. We are pleased that you and your staff have carefully reviewed our recommendations and that you generally accept them. The recommendations are based on reports published by the U.S. Department ofJustice and the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs. We look forward to seeing changes in the Sheriff?s Office General Orders Manual to prevent and manage conflicts of interest when complaints arise about senior command staff including the Sheriff, and to ensure documentation and investigation of complaints with appropriate security safeguards. We would like to reply to several other matters covered in your letter: You express concern about a policy that would remove all discretion from the Sheriff?s Office in determining which complaints must be documented and investigated no matter how absurd and no matter the waste of resources in doing so. But there is a spectrum of actions that agencies can take to document complaints that are, for example, factually impossible or duplicative. In most such instances, making a brief record of a complaint with an explanation for why no further action was taken is sufficient and does not use undue resources, while the existence of such complaint records can enhance public trust in the government. Notably, the matter under inquiry here did not fall into the category ofan absurd, factually impossible, or duplicative complaint. As our report found, it should have been investigated and documented in BlueTeam. You contend that the breadth of our recommendations seems to be outside the scope of the complaint. But there is no dispute that our recommendations are relevant to the matter under inquiry here, and that the Ombudsman has authority to determine the scope of investigations. KCC 2.52.090. You point out that it may not always be clear what a ?complaint? is, and therefore whether one should be BlueTeamed. During our investigation, you acknowledged that the person making allegations against you had made a complaint to the FBI. In reviewing Sheriff?s Office rules going forward, you and your staff may find helpful the following definition from a U.S. Department ofJustice report cited in our recommendations: SheriffJohn Urquhart August 8, 2017 Page 2 of 2 complaint is one or more allegations by any person that an employee of an agency, or the agency itself, has behaved inappropriately as defined by the person making the allegation!?- You state that you recommended to the Office of Law Enforcement Oversight (OLEO), after the complainant contacted OLEO which in turn contacted you, that OLEO suggest to the complainant that she report her accusations to the Seattle Police Department (SPD). The narrative in your letter could leave a misimpression that you made that recommendation soon after the June 21 meeting in which you directed Internal Investigations not to document the complaint. But your and the OLEO director?s recollections indicate that you met sometime in November 2016, months after the June 21 meeting. You appear to question whether the Ombudsman?s Office should retain its authority to investigate the Sheriff, and suggest that this authority is a remnant of a time before the Office of Sheriff was an elected position in King County. To clear up any confusion, the Ombudsman?s Office is empowered to investigate ?any administrative act of any administrative agency". KCC The administrative acts of the Sheriff, Assessor, and Director of Elections, fall properly within that jurisdiction, irrespective of their status as elected positions, because they head administrative agencies. County Councilmembers, judges, the County Executive and the Prosecuting Attorney, and their personal staffs, do not head administrative agencies and are therefore explicitly and properly excluded from the Ombudsman?s Office?s general jurisdiction.2 Lastly, you request that we change language in our draft report conclusion stating that your and ?Us actions lead to an appearance that you sought to prevent proper scrutiny of the complainant?s allegations, and that those decisions call into question your and the Sheriff?s Office?s commitment to ?ensure [that] the high standards of the law enforcement profession are maintained.? While we are gratified that you have taken our recommendations seriously, we are concerned that your letter continues to defend your past decisions in this matter and that you have accepted our findings only ?to move forward?. Nevertheless, after considering your request, in the final report we deleted the sentence beginning with ?Their decisions call into . . Thank you again for your cooperation during our investigation, and for the thought and hard work you and your staff put into your response. We look forward to reviewing changes in the General Orders Manual as they are completed. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you would like to discuss our report further or have any questions. Sincerely, 401% Amy Calderwood Ombudsman?Director 1 U.S. Department ofJustice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Standards and Guidelinesfor Internal Affairs: Recommendations from a Community of Practice (2008), at 14, (accessed May 23, 2017): 2 The County Council has additionally empowered the Ombudsman?s Office to investigate elected officials accused of violating the Employee Code of Ethics (KCC 3.04) and the Whistleblower Protection Code (KCC 3.42).