USO Consulting and Investigations
October 14, 2013
Undersheriff David Kirby
Clackamas County Sheriff's Office
2223 Kaen Rd
Oregon City, Oregon 97045

Dear Undersheriff Kirby,

I have included the summary from the consultation that I did for you in September. This includes
the highlights of the things we discussed but not as specific or in as much detail. I have also listed
general recommendations for you to follow up with the employees in the Civil Division if you wish.
You have some great people working for you and they can be even better. I know that they have
the desire to work as a unit.
Please let me know if you want more information in the report.

Sincerely yours,

USO Consulting and Investigations
PO Box 21479
Keizer, Oregon 97307
503-949-2669

 USO Consulting and Investigations
Department Section Review
Clackamas County Sheriffs Office Civil Division
I met with Undersheriff Kirby on 08-29-13 at his office he told me that he had received
Direction:
some complaints about the work environment and morale in the civil Division. He asked me to interview
the current employees and supervisors of the division. The specific complaints were of favoritism by
management, having different standards and work expectations for different personnel. The discipline
of Deputy
for taking a person in his county vehicle and giving them a ride to a parking lot, and
telling a joke that was sexual in nature at work, were the disciplines fair and appropriate. Was Deputy
targeted because he was involved with the union? What were the other employee's opinions and
beliefs with the leadership in the Civil Division? I was asked to look for risk that the Sheriffs Office was
exposed to because of the practices or behaviors in the division. I was also asked to make
recommendations to make improvements in the workplace. My direction was not as an investigation of
misconduct but an evaluation and consultation for a work environment improvement plan.

Work:
I interviewed twenty two current and former employees that worked in the Civil
Division. These interviews were done by phone and in person. The interviews were done on the
employees' time at work and I varied my schedule to accommodate theirs. I reviewed department
policies, some evaluations, discipline and the union contract. This occurred between 09-05/20-13.
I reviewed the counseling for Deputy
regarding the giving rides to court employees
Discipline
to their car in inclement weather. The action was not unusual for deputies to give rides and it was a
counseling not a discipline. The issue was that while doing this there was only one person at the
courthouse. This was a period of time ago and was a counseling not formal discipline. I did not feel it
was a targeted issue on
and this was appropriate.
I reviewed the discipline for Deputy

telling an inappropriate joke of a sexual nature

at work, on duty, in front of a female employee. This employee found it offensive. The male employees
who were present thought it was inappropriate when he said it. The discipline was an Oral Reprimand
and was consistent for the offence.
Leadership:
There is a void in the leadership because of familiarity. The employees and management
view their relationship as personal friends. This creates even bigger conflict when discipline is involved.
The leaders do not have a clear delineation between them and the rank and file.
The leaders put employees into the A/Sergeant position knowing that their choice is abrasive to the
other employees and causes issues.
The leaders dismiss the behavior of the employee above as "Joe being Joe". It is a leadership failure to
accept poor behavior that affects the workplace and not correcting it. This leads to the staff believing
that there is favoritism towards this person by rewarding them.

 The leadership does not support management's decision that corrections deputies could perform most
of the work that the law enforcement deputies do in the courts. The leadership indicates that the Judges
do not accept the corrections deputies are well trained enough to perform the duties. That is
management's job to convince them, they are and put them into the positions. Clackamas County is the
only County in Oregon I am aware of that does not use corrections certified personnel in the function.
The corrections and law enforcement deputies are supportive of expanding their role.
The leadership puts
into a role as a "lead worker". The leadership puts her in a position
that results in them expecting her to do management or supervision when it is not her job it's theirs. It
puts her in a difficult position.
The employees begin to group together when they feel that they are not treated the same as some. This
creates an "us versus them" atmosphere. This is very unproductive and are not putting their full effort
to the work and mission.

Recommendations:
1.) Reinforcing the policy and the department's expectations on the sexual harassment and
discrimination.
2.) Training for the leadership on keeping a clear delineation of line staff, supervisors and

management.
3.) Giving others in the line staff opportunities as an A/Sergeant, along with some training. This will
give them career development and a better understanding of the roles.
4.) Making certain through training that the employees understand that the rules are the same for
everyone, regardless of their rank, gender, age or race.
5.) Understanding by the employees that treating everyone at work with respect and
professionalism is an expectation of their duties.

Gregory G. Olson, Undersheriff (ret)
USO Consulting and Investigations

PO Box 21479
Keizer, Oregon 97307