In a report to the Pima County Board of Supervisors this week, Sheriff Chris Nanos said his discipline of two political rivals in the department was by the book, even generous.
But his critics say Nanos's report itself was not by the book.
The reason it's not, said Sgt. Aaron Cross, one of the disciplined employees: "It wasn't a sworn statement."
Nanos' report to the supervisors came after they made a request to him under a state law that requires him to give them information "under oath." However, the response came in the form of a letter from his attorney, James Cool, not a sworn declaration, nor oral testimony under oath.
Supervisor Matt Heinz, who spearheaded the effort to demand information from Nanos, said "I don’t think the sheriff completed his homework assignment."
People are also reading…
"In these 20 pages there is nowhere that he signs any statement making this a sworn submission. That was the whole point of this."
Cool said that he, as the writer of Nanos' response, could not have sworn an oath on Nanos' behalf.
But, he added, "It’s all truthful and accurate, and he’s happy to sign anything they want to attesting to that fact."
As to the discipline of former Lt. Heather Lappin, Nanos' opponent in the last election, and Cross, Nanos argued that his treatment of both was fair and followed policy. The department's disciplinary panel, Nanos' report said, recommended a letter of reprimand for Lappin and termination for Cross.
"Sgt. Cross asked the Sheriff to issue a formal letter of reprimand in lieu of termination," the report says. "Because Sgt. Cross appeared to be taking responsibility for his misconduct, Sheriff Nanos reducted the discipline from termination to a letter of reprimand over the objections of his command staff."
Cross disputes Nanos' account. He said in a text message Wednesday that, "We denied everything I was accused of except for a minor issue and said I'd accept a written reprimand (informal discipline) for it. He took that and ran with it, giving me formal discipline for everything."
Lappin was running against Nanos for sheriff when he suspended her with pay. Earlier this month, a report summary from a firm that handles personnel disputes determined Nanos used his position and department resources "for political gain" when he disciplined Lappin.
"Any appearance of impropriety that resulted from former Lt. Lappin's placement on leave is the unfortunate result of a 2024 change to county policy that allowed county employees to run for county office without leaving their jobs," the report Nanos filed to the board says.
Both Cross and Lappin have sued Nanos in U.S. District Court over their treatment. The cases are ongoing.
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos, left, has faced weeks of scrutiny spearheaded by Supervisor Matt Heinz.
On another topic, the supervisors asked about, Nanos reasserted his policy that deputies don't engage in immigration enforcement, although the ACLU alleged in a recent court filing that Pima County deputies do call Border Patrol when they shouldn't.
The previous sheriff, Mark Napier, had asked communications staff to track the number of calls received related to immigration or border enforcement and make monthly reports, the report says. Nanos asked that they stop that practice, but the staff continued collecting the data and stopped providing the reports, it says.
That data is among the records sought by the ACLU as part of their lawsuit, and Nanos' report says he is collecting it to pass it on. However, he has ordered the staff to stop collecting the immigration and border-enforcement call data altogether.
In the report, Nanos also defends his financial management of the department, arguing that he has been 4% under budget over the last five years, despite two years of overspending.
While Heinz was dissatisfied with Nanos' report, it's unclear whether there is enough support on the board to do anything about it. The statute says, "An officer who neglects or refuses to make the report, or to give the bond within ten days after being so required, may be removed from office by the board and the office declared vacant. The board may then fill the vacancy."
Going after Nanos further would require three members of the five-person board majority to challenge the sheriff. Nanos, the Democrat, beat Lappin, the Republican, by just 495 votes in the 2024 election.
