Maricopa County Sheriff's Office

Jue4 ipa[O

Sher?!]

J 00 West Washington, Suite J 900
Phoenix, AZ 85003

MEMORANDUM

Ph 602-876-1801
Fax: 602-251-3877
Switchboard: 602-876- 1000

DATE:

August 17,2010

TO:

Joseph M. Arpaio
Maricopa County Sheriff

FROM:

Frank D. MunneD
Deputy Chief
Patrol Bureau Commander

SUBJECT:

RECOMMEND THE ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SAFETY CONDUCT A FORMAL INVESTIGATION REGARDING
ALLEGAnONS OF SERIOUS MISCONDUCT, MISMANAGEMENT,
UNLAWFUL ACTS, AND HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AGAINST
CHIEF DEPUTY DAVID A. HENDERSHOTT.

www.mcso.org

Dear Sheriff Arpaio,
Over the past year, Chief Deputy David Hendershott has knowingly taken several
actions that create a very hostile and work environment for several Sheriff's employees as weD
as myself This situation has become untenable and has had a severe negative impact on my
morale, emotional wellbeing, and day-to-day working conditions. Compounding this situation is
the ongoing efforts by Hendershott to convince you that after nearly ten years of loyal service as
your Deputy Chief, that I have suddenly become disgruntled in my assignment as the Chief of
Patrol. I assure you that I am very proud to serve you and the deputies under my command and I
consider being the Chief of Patrol as the most proud moment in my nearly thirty-year career with

I

I

!hi s great organization.

Sadly, as a result of Hendershott's deception and dishonesty, it is very apparent that I
have fallen out of favor with you and I am likely perceiVed as disloyal and a threat To what do I
owe this misfortune? My reported cooperation with state and federal investigators looking into a
variety of allegations concerning this office and more specifically, David Hendershott, that I
assure you are more than warranted.

Sheriff, I can assure you that any assertion that I am seeking to undermine this office or
seek your removal as Maricopa County Sheriff is categorically untruc. As you well know, I have
been a loyal supporter of yours from the earljcst days of your tenure as Sheriff. Without question,

J have always given you my very best efforts professionally, personally, and financially. Unlike
your ChjefDeputy, I have never misled you. lied to you, or put my personal interests above those
of you, our employees, and the public.
However. J now find myself the subject of a very hostile work situation. I am well aware
that by submining this memorandum to you, it is very likely that Hendershon will again anempt
to remove me as your Cillef of Patrol or retaliate in some other llianner. You :;:Jould be aware
that on February 26, 2010, Hendershon unsuccessfully attempted to remove me as your Chief of
Patrol due to information he received that J was cooperating with the FBI.
Rest assured, J did not wait to apprise you of this information until now as a result of
Hendershott's recent attempts to retaliate against me. Nor is this a response to the fact that
Hendershott is aware that J recently met with Deputy County Attorney Clarisse McCormjck
regarding bringing these allegations to your attention. I learned the other day that Hendershott
was demanding that McCormick give

rum any information that J provided her. This is obviously

an attempt to view tills sensitive information before J meet with you. Any reasonable person

I

I

would agree that these efforts are entirely inappropriate and unethical. The fact is that J wrote the
first draft of this memorandum last year in anticipation that Hendershott, Black, and Fox would
be indicted as a result of the Arizona State Attorney General's investigation into the SCA maner.
In addition to the previous attempt by Hendershott to retaliate against me, it has been
brought to my attention that Hendershott is currently discussing moving Deputy Cillefs to new
assignments. This appears to be nothing more than a term Hendershot1 is proud of calling the
"pebble on the beach" theory. As he would describe it, a wave crashes to shore and moves
several grains of sand, including the sand pebble (person) targeted so they can't claim tbey were
discrirllinated against. Hendershott recently discussed removing Deputy Chief Bill Knight as the
Chief of Detectives and I would believe that I would likely be removed as the Chief of Patrol. It
would be my opinion that Hendershott seeks the transfer of Cillef Knight as a result of their
friction regarding MACE investigations and Hendershott's unorthodox and unethical method of
investigative management.

2

In

~ddjtion 10

officially notifying you regarding Ihe hoslile work environment created by

your Chief Deputy, J feel it is my obligation to bnng

10

your al1ention several allegations of

serious misconducL mismanagement, and criminal conduct against David Hendershon, and his
subordinates Captain Joel Fox and Director Lawrence Black. As you will read, these aJJegations
are very serious and threaten the very stability and reputation of your gTeat organization.
Although lhese employees profess theiT loyalty

10

you, it is my belief that you will be outraged

by their unethical and reckless behavior.
Although the Arizona State Anomey General and the FederaJ Bureau oflnvestigation are
currently involved in criminal probes related to the SCA and allegations of abuse of power, it is
my recommendation that you formally request the Arizona Department of Public Safety to
conduct an administrative investigation into the mismanagement, hostile work environment, and
multitude of Code of Conduct aJJegations against David Hendershott, Joel Fox, and Lawrence
Black. Although the federal investigation focuses on abuse of power, any DPS investigation
should focus on Chief Deputy Hendershol1's well,known abuse oj employees.
This investigation would be similar to the recent DPS administrative investigation
completed at the request of the Town ofSurprise.ln this instance, the Surprise Town Manager
requested DPS complete an administrative investigation regarding complaints filed against Chief
Dan Hughes by the Surprise Police Officers Association. The officers complained of "no
confidence in the chief", moraJe problems, and inconsistent punishment.
At the conclusion of the investigation, Chief Hughes left his position as the Chief of Police.
Sheriff. I am not naJ"ve and I know your fust preference will not be to use an outside law
enforcement agency investigate your Chief Deputy and closest command officers. But once you
carefully review this memorandum, it should be absolutely clear to you that it would be in your
best interests, and those of Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, it's employees, and the public, to
see to it that all allegations be thoroughly investigated. However, the only appropriate method to
conduct fair and impartial investigation is

10

utilize an independent agency such as the Arizona

Department of Public Safet)'.
However, I now find myself at the mercy of a dishonest, but yet very powerful Chief
Deputy, who has created a very hostile work environment for me over the past year. It is my
belief that his efforts are a direct result of my refusal to participate in an effort to conceal or

3

provide misle3ding infomlalion to Slate invesligators concerning the SeA mailer and my
reported cooperation with the F13J.
ConlTary to what you have been led to believe, J was personally asked by David
Hendersholl to donate money for a political action commil1ee inyour name. In facl out of my
loyalty to you. J donated the largest amount of money to that fund (by a Sheriff's employee)
second only to David Hendershot1 due my belief that it was a lawful contribution to help your
campaign for the 2008 election. You should also know that 1 was not the only Sheriff's employee
IOld by David Hendershol1 the true purpose of the political action commil1ee was to aid your
reelection effoJ1.
UnfoJ1unately for me and for my fellow Chiefs, the hostile work environment he has
created on the nineteenth Door is oppressive and the impact has been seriously detrimental to our
morale. Over the past year, and panicularly over the past few months, some of your closest
advisors and even command officers have approached you to voice their concerns over the
mismanagement and hostile work environment created by David Hendershol1. These include
Execulive Chief Loret1a 13arkell, Deputy Chief Jack Macintyre, and Communications Director
Lisa Allen. In addition, you likely know that Executive Chief Scot1 Freeman, Deputy Chief Bill
Knight., and myself have all had disagreements with HendershOl1, but have nol directly
approached you to intervene.
In each and every case, you have disregarded their pleas for help and told them they must
continue 10 repOJ1to the abusive Chief Deputy who had been harassing them and continues to
behave in a reckless and hostile manner. I know you likely consider some of us disloyal, but I
would sfrongly disagree that any ofus should be considered disloyal to you or this organization.
Is performing o,:,r.duties in the best interests of the public, our employees, and your legacy
disloyal? It is my stTOng belief that a bet1er definition of disloyalty would be any person putting
their personal, financial, and political interests above those of the public and our employees,
something David HendershOI1 has made a career of
You have seen Hendershott's unprofessional and abusive treatment of employees. You
were present along ,,<jth command staff and County Al10mey Andrew Thomas when Hendershol1
lost his temper and unleashed a angry vicious verbal tirade against Lisa Allen for allowing local
Channel Three television repoJ1er Mike Walkiss access 10 the nineteenth floor for a press

4

J

conference against Hendershott's wishes stunning everyone. AIJen fled your office crying and
reponed the mCldenl 10 Chief BarkelJ

.

Although you likely consider the Al10rney Generals SCA investigation, The DOJ racial
profiling investigation, and the FBI abuse of power investigation poJiticaJly motivated, in my
opinion, it remains our obligation and duty as law enforcement officials to fully cooperate at all
times. On the contrary, David Hendershol1, your Chief Deputy, repeatedly met with me in an
attempt to prevent my cooperation with state investigators, stating that he was the target of the
State probe and infonning me that I would be the "star witness" against him.
A similar example involves Executive Chief Scott Freeman. In an open meeting with

o<h'" P"~o', f =m.o d;~lo"'" ''''

\

f,,' <h" h, h'd w illm,Jy """eip"" d io io"~i,w W"h(I
00

state investigators. David Hendershott's response was to angrily belittle Freeman by callmg him
a "weak kneed pussy." This comment was hardly the appropriate behavior for a professional law

I

.

I

enforcement executive. More impol1antly, the comment would lead any reasonable person to

\

believe that Hendershott does not want employees to cooperate in the SCA probe in an attempt to i

/

protect him or others from prosecution.
However, there is clear evidence that David Hendershott, Larry Black, and Joel Fox were
involved in the creation of the SCA for your benefit. In addition to the civil actions taken against
Fox related to the campaign fmance issues and the current Arizona State Attorney investigation
into the SCA matter, Maricopa County Elections Director Karen Osborne has forwarded two
criminal complaints to the Maricopa County Attorney's Office for investigation regarding Fox's
involvement in the SCA.
There is more than enough reasonable suspicion that these three individuals have

"-

I

committed a variety of violations of state law and Sheriff's Office Policv. I believe that not only I
I

~

is it your obligation to ensure these aIJegations are thoroughly investigated, but you should want /
to know if there is misconduct, mismanagement, or unlawful acts being committed by your
employees, especiaJly

OD

)

your behalf.

You, along with Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas created the Maricopa AntiCorruption Enforcement Unit (MACE) in 2007 with the goal of fighting political corruption and
white-collar crime. As you stated in your'letter to the Arizona Republic (published September
26, 2009), "It is the duty of both offices to follow up on any and all leads pointing to the

5

possibility of such crimes. Turning their backs on infomJation out of political favor to a fellow
elected official would be umtamount to dereliction of duty."
Although some may claim that the State and Federal investigations currently underway
are politically motivated, nothing changes the fact that every law enforcement officer has a duty
to cooperate with such investigations unless they are assening their fifth-amendment rights
against self-incrimination.\!/md it very unsettling that this organization stonewalls all
investigations targeting this office claiming they are political, whether state or federal in nature.
However, when this office investigates public officials, we have the audacity to publicly criticize
their failure to cooperate with our investigators.

i

../'

As law enforcement officers, Fox, Black, and Chief Deputy David Hendershott are sworn
and obligated to behave in a manner that is legitimate, ethical, and at all times, in compliance
with the laws of the State of Arizona, the United States and it's constitution. They are required to
follow coUJ1 issued orders, and to fully cooperate with any civil or criminal

inve~tigation

conducted by any agency regarding any issue occumng within their jurisdiction, including their
activity or involvement in the SCA.
Unfonunately, these employees chose a different path and resorted to maneuvers, both
legal and illegal, to conceal their personal complicity in the SCA matter. The unethical and selfserving conduct of Fox, Black, and Hendershott has brought great criticism and negative
publicity that threatens the very image of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. An image you
have worked so very hard to cultivate during your many years as our Sheriff.
The misconduct allegations related to the SCA investigation are just one of several
examples of serious misconduct perpetrated hy Fox, Black and Hendershott. Each of these
employees (over a period of many years) has demonstrated selective indifference to
mismanagement and misconduct committed by and through other Sheriff's employees under
their supervision. By doing so, these employees have committed nonfeasance and misfeasance
by takjng steps to cover up MCSO Policy violations and even criminal violations. Their attempts
to cover-up on-going misconduct amount to acts of malfeasance.
These employees have cultivated what appears to be a well-deserved reputation of being

----

above MCSO Policy and Procedure, creating a system of management measured by

--

subordinates' demonstrations of personal loyalty, rather than by integrity or even Iegaliry. As this
form of mismanagement has continued unabated, these employees have become even more

6

arroganl and reckless, supported by the strong belief that they are untouchable and
unaccowllable.
The one person whose condUCI has been the mosl egregious is David Hendersholl. In his
capacity as the Chief Deputy, he has clearly demonstrated a lack of value driven leadership. Not
only has he wiJJfuJJy ignored serious employee misconduct; he has consistently aJJowed
favoritism to improperly iniluence his disciplinary decisions. In essence,he has created a
separate "Double-StJlndard" system of discipline for the Office. The average Sheriff's Office

---

---~

employee is subject to discipline, up to and including termination, resulting /Tom Sheriff's Office
Policy and Procedure and/or criminal violations.
But, in the case of favored employees, or those demonstrating direct personal loyalty 10
Hendershott, Black, or Fox, they are shielded and protected by Hendershon /Tom receiving any
discipline. Repeatedly, Hendershon wiJJfulJy failed to investigate several incidences of serious
misconducl or take action for known policy violations commilled by Joel Fox over a period of
several years. In fact, Ihere is evidence that Hendershon directly interfered in several Office
investigations associated with Joel Fox and employees under Fox's command.
Larry Black and David Hendershott have protected Joel Fox for many years. This

protection took the form of shielding him from unfavorable annual appraisals, transfers, failure
10

complete required AZPOST training, and most importantly, alJegations of serious misconduct.

In virtualJy every case, the alJegations of misconduct would have certainly resulted in Fox being
terminated for a variety of violations up to and including untruthfulness.
WilJfuJ actions by Hendershott and Black include the prohibition of investigating clear
evidence of misconduct by Fox and the prevention oflntemal Affairs investigators from being
alJowed to directly interview Fox, face to face. During one investigation, Hendershott afforded
Fox the opportunity

10

respond in writing to written questions submitted by the IA investigators.

This inappropriate interference, a dramatic deviation from normal IA practices and fiagrant
protection of Fox by Hendershott and Black and has been demoralizing to the investigators and
commanders assigned to the Internal Affairs Division (lA) who believe their role is to fulJy,
fairly, and impartiaJJy, investigate all aJJegations of misconduct.
The most recent cover-up was the outrageous misconduct that included unlawful acts by
deputies assigned to Fox's hand picked Special Assignment Unit (SAU). This investigation was
initiated by the Internal Affairs Division, at Hendershott's request, but was quickly removed

7

from Internal Affairs investigators once Fox's problems with the seA scandal started. These
actions by Hendershott were believed to be taken to protect Fox and prevent negative publicity.
The career of David Hendershott has been one of continuous controversy and a legacy for
intimidating others. He has made a pattern and practice of placing himself and his personal and
ftnancial interests above those of this Office and our employees. He has earned a reputation as
someone who lacks integrity, professionalism, and common decency.
1broughout his career, his self-serving and careless actions has led to organizational
embarrassment, mismanagement, negative publicity, costly lawsuits, ineffectiveness, and
devastating employee morale. He has routinely used this office to benefit himself, his family,
and business associates. In addition, Hendershott has demonstrated tireless vindictiveness against
any Sheriff's employee or other person that he perceives to be disloyal or an enemy. Further, he
has gained a reputation for taking retribution against employees who question the propriety of his
conduct or fail to blindly follow his directives.
In this letter, I will specify several allegations that I have personally witnessed, and can
attest too, or situations that have been brought to my attention by other conscientious employees
that clearly warrant further investigation and consist of conduct that includes malfeasance,
nepotism, corruption, mismanagement, political impropriety, and violations of oUT Code of
Conduct. I believe that the only appropriate course of action to ensure a fair and impartial
investigation is to immediately place these employees on Administrative Leave and formally
request the Arizona Department of Public Safety to conduct an administrative/criminal
investigation of these allegations.

Sheriffs Command Association (SCA) Scandal
Since the inception of this politically motivated Fund, David Hendershott, Larry Black,
and Joel Fox, have not only propagated misleading statements to the public related to the purpose
of the SCA, but have also willfully and intentionally committed criminal acts by attempting to
obstruct justice, tamper with witnesses, and destroy evidence.
I was approached in the fall of 2006 by David Hendershott to contribute money to a Fund
to support the Sheriff that he described to me as like a "political action committee." He told me
to contact Larry Black and he would physically make a PeopleSoft payroll entry for me that
would allow a direct payroll deduction into this Fund each pay period. Because I have always

8

supported you as our Sheriff, I willingly contributed fifty-dol/ars per pay period to the Fund, and
believed that my contributions would be used for usual campaign expenses, signage, mailers, or
televised political ads.
At no time was 1 told that tills fund was some type of campaign to improve the image of
our line employees; and l would not have contributed to such a generic and non-descriptive
political action comminee, even if 1 had been asked. More importantly, once my donations were
made, l was never consulted by anyone regarding how the money would be spent or what type of
political activity would be funded.
Like most of the public, lleamed from the media about the County Allomey's
investigation of Joel Fox sometime during the time of your reelection in 2008. It was obvious by
Fox's statements to the press and ills testimony in cOuTl that he was allempting to mislead the
public and investigators as

10

the true purpose of the SCA Fund. At that time, it was obvious that

these monies were always intended to positively influence your campaign and ensure the defeat
of your opponent. Over the subsequent months, Fox continued to publicly deny the true purpose
of the Fund and was clearly allempting to protect Ole names of prominent businesspersons who
made substantial donations to the Fund.

In my opinion, based on my Jaw enforcement experience and tbe Policies of the Sheriffs
Office, the withholding of these names and faiJure to cooperate with the County Allomey's
Office should have been grounds for oUT lntemal Affairs Division to investigate Fox's actions.
However, J knew that would not be the case because of Dave Hendersholl's culpability in the
matter evidenced by the repeated questioning that took place in early April of 2009.
On April J, 2009, J was requested by David Hendersholl to meet him in his office. When
1 al-rived at about 1650 hours, I walked into the north hallway adjacent to the receptionist office

and saw Brian Sands and Dave Hendershott emerging trom Chief Trombi 's office, although
Trombi was not with them. Sands left the floor and Hendersholl directed me towards his office.

Prior to walking into his office, Hendershott directed me into Lt. lrene Irby-Barron's office
j

directly across fTOm his, we both sat down and he shut the door.
Hendershott began his conversation with me by stating "this conversation never
happened" and then began to tell me cryptically that "someone" would be coming to talk to me
reference the SCA maller. Hendersholl didn '1 specify who Or when, but he told me not to "freak
ou~"

that I "didn't have to talk to them," and that I "should haye them see my lawyer." I was

9

surprised to hear thc reference to 'my lawyer,' as I was unaware that I had a lawyer, or even had
a need for one. Hendersholl went on to say that "they" were "after four biJIionaires" and that I
"shouldn't tell them how much money I gave" or even "talk on the phone about the issue". He
added that Fox was going to say that he was the only person involved in the SCA affair.
Hendersholl told me that I should teJl them what he is going to say, which was that this
investigation is only being done because "we (meaning MCSO) were investigating their boss"
(referring to the AG's Office). I told HendershOll that I had never spoken to him about the maner
other then when he initialIy asked me to sign up. This conversation with Hendersholl took just a
few minutes and then we went into his office to talk about Office issues that were unrelated to
the SCA. I presumed that the SCA maner was a civil mailer for Fox and did nol concern myself
with this seemingly inappropriate conversation.
Later that same evening at roughly 2030 hours, I was on the way home from my birthday
dinner when my son caJled me and told me that criminal investigators from the Attomey
General's Office had visited my home and left a card. This now put the conversation earlier in
the day with Hendershott into proper perspective, I was very upset that Hendershott told me not
to cooperate with investigators when he clearly knew I would be interviewed for a criminal
investigation, not some type of civil maner. I fulIy intended to cooperate with the investigators
anyway, and I calIed Meg Hinchey, a criminal investigator with the Attorney General's Office
the next morning, and gave her a phone interview in which I answered alI of her questions
truthfulIy.
On the afternoon of July 8, 2009, I went to Dave Hendersholl' s Office because Chief
Scon Freeman told me Hendershott wanted to talk to me about a press statement authored by
Atlomey Grant Woods, which was being released in reference to Joel Fox. Hendershon showed
me a paragraph wrillen on a smalI notebook computer and he told me that Fox was out of "stays"
and that the "names were going to be made public." As a result of this development, Woods gave
brief generic statements in the press reJease that said aJl invoJved with the SCA were supporters
of the Sheriff's Office and were not involved conducting the day to day activilies of the Fund.
Hendershott then changed the subject to the investigation by the Attorney General$ Office.
Hendershotl asked me if] minded talking about what I said to those "AG guys." I replied
that I told them that J thought I had signed up for a poJitical action cOmrrUtlee and that Larry
Black had signed me up. Hendershott then said that it was not a political action commitlee;

10

although they initially planned it as such. Then he told me that he had not talked to me (which
wasn't true), and that I must have just heard about it (the SeA Fund) and decided to join. I told
him that I signed up after he asked me to, to support the Sheriff. He then said that the Fund was
supposed to support the deputies, not the Sheriff; and what J had just said was going to be "stuck
up our butt." He again tried to coach me by saying that he did not tell me anything. J
contradicted him and told him that he had, Hendershol1 stated that I would "probably be the star
witness" against him. Hendershott became very exasperated with me and finally indicated that he
was through talking, so I left the office.
A couple of minutes later, his assistant came to my office and said Hendershott wanted to

see me again. I returned to his office and he again began to ask if I was told that the Fund was
"like a political action committee." I replied that I did remember it that way. He again tried to
improperly influence me stating that he might have said that it was like a political ;lction
committee for the deputies, and I should talk to Larry (Black). Then Hendershol1 asked me if that
statement would fly. I told him that I remembered the conversation as a political action
commil1ee and that was all I remembered. Hendershott then said that in other words the money
was collected for a "good cause," but then commented about how I already said it was for the
Sheriff. I confinned that I said it was for the Sheriff and he then let out a big sigh and said
"OX."

I asked Hendershott why they did not just reveal the names long ago to avoid this
controversy? He replied that he did not know what Fox did, he added that Larry (Black) and Joel
(Fox) had looked at the law, did what they did, and now "we're sitting on this" Hendershott
continued to deny any knowledge of what was going

00,

and put the blame on Black and Fox.

When I asked him how the issue turned into a criminal matter, he said that he believed that
"they" were actually targeting him.
He brought up again the political action committee issue and whether I remember being
told about the Fund being used for the good of the deputies and image of the office, or to go after
the press. I replied to him that no one ever talked to me about any of that and I then asked
Hendershott about the possibility of getting my donations back. I also asked if I could talk with
Joel (Fox). He said that Joel would be happy to give it (my donations) back. In response to
asking if I could talk to Joel, he said I could do whatever I wanted. Hendershott was clearly
frustrated during our conversation, he said "alright," and I left his office.

JJ

About thin)' minutcs later while J was sining in CbiefJerry Young's offICe wllh several
others, Hendershon walked m and chaned for a minute with everyone, and then smgled me OU1.
He said he had some information thai I had requested Hendershotl waJked me inlo Chief Bunn's
empty office, put his arm around me in a conciliatory manner, and lold me that he said that he
had just talked with "someone" and asked them when we would gct

OUI

money back. He claimed

that he was told that "they" were waiting to hear from "their" lawyers. He apologized for the
earlier conversations, and said something about the "fuckin'" atomic bombs" going off around
him This was the last discussion I had wilh Hendershotl reference

10

Ihe SCA Fund.

In my opinion, Hendersho1t's contacl with me on April J 2009, telling me not to
cooperate with a law enforcement investigation, was nOI onJy improper and unethical for a Jaw
enforcement executive, bUI also criminal in natme and constitule witness tampering andlor
obstruction of justice. I base this statement on my many years in law enforcemen1. my
understanding of MCSO Policy and Procedmes, as well as my knowledge of Arizona Hevised
Criminal Statutes. In addition, his repeated contacts with me regarding the SCA Fund were
cJearly intended to persuade me to withhold testimony and/or provide misleading statements thai
would suppoJ1 his false and ridiculousasseJ1ion that he was nol involved in the creation and
paJ1icipation of the political action Fund.

More

e~amples of

improper campaign aCfivif)' by Dave Hendersbott

Sheriff, just as Hichard Nixon did nol need the help of the Watergate conspirators to win
his election, you did not need the ill-advised SeA funded smear video to WiD yours. You are and
always have been a very popular Sheriff and have proven to be a very formidable candidale for
anyone who ever challenged you. However, Ihat facl never seemed to occw to David
Hendcrshol1 who has always risked yow candidacy and bad publicity by a1tempting unethical
and embarrassing campaign diny tricks on vow behalf
One such example is the 2000 election against Sheriffs candidatc Jerry Robertson In an
al1empt to indentify Sheriffs employees who supponed Robenson, Hendershott enlisted Deputy
Chief RoJJie SeebeJ1 and Sergeant Leo Drivinghawk to secretly take video foot.age of persons
a1tending a campaign meeting that was held at the F.O.P. Lodge Five I Jail in Phoenix
Hendershotl arranged for a recreational vehicle from a 10caJ businessman/posse member
and Seeben and Drivinghawk parked the vehicle across the street from the F.OP hall at

;J

12

nearby bowling alley parking lot. The pair then proceeded to videotape everyone who at1ended
the meeting. Later when Seeben played the footage for Hendershott and pointed out that Lt. Ray
Jones

wa~

present, Hendershott laughed and said that he had arranged for Jones to attend as his

inside guy.
A second example is the 2004 elections against Sheriff's candidate Dan Saban. In thjs
case, Hendershott contact Deputy Cruef Steve Werner and Deputy Chief Scott Freeman and
again wanted them to attend a campaign event to likely identitY Sheriffs employees who were
present.
However, both Freeman and Werner appropriately refused to be involved. When Werner called
Hendershot1 and told him that you were going to easily win the election and didn't need a "Back
Bag Operation", Hendershott became angry and called Illm a "Fuckjng Cunt." I know from
speaking with both of them at the time that Hendershot1 was very angry with them and both were
on the outs with rum for qillte some time.

Black defends his decisions regarding the SeA and physically threatens Munnell
On July 23, 2009 at about 0950 hours, I was in your office with Lisa Allen and Larry
Black, talking about the Phoerux New Times ar1icJe wruch featured Joel Fox as a puppet on the
cover of the paper. During the conversation, I informed Black that I was not very happy about
the manner in which he and Fox handled the SCA matter. I told rum that he should have released
the names long ago, and now trus had turned into a sleazy scandal. Black tried to tell me that
they were only following the law.
I countered that every court, lawyer, and judge disagreed with them. He told me I should
read the statute and then I could come back and apologize to him. When I said I would not
apologize and said to hjm "Nice fuckjn job" Black threatened me by stating that he "wouldn't
put me through the fucking wall right now only because we were up in thjs office." Black then
challenged me to go downstairs to fightlllm, adding, "that I was a piece of shit" I replied that he
could threaten me, but that J had every reason to be upset that my name was being smeared by
thjs sleazy scandal, that is when you came into your office.

13

When you asked what was going on, I tried

10

discuss my donations to the SeA Fund

with you. You denied that the donations were made to benefit you, made a statement that you
had never had a conversation about SCA with me, and promptly left your office.
Although I chose not to make a fonnal complaint against Black for the threat, this
incident was brought to the attention of Hendershott (likely by Black). Even though Hendersholl
was made aware of the confron12tion, he never approached me to get my s12tement regarding the
matter, or took any action to investigate the circumsUlnces surrounding the incident. I had heard
numerous examples of Larry Black's propensity to lose his composure and behave
unprofessionalJy, but this was the first time Black and I had ever had any type of disagreement or
anything that would be considered an argument. That same morning after the threat was made, at
the conclusion of your command s12ff meeting, Black approached me in my office while I was
talking to Brian Sands.
ln the presence of Sands, Black made a comment to me that he thought I wanted to fight.
I replied that the notion was ridiculous. Black then s12ted that he knew] was upset about the
SCA, because I didn't know anything about it. Black added that I wasn't supposed to know
anything, because it wasn't supposed to talked about up there (meaning the 19th floor). He added
that he had a twenty-seven-page document that explained the SCA matter and the Goddard
connection, which I could review away from the office. Black then left my office without
incident. 1 never asked to review the document Black referred too, because I believe both Black
and Fox to be dishonest and lack any type of credibility regarding any maller.
Not long after the confrontation with Black, I received a leller from Joel Fox con12ining a
check dated July 27, 2009 for $2,400.00. Handwrillen on the check was a notation, "full refund
of donations" and it was for the entire amount of money I donated to the SCA Fund. It is
obvious to me that the refund check was sent to me as a result of my confrontation with Black
and was intended to make me happy, and is very likely intended to be "hush money." I make this
assertion because as of this date, I am stilJ the onJy office employee to receive a refund of monies
donated to the SCA Fund from Fox. After receiving the check, I waited severaJ weeks to cash it
waiting to see if any other employee would receive one as well. When it became apparent that I
was the only one to receive a check, I consuJted with the Arizona State Attorney GeneraJs Office
Investigators for an opinion as to whether this check was evidence, or jf it was appropriate for

14

me to cash it. I was eventually given permission to cash the check, and at their request, J
provided the AG Investigator with a copy of the check.
Since the inception of this politically motivated political action fund, David Hendershort,
Larry Black, and Joel Fox, have not onJy propagated misleading statements related to the
purpose of the SCA, but have also willfully and intentionally commirted criminal acts by
attempting to obstruct justice, tamper with witnesses, and destroy evidence. As a result of the
Attorney General's investigation, I have redacted specific information related to the criminal
case from this memorandum. I can only reveal at this time that I have willingly and fully
cooperated with the investigation and have provided information and statements that would not
be considered favorable to any of the three defendants.
Beyond their obvious incompetence, their deliberate and dishonorable actions are
clearly not those oflaw enforcement professionals. In reality, their reckless, dishonest, and
willful actions are lacking in ethics, violate Office Policy, and the laws of the State of Arizona.
Unfortunately, as you will read, their misdeeds and corruption are not confmed to only the SCA
scandal.

Internal Affairs and tbe DonbJe Standard System of Discipline

The title "Double-Standard System of Discipline" means exactly what it implies. All
Sheriff's employees are expected to follow and are subjected to compliance with Office Policy
and Procedure without exception. Any employee who fails to act in accordance with established
Office Policy and Procedure should lead to that employee being held accountable for such
behavior and receive appropriate discipline. Any supervisor discovering employees'
inappropriate, improper, or illegal actions has the absolute obligation to act and fully investigate
the marteT. This is the foundation of the system within the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, and
how it is supposed to operate. Chief Deputy Hendershon however, acting as a law unto himself,
has willfully prevented Internal Affairs personnel from initiating investigations or the
undertaking of disciplinary actions. His actions clearly made a mockery of County's Merit
System, the very system designed to protect every employee from such abuses.
A frequent beneficiary of Hendershon's intervention is Captain Joel Fox and his staff.
Investigations of Fox and several of Fox's employees, stand in stark comparison to the
disciplinary actions taken by Hendershott against ordinary Office employees. This nonfeasance

IS

in regards to the allegations of misconduct against Fox and his subordinates is the essence of a
"double-standard" of discipline employed by Hendershott. In the following pages I have
provided several examples of misconduct thal reveal not onJy serious Sheriffs Policy violations,
but, at times, criminal behavior that has been overlooked by this law enforcement agency.
The irony to all of this review is the fact that the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office, under
the direction of Chjef Deputy David Hendershott has enforced a very strict Office Policy on
truthfulness, resulting in the tennination of over two hundred Sheritrs employees. But the Policy
enforcement that has been in place for over a decade, when reviewed under the context of the
favoritism demonstrated by Hendershott, Black, and Fox shows that the "zero tolerance" for
being untruthful is actually enforced selectively. In shon, both Hendershott and Black have
protected employees found to be untruthful due to their loyalty, friendsmp, or associations. An
egregious example of such favoritism has been the protection Hendershott provided to Joel Fox
regarding the SWAT investigation of2005.
After Deputy Cmef Larry Black removed the very experienced and capable SWA T
commanders Captain Pml Babb and Lieutenant Mike Mitchell, he assigned his best friend
Captain Joel Fox, as the new commander. Soon after Fox received this prime assignment,
disagreements soon arose between Fox members of that SWAT unit regarding several important
issues; especially the issue of trainjng time. In addition to the tension that such issues caused
with the SWAT unit, two deputies (pearce and Artsigner) were wounded during a SWAT
operation on December J6,2005. It was reponed that wmle present at the incident scene, Fox
lost his composure and was yelling at members of the Team, blaming them for what had
happened and displaying frustration because he could not obtain the information related to the
shooting that he wanted so he could apparently brief you and the rest of the command staff.
The wounded deputies were then transponed to a local hospital for further treatment,
after receiving emergency medical treatment at the scene. Repor1edly, you and Chief
Hendershott arrived at the hospital and were not pennitted visit them at the direction of farillly
and/or members of the Team. It was learned, however, that Dan Saban arrived at the hospital and
was allowed to visit them.
Not long after the shooting, Fox attended a SWAT Team meeting to discuss issues of
contention (such as training time and patrol duty), where Fox behaved in abrasive and
unprofessional manner. At one point in this meeting, Fox engaged in an intense argument with a

16

Team member and challenged that deputy to a fight. The two were separated and there was no
further confrontation between them. However, sometime after that incident, SWAT Sergeant
Todd Hoggatt called Hendershott with the intention of determining whether or not Hendershott
knew about or approved the manner in which Fox was handling the SWA T Team. It was
reported that Larry Black was with Hendershott when he received the call. After the call,
Hendershott took the unprecedented "shotgun approach" of placing every single member of the
SWAT Team on Administrative Leave and ordered that all oftbem arrive for an Internal Affairs
interview at the same time. The basis for this investigation was a memorandum written by Joel
Fox, which accused every single member of the Team of insubordination, harming morale, and
damaging SWAT equipment.
Captain Ken Holmes (currently assigned as commander oflnternal Affairs) and Captain
Barry Roska were assigned as the investigators. Captain Jim Miller, the Internal Affairs
commander at the time personally interviewed Fox. Although the investigation was primarily
focused on aJlegations against the SWAT Team members regarding Fox's allegations of
insubordination and equipment damage, the investigators soon discovered through interviewing
the Team members, Fox's challenge to fight a deputy and Fox's general and his overall
unprofessional conduct during the SWAT meeting. However, when Fox was questioned about
his behavior during the SWAT meeting during the course of his interview with Captain Miller,
Fox, incredibly and repeatedly, denied that the incident ever occurred or that he wouJd have
behaved in sucb a threatening manner. In contrast, the investigators noted that every SWAT
member gave the same consistent statements about Fox's conduct. In addition, every SWA T
member was ordered to submit to a polygraph examination regarding the confrontation., which
every Team member passed.
Despite the overwhelming evidence tbat Fox was lying about his actions during the
SWAT meeting, Hendershott never ordered Fox to submit to a polygraph examination and
refused to allow the internal affairs investigators to re-interview Fox regarding his previous
statements to them. In fact., Captain Miller, who actually interviewed Fox, submitted a six-page
memorandum to Hendershott, recommending that Fox be investigated for his unprofessional
behavior and more importantly, his obvious untruthfulness. Deputy Chief Pat Cooper was also
aware of this memorandum.

17

However, when Miller mel wilh Hendershott. and reviewed lhe writt.en aJlegalions against
Fox, including transcripts revealing specific discrepancies in Fox's slatements, Hendershott
allempted to minimize the untruthful perception of Fox's statements by Slating to Miller,

10

lhe

effect of, "if you remove this word .." then Fox was not untrulhful. Hendershott. ultimately chose
not to further investigate Fox. Miller had to accept lhat decision from the Chief Deputy, allhough
he strongly did not agree with it because it was contrary to the established nonn of "zero
tolerance" against lmtruthfulness. Miller actually lost sleep over the issue.
The failure to hold Fox accountable was not a popular decision among the members of
the Internal Affairs Division and lheir Chief as they agreed lhat Fox was clearly untruthful
during his IA interview. As of this date, it is reported that lhe SWAT investigation has still yet to
be officially concluded and the SWAT members involved are still under the Ganity warning lhey
received prohibiting them from discussing the matt.er and their unjust transfers. Jt is believed that
the only SheriIT's employee disciplined was Sergeant Todd Hoggatt for "insubordination."

Jt was also reported that Hendershott, MiJler, and Maricopa Counly Deputy County
Altorney Clarisse McCormick later attended a strategy meeting related to the SWAT
investigation that involved a pending OSHA complaint in Hendersholt' s office. Accordi] is to
Miller, the original reason given for the disbanding of lhe SWAT Team was that the deputies
refused to follow orders. Then another reason was given that the deputies did not want to remain
assigned to the SWAT Unit. The final reason Or theory discussed was that the team has lost it.s
"edge."
McConnick was very dislurbed about a earlier statement made by Fox that he could
over· throw a small South American country with his lWO new SWAT Teams (the replacement
SWAT team and the Special Assignment Unit) that he now supervised. McCormick couldn't
believe that Fox would make such a statement and sarcastically commented that should Fox be
allowed to testify in a hearing regarding the maller, lhat lhe County had better go ahead and write
a check; implying that his unprofessional testinlony would no doubt result in the case being

10SI.

Jt is UTlknown if this meeting had any bearing or relevance to the fact that the SWAT Internal
Affairs investigation was apparently slalled and has yet to be officially concluded.
The sudden removal of the entire SWAT Tearn was of great concern to me and several
other Deputy Chiefs who questioned the unprecedented disbanding of an entire specialized unit.
Apparently, news of our concerns had come to the altention of Hendershot1, because one day

18

3f1er Sheriff's Staffhe abruptly summoned all of the sworn Deputy Chiefs to a meeting in his
office. Upon anival, he was clearly irritated and told Larry Black to explain to us why the Unit
had been disbanded. Black stated that the former SWA T members had formed a clique and
resisted changes to their schedule. The main issue of contention was their resistance to working
patrol duty (which would reduce their amount of training time). Due to Hendershon's demeanor,
it was obvious that he wanted us to accept Black's version of the debacle and that we had bener
leave the matter alone. lbis "one-way" flow of information was given, we understood the
message, and the meeting was ended.
Ironically, the new tea'll that was personally recruited by Fox, Black, and Hendershott,
was never assigned to work regular patrol and a tremendous amount of money was spent to train
the new replacement SWAT unit. In my opinion, this wholesale transfer of an entire specialized
unit is just another example of Black and Fox's "Shoot-the-Messenger" school of management.
Over the many years, they earned a well-deserved reputation of transferring any deputy that
questioned their unorthodox and unprofessional management decisions.
In short, it is my opinion that the entire unit was disbanded for their resistance to Fox's
unprofessional and overbearing handling of the unit and the teams perceived political support
and loyalty to Dan Saban. For obvious reasons, it is unreasonable for anyone to believe that
every single one of the members of that specialized unit was disloyal to you or equally violated
Office Policy. ln fact, to this date, not a single allegation against the deputies investigated was
ever proven true. Further evidence of that this investigation was a "witch hunt" was the everchanging explanations given for the removal and transfer of the entire team.

Hendershott protects

FOl

and Deputy Tony Navarra during a criminal investigation.

The next serious incident where Hendershon protected Fox who, in tum, protected a
subordinate during a criminal investigation related to Deputy Anthony Navarra. Navarra

wa~

personally selected by Fox to supervise the Special Assignment Unit (SAU) upon the death of its
previous supervisor, Deputy Gary Labenz. Navarra was not a Sergeant nor did he possess
sufficient training, skill, or experience to serve as the unit's new supervisor. In fact, Navarra was
originally assigned as a member of the unit because Chief Brian Sands had sent Navarra, a
rookie deputy, to SAU due to his poor performance and attitude while assigned to the
Enforcement Support Division. Fox's selection of Navarra as the SA U supervisor was made over

19

the objections of senior and more highly experienced members of that unit and even surprised
Sands.
Because ofthe£ontroversy over that decision, Fox felt compelled to write an e''llail
dated October 24,2005 to one of the seillor SAU members defending his decision. In his long
and pontificating manner, Fox tried to defend Navarra., stating, "J need a certain personality that I
think Tony exemplifies" He went on to claim that immediately before Labenz' premature death,
Deputy Labenz actually told Fox in Loillsiana to give Navarra a shot at the SAU supervisor
position; a statement that the SAU deputies were not buying. To underline Fox's lack of
management knowJedge and professionalism, Fox wrote in that email that when he considered a
replacement supervisor for the specialized unit after Labenz had passed away, that he considered
every option and the "worst possible choice of bringing in a Sgt." Navarra served as the
supervisor of the unit as a deputy until January of2008.
Sometime around January of2008, Deputy Roger Marshall filed a compJamt agamst
Navarra., alleging that Navarra might have been invoJved in some form of sexual misconduct
with a juvenile male associated with a church, which both Navarra and Marshall at1ended.
Navarra was pJaced on administrative leave but Fox surprisingly allowed Navarra the privilege
ofretairring his Sheriffs take home vehicle that was assigned to him. During this time, Navarra
and Fox communicated regularly via e·mail sent on the vehicle's Mobile Data Computer
("MDC") These e·mail commumcations and particularly the content were ultimately discovered
and reviewed by Internal Affairs Criminal Investigators to collect data related to their
investigation.
Navarra, Fox's direct subordinate, was openly gay. The reviewed e·mail communications
between Navarra and Fox revealed numerous phrases such as "kjsses," "bugs," "love ya.," and
other similar comments suggesting the existence of a possible romantic relationship between
Navarra and Fox. Such suspicions became compounded by the far more serious discovery of e·
mail sent by Fox to Navarra where Fox assured Navarra that he was "protected" and that nothing
was going to happen to him (Navarra) as a result ofthe criminal investigation.
Captain Miller oflntemal Affairs brought the discovery of the e·mmls to the at1ention of
Hendershott. Hendershott not only failed to order a non-criminal internal investigation into these
serious allegations relating to what had been discovered on the MDC, be also prohibited the
Internal Affairs investigators from directly interviewing Fox regarding the criminal case.

20

Hendershott pennjl1ed lntemal Affairs to do no more than submit three written questions to Fox,
strictly limited to Navarra's illegal use ofms MDC to run crimjnal mstory checks on ms al1eged
. -¥ictim. (The Maricopa County At1omey's Office subsequently filed two felony charges agllinst
Navarra relating to his il1egal use of the computer).
ln addition, Fox wrote a long, rambling, memorandum, which he submjtted directly to
Hendershot1. The memorandum described Fox's nearly daily personal, emotional, and spiritilllJ
support of Navarra. The highly unusual memorandum provided further evidence that indicated
the relationship that Fox had with Navarra appeared to be far more personal than a typical
supervisor-subordinate relationsmp. In addition, Fox's memorandum falsely alleged tllat Navarra
had been the victim of a "witch hunt" by Deputy Marshall and by Sergeant Hamill, one of the
lntemal Affairs investigators assigned to the criminal case.
The memorandum also revealed obvious violations of Garrity due to Navarra and Fox

discussing the details of the criminal investigation and Navarra's polygraph examjnation. Fox's
inappropriate interference in the investigation included ms attempt to be the personal
representative for Navarra during Navarra's lntemal Affairs interviews, but was prombited from
doing so by Hendershot1 (one of the rare appropriate actions taken by Hendershott regarding the
handling of this investigation)
Simjlar to what occurred during the SWAT investigation, Hendershott willfuJly chose not
to investigate the clear and convincing evidence of Fox's serious mjsconduct. This nonfeasance
was directed toward protecting Fox, wmle protecting Hendershott himself from embarrassment.

Hendershott overlooks Special Assignment Unit (SAU) administrative and criminal
misconduct against Deputy Spiwak to apparently protect Fox.
In another more serious situation, which clearly underscores Hendershott's nonfeasance
and his efforts to protect Fox, was the cover-up of several cases of misconduct and crimjnal
conduct by deputies assigned to the Special Assignment Unit that was under Fox's command.
On September 28, 2008, Deputy Adam Spiwak, a deputy who was assigned to District

Two Patrol submitted hjs letter of resignation, as he was being hired by the Glendale Police
Department. His supervisor, Sg1. Dowell asked Spiwak why he was leaving the Sheriffs Office
and Spiwak replied that the mllin reason was the "hazing" he received while assigned to the
Special Assignment Unit during ms field training.

21

Spiwak told Dowell that he did not repon the misconduct by Ulese senior deputies
because he was afraid and did not want to create a problem with his field training status. Spiwak
said that these incidents put fear and distrust in his professionandiliis Office. He added that it
also affected his family life to the point where his wife feared for his safety every day he went to
work. It was within weeks of these hazing incidents that Spiwak applied for a position with the
Glendale Police Depanment. He was later transferred to District Two Patrol where he
encountered no problems with misconduct and unprofessionalism.
When tills information was brought to my attention, J immediately contacted the District
Two Commander and ordered him to contact Spiwak, and persuade him to provide further
information so we could thorougWy investigate the matter. Appropriately, the matter was
eventually assigned to Internal Affairs, and Lt. Paul Ellis and Lt. Bruce Tucker met SpiWak at
District Two where they conducted an interview.
During this interview, Spiwak described a wide array of misconduct, ranging from
unprofessionalism and minor violations of Office Policy, all the way to violations of Arizona
State Law. In one incident, he was not allowed to leave the District Three substation for over an
hour willie the other SAO members waited outside. Each time Spiwak would attempt to leave,
members of the SAU squad would point their lasers from their Tasers at illm and he would
retreat inside.
Another incident involved Deputy AJ Macklin, who discharged his fueann nex1to
Spiwak at a cemetery in the Town of Aguila in an attempt to scare him. Another egregious
incident occurred at the Queen Creek Substation, where the squad demanded to use a Taser on
Spiwak. Although SpiWak resisted, he was told he was not getting out of it, so he fmally said,
"Fuck it" and did not resist any further. A Taser was applied to his buttocks and was activated.
Spiwak offered a list of other allegations that included urinating on door handles, target shooting
of rabbits on duty, and similar inappropriate behavior.
While Jntemal Affairs were investigating these allegations, Chief Hendershott
unexpectedly summoned Captain Miller oflntemal Affairs to discuss the Spiwak case. He
instructed MiJler to give him the investigation for ills review so he could detennine if it was a
"viable" case. Later, Miller was instructed by Hendershott to send the investigation to Captain
Fox, who had made the claim he was already investigating the matter (which according to
Captain Miller was false). As it turned out, there was a limited investigation conducted by Fox

22

regarding one of these serious allegations of misconduct against Deputy Al Macklin, but fox
never interviewed Deputy Spiwak, the victim in the matter.
The investigation completed by Sergeant Chris Scott (al the direction of Fox) was a
single page long and simply sustained the incident in wmch Deputy Macklin discharged the
firearm to scare Deputy Spiwak. Not surprisingly, there was no major ruscipline issued to
Macklin. Fox issued a Written Reprimand to Macklin in wmch he attempted to mitigate
Macklin's actions by listing other infractions by the squad to be funny; such as target shooting on
duty, horseplay, urinating on a vemcle door, and threatening to laser Spiwak.
The Written Reprimand (wmch would be filed in Macklin's personnel file) was clearly
written in a manner to conceal Macklin's serious act of firing a weapon directly bemnd Spiwak.
As for the rest of the allegations against the other members of SAU, there was no formal
investigation initiated by Fox. It is believed that none of the other deputies involved in the
serious misconduct surrounding the hazing of Spiwak received discipline of any kind.
Remarkably, on June 25, 2008, SAU Sergeant Chris Scott, simply warned his deputies

II
I

I
I

during a briefmg to ruscontinue a variety of specific inappropriate behaviors and further warned
them that others were watching them from outside of the unit.
The allegations against the SA U deputies, which involved serious statutory violations,
were obviously very serious and should have been criminally investigated by lnternal Affairs
personnel to determine violations not only of MCSO Policy but also of the Arizona Criminal
Code. However, since this investigation occurred in the middle of the SCA scandal, 1 was told
that it was taken away from Internal Affairs in an effort to protect Joel Fox who was caught up in
the middle of the SCA controversy.

Detention Lieutenant Paul Noble is a victim ofHendersbott's "Dual System of Discipline."

Although Hendershott ensured that the SAU deputies under Fox's command were
protected and not held accountable, he certainly made sure that another member of this Office
was severely punished.
On August l6, 2006, Noble was sitting in his office handling his Taser and while
speaking to another supervisor. While talking to the Sergeant, Noble accidentally discharged the
Taser and the probe struck a female civilian employee walking by just outside his office, causing

23

her to fall and injure herself. Although Noble claimed it was an unfortunate accident, he was
placed on administrative leave during the internal investigation that lasted several months.
The results of the subsequent investigation were submil1ed to the MaricopaLounty
Anorney, who declined a criminal prosecution. It was reported that Hendershon wanted to
demote Lt. Noble, but Hendershol1 eventually decided to hand down one of the most severe
punishments ever given, a two-hundred and forty hour suspension, the maximum suspension
allowed. Compounding the unfortunate situation for Lt. Noble, he was not issued his suspension
until May 14, 2007, nearly a year after the incident.
TIlls blatant disparity in discipline is prima fascia evidence of a "Double-Standard"
disciplinary system." The deputies who Tased Deputy Spiwak committed an intentional and
possibly criminal act against Spiwak, yet they were not disciplined or considered for discipline
by Hendershott or Fox. The investigation was inappropriately removed from the Internal Affairs
investigators so the matter was never sent to the County Attorney's Office for review, although it
was the intention of the Internal Affairs investigators to do so. Meanwhile, Lt. Paul Noble, an
employee with a good work record who accidentally fired a Taser, received the maximum
suspension allowable under policy, short of termination.

Larry Black's Disciplinary Nonfeasance; Deputy AI Macklin's theft of pornographic DVDs
from cvidence.

In addition to Chief Hendershott and Joel Fox failing to take appropriate action regarding
their subordinates serious acts of misconduct, Larry Black has also taken direct action to protect
deputies from receiving major discipline or being terminated due to a lack of truthfulness and
criminal acts. One beneficiary of such protection was Deputy AJ Macklin, the same deputy who
earned a reputation for unprofessional behavior and serious misconduct among the members of
SAU.
On August 13,2004, Deputy Walters obtained several pornographic materials, including
DVD's from a complainant who had found them in her residence and believed they belonged to
her husband. She also believed they might contain child pornography. A report was taken
(DR#04-14342 1) by Walters, who transported the evidence to District Two for safekeeping. The
items were placed in an unlocked evidence locker as Walters intended to process and package
the items later, although he should have processed the evidence
.

pr9U~J:lY_!lPWl arriv~1
.

at the

24

substation. Approximately five (5) days later, Walters discovered that two of the pornographic
DVDs were missing. Walters reponed this to his supervisor and wrote a memorandum that
included a statement that Deputy Macklin was present when 1ll:~as initially handling the
property.
The supervisor notified Deputy Macklin and the rest of the squad that pornographic
DVDs were missing from the evidence Jocker and that they needed to be returned no matter who
had them. MackJill repJied that he wouJd uask around" and Jater said that '"this person" wouJd
return them the next day. The supervisor, Sergeant Brian Stutsman felt confident that Macklin
knew who possessed the DVDs and told him that Captain Penrose wouJd allow the matter to be
handled uin house" if the items were returned.
On the following day, September 3, 2004, Stutsman spoke to Macklin who told him that
the "items" had been returned and that the name of the deputy was on the envelope. However,

..

when Stutsman checked the envelope, no name was found. Stutsman then called Macklin back
and asked him who had possessed the DVD's. Macklin repJied, "I did. J thought you knew."
After Macklin's admission, the investigation was completed and then sent to Deputy Chief
Black, recommending that Macklin be issued a written reprimand for misappropriation of
evidence.
Normally, upon receiving an administrative investigation that alleges that an employee
committed theft or was untruthfuJ, Black should have placed MackJin on administrative leave
and sent the investigation to Internal Affairs recommending a criminal investigation. Black's
onJy action was to hold Macklin's AnnuaJ AppraisaJ so that he was ineligible for a pay increase.
JncredibJy, BJack told me himself that he felt that the lack of a raise was a worse punishment
than Macklin would have otherwise received. 1 strongly disagree, as in any situation where a
deputy steals evidence from a Sheriffs substation and later lies about it would clearly merit
termination and criminal prosecution.
Macklin was recentJy involved in another simi Jar situation involving missing property
that was Jater found at his personal residence. On June J8, 2008. Reserve Deputy Meir #R I 141
made an arrest for drug violations related to a traffic stop in Gila Bend. Deputy Macklin assisted
Meir by searching the vehicJe and seizing various items of narcotics and drug paraphernalia, a
total of five (5) items. In addition, Macklin provided a detailed description of the seized items to

Meir, which was also described in Meir's repon narrative.

25

However, the suspect later filed a citizen complaint because she wanted her video
camera and a still camera returned that she claimed were seized from her vehicle during her
arrest. She filed the complaint because several deputies, including Captain Fox, had failed to
return her phone calls. Although Macklin completed a detailed property inventory form
describing a variety of drug paraphernalia and other evidence seized from the vehicle, he did not
list the cameras or inform Deputy Meir that he had even taken the cameras for evidence.
Several months later, Sergeant Scott fmally got around to investigating the matter and
contacted Macklin. Macklin initially told Scol1 that he would check his notes and call him the
next day. Scol1 sensed something was wrong when he spoke with Macklin so he decided not to
wait for Macklin to call and phoned him the next day. During this second conversation, Macklin
admitted that the cameras were in found in hjs garage, at his personal residence, and claimed that
he had accidentally left them there while takjng equipment out of a take home patrol verucle.
The fact that these items were found in his personal residence and that he had failed to
document their seizure or inform the arresting deputy that he had seized them clearly indicates
that the matter should have been assigned to Internal Affairs for investigation. However, it was
not., and was eventually handled at the Sergeant level.
Despite thjs most recent incident and his other inappropriate actions while assigned to
the SA U Uillt, Macklin was honored as the Cour1 Security Division Deputy of the Quarter earlier
this year. It should be noted that as of thjs date yet another internal investigation in which
Macklin is a principle is currently underway to investigate allegations that he recently assaulted
an inmate under his supervision.

Black and Fox malfeasance regarding Deputy Macklin forging supervisor signatures on his
departmental reports
Approximately 2002, Deputy AI Macklin was assigned to the Motor's Unit under the
command of Fox and Chief Black. Macklin's immediate supervisor was Sergeant William
Hindman. William Hindman has since been promoted to Captain and is currently the
commander of District Three Patrol.
While assigned as the direct supervisor of Deputy Macklin, Hindman received a
subpoena for a criminal case that he wasn't familiar with. Hindman then reviewed a copy of the
Departmental Report related to the subpoena, however, after this review: he still could not recall

26

the incident or detennine why the couJ1 had requested his appearance. However, after a mOre
careful examination of the repon, Hindman noted that someone had forged ills name in the
supervisor approvaL signature block of the report Office policy requires that all DepartmentaL-Reports be reviewed and signed by a supervisor to ensure quality control and that each report is
received in a timely manner.
Noting the obvious forgery, Sergeant Hindman confronted Deputy Macklin about the
maner who adnlined that he had forged Hindman's signature on the Departmental Repon that he
had turned in. When asked why he had forged Hindman's name on the repon, Macklin replied
that the report wasn't completed on time, so he signed for Hindman so it could be tumed in late
without Hindman's knowledge. When Hindman asked how many previous reports Macklin had
forged ills name on, Macklin replied that he couJdn't even count.
Discovering that Deputy Macklin had commined several acts of Forgery (ARS 132002.A, a Class Four Felony) and other serious Code of Conduct policy violations, he
immediately reported the incident to Captain Joel Fox. Hindman informed Fox that he was going
to initiate an investigation into Macklin's serious misconduct. However, Fox told Hindman to
hold off and would not allow him to begin a formal investigation. Instead, Fox apprised Black of
the situation and Hindman were later summoned to a meeting anended by Chief Black, Joel Fox,
and Deputy Macklin.
It was during this meeting that Black simply scolded Macklin for ills actions, telling

Macklin that if he wrote up the incident, Macklin would lose his job and he had a wife and
family to take care of. After nothing more than a lecture from Chief Black, Macklin was aJlowed
to remain assigned to the Motors Unit without any disciplinary action being taken. More
seriously, Sergeant Hindman strongly disagreed with Black and Fox's nonfeasance and their
refusal to allow him to appropriately investigate and discipline Macklin.
The forging of supervisor signatures on an untold number of departmental reports
completed by Deputy Macklin is a very serious maUer, not to mention a criminal act. As a result
of MackJin 's willful actions, an untold number of Departmental Reports were turned in late
without the knowledge of his supervisor or command staff. In addition, these reports were not
properly reviewed for accuracy and completeness, which couJd be very detrimentaJ to the further
investigation and successful prosecution of criminal acts.

27

Chief Black and Joel Fox's willful nonfeasance iiJ protecting Deputy Macklin were
certainly intended to protect Macklin from certain tennination and/or criminal prosecution.

Black covers up a Trutbfulness investigation of a deputy sberi1J under bis command by
destroying the document instead of sending tbe investigation to Internal Affairs.

Another serious allegation against Larry Black involved the protection of an employee
related to a member of the command staff: While assigned as the Deputy Chief of Patrol, Black
summoned Deputy Chief Rollie Seebert to see him in his office. Upon arrival, Black showed
Seebert an administrative investigation involving District One Deputy Amy Golding, Seebert's
niece. The investigation was based on an allegation oflack of truthfulness against Deputy
Golding. Based on the Hendershott's stand on truthfulness, Golding would have been tenninated
had the case been forwarded to him and bandIed within policy guidelines.
When Seebert arrive at Black's office, Black asked See bert what he wanted done with the
file and the investigation. Seebert replied to Black that he should handle it the way it should be
handled, indicating he was not asking for any favors. Black replied to Seebert that he "didn't get
it," and Black pointed to the trashcan. The file was not forwarded to Internal Affairs for further
investigation, or returned to the District, and no further action was taken against the Golding.
The inappropriate handling of the administrative investigation by Black was later brought to the
attention of the command staff of District One Patrol, who was aware of Black's decision to
"shred" the file and protect the employee from tennination.

Larry Black denies a qualified deputy a transfer to tbe Aviation Division due to bis
donation of money to Sberiff's candidate Dan Saban

After you defeated Dan Saban in the 2004 election, a Deputy Sheriff named Steve
Hughes requested a transfer to the Sheriff's Aviation Unit. In preparation for this transfer
request, Hughes had spent his o\"n money to obtain his pilots license. However, when Deputy
Hughes sougbt a transfer to Aviation Division that was under the command of Larry Black, he
was denied that transfer.
As a result of this denial, Chief Don Schniedrniller approached Chief Larry Black to
discuss the matter. However, Larry Black wouldn't injtially state why Hughes was denied the
transfer. Finally, Chief Schniedmiller pressed Black on the matter and Black fmally stated that

28

Hughes had donated to the Saban campaign and cmphatically said that Hughes would not be
considered for the transfer

Larry Black al1empl 10 coerce Deputy Rich Burden not to prosecule Phoenix Coyotes
player Brad May who assaulted Burden at a Scot1sdale nightclub.
In April of 2002, Deputy Burden was working off duty at the Cat Eye nightclub in
Scoflsdale when Phoenix Coyotes team member Brad May became disorderly after him and his
friends were not allowed to enter the club without paying a cover charge. May who had a
reputation m the NHL and in public for staT1ing fights became unruly and when Burden
al1cmpted

10

arrest him. punched Burden almost knocking him unconscious. Charges were filed

and the case made local news, in fact, you were quoted as saying "the reason rm giving special
Jl1ention to this is this is an assaul1 on one of my deputies."
However, due to Black's personal relationship with then Coyotes team owner Steve
Ellman, Black met with subordinate Burden and aggressively pressured Burden not to prosecute.
He pressed Burden by saying that it wasn't a big deal and even offered to get Burden season
hockey tickets. However, Burden defied Chief Black and was adamant that he was going to
prosecute. Ullimately May was convicted for the assault and has yet to pay any restitution to
l3urden as ordered by the coun Adding insult to injury. only months after May assaul1ed Burden.
Steve Ellman gave you a hockey stick signed by Mayas a seventieth bir1hday presenl
The direct actions taken by Black to coerce a subordinate to drop felony zggrz'-,ated
;~ssault

charges against a popular SpOrLs figure through intimidation and bribery arc at the very

Icast uncthical and unconscionable, and more than li1<ely a violation of state law

MACE: Hendershol1's mismanagement and polilicalJy motivated investigations

"There is no crueler tyranny than that which i5 exercised under cover of low. and with
thp colors ofjustice." U.s. V lannoff; J982

Since the MACE investigative unit was established, it has been the pal1em and practice of
UlJS unit

10

conduct poillically motivated investigations at the implicit direction of IIcndershol1

In the very short time that the

uml has been in existence, it has suffered

from poor morale. high

19

Turnover of personnel and command staff due to the intense pressure, rnieromanagement, and the
unethical conduct of David Hendershott.
It is a frustration of (he personnel associated with the MACE Unit that Hendershott's

continual interference and constant pressure to rush investigations is the reason that recent high
profile criminal cases were ultimately dismjssed or pled down to lesser charges. Over the past
years or so, nine (9) different command officers have been assigned and subsequently removed
from supervising the Unit, with has resulted in absolutely no continuity

(0

ensure consistency

and quality investigations.
A non-inclusive list of the personnel previously assigned as commanders, removed from,
or declined an offer to supervise this specialized unit include: Lieutenant Bruce Tucker,
Lieutenant Travis Anglin, Lieutenant Rich Burden, Lieutenant Fred Aldorasi, Lieutenant Steve
Bailey, Captain James Miller, Captain Ken Holmes, Deputy Chief Bill Knight, and Executive
Chief Scott Freeman. The primary reason for such an extensive Jist of personnel movements in
such a short time for a specialty Unit is Hendershott's impatience and irritation with commanders
who do not agree with his motives or methods.
Another reason for this serious turnover problem is the intense pressure, continual
interference, and absolute political nature of the investigations initiated by Hendershol1. The
most blatant abuse of power by Hendershott was the March 2009 removal from the MACE Urnt
of several detectives and commanders. Sergeant Jeff Gentry, Lieutenant Rich Burden, Deputy
Chief BiJJ Knight, and Chief Scol1 Freeman were removed from their supervisory position over
the MACE Urnt for refusing to write an iJJegal search warrant ordered by Hendershol1 to be
served on several members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors.

Hendershott orders search warrant to be written against County Board of Supervisors
wit bout probable cause.

On or about March J 9, 2009, Hendershott approached Chief Bill Krught and instructed
him to complete a search warrant affidavit right away to conduct a search of aJJ members of the
Marieopa County Board of Supervisors. Hendershol1's justification was a media report that the
Board of Supervisors (BOS) had paid ten thousand dollars ($ 10,000) to a vendor to search their
offices at 301 West Jefferson, for any listeillng devices the Sheriff's Office mjght have installed

30

after tlJe execution of the initial search warrant for the Stapley investigation. The crime,
according

10

Hendershott, was misappropriation of government Funds.

Chief Knight did not believe there was sufficie!"!! evidence te request a search warrant so
he wanted

10

discuss the matter with his supervisor, Chief Scott Freeman and the new

Commander of the MACE Unit, Lieutenant Rich Burden (Burden had just assigned to the Mace
Unit as its new supervisor, two weeks earlier). Freeman and Burden concurred with Knight's
opinion that sufficient evidence for a search warrant was lacking. During a subsequent meeting
with Hendershott, Burden questioned Hendershott about the source of the information for the
proposed search warrant, Hendershott told Burden to "read the goddamn paper!" Burden even
countered to Hendershott that we (as in MCSO) swept our own offices at WeJls Fargo (J 9

th

Floor) for Jistening devices, which is the same offense we were attempting to investigate the
,
Board of Supervisors for doing.
Hendershott continued to pressure and convince Burden to cooperate by insisting an even
more ridiculous theory to establish probable cause for the warrant. He told Burden that the BOS
believed that we (MCSO) had left listening devices in their offices, so the crime was attempted
theft of our listening devices. Hendershotl then said they would have damaged the devices so it
would also be attempted criminal damage. Burden replied that we did not install any listening
devices, so it clearly could not be used as a potential crime for the purposes of obtaining a search
warrant.
When Hendershotl learned that Burder:, Knight, and Freeman did nol agree with his
decision to proceed

"~th

an immediate search warrant., Hendershott then sought out the sergeant

for the Mace Unit, Sergeant Jeff Gentry who reported directly to Lieutenant Burden. While
Gentry was emoute to see Hendershott; Freeman, Knight, and Burden were all sitting in Chief
Knight's office and Freeman decided that he did not want Gentry to be ambushed by
Hendershotl. Therefore, Freeman called Gentry to come to Knight's office, before reporting to
Hendershotl so the four of them could discuss their predicament. Hendershott became impatient
waiting for Gentry to arrive and learned that he was in the building; Hendershott walked down
the hall and entered Knight's office
Hendershott sat down and Chief Freeman began to discuss why there was not enough
information and facts to complete a search warrant. Hendershott replied to Freeman that he did
not wanl to hear from him. Lieutenant Burden then started to laugh, and went into great detail to

31

explain that there were not enough suppoJ1ing facts to establish probable cause for a warrant. At
one point, Hendershot1 replied that he would write it (the search warrant) himself. Hendershott
was so upset that nobody present would agree with him abou\...llJe search warrant that he
ultimately stood up and left the office. After this refusal by his subordinates to write the warrant,
Hendershot1 commented to Freeman "l'm fresh out ofloya] guys, who am I going to get to do
this?

Hendersbott threatens to umacbine-gun" Burden, Knigbt, and Freeman

At about 2000 hours that evening, Burden received the first of several threatening phone
calls from Hendershot1. He threatened that Freeman, Knight, and Burden had "better get on
board" and threatened to "machine gun" every "fucking" or "mother-fucking one of them"
before hanging up on Burden. Hendershot1 called Burden back a second time and again
threatening to "machine-gun" all of them and hung up. Burden then called Hendershott back and
tried to be non-threatening to his Chief. Hendershott again replied that that they had better get on
board or he would "machine gun" all of them. Burden then told Hendershott to go ahead and do
it, and hung up on the Chief. Burden said he was very upset by what had happened and was
unable to sleep that night.

Meeting witb Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubucbon

Thc following Monday, March 23, 2009, a meeting was arranged with Maricopa Deputy
County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon at the Wells Fargo Building on the J8th Floor to discuss the
BOS search warrant that Hendershott wanted. Present in this meeting: Lieutenant Rich Burden,
Sergeant Jeff Gentry, Sergeant Rich Johnson, Sergeant Brandon Luth, and a Sheritrs financial
analyst named Beverly Owens. This was a very contentious meeting in which Aubuchon told
MCSO investigators to use "creative writing" to author the warrant. Burden was incredulous. He
pointed to each of his subordinates one at a time, and told them if he found out that anyone of
them used creative writing or wrote a warrant without the facts, he would fire them. Burden then
and asked his subordinates if they understood him.
Burden reiterated that facts must be used to establish probable cause for all warrants. He
also told each of them that if any of them wanted to come forward after the meeting he would
meet individually to straighten the matter out and that he woqld nrotect them if they did

32

something wrong or was told to do something wrong. )fthere were anything immoral or
unethical, he would take care of them and fix it right now.
During the meeting Aubuchon showed the previously wriner! search Warra!l! used for the
Stapley case as an example for them to follow. Burden countered that the warrant looked like a
"Press Release" and not a valid search warrant. When she insisted that MCSO had authored the
warrant, Burden countered that we (MCSO) had wrinen about six pages of that warrant. but the
County Anomey's Office added the additional information and it was now about seventeen
pages in leng1h. Burden added that told her that he had the original warrant to prove it.
Burden said that he was glad that he did not have to go to suppression or quash hearing
reference that jirst warrant. Aubuchon said it wasn't her job to author search warrants and said
"wby don't you just do good police work." Burden replied that good police work would begin
that day.
The most shocking moment of the meeting took place when Aubuchon, who is supposed
to be an impanial and ethical prosecutor, stated during the meeting, to the effect that if they
couldn't get charges on Stapley, that he would be tried in the media. The result of this
contentious meeting was that Burden and the Sheriff's personnel present in the meeting refused
to author a warrant to search the offices of all the members of the Maricopa County Board of
Supervisors 3Jld the meeting was concluded.

Hendersholl removes Freeman, Knight, Burden, and Gentf)' from their duties as the

MACE Unit chain of command.
The very next day following the Aubuchon meeting, Burden was working to establish
probable cause fOJ the search warrant Hendershon wanted wrinen by following-up on the vendor
who had been contracted to sweep the County BOS offices for listening devices. All of the
sudden, Burden received a called from Chief Scott Freeman and was directed to stop. He then
told Burden to meet with him and Chief Knight. At this meeting, Burden was told that they had
all been fired from the MACE Unit and that Burden was being reassigned to the Enforcement
Support Division.
Hendershot1 commented that only Captain Miller could effectively manage the
remaining detectives assigned to the MACE Unit 3Jld the primary investigators were transferred
back under Miller'5 command effective immediately. In addition. to thS' MACE Upjt being

33

removed from under the command and supervision of Freeman, Knight, and Burden, Sergeant
Jeff Gentry and his detectives were also removed from the MACE Unit and retumed to the
Special

lnvestig~tjBns Division.

This left the remaining MACE detectives, Sergeant Rich

Johnson, and Sergeant Brandon Luth under the command of Capl2in Miller. Captain Miller was
not pleased with the decision to return MACE back under his command and he retired not long
after the MACE group was placed back in his Division.
Chief Hendershott's removal of all of his command staff and their personnel because of
their lillwillingness to permit, conduct, or participate in an illegal search is a texlbook example of
management malfeasance. Only a few days after he had "cleared the decks" at MACE,
Hendershon met with you and casually reported that he had made some changes in the MACE
unit to move some of the "lazy" deputies out of it. This could not have been farther from the
truth and serves as a further example of Hendershott failing to provide you with legitimate,
factual information regarding the operation of your office.

The case against Supervisor Don Stapley; Hendershott orders his arrest
As the newly assigned commander of the MACE unit, Lieutenant Rich Burden took it
upon himself to carefully review the original Sl2pley indictment. After this review, Burden carne
to the conclusion that the case was weak and that multiple charges had been "stacked" against
Stapley. Burden expressed his concerns to Chief Hendershott during the calls in which
Hcndcrshon threatened to "machine gun" him and the other command staff associa,ed with ,ht:
MACE unit. His assessment was so alarming that Hendershott ordered Burden and his detectives

to review the Stapley case the entire previous weekend, burning nearly one-hundred (100) hours
of overtime.
On September 2 I, 2009, only days after all criminal charges were dismissed against
Stapley, Hendershott ordered the probable cause arrest of Stapley on new fraud charges related
10

his position as President of National Association of Counties (NACo). MCSO had never made

a probable cause arrest in any "white collar" case prior to that time and Our sl2ndard pattern and
practice was to work closely with the prosecutor (this time the Yavapai County Attorney's
Office). This last minute decision to arrest Stapley on new charges was inappropriate for several
reasons. First, the case had already been submitted to the Yavapai County Attorney for review.
Second, the Sergeant Rich Johnson, the supervisor of the MACE unit did not believe the case

34

was completed and ready for prosecution. Tbird, the outside appearance was that the timing of
the arrest was connected to the previous dismissal. The sole reason given for the urgency of
conducting a probable cause arrest was claimed existence of victims who- deserved ~ustice, which
is debatable at best.
This arrest took place after Chief Hendershon contacted Sergeant Johnson on the
Saturday moming prior to the Monday arrest, ordering him

10

make the probable cause arrest.

Hendershon also informed Johnson that he was not to call Deputy Chief Terry Young (Johnson's
Bureau Chief) to discuss the maner. Johnson, believing the case was not ready because there was
still additional investigative follow-up to be completed and the arrest was not coordinated with
the Yavapai County Anomey, called Chief Young in a panic to discuss the situation. Ultimately,
a decision was made to comply with Chief Hendershon's decision because probable cause did
exist and the arrest was made the following Monday.
Ths unorthodox arrest created a great deal of negative publicity. In the court of public
opinion, that arrest appeared to be an abuse of power, exercised for political purposes only. As a
result of the willful mishandling of the case, the improper probable cause arrest, and the
subsequent attempt to hire of out-of-state anomeys as special prosecutors, it well may be that a
successful prosecution of Supervisor Don Stapley will be very difficult, if not impossible.
In addition to these examples of Hendershon's misconduct, there are other acts of
misconduct that I will not disclose related to the FBI investigation because they are currently
under criminal investigation with that agency and therefore I will not include examples Or
provide the names of the employees involved at this time.

Hendershott funbers bis personal interest in Facial Recognition at tbe County's expense
For more than a decade, Chief Deputy Hendershon has devoted a considerable amount of
time and money into the Facial Recognition project. A compilation of man-hours expended by
detention officers, deputy sheriff's, fmance personnel, civilian personnel, supervisory staff, and
command personnel in support of the project would be certainly be in the millions of dollars. In
addition, a considerable amount ofRJCO money has been spent on the hardware, software,
travel, and other related expenses; possibly hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Ths project has never been in the best interests of MCSO. Nor would it be objectively
viewed as being a worthwhile return on investment for RJCO, Detention, and General Fund

35

moores Nevenheless, Ihoe has been good reason

10

bebcve that the Facial RecognJlJ()n proJecl

was in the best personal IDterests of Hendershotl and hJS busmess assocJates, much, if not most of
which is at count)'

~xpense

In facL Chjef Hendershotl was quoted by "MCSO empl<'yee

associaled with the project as stating Ihal, upon then retiremenl from the Sheriffs Office, they
were going to make lots of money.
The original concepl of Facial Recognition involved the use of cameras to photograph
actual people and comparing them wilh databases of wanted individuaJs. Although this
lechnology was purchased and installed by Con· Tents to identify work furlough and work
release inmates on a daily basis. it was never reliable. There were often frequent debys as
officers repeated the time· consuming process of re·emolling inmates into the system because the
system had failed to recognize them.
In addition, when the equipment maJfunctioned, il was soon discovered that the vendor
did not respond in a timely manner and overall provided poor service. Because J was the Deputy
Chief responsible for that facility and was informed of these recurring problems, J instructed the
faciJity commander

10

maintain daily log books to document the repeated problems and

experienced with that equipmenL In addition, inmate· grooming policies had to be changed
because the equipmenl was incapable of identifying the same inmate from day to day due to
facial hair growth
The most egregious waste of public and RJCO monies associated with Facial Recognjtion
was the Honduras project As ) saw it, what occurred was nothing more th,", a "Red Cross" show
designed to detract from the real purpose of mabng trips

10

Honduras, which I believe was to

promote the Facial Recognition system with the Honduran government as pan of a ''lest
marketing" e!Ton

10

prove that this system was viable. With a Honduran government

endorsement as a marketing tool, they could recruil other govemments and other customers to
purchase the technology and equipment from Hummingbird and it's vendor Steven (jreshner
Not only was the Honduras experience expensive and unwarranted il

hrou~hl ~reat

criticism (once discovered) from the media. Public reeords revealed also revealed this offIce
spent an additional $ J22, J44.89 towards the construction of a "Honduran Government fusion
center" Michael Ciaverella CEO of DarComm Network Solutions stated that the entire
$ I20,000.00 payment from MCSO was passed on directly to Hummingbird Defense Systems.

which was not an approved vendor of the County. Hummingbird's CEO is Steve (jreschner

36

In addition to the Honduras travel, Hendershott also traveled to China for brief trips, and
was accompanied by Steven Greshner. The pw-pose of the trip was unknown, but its extremely
short duration suggested that it was made for business purposes, not for pleasme. It has been
reported that Hendershott also wanted to travel to Guadalajara, Mexico regarding Facial
Recognition matters, but you refused to authorize this travel at county expense duc to negative
media reports regarding Hendershott's activities in Honduras. HendershotT may have made the
trip to Mexico anyway at his own expense. As of this date, Hendershott has repeatedly refused to
discuss his relationship with Greschner and obvious conllict of interest.
Hendershott has created a full time Facial Recognition Unit. s12ffed with fuJJ-time MCSO
personnel. It is true that Facial Recognition, by now using photo comparisons, is far more
reJiable than live camera technology. Never1heless, when viewing the project in its t0121ity, for
aJJ of the effort and money spent, only about fifteen (15) or twenty (20) cases or identifications
have been made. Considering these facts, it would be difficult to argue that the Facial
Recognition system has brought a positive return on investment.
Nearly a year ago, Hendershott approved the expenditure of twenty-five-thousand
($25,000.00) doJJars worth of Facial Recognition equipment from the bankrupt DarComm

Company to be ins12l1ed in the Wells Fargo J9th Floor lobby for security reasons. As of this
date, it should be noted that the system has yet to be activated and is still not in use. Suffice it to
say, this wasteful expenditure ofRlCO Funds was most impractical since history has shown that
thi5 type of Facial Recognition system is unreliable and ineffective. This purchase appears te be

nothing more that another method to provide financial aid to a business a~sociate of David
Hendershott.

Hendershott promotes Facial Recognition o\,er Mobile Data Computers for Patrol Deputies
Jt is very clear that Facial Recognition has been an important priority to Hendershott and
his business associates. Over the past decade, he has spent a great deal of time and money
supporting it. Unfonunately, he failed to exert even a fraction of that effort to provide our
deputies with Mobile Data Computers ("MDC") for our patrol vehicles. In fact, MCSO was the
very last agency in Maricopa County

(0

provide these essential tools of law enforcement to

OUT

sworn deputies Last year, when the Office of Management and Budget COMB") rejected our

37

budget request to purchase the MDC units for the remaining patrol districts, I contacted Chief
Hendershott who told me they "were off the table."
__ At one point I spoke with you about the MDC project along with Lisa Allen. When 1-

mentioned that we were spending a great deal of money on Facial Recognition and we were not
getting the MDC units for the deputies, your very first comment was "'I hate Facial Recognition."
Because the MDC was my highest priority program and because Bendershott
demonstrated such an absolute Jack of interest in pursing this (MDC) matter, I took the initiative
and sent a vety direct e-mail to OMB, detailing the reason why MDC equipment was needed for
the safet)' of our deputies and tbe citizens of Maricopa County. OMB subsequently approved the
necessary Funding for the project, a fact you acknowledged during your phone call

,,~th

James

Canfield, Don Stapley's assistant.
It should also be noted that the Maricopa County Sherifrs Office does not have a full-

time Crime Analysis Unit. At the present time, only one dedicated Information Technology
employee provides crime statistics to our patrol districts and to our contract cities. However, an
agency our size should have a fuJly staffed unit with state-of-the-aI1 crime analysis technology
and software that is critically needed for crime analysis. This is yet another one of many
important functions of the organization that has been neglected in favor of Facial Recognition,
clearly putting the financial interests of his business associates ahead of the safety and welfare of
our deputies who put their lives on the line each and every day protecting the public.

Hendershott's failure to adequately support the men and women of patrol
The most egregious example of David Hendershott's neglect of the of the dedicated men
and women assigned to patrol is the prohibition on overtime. Although the public would expect
that a responsible overtime budget would be primarily directed towards first line deputies and
detention officers, it is not. In fact, overtime has been prohibited in both the Custody Bureaus
and the Patrol Bureau. At Hendershott's direction, any overtime that occurs in patrol must be
justified as an emergency situation and the shift supervisor must write a memorandum
documenting the overtime.
On the contrary, although most professional law enforcement agencies would not
authorize overtime for white-collar criminal investigations such as the MACE unless there were
exigent circumstances, Hendershott has clearly provided detectives related to these cases an

38

unlimited overtime budget. For example, during the pay period ending January 24, 2010.
Sergeant Barry Hamill was paid $3,721.55 in overtime alone. The reaSOD for his over1ime, he
was tasked with reviewing e-mails pertinent to the Chicanos Por La Causa investigation
involving Maricopa County Board Member Mary Rose Wilcox.
Although Sheriff's records often would indicate that a large amount of over1ime was
charged to my Patrol Bureau during each pay period, I found the records to be incorrect. I finally
began keeping a separate record of actual overtime accrued by patrol. On many occasions,
Hendershott would question me as to why patrol overtime was so pjgh, and I would then provide
my own records for Hendershot1 that would correctly indicate the non-patrol assignment where
the employee truly worked. These were always specialty urnts, such investigations, human
smuggling Or animal cruelty.
I recently conducted a staffing study for sworn deputies within the Sheriff's Office. As I

suspected, the Patrol Bureau has the lowest staffmg ratio for sworn deputies in the entire office.
Since my assignment as the Patrol Bureau Commander in July of 2007, there has been a routine
transfer of personnel from patrol into specialty assignments without regard to patrol district
staffing ratios or even discussing potential transfers with me.
Under Chief Deputy Hendershott, the mandated responsibilities of the Patrol Bureau are
not a priority and the bureau is simply used as a labor pool to provide deputies for his special
interests and other special assignments. At a time when I have squads that utilize Deputy
Sheriff's as acting supervisors on patrol squads, Chief Hendershott has assigned a Sergeant with
the primary responsibility of driving him around. For obvious reasons, this lack of personnel and
proper supervision has negatively impacted the safety of our deputies and the public.
Another example of the absolute disregard for the proper use of office resources occurred
in 2008. Due to budget issues, although overtime was restricted, purchases were limited, and
there were shortages of ammunition for office employees, David Hendershott arranged for
At10mey Mark Goldman to be picked up by the Sheriff's Helicopter and flown to the Sheriff's
Range to fire machine guns all at County expense. (1t should be noted that Andrew Thomas
named Goldman a Special Deputy County At10mey in 2005 after serving as his campaign
manager in 2004.

39

Hendershott: Nepotism keeps friends and members of his family employed.
Nepotism is defmed as the practice, on the pan of a person possessing hiring autherity, of
displaying preferential treatment to farmly members when making job appointments without
regard to questions of merit or qualification. That same principle and practice also occurs when il
relates to the hiring of friends, political allies, and the like.
Over the years, Chief Hendershot1 has systematically used his position as the Chief Deputy {o
benefit family members friends, and political allies alike by filling or creating jobs for them in
positions that (more properly) should have been held by other existing Sheriff's employees more
justifiably qualified for such appointments. He has repeatedly manipulated this agency's hiring
and promotional process to advance applicants that are family members, friends, or are
politically cormected by providing subordinates with the names of preferred candidates for a
variety of positions. There have been too many people appointed because of their association
with Hendershott to mention in this memorandum, but here are some notable examples:

Michael Raybal/: Chief Hendershott created the Computer Crimes Unit but did not follow
the standard practice of assigning a sworn Captain or Lieutenant, as it's first commander.
lnstead, Chief Hendershott assigned Michael Rayball, his brother-in-law as the first commander.
Mr. Rayball had no previous law enforcement experience and was reponedly a pan-time teacher

at Scottsdale Community College. When other MCSO employees in the unit would ask RaybaJJ
about his relationship to Hendershott, he initially denied any. Subsequently Rayball explained his
misleading denials by saying that his \",ife was only the half-sister of Lorraine Hendershot1, Chief
Hendershot1's wife. Later, Mr. RaybaJl left the Sheriff's Office following a divorce from
Hendershott's sister·in-Iaw.
David Hendersholt Jr.: Once the Computer Crimes Unit was established, Hendershott
created a series of well-paid positions in this unit, including a position for his son David
Hendershot1 Jr. who apparently chose not to apply for a deputy sheriff position. This is a civilian
criminal investigator position with the responsibility of conducting forensic computer
examinations. In this position, Hendershot1 Jr. was under the command of his uncle, Michael
RaybalJ. It has also been reponed that MCSO is the only local Jaw enforcement agency that hires
non-sworn employees in this type of investigative

positjo~

40

A third civilian investigator named Joann Kennedy was hired who was not associated
with the Hendershott family. Kennedy had extensive previous experience while assigned to the
prestigious RQcky Mountain Infonnation Network and had impeccable credentials. She was_
considered the most experienced and most talented forensic investigator within the Unit.
However, Hendershott Jr. who let everyone know who his father was by his "Brat" like behavior
and who didn't like being told what to do, often clashed with the more experienced Kennedy
who did not hesitate to stand up for herself. It was after some kind of disagreement between the
two that Kennedy was abruptly transferred to the Special Investigations Division.
This unwarranted transfer personally devastated Kennedy, who was very passionate
about her responsibilities in the Computer Crimes Unit. Chief Hendershott then fabricated a
cover story that Special Investigations had requested her to be transferred to that division. In
fact, her transfer was a complete sw-prise to all in the Special Investigations Division. However,
they were very happy to receive such a talented asset to their operation.
The result of the sudden transfer of Joanne Kennedy effectively reduced the manpower
assigned to computer forensics by one third. However, the workload remained significant and as
a result, David Hendershott Jr. often worked a large amount of overtime. The type of cases the
MA CE unit investigates requires a great deal of computer forensic work. In fact, the Sheritr s

I
J

I
I

Office Detail of Overtime Worked for the Pay Period Ending February 8,2009 revealed that
Hendershott Jr. was the top overtime earner for the entire Sheriff's Office. His overtime paid for
that pay period totaled forty-six hours, which came to a grand lotal of two Ll)ousand, one hundred
and twenty-one dollars and six cents. ($2,121.06)

Adam Vecchi: Once David Hendershott Jr. was hired as a civilian investigator,
Hendershott then hired another family friend named Forrest Mark Anderson for another criminal
investigator position, but he did not make probation and was tenninated. Hendershott then hired
Adam Vecchi, who was a high school friend of David Hender.>hott Jr. and is currently assigned
to work alongside Hendershott Jr. in the Computer Crimes Division.

Patricia Cordova: Cordova was hired and placed in the Per.>onnel Division where she
received several promotions \vithin a relatively short period. She was eventually assigned as the
commander ofthe Division, responsible for all of the hiring and management of Sheriffs Office
personnel. In this capacity, she was reportedly overbearing, a poor manager, and had a negative
impact on morale. Due to the fact she was ill su.ited as the Commander of Personnel, she was

4]

eventually reassigned by Chief Sheppard to a newly created Employee Relations Section (a
lesser position) and then assigned to yet another position before she eventually resigned from the
Sheriff s Office.
While assigned as the commander of Personnel, the Sheriffs Office had begun a major
recruiting effort to staff the new jail facilities that were under construction. Jail tax monies were
budgeted to purchase recruiting materials. Cordova reportedly arranged for her boyfriend to
receive a contract to create and apply recruiting advertisement graphjcs to Sheriff' 5 Office
vehicles as well as other promotional materials. It is believed that this contract was in excess of
ten thousand dollars ($ I0,000). Jt is not known whether Cordova's arrangement for such

3

contract to be provided to her boyfriend was violated the Arizona State Procurement Code.
Lyzandra Ovis!: Ms. Ovist, before comjng to the Sheriff's Office, had worked at the

office of a public school district as the administrative assistant to Lorraine Hendershott. She was
hired as, and currently serves as Chief Hendershott's administrative assistant and supervisor of
two other administrative assistants. It was clear that she was hjred pursuant to a special
arrangement since a standard recruitment notice for the position was never opened up or posted
for existing employees. Other MCSO more qualified and worthy potential applicants, such as
your assistant Helen Gonzales, who had over twenty-five years experience worlOng for this
office, were excluded from consideration. Ms. Ovist was eventualJy hired at a rate of over tillrty·
dollars ($30.00) per hours, a rate well beyond the pay range of the existing administrative
assistants for command staff

Gary Cress: Gary Cress is a civilian employee responsible for the management of the
Sheriffs vehjcle fleet. At the time Cress was employed by the Sheriffs Office, Mr. Cress'
daughter was reportedly engaged to be married to David Hendershott Jr. The pair has since
ended their relationship.
Karl Gosch: Karl Gosch is currently assigned as the DOD Procurement Manager. It is

reported that Gosch is related to Yvonne Fedderson who, together with Sara Omeara, founded
Cillid Help. The Federson's Paradise Valley residence was the location of two of your major
Fundraisers, one in 1996 and another in 2004. Gosch was initially rured on September 23, 2003
as an admjrustrative assistant. It was reported, however, that Gosch made jt known that he
wanted more money but did not want to apply for a detention officer or deputy position.

42

Chief Hendershott lhen directed Personnel to hire Gosch for a position in the warehouse
that was to pay him over twenty-two dollars ($22.00) per hour. Problems arose along the way,
which prevented hjs promotion to such a high paying job. The first problem was lhat Gosch
lacked the qualifications and/or certification necessary for him to qualify for the position. The
second problem was that personnel failed to realize that Gosch was still

OD

hjs initial probation in

his lesser paying admjrustrative position, and was therefore, ineligible for the promotion.
During tJ-Js same recruitment period, George Graves, an exceptional employee with a
long and impressive work history as the manager of the Sheriffs Distribution Section, also
applied for the position and actually received a letter informing him that he was lhe sole
candidate on the Maricopa County Personnel certification list. However, the position operung
was suddenly closed for the second time without anyone being hired. Graves was very unhappy
that he was not promoted after being the only person on the list. He suspected that someone in a
hjgh command position was holding lhe job for someone special, and had tmfairly deprived him
of this promotion. This would have been a significant pay increase for Graves, who was miling
between fifteen and eighteen dollars an hour at lhe time and was selected that year as the
Sheriffs Civilian Employee oflhe Year.
Ultimately, Hendershott ensured that recruitment for lhe position be opened up for a thjrd
time and Gosch was finally promoted into lhat position on July 20, 2004.

Attempt to create a position within the Sheriff's Office for Lisa Aubuchon

In April of this year, Hendershot1 attempted to create a position lvithin the Sheriffs
Office for Deputy County Attorney Lisa Aubuchon. When news of the at1emptto mre Aubuchon
became pUblic, Hendershot1 was furious and confronted Karen Andrews, the administrative
assistant for Executive Chief Loret1a Barkell and pointedly accused her of having a leak in her
boat. in essence accusing her of being responsible for the release of information. Andrews was so
upset about the hostile encounter with Hendershot1 that he went home and cried about the
incident to her husband.
Chief BarkeJl was not happy with the rude and accusatory tone Hendershot1 took with her
assistant and advised Hendershott, that in fact she (Barkell) had provided the information to
County officials regarding the creation of a position for Aubuc'hon and that Karen Andrews had
nothjng to do with the release of information.

43

Cbief Deput)' David Hendersbot1: A career of Misconduct, Malfeasance, Politics, and
Unelhical behavior.

J feel it is my obligation for tbe good of this office and it's dedicated employees, the
citizens of Maricopa Counlv, and to you. to bring

10

your anention several allegations of

misconduct, malfeasance. unprofessional. and overall unethical behavior on the pan of Chief
Deputy David Hendershol1 dwing lhe course of hIs career.
I was transferred into the Commun.ity Services Division, laler renamed the Enforcement
Support DiVIsion.

111

the summer of J 994. This diVIsion was under the commar1d of Deputy Chief

Hendershott. My transfer was at the request of the new commander, Lieutenant Rollie Seebert.
He was transferred there

10

replace the ousted Lt Roy Reyer. who had written a memorandum

accusing Hendershol1 of various acts of misconduct, such as allowing citizens with crimjnal
backgrounds to be accepted into the posse program
According to Jade! Roe. the Chief Deputy of the Office at that lime, a decision had been
made to transfer and discipline Hendershott over Ihe maner, but soon after you mel witli
Hendersholl, much to her surprise, Lieutenanl Reyer and Sergeant Gary Godbehere were quickly
transferred out of the diviSIOn and Lieutenant See bert and I were sent as their replacements.
In fact J was present at the very next monthly posse commanders meeting. in front of
everyone, you disgusledly Ihrew Lieulenant Reyers memorandum on the Ooor in front of the
commandcrs and announced to all of them thai you dido'l care what some LieutcOlant thought
However. I dId nOI have to wait long

10

wilness Chief Hendershon engage in the same

I"pe of unethjcal behavior that Lieutenant Rov Reyer complained about, In one case. I met with
lilln to discuss a fom1eT allomey who was disbarred for commining fraud. When I asked
Hendershott why il

W'S

so Important thai person be allowed to join the posse he replied. "you

don', want to knpw' and he was allowed
J 996

10 .loin

'he posse. I soon learned why when I attended a

reelection campaIgn meeling al the residence of one of HendershotI' s in-laws and noticed

tlie disharred all orne" was m anendance.

44

Hendersbott rallies Posse and sworn Deputies for Symington He-election announcement
under the ruse of saying that Symington was going to sign a crime bill.

._. In the faJl of J 994. Hendershott summoned our division personnel and Slated that we
needed to set up a display of our Sheriff's Office vehicles and unifonned personnel at the State
Capitol because Governor Fife Syminglon was going to sign a crime bill. We rushed to get our
velllcles, displays, and our personnel to the plaza adjacent the Capitol building. When we
arrived, we soon found out that the event was actuaJly a political campaign rally where
Symington was announcing he was runnjng for re-election. It was obvious that Hendershotl used
the crime bill signing as a ruse used to get our Office resources to thjs event. I was not alone
about being intentionally mjsled.
After the event, Hendersholl had the audacity to call Robert Bailey, the Commander of
the Sun City West Posse and chastise hjm for nol showing up at the event and nol supporting the
Sheriff. In Ills letter of response wrillen to J-lendersholl dated October 6, J994, Bailey not only
mentioned the enonnous suppoT1 his posse had provided to the Sheriff's Office during that year,
but said it would have been very difficult to put together a "signing" m;ssion due to their current
commitments. In addition, he wrote to Hendershott the following: "I have trouble understanding
that you do not think that the event was political. What I read in the Republic, the following day,
cenainly sounded political too me. I believe 1 made il clear that this posse does not tie itselflo
any political event."

Hendersbott uses Office resources for bis own financial benefit

In addition to political activity, Hendersholl has used his position as a Sheriff's employee
to benefit Illmself financially by inappropriately using Office resources and the services of our

volunteers. It is my opinion that Hendershott coordinated the following off-duty jobs, earlier in
his career; due to the financial pressure he was experiencing. It was in tills period that you
created a Director position for Hendershotl, wruch resulted in a considerable pay increase.
Despite his promotion

10

Director, the additional income from coordinating posse related

security jobs, and obtairung a second mortgage of appTOxllnately one hundred and twenty-five
thousand dollars ($125,000.000); he eventually filed for personal bankruptcy. Far from being
embarrassed by his second bankruptcy, he later told me himself that rus bankruptcy allomey fees
were lhe "best five-thousand dollars I ever spenL"

45

Hendershott uses the Posse at Pine Ridge Apartments for security
In 1997, Hendershott requested that Brian Sands=d I meet him at the Pine Ridge
Apartments, located at 43'd Avenue and Thomas Road in Phoenix. Upon arrival, Hendershott,
Sands, and I went on a walking tour with the manager of the proper1y. It was clear that
Hendershott was considering some type of off-duty job providing security at the property.
However, while 1 spoke speaking privately with the manager, she informed me that the complex
was considered so dangerous by the Phoenix Police Department that the had enacted a policy
requiring that two patrol units respond there for caJJs for service.
After the tour was completed, we discussed that our posse members would patrol the
complex with a single deputy as a supervisor. I told Hendershott that I was very concerned about
a single deputy being in charge, and that my main concern was that this type of assignment for
the posse, who are untrained and ill suited for what even Phoenix PD considered a hostile
environment, we were placing them harms way. He replied that we could ask for another deputy
at a later date, indicating that he wanted this detail to proceed without further delay. As Sands
and I returned to our veJricle, J told Sands that I believed that Hendershott was going to be paid
somehow for tJris detail. As J learned later, Hendershott was paid seven hundred and fifly-doJJars
($750) a month to coordinate thjs job. The posses were paid for their time as well. Additionally,
Hendershott had the Enforcement SUPPOr1 Staff also provided community service events such as
clean-up events that were not reimbursed by the management of the complex.
For example, each year the Sherifrs Office conducts a weekJong summer program in
Gila County called "Camp Future Force" and approximately one hundred children are selected
from various county schools as part of our D.A.R.E. program. However, due to Hendershott's
business relationship with the Pine Ridge Apartments, approximately thir1y children who resided
at the Pine Ridge Property were selected to attend summer camp displacing chjldren who were
entitled 10 attend from valley schools.

Hendershott hired by the Phoenix Roadrunners as security director uses Office equipment
during the hockey season.
The Phoenix Roadrunners Jrired Hendershott as the security direclOr; during the same
time, he was coordinating the security for Pine Ridge, to

PNI!M:h;.~writy.<"rvices for.1bf'

46

Veteran's Memorial Coliseum. Roben Sigholz, (whose wife is Sara Omeara of Child Help, and
is tied to Karl Goseh mentioned earlier) was employed by the Coliseum and apparently hired
Hendershot1. During the same time, Hendershol1 hired Sigholz's granddaughter named Whitney
Sigholz as an employee of the Enforeement SuppOr1 Division. The inexperienced young
employee was paid at a higher rate than the other civilian employees causing serious morale
issues within the division.
The Coliseum security job also used posse personnel whose services were paid to their
posse organization. The facility did not provide radios for our personnel; therefore, Hendershott
made portable radios from the Sheriff's Office available and they were assigned to the facility
during the hockey season. Hendershott was paid approximately fifteen hundred ($1 ,500) doJJars
a month for this off-duty job. Although the season began with several deputies, fOUT Arizona
State Liquor Control officers, and Six Phoenix Police Officers for traffic control, due to budget
problems, it wasn't long before the only security personnel assigned to the venue were posse
members, supervised by myself, Sands, and Hendershot1.

Posse Baseball Team; Hendersbot1's family, bis friends, and tbeir trip to Alaska
Another serious abuse of the posse program to personaJJy benefit Hendershott was the
Posse Baseball team. This team consisted of both of Hendershot1's sons and their friends. This
team was posse by name only, and a great deal of Office and volunteer resources were expended
to benefit this group. In addition to using Sheriff's distribution trucks and supplies to suppar1 a
tournament in California, the entire Enforcement SUPPOr1 Division was ordered by Hendershott
to raise money for the team's travel to a tournament in Alaska.

I

Hendershott informed my staff and me that the Posse BasebaJJ Team would be attending

I

I

a tournament in Alaska and we were to coordinate a golf tournament to raise approximately

I

fifteen thousand doJJars ($15,000) to pay for their trip. Hendershott's ridiculous plan was a

I

"GoriJJa Golf' tournament to be held in the middle of summer We were told to find a golf club to

I

I

donate the use of their course and recruit sponsors to for the tournament. After Hendershott left,
we were all shaking our heads, and as we expected, we could not find a course for free or any
sponsors for the golf tournament resulting.
As a solution, and an act oflast resort, I approached the Sheriff's Posse Foundation and
asked if they would aJJow the posse to seJJ pink underwear and donate sixty-percent of the

47

procecds to the basebaIJ club.

nJC board agreed, even though they would not make any profJl on

the underwear sold, and ovenime, 1 enswed that nearly eIghteen thousand dollals ($18,000) were
raised for the-baseball club. Of cours~, the players who benefited from this donation did-vinillllly
none of the sales. The members of the club did travel to Alaska for an entire week, along with
Hendershotl. his wife, two sons, and possibly their daughter.
rhe Posse Baseball club also received several thousands of dollars from the Jeep Posse
for their operations and later borrowed approximately seven-thousand ($7,000.00) from the
Sheriff s Posse Foundation that was never repaid. This lad of repayment becarne an issue in
your 2000 rc-eJection campaign and Hendershon later instructed me

10

contact the State Mine

Inspector Doug Manin, who WaS a member of the Sheriffs Posse Foundation Board, and obwin
a leller from him stating that the Joan was forgiven and did not need to be repaid.

Hender-sholl family benefits from tbe Pink Underwear sales
Members of the Hendershott family also appMently directly benefited from the sale of the
pink underwem by the posse. Hendershon told Rollie Seeben and me that his son had helped

design the logo that was silk-screened on each pair of pink boxers and that he was receiving a
royalty from each sale. 1 do not know the amount of that royaJty and to my knowledge; it was
never paid out of posse sales proceeds. It may have been paid to Hendershott directly f10m the
Leslee SCOll Company and theil represenwtive Evan Trommer. lt should be noted that
Hendershott directed a Reserve Deputy named Ed Arnold to make a major pwchase of pink
underwear tow ling approximately seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000) from the Leslee Scott
Company. This purchase was not necessary and the Sheriffs Posse Foundation Bomd Members
were very upset that the order was made without their knowledge. During the controversy ovel
the purchase, Hendershott tried to assign responsibility to Arnold for placing such a IMge order.

Hendersholl lies about bis involvement in tbe sales of Pink Underwear
Although Chief Hendershott coordinated the initial purchase and sale of the pink
underwear back in 1995, my involvement began when I walked into ChJefHendersholt's office
and a female posse member asked him what to do with a bag of cash proceeds from the sale of
the pink underwem. Hendershott told her to give the bag to me. I then lold Hendershott that the
distribution and sales should be handled entirely by posse members and 1 didn't wanl that

48

responsibility because 1 knew IIlat one day we might be accused of mishandling or stealing the
money. Hendershott did not agree with me and I was ordered to coordinate the purchasing, sales,
andeo/lection of revenue from the underwear sales.
I met with Hendershotl on a later date and again lold him that I did not want to be

responsible for the sales. Further, I considered myseJfthe "de facto treasurer" of the Posse
Foundation because I was making all of the cash deposits and was tracking the Posse Foundation
finances on my county computer. Hendershott countered that since I did not actually sign the
checks written on the Posse Foundation account, that 1 wasn't the treasurer, and again refused
my request

10 tum

over the responsibility of the pink underwear sales effort to total volunteer

control.
During tJUs time, Hendershotl was very closely involved in the coordination of the pink
underwear sales effort and oilen made phone calJs to me and other employees regarding such
mundane issues as posse members running low on a ceJ1llin size of pink underwear. An example
of this obsession was an occasion when a voJunteer at the Paradise Valley Mall was running
short of a certain size. Sg1. Markley Johnson was only blocks away with additional underwear
but he was tied up temporarily to assist a citizen in a traffic accident. Hendershotl, in a panic
because you were there signing the underwear, did not want to wait and immediately ordered that

\
\

!

another employee respond, immediately, all the way from the Enforcement Support Division (on
Durango Street) and bring more underwear to the Paradise VaHey MalJ.
We routinely provided sales information to the media related to Ihe sales of pink
underwear and the finances of the Sheriff's Posse Foundation, One day, out of now where,
Hendershotl told me we no longer would provide such information. The Phoenix New Times
then filed a lawsuit to obtain the information and as a result, the attorneys for the New Times
eventualJy summoned me to a deposition. During the course of my deposition, 1 stated that we
no longer sold underwear from the Enforcement Support Division, at the direction of David
Hendershott, due to JUs concerns about "media scrutiny."
T1Je Phoerux New Times then published an article on April 2, J998 that described my
statement regarding Hendershott's order to discontinue underwear sales at Enforcement SuppOI1.
That same day, 1 received a phone calJ by Hendershott and was ordered to report to his office.
Upon arrival, I sat down and a furious David Hendershott slammed a copy of the New Times on
his desk and stated "thanks for sticking it up my ass!!" J briefly tried

10 explain

myself and

49

quickly left his office. 1 was very upset by Hendershott's anger that was directed at me, and was
furious that he actually expected me, a sworn law enforcement officer, to withhold information
or lie dwing a sworn deposition to protect him.
On March l7, J998, Superior Court Judge Albrecht in a summary judgment ruled in
favor of the Sheriff's Posse Foundation and the Sheriff's Office. lbis ruling was probably in
large measure to the sworn affidavit filed by our attorneys that included a sworn statement by
Hendershott stating that he did not directly participate in the sales of the underwear. However,
when Hendershott was later deposed under oath, he finally admitted that he was involved in both
the transportation and saJes of the pink underwear.

Hendershot1 directs a Sheriff's employee to write a bogus Jetter of explanation regarding
late charges to save him $400 a montb on his mortgage payment.

Sometime around 1999, Hendershott hired Derrick Deegan as a civilian employee and
assigned him to the Enforcement Support Division to assist in community service activities. His
prior employment was with a major cellular phone company. While Deegan was still employed
at Verizon, Hendershott had made contracts with Deegan for a couple of cellular phones for his
chjldren. According to Deegan, Hendershott was consistently late paying the phone bills and he
often had to track down Hendershott to collect money to pay the bills.
During the same time, Hendershott was in the process of purchasing his current residence
in Peoria. However, Hendershott discovered that the late payments for the phone bills were
reported to the credit bureaus. Hendershot1 contacted Deegan in a panic, telling him that his
house payment would be four-hundred dollars ($400) a month more unJess a letter was writ1en to
the credit bureaus stating that the late payments were not the fault of Hendershot1, but some type
of error on the part of the cell phone company. Deegan, now a new ftrst line employee of the
Office, had little choice but to comply with the direction given to him by the Chief Deputy, and
he wrote the letter to the credit bureaus.

1~

attempt to mislead the lender appears to be a

violation of ARS I 3-2320.A l, Residential Mortgage Fraud, a Class Six Felony.

Smile You're Under Arrest television program

Producers from a company affiliated with the FOX Network approached you and
. Hendershott about a producing a segment for a police series where the TV crew

so

would film the actions being tnJ<en by our law enforcement officers during a special warrant
operation. Chief Barkell was not invited initially to the meeting but was brought in at the last
minute as money issues were being discussed. She had always advised Hendershott that any
time money was to be paid to staff, the operation should be on after duty hours and the company
pays the officers participating in the program.
In fact, the production company involved offered to pay the officers involved in the
operation, but Hendershott irresponsibly stated that this was an operation that would normally be
done and the salaries of the deputies and the office would cover their expense. When Overtime
was discussed, Hendershott further stated that there would be no overtime and officers would
flex any ovet1ime worked.
However, at a time when jail faciJities and patrol deputies were restricted to using
ovet1ime for emergencies only, there was no such restriction on the deputies assigned to the
production crew for the show. In fact, the commanders overseeing the operation were so
concerned about the potential negative media due to the huge overtimes costs associated with the
filming, a decision was made to begin routine warrant attempts that were not associated with the
program.
Sources close

10

the operation and Chief Barkell estimate that over $300,000 was paid in

ovet1ime from the Sheriff's Office general fund account during filming. When ChiefBarkell
brought the situation to the attention of Hendershott, BarkelJ was told not to worry about it as the
show had completed their work and there was no the Sheriff's Office would get reimbursed from
the show's producers.
When news of this program came to the attention of the various media outlets, this office
stonewalled releasing any specific expense information regarding the exorbitant cost of the
operation and ultimately claimed such records did not exjsts, when clearly they could have been
provided.

County Records Request
The County Manager and Deputy County Manager requested documents relating to the
assignment of personnel withjn the Sheriff's Office as well as financial records on all accounts as
far back as 2005. Thjs request was made in November 2009 via memo. ChiefBarkell was
instructed by the Hendershott to ignore the requests and not respond to the memo. The County
51

continued malUng the request without receiving any response until March 2010. In March 2010,
the County Board of Supervisors served a subpoena on the Sheriff 10 produce the documents.
Upon receipt of the subpoena Barkell immediately had finance staff begin thepulJing
and copying of aIJ procurement, accounts payable and receivable accounts. lllis required the
leasing of two additional copy machines and overtime by staff. l1Je response to the subpoena
was due within 7 days. AIJ copies were made, redacted and ready to be delivered the Thursday
afternoon before the Friday due date. During production of documents, you and Hendershott
met with attorneys who advised turning over the documents.
Barkell advised you to tum over the documents as they were all public record and had
been provided in smaIJ amounts to media requests. 19noring everyone's advise, Hendershott
decided late Thursday afternoon not to release the documents and instructed BarkeIJ and other
staff not to release or discuss the issue with anyone. The attorneys for you wrote a letter stating
that the request was onerous and could not be completed in the time provided by county.
The County responded by subpoenaing the you and his Chief Financial Officer, Lorett2
Barkell as being in contempt of the original subpoena and ordered both of you to appear at a
hearing on May 10. If you did not appear, you would be arrested for contempt. Upon receipt of
the second subpoena, Lorett2 BarkeIJ was provided a Jetter from Ogletree regarding joint
representation of you, Chief Deputy and Barkel!. Barkell could be represented by this law firm
so long as her views on the entire matter were in full agreement with you and Hendershott
otherwise she would need to seek counsel elsewhere.
Ms. Barkell decided to obtain independent counsel and the County agreed to provide
counsel requested. Ogletree prepared Court actions and hearings were heard by a judge in Pima
County. The judge first determined that the contempt hearing could not proceed as the County
did not have procedures in place to conduct such a hearing. The release of records was delayed
while the judge reviewed legal submissions from both sides.
However, the County still proceeded with a hearing to discuss not only the Sheriffs
Office non--compliance with the subpoenas but to review the Sheriff's budget and impose
sanctions against the Sheriffs Office budget accounts. The judge finally ruled in July 20 10 that
the Sheriff's Office argument against the Board was not substantiated and ordered the release of
the records

52

Sheriff, again, this is a case where sound legal advice was not followed and as a result,
the Sheriff s Office wasted additional unnecessary legal fees and gave the public the impression
that we had something to hide, J was recently informed that you were very SW].lrised to Jearn that
David Hendershott had actually made the decision not to release these records, not legal counsel.
In fact, Attomey Eric Dowell told Lisa Allen that he advised this office to release the records, as
there was no legal basis not too. However, according to Allen, Hendershott pointedly told
Dowell that he is his (Hendershot1's) at10mey and will do what Hendershot1 tells him.
What is the true reason your Chief Deputy resists releasing our financial records? Is it to
conceal potentiaJly embarrassing expenditures similar to the credit card charges of over five
thousand dollars ($5,000.00) to provide a paid vacation for officials of the Honduran
government? II is reckless decisions like these that have cost this office and the public hundreds
of thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal expenses and continually give the media and public
the idea that we have something to hide.
David Hendershot1 's propensity to disregard sound legal advice provided by attomeys
representing this office has been to the detriment of this organization. Hendershot1 recently sent a
let1er to the law firm of Jones-Skelton dismissing them from representing this office any further.
Although it has been reported that Hendershott told you that the finn would still be representing
this office, it appears that he lied to you because Jones personally stated to Jack Maclntyre that
the letter sent to him by Hendershott stated that MCSO would never use them again for any
mat1er. This reckless decision is considered very detrimental to this organization because the
firm had been very successful in representing our interests in a variety of cases. It is unknown as
to why Hendershott unilaterally ended the contract. But I do know that Deputy Chief Jack
Macintyre spoke to you about the mat1er and that Hendershot1 chewed him out for bringing the
matter to your attention.
As you will read, David Hendershott has in fact engaged in a history of misconduct that
is clearly unacceptable in a professional law enforcement organization.

53

Hendersbott's Jack of Professionalism and Etbics

During my many years assigned to the Enforcement SuppOJ1 Division, Hendershol1 very
often displayed a serious lack of professionalism and ethics in the presence of our employees.
In the winter of 1996, MCSO conducted Operation Bun-Out involving the use of
juveniles to purchase cigarenes. Hendershol1 put tremendous and unreasonable pressure on me,
and my staff, to continue to increase the number of citations issued and he became very upset
with our lack ofjuvenile volunteers.
On February 22, 1997, the final operation for Operation Butt-Out was planned and a
press conference and kick-off was held at the Enforcement Support Division building. Because
of Hendershol1'S pressure to have high numbers of volunteers for the media, we had far too many
posse members than we could possibly use and had to keep them in two separate areas of the
building.
In preparation for the press event that Attorney General Grant Woods anended, a large
signboard was made to show the media all of the operation's statistics for the operation. In front
of two office employees, Hendershott changed the number of posse members participating in the
event from one hundred and six1y-seven (167) to Six-hundred and sixty-seven (667) by changing
a number with a marker. Sgt. Lee LuginbuW witnessed this falsification of a public record and
brought it to my al1ention, stating that Hendershot1 wanted the Sheriff to believe the number of
posse members participating in the operation was larger. These statistics were intended to inform
the media and the public of the cormnined resources to our law enforcement operations. J
believe the falsification of those statistics constitutes a violation of ARS 13-2407, Tampering
with a Public Record, a Class Six Felony.

Hendershott lies to tbe media regarding live ordinance and places public in jeopardy
during the Saville arrest.

There is no question that the arrest of James Saville (for attempting to assassinate you by
using a bomb) was "high profile." The Saville arrest occurred at a local hotel and the media was
present interviewing Chief Hendershott. During the course of the interview, Hendershott was
asked about whether bringing live explosives into the hotel created a risk to the public and hotel
guests. Chief Hendershott implied that no risk or danger existed because that portion of the hotel
had been evacuated. According Executive Chief Brian Sands who was at the scene, this

54

statement by Hendershott was false and he couldn't believe that he made it. There had been no
evacuation regarding any area of the hoteL It should be noted that Hendershott directly
supervised-!he Saville investigation and was therefore responsible for live explosives being
brought into a public area.
It should be noted that this conviction was overturned and the Saville investigation that

Hendershott personally supervised resulted in the County paying a settlement of J. J million
dollars.

Hendershot1lies to you about the arrests of Phoenix New Times executives Michael Lacey
and Jim Larkin on October 17,2007.
On October 17, 2007, Phoenix New Times executives Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin
violated a coun order not to make public a subpoena related to our request of the Phoenix New
Times to provide subscriber infonnation. After the pair were arrested and booked into jail, this
Office received a firestorm of criticism and negative publicity. As a resuJt, County Attorney
Andrew Thomas made a public statement that he did not agree with or authorize the direction the
case had taken against the New Times and quickJy dismissed the charges.
However, after the arrests had taken place, David Hendershott met with you in your
office and you asked Hendershott who had ordered the arrests. Hendershott lied to you by
stating that Dennis Wilenchik gave that order. However, about thirty minutes later, after
Hendershott had left your office, Wilenchik himself met with you in your office and directly
asked you who had ordered the arrests.
As we now know, Hendershott actually made the decision to make the arrests and finally
admitted so in a signed affidavit under oath. By stating that he "made the decision" and "In
reaching this decision and giving these directions (Hendershott) did not consult with Maricopa
County AHorney Andrew Thomas," "nor did he consult with any member of the office of
Maricopa County Attorney Andrew Thomas including AHorney Dennis Wilenchik."

Hendershott fails to complete required Arizona Police Officer Standards and Training
(AZPOST) for a ten-year period.
Although David Hendershott is a civilian Chief Deputy, he has maintained retained his
Reserve Deputy status with the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office in violation of AZPOST

55

regulations due to his failure to complete annual mandatory AZPOST required training. These
regulations also call for a person to be decertified if the required training has nol been completed
fer a period of three years. As of March J5, 2010, Hendershon-has failed to complete his
required training for a period of approximately ten years.
As a result, the Sheriff's training staff has been tasked to develop curriculum for a catchup training module to be held at the Sheriff's Range in which Hendershon will be the only
student. It should be noted that the Sheriff's Training Division staff in 2009 had to coordinate a
similar curriculum for Joel Fox who had not completed his required AZPOST lIaining for a
period of about three years, which should have resulted in his AZPOST certification being
suspended.

David Hendershott attempts to retaliate against Munnell for cooperating with FBI

On February 25, 20 10 at about 1045 hours, 1 met with Lisa Allen and Loretta Barkell in
BarkelJ's office. At this time Allen advised me that on February 16, 20] 0, David Hendershott
had come into her office, closed the door, sat close to her, and said that he had received a call
stating that I was a FBI SOUIce and that 1 was trying to get the Sheriff. He warned her that] might
be wired and to watch what she said around me. He warned her not to discuss the maller with
anyone and concluded the conversation with his typical

'~his

conversation never happened."

Allen added that HendeTshon had the same conversation with Chief of Custody Jerry
Sheridan who Hendershott knows is a very close friend of mine. Allen asked me at the timc not
to discuss the maner with anyone to avoid any trouble with Hendershott. Although Allen was
told by Hendershott not to discuss this maner with anyone, she was extremely nervous and upset
and contacted Chief Barkell for guidance. Barkell did advise me during this meeting that no one
could retaliate against me due to merit system and whistleblower rules.
On the morning of March 8, 20]0, I met with Lorena Barkell in her office. She advised
me that on Friday, February 26 th , 2010, she was summoned to meet with Chief Hendershon and
Deputy Chief Ray ChUIay. Hendershott advised Barkell and ChUIay that he had received a phone
call stating that] was cooperating with the FBI. He said that he needed everyone to be careful
while he figured out to do with Frank.
When Hendershon proposed removing me as Chief of PalIo] under Chief Brian Sands
and transferring me to report to Churay, ChUIay spoke first stating that it was not a good idea and

56

lhat by tnking action against me, it could be considered retaliation under the whistle blower Jaws
and that I had certain protections. BarkeJl then stnted that she understood the law the same and
advised Hendershott not to transfer me. Asa.resuJt of this meeting and the refusal of Churay and
BarkeJl to cooperate the proposed retaliatory transfer did not take place. Hendershott took their
advice and said be would consult with counsel.
On the morning of March 16th , 2010, J stopped by Loret12 BarkeJl's office and her
a~sistant Karen Andrews accompanied her. Barkell was visibly upset and on the verge of tears

asking me whom J had spoke with regarding the meeting she had with Churay and Hendershol1.
was at a loss as to how Hendershot1 knew that BarkeJl had advised me of Hendershol1's illadvised al1empt to retaliate against me.
Barkell stated that on Monday, March 15 th , 20] 0, Hendershott angrily came to her office
and summoned her to meet with you in your office and brought along Chief Jack Macintyre as a
witness. As you know, Hendershot1 angrily admonished her in front of you for talking to me
about that meeting, because I could have interpreted that meeting as a "retaJiation" attempt,
which it clearly was. Barkell tried to explain that ber responsibilities as the Executive Chief over
Personnel obligated her to advise me of Hendershol1's actions. However, Hendershott would
have none of it and when Jack Macintyre at1empted to speak he was silenced by Hendershot1
who told him he didn't want any legal advice.
Hendershol1 was livid, frothing at the mouth, and spil1ing as he dressed Barkell down.
BarkelJ stated that in her professional capacity she advised an employee (Munnell) of his rights
in a grievance situation and he did Dot need to worry about retnliation. Hendershott stormed on
and on about how his counsel told him he needed to be on record talking with her. Barkell said
that he didn't see why Hendershot1 was so upset as any employee is entitled to know their rights
and she believed she was doing her job as the Human Resources Executive Chief. However.
Hendershol1 then ordered her to write a memorandum to you explaining what had occurred
during her conversation with me. She then provided a memorandum to you and you told her not
to worry about the mat1er.
What should be very troubling to you is the fact that Hendershott met with Chief BarkeJl
and Chief Ray Churay on February 26 th , 20J 0 and at1empted to retaliate against me for
cooperating with the FBI, but was rebuffed. However, that very same day, At10mey Tom Crow
who was retained to represent MCSO in mal1ers related to the on-going Federal Grand Juries,

57

made a call to the U.S. Attorney's Office proclaiming UJal no MCSO employee, and specifically
mentioned Frank Munnell, would be retaliated against for cooperating with the FBI. It appears
that Hendershot1 marn,·a panicked call to ML Crow after his aborted attempt at reta!ia!ion and
directed him to call the U.S. Attorney to cover his tracks.
As any reasonable person can imagine, the unethical actions of David Hendershott have

created a very hostile work environment for me. I have previously advised my immediate
supervisor Chief Brian Sands and Chief Loretia Barkell of the hostile work environmem created
by Hendershott, his improper actions directed at me, and that I try to avoid any situations where I
may come in contact with him.
Hostile Treatment of Executive Staff and Executive Chief Loretta Barkell
After the 2008 election, the Sheriff delegated all operational responsibility and power to the
Chief Deputy. Even though there were deputy chiefs and executive chiefs tasked with the
Day-to-day operations of the office, the Chief Deputy imposed that all communication,
decisions, actions, etc required his approval and signature. The onJy exception was the
administrative functions of budget, fmance and human resources. Those areas continued their
day-to-day operations without interference by the Chief Deputy.
Ibis was allowed as you had insisted those areas report separately to you and keep you
fully informed of financial and personnel matters. This did not keep the Hendershott from
interfering with all budgeting and fmance decisions as well as hiring decisions. In spite of this
constant badgering and interference, the staff continued to perform their functions. 11 was
common for the Hendershott to communicate his suspicions that someone was a leak to the
COWlty budget office and how he wanted Barkellto find out where the leak was. Barkell told
the Hendershott that she was the leak as the information requested by the County was not
wueasonable and withjn their purview to request.
A tenuous relationship between Chief Deputy Hendershott and Executive Chief of

Business Operations Lorellil Barkell existed. Barkell was approached and questioned by the FBI
and the U.S. Anomey begi.rullng September 2009. She also received a subpoena to appear before
the federal grand jury and appeared before the federal grand jury for three hours in January 20 I O.
Hendershott was aware that thjs individual had been questioned about him and the office
situation in general.

58

The tenuous relationship quickly deteriorated further when Barkell requested her ovm
counsel when the County subpoenas were issued. Barkell, as well as other chiefs, were
·-subjectedto a "no t2lking rule" during your Sheriff's stalfmeetings. Ifw€-wanted to·discuss
any office issue at Sheriff's st2ff meetings, all were required to prepare a memo

to

HendershOI1

outlining exactly what required discussion and only after his approval were the chiefs allowed
to bring up the item

10

you. Only the Hendershott was allowed to bring issues to the you in this

office.
All clUefs were told not to go directly to the you. Restrictions were imposed on any type
of communications with County, media and between staff. If staff ignored any of the special
rules, Hendershott would place the chief under internal investigation or directly reprimand the
chief for whatever small infraction took place. Every individual having direct contact with the
Hendershott feared the worst and knew he would find a way to punish you professionally,
publicly or politically.
Hendershott constantly badgered the Executive Chief of Business Operations on every
memo, policy and fmancial action that was taken. Hendershott dict2ted what County meetings
the Barkell could or could not attend, dictated who or who not to talk to at the County and also
witrun the Office. She was instructed not to communicate to County or staff via email. She was
requested to find a spy at the County for the Sheriff's Office. BarkeJJ witnessed the temper of
the Hendershott when be spoke to attorneys, other chiefs and PIa staff. Basically if you
advised Hendershott in any way other than what he wanted, he was furious. If you did not teJJ
him exactly what he wanted to hear, you were subjected to a triad of damning words and
threats.
After months of abuse, BarkeJl started experiencing physical problems. The Executive
Chief went to the Mayo Clinic. Tests were run and the only thing "''Tong with her was her blood
pressure and getting it under control. There was no physical reason why she was experiencing
all the various symptoms and aliments. All the problems, including the blood pressure issue,
resulted from severe stress and constant fear of reprisal experienced on the job. On June 24, a
doctor placed BarkeJl on FMLA and eventuaJJy returned to work last week.
Sheriff, in addition to my personal situation, I know that Deputy Chief Macintyre,
Executive Chief Lorella BarkeJl, and Communications Direclor Lisa AJlen have all recently
approached you because David Hendershott's abusive and improper conduct towards them and

S9

asked for you to personally intervene, but to no avail. It is very obvious that Hendershott has
severely damaged my relationship with you as well as other command staff on the nineteenth
floor. lt is an absolute shame that tl]e loyal command-sta!f that w{)rk hNd to do the right thing, to
try and protect you and our valued employees, are now the ones wearing the black hats in this

organization. Lisa AJlen recently approached a Deputy Chief and challenged the all the Deputy
Chiefs to put logether a petition of "no confidence" to present to you to remove Hendershott as
your Chief Deputy due to the ruinous direction he is taking your organization. AJlen has also
recently told you that you are sacrificing the entire organization for the sake of one
person ... Hendershott.
You and 1 both know that some of your closest advisors have been very critical of
Hendershott and the ruinous direction he is taking this organization. You need to know that good
command officers have left this organization due to the actions of David Hendershott, and others
are actively looking for career opportunities elsewhere. Your Chief Deputy does not have the
support of the majority of your command staff and are looking to you to hoJd him accountable
for his misconduct and abusive management style.
Sheriff, as you well know, every law enforcement organization must be vigilant regarding
the ronduct of its employees in order to merit public trust. This public trust includes high
standards regarding ethical behavior, law-abiding activities, truthfulness, and openness regarding
employee misconduct.
For more than a decade, David Hendershott has conducted his professional and personal
activities in a manner bringing controversy, discredit, and extreme embarrassment to this Office.
Throughout his infamous career with the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office he has eaJ!led a
reputation in this Office for willful misconduct, coercion, mismanagement, and inappropriate
behavior. His performance has led to poor employee morale, negative pubJicity, and costly
litigation that is now being charged our own budget and may result in our employee's being
forced to take additional furlough days. J strongly disagree that our employees should be
responsible for fmancing frivolous, counterproductive, and UJUJecessary lawsuits against the
Maricopa County Board of Supervisors. More importantly, David Hendershott's reckJess actions,
lack of fairness, and serious lack of ethics has had a serious negative impact on many Sheriff's
employees, both emotionally and financially.

60

Chief Hendershott's style of management depends on large measure upon intimidation
and the pervasive fear of retaliation. The oppressive environment that Hendershott has cultivated
has caused most Sheriff's employees to refrain from bringing complaints to you about his
misconduct and mismanagement.
For far too long, Hendersholl has maintained cozy and questionable relationships with
vendors ,,"Ih County contracts and your political supporters. He reportedly hides his day-lo-day
activities by requiring his personal assistant Lyzandra Ovist to keep some events on his daily
calendar on Post-It Notes, so they can be discarded at the end of the day leaving no official
record of his activities or the identities of the persons he has met with. He has told the Public
Information Officers that his calendar as the Chief Deputy is private and not a public record. In
addition, he uses a personally owned notebook computer and a personal e-mail account to
conduct office business. This is hardly appropriate for any public servant, especially the Chief
Deputy of a law enforcement agency.
1 believe that your loyalty and commitment must be to your dedicated and long suffering
employees and the citizens of Maricopa County, not to a person who has clearly demonsrrated
his lack of ethics and honesty. For far too long, David Hendershot1 has run this organization
utilizing sheer intimidation and promulgating fear of retribution for not being blindly loyal to
him and his decisions. This ovenvhelming fear has kept many command staff members and their
subordinates from bringing complaints about Hendershot1'$ misconduct and mismanagement to
your allention.
Therefore, 1 am requesting that you immediately place these employees, including Chief
Deputy David Hendershot1 on administrative leave and request the Arizona Department of Public
Safety initiate the appropriate investigation of the allegations of misconduct outlined in this
memorandum to determine any violations of Maricopa County Sheriff's Office Policy and
Procedures and/or Arizona Revised Criminal Statutes. Should you initiate such an investigation,
I will provide the investigators with the additional information and investigative leads necessary
to conduct a thorough investigation of all allegations made against these employees.
In addition, as result of the continuing investigations related to the SCA Fund, it has been
brought to my at1ention that very prominent at10meys Dennis Wilenchjk and Grant Woods have
been providing legal counsel to Hendersholl, Black, Fox, and several other employee and
Advisory Posse donors. It is my belief that any Sheriff's employee utilizing legal services from

61

these two very capable and prominent anorneys should be personally responsible for the
payment of any and all legal fees related to the SCA maneL
}J.uther, due to obvious conflic! ()finterest concerns, there should be an in\'eSligation into
Hendershon, Black, and Fox's ties with any law fInn that bas a contract to represent the interests
of Maricopa County or is retained by any of your political supporters. Unfortunately, I have had
to retain my own personal legal representation (at my own expense) due to Hendershon's
vindictive anempt at retribution and anticipation of a fulUIe allempt as well.
Sheriff, I have been a loyal and dedicated employee of this great organization for nearly
thirty years. I have always been very proud to be a member of this Office and your command
staff, and have always given my best efforts to serve you well. I consider this great organization,
its many employees as family; in fact, both of my children proudly wear the Sheriff's Office
uniform.
However, my dedication and loyalty to you and this organization is no longer afforded to
a Chief Deputy who consistently places his own interests above those of our employees and the
pUblic. His reckless, morally bankrupt, and incompetent decision-making has greatly damaged
this great organization and your dedicated employees. Now is the time to return to value driven
leadership, rather than leadership by fear, intimidation, and politics.
We need a Chief Deputy who performs his duties in an impartial manner, free from bias
caused by his own fmancial interests or the fmancial interests of persons or businesses who
support

YOl.!.

We need a Chief Deputy who will not make a habit of coercing his subordinates to

take the blame for actions that he clearly devised or caused others to perform, always allempting
to ex lricate himself from blame, or accountability of any kind because of his poor decisionmaking.
In my opinion, David Hendershol1 has systematically corrupted this Office for his own
good, not for the best interests of you, our employees, or the public. He has also betrayed your
trust by willfully fIltering, controlling, or provided false information to you regarding his
activities as the Chief Deputy.
Despite my full knowledge of Hendershott's vindictive reputation, I disregarded his
verbal directive that I not cooperate with the Arizona State Anomey General's Criminal
Investigation. I believe that I was my obligation as a law enforcement officer to fully cooperate
with the Arizona State Al10mey General's criminal investigation into the SeA Fund. As a result,

62

I do know that it will be onJy a mat1er of time before Hendershot1 will learn via discovery all
statements and evidence I have provided that may be used should the At10mey General's
ongoing criminal investigation result in indictments.
As a result of my cooperation with the Arizona State At10mey General's Office and my
decision to submit this memorandum containing numerOUS allegations of serious official
misconduct, I cannot protect myself from being subjected to Hendershot1's retribution should he
retain his positior; as a your Chief Deputy with the authority to wield management power against
me. Nevertheless, if J continued to remain silent. J would deprive you of the opportunity to
correct the serious mat1ers that elOst

,,~thin

the Sheriffs Office. I believe that would constitute a

worse act than disloyalty, as I would be indifferent to all of these mat1ers.1

,,~ll

not allow that to

happen; because if I do, it will enable the likes of Dave Hendersbot1to continue his self-serving
destruction of your organization.
As I have previously stated, I have an absolute obligation to bring these allegations of

I

I

I

II

criminal activity, misconduct, and mismanagement to your attention. On behalf of the many
dedicated employees of this Office and the citizens of Maricopa County, I believe that you have
an obligation to take the only right and appropriate course of action. That action is to
immediately remove these employees from duty and place them on administrative leave, pending
the outcome of the Ariwna State At10rney General's and Federal Bureau oflnvestigations and
allow an outside agency to initiate the long overdue administrative investigation into these
allegations of willful misconduct of Chief Deputy Dave Hendershott, Director Larry Black, and
Captain Joel Fox.

Sincerely,

6

Frank D. Munnell
Deputy Chjef
Patrol Bureau Commander

63