Pima County Supervisor Matt Heinz says it’s time for supervisors to discuss removing Sheriff Chris Nanos from office after the county’s top law officer’s report to the board on his work conduct and history didn’t meet statutory requirements.
“There are significant deficiencies in his response that I believe are so problematic that they put him at risk for removal,” Heinz, who represents District 2, told Arizona Luminaria Tuesday.
Heinz says there were two major issues with Nanos’ response to the board’s request on April 7. First, the 22-page report was not submitted under oath or as a sworn statement.
The board has repeatedly stated that their actions to hold Nanos accountable align with Arizona laws and voted unanimously to request the report.
Board Chair Jen Allen read the motion on April 7 with the following language included, “Pursuant to A.R.S. 11-253, the Board requests a report from Sheriff Nanos addressing the facts and circumstances related to each of the following matters, together with any corrective actions taken to date, any additional actions proposed, and a timeline for implementation where applicable.”
The Arizona statute cited in the motion states: “The board may require any county officer to make reports under oath on any matter connected with the duties of his office…”
The law further states, in part, that an officer who “neglects or refuses” the request “may be removed from office by the board and the office declared vacant. The board may then fill the vacancy.”
However, after the report was made public on April 21, Pima County spokesperson Mark Evans told Arizona Luminaria the statement Nanos submitted was not a “sworn document” or provided under oath.
Evans said the statute states the board “may” require a report under oath “but the board in its motion didn’t ask for that, they just asked for answers to their questions.”
Heinz, who has repeatedly called for Nanos to be held accountable, argues that the board required Nanos to provide a sworn statement by citing the Arizona statute.
“His attorney apparently is telling our outside attorney that the board didn’t ask for it correctly and if we wanted it to be a sworn statement we should have clarified — and that is bonkers,” Heinz says.
“The first sentence of the statute of A.R.S. 11-253 subsection A — we specified that — it says that the board of supervisors may require county officers to make reports under oath before the board,” he added.
The item at issue on the April 7 meeting agenda explicitly cites the requirement. “Requesting Report from Sheriff Nanos per A.R.S. §11-253(A) Discussion/Direction/Action regarding draft language and questions about which the Board will seek a report under oath from Sheriff Chris Nanos,” the public record states.
Providing the report under oath is key because, under the law, if an officer refuses to make the report, the board may remove them from office.
Heinz says Nanos’ legal team also refused to substantially answer one of the questions asked by the board regarding his work history and its relevance to job performance and duties as a county sheriff.
“He just said you can’t ask me about this and this isn’t relevant so we’re not gonna answer it,” Heinz says. “That’s a refusal as I see it. So, there are two very concerning things going on here.”
Nanos’ report, provided by his attorney, included the following about his past employment and its relevance:
“The Sheriff’s statutory duties are distinct from those of a sworn peace officer regulated by the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (“AZPOST”). This distinction is significant because it confirms the Sheriff’s employment history is irrelevant to the performance of his duties as an elected official subject to oversight by the Board of Supervisors.”
The report Nanos provided still answers several questions regarding the circumstances of his departure from the El Paso Police Department, his disciplinary history and dates on his resume. Nanos’ attorney stipulated that “in the interest of transparency and in the spirit of cooperation, the Sheriff has authorized me to respond to the Board’s questions…”
The board included questions on four topics: Nanos’ prior representation of his employment history with the El Paso Police Department, his disciplinary actions against Lt. Heather Lappin and Sgt. Aaron Cross, his department’s cooperation with federal immigration officials and repeated instances of his department exceeding its budget.
Nanos responded to Arizona Luminaria’s request Wednesday for comment on Heinz’s concerns, saying that he “through his attorney has fully responded to questions submitted by the Pima County Board of Supervisors.” He added that “the matter involves pending civil litigation and therefore will not be discussed at this time” and upon “additional questions or follow-up requests” the sheriff “remains available to meet with the Board.”
Heinz says he doesn’t know whether his board colleagues are willing to remove Nanos from office.
Arizona Luminaria asked each supervisor to comment on whether they required Nanos to make the report under oath as stated in their public vote; why they did or did not; and if they did not intend for Nanos to follow the Arizona law they cited, does the board have any means to remove the sheriff from office.
Luminaria additionally asked the supervisors if they believe Nanos has fulfilled the reporting requirements the board outlined at the April 7 meeting, and what they see as next steps, including whether they’d consider initiating or supporting any action related to the sheriff’s removal.
District 3 Supervisor Jen Allen, District 4 Supervisor Steve Christy and District 5 Supervisor Andrés Cano did not respond to Arizona Luminaria’s request for comment.
District 1 Supervisor Rex Scott’s office told Arizona Luminaria he’s “reserving any public comment about these matters until the next Board meeting on May 12.”
The board received Nanos’ report at the last minute on April 21 and delayed public discussion of it until the next supervisor’s meeting on May 12 to allow for review.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print.
