The Pima County Board of Supervisors voted not to remove Sheriff Chris Nanos from office and to “refer allegations of potential perjury” to the Arizona State Attorney General’s office.
However, Supervisor Steve Christy, the board’s lone Republican, initially opened the discussion with a motion to remove Democrat Nanos from office and begin the replacement process immediately. The motion failed without support from the other four supervisors, including Matt Heinz who previously supported Nanos’ removal.
Supervisors discussed Nanos’ recent report to the board in executive session during Tuesday’s study session meeting earlier in the day. In explaining the response, Supervisor Rex Scott referenced legal advice.
Scott submitted his own motion asking the board not to act on Nanos’ position.
“On the advice of legal counsel, I move that we take no action to declare the office of sheriff vacant, nor to move for the removal of the sheriff based on Arizona Revised Statute 11-253,” he said.
Scott added that the county administrator would direct allegations of potential perjury to the attorney general, with the board taking no “position on whether or not perjury was committed.”
The motion passed with four in favor and Christy abstaining.
Following the vote, Scott said that “based on the advice of legal counsel, I do not believe, and obviously the majority of the board agrees. that we have the right to remove the sheriff, declare the office vacant. He met his obligations under the statute.”
Scott added that the root of the investigation — distrust in Nanos’ leadership will still need to be addressed.
“What is most important is that the sheriff take immediate action to repair the extraordinary climate of distrust and lack of faith in this leadership,” Scott said.
Nanos was not present at the meeting Tuesday.
Residents spoke out against Nanos during the call to the public. Corey Stevens, a county resident and frequent speaker, called for the board to remove Nanos.
“You guys have a duty — not an obligation — a duty to the citizens of Pima County to make this right. You need to ask yourselves. How many people have been affected by this man?,” Stevens told the board. “I hope today brings some resolution in the Sheriff Nanos investigation.”
Others like former Democrat legislator Bruce Wheeler stressed the potential harmful civic consequences of supervisors voting to remove an elected official — “who may have, or not, acted dishonorably.”
“It is troubling to think that three elected officials can unelect, remove from office, someone else who was elected and voted into office by thousands of voters,” he told the board.
Wheeler said his view was not partisan, adding that in a past election he endorsed Nanos’ Republican opponent.
“We can recall, we can vote them out of office, or we can impeach. In the sheriff’s case, the former two options are available to us,” he said.
Tuesday’s public agenda cited “unfinished business” with “Sheriff Nanos Pursuant to Pursuant to A.R.S. §11-253.”
The Democrat-majority board’s April 7 request included questions on four topics: his 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 submitted a 22-page response on April 21 through his attorney shortly before the deadline. Supervisors delayed discussion until May 12, saying they needed time to review the report.
Since then, Vice Chair Supervisor Heinz had argued that the sheriff failed to satisfy the board’s request because the report was not submitted under oath and did not fully answer questions about his employment history. Heinz has said those deficiencies could have consequences for Nanos.
“There are significant deficiencies in his response that I believe are so problematic that they put him at risk for removal,” Heinz told Arizona Luminaria in April.
Nanos, through his attorney, has maintained that he complied with the board’s request and has remained available to answer follow-up questions. His legal team has argued the board did not explicitly require a sworn report in its motion, despite citing A.R.S. 11-253.
That disagreement had exposed broader uncertainty about how the statute works.
Steve Primack, executive director of the Arizona Legislative Council, told Arizona Luminaria the law does not clearly specify how boards must invoke the requirement for sworn testimony.
“I suspect a court is going to have to decide whether just citing to the statute is sufficient or whether the board has to specifically use the words of the statute and request the report is under oath,” Primack said.
The board’s April 7 public meeting agenda explicitly cited 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.
Nanos’ report came after intensified political pressure surrounding the sheriff. Nanos is already facing a potential recall effort, lawsuits and criticism from the deputies’ union, which has issued a unanimous vote of no confidence.
The controversy traces back in part to records uncovered about Nanos’ early career with the El Paso Police Department in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Supervisors have questioned discrepancies between his public resume and disciplinary records showing he resigned in lieu of termination.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print.
