This Maricopa County supervisor wants to keep fighting to end federal oversight of MCSO

MARK BRODIE: A federal judge earlier this month rejected a request from Maricopa County to end oversight of the County Sheriff’s Department.

That oversight, including a court-appointed monitor, stems from a 2007 lawsuit over racial profiling practices of then-Sheriff Joe Arpaio.

But in his decision, Judge Murray Snow cited statistics that showed Hispanic drivers are still 40% more likely to be pulled over by MCSO deputies than white drivers, and that those traffic stops last longer for Hispanic drivers.

Tom Galvin is one of the Maricopa County supervisors and wants to see an end to the federal oversight. Galvin stopped by the studio recently to talk about this, and I started our conversation by asking for his reaction to the judge’s decision.

TOM GALVIN: Yeah. Well, first of all, I just want to provide a little context for your listeners: is that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office has been under federal oversight for probably about 13, 15 years, maybe 12 years.

This action was taken by the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, in our role as controlling the power of the purse. We set out the budget for all county departments, including the Sheriff’s Office. So, we’re the ones who filed what is called a Rule 60(b) motion. It was not the Sheriff’s Office, but we did it because we believe it infringes on our powers. Frankly, we’re not surprised by the decision, and I hope that we pursue an appeal.

MARK BRODIE: OK. Now, the judge did say that there might be some wiggle room to undo some of what the monitors are doing or make some changes there. Does that seem like a fair middle ground to you?

TOM GALVIN: No. We need to go for everything we’ve asked for because everything we’ve asked for has been very reasonable. The whole basis of this federal oversight was that when Joe Arpaio was sheriff, he lost the lawsuit. And the basis of the lawsuit was that he promulgated policies, including racially discriminatory traffic stops.

But since then, we have had three sheriffs, including in both political parties. All of these sheriffs have been elected by the voters in Maricopa County, including a sheriff who ran against Arpaio and got him out of office. So, in my opinion, in the United States of America, the voters decide how things should go, and to me, the voters have decided who runs the Sheriff’s Office.

Not one sheriff since Joe Arpaio has promulgated policies that are racially discriminatory. There is no policy today at the Sheriff’s Office that says you’re going to do traffic stops based on racial differences. So, for that reason, we believe the judge should have granted us relief from these federal oversight matters concerning and pertaining to the original basis of the lawsuit.

MARK BRODIE: The judge, though, did point to evidence that while there might not be a policy as there was during the administration of Joe Arpaio, that there are still some racial disparities happening with traffic stops, which was a big reason in his decision to not get rid of the monitor, get rid of the oversight, basically saying, “Look, it’s still kind of happening here, and there’s no reason to think that absent this monitoring, it won’t go back to happening.”

TOM GALVIN: Those are basically just on statistics, but you have to look at the basis of the lawsuit: the policies of the department. The current sheriff does not have any policy directing or instructing his deputies to perform traffic stops for racial discriminatory reasons. And the monitor himself said the difference in arrest rates is, quote, “not associated with bias,” unquote.

So, for those reasons, you can have all different reasons of why statistics might come out that way, but you have to go back: Does the Sheriff’s Office enact racial discriminatory policies? They do not. In fact, they got rid of them. Paul Penzone was sheriff; he got rid of any policies that Joe Arpaio had enacted. And the two subsequent sheriffs, including [Russ] Skinner and now Jerry Sheridan, the incumbent, haven’t returned them. So, they’re not doing that at the Sheriff’s Office, and that’s the whole basis why we filed in court. And we’re doing so on behalf of the taxpayers. It’s very expensive.

MARK BRODIE: So, does it come down to you then that the basis of the lawsuit were these specific policies, maybe not so much the end result? Like, if the end result is still kind of happening, but it’s not because of specific policies, to you and your colleagues on the board — most of them, anyway — that means that the oversight should be done with?

TOM GALVIN: Yeah, because the basis of the lawsuit were the policies. The policies were in place. Not one person in Maricopa County today supports, advocates for, or is implementing those policies, whether that’s the sheriff, whether that’s the people that report to the sheriff, or whether that’s the Board of Supervisors, who provide the power of the purse — we provide the budget to the Sheriff’s Office.

And if any elected official had enacted in any activity that I would believe violates the constitutional rights of our citizens, I, for one, would be opposed to funding those programs, and I believe my colleagues would as well. So, what we told the judge is the Sheriff’s Office is not engaging in racial discriminatory practices. The federal oversight for that matter should be revoked.

It is costing us tens of millions of dollars a year. The monitor himself makes $2 million a year, which I think is absolutely outrageous. And for this, this is why I’ve been fighting for the taxpayers since I announced the initiation of this lawsuit last year.

MARK BRODIE: Do you think that there need to be more, if not direct policies, maybe more initiatives within the Sheriff’s Department, given where the numbers are in terms of the drivers who are stopped, the length of time that they are stopped, what those statistics say? Does there need to be more of an effort to try to bring those numbers down?

TOM GALVIN: OK, if we do, then we would need to spend considerable resources to do that, but right now we’re spending them on compliance. And we’re spending on compliance for matters that have been taken out 10, 15 years ago.

So, I would love to address those issues, and this is the problem that I have: is that I believe certain aspects of this federal oversight are actually hurting the people that they’re meant to help, for that reason, based on your question.

MARK BRODIE: OK. So, the judge, as I referenced, mentioned that there could be some places to reduce oversight. If the appeal is unsuccessful, would you be up for looking for ways to maybe reduce some of that oversight, maybe reduce some of the costs?

TOM GALVIN: Any relief. I think we are overdue. There’s been a fight over how much this has cost. Some people said it’s been $100 million. Our budget office says it’s been north of $300 million. But for me, I measure it in terms of years. We’ve been under oversight for 13 years. It’s way too long.

MARK BRODIE: So, it sounds like you are confident that if the oversight were to go away, that there would not be any more discrimination, stops of motorists of particular ethnicities, any more of that than there is now, and ideally, there would be less. Is that — I don't want to put words in your mouth.

TOM GALVIN: Well, right. I would compare it to any law enforcement agency in the country that is not under federal oversight. You can never guarantee perfection on the actions of human beings, but at the same time, it’s under our control whether or not to endorse policies that are explicitly and proactively discriminatory or violating constitutional rights.

And I don’t think you or any of your colleagues in the media could point to any policy right now, official policy of the Sheriff’s Office, that tells employees or deputies to violate constitutional rights. It just doesn’t exist. So, for that basis, I think the monitor has done his job. I think the federal judge has done a tremendous job of changing the culture of the Sheriff’s Office.

But what we had with that sheriff at the time was a very unique situation with a very unique individual who, frankly, was attracting a lot of national attention, for good and for bad. The three sheriffs since then, I have seen, are not, you know, media glory hounds. They know they have a very serious job. They care about their employees at the Sheriff’s Office. I care about the employees at the Sheriff’s Office. This has affected morale. This has affected recruitment. This has affected attrition. All of those things.

Last year, we enacted the biggest pay increase at the Sheriff’s Office in more than 15 years under my chairmanship. These are things that I care about. You want the best and the brightest in that agency. So, even if you remove the federal oversight, it doesn’t necessarily mean that those abusive policies would be enacted the next day, and no one would be supportive of that. And ultimately, once again, politicians are subject to the voters’ wishes. You would have to defend your record and your policies at the ballot.

MARK BRODIE: OK. That is Maricopa County Supervisor Tom Galvin. Tom, thanks a lot.

TOM GALVIN: Thank you so much.