Print
Comment
Rate
Administrative leaves cost taxpayers
| Happier times: Benson Police officer Darrell Litchfield and K-9 partner Riggs.While Litchfield was on paid leave for six months, Riggs sat in a kennel. (Thelma Grimes/photo.) |
Thelma Grimes/San PedroValley News-Sun
While Interim Police Chief Paul Moncada investigated former Benson Police Officer Darrell Litchfield's behavior over the last six months, taxpayers spent nearly $30,000 to keep him on paid administrative leave.
Since January, Litchfield has received a total of $29,862.25 for paid administrative leave including benefits and received another $5,171.75 for accrued vacation when he was terminated in July.
Litchfield has already challenged the termination, and is now awaiting a hearing for which a date and time has not yet been scheduled.
Litchfield isn't the only city employee under investigation. The city recently put inspector Jeff Smith on paid administrative leave. City Manager Glenn Nichols would not comment on the details, but said an investigation is under way.
While Smith's personnel file says he was put on leave for non-disciplinary reasons, Nichols has since clarified that the file was in error, and an investigation into possible misconduct is being conducted. He could not provide a completion date.
Since being suspended, Smith has received $2,948.16 in salary and benefits. Between Smith and Litchfield, taxpayers have paid $37,982.28 for salary, benefits and paid vacation time while lengthy investigations are conducted by city officials.
Also costing the city with Litchfield's termination is the time and money for training. Litchfield became the department's K-9 officer in 2003. The City paid to train Litchfield and also to acquire and train the dog, Riggs.
Nichols said Riggs has been kenneled for the last six months, and "I believe acting chief Moncada is going to find somebody that can take the dog if the dog is still viable."
Moncada said the Litchfield investigation started in January when the officer was put on administrative leave after an altercation with his wife.
"This is notice that you are being placed on administrative leave, with pay, while an investigation is being completed for violation of City of Benson Police Department general order R-201.1, conduct that brings discredit to yourself, the department and the City of Benson," Moncada said in a January 26 letter to Litchfield.
According to Cochise County Sheriff's documents, police were called to Litchfield's home on Jan. 25. The report states Litchfield and his wife fought after becoming intoxicated. Litchfield was not placed under arrest and was allowed to leave the premises with a friend.
According the sheriff's documents, the Cochise County Attorney's office later authorized deputies to file misdemeanor domestic violence and disorderly conduct charges against Litchfield. The charges were later dropped.
Moncada said the incident affects an officer's integrity and an investigation is mandatory. In an April 9 report to Nichols, Moncada summed up the incident between Litchfield and his wife, and recommended the officer be suspended for six months without pay, and be placed on disciplinary probation for three months.
In a non-dated pre-action meeting statement, Litchfield said he would appeal any disciplinary measures taken against him, noting no charges were filed. Litchfield said his wife would also testify on his behalf.
However, Litchfield remained on paid administrative leave as Moncada began looking into other allegations against the officer.
Besides a fight with his wife, Moncada said Litchfield's integrity was questioned when he allegedly covered the license plate on his personal vehicle and drove with the driver side visor down to cover his face to evade photo enforcement zones in Phoenix.
In a June 30 report to Nichols, Moncada said, "This investigation started out as some information being relayed to me of possible actions by an officer, and those actions could be integrity or ethics issues. I started talking to one officer, who gave me information and that led to the next officer, which led to the third officer and before I knew it, this investigation had taken off. This is not an investigation of speeding. As Officer Litchfield stated, 'everybody speeds.' He is correct; most people do speed. Some do it on a regular basis, some do it on occasion. This is not an investigation on the license plate cover, or the legality of having one. This is an investigation of a totality of actions on Officer Litchfield's part."
Moncada said according to statements made by fellow officers, many of them informed Litchfield that by taking specific actions to defeat photo radar, he is breaking the law.
"Officer Litchfield's actions demonstrate disrespect for the traffic laws of the State of Arizona," Moncada said. "The fact that all of the officers listed told him that what he was doing was wrong should have given Officer Litchfield cause for concern. The issues of this investigation are not if Officer Litchfield speeds or not; the questions of the tactics he takes to defeat photo radar are not that significant. The question of ethics is what comes to mind. What kind of signal does it send to the public when an officer feels he can do most anything to circumvent a part of traffic enforcement that he does not agree with?"
Litchfield was given a polygraph test by Southwest Polygraph Service, Inc., on April 21. While the results of a polygraph test are inadmissible in court, it is routinely used as an investigative tool for law enforcement and employers.
Kay Doctor, of Southwest Polygraph Services, said Litchfield "adamantly" denied all allegations, noting he was questioned specifically on four separate allegations.
Those allegations included shielding his license plates to avoid photo radar, advising his wife to contest a photo radar enforcement ticket, using his badge while off-duty to get out of tickets and covering his face to hide his identity as another tactic to get out of photo radar enforcement.
"A careful numerical evaluation of Officer Litchfield's polygraph charts produced scores indicative of deceptive answers to each of the relevant questions asked," Doctor said in a April 21 notice to Moncada.
A new set of allegations surfaced in early April when Jon C. Drummond of the Arizona Department of Public Safety submitted a signed statement accusing Litchfield of having a bartender at a local bar fill a Circle K cup with alcohol while he was working the night shift.
Drummond said he received information from an area resident that on more than one occasion Litchfield had the bartender fill the thirst-buster cup with Red Bull and Vodka. Litchfield allegedly got the drink while in uniform.
An internal affairs investigation is being conducted by the Sierra Vista Police Department. The department informed Litchfield that he was accused of violating police personal conduct code, stating, "Employees in uniform shall not consume or be under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
"It is alleged that on one occasion you frequented a commercial establishment in the city of Benson while working in your official capacity as a sworn law enforcement officer in the uniform and consumed alcohol in violation of departmental policy or regulation."
While the results of this investigation were not in Litchfield's personnel file, Moncada took official disciplinary action on July 6.
In the notice of termination, Moncada said, "After examining your statement on April 6, in which you denied that you have ever attempted to avoid photo radar speeding tickets by driving with your visor down obscuring part of your face, and comparing these statements with photo radar computer images that show you driving with your visor down obscuring your face, as well as statements from other law enforcement personnel who report that you stated to them that you have done these things, I have concluded that you did violate P-448.3.10 (personnel policy). This conclusion is bolstered by the polygraph examiner's conclusion, which is that the test results show that you were deceptive to each of the relevant questions."
Litchfield's termination became effective on July 6. The Law Office of Michael W. Storie, P.C. filed an appeal on behalf of Litchfield on July 8.
While Interim Police Chief Paul Moncada investigated former Benson Police Officer Darrell Litchfield's behavior over the last six months, taxpayers spent nearly $30,000 to keep him on paid administrative leave.
Since January, Litchfield has received a total of $29,862.25 for paid administrative leave including benefits and received another $5,171.75 for accrued vacation when he was terminated in July.
Litchfield has already challenged the termination, and is now awaiting a hearing for which a date and time has not yet been scheduled.
Litchfield isn't the only city employee under investigation. The city recently put inspector Jeff Smith on paid administrative leave. City Manager Glenn Nichols would not comment on the details, but said an investigation is under way.
While Smith's personnel file says he was put on leave for non-disciplinary reasons, Nichols has since clarified that the file was in error, and an investigation into possible misconduct is being conducted. He could not provide a completion date.
Since being suspended, Smith has received $2,948.16 in salary and benefits. Between Smith and Litchfield, taxpayers have paid $37,982.28 for salary, benefits and paid vacation time while lengthy investigations are conducted by city officials.
Also costing the city with Litchfield's termination is the time and money for training. Litchfield became the department's K-9 officer in 2003. The City paid to train Litchfield and also to acquire and train the dog, Riggs.
Nichols said Riggs has been kenneled for the last six months, and "I believe acting chief Moncada is going to find somebody that can take the dog if the dog is still viable."
Moncada said the Litchfield investigation started in January when the officer was put on administrative leave after an altercation with his wife.
"This is notice that you are being placed on administrative leave, with pay, while an investigation is being completed for violation of City of Benson Police Department general order R-201.1, conduct that brings discredit to yourself, the department and the City of Benson," Moncada said in a January 26 letter to Litchfield.
According to Cochise County Sheriff's documents, police were called to Litchfield's home on Jan. 25. The report states Litchfield and his wife fought after becoming intoxicated. Litchfield was not placed under arrest and was allowed to leave the premises with a friend.
According the sheriff's documents, the Cochise County Attorney's office later authorized deputies to file misdemeanor domestic violence and disorderly conduct charges against Litchfield. The charges were later dropped.
Moncada said the incident affects an officer's integrity and an investigation is mandatory. In an April 9 report to Nichols, Moncada summed up the incident between Litchfield and his wife, and recommended the officer be suspended for six months without pay, and be placed on disciplinary probation for three months.
In a non-dated pre-action meeting statement, Litchfield said he would appeal any disciplinary measures taken against him, noting no charges were filed. Litchfield said his wife would also testify on his behalf.
However, Litchfield remained on paid administrative leave as Moncada began looking into other allegations against the officer.
Besides a fight with his wife, Moncada said Litchfield's integrity was questioned when he allegedly covered the license plate on his personal vehicle and drove with the driver side visor down to cover his face to evade photo enforcement zones in Phoenix.
In a June 30 report to Nichols, Moncada said, "This investigation started out as some information being relayed to me of possible actions by an officer, and those actions could be integrity or ethics issues. I started talking to one officer, who gave me information and that led to the next officer, which led to the third officer and before I knew it, this investigation had taken off. This is not an investigation of speeding. As Officer Litchfield stated, 'everybody speeds.' He is correct; most people do speed. Some do it on a regular basis, some do it on occasion. This is not an investigation on the license plate cover, or the legality of having one. This is an investigation of a totality of actions on Officer Litchfield's part."
Moncada said according to statements made by fellow officers, many of them informed Litchfield that by taking specific actions to defeat photo radar, he is breaking the law.
"Officer Litchfield's actions demonstrate disrespect for the traffic laws of the State of Arizona," Moncada said. "The fact that all of the officers listed told him that what he was doing was wrong should have given Officer Litchfield cause for concern. The issues of this investigation are not if Officer Litchfield speeds or not; the questions of the tactics he takes to defeat photo radar are not that significant. The question of ethics is what comes to mind. What kind of signal does it send to the public when an officer feels he can do most anything to circumvent a part of traffic enforcement that he does not agree with?"
Litchfield was given a polygraph test by Southwest Polygraph Service, Inc., on April 21. While the results of a polygraph test are inadmissible in court, it is routinely used as an investigative tool for law enforcement and employers.
Kay Doctor, of Southwest Polygraph Services, said Litchfield "adamantly" denied all allegations, noting he was questioned specifically on four separate allegations.
Those allegations included shielding his license plates to avoid photo radar, advising his wife to contest a photo radar enforcement ticket, using his badge while off-duty to get out of tickets and covering his face to hide his identity as another tactic to get out of photo radar enforcement.
"A careful numerical evaluation of Officer Litchfield's polygraph charts produced scores indicative of deceptive answers to each of the relevant questions asked," Doctor said in a April 21 notice to Moncada.
A new set of allegations surfaced in early April when Jon C. Drummond of the Arizona Department of Public Safety submitted a signed statement accusing Litchfield of having a bartender at a local bar fill a Circle K cup with alcohol while he was working the night shift.
Drummond said he received information from an area resident that on more than one occasion Litchfield had the bartender fill the thirst-buster cup with Red Bull and Vodka. Litchfield allegedly got the drink while in uniform.
An internal affairs investigation is being conducted by the Sierra Vista Police Department. The department informed Litchfield that he was accused of violating police personal conduct code, stating, "Employees in uniform shall not consume or be under the influence of alcoholic beverages.
"It is alleged that on one occasion you frequented a commercial establishment in the city of Benson while working in your official capacity as a sworn law enforcement officer in the uniform and consumed alcohol in violation of departmental policy or regulation."
While the results of this investigation were not in Litchfield's personnel file, Moncada took official disciplinary action on July 6.
In the notice of termination, Moncada said, "After examining your statement on April 6, in which you denied that you have ever attempted to avoid photo radar speeding tickets by driving with your visor down obscuring part of your face, and comparing these statements with photo radar computer images that show you driving with your visor down obscuring your face, as well as statements from other law enforcement personnel who report that you stated to them that you have done these things, I have concluded that you did violate P-448.3.10 (personnel policy). This conclusion is bolstered by the polygraph examiner's conclusion, which is that the test results show that you were deceptive to each of the relevant questions."
Litchfield's termination became effective on July 6. The Law Office of Michael W. Storie, P.C. filed an appeal on behalf of Litchfield on July 8.
 |
||
| Annual event prelude to new school year |
Article Rating
Reader Comments
The following are comments from the readers. In no way do they represent the view of bensonnews-sun.com.
Brent wrote on Aug 5, 2009 11:57 AM:
" The manner in which this reporter wrote this story seems to imply that:
a) Driving with your visor down is not legal
b) Advising another citizen on ways to avoid (unconstitutional) law enforcement such as photo radar (which are run by a foreign corporation and not your government) is illegal.
Neither of these are true.
When will the mainstream media begin to do some fact-checking before blindly following what is spoon-fed to them by local police departments?
I'm not defending this officer's actions, but lets have some clarity here. "
a) Driving with your visor down is not legal
b) Advising another citizen on ways to avoid (unconstitutional) law enforcement such as photo radar (which are run by a foreign corporation and not your government) is illegal.
Neither of these are true.
When will the mainstream media begin to do some fact-checking before blindly following what is spoon-fed to them by local police departments?
I'm not defending this officer's actions, but lets have some clarity here. "
M wrote on Aug 5, 2009 3:06 PM:
" I think they are just railroading Litchfield because of other personal issues against him. It sounds bogus that a cop in uniform would have someone else fill up a cup of alcohol for him. And has anyone ever heard of a cop getting out of a ticket before? ONLY ALL THE TIME! This is a clear case of do as I say, not as I do. He doesn't sound any more corrupt than every other cop out there. Why make an example out of him? "
JS wrote on Aug 5, 2009 9:07 PM:
" I am pleased to see these comments by the citizens of Benson. What I find funny is that this article was clearly biased and almost comes across as an attack on Mr. Litchfield. "Since January, Litchfield has received a total of $29,862.25 for paid administrative leave including benefits and received another $5,171.75 for accrued vacation when he was terminated in July." Taken dirrectly from the article its self. Now as citizens ask your self why it took 6 months to conduct an investigation that could have other wise taken half the time at most. The original investigation was brought up from as the article says an altercation. I say this what buisness is it of the publics or the news paper to air such personal information.
On to the Photo radar plate. I see this reporter quoted policy when saying that this officer discredited him self the city and the department. I ask you this where are the Arizona Revised Statutes quotes if it is illegal to posses a photo radar plate???? "Officer Litchfield's actions demonstrate disrespect for the traffic laws of the State of Arizona," Moncada said. Show me In ARS where it is illegal to drive with your visor down, being in possesion of a photo radar plate. So if every one speeds and photo radar plates aren't illegal then why is he being investigated. I believe its called heresay which is in admissable in court so how can it be allowed to jeoprodize a mans career??
As far as the drinking on duty... Where is the out come of that investigation???? Ofcourse they aren't in his personal file because SVPD did the IA and they did it right.
I apologise for the rather long winded comment here but this up sets me a great deal. This article was titled to make it sound like there was some kind of injustice done to the city. When all that really happened was former officer Litchfield was attacked. I see this as slander and defamation of character. On that note Why don't we retitle the article Lets Attack Officer Litchfield. Atleast then the readers will know what they are getting into. "
On to the Photo radar plate. I see this reporter quoted policy when saying that this officer discredited him self the city and the department. I ask you this where are the Arizona Revised Statutes quotes if it is illegal to posses a photo radar plate???? "Officer Litchfield's actions demonstrate disrespect for the traffic laws of the State of Arizona," Moncada said. Show me In ARS where it is illegal to drive with your visor down, being in possesion of a photo radar plate. So if every one speeds and photo radar plates aren't illegal then why is he being investigated. I believe its called heresay which is in admissable in court so how can it be allowed to jeoprodize a mans career??
As far as the drinking on duty... Where is the out come of that investigation???? Ofcourse they aren't in his personal file because SVPD did the IA and they did it right.
I apologise for the rather long winded comment here but this up sets me a great deal. This article was titled to make it sound like there was some kind of injustice done to the city. When all that really happened was former officer Litchfield was attacked. I see this as slander and defamation of character. On that note Why don't we retitle the article Lets Attack Officer Litchfield. Atleast then the readers will know what they are getting into. "
Proof wrote on Aug 6, 2009 2:08 AM:
" To bad Mayor Fenn isn't under the same scrutney as these two men. There was more proof in the case against him than there is about either of these two men.
Ethics and appearances didn't seem to bother anyone about Fenn why is it a problem for these two? Rightly it should be a problem for all of them if true.
In case no one else has noticed. Smith also stood his ground against Fenn. Don't forget Fenn was fined for not purchasing required permits. I think Fenn and his buddies are picking off those that exposed him one by one. How admirable. This is just another abuse of power concerning Jeff Smith. "
Ethics and appearances didn't seem to bother anyone about Fenn why is it a problem for these two? Rightly it should be a problem for all of them if true.
In case no one else has noticed. Smith also stood his ground against Fenn. Don't forget Fenn was fined for not purchasing required permits. I think Fenn and his buddies are picking off those that exposed him one by one. How admirable. This is just another abuse of power concerning Jeff Smith. "
M wrote on Aug 6, 2009 12:34 PM:
" I'd like my comments displayed that I left yesterday. Did your web staff decide not to post them? "
Watching wrote on Aug 7, 2009 10:20 AM:
" “However, Litchfield remained on paid administrative leave as Moncada began looking into other allegations against the officer”
Benson City translation: Find something to hang on this guy. Is the city going to “boot” every city employee who has a argument with their spouse?
Smith's personnel file says he was put on leave for non-disciplinary reasons, but now say the file is in error.
You can bet your butt the City manager has his people standing by as replacements. Proving once again that in Benson , good old boys rule. "
Benson City translation: Find something to hang on this guy. Is the city going to “boot” every city employee who has a argument with their spouse?
Smith's personnel file says he was put on leave for non-disciplinary reasons, but now say the file is in error.
You can bet your butt the City manager has his people standing by as replacements. Proving once again that in Benson , good old boys rule. "
Billy wrote on Aug 8, 2009 7:57 AM:
" The reason there are few comments to stories is: Often the comments are not posted for four days, if posted at all. It appears any comment that does not agree with Jane’s view is just tossed. "
Dragoon wrote on Aug 9, 2009 12:57 PM:
" The title of the story does need a change. How about "LETS RANT ABOUT DARREL WITHOUT ATTEMPTING TO GET HIS SIDE OF IT" I'm not saying that Benson PD was not justified in there actions. But the story is very one sided. Administrative leave is part of the expenses of Government. Running a story every time some one is placed on Admin leave or fired from the City is pretty silly. There have been much bigger scadals at other agencies in the county. In fact, there has been criminal activity with Officers being fired at other agencies. Wick Communications didn't choose to run stories then. Why pick on Darrel? Why pick on Benson PD? Benson PD has a VERY CLEAN RECORD compared to other agencies. "
CALM wrote on Aug 10, 2009 5:02 PM:
" It has not been a secret, for a long time, that there were several officers on the force that had it out for Darrel, as well as being bull dogs towards the citizens of Benson. It is these officers whom need to be dealt with. This story is grossly written, is slander, and defamation of character, towards Litchfield. The editor should have never allowed such a story to be published. Litchfield was put on leave for an altercation with his wife; Benson police decided to go LOOKING for other things once they seen the altercation charges were not going to hold. They went looking for things of which most every officer/citizen of Benson is guilty of: speeding and trying to get out of photo radar enforcement tickets. Come on really??? I for one, hope Litchfield wins his appeal. As for Benson cops, you fired one of the few good officers you have. I have even less respect for the Benson PD than I did, not to mention the person who wrote this story. Come on people, get with the program. Money should be better spent on things that matter during these economic times, than on this sort of fishing expedition. Best of luck, to Darrel and his family. "
CALM wrote on Aug 12, 2009 12:57 PM:
" It has not been a secret, for a long time, that there were several officers on the force that had it out for Darrel, as well as being bull dogs towards the citizens of Benson. It is these officers whom need to be dealt with. This story is grossly written, is slander, and defamation of character, towards Litchfield. The editor should have never allowed such a story to be published. Litchfield was put on leave for an altercation with his wife; Benson police decided to go LOOKING for other things once they seen the altercation charges were not going to hold. They went looking for things of which most every officer/citizen of Benson is guilty of: speeding and trying to get out of photo radar enforcement tickets. Come on really??? I for one, hope Litchfield wins his appeal. As for Benson cops, you fired one of the few good officers you have. I have even less respect for the Benson PD than I did, not to mention the person who wrote this story. Come on people, get with the program. Money should be better spent on things that matter during these economic times, than on this sort of fishing expedition. Best of luck, to Darrel and his family. "
cdg wrote on Aug 5, 2009 11:40 AM:
On the other hand, since you only briefly discuss the administrative leave issue, and devote paragraph after paragraph to the accusations against Mr. Litchfield and narratives relating to those accusations, the article is mis-titled. "