Phoenix police union loses members over dissension

PLEA president Mark Spencer

As the Phoenix Police Department endured one of its most turbulent years in recent history, many officers quit the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association over the union's politics and priorities.

Roughly 8 percent of members resigned from PLEA last year, which the labor group mainly attributes to officers who quit paying monthly dues to save money during the tough economy.

But others have left in protest of the union's support of Senate Bill 1070, Arizona's controversial new immigration law, or because of the ongoing, bitter battle between union leaders and Phoenix Public Safety Manager Jack Harris.

Some disenchanted with PLEA say the union's political positions and public attacks against Harris distract from what should be the labor group's main mission: to fight for better pay and working conditions for rank-and-file police officers.

PLEA President Mark Spencer said the union board expected to alienate members.

The attacks on management and passionate support for SB 1070 directly responded to what a majority of members wanted to see from union leaders, he said. SB 1070 makes it a crime to be in the state illegally and requires law-enforcement officers to detain suspected undocumented immigrants when practicable.

"There's a cost involved with doing business like that," Spencer said.

"All of our members are important, but we get our direction from the majority of members."

Spencer expects that the worst of the drops have passed and that fewer officers will leave this week, one of only two times a year city employees can quit a labor group.

PLEA added 31 members this winter and will continue to add members or recruit those who recently backed out, Spencer said.

He also said some officers no longer wanted to pay $60 in basic monthly dues to save cash in the tough economy.

"It comes in cycles," he said. "We're not aware of any mass exodus."

PLEA's membership was about 89 percent of about 2,560 eligible police officers in 2006 and spiked in recent years before dropping to 83 percent of 2,675 patrol officers in July 2010, city records show.

The city's other unions representing firefighters, management, sanitation workers, engineers and other city employees saw their memberships grow or hold steady.

Tired of rhetoric

J.R. Pool, a Phoenix police domestic-violence detective, worked for years as a PLEA representative before dropping out of the union and joining another labor organization in July.

Pool said his friends on the force feel that PLEA "negotiates through news releases" and that blasts against the Police Department alienate officers who've grown tired of the rhetoric.

"The majority is the frustration with PLEA losing focus on the patrol officer in favor of a personal agenda," Pool said. "It's ruining my reputation, and it's ruining patrol officers' reputation."

PLEA has criticized Harris' leadership and backed a lawsuit against Harris for drawing a pension as well as a salary.

Harris and the department faced a turbulent 2010, which brought multiple fraud investigations, an officer facing murder charges in the fatal shooting of an unarmed suspect, and the unsolved shooting death of a sergeant.

Money and benefits

As the bargaining unit for Phoenix police officers and detectives, PLEA is primarily responsible for negotiating salaries and benefits for patrol officers. The union also works on developing better working conditions, such as pushing for changes in how the city handles internal investigations and other policy issues.

PLEA representatives go to officer-involved shootings, represent officers accused of misconduct and help officers accused of crimes get legal assistance.

The Police Department budget is about $419 million, or 43 percent of the city's more than $1 billion general-fund operating budget for the 2010-11 fiscal year.

The union helped play a role in sparing officers from citywide layoffs as Phoenix was facing a more than $277 million budget shortfall last year.

All other city departments faced layoffs except police and firefighters. They did, however, agree to 3.2 percent in wage reductions along with all the other city employees.

Phoenix officials had little to say about the loss of PLEA membership, saying the city is prohibited from influencing how employees choose to be represented and will cooperate with whatever group officers officially support.

Pool paid dues as a PLEA member for 22 years before quitting.

Part of the problem, he said, was the union's bloglike website, run by the PLEA board, which recently characterized the Police Department as corrupt and "doomed to failure and a cycle of destruction that will continually repeat until change is brought about."

"It was the constant negativity coming from PLEA that started wearing on me over time," Pool said.

Nick Wubker, a Phoenix drug-enforcement detective, made his concerns known in direct letters to Spencer about how patrol officers perceive PLEA.

The former member explained that he was leaving the union because "the members of PLEA are deeply concerned about what is happening with PLEA, your alignment with certain political figures, your political stances on non-PLEA-related issues, and your inability to convey the true concerns of the members," he wrote in one letter.

The FOP is growing

As PLEA has been losing members, the Phoenix Fraternal Order of Police has seen its ranks grow from fewer than 300 in 2008 to 503 active members in 2010. The increased membership is encouraging the FOP to consider trying to push PLEA aside.

Leaders at the FOP and other police groups said PLEA's rhetoric unnecessarily portrays the department as dysfunctional.

The Phoenix FOP lodge could challenge PLEA as the bargaining unit for rank-and-file police officers after the city's current contract expires in 2012, according to Jim Mann, executive director for the FOP's Arizona Labor Council.

The FOP is a national law-enforcement organization with more than 325,000 members around the U.S., including at least 2,200 lodges that serve as bargaining units for their police departments.

The FOP has been aggressively poising itself for the fight, posting recruitment videos on YouTube and material on police-station bulletin boards. PLEA and the FOP also have been dueling through surveys and polls.

In December, PLEA leaders posted the results of their latest membership poll, which they said showed "over 80 percent of Phoenix police officers believe Harris should be fired."

Critics of PLEA said the no-confidence vote was merely a small percentage of PLEA membership, not of all sworn officers. Others said they never had a chance to vote.

The FOP countered with a survey of 410 Phoenix voters that indicated 65 percent of those polled supported Harris, while 53 percent of those polled disagreed with how Spencer did his job.

'Let members decide'

Despite the turmoil, it's unclear whether a majority of Phoenix police would switch from PLEA to the FOP.

Brian Livingston, president of the Arizona Police Association, composed of PLEA and dozens of other state law-enforcement unions, said PLEA will be fine.

"Let the members decide," said Livingston, who served as PLEA chairman in 1999 when he was shot in the line of duty and forced to retire.

"I've every confidence they will choose PLEA because of their history and where the organization is going," Livingston added.

Lt. Mark Hafkey, president of the Phoenix Police Sergeants and Lieutenants Association, said his union, the bargaining unit for police supervisors, recently changed its bylaws to accept disgruntled PLEA members as associates. He also said dues are less expensive than PLEA's.

Hafkey said he disagrees with PLEA's political stances, although he questioned whether pushing PLEA out would be the right decision for the city's police.

"I'm not sure people want that," Hafkey said. "PLEA was a respected union for years. It wasn't until a few years ago . . . people started thinking about supporting FOP."

Vice Mayor Thelda Williams said that the struggle between PLEA and the FOP has been going on for decades and that she expects PLEA will come out on top as it has in the past.

In 1988, PLEA emerged victorious from a similar challenge by the FOP, with officers voting 825-323 to keep PLEA in place.

"The Police Department has been through upheaval and has had so many bad things happen this year that I'm sure it has influenced this struggle and (PLEA) membership," Williams said.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2011/01/07/20110107phoenix-police-union-dispute.html

Rick Romley Says Police Union's Under Investigation in the Chrisman Murder Case

Phoenix Law Enforcement Association (PLEA) president Mark Spencer

by Stephen Lemons

PLEA DEAL

Can the Phoenix Law Enforcement Association, the powerful union that represents Phoenix Police Department officers, successfully derail the case against Officer Richard Chrisman, the Phoenix cop indicted for second-degree murder in the October 5 shooting of an unarmed man?

That's the question I have as interim County Attorney Rick Romley leaves office on November 22, to be replaced with County Attorney-elect Bill Montgomery.

PLEA endorsed Montgomery in his victorious Republican primary challenge to Romley, and PLEA contributed $410 to his campaign coffers, though Montgomery hardly needed the help.

His official sponsor, longtime Romley enemy Sheriff Joe Arpaio, spent more than a half-million dollars on TV ads and mailers bashing Romley. That effort, or at least the cash dropped on the mailers, earned Arpaio a hefty campaign fine of $154,000.

So you could at least argue that Montgomery owes PLEA less than he owes the sheriff, though PLEA's endorsement's worth a lot more that its little donation.

Also, PLEA's reportedly tight with at least one member of Monty's newly announced executive staff. And from day one, PLEA has vigorously defended Chrisman against allegations leveled at him by fellow officer Sergio Virgillo.

Virgillo told investigators that the victim, Daniel Rodriguez, posed no threat to the officers, who were responding to a domestic-violence call placed by Rod­riguez's mother.

According to Virgillo, Chrisman, challenged by Rodriguez as to why the cops were in his mom's residence, put a gun to Rodriguez's head, telling him, "I don't need no warrant, motherfucker."

Why would a cop make this stuff up about another cop, thus instantly earning him the enmity of fellow law enforcement officers? If the confrontation went down the way Virgillo said and if he'd kept his mouth shut and backed Chrisman's tale, the whole incident probably would've been forgotten after the initial reports on it.

But PLEA's having none of Virgillo's account. The union ponied up the dough for Chrisman's bail and apparently began planting stories with friendly reporters at CBS 5 and elsewhere (according to my sources), aimed at smearing Virgillo, who's not a PLEA member.

That campaign caught the eye of Romley, who has told me that PLEA and other Phoenix police officers are now under investigation by his office and the Phoenix Police Department for possible witness tampering and obstruction of justice. In addition, Romley said an FBI agent's assigned to the matter.

"I think there's a concerted effort by PLEA and some of its members to obstruct the success of this case going forward," Romley told me. "And they need to know that I'm going to play hardball."

Sadly, Romley won't be playing hardball from the County Attorney's Office, but he's never been quiet on the sidelines, and I wouldn't expect him to clam up after November 22. By informing me of an investigation into PLEA, Romley was sending a message.

"This thing doesn't go away just because Rick Romley has to leave," he said.

I called the FBI, where spokesman Manuel Johnson said, "We're aware of the situation." He specified that the FBI knows about the County Attorney's Office and PPD probes.

Johnson would neither confirm nor deny Romley's statement that there was an FBI agent assigned to the matter. He said that in cases in which law enforcement's accused of alleged misconduct under "color of law," it's not uncommon for the FBI to wait until local investigations run their course. He said there was no active FBI investigation, but he left the door open for that to change.

(Note: PLEA President Mark Spencer hadn't returned a call for comment as this column went to press.)

Romley declined to discuss specifics of the investigation. However, I wondered to Assistant Phoenix Police Chief Andy Anderson, how PLEA had gotten internal e-mails among police officers concerning a phone call from Phoenix city councilmen Michael Nowakowski and Mike Johnson to Officer Virgillo concerning Daniel Rodriguez's death.

The e-mails are posted on PLEA's Web site. When I asked Anderson whether his department was investigating how the e-mails got there, he said he couldn't comment. I asked if the PPD was investigating PLEA, and he said that he couldn't make a statement at this time.

Nowakowski and Johnson have said they were calling only to offer support to Virgillo. The e-mails insinuate that Nowakowski and Johnson may have been trying to get Virgillo to stick to his story — which is what PLEA wants us to believe.

Granted, it's a legitimate news item for the media hounds who've reported on it. As was another item concerning Virgillo's wife, Maria, who was busted in 2008 and eventually caught three years' probation for being part of a drug-trafficking organization.

Virgillo, by all accounts, knew nothing of his wife's dealings. But as with the story regarding Nowakowski and Johnson, these twists effectively muddy the pool, no doubt part of PLEA's plan. If there's enough doubt in the mix when Montgomery ascends to the catbird seat, it could give him enough cover to act in Chrisman's favor.

Chrisman's attorney, Craig Mehrens — who wouldn't tell me whether PLEA's paying Chrisman's legal bills — contends that the grand jury was bogus from jump. He said the County Attorney's Office wouldn't allow his expert witness, police psychologist Dr. William Lewinski, to testify.

Mehrens said Lewinski interviewed Chrisman and has concluded that "this was a justifiable use of force," in the attorney's words.

"I wanted to make Dr. Lewinski available to the [county attorney] and the grand jury to tell them Rich Chrisman's version on the facts and, if they were interested, his expert opinion," Mehrens wrote in an e-mail to me.

Yet Mehrens admitted that he didn't offer his client to the grand jury to tell his side, which was the smart thing for Mehrens to do. Particularly if his client's guilty.

Romley scoffed at the suggestion that Lewinski should've gone before the grand jury.

"Mehrens knows better than that," Romley said. "His expert didn't even have any of the police reports or any of the information [on the case]."

And what about Mehrens' contention that he and Public Safety Manager (read: Police Chief) Jack Harris rushed to judgment regarding Chrisman — that the grand jury came too fast?

"That's ridiculous," Romley said. "How many murder investigations do we sit, [where] we have someone who's a potential subject and we do the grand jury right away? Just go back in history. It was a week [after the murder that the Chrisman grand jury] was done."

Romley also hotly contested the suggestion by Phoenix police Officer Eric Rude that the County Attorney dictated the probable-cause statement attached to the Chrisman indictment. Rude's testimony came before a hearing seeking a preliminary injunction against Chrisman's firing by Harris, a request the judge granted.

PLEA member Rude told the court that Chief Harris informed him that the County Attorney dictated what was to appear in the statement, referred to as a "form four." This, even though Phoenix homicide Detective Kenny Porter is listed as the author of the form four.

"I triple-checked it," Romley said. "We even contacted the officer that wrote the form four, and he said, 'Absolutely not.'"

PPD spokesman Tommy Thompson explained to me that in major cases, officers may corroborate facts with the county attorney, but the officers actually write the form fours themselves.

The latest round fired from Mehrens' office is a motion seeking a remand of the Chrisman case to the grand jury. Mehrens contends that the prosecutor assigned to the case, Juan Martinez, and another prosecutor, Ted Duffy, misled the grand jury by presenting the case "almost entirely from the point of view of Officer Sergio Virgillo."

Not long after its filing, the legal paperwork found its way to CBS 5, which then produced a hit piece on Duffy, noting that he'd been sanctioned, given a 30-day suspension, and put on probation by the State Bar of Arizona.

The Channel 5 story quoted defense attorney Daniel Raynak's saying he was surprised "anyone would put Duffy in charge of another murder case."

The TV report also noted that Duffy's "one of two prosecutors handling the Chrisman prosecution."

But the County Attorney's Office said it was Martinez who presented the case to the grand jury, not Duffy.

County Attorney's Office spokesman Bill Fitzgerald got back to me with this statement:

"Ted Duffy didn't have anything to do with the presentment of the Chrisman case. He was the person who was assigned that day to the grand jury to read from a piece of paper the standard admonishments with regard to all cases being heard by grand jurors that day.

"He reads from the piece of paper and takes a seat. The actual presentment of the case was done by Juan Martinez."

Asked about Duffy's involvement or non-involvement in the presentation of the case to the grand jury, Mehrens reacted, well, weirdly.

"You know, I am so tired of this shit," wrote Mehrens in an e-mail to me. "Why [is the County Attorney's Office] lying to you? More importantly, why are you buying into it? I actually know the answer to the former question: They cannot support their actions on the facts, so they spin."

Mehrens later added, "I know your paper supports Romley, having done a huge piece on how wonderful a guy he is. I know your paper supports and has done 'puff pieces' on the Phoenix PD homicide detectives and homicide detectives [who] have left for other employment, so why am I surprised? I shouldn't be."

So, uh, does this make New Times anti-cop or pro-cop? Confusing, eh?

Speaking for myself, I'm neither pro- nor anti-Phoenix PD. And as to Chrisman's guilt or innocence, that's for a jury to decide.

The line that's out there on the pro-Chrisman side is that Virgillo froze (or didn't engage) while Rodriguez and Chrisman struggled, that Rodriguez went for Chrisman's gun, and Chrisman had to kill him.

There were only three men involved in the incident, and one of them's dead.

The second, Virgillo, is a cop with a spotless record who's now loathed by many — if not most — of his brothers and sisters in arms for ratting out a fellow centurion.

The third, Chrisman, is tainted by his name's inclusion on the "Brady list" and the reason it was put there: planting a crack pipe on a mentally ill homeless woman in a sick prank we learned about only after he was indicted for murder two.

Chrisman's past behavior aside, I'd be willing to keep an open mind on whether the shooting was justified. That is, if Mehrens and PLEA weren't so actively sliming anyone who opposes or even questions them, and setting the stage for Montgomery to step in and put the kibosh on a possible trial.

That endgame may be good for Chrisman, Mehrens, and PLEA — which is using the affair to target its bête noire, Jack Harris. But would it be good for justice? No. Sorry, but now more than ever, we need a trial to sort out the death of Danny Rodriguez.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2010-11-18/news/rick-romley-says-plea-s-under-investigation-for-the-witness-tampering-and-obstruction-of-justice-in-the-chrisman-affair/