Background on the Settlement
In 2013, a federal judge determined that the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office had violated the rights of Latino drivers under the leadership of then-Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The court mandated significant reforms to tackle racial profiling. These reforms included documenting traffic stops, hiring investigators to address deputy misconduct, and appointing a monitor to ensure compliance with the settlement.
Auditing Findings
The audit found that more than $200 million was mismanaged in connection to the settlement. Notable expenses included $7,000 on cable subscriptions, an $11,000 golf cart, and $1.5 million on office renovations. A substantial portion of the spending was unrelated to the court’s orders. The auditors determined that only $63 million was justifiably charged to the settlement.
Nearly 72% of expenses were misattributed, impacting the credibility of financial reports. These unsupported expenses raised suspicion about the Sheriff’s Office’s transparency.
Oversight and Budgeting Challenges
The Maricopa County Board of Supervisors faced criticism for insufficient oversight of these funds. Despite approval of substantial budgets, their scrutiny of the Sheriff’s Office spending practices was limited. Supervisors often failed to question growing costs.
The audit highlighted instances of improper billing practices. Services unrelated or partially related to the reform efforts were included in the settlement costs. Additionally, expenses for 209 staffing positions were wrongly attributed to the settlement.
Response to Audit
Supervisor Tom Galvin and Kate Brophy McGee defended their budgeting practices. Yet, Democrats like Supervisor Steve Gallardo advocated for continued oversight to ensure compliance with racial bias reforms. The goal was to eliminate biased policing and improve compliance with court orders.
Controversial Spending
Some controversial allocations included the purchase of body cameras and Tasers. While the court required body cameras, the inclusion of Tasers in the settlement was unwarranted. Purchases of vehicles and personal expenses, such as $3,259 for car washes, were also improperly attributed.
A notable expense involved $2.9 million spent on more body cameras than needed. An additional $7,669 was spent on cable services unrelated to the settlement. Such expenditures raised questions about financial accountability.
Calls for Change
Republican supervisors sought to conclude court oversight, citing high costs. They argued that changes in court orders contributed to escalating expenses. Despite ongoing challenges, compliance with the Melendres settlement remained a priority for many.
Even years after the settlement, unresolved disparities in traffic stops and misconduct claims continued to fuel concern. The American Civil Liberties Union pressed for continued monitoring to ensure full compliance.
Overall, the Sheriff’s Office’s spending practices prompted debates on proper fund management and accountability. As of now, efforts to address financial mismanagement and ensure equitable policing in Maricopa County persist.