Fired police sgt. Stant files second complaint

Former Maricopa Police Sgt. Carlton “Aki” Stant has filed a complaint against the city of Maricopa Merit Board alleging the group made an erroneous ruling concerning his case during his Sept. 18 hearing.

“The merit board ruling makes no sense. It is completely contrary to law and morally baffling,” said Stant’s attorney James Cool. “All I can assume is that they were rubber stamping this termination.”

The ruling Cool considers erroneous concerns the merit board’s interpretation of Arizona Revised Statute 38-1101, which outlines specific procedural safeguards that must be observed by a public safety agency in dealing with an employee it believes could be subject to discipline.

“The merit board essentially ruled since Stant was not the subject of the investigation he was not allowed the protections of 38-1101,” Cool said. “However, the statute clearly states that any public safety employee has certain rights if the questioning during an interview may lead to discipline.”

Merit board hearings allow city employees to challenge termination or disciplinary punishment handed down by superiors. The hearings are run by three city council-appointed community members who then pass a recommendation onto the city manager, who ultimately makes a final decision on the case.

In the case of Stant, the merit board held a hearing regarding his June 21 termination for failure to comply with an internal investigation into the actions of one of his subordinates, Maricopa Police Officer Elliot Sneezy. Sneezy was being investigated for sending an e-mail while off duty to the city council questioning the police department’s lack of an investigation into alleged misdeeds committed by Maricopa Police Sgt. James Hudspeth.

Stant told Maricopa Police Department Internal Investigator Mike Burns in two separate interviews regarding Sneezy’s actions that he needed his Police Association attorney, Martin Bihn, to speak to the city’s attorney, Dennis Fitzgibbons, before he could proceed with the interview.

While Burns did not demand Stant answer the questions during the first interview, when he returned to interview him a second time at the instruction of Chief Fitch, he did read him the department’s policy stating that all public safety staff must answer questions presented to them in internal investigations.

The day following this second interview, at which Stant again requested advice of counsel, he was placed on leave and ultimately fired.

Cool asserts that during the second interview the investigation had turned into one against his client for failure to answer questions, but that Stant was not made aware his job was in jeopardy or permitted a departmental representative.

Cool states this omission by the city in Stant’s termination was a violation of 38-110.
Through the complaint, Stant is seeking back pay from the city and reinstatement to his former position.

The complaint is separate from the $1.5 million claim Stant served the city earlier this month. However, Cool said the judge’s ruling in this matter could have an impact on his client’s claim against the city.

The city attorney declined to comment.