Payne’s coworkers allege offensive language, racial insensitivity

The 235 pages of documents provided by the city to InMaricopa show Lt. Willie Payne of the Maricopa Police Department was disciplined on two occasions for making comments that were offensive and unprofessional.

Payne, who has been on paid administrative leave since June 1, was exonerated in one investigation and the allegations against him were unresolved in another. The unresolved investigation was a citizen inquiry into his integrity as an officer that did not involve offensive language.

In two other investigations the allegations were unfounded.

The first investigation began in January 2009 after Officer Miller Dao wrote a memo to Sgt. Aki Stant regarding comments made by Payne.

Dao resigned from MPD last month during a Merit Board hearing to get his job back. He was fired July 22 for getting into a fist fight at a nearby casino while off-duty and leaving the state while on administrative leave without informing his supervisor. Stant was fired in June 2010 for refusing to answer questions during an internal investigation and is suing the city for $1.5 million.

 Dao said he asked Payne how he liked working for the department, and Payne responded the director (Police Chief Melvin Patrick) had been very supportive of him and said ‘About time we have a HNIC in charge.’”

Dao said he did not know what “HNIC” stood for and Payne responded, “Head nigger in charge.”

Payne was promoted from sergeant to lieutenant in December 2008. Dao said Payne came into a squad briefing and said that now he’s the new lieutenant, he was going to make some changes and “crush” anyone who got in his way. Dao continued in his memo that if one of the officers, Elliot Sneezy, continued to challenge Payne, the lieutenant would “take care of him too.”

“I found these incidents and the comments that were made by Lt. Payne were very unprofessional and offensive,” said Dao, who added he had been investigated for unprofessional comments while on duty. “He is a (lieutenant) and should be an example to sergeants and officers. He should be held accountable just like I was.”

The allegations were sustained on the basis they were supported by evidence. Payne had no prior discipline since joining the force and was new to his lieutenant position, so it was recommended he receive supervisor counseling and training for conflict resolution and diversity in the work place.

Sneezy complained that in an email exchange Payne made the comment the department had “too many chiefs and not enough Indians.” Payne was questioning Sneezy for having appeared to have chastised another officer via email.

Sneezy, who is Native American, said Payne’s comment was racially insensitive. Payne responded that his statement meant the department had too many supervisors and officers pretending to be supervisors, and that his comment was a common expression and not meant as a racial slur. Payne said his background was mostly Native American, although he looked “black.”

Payne was exonerated in that investigation.

In separate documents, InMaricopa has learned that Sneezy complained in January 2008 about offensive comments made by Payne and that Stant had made an inquiry on Sneezy’s behalf to Lt. Larry Eckhardt on whether the department would do an investigation.

Sneezy said Payne had walked into a briefing apparently frustrated after a driver had knocked over traffic cones at an accident scene Payne was monitoring.

Stant wrote that Payne interrupted the briefing and said he was “very upset at the white people” who had knocked over the cones. Then Payne said something like, “I knew it couldn’t be a black couple because they wouldn’t have been so stupid.”

Stant said others present at the briefing were Officers Aragon, Boyd and Valenzuela.

Sneezy believed he was being investigated instead of Payne and that more time and attention was being spent to undermine his complaint than in investigating Sneezy’s assertion that Payne was culturally and racially insensitive.

In June 2010, Judge Scott Sulley of the Maricopa Municipal Court alleged Payne was untruthful in statements involving a traffic violation. The findings were unresolved for lack of evidence, along with Sulley’s allegation that Payne had colluded in his statements with another officer, Cedric Randle. The traffic incident involved a motorist cited for driving over the sidewalk as he exited the NAPA Auto Parts store on the Maricopa-Casa Grande Highway.

Both Payne and Randle’s names were on the citation.

Sulley alleged Randle will do anything to win in court and had issued a citation for an offense he did not see. Payne and Randle were riding together in the same vehicle and both said in sworn statements they saw the motorist drive over the sidewalk. The motorist denied in court he had committed the offense.