7 April 18th-April 24th, 2024 phoenixnewtimes.com PHOENIX NEW TIMES | NEWS | FEATURE | FOOD & DRINK | ARTS & CULTURE | MUSIC | CONCERTS | CANNABIS | and Cleveland have the power to investi- gate police misconduct instead of merely monitoring the investigations police conduct internally and making recommendations. Smith told New Times he was excited to lead a new agency through its early days and noticed that the ordinance that established OAT was similar to Cleveland’s ordinance. While OAT started as an investigative agency, it was weakened in June 2022 after the Arizona State Legislature passed and then-Gov. Doug Ducey signed House Bill 2721. The law prohibits investigations of police misconduct except by organizations whose membership comprises two-thirds certified law enforcement personnel. In other words, no civilian investiga- tions of police are allowed in Arizona. State Rep. John Kavanagh, the bill’s sponsor, suggested the measure was introduced as a response to the creation of OAT, according to 12News. The state law neutered Phoenix’s OAT and left it only able to make recommenda- tions about internal investigations conducted by police — and unable to conduct its own investigations. The city of Phoenix did not challenge the new law, despite its vague language that civilian oversight could not “influence the conduct of” misconduct investigations. This surprised Smith, because the city had previ- ously sued the state — and won — to block implementation of another bill that simi- larly required police investigations to be carried out by law enforcement personnel. “If you were looking for an early sign that the attitude wasn’t in favor (of OAT) as much as it looked, it’s when they did not appeal the state bill, despite their own knowledge that the ‘influence’ language in there was vague and open to challenge,” Smith said. “And by the way, no one has ever made an effort to use that language to restrict OAT’s activities except for the city of Phoenix,” he added. City meddling and a made-up timeline After an application process that began in May 2023, Smith asked Catherine Bowman in September to join the agency and offered her a job as its attorney and the agency’s second-in-command. Bowman would have been Smith’s most important hire, espe- cially considering Bowman’s extensive experience in Arizona policing issues. But according to a lawsuit Bowman filed on Feb. 7 in Maricopa County Superior Court against the city, Barton, Spencer, Kriegh and Shannon Johanni, interim director of OAT, her Oct. 30 start date was put on hold about three weeks before she was set to begin working. New Times obtained a copy of a Nov. 8, 2023, email Spencer sent to Smith, Kriegh, Barton — Smith’s boss — and other top city officials in preparation for a meeting the next day about hiring Bowman. Attached to Spencer’s email was a timeline detailing OAT’s activities since the agency’s inception. Smith said Spencer did not consult with him about the timeline, despite it concerning the agency he oversaw, and sent it while he was traveling out of state. The timeline, Smith said, contained errors, including that it incorrectly stated that discussions about creating an operational agreement — known as a memorandum of understanding — between OAT and Phoenix police began in October 2022. New Times obtained a copy of the time- line, as well as a copy of Smith’s calendar from July 2022, which shows a meeting on July 5 titled “Discuss OAT/PD MOU,” along with two other July meetings about the same topic. Smith told New Times the purpose of the July meeting was to discuss the draft of the memorandum of understanding Smith had provided city officials — three months before Spencer claimed discussions started in her timeline. Smith told New Times he believes the timeline was created to hide the city Law Department’s involvement in discussions about hiring Bowman. By city code, this hiring of an attorney for OAT shall be “under the jurisdiction” of the OAT director and city manager and not the city attorney. Smith explained that at the July 5 meeting, Kriegh, who was then chief assis- tant of the Law Department before later taking its helm, showed up uninvited. She sat next to police Chief Jeri Williams, who eventually resigned in September 2022. Smith took issue with the way Kriegh handled herself during discussions in the meeting. Smith said he told Kriegh that she was conducting herself as though she were the police chief’s personal attorney, when instead she was supposed to be acting on behalf of the city. Months later, Smith again raised concern that Kriegh was “representing the Phoenix Police Department’s position” during discussions about the latest draft of the memorandum of understanding. In a Sept. 19, 2022, email obtained by New Times, Smith wrote to Kriegh and other city officials — including Spencer, Williams, Sullivan and Assistant City Manager Lori Bays — that, “It is disturbing to me that on such an issue, one side (police) should speak through a city attorney.” Kriegh responded 22 minutes later: “My apologies Roger, I should have just responded to just you. I represent the City.” All these conversations took place before Spencer’s timeline stated that memorandum of understanding drafts and meetings had begun, Smith said. After receiving the timeline via email on Nov. 8, Smith said he called Spencer and left a message mentioning that the two needed to talk about the timeline. He said Spencer called him back and left a message saying she was canceling the next day’s meeting, which was supposed to be about Bowman. “The timeline never came up again,” Smith said. ‘They knew they were on shaky legal ground’ Smith said he suspects the purpose of the Nov. 9 meeting that ended up being canceled was for city officials to order him to rescind the job offer to Bowman. A few weeks later, during a Dec. 1 meeting, Smith said Spencer told him he would likely have to rescind the offer to Bowman. “They knew they were on shaky legal ground, so they wanted me to do it,” Smith said. “I refused.” “They’re trying to convince me to do it, because if Catherine gets mad and sues, they want to be able to say, ‘It was the OAT director. We had nothing to do with it.’ They didn’t want to take responsibility for it,” he added. Bowman’s lawsuit argues the hiring decision is up to Smith. She wants a judge to declare that she’s not barred from being employed by OAT and order the city to complete its hiring of her. She wants the judge to rule that the city attorney’s involvement in her hiring violated the city’s conflict-of-interest ordinances and that Barton, Spencer and Kriegh acted outside their legal authority and violated personnel rules. Dan Wilson, communications director for the city of Phoenix, declined to respond to New Times questions about Bowman’s hiring and the Law Department’s involve- ment. “This situation is now the subject of legal action, and therefore I cannot provide additional details,” Wilson said. Bowman also declined to comment when contacted by New Times about her lawsuit. Time dragged on, and Bowman claimed in her lawsuit that she had not received an update from the city, though Smith told her on Dec. 4 that he was still advocating to hire her. On Dec. 18, Spencer called Bowman and rescinded the job offer, according to Bowman’s lawsuit. Only afterward was Smith told about the action, according to an affidavit from Smith in the lawsuit. City officials reached the decision that Bowman could not work for OAT because she had volunteered as a limited reserve police officer — an unpaid volunteer posi- tion — for Tucson in the 1980s, according to the city’s response to Bowman’s lawsuit. The city code that created OAT says, “Neither the Director nor any employees in the OAT’s office, nor their immediate family members, shall have formerly been employees of any law enforcement agency.” Bowman, in a Jan. 1 letter to Mayor Kate Gallego and city councilmembers, pointed out that city officials knew she had volun- teered with Tucson police when she submitted her cover letter and resume for the position on May 9, 2023. Yet the city continued the application process, offered her the job and proceeded with salary negotiations and background investigation. But suddenly, city officials had a problem with her three-decades-old volunteer work just when she was about to start the job with OAT. In Smith’s affidavit, he wrote that he was told by Spencer during an Oct. 20, 2023, conference call that if he stated in writing that OAT hiring Bowman was his decision and that he was satisfied hiring Bowman did not violate the ordinance, she would support his decision. In the city’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit on March 15, it added that Bowman could not have been hired because she worked as a legal advisor for the city of Mesa from 2003 to 2009 on matters relating to its police department. Yet that wasn’t an issue during the hiring process. According to Bowman’s lawsuit, “Spencer specifically told Director Smith Plaintiff’s work at Mesa was not disqualifying.” Attitude Problem from p 5 Ginger Spencer, Phoenix’s deputy city manager, played a key role in blocking the hire of an experienced attorney for the Office of Accountability and Transparency, according to court documents and interviews. (Photo courtesy city of Phoenix) >> p 9
