06/09/2026
🚨RELEASE OF THE SHAFTER FILES🚨
After months of questions, speculation, rumors, and waiting for the investigation to be completed, The Shafter Files are finally here.
Over the last several months, many people wanted to know what was happening behind the scenes, what allegations were being investigated, and what conclusions would ultimately be reached. Because the investigation was ongoing, I chose not to speculate or report on information before the process was completed.
Now that the final redacted investigative report has been released, I have completed my own review and analysis based on the findings, witness statements, information reviewed by the investigator, and the conclusions contained within that report.
The Shafter Files is not the City’s official report. It is my independent review and analysis of the final redacted report, organized in a way that I believe is easier for the public to read and understand.
This review examines the allegations, witness testimony, credibility findings, evidence discussed in the report, and the conclusions ultimately reached by the investigator. It also provides additional context to help readers better understand the events that led to the investigation.
To make things easier for everyone, I have included screenshots of the report pages so they can be easily read, saved, shared, and referenced without having to download a PDF.
Whether you agree with the findings, disagree with them, or fall somewhere in between, I encourage everyone to read the information for themselves and draw their own conclusions.
Transparency means allowing the public to review the facts and decide for themselves.
📄 The Shafter Files are now available.
If anyone needs the link to my report let me know.
My Report:
Condensed Anonymized Investigative Report
This version is written for easier reading, printing, and public reference. It does not replace the original report. It summarizes and reorganizes the substance of the original document while anonymizing Person One and other participants.
Primary anonymization instruction: the elected official identified in the original report is referred to as Person One throughout this summary.
Table of Contents
1. Important Notes About This Summary
2. Anonymization Guide
3. Executive Summary
4. Background and Scope
5. Methodology and Materials Reviewed
6. Allegation 1 - Squatter Call for Service
7. Allegation 2 - Walmart Holiday Event
8. Allegation 3 - Employee Appreciation Dinner
9. Allegation 4 - Residential Incident and Motor Oil Comment
10. Allegation 5 - Lions Club Christmas Parade
11. Allegation 6 - Timing, Promotional Process, and Possible Motivation
12. Credibility Findings
13. Overall Findings Chart
14. Key Themes
15. Conclusion
Important Notes About This Summary
This document is a condensed, anonymized report prepared from the investigative report. It is not a certified copy of the original report, and it should be read together with the original if precise wording, exhibits, attachments, or legal conclusions are required.
The original report used redactions throughout. Where the source text was redacted, this summary does not attempt to identify the redacted person. Instead, it uses neutral labels such as Officer A, Officer B, Police Official 1, or Witness 1.
The word sustained is used in the same general investigative sense as the source report: the investigator found enough evidence to support that the alleged statement or conduct occurred. A sustained administrative finding is not the same as a criminal conviction or a court finding of guilt.
This summary focuses on the major events, witness accounts, Person One's responses, the investigator's credibility determinations, and the investigator's final findings. Repetitive interview questions, filler language, and duplicated testimony have been removed or condensed.
Executive Summary
The original investigative report examined whether Person One, a long-serving City Council member, made several statements and engaged in specific conduct involving members of the local police department. The City requested an outside investigation after concerns were documented in two memoranda dated January 22 and January 23, 2025. The investigator reviewed those memoranda, interviewed multiple city and police personnel, interviewed Person One, reviewed department records and photographs, and considered relevant City administrative policies.
The central issue was not whether police officers committed misconduct. The allegations were framed around whether Person One made certain assertions about officers, whether those assertions were supported by the evidence, and whether the timing or content of those assertions suggested an improper motive. In several places, the report states that Person One declined to file a formal complaint but still wanted the concerns handled informally by city or police leadership.
The investigator sustained all six allegations. In plain language, the investigator found sufficient evidence that Person One made the statements or engaged in the conduct described in each allegation. The investigator also concluded, in several allegation sections, that the evidence did not support Person One's underlying claims that the officers had treated him disrespectfully. For example, the source report states there was no evidence that the involved officer at the squatter call disrespected Person One; instead, the investigator concluded that Person One treated the officer and trainee with disrespect.
The report describes a pattern in which Person One perceived disrespect from police personnel during separate incidents: a squatter call at a downtown business, a Walmart holiday event, a City employee appreciation dinner, an older incident involving Person One's home, and the Lions Club Christmas Parade. The investigator repeatedly noted that Person One wanted concerns handled informally rather than through a formal complaint process.
A major theme in the report is the impact that Person One's comments had on police personnel. Several witnesses described feeling blindsided, frustrated, or worried that their reputations and careers could be affected. Some officers had never previously received similar complaints and believed the comments were unfair, poorly supported, or connected to internal promotion processes occurring around the same time.
Person One generally denied improper intent. He described himself as supportive of law enforcement, stated that he had worked with police leadership for many years, and said he was trying to raise concerns before conflicts escalated. He repeatedly characterized his conduct as informal, respectful, or meant to avoid the appearance of using his elected position to pressure line-level officers. The investigator, however, found Person One not credible on important points, especially because his answers were vague, inconsistent, or contradicted by other witness accounts.
The most serious conclusion appears in Allegation 6. The investigator found no credible evidence that the timing or content of the assertions was tied to the officers' status as police association board members. However, the investigator did find that the timing and content were related to department promotional processes occurring at the same time and to the fact that a friend of Person One was also involved in the promotional process.
Background and Scope of Investigation
The investigation was initiated after two internal memoranda documented concerns involving
Person One. The first memorandum, dated January 22, 2025, summarized a meeting between Person One and a senior city administrator after a regular council meeting. The second memorandum, dated January 23, 2025, summarized follow-up communications within the police department regarding the concerns raised by Person One.
The investigator stated that he had not previously performed services for the City, was not associated with the City, and had not previously met Person One or the employees who were interviewed. The City's Human Resources Director served only as a point of contact for scheduling interviews and did not influence the investigation process, according to the report.
The scope of the investigation evolved after the first interviews. The investigator initially reviewed the two memoranda that formed the basis for the inquiry and then interviewed several individuals. After additional information was obtained, the scope expanded to include more witnesses and the eventual interview of Person One. This is important because the investigation was not limited to one single incident; it examined a pattern of statements and events across multiple settings.
The allegations involved the following general topics: a squatter call for service at a local business; a Walmart holiday event; an employee appreciation dinner; a residential incident from March 2022; the Lions Club Christmas Parade; and whether the timing of Person One's assertions related to department promotional processes or some other motive.
The original report makes clear that several officers and city officials saw Person One's comments as unusual because Person One was an elected official, not a line supervisor within the police department. Witnesses raised concerns about whether Person One was trying to influence police operations, direct officers at community events, or affect the career opportunities of officers involved in promotional processes.
Methodology and Materials Reviewed
The investigator reviewed the January 22, 2025 memorandum documenting Person One's meeting with a senior city administrator. The investigator also reviewed the January 23, 2025 memorandum documenting the police department's internal follow-up on the concerns. These two documents served as the basis for the investigation.
The report states that the investigator reviewed City of Shafter administrative policies, including policies addressing harassment, discrimination, retaliation, bullying, and abusive conduct. The investigator also reviewed police department materials, including records related to the squatter call, the March 2022 residential incident, and the 2024 Christmas Parade operation plan.
The investigator interviewed multiple witnesses, including city officials, police supervisors, officers, and Person One. Many witness identities were redacted in the source document, so this summary avoids trying to identify the witnesses by name. Instead, it organizes the testimony by role and by the allegation to which the testimony relates.
The original report also references photographs from Walmart events, dispatch or CAD records, witness admonitions, interview transcripts, interview recordings, and attachments. The investigator relied on those materials in assessing whether the statements occurred, whether the underlying events supported the claims of disrespect, and whether the timing of the assertions was significant.
Because this summary is intended for public readability, it does not reproduce long interview transcripts. Instead, it summarizes the key substance of the testimony and retains only short quoted phrases where those words were central to the investigation, such as the alleged “slower than 30 weight motor oil” comment and the repeated request to speak only with a sergeant or supervisor.
Allegation 1 - Squatter Call for Service
Allegation 1 asked whether Person One, during a January 21, 2025 meeting, asserted that during a squatter incident at a local business he refused to speak with the assigned officers and instead demanded to speak only with a supervisor. The source report identifies the call as a January 8, 2025 incident at 338 Central Avenue involving a civil situation described as a squatter matter.
According to the January 22 memorandum, Person One called for police service at a private business location regarding squatters. The memorandum stated that Person One was not the owner of the business and was contacting police on behalf of a constituent. During the police interaction, Person One allegedly requested to speak only to a sergeant or other supervisor and not the responding officers.
The memorandum further recorded that when Person One was asked why he made that request, he allegedly compared talking to the responding officer to “talking with a child” and said he only wanted to speak with an adult. This alleged statement became important because it framed the investigator's later analysis of whether Person One was showing disrespect toward police personnel while claiming he had been disrespected by them.
A police supervisor described the incident as a patrol-level call. According to the supervisor, the responding officer and trainee arrived at roughly the same time as another supervisor. Person One was reportedly wearing a maintenance-style uniform and standing with the reporting party. The responding officer initially did not know Person One was a council member and believed he may have been connected with the business as a maintenance worker.
Officer A, the responding officer, gave a detailed account. He stated that he arrived, introduced himself, and asked how he could help. He said Person One immediately cut him off, held up a hand, and said words to the effect of, “No, no, no, I don't want to talk to you. Talk to him,” while pointing toward the arriving supervisor. Officer A said he tried to explain that it was a patrol-level call that he could handle, but Person One again said he wanted to speak to the supervisor.
Officer A said that after being shut down, he stopped trying to speak with Person One and allowed the supervisor to handle the conversation. He then went upstairs, contacted the two people involved, identified them, and determined that they had been present long enough that the issue would likely have to proceed through an eviction or civil process. Officer A said he was not rude and that he had never met Person One before the incident.
Officer A described feeling blindsided later when he learned that Person One had complained about him or used the incident as an example of disrespect. He said he had worked in law enforcement for many years, had not previously faced similar allegations, and felt that his character was being challenged. Another witness said Officer A worried the complaints could affect his career and considered leaving because of the stress.
Police leadership described the allegations as unusual, unsupported, or concerning. One police official said the matter did not appear to justify discipline, counseling, or an internal affairs investigation against the officers. Rather, leadership believed the officers needed to know what had been said for their own protection moving forward.
Person One acknowledged that he asked to speak with a sergeant. He explained that he did so because he wanted to avoid the appearance of using his position to pressure patrol officers. He also said he had historically preferred speaking with supervisors because supervisors were more experienced, more mature, and better positioned to understand the situation. Person One insisted that his intent was respectful and not meant to demean anyone.
The investigator ultimately sustained Allegation 1. The conclusion stated that there was clear evidence Person One brought up the incident during the January 21 meeting in the context of disrespect. The investigator also concluded there was clear evidence that Person One treated Officer A and the trainee with disrespect, and that there was no evidence Officer A treated Person One with disrespect.
Allegation 2 - Walmart Holiday Event
Allegation 2 asked whether Person One asserted that during a Walmart holiday food giveaway, an officer stepped in front of him and that Person One wanted to push the officer for the disrespect but did not. The event was described as a holiday community event connected to police participation, shopping for children, groceries, and photographs with participants.
The January 22 memorandum documented the Walmart incident under the broader heading of “ongoing disrespect.” The memorandum stated that Person One complained about multiple small acts of disrespect and was concerned that such disrespect toward him might reflect poor policing in the community. One example listed in the memorandum was the Walmart event, where Person One allegedly said Officer B stepped in front of him during a photo and that Person One wanted to push the officer in the back but did not.
Police Official 2, who later spoke with Officer B, reported that Officer B had no memory of intentionally stepping in front of Person One or blocking him. Officer B described the event as positive and said he had been shopping with children and helping with food distribution. He stated that when group photographs were taken, he positioned himself in the back because he was tall and did not want to block anyone.
Officer B was confident that he had not stood in front of Person One. He explained that if he had stood directly in front of Person One, Person One likely would not have been visible in the photo. Officer B also stated that he did not even know Person One well at the time and had no reason to intentionally block or disrespect him.
The investigator reviewed photographs from two Walmart events in December 2024. The report says some photographs prominently featured Person One. The only photographs containing both Person One and Officer B showed Person One standing at the front of the group and Officer B standing in the back, consistent with Officer B's explanation.
When Person One was interviewed, he acknowledged bringing up the Walmart food giveaway. He described the concern as part of a broader question about whether there was a problem or conflict developing. He said he was trying to find out whether he had done or said something and wanted to stop any issue before it escalated. He denied that he was filing a formal complaint.
During the interview, Person One was shown photographs from the event and confirmed that the images looked like the Walmart event and that he appeared near the front. When the investigator pointed out Officer B in the back of the photo, Person One acknowledged the officer, but then said the photo shown was not the picture and that the issue had nothing to do with pictures. The investigator treated that response as significant when evaluating credibility.
The investigator sustained Allegation 2. The report concluded that there was clear evidence Person One presented the Walmart incident during the January 21 meeting. However, the investigator also found no evidence to substantiate Person One's claim that Officer B disrespectfully stepped in front of him or blocked him in a photograph. The conclusion stated that Officer B appeared to have been wrongfully accused of acting disrespectfully toward Person One at the event.
Allegation 3 - Employee Appreciation Dinner
Allegation 3 asked whether Person One asserted that during a City employee appreciation dinner, he was speaking with two young officers and another officer called those officers away, and that it would have been less disrespectful if the officer had approached Person One and asked for the officers to be excused.
The January 22 memorandum described the event as another example of ongoing disrespect. The memorandum stated that Person One felt disrespected because Officer B or another training officer called the young officers away from a distance rather than coming up to Person One and personally asking that the officers be excused from the conversation.
Witness testimony indicated that the dinner was a City employee appreciation event, apparently held in December 2024. Officers were in uniform, on duty, and available for calls. The officers were present only briefly to pick up food, and some were field-training officers responsible for trainees. This context mattered because the officers were not simply guests socializing; they were still working and subject to dispatch.
The involved officer stated that he saw his trainee from across the room, made eye contact, nodded, and gestured for the trainee to come with him. He said he did not yell across the room, did not know the trainee was speaking to Person One, and did not know Person One's identity at that time. According to the officer, he was responsible for the trainee and needed the trainee to stay with him.
The officer said the Chief wanted the officers to get food, gather, and be ready to return to service. He described the gesture as routine supervision rather than disrespect. The officers were on duty and left soon afterward because they had calls for service or needed to remain available. He said that when he later learned Person One took offense, he was surprised because he had not intended any slight.
Person One acknowledged the employee appreciation dinner and described speaking with two newer officers. He said the officers were called away. Person One believed the more respectful approach would have been for the officer to come up to the conversation and ask or explain that the officers needed to leave. Person One said the issue was about manners and professionalism, not a formal complaint.
The investigator found that the evidence showed the officers were on duty and that the trainer or supervisor simply gestured to the trainees in a routine manner. The report found no evidence that the officer intended disrespect toward Person One either as an individual or as a council member.
The investigator sustained Allegation 3. The sustained finding means the investigator concluded
Person One did present this incident during the January 21 meeting as an example of disrespect.
At the same time, the investigator concluded that the evidence did not show the officer acted disrespectfully toward Person One.
Allegation 4 - Residential Incident and Motor Oil Comment
Allegation 4 asked whether Person One asserted that during an incident at Person One's home, an officer was “slower than 30 weight motor oil” and would not listen to what Person One's wife was telling him. The investigation identified the underlying event as a March 5, 2022 hit-and-run or DUI-related incident, which occurred approximately 34 months before Person One raised it in January 2025.
The January 22 memorandum described the incident as one where Person One began pursuing someone offsite while waiting for the police response. When the officer arrived at the residence, Person One was not present. Person One allegedly later complained that the officer was slow to exit the patrol vehicle and did not listen to what Person One's wife was trying to tell him.
Witness accounts indicated that officers responded to Person One's residence after a hit-and-run type report. The investigation apparently led to a driving-under-the-influence arrest. Witnesses said Person One or his wife later thanked officers for the response, and there was no immediate complaint or known allegation that the officer had done anything wrong at the time.
Police witnesses described the officer involved as competent and reliable. One witness explained that when an officer arrives at a scene with someone yelling or excited, the officer must assess the situation before taking direction from a resident. The witness said this does not mean the officer is ignoring the person; it means the officer is determining what is happening, who is involved, and how to safely proceed.
The timing of this allegation was important. The report emphasized that the incident occurred almost three years earlier. Witnesses questioned why Person One would raise the matter for the first time during January 2025, especially while a promotional process was occurring in the police department.
Person One acknowledged the underlying incident involving his home and his wife but did not clearly remember making the “slower than 30 weight motor oil” comment. He stated that he was not at the house when the officer arrived. His comments during the interview were described as less specific than the witness accounts and less persuasive than the contemporaneous memorandum.
The investigator sustained Allegation 4. The report concluded that there was clear evidence Person One presented the incident during the January 21 meeting as another example of ongoing disrespect. The report also concluded that Person One was not present when the officer arrived, that the event happened 34 months earlier, and that there was no evidence the officer engaged in disrespectful conduct toward Person One or his wife.
Allegation 5 - Lions Club Christmas Parade
Allegation 5 asked whether Person One asserted that during the recent Lions Club Christmas Parade, he was disappointed with an officer's failure to respond to his requests and believed the officer was not always available when Person One needed him. This allegation involved the relationship between the Lions Club event, City support for the event, and police responsibilities during a large public gathering.
The January 22 memorandum recorded that the Christmas Parade was a Lions Club event and that Person One was a member of the Lions Club. The City partnered by having police present to provide security because the event did not have funding for required private security. Person One allegedly wanted the matter discussed with other officials and expressed disappointment with the supervising officer's response to his requests.
City Official 1 reportedly told Person One that City staff were present in partnership with the Lions Club, not as private employees or personal police for Person One. The city official also reportedly pointed Person One to the City Charter provision stating that council members must deal with administrative services through the City Manager and may not give orders to, discipline, or threaten subordinates of the City Manager, whether publicly or privately.
Witnesses described planning meetings before the parade. Police personnel reportedly provided input about the parade route, logistics, staffing, and how to handle unauthorized vendors. The report states that a comprehensive operations plan was prepared and distributed. That plan included protocols for dealing with illegal vendors and other event concerns.
Several witnesses described conflict during the event. One witness said that a retired police official, now involved with the Lions Club, became upset during the parade and blamed police leadership for the parade not moving as expected. Another witness described Person One calling or flagging down officers and directing them to deal with street vendors. Witnesses said Person
One appeared to treat officers as if they were assigned to take orders from him during the event.
Police personnel described the vendor issue as more complicated than simply arresting or removing vendors. One witness explained that during an active parade, with families and children present, officers had to manage public safety, traffic, crowd movement, and practical realities. Vendors could be told to leave but might move a short distance and continue selling. Officers did not believe it was appropriate or feasible to handcuff and arrest every vendor in that environment.
The report also described a similar pattern at a National Night Out event. Witnesses said Person One was again demanding or forceful toward police personnel and appeared to expect officers to respond directly to his requests in a way that exceeded the normal role of a council member or community event participant.
Person One generally denied that he was attempting to direct police improperly. He framed his involvement as part of helping with community events and addressing concerns. He also emphasized his longtime involvement in the City, the Lions Club, and community activities. However, witnesses consistently described his conduct as demanding or disrespectful toward officers and police supervisors.
The investigator sustained Allegation 5. The report concluded that Person One did present this incident during the January 21 meeting. The investigator further concluded that the evidence showed the supervising officer was involved in planning, prepared a comprehensive operations plan, was on site throughout the event, and was available by cellphone. The report found no evidence that the officer acted disrespectfully toward Person One and found witness evidence that Person One exceeded his authority by trying to direct officers.
Allegation 6 - Timing, Promotional Process, and Possible Motivation
Allegation 6 asked whether the timing or content of Person One's assertions was related to the officers' police association status, to promotional processes occurring at the time, to a close friend of Person One who was also participating in the same promotional process, or to some other motivation.
This allegation was broader than the first five because it examined motive and timing. The first five allegations focused on whether Person One made particular statements or raised particular incidents. Allegation 6 asked why those incidents were raised when they were raised and whether the timing was connected to department promotions.
The investigator found no credible evidence that Person One's statements were related to the involved employees' status as police association board members. The report noted that witnesses described the City's relationship with the association as positive and said council members did not have much direct contact with association board members.
The investigator did find evidence that the timing and content were related to the employees' participation in police department promotional processes. The report emphasized that several of the incidents involved employees who were participating in or connected to promotional processes at the same time Person One raised the allegations. The timing was especially suspicious because one incident Person One raised had occurred nearly three years earlier.
The report also found that Person One minimized his relationship with a police department employee who was also involved in the promotional process. Witnesses said Person One had been in phone contact with that employee and asked how the process was going. The report states that the employee was instructed to stop communicating with Person One in order to maintain a “clean” process.
Witness statements also suggested Person One had referred to certain police employees as a
“gang.” The report further noted that a retired police official had become heavily involved with the Lions Club and may have become a close associate of Person One. Witnesses suggested that the retired official was unhappy about not receiving the police chief position and disliked the employees involved.
Person One claimed he was unaware that a promotional process was underway when he met with the city official. The investigator did not find that explanation plausible. The investigator considered Person One's lack of a clear explanation, the age of at least one allegation, the timing of the meeting, the relationship with the employee in the promotional process, and witness descriptions of broader tensions.
The investigator sustained Allegation 6. The conclusion stated that although the police association theory was not supported, the promotional-process theory was supported by the evidence. In other words, the investigator found that the timing and content of Person One's assertions were related to promotional processes and to a friend or associate involved in those processes.
Credibility Findings
The investigator made several credibility determinations in the conclusion section. The report found multiple city and police witnesses credible. The reasons included consistency with other testimony, detailed recollection, lack of apparent motive to lie, and in some instances statements against their own self-interest because Person One held an elected position with authority over City leadership appointments or policy direction.
City Official 1 was found credible because he clearly described the time, place, tone, and content of the January 2025 meeting with Person One. The investigator considered it important that the official began drafting his memorandum immediately after the meeting while the details were still fresh.
Police Official 1 and Police Official 2 were also found credible. Their accounts of receiving the memorandum, discussing it internally, and communicating the concerns to affected officers were consistent with one another. The report noted that they described the process as uncomfortable and unusual, and that they did not appear to be seeking punishment of the officers.
The involved officers were generally found credible because their accounts were detailed, consistent with each other, consistent with available records or photographs, and supported by the circumstances. Several officers expressed sincere frustration that they were being accused of disrespect when they believed they had acted professionally.
Person One was found not credible on important points. The investigator wrote that Person One's statements about the January 21 meeting reflected either lack of memory or evasiveness. Unlike the city official's detailed account, Person One was vague and could not clearly remember whether the discussion occurred in person or by phone. The investigator also found that Person One's statements regarding certain officers conflicted with other witnesses and that Person One often gave long narrative answers rather than direct specifics.
The credibility findings were central to the sustained conclusions. In an administrative investigation, the investigator must often decide which account is more likely true when witnesses describe the same event differently. Here, the investigator repeatedly credited the city and police witnesses over Person One.
Overall Findings Chart
Allegation 1 - Sustained. The investigator found sufficient evidence that Person One raised the squatter-call incident and refused to speak with responding officers, requesting a supervisor instead. The investigator also found no evidence that the responding officer disrespected Person One.
Allegation 2 - Sustained. The investigator found sufficient evidence that Person One raised the
Walmart event and said the officer stepped in front of him and that he wanted to push the officer. The investigator found no evidence the officer actually disrespected Person One and found the photos consistent with the officer's account.
Allegation 3 - Sustained. The investigator found sufficient evidence that Person One raised the employee appreciation dinner as a disrespect incident. The investigator found the officers were on duty and that the involved officer merely gestured for trainees to regroup, with no evidence of intended disrespect.
Allegation 4 - Sustained. The investigator found sufficient evidence that Person One raised the March 2022 residential incident and the “30 weight motor oil” comment. The investigator found the event occurred 34 months earlier, Person One was not present when the officer arrived, and there was no evidence the officer disrespected Person One or his wife.
Allegation 5 - Sustained. The investigator found sufficient evidence that Person One raised the Lions Club Christmas Parade complaints. The investigator found no evidence the supervising officer disrespected Person One and found evidence that Person One was exceeding his authority by trying to direct officers.
Allegation 6 - Sustained. The investigator found no credible evidence tying the assertions to police association status, but found evidence tying the timing and content to promotional processes and to Person One's relationship with a person involved in those processes.
Key Themes From the Report
First, the report repeatedly distinguishes between Person One raising a concern and that concern being true. The investigator often concluded that Person One did raise the concern, but that the evidence did not support Person One's claim that officers had actually acted disrespectfully.
Second, the report describes informal complaint handling as a recurring issue. Person One allegedly did not want to file formal complaints, yet wanted leadership to speak with, retrain, or otherwise address officers. This placed police leadership in a difficult position because officers were being discussed without a normal formal complaint process.
Third, the report emphasizes the power imbalance. Person One was not merely a private citizen; he was a long-serving elected official. Witnesses viewed his comments as potentially affecting careers, promotions, morale, and workplace relationships. Even if Person One believed he was acting informally, the officers experienced the situation as serious because of his official role.
Fourth, the report highlights the difference between community involvement and operational authority. Person One was involved in community events, including Lions Club functions. The investigator, however, emphasized that participation in an event does not authorize a council member or club member to direct police personnel, especially when the City Charter requires council members to work through the City Manager.
Fifth, the report treats timing as significant. One allegation involved an incident from 2022 that was raised in 2025. Other assertions appeared while department promotional processes were underway. The investigator found the timing insufficiently explained by Person One and supportive of Allegation 6.
Chronological Timeline of Major Events
March 5, 2022: The older residential incident occurred at or near Person One's home. According to the report, officers responded to a hit-and-run or DUI-related event, and the investigation resulted in a DUI arrest. Person One later raised this event in January 2025, approximately 34 months after it happened.
December 2024: A City employee appreciation dinner occurred. Officers attended while still on duty. Person One later described feeling disrespected when an officer or field training officer gestured for two younger officers to leave the conversation and regroup with other on-duty officers.
December 2024: Walmart holiday shopping and food-related events occurred. Person One later said an officer stepped in front of him or blocked him during a photo or event activity. The report says photographs reviewed by the investigator did not support that claim.
December 6, 2024: The Lions Club Christmas Parade and Carnival took place. Police personnel were present in connection with public safety and event support. Witnesses later described Person One as demanding, forceful, or attempting to direct police personnel regarding street vendors and parade issues.
January 8, 2025: The squatter call occurred at 338 Central Avenue. Person One came to the scene with or on behalf of the business owner and requested to speak with a supervisor rather than the responding patrol officer. This became Allegation 1.
January 21, 2025: After a regular council meeting, Person One met with a senior city official. The January 22 memorandum states that Person One raised several examples of perceived disrespect by police personnel. This meeting became the factual foundation for most of the investigation.
January 22, 2025: City Official 1 prepared a memorandum documenting the meeting with Person One. The report says the memorandum was started immediately after the meeting while the details were fresh.
January 23, 2025: Police leadership prepared or received follow-up memoranda and began notifying involved officers that Person One had raised concerns about them. Witnesses described this as uncomfortable because Person One did not file formal complaints but still wanted matters handled informally.
Spring 2025: The investigator conducted recorded interviews with police personnel, city officials, and Person One. The source report references April, May, and June 2025 interviews.
June 2025: Person One was interviewed. He acknowledged several underlying events but disputed improper intent, gave explanations for his conduct, and in some areas stated he did not remember making particular comments.
Final report: The investigator issued credibility findings and sustained all six allegations. The report attached policies, memoranda, witness materials, transcripts, recordings, photo files, CAD records, and other source materials.
Detailed Witness Group Summary
City Official 1: This witness was central because he documented Person One's January 21 meeting. The investigator found him credible because he described the meeting in detail, wrote a memorandum immediately afterward, and provided statements that could be uncomfortable given Person One's elected position. His account framed the incidents as repeated examples of Person One perceiving disrespect from police employees while declining to file formal complaints.
Police Official 1: This witness described receiving or discussing the memorandum and being concerned about how to handle the matter. He characterized the claims as unusual and did not believe they justified discipline of officers. His concern was that officers needed to be told what had been said for their own protection, especially because an elected official was making the comments.
Police Official 2: This witness helped communicate the concerns to affected officers and prepared follow-up documentation. He explained that oral interviews and promotional processes were occurring around the same time, which later became relevant to Allegation 6. His statements connected the timing of Person One's assertions to internal department events.
Officer A: This officer was involved in the squatter call. He said he did not know Person One when he arrived, believed Person One might be connected to the reporting party, and attempted to handle a routine patrol-level matter. He described being cut off twice and redirected to a supervisor. He later felt blindsided when he learned Person One had characterized the incident as disrespectful.
Officer B: This officer was connected to the Walmart event and the employee appreciation dinner. He said he had no intent to disrespect Person One, did not remember blocking him, and placed himself in the back of photos because of his height. Regarding the dinner, he described only a routine gesture to gather trainees or on-duty officers.
Officer C: This officer was connected to the older residential incident. Witnesses described him as reliable and competent. The report found no evidence he disrespected Person One or Person One's wife. The age of the incident - 34 months before it was raised - became important to the investigator's analysis of timing and motive.
Parade Supervisor / Event Officer: This witness was connected to the Christmas Parade. He helped prepare or execute the operations plan, was on site, and was available by phone. Witnesses described Person One as dissatisfied with how vendor issues were handled and as expecting officers to respond to his requests in a way that exceeded the role of a council member or Lions Club participant.
Retired Police Official: The source report references a retired police official who became involved with the Lions Club and was reportedly upset about not receiving a police chief position. Witnesses suggested this person disliked certain department employees and may have become close to Person One. The investigator considered this context relevant to motive and relationships, especially in Allegation 6.
Person One: Person One presented himself as supportive of law enforcement, experienced in city government, and active in community events. He repeatedly stated that he was not trying to file formal complaints. He explained his preference for supervisors as an attempt to avoid pressuring patrol officers and described his concerns as attempts to resolve issues before they escalated.
The investigator nevertheless found him not credible on key points.
Evidence Matrix and Investigative Weight
Contemporaneous memoranda carried significant weight. The January 22 memorandum was especially important because it was created immediately after the meeting with Person One. The investigator viewed the timing of that memo as supporting reliability because it was drafted while the conversation was fresh.
Photographic evidence was important for the Walmart allegation. The photographs reviewed did not support Person One's claim that Officer B blocked him. Instead, they showed Person One near the front of the group and Officer B toward the back, which supported Officer B's explanation.
Dispatch, CAD, and incident records mattered because they helped anchor events to dates, locations, and circumstances. The report identified the squatter call as occurring on January 8, 2025 and the older residential incident as occurring on March 5, 2022.
Witness consistency mattered. The investigator repeatedly noted that several witnesses described the same general pattern: Person One was demanding, perceived disrespect where others saw routine police work, and wanted concerns handled informally rather than through a standard complaint process.
Person One's memory and explanations were treated as weaknesses. In important areas, Person One could not clearly remember whether a conversation was by phone or in person, did not remember making the exact motor-oil comment, minimized a relationship relevant to promotional processes, or shifted explanations when confronted with photographs.
The promotional timeline mattered. Allegation 6 depended heavily on whether the timing of Person One's assertions could be explained innocently. The investigator concluded Person One did not provide a plausible explanation, particularly for raising a nearly three-year-old incident during a promotional process.
Administrative Meaning of the Findings
The findings in this report are administrative findings, not criminal convictions. A sustained finding in this context means the investigator concluded that the allegation was supported by the evidence. It does not necessarily mean a crime occurred, and it does not itself impose a court sentence or criminal penalty.
However, sustained administrative findings can still be serious. In a workplace or city government context, they can affect public trust, internal policy decisions, workplace morale, future training, council conduct discussions, and how officials interact with staff.
The most important nuance is that the investigator sustained the allegations as framed. In many allegations, the question was whether Person One made a statement or raised a claim. The investigator sustained that Person One made the statement, while separately concluding that the underlying accusation against the officer was unsupported.
For example, the Walmart allegation was sustained because the evidence supported that Person One raised the Walmart issue and made the statement attributed to him. But the investigator also concluded the officer did not actually block Person One or act disrespectfully based on the photographic evidence and witness testimony.
Similarly, the squatter-call allegation was sustained because Person One did refuse to speak with responding officers and requested a supervisor. The investigator went further and concluded that the disrespect came from Person One toward the officers, not from the officers toward Person One.
For public reporting, that distinction should be made clear: sustained does not simply mean “guilty,” but it does mean the investigator found the allegation supported by evidence within the scope of the administrative investigation.
Public Reporting Version of the Core Findings
A clear public summary would state that an outside investigator reviewed six allegations involving Person One's interactions with police department personnel and sustained all six allegations. The report found that Person One repeatedly raised informal concerns about police officers allegedly disrespecting him, but the investigator generally found no evidence that the officers acted disrespectfully.
The report found that Person One raised a squatter-call incident, a Walmart holiday event, an employee appreciation dinner, an older residential response, and concerns from the Lions Club Christmas Parade. In each situation, Person One described officer conduct as disrespectful or inadequate. Witnesses, records, and photographs often contradicted or failed to support Person One's claims.
The investigator also found that the timing of Person One's assertions was connected to police department promotional processes. The report found no support for the theory that the allegations were based on police association board membership, but did find support that the timing and content related to promotional processes and a friend or associate of Person One involved in those processes.
The report concluded that several city and police witnesses were credible and that Person One was not credible on important points. The credibility finding was based on Person One's vague memory, inconsistent explanations, conflict with other testimony, and long narrative answers that did not directly address the investigator's questions.
For a neutral public statement, avoid saying Person One was criminally guilty. A more accurate statement is: “The investigator sustained all six administrative allegations and found that several of Person One's claims of disrespect by officers were unsupported by the evidence.”
Conclusion
The original report ultimately sustained all six allegations. The sustained findings mean the investigator found sufficient evidence that Person One made the alleged statements or engaged in the alleged conduct. They do not automatically mean criminal guilt, but they do represent adverse administrative findings within the scope of the investigation.
The report's overall conclusion is that Person One repeatedly characterized normal or explainable police conduct as disrespect toward him; that the evidence generally did not support Person One's claims that officers had disrespected him; and that Person One's conduct, particularly during the Christmas Parade and in the timing of his January 2025 assertions, raised serious concerns about misuse of influence or improper involvement in police personnel matters.
For public understanding, the most important distinction is this: the investigator did not merely decide that Person One complained about officers. The investigator also found that several of those complaints were unsupported, that witnesses against Person One were credible, that Person One was not credible on important points, and that the timing of the assertions was connected to promotional processes in the police department.
This condensed report is intended to make those findings easier to understand without requiring readers to review every page of interview testimony. Readers seeking exact wording, exhibits, attachments, or legal interpretation should consult the original report and any official City records connected to it.
