Calling a press conference for 4:00 p.m. today, appointed Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos used the opportunity to bash Dr. Richard Carmona and the media rather than take responsibility for the recent indictment of Chief Deputy Chris Radtke. Nanos blamed the fact that he was not a “politician” for the news coverage of the many scandals plaguing his administration.
Nanos has been surrounded by controversy since he surrounded himself with a bevy of double-dipping top commanders. However, since the indictment of Radtke, and the suicide of Chief Deputy Brad Gagnepain, Nanos’ dreams of re-election have dwindled. His appearance on Wednesday seemed to be more about salvaging his political career than restoring trust in the top law enforcement agency in southern Arizona.
On Tuesday, Tim Steller of the Arizona Daily Star tried to salvage Nanos’ sinking ship by chalking up the negative news to the fact that Nanos is not a politician. Nanos grabbed Steller’s narrative today with little success as his demeanor reflected a guilty party instead of an innocent and ordinary citizen.
Last week, Deputy Sheriff Dr. Richard Carmona, discussed the ongoing alleged improper, unethical and/or illegal activities in the Pima County Sheriffs Department, that have been reported by numerous deputies, corrections officers and civilian employees.
The allegations have led to the ongoing FBI police corruption investigation, directed at Nanos and his two politically appointed leaders, Radtke and Gagnepain.
According to the indictment the crimes began in 2011. “The defendant and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury conspired to circumvent the restrictions on the use of forfeiture funds by misrepresenting to the Pima County Attorney’s Office, the entity charged with oversight of the forfeiture funds, that the Pima County Sheriff’s Office was donating the forfeiture funds to the Pima County Sheriff’s Auxiliary Volunteers, Inc. (SAV), whereas the forfeiture funds were actually used by the Sheriff’s Office. This laundering of the forfeiture funds enabled the Sheriff’s Office to use the money free from regulations relating to forfeiture funds and procurement,” reads the indictment.
The defendant and others known and unknown to the Grand Jury conspired to make it appear that the forfeiture funds were being used by the SAV by using SAV checks and the SAV credit card to pay for items that were actually purchased for the Sheriff’s Office and individuals affiliated with the defendant. The following are examples of the approximate $500,000 of financial transactions affecting interstate and foreign commerce that were designed in whole or in part to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity:
a. On May 12, 2011, an SAV check was issued to an employee of the Sheriff’s Office for $926.09. Supporting documentation shows that the check was to reimbursed the special awards fund, and that the defendant requested part of that reimbursement for a $250 restaurant bill and tip and that other Sheriff’s Office employees requested $109.09 in reimbursement for a new microwave oven for the break room at the Sheriff’s Office;
b. On September 21, 2011, an SAV check was issued to an employee of the Sheriff’ Office for $627.60. Supporting documentation shows the check was to reimburse the SAV food and refreshment fund and that the defendant requested part of that reimbursement for a $80.79 restaurant bill and tip for a lunch for the Sheriff’s Office custodians;
c. On October 31, 2011, an SAV check was issued to an employee of the Sheriff’s Office for $288.72. Supporting documentation shows that the check was to reimburse the Sheriff’s Office for materials to assemble a Santa sleigh to be used at the Sheriff’s Office annual awards banquet and that the defendant approved the use of the funds for that purpose;
d. On December 4, 2013, an SAV check for $600 was issued to a business called “on-dree-ah” to purchase a chalkboard. The invoice was addressed to an employee at the Sheriff’s Office;
e. On January 6, 2014, an SAV check was issued to an artist for $300. Supporting documentation shows that the check was to reimburse the Sheriff’s Office for artwork for a chalkboard at the cafe at the Sheriff’s Office, even though the cafe was owned and operated by the defendant’s niece, not by the Sheriff’s Office;
f. On July 23, 2014, the SAV Chase credit card was used to purchase a photograph for the Sheriff’s Office for $31.34. A handwritten note on an email reflecting the purchase states that the photograph was requested by the defendant;
g. On July 24, 2014, the SAV Chase credit card was used to purchase two model airplanes for the Sheriff’s Office for $599.90 and to pay $90 for shipping. The invoice lists the defendant’s last name next to one of the model airplanes and that the model airplanes were being shipped to the Sheriff’s Office;
h. On July 29, 2014, the SAY Chase credit card was used to pay $50 for a rush shipping charge for the model airplanes to be shipped to the Sheriff’s Office;
i. On March 31, 2015, the SAV Chase credit card was used to purchase a chalkboard for $366.29 and to pay $135 for shipping and handling charges.
Supporting documentation shows that the chalkboard was purchased for the cafe at the Sheriff’s Office, even though the cafe was owned and operated by the defendant’s niece, not by the Sheriff’s Office; and
j. On April 20, 2015, an SAV check was issued to an artist for $500. Supporting documentation shows that the check was to reimburse the Sheriff’s Office for artwork for a chalkboard at the cafe at the Sheriff’s Office, even though the cafe was owned and operated by the defendant’s niece, not by the Sheriff’s Office.
Kevin Kubitskey, chairman of the Pima County Deputy Sheriffs Association issued a statement: “Sheriff Nanos’ statement was obviously a hit piece on the deputy and department surgeon Dr. Richard Carmona, and a blatant effort to discredit Dr. Carmona. This is an attempt by Sheriff Nanos to deflect attention away from the fact his Chief Deputy was just indicted by the FBI for 7 Federal RICO violations. We can’t ignore the FACT this happened under Sheriff Nanos’ watch. Not to mention, his Chief of Staff committed suicide after being contacted by the FBI. Last year the PCDSA & PCCOA approached Dr. Carmona to run for Sheriff and we were turned down. Dr. Carmona already had commitments on a national level, and had no interest at the time to be Sheriff. We feel saddened that Sheriff Nanos try’s to discredit Dr Carmona, calling him a “Sheriff Wanna Be”, when Dr. Carmona’s accomplishments speak for themselves.”
Carmona is a highly decorated 30 year veteran of the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, and 17th Surgeon General of the United States.
Nanos concluded the press conference by quoting controversial Pima County Supervisor Ray Carroll, who had also forwarded the “not a politician” narrative. “He says I am a pretty horrible politician,” said Nanos referring to Carroll, “but I’m one heck of a good Sheriff. I’ll take that as a compliment.”
Immediately after declaring that the press conference was over, Nanos stated that he was acting as a politician. As a result, Nanos was delivering a political speech using County resources, which is a violation of Arizona law.
Carroll, who has also been surrounded by controversy, opted to retire this year rather than face a certain loss at the ballot box.
Under FBI Investigation Pima County Sheriff Chief Gagnepain Takes Own Life
Pima County Sheriff Personnel Shuffle Questions Persist
Pima County Sheriff’s Drastic Double Dipping
Emails Reveal Absentee Pima County Sheriff
Pima County Spins Its Politically Correct Environmental Programs
Pima County Needs to Rethink its Priorities
Pima County Bond Election – Proposition 430
Pima County Board Of Supervisors Lack Discipline