Exclusive: Complaint accuses Benton sheriff of misusing staff and resources in his recall fight

A complaint has been filed accusing Benton County Sheriff Jerry Hatcher of improperly using county resources in his fight against being recalled from office.

County Prosecutor Andy Miller received the complaint about potential violations from the lawyer representing sheriff’s Sgt. Jason Erickson. The sergeant, backed by 90% of the county’s deputies and union officers, filed a petition last summer to have their boss ousted on claims of misuse of public funds and property and intimidating witnesses.

They are currently trying to collect 14,000 signatures to get the issue on the ballot.

The latest allegations claim Hatcher used his staff and county email to schedule a news conference to criticize a decision by the Washington state Supreme Court to allow the recall effort to move forward.

The “closed press conference,” held away from access from the general public, according to the complaint, was for Tri-Cities media members inside the sheriff’s office with Hatcher and his personal attorney, George Telquist.

Union lawyer Alan Harvey said in last week’s complaint that Miller, as the county prosecutor, should tell Hatcher to “cease future illegal conduct.”

“The ramifications of violations of (state law) are potential prosecution, in addition to civil penalties, individual action and attorneys’ fees,” Harvey wrote.

Hatcher emphatically denied to the Herald doing anything wrong or unethical and said there is no basis for the complaint.

“I have not violated any of those rules. It’s again Harvey making false allegations,” Hatcher said in an interview.

“I sent out a press release because I get inundated by the press all the time, ‘Tell us what happened about this (Supreme Court) ruling,’ ” he added. “It was not a campaign issue. I’m not running a campaign. ... I sat in front of the cameras ... and explained what happened with the court, just as I would with anything else.”

He said there was nothing illegal about the news conference invitation or location, adding that he does not “have to be away from work to do that.”

Hatcher also questioned why the complaint wasn’t instead filed with the Washington Public Disclosure Commission, or PDC, which oversees election campaigning.

Public disclosure commission

Miller said county prosecutors and the state commission have “concurrent jurisdiction” on complaints and, while there may be violations of criminal law for his office to review, the PDC can issue fines and other actions for violations.

A PDC spokeswoman told the Herald it does not currently have a complaint on file about the Hatcher recall effort.

However, the Herald has learned that a separate complaint is expected to be filed this week with the PDC, claiming violations of a state law that prohibit the use of public facilities in campaigns.

A recall is considered a campaign and, if the petitioner gets enough verified signatures, it then becomes a ballot issue in a special election.

The Public Disclosure Commission is charged with enforcing the law and making sure government facilities, public employee time and resources are not used on ballot measure elections.

That includes equipment, vehicles, computers, stationery, use of employees during working hours, office space and more.

An exception is if an elected official gives a statement in support of or opposing a ballot proposition at “an open press conference or in response to a specific inquiry.”

In 2017, Kennewick Police Chief Ken Hohenberg admitted that he wore his uniform and drove his official police vehicle to a 2014 news conference for the Benton County Law and Justice public safety sales tax ballot measure.

A complaint was filed against him with the PDC for violating the same state law that Hatcher is now accused of violating.

At an enforcement hearing, Hohenberg was given a $750 civil penalty, with $500 of that suspended if the chief committed no other violations for four years.

Recall campaign complaint

Hatcher told the Herald his supporters also have complained to the county prosecutors about the legality of recall signs and fliers being posted around Benton County.

A lengthy post by Dan Deckert of Benton City on the “Support Your Local Sheriff” Facebook group page included his email exchange with Miller, who concluded there is nothing in state law saying the signs are illegal.

In a Wednesday update, Deckert said he did not agree with the prosecutor’s assessment, but added that he has “no other path to travel” on the issue.

On the other side, Harvey said he brought his complaint on behalf of Sgt. Erickson because “the taxpayers in Washington should not have to pay for the costs of (Hatcher’s) recall.”

The Vancouver, Wash., attorney represents both the deputies’ guild and the new commanders’ guild in Benton County.

His eight-page complaint filed with the prosecutor claims Hatcher may be using public resources because of his personal financial problems.

“Unfortunately, using county resources to support his recall efforts because it saves him money is not a legal excuse,” said Harvey.

He referred to recent court filings by Hatcher seeking money from his estranged wife, before their divorce is settled, to help cover his legal fees.

Telquist said in a court declaration that the estimated cost of representing Hatcher in the recall is $30,000, and Hatcher has already paid a $12,000 deposit.

Hatcher said the amount he wants is community property and should be given to him because his wife withdrew large sums of money from their bank accounts early in the divorce process. His wife countered in paperwork that she already used their money to pay their bills and taxes, and split the rest with Hatcher.

Public resources

The allegations in the recent complaint include Hatcher using his work computer, printer and staff in defend against the recall.

Lt. Jon Schwarder reportedly said he was directed by Hatcher to send out a news release on Nov. 12 inviting “media outlets” to the sheriff’s office for a news conference Nov. 16.

The Herald did not receive the news release and did not attend the news conference because the release was sent to an inactive email address for a reporter who left the newspaper 4 1/2 years ago.

But, in later obtaining a copy of it, the Herald found it was written on sheriff’s office letterhead.

“Sheriff Hatcher will address the ongoing recall ... efforts and the alleged allegations of misconduct,” said the news conference announcement. “Sheriff Hatcher will also address the organization’s health and his unwavering commitment to the community and his staff.”

Harvey said in his complaint that once the recall charges were filed, up until 30 days after a possible recall election, Hatcher is not to use his office for any recall campaign or ballot measure.

Yet, he said, it is clear the sheriff called a news conference in a sheriff’s department conference room at the Justice Center in Kennewick and the main subject was the recall fight.

The other complaint that will be filed this week with the PDC is expected to come from the “Committee to Recall Sheriff Jerry Hatcher.”

“The reason why they’re moving forward is because the Supreme Court has made findings after Jerry tried to justify them ... and (the justices) did not find his legal justification valid, 9 to 0,” Harvey told the Herald. “And (Hatcher’s) first act is to engage in a violation of the PDC.”

“It’s unconscionable, and it has nothing to do with the officers or the recall folks taking over his office,” he added. “They want the law violations to stop, and they have no other way to do it other than to move forward on reporting these violations.”

Recall allegations

Hatcher has been the sheriff since May 2017.

The recall petition was filed by Erickson in July, with backing from the Benton County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild, and less than a month later a Walla Walla County Superior Court judge approved the ballot synopsis.

Hatcher and Telquist appealed the ruling to the state Supreme Court, which reviewed lengthy briefs filed by the lawyers on both sides before issuing its 9-0 order on Nov. 6 that the petition can proceed.

The court only needed to determine “the factual and legal sufficiency of the alleged charges” for the effort to advance. Chief Justice Debra Stephens wrote that the court had to “assume the truth of the facts as the recall petitioner asserts them.”

A full opinion will be released at a later date.

Hatcher takes exception to the fact the justices did not grant their request for oral arguments and testimony. He says now voters also are being asked to assume the allegations are true.

He views it as a labor union takeover by Harvey and the guild, and said this recent complaint is now their attempt to “silence me from giving the community the real facts here. ... He just doesn’t want the second side of the story told.”

Hatcher argues that if he is being accused of doing something illegal, why is he not criminally charged.

Five of the eight charges on the ballot synopsis include alleged “illegal” actions, such as Hatcher’s possession of 14 cases of county-owned ammunition for his own use and intimidating public servants and witnesses during investigations into his conduct.

“For a police officer (Erickson) to sit there next to Mr. Harvey and say these lies is just sad,” said Hatcher. “The public should be shocked. This is a very small percentage of the deputy sheriffs.”

He accused members of his senior management of having an agenda and omitting facts, and claims some deputies have told him they are “scared to death” of going against their supervisors and the union.

In June, more than 90 percent of the Benton County Deputy Sheriff’s Guild membership voted unanimously to have Hatcher removed from office.

The guild — consisting of patrol deputies, detectives, corporals, sergeants and lieutenants — cited an independent investigator’s findings that Hatcher retaliated against a whistleblower and two witnesses and he engaged in anti-union activity and threatened employees who failed to support him.

After the Supreme Court decision, the Washington Fraternal Order of Police issued a statement saying it continues to support the guild’s recall efforts “based on clear and overwhelming evidence.”

“The WAFOP recognizes that this conduct is unacceptable and contributes to decreasing public trust,” the FOP said on Nov. 10. “Transparency in policing is important and when there is an elected official engaging in malfeasance and violating their oath of office, it furthers the divide between peace officers and the community.”

The Fraternal Order of Police and Tri-Cities Lodge #7 praised Erickson and the union’s membership “for their advocacy in holding a fellow officer and elected official accountable to the laws in which they are sworn to uphold, and the Supreme Court for allowing the Guild to do so.”

This story was originally published November 30, 2020 at 5:00 AM.