The Pima County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to refer perjury allegations against Sheriff Chris Nanos to the Arizona Attorney General's Office, stopping short of removing him from office.

The board voted unanimously in March to compel Nanos to answer questions under oath about his disciplinary history, department management and conduct in office. Nanos skipped the April 21 hearing, instead sending his attorney and a 12-page letter addressing questions about his prior law enforcement record, department budget, and the department's work with federal immigration officials.

Supervisors discussed the situation during their May 12 meeting, with District 4 Supervisor Steve Christy immediately moving to declare the office of Pima County Sheriff as vacant and begin the replacement procedure. Christy's motion failed without a second.

Following weeks of discussion about whether Nanos' incomplete testimony could be grounds for removal under state law, the board ultimately followed its legal counsel's advice, which led to two actions.

The board took no action to declare the office vacant and referred allegations of perjury to the Arizona Attorney General's Office.

The board took no position on whether Nanos committed perjury, voting 4-0 with Christy abstaining.

District 1 Supervisor Rex Scott said his chief concern was Nanos' apparent unwillingness to build trust within the department, citing a Pima County Deputy's Organization no-confidence vote that drew more than 250 votes in favor and 60 abstentions, with not a single vote of confidence in Nanos' leadership.

"That's very telling with regard to climate and feelings about the stewardship of the department uh by its frontline employees," Scott said. "Just as telling are the emails and letters board offices have received from current and former Pima County Sheriff's Department employees who have expressed no faith or trust in the sheriff's leadership. They've offered very specific examples of pettiness, favoritism, rash decisionmaking."

Scott said some letters from department employees expressed support for Nanos, but said Nanos needs to bring everyone together and take concrete steps to rebuild the department's culture, including acknowledging what Scott called "the obvious" — that there is an internal crisis of confidence in his leadership — and reaching out publicly and privately to seek honest dialogue and rebuild trust.

"Based on the advice of legal counsel, I do not believe, and obviously the majority of the board agrees, that we have the right to remove the sheriff, declare the office vacant. He met his obligations under the statute, but I think it's important that we make the referral to the attorney general's office," Scott said. "And what is most important is that the sheriff take immediate action to repair the extraordinary climate of distrust and lack of faith in his leadership."

District 5 Supervisor Andrés Cano acknowledged community members concerned about public safety who felt discouraged by a sheriff whose values they don't share.

He shared his experience as a college student living in Maricopa County under Sheriff Joe Arpaio when SB 1070 was passed.

SB 1070, passed by the Arizona Legislature in 2010, required law enforcement to check the immigration status of anyone they stopped or detained if they had reasonable suspicion the person was in the country illegally, and made it a state crime to be in Arizona without documentation.

"I know this because I lived through it," Cano said. "Just blocks from my dorm room, I watched families and immigrants living in fear, and most importantly, I watched neighbors lose faith in what public safety was supposed to mean."

Cano said he learned it was not the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors' duty to remove Arpaio, but the voters' duty to recall him.

Cano noted that a sheriff, unlike a police chief, is elected rather than appointed and cannot be easily dismissed, saying the board had used what he called a "narrowly defined statute" to question Nanos before legal counsel informed them of their limitations.

Cano said the board's focus going forward would be listening to resident concerns about public safety and investing in sheriff's department employees.

District 3 Supervisor Jennifer Allen said that residents in her predominantly rural district rely on the sheriff's department for rapid response, justice and accountability.

"I want to thank the department for stepping up. I imagine that this has been an incredibly difficult process and will still continue to be difficult. Leadership is so incredibly important, and leadership from our sheriff is so incredibly important," Allen said. "I hope that what we see in the path ahead is true leadership that looks out for the interests of the full team that looks out for the interests of all Pima County residents and reinstates the trust that is needed in our community in our sheriff's department."

Ian Stash is University of Arizona alum and freelance journalist in Tucson. Contact him at istash@arizona.edu.

Tucson Spotlight is a community-based newsroom that provides paid opportunities for students and rising journalists in Southern Arizona. Please consider supporting our work with a tax-deductible donation.