“The Monitoring Racket: The Grift that Keeps on Giving”
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance U.S. House of Representatives
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
The department argued that the extensive reforms imposed through the consent decree or the judgment have been successful in correcting the unconstitutional practices identified in the original case and that MCSO has demonstrated sustained systemic compliance. The department cited multiple recent monitor reports documenting consistently high compliance rates, institutionalized policy adherence, effective training programs, and durable accountability mechanisms. The department indicated that continued federal supervision is no longer necessary to ensure constitutional policing, supporting termination of both the consent decree, the court appointed monitoring regime, and the court's order. Maricopa County is not the only jurisdiction lining the pockets of Robert Worshaw and his associates. Worshaw has been accused of taking exorbitant payments without producing results and monitoring law enforcement agencies in New York, California, Michigan, and Louisiana.
For example, Warsaw faced criticism for the duration, high cost, and evolving compliance benchmarks of federal oversight in Oakland, California, one of the longest running federal polis police oversight regimes in US history since a 2003 settlement. In 2024, 1,508 complaints were filed against OPDs, Oakland Police Department, 710 sworn officers, and were nearly universally, nearly all were completely dismissed. Despite reportedly spending little time in Oakland, Warsaw is paid more than $1,000,000 annually by the city, a structure that incentivizes prolonging the monitorship. Warsaw's monitorship is criticized for its expansive scope and prolonged duration. Compared to monitors who operate under narrowly defined mandates and fixed timelines, Warsaw's role continuously blurs the line between oversight and management.
Questions about judgment and incentives have also followed Warsaw's consulting contracts elsewhere. In Niagara Falls, New York, for example, Warsaw was retained at a rate of $200 an hour, ultimately costing taxpayers more than $200,000 over two years, despite the mayor's initial public estimate that the contract would total only $57,000. Together, these episodes have been cited by critics as emblematic of a pattern which Warsaw's work unfolds with limited transparency, check on the expansion or duration of his authority. I look forward to hearing from today's panel, and I thank the members and witnesses for taking part, and for the public's interest in attending. I yield back.
Without objection, all other opening statements will be included in the record. And now I'll introduce today's witness, Miss Debbie Lesco. Miss Lesco represents the 4th District on the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, where she is also the vice chair. She has previously served as our colleague in the House of Representatives from 2018 to 2025, and she also served in the Arizona Legislature from 2009 to 2018. Thank you, supervisor Lesko.
Mister Felix Garcia is a member of the community advisory board for the monitor of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. He is also the president and CEO of the Zoho Foundation, a nonprofit organization that provides materials and resources to families and businesses. Thank you, Mr. Garcia, for being with us today. Mister John Riches is vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute's Sharf Norton Center for Constitutional Litigation, and also serves as the Goldwater Institute's general counsel. He litigates in federal and state courts across the country on issues including economic liberty, regulatory reform, free speech, taxpayer protection, government transparency, and other issues.
We welcome our witnesses. Thank you for appearing today, and now we will ask you to stand and be sworn in. Please raise your right hand. Do each of you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief? So help you, God.
Let the record reflect the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. Please be seated. Please know that your written testimony will be entered into the record in its entirety. And, without objection, we'll allow each of you a considerable leeway on the normal five-minute time constraint. Hearing none.
Miss Lesko, no. We're not gonna begin with you, Miss Lesko. We're gonna actually begin with mister Garcia. So we're gonna go back this way. So, mister Garcia, we welcome you here today and recognize you for your opening statement.
Speaker 3
Thank you, mister Sharman, and members of the community. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Phils García. I am a volunteer member of community adviser, connected with this case. I want to be clear, today I am speaking in my personal capacity.
My opinions are my own, and they don't represent the other members board who may be different view. I decide to serve because I believe in building trust between law enforcement and the community they serve, especially with my community, the Hispanic community. Oversar the law enforced is important, it helps protect civil rights, ensure accountability, and build trust when it has been broken. There is doubt that one-time court supervision played an important role in Maricopa County. But oversight showed mentioned by result after more than 10 years under federal monitoring that caused a $100,000,000 taxpayers is fair to ask this important question.
Is the current system still helping our community to move forward? Over the past year, I've been working directly with the committee. With my nonprofile working for over ten years. Over the last year, I'm working very close with the committee, and the sheriff organized so many events and speak to hundreds of Latinos leadership, faith, and families across the county. What I hear again and again is the people want a safe, respect, transparency, and collaboration.
I have personal see and make engagement between the sheriff office committee that, one, feel disconnect from the law enforcement. That progress matters. So my opinion right now with this is, you know, my perception is the people, you know, support the sheriff office. So, thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Garcia. We now go to mister Riches and recognize you for your opening statement. Sorry. The microphone, please.
Speaker 4
Sure. Mister, chairman, and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify. My name is John Riches. I'm the vice president for litigation at the Goldwater Institute. That's a public policy and public interest litigation organization.
I wanna make two points this morning. One rooted in long-standing constitutional principles of federalism, and the other rooted in democratic accountability and government transparency. First, under traditional principles of federalism, law enforcement and local spending decisions are and must remain primarily state and local functions, not ones administered indefinitely by federal officials. Second, when tax dollars are spent to operate local government, including, and perhaps especially in the law enforcement context, state public records laws and public policy require transparency, not secrecy. Taxpayers have a right to know how their tax dollars are spent.
As to the federalism point, our constitution leaves law enforcement to the responsibility of local officials. Indeed, the federal government has no general police power. Federal courts absolutely have the authority to remedy constitutional violations, but remedies are supposed to be temporary, targeted, and respectful of the state's paramount role in law enforcement, not substitutions for that role. Here, that structural balance has broken down. In Maricopa County, a federally appointed out-of-state monitor selected by one federal judge has exercised sweeping authority over a local sheriff's office for more than a decade at taxpayer expense exceeding $30,000,000 just for the monitors' expenses.
And there's no clear end date in sight. So at some point, oversight stops being remedial and starts becoming structural, and that raises constitutional concerns. When federal supervision is open-ended, it supplants local voters, it supplants local officials, and it supplants state law. The concern is particularly acute here, where core decisions not only involve law enforcement, but spending and, ultimately, taxation. These have been delegated to a federal agent with no accountability to the public.
In that circumstance, there is a transfer of powers that the constitution assigns to other branches and to other levels of government. Our constitutional structure exists precisely to prevent this. Federal authority, even when well intentioned, must be limited, reviewable, and constrained, or it violates principles of federalism that are an essential feature of our republic and a guardrail for the protection of individual liberty. That brings me to my second point, transparency. Under Arizona law and the law of virtually every state, records concerning the operation of government and the expenditure of public funds are presumptively public.
The public has a right to know what their government is up to, and that right is essential to democratic accountability. The Arizona Supreme Court has made this clear time and again. Citizens cannot hold officials accountable if they are denied information about what those officials are doing and how they are spending their money. Yet in this case, millions of dollars are being spent with virtually no meaningful public disclosure. My organization, the Goldwater Institute, submitted state public records requests to the county and to the monitor, seeking an itemized accounting of the monitor's invoices and basic salary information for the monitor staff.
Because of existing federal orders in this case, the county does not possess or cannot disclose the information, and the monitor simply didn't respond at all. Under state law, that outcome would not occur in any other context. For virtually every public expenditure, things from road construction, consulting contracts, law enforcement grants, itemized invoices, and supporting documents are public records. Allowing taxpayer funds to be spent indefinitely without disclosure directly conflicts with Arizona's transparency laws. The only information that has been available to the public consists of heavily redacted or non-descriptive invoices.
There's no detailed time entries, expense reports, or supporting documentation. None of that information has been disclosed to the very people on whose behalf and at whose expense the monitor is purportedly operating. That is not how government transparency is supposed to work, and that is not how it does work as a matter of state law. Secrecy may be justified temporarily to protect a legitimate government interest, but blanket secrecy for more than a decade, long after reforms have been implemented, cannot be squared with democratic norms. In sum, federalism exists to ensure that law enforcement and spending decisions remain locally and democratically accountable.
Public records laws exist to ensure that taxpayers can see how their government is operating and how their money is being spent. And when federal oversight overrides both democratic control and transparency, it creates a system that inverts these core principles of our constitutional republic. Thank you, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Speaker 2
Thank you, Mr. Riches. And now we recognize supervisor Lesko for her opening statement.
Speaker 5
Well, good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. It's great to be here with my former colleagues from Congress. And, miss the chairman and I served right here in these chambers, is our old stomping ground. So it's great to be here. And I really want to thank you for traveling here.
This is a very important issue for Maricopa County, the taxpayers of Maricopa County, and for public safety in Maricopa County. And that's what this is all about, making sure we protect the public. As a Maricopa County supervisor, I am here today to talk about the long-term damage caused by the federal court orders in Melendres versus Arpaio, and more specifically, the unchecked and costly monitor regime that has grown out of this case. It has become a clear example of how federal oversight, when left unchecked, can drift far beyond its original purpose, at great cost in local control and taxpayers. This all started with a complaint against then Maricopa County sheriff Joe Arpaio, alleging racial profiling of Latino drivers and passengers.
14 years, three sheriffs, and millions of dollars per year later, the sheriff's office is still under this burdensome and costly federal monitor regime. For more than a decade, this monitoring process appears to be operating with virtually no limiting principle. What began as targeted oversight has evolved into an open-ended system where compliance seems to be constantly redefined. New requirements are layered on, and progress is never allowed to be final. The monitor's role has expanded far beyond verifying constitutional policies and instead has expanded into day-to-day operational micromanagement of the sheriff's department, and the consequences have been severe.
Every dollar spent feeding this monitoring bureaucracy is a dollar not spent on deputies, patrols, training, crime prevention, or victim services. Every hour spent satisfying reporting demands is an hour not spent protecting our neighborhoods. The cumulative effect has been a long-term erosion of public safety capacity in Maricopa County. The public is told this is all necessary by the federal judge, but necessary for whom? The monitor is paid to find deficiencies, and the system seems structured so that the deficiencies are always found.
Even when benchmarks are met, new interpretations seem to appear, new metrics emerge, the finish line moves. For example, I want to give you an example. Just last month, the monitor reversed himself and declared that the sheriff's office is not in compliance with a paragraph that has been in compliance for years. That paragraph requires the Maricopa County sheriff's office to submit training materials within 90 days of the order, which was satisfied back in June 2016. Now, after a decade, the goalposts have yet again been moved.
The monitor in this case is the same monitor who has been monitoring the Oakland, California police department for the last 25 years. And do you know what the kicker is? Existing court orders, as has been said before, dating back to 2014, prevent taxpayers from fully knowing where their money is even going. Detailed monitor billing and time entries are provided only to the court. The county itself is restricted from seeing that information, much less sharing that information with the public.
That is not transparency. That is not accountability. And twelve years later, it's not justified. I wanna be very clear. This is not about rejecting constitutional policing or resisting oversight.
Maricopa County has made significant reforms, many of them at great expense and in good faith. The sheriff's office is doing a fantastic job. In fact, today, there is no evidence of ongoing civil rights violations. There are no new allegations of targeted immigration enforcement, and the Maricopa County Sheriff's office has achieved 100% compliance with required policy changes. The 2023 traffic study annual report that the court requires found no statistically significant difference between white drivers and Hispanic drivers across any measured benchmark.
So late last year, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, of which I am a member, filed a Rule 60 motion seeking relief from this federal oversight. And I am happy to say that the United States Department of Justice supports a rule 60 motion to end this oversight. So let's be clear. The county says it's time. The data says it's time.
The monitor's own findings say it's time. And The United States Department of Justice says it's time to end this burdensome, bureaucratic, costly federal oversight of the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. It's time to recognize that federal monitoring is no longer needed. I say enough is enough. Thank you, and I yield back.
Speaker 2
Thank you, supervisor Lesko. Appreciate that. Appreciate your testimony, all of your testimony. And now, I will recognize, for his questioning, the gentleman from Texas, mister Nance.
Speaker 6
Thank you, chairman. I'd like to thank all the witnesses for being here. I'm an old former sheriff from the great state of Texas, Fort Bend County, a relatively large agency. Had about 800,000 people there, and about 826 deputies. I feel I have some basic understanding of how to manage a law enforcement agency.
I believe I understand the complexities that law enforcement is facing today across the country. And I do believe that public safety, above all else, is our number one priority, public safety. I am concerned with the impact of the federal judicial monitor on the ability of this sheriff's office to adequately investigate, solve, and deter crime. And I know, mister chairman, you brought it up in your opening remarks, but I believe it's worth repeating. And, like, how did we get here?
How did this all begin? And when you go back to that Ortega Malendres versus Ipiro, the 2007, 2008 time frame, allegations surfaced of racial profiling, I believe, in the lieutenant Latino community. Alright? In 2011, I guess, there was a bench trial. And then in 2013, the district judge, G. Murray Snow, ruled that the sheriff's office violated constitutional protections and opposed permanent injunctions, implementing the sweeping reforms, apparently, it had to get done to the policies, to training, to operations, to internal investigations.
2014, then, the judge appoints Robert Worshaw as a federal court monitor. 2015, they come back a little bit and say we gotta make some additional remedial measures. And so, the question I have to ask for all of you one at a time is, was there at that time a need for this judicial oversight? Miss Lesko, just a yes or no, really. I mean, was there a need for it at the time?
Speaker 5
But there were allegations, and the federal court upheld them. And so they had a court order.
Speaker 5
And said things need to be changed. What I can tell you for sure, as a matter of fact, yeah. Is the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office has now gone through four sheriffs, tirelessly.
Speaker 5
To make reforms and make sure that they are in compliance. And so as I have said, they are in 100% compliance on their policies and many of the paragraphs. They have done everything over and above. Mhmm. To yeah. Satisfy this court, but it's never enough.
Right. It's never enough.
Speaker 6
I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, but my question is, at the time that the judge made the ruling back in 2014, was there a need for this type of judicial oversight, mister Riches?
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, congressman, federal courts do exist to remedy constitutional violations. And if the court finds a constitutional violation, they can put in place orders to remedy it. The question today, though, is very different than the question as to what happened then. And as Miss Lesko indicated, we're now for sheriffs.
Speaker 6
How about you, Mr. Garcia? Do you believe back then when this judge, appointed by Bush, by the way, appointed by President Bush, do you believe that there was a need to have this back then? I mean, I wasn't, you know, I tell you, I was an old sheriff 2012 to 2020, and I heard about show me your papers. I heard about this sheriff and, you know, tents and everything else. I mean, there was a lot of attention.
They call him the American sheriff.
Speaker 6
You feel at the time when the decision was made. I'm not talking about today, four different sheriffs now, three or four. But back at the time, was it necessary?
Speaker 6
Thank you for okay. So his job then, this federal, this mister Warshaw was to, I guess, get the sheriff's office to comply with the permanent injunctions the court ordered. His job, issue periodic reports, whole community meetings, which I'd like to get into a little bit, and then review the sheriff's office's internal policies and practices. So I'm gonna talk a little bit about the periodic reports. I guess there are 40 plus reports that have been issued.
These reports have shown significant improvements. I think, miss Lesko, you brought it up 100%. You said it for your time. These reports have shown much improvement or compliance. The compliance rate back in 2014 was 30%.
So I'm kinda believing, you know, maybe back then there was a need. You know? It was an order. And then you see we get to 2025, and we're at 94%. These 40 plus reports, I mean, the fourth report back in 2015 had a 40% compliance rate.
The twenty-sixth report back in issued in 2020, they're up to 98%. Report number 33 and 34 back in 2022 and 2025 show compliance rates of 93, 94. So it certainly appears to me that the sheriff's office has complied with all the aspects of this judicial ruling, right. And if I may, Mr. Garcia, I would like to start with you. If you could, for me, I'm new to this here.
I don't know who you are, but would you be willing to share with us a little bit about your background? How long have you lived here, and why are you on this committee? What's your community involvement been? What makes you, I don't want to say, so special, but what made you part of this process?
Speaker 3
So, basically, I live in Phoenix, Arizona for the last 26 years. I live in North Central Phoenix. I'm a Mexican American. Born in Hermosillo, Mexico. Mhmm.
So I'm working with the community for, you know, so many years with my nonprofit. In my nonprofit, we have won an immigration program especially for new citizenships. So we're very active in the community. With the last sheriff, working very close with Penceau and the Hispanic board. And with the new sheriff, I'm, you know, I'm appointed with the sheriff to end this board.
Speaker 6
Okay. And, again, in the recent years, the sheriff's office has reached very successful compliance, with this oversight of the judicial monitor. I believe you mentioned it in your opening that you believe the relationship today with the sheriff and the community he is charged to protect and serve is better today than what it once was.
Speaker 3
It's excellent. I'm attending every single event with the sheriff. One special in November.
Speaker 3
We have one, it's not my event, but we have one Turkey event, a Wahjoloton with Apreza, Arizona. And the sheriff is coming, and this is a 100% Latinos come first, second generation. And everybody in the event is interested to take a picture with the sheriff. Mhmm. You know, not only do the people participate, but every person in the event.
And we organize another event for the sheriff, and everybody's interested in it. Mhmm. Interaction with the sheriff.
Speaker 6
So what you're saying is you've seen improved relationships. You're noticing it between the community and the sheriff's office. I mean, when I started in my law enforcement career thirty years ago, I mean, community policing, it was the buzzword. It was a big deal. Community policing.
You don't have issues. The sheriff's offices are, I'll just focus on major large municipal police. When there is friction or the sheriff's office or the police department and the people, the residents, when they when there's distrust there, things are gonna get ugly. And we've seen it across our nation over the past several years, when there's a distrust. Did we, you've been here this long.
Did you notice? Did we have community policing philosophy at the sheriff's office back in 2012 or 2008, 2009? Was that philosophy to build the relationships with the people?
Speaker 3
Yeah. I'm working very close. You know, with my nonprofit, you know, I'm starting working with the sheriff fighting in 2014, '26, '16. And the relationship with the community is, you know, is very active. You know, after, you know, Sheriff Arpaio left, you know, the inside ever to start to change.
So I see the difference right now. And so that's good, I think.
Speaker 6
Wow. Very good. So you believe that, I guess, point blank, what's changed? Give me an example of what's changed now that you see, all of a sudden, a strong relationship versus having a federal court get involved with these injunctions. I mean, what changed in that period of time?
Attitudes?
Speaker 3
Different leadership style? Well, leadership, I don't see, you know, so many stop with the Latino community. You know? As you know, 150 to 200 people move from California to Arizona. So, obviously, you know, the numbers have changed because 200 people daily move to Arizona.
So, how
Speaker 6
Very good. How transparent and collaborative is communication between the community advisory board which you serve on, Mister Worshaw, and the sheriff's office leadership team?
Speaker 3
So, normally, basically, we have one meeting every month with the monitoring with the board. So.
Speaker 3
I see Mister Worschach two times. One dinner and before one event and the court, couple months ago.
Speaker 6
Okay. So I'm talking over the past several years. How many times has he actually attended one event?
Speaker 6
Oh, so you've seen him twice in the year? Yes. If he's not there, does he have other staff, or does he delegate that?
Speaker 3
Yes. Well, it's one person working with him. We have a meeting with this lady every month. Yeah.
Speaker 6
Someone is there. Fair enough. In your experience, has the community advisory board influenced policy or practice changes within the, I mean, are they listening to you, the board, the community, as it relates to changes in policy? Is it, I mean, are you effective? Do you feel like we actually have the ability to make things better because they, the sheriff's office, monitor their listening to the people?
Speaker 3
Well, I don't see the difference in reality because three and the board, attacking me all the time because, you know, I organized this event to the sheriff. This specific week, I received two attacks from one of the members attacking me by email. But why am I here? Why? If you represent the whole boy is the reason because I say, yeah.
This is my voice. So, another member of the board, the husband is activist outside, and he's attacking me frequently. So yesterday in the newspaper, I read the newspaper, he's attacking me and saying I'm a racist person. And a lot of this stuff. And it's public right now. If you read, Pranza Arizona, read that this person attacked me, say I'm the Charlie Kirk person.
So it's the reason I support the sheriff. And it's really bad because I meet with the sheriff with the Latino community. Yeah. You know, every single Latino outside interested me with the sheriff.
Speaker 6
You may have touched upon this, but I wanna get a yes or no from you. Do you believe that with the cooperation of the advisory board and the sheriff's office, the judicial monitor is still necessary? Do you believe that it's still necessary today?
Speaker 6
Okay. Very good. So this is not something that could be better managed at the local level with community import. You know, you got your board. You got a sheriff's office.
You got everybody coming together. Everybody seems to be working well together. We could just say, we don't need any more judicial overreach, and because it's just costing money, and it's unnecessary.
Speaker 6
I appreciate that. Mister Riches, Goldwater Institute's amicus brief, argues that federalism requires that the county sheriff's office be overseen by the people of the county, not by the federal government. In your view, has the more than a decade-long federal monitoring of the sheriff's office violated this principle of local self-governance? Mister chairman and congressman, yeah, as
Speaker 4
I indicated in my opening statement, obviously, the initial order is a different question than the continued oversight long after the facts and circumstances have changed. And I think in this particular situation, when there is no end to federal oversight, it raises principles of federalism.
Speaker 6
I think chairman Galvan brought it up that he keeps Warsaw moving or shifting the goalposts, I believe he stated. And how does that shifting compliance, the benchmarks, or the indefinite monitoring of the sheriff's office ability to implement policies based on local priorities? How do they do it when you have this type of overreach?
Speaker 4
Well, you know, it is hard to say, and I'm not a particular expert on that issue specifically. But I would say that, if there's gonna be direction from federal oversight to any state or local agency, it should be clear and consistent. And there shouldn't be circumstances where it's consistently changing.
Speaker 6
And these invoices that they keep receiving, do they believe the taxpayers, you believe the taxpayer should have access to detailed information showing how monitor related funds are spent, even when those funds are subject to federal court oversight?
Speaker 4
Not only should they, but as a matter of state law, they have a legal right to that information. Arizona's law is abundantly clear on this. Anytime the government engages in public business or spends taxpayer funds, taxpayers have a right to see what they are doing with that money. So as a result of the federal court orders in this place, that has hamstrung taxpayers from receiving information they would otherwise have a legal right to receive.
Speaker 6
Thank you, sir. And, Miss Lesko, in your capacity as vice chair of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, you interacted with the sheriff's office. Chairman Galvin of the board of supervisors has described the judicial monitor's oversight as, quote, decimating the agency with a 26% vacancy rate. I don't know how in the hell he can go out there and perform his job and keep his people safe in this county when you got a 20%, 6% vacancy rate. Do you share this view of the situation, 26 %?
Speaker 5
Mister chair and mister Nells, I do. It makes it very difficult on the sheriff's department to do their jobs of protecting citizens. And mister chair and mister Nells, I'd like to add a few things just if you don't mind. Not only did the sheriff's department achieve 100% compliance with required policy changes.
Speaker 5
But the most recent quarterly reports acknowledge that Latino drivers are not being cited, stopped, or detained for longer periods of time at rates different than other drivers in Maricopa County. And for two years, annual traffic study analysis found no disparity between white and Hispanic drivers. In fact, the thing that they keep bringing up is why they can't be in compliance with these backlogs of complaints against the sheriff's department or the detention officers. But the backlogs have nothing to do with K. With the original court case.
I mean, there could be a complaint about a detention officer in jail. It has nothing to do with racial profiling of Hispanic or Latino drivers. And so it's very frustrating, and it's a they have been doing this for years. We've had Republican sheriffs, Democrat sheriffs. In fact, one of the Democratic sheriffs, Sheriff Pinzón, he resigned over this.
He said that was the reason he resigned. He can't do his job with his federal monitorship. Yeah. It's just become so burdensome and costly.
Speaker 6
And that's unfortunate. And I have more questions for you, but I'm going to yield back to the chairman. I guess we'll have a second round, so I'll get back to you.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, Yields chair, recognized gentleman from South Carolina, mister Fry. First question.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for being here. Thank you to witnesses for being here. It's a wonderful state. Debbie, it's good to see you again.
It's been too long. I think you said it best. Fourteen years, three or four sheriffs, and millions of dollars, and you're still under this federal oversight regime. So I think the question, for all of us and maybe even the public, is why. I mean, to me, if I'm looking at this objectively, you're either not in compliance with a court order from 14 years ago, or we are in an era where you really it's duplicative and unnecessary.
Would you agree with that?
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mister Chair and Mister Fry. Yes. I agree with it. I mean, this is what's been so frustrating, and this is why the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors hired an attorney that deals with federal issues like this to file a rule 60 motion, because it's been going on and on, and the goalposts keep moving. I have other examples in front of me if you care to hear them.
Speaker 5
But about how things have changed. Yeah. And so you know, they accomplish one thing, and then the court and the monitor say, oh, here's another thing. Here's another thing. Here's another thing.
It seems like it never ends.
Speaker 1
It's a game of whack-a-mole. I think you mentioned rule 60b. So I think that's important, Mr. Rich. What is rule 60 b for the public? For people who are paying attention, who are here in the room or back home, what is rule 60 b?
Speaker 4
Mister chair, congressman, it's a rule in the federal rules of civil procedure that allows a party to get relief from an existing order or judgment. So it's basically just asking the court to reconsider the court's orders.
Speaker 1
Yeah. Hey, judge. This is not, this is not, we're either in compliance with it. We've done our task. We don't need to be under this prior court order.
That's the thrust of it. Right? It allows an affected party to seek relief from the court, maybe on an outdated judgment or court order. Is that correct?
Speaker 1
And so one of the things that I would have imagined that a court reviews is the factual basis for the motion. Right? What facts today are different than they were maybe in this case 14 years ago? Is that one way in which the courts evaluate the merits of a rule 60 b relief motion? Yes.
Certainly. Okay. And you mentioned federalism. Federalism also is triggered under rule 60 b, at least as far as federal oversight over state and local issues. Is that also correct?
Speaker 4
Well, the party can raise, you know, the constitutional arguments, legal arguments, and factual developments that have occurred that would warrant relief from the judgment. So, to the extent this raises federalism concerns, and we certainly think it does, a party can certainly raise that in a rule 60 motion. And why are
Speaker 1
Courts deferential to federalism concerns as it pertains to maybe federal oversight over a state or local issue? Why is that important?
Speaker 4
Well, our whole constitutional system is predicated on the people retaining power for themselves and the states being the primary repository of the police power. The federal government is a system of limited powers. It only has that power, which is expressly delegated to it under the Constitution. And so when you have a situation that involves law enforcement, local spending, which ultimately inevitably involves taxation as well, those are the sort of matters that our constitution entrusts at a different level of government than the one that's currently being exercised.
Speaker 1
So do you think I mean, and I would say, looking at court opinions, courts have been hesitant to have this endless federal intervention, if you will, and state and local issues beyond the term of that is reasonably necessary. Is that fair to characterize?
Speaker 4
I think that is fair to characterize. I think in any situation like this, oversight should be temporary. It should be reviewable, and it should be transparent.
Speaker 1
When you look at the original court order in 2014, there were, I don't know, a 194, I think, paragraphs of things that the judge wanted, paid attention to and addressed. Of the 194 paragraphs, how many has the county fully complied with to date? Do you know?
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Fry. I don't know the exact amount, but I know it's very significant.
Speaker 5
It sounds right to me, but I'd have to check for, you know, for details from actually the sheriff's department themselves. The thing is, you're exactly right. This is going on too long, and the number of paragraphs it started with has grown exponentially. And so they keep adding these requirements to the sheriff's department. And the reason that we filed, the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors filed the rule 60 motion is because the original purpose of the Melendez lawsuit has been achieved.
The Maricopa County Sheriff's Department is doing a good job. And even in many instances, the monitor agrees. The monitor agrees. They are doing the job that the original purpose of the lawsuit, it has been fulfilled. It's now time to move on and end this.
Right. So it's been.
Speaker 1
Lesco, I think one of the original things that the court took exception with and the monitor as well is that there was an illegal immigration hotline. Is there an illegal immigration hotline today?
Speaker 5
Thank you. Mister Chair and Mister Fry, my understanding is there is not.
Speaker 1
Correct. Correct. There was a there's no triple I unit. There's no targeting. That's been attested to of Latino drivers and passengers.
There's no detention of Latinos pursuant to the attempted enforcement of the AHSA and AESA. Compliance, I thought this was interesting when I was preparing for this hearing. The first, maybe some of the first reports, would it surprise you to show that the sheriff's office was not in compliance in the early years? Right? That sounds normal.
They're kind of getting their feet under them. 30%, 40% compliance in the early years. And you attested to it earlier. What is that compliance today?
Speaker 5
I don't know. There are so many different paragraphs that I don't know the compliance of all of them. But what I can tell you is that we are in 100% compliance with required policy changes. The quarterly reports show that there is no significant difference between when you stop a Latino driver versus a white driver, and that's been going on for two years. There's no evidence of ongoing civil rights violations.
There's no new allegation of targeted immigration enforcement. What it seems to have come down to now is just this, backlog of complaints against the sheriff's department, which it's not even related. The backlog is not related to the original complaint. It could be, like, you know, it could be anything. Like, let's say, somebody doesn't like a jail detention officer.
That has nothing to do with this lawsuit. And so that's why, you know, I don't work for the sheriff's department. So I don't know all the specifics of which paragraphs have been non-compliant, how many, what percentage. But I know it's very, they've done a great job, and even the monitor himself and the judge himself has said that there is huge improvement and that it really comes down to this backlog now, it appears.
Speaker 1
No. Correct. And I think, early, early to I'm looking for this specific stat. But in 2014, it looked like 40 percent, 2015 reflected 50% or 40%, 40.3% compliance with phase one and phase two. That was in 2015.
This was right after the order. Right? So at the time, there were at least efforts being made, 40% compliance. But today, it's 100%. Right?
And it's been sustained close to 100% for quite some time. Is that your understanding?
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mister Chair and Mister Fry. My understanding is that the Maricopa County sheriff's department is in compliance with many of the paragraphs, and there are lots of different paragraphs in this court order. And so you have in order to be in compliance, I believe you have to do it for three years in a row. You know, it's difficult to do, especially when the goalposts keep moving.
Speaker 5
You know, you get in compliance, and then the goalpost moves. Or in the cases of several of these things, the one that I brought up in my opening statement, they were in compliance in 2016, and now all of a sudden, they're out of compliance even though nothing has changed. And I have other examples of that as well.
Speaker 1
It is. And I think over the course, it's frustrating for the people too because you're under federal oversight on things that you are compliant on. And I think it goes back to the original point of what 60b is. It's a relief motion for an aggrieved party. In this case, the county, the sheriff's office.
It is a relief valve for further duplicative and unnecessary oversight. In your legal opinion, mister Riches, do you think that the county has complied with the original order of the court enough to warrant a 60 b relief motion.
Speaker 4
So I'm not fully familiar with the entire arc of the litigation, but I would say that a circumstance like this is precisely the reason that rule 60 exists when it's very clear that facts have changed, that circumstances have changed, and that continuing federal oversight raises constitutional and democratic accountability problems. This is precisely the sort of circumstance in which that rule allows a party to go and seek relief.
Speaker 1
Thank you for that. Mister chairman, I yield back. I'm gonna have a some second round of questions later, but I will yield to you, sir.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, yields back. I now recognize myself for some questions and comments. So, mister Garcia, one of the things that you mentioned today is that other individuals on the community assessment board or whatever we call that, that oversight board have been attacking you because you were willing to come testify today. Is that accurate?
Speaker 3
Yes. I received the invitation last week to come here, but I didn't receive any details. So, basically, one of the members emailed me, to the whole group. We find the group in the monitoring office, and two members at, you know, start to attack me while you're going. A lot of, you know, really bad stuff.
You know? Not only by email, but the newspaper too.
Speaker 2
Well, we appreciate you being here. And thank you. The point that I see that I'm hearing from you is that the community and the sheriff's office now are sympathetical.
Speaker 2
And, if the regime continues, it's not gonna get any better because it's pretty good, if it's my understanding.
Speaker 3
Yes. Kill money for a couple of people, you know, not for the community. You know?
Speaker 2
Right. Right. I mean, for the community. That's what I'm talking about. Yeah.
Okay. Thank you for that. And then, mister Riches, when we talk about won't I won't dwell too much on the 60 b aspect, but I will just get to the point of what courts look at when it was 60 b. And you've highlighted it. They're looking at the facts and the law.
Right? So in this instance, the law early on, the judge made a determination of what he felt the constitutional interpretation and application of that law was to the facts that were brought before him. But in your participation in this, the lawsuit ultimately, we now see that there seems to be, even on the part of the monitor's admission, although he does like to move things around a little bit, he's at least what I've read from him indicates that there is not just substantial compliance. There's almost complete and full compliance. And that would be something that normally a court would take into account as the changed factual circumstances when they applied the same law to those facts.
Right?
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, yes. Yes. Exactly. And you have a circumstance now where a party has saying the facts have changed. The monitor has essentially conceded near total compliance, and the federal government has also weighed in and said that it's time for the oversight to end.
So I think that confluence of factors is, certainly, an appropriate way to support a rule 60 b motion.
Speaker 2
Well, this is a question for any of you. Since the original court order, has there been any modification in the actual court's order over the last twelve years. Do any of you know that?
Speaker 2
And, yeah, I'm not referring to the monitors moving all over the place. I'm talking actually in the language of the original order. Any modification?
Speaker 5
Mister chair, all I know is there's a lot of modifications. I don't know if that's a court. I mean, the monitor works under the federal judge in the court, and so they have changed the goalpost repeatedly. Yes. I'll find out if I can get your exact answer.
Speaker 2
Okay. That sounds good. Because, in my looking through this, I don't know that I recall seeing actual modification. Oh, here we go. Here's so no.
Speaker 2
Okay. Very good. Thank you. But where the crux of the issue becomes is isn't it's the monitors the rather carte blanche way the monitor has been acting and has moved things around. So that's that, that was one of my questions on that.
And I will just say, Miss Lesko, you talked about the incentives. And so I'm going to just talk for just a second about incentives and trade-offs. When you look at incentives and trade offs, everybody responds to incentives or disincentives, and everybody's making a trade off on virtually everything that they decide. When you have a monitor that is making a lot of money and is making money from multiple jurisdictions, which, by the way, is contrary to is something I'm gonna talk about in a second. But their incentive is not to actually encourage compliance completely and then walk away and let people be free to continue in their actions.
Their incentive instead is to maintain control and the economic benefit that they're getting. That's what I see happening here with mister Warsaw. And, so the trade off that he's making is may some people would say it's a moral trade off, and I'll leave that aside. But the other people would say he's just making flat out making a trade off between finding compliance in Maricopa County and walking away to some other gig and staying here to the gig that he already has, where he's gonna continue to make money. That is the trade-off that he's effectively making.
And the impact is those people in this county who, otherwise, they need good service from the police and the sheriffs, and that is in that's hindered. Right? But the other thing is people who have absolutely no say in this at all whatsoever anymore have lost any ability. Their trade off is to stay in Maricopa County where you have a monitor that's imposing his will on the sheriff's department causing mass morale problems, lack of retention, and also, taxes that we don't even see any accountability for or leave the county. That's effectively what this monitor is doing.
That's the trade-off. And that's why it was so important for me. I wanted to hear mister Garcia's assessment of where the trust has been rebuilt in the community. Do you see a synergy and a cooperation, maybe even a collaboration with the sheriff's department and the Latino community, which was, where the issue arose? So that's why I say if we start looking at that, the trust, we look at the law, and then we look at the trade offs and incentives, it all points to one thing that the monitors oversight end.
And so I'm just gonna, before I recognize Mister Nells for a second round of questions, I just had to make one more statement because as I was listening to you today, and by the way, I've kinda set aside my questions because these guys are asking all my questions, but that's okay. But one thing I get here is that this is a type of federal overreach. When I say type, I'm talking about an example or a, it's not, like, a kind. I mean, this is a type. This is something you can look at and say, this happens in multiple other areas.
And what that is, is that's where the federal government comes into a state or local government ostensibly with a good intention, and they never leave. They never leave, which is why federalism and the tenth amendment have taken a bad beating in the last 125 years, in my opinion. So I look at this and I say it is time for the rule 60 b motion to be granted. And quite frankly, it's time for this monitor to go on. And I'm gonna end there before I go into Merrick Garland's interpretation of what a monitor should do.
But right now, I'm going to yield to and recognize the gentleman from Texas.
Speaker 6
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. So this specific case, this had nothing, this wasn't a consent decree. This was judicial. Yeah. Yeah.
So there was, yeah. I, you know, you notice a lot too with this new administration. The civil rights division under the Trump administration, he's closing all the investigations, whether.
Speaker 6
Right here in Phoenix, Trenton, New Jersey, Memphis, Oklahoma City, Louisiana State Police, Mount Vernon, New York, Louisville, Minneapolis. Think about Minneapolis and what we've seen up there. I don't know. And I think it's a sad state of affairs. Anybody that's in law enforcement, how has law enforcement become so partisan?
How? Why did we get to where we, I mean, when somebody would call the local sheriff's office and say they need help, you know, you're not gonna call and say, you Democrat or Republican. You pro-life. You pro-choice. When we book somebody into a county jail, I don't think we ask that question either.
That lives over here. Conservatives over here. Pro-life, pro-choice. But how did it get to the point where we're at? I mean, I have some opinions as to why we got to where we are today.
But if you look at ICE and border enforcement, it's we have a very, very divided country. I think law enforcement is struggling today because, quite honestly, I don't know if I'd want one of my daughters or a son to even join the ranks anymore. It's just the ridicule. The number of officers that have lost their life since I've been in office, I got a picture of them out in my wall outside my office. I mean, that thing has gotta be 30 yards long and 10 feet high.
I mean, we're losing hundreds and hundreds of law enforcement over the years because I think it's so dangerous today because of the partisanship. It's and where did it all begin? You gotta go back and say, why are we where we're at? You could go back to George Floyd. I think dad had something to do with it, but I think he could even go back a little further and go back to Trayvon Martin.
And it just seems like we have leaders and that, you go to Tim Waltz and others that wanna create the division. They wanna create the chaos, thinking that their side, their politics is gonna win over. I mean, I don't know. I'm a second amendment guy, and I know, Andy, you are too, and this and that. But I believe the guy has a right to carry a gun at a demonstration, or whatever.
But you're going too far when you get into a physical altercation with the law enforcement. What the hell are you doing? Carry a gun at the demonstration. But if you start getting in the physical altercations with law enforcement, I'm questioning you, well, you ain't gonna be able to talk about it, obviously. I just think that we have to do everything we possibly can to get back to, you know, where law enforcement is considered.
You know, remember the old picture where you see the law enforcement officer, he holds out his hand to a young child? That's the way we need to get back to that, because when we have that distrust, it just creates chaos. And when you have distrust in law enforcement today, you can see where we're at. It's quite clear. It's every other day, in every other city.
You're seeing what's taking place, and I think we're better than that. You mentioned the 26% vacancy rate. I can't imagine having the, I don't know how many of those are in patrol. I don't know what the, you know, or detective CID. I don't know how many they have, but I can't imagine it's got to be affecting clearance rates.
Response times, as the sheriff said, hey. By the way, miss Seth, I need more people. I mean, my response times on a 911 priority one call is now two and a half minutes versus a minute and a half because who wants to work here? And quite honestly, I can't blame if deputy Joe Snuffy would say, I may want to go to the county next to me that I don't have all of this oversight. I don't have to worry about if I say something or if it's even perceived as something silly that all of a sudden now I'm gonna have an internal affairs, you know, question, you know what I mean?
So how has that affected morale, response times, if you know any of that, clearance rates on crime?
Speaker 5
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. In my conversations with the Maricopa County sheriff's department, it has affected it a lot because every aspect, every employee, whether they are even assigned to traffic stops or not, they have to be trained in this. There's this whole federal bureaucracy and monitorship, and they're spending the county estimates, this is between the cost of trying to achieve what the monitor wants us to do, and as Mr. Chair said, the county believes it's 350,000,000 so far. That's a lot of money that could be used in hiring more sheriffs officers. You know?
And even, like, somebody that's in an administration that's not out on the street, they have to be trained in this. Every officer, I can't remember how many things at every traffic stop they have to ask, report. It's just so burdensome that you are correct. Why if they could go to another agency, a city, or a department of DPS, Department of Public Safety, which is a state patrol here. Why wouldn't they do it if it's so burdensome?
So we have to help.
Speaker 5
The sheriff's office, because I totally believe that the government's number one responsibility is protecting the public. Mhmm. And it's hard to do that when the sheriff's office has its hands tied behind its back. Yeah. You know?
Speaker 6
We had cameras back then. Back in all the studies, there were body cameras required, yeah.
Speaker 6
I think the cameras capture. I mean, even when you make a traffic stop, you have to put on there why you stop them and what you know, are they Hispanic, black, white? I mean, you have to list all that.
Speaker 3
Something important, with the sheriff's office, 35% of the people is Latino.
Speaker 6
Okay. So you're gonna. Make quite a few traffic stops on Latino if it's a majority. You know? A lot of yeah.
So I just gotta go back to this, and I don't know why it's just on it. But it seemed was the sheriff back then, sheriff Apaio? Was he using his office? Maybe he was. Maybe he wasn't.
I don't know. Help me out. Was he trying to use his office to enforce the federal immigration law?
Speaker 6
Okay. And I tell you, I had the same issue. I mean, I'm four hours north of the border, in Houston, Texas. A lot of people would call me up and say, look at them. They're over there.
Go get them. They're over at Larry's Mexican. In the state of Texas, I had, as a sheriff, right or wrong, I had no authority to put somebody in jail that came across the border illegally. I had no authority to do it. It's like it's a federal government's job to do that, and I understood that.
Now as the county sheriff, what I had the ability to do is if somebody was doing something wrong and he was not documented, and I put him in the county jail, well, then, obviously, every person I ever arrested, we arrested. I don't care what color you are, what's your name. Everybody's name would be entered. We'd send it to the ICE in Houston. And within two hours, they would send me back a report that says, I wanna put a detainer on this guy.
So I wasn't enforcing federal immigration laws. I was forcing Texas law if the individual committed a state violation of law. But a sheriff in the state of Texas doesn't have the authority. There's nothing in the penal code in the state of Texas that says I can arrest somebody for being here illegally, even though they're illegal. There was nothing to do because it just seemed the federal government's job.
Now maybe the sheriff, I'm sure he understood all this, but it just appears to me you're right. This overreach has to stop. It's been a decade. But just from my understanding, maybe back then, a little oversight was warranted. And now you've got your building the community outreach, and you've got new sheriffs coming in, and you just have to continue to build.
But I think this monitor, this gentleman, I think he's just feathering his nest. He, I mean, guy's not dumb. I mean, you gotta give it to him. I just hope the judge is watching this, Mr. Chairman, that he understands it. You know, we don't need this here anymore.
And you can't tie the hands of this county sheriff by all this overreach when we have shown the numbers that Adam, it says we're in compliance. And you having the budget authority over this county sheriff, you've gotta have the ability to, number 1, be a good steward of the funds. Right? Be a good steward to the taxpayers and help the sheriff and end this overreach, this bureaucracy. And I wish you all the best in that, and, hopefully, we can continue to be vocal.
I think this hearing, great job with this, Mr. Chairman. Hopefully, this hearing will help this great state and this great county here in Arizona.
Speaker 2
I yield. Gentlemen, yields. I now recognize myself for some questions. So Merrick Garland, former attorney general under President Biden, in September 2021 issued a memo regarding monitorships of state and local government entities. I don't know if it did, have any of you seen that before?
Okay. So this is good. This is, you guys are a tabula rasa. I'm gonna just tell you what he says, and then just ask if you think that this has been done in this particular case. One of the things he said is, you should cap the fees that a monitor receives.
Has that been the case, Mr. Garcia? Is the monitor's fees capped in this case?
Speaker 2
Is the monitor's fees capped by the court in this particular Melinda's case?
Speaker 3
Yes. Yes. Because we, for example, I request, you know, to review the spends, and I don't have access 100%, you know, for every detail.
Speaker 2
Yeah. But is it capped? Yeah. Is so they say you can't spend more than, what, 5,000,000 a year?
Speaker 2
So there's no cap. No. They're just reporting to you. Is that what you're, is it, do you know if it's capped, mister Riches?
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do not know for sure if it's capped, but how would we know? We were not even allowed.
Speaker 5
It's my understanding. There's no court order that caps it. It's my understanding.
Speaker 5
If it I'm wrong, I'll get back to you on it. But we don't even know what he's spending it on.
Speaker 2
Yes. Yeah. I in looking through, I didn't see a cap, but I could be wrong. But it also says, mister Garland says, the second thing is, monitoring is a public service. Okay.
It shouldn't be feathering your nest. He says, they should be structured to use, to encourage use of pro bono time or reduced rates. Have you now seen some of their expenses. Does it look like they're reducing their rates or giving some stuff for free? No.
Mister Riches, have you seen any of this stuff?
Speaker 4
Mister chairman, if they're providing pro bono time, it would have to be an awful lot because the expense invoices we've seen show considerable expenditures, $30,000,000 over the course of the order. So I would think that's unlikely.
Speaker 5
No. There's no, as mister Riches said, it's been over $30,000,000. It's millions of dollars a year. We're just spending on this monitor. And at one of the court hearings, they made a point of flying in all of these people that work for the monitors and, you know, giving their bios of, you know, how. Anyway, it's a lot of expense.
Thank you.
Speaker 2
Nobody said I'm here, and I'm gonna work at least half the time or at least 2% of the time pro bono. They didn't say that?
Speaker 2
They make me wonder if they're lawyers, actually. That's the way, sorry. He also says, the lead monitor, participation should be restricted from participating in multiple monitorships. In other words, it's one and done. So the lead monitor should serve on no more than one monitoring team at a time.
Is this monitor working on multiple ones, Mr. Garcia?
Speaker 2
And mister Riches, is mister Warshaw involved in more than one monitorship?
Speaker 4
Yes. It's my understanding. He's a monitor in other jurisdictions as well. At the same time? At the same time.
Speaker 5
Mister Charr, it is my understanding. He does this in more than one location, more than in Arizona. And, in fact, he's been doing it for 25 years in California on one case.
Speaker 2
Yeah. So here we go. This is another one I think is interesting. Term limits for monitors should be included in a decree. I don't know if there is, I'll go back this way before we get, we're gonna start this time with you, Miss Lesko.
Is there, to your knowledge, a term limit on Mister Warshaw's service as monitor in the Malindra's case?
Speaker 4
Nor am I, Mr. Chairman. And I think this gets to one of the important points that not only should the federal oversight be temporary, but any one specific monitor should likely also be temporary. So there's not a circumstance where a monitor might be incentivized to continue the oversight.
Speaker 2
Okay. We'll go, Miss Lesko, again. The next one is monitors work should be publicly accessible. What do you think? Thank.
Speaker 5
You, mister chair. No. As we've testified, we the county can't even see what he's spending his money on. It goes to the court, and only the court. And, I've been at one of the public community meetings and asked, the public asked.
Actually, some of the people that are here today asked, like, what are you spending this money on? And they didn't answer. We've asked. They don't answer. It only goes to court.
So the public does not know.
Speaker 4
No, Mr. Chairman. And that's one of our very primary concerns in this case. Under state law, it is abundantly clear taxpayers have a right to this information. The federal FOIA would allow access to this information. The judiciary isn't subject to the FOIA.
It is a central component of democratic government that citizens must know what their government is up to. And in this case, Maricopa County taxpayers simply have no idea because the monitor hasn't disclosed it, and the orders in this case have prevented its disclosure.
Speaker 2
Mister García, have you seen the documents easily publicly available of this monitorship of mister Warsaw?
Speaker 2
Okay. Keep going. Alright. So the monitors should and I've skipped some of it because we could just go on all day about this stuff, but let's get to this one. Community engagement begins with the selection of the monitoring team.
Do you know if the community was consulted on the appointment of mister Warshaw?
Speaker 2
Yeah. I just but going on from there, the priority, according to Merrick Garland, was that a monitor should put a premium on stakeholder involvement. Mister Garcia, you sit on the community oversight. Do you feel like this monitor, Mr. Warshaw, has put a premium on community input?
Speaker 2
Let's get to these here. This, because this one, I think, is actually very interesting. You should require a hearing to assess termination after no more than 5 years. These should not last longer than five years because, according to mister Garland, you wanna incentivize both the parties that are being monitored and the monitor to get this thing done, make the changes and corrections, and move on. Well, I don't know, Miss Lesko.
Are you aware of any determination hearing after five years?
Speaker 5
Thank you, Mr. Chair. No. In fact, it's been going on for a lot longer than that, and there's no end in sight.
Speaker 4
No, Mr. Chairman. I'm not aware of that. Again, this gets to the temporary and reviewable components of this. This oversight should be temporary, and the decisions should be reviewable both by the monitor and end of the court.
Speaker 2
Mister Garcia, are you aware of any additional hearing that had taken place from the time of the original order to determine, to assess termination of the monitorship?
Speaker 3
No. You know, I can, you know, it's time to finish this. You know? Yeah. It's too much money.
You know? It's too much time. You know? And we need to put the money in the right place.
Speaker 2
You know? Well, so thank you. And the alternative, he says you could use a partial termination. So you could come in and say, well, they've complied here, but we aren't finding compliance elsewhere. What's miss Lesko, do you know if there was a hearing which proposed even a partial termination of some of the monitors' review targets?
Speaker 4
No, Mr. Chairman. I'm not aware. I know in the rule of 60 motion, there was a request that some of the oversight components be stopped. Mister Garcia, are you aware?
Speaker 2
of any? No. Okay. Well, I'm going to, thank you for answering questions. I think it's painfully obvious that, merit Garland's suggestions and guidance on monitorships of consent decrees, and in this case, a judgment and judicial judgment, have gone largely unheeded, and, that's a problem.
For the record, I'm going to put in some UCs here. This is amendment number two to the lease agreement between Lures Investors and Maricopa County. This is on behalf of Mister Worshaw, that amendment to that contract, without objection. This one is, this is one out of paying for Worshaw and Associates. This is for professional services, $212,551 payment, net 15, by the way, on 08/01/2023 without objection.
This is a letter from the PORAC on behalf of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, encouraging that the monitorship come to a close without objection. This is a letter from the National Association of Police Organizations encouraging that the monitorship come to an end, without objection. This is a piece titled DOJ supports call to end Maricopa County sheriff's office oversight case without objection. Supervisors call for end of $353,000,000 oversight of the sheriff's office without objection. This is, county attorney says monitor has a financial incentive to continue MCSO oversight without objection.
It gets back to my thing about incentives. This one says a monitor keeps moving goalposts for MCSO officers, putting our safety at risk without objection. And this is one, a citizen's plea for relief, balance, and local accountability in Maricopa County, without objection. And this is a letter to the Honorable Pam Bondi, Attorney General of the United States, written by me, admitted without objection. And with that, I am prepared to yield and recognize the gentleman from South Carolina for his second round of questioning.
Speaker 1
Thank you for that, Mr. Chair. And I think it just I had to step out for a minute, but I think you covered did you cover the merit garlic?
Speaker 1
Yeah. Pretty thoroughly. That was going to be my second round. Was true. I think and I'll just. That's true, sir.
I'll yield back here in a minute. But I think in every which way, when I look at the merits of this case and what the county has filed with their 60(b) relief supported by any number of groups, the DOJ, the elements are satisfied, meaning that the county and the sheriff's office have complied substantially for quite some time with what was intended in the court order in 2014. They have complied not just on the surface, but deep structural changes within the department. They have been validated by the monitor's own reporting. They've been validated by other reports that exist out there, that are independent of the monitor and the county.
When I look at the federalism concerns, those speak to themselves. The federal government is not here to micromanage every aspect of state and local government. That is not their function. The constitution limits the authority given to the federal government. And the tenth amendment is very clear.
Those that are not enumerated in this constitution are left to the states. And so while federal oversight is maybe warranted, a judge orders that. These are routine sometimes in our country. In this, you have a fourteen year old, well, over ten year old case where you've had substantial compliance by the county for a long time. They spent over $300,000,000 in compliance costs.
Shouldn't that money be better left appropriated by the people who were elected by the citizens of this area to be spent on, I don't know, further policing, more police, other initiatives within the county. Doesn't that make more sense than this continuing check-the-box? Look. If you go back to 2015 and some of the data that I highlighted, 50% compliance at that point. Okay.
That's a substantial start, but we're not quite there yet. The county's not quite there yet. But now you have a 100% seems to be reviewing this. And so why must the county continue to endure this, both from an operational standpoint on what they're doing, also a federalism component, which I think is critical to who we are in our republic. I think, chairman raised up some comments on maybe some oversight of monitors that has not been the case.
And Mayor Garland, who I didn't agree with much, I didn't think he was that effective at all as an attorney general. He may have gotten this right, where there's some disclosure that's required by the monitor. There's some public input that is required on the selection of the monitor. There are term limits to the monitor. This is not an unfettered cash grab of continuing to say, oh, yep.
They're doing their work. Here's a bill for $250,000 or whatever the case is. The monitor is not a taxpayer of this country. The monitor is not a voter of this county. The monitor has done his job, and it's time to end.
I hope that the 60th motion is successful. I think it is beyond and past time to end because, again, the federal government doesn't need to micromanage every aspect of this. The sheriff's office should be commended for their hard work. I know it probably wasn't easy to have this oversight constantly on you. But in many cases and things that I've read, it sounds like they've done a damn good job at it.
So it's time for this to end, and I hope that it does. Appreciate you being here and your involvement in the community. I think that's huge. That nexus, between the community and police, is massive. It's underrated at times, but it works very successfully.
And so you being a part of that discussion is critically important. And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
Speaker 6
Thank you, sir. I agree with what you just stated, mister Fry. Think, mister Garcia, I think you are a key here, in my humble opinion. And it's a success. The sheriff's office and it's an office.
You know, I would say the department. It's an office. He's a duly elected constable, so he is sheriff's office. The sheriff's office is complying with the judicial orders. It's been doing that for years, the documentation that is there.
And you stated, I'm paraphrasing, the citizens are satisfied. You great. Right? Everybody seems to be pretty pleased. And I believe your working group, and if it's just coming from elected officials, I don't think that's gonna work.
If it's coming from the working group, if it's coming from the people that reside in this county that are pleased now to see this significant improvement change at the sheriff's office. I think that should hold significant weight in the elimination of this federal program. And I just think having you more involved with these letters to the judge, everything else, I think that's the key to your success. And I wish you all the best of luck. So thank you, sir.
Yield back.
Speaker 2
Gentlemen, Yields, that concludes today's hearing. We thank our witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today. And I must point out that, we invited our colleagues on the Democrat side of the aisle to appear, and to invite witnesses today, and they opted to not participate in this subcommittee hearing today. Without objection, all members will have five legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witnesses or additional materials for the record. Without objection, hearings are adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.