“Behavior that shocks the conscience”: Lawsuits filed by deputies against Sheriff Clovis Watson allege that ASO’s disciplinary procedures violate the Officers’ Bill of Rights

BY JENNIFER CABRERA

GAINESVILLE, Fla. – Alachua County Sheriff’s Office Captain Rebecca Butscher and Sergeant William “Frank” Williams have each filed Complaints for Writ of Mandamus against Sheriff Clovis Watson, Jr., alleging that the Sheriff’s Office (ASO) has violated the Officers’ Bill of Rights in its handling of disciplinary complaints against the two sworn deputies; a third deputy also appears to be preparing a lawsuit with similar demands. A Writ of Mandamus is used to command public officials to “perform ministerial duties that they have a clear legal duty to perform.”

Both deputies are asking the Court to order the Sheriff to convene a Compliance Review Hearing and reopen Administrative Investigations that have been closed, resulting in 2 days of suspension without pay and 12 months of probation for Butscher and termination for Williams.

Rebecca Butscher

Captain Butscher has served with ASO for 30 years. According to the complaint, Major Lance Yaeger was a deputy just 22 months ago and has been promoted three times since then. Butscher has out-ranked Yaeger for most of her career, but Yaeger was promoted above her about two months ago; the complaint notes that Yaeger and Butscher have had differences at times during their careers.

When the events leading to the investigation began on February 7, Butscher was the Public Information Officer (PIO) for ASO. Yaeger’s complaint alleges that her “non-verbal communication and tone of voice” in a conversation on February 7 “indicated [she was] displeased with having to converse with [Yaeger].” Yaeger wrote that Butscher “interrupted me several times to make unnecessary comments.”

Also on February 7, Yaeger received a list of jail employees who had received awards in the past two years and forwarded it to a number of ASO officials, saying, “The below and attached is pretty impressive if you ask me. Looks like the fine men and women at the ASO DOJ saved a lot of lives.” Butscher replied to Yaeger on the morning of February 8, copying two other people, “When making requests for awards or any information that is maintained or managed within the Public Information Office, I expect to be copied and or notified of such requests so that I do not receive notification such as this after the fact when copied by my Administrative Assistant. Your consideration will be greatly appreciated.”

Yaeger responded directly to Butscher that she should schedule an appointment to meet with him that week. Butscher was transferred from the PIO position to patrol that same day, February 8.

Yaeger wrote in his Administrative Investigation Report that when Butscher had not scheduled a meeting by Monday, February 13, he arranged to meet with her that afternoon. Yaeger and Butscher both brought witnesses to the meeting, which Yaeger described as “corrective counseling.” Yaeger said that Butscher used a “defiant tone” with him and that when he told her he was going to read a prepared “written counseling” out loud, she “again in a defiant tone” asked to read the statement herself, but he insisted on reading it to her. Yaeger wrote that Butscher interrupted him while reading the counseling and asked for clarification on the date of the incident; he said her “disrespectful attitude” occurred on February 7.

After reading the counseling aloud, he handed it to Butscher, and she signed it and asked if he was done, then she stood up to leave, taking the signed form. He said he was keeping the form, and she turned back around and gave it to him. Yaeger said he “explained that I hoped this counseling was the end of any subordination adding that I was slightly pessimistic based upon her attitude, demeanor and tone at the time of her counseling.” Butscher then left. Yaeger wrote, “Throughout the counseling session, Captain Butcher’s [sic] tone was defiant and insubordinate. I periodically looked up at her noting she was leaning forward towards me with a facial expression consistent with anger. I also noted she intensely starred [sic] at me.”

On February 22, Yaeger summoned Butscher to his office and recorded a meeting in which he informed her that he was conducting a formal investigation of her for insubordination. Yaeger gave her 24 hours to either provide a written statement or conduct a recorded interview. Yaeger investigated the complaint himself, a violation of policy, and recommended in his report that Butscher be terminated. ASO’s Colonel and Chief Inspector signed the report and recommended a two-day suspension without pay. The Undersheriff and Sheriff signed the report and set the penalty as a two-day suspension without pay, followed by 12 months of disciplinary probation.

Attorney Bobi Frank is representing the deputies, and she sent a Notice to the Sheriff’s Office on February 23, alleging that Yaeger had violated Butscher’s rights under Florida law by investigating the complaint himself (ASO policies state that the complaint should have been referred to Butscher’s immediate supervisor because Yaeger had a conflict as the complainant), by ordering Butscher to respond to him in writing within 24 hours, and by failing to properly advise her of the nature of the investigation.

Frank sent another Notice to ASO on February 27, requesting a Compliance Review Hearing on behalf of Butscher. She requested that the Compliance Review Panel be convened within 10 days. When she had not received a response by March 3, she sent an email to Yaeger and Watson, stating her schedule availability. She received a response on March 7 from ASO General Counsel Jacob Rush, advising her that he “must conclude that your allegations and conclusions are mistaken and unfounded in law – none of which qualify for a Compliance Review Hearing.” He warned her that the claims could be “subject to sanctions for frivolous abuse of the court system.” The complaint requesting a Writ of Mandamus was filed on March 13, the deadline to hold the Compliance Review Hearing.

Frank Williams

Read Related Also: Free income tax preparation coming to Richmond Hill

The complaint on behalf of Frank Williams also requests a Writ of Mandamus ordering the Sheriff to reopen the investigation against him; Williams has been terminated as a result of the investigation. Williams is accused of making a Facebook post on January 12 that criticized “senseless personnel changes” and a lack of transparency at ASO. In the post, Williams wrote that he is “exhausted from constantly being disappointed by this administration” and “done suppressing my feelings and my own mental health just to avoid retaliation.” He acknowledged in the post that it would likely result in a transfer or discipline.

Williams has been with ASO for 13 years and was shot in the line of duty in 2013. The legal complaint states that he “has had to sit back silently while his Patrol Squad has been decimated due to low staffing numbers, low morale, and unsafe working conditions.”

On January 23, Williams was served with the first of two notifications that he was under an administrative investigation for violation of ASO’s social media policy. The complainant was Jacob Rush. The same day, he received a second notification of the same investigation, but this time the complainant was Kelvin Jenkins.

Also on the same day, Williams was placed on administrative suspension without pay, which continued until he was terminated.

Virgil Calhoun was assigned as the investigator on February 16 and arranged for a meeting with Williams on March 1 to conduct an evidence review and interrogation. After reviewing the evidence and witness statements, Frank claimed that Williams’ rights under Florida statutes had been violated, and the interrogation was not conducted.

Calhoun closed the investigation on March 2 with findings of “sustained” for “Insubordination” and “Conduct Unbecoming” and recommended Williams for termination. The alleged violation of “Criticism of Order” was not sustained. ASO served Williams with a Notice of Intent to Terminate on March 8.

The complaint states that “the detriment to the community by allowing the Sheriff, a constitutional Officer, to engage in this type of conduct can’t be overstated. If [the Sheriff] is repeatedly violating its own sworn Law Enforcement Officers’ rights and the plain requirements of the law as a matter of procedure, the public’s faith in the ability of its Sheriff’s office could diminish beyond repair.” The complaint also states that ASO is at “dangerously low staffing levels” and that “officers will seek employment elsewhere leaving the community vulnerable to criminal activity and lack of police services.”

The violations in the complaint include not referring the investigation to Williams’ immediate supervisor; not following policies for processing complaints; not interviewing Rush, who was initially listed as the complainant, or Jenkins; not providing Williams with a description of the events leading to the complaint; and not including body camera videos recorded after the investigation had been opened as evidence in the investigation.

Frank sent a Notice to ASO on March 2 that detailed the alleged violations of Florida statutes; she also requested a Compliance Review Hearing in a separate Notice on that date. The request for the Writ of Mandamus was filed on March 13.

Kevin Davis

A lawsuit has not yet been filed in the case of Sergeant Kevin Davis, but affidavits describing his case appear in the complaints for Butscher and Williams. Davis was also notified twice on January 23 that he had made a social media post that violated ASO policy; the complainant in the first notification was Jacob Rush, and the second complainant was Kelvin Jenkins. A Notice sent to ASO by Bobi Frank on March 6 speculates that Lance Yaeger is the true complainant. The violations are similar to the violations alleged in Williams’ complaint.

In a written statement provided to the Alachua Chronicle, Bobi Frank said, “Clovis Watson’s refusal to follow the clear mandates of the law is so out of bounds it can be described as nothing less than behavior that shocks the conscience. This conduct is extremely dangerous and can decimate the effectiveness of the Agency and its ability to keep Alachua County residents safe. The Law Enforcement Officers that have chosen a life of public service deserve better, as does the community that they choose to serve and protect, every day. Unfortunately, this is now at a critical point where Court intervention is required.”

Sheriff Watson declined to comment because “General Counsel has not had the opportunity to review the filing.”