A recent Board of Supervisors meeting in Pima County ended without a resolution to remove Sheriff Chris Nanos, even though a motion was made to declare the position vacant. Republican Steve Christie initiated the discussion on replacing Nanos, but the proposal didn’t gain any support, so it ultimately failed.
In a twist, Democrat Rex Scott suggested that perjury charges against Nanos be referred to the state Legislature. The board agreed to this move, voting 4-0, though Christie chose to abstain.
This decision marks a significant moment in the ongoing scrutiny about Nanos’s handling of the Nancy Guthrie case and previous allegations surrounding his law enforcement career.
Pressure had been building among county leaders, particularly on Christie and Democrat Matt Heinz, to either remove Nanos or address the allegations more formally. Heinz criticized Nanos sharply, calling him a “threat to public safety.”
The controversy revolves around claims that Nanos misrepresented his disciplinary actions from when he worked as a Texas state trooper several decades ago. It all began when he testified in a lawsuit, claiming he had never been suspended, while El Paso documents indicate he was suspended multiple times and chose to resign to avoid termination.
Christie emphasized that Nanos had missed the opportunity to respond to the commission under oath, escalating tensions further. He pointed out, “He’s already denied that request… so we’re taking the next step,” suggesting the potential for further actions against Nanos.
While the sheriff, an elected official, cannot be easily removed, discussions have emerged around an obscure Arizona law that might provide a legal avenue for action.
Even amid the discussion of his potential ousting, Heinz suggested that other measures, such as a resolution of no confidence or engaging in a criminal investigation referral, could be viable options if removal doesn’t come to pass. A perjury conviction could also lead to his removal from office, although answering questions directly has become a contentious issue.
As tensions flared, both Christie and Nanos have opted to hire external attorneys instead of relying on the county attorney, which Christie argued places an extra financial burden on tax-paying citizens.
Nanos has denied the allegations of perjury, asserting in a written response that the misunderstanding didn’t stem from dishonesty but rather from miscommunication. His attorney has stated that his testimony pertained specifically to his time in Arizona, where he had no suspensions, unlike in Texas.
Despite these defenses, Heinz disputes this and argues that the records show Nanos resigned under pressure rather than voluntarily. Nanos submitted a notarized statement to the commission after the deadline, which Heinz contends fails to address the real concerns at hand.
The investigation into Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance continues, surpassing the 100-day mark, with her family appealing for any assistance. The case has attracted national attention and raised questions about the sheriff’s conduct and the inquiry’s management, especially with the FBI involved.
More than $1.2 million in rewards have been offered for crucial information leading to the resolution of this case.
