Sheriff, deputies at odds

More than three-quarters of Flathead County Sheriff’s Office employees have “no confidence” in the sheriff, according to a recent vote.

“We just want the public to be informed,” Deputies Union President Dave Kauffman said.

“It’s not something that’s done strictly out of politics,” he said. “It was the result of the work environment he’s created.”

Sheriff Mike Meehan disagreed.

“It’s pretty obvious this is a political move,” he said. He called the issues raised about his administration “ridiculous.”

Meehan is running for re-election in the June 8 Republican primary against Chuck Curry, a former undersheriff, and Sgt. Lance Norman, a current Sheriff’s Office employee.

“Leadership means making tough decisions that are not always popular,” Meehan wrote in a statement responding to the union vote. “On any given day I fully expect some of my work force to be unhappy with my administration.”

The votes, kept confidential because “there’s been quite a bit of concern over retribution,” according to Kauffman, were mailed in by deputies and non-sworn employees (detention officers and clerical/secretarial staff) and tallied last week.

A statement from the union said primary concerns were Meehan’s alleged inability to be an effective leader.

Kauffman said 39 deputies — or 74 percent — voted “no confidence” in Meehan.

Among non-sworn employees, 80 percent expressed “no confidence” in Meehan, according to Kauffman.

Many voters included letters detailing the reasons for their lack of confidence. Those letters are available online at www.flatheaddeputies.com.

Although a no-confidence vote has no legal standing or any binding consequence on Meehan or his position, Kauffman said it is an important tool to “tell the public that their elected representative isn’t doing his job.”

This is the second internal vote Meehan has faced in a year.

In June 2009, approximately 50 percent of deputies voted “no confidence” in Meehan. That measure was introduced by deputies dissatisfied with a perceived lack of disciplinary action against officers accused of misconduct.

But since then, “there have been several meetings with the sheriff to review the deputies’ concerns with his management of the department. It appears most of the concerns have been ignored,” according to the union statement.

Meehan disagreed.

“I will continue to run my office with my chief consideration being my employer, the taxpayers,” he wrote.

He described the union moves as “attempts of a vocal contingent to unseat me for political gain.” 

The deputies accused Meehan of misuse of money for overtime and training; questionable decisions; inconsistency in discipline, promotions, benefits, and training; favoritism; abuse of the disciplinary process; and general lack of leadership.

The union also has accused the sheriff of not properly investigating an affair between a detective commander and a lower-ranking detective. Meehan previously denied allegations that during the relationship the supervisor arranged county-funded trips with her subordinate to conferences not relevant to his position.

The detective was promoted to patrol lieutenant and the commander kept her rank.

The statement also criticized the two-day without-pay suspension of an off-duty deputy, who, in early 2009, allegedly was found in an unmarked county vehicle after consuming alcohol.

But Meehan said, “My budget, everything I do is a matter of public record and I’m not ashamed of any of it.”

Kauffman said although the union has tried “numerous times to address the issues ... he [Meehan] has chosen to ignore them or not address them effectively.”

He said the vote’s April timing was due to the situation getting “worse and worse.”

“We didn’t choose to favor any particular candidate,” he said. “We try to solve problems in-house and not air dirty laundry in public, but at some point you have to when your responses aren’t listened to.”

Meehan was elected sheriff in 2006.