What Should Have Happened
- Formal disciplinary procedures should apply equally to all officers regardless of rank or relationships
- Statement of charges should be prepared for all policy violations identified
- External oversight should exist for matters involving the Sheriff or his family
- Consistent application of union representation rules across all cases
What Actually Happened
- Charges were prepared for Marc King but not for Scott Jones despite both being investigated
- Sheriff operates with no external accountability as an elected official
- Disciplinary outcomes varied significantly between similarly-situated officers
- Union representation appeared to influence case outcomes rather than just ensure due process
People Involved
Event Details
Background
This entry documents the role of union representation in internal disciplinary proceedings at the St. Clair County Sheriff’s Office, as revealed through deposition testimony. Understanding this process provides context for how internal matters—including the handling of Marc King ’s arrest—were managed.
The Disciplinary Process
Statement of Charges
Matthew Pohl described how formal disciplinary proceedings work:
So my role in that was typing up the statement of charges, which we put on the formal letterhead for the formal disciplinary hearing, then reading those verbatim, and then the deputy and the union official get a copy of those.
Format of Charges
The statement of charges follows a specific format:
The statement of charges would literally say “Statement of Charges” on top of the document. We would put it on the letterhead. It would have that narrative, it would have the policy violated and the deputy violated that policy. That is a separate document from the internal investigation.
You know, on this date your activity was A, B, C, this violated policy such and such. That would be the statement of charges.
Union Involvement
Union representatives receive copies of all charges and can respond:
That goes to – so I would read that verbatim and then we give a copy to the deputy who’s involved and then his union representation.
QAnd that’s given to him in writing, he and the union can review it and can respond?
Internal Investigation Process
How Investigations Begin
It came to light that he had been displaying some questionable behavior. We looked into it. We interviewed fellow deputies that were present. Looked into policies, what might – may have been violated.
Chain of Command for Investigations
Captain Pohl explained how rank affects who conducts investigations:
We try to – it would depend on who the investigation is on. Sometimes rank would play a role in that. It might be – depends on the member of the department, who do they report to, but we would prefer that lieutenants do investigations of members on their shift or could be anyone of lower rank. If it was a lieutenant or higher then it makes sense myself as the captain that I should do that investigation so a lieutenant wouldn’t be investigating a fellow lieutenant of the same rank.
Role of Steve Sellers (POAM)
Steve Sellers served as the Police Officers Association of Michigan (POAM) business agent who represented deputies in disciplinary matters. His involvement ensured:
- Deputies had representation during formal proceedings
- Proper procedures were followed
- Documentation was provided to all parties
- Deputies could respond to charges
Sheriff’s Accountability Structure
Notably, testimony revealed the Sheriff operates with minimal oversight:
QIs there anybody at the county level that he at least periodically reports to?
AHe would appear at county commissioner meetings, department head meetings, maybe any ad hoc meeting that would arise that would necessitate his presence. But, no, you’re correct, as an elected official he wouldn’t report to anyone, per se, I don’t think.
Why This Matters
Process vs. Application
The testimony reveals that formal processes exist for disciplinary matters:
- Written charges on official letterhead
- Union representation guaranteed
- Opportunity to respond
However, questions remain about whether these processes were appropriately applied to matters involving the Sheriff’s family.
Accountability Gap
The Sheriff, as an elected official, does not report to anyone in the traditional chain of command. This creates a structural gap when:
- The Sheriff’s family members are involved in incidents
- Internal investigations touch on the Sheriff’s conduct
- Conflicts of interest need to be addressed at the highest level
Connection to Other Events
- Internal Interview Planning: Preparation for formal proceedings
- Jones Interview: Example of the process in action
- Policy Gaps: Broader context of policy issues
Open Questions
- Was union representation provided during all proceedings related to the Marc King arrest?
- Were formal statement of charges ever issued regarding the handling of the arrest?
- How are conflicts of interest handled when they involve the Sheriff?