What Should Have Happened
- Investigation should conclude before retirement negotiations begin
- MCOLES reporting should accurately reflect circumstances of separation
- Sheriff should not personally spearhead retirement terms for investigated officers
- Disciplinary process should proceed regardless of retirement plans
What Actually Happened
- Sheriff Mat King 'spearheaded' the retirement arrangement personally
- Investigation allowed to terminate once retirement date was set
- No statement of charges ever prepared despite findings of policy violations
- Retirement negotiations shaped by union involvement and Sheriff's direction
People Involved
Event Details
Overview
Following the internal investigation into Scott Jones ’s handling of the Marc King arrest, retirement negotiations began. These discussions would determine how Jones’ separation from the Sheriff’s Office would be characterized—a decision with significant implications for his career record and the department’s accountability reporting to MCOLES (Michigan Commission on Law Enforcement Standards).
The Retirement Process
Sheriff-Led Initiative
Matthew Pohl revealed that the retirement arrangement was spearheaded by Mat King himself:
AI believe this was from the sheriff. I’d never been a part of anything like this as far as a letter of intent to retire. I had only been upstairs, you know, a year or so. So this was kind of more spearheaded by him and how this could actually – or, might actually play out.
This testimony indicates the Sheriff personally directed how the separation would be structured.
Timing and Context
The retirement came immediately following the investigation:
QOkay. Thank you for that. There’s a reason he retired; correct, just right on the heels of your investigation?
AWell, that’s only known to him why he retired.
Pohl’s non-committal response is notable—the timing strongly suggests the retirement was connected to the investigation, but he declined to state this directly.
MCOLES Reporting Categories
The Significance of Separation Codes
When an officer separates from employment, the department must report the reason to MCOLES. The deposition explored the available categories:
QI’m going to tell you what I understand the categories are, and tell me if this sounds correct to you, for separation reasons. Deceased, retirement, retired in good standing, retired while under investigation, retired while under criminal charges, retired in lieu of termination.
AYeah. The one you have, of course, was because it involved a retirement, it’s under the retirement line and you click on that and then there’s a drop-down box that you’re seeing there.
Why This Matters
The category selected determines:
- Future employment - Other agencies can see why an officer separated
- Certification status - Some categories may trigger decertification proceedings
- Public record - The characterization becomes part of the officer’s permanent record
- Accountability - “Retired in good standing” vs. “Retired while under investigation” tells very different stories
Union Involvement in Negotiations
Steve Sellers played an active role in the retirement process:
AFrom what I recall, Business Agent Sellers asked for…
And Sellers was present at the key meetings:
AThe – if you want to call it the investigative interview, but it was the second interview I had with Jones. The first was the HR setting; this would be the one with Business Agent Sellers present.
Historical Context
Retirement Under Investigation
When asked whether this pattern occurred previously:
QHave you had people retire under investigation other than my client?
The question probes whether Jones’ situation was unusual or part of a pattern at the Sheriff’s Office.
MCOLES Reporting Requirements
QOkay. And when an officer retires or separates you fill out a form that goes to MCOLES; is that correct?
This establishes that separation reporting to MCOLES is a required administrative step—not optional.
Timeline of Key Events
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Nov 6, 2022 | Marc King OWI arrest |
| Nov 11, 2022 | Internal interview of Jones |
| Late 2022 | Investigation findings completed |
| Early 2023 | Retirement negotiations; Letter of intent |
| 2023 | Separation reported to MCOLES |
Why This Matters
1. Investigation Without Consequence
Scott Jones was investigated, findings were made, but he was allowed to retire rather than face disciplinary charges. Matthew Pohl confirmed no statement of charges was ever prepared for Jones, unlike for Marc King .
2. Sheriff’s Direct Involvement
The testimony that Mat King “spearheaded” the retirement approach indicates the Sheriff personally influenced how this matter concluded—raising questions about whether the investigation was allowed to reach a natural conclusion.
3. MCOLES Reporting Implications
The category used to report Jones’ separation to MCOLES determines how this appears on his permanent record and whether other agencies will have visibility into the circumstances.
4. Precedent for Future Cases
How this case was resolved sets expectations for how similar situations will be handled in the future.
Open Questions
- What MCOLES separation category was ultimately used for Jones?
- What specific terms were negotiated for the retirement?
- Did the letter of intent include any conditions or agreements?
- Were other separation categories (e.g., “retired in lieu of termination”) considered?
- What documentation exists from the retirement negotiation meetings?
Related Documentation Needs
- MCOLES separation reporting form for Scott Jones
- Letter of intent to retire
- Any negotiated separation agreement
- Meeting notes from retirement discussions
- Comparison to how other officers’ separations were categorized