The Monitor and the DOJ's Power Under the Proposed Agreement
In the definition section of the proposed agreement, the DOJ defines the“Monitor” as a person or team of people who shall be selected to assess and report onDefendant’s implementation of this agreement. (pg. 10) Before that definition, the DOJ initiallydescribes the “Monitor” as having “the opportunity to review and approve all new guidelines and plans before their implementation by the MCSO.” (pg. 2) However, the “Monitor’s” role and powers exceed the mere opportunity to review.As specifically stated in the proposed agreement:
“All new and revised policies, procedures, processes and training must beapproved by the Monitor and the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) prior to implementation.”
(pg. 3) (emphasis added)Thus, the “Monitor” and the DOJ possess the authority to veto Sheriff Arpaio’sand the MCSO’s proposals for new and revised policies, procedures, processes and training.That veto equates to broad control over the MCSO and the elected statutory and constitutionallyempowered Maricopa County Sheriff, Joseph M. Arpaio. Consider the broad definition of policies and procedures as defined by the DOJ.The policies and procedures under the proposed agreement are defined as:ss) “Policies and Procedures” means written regulations or directives, regardless of the name of the regulation or directive,describing the duties, functions, and obligations of MCSO personnel, and providing specific direction in how to fulfill thoseduties, functions, or obligations. All policies and proceduresshould be available in hardcopy and electronically. (pg. 11)Despite the detailed definition of "policies" and "procedures," , the proposedagreement does not define “processes.” However, “processes” according to the applicabledefinition in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary entails a series of actions or operations. Thus,under the DOJ’s proposal, the monitor and the DOJ have final approval over MCSO operations.Make no mistake, the true power of the “Monitor” starkly contrasts the onesentence in the proposed agreement that stated that the “Monitor” does not replace the Sheriff.(pg. 115, pp. 322)
This "Monitor" is by the DOJ's own definition a usurpation of Sheriff Arpaio’s authority, and certainly exceeds the power to conduct interim reviews of MCSOcompliance and to issue corresponding reports.
Overview of Monitor, DOJ and Office of Inspector General Powers