[Vision2020] another article re. sheriff's office tort claim

[Debbie Gray]

Lewiston Morning Tribune
Tort claim hinges on politics; Ex-sergeant accuses sheriff of forcing him
out as a potential opponent

David Johnson

MOSCOW -- Latah County Sheriff Jeff Crouch concluded that a sergeant who
resigned earlier this month conducted political activities while on duty
that served "to undermine the effective operation" of the office,
according to documents attached to a $100,000 tort claim received by the
Latah County Tuesday morning.

The former sergeant, Wayne Rausch, 52, accuses Crouch in the tort claim of
harassment and forcing him out because he planned to run against the
sheriff in November's election.

"I am putting this department on notice that I consider this to be a
hostile working environment and that these repetitive allegations are
harassment," Rausch wrote in a memo two months ago that is attached to the
tort claim. "My civil rights have been repeatedly violated simply because
I am considered to be a threat by this administration."

Rausch is represented by Robert J. Kwate of Lewiston. Kwate said last week
that he also represents two more sheriff's office employees in grievance
matters.

Crouch could not be reached for comment. His spokeswoman, Darla Buckley,
said sheriff's office policy prohibits comment on personnel matters.

The nine-page tort claim, including 49 supporting documents, was received
in the Latah County Clerk-Auditor's Office and forwarded to the Latah
County commissioners. From there, the claim will be forwarded to the
county's insurance carrier, the Idaho Counties Risk Management Program.
The county can deny the claim, pay it, ignore it or seek a settlement. If
none of that happens in 90 days, Rausch can file a lawsuit.

The dispute focuses mostly on two incidents. In the first, Rausch was
accused of mentioning to another deputy, while on duty, that he planned to
run for sheriff. In the second incident, Rausch was accused of saying he'd
back another deputy in a lawsuit against the sheriff's office.

Rausch denied both accusations, according to the documents.

"It is painfully obvious to me that the master plan is to continuously
bombard me with vacant claims until it has been decided that I am to be
terminated," Rausch wrote in a November memo to Lt. Richard Kramer. "I am
not a fool and I know that decision has already been made."

But Kramer, after interviewing Rausch and other deputies, sustained the
sheriff's accusations. "Such types of conduct are divisive and undermine
the effective operation of the Sheriff's Office," Kramer wrote in a report
following an internal affairs investigation ordered by Crouch.

About one month later, Crouch placed Rausch on administrative leave
pending the outcome of a fitness-for-duty evaluation. "I am concerned
about the psychological status of Sgt. Rausch," Crouch wrote in a memo.
Rausch was then ordered to surrender his weapons, restraint devices, keys
to his patrol car and his badge. Ultimately, the psychological evaluation
was never conducted, according to records, and Rausch was put back on
duty.

But Crouch also scolded Rausch for visiting his wife, who works in the
courthouse, while on duty. The incident involved a nine-minute visit after
the couple's daughter came to work to announce her engagement. While no
disciplinary action was taken, Crouch wrote in a memo to Rausch that he
was placing him "on notice that it is inappropriate for you to attend to
personal business during work hours without permission of your supervisor.
Please do not let this incident repeat itself."

Kwate became involved in the matter about a month later, advising the
sheriff's office that he'd be representing Rausch in grievance hearings
and beyond.

On Dec. 17, 2003, Crouch notified Rausch in writing of his decision. "I
find this activity undermines the effectiveness of the Latah County
Sheriff's Office, as not only were you engaging in political activity with
a peer who was on duty and in the Sheriff's Office," Crouch wrote, "but
also with a subordinate who was conducting political activity while on
duty on your behalf." Crouch took no action against the other two
deputies, according to his memo.

Crouch also found that, despite his denials, Rausch challenged a
department ruling involving a violation by another deputy of the
departments policy for officers in pursuit. "When discussing an important
policy such as a pursuit policy with a subordinate," Crouch wrote to
Rausch, "it is incumbent on you as a supervisor to support the findings of
the pursuit board and of the administration. To do otherwise, particularly
to a new and impressionable deputy, subverts and undermines the
effectiveness of this office and its policies."

The last document attached to the tort claim is a memo from Rausch dated
Jan. 11, 2004. It's addressed to "Sheriff, Doctor Crouch." The memo reads:
"I resign effective immediately. Lawsuit to follow!"

------

Johnson may be contacted at deveryone@potlatch.com

Debbie

%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%
  Debbie Gray      dgray@uidaho.edu      http://www.uidaho.edu/~dgray/
  We must be willing to get rid of the life we've planned, so as to
  have the life that is waiting for us." --Joseph Campbell
%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%^%