The public may never know why the Tazewell County Sheriff’s merit commission found no wrongdoing in the actions of three Tazewell County Justice Center corrections officers’ involved in striking a female prisoner.
Despite the fact that there is a widely circulated video showing two corrections officers confronting a female prisoner with what some maintain was excessive force, the merit commission ruled in favor of the officers and their supervisor. The officers have since been reinstated to their jobs.
Despite the fact that a sheriff’s deputy was caught repeatedly conducting assorted extra-curricular activities while on duty, the sheriff’s merit commission ruled to allow the deputy to keep his job.
These cases were blatant. Without consideration of the jail’s use-of-control policy, one does not have to view the Becky Behm video twice to make the assumption that the officers’ use of force might have been excessive.
Whatever the merit commission’s reasons were for reinstating these officers to their positions, the commission members will not share.
After an appeal by Huston in the Behm case, he surrendered additional efforts to have the officers disciplined.
Despite his confidence that an appeal could be won, the costs of attorney’s fees and hearings would be so hefty that it would not be worth taxpayers’ money, Huston said.
The Becky Behm case is now history.
Behm, the woman who was booked in the Tazewell County Justice Center on drunk driving charges, was apparently being loud and belligerent while in her holding cell one night in 2008. The video shows corrections officers Jeff Bieber and Justin Piro handle her outbursts with what Huston maintains was excessive force.
They slammed her head against a wall, pepper sprayed her and threw punches directed at her head.
Huston asked the merit commission to fire the corrections officers, as well as their supervisor for official misconduct in connection with the confrontation. The case was also presented to a grand jury, which found no wrongdoing.
Bieber and Piro were found to have acted within the boundaries of the jail’s use-of-control policy, the merit commission ruled in July 2009. A third officer, Sgt. Richard Johnston, who Huston maintains failed to properly supervise both Piro and Bieber, acted appropriately based on the merit commission’s decision.
Huston, disappointed by the decision, appealed the ruling in May, and it was again placed in the hands of merit commission members. They voted 3-1 — again, in the corrections officers’ favor.
The officers have since been reinstated and back pay will be returned to the officers.
That amounts to about $600 a day between the officers totaling nearly $225,000 since Oct. 17, 2008, when the officers were suspended. The officers also recover lost vacation time, about 60-70 vacation days and 12-14 personal days. The entire case could cost the county upward of $300,000.
Huston still maintains the merit commission’s decision was shocking, and he still does not understand why members ruled in favor of the officers.
“They had a second chance to get it right,” Huston said in reference to the merit commission’s decision on his appeal. “They failed.”
It is not the first controversial case to arise from the Tazewell County Sheriff’s Office and the merit commission.
Tazewell County Sheriff’s Deputy Jeff Bass was accused of official misconduct in 2008 after Huston tagged the deputy’s squad car with a GPS device which proved Bass was performing extra-curricular activities while on duty.
Huston lobbied for Bass to be removed as a deputy in December 2008, when the merit commission found Bass guilty of misconduct, but he was allowed to remain a deputy.
These public cases have prompted one Tazewell County board member, Melvin Stanford to raise questions regarding jail management and policies.
Management, policies in question?
These very public cases have made the Tazewell County merit commission a target of political and public criticism.
Merit commission members Harvey Richmond, Don Sharp and Lloyd Orrick refused comment on the matter, forwarding questions to merit commission chairman Jerry Wise. The merit commission also included Solie Meyer, who died in July.
After three weeks, and a number of phone call attempts and messages left, Wise has yet to respond.
Huston, however, had plenty to say regarding the merit commission’s decision.
“There is nothing they can say that’s going to make me respect that decision,” Huston said. “I can’t have 48 correctional officers thinking that’s OK.”
However, Stanford pointed his finger back at the sheriff’s office, saying the problem does not fall back on the merit commission.
Stanford, who attended the majority of the merit commission hearings in the Behm case, said Huston needs to take some responsibility for the jail’s policy manual, which he said, is open for interpretation.
“Having sit through those merit commission hearings, had I been on the commission ... I would have concurred with their decision,” Stanford said.
“Although I completely disagree with what (the officers) did, it appeared to me from the evidence that was presented they didn’t violate the policy.”
Stanford said, though there are policies within the sheriff’s office that should be evaluated, it is not a problem that is central to the sheriff’s office.
He said the county as a whole needs to reconsider and evaluate its policies on an annual basis to keep them current.
Stanford said he believes media made the merit commission hearings seem like a criminal trial.
The merit commission’s only responsibility was to rule on behalf of the policy, he added.
Huston points to the approaching elections and blames the criticism on politics.
“It’s hogwash,” Huston said. “There are people who are trying to make a political issue of the jail.”
Huston adamantly defends the jail’s use-of-control policy. He said the policy was redone between 2002 and 2003.
“There is nothing wrong with those policies,” he said. “The policies are very simple, very understandable and very clear.”
Huston said that typically when the public cannot find a way to defend someone’s actions (more specifically, the actions of the corrections officers), then they begin to look at other reasons.
“If you can’t defend behavior then you have to find excuses,” Huston said.
“Those two officers (Bieber and Piro) made a very serious mistake,” Huston said. “None of this was personal.”
He added that had the supervisor, Sgt. Richardson, done his job, “none of this would have happened.
“The policy is fine the way it is and they just need to follow it.”
What is the merit commission?
The Tazewell County merit commission was created in 1969. Its purpose was to take politics out of the sheriff’s office by handling personnel matters within the sheriff’s office, Tazewell County Sheriff Robert Huston said.
The merit commission’s responsibility is to develop a hiring list of potential correctional officer or deputy candidates. That list is forwarded to the sheriff’s office for consideration. The commission also handles disciplinary cases involving deputies and corrections officers. It also meets quarterly to consider administrative measures.
Nominated by the sheriff, the merit commission has five members, each with varying term lengths. Nominations are then forwarded to the Tazewell County Board for final approval.
The current commission includes:
• Chairman Jerry Wise of Pekin
• Harvey Richmond of Pekin
• Don Sharp of Morton
• Lloyd Orrick of Pekin
• Solie Meyers of Pekin
(Meyers died in July)
Members’ terms may overlap from previous sheriffs. Wise and Richmond were incumbents prior to Huston’s term. Huston appointed Meyers, Orrick and Sharp based on recommendations from outgoing members.
Huston has the option to appoint three members of his own political party — two members must be from another party. The Tazewell County board makes the final decision in the selection process.
Members are paid per diem — they are compensated based on how many times they convene or hear cases.
