Two vital elements were noticeably missing from the Sheriff’s Office’s Internal Affairs investigation of three trumped-up allegations made against now-Capt. Milo Thornton, who was demoted and reassigned with a pay cut despite being cleared of any policy violations.
Fairness.
And credibility.
Anyone who has read the nearly 300-page IA report released to the public last week will see that Thornton was not afforded any semblance of due process throughout the two-month investigation of allegations that he created an “extremely hostile” work environment at the jail.
He was suspended with pay immediately upon the launch of the investigation – a decision based solely on questionable complaints from disgruntled subordinates. He was never afforded the opportunity to confront his accusers or respond to the allegations, which couldn’t be sustained.
He was demoted from deputy chief without getting a chance to defend himself.
Think about that.
Thornton was the target of the investigation. He was, at the time, the No. 3-ranked member of the agency, behind only Sheriff Eric Flowers and Undersheriff Thom Raulen. He was the third-highest-ranked Black law enforcement officer in the county’s 97-year history.
And nobody wanted to talk to him?
The investigation into the hostile-work-environment complaints dragged on for more than two months before curiously changing course in late March, when it became a scavenger hunt that produced two other bogus allegations that went nowhere.
Eighteen witnesses were interviewed, a list that included captains, lieutenants, jail nurses and even a civilian from outside the agency. Three of them were brought back for further questioning.
Thornton, though, was shut out, perhaps because what he might say – and the evidence he might produce – would derail an investigation that, despite failing to produce violations, resulted in a demotion.
Or was it because nothing Thornton could say or present would’ve made a difference?
“I’ve done criminal defense work for 25 years, and I’ve never seen a law-enforcement officer demoted when the allegations weren’t sustained,” said Andy Metcalf, the Vero Beach attorney who represented Thornton throughout the investigation.
“You just don’t see that” he added, “especially with such a high-ranking officer.”
That’s not the worst of it, however.
More troubling, perhaps, than the unfairness of not allowing Thornton to present a defense was who was interviewed, who wasn’t interviewed and how the questions were framed.
Metcalf said he gave the Sheriff’s Office the names of witnesses who might offer a different story than the investigator was hearing from disgruntled corrections-division deputies who didn’t embrace the changes Flowers wanted – and Thornton began implementing – at the jail in January 2021.
They were never interviewed.
Just so you know: Not all of the witnesses interviewed were critical of Thornton’s management style, which was described by others as authoritative, confrontational and lacking in compassion.
Some defended him, which couldn’t have been easy, given the slanted, leading manner in which questions were put to them. In the summaries of the interviews included in the report, the investigator too often appeared to frame questions in ways that painted Thornton in a negative light or presumed he was acting inappropriately.
For example: A lieutenant was asked if he ever witnessed or overheard an incident in which Thornton “targeted, belittled or berated” another lieutenant about his job performance.
There are plenty of other similar scenarios in the report.
So is it any surprise, then, that already-disgruntled employees who were asked leading questions might say something unflattering about a no-nonsense supervisor trying to improve jail conditions and operations by implementing new strategies and procedures?
And, again, why were those specific employees questioned while others were not?
Truth is, this investigation and report left unanswered several relevant questions that Flowers needs to answer – but probably won’t.
In an effort to get those answers, however, I contacted Sheriff’s Office spokesperson Debbie Carson last week and emailed her a handful of questions, asking that either Flowers or Undersheriff Thom Raulen respond to them.
They didn’t, of course.
Flowers doesn’t interact one-on-one with news-media members he doesn’t consider friendly.
Instead, he controls the agency’s message through sharply produced videos released through social media, dodging the efforts of those of us trying to hold him accountable.
My guess is, his desire to control the message also factored into his decision to replace the lieutenant who previously oversaw the IA division, which is supposed to conduct investigations without influence from above.
Don’t you find it odd that Flowers dispatched Raulen, who filed the formal complaint that launched the investigation, to inform Thornton of his suspension – and, later, to notify him of the new allegations – rather than confront him face to face?
Is that what real leaders do?
As for my questions, I was especially looking forward to getting Flowers’ response to this one, regarding Thornton’s reassignment:
Why did you choose to assign to the newly created School Safety Division – and place in an environment where interaction with students is likely, if not necessary – someone who other high-ranking deputies described as arrogant, hostile, undermining, dismissive and rude?
I also asked: What was lacking in the evidence and/or testimony given during the investigation that prevented the allegations made against Thornton from being sustained?
What was the overall impact on the conditions and operations at the jail during Thornton’s time as supervisor?
And following up on Flowers’ claim – in his April 5 letter informing Thornton of his demotion – that he had “attempted to coach and counsel” him on interacting with employees, I asked how, when and in what setting those counseling and coaching sessions took place.
To be sure, I’d also like to know why Flowers didn’t allow Thornton to respond to the complaints that prompted the sheriff to demote him.
Again, I don’t expect an answer.
But you should.
In his letter to Thornton, Flowers wrote that based on his review of the IA case: “I have lost faith in your ability to lead at the Deputy Chief level.”
That makes no sense, given the suspect nature of this case, which was based on complaints from shaky sources and allegations that couldn’t be proven.
Flowers’ loss of faith in Thornton’s ability to lead also should raise eyebrows, given his contention that we shouldn’t lose faith in his ability to lead the Sheriff’s Office in the wake of the public apology he offered after his marital infidelity was exposed in February.
At the very least, it’s hypocritical of Flowers to not extend to Thornton the same spirit of understanding and forgiveness he asked of his wife, his agency and the community.
It should surprise no one that Flowers, despite being politically wounded by the extramarital affair, announced last week his intention to seek re-election in 2024.
Could his desire to keep the job have prompted the allegations against Thornton, who, according to local law enforcement sources, Flowers considers a potential challenger in that sheriff’s race?
This Internal Affairs report, which lacks the fairness and credibility we should expect from our Sheriff’s Office, does nothing to quiet such suspicions.
Too much of it reads like a negative campaign ad.
