Council–manager system makes the mayor’s office ceremonial, not executive. It’s time for council to draw clear boundaries.
By Steve Segner / Guest Columnist
The very public clash between Sedona Mayor Scott Jablow and Police Chief Stephanie Foley is troubling—but not just because of the complaints exchanged. The real issue is that the mayor has stepped into territory that does not belong to him.
Under Sedona’s council–manager form of government, the City Manager—not the mayor—runs the city, oversees departments, and manages staff. The mayor’s role is primarily ceremonial: presiding over council meetings, voting on policy, signing official documents, and declaring emergencies when needed. What the mayor does not do is supervise employees or direct department heads.
That line has now been blurred. When a mayor involves himself in HR disputes or questions the culture of the police department, he crosses into administrative functions that are strictly the responsibility of the City Manager. This is overreach, and it undermines the structure Sedona is bound to follow.
The risks are clear: staff morale collapses when they don’t know who is in charge, accountability disappears when roles overlap, and public trust erodes when elected officials appear to meddle in daily operations.
This controversy is not just about one mayor and one police chief—it is about protecting good governance. The City Council must step in and adopt a policy that clearly defines the duties of the mayor, along with the limits of the office.
And let’s be honest: the mayor’s office should not be housed in City Hall. Proximity to staff creates the illusion of executive authority that does not exist. The mayor’s role is not a job in the administrative sense—it is a ceremonial and legislative position.
Sedona deserves clarity. By reaffirming the separation between elected officials and professional staff, the council can restore order, protect employees, and rebuild public trust.
Editor’s Note: Steve Segner is a Sedona resident, local business owner, and frequent columnist/contributor on civic issues.
This is an advertisement
3 Comments
If the Mayor has referred the issue to the proper State or Federal oversight authority then he has done his job of remaining outside the issue. Not sure who would have made such a referral if not for him? Obviously there hasn’t been any routine oversight of the department from a State of Federal oversight authority and there are definitely some issues that have been made public that warrant such a move. The mayor so far as we know made no attempt to overstep his authority by attempting to fire anyone. From the information made available to us he simple acted on some anonymous complaints from unknown officers from within the department. What else could he do but make such a referral for an oversight investigation? Ignore the issues? Doesn’t make sense to have done anything other than what has/is being done. I just hope the oversight investigation will be done by proper law enforcement authorities and not some civilian city government administrator who knows zilch about Law Enforcement. Law enforcement demands oversight in order to prevent abuses by anyone wearing a badge and carrying a weapon to Protect and Serve. Lastly, an oversight investigation does not mean anyone is guilty of anything. It just means an issue was raised over the Chief’s leadership. That could be something that is very true or very wrong and only an investigation from an impartial source can determine what is true and what is not.
This is not an HR dispute it is an internal matter that requires outside oversight not city council oversight. Law Enforcement is a different animal than public works or city planning and there are Federal regulations that require outside sources to investigate. An alledged abusive Chief or an environment of hostility and toxic masculinity against her simply for being a woman both demand such an outside investigation. Cops who abuse their authority regardless of position are not cops anyone wants running a department or out on the streets. Just as cops who are chauvinist, racist, white supremacist, gang members, militia members do not belong in law enforcement.
Here are the normal procedures for dealing with such matters-
To have a police chief investigated in Arizona for misconduct, you should first try to file a formal complaint with the Internal Affairs Division of the police department or with the department’s civilian oversight board, if one exists. If that doesn’t lead to action, you can escalate the complaint by contacting the city’s Mayor’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office, or the Arizona Attorney General’s Office. For serious misconduct, you may also consider filing a civil lawsuit or seeking the attention of the media to apply public pressure for an investigation.
Here are the steps to take:
1. File a Formal Complaint:
Internal Affairs: The first step is to file a formal written complaint with the police department’s Internal Affairs Division (IAD), which investigates misconduct. Check the department’s website or contact the precinct for information on how to file.
Civilian Oversight Board: Some cities have civilian oversight boards or review committees that handle citizen complaints against police. Research your city’s government structure to see if such a body exists.
2. Escalate Within the City Structure:
Mayor’s Office: If you don’t receive a satisfactory response from the police department, you can contact the Mayor’s office. While they may not conduct investigations themselves, they can exert political pressure on the police department to take your complaint seriously.
District Attorney’s Office: You can also contact the local District Attorney’s (DA) office. The DA’s office has its own investigators and may look into your case independently or even pursue criminal charges against the chief if warranted.
3. Contact State-Level Agencies:
Arizona Attorney General’s Office: For serious misconduct, the Attorney General’s Office, which serves as the chief legal and law enforcement officer in the state, may be able to get involved.
4. Consider External Action:
Media: If other avenues fail, consider sharing your story with the media. Media coverage can put significant public pressure on officials to address the complaint.
Civil Lawsuit: You can explore filing a civil lawsuit against the police chief or department for any harm caused by their actions. This process can be complex and is best handled by an attorney.
An Arizona city police department will investigate complaints of a toxic workplace through its internal affairs division, following a structured process that involves intake, investigation, and review. The specific procedures may vary by department, but they typically align with standard practices for administrative misconduct investigations.
Filing the complaint
Channels for reporting: A complaint can be filed by a civilian or an employee. It is usually submitted to the internal affairs (IA) division or a supervisor. Many departments also offer online forms or phone numbers for reporting.
Required details: The complainant should provide a clear and detailed account of the allegations, including who was involved, what occurred, and when it happened. Documenting incidents and potential witnesses can strengthen the case.
Anonymous complaints: Most departments accept anonymous complaints, but those from identifiable sources are often given more weight.
Non-retaliation policy: Departments typically have non-retaliation policies to protect those who report misconduct.
The investigation process
Complaint intake and classification: The IA division receives and reviews the complaint to determine its scope and whether it involves misconduct or policy violations.
Investigator assignment: An internal affairs investigator is assigned to the case to gather evidence. For less serious complaints, a supervisor may handle the matter.
Evidence gathering: The investigator collects all relevant evidence, including:
Reviewing reports, body-worn camera footage, and dispatch recordings.
Interviewing the complainant, witnesses, and the officer(s) involved.
Interviews and Garrity warning:
Officers are required to cooperate and answer questions truthfully during an internal investigation.
Under the Garrity rule, officers are given a warning that their compelled statements cannot be used against them in a criminal case.
Officers may have a representative, such as a union representative, present during the interview.
Report and findings: The investigator compiles all findings into a report and submits it to the police chief or other senior officials.
Timeline: Many internal investigations aim to be completed within 30 days, though more complex cases may take longer.
Outcomes and appeal
Possible findings: The investigation can result in several outcomes, including:
Sustained: The allegations were supported by the evidence.
Not Sustained: The evidence was insufficient to either prove or disprove the allegations.
Exonerated: The incident occurred but was lawful and in line with policy.
No Finding: The complaint was unsubstantiated.
Disciplinary action: If allegations are sustained, disciplinary action can range from reprimands to suspension or termination, depending on the severity and history of misconduct.
Appeal to ADOA: If an Arizona state employee is not satisfied with the agency’s response, they can elevate the complaint to the Arizona Department of Administration (ADOA).
More-
To initiate an investigation into an Arizona city police department for alleged chauvinistic behavior, you must report the misconduct to various internal, state, and federal agencies. Because the misconduct involves discriminatory behavior and potentially a hostile work environment, multiple departments have jurisdiction.
1. File a formal complaint with the police department
The most direct first step is to file a complaint through the department’s own internal affairs division.
Method: Departments typically accept complaints in person, by mail, or through an online form.
Who investigates: The department’s Professional Standards Unit (Internal Affairs) is responsible for investigating allegations of misconduct by employees.
Confidentiality: Most departments make an effort to keep the complainant’s information confidential, but full anonymity may hinder an investigation.
2. Report to the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST)
AZ POST is responsible for establishing and enforcing officer conduct standards statewide.
Purpose: The board has the authority to revoke or suspend an officer’s certification if they engage in misconduct, including unethical behavior.
Procedure: You can submit a citizen complaint form directly to AZ POST online.
What to provide: Your complaint should be factual and provide as much detail as possible. Making a false report is unlawful.
3. File a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice
For allegations of widespread systemic issues or civil rights violations, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) can launch an independent investigation.
Jurisdiction: Federal law prohibits discrimination and civil rights violations based on sex.
Procedure: You can submit a report through the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division online portal. An investigation by the DOJ is one of the most powerful tools for accountability, as demonstrated by their past investigation into the Phoenix Police Department.
4. Contact the FBI for corruption or civil rights violations
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) can investigate potential criminal civil rights violations and patterns of corruption within a police department.
Procedure: You can submit a tip online or contact your local FBI field office.
5. Consult a lawyer
For legal guidance on the best course of action, it is recommended to speak with an attorney specializing in police misconduct and civil rights. An attorney can:
Help you navigate the complaint process.
Advise you on your rights and potential legal action.
Help you file a lawsuit if appropriate, which is sometimes possible following a violation of constitutional rights.
Disclaimer: Making a false report of police misconduct can result in criminal charges or civil action against you. Ensure your complaint is based on facts and provide accurate information to the best of your ability.