¶ Cavanaugh Made Allegations Of Misconduct Against Two County Employees And Two Fellow Supervisors That An Outside Investigation Found No Evidence To Support, Which Resulted In A Lawsuit Costing The County $145,000 In Legal Defense.
HEADLINE: “Employees Claim $13 Million In Damages Against Cavanaugh For False Reports Of Sexual Favors.” [Pinal Central, 4/13/22]
In Early 2022, “Two Notices Of Claim Totaling $13 Million Were Presented To Pinal County” By Two County Attorney’s Office Employees Saying Their “Careers, Reputations And Personal Lives Have Suffered From False Allegations Of Sexual Misconduct Spread By Supervisor Kevin Cavanaugh.” “Two notices of claim totaling $13 million were presented to Pinal County on Wednesday, alleging that two County Attorney’s Office employees’ careers, reputations and personal lives have suffered from false allegations of sexual misconduct spread by Supervisor Kevin Cavanaugh, R-Coolidge.” [Pinal Central, 4/13/22]
Two Pinal County Employees Will Receive $40,000 In A Settlement Following Complaints From Kevin Cavanaugh Of “Employee Quid Pro Quo In The Pinal County Attorney's Office Last Year Without Any Factual Basis.” “Two Pinal County employees will receive $40,000 after county officials resolved a lawsuit accusing a county supervisor of spreading retaliatory, false rumors. The settlement comes months after an independent investigation commissioned by the county found that Supervisor Kevin Cavanaugh made complaints of employee quid pro quo in the Pinal County Attorney's Office last year without any factual basis.” [AZ Central, 5/2/23]
- The Legal Dispute Began When Cavanaugh Offered A Job To Garland Shreves, Chief Of Staff Of The Attorney’s Office, In Exchange For Help Undermining The County Attorney And Sheriff. “The legal drama began in April when two Attorney's Office employees, Chief of Staff Garland Shreves and Finance Manager Amanda Stanford, sued Cavanaugh. They alleged he had started a rumor that Shreves had hired Stanford in exchange for sexual favors after Shreves refused a job offer from Cavanaugh. [...] Cavanaugh first approached Shreves about taking a job as his executive aide early in 2021, according to the lawsuit, promising a substantial pay increase. In exchange, Shreves would need to help Cavanaugh double-cross other county officials to gain political power, the lawsuit stated. Cavanaugh wanted to undermine County Attorney Kent Volkmer and Sheriff Mark Lamb, according to the lawsuit.” [AZ Central, 5/2/23]
- Cavanaugh Told Shreves That The Other Supervisors Would Support Him Because They Were “Stupid Mindless Puppets,” But Shreves Declined The Offer, Leading Cavanaugh To Accuse Him Of Sexual Misconduct. “He told Shreves that the other county supervisors would go along with his plan because they were ‘stupid mindless puppets,’ the lawsuit said. Ultimately, Shreves declined the job offer. In court documents, Shreves and Stanford alleged that Cavanaugh later made up a story accusing them of sexual misconduct.” [AZ Central, 5/2/23]
- Pinal County Released The Results Of An Investigation That “Found No Evidence To Support His Allegations.” “In February, Pinal County released an investigation into Cavanaugh's claims. That report, released after much discussion by county supervisors and a vote against it from Cavanaugh himself, found no evidence to support his allegations against Shreves and Stanford.” [AZ Central, 5/2/23]
¶ Cavanaugh’s First Term Was Controversial After An Investigation Found “No Evidence To Support The Allegations” Of Misconduct He Alleged Of Two County Employees, And The Resulting Lawsuit Cost The County $145,000 In Legal Defense Costs.
Cavanaugh’s First Term “Has Been Controversial” After He Alleged He Received Reports Of Sexual Misconduct By Two County Officials, Leading To The Officials Suing The County And An Outside Investigation That “Found No Evidence To Support The Allegations.” “Cavanaugh was elected in 2020 as the supervisor in central and eastern Pinal in a surprise upset of incumbent Democrat Pete Rios, but after redistricting last year, represents northwest Pinal including the city of Maricopa. His first term has been controversial. He alleged he had received reports of sexual misconduct by two top officials in the Pinal County Attorney’s office. The officials sued him and Pinal County, and an outside investigator found no evidence to support the allegations.” [Pinal Central, 8/18/23]
- Cavanaugh’s Lawsuits Cost The County Insurance $20,000 To Settle And Cost The County $145,000 In Legal Defense Costs. “Cavanaugh and Pinal’s insurance pool each paid $20,000 to settle the lawsuit, and the county spent an estimated $145,000 in defense costs. County insurance paid another $20,000 to settle a federal case brought by Cavanaugh’s former office administrator, who alleged age and sex discrimination. Cavanaugh also reported possible corruption involving two of his fellow supervisors. The allegations were investigated and found to have no basis.” [Pinal Central, 8/18/23]
- Cavanaugh Said That As Sheriff “He Wants To Achieve A Significant Reduction In Crime And Be A Good Steward Of Taxpayer Money.” “As sheriff, Cavanaugh said he wants to achieve a significant reduction in crime and be a good steward of taxpayer money.” [Pinal Central, 8/18/23]
Cavanaugh Claimed He Received Information About An Inappropriate Sexual Relationship From James Tanner. “Kevin Cavanaugh claimed in disclosures to Mary Ellen Sheppard and Kent Volkmer, based on information he had received from James Tanner, a former employee of the Pinal County Attorney’s Office until 2018, that Garland Shreves had nude or otherwise inappropriate photographs of Amanda Stanford, and was showing them to persons in the County Attorney’s Office.” [Investigative Research, Inc., Re: Pinal County, 8/27/22]
- The Report Finds That Based On Information Gathered That “The Preponderance Of Available Facts Supports That James Tanner Did Not Disclose To Kevin Cavanaugh The Information That Cavanaugh Attributes To Tanner.” “Mr. Tanner indicated that he never received any information suggesting that Mr. Shreves and Ms. Stanford were involved in a romantic or sexual relationship, that Stanford was given the job at the PCAO in return for sexual favors, or that Shreves had inappropriate photographs of Ms. Stanford on his cell phone. He furthermore denied having provided any such information to Kevin Cavanaugh about these issues. In fact, Tanner did not believe that he has spoken to Cavanaugh since 2018, which was before Ms. Stanford had even taken the position at the PCAO. Based on information gathered in the investigation, the preponderance of available facts supports that James Tanner did not disclose to Kevin Cavanaugh the information that Cavanaugh attributes to Tanner. This suggests the likelihood that Mr. Cavanaugh did not have a reasonable basis for believing, based on information from Mr. Tanner, that the allegations about Ms. Stanford and Mr. Shreves were correct or supported by a factual basis.” [Investigative Research, Inc., Re: Pinal County, 8/27/22]
Cavanaugh Claimed He Received Information About An Inappropriate Sexual Relationship From Deb Mellado. “Allegedly, Kevin Cavanaugh falsely claimed in communications with Mary Ellen Sheppard and Kent Volkmer, based on information he had received from Deb Mellado, an employee of the County in late 2020 or early 2021, that Amanda Stanford and Garland Shreves had a sexual relationship, and that there was some quid pro quo between Stanford and Shreves in connection with her having been selected as the Finance Manager at the PCAO.” [Investigative Research, Inc., Re: Pinal County, 8/27/22]
- The Report Finds That Based On Information Gathered, “The Preponderance Of Available Facts Supports That Deb Mellado Did Not Disclose To Kevin Cavanaugh The Information That Cavanaugh Attributes To Mellado.” “Based on information gathered in the investigation, the preponderance of available facts supports that Deb Mellado did not disclose to Kevin Cavanaugh the information that Cavanaugh attributes to Mellado, which suggests the likelihood that Mr. Cavanaugh did not have a reasonable basis for believing, based on commentary from Ms. Mellado, that the allegations about Ms. Stanford and Mr. Shreves were correct, or supported by a factual basis.” [Investigative Research, Inc., Re: Pinal County, 8/27/22]
¶ In Addition To Accusations Against Stanford And Shreves, Cavanaugh Accused Supervisors Goodman And Miller Of Wrongdoing That An Outside Investigation Found To Be Unsubstantiated.
In Addition To Accusations Against Stanford And Shreves, Cavanaugh Accused Supervisor Goodman Of Improperly Employing His Daughter-In-Law. “Apart from his reports about Ms. Stanford and Mr. Shreves, Mr. Cavanaugh has made accusations about ethical issues with other County employees, and these matters were investigated by the County Attorney’s Office. Around the time he made complaints about the conduct of Shreves and Stanford in October 2021, he also alleged that Supervisor Goodman improperly employed his daughter-in-law.” [Investigative Research, Inc., Re: Pinal County, 8/27/22]
- An Outside Investigation Found That Supervisor Goodman Had Cleared The Hiring With Human Resources, And There Was No Violation Of The Nepotism Policy. “Investigative Findings- Supervisor Goodman did, in fact, hire his stepson's wife. However, he did so after consulting with the county's HR director and the county's legal counsel. There is an AZ case and AG Opinion on a point that clearly states the spouse of a step-relative does not qualify as being within the 3rd degree of affinity, as prohibited in the state's anti-nepotism law. Thus, the hiring is both legal and not in violation of the county's anti-nepotism policy.” [Investigative Research, Inc., Re: Pinal County, 8/27/22]
In Addition To Accusations Against Stanford And Shreves, Cavanaugh Accused Supervisor Goodman Of Using “County Resources To Pave The Driveway To His Residence.” “Apart from his reports about Ms. Stanford and Mr. Shreves, Mr. Cavanaugh has made accusations about ethical issues with other County employees, and these matters were investigated by the County Attorney’s Office. Around the time he made complaints about the conduct of Shreves and Stanford in October 2021, he also alleged [...] that Supervisor Goodman used County resources to pave the driveway to his residence.” [Investigative Research, Inc., Re: Pinal County, 8/27/22]
- An Outside Investigation Found That Supervisor Goodman Did Not Have A Paved Driveway Or Any “Pavement For Approximately 1/2 Mile In Any Direction.” “Investigative Findings- Initially, after reviewing a Google Earth image of Supervisor Goodman's property showing no pavement surrounding his house, a non-post certified employee was instructed to drive to and around Supervisor Goodman's residence. As seen in the images viewed online, there was no pavement on any roads or shared driveways in the immediate vicinity of Supervisor Goodman's property. After being informed that it was his personal driveway, not a shared driveway, that was paved, I sent a 25-year AZ post-certified law enforcement officer to examine the property. That officer reviewed the entire property and found no pavement on Supervisor Goodman's property and no pavement for approximately 1/2 mile in any direction.” [Investigative Research, Inc., Re: Pinal County, 8/27/22]
In Addition To Accusations Against Stanford And Shreves, Cavanaugh Accused Supervisor Miller’s Son’s AC Company Of Wrongly Charging The Deputy County Manager For AC Equipment, Service, And/Or Repair. “Apart from his reports about Ms. Stanford and Mr. Shreves, Mr. Cavanaugh has made accusations about ethical issues with other County employees, and these matters were investigated by the County Attorney’s Office. Around the time he made complaints about the conduct of Shreves and Stanford in October 2021, he also alleged [...] that Supervisor Miller's son's AC company either over or under-charged Deputy County Manager Himanshu Patel for AC equipment, service and/or repair.” [Investigative Research, Inc., Re: Pinal County, 8/27/22]
- An Outside Investigation Found That Supervisor Miller’s Son Has Only A Minor Stake In The Company And That The Price Was Likely “Within The Range Expected For Such A Service.” “Investigative Findings- Himanshu Patel provided receipts to my investigator showing he paid over $6000 dollars each for two different ac units. Mr. Patel employed a local company, Al and Riley's, that has been in business in this area for over 50 years. They are the original company that has serviced the AC units since their installation approximately 20 years ago. Based on a review of similar product installations and the personal knowledge of the investigator who flips houses for additional income, the price paid was within the range expected for such a service. Supervisor Miller's son does not work for or own any part of Al and Riley's. However, per the attorney for Al and Riley, his son-in-law does own a small, less than 15%, ownership stake in Al and Riley's. Based on the findings, I do not believe any criminal or civil wrongdoing has occurred and I will administratively close these investigations” [Investigative Research, Inc., Re: Pinal County, 8/27/22]