The nine-week grand jury process resulted in eight allegations for the removal of Sheriff Stanley Glanz, with testimony indicating that Glanz told key figures to “keep your mouth shut” and “if I was you, I wouldn’t talk about this,” according to the court record.
People are also reading…
One allegation is that Glanz’s actions created a potentially dangerous environment for others at the firing range. After then-Reserve Deputy Robert Bates was reprimanded for unsafely handling his gun at the range, he refused to complete the course and received a failing grade, the grand jury report says. Glanz then contacted instructors and told them to “take it easy” and “pass him,” the document says.
Allegations were also made that Glanz profited personally from Sheriff’s Office purchases.
The eight allegations presented by the grand jury arguing for Glanz’s removal are moot in the ouster process due to Glanz’s announced intention to resign. However, the findings could play a significant role in pending criminal indictments and possibly in civil cases against the Sheriff’s Office.
The grand jury returned two misdemeanor criminal indictments against the sheriff — refusal to perform official duty and willful violation of the law — as well as a third indictment that was issued under seal. The charges are separate from the allegations the grand jury substantiated for removal from office.
One of those allegations is that Glanz told a subordinate to keep quiet in a recent investigation involving the Sheriff’s Office.
“Sheriff Glanz told Major (Tom) Huckeby to ‘Keep your mouth shut. Remember that your son still works for me,’” according to the court document. “Major Huckeby took this statement as a threat concerning his son and … its oppressive connotation led to his agreeing to resign from the Sheriff’s Office.”
Tom Huckeby resigned in June at the request of Glanz and testified earlier this month to the grand jury.
Huckeby’s son, Michael Huckeby, submitted his resignation this week.
Glanz also directed former Undersheriff Tim Albin to resign in the days after the release of a 2009 internal investigation that contained allegations of falsified records, intimidation of subordinates and special treatment favoring Bates.
Albin and Tom Huckeby were heavily implicated in the report.
Another allegation relates to a report written by Maj. John Bowman regarding the 2009 memo.
His report, which was submitted to the sheriff in an interoffice memo May 18, was written to answer 15 questions Glanz had about the 2009 memo.
A grand jury exhibit shows that Bowman added a personal addendum to the report on May 26 alleging that Glanz told former Undersheriff Brian Edwards not to cooperate.
“After turning this (the May 18 memo) in to the Sheriff, he informed me that it contained little information,” Bowman wrote in the addendum. “I informed him that Brian Edwards was the linchpin that holds the answers to most of the questions he wanted answered and Edwards wouldn’t answer them.”
Bowman then states in the addendum that Glanz said he advised Edwards not to cooperate.
“The Sheriff informed me that during the FBI National Academy Retrainer held April 22-24 of this year, he told Edwards that Edwards would be foolish if he answered any questions concerning the report,” Bowman stated. “So I was assigned this investigation by the Sheriff after he advised the key person to not talk to me or anyone else about it.”
Another grand jury allegation involves a company in which Glanz bought stock prior to Tulsa County’s selection of a product to be used widely at the Tulsa Jail. The cleaning product sold by the company is designed to prevent staph and other infections, according to the report.
“At no time did the sheriff notify anyone in a public office or position of the stock ownership and resulting financial interest he had in this product,” according to the allegation.
Grand jury removal allegations
The grand jury investigating Tulsa County Sheriff Stanley Glanz and his office revealed eight allegations substantiated through the nine-week grand jury process that could be grounds for removal. They are:
Allegation one
Subject: a 2009 memo detailed an internal investigation that alleged that Reserve Deputy Robert Bates was given preferential treatment and that Glanz refused to open a full, official investigation.
Highlight: "The only action taken as a result of the report was to require Reserve Deputy Bates to donate the vehicle he had outfitted with lights and other police equipment to the Sheriff's Office which was then assigned back to him. No other action was taken to correct any conditions which caused this preferential treatment. Reserve Deputy Bates was not counseled or disciplined in any fashion and his duties and actions were not limited or curtailed in any way."
Conclusion: the allegations possibly constitute a habitual and willful neglect of duty, gross partiality and willful maladministration in office.
Allegation two
Subject: Bates' preferential treatment created a dangerous atmosphere related to a shooting range training incident.
Highlight: "Reserve Deputy Bates … was verbally reprimanded more than once for dangerous behavior with his weapon on the line. … Reserve Deputy Bates then became angry and refused to complete the firing range round, instead holstering his firearm and crossing his arms for the remainder of the course, resulting in a failing score."
Glanz contacted instructors and told them to "take it easy" and "pass him."
Conclusion: The allegations possibly constitute gross partiality in office.
Allegation three
Subject: Bates was allowed to carry firearms that were not in accordance with Sheriff's Office policy.
Conclusion: The allegations possibly constitute gross partiality in office.
Allegation four
Subject: General preferential treatment of reserve deputies existed both before and after the April 2 shooting of Eric Harris.
Highlight: "Sheriff Glanz further testified at the Sept. 23, 2015, appearance before the grand jury that he would advise full-time deputies to refrain from enforcing the policies of the Tulsa County Sheriff's Office when it involved reserve deputies, thus establishing a clear pattern of behavior to excuse certain reserve deputies from the written policy requirements that even full-time deputies were required to follow."
Conclusion: The allegations possibly constitute oppression in office and gross partiality.
Allegation five
Subject: Glanz told staff members who resigned at his request to "keep your mouth shut."
Highlight: "Sheriff Glanz told Major (Tom) Huckeby to 'Keep your mouth shut. Remember that your son still works for me.' … Major Huckeby took this statement as a threat concerning his son and … its oppressive connotation led to his agreeing to resign from the Sheriff's Office."
Conclusion: The allegations possibly constitute oppression in office.
Allegation six
Subject: Glanz had a personal interest in a chemical company that made a product the county later bought and used at the jail.
Highlight: "Sheriff Glanz had purchased stock in the parent company that produced the product. … The sale of the product to Tulsa County and the Sheriff's subsequent endorsement efforts of the product led to financial benefit to the Sheriff in increased stock prices and/or dividends from the stock so owned. That at no time did the Sheriff notify anyone in a public office or position of the stock ownership and resulting financial interest he had in this product.
Conclusion: The allegations possibly constitute corruption in office.
Allegation seven
Subject: Glanz has since 2009 received a vehicle allowance to compensate him for the use of his personal vehicle. Despite the $600-per-month stipend, Glanz used a vehicle owned by the Sheriff's Office "at least 2-3 days a week."
Conclusion: The allegations possibly constitute corruption in office.
Allegation eight
Subject: Glanz ordered an investigation into a 2009 memo that was critical of Bates' preferential treatment but then hindered the investigation by telling a key witness, former Undersheriff Brian Edwards, not to cooperate.
Highlight: The actions undertaken by Sheriff Glanz obstructed the investigation and precluded Chief (John) Bowman from fully answering the questions he was directed to answer by advising Mr. Edwards to refrain from providing necessary evidence to Chief Bowman."
Conclusion: The allegations possibly constitute corruption in office and willful maladministration.
