Ruling: Benally harassed captain

By John Christian Hopkins
Diné Bureau

WINDOW ROCK — The Navajo Nation Labor Commission granted a motion for a directed verdict, finding that the actions of Navajo Police Chief Jim Benally constituted harassment of Capt. Ronnie Wauneka.

After Department of Justice Attorney Emory McCabe presented the respondent’s case, Gallup Attorney David B. Jordan, representing Wauneka, moved for a directed verdict, saying that it was obvious that Benally’s actions met the definition of harassment, by creating a hostile work environment or interfering with Wauneka’s ability to do her job.

Na’taani

There are no kings in Navajo culture, no one rules by divine right, Jordan said in his opening argument. Instead, a na’taani — a leader — assumes the position because he or she has earned the respect of the community,

Jordan said. And, in return, the leader returns that respect, he added.

Benally has failed as a na’taani, because he openly displayed his lack of respect for the captains on the Navajo police force, Jordan said.

In his absence, Benally repeatedly named a sergeant or lieutenant as acting chief, thereby forcing the captains to report to someone beneath their rank, Jordan said.

In addition, Benally began sending communiques directly to the lieutenants, cutting the captains out of the loop, Jordan said.

In his opening argument, McCabe said Benally has conducted himself in a professional manner. Any actions Benally took were within his discretion as police chief and done to better the department, McCabe said.

He asked Benally why he had once named then-Sgt. Emerson Lee as acting chief.

Benally said his district had no lieutenant at the time, so he had named the sergeant acting chief. It was a cost-effective decision, because the captains would have had to travel a long way to come to Window Rock, Benally explained.

Chain of command

A chain of command is meant to be followed, to create a sense of order, Jordan said.

Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. doesn’t answer to his secretary, he added.

“Chief Benally came in and began ignoring the chain of command,” Jordan said.

By naming a sergeant as acting chief, Benally destroyed the chain of command, Jordan said.

“Under a normal chain of command, sergeants don’t give orders to captains,” Jordan said. “It’s not good for an organization if individuals don’t know who they answer to.”

For a police department, in an emergency situation, confusion over who is in charge could be life-threatening, Jordan said.

On several occasions, Wauneka had to get a sergeant — acting as chief — to sign off on her requests for medical leave, Jordan said.

“You don’t see where a captain would have a problem with having to get a sergeant to sign off on a leave request?” Jordan asked. “Wouldn’t that create discord?”

“Not necessarily,” Benally responded.

Jordan pressed the issue, asking the chief if he would take an order from a lower-ranking officer.

That depended on the situation, Benally said. If someone had more experience in an emergency situation than he did, then he wouldn’t have a problem with taking orders, the chief said.

“Your testimony, under oath, is that you made only one sergeant (Emerson Lee} acting chief of police?” Jordan asked.

“Once,” Benally replied.

“Who is Raymond Joe?” Jordan countered.

“Now that you mention it, there was one time (when Sgt. Raymond Joe was named acting chief),” Benally recalled.

Man with a mission?

Benally has about 30 years experience in law enforcement, including supervisor for investigations for the Arizona Department of Public Safety. He became Navajo chief police Nov. 15, 2005.

Jordan asked Benally if he was brought in to reorganize the police department.

“That was my assumption,” Benally said.

Did that reorganization include eliminating the captain positions from the department, Jordan asked?

Benally said he never specifically discussed that with Division of Public Safety Director Samson Cowboy. He did work on a plan to “flatten” the department, the chief said.

“The captains were against the reorganization,” Benally said.

It wasn’t just the captains, Jordan noted. In fact, Benally had wanted to eliminate the captain positions, but his plan was shot down by the Government Services Committee, Jordan said.

After his plan to eliminate the captains was rebuffed, Benally went ahead and acted as if the captains weren’t there, Jordan said. Benally sent memos to the lieutenants on personnel and scheduling issues, without sending copies to the district captains, Jordan said.

Benally also reassigned some of the captains — including Wauneka — to positions as community liaisons, Jordan said.

That was an effort to make the department more accessible to the communities, Benally said. Many communities had complained that the captains were never available, the chief explained.

But Jordan was skeptical, asking the chief if he resolved the problem of captains not being available by giving them new duties to keep them away from the station even more?

He didn’t assign new duties, he simply wanted more emphasis on community policing, Benally explained.

Job description

By requiring Wauneka to have more community interaction, it meant less time to do all the duties listed in her job description, Jordan said.

Benally acknowledged that was likely.

What duties was she being relieved of, Jordan asked.
She wasn’t necessarily relieved of duties, Benally said.
Jordan pointed to several memos sent to lieutenants — but not captains. Why was that done, Jordan asked?
Lieutenants usually dealt with personnel and staffing issues, Benally said.

But the captains’ job descriptions grants them personnel oversight in their districts, Jordan said. When Wauneka was reassigned as a community liaison, was a new job description provided, Jordan asked?

“She was still being paid as a captain,” Benally said.

“That’s not what I asked,” Jordan interrupted.

There was no new job description because the liaison duties were part of the captain’s job anyway, Benally said.
Jordan pressed Benally on why he sent scheduling members to the lieutenants, but not the captains? If the captains’ duties weren’t changed, then they still had a say in staffing and scheduling in their districts, Jordan said.

“He says they are new duties, but he says they are old duties. Captain Wauneka couldn’t do her job, because she didn’t know what it was,” Jordan said. “I got to cross-examine (Benally) under oath, and I still don’t know!”

Jordan said that under her last performance evaluation prior to Benally’s coming in as chief, Wauneka received scores that she exceeded expectations. But in his first evaluation of her, Benally rated her at 1’s and 2’s, either not meeting expectations or needing improvement, Benally said.

Benally said that he graded all the captains the same.

“So not one of the captains meets expectations?” Jordan asked?

“Correct,” Benally said.

Jordan noted that on her evaluation, Wauneka received a low score for personnel management; but if Benally was sending staffing memos only to the lieutenants how could Wauneka — or any of the captains — possibly be expected to be on top of staffing and scheduling?

“How can a captain operate her district, when the chief is going around her?” Jordan wondered.

After McCabe wrapped up his redirect questioning, Jordan asked the commission find in favor of his client because under his own testimony, Benally admitted putting a sergeant in command over higher ranking officers.

That not only would create discord, but would interfere with Wauneka’s ability to do her job. Both of those are reasons defined under the tribe’s harassment policy, Jordan said.

After meeting in executive session, Commission Chairman Casey Watchman announced that the motion for a directed verdict was granted. He said a meeting to decide damages would be held soon, possibly in May.

John Christian Hopkins can be reached at Hopkins1960@hotmail.com.