Firing a top cop is hard. State bill doesn’t solve the whole problem | Opinion
If Pierce County residents know anything about law enforcement leaders, it’s that getting rid of them is a tough business.
Whether they’re a county sheriff or a city’s police chief, the head of a law enforcement agency isn’t easy to fire. The options for doing so depend on whether they’re appointed by politicians or chosen directly by voters. None tend to yield results that make people happy.
So I understand why folks would be interested in alternatives. That’s what you could call Senate Bill 5974, which would make it possible for the board of the Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission to functionally remove sheriffs from their positions if they violate certain rules.
The bill’s sponsors say it’s necessary because communities lose trust in local law enforcement when a sheriff can’t be held accountable for bad behavior. Its opponents say that unelected members of a state commission board removing an elected sheriff would undermine the will of voters. I regret to say that I think both are correct.
Pierce County went through protracted upheaval at the start of this decade over a sheriff who pissed off a lot of residents, facing both criminal charges and calls for his resignation. The situation made it clear how challenging it would be to remove an elected sheriff, and it undoubtedly affected the community’s relationship with the department.
That’s Ed Troyer, who was acquitted in 2022 for allegedly making false claims to emergency dispatchers during his altercation with a newspaper delivery man. He served as sheriff until the end of his term in 2024.
On the other hand, what other elected official can effectively be thrown out of office by an unelected state agency? I don’t like the precedent that would create for the foundations of democracy in our region.
What I firmly agree with is the need for a better path to accountability for law enforcement leaders. We simply don’t have that now, whether those leaders are elected or appointed. This county has examples stretching back decades to make that clear.
Who is the top cop’s boss?
Some argue for switching to an appointed sheriff system in Pierce County. Only one place in Washington has a sheriff appointed by local government, and that’s King County. Pierce County has elected its sheriff since 2008.
With an elected sheriff, voters must mount a very challenging recall effort if they want a new person in office before the next election. Otherwise, death and criminal conviction are among the few events that will prematurely clear them from office.
I see the appeal of making the sheriff someone who has a supervisor just like a police chief does. But like I said at the start, firing a police chief isn’t easy either.
In addition to the Troyer situation, I’ll give you two more examples. There’s former police chief Avery Moore, who left his position in early 2025. And then there’s a tragic example from Tacoma’s past: former police chief David Brame, who shot and killed his wife and then himself in 2003.
None of these situations are anywhere near the same, so let’s get that out of the way now. But they all involve law enforcement leaders whose tenures brought up questions about when and how to show a top cop the door.
Brame is the chief who many agreed, in retrospect, should have been disciplined early and ultimately fired. After his final, violent act, which he carried out in front of his young children, reports surfaced that city leaders failed to act on warnings.
Brame’s boss — city manager Ray Corpuz — and others in city leadership were privy to complaints of his erratic behavior on the job, abuse of his wife and inappropriate involvement in responses to her calls to 911.
It was Corpuz’s job to respond to these mounting complaints and concerns about Brame. Under immense pressure after the murder, Tacoma’s city council terminated Corpuz’s employment.
Corpuz was in essence fired for not firing Brame. The situation became a chilling exemplification of a breakdown in local leadership.
A fast resolution with few answers
Then there’s former chief Moore, who wasn’t so much fired as disappeared. We can be grateful that no public tragedy accompanied his departure in early 2025. But that’s about all we can do, because we have no idea what led to Moore’s resignation.
What we do know is that he walked away with a roughly half million dollar payout and a seemingly ironclad deal that no one would reveal what led to his exit.
The most notable problem that we know of from Moore’s tenure was never explicitly linked to him. That’s the alleged hostile work environment created by deputy chief Paul Junger, a second in command Moore brought on from their time together at the Dallas Police Department. The city also settled legal claims that arose from those allegations.
Moore’s replacement, current police chief Patti Jackson, fired Junger in April after an investigation into the claims about him.
It was a dissatisfying and costly end to Moore’s tenure. His next move was to become assistant city manager of Topeka, Kansas, after saying that he took accountability for his mistakes in Tacoma. What those were, we may never know.
And yet, this exact scenario is about the best option cities have for getting a police chief out. It’s standard to prevent potential lawsuits, and the cold math is that it costs less taxpayer money than going to court. If Corpuz had acted on complaints and moved to oust Brame back in the early 2000s, it might have looked very similar.
The approach also avoids scrutiny, and not just of the police chief. What warnings leaders may have had of any shortcomings on Moore’s part, or what cracks in any claims against him, aren’t currently public.
A need for more accountability
That’s a long history lesson just to say this: I understand the impulse behind SB 5974. There’s a need to hold law enforcement to account. There’s already a state agency tasked with making sure law enforcement officers are qualified, ethical servants of the public.
So why not give its decisions more power over elected sheriffs? I still think the integrity of elections is too important to chip away at here.
On balance, an appointed sheriff could be the best alternative, but it wouldn’t be enough. We shouldn’t allow local governments to shield everyone involved from scrutiny when they part ways with a chief or sheriff.
One answer to this might be stronger public disclosure laws. I’m not a lawyer. Still, it seems to me that the law could bar a city or county from promising to keep certain things confidential as part of separation agreements. That would give the government’s attorneys cover to say they simply can’t promise not to release, say, documents from an internal investigation.
It would be a big ask for governments to put those kinds of limitations on themselves. But if we want to restore trust between law enforcement agencies and the public, it might be necessary.
This story was originally published February 20, 2026 at 5:00 AM.
