Opposing Pima County Sheriff’s Department unions headed for internal election for bargaining rights

The Pima County Board of Supervisors is scheduled to discuss the details of an election within the Pima County Sheriff’s Department Tuesday, as a union opposing the sheriff’s leadership has challenged existing bargaining rights.

The five-year meet and confer agreement with the Pima County Deputy Sheriff’s Association (PCDSA) and the Board, expires at the end of the month.

In May, the Pima County Deputy’s Organization presented enough members' signatures to the Board of Supervisors to hold an election, challenging PCDSA’s status as the Authorized Representative to the board. The county’s Human Resources Department has scheduled and notified employees of an upcoming Election for the Authorized Employee Representative, tentatively scheduled for June 23 to 27, according to a memorandum acquired by AZPM.

The board is scheduled to discuss who is eligible to vote in the election with the County Attorney and in executive session at the June 17 meeting, according to an item on the addendum agenda.

That discussion comes after a legal challenge from Mike Storie, a Tucson attorney and the Lead Legal Counsel for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Arizona, or CLEAA, of which the PCDSA is a chapter member.

PCDO is a chapter of the Arizona Conference of Police and Sheriffs, or AZCOPS.

In conversations with the county’s Human Resources department, both PCDO and PCDSA indicated they want all deputy, detective, and sergeant positions deemed eligible employees in the election, according to a county memo dated May 27. However, at the June 3 Board meeting during the call to the audience, Storie said corrections officers and the department’s civilian employees are being left out of the election.

“They represent all the employees, not only deputies, lieutenants, all the way up, they represent the corrections’ officers and the civilian employees. And when I say they represent them, they represent them in contract negotiations, meet and confer situations, and as a conduit to the sheriff…they have omitted the corrections’ officers and the civilian employees, even though they’re impacted,” he said.

According to Caitlin Watters, a lawyer who works with Storie, his office also wrote a letter to the Board expressing their opinion of what they claim is ambiguous language on who can vote.

“We just think that all the employees should be able to vote,” she said.

According to PCDO President Aaron Cross, civilian employees and corrections officers have not voted in previous authorized representative elections. He believes those employee groups should seek out their own bargaining agreements.

“I don't believe there's anything that precludes corrections officers and civilians from getting their own meet and confer with the county if they so chose. This does not exclude corrections officers and civilians. This is just specifically for law enforcement personnel and how we bargain with the county,” Cross said.

Following the election that selected PCDSA for the authorized representative in November 2018, former election official Keith Dommer wrote in a county memo, “only sheriff deputies were allowed to vote.”

The current PCDSA meet and confer agreement states an eligible employee is “any individual employed by the county including deputies and sergeants in the sheriff’s department,” and does not include “confidential, managerial, or supervisory employees, officers, and elected officials and peace officers…or lietenants or captains in the Pima County Sheriff’s Department.”

30% of eligible employees must submit a valid showing of interest to move forward with the election, which according to the May 27 memo, consists of 148 signatures when combining current Deputy, Detective, and Sergeant positions. PCDO presented 179 signatures.

AZPM received a list of 279 members of PCDO as of June 2025. PCDSA President Tyler Rivas said his organization has 135 active members. With current vacancies, the May 27 memo reads there are a total of 494 eligible employees, which includes Deputy, Detective, and Sergeant positions.

“We welcome the election. However, the way that the Board of Supervisors is allowing members to vote is what we do not agree on,” Rivas said.

Rivas said his organization has been successful in achieving raises and settling lawsuits with the county. He also said he doubted the effectiveness of a union that disagrees with Nanos’ leadership.

“My organization has the ability to work with the current administration, whereas the other organization does not. I don't think an MOU [memorandum of understanding] is going to change that relationship at all,” he said.

On the other side, Cross said there is room for improved employee benefits, and his organization will benefit from increased legitimacy if they win the election.

“The county has made some progress over the last couple years, but we're really getting our clocks cleaned when it comes to pay, specifically to the other local area agencies,” he said. “The sheriff will finally have to recognize our position, which he has been purposely ignoring for a few years now, that we are the largest union and we represent the most members.”

There are five total unions in the department. Hans Goritz, the Vice President of the Department’s Fraternal Order of Police, or FOP, confirmed his union is telling its members to vote for the PCDO in the upcoming election.

“It’s time for a change,” he said.

The FOP has previously remained neutral in union disagreements over Nanos’ leadership. PCDO is publicly critical of Nanos. Last year, they released a vote of no confidence in the sheriff, which prompted an opposing show of support from PCDSA. Cross and the PCDO supported Republican candidate Heather Lappin during the 2024 election. Nanos placed both Lappin and Cross on administrative leave in the run-up to the election, and they both filed separate lawsuits. The controversy drew more scrutiny to recurring allegations of retaliation from Nanos, against dissension in the department.