Earlier this month, the Pima County Board of Supervisors directed Sheriff Chris Nanos to answer a mandatory line of questioning, under oath, about his employment history and leadership approach.
On Tuesday, the Board got some answers — in the form of a document penned by Nanos’ attorney.
Through his lawyer, Nanos denied recent reports that he’d misrepresented his work history with the El Paso Police Department in the 1980s. The sheriff also acknowledged that he’d been flagged for “various disciplinary actions” during his time in El Paso, though he said he had “little specific recollection” of those events.
Nanos also defended his decision to place an employee on administrative leave while she competed against him in the 2024 election.
“The sheriff appreciates this opportunity to answer the Board’s questions and to document his tireless efforts to protect and serve the people of Pima County,” attorney James Cool wrote on behalf of Nanos.
Two supervisors who spoke with AZPM this week weren’t impressed.
“I find the responses problematic,” said District 2 Supervisor Matt Heinz, citing concerns that Nanos’ report had not been made under oath.
“I think a lot of the issues were downplayed,” District 3 Supervisor Jen Allen said of the report.
Nanos has faced scrutiny over a number of issues in his second term, ranging from criticism over his handling of the Nancy Guthrie investigation to an ongoing lawsuit accusing his department of collaborating with Border Patrol agents.
In March, questions about his work history arose after an Arizona Republic investigation found discrepancies in his resume. According to records obtained by the Republic, Nanos resigned from the El Paso Police Department in 1982 in lieu of being fired. Nanos’ resume had stated otherwise — claiming he left the El Paso Police Department in 1984. One day after the story’s publication, Nanos amended his resume on the PCSD website, describing the inconsistency as a clerical error, rather than an intentional misrepresentation.
Weeks later, the Board ordered Nanos to answer a slew of questions — verbally or in writing. The supervisors are slated to discuss Nanos’ response at their next regular meeting on May 13.
Why did Nanos leave the El Paso Police Department?##
In his report to the Board of Supervisors Tuesday, Nanos said he resigned from the El Paso Police Department 1982 due to “a dispute with a supervisor over the towing of vehicles.” After the dispute, Nanos said, his supervisor wanted to impose a three-day suspension, something the department’s police chief also supported.
“Rather than accept a three-day suspension, Sheriff Nanos offered to resign in lieu of discipline,” the report states.
In Nanos’ report, the sheriff admits to other disciplinary infractions in the El Paso Police Department, resulting in counseling, reprimands and suspensions.
“That discipline, and the actions that gave rise to it, happened more than four decades ago. The sheriff has little specific recollection of those events,” Nanos’ attorney wrote.
But records released by the Board of Supervisors last month – apparently from the El Paso Police Department’s Internal Affairs Division – offer a more detailed glimpse into those infractions.
Between 1977 and 1982, those records show, Nanos was flagged for infractions including habitual tardiness, gambling, and failure to report for duty. At one point, those records show, Nanos was given a 15-day suspension for excessive force. He was suspended eight times during the six-year period.
The final entry, dated Aug. 3, 1982, says Nanos resigned “in lieu of termination,” coinciding with the Arizona Republic investigation.
“This person was not qualified to be in law enforcement for his entire four-decade history here, and the community does not deserve to continue to be afflicted by his presence,” Heinz said.
In 1984, Nanos applied to work for the Pima County Sheriff’s Department, where he spent more than four decades without suspension, his attorney said. Nanos’ attorney asserted that the sheriff had been “truthful and forthcoming” when he applied to work for Pima County, noting that Nanos had been subject to a background check at the time.
In addition, Nanos’ attorney argued that the sheriff’s past disciplinary history was “irrelevant” to the performance of his official duties in Pima County.
“Whatever the sheriff did or did not do before being elected is necessarily unrelated to his performance of the duties of his office,” he wrote.
Heinz: Unsworn statements cause for concern##
Heinz has been a particularly vocal critic of Nanos, telling AZPM in an interview this week that “the community does not deserve to continue to be afflicted by his presence.”
But regarding the sheriff’s report, the District 2 supervisor had one qualm in particular.
“The core thing that I'm most concerned about, and baffled by, is that (Nanos) chose to submit these 20 pages unsworn,” Heinz said. “The statute requires that this be under oath, and he did not do that by the deadline.”
When the supervisors ordered Nanos to submit a report about his duties and work history, they did so under ARS 11-253 — an Arizona law that allows supervisors to demand sworn statements from county officers.
In Nanos’ report, there is no mention that the sheriff’s statements were made under oath.
“This must be under oath. That's what the statute requires,” Heinz added. “I don't know if he's refusing to do so, or isn't comfortable doing so, or what. But that is troubling.
But Nanos’ attorney, James Cool, argued this week the supervisors had never specifically asked the sheriff for a sworn statement.
“Your letter dated April 8, 2026, inviting the sheriff to provide a written report on four discrete topics, does not request the report be made ‘under oath,’” Cool wrote in a letter to the Board of Supervisors’ attorney. “Indeed, the words ‘under oath’ or ‘sworn’ do not appear in your letter.”
Cool added that Nanos would “gladly” submit a notarized verification to the Board of Supervisors.
Allen: Removing Nanos from office under Arizona statute ‘would be a stretch’##
Under ARS 11-253, if a county officer fails to submit a required report to the Board of Supervisors, they could be removed from office.
Both Heinz and Allen acknowledged that Nanos had submitted a response before the deadline, though the supervisors said they planned to discuss whether those responses were adequate at their next regular meeting on May 13.
“We received the report within 10 working days, not under oath. So some pieces were met, some were not,” Allen said.
Still, she noted that ARS 11-253 is a territorial-era law with little precedent.
"If a report is not made, then the position can be vacated. But there is no precedent that describes how that happens, what that looks like. So it's incredibly mushy,” Allen said.
Would the Board of Supervisors remove Nanos from office under the statute?
Allen paused.
“It would be a stretch,” she said. “It would be a stretch.”
