The City of Palouse recently fired its longtime police chief after an investigation found evidence he had failed to respond to a 911 call, claimed overtime pay for callouts he did not respond to in person and issued concealed pistol licenses without completing proper background checks.
Police Chief Jerry Neumann had been on paid medical leave since July, shortly after he received an “unsatisfactory” annual review. The medical leave, initially expected to last a couple weeks, stretched on as the city’s insurance provider investigated allegations against Neumann.
Clear Risk Solutions, a regional risk management company, submitted a 39-page investigation report on Neumann’s alleged misconduct to the city in mid-December. The report documents seven alleged violations of department policy or state law, ranging from improper discipline of employees to issuing pistol licenses to residents outside his authority.
“There are findings in the report serious enough to warrant me to consider terminating your employment,” Palouse Mayor Tim Sievers wrote to Neumann on Dec. 22.
Amid the performance review and following investigation, Neumann has denied any wrongdoing. He has also leveled accusations of false reporting, perjury, slander and other misconduct against current and former Palouse police officers as well as city officials.
The Palouse City Council unanimously voted to end Neumann’s employment on Feb. 8 in support of an action item brought forward by Sievers. The termination was effective immediately.
When contacted for comment, Neumann directed questions to his attorney. The attorney did not provide any comment on the situation.
Neumann had served as Palouse police chief since 2005. In a Jan. 10 response to the investigation, Neumann disputed the misconduct findings and maintained he had acted properly in all instances. He described the findings as retaliation for raising previous allegations against officers and officials.
“I have worked diligently and ethically as a public servant,” he wrote. “In 16 years as a chief you are going to make friends, allies, and sometimes enemies. … I would note that I have never received formal discipline in 16 years.”
For its report, Clear Risk investigator Dave Helvey interviewed Neumann as well as a number of current and former Palouse officials. The investigator also reviewed department policies, personnel files, shift schedules and incident reports.
Helvey reportedly examined records for 96 concealed pistol licenses that Neumann issued from 2019 to July 2021. Applications must go through background checks with the Washington State Patrol and health authorities. The chief also has limited authority to issue licenses to Palouse or out-of-state residents only.
“Chief Neumann did not meet the requirements of the law for any of the permits he issued,” the report stated. “[Many] of the applications appeared to be incomplete.”
In some cases, the State Patrol had no records of Neumann submitting checks while in other cases Neumann issued the licenses before checks came back. The report stated Neumann also issued licenses to individuals outside his city authority.
“I asked Chief Neumann if he knew he was only allowed to issue [concealed pistol licenses] to applicants who either live outside Washington State or who live in Palouse,” Helvey wrote. “He told me he understood that, but his practice was to issue a permit to anyone who applied and was eligible.”
Helvey wrote in his report that he also found evidence that Neumann had not submitted the required reports for a number of calls, including unattended deaths and a child abuse call. The investigator also wrote Neumann had claimed overtime pay for calls he did not respond to in person.
“The evidence clearly shows Chief Neumann does not write reports for the majority of incidents he is assigned to,” Helvey wrote, later adding, “Based on the evidence I was able to locate and review, I do not believe Chief Neumann met the requirements to receive callout pay for the claims listed.”
On a separate allegation, the investigator wrote Neumann did not respond to a vehicle collision 911 call in April 2021, instead briefly discussing the incident over the phone, but still claiming a two-hour callout pay.
In his written response, Neumann asserted he had completed all necessary reports and had appropriately responded to all calls that he claimed callout pay for.
The report also described an incident in which Neumann drove an all-terrain vehicle through a subordinate’s yard as well as complaints about Neumann’s management of employees and schedules.
Previous Palouse Mayor Chris Cook initially brought forward a number of concerns about Neumann’s conduct during a June annual performance evaluation. Cook rated Neumann’s work as “unsatisfactory” and created a corrective action plan.
Cook alleged Neumann had failed to file reports for calls, had improperly disciplined a subordinate, struggled to manage staff scheduling and failed to appropriately navigate a local controversy over the flying of a Thin Blue Line flag.
Cook stepped down as mayor in September and did not respond to a request for comment from Whitman County Watch.
Shortly after meeting with the mayor for his evaluation, Neumann wrote a six-page memo that outlined numerous conduct allegations against Cook and Palouse Officer Joel Anderson. Neumann accused Cook and Anderson of fabricating complaints and conspiring to retaliate against him. Neumann requested an outside agency investigate the allegations against him.
“All false accusations and lies made against me that are contained in my annual performance review are to be removed from my file,” he wrote, “and I’m to be made whole.”
In his memo, Neumann also renewed 2019 allegations of theft against a former Palouse police officer. The Washington State Patrol investigated those allegations at the time and forwarded their findings to the county.
Whitman County Prosecutor Denis Tracy later issued a decision letter clearing the officer of any criminal conduct. His office provided Whitman County Watch with more than 100 pages of investigative documents on the case.
Palouse Mayor Sievers briefly spoke with Whitman County Watch in early December prior to the completion of the Clear Risk report. Sievers reaffirmed at the time Neumann was on medical leave, not administrative leave.
Sievers could not confirm whether Neumann had filed any tort or other legal claims against the city. He recently responded it would not be appropriate to comment on a personnel matter.
“Personnel issues are tricky,” he said in December.
Clear Risk Solutions also conducted the 2018 investigation into former Colfax Police Chief Rick McNannay, who was fired and later reinstated. A Civil Service Commission at the time commented that Clear Risk could not conduct a truly independent investigation because it represented the city’s insurance.
Whitman County Watch obtained the records on the Neumann investigation following multiple public records requests last year. City officials initially refused to release certain records, but later reversed their response when asked to cite the legal exemptions allowing them to withhold the documents. They then took several weeks to review and redact the records, releasing the final report the night the council voted on Neumann’s termination.
Witch hunt and pure bull! You speculate on everything and spun a story better than CNN and MSNBC. Here is a text from Officer Anderson to me via text, personally two weeks ago when I reported a hit and run major door ding on my new truck. And you believe his line of bull? Better go back to journalism school, rather than being a hit man.
“The cameras were always controlled by Jerry either via an app on his phone or w the mouse at the PD. The mouse at the PD has a password to access that only Jerry knows.
Also – the resolution on these cameras at night would not be able to positively identify any license plate or person from this far away – even if it had zoom AND record capabilities.”
What a lame excuse sir not doing his job. Maybe you ought to look into his performance record before you trash the Chief’s. Officer Anderson’s record isn’t all that impeccable…. From his own mouth to my own ears when I worked for the city of Garfield. Just sayin
Ok I read the whole entire report. It’s NOTHING but he said she said, no factual data. No historical data such as, it’s done this way in every town, or has been done this way long before I started. No dates as to when certain complaints happened vs when reported. And there is a whole crap ton of the investigator adding his personal experience or opinion, which should bare no importance to the report. This is amateur at best. And the fact that this reporter used this information to form this piece!? It’s a liberal anti cop anti gun anti everything that makes small towns so great to be in, piece of nonsense. Take time to read the report. And the Mayor!? This investigation was placed under a gag order and yet he’s out there blabbing his mouth? Seriously, if it wasn’t so serious I’d be laughing my ass off! Who is this clown that did the investigation?
Stay classy Palouse! People that are defending this cop are people that didn’t have to deal with the harassment and lies that chief of police was know for. I live in Palouse and had constant harassment from Neumann for false accusations again my family and I. Funny how he only stopped harassing us when I caught him on video walking onto my private property on my surveillance cameras poking through windows with no one home with no warrant or cause aside from not liking me and my family. Went to court and he never showed up for the false accusations he ticketed my family for. Sad that I had to install surveillance video otherwise it would be a my word against a cop. People that think cops won’t lie are living in a fantasy. Unfortunately unless we have video evidence citizens can’t defend themselves against crooked cops especially in a small town. Residents have complained numerous times about the cops in Palouse and they only do something about it when it’s another cop complaining…funny how that works. Listen to the people that live in town and pay taxes! Police the police! #byeFelicia
Oh my! Here is a response from said officer that was so against the chief. He acts like he’s the Angel in all of this….
My truck was damaged downtown Palouse, I simply asked if he would look at the cameras to see if he could see who may have done it, not an unusual request, and his response and I quote Officer Anderson (email 2/22/22)
2) Parking your vehicle in a busy/packed downtown parking lot during a
popular event has its inherent risks. Just like having the vehicle in
front of you kick up a rock on the highway causing a ding to your
windshield is a hazard of driving, parking a vehicle downtown in side by
side parking runs the risk of an accidental door ding.
It took me getting the mayor involved just to get him to look into the situation. Chief Neumann wouldn’t have skipped a beat in assisting in something like this. Anderson however likes to make folks feel like he’s doing citizens a favor and excepts us to treat it as such! As though we OWE him for doing the job he’s paid to do. 🤮
It’s strange to see such a small town act like a bunch of socialist. It makes one wonder what is really going on in Palouse. Used to be a nice friendly town when I was there years ago. Seems like the new people that moved into a small town to escape the liberal depravity created by voting for nothing but liberals brought that bullshit with them. Sad to see.
Glad that you can see that! What is missing from this story is the OTHER SIDE! I worked for the City of Garfield when this witch hunt started. The stories I could tell. Oh, but I’ll save those for later. However, if you look at the investigation, and not this hit piece of terrible reporting, you will see the dispatch log of the night where a person backed into his neighbor’s garage. CHIEF NEUMAN INITIATED THE CALL – 601 is his #. He received a call on his cell phone from the victim, not through a 911 call as the report suggests, (investigation? no hit piece). It was actually Officer Anderson who did not respond to dispatch, his # 603. Also notice that it was changed from a hit and run non injury, to an accident non injury. But the naive reporter went solely on what an inept, biased investigator stated. All he had to do was research just a tiny bit and he would have understood that what he was writing was completely FALSE. Does the investigator not even understand a dispatch log? Clearly, he doesn’t. Chief Neumann requested the Sheriff’s department to respond since he was out of town, and Anderson was not responding. (I’ll be doing a records request to determine if Anderson was on paid leave, or if he chose just not to answer. Here is where my time in Garfield comes into play. While I was employed there, on call and on call pay became a HUGE bone of contention with Officer Anderson. This is when things went south with his working relationship with the chief. Anderson wanted on call pay even when he wasn’t on a call out. It was a big to do with both Garfield and Palouse, since at the time they were under a contract that the PPD serviced both towns. AND NONE OF THIS IS IN THE INVESTIGATION OR THIS PATHETIC PIECE OF “REPORTING” … The call out part of Anderson’s job was HUGE, and it was inevitably what aided (along with others in this witch hunt) in the ending of the contract between the two towns. Oh, but there is a whole other side to this. Oh yes…. The other officer. Frankly this report is redacted, but I feel like maybe I’ll just fill it in with all the names and info and repost for everyone to see. I can do this, because I know all the players involved. And once that’s done, mercy would a whole lot of other BS in this report make sense…