Why did Boise fire its police overseer? Document lists 6 previously undisclosed reasons
A newly revealed document suggests that Boise officials had more reasons than they had told the public for dismissing the city’s previous police overseer.
The document was included in a court filing Boise made in which city officials denied that they were retaliating against Jesus Jara when the City Council fired him as police accountability director.
Jara sued the city three days after he was fired in December 2022. He has alleged that officials illegally retaliated after he investigated police officers’ complaints against former Police Chief Ryan Lee.
The filing included a memo — not previously released to the public — that Jara received when he was placed on administrative leave one week before he was fired. The memo notified him of the leave and outlined six concerns:
A failure to provide the City Council with policy recommendations, a community engagement plan, or an analysis of trends of police officer-involved shootings and use of force.
A failure to “take appropriate action” after learning that multiple police officers made false claims to the public accountability office.
Improper handling of sensitive information.
Intake of complaints that were under the jurisdiction of the police department’s Office of Internal Affairs or human resources department.
Viewing of officers’ body-camera footage “outside of the context of an actual community-based complaint.”
Failure to secure legal counsel for his office.
All these issues “caused the city to have grave concerns about (Jara’s) ability to effectively lead this office,” council members, along with Boise Mayor Lauren McLean, wrote at the time.
A city press release at the time of Jara’s firing didn’t mention them. It cited only officials’ concerns about Jara’s viewing of officers’ body-camera footage, according to previous Statesman reporting.
Depositions of city officials made public in February revealed that city officials’ decision to fire Jara was driven partially by accusations that he improperly handled officers’ complaints and leaked a confidential memo to the media, the Statesman previously reported.
Jara’s “firing was not retaliatory nor was it related to the Lee investigation,” an attorney representing the city wrote in a court filing March 12, adding that Jara “has conveniently failed to acknowledge or address the legitimate reasons for terminating his employment.”
In a response two days later, Jara’s attorney questioned this legitimacy. He argued that city policy gives the accountability director’s office an “unbridled exercise of independence and discretion” that would have limited the city’s ability to challenge Jara’s approach to the job.
These filings are the latest in a monthslong back-and-forth between Jara and city officials since Jara sued. In February, Jara’s Boise attorney, Grady Hepworth, asked Fourth District Judge Jonathan Medema to rule that the city “illegally retaliated” against Jara and violated Idaho’s Whistleblower Act.
The city denied Jara’s narrative and asked Medema to deny the judgment. The city noted that Jara documented officers’ complaints about Lee seven months before his firing, arguing that this timing was “relevant evidence” that the events were not linked.
The city wrote that its decision to fire Jara was a response to his “continued failure” to address the six problems. Jara was “advised” of these problems through the memoranda and “numerous meetings” with city leaders, they wrote.
Jara did not include or explain the memo placing him on administrative leave in his own lawsuit, an omission the city called “critical.”
“This document is itself sufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact” to counter Jara’s claim that the city was retaliating against him, according to the city.
In his reply, Hepworth argued that the reasons in the city’s memo were themselves retaliation for Jara’s whistleblower grievance. Hepworth declined to comment to the Statesman, citing ongoing litigation.
Jara met with Mayor McLean before firing
Jara was working with the city to address some of their concerns less than two weeks before he was placed on leave. In late 2022, Jara had met with several city leaders, including McLean, to discuss goals for the office.
In the memo placing Jara on leave, the city said requests by the City Council for “analysis and recommendations” from the oversight office went “unanswered,” as Jara didn’t provide an analysis of trends related to the Police Department’s police shootings and use-of-force instances. The memo added that Jara didn’t create a community engagement plan to “ensure transparency and solidify trust in the community.”
But Hepworth, in his filing, said that a handout Jara shared at the Nov. 22, 2022, meeting with city leaders showed Jara was working in “good faith” to address these concerns.
Meeting notes obtained by the Statesman in response to a public-records request showed that Jara discussed goals for a community-engagement plan and said he planned to publicize trend data by the end of January 2023.
The meeting was part of a recent change to the oversight of the office after McLean and City Council members became concerned that Jara was randomly viewing body-cam footage. On Nov. 1, 2022, two additional City Council members were added to a subcommittee that oversaw the office, and the number of subcommittee meetings was increased to twice a month, the Statesman previously reported.
“The only plausible manner to interpret the city’s argument is that city leadership disagreed with the manner in which Mr. Jara was performing his OPA duties, which is an illegal justification for termination,” Hepworth said.
The council appointed Nicole McKay as Jara’s successor in August.
The city and Jara are scheduled to argue their sides during a 2 p.m. hearing Monday at the Ada County Courthouse.
