Spokane7
33°
February 5, 2010 in City
Deputy prosecutor vying for boss’s job put on paid leave
A Spokane County deputy prosecutor who announced this week that he’s running for his boss’ job has been placed on paid leave and faces possible discipline.
Prosecutor Steve Tucker said his complaints against David Stevens are “obviously” connected to Stevens’ decision to challenge him in the August primary, but he declined to specify further, citing contract rules.
Stevens has until Wednesday to respond to a letter sent to him Friday by Tucker.
Stevens declined to release a copy of the letter but said Tucker wrote in it that Stevens had “violated behavioral standards by not effectively communicating with other county employees and not getting along with other coworkers and managers.”
The move comes one day after Stevens announced his candidacy and blasted Tucker’s leadership in the Prosecutor’s Office, calling him an “absent administrator.”
Tucker questioned Thursday why “the public should be paying somebody to run against his boss” and noted that he resigned as a deputy prosecutor before challenging the incumbent, Jim Sweetser, in 1998.
Stevens has been with the Prosecutor’s Office since 2002. He concentrates on prosecuting career criminals.
Tucker said Friday that he couldn’t comment on his complaints against Stevens while the allegations are pending.
“He’s not being punished, (but) there’s punishment possible,” Tucker said. “If he can explain everything we’ve given him there may not be any discipline.”
Union contracts allow deputy prosecutors to contest complaints before being disciplined.
“He has time to respond, and I’m not to make any determination until after that,” Tucker said. “It’s due process rights that are in the contract.”
Stevens said he still plans to run. He said he’s discussing his options with union representatives and might ask for more time to respond to Tucker’s letter.
He declined to comment on the allegations or the decision to place him on leave.
“I’m not going to speculate as to what their motives are,” he said.
This week, Stevens, 47, won an endorsement from the Spokane County Republican Party.
Party chairwoman Cindy Zapotocky said Thursday that Tucker hasn’t yet asked for an endorsement but she doesn’t foresee any obstacles to him also receiving the party’s stamp of approval.
Tucker was elected prosecutor in 1998, 2002 and 2006. One of his initial acts as prosecutor after the first election was to fire five employees, including his former supervisor, who suspended Tucker from his deputy prosecutor’s position for five days in 1997.
Tucker had been punished for regularly missing meetings and other performance issues. Tucker argued the suspension was politically motivated and said Friday that unlike Stevens, he wasn’t allowed a chance to contest the allegations against him.
Recent stories by Meghann M. Cuniff
Police hunt suspect in triple homicide February 12, 2012 5- Killer sought in Spokane triple homicide February 11, 2012 3
- Ex-wife’s death record displayed February 11, 2012 1
- Police: Starbuck had ex-wife’s death certificate displayed February 10, 2012 4
- Multistate prostitution alleged February 10, 2012 11
WSU Text-to-Win Contest 
EWU Text-to-Win Contest 
Enter to win tickets to see Adam Carolla at the Knitting Factory 
Erik_T on February 05 at 8:49 p.m.
LOL
crader72 on February 05 at 9:27 p.m.
So talking bad about him appears to be the only way to get some prompt action from Steve Tucker’s office.
lewis8457 on February 05 at 9:29 p.m.
Tucker is too chicken to fight fair. what horses ass.
Liberty_Bell on February 05 at 9:56 p.m.
Any sharp lawyer would know the difference between politics and law.
“Absentee” is obvious.
“He’s not being punished, (but) there’s punishment possible,” Tucker said. “If he can explain everything we’ve given him there may not be any discipline.”
Go tell that one to a Judge, and Jury, he might prosecute, or he might not???
He might be punished or he might not?
He could be a prosecutor, or he “IS” a politician?
VOTE STEVENS!
Ron_the_Cop on February 05 at 10:18 p.m.
C R,
I was thinking the same thing. My sources have told me you can find Tucker at the Globe and also at the 19th green of the Downriver Gold Course. Stevens has a point that the Tucker has issues with making decisions but Tucker apparently was able to make this decision today. I haven’t researched Stevens yet but one of my sources says he doesn’t impress either.
CalJones on February 05 at 10:41 p.m.
I really like the fact that most attorneys wont do a hundred criminal jury trials in their entire lives, yet in the past 10 years Dave Stevens has prosecuted over a hundred criminal jury trials!
How many has Tucker done?
VOTE DAVE STEVENS • FIRE TUCKER
reservedparking on February 06 at 12:28 a.m.
The epitome of disloyalty!
The least Stevens could have done is resign prior to announcing his run for his boss’s job.
He’s already lost my vote with these tactics.
robchase on February 06 at 3:31 a.m.
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.
Abraham Lincoln
TrueGOP on February 06 at 6:53 a.m.
Mr. Tucker is a bully when it comes to his job. It appears that he really likes to intimidate people to get his way. If they don’t bend his way they get fired or put on leave.
Mr. Tucker, is definitely not a true leader. Mr. Stevens may not be the best, but he is 100% better then Tucker.
Stevens definitely has my support.
ZagChuck on February 06 at 7:08 a.m.
This almost seems like an abuse of office. Haven’t we all had enough of political officials abusing the power of their office as they wield the power of the purse strings as a tool to control dissent? It seems as if Tucker is trying to force compliance with his personality, rather than with the law or with the policies of the Prosecutors Office. The reprehensible attempt to take away Stevens’ source of income, especially during this economy, also helps Stevens prove his point of Tuckers lack of leadership.
Most of us are aware the large case loads each Deputy Prosecutor has, yet Steve Tucker doesn’t handle a case, and when challenged from within his own office, he removes the Deputy Prosecutor challenger, and shifts an even larger burden upon the others. Somebody has to ask; how does that serve the public? Every citizen in the county should be aware of the risks Tucker is taking with their security, by making this obviously politically motivated decision.
greyhound2 on February 06 at 8:03 a.m.
If paid leave means you get to stay home while you collect your paycheck, that would be a great deal. How many weeks do you think he can squeeze out of this one? If I were him, I would try for at least six months, or more if he can get it.
Liberty_Bell on February 06 at 8:08 a.m.
It is commonly known that the early forms of legal procedure were grounded in vengeance. Modern writers have thought that the Roman law started from the blood feud, and all the authorities agree that the German law begun in that way. The feud led to the composition, at first optional, then compulsory, by which the feud was bought off. The gradual encroachment of the composition may be traced in the Anglo-Saxon laws, and the feud was pretty well broken up, though not extinguished, by the time of William the Conqueror. The killings and house-burnings of an earlier day became the appeals of mayhem and arson. The appeals de pace et plagis and of mayhem became, or rather were in substance, the action of trespass which is still familiar to lawyers. But as the compensation recovered in the appeal was the alternative of vengeance, we might expect to find its scope limited to the scope of vengeance. Vengeance imports a feeling of blame, and an opinion, however distorted by passion, that a wrong has been done. It can hardly go very far beyond the case of a harm intentionally inflicted: even a dog distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked.
westside on February 06 at 10:57 a.m.
Tucker..you are history next election!! The reason Spokane is full of criminals on the loose is YOU and your style of prosecuting….
Ninch on February 06 at 11:02 a.m.
Tucker is so insolated that he does not even consider “appearance of fairness.”
misjustice on February 06 at 12:03 p.m.
Why would it be illegal to run against your boss for an office? Mr. Stevens should have the same rights as any other person to run for office, even if it is against his current boss!
Tucker is a bully & should be voted out.
incredible on February 06 at 12:13 p.m.
Tucker has repeatedly let criminals out of Jail… He has not backed the prosecutors under him in his office, have stepped into cases he knows nothing about and let criminals out of Jail. Then they can break the law again and make him look like an A$$. But unfortunately those criminals are hurting people in the process. Even reoffending there original victims!! Maybe Tucker should be locked in a cell with the criminals he let out.. Lets see if he could handle that! No bars and golf in your cell sir.!
Ron_the_Cop on February 07 at 10:05 p.m.
Incredible,
You need to read my piece:
‘Fraud: Scam Capital of America’ vs. an ‘Army of Davids’
http://friendsofmarkfuhrman.org/blog/?p=138
D Statler on February 08 at 8:55 p.m.
I cannot believe Tucker has been re-elected twice! I have witnessed Tuckers office make deals with very dangerous people to convict innocent people.How can the Prosecutors office wield more power than our judges? How can Tucker justify sending THIRTEEN deputy prosecutors into coerce Judge Eitzen into ruling for them.How could Judge Eitzen allow that in her courtroom?I won’t be surprised to see him start bringing charges against anybody that runs against him. Malicious prosecution is quite common under Tucker. I said it before and I’ll say it again.Please vote in November! There has to be a better choice than we are being offered. We need to review Mr. Steven’s past before we elect someone that will run the show identically as Tucker has.These people are very corrupt at the Prosecutors office! I would venture to say that Mr.Stevens was one of the THIRTEEN prosecutors setting in Eitzen’s courtroom the day I lost faith in our system!
ultra_litigator on February 09 at 11:12 p.m.
Not that it matters, but I wasn’t in Eitzen’s courtroom that day. That’s pretty cheap.