EDITORIAL: Officer dodges firing by claiming disability

The Oct. 15 termination of Las Vegas police officer Jesus Arevalo was supposed to a be a defining moment for the Metropolitan Police Department. An agency with a history of questionable fatal shootings of unarmed civilians, and a lack of accountability resulting from those deaths, for the first time had fired an officer for improper use of deadly force.

It was indeed a defining moment. It resulted in a fleecing for the ages and highlighted how public employees avoid discipline and cash in at the public’s expense.

As reported Jan. 26 by the Review-Journal’s Mike Blasky, it turns out the 36-year-old Mr. Arevalo was awarded a disability retirement before the department completed its termination process. His disability: stress related to his firing and the shooting that prompted his firing.

Mr. Arevalo killed Stanley Gibson, a mentally ill Gulf War veteran who became lost driving around an apartment complex in December 2011, prompting residents to call police. Mr. Gibson’s vehicle was blocked by police vehicles, but a plan to extract him from his car went horribly wrong. When another officer fired a beanbag-shotgun blast to break one of Mr. Gibson’s windows, Mr. Arevalo thought Mr. Gibson was firing on police from inside his car, prompting Mr. Arevalo to fire his assault rifle. That decision resulted in a $1.5 million settlement for Mr. Gibson’s widow.

The incident followed a Review-Journal series on police use of deadly force and, tragically, validated the newspaper’s findings: inadequate training, outdated policies and systemic resistance to transparency and reform were contributing factors in the shootings of suspects. Subsequent investigations led to changes in training, policies and oversight. That created momentum for Mr. Arevalo’s termination — a process that took almost two years.

He was on paid suspension the entire time, collecting more than $183,000 for not working. Once it was clear he was going to lose his job, Mr. Arevalo submitted his disability retirement paperwork. His immediate supervisor and personal physician signed off on his stress, and the Public Employees Retirement System of Nevada board and the pension agency’s doctor approved. That happened less than a month before his firing was finalized.

The decision allows Mr. Arevalo to take home a gross benefit of about $2,500 per month for the rest of his life, with cost of living increases. He should collect more than $1 million over 35 years.

But Mr. Arevalo’s disability applies only to police work. Those who collect federal disability benefits or long-term disability benefits through a private insurer aren’t supposed to work — if they can hold any sort of job, they’re not disabled. But Mr. Arevalo is free to start a new career and use his police retirement as a nice start toward his monthly expenses.

“The whole medical retirement thing, for a lot of people, is a joke,” a police officer with knowledge of department disciplinary policies told Mr. Blasky.

Another joke: One of the PERS board members who approved Mr. Arevalo’s disability retirement was Chris Collins, who heads Mr. Arevalo’s union. It’s outrageous that such an obvious conflict of interest goes on to this day. The PERS board is a rubber stamp.

It’s clear that this is business as usual within the Metropolitan Police Department and PERS. It’s clear that those who made sure Mr. Arevalo had a soft landing believe he got a bad deal. And because PERS and all other government agencies operate independently of one another, the fleecing can continue.

Mr. Arevalo clearly did not respond to Mr. Gibson’s car intent on shooting him. Mr. Arevalo clearly feels guilt for taking another man’s life. But good people who make terrible mistakes at work lose their jobs all the time — without collecting a taxpayer-funded check for the rest of their lives.

The Legislature must remedy a system that can declare someone disabled yet allow them to continue working. Stress should be off the table as a permanent disability. And PERS must be required to ask a simple question before considering a disability retirement: Is this person facing discipline or termination?

Someone needs to look out for taxpayers in this process, not treat them like chumps.