In 2024, serious allegations involving Chief Deputy Adam Olson led to an internal investigation by the Jackson County Sheriff's Office.  The Sheriffs own final report stated that some of the allegations had merit to support that investigation, and Olson resigned before it was completed.  

That left important questions unresolved:  Why the matter was not referred for independent review, whether employees felt safe reporting concerns, and whether resignation should have been treated as the end of the investigation

In 2024, the Jackson County Sheriff investigated serious allegations involving then-Chief Deputy Adam Olson.

According to the Sheriff’s final report, allegations involving sexual misconduct and harassment “had merit to support an internal investigation.” The investigation also described inappropriate relationships involving female subordinates, and reporting on the investigation states that some of the conduct occurred while Olson was serving in supervisory positions.

That should raise serious questions about the organization’s reporting structure.

If concerns involving the second highest ranking official in the Sheriff’s Office existed for an extended period of time, leadership should be examining why they were not reported sooner, whether employees feared consequences for speaking up, and whether employees had a reporting system they trusted.

This is bigger than one employee.

It is about culture, accountability, communication, concerns about retaliation, and whether employees had a safe and independent way to report misconduct involving command staff.

Not every allegation was proven. That distinction matters.

But in my view, some of the allegations described in the report went beyond questions of internal policy, workplace rules, or employee discipline and warranted referral for independent external review.

When allegations involving command staff potentially extend beyond internal personnel violations, the Sheriff should not be the only person deciding where that investigation begins and ends.

An independent review would have protected the employees who came forward, protected the individual accused, protected the integrity of the investigation, and protected public confidence in the outcome.

It also would have allowed an outside agency to determine independently whether the information warranted any additional investigation or action.

According to reporting based on the Sheriff’s investigation, Olson resigned while the investigation was underway.

Resignation may end an employment relationship. It should not automatically end the examination of serious allegations.

Leaving the organization does not answer what occurred, whether others had relevant information, why employees may have been reluctant to report concerns, or what organizational changes may be necessary to prevent similar circumstances in the future.

This issue also matters when we talk about employee retention.

Pay and benefits matter. But employees also need confidence that serious concerns will be heard, handled consistently, and investigated fairly regardless of the rank or position of the person involved.

As Sheriff, I will establish a clear outside reporting pathway for serious allegations involving command staff. When allegations potentially extend beyond internal policy or personnel matters, I will seek appropriate independent review rather than relying solely on an internal process.

No one in the Sheriff’s Office should be insulated from scrutiny because of title, rank, or position.

Accountability must be consistent from the top of the organization down.

The Sheriff is entrusted with significant authority. With that authority comes an equally significant responsibility to exercise sound judgment—to recognize when a matter should remain internal, when it requires independent review, and when the integrity of the organization requires bringing someone from outside the organization in.

Employees and the public should be able to trust not only the authority of the Sheriff, but the judgment used in exercising it.