OPEN LETTER TO PATRICK L. HERNANDEZ
Chief, Operations, Security, and Preparedness
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
SUBJECT: Institutional Awareness, Mission Assurance, and Stewardship of the Phoenix VA Police Department
Mr. Hernandez,
On February 11, 2026, you visited the Phoenix VA Health Care System (PVAHCS) and met with members of the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Police Department.
By that point, concerns involving racial hostility, sexual harassment, retaliation, and questions concerning credibility and suitability had already been raised through multiple channels over a period of years. Some resulted in substantiated findings. Others remain pending.
Regardless of the path they traveled, these matters are no longer unknown.
That distinction matters.
Organizations inherit many things: successes, failures, traditions, and unresolved problems. Responsibility for creating a condition and responsibility for knowingly inheriting that condition are not always the same. Yet institutions are ultimately judged not by the absence of problems, but by what follows once those problems become known.
Over time, allegations become findings. Findings become records. Records become institutional memory. And institutional memory eventually becomes institutional responsibility.
The issue now is no longer awareness.
The issue is stewardship.
DOCUMENTED PATTERNS
The concern repeatedly expressed by employees, former employees, and members of the public is not whether isolated incidents occurred.
Rather, the concern is whether a pattern has emerged and whether the responses to those patterns have been sufficient to maintain confidence in the institution.
RACIAL HOSTILITY AND VIOLATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964
A Sustained Finding
On October 13, 2023, in a Final Agency Decision issued in Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication (OEDCA) Case No. 200P-644-2022-147530, the Department sustained findings involving race-based harassment and supervisory failures.
Among the documented incidents was a supervisor interrupting Black officers who were having a conversation and stating:
The significance of the remark extends beyond the words themselves.
It raises broader questions concerning culture, supervision, and institutional tolerance.
Meaningful Accountability
Following the substantiation of a violation arising under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, there has been no publicly observable indication of termination, demotion, or other meaningful and effective corrective action associated with the misconduct.
As a result, the perception has emerged that even substantiated findings involving unlawful discrimination may permit individuals to remain in positions of authority and continue exercising influence over the organization, raising concerns that accountability has not been commensurate with the seriousness of the violations.
The Message Conveyed
The concern is not merely the conduct that produced the finding.
It is the message communicated to the workforce when formally sustained misconduct is followed by no discernible consequence.
SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE
Conduct by Leadership
An investigation conducted in HPP Case No. 6210 documented that a member of police leadership made sexually explicit comments concerning a young female employee immediately after she exited the area and subsequently pretended to spit into his hand and simulate masturbation in the presence of subordinate employees.
Such conduct, occurring before subordinate personnel, established a standard fundamentally at odds with the professionalism, dignity, and values expected of VA Police officers and supervisors.
PVAHCS "Executive Leadership" later acknowledged conduct of a sexual nature in a Memorandum of Record dated September 20, 2023.
Culture Is Learned
Organizational culture is established from the top down.
Employees learn what conduct is tolerated not from policy manuals, but from observing how leaders respond when misconduct is substantiated.
These incidents were not attributed to line employees acting in isolation.
They involved individuals occupying positions of leadership and subordinate leadership.
Meaningful Accountability
Yet, despite the nature of the conduct and the growing number of Civil Rights investigations initiated through ORM, no termination, demotion, or other meaningful and effective corrective action followed.
Instead, individuals associated with these matters continued to participate in PVAHCS "Executive Leadership" meetings even as institutional awareness expanded and additional complaints accumulated.
Consequently, concerns have arisen regarding whether accountability has remained proportionate to the seriousness of the misconduct and whether institutional awareness has translated into institutional action.
The Message Conveyed
The absence of meaningful corrective action following substantiated findings has created the perception that such conduct carries little institutional consequence.
As a result, concern extends beyond the misconduct itself to the culture established when individuals with substantiated harassment findings remain in positions of authority and continue to shape the environment experienced by those they supervise.
CREDIBILITY, SUITABILITY, AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSISTENCY
OS&LE's Own Words
Questions concerning credibility are among the most consequential issues facing any law enforcement organization.
Importantly, the concept of "Giglio Impairment" is not foreign to the Office of Security and Law Enforcement or the Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness.
In a 2024 investigation, OS&LE itself described an individual as:
Those words are significant.
Recognition of the Principle
They demonstrate that OSP and OS&LE recognize that certain credibility concerns may render an individual unsuitable for service as a VA Police officer.
The Department therefore understands both the legal significance and institutional consequences associated with impaired credibility.
Institutional Consistency
This recognition raises broader questions concerning institutional consistency.
If OSP and OS&LE acknowledge that credibility and suitability are indispensable qualities for law enforcement personnel, how should those principles be applied when concerns involving truthfulness, candor, retaliation, and substantiated misconduct arise among individuals occupying positions of leadership and subordinate leadership?
Likewise, if impaired credibility may render an individual unsuitable for a police position, what message is communicated to the workforce when individuals whose conduct has resulted in substantiated findings continue to exercise authority over subordinate employees, participate in personnel decisions, and influence the culture of an organization?
The issue is not whether OSP and OS&LE understand the significance of credibility.
Their own words demonstrate that they do.
The question is whether those principles are being applied consistently throughout the organization.
RETALIATION AND LOSS OF TRUST
The Human Cost
Over the years, employees who reported concerns have described retaliation, damaged careers, deteriorating health, strained families, and the gradual erosion of confidence in processes intended to protect them.
Silence Becomes Safer
When employees perceive that substantiated misconduct carries few consequences and reporting concerns carries substantial risks, silence inevitably becomes the safer option.
No organization benefits from that outcome.
A culture of silence does not preserve institutions.
It slowly weakens them.
MISSION ASSURANCE AND INSTITUTIONAL STEWARDSHIP
Leadership Inherits Problems
Few leaders have the opportunity to build institutions from the ground up.
More often, leaders inherit organizations shaped by previous decisions, previous cultures, and unresolved problems.
The challenge is seldom whether imperfections exist.
The challenge is what becomes of those imperfections once they are known.
The Phoenix VA Police Department, like any institution, did not arrive at its present condition overnight.
Many of the events described herein originated under previous chains of command and previous organizational structures.
Yet awareness changes the equation.
Institutions are not ultimately judged by whether problems were inherited.
They are judged by what follows once those problems become impossible to ignore.
Culture Is a Security Issue
Security and mission assurance involve more than facilities, equipment, and emergency preparedness.
They also depend upon trust.
A workforce that loses confidence in accountability mechanisms, that perceives substantiated misconduct as carrying few consequences, and that views reporting concerns as professionally hazardous experiences degradation in trust, morale, and confidence.
Over time, those conditions themselves become organizational vulnerabilities.
Culture, therefore, is not merely a personnel issue.
It is a mission assurance issue.
Institutional Memory Cannot Be Unlearned
Organizations can replace leaders, revise policies, and restructure reporting chains.
What they cannot do is unknow what has already been documented.
Findings become records.
Records become institutional memory.
And institutional memory, once established, cannot simply be set aside.
The question facing institutions is therefore not whether awareness exists.
It is what responsibilities accompany that awareness.
The Question History Asks
The individuals associated with these matters will eventually retire, transfer, or leave public service. Their matters of credibility, however, may ultimately be addressed under your leadership and stewardship.
Institutions, however, remain.
So do records.
So do findings.
And so does awareness.
Leadership rarely has the luxury of choosing the problems it inherits.
It does, however, inherit responsibility for what happens next.
History rarely asks who first discovered a problem.
More often, it asks what was done once the problem became known.
Respectfully,
Concerned Citizens AZ
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
READER NOTICE
Concerned Citizens Media encourages readers to independently verify the information contained in this publication, including through public records, official sources, or AI-assisted research tools. For additional information or clarification, readers are encouraged to contact appropriate Department of Veterans Affairs officials or their local VA facility directly.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER
Any attempt to retaliate against current or former VA employees, officers, contractors, or witnesses for engaging in protected whistleblower or EEO activity related to the matters discussed herein may constitute a violation of federal law, including 5 U.S.C. § 2302(b)(8)–(9), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and applicable VA anti‑retaliation policies. Documentation, reporting, or public discussion of substantiated misconduct, harassment, discrimination, or policy violations is protected activity.