WHEN THE WHISTLEBLOWERS ARE THE POLICE | Why Phoenix VA Officers Took Harassment Complaints Outside
DATELINE | WHAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD KNOW: Inside a federal police department where employees report that confidence in internal reporting deteriorated, officers and personnel increasingly turned to the Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection (OAWP), the Office of Inspector General (OIG), the Harassment Prevention Program (HPP), and other outside channels to create records beyond their immediate chain of command. By late 2025, those warnings had reached officials responsible for VA Police nationwide.
THE WARNING REACHES WASHINGTON
7:02 A.M., December 30, 2025
At 7:02 a.m. on December 30, 2025, an email drawing on information derived from the Phoenix Veterans Affairs Police Department reached senior officials within the VA’s centralized police structure.
The transmission went directly to Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Ian M. Dinesen and copied Assistant Secretary Reginald G. A. Neal, Chief of Operations Patrick L. Hernandez, former Director of the Office of Security & Law Enforcement Frederick R. Jackson (who has since retired), and one non-executive VA official. Attached was a formal complaint submitted to the Department of Veterans Affairs Office of Accountability and Whistleblower Protection:
- OAWP Case 26-PhoenixAZ-31594.
The email described an OAWP submission detailing allegations of harassment, racial discrimination, sexual harassment, prohibited personnel practices, and unaddressed ethical concerns.
Allegations of Retaliation
Then came the assertion that heightened the communication's significance: the writer alerted national officials that one officer’s career had allegedly been damaged after standing against harassment, and that another officer was allegedly being targeted after reporting misconduct.
Whether those retaliation claims have reached a final formal adjudication remains unknown based on available public records. However, the existence of the email and its recipient list are established facts.
The Power of a Case Number
So is the case number:
- 26-PhoenixAZ-31594.
An oral complaint can devolve into a dispute over memory, timing, or supervisor comprehension. A numbered federal complaint creates a traceable institutional record. By the end of 2025, officials overseeing the VA’s national police structure had been directly notified that certain Phoenix personnel believed reporting harassment carried career risks.
This story extends beyond whether individual acts of misconduct occurred; some allegations had already resulted in formal agency findings. The broader issue is why officers felt compelled to bypass their local chain of command simply to ensure a record existed elsewhere.
THE POLICE LEADERSHIP LEARNED TO KEEP THINGS OFF PAPER. OFFICERS LEARNED TO PUT THEM ON IT.
The Push Toward Local Handling
Current and former employees describe instances where verbal complaints brought to supervisors were met with informal responses to "work it out," "handle it internally," resolve matters between themselves, or dismissive remarks that "these investigations are bullshit."
While these employee statements reflect personal accounts rather than formal administrative findings, they illustrate the operational shift that followed: officers stopped relying solely on oral reports and began building paper trails—memoranda, emails, HPP notifications, OIG submissions, and OAWP intakes.
Building an Independent Record
For police officers trained to document calls, evidence, arrests, and witness statements, the logic was standard procedure. An OAWP tracking number did not automatically prove an allegation or guarantee disciplinary action, but it established an indisputable fact: the complaint existed.
"DON'T TAKE IT TO OAWP"
Pressure Against Outside Escalation
Personnel also report being discouraged from escalating complaints to OAWP, with suggestions that issues be managed locally.
Local resolution is a standard administrative practice for routine workplace disagreements. However, when complaints involve harassment, retaliation, or protected whistleblower disclosures—particularly involving the chain of command itself—bypassing formal outside intake eliminates independent timestamps, formal acknowledgments, and tracking numbers.
The Legal Line and Workforce Perception
Under federal law, encouraging local resolution is not inherently improper. However, actions, pressure, or personnel decisions intended to deter protected disclosures implicate statutory whistleblower protections. For employees skeptical of internal processes, warnings against outside filing were perceived as efforts to prevent the creation of an external record.
THE PAPER TRAIL: SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER 2023
Substantiated Sexual Misconduct
Long before OAWP Case 26-PhoenixAZ-31594 was transmitted to Washington, formal documentation regarding Phoenix VA Police supervisory official Joshua Fister—currently serving as a Patrol Operations Major—existed within the facility.
On September 20, 2023, Associate Director of Operations Stacey Scherpf issued a VA Memorandum of Record following a Harassment Prevention Program fact-finding process (Case No. HPP 6210). The investigation addressed an allegation concerning inappropriate sexualized comments and gestures made by Fister in the presence of subordinate officers.
The memorandum explicitly concluded:
“Fister has engaged in inappropriate sexual in nature conduct”
and noted that management had taken corrective action. Official records indicate that this substantiated finding resulted only in a letter of counseling issued by leadership on September 15, 2023. A contemporaneous VA memorandum dated September 28, 2023, authored by a VA Police Officer and later referenced in federal court filings, described the underlying incident as involving "simulated masturbation" toward a young female employee.
Substantiated Civil Rights Act Violations
Twenty-three days later, a separate administrative determination was issued. Publicly filed federal court pleadings reference an October 13, 2023 Final Agency Decision (FAD)—VA Case No. 200P-644-2022-147530—issued by the VA Office of Employment Discrimination Complaint Adjudication (OEDCA). According to those court filings, the FAD substantiated violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, explicitly stating:
"The responsible management official in this case is Joshua E. Fister, Supervisory Police Officer"
and finding unlawful racial harassment and a race-based hostile work environment involving Fister toward a former Black VA Police Officer.
By October 2023, the allegations had yielded formal administrative findings documented in agency records.
Supervisory Authority Retained Despite Findings
Despite these back-to-back substantiated findings of both racial and sexual harassment within less than 30 days, agency records reflect that Fister faced no demotion and was not removed from supervisory authority. He was permitted to remain in a position of authority and continue directing personnel, a decision rank-and-file employees closely observed as a signal of institutional priorities.
EXECUTIVE OVERSIGHT AND COMMAND ASSIGNMENTS
The Revolving Leadership Structure
The executive history surrounding Phoenix VA Police spans multiple leadership configurations across several years:
- Prior Oversight (2020–2022): Historical records indicate that during earlier periods when underlying workplace conditions were developing, then Associate Director Elijah Ditter (now Director) held senior facility leadership roles with executive oversight of Police Service.
- 2023 Oversight: During the administration of Medical Center Director Bryan Matthews, Police Service reported under the Operations portfolio managed by Associate Director Stacey Scherpf—who signed the September 20, 2023 HPP memorandum.
- Subsequent Leadership (2024–2026): Ditter later assumed the role of Medical Center Director, while Scherpf remained Associate Director of Operations during the period leading up to the police department's full transition to OSP oversight in 2026.
What the Workforce Observed
For rank-and-file officers evaluating organizational culture, command assignments speak louder than policy handbooks. Employees experienced a weekly "chilling effect" by observing an official with both racial and sexual harassment substantiations backed and supported by Phoenix VA Executive Leadership and VA Law Enforcement Executive Leadership. Employees closely monitored who retained administrative authority, who remained in selecting roles, and who was assigned to lead the department—and evaluated the risk of future reporting accordingly.
JULY 2025: THE COMPLIANCE REASSIGNMENT AND DISPARATE TREATMENT
Divergent Paths Following New Reports
The administrative dynamics shifted significantly in July 2025, following a separate incident. After a Hispanic female VA Police Officer (known for her 4'11" short stature) appeared visibly disturbed, a supervisor inquired and properly initiated an HPP report—bypassing a longstanding departmental pattern of failing to follow VA Handbook Directive 5979 reporting requirements.
On July 7, 2025, Fister was reassigned on paper to a nominally non-supervisory position as Compliance Major. Over the days that followed, the reporting officer reported to her supervisor what she believed was further workplace harassment from others.
Administrative Detail and Stripping of Credentials
By Friday, July 11, 2025—just four days after Fister's paper reassignment—the reporting officer was informed she had been placed under investigation, stripped of her badge, and placed on administrative detail that ultimately lasted 300 days.
In contrast, Fister retained his badge, credentials, and full system access—including access to body-worn camera footage—even while facing active administrative inquiries.
Designation as Acting Chief
Furthermore, Phoenix VA Executive Leadership welcomed Fister to sit in the highest office of the Phoenix VA Health Care System. On August 26, 2025, an official email dispatch specifically designated Fister to serve as the "Acting Chief of Police" for August 27 and 28, setting what employees viewed as the ultimate operational example. This pattern of temporary command assignments continued as late as July 13, 2026—even under the oversight of OSP.
NATIONAL CENTRALIZATION AND NOTICE TO WASHINGTON
Direct Notification to National Executives
The structural context changed as the VA moved toward a unified national police hierarchy under the Office of Operations, Security, and Preparedness (OSP).
The December 30, 2025 communication directly engaged this new national framework. By sending OAWP Case 26-PhoenixAZ-31594 to national officials—including Dinesen, Neal, Hernandez, and Jackson—the local complaints were formally placed into the national chain of command.
Subsequent records confirm that senior national leadership explicitly acknowledged receipt of these communications in writing. On February 12, 2026, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Ian M. Dinesen responded directly to a follow-up transmission sent to the OSP executive team, writing: "Receipt acknowledged".
The February 11 Site Visit: Assessing "Ground Truth"
National awareness was further reinforced when one of the national executives who had been emailed visited the facility in person.
At 7:10 a.m. on the morning of Patrick Hernandez's visit on February 11, 2026, a direct communication was transmitted to him framing the visit not as a routine inspection, but as a critical test of command climate.
The email urged Hernandez to look beyond "prepared summaries" and evaluate conditions firsthand. It explicitly informed Hernandez that while some personnel had faced professional consequences for raising concerns, many others remained silent not out of agreement with local management, but out of fear of risking their families, healthcare, and career stability.
By placing the focus on the continuation of supervisory authority despite years of EEO activity and formal complaints, the communication placed the institutional stakes squarely on the new national command—noting that workforce confidence depended on whether national leadership would enforce accountability consistently.
A Shift Toward Centralized Oversight
In testimony before the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs on May 13, 2026, Assistant Secretary Reginald G. A. Neal characterized the historical, facility-level VA police structure as experiencing inconsistent standards, a lack of accountability, and a lack of discipline under local medical centers.
Neal testified that the centralized chain of command was established to enforce uniform standards directly under national leadership. But for Phoenix personnel who had spent months transmitting paper trails to Washington, the Senate admission raised the central question of the entire transition:
- Whether centralized command would translate into local action?
INSTITUTIONAL REFERRALS AND ALLEGED FALSE STATEMENTS UNDER OATH
Allegations Involving Sworn Statements
Federal oversight mechanisms also revealed internal fractures regarding sworn testimony. Specific Office of Inspector General (OIG) complaints centered on allegations that a VA law enforcement officer had allegedly made false statements under oath.
The Referral Loop Back to Local Leadership
An earlier Inspector General matter highlights the structural complexities of federal oversight. On December 21, 2023, the VA Office of Inspector General Hotline issued a response regarding a complaint received on November 27 (OIG Non-Case Referral 2024-04746). Citing resource allocation priorities, the OIG forwarded the matter back to local facility leadership at the Carl T. Hayden VA Medical Center for discretionary review.
While the OIG explicitly redacted the complainant's identity to protect confidentiality, the referral mechanism returned the substance of the complaint to the local facility. For personnel who initiated outside filings due to distrust in local handling, such referrals created operational dilemmas regarding institutional independence.
THE DYNAMICS OF WHISTLEBLOWER DISCLOSURES
The Myth of the Single Whistleblower
When an external disclosure becomes known within a law enforcement unit, informal attempts to identify the source frequently occur. However, assuming a single source exists often misinterprets how workplace information moves.
In a medical center environment, communications occur across multiple intersections involving patrol officers, supervisors, administrative staff, medical personnel, and veterans. Misconduct allegations or operational disputes are frequently observed by multiple parties independently. Consequently, an individual seeking "the whistleblower" may be reacting to disclosures submitted separately by multiple individuals.
THE REPORTER BECOMES THE STORY
Applying Administrative Restrictions
The fear described by Phoenix personnel extends beyond whether an initial complaint is sustained; it centers on how interim administrative safeguards are applied once a disclosure is made.
When employees observe that filing a complaint results in immediate administrative restrictions and credential suspensions for the reporter while the subject retains operational authority and access, organizational witness chilling occurs. If officers perceive that reporting misconduct leads to heightened scrutiny of their own performance, assignments, or credentials, the process itself becomes viewed as a career risk.
THE LEGACY OF THE INSTITUTIONAL RECORD
Inheriting Historical Records
The reorganization under OSP inherited an established paper trail:
- The September 2023 executive memorandum,
- The October 2023 Title VII agency decision,
- OIG referral logs,
- OAWP case intakes,
- and federal court records.
The Ongoing Test of Leadership
While national officials inherited these historic facility conditions rather than creating them, direct written notifications shifted the institutional dynamic. Once formal notice reached the national oversight structure, the evaluation transitioned from historical facility awareness to national administrative response.
When law enforcement officers routinely seek external federal tracking numbers to establish that workplace complaints were made, the core issue extends beyond the initial allegations to the perceived integrity and safety of the reporting system itself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerned Citizens AZ Investigative Team – When Local Leadership Protects the Misconduct, We Provide the Evidence Washington and VACO Can No Longer Ignore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.