King County Sheriff’s deputy Joel Anderson, assigned to Vashon for the past 10 years, has been fired by Sheriff John Urquhart for transgressions of conduct and performance, which include sleeping while on duty and leaving the island before the end of his shift.

In a termination letter to Anderson dated July 21, 2015, that was first posted online by KING 5 TV and then available through the Sheriff’s office late last week, Urquhart stated that Anderson had irretrievably damaged the trust and confidence necessary to remain an effective member of the department.

“Not working even as you are being paid, whether it’s sleeping or staying at home while on the clock, is the equivalent of stealing,” Urquhart said. “Putting the lives of your patrol partners at risk, not to mention not sharing the workload… calls into question your moral values and your ability to be a good partner and effective police officer.”

Anderson, a 14-year veteran of the department who was featured in an episode of Fox TV’s “Cops” in 2009, was investigated after he was found sleeping in his patrol car by a sergeant while on duty on Jan. 16, 2015, and it was reported that on Dec. 23, 2014, he left his assigned post early and without supervisory approval.

And while the news came as a surprise to some on the island, the investigation detailed in the letter revealed that Anderson’s problematic behavior dates back a decade.

In 2005, Anderson was seen sleeping in his patrol car three times, and in 2007 was disciplined with five days off without pay for the same offense. During the most recent investigation, Anderson’s patrol partner Deputy Nishimura, noted that he’d found Anderson sleeping while on duty on the island on four separate occasions, unrelated to the incident on Jan. 16.

Regarding the events of Dec. 23, Urquhart stated that when Anderson left the island before his shift was over, he left his partner without backup on a dangerous call — one that the Sheriff’s department later confirmed involved threats to kill and vehicular assault.

“You left your patrol partner hanging out without the benefit of someone whom, quite literally, could save his life or that of a citizen,” he said. “I find this beyond the pale.”

In his defense Anderson did not deny the allegations, but instead offered circumstances that he felt should mitigate the disciplinary action. He claimed to suffer from insomnia, and cited health issues of his wife and new baby as significant contributing factors.

He also noted that he worked a great deal of overtime, not only for the Sheriff’s office but also doing construction work on the side, expressing a need to “stockpile money for the future.”

At the time of the Jan. 16th incident, Anderson was offered the chance to connect with various employee assistance programs through the state and county, but declined all offers. He did make an appointment with the department of Disability Services, but canceled it and never re-scheduled.

At the completion of the investigation, the findings were reviewed by Chief Deputy Jim Pugel and discussed with attorneys from the Prosecutor’s office. All agreed with the findings that both Rules of Conduct as well as Performance Standards violations had occurred, and that termination was the appropriate disciplinary action.

Anderson then requested a Loudermill hearing take place before a final decision was made. A Loudermill is a special due process hearing that is only conducted at the request of a U.S. government employee prior to imposing any severe discipline, and its primary purpose is to give the employee an opportunity to present their side of the story as well as any relevant mitigating information.

The hearing took place on June 29, and it is information offered at that hearing that Urquhart references throughout his termination letter.

There is the suggestion that Anderson believed his rights had been violated when he spoke to the sergeant who found him sleeping, without guild representation. But Urquhart stated that the discussion in question was not considered an interrogation, and that there was enough information from other sources to corroborate the investigation’s findings without even considering anything that Anderson had said during that interaction.

While the sheriff said he was sympathetic to Anderson’s wife’s and daughter’s health needs, he saw a very different reason as the cause of the troubled deputy’s sleep issues.

In 2014, Anderson was the fourth highest overtime earner, according to hours worked, in the entire Sheriff’s Office. In 2013, he was seventh and for the month of January this year, he was first. And that doesn’t count the construction work that Anderson also was doing on the side, by his own admission.

“I don’t believe you are tired and sleeping on duty because of your home life,” Urquhart stated, “but because of your choice to work so much overtime.” The sheriff also stated that the past incidents, which occurred long before the current family issues, led him to doubt Anderson’s credibility.

King County sheriff deputies working significant amounts of overtime is not a new issue. In 2011, the Tacoma News Tribune reported that the highest paid King County employee in 2010 was a sheriff’s deputy who had earned $226,700, only about $80,000 of which was his salary — leaving $146,700 coming from overtime hours. And Anderson’s record shows a similar pattern of significantly increasing overtime hours and pay over the years, as was noted by Urquhart.

In the end, the sheriff found that Anderson had not only violated rules of conduct, but also the entire preamble to the office’s General Orders Manual and the Law Enforcement Code of Ethics.

“You have irretrievably damaged the trust and confidence necessary for you to be an effective member of this office,” Urquhart concluded. “I do not take any discipline decision lightly, and I take no satisfaction in this action taken against you.”

Anderson’s termination was effective Aug. 1.

The sheriff’s office had no statement on the case, but did make the termination letter available and was able to confirm certain details. Anderson could not be reached for comment and deputies at the Vashon substation declined to speak on the matter, citing the potential for an appeal.