Editor’s Note: The following is a response to Maries County Chief Deputy Scott John’s Letter to the Editor in the Dec. 13 edition of the Maries County Advocate.
In response to Scott John’s post dated 12/11/2023, I was going to try to relax and enjoy the holidays an attempt to stay away from politics but unfortunately more misinformation comes out. I had hoped to not have to make this post but I cannot standby and allow someone to blatantly omit important details and continue the rumors without clarification.
Mr. John mentions the investigation into Sugg and indicates that he did conduct a fair and proper investigation. I stand by my original statement, and my problem with the investigation is for the following reasons;
1. Scott John was aware I was running for Sheriff and Sugg was a supporter of mine, i.e. motivation for Scott John to get me and any of my supporters out of the Sheriff’s Office.
2. Sugg accused Scott John of tampering with his time sheet approximately 1 week prior to the investigation in question. In a professional organization if an employee accuses a supervisor of misconduct that supervisor does not get to conduct an investigation into the subordinate 1.5 weeks later subsequently resulting in termination without a proper investigation into the supervisor’s actions. Correct courses of action would be to have the Sheriff conduct the investigation or to request an outside agency conduct the investigation. The investigator assigned should not have bias either for or against the officer but be focused on collecting all the facts of the matter. Once all the facts are collected and properly documented they could be presented to the Sheriff for evaluation. If a fair and impartial investigation was conducted and the evidence collected by the investigator indicated the officer committed the alleged offenses I would have requested he or she be terminated as well. What I will not stand for is a corrupt or “good ole boy system” that works off who you know. I don’t know if he is guilty or not but I will not take action against someone without due process and that goes for everyone.
3. Scott John expects the City of Belle to take action on employee matters with nothing more than Scott John’s word. Documentation and evidence of the alleged misconduct was requested and denied by Maries County Sheriff’s Office. I don’t believe any secret investigation documents existed until Scott John got word that I was questioning his “investigation.”
4. One of the most concerning parts of this incident is if the officer is as guilty as Scott John indicates why has criminal charges not been filed? Is that not what law enforcement agencies do?
5. The allegation about Sugg refusing to return the laptop is missing some critical information. The truth is Sugg informed Scott John and Chris Heitman that he was more than willing to return the laptop but only to Chris Heitman. However Chris Heitman refused to take his phone calls and refused to meet with Sugg to receive the laptop. I can only speculate Heitman’s reasoning for refusing to face Sugg but at this point Sugg was no longer an employee and was just another Maries County taxpayer requesting to meet with an elected official, maybe Heitman felt guilty for something?
6. Scott John mentions in his lengthy Facebook post, “I would venture to guess Mayor White knows he is wrong but is working damage control. Probably the same reason Mark Morgan deleted within hours of this week’s article (in full demonstration of “transparency and integrity”) every picture of Erican Sugg involved in his campaign over this past year from his campaign page.” I challenge Scott John to prove his statement. For the record I have not hidden or deleted photos or comments from any of my election posts whether I agree with them or not. I believe in free speech and will not censor it unlike Scott John. The Belle Police Department page was blocked from posting on the Maries County Sheriff’s Office page when I attempted to clear up the misinformation they were spreading back in July. So I stand by my watchwords Honesty, Integrity, and Accountability.
As far as who is suitable to wear a badge, I think anyone who intentionally omits important facts out of a sworn affidavit and intentionally tries to mislead the public has no business wearing a badge.
Thank you for your time
Mark Morgan
