The city’s Public Safety Inspector General agreed to a request from the Cleveland Community Police Commission to investigate the process that led to a disciplinary agreement between the city and three Cleveland police officers who were accused by a fellow officer of harassment and intimidation.
The commission is the final authority on police discipline, according to the city charter. But the commissioners only learned about the agreements — which state that they “fully and finally resolve” the complaints — after they were signed by city officials in September.
“This is very outside of normal procedures,” said Commissioner Shandra Moreira-Benito at the Nov. 5 meeting of the accountability committee. She said she is concerned that “this could potentially be a process that [the city is] using to try to avoid us having review power over discipline.”
A city spokesperson told Signal Cleveland that the city “is committed to upholding the charter” and the contracts with Cleveland police officers. The settlements raise questions about the commission’s ability to review that case and possibly others due to long delays in the city’s investigations of internal complaints.
City’s contracts with police unions played a role in the agreements
The recently settled cases stem from a 2022 complaint against Timothy Maffo-Judd, who was a lieutenant then and is now commander of the Second District; and officers David Siefer and David Walter. All of them served on the bomb squad at the time. A fellow officer accused them of making false statements about his performance, using anti-gay slurs verbally and in group texts and making him “fear for my personal safety and the safety of my family.”
The settlement agreements indicate that they are based, at least in part, on the city’s contracts with the Cleveland Police Patrolman’s Association, the union for rank-and-file officers, and the Fraternal Order of Police, which represents supervisors. The CPPA contract prohibits disciplining an officer more than one year after an internal complaint is filed.
The city’s contract with the FOP, which represents Maffo-Judd and other supervisors, prohibits discipline more than six months after an internal complaint.
Earlier this year, the commission accused the city of making little to no progress on dozens of internal complaints against officers going back several years. The complaints included allegations of sexual harassment, workplace violence and discrimination. The city at the time called the commission’s allegations “fundamentally misinformed” but did not deny that some complaints had gone unaddressed for years.
Complaint investigation delayed by three years
The city spokesperson told Signal Cleveland that an investigation into the 2022 complaint began that year, but there was “insufficient progress” to consider discipline. He did not elaborate.
In January and February 2025, the Department of Human Resources interviewed the complainant and the officers, and in March recommended that the Department of Public Safety “proceed with internal discipline reviews.”
Public Safety accused each of the officers of three violations. Officers Siefer and Walter faced possible suspensions of 10 to 30 days, based on the city’s disciplinary guide. Maffo-Judd faced a possible suspension of 20 to 40 days.
In their settlement agreements, Siefer and Walter each got three-day suspensions and Maffo-Judd got five days. The agreements do not state whether the officers were found guilty of the violations or how the suspensions were decided — information that is typically provided after a discipline hearing. The only explanation given for the outcome is all parties’ desire to “avoid the time and expense of arbitration and/or litigation” and to “fully and finally resolve the matter.”
Leaders of the two unions could not be reached for comment before publication.
Community Police Commission is ‘a branch of the city’
When voters passed Issue 24 in 2021, they gave the Community Police Commission final authority over police policies and the power to review discipline handed out by the Department of Public Safety. The commission used this power for the first time last month and opted to uphold the department’s decision in that case.
The commission’s authority is written into the city charter, which makes the commission part of the city, even though it operates independently of the mayor and city council.
“We are a branch of the city, and the city has already settled the case,” said Commissioner Moreira-Benito at the Nov. 5 meeting, explaining the dilemma.
Signal Cleveland asked the city whether more of the long-delayed cases will be settled. The spokesperson said: “Any actions or determinations remain subject to legal interpretation and due process.”
Commission Co-Chair John Adams said the commission will await the outcome of the Inspector General’s investigation before deciding on its next steps. The Inspector General’s response to the commission’s request did not indicate how long that could take.
The Inspector General position was created by the 2015 consent decree between Cleveland and the U.S. Department of Justice. The inspector general works in the mayor’s office but reports directly to the Director of Public Safety. The position was vacant from 2021 until the city hired Shayleen Agarwal in 2024.
