A shadow of doubt has fallen over Gilbert, Arizona, a town once celebrated for its safety. Former councilman Bill Spence ignited a firestorm during a recent town council meeting, alleging a decade-long manipulation of crime statistics by police leadership. His claims suggest a deliberate effort to paint a rosier picture of public safety than reality allowed.
Gilbert, a rapidly growing city of nearly 300,000, proudly declared itself the second safest city in America among those with populations over 100,000, citing FBI data from December 2023. But Spence’s accusations, stemming from conversations with current Council Member and former police leader Kenny Buckland, reveal a disturbing narrative of “fudged numbers” and strategically altered reporting procedures.
The core of the alleged deception centers around a “Priority Zero” crime category, implemented under former Police Chief Tim Dorn. According to Spence, this new classification effectively removed thousands of emergency calls from standard reporting, artificially slashing reported response times by approximately 40%. This manipulation, he contends, wasn’t about improving safety, but about creating the *appearance* of improved safety.
Spence detailed how the practice continued even after Dorn’s departure in 2017, becoming “codified” by his successor, Chief Mike Soelberg. The alleged manipulation persisted until 2023, when changes to reporting systems finally made it impossible to continue. For years, the town seemingly benefited from a fabricated narrative of safety and efficiency.
The accusations extend beyond just the police chiefs. Spence directly implicated outgoing Town Manager Patrick Banger, stating both he and Soelberg were aware of the problematic policies yet continued to present the manipulated data. He accused them of betraying officers, misleading the council, and ultimately, endangering residents.
Spence didn’t simply voice concerns; he demanded action. He called for an immediate, independent investigation by an outside law enforcement agency, warning that failure to do so would render the entire council complicit in a potentially historic scandal. The stakes, he argued, were too high to ignore.
Council Member Buckland, according to Spence, fought against the policy for six years, warning of the risks to the community. He reportedly faced retaliation for his efforts to expose the truth, a pattern Spence claims he also experienced through harassment and threats from council members and even Chief Soelberg himself.
The alleged manipulation wasn’t limited to response times. Spence revealed that emergency calls, including bank robberies and injury collisions, were reclassified as “Priority Zero,” effectively diminishing the reported severity of the situation. The true volume of critical incidents was hidden from public view.
This case raises broader questions about crime statistics nationwide. While cities across the country tout declining crime rates, the possibility of manipulated data casts a long shadow. Recent reports from Washington, D.C., reveal similar allegations of pressure on police to downplay crime figures, suggesting this may not be an isolated incident.
A House Oversight Committee report detailed how DC Police Chief Pamela Smith allegedly used “fear, intimidation, threats, and retaliation” to coerce officers into misclassifying crimes. Commanders reported being pressured to categorize serious offenses as less severe, further obscuring the true state of public safety.
The implications are profound. If crime data is unreliable, public trust erodes, and effective crime prevention strategies become impossible. The pursuit of political optics, it appears, may have come at the expense of genuine public safety, not just in Gilbert, but potentially in cities across the nation.
