10/26/2026
During a recent sheriff candidate debate, Carson City Sheriff Ken Furlong emphasized his commitment to accountability and maintaining high standards within his department.
“I believe in accountability and high standards,” Furlong stated, adding that he would never lower those standards to accommodate someone, according to an October 15 article published by the Nevada Appeal.
However, testimony from a previous arbitration hearing involving the Carson City Sheriff’s Office raises serious questions about the consistency of that statement.
The arbitration concerned the department’s sergeant promotional process, during which Deputy Martha Tschetter challenged the selection of Deputy Collazo for promotion.
According to the arbitration documents, the promotional announcement explicitly stated:
“In interest of employee morale, no exception can be made to the process.”
The announcement also established that selections would be made from the top three candidates on the eligibility list.
Despite those requirements, the arbitration record indicates that Collazo had not completed the mandatory physical fitness testing before his promotion was announced.
During the hearing, Furlong acknowledged that he had made an exception for Collazo.
When questioned about why Collazo was not required to complete the physical fitness test before the promotion announcement, Furlong testified:
“I didn’t require it. That’s a decision and authority of mine.”
He further explained:
“Because I chose not to…Because that’s a decision I get to make.”
Those statements stand in apparent tension with Furlong’s recent public declaration that he would never lower standards to accommodate someone.
The arbitration documents reveal another important distinction in how the department handled promotional requirements.
The contrast raises a straightforward question: Why was an exception granted to one deputy while another deputy was held to the stated requirements?
The arbitration also involved allegations of gender discrimination in the promotional process.
The employee association alleged that no woman had been promoted to sergeant during Furlong’s preceding 20 years in office and questioned whether the promotional process allowed leadership to select preferred candidates.
The written decision described Furlong’s testimony as:
“Consistently evasive and to an extent combative.”
The record also reflects disputes concerning the scoring of promotional candidates, transparency of the eligibility list, and the sheriff’s interpretation of his authority under the collective bargaining agreement.
Furlong maintained that he possessed discretion in promotional decisions and testified that he believed the collective bargaining agreement did not prohibit exceptions.
That explanation is important context. But it also creates a distinction between the sheriff’s asserted discretionary authority and the promotional announcement’s explicit prohibition on exceptions.
The central issue is not simply whether a sheriff possesses discretion over promotions. It is whether that discretion is exercised consistently and whether employees can reasonably rely on published promotional standards.
Furlong’s recent public statements provide an opportunity to revisit those questions.
If maintaining high standards means refusing to accommodate individuals who have not satisfied established requirements, how does that principle reconcile with his sworn testimony that he personally authorized an exception?
And if exceptions are permissible, what objective criteria determine who receives one?
Public accountability requires consistency between the standards leaders announce, the decisions they make, and the explanations they provide under oath.
Carson City residents are entitled to ask how promotional exceptions are justified, documented, and applied across the Sheriff’s Office.
Ultimately, the question raised by Furlong’s own words is simple:
If the standards are never lowered to accommodate someone, why did the sheriff testify that he made an exception?
https://www.nevadaappeal.com/news/2026/oct/15/carson-city-sheriff-candidates-discuss-staffing-surveillance-cameras-at-debate/
Full arbitration document below: public information
Q https://smallpdf.com/file =0ddc190b-03d1-4fd7-bebe-1e4088d3f549
They were mostly friendly, but there were some differences Wednesday between Sheriff Ken Furlong and challenger Don Gibson, who served under Furlong for most of his 24 years as a deputy.
