Did a city’s “Safest in America” title come from cooked crime data? Former leader says yes

Arizona’s Family reporter Austin Walker opens his investigative report with a blunt question that’s now hanging over Gilbert, Arizona: did the town’s long-running “one of the safest cities in America” reputation come from crime data that was intentionally massaged?

Walker says the allegation is coming from former Gilbert councilman Bill Spence, who claims the police department “falsified” crime stats and that town leaders knowingly misled the public for years.

The claim is explosive because Gilbert’s brand has been built around safety for a long time. Walker points out that for years Gilbert ranked highly using the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting program, which is exactly the kind of thing real estate flyers, business boosters, and politicians love to repeat.

But Walker reports skeptics are now asking whether those numbers reflected reality – or reflected a decision to put certain calls into a different bucket so the most alarming category looked smaller.

The heart of Walker’s reporting is that the method in question is not being used anymore. Critics still say the damage is already done, because reputation doesn’t just fade away when the spreadsheet changes.

And if the numbers were “cleaned up” to protect an image, the bigger fear isn’t just public relations. It’s whether staffing decisions and police workload were shaped by a story the town told itself.

The “Priority Zero” Claim And What Spence Says It Did

Walker explains that Bill Spence brought his allegations forward during public comment at a recent council meeting. In that moment, Walker says, Spence described a conversation he claims he had with current Gilbert councilman Kenny Buckland.

Walker notes Buckland used to hold a leadership role inside the Gilbert Police Department. That detail matters because Spence is not accusing some unknown staffer of a paperwork tweak – he’s saying a senior insider explained the mechanics of it.

Spence’s central claim, as Walker reports it, is that about a decade ago Gilbert police changed crime-reporting protocol by creating something called “priority zero.”

Walker says Spence describes “priority zero” as abnormal because calls are normally tracked as priority one through four. Spence’s allegation is that moving certain calls out of the highest-priority category changed the public picture of how serious things were.

Walker reports Spence says Buckland told him former police chief Tim Dorn implemented the change, and Spence used the phrase “fudged numbers” to describe it.

In Walker’s retelling, Spence points to examples like bank robberies and injury collisions being moved from the highest priority into a different category.

Then Walker gets into the number that makes people sit up straight. Spence claims Gilbert had about 15,000 calls for service, but that by creating priority zero, the department moved roughly 14,500 calls into a different priority, leaving around 500 in the “most severe” bucket.

That’s a dramatic shift, and Walker presents it as the core of why Spence believes the public was misled.

Spence also claims the reshuffling did more than make crime look lower. Walker says Spence argues it made response times look better on paper – dropping reported response times from about 6 minutes and 31 seconds to under 4 minutes, “by doing nothing but changing the database.”

Walker’s explanation is important here: he tells viewers the calls didn’t disappear. They were still coming in, but they were moved into a different bucket. That kind of move can change how an agency appears to outsiders, especially if the outside world is comparing apples to apples and suddenly Gilbert is counting calls differently.

Walker then ties that to the bragging rights. He reports Spence claims the new numbers were sent to the FBI, helping Gilbert receive a “Second-Safest City in America” designation in 2022.

Whether someone believes Spence or not, Walker’s story is essentially asking: if the town’s reputation was helped by a technical reclassification, was the public ever told what changed?

And if the town benefited from that glow, who paid the price on the ground?

The Argument That The “Safest” Image Had A Cost

Walker adds another layer: Bill Spence doesn’t just complain about data. He argues the town’s reputation came at a real-world cost.

Walker reports Spence’s logic like this: if the town looks safer, it can justify fewer officers. Less crime “on paper” means less staffing “needed,” even if the workload is still there.

Walker frames it as a chain reaction. The bucket looks smaller, leaders act like the need is smaller, and officers and residents end up carrying the burden.

Then Walker brings in a resident who says she feels that burden personally. He interviews Gilbert resident Charisia Arnold, who tells him, “They had an entire image to keep up and they didn’t care who it victimized.”

Walker says Arnold tells him she lost trust in town leadership.

Arnold also connects the staffing idea to her own family’s trauma. Walker reports she says her daughter was raped and harassed by a boy at her school.

Arnold tells Walker that a detective asked her multiple times whether she wanted to press charges, and she found that question frustrating and inappropriate. In her view, once she said “yes” the first time, that should have been enough.

Walker reports Arnold believes the “priority zero” era meant fewer officers, and the ones working were stretched thin. She says that when she hears about the category change, it makes her feel like the case may have been dropped or not fully pursued because there weren’t enough resources to investigate properly.

That’s a heavy accusation, and Walker doesn’t present it as proven fact. He presents it as what a resident believes happened when staffing and workload didn’t match what the town’s image suggested.

This is where the story turns from “inside baseball” about statistics into something more real. People don’t get angry about spreadsheets. They get angry when they think systems were built to protect an image instead of protecting families.

And Walker’s reporting makes clear that for residents like Arnold, the new debate is reopening old wounds.

Buckland’s Response: True Decision, Not Corruption

Walker then reports the pushback from current leaders, starting with Councilman Kenny Buckland.

In Walker’s telling, Buckland acknowledges part of the story while rejecting the worst interpretation of it.

Buckland says the events being discussed were “12-13 years ago.” He says it is true the former chief did not follow what the Corona Solutions software recommended. Buckland also says it is true that the former chief created priority zero.

But Buckland adds another key line Walker highlights: Buckland says he “fought with him over that,” because he believed it compromised public safety, officers, and the public.

Walker’s reporting makes Buckland’s position pretty clear: he’s not denying the existence of priority zero. He’s pushing back on the idea that it was done as corruption or a deliberate lie, and he’s also pointing out he wasn’t a cheerleader for it.

Walker also says Buckland told the meeting the town has always followed the law, and he framed the issue as a management decision, not criminal behavior.

Walker then describes how he tried to get a longer interview. He says he called Buckland, left a message, and later got a text message response.

Walker reports Buckland’s text defended former Chief Tim Dorn as having a distinguished law enforcement career and military service. Buckland said publicly debating one decision from more than a decade ago was “ridiculous,” and he expressed disappointment that Spence made such a public display.

Walker’s story gives readers the gist: Buckland says the former chief believed the decision was right, Buckland disagreed, and Buckland rejects the idea that it was corruption.

That response may satisfy some people, especially those who think every department has its own internal system for triaging calls.

But it may also frustrate others, because the question isn’t just “was it legal.” The question is “was it honest,” and “did the town benefit from comparisons that didn’t reflect how the numbers were categorized?”

What Gilbert Police And The Town Say Now

Walker reports the Town of Gilbert told Arizona’s Family the decision was made about 10 years ago and that policies and procedures have evolved significantly since then.

Walker also says Gilbert Police provided a statement emphasizing Gilbert “remains one of the safest communities in the country,” and pointing to recent response times.

Walker adds that he asked for an interview with Gilbert Police so he could review the data and talk directly about the old priority zero designation. He reports the department denied the request.

That denial matters, because it means the public is left with competing narratives: a former councilman alleging a cooked system, a current councilman admitting the system existed but rejecting the corruption framing, and a police department saying the town is still safe while refusing to walk through the history on camera.

Walker also notes he reached out to the FBI and had not heard back yet.

He tells viewers that priority zero is gone now, and the reporting approach has changed again. Walker describes the pattern as a dip when priority zero existed and then a return as reporting changed back.

That raises the obvious question Walker keeps circling: how did it happen, why did it happen, and was it knowingly done to polish the town’s image?

The Big Question: Safety, Staffing, And Trust

Walker ends up in the place where the story really lives: trust.

If you’re a resident, you don’t need perfect police statistics. You need confidence that you’re being told the truth about what is happening around you.

Walker repeatedly frames this as a reputation issue. Gilbert became known nationwide for quiet family streets and being “safe.” If that label was boosted by a classification trick, even a legal one, then the town’s leaders may have bought praise with a system that blurred reality.

Here’s the uncomfortable part Walker’s reporting hints at without outright declaring: “Safest city” rankings are powerful, but they can also be fragile. They can shape budgets, staffing, recruiting, and the way crime victims feel when they’re told their case is “low priority.”

And if the community starts to believe the image was more important than the people, then every decision after that gets questioned too.

Walker reports Spence asked the kind of question that’s hard to un-ask: were police patrolling the way they needed to, responding the way the town expected, and investigating the way they should – based on bad information?

Even if leaders insist the town followed the law, and even if priority zero was just a “management decision,” it’s not hard to see why residents would feel played if the town was proudly marketing numbers that were made to look better through a database change.

At minimum, this story shows what happens when transparency is missing. Once people suspect the numbers were curated, every chart starts to look like spin.

And as Walker’s reporting makes plain, the debate isn’t going away just because priority zero is gone. The real fight now is about accountability – what leaders knew, what residents were told, and whether the “safest” label was earned the hard way or engineered the easy way.