Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Subject:
This memo is documentation of conversations and events from the week of June 18, 2017 relating to
. I believe information I have gleaned over this time period warrants an
investigation of for the following abuses: misuse of County resources, perceived
coercion of subordinate staff to take an inappropriate action, use of two other staff member’s purchase
cards contrary to County policy, and falsifying timecard records.
When I returned to Finance to join the conference call with the State, said the State representative
was out. I briefly told and about my conversation with and and it was decided
and I would go down and talk about the status of the retention incentives and then tell we
would be asking the State about the use of sold annual leave in the pension calculation.
, , and I met in the Budget conference room. provided documentation from the
State about their decision to deny retention incentives as part of the pension calculation. said
was beginning to notify those participants in the program about the decision. mentioned that
wanted to get to since was retiring end of the month and felt needed to
know immediately. wanted to know if any of incentive payments were kicked out or any
of other incentive payments than the one we mentioned. said no. questioned why we
needed to bring up the other incentive payments if the State hadn’t rejected those. I told that
since we received the final ruling, we had a duty to correct all the others. was not happy. I told
we also wanted to get clarification from the State as to whether annual leave sells qualified as
retirement payments and could be included in the pension calculation. became agitated and
demanded to know who was asking that question, whether it was us bringing this up or the State.
said we were seeking the clarification because it had come up in an earlier discussion with .
said something to the affect it would be unfair to change this now. (Context: has been
systematically selling banked annual leave over the course of several months.) said resolving
the question wasn’t meant to be punitive but that we needed to know so we could take appropriate
action, particularly if our changes needed to be retroactive. suggested calling another government
to see what they did but it was decided if we didn’t get the answer we liked, we would still need to take
action. said that what we should do was to not question the State but instead change our policy
moving forward (my interpretation as being after July 1 when was gone) to not report annual leave
sells to ORBIT. (My impressions and feelings at the time: The conversation was very uncomfortable and I
felt uneasy since all of us in the room are . I had a sense we were being coerced
into a decision.) I suggested that we not tie this question to the retention incentives issue with the State
and that at a later time after July 1, we pose the question to the State separately as a generic how-do-
we-do-this question. Since we are currently dealing with another issue with ORBIT on Leave Without
Pay, I said we could easy tie it to this. agreed this was a better approach and and
agreed to do it this way. left the meeting. I stayed with and to make sure
understood what we were doing. I told it was unfair that and I even had to be dealing with this
now and that the former and should have resolved these issues prior to
them being implemented. said was already taking a big hit with losing the retention
incentive and it would affect annual pension by $30,000.
Another suspicious request was for to purchase a replacement iPad for that had
a damaged one. In addition, two other iPads were requested to be purchased with no explanation given.
This is odd as usually asks me or the IT department to deal with iPad/iPhone
replacements for I later went down and questioned
whether knew who had damaged their iPad. was not aware of any but did
indicate gave two other iPads to store. preferred to not keep these as had
previously given one to keep and it later went missing. gave me the other two iPads for safe
keeping. It is assumed these are to two purchased.
Other suspicious activity on pcard includes the payment of two Verizon phone bills. This is
unusual as turned in County iPhone to me shortly after announcing
retirement on . If is issued a County phone then there should not be a reimbursement
for a personal phone.
During conversation following County Management Director meeting, mentioned that when
previously provided part-time administrative support for , became
uncomfortable with some pcard purchase requests made by but that due to
position, no questions were asked.
I called and asked if currently makes purchases for said yes. I asked if has
pcard number. said requested a copy of card. I told I would be cancelling
card but provided no other information. was concerned that Verizon phone bills would
not be paid. I assured we would take care of purchases. volunteered that makes
“thousands of dollars” of gift card purchases for .
Having had a conversation several years ago with about supplying office supply gift cards to
, I inquired of if had within the past year or so supplied gift cards to
. was not aware of any but did say that had once mentioned
Asked whether any Service Desk tickets or other requests were made to replace
or activate new iPad for .