This blog,originally founded by Blogger, who is listed in Marquis Who's Who and is a recipient of the Albert Nelson Marquis Lifetime Achievement Award. He holds a theological degree and a doctorate in Counseling Psychology. Taught Psychology for 32 years and is now Professor Emeritus. Is a board-certified psychologist and was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award in his profession. Ministered as a chaplain, and pastored Baptist and Episcopal churches. Publications cover the integration of psychology and theology. Served in the Army, the Merchant Marines and the Peace Corps.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Former New River Employees Sue New River, Counties and Individual board members.

Too late for April Fool's Day, a civil  lawsuit filed yesterday in Federal District Court on behalf of several named former New River Service Service Authority  employees names as Defendants not only Ashe, Avery, Alleghany, Watauga and Wilkes Counties, but also New River Service Authority AND names as INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS the Representative County
Commissioners from each of the 5 counties that are serving on the New River Board as part of their county responsibilities!

In Watauga, BOC Chairman Nathan Miller is the commissioner who was assigned the New River board duties. and consequently is named as an individual defendent.

Strangely, the former CEO of New River, The CFO, the Accountants who audited their books, Smoky Mountain Center and the various county representatives who served on the New River Board during the period when the problems  first  actually developed, were not named.

The lawsuit, which can be read in it's entirety here, leaves open the possibility that additional defendants might be named later.

My understanding is that the individuals are likely to be dismissed as defendants - I wonder however, whether anyone will find it feasible to serve in political positions in the future if they are to be held personally liable for any failures that might occur in any subsidiary organization technically under their area of responsibility?

Public service anyone?


guy faulkes said...

Individuals serving as governmental officials are protected by the Public Duty Doctrine. To the best of my knowledge, the test case was whether policemen had an obligation to protect an individual. It went to the Supreme Court which ruled they did not and that officials could not be sued for preforming their duties. One can sue the governmental body, but not the person, unless it is for a civil rights violation.

Inquiring Mind said...

It is not so odd that the CEO and CFO were not named in the lawsuit. Take a look at the report Martin Starnes & Associates CPAs, Inc. issued. The report depicts the CEO and CFO as 2 employees who didn't intentionally do anything wrong. This same report claims that the board relied on inaccurate information. The flaw was in the time period covered by the report. A broader picture, a review of the financial reports, board minutes and policies shows that the board was negligent in its fiduciary duties. Commissioner Nathan Miller was recently quoted in the Winston Journal Patriot in response to the inability to recover losses from error/omissions and liability insurance policies for the CEO and CFO actions. The comment made to that paper may explain.

The Wilkes Patriot Journal article, 'Closing of NRSA Set' states:

"Miller (Watauga County Commissioner Nathan Miller), among the more outspoken NRSA board members, said the board’s insurance company told the board that it had little chance of securing money through liability insurance for New River’s former top management. “They said you can’t insure stupidity,” said Miller."

Too bad we can't insure "stupidity"; if we could, we could secure money from all of liability policies of the 5 counties. There is a lot of "willful neglect" and "incompetence" parading around as "stupidity".

Too bad Martin Starnes & Associates, Inc. painted a picture of "stupidity"; but, then whose idea was that to limit the scope of their investigation?

We now have a new term for "corruption, malfeasance, incompetence, and willful neglect"; they call it "stupidity".

How do we describe the actions of Commissioner Kenny Poteat when he got the bank statements for NRSA at his home; opened them, saw the money being taken out, had not been given any explanation and continued to allow the finance officer to take money out without any explanation? stupidity or willful neglect?

How do we describe the actions of a board that appoints the same treasurer as the Chair of the interim NRSA to oversee the dissolution of NRSA? stupidity, willful neglect or malfeasance?

How do we describe the actions of the Vice-Chairs: Tony Triplett and Billy Ralph Winker and Chairs, Ken Richardson and Zach Henderson when they allowed funds to be taken out without the required approval? stupidity or willful neglect?

How do we describe the actions of board members who ignored the measures needed to address annual operating losses recommended by 3 different CFOs and 2 different financial consultants? stupidity or willful neglect

How do we describe the actions of board members who allowed the fund balance to drop below the required 8% of budget figure repeatedly without addressing the problem? stupidity or willful neglect?
How do we describe the actions of board members who received financial reports showing escalating receivables, operating losses, rapid declining cash reserves and twisted the arm of sub-contractors for bail-outs in millions (we are going to find another contractor; by the way, we need a $6 million bail-out)? stupidity, malfeasance or willful neglect?

How do we describe the actions of board members who agreed with and allowed the CFO and CEO to withhold information during a contractual audit by the Local Management Entity? stupidity, malfeasance or willful neglect?

How do we describe the actions of board members who agreed to a 4% salary increase and an extravagant Christmas part and then be faced with taking back the salary increase within a few months and didn't act? stupidity or willful neglect?

While it certainly looks like stupidity, it is actually willful neglect and malfeasance!

Anonymous said...

Whose idea was it to set up this type of healthcare facility?

Wasn't it a bipartisan idea?

I get the impression that the two 'guys' are trying to make excuses for the public officials in their attempts to get out of their obligations.

NewGuy said...

I am imagining a scene where the complaining witness is testifying... "Your honor, that fireman should have put out the fire in the bedroom first but instead he focused on the kitchen and I lost all the valuable stuff that I had stored under my bed! He should have to pay me personally and not hide behind some "legislative immunity" type argument!" This world has gone litigation crazy! I am certainly of the opinion that the former New River employees should be compensated for the work they performed but, in this case, I predict their attorney will be the main beneficiary of this action! In the meantime, public servants (commissioners) from the 5 counties will probably incur legal expenses in defending against this ridiculous personal suit!

Inquiring Mind said...

There were 17 employees who filed with small claims court for the maximum if $5,000 vacation/sick leave that was due them under NRSA vacation/ leave policy and were awarded jjudgements. Then the 18th employee filed and the magistrate ruled that the policy was not a contract and ruled in favor of NRSA. Then it is NRSA's attorney that has talked the NRSA board into an appeal. So now the 18 employees have to hire an attornies because the NRSA board wants to claim that the benefits promised to these employees is not contractual. The other employees went forward with the law suit which is the object of the post. Government employees are not covered under the DOL laws and unfortunately we see what they have to do to get what was promised. This is a form of deferred compensation.

The attornies will be the benefactors but st no fault of the employees.

NewGuy said...

IM...we are in total agreement. In my opinion the employees should be first in line and receive full payment for their hours worked, vacation time lost, etc....

My point is that public officials, doing their best in the public interests, should not be held individually liable in a civil matter.

Suppose you were on the school board and I decided to sue you because I claim that some policy problem in the high school caused me financial damage. You are very likely going to win the case and be dismissed as an individual plaintiff - but you are "at risk", you might not get it dismissed and you may have out of pocket legal fees. At the very least you will spend a great deal of time and effort in your personal defense.

I expect that the courts will probably have to sort out who will be required to pay whom in the New River case....but my bet is that the various county commissioners who have served on the NR board over the years won't be held personally liable.

Board Member at the time said...

“Whose idea was it to set up this type of healthcare facility?” Anonymous To answer your question, the original mess was created by the New River employees themselves plus one commissioner from Sparta who put pressure on the then county commissioners.

They were all warned from the beginning that what has happened would happen one day. Even though every other county in the state and most of the rest of the country were setting up entities that would wall off their county officials from litigation, the New River Area commissioners would not listen to the warnings. Now here we are.

By the way neither of the two new Republican Watauga County Commissioners were involved nor were they any where near the original act. It is very unfair that they have to pay for the stubborn stupidity of prior commissioners.

Inquiring Mind said...

Yes. This was a bipartisan effort. On 6/5/2006, Winkler seconded by Honeycutt and approved by Deal and Kinsey ( Blust absent), agreed to have a study done to see if it was feasible to enter into a160A Interlical Agreement with Alleghany, Ashe, Avery and Wilkes to provide mental health services. There is no record if the study. Who is responsible for that?

However, on 10/16/2012, Blust seconded by Winkler and approved by Honeycutt, Deal and Kinsey agreed to enter into the agreement.

The agreement was not pre-audited by the Cpunty Finance Director and apparently the commissioners didn't know that they would be responsible if the entity couldn't pay it's bills. Whose fault is that?

Anonymous said...

Do you mean 10/16/2006?

Inquiring Mind said...

Yes. I meant 10/16/2006. The so-called "stupidity" gets worse once you get to October 2012.

These employees were asked to not take vacation or accumulated leave so as to increase billing in an effort to pull NRSA out of the hole. They didn't take their leave and see where it got them.

The NRSA board,past and current, willfully neglected their duties as board members. However, the negligence goes further.

The NRSA Interlocal Agreement required the NRSA to make quarterly financial reports and annual audit presentations to the boards of commissions of the 5 counties. These reports were never made. It seems that the county manager, county finance director and auditors failed to request and/or require NRSA to fulfill this obligation. Do we call this "stupidity", "willful neglect", or "incompetency"?

It looks like the attorney for the employees has his own expert financial consultants examining the financial reports and minutes of NRSA. Their examination of the records concurs with mine. The lawsuit states:

"For years, Defendants allowed their NRSA enterprise to be run by a licensed professional counselor with little or no business or management education who, untrained and
unprepared, continuously operated it in the red, bleeding money non-stop while Defendants buried their collective heads in the sand, as indicated by the following meeting minute excerpts.
a. August 2008 meeting minutes5 report: “The YTD total loss for
FY2007/08 is $1.8 million.”
b. December 2009 meeting minutes6 report: “The 2008/09FY ended in a $1
million deficit.”
c. September 2010 meeting minutes7 report: Board Member Poteat “stated
that…[he] is at times alarmed by the amounts transferred when no explanation is given to him for the transfer."
d. July 2011 meeting minutes8 report: Board Member Poe said the “formal report [due] to all five county Boards of Commissioners within 60-days of the annual NRSA audit…has never been done to her knowledge before the Ashe County Board of Commissioners…[and] pointed out that NR[SA] has had an operating loss for the past three years. She stated that…if NR[SA] had debts it
comes back to the county budgets and back to the counties to pay.”
e. August 2011 meeting minutes reveal that its CEO Andrews
acknowledged they “would be ending the year with a $1 million deficit…. Accounts payable now stands at around $1 million dollars that has not been paid…the accounts receivable account is not in order…standard accounting
practices were not followed…” Those same minutes also report the CEO “stated that right now it is not clear whether that is negligence or illegal activity" and was advised “that the loss for the last fiscal year (2010/11FY) could be as high as $3 million.”

The law suit states: "With financial records in disarray, Defendants failed to, among other things, file lawfully required audit reports, for which gross negligence Board Members are individually
subject to personal liability and reportedly face potential criminal misdemeanor charges."

And, according to the Watauga Democrat (regarding the lawsuit): "It accuses the New River board and its members of a slew of offenses: fraud, common law fraud, promissory fraud, fraud by concealment, misrepresentation, negligence, conversion, detrimental reliance, fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conspiracy, aiding and abetting and concerted action, as well as breach of contract."

(I wonder if this lawyer would like to consider a citizen class action suit for the past decade plus of board service in Watauga County. The above descriptive terms comes closer describing the situation; much better than my kind description."

Inquiring Mind said...

The Watauga Democrat quotes Commissioner Miller:
“It should really make people want to run for public office when you get sued individually for merely serving on a board that is part of your duties as a commissioner,” he said. “But I don't think there's any grounds to sue us individually, so I'm not particularly worried about it.”

Would love to hear from all commissioner candidates; how do you feel about the potential of being sued for all of the offenses reiterated above while carrying out your duties as a commissioner?

NRSA is not likely to go away before the election in December.

guy faulkes said...

Like I said before, they can't be sued individually, unless the law has changed. Has Iit?

guy faulkes said...

more information:

Qualified immunity for public officials

A public official sued individually is not subject to liability unless the official’s actions were malicious, corrupt or outside the scope of official duties. Epps v. Duke University, 122 NC App 198 (1996).
The qualified immunity applies only to public officials, not to public employees. Generally public officials occupy offices created by statute, take an oath of office, and exercise discretion in performance of their duties. Pigott v. City of Wilmington, 50 NC App 401 (1981); Gunter v. Anders, 114 NC App 61 (1994).
Elected board members are public officials, Town of Old Fort v. Harmon, 219 NC 241 (1941); as are chiefs of police and police officers, State v. Hord, 264 NC 149 (1965); the county director of social services, Hare v. Butler, 99 NC App 693 (1990); the chief building inspector, Pigott v. City of Wilmington, 50 NC App 401 (1981); and superintendents and principals, Gunter v. Anders, 114 NC App 61 (1994).

NewGuy said...

Guy...I think you are pretty much on target...except that obviously, you CAN sue them. We currently have an example of that before us. The thing is you probably can't SUCCESSFULLY sue them. That is, unless they were operating outside the scope of their authority.

It is certainly asinine to sue someone recently appointed to the board because he didn't correct the longstanding problems soon enough!

I'm willing to bet that the commissioner/board members will be dismissed as personal plaintiffs in the suit.

guy faulkes said...

New Guy, I think the individuals will be withdrawn from the suit or it will be dismissed.

Inquiring Mind said...

Those of you who think that the individual board members, commissioners or not, cannot be sued, need to read the Interlocal Agreement, Article 1.

And,has anyone read the book written by the Professor who sued ASU and won?

And, we have heard from one of the commissioner candidates. And, he isn't a lawyer. He says the attorney representing the employees has no standing to sue the individual board members of NRSA. Please, this is an issue to which you will running on as a candidate for commissioner; don't hide behind your handle! Post under your real name unless you are afraid to let the people know where you really stand.

Inquiring Mind said...

All of you so-called lawyers; what is your take on the ability to go to jail and/or be fined for destruction of public records without proper authority? This comes from Go-Blue ridge:

"Fraud, common law fraud, promissory fraud, fraud by concealment, misrepresentation, negligence, conversion, detrimental reliance, fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conspiracy, aiding and abetting and concerted action as well as breach of contract— those the allegations in the class action law suit filed against the New River Service Authority by some 65 former employees. Matt Ross, former New River Behavioral Healthcare employee, outlined the group’s clam, “When we were laid off from New River, it was policy that if you left in good standing, that you would be paid out your vacation pay. We were actually told not to take off any time for vacation or otherwise, so after New River went under, we started asking questions…if we were going to get paid that money, and they never gave us an answer.”
And the 65 are claiming approximately $1.5 million in personal loss, “We’re seeking the money that is owed to us for unpaid vacation time, we’re seeking interest, attorney fees, and now we are seeking punitive damages.”
With New River ceasing to exist April 18th, I asked Ross whether they stood to recoup any money, “Absolutely. The 160A agreement that created New River outlined that, in the event that New River were to rack up debts, that the five counties would assume responsibility for any debts. That’s why we have named the counties, the New River Service Authority Board, and now the individual board members themselves.”
And on that—this may be too painful for technophiles or fans of office equipment—I was told about certainly thousands of dollars in computer, office electronics, and even office furniture that area being destroyed at the order of the New River Service Authority. Goods from some of the counties—particularly Wilkes—have been carted out of the former New River facilities, taken to the dump, and rolled over by equipment. The equipment was said to include computers, high-end printers and peripherals—some of it new—all of it serviceable, and all of it with value. Contacting Watauga NRSA board member Nathan Miller, he said the board had no choice, with two employees and two weeks to shut-down—there is just no one else to decide what to do with equipment that potentially contain HIPPA violating information. Those goods from the Watauga offices were still in storage yesterday, but according to Miller, won’t be for long."

I made a public records request months ago and they have not responded. I guess what they didn't shred (see accounts payable for Shred It), what they didn't crush, they will get rid of. Maybe you better rethink that "no standing to sue".

I hope these guys like orange.

Inquiring Mind said...

Have you "attorneys" had a chance to read the Interlocal Agreement. Now, read what the attorney for the employees writes in the lawsuit:

"109. On information and belief, all Defendant counties have either purchased a policy
of insurance and/or participated in a local government risk pool pursuant to Article 23, Chapter
58, of the North Carolina General Statutes which may provide coverage for the events
complained of and, therefore, waived immunity from civil liability in this action."

And, please read the minutes for NRSA.

guy faulkes said...

I went through the questioon of the distruction of public records before. The institute of Government told me the municipal or county clerk was responsible for maintaining or releasing public records, but when push comes to shove not one, of them has ever paid any penalty for not doing their jobs as they should. There apparently is no penalty except for what the governmental body chooses to apply. This usually means the individual has to sue the governmental body.

Good luck with that. They will bankrupt you by fighting you with the public purse.

Inquiring Mind said...

Commissioners Miller, Blevins, Cox and Sands attended their first NRSA board meeting on 1/27/2011 and the board met monthly thereafter. They were all appointed to the Finance Committee by virtue of being commissioners. The finance committee met monthly prior to each board meeting. And, New Guy says that we can't hold these new board members responsible for not reacting fast enough. Interesting. The minutes of 1/27/2011 state:

"Mr. Aggers presented financial statements and reports to the board: Balance sheet as of 12/31/2010, Statement of Activity of Revenue and Expenses of of 11/30/2010, Statement of Activity of Revenue and Expenses as of 12/31/2010, and a chart of the agency's cash balance by month comparing 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011...He reported that expenses usually are running around $2 million each month with $500,000 being held in accounts payable....Mr. Aggers stated that the year to date deficit is at $1.1 million....In considering cuts this fiscal year given NR's budget amount, Mr. Aggers stated that the budget needs to be cut by $2 million....A 3% cut in salaries was proposed by Mr. Aggers....Gary Blevins and Ms. Andrews discussed how to offset some of NR's deficits with assistance from the fund balance of SMC or from the Evergreen Foundation."

And they "buried their collective heads in the sand"! This attorney obviously has read the minutes unlike the candidate who is posting under his handle. We certainly hope that we are not in for more mediocre representation.

Here is just a sampling of what the attorney for the employees writes in their lawsuit.

1) "Asleep at the wheel when it counted, Defendants have swiftly come wide awake,trying to avoid blame and shamelessly denying the liability that is rightfully, and lawfully, theirs."

2)"Defendants willfully and/or intentionally disregarded their fiduciary duties, by means of the conducts described herein in violation of federal laws, and now attempt to avoid paying compensation lawfully due Plaintiffs."

3)"Each of Defendants, by acting as herein described, did so knowingly and in such an intentional manner as to constitute a fraud and deceit upon Plaintiffs."

4)"Financial records show, however, that Defendants negligently squandered much of the federal and other money funneled to . In fact, Defendants operated in the red year-after-year, bleeding money non-stop as Defendants buried their collective heads in the sand, until the mismanaged enterprise withered
and finally––in the face of demands for Defendants to return millions of converted and New River Service Authority misappropriated dollars as a result of their alleged joint and several failure “to substantially
comply with requirements of State and federal law” New River Service Authority and with creditors clamoring for millionsmore––staggered to its knees and met an untimely death."

Whether there is standing to sue or not, this law suit certainly lays out the atrosities perpetuated on the citizens. If they can't be sued, we certainly can make sure that they never serve in any public service capacity again.

Mediocre is too kind; make that irresponible and incompetent.

Inquiring Mind said...

New Guy, I am in complete agreement with your statement: "My point is that public officials, doing their best in the public interests, should not be held individually liable in a civil matter." However, the public officials, in the case of NRSA, obviously did not "do their best in the public interests". Reading the minutes of NRSA, reading the minutes of the boards of commission when they decided to enter into this 160 A agreement, reading the financial statements of NRSA and the 5 counties, reviewing the files of NRBH in Ashe and Watauga counties, and observing the interim board and discussions with the interim CEO and CFO while trying to get public records request, supports:

1)"buried their collective heads in the sand"
2)"asleep at the wheel when it counted"
3)"willfully and/or intentionally disregarded their fiduciary duties"
4)"knowingly and in such an intentional manner as to constitute a fraud and deceit"
5)"negligently squandered much of the federal and other money funneled to"
6)"operated in the red year-after-year, bleeding money non-stop"
7)"misappropriated dollars as a result of their alleged joint and several failure 'to substantially
comply with requirements of State and federal law'"
8)"swiftly come wide awake,trying to avoid blame and shamelessly denying the liability that is rightfully, and lawfully, theirs"
9)"allowed their NRSA enterprise to be run by a licensed professional counselor with little or no business or management education who, untrained and unprepared"
10)"failed to, among other things, file lawfully required audit reports"
11)"misspent millions of federal dollars"
12)"converted and misappropriated, federal dollars."
13)"fraud, common law fraud, promissory fraud,fraud by concealment, misrepresentation, conversion, detrimental reliance, fraudulent inducement, breach of fiduciary duty, misappropriation, conspiracy, aiding and abetting and concerted action as well as breach of contract"
14)"knew that their representations were false and engaged in a concerted
and systematic pattern of deception"
15)"In committing the wrongful acts alleged herein Defendants have pursued, or joined in the pursuit of, a common course of conduct, and acted in concert with and conspired
with one another, in furtherance of their common plan or design."
16)"aided and abetted
and/or assisted each other in breach of their respective duties"
17)"initiated a course of conduct which was designed in furtherance of the plan, conspiracy and course of conduct"
18)"engaged in a conspiracy, common enterprise and/or common course
of conduct"
19)"accomplished their conspiracy, common enterprise or common course of
conduct through their illegal and improper actions"
20)"aided and abetted and rendered substantial assistance in the
wrongs complained"
21)"acted with knowledge of the primary wrongdoing, substantially assisted the accomplishment of that wrongdoing and was aware of her or her overall contribution to, and furtherance of, the wrongdoing"
22)"willful, wanton and malicious"
23)"a conscious indifference for the damage that would be caused"

Inquiring Mind said...

I would like to add some of own thoughts in response to their indifference to my requests for public records, personal observations of their interim meetings and review of the penance of records released: "buried their collective heads in the sand", willfully and knowingly breached their fiduciary duty, acted to willfully conceal information from the public, willfully and knowingly breached public records laws, knowingly colluded, aided and abetted in a conspiracy to violate public records and open meeting laws, and willfully and knowingly breached their oath of office as county commissioners.

And, the previous 23 acts and the additional above have been done without humility or remorse; with arrogance and haughtiness. This is the where the line is drawn!

guy faulkes said...

As I tried to indicate before, nothing will ever be accomplished to insure the access to public records until there is some teeth in the law. There has to be an individual cost for the person that is in charge of keeping and distributing these records if he is derelict in his duties.

I have been told the law does not prescribe any such cost for not following it. It requites a civil law suit to gain satisfactory access. In other words the law,as it now stands, says "Stop or I will shout Stop!"

Inquiring Mind said...


I agree and the Attorney General has been trying for years to get the legislature to give his department more authority to bring action. The attorney general has been helpful in attempting to mediate requests. However, his office says they are limited to making contract and encouraging compliance; they can't compel them to comply.

I attempted to start the process with the required request for mediation. This being the first filed in Watauga County, the clerk has just recently determined how to handle the request. It is evident from the 1/16/2012 meeting of the NRSA Board video that they have been "colluding, aiding and abetting in a conspiracy to violate public records law". In the video, the NRSA board agrees to specifically respond to requests of the medical board examiner with only Nathan Miller objecting. In Commissioner Miller's objection, his reason for voting against the resolution is that the medical board examiner has no greater right than any other person requested information. And, Chairman Kenny Poteat, the treasurer for NRSA and the one who has the most to hide, laid the basis for their argument against compliance. Commissioner Poteat explains that NRSA is down to 2 employees relays the message that the priority of these employees is closing NRSA.

There is a lot we don't know because the NRSA board spent 4-8 hours in closed session with less than 1 hour in open session at the majority of their meetings since September, obviously another violation of the sunshine laws.

This NRSA board has made every effort to avoid its obligations to the employees who are co-citizens with us in the 5 counties in the name of saving the taxpayers money. This is absurd in the face of the waste, fraud and malfeasance we have had to endure since 2004. Where was the concern for the taxpayers when we bought the Smitherman-Winkler property from Chairman Deal's client in 2005 without an appraisal; where was the concern for the taxpayers when our county committed tax fraud with the purchase of the Brookshire property; where was the was the concern for the taxpayers when we paid 3 and 4 times the value for the new high school property which was the center of the NC Appraisal Board fraud investigation; where was the concern for the taxpayers when we went from $50 million to $90 million on the construction of a new high school; where was the concern for the taxpayers when we borrowed the money to purchase land for Tweetsie at a $1 per year lease; where was the concern for the taxpayers when the TDA authorized annual payments of $150,000 to Tweetsie; where was the concern for the taxpayers when the County let the Town of Boone conspire to control the development of the County with the New River water supply; where was the concern for the taxpayers when the County sanctioned without oversight grant after grant that ended up in waste and abuse of our tax dollars.

And, this idea that the 5-county agreement was not pre-audited is another absurd argument. Just who failed to admittedly do their job is the real question. How many other contracts were not pre-audited? Back not too long ago, the county entered into a failed contract with Unique Places, LLC to draft our so-called farmland protection plan. I asked for a copy of that contract and when I went to pick it up; it was pre-audited the day of my arrival versus the date the county signed it (over a month prior). They obviously realized that they didn't pre-audit it. And, this would have been a qualified instance to get out of the contract; before a dime was spent. Instead, they pre-audited and went headlong with the ridiculous expenditure because,as they claim, the county match would all be in-kind.

These guys have proven to be masters at collusion to deceive.

oatz said...

FYI- A good source told me Daymark sent an email out asking all employees with laptops hide them on Tuesday(04/11/2012). Was this a blatant attempt to hide assets from the former employees vacation lawsuit?