12-15-2009
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PUBLIC HEARING - DISSOLUTION OF DSS BOARD
STATEMENT TO BOARD BY BILL PIERCEALL
____________________________________________________
DSS Board Guilty of Looting Warren Coffers?
Chairman Fox, Members of the Board, Friends,
The Warren County Board of Supervisors voted unanimously to hold a Public Hearing on 15 December to consider dissolving the DSS Board of Directors. I ask that this statement in its entirety become a part of the Public Hearing record.
Principles of good governance demand that, at their last meeting on December 17th, DSS Board members repudiate their recently approved employment agreement for Director Ron King, thus removing the unseemly financial burden imposed on Warren taxpayers.
Troubling questions surround the new agreement. The old 1999 Employment Agreement, simple, straightforward, and in effect for 10 years, barely covered a single typewritten page; the new agreement covers 7 pages and is littered with a mine field of fiduciary penalties against taxpayer interests. Copies of both documents are attached for your inspection..
FRAUD AGAINST TAXPAYERS?
There are moral, ethical, and even legal questions concerning the content and timing of this employment agreement. To the citizen on the street it can only appear as an unjustified award, a windfall for an Agency employee whose work has been shown to be inadequate by two separate studies. And, given the extravagant benefits therein, it will be seen as an effort to make the dissolution of the DSS Board so financially punishing of the taxpayer that the Board of Supervisors will not dare take such a step. In this, the DSS Board has violated public expectations of good governance and fiduciary responsibility.
WHOSE "CODE OF ETHICS" WAS FOLLOWED?
Since the DSS Board has given no indication of acting on the recommendation of the Springsted Report (commissioned by the Board of Supervisors) to establish a Code of Ethics or a Code of Conduct, I will turn to The Rotary Club, a service organization. To borrow from the Rotary Club philosophy, did the employment agreement accomplish "service above self"?
1) Is it the truth?
2) Is it fair to all concerned?
3) Will it build good will and better friendships?
4) Will it be beneficial to all concerned?
Who could apply the "4-Way Test" to Director King's employment agreement and answer even a single question with an unqualified "YES"?
DSS BOARD LIABLE ?
The Board of Supervisors appoints and empowers members of the DSS Board with delegated, well defined, limited authority to act as its agents to represent the best interests of Warren taxpayers. The duties, powers, and responsibilities of the DSS Board are given within the Board By-Laws. Basically, the DSS Board members are charged with supervising the Director and the Department of Social Services.
Whenever a Board member acts in bad faith or injures the public trust with abuse of power, they expose themselves to assuming a personal liability for their action. This could result in Mr. King's new employment agreement's $120,000 severance pay award becoming due and payable by the DSS Board members themselves. That would be about $30,000 paid out of pocket by each DSS Board member who voted to approve.
NOTABLE FAILURES - ACTION PLAN - IMPLEMENTATION PLAN - 10-YEAR STRATEGIC PLAN :
The QMR Report and the Springsted Report must be addressed quickly, thoroughly, and with an unwavering focus on specific corrections and recommendations.
In my opinion, the DSS Board and Director King submitted an unresponsive and inadequate Action Plan in response to the 55 problems within DSS as identified by the QMR Report.
In my opinion, the Board and Director were even less responsive when drawing up an Implementation Plan in response to the findings of the BOS-commissioned Springsted Report; they tackled barely half (16) of the 34 problems identified in that report.
Examples of inadequate managerial and administrative capabilities are demonstrated by the State QMR Report, which identified no fewer than 5 repeat problems in Warren County Child Protective Services, unresolved from the previous State DSS evaluation. Proper Board oversight would have ensured these problems were corrected. That these problems were not addressed suggests that this Agency can not formulate an adequate, responsive Action Plan.
In my opinion the DSS Board and Director should possess the necessary "in-house" skills to create and implement the 10-Year Strategic Plan recommended by the Springsted Report. The DSS Board Chair professes to have accomplished 20 years of DSS hands-on experience, the Director claims 30 years experience, and the Administrative Manager has 35 years experience. Instead, this pool of experience decided they should seek funding from Warren County to pay an outside consultant to create a Strategic Plan. I find this unacceptable.
WHY CREATE A NEW EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT NOW?
First, there can be no consensus that this agreement was warranted by distinguished service and performance. Eighty-five identified problems resulting from two independent evaluation reports, QMR and Springsted, provide a benchmark to measure with our yardsticks.
On 15 December the Board of Supervisors will conduct a public hearing to dissolve the current DSS Board of Directors. I anticipate that the Board of Supervisors will replace the DSS Board by an advisory body. Once this has been accomplished, an in-depth review of the Director's past administrative and managerial performance should be undertaken to determine his future as Director.
I believe the DSS Board and Director attempted to hide the new employment agreement from public review by declaring the agreement was to be placed in the Director's personnel file. They wrongly believed everything placed in someone's personnel file is not subject to discovery by submitting a Freedom Of Information Act request. At the 17 November meeting of the Board of Supervisors, in response to a question from Supervisor Traczyk, County Attorney Blair Mitchell advised that employment agreements are public records.
Again, the citizen on the street might well ask whether it is possible that the new employment agreement was created because the DSS Board and Director believed they could use it as leverage to keep their jobs and control of the Agency if they agreed to void the agreement?
A RECITATION FROM PUBLIC RECORDS - AND A HISTORY OF DECEPTION
The history of the Agency Director is peppered with wrongful termination lawsuits, high employee dissatisfaction, dissention, and high turnover. His previously unknown tenure as Director of Caroline County DSS nearly 20 years ago, according to court records, resulted in at least 2 successful wrongful termination lawsuits against him by former employees McLean and French.
The Caroline DSS Board meeting minutes tell us that DSS employees and managers submitted a four page list of problems and grievances seeking relief. Warren DSS employees have written anonymous letters of complaint to the Board of Supervisors.
The Caroline DSS Board meeting minutes also tell us of DSS employee complaints to the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission concerning Caroline DSS personnel issues during King's tenure as Director.
Public records indicate Mr. King resigned as Caroline County DSS Director after serving two years.
When Mr. King applied to Warren County for the position of Director in 1999, he apparently 'forgot' to disclose these Caroline County lawsuits and his subsequent resignation in his resume and application. I believe the applicant interview panel was misled and deceived by this omission of fact. A former Supervisor and member of the job applicant interview panel as well as a second DSS Board member also on the panel have stated this information was not made known to them by Mr. King during the interview process.
As Director of DSS Warren County, Mr. King lost a lawsuit for wrongful termination filed by Ms. Fedorko.
The Warren County Courts have responded to Grand Jury and Special Grand Jury investigations by directing oversight improvements in lieu of criminal charges. DSS Board Chair Mathews claims the grand juries exonerated DSS of all allegations of criminal wrongdoings. The language in the grand juries reports do not support Chair Mathews claim of exoneration.
Mr. & Mrs. Holben filed a lawsuit against Warren DSS seeking the source of malicious accusations.
Ms. Selover filed a lawsuit over FOIA violations that is now waiting publication of the Judge's verdict.
Former employee Ms. McClosky has filed a wrongful termination/fraud against taxpayer lawsuit.
In addition, there are allegations that remain to be addressed by a forensic financial audit, including examination of the many credit card accounts created and used by the Director and paid for with county, state, federal and private funds.
I believe deception continues to this day. The most recent example may be found with the failure to promptly and publicly disclose the approved employment agreement when it was voted approved during the open Board meeting 20 August 2009. According to Code of Virginia FOIA law § 2.2-3707.F. At least one copy of all agenda packets and, unless exempt, all materials furnished to members of a public body for a meeting shall be made available for public inspection at the same time such documents are furnished to the members of the public body.
The employment agreement was not made available in compliance with § 2.2-3707.F. Employment agreements are not exempt. Repeating my earlier statement, "At the 17 November meeting of the Board of Supervisors, in response to a question from Supervisor Traczyk, County Attorney Blair Mitchell advised that employment agreements are public records."
In my opinion, Director King's belief that his employment agreement would remain secret was evidenced by his misguided and wrongful refusal to share it with the public openly and freely.
STATE QMR REPORT AND SPRINGSTED REPORT AT ODDS WITH DSS BOARD CHAIR MATHEWS
DSS Board credibility has deteriorated into shambles, revealing their supervision of the Agency as little more than mutual back slapping coziness.
The Springsted Company and the State QMR combined to inform Warren County taxpayers of more than 80 management and administrative problems affecting DSS processes, the DSS Board and the DSS Director. Eighty identified problems conflict with DSS Board Chair Mathews statements of fiction telling us what a wonderful job Director King has done. Chair Mathews claims the Board knew about these problems before QMR and Springsted conducted their investigations. If this is true, we must ask why the DSS Board remained unresponsive and did not initiate corrective actions on a single identified problem prior to QMR and Springsted, especially the FIVE repeat findings concerning Child Protective Services?
WHO BENEFITTED BY THE NEW EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT?
No benefit to taxpayers who stand to be burdened by up to $120,000 of new debt approved by the DSS Board.
No benefit to governance; problems identified by QMR and Springsted remain without effective remedies.
No benefit to DSS staff; they have not had a pay increase for 2 years and grievances remain unresolved.
No benefit to DSS client services; which may have actually been harmed by diverting budget funds to pay severance.
No benefit to anyone, with one exception ...DSS Director King. Is this our example of "service above self"?
How is it possible that any 'watch dog' and prudent DSS Board could even think of renewing Mr. King's contract at this time, and with such generous terms to boot? That it has done so leaves the impression that these members are either wildly out of touch with present developments and public controversies, or willfully seek to thwart the Board of Supervisors by making the DSS Director's dismissal too expensive for the community to bear. In either case, how in good conscience can this subordinate body, dependent as it is on Federal, State and County taxpayers, so willfully disrespect and challenge the elected representatives of the people? 'Good governance' is the victim here, as is the people's faith in just and prudent county government.
REPUDIATION AS REMEDY ?
While researching information for this presentation, I happened across the legal term "repudiation". Here are some definitions and meanings attached to "repudiation", followed by action possibilities:
Repudiation: An adequate and effective renunciation and repudiation by a person of his prior unconscionable or wrongful conduct. This example of a repudiation action should originate by the DSS Board members, voting to overturn their previous vote on the new employment agreement with the Director. DSS Chair Mathews or Supervisor Glavis should add this item to the next DSS Board Agenda for a vote, allowing the DSS Board to reverse its decision with one or all of the following reasons:
· they did not fully understand the terms of the agreement.
· they believe the approved agreement is not the same as what they thought they were approving.
· they believe the agreement is different or has been altered since approval.
· they were not allowed sufficient time to thoroughly review the agreement prior to approval.
· the actual agreement was misrepresented during review.
Repudiation: The refusal of public authorities to acknowledge or pay a debt; refusal to acknowledge or pay a debt or honor a contract, especially by public authorities, as in repudiation of a debt by a city; rejecting or disowning or disclaiming as invalid.
· I suggest the County Attorney consider filing suit asking the Court to set aside the employment agreement for cause.
· The Board of Supervisors should immediately and publicly renounce and notify Director King the BOS will not neither accept, nor ratify the agreement.
· The BOS's repudiation efforts would be consistent with the best interests of Warren County taxpayers.
· Warren County should be able to muster enough minimum legal energy to request the Court to set aside this employment agreement. This could take some time, but an immediate request starts the clock ticking, placing the Director on immediate notice that his employment will end.
I am concerned that any delay by the Board of Supervisors in contesting this employment agreement in a court of law now that the agreement has become publicly accessible could be deemed acceptance by acquiescence.
Accordingly, I urge that the new DSS administrative authority, to be created by the Board of Supervisors, relieve the DSS Director of all previously approved duties and authorize the performance of a proper forensic financial audit of all Agency accounts, credit cards, and budget areas funded by local, private, state, and federal sources.
However, positive action must begin immediately. Delay will not improve Warren County's position.
Best regards,
Bill Pierceall
P.O. Box 35
Middletown, Va. 22645
