Bid-rigging trial postponed

vmj:  you are correct; there seems
to be something wrong with the
“fish smell”.  This should not
be about promoting PWC as so
“wonderful’, but what is right is
right and what is wrong is wrong…

polictics:  did this prior “investigation” involve one
supervisor or more than one?
Is prosecutor a county staff employee
or state or both?

It depends on the nature of the subject to be audited.  If it is not a serious matter, it may be in the interest of the taxpayer to avoid extra cost of expensive external audit and use internal audit.  They are constantly auditing themselves in one way or another.

If it was a serious matter, then external audit is appropriate.  Often serious matters are conducted internally, such as Internal Affairs investigations - police checking on police. 

An example how blue code exists and thrives was such an investigation involving a supervisor some years ago.  Promising to meet with all witnesses, that never happened. So no real investigation but it was reported out and carried in Pot. News that investigation was completed.  A follow up investigation by State Police was reported as completed and the state police officer was still interviewing witnesses at the time that was announced.  The state police officer had filed a report, which he said was preliminary to meeting with prosecutor. Investigator said prosecutor makes determination after meeting in person with investigator.  That never happened as prosecutor ruled without such a meeting and, as I said, while investigator was still in process of interviewing witnesses. 

The reason I know this is because one of those witnesses called me when she saw the article in the paper saying investigation was over.  She wanted to know how that could be as she had appointment with investigator for following week.  I told her I couldn’t talk to her about the matter but that I would call the investigator and have him call her back.  When I called him, I didn’t tell him right off that what was in the paper.  I started out by telling him that someone had called me and said they had an appointment with him.  He said that he had appointments the following week with two people with similar concerns over same officer.  He said that he filed the preliminary report but wanted to get the matter wrapped up and that after meeting with these witnesses he would schedule the normal appointment with prosecutor.  That is when I dropped the bombshell - investigation reported as concluded.  I could have heard his jaw drop.  Then he said, “They never even talked to me.“  About a month later I again heard from that witness who said the investigator had called and said that even though the formal investigation was complete he decided he still wanted to meet with her because he had real concerns.  I asked her if she was sure about this officer because she told me her complaint was based on incidents several years old.  I told her she should go down to the station and look at his photo.  She called for an appointment and they told her they would not let her see his photo.  Again, I told her I would call the investigator and tell him what happened.  He said, not to worry that he would make sure she got in to see the picture.  She never heard from the investigator.  So someone apparently told him to knock it off.

Police worked against that supervisor even taking police vehicles to campaign meetings of chairman and opponent of that supervisor and also using County time and facilities to distribute political flyers and emails against that supervisor.  The person who perpetrated that endeavor, the one who illegally took police cruiser to campaign meetings claimed he was not aware it was illegal.  He was Pres of Police Association and a County police officer.  How can the enforcers of the law claim ignorance of the law especially when at the start of every campaign season County sends out notices to all employees reminding them of this law?  Supposedly, a reprimand was placed in his file but someone told me recently that there was none there.  The guy who committed these acts was just re-elected last week to the General Assembly. 

It’s all a game.  And as you can see from the example, sometimes they can even dictate what happens in “supposed” external audits/investigations.  Depends on whose paying for the study and who knows who.  There really is no such thing as blind justice. And when freedom and liberty can unjustly be denied even one person, then there is no such thing as “liberty and justice for all.“

A year or two ago, it came before
BOCS to hire an auditor.  Discussion
ensued as to whether this be external
or internal.  County Executive was
adamant that this should be with staff
involvement internally.
Upon posing question to my supervisor
concerning that certainly this should
be external, supervisor stated
“I favor external auditor”.  However
when vote was taken, believe this
was 8-0 in favor of internal auditor.

I don’t recall what the limits were for personal gifts.

Every elected official has two documents they must file and both are available for public review.

The first, I am sure you know, is the campaign finance report which must be filed every quarter - and more often as elections draw closer.  They provide the aggregate amount of campaign contributions as well as detailed info on contributors of $100 or more.  Also shows expenditures.  These are available for review at the registrar’s office for supervisors.  I think you can see them on line for higher offices.

The second document is the Statement of Economic Interest which details an elected officials and certain government appointees’ personal financial information - amounts over a certain threshhold in stocks, mutual funds, etc., real estate owned outright or in which they have a financial interest, income from anyone doing business with the County, and also GIFTS received. These are sworn and notarized documents.  The Clerk to the Board of Supervisors maintains these records and you can go over to his office if you want to inspect them. 

Re gifts, I am pretty sure that if over a certain amount they are not considered personal gifts but actually belong to the County.

Then there is a third document which only has to be filled out when relevant.  It is the declaration of conflict of interest.  When anyone brings business to the board, such as a developer or a contractor, and if the supervisor has personal financial dealings with that entity, then the supervisor must fill out the disclosure and also verbally disclose the conflict and his intent to vote or not vote on the matter.  For example, John Jenkin’s wife worked for the school system so whenever we voted on a school money matter, John would always say, “My wife is an employee of PWC schools and I intend to vote on this matter.“

Think I’ve covered it all.

Have a great day.