From Stan Matthews
County Website and Communications Manager
[County Administrator] Pete Rose feels that it would be appropriate to reiterate and support the statements made in the County’s news release. [Feb. 24, 2012)
Concerning the Termination of the IS Manager:
- The County administration stands by the information in Friday’s news release
- The purchasing case is entirely separate from the termination. As indicated in the County news release, documentation clearly shows the termination decision had been made and the termination process was underway well before the purchasing issue came to the Administrator’s attention.
Concerning the Purchasing Issue:
- The administrator worked with the prosecutor on the purchasing case and actively encouraged him to contact the State Auditor, even sitting in the prosecutor’s office while he made a call to the State Auditor. Because of the circumstances, the County Administration did not coordinate its response to this case with County Auditor Henley.
- The prosecutor issued a written report, which was released when his investigation was complete. It remains a public record.
(Two reports follow: One is the prosecutor’s report after his investigation of the purchasing issue. The other is the County’s motion to dismiss the whistleblower lawsuit, which provides an explanation of why Mr. Johnson was terminated and citations documenting that the termination was fait accompli before the purchasing issue became known to the County Administration.) CRS 111510
Prosecutor’s report:
https://sanjuanco.com/download/
Motion to dismiss lawsuit:
https://sanjuanco.com/download/
Two thoughts:
1) This case has been settled. It is resolved. It is entirely inappropriate to try the case in the press after the fact — from either side. Apparently, there wasn’t a confidentiality or no comment clause in the settlement agreement, or if there was, it was disregarded. As an attorney, I believe it was unprofessional of the County to comment on the merits of the case once it was settled. That press release opened the door for the sort of finger-pointing and record-amending that you see here. This could go on and on and not resolve anything. The County Council and/or Prosecuting Attorney should review the decision process that led to the initial press release, and to this response.
2) Contrary to the initial press release, the County’s IT is a disgrace. As a member of the Charter Review Committee (and speaking only for myself), I have found the e-mail system to be highly unreliable, and the level of “official” support for our needs to be nonexistent…
A third thought: Why is the County expending money to write these press releases? Let it drop!
They are issuing a press release because the Auditor, an elected official, is making statements and claims about the case, involving her husband.
A lot of misinformation and outright lies get published in our local electronic news venues. The county gets enough bad press for things it deserves it for, but when it is not appropriate or based on false statements, they have an obligation to refute.
Had the County’s original press release been properly and minimally factual about the settlement, without arguing the merits of the case (or lack thereof), there would have been nothing to rebut or discuss in the media. In my opinion, none of the three articles on this settlement have been appropriate.
The County should not be issuing argumentative press releases (and neither should the auditor) about a case that has been settled. To the extent that we need press releases on any topic, they should be written in a neutral tone and state the facts, not opinion or argument. This is an ongoing problem.