I’ve never been one to get sucked into a war of words. I prefer to let the occasional false accusation or misinformation die a natural death, rather than prolong its ugly life by feeding it.
County Administrator Pete Rose, however, believes that it is both appropriate and necessary for the County to respond to misinformation by correcting it, simply and factually.
Yet in the case of Friday’s press release by San Juan County, it was Pete Rose putting out the misinformation. Indeed, the press release was full of innuendos and half-truths.
First, let’s start with the assertion that the County wanted to take this case to court. It certainly could have. A date was scheduled, and most of the costs already borne. But apparently the Risk Pool, which had been representing the County, backed out, saying that it would no longer represent the County. Both their choice to back out, and the County’s “economic” choice to settle, were apparently driven by the significant risk that the County would lose in court. So I’m guessing that the County was not, in fact, anxious to go to court.
Second, the County says that Mr. Johnson never reported the “purchasing issue” which was the basis of the whistle blower case to his supervisor or the County Administrator. That is true. Rather, he reported it to the County Auditor, which is where fraud is supposed to be reported.
The County goes on to say that the matter had been brought to the Administrator’s attention by another department, which is technically true, and that the Administrator turned it over to the County Prosecutor, which is completely untrue. In fact, the Auditor submitted the matter to both the Administrator and the Prosecutor, after Mr. Johnson reported it to her.
Third, the County reports that the “County Prosecutor, with the Administrator’s encouragement, also contacted the State Auditor’s Office.” In fact, the Auditor, on September 20, 2010, contacted the State Auditor’s Office, over the objections of the Administrator. If the Prosecutor ever reported this to the State Auditor, he did so long after the Auditor did.
Fourth, the Administrator asserts that the County’s IS department “continues to perform well with fewer people and at a lower cost.” That is, at best, an opinion. Talk to many County managers and you will find that IS response times have slowed, implementations have been delayed, files have been lost, and external entities that interact with our IS department have complained about the County’s lack of professionalism.
Finally, the County contends that this was not a whistle blower case. Let’s be clear about what happened. Mr. Johnson, on August 10, 2010, observed and reported a gross purchasing impropriety to the County Auditor. Thirteen days later, he was terminated. The purchasing impropriety involved a County employee who was recommending, and making, purchases from himself. Specifically, he was purchasing goods from a sole proprietorship of which he was the sole proprietor. Over a period of three years, he purchased $122,000 of goods from himself. He did so with the complicity of his management team, which was paying him for goods not only before he had delivered them, but before he had even purchased them—a violation of state law. Yet today, he and all of his management team are still employed by the County. The person who noticed and reported the impropriety is not.
To make matters worse, the employee making these unethical purchases was not a registered business in the State of Washington during the last year that he was purchasing from himself. It is easy to infer that he was not, therefore, remitting to the State the sales tax he collected on the $64,000 worth of goods he purchased from himself in 2010. Collecting and not remitting sales tax means that he was stealing money from both the County and the State. Again, he still works for the County.
It is customary to try to discredit whistle blowers, and the County has done that here, in spades. I am personally horrified that this organization of which I am a part would behave in this manner – and with the apparent blessing of the County Council. This case is an embarrassment to the County, and its recent attempt to “spin” it adds to the embarrassment.
The real tragedy of this case, of course, is that it didn’t fix anything. The individuals who broke laws and stole from the County, as well as the leadership that enabled and protected them, are all still employed by the County.
It’s not too late. If the Council is willing, they can still step up to the responsibility of leadership and clean house. Only then will this case have achieved its real objectives.
F. Milene Henley, Auditor
San Juan County
Ms. Henley, you are a courageous person. Thank you for coming forward with this.
I agree with Milene Henley our Auditor that there should of been more investigation in this case but our Auditor should also state that George Johnson is her husband so how should information like this be processed when there might be a conflict of interest.
Pierrette is correct that I should have clarified the relationship. I believe that most people on San Juan Island know that, and I forget that people on other islands may not. Regardless, the facts of the case are correct. I have had nothing to do with the purchasing issue at the County level since reporting it to the State Auditor (which is my statutory duty). Everything I reported is documented. I am truly dismayed that the County has opted to do nothing.
Well my original comments got pulled. The point is, read the memos. This wasn’t about whistle blower anything. George was difficult to work for and with. Everyone had problems with him. Reputable professionals refused to work with him anymore. The $$ of riskpool decided not to go to trial because even if they won, the potentially could be on the hook for attorney fees.