Jack Miles making statement during Commissioner Comment PeriodPort Special Meeting 6/14/11
Initial Investigation found no conflict of interest or misconductbut Port Director Dobson not off hook quite yet
Further Investigation Requested of Attorney General
Statement presented to Port of Shelton Commission on 6/14/11:
The Seabold Group was retained on April 14, 2011, and requested to investigate and provide findings regarding an employee complaint. Nine interviews were conducted, including those with all of the Port Commissioners, the Executive Director, (3) employees of the Port, and one other person.
Where are the statements, and why are they not included in this investigation report? I seem to have my own section with what appears to be a statement or interview summary, which is mostly inaccurate.
After several attempts to interview the employee who made the complaint, why is there no response to the investigator from the employee? Why are the questions asked by the investigator to the employee not included? And was there enough time for the employee to respond? Was there a set time frame given?
It is stated in the investigation that: "However, the employee has sent the Commissioners and the Port counsel several emails which have been taken into account in this investigation." Why are those emails to the Commissioners and counsel not included or provided?
Investigator, Martha Norberg claims she reviewed hundreds of pages of documents concerning pertinent Port activities related to the fairgrounds. Where are the documents that were reviewed? Why are they not identified, and why are they not included in this investigation? Where is the written request for those documents? I know for a fact the investigator did not spend hours in this office going over documents. Which means she either took documents from this office, or she never reviewed documents from this office. She also states: "This report is intended to be a summary report and is not intended as a comprehensive detail of the information that was collected, reviewed and considered."
There is no evidence provided. No statements are provided of those interviewed, other then mine and those are inaccurate. No documents are provided supporting any of the findings, and no emails are provided to support evidence collected.
Therefore: I find this investigation to be incomplete and inaccurate. I'm sorry, but I fail to see an investigation as being a summary, or not intended to be comprehensive. In my experience with investigations...investigations are comprehensive! They do provide every piece of detail gathered and all interviews are included in an investigation.
Where is all of the evidence? Where are all of the documents reviewed by Martha Norberg to support the findings? Who were the employees interviewed? Where are these interviews in this investigation?
Based on the lack of evidence in this "final report", I can not accept this investigation as being complete, accurate or comprehensive by any means.
I will be forwarding a request to the State Attorney General's Office, along with a copy of this so called investigation, asking that it be reviewed. I request all documents reviewed by investigator Martha Norberg be available for additional review, and request the Attorney General to conduct a proper comprehensive investigation.
Thank you.
Jack Miles
Photos by Christine
Typical is that the Port put in motion a plan by which a supposedly "outside investigator" was hired by the Port, their insurance company or their lawyers, to look into a whistle-blower complaint that questioned John Dobson's handling of the recent fairgrounds lease. The problem is that the investigator's "client" had a vested interest in the outcome, a fact that seems to have escaped two Port Commissioners. Then the Port calls a special meeting for the purpose of holding an executive session for the purpose of telling the public what it already knows: that the same two Port Commissioners agree with the findings of the investigation, which conclude the whistle-blower allegations were unsupportable (now there was a waste of time and money). It all appears to be just another dog and pony show, but this time it involves a Port employee. When will all this nonsense end? When the Port realizes that the public insists on full disclosure and transparency in its dealings. THE PORT OF SHELTON IS A PUBLIC MUNICIPALITY, NOT A PRIVATELY HELD CORPORATION. When the Executive Director stops running the Port like it was his own start-up company, and when the commissioners start using the Port for more than a private airstrip with health care benefits, then maybe the Port will regain the respect and trust it has so foolishly squandered.
ReplyDeleteTom -- I don't think Dobson and Hupp got the memo that the PORT OF SHELTON IS A PUBLIC MUNICIPALITY, NOT A PRIVATELY HELD CORPORATION.
ReplyDeletePerhaps a nice little note to them, and their lawyer, reminding them all who they freaking work for????!!!!?????
Aiiiieeeeehhhhhh, things that make your head spin round on your neck!!!