STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA IN THE OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS
COUNTY OF GASTON 03 OSP 1314
JAMES MITCHELL CHANDLER,
Petitioner,
v.
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION,
DIVISION OF COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
DECISION
THIS MATTER was heard before the undersigned Augustus B. Elkins II, Administrative Law Judge, on February 5, 2004, in the Burke County Courthouse, Courtroom 1, 201 South Green Street, Morganton, North Carolina.
APPEARANCES
For the Petitioner: James Mitchell Chandler
1951 Rhoden Court
Gaston, North Carolina 28054
For the Respondent: Joseph Finarelli
Assistant Attorney General
N.C. Department of Justice
9001 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-9001
EXHIBITS
Respondent’s Ex. 1 Policies & Procedures Manual, Comm. Service Work Program (Ch. 11)
Respondent’s Ex. 2 N.C. Dept. of Crime Control & Public Safety Recipient Agency Guidebook
Respondent’s Ex. 4 Community Service Work Program Placement/Verification Form (Rodney Brice)
Respondent’s Ex. 5 Community Service Work Program Placement/Verification Form (Christopher Hudson)
Respondent’s Ex. 6 Community Service Work Program Placement/Verification Form (Frederick Taylor)
Respondent’s Ex. 7 Community Service Work Program Placement/Verification Form (Roland Roberts)
Respondent’s Ex. 8 Memo from James M. Chandler to Jeanne Cochran (March 27, 2002)
Respondent’s Ex. 9 Community Service Work Program Placement/Verification Form (Joseph Henley)
Respondent’s Ex. 10 Community Service Work Program Placement/Verification Form (Joseph Henley)
Respondent’s Ex. 11 Memo from James M. Chandler to Jeff Joines re Community Service Internal Investigation session (May 18, 2003)
Respondent’s Ex. 12 Internal Investigation Report of Jeff Joines and Roger Haynie (May 27, 2003)
Respondent’s Ex. 13 Letter from Roger Haynie to James M. Chandler re Administrative Reassignment (June 3, 2003)
Respondent’s Ex. 14 Written warning letter from Jeff Joines to James M. Chandler (June 30, 2003)
Respondent’s Ex. 15 Letter from James M. Chandler to Jeff Joines re Response to Written Warning
Respondent’s Ex. 16 Letter from Roger Haynie to James M. Chandler re Reassignment to Judicial District 26 (July 2, 2003)
Respondent’s Ex. 17 Letter from James M. Chandler to Roger Haynie re Request for Transfer to District 27A (July 6, 2003)
Respondent’s Ex. 18 Letter from Roger Haynie to James M. Chandler re Response to Chandler Request for Transfer to District 27A (July 10, 2003)
Respondent’s Ex. 19 Letter from James M. Chandler to Robert Guy re Reassignment (July 10, 2003)
Respondent’s Ex. 20 Letter from Robert Lee Guy to James M. Chandler (July 17, 2003)
Respondent’s Ex. 21 DCC Administrative Memorandum 01.02.06-03 (June 3, 2003)
Respondent’s Ex. 23 DOC Personnel Manual – Administrative Assignment, Section 6, p. 15 (revised October 1, 1999)
Respondent’s Ex. 25 Petition for Contested Case Hearing (03 OSP 1314) (filed July 25, 2003)
Respondent’s Ex. 27 James M. Chandler’s Response to Respondent’s First Set of Requests for Admission (September 24, 2003)
Respondent’s Ex. 28 James M. Chandler’s Response to Respondent’s First Set of Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents (without attachments) (October 17, 2003)
BASED UPON careful consideration of the sworn testimony of the witnesses presented at the hearings, the documents and exhibits received and admitted into evidence, and the entire record in this proceeding, the Undersigned makes the following findings of fact. In making the findings of fact, the Undersigned has weighed all the evidence and has assessed the credibility of the witnesses by taking into account the appropriate factors for judging credibility, including but not limited to the demeanor of the witness, any interests, bias, or prejudice the witness may have, the opportunity of the witness to see, hear, know or remember the facts or occurrences about which the witness testified, whether the testimony of the witness is reasonable, and whether the testimony is consistent with all other believable evidence in the case.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. James Mitchell Chandler (“Petitioner”) was employed by the North Carolina Department of Correction, Division of Community Corrections (“Respondent”) as a Community Service Work Program Coordinator in District 27A, Gaston County, North Carolina.
2. On November 8, 2002, Special Agent Kevin Canty of the North Carolina State Bureau of Investigation met with Petitioner to obtain information about Petitioner having reported that offenders sentenced to community service in Gaston County were being credited with hours they had not actually worked. Testimony of Special Agent Kevin Canty, T. pp. 52-53.
3. Special Agent Canty received from Petitioner copies of approximately six (6) files of offenders who, allegedly, had been improperly credited for community service hours. Special Agent Canty interviewed several offenders previously sentenced to perform community service in District 27A as well as several officers of the Gaston County Police Department who had supervised those offenders on community service projects. Two of Petitioner’s fellow coordinators, Linda Joy Carpenter and Diane Nixon, were responsible for insuring that these particular offenders completed the required number of hours of community service. Testimony of Special Agent Kevin Canty, T. pp. 54-56.
4. Special Agent Canty later interviewed Ms. Carpenter and Ms. Nixon who both admitted that they had credited offenders with working community service hours they had not actually worked. Both Ms. Carpenter and Ms. Nixon stated that this practice was accepted in District 27A and that they had been instructed on how to engage in this practice. Testimony of Special Agent Kevin Canty, T. pp. 56.
5. Special Agent Canty also interviewed Petitioner on two occasions. In the second interview, on July 21, 2003, Petitioner admitted to having previously credited offenders with performing more community service hours than they had actually worked. According to Special Agent Canty, Petitioner related having stopped this practice upon receiving a memorandum from Raleigh prohibiting it. Petitioner was unable to produce the memorandum to Special Agent Canty. Testimony of Special Agent Kevin Canty, T. pp. 56-57.
6. Although Special Agent Canty found no direct evidence that Petitioner, after the year 2000, had engaged in the practice of crediting offenders with having performed community service hours they had not actually worked, both Ms. Carpenter and Ms. Nixon had told him that Petitioner had continued this practice. Testimony of Special Agent Kevin Canty, T. pp. 57-58.
7. During his investigation, Special Agent Canty determined that the practice of crediting offenders with having performed community service hours they had not actually worked had always been in violation of the policies governing the Community Service Work Program. Testimony of Special Agent Kevin Canty, T. pp. 59-60.
8. Ms. Carpenter and Ms. Nixon had also stated to Special Agent Canty that they had personality conflicts with Petitioner and believed that Petitioner had a goal to get them fired for their alleged involvement in spreading rumors about an alleged romantic affair involving Petitioner. Testimony of Special Agent Kevin Canty, T. pp. 61.
9. Sandra Brooks, currently an employee of Respondent, formerly worked as an Administrative Assistant for the Gaston County Boys & Girls Club. During her tenure with the Gaston County Boys & Girls Club, Ms. Brooks worked with the community service coordinators from District 27A in the course of placing community service offenders on various projects. Testimony of Sandra Brooks, T. p. 65.
10. The Gaston County Boys & Girls Club used offenders sentenced to community service for an annual barbecue. The offenders assigned to work the barbecue would work from approximately 7 a.m. until anywhere from 3 p.m. to 6 p.m. Regardless of the number of hours the offenders actually worked, Ms. Brooks had been instructed by the community service coordinators in District 27A, including Petitioner, to credit the offenders for 24 hours worked. Ms. Brooks recalled having credited the offenders in this manner for the last four barbecues held for the Gaston County Boys & Girls Club. Testimony of Sandra Brooks, T. pp. 68-69, 71.
11. Ms. Brooks specifically remembered a conversation with Petitioner in which Petitioner told her that “if the offenders would work the barbecue, that they would get twenty-four hours for working the barbecue.” Testimony of Sandra Brooks, T. pp. 69-70.
12. The hours credited to the offenders who worked the annual barbecue at the Gaston County Boys & Girls Club were recorded on Community Service Work Placement/Verification forms. Testimony of Sandra Brooks, T. pp. 72-77.
13. Petitioner placed four offenders at the 2002 Gaston County Boys & Girls Club barbecue and each of those offenders was credited with having worked for 24 hours even though none had actually worked that long at the barbecue. It was known by Petitioner and the other community service coordinators that the offenders assigned to work at the annual barbecues did not actually perform 24 hours of work for the event. Testimony of Sandra Brooks, T. pp. 72-76; Respondent’s Ex. 4-7.
14. Petitioner placed one offender at the 2003 Gaston County Boys & Girls Club barbecue and that offender was credited with having worked 24 hours for that event. Ms. Brooks completed a Community Service Work Program Placement/Verification form for this offender showing that 24 hours had been completed without specifying the precise dates or times when the offender actually worked. Testimony of Sandra Brooks, T. p. 77; Respondent’s Ex. 9.
15. After returning the original Placement/Verification form to Petitioner, Petitioner called Ms. Brooks to request that she specify the specific hours that the offender had worked. After receiving this phone call, Ms. Brooks amended the original Placement/Verification form to include a fictitious breakdown of the 24 hours for which the offender was credited. Testimony of Sandra Brooks, T. pp. 78-79; Respondent’s Ex. 10.
16. None of the community service coordinators in District 27A, including Petitioner, ever returned a Placement/Verification form to Ms. Brooks because of mistakes or improper credit having been given to offenders. Testimony of Sandra Brooks, T. p. 84.
17. In 1997 when Petitioner first started as a Community Service coordinator, the office was under the authority of the North Carolina Department of Crime Control and Public Safety. Upon starting his job, Petitioner had received and reviewed the policies and procedures which governed his responsibilities as a Community Service Work Program Coordinator. Shortly thereafter, Petitioner became aware of the practice of coordinators giving credit to community service offenders for hours not actually worked through his supervisor, Judicial District Manager Keith Corpening, and fellow coordinator, Diane Nixon. Mr. Corpening and Ms. Nixon advised Petitioner that it was acceptable to credit offenders for hours they had not actually worked. Testimony of James M. Chandler, T. pp. 90-91, 102-105.
18. On September 14, 2000, Petitioner received a letter from Mr. Corpening that the practice was prohibited and was in violation of the Community Service Work Program manual and North Carolina law. Testimony of James M. Chandler, T. pp. 90-91, 104.
19. Petitioner had suspicions that his fellow coordinators were continuing this practice. The policy and procedure manual for the Community Service Work Program required employees to report allegations that offenders were being given credit for hours not actually worked to their supervisors. In approximately late 2001, Petitioner became aware that Ms. Carpenter and Ms. Nixon were continuing to engage in this practice but Petitioner did not report this conduct to his supervisors. Testimony of James M. Chandler, T. pp. 91, 106, 109-111; Respondent’s Ex. 1.
20. Petitioner and his co-workers in the Community Service Work Program office in Gaston County (District 27A), had a lengthy history of work place disputes including accusations by Petitioner that his co-workers had spread rumors that Petitioner was involved in a romantic affair, Petitioner recording his co-workers’ comings and goings, and Petitioner’s co-workers reporting to Petitioner’s supervisors about Petitioner’s work performance and personal conduct. Testimony of James M. Chandler, T. pp. 113-14, 116-18; Testimony of Robert L. Guy, p. 197; Respondent’s Ex. 8.
21. By letter dated March 27, 2002, Petitioner reported his suspicions about the practices of his fellow coordinators to his supervisor, Jeanne Cochran. Testimony of James M. Chandler, T. pp. 91; Respondent’s Ex. 8.
22. After having received no response to his letter, Petitioner contacted the Gaston County District Attorney’s Office and, later, was contacted by Special Agent Canty of the State Bureau of Investigation. Petitioner did not contact Ms. Cochran about the delayed response and reported no other continuing violations by his fellow coordinators of the policy against crediting offenders with community service hours not actually worked. Testimony of James M. Chandler, T. pp. 91-92, 126.
23. On May 18, 2003, Petitioner was interviewed by Jeff Joines, the Assistant Division Chief for the Fourth Division of Respondent’s Division of Community Corrections. During this interview, Petitioner stated that he had previously given credit for hours not actually worked but had stopped this practice in the fall of 2000. Testimony of James M. Chandler, T. pp. 92, 126.
24. On June 3, 2003, Petitioner was temporarily transferred to Catawba County. The letter notifying Petitioner of the temporary transfer stated that the transfer was not a disciplinary action but was done “in the best interest of the Department.” Testimony of James M. Chandler, T. pp. 92-93, 127; Respondent’s Ex. 13.
25. Petitioner believed this temporary transfer to be in violation of Respondent’s personnel manual because the investigation report completed by Mr. Joines was dated May 27, 2003, prior to the letter notifying Petitioner of the transfer. Petitioner had no knowledge of the extent of the investigation following the submission of Mr. Joines’s report. Testimony of James M. Chandler, T. pp. 127-28.
26. Respondent’s personnel manual provided that an employee can be administratively reassigned to another work unit after written notification to the employee and without the employee’s consent. Petitioner received written notification of his transfer and had no other evidence to support his contention that Respondent violated its own personnel manual other than the fact that the reassignment decision was made. Respondent’s employees are not guaranteed to remain assigned to the location or work unit where they were originally hired. Testimony of James M. Chandler, T. pp. 129-31; 137-38 Respondent’s Ex. 23.