COMMONWEALTH OF KENTUCKY, EXECUTIVE BRANCH ETHICS COMMISSION, March 18, 2013
BRUCE D. HARPER, CASE NO. 13-02, INITIATING ORDER SUMMARY:
COUNT I: From 2007 through 2008, Harper solicited donations for the Southern Association of State Departments of Agriculture (“SASDA”) conference to be held in Kentucky in 2008 from entities that the Department regulated, from entities with which the Department had a business relationship, and from entities that represented groups that the Department regulated. SASDA was not an IRS Section 501(c)(3) recognized entity, and the SASDA conference was not conducted for crime prevention, for drug and alcohol abuse prevention, or for a traffic safety program. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b) and (d), and KRS 11A.055.
RELATED STORY: Richie Farmer accused of 42 counts of ethics violations
COUNT II: Some time between April 30, 2010, and May 15, 2010, Harper interfered with the enforcement and penalty procedures of the Office of the State Veterinarian by instructing Department employees to probate a $200 fine to zero for a farmer who had violated the dead animal disposal laws. Harper did so because the farmer had contacted his state representative who, in turn, contacted Harper to pressure the Department to remove the fine. Harper instructed Department employees to take no further action against the farmer even though the farmer had been given two opportunities to submit to the requirements of the law and had failed to cooperate with the Department. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(a), (b), and (d).
COUNT III: Between February and June 2011, Harper attempted to interfere with the enforcement and penalty procedures of the Division of Regulation and Inspection, Grain Regulation Branch, on behalf of a grain dealer that was a political contributor. Harper instructed a Department employee to hold a $3,000 penalty check submitted by a grain dealer, even though the grain dealer had already entered into an Agreed Order of Settlement to pay a fine of $3000, reduced from the $30,000 fine that the Grain Regulation Branch had originally issued against the grain dealer, for violating Kentucky’s grain law. Harper instructed Department employees to not deposit the check, as would have been the normal course of business for the Grain Regulation Branch upon receiving a penalty check, but to hold the check until he could come to the Branch offices and take possession of the check, with the intention of circumventing the check’s deposit. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(a), (b), and (d).
CHRIS PARSONS, CASE NO. 13-03, INITIATING ORDER SUMMARY:
COUNT I: During the course of his employment with the Office of State Veterinarian, Parsons was assigned the duties of observing stockyard sales and performing inspections, which required him to appear at designated stockyards and for which he was given a weekly itinerary. While Parsons consistently failed to appear at these stockyards, he, nevertheless, claimed work time on his timesheets for time spent allegedly performing his job duties. In doing so, Parsons collected pay for time that he falsely reported on his timesheets and, further, failed to fulfill his assigned job duties while receiving compensation. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d).
COUNT II: During January, February and March of 2011, the management of the Department reassigned Parsons’ work station to Frankfort so as to closely monitor his work activities. Parsons failed to appear in Frankfort during February and March of 2011, but claimed work time on his timesheets and did not otherwise perform any work-related activities for the Department. Parsons also used his state-issued fuel card to purchase fuel on six occasions during that time period for personal use. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d).
COUNT III: During the course of his employment with the Division of Regulation and Inspection, Parsons was assigned the duties of testing scales at various gas stations and grocery stores, for which he was given weekly and monthly itineraries. Parsons’ vehicle was equipped with GPS monitoring equipment. During the months of November and December of 2012, Parsons consistently claimed work time on his timesheets for time that he did not work. Parsons claimed work time for time in which his work vehicle did not leave his home and during which he created no discernible work product. In doing so, Parsons collected wages and benefits for time that he falsely reported on his timesheets and, further, failed to fulfill his assigned job duties while receiving compensation. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d).
COUNT IV: During the months of November and December of 2012, Parsons used his state vehicle for non-work related reasons. Parsons drove his work vehicle for extended periods of time through areas not included in his assigned region, while failing to perform any work related activities during this time. Parsons thereby used state resources for his own personal benefit. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d).
COUNT V: During the months of November and December of 2012, Parsons fraudulently completed inspection reports for inspections he had not conducted. Parsons falsified the signatures of individuals he purported to be employees of, but were not actually employed by, the businesses he claimed to be inspecting. Parsons’ submission of inspection reports for inspections he did not actually complete influenced his supervisors into believing Parsons had conducted these inspections, which is in derogation of the state at large. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d).
GEORGE “DOUG” BEGLEY, CASE NO. 13-04, INITIATING ORDER SUMMARY:
COUNT I: During the course of his employment with the Department, Begley was assigned the duties of inspecting amusement rides, for which he was given a weekly itinerary. While Begley consistently failed to perform these inspections, he nevertheless claimed work time on his timesheets for time spent allegedly performing the inspections. In doing so, Begley collected pay for time he falsely reported on his timesheets and, further, failed to fulfill his assigned job duties while receiving compensation. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d).
COUNT II: During the course of his employment with the Department, Begley used his assigned state vehicle on days that he did not claim work time and did not perform any work-related activities for the Department. In doing so, Begley abused a state resource that was assigned to him for his own personal benefit. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d).
COUNT III: During the course of his employment with the Department, Begley, while on state time and while using his assigned state vehicle, performed activities relating to his private logging business. In doing so, Begley abused state time and resources that were assigned to him. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d).
COUNT IV: During the course of his employment with the Department, Begley maintained a private logging business about which he not only failed to inform the Department, but falsely denied to the Department that he was involved in any outside employment activities whatsoever. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d) and KRS 11A.040(10).
COUNT V: During the course of his employment with the Department, Begley attempted to use his official position as a means to avoid a citation from the Department of Forestry for logging activities being conducted by his private business over which he was fraudulently acting as the onsite Master Logger, while on state time and using his assigned state vehicle. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d) and KRS 11A.020(2).
WILLIAM E. MOBLEY, CASE NO. 13-05, INITIATING ORDER SUMMARY:
COUNT I: During the course of his employment with the Department, Mobley was assigned the duties of a Stockyard Market Reporter, regularly a merit position, which required him to appear at designated stockyards and create market reports of the stockyard’s activities for the Department’s market news. Mobley consistently failed to appear at these stockyards and failed to make market reports of the activities of the stockyards. Mobley collected pay for time falsely reported on his behalf on his timesheets, and further failed to fulfill his assigned job duties while receiving compensation. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d).
COUNT II: During the course of his employment with the Department, Mobley while assigned the duties of a Stockyard Market Reporter, consistently failed to appear at his designated stockyards, but nevertheless, collected reimbursement for mileage for travel to these stockyards that he did not incur in the performance of duties for the Department. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d).
STEVEN C. MOBLEY, CASE NO. 13-06, INITIATING ORDER SUMMARY:
COUNT I: During the course of his employment with the Department, the Respondent completed timesheets on behalf of his brother, William E. Mobley. William E. Mobley was assigned the duties of a Stockyard Market Reporter, which required him to appear at designated stockyards and create market reports of the stockyard’s activities for the Department’s market news, but consistently failed to appear at these stockyards and failed to make market reports of the activities of the stockyards. By falsely reporting time on William E. Mobley’s timesheets, the Respondent enabled his brother to collect pay for time he did not work and to receive compensation while failing to fulfill his assigned job duties. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d).
COUNT II: During the course of his employment with the Department, the Respondent completed travel vouchers for his brother, William E. Mobley, while assigned the duties of a Stockyard Market Reporter, even though his brother consistently failed to appear at his designated stockyards. The Respondent falsely reported that his brother used his personal vehicle to travel to these stockyards allowing his brother to collect reimbursement for mileage for travel to these stockyards that his brother did not incur in the performance of duties for the Department. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d).
COUNT III: During 2008, the Respondent received a gift in the form of a wooden hat valued at approximately $600 from a Kentucky Proud vendor. The Respondent failed to report receiving any gifts in excess of $200 dollars on his 2008 Statement of Financial Disclosure filed with the Executive Branch Ethics Commission. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.050.
STEPHANIE L. SANDMANN, CASE NO. 13-07, INITIATING ORDER SUMMARY:
COUNT I: During November and December, 2011, Sandmann falsified her timesheets by claiming to have worked at the Department during times that she did not appear at any of the Department’s offices. In doing so, Sandmann collected pay for time she falsely reported on her timesheets and, further, failed to fulfill her assigned job duties and created little to no discernible work product while receiving compensation. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(b), (c), and (d).
RHONDA MONROE, CASE NO. 13-08, INITIATING ORDER SUMMARY:
COUNT I: During 2007, Monroe used or attempted to use her knowledge of election finance laws, practices and procedures to assist her brother, who was running for a second term as the Commissioner of Agriculture, to fraudulently claim campaign-related expenses in order for him to obtain reimbursement from his campaign fund account for his personal financial gain. Early in 2007, Monroe advised her brother and his then current spouse to claim mileage and expenses for reimbursement from his campaign account for trips that he did not actually make and for trips that were actually made by his then current spouse for her private direct sales business. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d).
COUNT II: During 2007 and 2008, Monroe used or attempted to use her knowledge of election finance laws, practices and procedures to assist her brother, who was running for a second term as the Commissioner of Agriculture, to fraudulently claim campaign-related expenses in order for him to obtain reimbursement from his campaign fund account for his personal financial gain. Monroe provided her brother with receipts that she had incurred for her own personal expenses that she then guided him to submit for reimbursement from his campaign account for his own financial gain and in derogation of the state interest. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d).
COUNT III: In 2009, Monroe used or attempted to use her knowledge of election finance laws, practices, and procedures to assist her brother, who was re-elected to his second term as the Commissioner of Agriculture, to respond to an audit being performed by her own agency. Monroe drafted for her brother a letter, upon which her brother relied under her guidance, to respond to the Registry’s audit. This letter drafted by Monroe was misleading in its contents and was intended to deceive the Registry about the expenses submitted for reimbursement from the campaign account, some of which included the receipts Monroe had provided to her brother for reimbursement from the campaign account that she had incurred. These facts constitute violations of KRS 11A.020(1)(a), (b), (c), and (d).
Add Comment