Police investigating Roseville Electric contracts
Read the orriginal story here. Police have confirmed they are investigating potential financial improprieties by a former Roseville Electric employee. The Roseville Police Department last week said detectives never shut the investigation, which was opened in 2006 to determine whether the former supervisor broke the law when he allegedly gave city contracts to poorly qualified family and friends. A Press Tribune report last Wednesday included information from Roseville Finance Director Russ Branson stating that police investigated in 2006 and opted not to press charges. On Monday, Branson said he wasn’t up on the latest in the investigation and was simply mistaken. “I just incorrectly assumed that it was closed,” he said. “It wasn’t something I should have spoken to.” Police Spokeswoman Dee Dee Gunther said in response to a Public Records Act request that the case is still an “active investigation” and that detectives are investigating at least 10 years of city records. The suspected improprieties were discovered in 2006 after an anonymous source tipped off city officials. The employee was fired, according to a report by Maze & Associates, the city’s auditing firm. An investigation put the “fiscal impact” at “less than $400,000,” according to Maze documents. Officials declined to release the former employee’s name. A follow-up probe found significant breakdowns in the city’s purchasing and vendor-oversight procedures, but officials say those problems have been fixed. Former City Councilman Richard Roccucci, who served on the council when the issue came to city officials’ attention, said this week he was caught off guard by the revelations. He said he can’t recall council members ever having been briefed about the incident. “If it’s a couple of bucks it doesn’t matter, but something of this magnituede should be brought to the City Council’s attention,” he said. Roccucci said after going through old records that it appears some limited information on the incident did appear in council packets at the time. “But we didn’t actually have the original report in there,” he said. “It should be red-flagged starting wth the city manager on down,” he said. Craig Robinson, the city manager at the time, was forced out earlier this month by the city council, with members citing communication problems. Roseville Electric's own chief, Tom Habashi, recently announced his retirement. Roccucci, whose wife Pauline is the mayor pro-tem, said he planned to advise current council members that important items can sometimes get lost in the shuffle of voluminous council packets. “Even audit reports should be perused for important information,” he said.
|
Change Location:
|
In the original article, Finance Director, Russ Branson said that police felt the offense was not serious enough to refer to the DA. Now, Mr. Branson says he was mistaken, that he did not know the case was still open. This is pretty serious stuff, and, unless he was taken by surprise by the question, you would have thought he'd fact check before saying he was advised that the case did not rise to the criminal. In fact, to say such a thing, one wonders if he saw a hard copy of a police report. As to the police investigation, what were they waiting for? What priority was the investigation given? What is the statute of limitations on these things? They need to get moving. If unlicensed contractors were charging more than $500.00 that's a violation of state law. If that took place, shouldn't the police have filed on those unlicensed contractors by now? Why did the auditors miss this until someone told on the supervisor and as a result, did someone in upper management make the decision to give the Council as little information as possible (and to keep the public in the dark, too...it's our money)? I hope the Council insists on transparency.
The article says the impact was less than $400,000. It seems for legal matters the City Attorney would be the one to brief both the City Council and the City Manager. Or maybe the Finance Director never briefed anyone. City Council members should already know to peruse reports and city council packets. That may be part of their communication problem.
Have you ever seen these packets? They're voluminous. This was a serious matter and it should not have been left to chance. The city manager and the city attorney should have called a special meeting to discuss this with the council. Let's face it, the city didn't want this become public. That's why they gave it to their own police department, so it could stay an internal matter. You can bet this was all Robinson's doing.
The first thing you must all realize is that the police must have a prosecutable case before it is presented to the District Attorney. Sure, the DA's office is consulted during the investigation, but a case like this is not a 30 minute weekly episode on a local television station. I believe that the City, the Electric Department, or even Robinson himself have no friends in the Police Department given the crap that they have been put through the past few months at the City and Robinson's hands.
Give the Police a chance to find out the nitty gritty and give the DA what they need to put whoever in jail for bilking the taxpayers and residents.
If the members of the city council aren't up to reading the voluminous packets, maybe they shouldn't be on the city council. It is their job! If they don't read all of that stuff, they aren't prepared to make decisions about it. Sounds like at least the city council member quoted in the article just waited to be briefed about everything. I sure hope if I ever have anything come before the city council, that they read it. I don't think it is too much to ask.
At least Roccucci was honest about it, which is more than we can say about others who were on the council at the time. There hasn't been a peep out of them about this. The info in the packet gave no indication there was anything amiss, it simply referred to the audit report. I'm sure it was purposely worded that way so that it wouldn't raise any suspicions. The bottom line is that it was up to the city manager to consult with the council about this issue. Not hide it for years while rumors swirled all around the city offices. And if you think this is the only thing that Robinson swept under the carpet, you're in for a big surprise.
As long as Mr. Roccucci is being honest, what would he and the rest of the council have done if they had known about it? Fired the person? Done. Had the police investigate? Done and still being done. The investigation has been going on for years. Just because the city council wasn't spoon fed the information doesn't mean it was being hidden. I can't imagine any reason why the city manager or the electric director would even attempt to hide it. While it would be very nice to blame the city manager for everything that happens in the city that someone takes issue with, what are you going to do now that he is gone? People will still be break the law, the economy will still take some time to come back, the department heads will still make mistakes and the city council will still spend money on foolish things. Now you'll have to blame the city council for everything that comes along that you don't like, at least until they find a new city manager to blame, admittedly while being paid very handsomely.
We have a "strong city manager" type of governmant. The city manager runs the show, the council are merely figureheads. He decides what goes before the council for vote and what does not. He also can be as evasive as he likes when there is an issue such as this one that can be potentially damaging to the city's image. Does it seem reasonable that it has taken the police three years to investigate this? The auditors did most of the work for them already. For those who think that the police dept. is going to disregard what Robinson wanted because they dislike him, don't understand the dynamics of that relationship. The city manager controls the purse strings and the contracts.
The city manager controls the large pay and promotions of other managers.................. you don't bite the had that feeds you..........
I can say that Robinson controlled what you read in the paper and what was released to the media, but the police continued to do their job. Just the fact that you are finding out about it now does not mean the police have not done anything about it. When the report is made public record, that's when you will find out what was done and how long it took to investigate it. Again, the police are at the mercy of the DA's Office. If the DA does not want to prosecute, the case is dead! If the police do not have a prosecutable case, it remains open until further evidence is discovered or the statue of limitations runs up. I;m sure robinson and some of those involved were handy with a shreader!
Methwarrrior, yeah, no kidding! Did you know that the city officially shreds or destroys all original documents after only four years? you can thank the ex-city attorney Mark Doane for cooking that one up.
Actually, Roseville has a "council-manager" form of government. I must say I would prefer whatever negligible damage to the city's image that a 3 year ongoing investigation makes than the substantial damage to the city's image, not to mention to our collective pocketbooks, for the city council's $400,000 sacking of the city manager for communication problems. The city council has final approval of contracts, although the city manager is the vehicle by which they come to the council. The city council decides. Don't think the city manager is the only one talking to the city council. All of their phone numbers and an email address are listed on the city website. If they blindly followed what the manager tells them, he wouldn't be gone today. For being figureheads, they have certainly cost Roseville a lot.
Public comments by some officials seem to imply that $400,000 isn't a huge amount of money. Easy to hold that opinion when 1) it is taxpayers money; 2) no one's bonus or pay is affected, and 3) the press isn't jumping up and down screaming about the scandal. A problem with taxpayer interest is that taxes are assessed by property value and sales tax so that no one feels directly, personally affected by outrages like City Manager Robinson's outlandish contract that resulted in a nearly $400,000 severance package. If somehow he'd gotten nothing, no one would ever have seen any benefit in the taxes they pay. I've noticed in my thirteen years in the area that a golden rule exists with mid level public officials. Do a lousy job and you will get a big severance package to get rid of you.
Amen to that JUNODOG! Public administration has become a lucrative racket. Gone are the days when one entered this profession in order to make a positive difference in the community, have some job security and a modest pension once retiring. Now it is seen as a way to get rich, and as you said, it doesn't matter if you screw up. If you've got a good contract, you've got it made.
Even if you have a good contract, the city council - or at least one member in particualr - will try to break it. Not caring how much taxpayer money is spent in the process.
Well, maybe the council shouldn't have approved such an outrageous contract in the first place.
Granted. But they did approve the contract and they (she) should have the integrity to honor it. Integrity is one of the main attributes of a good leader.
The bottom line is that $400,000 is a lot of money, especially when you are asking voters for rate increases every year. This should have discussed with the council at the time it happened, and released to the press.