The more I learn about skullduggery at the ROSSAC bubble, the more I am convinced that Tom Gonzalez is the fulcrum of it.

He's the longest-serving presence on the board or in the administration. He got his job from good-ol-boy protocols 37 years ago. He has sat in his seat so long that he is glued to it. He has the arrogance of longevity: he doesn't think the rules apply to him. I asked him several times for the Erwin files; he didn't even deign to respond to me.

That's why I filed a bar ethics charge against him for not providing public information. For good measure, I added getting his job in a way that thwarted equal opportunity, shafting the first amendment as board attorney, and threatening to sue a citizen to keep her shut up.

You can win while losing. I did even though the bar committee turned down my charge of Gonzalez's ethics violations. His response to my ethics complaint compelled him write in excruciating detail about how he got his job: not a pretty sight; I made him defend himself against trashing the First Amendment; I made him stammer about his oblique threat to sue a citizen to shut her up by citing the SLAPP law (Debra Satchell told me about it) that denies crummy lawyers that vile tactic. I also ripped his writing, grammar, and punctuation. So I was beating my chest when I walked away.

In the Erwin case, Mr. Erwin said Ms. Bricklemeyer was the most trustworthy of all the board--which is no great encomium, given the trustworthiness of the board potted plants--and finally went to her to tell her about his being retaliated against by the administration, chiefly the gang of Lennard, Davis, Hamilton, and Shields (now deceased). Bricklemeyer took him to Gonzalez, and Gonzalez assured Erwin that the Whistleblower law protected him, even showed Erwin a copy of the law. Gonzalez told Erwin to write down all he was concerned about, that the Whistleblower law would protect him.

So Erwin wrote down everything he was concerned about and gave it to Gonzalez and Bricklemeyer. Then Bricklemeyer asked for an investigation. Gonzalez hired the firm of R.W. Gietzen, FCI, CCDI to do the investigation. I don't know what "FCI" or "CCDI" means. Does anybody?

But then when Gonzalez discovered that Gietzen's investigation confirmed Erwin's complaints, Gonzalez all of a sudden stopped the Gietzen investigation. That is why, one infers, that Gietzen's truncated report says that he didn't investigate things because of lack of time.

At that juncture, Erwin says in the court filings that Bricklemeyer and Gonzalez dumped him altogether and left him twisting in the wind to be pummelled once again by Davis, Hamilton, Shields, and Lennard. He was made the football to be kicked from pillar to post by the entire ROSSAC crewe in sadistic ritual accorded by this bunch of ghouls to anybody who does not go along to get along and who complains when he sees theft and contractor malfeasance and work-time tricks.

I have asked Public Affairs for Ms. Bricklemeyer's address so that I can rebuke her for her vile behavior. Gonzalez already knows what I think of him from my bar-ethics filing.

Consider Gonzalez's "report" to Lennard with the previous context in mind:

Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent
Hillsborough County School Board
December 4, 2001
LAW orFicEs
THoMpsoN, SIZEM0RE & GONZALEZ
HARRISON C. THOMPSON, JR. PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION
1925 - 994) - ‘09 NORTH BRUSH STREET. SUITE 200 GREGORY A. HEARING
IN W. SENCIVENGA POST OFFICE BOX sag S. GORDON HILL
RICHARD L BRADFORD TAMPA, FLORIDA 33601 KEVIN D. JOHNSON
LUIS A. CASASSA IBIS) 273.0050 JASON L. 00DM
DEBORAH S. CRUHSLEV . WILLIAM E. SIZEMORE
fljc NO. BI3) 273-0072
THOMAS H. GONZALEZ MICHAEL B. STEIN
ERIN A- GRENILLION - JENNIFER L. ZUMARRAGA

December 4, 2001

Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent
Hillisborough County School Board
901 E. Kennedy Boulevard
Tampa, Florida 33602 I

Re: Grounds Investigation Dear Dr. Lennard:

I submit to you the results of the investigation into allegations of criminal conduct, nonfeasance, misfeasance and malfeasance allegedly committed by School Board members and former members, employees, and contractors, in connection with the Hillisborough County Schools Grounds Department.

This letter, and the materials which I am transmitting with it are submitted to you pursuant to Fla. Stat 231.29, which provides that an investigation of a school board employee will be exempt from disclosure under the State pubic records laws until the conclusion of the preliminary portion of the investigation. The cited part of the school code defines that conclusion by reference to a decision being made to proceed, or not to proceed, with action against the employees in question, at which point the investigation and all related materials become public record.

I believe that there are substantial reasons for moving forward, and I believe that you should consider several courses of action, none of which are mutually exclusive. These are:

1. The immediate referral of the matter to appropriate law enforcement agencies, as we previously have done in all other investigations which involve possible criminal activity

footnote, bottom of page 1:

‘I have been informed that both the FBI and the Florida Department of Law Enforcement have been and/or are investigating the allegations involving the Grounds Department Upon leaning this, I contacted the FBI agent conducting the investigation, to insure that nothing that I (cont. on next page)

Page 2

2. Disciplinary action against one or more Board employees;

3. Civil action to recoup School Board monies and property which may have been misappropriated or spent without proper authority;

4. Reorganization and/or elimination of the Grounds Department

5. Review of the Board’s policies and procedures for bidding and purchasing;

6. The adoption of Board policies emphasizing the obligation of School Board employees to report possible wrongdoing immediately upon learning of it (and prepare to be crucified if they do);

7. Consideration of the function of the Board’s Security Department, with a particular emphasis on its involvement in criminal law enforcement, its relationship with law enforcement agencies, and the need for the Security Department to report possible criminal activities to the appropriate authorities as soon as possible.

I would suggest that some or all of these possible actions might be best conducted in some public forum, so that appropriate input can be provided to the Board and it can hear first hand from those witnesses most critical to its decision making. I believe that public consideration is important for these reasons and for another as well. As you will find, this investigation has resulted in serious allegations against a host of current and former School Board officials, employees, contractors and vendors. These allegations, many of which are based on second-hand evidence, rumor and innuendo, have for some•
time, been discussed among several Board employees, and more recently, the local media. (Here's the tipoff for the motive for Bricklemeyer's call for an investigation. Erwin had complained of the conditions for four years and Lennard, Davis, Hamilton, and Shields had given him the runaround and had authorized all other employees to do the same. But the board nor administration wanted the public to know they were crooks, hence Bricklemeyer's tardy call for an investigation. I judge this investigation via Le Gonzalez to be just another stalling device.) The subjects of these allegations, which include the undersigned, as well as high officials and administrators, and the Board’s contractors and vendors, deserve a

Continuation of footnote from page 1: or the investigators conducting my investigation did would interfere with the FBI’s efforts. Although I did not ask for, and the FBI did not offer, any information it might have, I was informed that our investigation could proceed. The FBI agent asked that we share the results of our investigation to that point. We did so, and the School Board attorney provided the information that we had at that time. I will insure that the complete file is also forwarded to the FBI.

Page 3

hearing. The allegations are in several instances disputed or flatly denied.

My concern for unfounded allegations aside, it is clear that there is a substantial body of evidence that at the very least, the Grounds Department has been mismanaged, and, at worst, one or more Board employees have committed one or more crimes. This investigation was made very difficult by the manner in which Grounds has been supervised, or in many respects, not supervised, and the manner in which those persons having knowledge of possible wrongdoing chose to disclose what they knew, and to whom they did or did not disclose it.

Elsa Tuggle was and is an assistant principal at Sickles High School. She has no connection with Grounds and no authority over its operations. John Brungard is employed by the Board as a Multi-Trades Worker II, in the Grounds Department. Tuggle and Brungard are friends. At some point in time, Mr. Brungard began confiding in Ms. Thggle, as a friend (Ms. Tuggle had no authority over him), about certain improprieties allegedly being committed by James McClelland. Mr. McClelland was, until his retirement, the Manager of the Grounds Department. Mr. McClelland was directly supervised by Doug Erwin, who has been the General Director of Grounds for some four years. Mr. Erwin answers to Jack Davis. (So why didn't Principal Tuggle pick up the phone and tell Lennard? Because she knew he would punish, not thank, her.)

Regarding the undersigned, Beverly Spano, (Ms. Spano is a favorite of mine in this seedy saga. She was the woman who granted the regular workers the same privlileges that McClelland had arrogated to himself, i.e. not checking in but getting the time paid for nonetheless. She admitted what she had done up front to Gietzen when he quizzed her, saying she carried out this program in the name of fairness.)Sr. Maint. Clerk, Grounds Dept., and John Brungard, a Multi Trades Worker TI, Maint Dept., have given sworn testimony to the effect that I informed James McClelland, and/or his attorney, of the direction and/or the results of my investigation.

In fact, I have spoken with Mr. McClelland in person once, and on the telephone once. (Wouldn't you think, since Erwin had been complaining about McClelland for four years, that somebody would have called him in for an interview--Lennard, Hamilton, Davis, Shields, or Gonzalez? McClleland bragged about getting rich off the school board job.)I have traded telephone calls with Mr. MeClelland’s attorney (Daniel Coton), but do not recall ever speaking with him, and I have never discussed with him anything related to the investigation.

My conversation with Mr. McClelland occurred prior to and after a deposition of Mr. McClelland which I defended for the Board. By that time, Mr. McClelland had declined to be interviewed by Mr. Bill Gietzen, citing the advice of his attorney, but had allowed Mr. Gietzen to visit his home so as to allow Mr. Gietzen to determine the presence of School Board property (he found none). I asked Mr. McClefland to reconsider his refusal, because without his explanation the investigation would proceed based only on the testimony of those who did give information.

Shortly thereafter, I called Mr. McClelland, who by that time had retired, as part of an attempt to serve him with a subpoena in connection with the trial of the matter in which he had been deposed. Ms. McClelland informed me that he was leaving, “whenever he needed to,” for Colorado. We were unable to find him at his home, and he was never served. I had no further contact with Mr. McClelland. I never told him, or any agent of his, anything related to what had been disclosed in the investigation.

Page 4

Mr. Brungard informed Ms. Tuggle that Mr. McClelland would leave work for personal reasons, for hours and/or full days, without taking leave time, was using and/or stealing School Board property and equipment for personal purposes, and was mishandling bids awarded to vendors and subcontractors, some of whom had personal connections to Mr. McClelland. Ms. Tuggle informed the School Board Security Department, specifically Steve Hough and Fred Ferraiuolo, of these allegations, speaking to one or both of the Security Department employees, “almost on a daily basis.” At some point in time Brungard also told Mr. Erwin about Mr. McClelland’s improper conduct.

In late September of 2000, Messrs. Hough and Ferraiuolo undertook an investigation of Mr. McClelland. I find no evidence that either man acted with anything less than the best of intentions, but they did not immediately involve law enforcement. This decision is critical, and it directly leads to my suggestion that the Board consider the future role of the Security Department in any matter which might, or should, lead to a criminal investigation. In one particular instance, Hough and Ferraiuolo looked into a suspicion that two tractors and two lawn mowers (or three tractors, depending on which source one uses) which had been stolen from the Board had in fact been stolen by McClelland. In the course of their investigation, the two investigators traveled to Pasco County, Florida, where MeClelland has a farm and was building a residence. The two men hid in an orange grove which is adjacent to McClelland’s property but not owned by him. Using a surveyor’s transit instrument, they looked into McClelland’s property and saw four pieces of equipment, which fit the description of those stolen from the Board.

They did not however, have any equipment with which they could photograph the scene, (sharp fellows--just the kind needed in the Security Department) although they used such equipment on at least one occasion, when they photographed the School Board’s truck which was assigned to McClelland parked at his home, during work hours.

Hough and Ferraiuolo had no authority to enter private property, nor any legal jurisdiction or authority in Pasco County. While they reported their observations and were given approval to photograph McClelland’s property, by the time approval was obtained and the two men returned to Pasco County, the tractors were not found on the property. The Pasco County Sheriff’s Office was not notified. It clearly should have been. Additionally, a truck was seen at the McClelland property, and was being unloaded by McClelland, during working hours.
The Security Department could not state that the property unloaded at McClelland’s home, which was then under construction, was owned by the School

Page 5

Board, (Question: can these security characters tie their shoes?) or that the tractors and lawn mowers, which are similar to equipment widely used by agriculture interests in rural areas, were in fact the ones stolen from the Board.

Rough and Ferraiuolo did, however, continue to make whatever investigative efforts of which they were capable, based on the information given them from Brungard through Tuggle, (not to mention their IQ level) and, later, based on information received from Erwin. Mr. Erwin confirms that at least some of the information on which he relied was received from Brungard. I note that Mr. Erwin has stated that he informed his direct superiors, and the Security Department, on several occasions over the course of some three years, of suspicions relating to McClelland committing theft of School Board property and other potentially criminal acts.

Two of those three superiors are still employed by the Board, Dr. James Hamilton and Jack Davis. Hamilton states that shortly after he was appointed, in 1998, to his present position, Erwin mentioned to him that McClelland had “one of every type of equipment bought by the District on his property.” Erwin did not have any evidence of what, if anything, McClelland had, or what Erwin did to pursue the allegation. Davis and Hamilton deny any other complaint by Erwin about McClelland prior to 2000, the year in which this investigation began, which related to the allegations at issue in this investigation.

Erwin did discuss concerns which he had with employees of the grounds Department, and some business practices. Erwin did institute some changes in the bidding procedures, and other practices, at Grounds. His concerns with employees are discussed below.

The efforts of the Security Department were halted after Erwin brought his concerns and allegations to the attention of the then Chairman of the School Board, Carolyn Bricklemyer, whom Erwin trusted. Ms. Bricklemyer contacted the Superintendent, and it was decided that the matters raised by Erwin should be immediately investigated, using the procedure by which other investigations had been conducted.

The concerns brought by Erwin to Bricklemyer concerned both Grounds and Maintenance. The investigation into the latter area has been concluded and the results transmitted to you, referred to the State Attorney, and used as the basis for disciplinary action. I therefore will not discuss it any further in this report, which focuses on Grounds.

Page 6

under the direction of the School Board Attorney, Crosby Few, who was to make use of Oscar Westerfield, a retired FBI agent who was now in private business as an investigator. Mr. Westerfield had thoroughly and successfully conducted two other investigations for the Board. Mr. Few removed himself from the investigation after Erwin raised concerns about Mr. Few’s involvement with the investigation into the Transportation Department, which Erwin felt had not been vigorously pursued.

I note that while Mr. Few chose to remove himself from the investigation, the Transportation department investigation resulted in several firings and resignations and referral of the matter for criminal prosecution. Law enforcement, however, declined to intervene.

At the outset of the investigation, Ms. Bricklemyer and I met with Mr. Erwin, and asked that he provide all of his information related to the Board’s operations in writing. Mr. Erwin expressed some concern for his job security, based primarily on the fact that he had no personal knowledge of the concerns he held. At that meeting, he was concerned that if his concerns were not supported, that he would be held accountable.

I gave Mr. Erwin a copy of the Florida Whistieblowers Act, which protects public employees from any retaliatory employment actions motivated by retaliation for the employee’s good faith complaint of unlawful or otherwise inappropriate activities, and advised him to consult an attorney if he had any questions. He said he already had spoken to at least one attorney. Mr. Erwin was also told by Mr. Westerfield about legal protection afforded whistleblowers.

Mr. Erwin informed me that he had been contacted by persons unknown to him, and not apparently connected with the Board, who warned him of consequences which might flow from bis disclosures. This warning had occurred at a location which Erwin described as a dance club. When he went there, after being told to do so in a telephone call from an unknown source, he was met by a man who described himself as a lawyer, who told him that he was “fighting a battle he could not win, that he should retain a lawyer, and he should go to the FBI.” Mr. Erwin told me on several occasions that he would “hold off” from talking to law enforcement agencies and the media. I informed Mr. Erwin then, told him again on several occasions, and told Mr. Wayne Dassinger, an investigator in the Board’s Office of Professional Standards, to tell Mr. Erwin, that he was free to contact any or all law enforcement agencies, and any or all media.

Mr. Erwin provided me with several items, which are described in my letter of November 13, 2000 to Bill Gietzen, attached hereto. Erwin later supplemented these materials, and everything he gave me is included in the files I am submitting herewith

Page 7

and/or the binder later submitted by Bill Gietzen. Additionally, Erwin was interviewed twice, once by Mr. Westerfield and again by Mr. Dassinger. He was asked to provide any other information he might have. According to Dassinger, Erwin told him that he, Erwin, had not disclosed all he knew, and that he was holding some things back.

Mr. Westerfield began his investigation by interviewing Erwin, who brought Hough and Ferraiuolo with him, talking with the Security Department, and developing some information. He was able to discover the source of some of the information. Shortly after he began his efforts, however, Mr. Westerfield declined to participate any further.

Shortly before beginning the investigation at issue here, Mr. Westerfield had been personally sued, albeit unsuccessfully, by a former employee of the Board, who had been fired after Mr. Westerfield’s investigation of the Transportation Department. Westerfield indicated that did not want to risk another suit and therefore withdrew, after turning over whatever materials he had by that time compiled. We thereafter retained Bill Gietzen, a retired investigator with the Hilisborough County State’s Attorney office to complete the investigation.

As noted above, I forwarded to Mr. Gietzen on November 13, 2000, the materials I received from Erwin. Mr. Gietzen began his investigation by focusing on the Maintenance Department. He completed his efforts in that regard and submitted to me
Mr. Gietzen did digress from his investigation of Maintenance, at my request, to look into allegations that palm trees owned by the School Board had been diverted from Grounds to the private home of Randy Poindexter. I asked that this be done because the allegations supposedly had come to the attention of the Security Department by way of a Hillisborough County Deputy Sheriff. I therefore hoped that the matter already had been the subject of some investigation which we could use. Mr. Gietzen reported to me, on January25, 2001, that he had interviewed Hough and Ferraiuolo, to whom the deputy had given the information, and the deputy himself Mr. Gietzen reported that the deputy denied making any accusation, but had passed on a rumor, heard from a newspaper reporter, about the trees. David Friedberg, the Director of School Board security remembers that when Hough and Ferraiuolo reported to him what they had been told by the deputy, he immediately directed them to re-contact the deputy and get specific information in a statement. Friedberg reported that thereafter he was told by Hough and Ferraiuolo that the deputy had “recanted” the charge. The deputy, contacted by Gietzen denied any second contact by the Security Department, or that he had “recanted” anything he told the two Security Department investigators. Gietzen talked with Poindexter, photographed Poindexter’s house and yard, and talked to Poindexter’s neighbors. Gietzen found no evidence that Poindexter had ever had palm trees in his yard, and therefore labeled the allegations false.

Page 8

his report, on March 5, 2001. The information obtained by Gietzen was given to the State’s Attorney. Gietzen then turned his attentions to Grounds.

Because we had hoped to complete the investigation of all of the matters raised by Mr. Erwin as soon as possible, (No reason given for the urgency of a situation that had been going on for four years with Mr. Erwin desperately trying to get the attention on it of Lennard, Shields, Davis, and Hamilton, but we learn from the court records later that Mr. Gonzalez shuts down the Geitzen investigation because it corroborated what Erwin had been saying.)Mr. Gietzen was asked to complete those investigative efforts at Grounds which he could, and then report to me what he had done, with suggestions for what needed to be looked into. I received this report on June 1, 2001. That report is a part of the materials transmitted with this report. After reading the report, I informed the Superintendent that there were several matters that needed further investigation. Additionally, I believed that we needed more documentation of some of Mr. Gietzen’s findings. (He means more attenuation of the findings, which corroborated Erwin.)

By way of example, Mr. Gietzen reported that Beverly Spano had admitted to “fraudulent” and “criminal’ activity, specifically that she had intentionally failed to dock Grounds employees for leave time taken by them and misstated their time records, because she felt that, since McClelland did not report all of his absences, his subordinates should not be required to do so. Unfortunately, Mr. Gietzen did not record this interview. Neither did he record his interview of Mr. Brungard, who had reported much of what was involved in the investigation. According to Ms. Tuggle, Gietzen’s interview of her had been “unofficial,” owing to the fact that she felt some concerns over the sincerity of the investigation. Mr. Gietzen did not interview Erwin, relying instead on the interview already conducted by Westerfield. Mr. Gietzen found no proof that McClelland was stealing Board property or supplies, noting that these accusations, and others, were based on “rumors, innuendo and statements from anonymous individuals.”

In addition, it was my opinion that some matters needed further examination. As an example, Mr. Gietzen wrote the following:
That somethne during the week of October 2-6, 2000, Joe Newsome contacted McClelland and warned him that he was being investigated. This allegation was discussed with School Board employee Beverly Spano. Spano indicates that at the
To illustrate the many difficulties encountered in investigating this matter, long after Gietzen had completed his efforts, Ms. Beverly Spano, an employee of Grounds, stated in an interview conducted by Professional Standards, that the trees were not palms but crepe, or some other kind o myrtles. I will discuss this information below. There is still no proof of any trees being diverted to Mr. Poindexter’s home.

Page 8

The information obtained by Gietzen was given to the State’s Attorney. Gietzen then turned his attentions to Grounds.
Because we had hoped to complete the investigation of all of the matters raised by Mr. Erwin as soon as possible, Mr. Gietzen was asked to complete those investigative efforts at Grounds which he could, and then report to me what he had done, with suggestions for what needed to be looked into. I received this report on June 1, 2001. That report is a part of the materials transmitted with this report. After reading the report, I informed the Superintendent that there were sevenl matters that needed further investigation. Additionally, I believed that we needed more documentation of some of Mr. Gietzen’s findings.

By way of example, Mr. Gietzen reported that Beverly Spano had admitted to “fraudulent” and “criminal’ activity, specifically that she had intentionally failed to dock Grounds employees for leave time taken by them and misstated their time records, because she felt that, since McClelland did not report all of his absences, his subordinates should not be required to do so. Unfortunately, Mr. Gietzen did not record this interview. Neither did he record his interview of Mr. Brungard, who had reported much of what was involved in the investigation. According to Ms. Tuggle, Gietzen’s interview of her had been “unofficial,” owing to the fact that she felt some concerns over the sincerity of the investigation. Mr. Gietzen did not interview Erwin, relying instead on the interview already conducted by Westerfield. Mr. Gietzen found no proof that McClelland was stealing Board property or supplies, noting that these accusations, and others, were based on “rumors, innuendo and statements from anonymous individuals.”

In addition, it was my opinion that some matters needed further examination. As an example, Mr. Gietzen wrote the following:
That somethne during the week of October 2-6, 2000, Joe Newsome contacted McClelland and warned him that he was being investigated. This allegation was discussed with School Board employee Beverly Spano. Spano indicates that at the
To illustrate the many difficulties encountered in investigating this matter, long after Gietzen had completed his efforts, Ms. Beverly Spano, an employee of Grounds, stated in an interview conducted by Professional Standards, that the trees were not palms but crepe, or some other kind o myrtles. I will discuss this information below. There is still no proof of any trees being diverted to Mr. Poindexter’s home.

Page 9

At the time MoClelland was accused of wrong doing concerning trees by Mr. Erwin, he, MeClelland returned to his office quite agitated and made two phone calls, one to Joe Newsom and one to Sam Rarnpello. Spano indicates that Rampello was on site within the next fifteen minutes and left with the file concerning those trees. (Rampello calls this a lie in his depositon. I go with my girl Spano. I know Sam Rampello's persiflage from HCC.) This information was passed on to an informant who then passed it on to the [Security Department]. There is no information evident that any cover up happened or that any actions were taken to cover wrongdoing.

It seems self-evident that a school board employee taking possession of a file related to improprieties allegedly committed by another employee, who was accused of delivering the file would, if the conduct occurred, could certainly be evidence of wrongdoing. I therefore asked for and received authority to make use of investigators in the Board’s Professional Standards office and asked them to complete the interviews necessary for this report. Professional Standards did so, and conducted thirty interviews or re-interviews of witnesses or potential witnesses.
Additionally, much of what Gietzen discussed in his report, and a substantial portion of the matters he believed to warrant additional investigation, involved accounting and audit issues. As to those matters, I have deferred to the Finance Department, which has looked into those matters and produced the reports which have been independently transmitted.I am hereby transmitting all that I have related to my investigation for your consideration and direct your attention to the following:

Mr. Erwin raised several concerns involving Mr. Newsome. Specifically, he complained that very soon after he assumed the management of Maintenance, Newsome met with several of his direct report employees. Newsome in fact did meet with several Maintenance supervisors, at the request of those employees, who told Newsome of complaints they had about Erwin’s management style. Newsome said that after this meeting, he met with Erwin, the Superintendent, and Dr. Hamilton. In that meeting, Newsome relayed the comments of Erwin’s subordinates, and thereafter took no fhrther action. Erwin says that it was reported to him that Newsome had made the comment that “We” needed to work together to get Erwin out of the school system. Newsome denies that statement. Neither has he taken any action to attempt to affect Erwin’s employment (which Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent

To be continued when I get a chance to copy in the rest. lee
Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent
Hillsborough County School Board
December 4,2001
Page 10

would in any event require a recommendation from the Superintendent, which was never made). Richard Parrish has stated that in a one-on-one conversation with Newsome, he, Parrish, was asked what was going on in Maintenance, because he, Newsome, had been getting so many calls from there.5

Parrish says that after discussing the situation in that Department, he told Newsome that he personally liked Erwin and did not want anything to happen to him, to which Newsome replied that he did not want anything to happen to Erwin either but “wished [Erwin) would retire so all the turmoil would go away.” Parrish denies that Newsome made any statement indicating that anyone should “work to get Erwin out of the system.”

There was in fact a great deal of turmoil. In 1999, the Human Resources Department met with rank and file employees at Maintenance, at which concerns with Erwin’s management style were raised. Individual Board members have always been willing to hear directly from employees. Indeed, Mr. Erwin approached Ms. Bricklemyer, and that contact has resulted in this investigation.

Mr. Erwin does not dispute that Newsome did pass on what he said were the complaints of his employees, but states that he talked to several of these employees. According to Erwin, one employee, Roosevelt Lawrence, told him that he had not complained to Newsome, contrary to Newsome’s report.

Another, again by Erwin’s report, David Buscigio, said that he had made negative comments about Erwin and told Erwin that others, including Lawrence, had done so. The complaints seem to have been about Erwin’s management style, which some employees felt to be abusive.

Ms. Spano also states that Newsome and McClelland were close friends, who lunched together on several occasions. Mr. Newsome and McClelland are owners of adjoining properties which a single buyer has expressed an interest in both parcels. Newsome says that he indeed met with McClelland at a Burger King, to discuss the land sales, but that was the only meal they shared. Newsome states that he would sometimes call McClelland at work about the possible sale of his land, but only if he could not reach him at

footnote:
5 Mr. Newsome has known Erwin for some time, and during the latter’s tenure as a principal, Newsome had received a number of cans complaining of Erwin’s performance.

Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent
Hilisborough County School Board
December 4, 2001
Page 11

home and then only to ask for McClelland to contact him. Although they have known each other for a long time, both having grown up in Plant City,they are not close friends and do not socialize with each other.

Finally, there is the contention that McClelland had called Newsome after finding out that the matter of the trees which allegedly had been taken to Poindexter’s house was being looked into, and then called Rampello, after which Rampello appeared at Grounds and received a file relating to the tees. In the time indicated, October 2-6, 2000, there was, as far as I can tell, no investigation being conductcd into McClelland’s handling of the trees which allegedly ended up in Poindexter’s yard, although Rough and Ferriauolo had received the information from the deputy.

Spano has stated that the calls occurred after Mark Hart had been asked about the trees. She says that McClelland asked her for everything they had concerning the trees, and she provided him a file containing the invoices reflecting the work of a contractor who had removed the trees from Progress Village and taken them to the Board’s Efficott nursery. She further states that Rampello arrived at grounds, without a file, but left soon thereafter, carrying one.

After learning of Spano’s statement that the frees were myrtles and that Mark Hart had information of the alleged incident I spoke with Hart, who recalls receiving a call from a school site, “about a year and one-half ago,” informing him that a newspaper reporter from the St. Petersburg Times, Amy Herdy, was inquiring about the trees. Hart called the Times and then spoke to Poindexter, who denied having received such trees, and the Superintendent, who had been to Poindexter’s house and had seen no such trees. Hart recalls that he was satisfied that the tees were properly accounted for.

There was no question but that tees had been removed from Progress Village and Hart recalls knowing that fact. Poindexter, too, remembers the inquiry to Hart, and confirms that he was asked about it Dr. Lennard also recalls discussing it and being informed that there was no substance to the suspicion. The allegation was assigned to Gietzen because I did not inform Hart what was being investigated, and so he did not have an opportunity to tell me that the allegatton was an old one.
Newsome denies receiving or making any call relating to these trees, and

Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent
Hilisborough County School Board
December 4, 2001
Page 12

Spano has no knowledge of the contents of any conversation between him and McClelland. Rampello does say that he visited McClelland, but denies talking with Newsome about trees, or taking a file from Grounds. Poindexter again denies receiving any plants from the School Board.

Rampello admits to having heard rumors about the time he visited McClelland, to the effect that McClelland was being “investigated.” I have no information which links the knowledge of the media inquiry to Hart with R.ampello, so I cannot link that contact with Rampello traveling to Grounds.

Spano stated that the trees were myrtles. In the summary of allegations relating to McClelland prepared by Security, there is no mention of myrtles, only palms. The summary refers to “an Assistant Superintendent,” and does not name Poindexter, although Gietzen found that the origin of this information, the conversation between Hough and Ferraiuolo and the deputy sheriff was from the outset focused on Poindexter. Moreover, the summary relates that “palms” were observed “at an assistant superintendent’s house,” but Gietzen reported that Poindexter and his neighbors denied the presence of such plants, and Gietzen found no evidence of such plants, or the recent removal of any plants.

There is no proof that Newsome had any knowledge of any issue involving trees owned by the School Board. He denies knowledge of the substance of any allegations involved in the investigation, at any time before he was interviewed, first by Gietzen and then by Dassinger.

Erwin also raised a concern that Newsome had personally profited from the purchase by the School Board of the property on which Durant High School was built. In fact the owner of that property was heavily indebted at the time he sold the property, and had to borrow money, to pay off a lien, to effect the sale. The attorney who represented the seller confirmed that the owner received no monies for the sale, the entire proceeds being paid to the lienor. There is no indication that Newsome profited in any way.

2. Allegations related to the Superintendent Erwin’s allegations about any

Dr. Earl Lermard, Superintendent
Hilisborough County School Board
December 4, 2001
Page 13

wrongdoing related to Dr. Lennard are limited to his statement that after he bgising.bis concerns shortly before this investigation was begun Lennard warned him that he was making serious allegations and that his “career was in jeopardy.”

Lennard did in fact meet with Erwin, but denies making the threat attributed to him, or speaking any words to that effect. He states that he told Erwin to pass on his concerns to the Human Resources Department and that he should, and in fact had a duty to develop a factual foundation for his allegations. He did state that the facts would be necessary to resolution of the concerns.

Both Hamilton and Davis have stated that they told Erwin to investigate whatever needed to be investigated.

3. Allegations related to Erwin’s superiors. Erwin states that on several occasions he attempted to correct what he believed to be improper practices and other matters, including the performance of employees whom he supervised. He further states that he was prevented from taking such actions. One such incident involved Erwin’s attempts to place several of his employees on career performance observation for substandard work. He says that he was prevented from doing so by Hamilton, who directed him to rate the employees as satisfactory.

Hamilton remembers the incident but states that Erwin was told that he could not place the employees on a career observation without documentation, which Erwin did not have. Hamilton arranged for Marilyn Wittner, who was then employed in Human Resources, to give Erwin guidance on how to accomplish that documentation. That meeting in fact took place. Erwin made no further attempt to discipline the employees in question.

David Busciglio was one of the employees Erwin wanted to place on career observation. Erwin wrote of his intention to do so, in January of 1999, and being told of the need for documentation, Erwin evaluated Busciglio, in March of the same year, Erwin gave the employee a fully satisfactory evaluation, and wrote that “David is an excellent employee.”
Erwin also states that he informed Hamilton, and Jack Davis, who replaced Hamilton as Erwin’s direct supervisor, of his concerns about McClelland.

Both men deny these contentions with respect to any time before the year 2000. Erwin in fact evaluated McClelland on several occasions, and each

Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent
Hilisborough County School Board
December 4, 2001
Page 14

time rated him as satisfactory.

Erwin also accuses Hamilton, Davis, and Joel T. Blackwell of improper conduct and/or making statements indicating an intent to keep information from the School Board, specifically relating to the construction of Blake High School and other facilities, problems with air-conditioning systems and much more. All three men deny such conduct. Each was interviewed, and their responses are contained in the transcripts submitted herewith.

As to almost all of his allegations, Mr.’Erwin admits that he could offer no firsthand evidence to support them.

4. Allegations related to McClelland. There is an enormous amount of testimonial evidence related to McClelland. Mr. McClelland declined to be interviewed by Gietzen, telling him that he did so on the advice of his lawyer. The reports submitted by the Finance Department substantiate that McClelland committed at least misfeasance and nonfeasance, if not outright crimes. These accusations include, but are no means limited to:
A. Mishandling of bids, including accusations that McClelland provided bidders with knowledge of competitors’ bids and directions as to what amount should be bid in order to secure the bid (which appears to have ended after Erwin instituted new procedures);

B. The diversion of work to relatives, including his nephew, who was allowed to use School Board equipment and supplies which were part of the nephew’s contractual obligations to provide on his own, and for which he was paid;

C. The lack of supervision over contract work, especially the efforts of Mid-Florida Tree Service, which effectively was left to select and perform whatever work it determined to be necessary. I hasten to note that Mid-Florida vehemently denies any wrongdoing, and in fact has threatened to sue the Board because, as soon as the audit was received, Mid- Florida’s contract, which was terminable at will, was in fact

Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent
HilLsborough County School Board
December 4, 2001

Page 15
terminated. There are statements that Mid-Florida was told to simply begin at School “A” and proceed through all other schools alphabetically. The contractor was paid a substantial sum of money for its services. The audit reveals incidents of possible overpayment or payment for work not performed. The tree service was paid for the removal of some seventy trees at Sligh Middle School. The administration at Sligh states that nowhere near that many trees were removed. Mid- Florida has provided affidavits from its workers attesting to their work. The Sligh administration continues to maintain that the number of trees for which Mid-Florida was paid far exceeds the number actually taken out At the very least, Mid- Florida is accused of not providing documentation of its efforts as required by its contract, and it seems that there was virtually no oversight by Grounds;

D. Taking time off without accounting for it. According to Spano, she would only inform Erwin’s assistant, who was charged with keeping track of the time off taken by Erwin’s direct reports, that MeClelland was taking time off if he instructed her to do so. Spano claims to have had knowledge of time taken but not accounted for,

E. Abdicating his responsibility for payroll oversight, by disclosing the computer password by which he accessed the system, to Spano and leaving to her the responsibility for oversight which was not exercised in any event.

F. Potential theft. As already noted, McClelland was suspected by Security of having possession of the tractors and mowers stolen from school properties. Additionally, there are allegations that McClelland caused a hay baler to be purchased by the Board when it was intended for, and taken by, McClelland, for his personal use, that McClelland stole a winch from a School Boast truck, welding torches, weed killer, and many other items, including rolls of toilet paper. Additionally, there are several statements alleging that

Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent
Hillsborough Coutity School Board
December 4, 2001
Page 16

McClelland used School Board employees, who were on duty and being paid by the School Board, to remove top soil from a Board property and deliver it to a private individual

5. Allegations relating to Spario. Mr. Gietzen reports an admission by Spario that she had fraudulently failed to dock employees for time taken from work. Unfortunately, the admission was not recorded by Gietzen, and Spano denied intent in a subsequent interview.

6. Other issues. There are several other areas which the School Board should look into. These include the action, or inaction, of Board employees who had knowledge, or suspicion, of wrongdoing. These include the following:

A- Mr. Brungard had at least a strong suspicion of wrongdoing by McClelland, and chose to take those concerns to Ms. Tuggle, who had neither the authority nor ability to take action on the information;

B. Ms. Tuggle passed on information to the Security Department, but, at least in the opinion of one investigator in that department, Mr. Hough, had them chasing their tails. She did not inform Security of her source, nor did she report the matters to any of her superiors.

Mr. Erwin and the Security Department require separate discussion. While he had an obligation to report his suspicions, the timing and manner of his disclosure made this investigation much more difficult than it should have been. I have attached to this letter the outline prepared by the Security Department of the allegations relating to McClelland “September 8th - October 10, 2000.” It is by no means a complete statement of the allegations brought forth by Erwin in the course of this investigation. Erwin claims to have passed on his concerns to his superiors. The superiors deny those reports. According to Dassinger, Erwin has stated that he still has not revealed all that he knows.

In discussing these allegations with Erwin, and after reviewing the transcripts of his statements, it is clear that Erwin had virtually no first hand knowledge of the allegations. Moreover, some of his statements reveal a lack of understanding of some concepts. For instance, Erwin passed on a suspicion that the Board had purchased.

Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent
Hillsborough County School Board
December 4, 2001
Page 17

property and intentionally masked the price, through the device of its attorney stating that the property was bought for “ten dollars and other good and valuable consideration.” In fact, the deed did recite this language, as do many deeds. But affixed to the deed were stamps memorializing the payment of taxes for the actual purchase price. In short, there was no attempt to hide the price of the property.

When this fact was pointed out to Mr. Erwin he contended that I had told him that the recitation of the “ten dollars” language was indeed unusual. In fact, I gave him no such advice, and would not, since I know almost nothing about what is or is not customary in the practice of real property law, and have never been involved in any purchase of landby the Board.

Mr. Erwin informed me that he had been advised “many times” by the Security Department to wear a bulletproof vest, because of fears for his safety, and that he should “not travel alone.” The Security Department explained that an offer of such a vest had been made in the course of a single jocular conversation. There is no confirmation of any other similar advice.

He has written that he had been given information “that leads me to believe that bodily harm could come to my family and me.” I am aware of no information supporting this fear.
Mr. Erwin has stated that McClelland admitted to him that he had the hay baler which allegedly was stolen from the Board. The Security Department summary records that McClelland said he had it and there was nothing the Board can do about it.

In his interview by Mr. Westerfield, Erwin said that McClelland had said that no one could prove he had stolen it and that he had been given the baler by his father, and that he would sue the person who claimed that it was stolen. No such baler appears to have ever been placed on the School Board property records.

Mr. Erwin accuses Davis of being unreceptive of his several complaints, but wrote in October of 2000 that Davis “had been very supportive” of the Security Department’s investigation into allegations against McClelland.

Most importantly, Erwin was McClelland’s supervisor. If he had suspicions that McClelland was a thief, then it seems that more oversight should have been provided over the contracts awarded on the recommendation of, and overseen by,
McClelland.

Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent 1 C)
Hillsborough County School Board

December 4, 2001
Page 19

warrant criminal investigation. Perhaps such an investigation could provide information which we could use to assess the allegations at issue.

4. The administration should consider disciplinary action against Ms. Spano based on the admission reported by Mr. Gietzen, and against those employees who have taken leaves without having the time deducted from theft leave balances.

5. For whatever reason, the Grounds Department has not been supervised properly. The Board may benefit from an outside evaluation of the fhnction of that Department and the possibility that it should be reorganized or even disbanded.
6. The adoption of more precise policies requiring all

employees to immediately report suspicions of wrongdoing to theft superiors or, if they have any reservations about doing so, to appropriate law enforcement authorities. The failure of employees to do so in this case has led to the proliferation of rumors and allegations, some of which are obviously incorrect, others which cannot be assessed for validity.

7. Review of the Board’s bidding and purchasing policies.

8. The role of the Security Department.

9. Enhanced publicity of Board and administration action taken in connection with investigations of its operations. A recurring theme among witnesses in this case was that the Board had not sought criminal prosecution in previous investigation. In fact, in each investigation, the matter or matters were referred to the State’s Attorney and/or law enforcement. While part of the problem is that such prosecution requires a showing of criminal intent, it is also obvious that the Board’s employees are not aware that the decision to prosecute or not was made not by the Board but by appropriate outside officials.

10. Following the taking of the foregoing action, there may be additional information which might be the basis for fhrther action against one or more other employees.
There is of course much more detail contained in the materials I have submitted to

Dr. Earl Lennard, Superintendent
Hillsborough County School Board
December 4, 2001

Page 20
you. If you need any additional infoimation, please let me know.

Very truly yours,
Thomas M. Gonzalez
TMGIjIh