"As we continue to receive questions regarding news reports involving the termination of three UNCG employees, I want to provide additional context related to the severity of the situation as well as the information reviewed, the process involved, and the steps taken.
Concerns are being expressed that the University acted in an extraordinary fashion given the perceived limited scope of the charges by the Guilford County District Attorney’s office. We are obligated to our employees out of a sense of fairness and State law to limit disclosure of information to the public regarding personnel matters. However, I can assure you that a substantial amount of evidence has been secured through an extensive investigation and is much more substantive than the alleged falsification and approval of time sheets. No one should assume this matter has not been fully investigated. All disciplinary actions have been considered and, based on the facts, appropriate actions have been taken proportional to the alleged violations. In this case, the decision to move forward with termination proceedings was made only after extensive consultation with UNCG Human Resources, Legal and the Chancellor’s Office, as well as with Human Resources and Legal counsel at UNC General Administration.
I’d like to provide context regarding the sequence of events, the process involved and the determination by the Guilford County District Attorney’s office to move forward with criminal charges. When alerted to the fact that an audit of University Relations equipment found evidence of misconduct, Campus Police contacted University Relations to secure the evidence. Campus Police conducted an independent investigation and reviewed the evidence. Campus Police then presented the evidence to the District Attorney’s office. The District Attorney’s office reviewed the evidence, determined that there was sufficient evidence to warrant felony charges, and agreed to go forward with prosecution of those charges. No University administrators provided input or direction to Campus Police or the District Attorney’s office regarding the pursuit of criminal charges.
As this is a serious matter, we will continue to communicate with the campus. We are planning an open forum, hosted by Vice Chancellor for Business Affairs Charles Maimone, to begin addressing State and University policies and procedures around secondary employment agreements for staff members, conflict of interest, and to respond to questions from faculty and staff. The forum is scheduled for 8:30-10 a.m. next Wednesday in the EUC Auditorium. Thank you."
Are you buying it? I'm not and neither is the embedded investigator EzGreensboro.com
has has working inside the Brady Administration since before Paul Mason was hired. As a matter of fact, here's what our investigator has to say about Chancellor Brady's letter and the article released by the News & Record:
"OK, Billy. I will look at this again tomorrow, but this is my initial impression.
The scope
"given the perceived limited scope of the charges by the Guilford County District Attorney’s office."
There
is not a perceived limited scope. It is an actual limited scope. The
charges, according to the News&Record article that referenced the
warrants, are as follows.
Wilson, faces six felony counts of obtaining property by false pretense.
The warrants say Wilson falsified his UNCG time sheet six times from 2012 to 2014.
He is accused of defrauding the university of $154 each time.
English, faces five felony counts of obtaining property by false pretenses.
The warrant says English falsified his time sheet five times during the same period.
His work for Artisan defrauded the university of $175.12 each time, the warrants say.
English also faces six felony charges for aiding and abetting obtaining property by false
pretenses. English signed Wilson’s falsified time sheets, the warrants say.
Carpen, faces five felony charges of aiding and abetting obtaining property by false
pretense. Carpen, approved English’s falsified time sheets, the warrants say.
The context
When
alerted to the fact that an audit of University Relations equipment
found evidence of misconduct, Campus Police contacted University
Relations to secure the evidence.
This
is very strange language for a native English speaker. Who requested or
performed an audit? Audits of fixed assets are done annually and on a
regular schedule. University Relations is scheduled for audit in October
(see attached). Fixed assets or capital equipment are valued at greater
than $5000; their whereabouts are tracked under Business and Finance.
At the same time as the Fixed Asset audit, the department keeps an
internal list of assets that are valuable but do not raise to the value
of capital equipment. This is a Business and Finance function and not
under the jurisdiction of the police.
So someone would have had to trigger an out of schedule audit of equipment and involved the police?
Campus
Police conducted an independent investigation and reviewed the
evidence. Campus Police then presented the evidence to the District
Attorney’s office.
I
have attached the Campus Police procedures for conducting an
investigation. It would be interesting to find out if the three who were
being investigated were appropriately informed that they were being
investigated and why.
The District Attorney’s office reviewed the evidence, determined that there was sufficient evidence to warrant felony charges,
The
felony charges have nothing to do with equipment or assets. It is very
clear from the warrants quoted above that the charges relate to
defrauding the university payroll.
and agreed to go forward with prosecution of those charges.
Which clearly they are doing.
No
University administrators provided input or direction to Campus Police
or the District Attorney’s office regarding the pursuit of criminal
charges.
But where did this all start? Who was the trigger?
And why has the University not addressed the outstanding complaints regarding harassment and hostile work environment?"
Now personally I can't answer the questions posed by our embedded investigator. That is, except for the last question. Chancelor Brady is not addressing questions regarding harassment and hostile work environment because the Brady Bunch is guilty as Re-fried Hell.
Oh, and just a quick note to the Greensboro City Council: I'm not finished with Heritage House. If you don't hurry up and get city staff moving on my latest public information requests then I'll ask my questions Tuesday night at the next City Council meeting in front of the live television cameras. Now wouldn't that be a hoot? Talk about political suicide...
