A statement on behalf of Valerie Stamey by her attorney. June 20, 2014

Transcription

1 A statement on behalf of Valerie Stamey by her attorney. June 20, 2014 I have been asked by Valerie to write this statement on her behalf. This statement is also being sent to Montana Attorney General Tim Fox. Evidence reasonably questioning the integrity of Ravalli County Attorney Bill Fulbright In a press release dated January 31, 2014 Bill Fulbright states: In coordination with Ravalli County Sheriff Chris Hoffman, I have requested the assistance of the Montana Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI) to investigate the various allegations of criminal misconduct being made. DCI, a division of the Montana Department of Justice tasked with a wide variety of investigations throughout Montana, will coordinate their activities with the audit team. We express our appreciation to Attorney General Fox and the DCI agents, but cannot comment further on this independent investigation. In an response from John Barnes, Director of Communications, for the Attorney General s Office, Montana Department of Justice to Valerie dated March 6, 2014, Mr. Barnes states: By statute, the Montana Department of Justice can only investigate allegations of improprieties in local government at the request of a county attorney, county sheriff, or city police chief. As of yet, no official request has been received regarding the alleged events in Ravalli County. Over a month later, the Department of Justice was not working in coordination with the audit team, and no official request had been received. This raises a serious and substantial issue with Mr. Fulbright s integrity. Republican County Attorney, Bill Fulbright, instead of making a formal request to the Department of Justice hires a private lawyer who conducts a three day investigation. Not only does the private lawyer and now republican state representative candidate not engage in coordination with the audit team. He explicitly states: I do not need to know what she has already told the IRS-- the auditors are looking into the financial aspects of this case, not me. The private attorney turned down a request to meet with an investigator of the Internal Revenue s Criminal Investigations. It was explained to the private attorney that he couldn t understand the corruption allegations unless he understood the unlawful financial arrangements the county has instituted in spite of state code. Page 1 of 5

2 Is it an audit or an examination and the relationship between the two in regard to the County Auditor? The so called audit team by their own admission is not doing an audit they are doing an examination. Then why does Mr. Fulbright continue to call it an audit? The devil is in the details. You see Mr. Fulbright is not only the County Attorney he is also the County Auditor. Mr. Fulbright as County Auditor is statutorily required to do quarterly examinations of the books and records of the Treasurer, the county Clerk, the county Sheriff, the Clerk of the Court, and all other county officers (see MCA ) He is further required to issue reports of those examinations to the county commissioners. The county commissioners in 1988 assigned the duties of the County Auditor to the CFO, a position now held by Karlyse Murphy. The same Karlyse Murphy who had complete administrative control of the accounting software for the county. The same Karlyse Murphy who refused to reconcile the cash receipts of the county in the accounting software. The same Karlyse Murphy who showed and lectured Valerie to not make new postings in the accounting software and instead simply change the amount and repost. The same Karlyse Murphy who claimed she know nothing about the functions of the Treasurer s Office. Karlyse Murphy is charged with the annual audit a duty of the county clerk and stated to Valerie that she hired the man she used to work for to do the audit. She further explained to Valerie most of the time the auditor doesn t actually come and investigate the records personally; he relies on Karlysse Murphy to merely send him the needed information. Karlyse Murphy is now to examine the books and records of the County Clerk whose duties in part she has been assigned and to examine the books and records of the Treasurer s Office where she has (had) administrative control over the software. It is also rumored that at least some of the reports Valerie is claimed to be responsible were actually the responsibility of Karlyse Murphy. This structure of Ravalli County finances shows express conflicts of interest on the part of Karlyse Murphy and has eliminated some crucial checks and balances to protect the tax payers money of Ravalli County. In particular, given the way the accounting software can be manipulated (the report of the accounting firm points this out as do many statement by Valerie) the missing receipts of deposits for four years prior to Valerie s appointment brings a substantial question to veracity of any claim of sufficient reconciliation and auditing. Valerie immediately upon appointment began to keep a hard copy receipt of deposits of money into the county treasury. At no point during Valerie s time in the Treasurer s Office, did Bill Fulbright or Karlyse Murphy ever come and inspected the books and records of the Treasurer s Office. When Valerie was appointed she should have had available to her the last quarterly report of the examination of the Treasurer s Office that had been presented to the county commissioners. Valerie believes and statements by the accounting firm and Mr. Fulbright strongly suggest that Page 2 of 5

3 these reports do not exist (The media should request to examine these reports.) The lack of these reports, the known and now recognized lack of office procedures in the Treasurer s Office, the lack of reasonable security for the account software, the missing deposit receipts from before her time in office, along with intentional interference with her work deprived Valerie of reasonable base line on which proceed in the position. Valerie now accepts as a fact the statements to her by Linda Issacs in 2013 that she was setup to fail, that she was in for a rude awakening, and so was the county when Linda got through with Valerie. Valerie in her brief time in office witnessed multiple felonious acts in an attempt to frame her which were all brought to the attention of the county government and nothing was done about the incidents. The report of the accounting firm now validates in part her claim and justification to serve as a witness to the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Now it is time to get back to Mr. Fulbright and his continued use of the term audit in press releases. The accounting firm in contract has only agreed to do an examination. This examination is very similar in form and content to the quarterly examination that Mr. Fulbright is statutorily required to perform. There is a reasonable inference from the facts known that neither Mr. Fulbright nor Karlyse Murphy preformed or reported these examinations as required by law. Only the Montana Department of Administration may order an additional audit of a local government entity. Mr. Fulbright should have requested an additional audit from the Department of Administration because unlike his relationship with the accounting firm it would have been a truly independent audit under the direction of the Department of Administration. Instead Mr. Fulbright sought an examination by a private accounting firm which appears to be directly contracted to Mr. Fulbright as County Attorney and not Ravalli County. If the accounting firm is being paid under contract by Mr. Fulbright and the accounting firm reports to Mr. Fulbright then how is that an independent audit examination? These choices of Mr. Fulbright bring into reasonable question what was the real purpose of the examination? The reasonable belief that neither Mr. Fulbright or Karlyse Murphy had done the statutory duty of the County Auditor by examining and reporting quarterly on the books and records of several offices, the similarity between the examination and reports that the County Auditor should have done and the work performed by the accounting firm, and choice to not seek out the department of administration and instead engage a less than independent relationship with the accounting firm all show that Mr. Fulbright is not only a material witness he has definite conflict of interest in pursuing any legal action against Valerie. Valerie will only answer questions in a setting which complies with her right to due process and the public meeting today does not comply with the law of Montana and her recognized rights to procedural due process. Page 3 of 5

4 Ravalli County Deputy Attorney Howard Recht has asked Valerie or myself in her place to show up at a public meeting of the Ravalli County Commissioners and present evidence to unidentified claim(s) of official misconduct. Mr. Recht did not specify if the county commissioners were deciding to determine if these claims are either civil or criminal in nature. The Commissioner s public meeting scheduled for today cannot be used as a means of removing Valerie from office under any applicable law. Significant problems of the Ravalli County Attorney and his office prosecuting Valerie for a criminal charge. If this is a criminal matter, then it is wholly beyond the authority of the county commissioners to determine if charges should be brought. It is incumbnant upon the county attorney to investigate if sufficient probable cause exists to proceed with charges. There is simply no reason to have a meeting of the county commissioners. However, Mr. Fulbright s status a potential witness and his personal conflict of interest in the matter should preclude him or his office from proceeding with such an investigation. The Attorney General has supervisory authority over county attorneys and it is necessary to inform the Attorney General of the questionable integrity of Mr. Fulbright resulting from his claim that the Department of Justice was contacted and implication that the Department of Justice had agreed to investigate with the accounting firm and subsequent statement made over month latter by Mr. Barnes that no official request had been made by either the Sheriff or Mr. Fulbright, the clear conflict of interest that would be presented by Mr. Fulbright s position as County Auditor and reasonable belief that quarterly reports and examinations and reports were not performed and presented as required by statute, and his and his office s direct material knowledge of the facts and circumstances of the reports and actions of the accounting firm, and other facts not yet known. The required standards for a proper civil action. The standard in a civil matter is different. Valerie has been appointed for a definite term of office and by statute can only be removed for official misconduct. A civil hearing for removal would require that the charges be presented to Valerie so that they are known in a way that allows Valerie adequate notice to give her the opportunity to prepare for and attend the meeting to refute the charges made. The hearing should allow the taking of evidence, the interrogation of witnesses with the opportunity for cross examination all for the purpose of determining in a judicial manner the truth or falsity of the charges made. (Grant v. Michaels, 94 Mont. 452) quoted in Howard v. Ireland, 114 Mont. 488 at 495) cited in 49 Op. Atty Gen. Mont. No. 8 requested by George Corn of Attorney General Mike McGrath. Valerie is also entitled to a neutral decision maker. Page 4 of 5

5 Howard Recht in his letter did not state specifically whether Valerie is being asked to answer for civil or criminal charges and this does not prepare Valerie to be able to mount a defense. Valerie was given only three days to answer the claims of official misconduct. Valerie has been provided with only with two reports. There has been no determination of which facts are being found actionable to answer to and Valerie simply cannot mount a reasonable defense without that knowledge. The public meeting does not provide a means of presenting evidence base on the rules of evidence, the ability to interrogate witnesses, the ability to cross examine witnesses, the opportunity for discovery. It is clear that the County Commissioners are not a neutral decision make and should not sit in judgment of Valerie. The public meeting without these due process guarantees is of no more legal effect any more than would be a discussion at any incidental meeting of the people of the district anywhere.. it may be a practical way of sounding out public sentiment, but it served no other purpose. Howard v. Ireland, 114 Mont. 488 at 495. Additional Notes Almost every recommendation given by the accounting firm was also recommended by or acted upon by Valerie. The county commission ignored and dismissed the same recommendations from Valerie. In many circumstances, the commissioners stopped her from implementing those changes. What has not been reported is that all of the commissioners save Jeff Burrows were aware of the problems in the Treasurer s office when Mary Hudson Smith was forced to resign and over three years later they had still not taken any corrective action. In other words, they had purposefully or negligently failed to do a duty they were required to do by law. This is the very definition of official misconduct with which they now intend to charge Valerie to remove her from office. It needs to be pointed out that Valerie did explain to each commissioner individually except J.R. Iman what transpired in the lawsuit in South Carolina. So why did they hold a public meeting on a set of facts they were already appraised of, and why did they place her on administrative leave claiming she refused to explain the lawsuit? Also, how is it possible that a bank would pay on the same check number twice? A very doubtful claim. Robert C. Myers Writing on behalf of Valerie Stamey Page 5 of 5