I just received your press release regarding fingerprinting of Foodstamp recipients in San Bernardino County.  Although I agree that Foodstamp (and honestly all welfare recipients) should be fingerprinted, you are NEVER going to do anything about welfare fraud in this county unless you first rid this county of Linda Haugen and Nancy Swanson.

I know you don’t want to hear it, but welfare fraud cannot be caught if workers are disciplined for making fraud referrals.  I know from first-hand experience.  I also know from first-hand experience that county welfare statistics are falsified by said Haugen and Swanson.  Larry Walker wanted to bring in external auditors to audit the department when we provided hard-core proof but the CAO put a stop to it.  With the falsified statistics, the county gets more welfare funding which makes for more money that can be wasted on big screen TVs and the like and a bigger empire which means a promotion for those at the top.

Neil, I have offered to have welfare fraud investigators meet with you to tell you the truth.  I have never been taken up on that offer.  TAD employees have also always been willing to meet with you to tell you the truth but no one wants to hear it, especially Devereaux.

Don’t get me wrong Neil.  I support what you are trying to do in this county, especially when you have four colleagues who are just as happy to let the CEO tell them what to do and continue to cover up corruption.  But if you are serious about welfare fraud in this county, continuing with fingerprinting will do absolutely nothing to solve the problem.  Do something that is meaningful.

I have made this offer before and I will repeat it.  I will take a polygraph as long as Linda Haugen and Nancy Swanson also take them.  Whoever is caught lying about this issue loses their job, including all rights to their retirement.  Since you guys want to get rid of me and think I’m lying, why don’t you take me up on it?

]]> http://iepolitics.net/2011/10/11/iepolitics-earth-to-neil/feed/ 3 http://iepolitics.net/2011/09/14/iepolitics-californias-most-corrupt-welfare-department/ http://iepolitics.net/2011/09/14/iepolitics-californias-most-corrupt-welfare-department/#comments Thu, 15 Sep 2011 05:58:13 +0000 Administrator http://iepolitics.com/?p=10514 Continue reading →]]>

Linda Haugan

I spent some time on the phone with those who work with the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations and they told me three things.  First, Linda Haugen is the single most corrupt Welfare administrator in the state of California—and that’s the nicest thing they had to say about her.  Second, San Bernardino County is the worst county in the state for violating the law and the rights of applicants.  Third, this county desperately needs advocates for all phases of the HSS system.

It was suggested to me that a few of us who know the system, and know how corrupt it is, open a non-profit to advocate on behalf of the clients who are getting screwed over by Haugen and her blatantly illegal policies.  I love this idea.  I’ve talked to a few friends about it and it is agreed that such a program is desperately needed here in the desert where the problem is especially bad.  They was the legal aid place really doesn’t have time or the expertise to deal with it.  I think as former TAD employees we could really kick some butt.

I am not sure how to go about doing this but I do know I am not alone in being disgusted at how certain TAD administrators so flagrantly violate the law and people’s rights.  It would also give us a chance to gather data to present to the feds for an investigation into falsifying data that is so badly needed.

If you have any expertise in running a non-profit, getting grants, or are just a former TAD worker who would be interested in doing this kind of work, sent me an email.

But from ESP’s perspective, Michael has run the program into the ground and then some.  I still communicate with numerous ESP employees and managers.  They hate him.  I mean they HATE him.

I can only go by my personal experience with him.  A few years back I met with Michael for close to two hours in hopes of burying the hatchet.  The only place the hatchet got buried was in the middle of my back.

What I remember more than anything else from that conversation was Michael telling me about his trip to Hanford.  He was surprised to find out I knew exactly where Hanford is located and that is because I used to go up that way often.  I love the area.

Anyway, he was telling me about the presentations he was making around the state about “best practices.”  The “best practices” he was talking about was a pilot program in this county where we were giving away a variety of items to welfare recipients if they got a job, including gift cards to Target and Stater Bros.

Generally, for something to be a “best practice,” it has been tried and tested.  In this case he was presenting it to other counties as a “best practice” except in our own county it had not even been tried yet because there was an issue purchasing all of those gift cards and the other giveaways we were presenting to welfare clients.  In other words he was totally lying about this “best practice” and its results.  Those who worked in the system can tell you that we did eventually try it and it was a complete disaster.  There were not that many welfare clients who were willing to find a job in order to get a $25 Target gift card.  And those that did, found a new job every week.

And of course, we were not allowed to do an employment verification, because we didn’t really want to know if they had found a job or not.  The truth might have made our stats look ever worse than they already looked.

This was one of the many boondoggles and waste of money that is TAD.  But what else is new?

I, for one, don’t believe tigers change their stripes.  I did, however, tell one of Michael’s supporters to tell him he can always call me and discuss this.  It’s not like there is anything he can do to me now.  But of course he did not.  Like I said.  Tigers don’t change their stripes.

Anyway, the winner of the Linda Haugen brown-nosing contest this time around is no other than Diana Alexander.  ESP employees know her as the PERC manager or by her moniker “teeth.”  She is known best for her ass kissing abilities and her phony sickenly sweet disposition.  She was also a favorite of Mark Uffer, which says a lot.  I’m told Diana started her career as an Eligibility Worker for TAD, so I guess we should have seen this coming.

Now, I will say there are those in the know that claim CAO Greg Devereaux knows he has a big problem with HSS, but so far there is nothing to prove it.  Although the fact that Lamberto was a part of the Alexander promotion could be a sign.  Either way, it is too little, too late.

The Board of Supervisors received the first of their long-awaited presents this past week.  They shall pay for the sins of all of the department heads and managers they refused to do anything about.  And rightfully so.

]]> http://iepolitics.net/2011/07/31/iepolitics-if-it-means-anything-at-all-it-is-still-too-little-too-late/feed/ 0 http://iepolitics.net/2011/07/25/iepolitics-a-question-for-welfare-fraud-investigators/ http://iepolitics.net/2011/07/25/iepolitics-a-question-for-welfare-fraud-investigators/#comments Tue, 26 Jul 2011 00:16:37 +0000 Administrator http://iepolitics.com/?p=9959 Continue reading →]]> I had a chance to speak with a new worker today.  I have been at a loss as to why the county seems so confident in denying my request.  I now know why.

Based on what the worker told me, the form I submitted has been altered by someone at the county, i.e., my signature, date and month have been removed.  When I speaking with her, I knew I had signed the forms but couldn’t argue because I did not have them in front of me.  I have requested that she send me a copy from C-IV and have checked my copies to be sure.

Once I get it, how do I report this?  It has to be a crime to alter a form that a client submits in application for a public assistance program but I don’t know where to report it.  I know the Sheriff’s Departments isn’t going to take the report and I seriously doubt the Thug Squad will do anything for me so I don’t know where to turn.  As I have said before, I don’t think Ms. Locy has done this on her own.  I strongly suspect the orders came from on high because I am definitely being treated very differently than the average client.

Linda Haugan

To the person who sent me the documents:

I have not been able to pick up my mail for over a month.  I finally able to get my mail today  and your package was among the mail I picked up.  It will take me a day or two, but I will get a story up.  Thank you.

If anyone else has information on unethical/illegal behavior by Linda Haugen/Andrew Lamberto or any other government official, you can send it to PO Box 2722, Apple Valley, California 92307.

Except as otherwise provided in this section, all applications and records concerning any individual made or kept by any public officer or agency in connection with the administration of any provision of this code relating to any form of public social services for which grants-in-aid are received by this state from the United States government shall be confidential, and shall not be open to examination for any purpose not directly connected with the administration of that program, or any investigation, prosecution, or criminal or civil proceeding conducted in connection with the administration of any such program. The disclosure of any information that identifies by name or address any applicant for or recipient of these grants-in-aid to any committee or legislative body is prohibited, except as provided in subdivision (b).

California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 10850(d) reads:

Any person, including every public officer and employee, who knowingly secures or possesses, other than in the course of official duty, an official list or a list compiled from official sources, published or disclosed in violation of this section, of persons who have applied for or who have been granted any form of public social services for which state or federal funds are made available to the counties is guilty of a misdemeanor.

So when the county of San Bernardino, aka Linda Haugen, Michael de la Rosa and Nancy Swanson, enacted a program where every employee would be checked against the welfare data base to determine if they or anyone in their household was connected with a welfare case anywhere, why were they not prosecuted?  It would seem those involved with cross-referencing employees and the welfare data base would be guilty of maybe 1000 misdemeanor counts or more.

Are one, two or all three sleeping with Mikey?  What is the story here?  This seems like a clear-cut case of selective prosecution not to mention civil rights violations and more.  These are real crimes and should be prosecuted as such.  What gives?

Now of course, TAD is flush with money, so that is not the point. The point is that they continue to recruit for deputy directors without requiring a bachelor’s degree. What is even more appalling is that for the few college credits this $105,000-a-year plus benefits job requires can be replaced with rinky-dink MLA credits.  So in other words does one ever have to step foot inside a college?  And they wonder why TAD is so screwed up.  Devereaux sure has brought professionalism to the county hasn’t he?  I don’t think so.

Here is the County Code sections on how to do it.  Good luck with Bob Blough.

§ 13.0206     Bargaining Unit Composition.

The Board of Supervisors shall decide the bargaining unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining.  In determining the appropriateness of each bargaining unit, the Board shall consider the factors specified in § 13.0205(c).  A representation unit does not have to be the most appropriate unit, only an appropriate unit.

(a)     Modification of Existing Units. The unit modification process is used to consolidate existing bargaining units or to sever classifications from an existing unit to create a new separate unit or to expand the existing unit by adding new classifications.  An existing authorized employee representation unit may be modified upon petition of the Director of Human Resources or an employee organization.  Unit modification is used when all or a substantial number of the total positions are removed from an existing authorized employee representation unit and placed in a new or existing authorized employee representation unit.  The existing unit proposed to be modified and/or the proposed new unit must be appropriate standing alone.

(1)     Unit Modification Proposed by Director of Human Resources.

(A)     Content and Timing of Statement. The Director of Human Resources may, at any time, propose that an existing authorized employee representation unit be modified by filing a statement with the Employee Relations Division containing the following:

(I)     The basis for the proposed modification; and

(II)     A description of the bargaining unit proposed specifying the classifications to be removed from the existing authorized employee representation unit(s) and placed in a separate authorized employee representation unit.

(B)     Notice of Proposed Unit Modification. Upon receipt of the statement from the Director of Human Resources, the Employee Relations Division shall:

(I)     Advise all employees in the proposed new authorized employee representation unit of such proposed unit modification by posting notice at appropriate work locations for 30 days; and

(II)     Shall serve notice of the filing to all exclusive recognized employee organizations.

(C)     No Challenges to Appropriateness of Proposed Unit. If no challenge is filed by an employee organization within 30 days after service of the notice of the filing of the petition, the Employee Relations Division shall submit the proposed bargaining unit modification to the Board of Supervisors.

(D)     Challenges to the Appropriateness of Proposed Unit. Within 30 days after service of the notice of the filing of the petition, a challenge may be filed, in writing, with the Employee Relations Division by an employee organization.  A challenge by an employee organization shall state the grounds upon which such employee organization has an interest.  In addition, the challenge shall clearly indicate the reasons why the proposed unit modification is not appropriate.  Any challenge shall be accompanied by proof of support of ten percent or more of the employees proposed to be removed from an existing employee representation unit, provided, however, that the incumbent exclusive representative shall not be required to provide proof of support in order to file a challenge.  “Proof of support,” for purposes of this Section, shall mean individually signed employee authorization cards dated within the 30 day challenge period setting forth the intent of the employees with respect to representation by the employee organization.

(E)     Hearing on Challenges. Upon receipt of a challenge to the appropriateness of the unit, a hearing officer shall be selected by the County from the hearing officer panel established pursuant to § 13.0206(e) to conduct a hearing.  Following the hearing, the hearing officer shall issue an advisory opinion and award that:

(I)     Grants or denies the challenge; or

(II)     Recommends modification of the authorized employee representation unit proposed by the Director of Human Resources.  If the hearing officer recommends modification, consolidation and/or the creation of a new authorized employee representation unit, as applicable, the Employee Relations Division shall submit the recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

(F)     Creation of New Employee Representation Unit. A newly authorized employee representation unit shall be created upon approval of the Board of Supervisors.

(2)     Unit Modification Proposed by Employee Organization.

(A)     Content and Timing of Petition.

An employee organization may propose that an existing authorized employee representation unit be modified by filing a petition with the Employee Relations Division.  Such petition shall be filed during the 30 day period beginning not earlier than 360 days and ending not later than 330 days before the expiration date of any memorandum of understanding covering classifications in the authorized employee representation unit proposed to be modified or at any time after expiration of such memorandum of understanding.

A petition for modification shall contain:

(I)     The name and street address of the employee organization;

(II)     The name, title, mailing address and business telephone numbers of the employee organization’s principal representative;

(III)     A statement of the reasons why the unit modification is appropriate;

(IV)     A statement that the employee organization has no restriction on membership based on race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, physical handicap, marital status, sexual orientation or political affiliation;

(V)     A statement that the primary purpose of the employee organization is to represent employees on matters concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment;

(VI)     A statement as to whether the employee organization is a chapter of, or affiliated directly or indirectly in any manner, with a local, regional, state, national or international organization, and, if so, the name and address of each such organization;

(VII)     Certified copies of the employee organization’s constitution and by-laws;

(VIII)     The date of expiration of any memorandum of understanding or extension of such memorandum;

(IX)     A description of the unit proposed by the employee organization specifying the classifications to be removed from the existing authorized employee representation unit(s) and placed in a separate authorized employee representation unit;

(X)     Individually signed employee authorization cards dated within 30 days prior to the filing of the petition which show proof of support of 40 percent or more of the employees within the proposed new representation unit, including 40 percent of the employees proposed to be removed from an existing unit and placed in the proposed new unit; which proposed unit must include at least 20 percent of the employees making up the authorized employee representation unit proposed to be modified. The requirement that the proposed unit must include at least 20 percent of the employees in the existing unit shall not apply where the employees are exercising their right to be in a peace officer only unit pursuant to Government Code § 3508.   Such signed employee authorization cards shall clearly set forth the intent of the employee with respect to representation by the employee organization and support for the proposed unit modification.

(B)     Response and Notice of Filing of Petition. Upon receipt of the petition, the Employee Relations Division shall expeditiously determine whether or not there has been compliance with the requirements of § 13.0206(a)(2)(A).  If an affirmative determination is made by the Employee Relations Division, it shall:

(I)     Advise all employees in the proposed new authorized employee representation unit of such proposed unit modification by posting notice at appropriate work locations for 20 days; and

(II)     Shall serve notice of the filing to the Director of Human Resources and all exclusive recognized employee organizations.

(C)     Contest to the Determination that the Petition is not in Compliance. If the Employee Relations Division determines that the petition is not in compliance with the requirements of § 13.0206(a)(2)(A), the Employee Relations Division shall so notify the petitioning employee organization.  If the petitioning employee organization disputes the finding that the petition was not in compliance, it may file a contest, in writing, with the Employee Relations Division within 30 days after service of notice that the petition was not in compliance.  If the contest is not granted by the Employee Relations Division, a hearing officer shall be selected by the County from the hearing officer panel established pursuant to § 13.0206(e) to conduct a hearing to determine compliance with the process provided for in this Section.  Following the hearing, the hearing officer shall grant or deny the contest.  If the hearing officer finds the petition was not in compliance with the requirements of § 13.0206(a)(2)(A), the petition shall be dismissed.  If the hearing officer finds that the petition was in compliance, the petition shall be processed in accordance with this Section.

(D)     No Challenges to Appropriateness of Proposed Unit. If no challenge is filed by any organization within 30 days after service of the notice of the filing of the petition, the Employee Relations Division shall submit the proposed bargaining unit modifications to the Board of Supervisors.

(E)     Challenges to the Appropriateness of Proposed Unit. Within 30 days after service of the notice of the filing of the petition, a challenge may be filed, in writing, with the Employee Relations Division by an employee organization or the Director of Human Resources.  A challenge by an employee organization or the Director of Human Resources shall state the grounds for the challenge clearly indicating the reasons why the proposed unit modification is not appropriate.  Any challenge filed by an employee organization must also be accompanied by proof of support of ten percent or more of the employees proposed to be removed from an existing authorized employee representation unit, provided, however, that the incumbent exclusive representative shall not be required to provide proof of support in order to file a challenge.  “Proof of support,” for purposes of this Section, shall mean individually signed employee authorization cards dated within the 30 day challenge period setting forth the intent of employees with respect to representation by the employee organization.

(F)     Hearing on Challenges. Upon receipt of a challenge to the appropriateness of the unit, a hearing officer shall be selected by the County from the hearing officer panel established pursuant to § 13.0206(e) to conduct a hearing.  Following the hearing, the hearing officer shall:

(I)     Grant or deny the challenge; or

(II)     Recommend modification of the authorized employee representation unit proposed by the employee organization.  If the hearing officer recommends modification, consolidation and/or the creation of new authorized employee representation unit, as applicable, the Employee Relations Division shall submit such recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

(G)     Creation of New Employee Representation Unit. The recommendation of the hearing officer regarding modification, consolidation and/or the creation of new representation units are subject to and effective upon approval of the Board of Supervisors.

(b)     Clarification of Existing Units. The unit clarification process is used to determine whether a particular classification is included or excluded (i.e. should be added to or deleted) from an existing unit based upon the existing unit description and the duties of the classification in question.  Unit clarification is only appropriate if the number of positions to be added or removed is substantially smaller than the number of employees in an existing unit so as to not create a question as to the majority status of the incumbent exclusive representative.  In the absence of a question of majority representation, a petition for clarification of an existing unit may be filed by the Director of Human Resources or by an exclusive representative.

(1)     Content and Timing of Petition. An exclusive recognized employee organization or Director of Human Resources, at any time, may file a petition, with the Employee Relations Division, to clarify whether a particular classification is placed in the appropriate bargaining unit based on the existing unit description specified in § 13.0205(a).

(A)     A petition for clarification filed by an exclusive representative must contain:

(I)     The name and street address of the exclusive representative;

(II)     The name, title, mailing address and business telephone number of the exclusive representative’s principal representative;

(III)     A listing of the classifications and the number of employees to be added to and/or removed from an existing authorized representation unit;

(IV)     A statement that the petitioning employee organization is an exclusive recognized employee organization;

(V)     The reasons why the petitioning exclusive representative seeks clarification.

(B)     A petition for clarification filed by the Director of Human Resources must contain:

(I)     A listing of the classifications and the number of employees to be added to and/or removed from an existing authorized employee representation unit;

(II)     The reasons why the Director of Human Resources seeks clarification.

(2)     Response and Notice of Filing of Petition. Upon receipt of a petition for clarification, the Employee Relations Division shall determine (1) whether or not the proposed clarification is appropriate and (2) whether there has been compliance with the requirements of § 13.0206(b)(1).  If both criteria are met, the Employee Relations Division shall then (1) advise all employees in the classifications proposed to be assigned to a different representation unit by posting notice at appropriate work locations for 30 days; and (2) serve notice of the filing to all exclusive representatives of petitioned-for employees if different from the petitioning exclusive representative and the Director of Human Resources unless the petition was filed by the Director.

(3)     No Contest to Petition or Challenges to the Proposed Unit Clarification. If the Employee Relations Division determines that the proposed clarification is appropriate and the petition is in compliance and there has been no challenge filed by any exclusive representative of the petitioned-for employees or the Director of Human Resources within 30 days after service of the notice of the filing of the petition, the Employee Relations Division shall submit the proposed unit clarification to the Board of Supervisors.

(4)     Contest to Employee Relations Division Determination and Challenges to the Proposed Unit Clarification. Within 30 days after service of the notice of filing of the petition, a challenge or contest may be filed, in writing, with the Employee Relations Division by any exclusive representative of the petitioned-for employees or the Director of Human Resources.  A challenge or contest shall clearly indicate the reasons or basis for the challenge or contest.

(5)     Hearing on Challenges. Upon receipt of a challenge to the appropriateness of the clarification or contest to the determination of the Employee Relations Division, a hearing officer shall be selected by the County from the hearing officer panel established pursuant to § 13.0206(e) to conduct a hearing.  Following the hearing, the hearing officer shall grant or deny the challenge and/or contest.  If the hearing officer recommends that a classification be added to an existing authorized employee representation unit or be removed from one authorized employee representation unit and placed in another, the Employee Relations Division shall submit such recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

(c)     Establishment of New Units. A newly authorized employee representation unit, comprised of unrepresented classifications not assigned to an authorized employee representation unit, may be created upon petition of an employee organization in instances where accretion of the unrepresented classifications into an existing unit is not appropriate pursuant to the unit clarification process.  A newly created unit established under this Section shall be subject to and consistent with the requirements of § 13.0205.

(1)     Content and Timing of Petition.

An employee organization may, at any time, propose that a newly authorized employee representation unit, comprised of unrepresented classifications, be created by filing a petition with the Employee Relations Division.

A petition for unit creation shall contain:

(A)     The name and street address of the employee organization;

(B)     The name, title, mailing address and business telephone numbers of the employee organization’s principal representative;

(C)     A statement of the reasons why a new unit is appropriate;

(D)     A statement that the organization has no restriction on membership based on race, color, creed, national origin, sex, age, physical handicap, marital status, sexual orientation or political affiliation;

(E)     A statement that the primary purpose of the employee organization is to represent employees on matters concerning wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment;

(F)     A statement as to whether the employee organization is a chapter of, or affiliated directly or indirectly in any manner, with a local, regional, state, national or international organization, and, if so, the name and address of each such organization;

(G)     Certified copies of the employee organization’s constitution and by-laws;

(H)     A description of the unit proposed by the employee organization specifying the classifications to be included;

(I)     Individually signed employee authorization cards dated within 30 days prior to the filing of the petition, which show proof of support of 40 percent, or more of the employees within the proposed new representation unit.  Such signed employee authorization cards shall clearly set forth the intent of the employee with respect to representation by the employee organization and the proposed unit composition.

(2)     Response and Notice of Filing of Petition. Upon receipt of the petition, the Employee Relations Division shall expeditiously determine whether or not there has been compliance with the requirements of § 13.0206(c)(1).  If an affirmative determination is made by the Employee Relations Division, it shall:

(A)     Advise all employees in the proposed new authorized employee representation unit by posting notice at appropriate work locations for 30 days; and

(B)     Shall serve notice of the filing on the Director of Human Resources and all exclusive recognized employee organizations.

(3)     Contest to the Determination that the Petition is not in Compliance. If the Employee Relations Division determines that the petition is not in compliance with the requirements of § 13.0206(c), the Employee Relations Division shall so notify the petitioning employee organization.  If the petitioning employee organization contests the finding that the petition was not in compliance, it may file a contest, in writing, with the Employee Relations Division within 30 days after service of notice that the petition was not in compliance.  If the contest is not granted by the Employee Relations Division, a hearing officer shall be selected by the County from the hearing officer panel established pursuant to § 13.0206(e) to conduct a hearing to determine compliance with the process provided for in this Section.  Following the hearing, the hearing officer shall grant or deny the contest.  If the hearing officer finds that the petition was not in compliance with the requirements of § 13.0206(c), the petition shall be dismissed.  If the hearing officer finds that the petition was in compliance, the petition shall be processed in accordance with this Section.

(4)     No Challenges to Appropriateness of Proposed Unit. If no challenge is filed by any employee organization or Director of Human Resources within 30 days after service of the notice of the filing of the petition, the Employee Relations Division shall submit the proposed new authorized employee representation unit to the Board of Supervisors.

(5)     Challenges to the Appropriateness of Proposed Unit. Within 30 days after mailing notice of the filing of the petition, a challenge may be filed, in writing, with the Employee Relations Division by an employee organization or the Director of Human Resources.  A challenge by an employee organization or the Director of Human Resources shall state the grounds for the challenge, clearly indicating the reasons why the proposed new unit is not appropriate.  Any challenge filed by an employee organization shall be accompanied by proof of support of ten percent or more of the employees in the newly proposed authorized employee representation unit.  “Proof of support,” for purposes of this Section, shall mean individually signed employee authorization cards dated within the 30 day challenge period setting forth the intent of employees with respect to representation by the employee organization.

(6)     Hearing on Challenges. Upon receipt of a challenge to the appropriateness of the unit, a hearing officer shall be selected by the County from the hearing officer panel established pursuant to § 13.0206(e) to conduct a hearing.  Following the hearing, the hearing officer shall:

(A)     Grant or deny the challenge; or

(B)     Recommend modification of the proposed new authorized employee representation unit.  If the hearing officer recommends the creation of new authorized employee representation unit, the Employee Relations Division shall submit such recommendation to the Board of Supervisors.

(7)     Creation of New Employee Representation Unit. The recommendation of the hearing officer regarding modification, consolidation and/or the creation of new representation units are subject to and effective upon approval of the Board of Supervisors.

(d)     Assignment of New Classifications to Representation Units. The unit assignment process is used to determine the placement of a newly created classification in an authorized employee representation unit based upon the existing unit descriptions and duties of the new classification.

(1)     Placement of New Classification in Appropriate Representation Unit. Human Resources shall review the duties of any proposed new job classifications in relation to the existing unit descriptions contained in § 13.0205(a) and shall recommend placement of all new job classifications in an appropriate authorized employee representation unit.  A newly created job classification shall be assigned to an authorized employee representation unit upon approval by the Board of Supervisors.

(e)     Hearing Officer Panel. The County will establish and maintain a Hearing Officer Panel that will contain the names of five hearing officers.  Employee organizations may make recommendations for hearing officers.  In order to be on the panel, the Hearing Officer must be a third party neutral who is not employed by either a public entity or an employee organization; must have experience as a hearing officer or arbitrator in disputes regarding the composition and determination of bargaining units; and must agree to be on the panel.  The costs of the hearing officer shall be shared equally by the County and any participating employee organizations.  Such costs do not include the costs incurred in the use of any employees, agents, or attorneys.

(Ord. 3991, passed – -2006)

This is only the county’s version of what they want the public to know, but the real truth is that the county knew Lynda was taking fraudulent actions on cases since at least 2004. Had the county terminated her then instead of giving her a 2 week suspension without pay as her disciplinary action she wouldn’t have had the opportunity to steal another $100,000 in taxpaying dollars. I was personally involved in a situation as a result of Lynda’s fraudulent actions and think it is ludicrous that the county allowed this situation to get to the level it got to. Since I don’t work for the county anymore I don’t have to fear retaliation because theres nothing they can do to make my life hell anymore……..

Since January 14, 2000 I was a Calworks worker in the Fontana office and worked with Lynda Holman who was also a Calworks/CalLearn worker. At times we would all have cases where the worker and client just didn’t mix well and we would trade cases with each other because a person that may be difficult to deal with for one person could be a piece of cake for another. Lynda Holman came to me one day in 2004 with a Calworks/Food Stamps case and asked me if I had one I wanted to trade with her because she said she couldn’t keep Krystale xxxxxxxxx case anymore because it was her son Jewels x-girlfriend’s case and they broke up and she was going back to Riverside County to live with her mother. For me that was easy because all I had to do was discontinue the case at the end of the month, so essentially for me it would be 1 less case. When I received the case from her I did read it and the case was originally in another office with a Fontana address (Jewels address) but the other office hadn’t transferred it over yet.. There was a request form completed by Lynda stating that the case was a “companion” case to one of her CalLearn cases and for them to transfer it directly to her. If there were 2 recipients at the same address they were considered companion cases and one worker would carry them both to ensure the rent and utility deductions were being used correctly in the budget.

At some point between the time I traded the case with Lynda and the end of the month Jewel and Krystale reconciled. The regulations for food stamps state that whoever eats meals together should all be on the same food stamp case and if you sleep together it is automatically determined that you eat together. Jewel and his son Jewel and Krystale and her child all needed to be on the same food stamp case together. Krystale could have still kept her cash aid for herself and her child as Jewel was not the father and they were not married yet at this point. Krystale told Lynda she had called and left me several messages and I don’t return her calls so Lynda gave her my deputy directors phone number and told her to call her and tell her she didn’t get her benefits and her worker doesn’t return her calls. I was called into my district managers office and asked why I hadn’t issued benefits for this client as the client (Krystale) stated she had left me several messages saying she was going to continue to reside in San Bernardino County and to cancel her Inter County Transfer. At this point I was getting a little resentful at the fact that I did her a favor and I never opened my mouth about her having that case to management however, I was getting called in to the office for “not doing my job” in so many words.

I was so angry with Lynda because of the situation I felt she put me in – she would sit outside for smoke breaks and brag about how much money her son Jewel made doing home loans and bring home $5000 – $6000 a month, yet when Im getting called in by management and asked why I didn’t issue Krystale’s benefits she assumed I would suddenly forget about how I just heard her bragging how much money her son makes? I have never been one to believe in snitching – if anything I despise snitches with a passion but I started to feel backed into a corner because of this I had decisions to make. Do I just issue Krystale her benefits and keep my mouth shut? How can I issue food stamps to her knowing that Jewels income will put them over income for food stamps and she wouldn’t be eligible to them? If I did issue them with this knowledge and it got discovered someday what was happening then I would go down for exactly what she is sitting in jail for right now and that was a risk I wasn’t willing to take.

To make this situation a little more complicated let me also add this – during the entire time this was going on Lynda and I sat facing each other with 2 desks between us. I finally told my district manager what happened and we went through the case and I showed her exactly what was going on. Shortly thereafter I started getting interviewed by fraud investigators and other people regarding the situation and I told them exactly what had happened. They had me set appointments with Krystale to add Jewel to her case and to obtain different written documents as proof. I told management I didn’t want to see them for the appointment as things were already very tense dealing with the situation. Lynda then caught on to what was happening and it was getting very, very, very uncomfortable with us sitting facing each other. I do not play “pretend” very well and looking at her everyday and pretending she didn’t put me in a bad situation was not going to be an option. Everyday she would walk by and say her little remarks and I would sit at my desk and clench my fist because I wanted to clock her dentures right out of her mouth and besides teeth have never been a requirement to work for TAD anyways. I finally told my supervisor that I was done with the game that was being played and I was warning them if they didn’t do something that I would take my next plan of action and that was a path they really didn’t want to walk down with me. I had already been to see the BOS once before because of the management at TAD and the last thing they wanted me to do was to go back there.

I finally ended up going to see a counselor through the EAP program who took me off work for approximately 30 days. While I was out they had decided to give Lynda a 2 week suspension without pay as her disciplinary action for the handling of Krystale’s case. Once I had used all of my time on the books I was going to have to go back but Lynda still had to do her 2 week suspension so their resolution to the problem was to send me to work in Colton in a child care unit for a few weeks until Lyndas suspension started. They didn’t send Lynda to another office they sent me – yet I was the one who hadn’t done anything wrong. I ended up returning to Fontana and Lynda served her 2 weeks suspension without pay and while she was off they moved my desk. Once she returned things finally calmed down a lot however it was never forgotten what she did. We avoided each other to the best of our abilities until I resigned from the county in April of 2007.

During the time I was out I had people calling me everyday asking me why I had made up stuff to get Lynda in trouble because she was telling people I made up lies and told management she was frauding them to get her in trouble and she hadn’t done anything wrong. Not that peoples opinions of me really matter but part of me writing this is my “I told you so” to all of you who believed her. Ive contemplated going to visit her in West Valley just to say “hi” but am thinking going to her next court date on March 24 at 8:30am, Department 26 in the San Bernardino Courthouse would be a lot more entertaining.

In this economy it is asinine that government officials are frivolously flushing our taxpaying dollars down the toilet like this. I think TAD management should be held personally responsible for the repayment of the taxpayers dollars that Lynda embezzled from 2006-2009 because they chose to continue to employ her after she had already been caught for misuse of county funds in 2004. They should also be responsible for the $36,000 a year it will now cost taxpayers to keep her in jail for probably the rest of her life. If they were held personally responsible maybe they would think twice before passing the buck as they are so used to doing. The general public could not begin to imagine the amount of their hard earned money gets frivolously thrown away everyday instead of holding people accountable for the choices they have chosen for themselves in life.

Nicole Bay
nb77grn@att.net

Linda Haugan

Well this is the day for exposing corruption . . . or for the guilty to face the music.  Today a case we have been talking about for over a year here at iePolitics finally made it to mainstream media and it doesn’t even involve cops.

Two former county welfare workers have been indicted, having stolen over $500,000 combined.  Of course the Linda Haugen’s and Nancy Swanson’s of HSS said we were full of crap.  Well members of the Board of Supervisors, I told you so!  And if you would conduct an audit of HSS departments you would find tens of millions of dollars in fraud and corruption, much of which is purpetrated by Linda Haugen and Nancy Swanson themselves.

One of the most interesting facts in the Sun story is that one of the former eligibility workers is also a convicted felon.  What have I been telling you guys for years about the TAD hiring process?  No one ever believes me about the number of convicted felons working for San Bernardino County.  Well here is one good example.

Linda Haugan

I promised Traci I would publish her story and I simply have not had time to write a piece that does her situation justice.   Like so many of us involved with this blog, she has been screwed over by the county in a grand way.  And like so many of us, there is one person whose name stands out as a common denominator.   That, of course, is Linda Haugan.

Linda is one of the most hateful, vindictive and vicious people I have ever dealt with.  She is someone without a conscious and someone who is happy to do evil on behalf of her boss(es).

We know Linda had a sexual relationship with Mark Uffer, which is one of the reasons why she was able to get away with what she did.  It is obvious to anyone who has observed the two together that she and Andrew Lamberto also have some type of relationship.  She is protected so that she can use her position to take out those county powers deem necessary.

Remember, she oversees TAD, Aging and Adult Services, Children’s Services, Veterans Affairs, and Child Support.  That is a LOT of power, and ability to ruin lives, that has been given to one person—a very, very evil person.

I don’t have time to go into Traci’s story now but her life was turned upside down by an incompetent Child Support employee.  When she complained, she was retaliated against to the point of being driven into poverty.  She went from being a business owner to having to apply for aid.  In the process she raised hell with the County Administrative Office and the Board of Supervisors.  And Linda and her staff went to work.

Not only did Child Support ruin Traci’s business but then when she applied for aid TAD found reasons to deny/discontinue her three times.  Traci’s health has suffered to the point she needs specialists so now they are also messing with her Medi-Cal and medical records at ARMC, another organization Haugan was responsible for during part of this tragedy.

Haugan is a vicious bitch who should have been fired long ago.  Little do our board of supervisors know what will happen in the future thanks to what she has done.  No, this is not a  threat.  It is a promise.  And as I have said time and again, we don’t do things that are against the law.  What is planned will be done lawfully.  We will all have our day.

The ideal background for this position consists of a combination of experience, which should include at least three years of progressively responsible administrative or management experience within a large social service organization to include responsibility for multiple programs and directing a significant number of staff through subordinate supervisors, and education which is commensurate with the responsibilities of this position.

The ideal candidate will be an organized results-oriented manager who has a commitment to customer service, along with excellent interpersonal skills, being a team player and creating a positive and fair work environment.  In addition, this person must be able to embrace new ideas and effectively implement them in order to help customers achieve self-sufficiency.

Note:  There are no minimum education requirements. In other words, the position was created for Michael de la Rosa.  All of us except those who run HSS understand that completing MLA and reading the liner notes of the latest book on business strategy does not replace an MBA.

Linda Haugan and Nancy Swanson, however, have been able to get away with promoting their cougar-type conquests with little oversight.  We have to wonder what has happened.  I’ve heard they are simply waiting for there to be a minimum number of applicants so that this looks like a real recruitment before they hand the job to our former embezzeler MDLR.  After all, only in the county of San Bernardino do we reward crooks with promotions.

Well this is embarrassing! Not for us but for the idiot who runs TAD. You see, Ms. Swanson, who belittles ESP employees who are required to have more education than Swanson and her band of ignoramuses, didn’t bother to check Lucy’s claims of being a college graduate.   Why should she?  She is of such low-level intelligence herself, she would not be able to tell the difference between a college graduate  and a high school drop out.

Anyone who knew Lucy knew there was no way in Hades she was educated much beyond the sixth grade.  So when someone saw the masterpiece above, they checked it out.  And Lucy was given the choice of resigning or being fired for making false statements on her employment application.

We do have one question though.  Since we all know MLA is exactly the same as receiving a Master’s Degree—just ask Nancy and Linda—that should have covered Lucy, should it have not?  We don’t understand that part.

We hear she may now be working for the city of Ontario.  Sounds like a good fit to us.

Brown’s Budget Proposes Painful Cuts Affecting Low-Income Californians
Revenue Solutions Also Proposed As Part of the Mix

Newly-elected Governor Jerry Brown unveiled his proposed budget for the 2011-12 fiscal year. His budget proposes $12.5 billion in spending cuts, $12 billion in revenue extensions and changes, $1.9 billion in other “budget solutions” and a $1 billion reserve. The plan addresses an 18-month budget gap of $25.4 billion, which includes a current year deficit of $8.2 billion and a budget year (July 1, 2011-June 30, 2012) deficit of $17.2 billion.

On the revenue side, Brown proposes a ballot initiative to maintain the state’s current tax rates for an additional five years and uniformly apply the single sales factor income allocation rules to certain corporate taxpayers. There are also some one-time savings and borrowing, including: $1.8 billion in borrowing from special funds, $1.7 billion in property tax shifts, $1.0 billion from Proposition 10/First Five reserves, and $0.9 billion from Proposition 63 moneys to fund community mental health services.

Realignment

Brown’s realignment proposal would transfer responsibility for administering and paying for several types of services to counties, including mental health services, substance abuse services, child welfare services, adult protective services, and several functions in Corrections and CalFire. For the health and human services programs, Brown proposes that the state would continue to be the single agency for data collection and auditing, but would ultimately reduce the administering state agencies by 25 percent. These programs would be funded through an extension of the Vehicle License Fee (VLF), sales tax increases implemented in 2009, and through a ballot initiative to use $861 million in Mental Health Services Act (Proposition 63) funds. This is Phase One of Brown’s Realignment Proposal.

Under Phase Two, the state would become responsible for costs associated with health care programs, including California Children’s Services and In-Home Supportive Services (in addition to Medi-Cal for childless adults as required federally by the Affordable Care Act), and the counties would assume responsibility for CalWORKs, CalFresh administration, child support and child care programs. Public health programs would remain at the local level.

Human Services

Governor Brown proposed a 25% cut to the CalWORKs program funding — a full $1.5 billion in cuts that would eliminate more than 115,000 families from all cash aid. While it would repeal damaging CalWORKs proposals approved in 2009, it would them with even more damaging provisions in some cases.

CalWORKs. The Governor made the following policy proposals to accomplish the reductions:

• “Rigid” 48-month time limit for assistance. After 48 months on aid (applied retroactively), all families would lose assistance unless: (a) they meet a federal time limit exemption such as the parent being on SSI, the parent is caring for a disabled family member, or the parent is a teen who is not head of household; or (b) they are meeting work participation requirements. Existing statutory exemptions to the time clock would not apply. According to the Department of Social Services (DSS), 147,000 households have hit the 48-month time limit and 115,000 would lose all cash aid during 2011-12. The state cuts $698.1 million by doing this.

• “Modified” Safety Net. The same 48-month time limit would apply to the Safety Net and, apparently, to Child-Only cases. The only exception is if the adult is meeting work participation, but even in this case the family would receive a child-only grant level. According to DSS, 52,000 families in the two safety nets have exceeded the 48-month time limit and 36,000 would lose all aid in 2011-12. This number appears to be a subset of the overall number of families affected by the new time limit.

• 13% Grant Cut to CalWORKs Grants. All grant levels would be reduced by 13%. The maximum grant for a family of three would fall from $694 a month to $604 a month. According to DSS, CalFresh benefits would increase by $27 a month on average. The state cuts $405 million by doing this. (Note: The current maximum grant for a family of $694 is the same as the state provided in 1989. The average CalWORKs grant currently of about $503 a month would be reduced by $65, to about $438 a month. A cut to the CalWORKs grant reduces the number of families meeting work participation, making the state more likely to receive a federal penalty.)

• No Extension of Exemption to Work Requirements. Current law, set to expire at the end of June 2011, exempts families with children up to 23 months old from work requirements. These exemptions would be allowed to expire, meaning that these families have to met work requirements by July of this year.

• $376 Million Reduction in the County Single Allocation Fund. This reduction is equal to the reduction given to counties when the exemption to work requirements was put into law. While the young child exemptions are ended, counties would be required to reduce even without the law. It is unclear how counties would achieve these reductions.

• $1.5 Billion Shift of Welfare Funding to Other State Purposes. The budget proposes to shift nearly $1 billion in TANF funds to the Student Aid Commission to pay for CalGrants and to reduce General Fund spending by the same amount. The budget also proposes to reduce state spending on CalWORKs by $533 million and count existing state spending in other state programs towards the state’s MOE requirement. While states have some flexibility to spend TANF outside of welfare and to meet MOE as proposed, in general, the expenses must meet one of the four TANF purposes. DSS was unable to provide a summary of the MOE cost shifts at this writing.

• Repeal of ABX4 8. This legislation, passed in July of 2009 and set to go into effect in July 2011, is proposed to be repealed. ABX4 8 made imposed new self-sufficiency reviews and cut grants to children grants by up to 50%. The repeal, however, is replaced by the above list of new proposals — some of which are more damaging than ABX4 8.

Child Care

• Restoration of Stage 3. The Governor proposes to restore Stage 3 child care in April, but with new cost sharing provisions for families who are in higher cost child care programs. The proposal does not address what families will do until April.

• 48-Month Time Limit on CalWORKs. The budget proposes to realize $34 million in child care savings from imposing time limits in CalWORKs, likely from families that are getting child care but not meeting work requirements after 48 months.

• Elimination of Child Care for 11- and 12-Year-Old Children. This proposal will cut $716 million from Department of Education child care programs and $34 million from CalWORKs.

SSI/SSP

• $15-a-Month Grant Cut to SSI Benefits. The budget proposes to reduce the maximum SSI grant for families from $845 a month to $830 a month, the federal minimum. Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI) grants, not proposed for elimination this year, would be reduced by $15 a month for individuals. State cuts would amount to $177 million from the blind, aged and disabled. Cash Assistance Program for Immigrants (CAPI)

CFAP — California Food Assistance Program. No cuts are proposed.

Health

The budget proposes $1.7 billion in cuts to Medi-Cal and $39 million in cuts to Healthy Families as well as some mechanisms to secure federal funding. The proposals include:

• Restricting Utilization of Services in Medi-Cal. This proposal places a maximum annual dollar amount on equipment such as hearing aids, durable medical equipment, urological supplies, incontinence supplies, and wound care. Beneficiaries would not be able to receive more than six prescription drugs per month (except for life-saving drugs). Lastly, beneficiaries would be limited to ten physician visits per year. Savings are calculated at $217.4 million.

• Requiring Beneficiary Cost-Sharing. Restricting Access to Services and Imposing Cost-Sharing. Beneficiaries would see an imposition of co-pays of $5 on physician, clinic, dental, and pharmacy services ($3 for lower-cost preferred drugs). The co-pay for emergency room services would cost $50, and $100 a day with a $200 maximum for hospital stays. These co-pays would apply to all beneficiaries in the Medi-Cal program. Altogether, this would amount to a $557.1 million cut from Medi-Cal.

• Eliminating Over-the-Counter Cough and Cold Medicine. A $16.6 million cut from the current level.

• Eliminating the Adult Day Health Care Program. $176 million cut.

• Reduce Medi-Cal Provider Rates by Ten Percent. This would reduce by ten percent the amount paid to physicians, pharmacies, clinics, medical transportation, home health, Adult Day Health Care providers, certain hospitals, and nursing facilities. A $709.4 million cut.

• Extend the Existing Hospital Fee. A fee on hospitals that receive Medi-Cal funding is used to leverage other federal funding. This would account for a decrease of $160 million.

• Eliminating the Healthy Families Vision Benefit. This would affect all Healthy Families beneficiaries. $11.3 million cut.

• Increasing Premiums for Some Healthy Families Beneficiaries. For families at or above 150 percent of the federal poverty level (FPL, $33,075 annually for a family of four), their monthly premiums would increase. For families between 150-200% of FPL, their premiums would rise from $16 to $30 per month per child. Families between 201-250% of FPL would see their premiums rise from $24 to $42 per child per month. This proposal would affect 565,000 children, almost two-thirds of Healthy Families enrollees, for a state savings of $22.2 million.

• Increase Healthy Families Co-Pays. All children in the program would be charged $50 per emergency room visit and $100-$200 per day for inpatient hospital stays, for savings of $5.5 million.

• Continue Collection of Taxes on Managed Care Plans. Like the Medi-Cal hospital fee, California taxes managed care organizations and uses these funds to leverage additional federal dollars. This helps to continue to provide Healthy Families coverage. This accounts for a savings of $97.2 million.

Housing

The budget proposes to eliminate all existing redevelopment agencies on July 1. A successor agency or agencies (as yet undetermined) would be charged with fulfilling existing contractual and bond obligations, but no new debt could be issued, nor any project areas created, extended, or expanded. Public housing authorities would be responsible for existing balances in Low- and Moderate-Income housing funds. The proposal is silent on a number of important issues. Localities would be given authority to do locally-funded development.

Creation of affordable housing through redevelopment has always been a mixed bag. Although approximately $1 billion is theoretically available each year, the lowest-income families have not been served as the economy has worsened. Some agencies have not created much housing, as the budget document itself pointed out. Western Center will have a seat at the table as the redevelopment proposal is fleshed out.

As noted above, the budget also proposes to shift Prop. 63 funding to existing programs. This will result in a loss of housing dollars for mentally-ill homeless persons, an original component of Prop. 63.

Copyright 2011 Western Center on Law & Poverty

Leading the fight to secure
housing, healthcare and a strong safety net
for low-income people in California

We also hear that the department is so flush in funding again that overtime was started back up a few weeks ago.  Good to know our tax dollars are being spent so well.

Linda Haugan

The fire department was called to a Transitional Assistance Department (TAD) office because of smoke in the building.  The fire department arrived and told employees to evacuate the building.  Ooops . . . that was a mistake because the fire department forgot to get the permission of the deputy director who was not on-site.   The district managers and supervisors were in a corner office huddled in fear because they didn’t know what to do.  Then they found out the employees were all outside evacuated.   So one of them went outside and ordered all the employees back into the building because they evacuated without permission.  Ah. . . I miss TAD so much.

So what happens when one of their own commits an act much worse than what the employees are being accused of?  You see, in this case, TAD Supervisor Sanci Black had an employee access Sanci’s significant other’s C-IV file and make changes to the documents.  This is clearly a misdemeanor at best as well as violation of a number of county rules and regulations.  Any line staff employee would be fired for this.  But Sanci isn’t line staff.

Not only isn’t Sanci line staff but rather a supervisor, she is also a member of the Board of Directors of the San Bernardino. Public Employees Association (SBPEA), the union representing TAD employees.  But it gets better. Sanci’s sister is none other than former TAD employee (supervisor?) and current SBPEA labor representative Natalie Harts.

Unlike the 100 or so line staff SBPEA has all but refused to represent in the witch hunt, the union seems to be getting Black special treatment.  Not only has she not been charged with a crime, she has not lost her job.   As a matter of fact, it appears she has been given little or no discipline.

For those who don’t realize it, the ONLY representation TAD employees have at SBPEA is Sanci Black and Al Wozniak, both TAD supervisors.  There is not a single member of TAD line staff on the union board of directors.  And they wonder why they have no representation when TAD management goes on their rampages.

]]> http://iepolitics.net/2010/09/14/iepolitics-more-tad-supervisor-abuse/feed/ 1 http://iepolitics.net/2010/09/14/iepolitics-abusive-supervisor-at-tad/ http://iepolitics.net/2010/09/14/iepolitics-abusive-supervisor-at-tad/#comments Wed, 15 Sep 2010 05:01:52 +0000 Administrator http://iepolitics.com/?p=5333 Continue reading →]]> Can’t discuss the details of this one yet except to say it was serious enough that the Sheriff’s Department had to be called to a TAD office to protect employees from a supervisor.  An attorney has already been hired to sue the county.  Will provide more details as the case progresses.

Linda Haugan

This came to me from the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organizations, Inc. Newsletter:

San Bernardino County, whose Director Linda Haugan is also the President of the California Welfare Directors Association, has been imposes [sic] a school nonattendance penalty upon 16 and 17 years old minors in lieu of referring them to a WtW activity as required by state law. This unlawful practice was vehemently defended by the county at a state hearing by San Bernardino County Official LuCinda Larson. It is the policy of DSS that if a 16 and 17 year old child fails to attend school, then they shall be referred to WtW. If they fail to participate in a WtW activity, then they will be sanctioned for failure to participate in an assigned WtW activity.

Welfare and Institutions Code section 12253.5(e) reads:

If it is determined by the county that any child in the assistance unit who is age 16 years or older is not regularly attending school as required, or participating pursuant to a welfare-to-work plan, the needs of the child shall not be considered in computing the grant of the family under Section 11450 unless it has been determined by the county that good cause exists.

This is yet another example of Linda Haugan breaking the law.  The policy HAS ALWAYS been to allow children to go to school or participate in WtW before sanctioning the family unit.  This is another example of how San Bernardino County makes up its own laws so that it can falsify stats to make it look like it is doing a better job than it is.

Linda Haugan

I supposed it was the notice from my attorney that former County Administrative Officer Mark Uffer wants to depo me that triggered a litany of bad memories to come back into the forefront of my thoughts.  I have had a really tough couple of weeks.

My very first contact with Mark Uffer was over a Department of Children’s Services report I had made.  The short version of the story is that a mom and her boyfriend had come into the office to meet with her eligibility worker, her eligibility worker’s supervisor, the district manager, me and my supervisor to complain about the services she was receiving from the CW side of the house.  Her complaints really had nothing to do with ESP but I was one of the few who could get along with her so I was in the meeting. My supervisor was invited as she was new and needed to meet this client as the client was a high profile hell raiser.

During the meeting, the client mentioned that her little girl’s father was living with them.  He had a stash of guns and drugs and was “homicidal” and “suicidal.” I offered her domestic violence services so that she and her little girl would have shelter.  She  refused, insisting they were all safe under the same roof.

I made a DCS report.  The Sheriff’s Department responded within an hour.  They did not find him that day but went back the next day and made an arrest.  He really did have guns and drugs and was homicidal.  He was sent to state prison to cool his heels and drug rehab once he got out.  He has since re-offended.

As I said, this was a high profile hell raiser.  She called the Governor’s office on me and accused me of setting her up.  I found out about this through my supervisor who indicated the Governor’s office had called Mark Uffer and/or Linda Haugen.  Haugen claimed I did not have justification for making the DCS report because I did not personally see the guns.  (We are not allowed to make DCS reports for drugs, even when we see them on the person of the client.)  Linda tried to have me disciplined for making the report but there is little problem referred to as  the Mandated Reporter law.  I filed a complaint against her with the Fraud, Waste and Abuse hot line.

After that incident, everyone in my office was afraid to make DCS reports because they worried about being disciplined for it.  Some weeks later, we had a man in the lobby beating his 8-year-0ld daughter over the head with a belt.  The receptionist called a supervisor and the supervisor refused to intervene because of what happened to me.  So she called me.  And I called the Sheriff’s Department and basically told TAD management to f-off.  I was on solid ground and I knew it.

That was a Friday.  By Saturday morning I was really pissed off thinking about what happened to that little girl and that everyone was afraid to stand up to Haugan and Uffer.  So I email Uffer. I was a little upset.  He emailed me back with an hour or so and promised to look into it.  I also called the Governor’s office myself and spoke with one of the governor’s field reps and told him what happened as a result of the call they had made to our county.  Needless to say, I was left alone that time around.

Fast forward six months or more and I was working the the Del Rosa office.  Due to its proximity to the freeway, the Victorville office would get a lot of transients and families living in their vehicles. I ran the snack bar for office for the last year or so and I know it was common for ESSes to purchase items for hungry children out of the snack bar.  It’s one thing to see a hungry adult; it’s another altogether to have a little kid crying because their stomach hurt. And it’s easier to conduct an interview when the children aren’t crying.

We never gave food to the children directly but instead offered it their parents to give to them.  Generally, parents were happy to do so.

Anyway, I had been off work for seven weeks between stints at Victorville and Del Rosa.  Apparently during that time someone had given food directly to a child and the child choked.  The child was fine but the parent threaten to sue. So in their typical overreaction fashion, a rule was made that we could not give anyone food for any reason. We could not even have candy dishes, as many of us did, on our desks.

One day a client I had never met, a tweaker, came in to see me.  As soon as she walked through the door, her little girl started to whine and said, “Mommy, I’m hungry.  My tummy hurts real bad.”

I had had a package of cookies at me desk but thought it was well hidden.  The hungry child found them and begged her mom for one.  I left it up to the mom who gave one to the little girl.  My supervisor witnessed this whole thing and made a point of coming over to my desk for the purpose of writing me up.

This was during a very turbulent time in my life.  My doctor had ordered counseling but the county refused me the time off to go.  I was not doing well.  As soon as I walked the client out the door, I ended up in the district manager’s office absolutely balling.  The DM told me she had give a Lunchable to a little boy the day before for the same reason and not to worry about it.  She had my supervisor in her office shortly thereafter.  It wasn’t long after that my doctor took me off work for stress.

I think of that little girl once in a while, wondering if life ever got better for her.   Mom was clearly an addict but I wasn’t allowed to make a DCS referral.  There are no words to describe how much I hate TAD and its management.  Let us eat cake.

• Facebook is NEVER okay on county time.  Likely, over the period of the last few years, there have been dozens, if not hundreds of employees disciplined, if not fired, for such usage.
• There seems to be a different standard for acceptable behavior depending on whether one is line staff or one is a TAD supervisor.  The problem is that the Code of Ethics and the county’s computer usage policy does not differentiate between who is allowed to abuse the system and who is not.  Everyone is supposed to be treated the same.
• Anyone who thinks that because someone complains about a hostile work environment and nothing is done about it likely means there isn’t one in the first place is SMOKING CRACK.  This county is famous for creating hostile work environments and then claiming there is none.  Here are some examples I have personally witnessed in TAD and other departments I have worked for:
  • I was asked to pull arrest warrants on African Americans so that the deputies could go on a “coon hunt.”
  • I was told by the Division Commander that he would never hire an African American employee because they “smell funny.”
  • I was told that “boys will be boys” and that the clerks in the department are paid more than in other departments to put up with it.
  • I was told to never bend over to pick something up in front of the Lieutenant.  I soon learned why as one clerk did just that and he went up behind her and rubbed himself between her buttocks, all in full view of the entire office.
  • I have been asked by a supervisor to discuss a director’s sexual preference on the blog.
  • I witnessed employees referring to the African American employees in our office as “the Sister Act” and the “Black Caucus.”
  • I watched as our manager explained to an employee that her carpel tunnel was not from typing all day, but from giving her boyfriend hand jobs.  He proceeded to give a demonstration.
  • I have had sent to me on county computers every form of porn imaginable with the exception of child porn.
  • I posted some of the racist emails sent out from Sheriff’s computers.  Here is the link:  Email
  • I have personally witnessed a TAD supervisor/manager use his authority to get his subordinates to have sex with him.
  • I have been told that employees in their 50s tend to be slackers and need to be replaced.
  • I have been asked for a list of my medications and details of counseling by my supervisor.
  • I have personally spoken with employees who have had their own welfare cases discussed with them by TAD management.
• TAD is the epitome of hostile work environment.  It is known by county administrators as “The TAD Mentality.”  I was in a meeting with Gerry Newcomb several years ago and those are his exact words. That is what everyone calls it.
• TAD is run by a crazy women who surrounds herself with young svengali’s.  If you aren’t Mexican, young, and male, forget it. They are treated very differently than everyone else.
• TAD abuses the civil rights of employees and recipients EVERY DAY.  They take pride in the fact that they don’t follow the law.

I do not know Jerry, the employee in question.  I do know several people who know the supervisors in question. I trust their judgment.  These supervisors should be fired.

Also, updates on anything else would be great.

I remember we previously discussed her affinity for sharing her sex life with her staff.  It pales in comparison to the other district manager we have featured several times who is known by her staff as the “C—” because she likes to tell her staff which orifice her boyfriend/husband inserted himself into during any given interlude the night before.

Either conversation and both individuals are inappropriate in the workplace.  It would be nice to know that Lamberto is finally doing something about sexual harassment in the workplace, but we know that is too much to ask.  So we shall ask again, Where’s Lucy?

No, that title is not in reference to you. I was asked to pass this along in reference to your question a few weeks ago regarding SBPEA and the County of San Bernardino.

It seems Andrew Lamberto/Linda Haugan/Bob Blough are at it again. Remember that email I sent  to you and George that you both ignored regarding PID Chief Virginia Lugo, et al., using C-IV to run all employees to see if they have ever been on a welfare case of any kind?  Well sometimes illegal activities backfire.

And this is one such case.  You see there is a TAD supervisor who just happens to be very, very, very close to a TAD client, if you know what I mean.  That TAD supervisor instructed a subordinate to go into that TAD client’s case and make changes.  That’s right. They did not just look at the case; they had changes made to the case on behalf of their very, very, very close “friend.”  Well, darnitall if they didn’t get caught.  What is poor Linda/Andrew to do when one of their favs gets caught committing a crime?

Well, we know what happens to PID Chief Virginia Lugo when she gets caught committing a crime.  Nothing . . . absolutely nothing.  But the crime victims get fired.

We cannot have double standards, now can we?  So that means since this is a TAD supervisor, we should pretend nothing happened.  And that is almost what happened.  You see, unlike any subordinate that would have been FIRED!!!, the TAD supervisor was allowed to instead transfer to another office.

But the most interesting part of this whole deal is that this TAD supervisor just also happens to be a member of the Board of Directors of the San Bernardino Public Employees Association.  That $50,000 sure did go a long way. If I were you, I’d demand your share since you seem to want to turn a blind eye to Blough’s wrongdoing. You should get paid for it too just like the other four supervisors. I’m sure Bob and Scott will be happy to cut you a check for say . . . $50,000.  Or have they already?

Linda Haugan

An edict has been issued.  The peasants are no longer allowed to have fans or radios at their desks.  It costs too much in electricity.

It must be nice working in that castle where every office has a flat screen television, a stereo, maybe a refrigerator, and maybe a fan and/or heater.  We could never allow our royalty to break a sweat or have to sit in a hot office where the odor from the unwashed masses reaches puke level.

Yes, we should be happy with the occasional crumb we are thrown.  We are lucky to have jobs.  Let us eat cake as long as it is not at our desks.

As with the Sheriff’s Department, HSS Administrators have attempted to cover the cases up but employees have leaked the information.  It seems the perpetrators could be county employees of note.  When I worked at the Victorville office, I had a number of high ranking county officials’ and political figures’ children on my caseload as well as many county employees.  We do have to wonder why Ramos hasn’t made this prosecution a priority.

It doesn’t add up that on one hand they are going after employees for computer usage but letting hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraud go unpunished.  But then that is the county way.

Back in the day if I had a client threatened to call the Board of Supervisors on me for a decision I made, as long as I knew I was right, I would dial the number for them and hand them the phone.  I knew the BOS could not care less what happened in TAD. I see that is still true.

]]> http://iepolitics.net/2010/07/24/iepolitics-500000-welfare-fraud-case-in-high-desert/feed/ 0 http://iepolitics.net/2010/07/12/iepolitics-more-civil-rights-violations-at-tad/ http://iepolitics.net/2010/07/12/iepolitics-more-civil-rights-violations-at-tad/#comments Tue, 13 Jul 2010 00:37:21 +0000 Administrator http://iepolitics.com/?p=4402 Continue reading →]]> The San Bernardino County Transitional Assistance Department (TAD) continues to violate civil rights of its workers.  iePolitics has been told that TAD managers are telling new hires who are receiving welfare that if they do not report their new jobs to their workers within ten days it is welfare fraud and they will be terminated.

First, this is labeling employees who are receiving welfare benefits as an inferior class.  Second, it is holding them to a different set of standards than other employees. Third, it is labeling welfare recipients who go to work for the county as an inferior class.  Fourth, it is holding them to a different set of standards than other welfare recipients.

The county does not have welfare fraud. Just ask Virginia Lugo.  That’s why she got rid of most of the fraud investigators.

The county, as an employer, does not have the right to know if an employee is receiving public assistance or not.  They are violating employees’ rights by forcing employees to reveal that information.

An employee has not committed a crime until he or she actually collects benefits they are not entitled to or lies about it under penalty of perjury on an official form.  Employees are accused of crimes all of the time like drunk driving, conspiracy, bribery, extortion, etc.  If the accusation is grounds for dismissal, then most of the Fifth Floor needs to be terminated.

Generally, it takes a conviction, and even then usually a felony conviction, to be terminated.  I personally know of felons working for the county.

So, all and all, TAD employees who are on Welfare are being treated like a different class of citizen.  And that is illegal.

I’m sure there is a term for this mentality, and with our current corruption scandal, that mentality has become very frustrating.  Otherwise intelligent people seem to be more interested in finding blame than finding truth.  The fact that so many have bought into Batman and Robin’s conspiracy theory is proof that logic and critical thinking have given way to hysteria and enjoyment in the fact that someone with power may be taken out, not for wrongdoing, but because they have power and wealth.  I suppose the weak hope to bask in the demise of the powerful.

The current Colonies conspiracy theory is a perfect example.  Other than Ramos’ hacks, I have yet to hear of a single attorney, who actually took the time to examine all of the documents available and compare them with the elements of the crimes being alleged, state they feel a crime took place.  When one looks at how many things had to occur perfectly in order for this “crime of the century” to be a crime, it is simply not possible.  So many who comment on these cases are doing so with emotion rather than accurate information and logic.

Am I saying that I believe there was no corruption involved in the Colonies situation?  No, I am not.  I absolutely believe there was corruption.  But notice, I referred to the “Colonies situation,” not the “Colonies Settlement.” And there is a difference—a very big difference.

What prompted this posting was an interaction I had yesterday with another county employee.  I knew before I ever called her that she had messed up.  I also knew to have all my ducks in a row before I made the call.  And that I did.  When I finally got a hold of her, she was quick to put the blame on me and she copped a bit of an attitude.  I knew I was right and I asked her to check something on her computer.  That something could not have been changed without me finding out about it.  Well she did, and then she had a 180-degree change in attitude.

I know the system inside and out and was able to get my situation resolved in minutes.  But the average citizen does not.  Instead of admitting mistakes, so often government workers (not just San Bernardino County) cover up, attempt to assign blame to the citizens they are supposed to be serving, and plant their feet firmly into the ground, refusing to admit error or correct the situation.  Sometimes it is line staff, but it usually gets worse as one tries to go up the chain of command.  And it is always about power and control.

We see this phenomena in the Transitional Assistance Department (TAD) frequently where former welfare clients are hired.  The best case workers in the world are those who were once clients and remember the emotions and problems they had being on welfare and trying to deal with the system.  The worst case workers in the world are those who were once clients and now look at their new positions as positions of power and a way to improve their low self-esteem by terrorizing their clients.  You all have both kinds in every office and you all know who they are.

But we see it in every other government office as well.  For example, have you ever had a code enforcement officer come out to your house?  Some will bend over backwards to help you resolve your situation while others only want a way to punish you.  They want you to know they are in control of your future and can make your life miserable.  Animal Control and restaurant inspectors are the same way as is the Department of Motor Vehicles, the Social Security Administration and a host of agencies at the municipal, county, state and federal levels.  Customer service is a lost concept on many government workers, and those of us who believe in it, pay for their sins.

Colonies Partners would have never had to sue and would not have been given a dime had county employees done their jobs.  I don’t mean the Board of Supervisors.  I mean the employees in Building and Safety, Flood Control, Planning, County Counsel, or whatever other departments were involved in this debacle.  I bet if it were investigated, one would find one or more employees who wanted to show who was boss.  I suspect they put up every roadblock conceivable, took their sweet time doing it, and dared anyone to knock that giant chip off of their shoulder.  Does this sound like any middle or upper management types you have in your department?  We all know the county is full of them.

That brings me to the last two of my points.  When the Burums and Lewises of the world donate to political campaigns and otherwise involve themselves in politics, they generally are not buying illegal favors.  What they are buying is the attention of elected officials.  It is that attention of say, the chairman of the board of supervisors, that gets things done.

Have you ever had someone from the board of supervisors contact you about something you are working on?  Does that not get your attention?  You make sure you get it done right, don’t you?  And timely?

And, this is where most of the problem is at.  It is a small percentage of employees who are not doing their jobs, management that allows their favorites to get away with it, and a county administrative officer and board of supervisors who just don’t care because it is only affecting average citizens and not their campaign contributors.

We point out cases of malfeasance in county government every week on this blog.  Much of it could be easily corrected by the county administrative officer and/or board of supervisors but it is instead ignored.  The public defender, Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, the Transitional Assistance Department, the Department of Children’s Services, Human Resources, County Counsel, and many others are rampant with problems that may not result in $102 million settlements individually, but then again they may.  And no one cares because it is the taxpayers who will ultimately foot the bill, not our elected and appointed officials.

What makes our county’s administration corrupt is not a court of law deciding the county erred or businessmen fighting for what they are rightfully owed, but rather a dereliction of duty, an air of arrogance, and an attitude of apathy by our San Bernardino County Board of Supervisors and County Administrative Office.  Yes, corruption is alive and well in San Bernardino County, and until our elected and appointed officials take responsibility for running this county with integrity at all levels, it will remain that way.  The buck stops with them.

]]> http://iepolitics.net/2010/07/10/iepolitics-corruption-on-the-fifth-floor-and-elsewhere-everyone-wants-to-blame-the-rich-guy/feed/ 13 http://iepolitics.net/2010/07/09/iepolitics-i-should-have-thought-of-this-myself/ http://iepolitics.net/2010/07/09/iepolitics-i-should-have-thought-of-this-myself/#comments Fri, 09 Jul 2010 19:56:08 +0000 Administrator http://iepolitics.com/?p=4277 Continue reading →]]> I heard back from the Feds on the TAD issue and I so totally should have thought of this.  EVERYONE whose name, social security number or address may be in the CIV system because you, a family member, someone living in your home, a second parent/former significant other, etc., has received cash aid, food stamps, Medi-Cal, IHSS, child care, foster care, or certain adoptions, any time in the past ten years needs to call the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing at 1-800-884-1684 and file a complaint.  They will set up an appointment for an investigative interview in San Bernardino for about two months from now—that’s how backed up they are.  This is a critical step in the process of suing the county. It must be completed and must be done timely.

Be sure to tell them you are being discriminated against based upon your current or previous status as a pubic assistance recipient (or whatever applies to you).  My understanding is that the project TAD is undertaking to determine which employees have received benefits in their past is so large it is being done by region.  I have only heard of Region 1 employees being fired so far.  Remember, up to now there are at least 100 employees being fired or suspended over this.  You could be next!

Joe.Torres@fns.usda.gov

mherald@wclp.org

mherald@wclp.org

OCRMail@hhs.gov

You can also contact the ACLU at:

https://www.aclu-sc.org/intake_requests/add

I am working on an attorney both for this issue and the SBPEA issue.  There are two I am supposed to be talking to tomorrow.  However, unless you guys are willing to send emails, there is no point in me doing this.  So, unless I hear from some of you, I’m not going to pursue this.

]]> http://iepolitics.net/2010/07/09/iepolitics-civil-rights-violations-at-tad/feed/ 1 http://iepolitics.net/2010/07/07/iepolitics-tad-management-violating-civil-rights-of-employees-and-clients/ http://iepolitics.net/2010/07/07/iepolitics-tad-management-violating-civil-rights-of-employees-and-clients/#comments Thu, 08 Jul 2010 05:33:19 +0000 Administrator http://iepolitics.com/?p=4247 Continue reading →]]> TAD management, aka Nancy Swanson and Linda Haugen, is at it again.  Now there is a big surprise.  They are violating the civil rights of both clients and employees.

Let’s say, for instance, 10 years ago you were an18-year-old unmarried woman who could not care for your newborn and allowed it to go into the foster care system.  The baby qualified for AFDC/TANF.  Even though you eventually relinquished your parental rights, you will forever be linked to that child in the C-IV system.

Or let’s say your ex-wife decides to go on welfare to sock it to you.  You are in the C-IV system as an absent parent whether you like it or not and even if you have paid every dime of child support on time.

Let’s say your daughter is going through a divorce and moves back home with her child because her husband refuses to pay child support and she needs CalWorks until she can get back on her feet.  Your address is in C-IV.

Let’s say your elderly parents live with you and the only form of medical insurance they can afford is Medi-Cal.  Your address is in the C-IV system.

Let’s say you are a foster parent and your foster children qualify for TANF.  Even though the money you receive is for the children, you are in the system.

Let’s say you are a single mom who is a TAD receptionist and you have four children.  You qualify for subsidized child care and you are in the system.

Let’s say you are a Welfare-to-Work success story and are now a TAD case worker.  You are in the system.

So what is the county doing?  The county is taking your San Bernardino County personnel records that are confidential, i.e., name, social security number and address, and cross-referencing them with the Welfare Database, i.e., C-IV, to determine if you, your spouse, parent of a child not living with you, any current or former dependent, or anyone living at your address has ever been on CalWorks, Food Stamps,  Medi-Cal, in foster care, been a foster parent, or has received subsidized child care in San Bernardino County.

Then they are auditing that case back for four years to see if you ever looked at it. If you have five years of service or less, you are being fired.  If you have over five years of service and own up to it, you are being suspended.

In at least one instance an employee accessed a relative’s record when she was employed by the county in 2006.   She quit her job a couple years ago but returned to TAD this year.  She has received good WPEs.  They audited her and fired her for what she did when she was an employee in 2006 even though she has not done anything like that since she returned to county service.

No one is arguing that an employee should not be accessing confidential information.  But neither should the county be cross-referencing your confidential personnel information to determine if you have ever been on welfare, given a child up for adoption, received emergency Medi-Cal for an abortion, or have a significant other receiving TANF for a child you brought into this world.  It is not only an invasion of privacy, but I suspect it is illegal.

First, many cases include medical records, drug, alcohol and domestic violence counseling records, copies of your income tax returns, your bank statements and a variety of other documents.

Second, welfare records are CONFIDENTIAL.  Clients have a right to privacy and their employers do NOT have the right to this information.

So far over 100 employees are in trouble.  Forty have been fired and another 60 terminations are expected.  And they have only just begun this witch hunt.

We are not suggesting that if an employee is suspected of accessing records they should not be looking at, they should not be disciplined. However, for example, anyone on welfare has the right to review their own case.  And there is a difference in auditing an employee thought to be doing something against policy and checking every employee to see if they have ever been on state aid.

Second, if a client calls me to check on the status of their case and I am not familiar with that client, I will not know until I get into that case that the person is somehow related to a family member.  Anyone who has ever used C-IV knows how easy it is to accidentally discover someone’s relative is on aid.

And, this witch hunt doesn’t address the real abuse such as when someone has a neighbor they don’t like and checks out their case to keep tabs on them.  Or runs the ex-wife of a spouse who had no common children.  Or runs someone they meet in a bar.  Or many other real abuses of the system.

It is interesting that there is no money to fund fraud so they can go after welfare cheats, but there is money for this.  Also, the database can no longer be run against the criminal warrants system to find felons collecting welfare, but it can be run against the county’s personnel system to find employees who have received welfare benefits.

• Written by Administrator
• Posted June 24, 2010 at 7:29 am

Wednesday, June 23, 2010 – 09:18 P.M.

Based on information contained in a story published in Thursday’s Los Angeles Times, InlandPolitics.com has verified by cross-referencing database lists from the California Department of Social Services and the California Gambling Control Commission that some local indian casinos allow welfare recipients to withdraw cash with state issued debit cards.

Casinos operated by the San Manuel Band of Mission Indians in Highland, Morongo Band of Mission Indians in Cabazon, Pala Band of Mission Indians in Pala, and the Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians in Temecula, offer automated teller machines (ATM) that accept debit cards issued by the state’s welfare system.

The debit cards, commonly known as EBT cards, permit welfare recipients to perform a cash withdrawal of up to $300 at the casino machines.

Casinos operated by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians in Palms Spings and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians in San Jacinto were not found on the listing.

To read the rest of the story, click here.

And I believe there will be about 300 new workers on board very soon.  This county is so well run!

First, for the Roses.  Thank you April from the Registrar of Voters office for being so helpful and professional.  It was appreciated, especially when I know I’m not your boss’ favorite person.  And one to the First District chief of staff who doesn’t want to be mentioned in my blog!  Thank you David.  I know I can be a bit incoherent when I’m that angry and upset.  I think everyone knows having to deal with stupid ass TAD managers sets me off.

And for the Raspberries.  This should come as no surprise.  I really dislike Transitional Assistance Department managers.  I mean, I really, really dislike them.  And on Tuesday, I added one to the list.  Her name is Leslie.  She could have not been less helpful or professional.  I told you Leslie I would call the Board and you should have known I meant it.  I did and got the problem resolved within minutes without your help, without driving to San Bernardino, without waiting for days for you to get off of your ass to do your job, and without having to deal with you doing the county’s bid at retaliation.

So, I keep wondering why we don’t put the investigators over in the District Attorney’s office or the Sheriff’s Office where arresting criminals doesn’t get you written up or fired.  I’m guessing that at least part of the fraud unit receives federal funding, but I don’t know that for sure.  If it does, it seems some of that budget magic could be worked so that it somehow becomes a win-win situation for the General Fund.

Am I the only one who remembers the days when the welfare rolls were cross-referenced with a warrant database and the fraud investigators would clear hundreds of warrants and lock up lots of bad guys?  I don’t understand why that isn’t still done.  It was a win-win situation for the taxpaying citizens of the county.  Any answers?

I find it outrageous that the little, paranoid men who run this county consider getting even with me and exposing the county to a large lawsuit to be more important than protecting the taxpayer.  So I am considering putting a lanyard on my EBT card to wear around my neck as a badge of honor.  Here I am a 30-year county employee without a single write-up for job-related actions and I am living like a welfare client.  Well, I guess now I am a welfare client.

So, again I take it seriously but at the same time I am going to use this an example of the hostile work environment county administrators create for county employees and their willingness to waste taxpayer money.

Applying was easy.  The application on line and the phone interview today took about a total of an hour.  The EW was very nice, not like some I know.

I don’t have electricity or water right now so I’m not going to use the card until I can get those turned back on, which should be in the next week.  Once that happens, I’m going shopping and I’m going to post my shopping receipt so everyone can see just how much (or how little) one can buy with food stamps.  This should be fun.

I say one thing.  I don’t care if it is the Welfare store, I’m not shopping at Food-4-Less.  Gawd, that place stinks!  I couldn’t eat the food that came from there.  But I figure with specials and coupons I can do just as well at Vons or Ralphs.  I will keep you all posted.

One other note:  Not having been inside a grocery story for about six weeks, when I did go the last time I was shocked at how much food prices had gone up in that period.  Anyone who thinks giving up ones raise is a painless way to go about the current budget crisis is nuts.  Pretty soon everyone will need Food Stamps.

Foodstamps:  A very nice lady called me within twenty minutes of me submitting the application online.  My telephone interview is Monday.  I will let you all know how that goes.

I have personal knowledge of what you and your staff did when a certain very high-ranking county official’s daughter went on welfare in this county.  He was a lot more generous with you than I will ever be.

Well, the answer according to him, is that he has “dirt” on TAD Deputy Director Michael De la Rosa.  Michael, of course, would have been involved in the second demotion.  As a matter of fact, when said manager attempted to promote, the Equal Employment Opportunity complaint magically disappeared.  And the Human Resources Officer “forgot” to do a background investigation.  Amazing how that sort of thing happens.

We know Michael has had some issues.  The embezzlement from the San Bernardino Public Employees Assocation is the most well known.  I’d be interested in knowing what the other “dirt” is.  Bet that is one Human Resources investigation that never gets done.

Peter Drucker

Interesting changes are being made in San Bernardino County’s Transitional Assistance Department’s (TAD) management structure.  Unless Assistant Administrative Officer Linda Haugen and TAD Director Nancy Swanson are even more stupid than we already know, they have to be very nervous about the new head honcho in town, County Administrative Officer (CAO) Greg Devereaux.  Linda Haugen was able to . . . um “charm” . . . her way out of trouble with former CAO Mark Uffer but those who have worked with Devereaux say he cannot be “persuaded” by the same means.  We know that neither Linda nor Nancy are capable of producing anything resembling a well-thought-out and intelligent work product, so they have a lot to worry about.

Before being devoured by TAD, the Jobs and Employment Services Department (JESD) was considered one of the best departments to work for in the county.  Employment Services Specialist positions were highly sought after.  The department was known for treating its employees and the public very well.  It had a positive work environment for employees and did an awesome job of helping the less fortunate in our community.

When JESD became a division of TAD, known as the Employment Services Program (ESP), it became the department to leave.  Line staff, supervisors and managers alike couldn’t get away from TAD’s despot management style fast enough.  Morale plummeted.  Hostile work environment became the name of the game.  Racial and sexual harassment became commonplace.

Jackie James, a regional manager for JESD, became the Deputy Director for ESP.  But she didn’t last long.  Another Deputy Director, Michael De la Rosa, known more for his embezzlement from the San Bernardino Public Employees Association than for any valuable contribution to TAD, quickly targeted Jackie.  He helped to have her demoted so that he could take that position for himself.

Jackie was the first in a long-line of JESD African-American employees who were targeted by De la Rosa.  Since his hostile takeover of ESP, he has systematically eliminated almost all former JESD African-Americans in leadership rolls within ESP.  Under his dictatorship numerous Equal Employment Opportunity complaints have been filed, with Human Resources staff usually covering for De la Rosa’s racist and sexist actions.

So we find it very interesting that now that we have a “professional” CAO, who is said to be a bit of a stickler for the law, De la Rosa has been reassigned to “special projects” and Jackie James has been re-instated to her rightful position.  We have never been a Jackie fan, but at least she understands the clientele we serve and the purpose of the program.  Unfortunately, as with any prisoner of war, after three years of torture, brainwashing, and beating down, it is likely she has become one of them.  Time will tell if this change will offer any relief for the beleaguered masses.

Unlike Michael (or Nancy or Linda), Jackie is well educated and intelligent and can project a professional image for the department.  Michael, on the other hand, who is poorly educated, terribly simple-minded, and mean-spirited as hell, is said to be going to spend much of his time in Sacramento trying to save Welfare to Work.  That is rather humorous since he single-handedly ran the program into the ground here in San Bernardino County.  Before Michael we had Work Performance Rates exceeding 50 percent.  They are now down in single digits even with all the falsified record-keeping TAD management is so good at.

Knowing what an embarrassing fool Michael presents himself as, we have to think that the Sacramento gig is simply a way to keep him under Devereaux’s radar.  No one who sees him in action would think he deserves his $100,000 a year salary and it will provide a way to keep him from embarrassing Haugen and Swanson.  I feel sorry for the poor legislators who have to deal with this incompetent simpleton.  On second thought, maybe they deserve one another.

The situation with the fraud unit has not been forgotten.  I’m simply too busy to get back to it.  But I will be following up soon.  Perhaps one of the investigators can update us as to whether or not the District Attorney’s office has filed on the $400,000 or the $80,000 internal fraud cases or not.

Finally, I promised a series on San Manuel and it is still on its way.  I hope to have the next article in that series in a few days.  All is not well out there.

The reporters I’ve spoken to so far seem incredulous that the classification has been so decimated and the reason for it.  Everyone knows welfare fraud is rampant in this county and getting worse.

I know we have no support in the Fourth District or the Fifth District.  Both districts support either Linda Haugen or the  decimation of the unit.  The other three districts all have employees who have experienced directly or through a family member the “TAD mentality” and even if the supervisors themselves don’t get it, at least there is someone in each district who may listen if enough people come forward with hard, cold facts.

I think we all agree Linda Haugen and Virginia Lugo need to be shown the door.  Now, we just need the proof that their actions rise to the level of criminal activity.  We may very well have that proof.

Do remember the questions we had to answer?

• Do you know how to get the executive membership at the country club?
• Do you know how to keep your laundry from being stolen at the laundromat?
• Do you know how to pick a daycare center?
• Do you know the time of day stores deposit their expired food in the dumpster?
• Do you know how to get your child into the most exclusive private schools?
• Do you know where the food banks are located and when they give out food?
• Do you know how to hire a maid?
• Can you tell the difference between silk, linen and cotton and how to care for each?
• Do you know how to get your children to fall asleep when they are still hungry?

And many more.

That book has been on my mind lately as I have had to learn skills in recent months I never in a million years thought I would ever need to know.  No, I’m not dumpster diving, but it’s been a very long time since I’ve lived paycheck to paycheck and robbed Peter to pay Paul.

When I made it to the hospital on the January 1, I hadn’t eaten in four days.  This time it wasn’t because there was no food in the house, but rather what was there was nauseating.  However, the food in the hospital was even worse.  I’ve learned that even when one is starving, sometimes one can’t eat what is offered.  I ate almost nothing while I was in the hospital.  I had such bad hunger pains, but the food was so disgusting, I couldn’t even try to get it down.  I was dizzy and weak the whole time I was there.  So when I hear of dumpster diving, I cannot even imagine how hungry someone must be.

As I stated in another post Hartford is messing with me again.  I haven’t had a regular check on schedule since December 14.  I’m not complaining as there is now plenty of food in the house, I now have running water and electricity and in comparison to many, I don’t have it bad.  But it does get frustrating when one is used to a certain standard of living and that standard has been cut by about 75 percent.

Today I had to get to my group, which is a 150-mile round trip, had a gas tank on the wrong side of empty, and exactly six dollar sand some change in my purse.  So I had two items that I needed to return to the store and returned both, which gave me an additional $14.  I knew that would barely get me to my appointment.  I had a few pieces of scrap gold in my drawer, and after group, stopped off at the pawn shop in San Bernardino.  I got enough for them to get me enough gas to get home and back to group tomorrow.  By that time the banks will be open and I can cash the two rebate checks I have in my purse, which will get me through the rest of the week if Hartford, once again, doesn’t bother to deposit my check.

So is this meant as a “Woe is me”?  No, not at all.  Although there is an aspect of it that makes me angry, in mostly makes me feel triumphant that despite all vindictive, dirtbag administrators we have running this county who take such pleasure in toying with and destroying the little people, I can still survive.

I told my doctor my story today.  I asked for nothing.  He handed me an off-work order for another 45 days.  I didn’t even want it.  But I thought about it all the way home.  I thought about the fact that the county wants me to commute 3.5 hours a day, they want me to do so without even letting me have the pay due to me meaning I have absolutely no way of getting to the job whether I want it or not, and they want me to word side-by-side with the bastard who started this whole thing for me 6 years ago.  After all, with 900 county offices and hundreds of vacancies, there is not a single other job site they can place me at. I know when I’m being punished.

So, instead of paying me to be a productive employee, they prefer to pay me to sit at home.  Of course, as my doctors and anyone who knows me knows, what they really are doing is trying to drive me over the edge because I’m anything but a stay-at-home kind of person.  But it gives more fodder for the lawsuits.  It amazes me anyway.

But in the end I still feel triumphant.  The county hasn’t gotten me to kill myself or to quit.  So I celebrated with something I really didn’t have the money for but have been craving for weeks but really didn’t want to spend the money for–a single scoop of Rocky Road ice cream on a sugar cone at Rite Aid.  They are on sale this week for .99 cents.  I had just enough change in my purse.   Gosh did that taste heavenly!  Life is good.

Anyone beside me remember when they were a nickle a scoop?

]]> http://iepolitics.net/2010/01/18/iepolitics-the-little-things-in-life/feed/ 1 http://iepolitics.net/2010/01/15/iepolitics-once-again-andrew-and-hss-administration/ http://iepolitics.net/2010/01/15/iepolitics-once-again-andrew-and-hss-administration/#comments Sat, 16 Jan 2010 06:17:42 +0000 Administrator http://iepolitics.com/?p=169 Continue reading →]]> Geez, does it never end in this county?  We’ve been harping on hostile work environment around here for how long now?  Transitional Assistance Department (TAD) management incompetence?  The stupidity of Service First when interpreted by Linda Haugen and her band of dumb-ass managers?  The lack of education of TAD managers costing taxpayers?

Let’s see.  I even met with Fourth District Deputy Chief of Staff Joy Chadwick over the fact that we are paying TAD directors $100,000-plus a year, they manage millions and millions of dollars in taxpayer money, and they don’t even have to have a high school diploma.  What did she do?  Nothing.  I mentioned the same to Assistant County Administrative Officer Dean Arabatzis and he chastised me for suggesting there might be something wrong with it.  And Human Resources Director Andrew Lamberto will do anything a pair of legs wants him to do, especially those belonging to one Ms. Haugen.

So, it should be no surprise that TAD managers do really stupid things.  After all, they are stupid.  Or perhaps ignorant is a better term.

A few days ago iePolitics posted a question about a rumor circulating that a TAD manager had been demoted to a EWIII position.  Well, the rumor is true.  Guess what she did among other things?

As TAD employees know, under Service First, welfare recipients are required to be called “customers” by employees, even though that is a complete perversion of the term.  “Perversion” is an important concept in this particular post but we will get to that in a moment.

In TAD, the “customer” is always right.  They can lie, cheat, steal, and defraud the system and the taxpayers all they want and they are doing so rightfully and without repercussions because that is the way Virginia Lugo wants it.  That is the way Linda Haugen wants.  After all, the more people receiving welfare, the higher the caseloads.  The higher the caseloads, the more funding San Bernardino County receives.  The more funding San Bernardino County receives, the bigger kingdom Haugen and others can build for themselves.  Thus, our county is in the business of aiding and abetting welfare cheats, but I digress.

Now, we find that San Bernardino County is also in the business of aiding and abetting perverts.  Okay, so we already knew that.  Just ask District Attorney Mike Ramos.  But at least Mike keeps his family jewels covered up when he is sitting in the lobby at the welfare department.  Not everyone does.

It seems a male client was sitting in the lobby of the Fontana TAD office masturbating.  I’m not sure what it is about Fontana as that is the same region Miss C—, “He’s going to marry me because he gave me a good poke” came from.  But I digress once again.

TAD managers are not known for their managerial skills.  Wow, now that’s a revelation!  So when the pervert couldn’t keep his junk covered up, the manager in her infinite wisdom told his worker, a female eligibility worker (EW), that she would just have to deal with it and provide excellent customer service anyway.  Personally, if that were me, my idea of excellent customer service would to be to service him with that dull letter opener waiting for a good use in my top drawer.  But this EW didn’t want to go to jail—not sure why anyone should have to go to jail for public service.

So a year later, the matter is finally resolved.  Yes, it took our illustrious leaders a year to figure out that forcing a female employee to service a masturbating “customer” (somehow the word “customer” now fits) might not be a good idea.  We hear that all TAD managers are now being forced to attend weekly introductory management classes.  Hmm . . . don’t ya think someone should have thought of that BEFORE promoting them to a managerial position.

Only in TAD!!!!