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.

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

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.

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

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.

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?

Does anyone have any suggestions?  My thought is to send the information to the Attorney General and file a complaint with the Grand Jury, but I’m not sure.

I’ve not been feeling well for a few days so I haven’t gotten back to either the District Attorney project or the POST project, but I will try to make both of those happen in the next 48 hours.

I haven’t created the text list for SBPEA updates yet.  I hope to have it in the next day or so.  There is going to be a meeting in a few days regarding the current contract and possible legal help we have been offered.  The meeting will be by invitation only.  If you are interested, let me know.  Text me at (760) 954-0280.

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.

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!

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.

This fiscal year it will not be a matter of layoffs OR giving up our raises.  It will either be both or massive layoffs.  Let’s see how Bob Blough explains this one away.  But that is not the real point of this post.

Anyone remember the Temporary Assignment Program (TAP) where employees from departments facing layoffs could be found jobs in departments where there is money.  Well employees in various departments are being told their jobs are in jeopardy all the while the Transitional Assistance Department (TAD) is hiring 600 new employees, 300 of which are already on the payroll.  There is a new class starting of 150 and interviews are being conducted for an additional 150.  Is that offensive or what?

The new positions are unclassified or whatever the proper term is for them but they receive full wages and benefits.  Because of the terms of the Memorandum of Understanding it is entirely possible that hundreds of regular county employees could be laid off while these new hires remain employed.  Does this not tell everyone what county administration thinks of its loyal employees?

I already know the argument about special funding in the Human Services System and stimulus money, but you can’t tell me that nothing can be done to protect current employees rather than hiring 600 new employees.  This says a lot about county management.

BTW, if you read between the lines of Jim’s article today, you realize the deficit is far worse than $90 million.  Just wait until the truth is announced to the public.

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.