This is a comment from the TAD fraud case post below.  It’s long but it is typical of what happens in that department and how mismanaged it is.

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.

Continue reading →