From: Ed Slavin
Sent: Tue, Aug 20, 2019 12:38 pm
Subject: Re: Forensic Audit of St. Johns County, Florida and Sheriff's Office
Dear Florida Auditor General Norman:
1. Please conduct a thorough forensic audit of St. Johns County and the St. Johns County Sheriff's office, whose longtime Finance Director, Raye Annette Brutnell, a direct report to Sheriff David Shoar, allegedly embezzled some $702,733 during FY 2012-2019. F.S. 11.45.
From: Ed Slavin
Sent: Fri, Aug 16, 2019 4:40 pm
Subject: $2 million FBI MOU with St. Johns County, Florida Sheriff's Office: BID PROTEST AND REQUEST FOR SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT INVESTIGATION
Subsequent to September 30, 2018, certain transactions that appear to be unaccounted for activities within the Sheriff’s office were identified by management of the Sheriff’s office. In response, the Sheriff initiated procedures to determine the extent of these activities. In addition to requesting an investigation by another Sheriff’s office, management has also engaged external forensic auditors to investigate this matter. Neither investigation has been completed as of June 28, 2019. The investigations have, so far, determined that these transactions occurred in fiscal years 2012 through 2019, and total $702,773.
- without life-cycle costing analysis?
- without considering the effects on agents?
- without considering the effects on carbon consumption or the environmental of unnecessary travel?
- without a requirement definition that could justify these MOUs?
- without analysis of alternatives, including competitive bidding or an FBI-only training facility, like the Jerry Crowe Regional Tactical Training Facility in Irvine, California?
- $702,773+ in embezzlement by SHOAR'S Finance Director 2011-2019
- refusal to refer embezzlement to FBI
- referral of embezzlement to select Sheriff and State's Attorney
- refusal to request government forensic audit, expressly insisting on private forensic audit
- retaliation against FDLE Special Agent Rusty Ray Rodgers in retaliation for his dogged investigation of the September 2, 2010 homicide of Michelle O'Connell in the home of Deputy JEREMY BANKS
- barratry, encouraging filing of a baseless civil action against Special Agent Rodgers by BANKS
- material false statements to the FBI in an effort to procure malicious prosecution of Special Agent Rogers
- misuse of county funds to prepare a 153-page inaccurate document in response to New York Times and PBS Frontline Open records requests
- threatening elected officials with "letter grades"
- providing employment for the 19-year old son of a special prosecutor assigned to "investigate" the O'Connell homicide
- Fourth Amendment violations found by four federal judges involving eavesdropping on attorney-client conversations at the St. Johns County Jail
- violations of First Amendment rights, including videotaped threats of arrest to Jeffrey Marcus Gray for "trespassing" in retaliation for peaceful picketing on public property to protest SJSO homicides, published in The New York Times
§6303. Using procurement contracts
Based on these facts, we are inclined to view OPM's arrangement with CSS as an acquisition of CSS's services in support of OPM's statutory obligations. In analogous cases, we have viewed such arrangements as procurements. For example, in New York Telephone Company et al., 69 Comp.Gen. 61 (1989), 89-2 CPD Para. 435, we held that the General Services Administration's (GSA) grant of licenses covering the furnishing, installation, maintenance, and operation of public pay phones on GSA-controlled property was a procurement of property or services. We noted that GSA had a responsibility to arrange for telephone services for the private use of federal employees and for the use of the visiting public in GSA-controlled buildings. We concluded that because the acquisition thus satisfied GSA's specific needs, it constituted a procurement for services for the purposes of our bid protest jurisdiction.Similarly, in West Coast Copy, Inc.; Pacific Photocopy and Research Services, B-254044; B-254044.2, Nov. 16, 1993, 93-2 CPD Para. 283, we held that a bankruptcy court's arrangement with a firm to provide the public with photocopying services at the court constituted a procurement for services. There, the record showed that the public needed to obtain copies of court documents, that the court's staff resources were strained, and that providing photocopying services furthered the mission of the court, benefiting the court as well as the public. We reached this result notwithstanding the fact that the arrangement did not make use of appropriated funds and that the actual "buyers" of the firm's services were individuals and entities other than the court.With respect to OPM's contention that its arrangement with CSS should instead be characterized as an "assistance relationship"--i.e., a grant or a cooperative agreement-- within the meaning of the Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, supra, the substance of the arrangement indicates otherwise. Under the act, a procurement contract is the proper legal instrument to use "when . . . the principal purpose of the instrument is to acquire . . . property or services for the direct benefit or use of the United States Government." 31 U.S.C. Sec. 6303. On the other hand, a grant or cooperative agreement is appropriate when the federal government is providing assistance to a non-federal entity in order to support the entity's own efforts in accomplishing a public purpose. See 31 U.S.C. Secs. 6304 and 6305.In applying these statutory criteria we have held:"The decision as to the instrument to be selected turns on the primary purpose of the transaction. The key question is this: Is the principal purpose to serve the immediate needs of the federal government, or is it to provide assistance to a non-federal entity in serving a public purpose?"67 Comp.Gen. 13, 15 (1987); see also 65 Comp.Gen. 605 (1986); 61 Comp. Gen. 637, 640 (1982).As discussed previously, the CSS survey will aid OPM in carrying out its responsibilities under the FEHBP statute and therefore serves OPM's immediate needs. The "public purposes" cited by OPM--which center on the dissemination of information concerning enrollee satisfaction with the plans--are essentially the same purposes OPM is itself required to accomplish under the FEHBP statute. Therefore, we view the primary purpose of OPM's arrangement with CSS as obtaining services for OPM's direct benefit and use, rather than serving an independent public purpose.
While murder is stalking abroad in disguise, while whippings and lynchings and banishments have been visited upon unoffending American citizens, the local administrations have been found inadequate or unwilling to apply the proper corrective. Combinations, darker than the night [which] hides them, conspiracies, wicked as the worst felons could devise, have gone unwhipped of justice. Immunity is given to crime, and the records of the public tribunals are searched in vain for any evidence of effective redress.