County Inventory Investigation Needs Expansion

Results of Public Records Request Raise More Questions
- Naked Conch - Posted by Matt Gardi -  March 3, 2012
It was refreshing to see the effect of this blog.  Only minutes after I posted a blog entry here on Naked Conch about my unanswered public records requests dealing with County inventory issues, I received a response from the Clerk's office.  Unfortunately the response only raised more questions.

What I received was a PDF document which included a variety of documents in response to my request for "The last two years of Monroe County Inventory Reports for the Monroe County Health Department as prepared by Mitch Hedman."  If you recall, Hedman is the former County employee in charge of inventory.  He filed a complaint with the State Attorney's Office in Sept 2011 suggesting he was being asked to resign after discovering $250,000 in missing inventory at the Health Department.  It is important to note that the inventories Hedman tracked were comprised of items over $1,000, not the iPhone and iPads that are at the center of the latest inventory scandal, which are below the value level to be tracked by the County.

To review the entire document I received click here.  To say it is a bit confusing is an understatement, but let's take note of the most significant items contained within.  Page 20 is an email dated October 6, 2009 from Bob Eadie, Administrator of the Monroe County Health Department, to Kevin Madok, Hedman's direct supervisor at the Clerk's office.  In this email,  Eadie explains how tens of thousands of dollars worth of equipment may have been improperly disposed of, and that he is requesting authorization to dispose of them as assets after the fact.  He assures Madok that...
We have adopted procedures that will prevent the disposition on public assets without proper authorization.
To be fair, most of the equipment seemed very old and worthless, (at least at the time it was discovered unaccounted for) and Eadie provided a document illustrating that a large quantity of equipment had been recycled the year before.  Regardless, things should be good going forward, right?

Check out Page 12.  Less than a year later on July 19, 2010, Andrew Bulla, Office Operations of the Monroe County Health Departments, emails Mitch Hedman and states...
As we discussed after a thorough search of our facilities from Key Largo to Key West a few MC tagged assets did turn up However the majority of the MC tagged assets have not been found.
Wow.  The majority of tagged assets??  But Bulla goes on to comfort Hedman.
After these missing assets are deleted from the inventory records future MCHD asset audits should prove exemplary.
Didn't we just hear that the year prior?  Once we just fill out some paperwork on all this missing stuff, we should be able to maintain a better accounting of whatever is left. This time the equipment appears to be valuable, useful and extensive.  This email gives complete credence to Hedman's concerns about the Health Department's inventory.  You would think that two years in a row of massive amounts of missing inventory might be cause for concern.  Also of note on this page was what seems to be an oddly compiled email exchange that seems to paint the picture Hedman was OK with this, which he wasn't.  Please note, Bulla's email is dated July 19, 2010 with a subject of  "RE: Missing MCHD Assets."  This email is pasted directly above one from Hedman as if Hedman was replying to Bulla.  But Hedman's is dated July 15, 2010 and has a subject of  "RE: from Andrew."  The tech guy in me thinks that it might be difficult to reply to an email that won't arrive until four days into the future.

One wonders what the need was to paste such emails together to create such an impression.  Also note the strange quote at the very top of the page from Mary Vanden Brook which says, "One suggestion: add the present value as zero or close to it."  


Page 12 is so strange, I include it here by itself for your review.



As I mentioned, more questions than answers.  Add to that, Page 11, which appears to be a 2010 inventory close.  Apparently, by August 5, 2010 there was only a small $29,258.12 worth of inventory unaccounted for over the past two years.  Does this include the "majority of tagged assets" that weren't found, and had a deletion request at the "next BOCC meeting?"  Why leave any unaccounted for inventory other than to create the appearance that it is only $29,258.12 if anyone asks questions?  If you are zeroing the books with a massive asset deletion request in July, why not zero the books?

Also, look what else shows up on Page 11, it seems to start a list of unaccounted for equipment from Tech Services, subtotaled at over $15K, apparently continuing onto the next page...not included.  You know Tech Services, the department involved in the most recent inventory scandal.

Let's not forget that as I mention on a previous blog post, Mitch Hedman made a complaint to the State Attorney that he was being asked to resign as a result of trying to expose these discrepancies.  Another question is who would want to put pressure on an employee to resign that was doing the right thing, and why?

For comparison sake, I have probably endured at least four County Inventory audits as the IT Director at the Public Defender's Office and the State Attorney's Office.  Admittedly it's a challenge, with changing staff, laptops and radios, and staff with equipment in the field.  But with the diligence of Mitch Hedman, and his predecessor Mike Miller, every single piece of equipment has been accounted for under my watch.

Why were these issues allowed to exist?  More questions than answers...more questions than answers.




No comments:

Post a Comment