attorney general non-transparency bor of usg

1

TO: Jim Zachary, Director, Transparency Project of Georgia http://transparencyprojectofgeorgia.com/about/ Email: [email protected] FROM: E. Denise Caldon Sorkness

C: 478.731.5576 Email: [email protected] http://www.linkedin.com/in/denisesorkness Georgia Whistleblower Protection Act Case CALDON V. BOARD OF REGENTS Fulton County Superior Court - 2009-CV-165267; Court of Appeals No. A11A0382

DATE: 28 October 2014 RE: Evidence of Non-Compliance of Government Transparency

by Attorney General Sam Olens and Staff Attorney General Sam Olens is on public record stating to both the General Assembly and the public his mandate for “government transparency,” while Attorney General Olens exempts his office from government transparency when it comes to his own defendants – the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Attorney General Sam Olens and staff have not only failed to address or investigate serious RICO (racketeering) and malfeasance by their defendants, the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, that negatively impact Georgia families statewide, the AG’s Office has kept the evidence confirmed in Depositions, Affidavits and Discovery documents sealed from public view.

Yet, Attorney General Sam Olens approved the filing of four “Responses in Oppositions” in Fulton County Superior Court to four Motions filed by me, E. Denise Caldon, requesting Judge Doris Downs to lift the Protective Order that seals evidence of RICO (racketeering) and malfeasance by Attorney General Olens’s defendants – the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Copies of Attorney General’s official “Responses in Oppositions” - which enabled non-compliance of government transparency - were filed on the following dates at the Fulton County Superior Court and are available via email request to anyone: 7 Sept. 2012; 10 May 2012; 2 Feb. 2012; 11 August 2011

2

Below are the Depositions and Affidavits kept Sealed from Public View by Attorney General Sam Olens (along with Discovery Documents) since Olens’ first day in office:

30 Jan 2010 Affidavit MARY EDENFIELD GIBBS, Former MSC Foundation Trustee 4 Feb 2010 Deposition ELIZABETH DENISE CALDON, Office of the President Administrative

Assistant from 1993 – 2008 (15 years) 8 Feb 2010 Deposition

REGENT DOREEN POITEVINT – Former Vice Chair of the BOR’s Organization and Law Committee * See notes above

11 Feb 2010 Deposition LEVY YOUMANS, VP for Fiscal Affairs, retired; rehired as Consultant 17 March 2010 Deposition JOHN COLE, VP for Legal Affairs; later terminated 19 March 2010 DAVID BELL, President of Macon State College 1996 – 2010; 30 March 2010 Affidavit CLAUDIA PECOR, MSC Faculty member; retired 12 April 2010 Deposition DAVID BELL, President of Macon State College 1996 – 2010; retired & rehired;

Deposition videotaped; DVD in possession of E. Denise Caldon Sorkness 12 April 2010 Deposition JOANN WHATLEY – Secretary 12 April 2010 Deposition LETITIA LANGLEY - Secretary 7 June 2010 Deposition CAROLINE KELLER, Assistant General Counsel with Gulfstream Aerospace

Corporation in Savannah and Daughter of former President David A. Bell; Ms. Keller requested a private meeting with the BOR to discuss her Father’s mental health issues – to which she received no response.

Ms. E. Denise Caldon filed four Motions requesting Judge Doris Downs, Fulton County Superior Court, to lift the Protective Order(s) sealing ALL Depositions, Affidavits and Discovery Documents which resulted in Attorney General Sam Olens and staff filing four “Responses in Opposition” – unquestionable non-compliance to

government transparency and “Conflict of Interest” by an elected official. Following Attorney General Sam Olens’ four “Responses in Oppositions,” all four Motions to release the documents to the public - which confirm RICO (racketeering) and ethical, fiscal and criminal malfeasance by Olens’ defendants, the Board of

Regents of the University System of Georgia - were denied by Judge Doris Downs.

3

Questions for Attorney General Sam Olens: I. It is strongly believed that the Attorney General’s use of the “HIPPA LAW” to seal Depositions, Affidavits and Discovery documents in the CALDON v BOR Whistleblower case is an attempt to keep evidence of malfeasance by the Board of Regents of the University System

of Georgia - that negatively impacts Georgia families statewide - from public view.

Ms. Caldon even offered to Attorney General Sam Olens to have the mental health issues (confirmed in sealed Depositions and Affidavits) of the USG college president retracted (for his family’s sake) as long as the evidence of additional malfeasance by the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia was released to the public. Attorney General Sam Olens did NOT respond. See Exhibit I (pg. 4) included in Third and Fourth Motions and the Rule 60 Motion – filed on 24 July 2014 to which a ruling is expected any day; *Copies of Fourth Motion and Rule 60 Motion are included in this

correspondence in separate files:

5

QUESTION ONE: Why did Attorney General Sam Olens and his staff repeatedly

use the HIPPA Law excuse to seal the Depositions, Affidavits and Discovery

documents that confirm a vast number of RICO violations and malfeasance by their

defendants, the Board of Regents of the USG, when, in fact, the excuse used by the

Attorney General’s Office did not meet the statutory definitions of being a “Covered

Entity” under HIPPA?

II. In correspondence to Ms. Caldon’s attorney, Stephen Humphreys,

dated 23 September 2014, Annette Cowart, Senior Attorney General, stated in writing: “The transcript of Doreen Poitevint was not among those filed

under seal,” when, in fact, legal record confirms that statement is false. The Deposition of Regent Poitevint was ONLY legally allowed to be released to the public as a result of Ms. E. Denise Caldon including the full Deposition of Regent Poitevint as an “Exhibit” in her Fourth Motion

– NOT by any action or authorization by the Attorney General’s Office as falsely stated by Annette Cowart, Senior Attorney General, in her 23 September 2014 correspondence.

Excerpt below from Fourth Motion filed in Fulton County Superior Court by Ms. E. Denise Caldon on 30 August 2012:

6

PLAINTIFF ELIZABETH DENISE CALDON FOURTH MOTION TO LIFT PROTECTIVE ORDERS

COMES NOW, a Fourth Motion by Elizabeth Denise Caldon, Plaintiff in

the above-styled civil action, requesting approval to release the following

Depositions/Affidavits taken in Caldon v BOR Georgia Whistleblower Case

2009-CV-165267 immediately due to previously submitted evidence that none

of these Depositions or Affidavits meet the statutory definitions of being a

“Covered Entity” under HIPPA and additional Good Cause.

Of critical importance, comes now the request for approval to release the

Deposition of Regent Doreen Stiles Poitevint - dated 8 February 2010 - from

any and all Protective Orders (“Orders”) issued by this Court that currently seals the documents noted below in regards to Georgia Whistleblower

Protection Act Case 2009-CV-165267 filed in January 2009:

End of Fourth Motion Excerpt.

7

QUESTION TWO: Will Attorney General Sam Olens provide written proof

that, as stated by Annette Coward, Senior Attorney General, in her

correspondence dated 23 September 2014, “The transcript of Doreen

Poitevint was not among those filed under seal” and answer why this

critical fact was NEVER mentioned in any of the Attorney General’s four

“Responses in Opposition” filed by Attorney General Sam Olens and his

staff?

Note: Ms. Annette Cowart’s false statements in the Attorney General’s 23 September 2014 correspondence is the AG’s latest attempt to appear “transparent” in an election year. This letter - along with false statements made by Attorney General Sam Olens and staff in their four “Responses in Opposition” which knowingly misled the Court and misrepresented the truth - are violations of O.C.G.A. 16-10-20: False statements and writings, concealment of facts, and fraudulent documents in matters within jurisdiction of state or political subdivisions; State Bar Rule 4.1 Truthfulness in Statements to Others. III. The Office of Attorney General failed to acknowledge, address or investigate the statement in the Georgia State Office of Inspector General’s Office investigation, which states: “The evidence/conclusions disclosed in this report may have been limited by

evidence (including email, computer files, etc.) that was no longer available

at the time of this investigation, or due to certain facts and circumstances

not being divulged by those interviewed.”

8

Attorney General Sam Olens and staff failed to acknowledge, address or investigate evidence tampering in the removal of Ms. Caldon’s office computer immediately following her termination. Rule 60 Motion, filed 24 July 2014 in Fulton County Superior Court by Stephen Humphreys, P.C., states in Sections 6 and 7: 6.

Upon information and belief, moreover, fraud was committed within the meaning of

OCGA § 9-11-60(d)(2), as well as evidence tampering under OCGA § 16-10-94, when

Plaintiff’s computer was removed from her office at Macon State College

immediately upon her illegal termination in order to eliminate evidence of knowing falsification of reports by and to a state agency in violation of OCGA §§ 16-10-20 & 47-3-141, raising issues never brought before the Court.

This fraud related to knowing falsification of state agency reports has been previously

withheld from public disclosure under a contested Consent Order that has been applied to the entire file in this action (notwithstanding whether the materials relate to evidence of knowing falsification of state records in the form of personal leave reports and resulting fraud in pension calculations), four Oppositions by the Attorney General to Plaintiff’s Motions to Lift the Protective Order (including three

oppositions by the Attorney General that falsely state that the entire file in this action

falls under the contested Consent Order barring release of “embarrassing” materials and

HIPPA), and four orders denying Plaintiff’s motions. See, e.g., Exh 6, Caldon Third

Motion to Lift Protective Order, filed pro se1; Exh 7, Attorney General Opposition. 7.

9

The Colon case has brought to light both the improper application of the GWA by

the courts, directly relevant to this action, and allegations of evidence tampering

through the improper withholding of relevant evidence and false representations by the Attorney General in actions against the State in violation of OCGA §§ 16-10-20, 6-

10-8, 16-14-1 et seq. &16-10-94.2 See, e.g., Exh 8, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Ethics

Memo Raises Big Questions, July 19, 2014 (question of improper withholding of

documents by Attorney General). QUESTION THREE (2 questions related):

Why did the Attorney General’s Office never investigate the removal of Ms.

Caldon’s office computer immediately following her termination after

fifteen years of service in the office of a USG college president?

Why did the Attorney General’s Office not investigate the statement by the

Georgia Office of Inspector General which states, “The

evidence/conclusions disclosed in this report may have been limited by

evidence (including email, computer files, etc.) that was no longer available

at the time of this investigation” which is further proof of evidence

tampering?

10

IV. Following the recent win in a very rare open records case, Attorney General Sam Olens was quoted saying: “This ruling is a major victory for government transparency,” said Olens.

“Georgians deserve a government that operates openly and honestly. The

essence of our democracy is that elected officials are held accountable to the

citizens and that citizens are allowed to exercise their rights granted by the

First Amendment.” http://law.ga.gov/press-releases/2014-08-26/attorney-general-sam-olens-prevails-lawsuit-defending-open-government

QUESTION FOUR: Why do you, as Georgia’s Attorney General, profess in

the media that “Georgians deserve a government that operates openly and

honestly,” yet, you, Attorney General Olens, are on legal record exempting

the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia from government

transparency?

Ms. Caldon is waiting for the Rule 60 Motion ruling by Judge Downs – to which she plans to appeal if it is denied. She is also filing a Fifth Motion requesting the Court to lift the Protective Order sealing the remaining Depositions, Affidavits and Discovery documents which confirm malfeasance by the state’s higher education

system that the public elected you to investigate.

QUESTION FIVE: Will you, Attorney General Sam Olens, submit a fifth

“Response in Opposition” to continue keeping evidence of confirmed

malfeasance by the Board of Regents hidden from public view –

while, at the same time, pledging government transparency in the press?

11

RICO (RACKETEERING) AND MALFEASANCE SUMMARY: The Deposition of Regent Doreen Stiles Poitevint – sealed by the Attorney General’s Office for years – confirmed repeatedly Applications for Reviews (appeals) submitted to the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia by USG faculty, staff and students from over thirty public colleges statewide are, in fact: *NOT READ by the members of the BOR Organization and Law Committee as the USG faculty, staff and students are fraudulently made to believe by the BOR; *NOT “presented to the Board of Regents” and *NOT “investigated, reviewed and given careful consideration” The mass mailings of BOR Decision letters to hundreds of USG faculty, staff and students that include confirmed fraudulent and misleading statements on official BOR letterhead and signed by J. Burns Newsome, BOR Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs, are both State and Federal Mail Fraud: O.C.G.A 16-10-8: False official certificates or writings by officers or employees of state and political subdivisions. 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343. The extensive use of RICO in the civil context is almost solely attributable to the inclusion of mail and wire fraud as predicate acts. Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479, 500 (1985). The mail and wire fraud statutes essentially make it criminal for anyone to use the mails or wires in furtherance of a scheme to defraud. Note that the fraudulent statements themselves need not be transmitted by mail or wire; it is only required that the scheme to defraud be advanced, concealed or furthered by the use of the U.S. mail or wires. Because every business or corporation in the United States uses the mails or wires to make money, any business who allegedly engages in common law fraud arguably violates the federal mail and wire fraud statutes. As a result, almost any business that allegedly engages in common law fraud can theoretically be sued under the RICO Act. http://ricoact.com/?page_id=53 Mail Fraud specifically requires the intent to defraud, and is a federal offense governed by section 1341 of title 18 of the U.S. Code. The use of the U.S. Mail is what makes it mail fraud.

12

https://postalinspectors.uspis.gov/investigations/mailfraud/mailfraud.aspx Excerpt from Deposition of Regent Doreen Stiles Poitevint dated 8 February 2010, Pg. 11, sealed for years by Attorney General’s Office, states: Q: “Is there a review of any documents or evidence by the Board of Regents? A: “Do you mean physical documents? Q: “Yes, Ma’am. A: "No." Q: “Do the Regents review the applications for review that are submitted by the employees?” A: “No.” Q: “Why not?” A: “I think just like I said time restraints.”

Regent Doreen Stiles Poitevint states on record that she did not even know she was the Vice Chair of the BOR Organization and Law Committee in November 2008 – two years earlier than her Deposition.

Note: Additional Excerpts below; full Deposition of Regent Doreen Stiles Poitevint is below on pgs. 11-35.

Pgs. 14-17

Q: So do you have knowledge of why Ms. Caldon departed employment from Macon State College? A: Only after our committee meeting because I don’t remember hearing the case discussed. Q: And specifically, are you referring to the meeting when Ms. Caldon’s application for a review was to come up and be heard or addressed? A: Yes. Q: But you don’t recall that Ms.—the matter of Ms. Caldon’s appeal came up at that meeting? A: No. Q: Is that correct? A: It’s correct……A phone call was made to me by Ms. Caldon….she said, ….do you remember the case that came up in the Organization and Law meeting or something. And I said, No, I don’t…..

13

Q: I understood you to say that the knowledge you have about Ms. Caldon’s employment situation and her appeal from the termination was gained by you after the committee meeting was closed on or about November the 10th of 2008? A: Well, to tell you the truth, I’m not sure about where the information came from.

Pgs. 18-21

Q: Do you have any knowledge, Ms. Poitevint, of the allegations in our lawsuit, in this lawsuit that Ms. Caldon brought? A: No, I really don’t.

Q: You don’t know why she is challenging her termination in court? A: Not really.

Q: Are you familiar with the Georgia Whistleblower Act at all? A: I have heard of it. So far as specifics, no.

Pgs. 18-21

Q: Okay. Have you ever been involved in a Board of Regents matter or meeting where the topic of the Georgia Whistle Blower Act came up in connection with an employee termination, or maybe there was perhaps a concern whether an employee who was being terminated was being fired in violation of the Act? A: It’s very hard for me to – because I am familiar with the term, as to whether something like that had come up with – had come up that I was involved with the Board. I’m sorry.

Q: I’m just wondering, as you sit here today, are you able to recall ever having a discussion about the Georgia Whistle Blower Act. A: No specific discussion whatsoever.

Q: Okay. As you understand it, the purpose of Mr. Newsome’s review is to determine whether there is any validity to the appeal? Ms. Hyman: “I object.”

Q: Is there any preliminary opinion or conclusion or assessment that the Legal Affairs Office provides before the matter is formerly heard by the Board of Regents? A: I would think so.

14

Pgs. 23-29

Q: So is it fair to say then that most of the time the Board of Regents is going to be interested in ascertaining why a particular employee who is appealing a termination was terminated? A: Possibly.

Q: And are there any printed guidelines or rules regarding how reviews of employment terminations are to be conducted? A: Not that I’ve ever seen.

Page 33

Q: And are these meetings – these applications for review and employment appeals, are they brought up and handled at a – at one of these eight meetings or so? A: For all the Regents to participate in? No.

Pgs. 35-37

Q: Is there an agenda that’s usually followed for these meetings? A: We have a sheet that will be handed out to us that will have the cases down. But nothing about the case –will be brought up until the person who’s handling that case will visit with people about that.

Page 39

Q: And then is there a review of any documents or evidence by the Board of Regents? A: Do you mean physical documents? Q: Yes, ma’am. A: No. Q: Why not? A: Well, I think that time restraints is one of the main problems right there…….

Q: Do the Regents review the applications for review that are submitted by the employees? A: No. Q: Why not? A: I think just like I said time restraints.

15

Page 41

Q: So then it usually is the case or frequently is the case then that no physical documents are reviewed by the Board of Regents in connection with employee applications for review? A: I can’t think of a single incident where that is the case on anything that I have been involved with. I can’t answer for any prior time to that.

Q: Okay. Usually documents themselves are not reviewed when the matter comes up? A: No physical documents.

Q: Okay. So it’s just discussion? A: Discussion

Page 51 Q: Is there a record of the vote about how to handle a particular appeal? A: Can I tell you whether that is regarded (recorded?) in stone, no, I can’t.

Q: Okay. And so you don’t know whether there is any – to the extent there are votes, and it sounds like there are, are the votes recorded anywhere? A: I can’t answer that.

Q: Is there any kind of standard that the Board of Regents employs in its review of employee termination decisions? A: I’m so sorry to be taking so long with this, but, no, there is no written anything.

Page 52 Q: But what I’m wanting to know, is there any document that is generated that contains the Board’s decision with respect to a particular appeal and perhaps the reason for its decision? A: Not that I am aware of, but I feel sure that there’s some notation somewhere, but not any that I’m aware of.

Pgs. 56-57

Q: But as we sit here today, you don’t – and I think the meeting minutes reflect your presence at that meeting on that date, but your testimony is you don’t recall ever sitting in a Board of Regents meeting and hearing any appeal of Ms. Caldon’s matter? A: No, I don’t.

16

Q: And you don’t know whether the matter was heard or not. You’re not in a position to know that? A: No, I don’t.

Page 63

Q: Does this look, though, like a form you are familiar with that would layout an agenda for items to be reviewed by your committee? A: The document that I get is a sheet that will have the case number and the individuals or individual involved, and that will be it.

Page 69

Q: So the official meeting minutes, Ms. Poitevint, reflect your presence, input and voting with respect to matters A through H on this form, correct? A: Correct.

Q: Okay. One of which was the matter of Ms. Denise E. Caldon’s application for review concerning her termination? A: Correct.

Q: Okay. But your testimony is you don’t recall her matter coming up at all in the November 10, 2008 meeting? A: No, I don’t. …….

Page 79 Q: Have you ever spoken to any other Regent who can attest that Ms. Caldon’s matter was heard and was properly handled through the proper Board of Regents policies and procedures on November 10th? A: No. I’m sorry. I haven’t.

Q: Okay. Do you know what – to the extent that Ms. Caldon’s matter did come up and was duly handled by the Board of Regents, do you know what documents, materials and information were reviewed by the Board? A: No, I don’t.

Pgs. 82-83

Q: You’re not aware of any investigation or assessment into whether or not – into Mr. Bell’s conduct or misconduct or anything like that? A: No.

17

Q: And are you sure -- weren’t you the chair of that committee back in November 2008? A: I thought I just became the vice chair ---

Q: Could you have been the vice chair back in November of ’08? A: (Witness shaking head negatively.)

Q: Tell me again when you began being the chair. A: Well, I looked down at this. I thought I just became the vice chair – Q: Could you have been the vice chair back in November of ’08? A: That’s what it says on this, but I don’t think so.

Q: That’s why I was asking. A: I don’t think so.

Q: Okay. So you’re not in the position to know whether or not the denial of Ms. Caldon’s application for review was the appropriate action for the Board of Regents to take? A: No. I’m sorry. I’m not.

Q: Ms. Caldon makes the statement about Mr. Bell’s mental decline. I’m wondering if reading that now perhaps refreshes your recollection that you’ve seen this document at some point in time. A: No, I haven’t.

Pgs. 84 - 89

Q: But seeing this here doesn’t – A: No. Q: - refresh your recollection that you’ve seen this before? A: No, not at all.

Q: Okay. Is it concerning for the Board of Regents where you have an administrative assistant to the president who’s been at the school for some 15 years reporting that her supervisor, the president of the college, is experiencing a mental decline? A: Would that be of concern to me? Q: Yes, ma’am. A: I would take everything into consideration, yes, I would. Q: But really the question was, as a Regent, not you as a human being, as a Regent I assume that would be something that would be concerning? A: Yes.

18

Pgs. 84 - 89

Q: Do you know whether that matter was discussed -- I take it you don’t – A: No, I don’t.

Q: And on the second page, Ms. Poitevint, it indicates Dr. Bell’s own daughters and son have called me both at home and at the office for two years regarding their strong concern for their father’s increasing psychological health decline. And the question is the same. Is it – is that a matter of concern to you as a Regent? A: I think it would be a matter of concern. I definitely do.

Q: Ms. Caldon reports that while working for Mr. Bell – Dr. Bell, I was put in a position of covering up countless and inappropriate auditor sensitive discrepancies. And, again this is coming from an employee who’s been there a long time. Is that something that’s concerning to you as a Regent? A: Yes, it’s of a concern to me.

Q: Has the Board of Regents ever looked into or any committee organized by the Board of Regents ever looked into any of these matters relating to Dr. Bell? A: No, not that I am aware of at all.

**SEE FULL DEPOSITION OF REGENT DOREEN STILES POITEVINT ON PGS. 26-50

Attorney General Sam Olens and staff failed to address the fact the Georgia Court

of Appeals (GCA) admitted “pretermitting” the Whistleblower evidence in my case. The GCA Ruling in the Caldon vs BOR Whistleblower case, 13 July 2011, pg. 8, states:

“Pretermitting the issue of whether (a) Caldon’s actions regarding Bell’s leave report;;

(b) Caldon’s statements regarding Bell’s mental health;; (c) Caldon’s report of Patton’s

conflict of interest;; and (d) Caldon’s report of Bell’s use of funds for professional

functions constitute whistleblowing activity pursuant to O.C.G.A. 45-1-4, we hold that

the trial court correctly granted summary judgment to the Board.”

Definition of “pre·ter·mit” 1. to let pass without notice; disregard. 2. to leave undone; neglect; omit.

19

Attorney General Sam Olens and staff failed to address the fact the Georgia Court of Appeals Ruling further admitted having little experience in such appeals.

The GCA Ruling in the Caldon vs BOR Whistleblower case, 13 July 2011, pg. 7, states:

“Georgia courts have addressed the issue of summary judgment in the context of whistle-blower claims in very few cases, none of which explicitly sets forth a standard for analyzing when summary judgment is appropriate in such circumstances.”

Attorney General Sam Olens and staff failed to comply with the Georgia Supreme Court ruling, 18 November 2013, which states, in part: …“public employee would still be protected from retaliation after making the disclosure. This makes sense, as OCGA § 45-1-4 would then operate such that a public employee would always be protected from retaliation when disclosing improper conduct, rather than offering protection for some public employees who disclose improper conduct (i.e. those reporting rule violations relating to state funded operations) and leaving others who disclose improper conduct without such protection (i.e. those reporting rule violations that do not relate to state funded operations).” http://law.justia.com/cases/georgia/supreme-court/2013/s12g1905.html

Supremes: Fulton Co. whistleblowers deserve day in court By JIM WALLS Nov. 18, 2013 “The decision strengthens enforcement of Georgia's whistleblower law by holding that sovereign immunity does not shield government agencies from claims filed under the statute. Reversing a 2012 decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, the justices also found that the law protects all public employees, not just those who work in state-funded programs." http://atlantaunfiltered.com/2013/11/18/supremes-fulton-co-whistleblowers-deserve-day-in-court/

20

Attorney General Sam Olens and staff failed to comply with Georgia Law O.C.G.A. §45-1-4 Georgia Whistleblower Act, which states, in part: “…protects public employees who disclose an alleged violation of or non-compliance with any federal, state, or local law, rule or regulation pertaining to the possible existence of any activity constituting fraud, waste, and abuse in or relating to any state programs or operations. Any public employee who reports a potential violation shall be free from discipline or reprisal from his employer, unless such disclosure was made with false and reckless disregard.” “A public employee is defined as “any person who is employed by the executive, judicial, or legislative branch of the state or by any other department, board, bureau, commission, authority, or other agency of the State Personnel Administration and any local or regional governmental entity that receives any funds from the State of Georgia or any state agency.” http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-45/chapter-1/45-1-4/ Attorney General Sam Olens and staff failed to acknowledge, address or investigate the fact that E. Denise (Caldon) Sorkness, Administrative Assistant in the Office of the President for fifteen years at Middle Georgia State College (formerly Macon State College), was terminated just nine days following her written request to former USG College, President David A. Bell. Ms. Caldon wrote it was “more appropriate” for the President to fill out his personal Leave Reports following her years of verbal objections to altering the USG President’s official Leave Reports – confirmed in Deposition of Vice President Levy Youmans and among the documents sealed from public view by the Attorney General’s Office.

Attorney General Sam Olens and staff failed to acknowledge, address or investigate the statement by J. Burns Newsome, BOR Vice Chancellor for Legal Affairs, reported by Jeff Chirico, CBS46, in the third of eight investigative reports which states, in part:

“Newsome said he and his staff didn’t consider Caldon’s claims of retaliation when recommending the Board of Regents deny her appeal in 2008.”

http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/23973296/former-employee-board-of-regents-hiding-records

21

C:

Stephen Humphreys, P.C. Email: [email protected] 706. 207.6982

Hollie Manheimer, Executive Director Georgia First Amendment Foundation 150 E. Ponce De Leon Avenue, #230 Atlanta, GA Email: [email protected] http://www.gfaf.org/ 404.525.3646 Sabrina Smith, Georgia Watchdogs Email: [email protected] http://georgiawatchdogs.com/ 770.572.5888

CBS Atlanta News Report #1: A CBS Atlanta investigation exposes allegations that the powerful Board of Regents has mishandled appeals filed by terminated employees. Posted: Nov 11, 2013 12:27 PM EST Updated: Nov 13, 2013 10:35 AM EST By Jeff Chirico http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/23934987/investigation-exposes-allegations-that-board-of-regents-mishandles-employee-appeals

ATLANTA (CBS ATLANTA) With a $7.5 billion budget, the Regents run all 31 of Georgia's public colleges and universities which include the University of Georgia and Georgia Institute of Technology. They are also responsible for reviewing appeals filed by terminated employees or expelled students but CBS Atlanta has uncovered a document that reveals the Regents don't read the appeals before voting on them.

"It's ruined my life," said Dale Owens.

"I lost my marriage," said Todd Brandenburg.

"I literally sat there at night," said PJ Peterson. "Crying, begging God, 'Why, what did I do?'"

Six people explained to CBS Atlanta News reporter Jeff Chirico how they believe they were unjustly fired by the university system of Georgia. Most said they were terminated by college presidents after criticizing a school policy or practice which they said was "rubber stamped" by the board.

22

Each received the same form letter from the Board of Regents claiming it investigated, reviewed and carefully considered the appeal but denied it with no explanation.

"I thought the board of regents was my advocate," said Todd Brandenburg. "I'm naive."

Hidden inside public files, CBS Atlanta uncovered a deposition the board has fought to keep secret, in which Regent Doreen Poitevint admitted regents don't actually read appeal documents.

"I can't think of a single incident where that's been the case," said Poitevint during the deposition.

CBS Atlanta analyzed ten years of appeals and found the board upheld 97 percent of terminations.

"I think the number speaks for themselves. It shows it's just a formality that the Board of Regents goes through," said Nancy Abudu, lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Abudu, who represented a university whistle blower, argued in court records that the board violated his right to due process by not providing a meaningful opportunity to appeal his termination. The case lost - in part - because the board has immunity.

"The Board of Regents benefits from the legal protections that are afforded to the state when it comes to who can sue the state and what relief a litigant can seek against the state," said Abudu.

For a month CBS Atlanta tried to interview Vice Chancellor Burns Newsome, the Board of Regents attorney, who reviews appeals and recommends how the board should vote. Workers we spoke to said Newsome's recommendations aren't based on a full investigation.

"He determines whether there's grounds for you to sue, and if there's no grounds for you to sue, he sends out a form letter," said Owens.

Newsome and another board attorney, Kimberly Ballard-Washington, eventually agreed to sit down with CBS Atlanta for an interview. Newsome said the 97 percent denial rate isn't proof of a rubber stamp process but rather shows terminations are being handled properly at the campus level.

"We provide the best advice we can with the documents we have," said Newsome. Newsome and Washington said the key factor in making recommendations is keeping the board from getting sued, but they also consider employees' interests. When asked if those might at times conflict, Washington said, "No. They never do. The best interest of the Board of Regents is to not lose cases in court."

When asked about allegations that the Board of Regents don't protect employee's rights to due process when they file an appeal, Newsome said, "I should make clear there's no constitutional right to have the hearing before the Board of Regents. The Board of Regents appeals process is discretionary entirely."

But Abudu said she doesn't believe the current process of determining appeals protects of system employees and students. The workers CBS Atlanta spoke to agree and said the Board of Regent's current appeals process left them without the jobs they loved and unable to find work in their fields.

"You get blacklisted once you get terminated," said Peterson.

"I will literally never work again because of the accusations made at me," said Thomas Thibeault. "They completely ruined my career as a teacher." Regent Poitevint would not speak about her deposition when asked by Chirico.

Copyright 2013 WGCL-TV (Meredith Corporation). All rights reserved.

23

CBS Atlanta News Report #3: Former employee: Board of Regents hiding records that show mismanagement Posted: Nov 14, 2013 5:15 PM EST Updated: Nov 14, 2013 5:53 PM EST By Jeff Chirico http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/23973296/former-employee-board-of-regents-hiding-records

MACON, GA (CBS ATLANTA) -

Denise Caldon, of Macon, has repeatedly tried to unseal court records that she said contains evidence that the Board of Regents has mismanaged a college campus and employment appeals.

"It will open a Pandora's box, there are so many issues," said Caldon.

Caldon was fired in 2008 after she said she refused to continue falsifying documents at the request of her supervisor, David Bell, former president of Macon State College, now Middle Georgia State College.

"After I put in writing that I would no longer falsify his leave reports, 9 days later I was terminated after 15 years of dedicated service," said Caldon who worked as Bell's administrative assistant.

In court papers, Caldon alleged Bell neglected his duties and she covered to protect him.

"He would never make a full day of work," said Caldon. "It was common knowledge on campus that we had to limit his meetings. Limit his speaking engagements."

Caldon unsuccessfully appealed her termination to the Board of Regents, then filed a whistle blower lawsuit against the Board but lost.

Fulton County Superior Court Judge Doris Downs sealed the evidence in the case which Caldon has sought to unseal four times. Each time, the office of Attorney General objected.

According to Caldon, a source inside the Board of Regents told her the administration was concerned about losing their own jobs for allowing a president to serve under his medical condition for three years.

A piece of sealed evidence, CBS Atlanta found in the public file contains a deposition in which Regent Doreen Poitevint admitted that Regents don't review appeals filed by terminated employees before voting on them.

"They make the faculty and staff and students believe that their appeals are read and they are not," said Caldon.

Bill Simon, conservative blogger for Political Vine, wrote a court brief on behalf of Caldon's push to unseal the records. He said it's hypocritical for Attorney General Sam Olens to tout his commitment to open records and then prevent the public from seeing what's in Caldon's court file.

"He's engaging in false, deceptive, misleading legal tactics to cover up wrongdoing at the Board of Regents," said Simon.

24

Lauren Kane, Olens' spokesperson said the Attorney General's office stands by its pleadings and pointed out Caldon's attorney had agreed to a consent order sealing the record, something Caldon said she never signed off on.

Board of Regents' Vice Chancellor Burns Newsome said an internal investigation found Bell had done nothing wrong but admitted that the investigation wasn't documented.

Newsome said he and his staff didn't consider Caldon's claims of retaliation when recommending the Board of Regents deny her appeal in 2008.

Since being fired, Caldon said she has lost her home, her savings and her medical insurance but continues to fight to protect the jobs of others.

"I just wanted them to fix what they've been doing to all the faculty, staff and students. They need to right a wrong," said Caldon.

Copyright 2013 WGCL-TV (Meredith Corporation). All rights reserved.

Links to all Investigative Reports are below:

CBS Atlanta News Report #8: Racketeering lawsuit against attorney general, USG officials heads to courtPosted: Sep 22, 2014 12:19 PM EDT Monday By Rebekka Schramm By Jeff Chirico http://www.live5news.com/story/26594770/watchdog-group-following-racketeering-lawsuits-against-state-officials CBS46 Atlanta News Report #7: Allegations of public corruption not investigated by GA attorney general By Jeff Chirico Posted: Aug 18 2014 http://www.cbs46.com/story/26310100/allegations-of-public-corruption-not-investigated-by-ga-attorney-general CBS46 Atlanta News Report #6: Former GA Perimeter College President Sues School for Damages, Relief By Will Frampton Posted: May 07, 2014 6:17 PM EDT http://www.cbs46.com/story/25458130/former-ga-perimeter-college-president-sues-school-for-damages-relief CBS Atlanta News Report #5: UGA professor sues GA Attorney General and others for racketeering By Jeff Chirico Posted: Dec 05, 2013 6:29 PM EST Updated: Dec 05, 2013 6:47 PM EST http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/24149062/uga-professor-sues-ga-attorney-general-on-charge-of-racketeering CBS Atlanta News Report #4: Student: Investigation into Ga. university system is 'my own version of Watergate' By Jeff Chirico Posted: Nov 22, 2013 4:41 PM EST Updated: Nov 25, 2013 4:25 AM EST http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/24047558/student-investigation-into-university-system-of-georgia-is-my-own-version-of-watergate

25

CBS Atlanta News Report #3: *See pgs. 23-24 Former employee: Board of Regents hiding records that show mismanagement By Jeff Chirico Posted: Nov 14, 2013 5:15 PM EST Updated: Nov 14, 2013 5:53 PM EST http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/23973296/former-employee-board-of-regents-hiding-records CBS Atlanta News Report #2: State worker fired after reporting Regent's ethics violation, fights for job back By Jeff Chirico Posted: Nov 13, 2013 5:24 PM EST Updated: Nov 13, 2013 6:30 PM EST http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/23961439/university-worker-fired-after-reporting-regents-ethics-violation-fights-for-job-back CBS Atlanta News Report #1: * See pgs. 21-22 A CBS Atlanta investigation exposes allegations that the powerful Board of Regents has mishandled appeals filed by terminated employees. By Jeff Chirico Posted: Nov 11, 2013 12:27 PM EST Updated: Nov 13, 2013 10:35 AM EST http://www.cbsatlanta.com/story/23934987/investigation-exposes-allegations-that-board-of-regents-mishandles-employee-appeals Atlanta Unfiltered.com University execs’ deferred pay, often hidden, tops $7 million By Jim Walls, October 5, 2009 http://www.atlantaunfiltered.com/2009/10/05/university-execs-deferred-pay-often-hidden-tops-7-million/ * E. Denise Caldon was the initial source on this Atlanta Unfiltered.com news article above PoliticalVine.com RICO Violations by Georgia Government Enterprises By Bill Simon, January 24th, 2014 http://politicalvine.com/politicalrumors/odds-and-ends/rico-violations-by-georgia-government-enterprises/ *Scroll down to Macon State paragraph heading - begins halfway thru the article PoliticalVine.com Meet the ‘Olens-BOR’ Crime Family by Bill Simon http://politicalvine.com/politicalrumors/odds-and-ends/meet-the-olens-bor-crime-family/ The Center for Public Integrity: Accountability: State Integrity Investigation - Georgia: Worst score in the country By Jim Walls, 12:01 am, March 19, 2012 Updated: 3:36 pm, April 5, 2012 http://www.publicintegrity.org/2012/03/19/8427/georgia-worst-score-country The Center for Public Integrity “Georgia Ranks Dead Last in Ethics, Integrity Scorecard” By Jim Walls, March 12, 2012 http://www.atlantaunfiltered.com/2012/03/19/georgia-ranks-dead-last-on-ethics-integrity-scorecard/comment-page-1/#comment-4579 The November 2013 Georgia Supreme Court Ruling mandates that Whistleblowers deserve their day in court. Their decision "strengthens enforcement of Georgia's whistleblower law by holding that sovereign immunity does not shield government agencies from claims filed under the statute. Reversing a 2012 decision by the Georgia Court of Appeals, the justices also found that the law protects all public employees, not just those who work in state-funded programs." http://atlantaunfiltered.com/2013/11/18/supremes-fulton-co-whistleblowers-deserve-day-in-court/