Art Harris and Robyn Stephanie Waul-Blake, city employees at the center of a local police investigation, were fired by the city last week for their role in allegedly receiving nearly $400k in subcontract work on city projects involving minority business contracts. This investigation has taken on a new twist as a law firm hired by the city takes a lead role in evaluating city employee culpability, in addition to a request by the city for federal officials to get involved.
It’s unclear if federal authorities will in fact step in as federal jurisdiction is reviewed, but city officials believe federal funds for project work ended up in a bank account of a limited liability company formed by the two fired city employees. One thing is clear, the law firm Mayor Bill Finch brought on, the Crumbie Law Group www.crumbielaw.com, to provide an evaluation of the probe is taking the lead in reviewing contracting provisions, who followed them, who did not with recommendations, if necessary, to sanction city employees. No criminal charges have been filed in the matter.
How two city employees could receive subcontract work on city-related projects certainly poses at the very least a dubious policy problem.
If the feds get involved this kind of investigation could take on a life of its own and years to sort out if evidence goes beyond the involvement of a few city employees. It happens often enough, feds intervene, ask questions leading to the potential involvement of others, or human defenses kick in and witnesses don’t tell an accurate story. It’s a federal offense to provide false statements to federal law enforcement officials. In the early going, experienced federal investigators tend to ask questions only to which they know the answer to gauge truth-telling.
Meanwhile, attorneys for the Crumbie Law Group are trying to sort out internally how the city should clean up the mess.
Cynics will say political sacred cows will be saved. But if that’s the case, at what cost? Especially if the feds get involved. The feds don’t care about local political sacred cows. In fact, just makes it ever more enticing to pursue.
Garrity Warning
I am going to read to you the Garrity Warning:
Lennie Grimaldi, you are hereby advised that this interview is for administrative purposes only and as a public servant, you are obligate to answer questions relative to your employment. Any and all statements made by you during the course of this interview, cannot be utilized against you in any criminal proceeding which may be currently pending or may be initiated against you regarding this investigation. Failure to answer any questions truthfully presented to you during the course of this interview, will subject you to a separate charge of insubordination.
Lennie Grimaldi, do you understand the warning as I read it to you?
What does one (the city employee) do in a situation like this? When Larry Osborne turns on the tape recorder–assuming it was recorded–and asks the first question: Lennie Grimaldi, did you or did you not register an LLC named Nybor Construction with the Secretary of State’s Office? If Lennie lies, Lennie is canned! if Lennie tells the truth, Lennie is canned! In either case, Lennie’s statement can’t be used against him in a criminal proceeding. Then, the Crumbie Law Group shows up at Lennie’s door. “Mr. Grimaldi, can we speak with you?” the lawyer asks. “Sure!” says Lennie. “I’m with the Crumbie Law Group and I’d like to ask you some questions regarding Nybor Construction,” the lawyer states. “I thought you were going to say that your firm would represent me pro bono, get lost!” Lennie slams the door.
A knock on the door. Lennie Grimaldi looks through the peephole and opens the door after fifty knocks. “Yes! What can I do for you?” Lennie asks as he swallowed deeply. “I’m Bridgeport Detective Tom Kelly and this is my partner, Follow D. Money. We would like to ask you some questions regarding Nybor Construction,” the detective asks. “Talk to my lawyer!” Lennie responds. “What’s his or her name?” the detective asks. “I lost my job and my business, I can’t afford one!” Lennie yells as he slams the door.
“… experienced federal investigators tend to ask questions only to which they know the answer to gauge truth-telling.”
Lennie writes from experience! The question is: How would the federal investigators know the answer to the questions? They never left town!
The Crumbie Law Group doesn’t work for ‘crumbs.’ The money can be better spent as there ain’t much they can do. MBRO was formed without them and what needs to be done is obvious. The first step should have been the first eight words of the title of this topic.
Yes, once again Speedy speaks as only Speedy can speak. The city cannot grant immunity in a federal investigation. City police cannot grant immunity in a federal investigation. State police cannot grant immunity in a federal investigation.
I always like W.T. Grants! Get your Super Bowl Immunity at the below link!
/taco-loco-a-super-bowl-contest-its-fun-and-free/
Joel, what you have stated here is erroneous and misleading. No city or state entity can grant immunity to anyone in any federal investigation. Please post facts, not fiction.
Godiva2011, I think you overindulged by eating too much of that Alcoholic Godiva Chocolate. Where did you read a comment where I stated–or implied–a state or city entity can grant federal immunity?
Talk about writing fiction! Go ahead and cut and paste the section where I made such a statement. It looks like you only read Lennie’s reply. Hey Lennie! Don’t tell me we’re the ones to spike the chocolate with alcohol.
I’ll do it for her. In this comment,
Joel Gonzalez // Feb 3, 2012 at 1:42 am
you said in part,
Any and all statements made by you during the course of this interview, cannot be utilized against you in any criminal proceeding which may be currently pending or may be initiated against you regarding this investigation.
“any criminal proceeding” sure covers a lot of ground. Further, if you’re ever in a situation such as this, you’d better get this declaration of immunity in writing from the appropriate prosecutor. Despite what your questioner may tell you, the only one who can grant immunity is a prosecutor, and only from their own organization.
That’s the Garrity Warning. It is read to all City Employees before the start of a Labor Relations hearing. That is not Immunity from prosecution or does it implies it. For examaple if you and I where co-workers, and one day, I slapped your booty when your Local Eyes wasn’t looking. You file a griavance; Larry Osborne read me the Garrity Warning and I sign it; Larry asks me If on such date and time I slapped your Booty; I admit that the Booty looked so good I just had to slap it; I get a month suspension.
Lets say you go to the police and want to press charges and tell the detective that I admitted what I did to Larry Osborne. Under Garrity, Larry can’t provide my statement to the police. I can deny it and tell the detective that you backed into my palm 😉
“I’ll do it for her.”
We now know this much: Godiva2011 is a female.
Joel, first off whoever is asking the questions for the city cannot guarantee what is said will not be used in a criminal proceeding. The city cannot speak for the local PD or for the feds.
Why haven’t the feds been called in sooner and BTW where the hell are the feds? I firmly believe if the feds get active they will find a tangled web of corruption and employee mistreatment like they have never seen before.
BTW what are Alanna Kabel’s qualifications to be the temporary head of the health department? I can answer that, NONE!!!
Alana K has gone there and raised hell. In a recent visit from the State she spoke with the State employee and when they were thru the state person asked my friend who the hell is that asshole, referring to AK. Why has the veteran office been closed for the last few days?
My spy tells me the reason why the last health director was shown the door was because she had the audacity to think the sacred cows working in the health department should actually work and show up at work on time. Can you imagine that, a manager wanting her employees to show up on time and to actually work? What nerve. Rest easy Warren, you can still spend your days sitting on your fat ass.
“Joel, first off whoever is asking the questions for the city cannot guarantee what is said will not be used in a criminal proceeding. The city cannot speak for the local PD or for the feds.”
tc, part of what I’m pointing out is whether or not the city employees admitted possible or actual criminal acts to Labor Relations Officials, the statement or admission made cannot be used against them. Meaning if local or state–not too sure of federal–law enforcement officials contacted labor relations and asked for transcripts or tapes of the interview, Labor Relations can refuse to release them under Garrity. It doesn’t mean the City of Bridgeport can’t have the local police department look into the matter–it’s just they can’t use the Labor Relations interview statements. Local police can try to interview the former city employees, but they have the right to refuse to speak to the local police (Miranda rights)–a right not afforded to them in Labor Relations administrative cases.
The city can speak for the local PD. But what can they say to the feds if the former city employees refused to talk to them? The feds don’t need an invitation to probe the matter; don’t need to know what was said in the Labor Relations interview–they ask their own questions! They have the attitude like: The Crumbie who? We’re the ‘Law’ around here! Where are they? I don’t know but, they sure ain’t watching me!
The city may refuse to hand over their records but the PD can and will get a court order to obtain those records.
*** This city investigation seems to have all the signs of getting much worse before anything gets better, no? *** Another Black Eye? ***
For the record, Joel “Speedy” Gonzalez is not an attorney. I can only give speedy responses, but I can’t provide a speedy trial. Having said that, I’ll share what I feel is the significance of this development. The federal authorities will not make any statements or appearances like tc would like. They will investigate in a manner which will create a domino effect. Once they are ready and armed with evidence, a Grand Jury will be empaneled and evidence presented to it. This could take years–the longer, the worse it will be. The scope of the probe can expand as that is usually the case–ask Illinois officials.
www .suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/9537035-417/felon-william-cellinis-family-still-profits-off-state-contracts.html
Joel, just so you know the Feds have a grand jury empaneled year ’round. If I am not mistaken if you are selected for a federal grand jury you serve 18 months.
Larry Osborne must have heard about the Garrity ruling from some CSI show and now he uses it as a way to intimidate employees. He has no clue what he is doing and as has been said here many times, he is not a labor attorney and has no background or qualifications for his job. He fooled around with the MBE investigation for over a month. It took an outside attorney (a real attorney) one week to take some action.
As for the health dept, tc has just touched the tip of the iceberg. Not only has the health director been forced out on medical leave, but the deputy, who also happens to be a female with approved FMLA, was demoted of her responsibilities and had her office moved at the same time the director was being removed. The City “removed” the #1 and #2 women in charge. Do I smell another lawsuit brewing? You bet I do. Your tax dollars at work again.
Joel, you and/or Osborne got the Garrity Warning completely wrong. The Garrity Warning in fact reminds you of your 5th amendment rights. Read the Wikipedia article for more information:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garrity_warning
Very interesting, my Ray of sunshine! I’ve been on at least three hearings. On all three, I was read The Garrity Warning and asked to sign it–or else. I know there are union attorneys reading all this–jump into the discussion! All city employees I’ve spoken with have said they–myself included–had been told The Garrity Warning is to protect the employee.
The Garrity warning is just like the Miranda warning, and came into being for exactly the same reasons. In this case a cop named Garrity was compelled to make a statement or be fired, and then criminally prosecuted for his statement. The US Supreme Court found he had been deprived of his Fifth Amendment rights.
Both warnings advise you of your rights. I suppose knowing his/her rights can be construed as “protecting” the employee, but it is really there to protect the questioners from being sued for depriving the employee of his/her Constitutional rights.
Personally, if I were ever put in a situation where I was given either warning, I wouldn’t say anything without my attorney present.
Then again, there’s always the Kalkines Warning, used by the feds with their own employees and contractors. This one does provide federal criminal immunity.
Thanks for sharing this, Ray. I hope the staff at Labor Relations read this–not to mention the deadwood union reps.
In Bridgeport, Garrity is being misrepresented to union members by Labor Relations without any challenge by the unions. “The Garrity warning is just like the Miranda warning …” Not in Bridgeport! One is told that they must answer the questions. “… you are obligated to answer questions relative to your employment.” Ray, do you know what a lawyer charges per hour to represent me or you in such a hearing? The unions sends a union representative–some can’t even read or write properly, but they are given training and attend workshops. In the event of any future Labor Relations hearing in which I’m involved, it may be a very brief one, as opposed to answering the same question over and over and over again.