Jet-Setting Political Contributor Saves $2 Million When Department of Revenue Botches Taxes on Private Plane, Whistleblower Alleges

Managers Allowed Statute of Limitations to Expire, Revenue Employee Charges -- Pattern of Favorable Treatment for Well-Connected Taxpayers

By Erik Smith
Washington State Wire

Dennis Redmon, the 29-year employee at the Department of Revenue who filed the complaint.

OLYMPIA, Oct. 8.—A major political player in Washington state got a big favor from the state Department of Revenue, an insider alleges, when the state tax agency botched a $2 million assessment on his private plane.

The clock ran out on the tax bill, which had to be delivered by the end of last year. It wasn’t until after the statute of limitations had expired that the agency decided that the airplane was taxable, according to Dennis Redmon, a 29-year employee of the agency. Redmon is going public with a whistleblower complaint he has filed with the state auditor’s office, calling it a flagrant example of what has become a routine occurrence at the agency in the last three years. The tax compliance officer says as much as $35 million in taxes have been excused for taxpayers with pull at a time when the state is reeling from the worst budget trouble since the Great Depression.

“During the worst of the budget crisis, we have been giving special treatment to well-connected taxpayers who can afford to pay,” he says.

At the very least, the charge is sure to trigger a guessing game as to the identity of the jet-setting political contributor – not to mention the officials who allegedly made the decisions. Because of restrictions under state law, Redmon cannot reveal the taxpayer’s name publicly. But Washington State Wire has spoken with a second Department of Revenue employee with direct knowledge of the airplane-taxation case who confirms the basic details.

Redmon acknowledges he may face consequences for revealing that he has filed a complaint. But he says he and many of his fellow employees have had enough. He said they “know that this is corrupt, but they are saying that there is nothing to be done about it; there is nothing that is going to change. I do not believe that. I believe this can change. But somebody has got to be willing to step forward and take a beating over it.”

It is the second such whistleblower complaint Redmon has filed against the agency in the last year. “There’s no money, no glory in this for me,” he said. “I just want to see this cleaned up.”

Catches Department Unaware

Official sources aren’t much help in pinning down the story. For one thing, when a whistleblower files a complaint with the state auditor’s office, the name of the complainant and the substance of the charges are kept confidential, said spokeswoman Mindy Chambers. The anonymity is designed to protect those who come forward with allegations of government misconduct. It is up to the auditor’s office to decide whether to investigate. She confirmed there are two outstanding complaints involving the Department of Revenue.

Meanwhile, the Department of Revenue is bound by taxpayer-confidentiality rules – meaning that it can’t comment on a particular case, and public records act requests are pointless. Revenue spokesman Mike Gowrylow said the agency has not been notified that a complaint has been filed. “Once that happens, we are going to cooperate fully with them and get to the bottom of this. It is certainly not our policy to do what you are describing happening – that is not the way we do business. We make decisions based on the statutes and the individual circumstances of the taxpayer. We do not fail to impose taxes for political considerations. We are not aware of any instances of that.”

Gowrylow points out that if an assessment was blocked, department managers may have had a legitimate reason for doing so.

Running Out the Clock

Based on what Redmon can reveal, however, it does sound like a mighty curious case. He says it involves a prominent player in Washington politics whose name would likely be familiar to those active in public affairs, a prominent contributor to Democratic candidates and progressive political causes. “This person is a very strong advocate for raising taxes, for an income tax on the rich, for the rich not paying their fair share,” he said. “This person got caught with their pants down, with a very nice aircraft. It is acknowledged by all parties, including his tax advocates, that he owes the money. But he can buy his way out of it because he has paid enough money to politicians in Washington state. And that is about as nasty a fact pattern as it gets.”

Redmon says the man’s company purchased the airplane in another state in 2007, meaning that a “use tax” was due, equivalent to the state sales tax. But the tax was never paid. A tax compliance officer in the agency’s Yakima office caught the problem and prepared an assessment in January 2011. The amount was in excess of $2 million, covering both taxes and penalties.

But before the tax bill could be delivered, the complaint alleges that the agency’s Compliance Management Team in Tumwater told the field office that the matter was being put on hold. According to the complaint, the Yakima office was told the hold was placed “due to political considerations.”

It turned out to be an unusually long hold, Redmon says. The Yakima staff warned managers repeatedly that they had to deliver the tax bill by Dec. 31, 2011 or the statute of limitations would run out, he says. But the day came and went without a decision. Finally, sometime around Jan. 16 of this year, the Yakima office was told that there were no problems or issues with the tax bill, and the assessment could be delivered. But it was a bit late for that.

Redmon’s complaint says, “The only apparent reason for the hold was the political influence of the individual who controls the entity being assessed. The assessment was based on actual figures, clear facts, and other than the influence of the individual controlling the entity being taxed [, DOR] offered no reason for cancellation. DOR is an executive branch agency, under the control of the governor. While DOR is an administrative agency charged with assessing and collecting taxes to fund critical public services in a fair and efficient manner, exempt managers serve at the director’s pleasure, and the director is appointed and removable at the governor’s pleasure. Other Compliance Management Team members involved in this improper government action are in WMS [Washington Management Service] and are subject to pressure to follow directions or damage their careers.”

Redmon’s complaint names several top Department of Revenue managers who “may have directed or known of or influenced the improper governmental action.” Ultimately the buck stops with Suzan DelBene, who was appointed to the directorship on Nov. 30, 2010, and who served in that position until Jan. 13 of this year. But the complaint says the actual decision-makers in the case are unknown.

Part of a Pattern?

Lest anyone think that the involvement of the Yakima office in the case offers a way to identify the taxpayer, Redmon points out that tax compliance officers range the state and they are not limited to cases in their immediate vicinity. He offers one clue – the airplane is not housed in Yakima, he says – but that leaves numerous airstrips across the state. And because the description might apply to more than one taxpayer, Redmon doesn’t think he is breaking the confidentiality law by going public. He provided the name in supporting documents provided to the auditor’s office, as is proper, but they are not included in the copy of the complaint he provided to Washington State Wire.

Redmon says he certainly doesn’t think it is a $2 million goof — the repeated calls from the Yakima office show that central agency staff had plenty of warning. After Jan. 1, when it was too late, he says DOR still had one option. It could assess a “use tax” in compensation for the annual lease value of the airplane, an approach that would capture far less money but still might net the state a few bucks. He says compliance agents have suggested that approach, but DOR has placed a hold on that assessment as well. “This is a direct favor to a politically influential person, where the state is in a budget crisis, the state has lost $2 million bucks plus, and if that wasn’t good enough, they are going to block assessing even the crumbs around the edges that are still assessable,” he said.

Redmon says it is part of a pattern that has emerged in recent years in which well-connected taxpayers have seen tax bills reduced significantly or even eliminated outright without proper legal justification. His complaint last year, which has yet to be resolved, concerned a case in which a $10.8 million business tax liability was waived despite a written opinion from the department’s Interpretations and Tax Advice staff that the activity was taxable. The settlement ran counter to department policy regarding settlements, which are offered when there is uncertainty about liability or legal authority, when there is a concern about fairness, or when there is hardship or an inability to pay. In his complaint Redmon alleged a conflict of interest on the part of the DOR manager who signed off on the case. His complaint says, “The taxpayer was represented in part by a former department auditor, and by a politically well-connected law firm or accounting firm, which is common to other cases of questionable or clearly improper removal of state receivables under [the manager’s] direction.” The manager has since retired and has taken a job with one of the state’s heavy-hitting accounting firms, Redmon said, a violation of the department’s ethics guidelines.

“It doesn’t just smell,” he said. “It reeks.”

Money Just Goes Away

In all there have been a half-dozen other recent big-money cases that have raised similar issues, Redmon said. One case involved a $15 million assessment “that just went away.”

Redmon says, “Some of these are just major, major corporations that have a lot of pull. …It is just a laundry list of stuff that has never happened before.”

Up until a few years ago, the department prided itself on its integrity and its even-handed application of tax law. But these days Redmon says it’s all about who you know. “We’ve gone a good three years now where it is not just an appearance of a conflict of interest, we are doing things that we know are being done for improper reasons of political influence. We are making money go away. And we are doing it in the middle of a budget crisis.”

Tagged as
  • Dennisredmon

    Someone should put a microphone in front of Compliance Assistant Director Nicole Ross and ask on record precisely which of the alleged facts, which do not reference a taxpayer name, she states are false in this case.

    • Sharpino

      I worked for DOR for almost 23 years,  this is an agency that should be contracted out or get rid of WMS, it’s become too powerful, no rules.

      • Mayuma

        Would you mind offering a statement in this regard? I have been dealing with the DOR since 2008, and have seen so many “red flags” with regard to unfair behavior when auditing my small business and rejecting my appeals. Anything you could do to help would be appreciated. I would rather not get Mr. Redmon in any more trouble that he probably has!

  • Jim King

    Which of Del Bene’s contributors benefitted?  It would be nice to know before Election Day. Maybe it is time for the FBI’s public integrity unit to take a look…

    • 32stork

      I think that’s an excellent idea, Jim, re the FBI’s public integrity unit. After the disastrous performance of the party currently running the state the past 8 years I wouldn’t trust any of them as far as I could throw them. And where is the chief executive of the state, the governor who should be responding to the DOR issues? Oh, right, she left two days ago for India & South Korea. Gee, what a coincidence.

    • Kit

       The FBI is under the control of Holder.  Do you really think that anything will be done.  Just look at Fast and Furious, lawsuits filed against states wishing to enact voter id laws, etc. 

  • 32stork

    I didn’t think Gregoire could do as lousy a job running the state as she did the AG’s office. I was sadly mistaken. Can’t wait to read the names of the sanctimonious twits involved in the cover up and then watch as they run for cover! So sad and this state is virtually bankrupt.

  • Monterey22

    Thank you Dennis Redmon for revealing the pattern of corruption by the Democrats going on here.  It smells, alright. The people demand an answer from the governor and Ms. DelBene for this.   We didn’t pay Ms. DelBene her salary so she could do favor after favor for wealthy Democrat donors.  Vote Rob McKenna for Governor, if you’re tired of this garbage and want someone who won’t play along with the corruption as the democrat officials seem to have.

    • http://profile.yahoo.com/LRLZXOEEY6YRB2MRM6R32ICU6Q CHRISS

      Yeah, we need some good old fashioned Republican corruption for awhile!

  • tryingtocalmdown

    sure sounds like that sanctimonious Nick Hanauer to me. 

    • Bob

      Its Delbene .  She was head of the Tax Department and Under the
      Democrats anything can happen.

  • RottenToTheCore

    No, probably not DelBene since she was only there for a short period of time. It is just unfortunate that this came to pass during her watch. There is probably a pattern and these things rarely happens overnight. I am willing to bet it was the incompetent director before DelBene – a Gargoyle appointee – Cindy Holmstrom. DelBene does not need to money nor does she need to do favors. Cindy went to work as a lobbyist. How many other top officials went to work for the folks who benefitted from a favorable determination?

    • Wayne

      Holmstrom left DOR in Nov of 2010, already gone before this was even discovered in Jan of 2011.

    • Sharpino

      Wasn’t it Trim Smith that was doing all the dealing with the high power CPA firms and lawyers to get tax forgiveness?   He’s now woking for a firm and deals with all the good ol boys he worked with at the Department of Revenue.  Really feathered his nest.  By the way, I think the same folks were involved with the Great Wolf Lodge deal. 

  • Mere Mortal

    This is an
    example long term power in one state agency led by a political appointee.
    Neither political party is above reproach but democrats have held the
    Office of Governor since 1985.

    The governor’s political appointees
    include the heads of 49 state agencies and members of over 200 boards
    and commissions. A few examples of state agencies include the
    Departments of; Revenue, Social and Health Services, Transportation,
    Labor and Industries and Employment Security. Some boards are Tax
    Appeals and Industrial Insurance Appeals, and a few commissions include
    the Public Disclosure Commission and the Citizens’ Commission on
    Salaries for Elected Officials. These political appointees make rules
    and decisions that all must abide by. Yet these unelected officials are
    accountable only to the politics of power, not voters.

    Perhaps
    its time to consider term limits on political parties for all
    state-wide elected officials, especially the Governor.

    • 32stork

      I think you are correct, however if it is up to the legislature to pass legislation pertaining to implementing term limits, it will be a cold day in hell before it happens. I suspect a majority of these career politiicans who have done nothing ever but feed at the public trough, would struggle mightily to find a job in the private sector and they know that. Therefore, forget about term limits, unfortunately.
      There is no accountability in this democrat run state. This has been in the news for several days now and not one person in charge of anything has stood up to be countedl. Disgusting and despicable! Sadly, no one will. Shame on them.

  • Diane

    It’s an obamanation!

  • Guest

    Now, if only Mr. Redmon would concentrate on doing the job that the taxpayers pay him to do, we’d all be better off …

    Here’s one of a handful of Unfair labor Practices (dismissed) filed by Mr. Redoman.  Imagine, fiscal conservatives, the amount of legal expenses the State  (and we) paid for unsuccessful litigants and claimants like … Mr. Redmon.

     
    State – Revenue, Decision 9742 (PSRA, 2007)
    STATE OF WASHINGTON
    BEFORE THE PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

    DENNIS REDMON, )
    )
    Complainant, ) CASE 21022-U-07-5365
    )
    vs. ) DECISION 9742 – PSRA
    )
    WASHINGTON PUBLIC EMPLOYEES )
    ASSOCIATION, )
    ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL
    Respondent. )
    ___________________________________)
    )
    DENNIS REDMON, )
    )
    Complainant, ) CASE 21021-U-07-5364
    )
    vs. ) DECISION 9743 – PSRA
    )
    WASHINGTON STATE – REVENUE, )
    ) ORDER OF DISMISSAL
    Respondent. )
    ___________________________________)

    On April 16, 2007, Dennis Redmon (Redmon) filed complaints charging
    unfair labor practices with the Public Employment Relations
    Commission under Chapter 391-45 WAC, naming the Washington Public
    Employees Association (union) and the Washington State Department of
    Revenue(employer) as respondents. The complaint against the union
    was docketed as Case 21022-U-07-5365, and the complaint against the
    employer was docketed as Case 21021-U-07-5364. The complaints were
    reviewed under WAC 391-45-110,(fn:1) and a deficiency notice issued on
    May 4, 2007, indicated that it was not possible to conclude that
    causes of action existed at that time. Redmon was given a period of
    21 days in which to file and serve amended complaints, or face
    dismissal of the cases.
    ____________________
    fn:1 At this stage of the proceedings, all of the facts alleged in
    the complaints are assumed to be true and provable. The question at
    hand is whether, as a matter of law, the complaints state claims for
    relief available through unfair labor practice proceedings before
    the Public Employment Relations Commission.

    Redmon has not filed any further information. The Unfair Labor
    Practice Manager dismisses the complaints for failure to state
    causes of action.

    DISCUSSION

    Complaint against the Union

    The allegations of the complaint in Case 21022-U-07-5365 concern
    union interference with employee rights in violation of RCW
    41.80.110(2)(a), inducement of the employer to commit an unfair
    labor practice in violation of RCW 41.80.110(2)(b), and other unfair
    labor practices, specified as domination and interference with a
    decertification election.

    It is not possible to conclude that a cause of action exists at this
    time for the allegations of the complaint. The complaint seems to
    make the following allegations: (1) the union filed a complaint with
    the employer against Redmon in reprisal for Redmon’s union
    activities; (2) the employer has allowed the union and other parties
    to use the employer’s data bank of employee names and addresses for
    union activities, while denying that access to Redmon; the employer
    has allowed the union to use bulletin board space for union
    activities, while denying access to Redmon; the employer has denied
    Redmon use of its e-mail system for decertification activities; (3)
    the union has disseminated false information about Redmon’s
    decertification efforts as well as false information regarding union
    representation issues, causing injury to the decertification
    process; and (4) the union has dominated and interfered with the
    decertification process.

    The deficiency notice pointed out several defects. One, the
    Commission has adopted the following rule concerning the filing of
    unfair labor practice complaints:

    WAC 391-45-050 CONTENTS OF COMPLAINT. Each complaint
    charging unfair labor practices shall contain, in separate
    numbered paragraphs:
    . . . .
    (2) Clear and concise statements of the facts constituting
    the alleged unfair labor practices, including times, dates,
    places and participants in occurrences.

    The complaint is unclear regarding the application of the factual
    allegations to the claimed causes of action. The statement of facts
    attached to the complaint does not identify which allegations are
    related to the interference claim and which are related to the claim
    that the union induced the employer to commit an unfair labor
    practice. The complaint does not conform to the requirements of WAC
    391-45-050.

    Two, the Commission is bound by the following provisions of Chapter
    41.80 RCW:

    RCW 41.80.120 COMMISSION TO PREVENT UNFAIR LABOR
    PRACTICES AND ISSUE REMEDIAL ORDERS AND CEASE AND DESIST
    ORDERS. (1) The commission is empowered and directed to
    prevent any unfair labor practice and to issue appropriate
    remedial orders: PROVIDED, That a complaint shall not be
    processed for any unfair labor practice occurring more than six
    months before the filing of the complaint with the commission.

    Regarding the allegation that the union filed a complaint with the
    employer in reprisal for Redmon’s union activities, the unfair labor
    practice complaint does not specify when the union filed its
    complaint and so does not comply with RCW 41.80.120.

    Three, regarding the allegation that the employer has disparately
    aided the union’s representation efforts, it is an unfair labor
    practice during representation proceedings for an employer to render
    aid to an incumbent union for the purpose of the union’s
    communicating with employees, while denying the same access to any
    rival union or competing labor organization. Renton School
    District, Decision 1501-A (PECB, 1982); Washington State Patrol,
    Decision 2900 (PECB, 1987). Redmon alleges that the employer has
    allowed the union to communicate with employees using the employer’s
    mailing lists and bulletin boards, but has not allowed Redmon to do
    so. Redmon also alleges that the employer has not allowed Redmon
    access to its e-mail system for his decertification activities, but
    does not allege that the employer has allowed the union access to
    the e-mail system. However, Redmon filed these allegations against
    the union, not the employer and so fails to state a cause of action.

    Four, regarding Redmon’s claims that the union has disseminated
    false information about Redmon’s decertification efforts and the
    representation process in general, misrepresentations of fact or
    law are prohibited in a representation proceeding under Commission
    rules. For mail ballot elections, the rule reads as follows:

    WAC 391-25-470 MAIL BALLOT ELECTION
    PROCEDURES–ELECTIONEERING–OBJECTIONABLE CONDUCT. The
    executive director shall have discretion to conduct elections
    by mail ballot procedures designed to preserve the secrecy of
    employee voting . . . .
    (1) The following prohibitions apply to assure
    appropriate conditions for employees to cast their ballots:
    . . . .
    (f) Misrepresentations of fact or law are prohibited. To
    set aside an election, a misrepresentation must:
    (i) Be a substantial misrepresentation of fact or law
    regarding a salient issue;
    (ii) Be made by a person having intimate knowledge of the
    subject matter, so that employees may be expected to attach
    added significance to the assertion;
    (iii) Occurring at a time which prevents others from
    effectively responding; and
    (iv) Reasonably viewed as having had a significant impact
    on the election, whether a deliberate misrepresentation or not.
    . . . .
    (3) Violations of this rule shall be grounds for setting
    aside an election upon objections properly filed.

    Similar prohibitions on objectionable conduct for on-site election
    procedures are found in WAC 391-25-490.

    Commission rules prohibit misrepresentations of fact or law in a
    representation proceeding under certain circumstances. However, to
    set aside an election the misrepresentation must occur at a time
    which prevents others from effectively responding to the asserted
    falsehoods. The Commission has docketed the decertification
    petition referred to in this unfair labor practice complaint as Case
    20994-E-07-3243. No election date has been scheduled by the
    Commission in that case. There is ample time for others, such as
    Redmon, to respond to the alleged misrepresentations made by the
    union. The complaint fails to state a cause of action.

    Five, Redmon alleges other unfair labor practice by the union’s
    “domination and interference” with the decertification process. No
    legal cause of action exists for union domination under Chapter
    41.80 RCW. The claim of interference with the decertification
    process fails for the reason noted in defect four.

    Six, based upon the foregoing, the complaint does not allege facts
    sufficient to conclude that a cause of action exists for union
    interference with employee rights in violation of RCW 41.80.110(2)(a).

    Seven, based upon the foregoing, the complaint does not allege facts
    sufficient to conclude that a cause of action exists for the union
    inducing the employer to commit an unfair labor practice under RCW
    41.80.110(2)(b).

    Complaint against the Employer

    The allegations of the complaint in Case 21021-U-07-5364 concern
    employer interference with employee rights in violation of RCW
    41.80.110(1)(a), discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(c),
    domination or assistance of a union in violation of RCW
    41.80.110(1)(b), and other unspecified unfair labor practices.

    It is not possible to conclude that a cause of action exists at this
    time for the allegations of the complaint. The complaint seems to
    make the following allegations: (1) the employer sent Redmon a
    notice of a pre-discharge meeting relative to non-payment of union
    dues; (2) the employer violated an agreement with Redmon over the
    application of the notice to the collective bargaining agreement’s
    union security provision; (3) the employer violated an agreement
    with Redmon over the purpose and scope of the pre-discharge meeting;
    (4) the employer sent Redmon a notice of discharge; (5) the
    discharge was improper because the union security provision was not
    properly ratified; and (6) the employer is currently investigating
    Redmon for violation of state law at the direction and in compliance
    with the union, in reprisal for Redmon’s union activities.

    The deficiency notice pointed out several defects. One, as for the
    complaint against the union, the complaint fails to conform to the
    requirements of WAC 391-45-050. The statement of facts attached to
    the complaint does not adequately identify the factual allegations
    with the claimed causes of action.

    Two, Chapter 41.80 RCW contains the following provisions:

    RCW 41.80.100 UNION SECURITY–FEES AND DUTIES–RIGHT OF
    NONASSOCIATION. (1) A collective bargaining agreement may
    contain a union security provision requiring as a condition of
    employment the payment, no later than the thirtieth day
    following the beginning of employment or July 1, 2004,
    whichever is later, of an agency shop fee to the employee
    organization that is the exclusive bargaining representative
    for the bargaining unit in which the employee is employed. The
    amount of the fee shall be equal to the amount required to
    become a member in good standing of the employee organization.
    Each employee organization shall establish a procedure by which
    any employee so requesting may pay a representation fee no
    greater than the part of the membership fee that represents a
    pro rata share of expenditures for purposes germane to the
    collective bargaining process, to contract administration, or
    to pursuing matters affecting wages, hours, and other
    conditions of employment.

    Under RCW 41.80.100, union security provisions are negotiated by an
    employer and union in the parties’ collective bargaining agreement.
    If such provisions are contained in the parties’ agreement, it is
    lawful for the employer and union to require employees to abide by
    the terms of the agreement. It is not an unfair labor practice for
    the employer to enforce the provisions of a union security agreement.

    Three, Redmon disputes the employer’s interpretation of the
    collective bargaining agreement’s procedures regarding enforcement
    of the union security section. The Commission does not assert
    jurisdiction to remedy violations of collective bargaining
    agreements through the unfair labor practice provisions of the
    statute. City of Walla Walla, Decision 104 (PECB, 1976). The
    Commission acts to interpret collective bargaining statutes and does
    not act in the role of arbitrator to interpret collective bargaining
    agreements. Clallam County, Decision 607-A (PECB, 1979).

    Four, the complaint alleges that the union security provision of the
    collective bargaining agreement was not properly ratified. The
    agreement attached to the complaint became effective on July 1,
    2005. The complaint’s challenge to the terms of the collective
    bargaining agreement is untimely. Under RCW 41.80.120, Redmon had
    until January 1, 2006, to file this claim.

    Five, regarding the allegations of employer domination or assistance
    of a union in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(b), none of the facts
    alleged in the complaint suggest that the employer has involved
    itself in the internal affairs or finances of the union, or that the
    employer has attempted to create, fund, or control a “company
    union.” City of Anacortes, Decision 6863 (PECB, 1999).

    Six, based upon the foregoing, the complaint does not allege facts
    sufficient to conclude that a cause of action exists for employer
    interference in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1)(a).

    Seven, based upon the foregoing, the complaint does not allege facts
    sufficient to conclude that a cause of action exists for employer
    discrimination in violation of RCW 41.80.110(1) (c).

    NOW, THEREFORE, it is

    ORDERED

    The complaints charging unfair labor practices in Case
    21022-U-07-5365 and Case 21021-U-07-5364 are DISMISSED for failure
    to state causes of action.

    ISSUED at Olympia, Washington, this 15th day of June, 2007.

    PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION

    DAVID I. GEDROSE, Unfair Labor Practice Manager

    This order will be the final order of the
    agency unless a notice of appeal is filed
    with the Commission under WAC 391-45-350.

    • Guest

       Nice smear attempt.  At the time, the WPEA got caught denying non-WPEA Revenue employees the right to vote on the contract – despite those employees being forced to pay dues or be fired.  Dennis lead a very gallant effort to have the results of a crocked election over-turned – at great personal cost.  But I gather, based on your post, you have not problem with underhanded elections – or tax deals…

    • Cfpayne

      You forget, “Guest”, that you are posting this tripe where people who can actually read and think independently are reading it. Take your union led blinders off and think for yourself. We need about a thousand more Dennis Redmons in state government.

    • Cfpayne

      I’d bet dollars to donuts you have brown eyes.

    • Larrymallory49

      Nice attempt to smear! 

  • Former DOR employee

    This isn’t much of a surprise. After working for DOR for several years and seeing what has gone on with some of the deliquent taxpayer accounts this is just one case of how favoritism is used in the application of tax law.  I find the comment about former Director DelBene not having a hand or knowledge of this case to be quite comical.  Maybe someone needs to ask the question of what was her reasoning for departing in such a hurry from the Director position without even a full days notice let alone the normal 2 week notice that most departing employees would be expected to give.  Just another example of some of the disastrous decisions coming out the the Governor’s office.

    • Yet another former employee

      I know Dennis
      personally. He feels deeply about the way state workers were taken advantage
      of, both by the unions and the state. If he has a flaw, it is because he can’t
      sit still when he sees something just ain’t right. Most state workers, it is my
      experience, are too cowardly to actually act, even when they see wrong. Dennis
      is the exception. So he is a target because he makes a habit out of speaking
      out.

      I agree that it is a flawed
      environment. Since it a crime for anyone to discuss tax business in public, the
      DOR can conduct these sorts of things mostly insulated from scrutiny.  The managers actually go around, subtly reminding
      employees about the criminal penalties for discussing tax business to anyone
      else, particularly the press. It is strange this always seems to be a topic of
      discussion whenever the decision that came down from above is obviously
      politically driven. In my opinion, this is not too different from the way a
      mafia crime family bullies citizens into silence.

      Someone needs
      to come in, shake things up, and remind the agency they don’t just work for the
      governor, but for the people of state of Washington. And
      as matter of fair and honest government, apply the law and don’t make exceptions
      to the rich, powerful, and the well connected. 
      Although personally a democrat myself, I can see what many years of
      democratic control has done to state government and in particular the DOR. The
      people who head up these agencies are basically “clients” to the governor and all the employees are pawns to
      their efforts.  I would rather put up
      with a governor who I disagree with, than one who professes to share my
      beliefs, but really is about perpetuating their political career above all
      else.

      It is time for the DOR to stop playing
      favorites and applying the law as written. 
      I personally would like to see legislation returning the agency to
      Commission status, insulating it as much as possible from the politics of the
      governor’s office.

      I know Dennis
      personally. He feels deeply about the way state workers were taken advantage
      of, both by the unions and the state. If he has a flaw, it is because he can’t
      sit still when he sees something just ain’t right. Most state workers, it is my
      experience, are too cowardly to actually act, even when they see wrong. Dennis
      is the exception. So he is a target because he makes a habit out of speaking
      out.

      I agree that it is a flawed
      environment. Since it a crime for anyone to discuss tax business in public, the
      DOR can conduct these sorts of things mostly insulated from scrutiny.  The managers actually go around, subtly reminding
      employees about the criminal penalties for discussing tax business to anyone
      else, particularly the press. It is strange this always seems to be a topic of
      discussion whenever the decision that came down from above is obviously
      politically driven. In my opinion, this is not too different from the way a
      mafia crime family bullies citizens into silence.

      Someone needs
      to come in, shake things up, and remind the agency they don’t just work for the
      governor, but for the people of state of Washington. And
      as matter of fair and honest government, apply the law and don’t make exceptions
      to the rich, powerful, and the well connected. 
      Although personally a democrat myself, I can see what many years of
      democratic control has done to state government and in particular the DOR. The
      people who head up these agencies are basically “clients” to the governor and all the employees are pawns to
      their efforts.  I would rather put up
      with a governor who I disagree with, than one who professes to share my
      beliefs, but really is about perpetuating their political career above all
      else.

      It is time for the DOR to stop playing
      favorites and applying the law as written. 
      I personally would like to see legislation returning the agency to
      Commission status, insulating it as much as possible from the politics of the
      governor’s office.

       

      • Chuckwinfro

        I guarantee that all these cases have no notes on the system since it appears to be the practice of the ” higher ups ” to never leave a trail of where the decision was made. This leads me to believe if they want no paper trail, they must know what they are doing is not fair and equitable . Although if a front line DOR employee fails to put notes on the system, yhe could be repremanded. Lots of prior upper management have left DOR to good jobs in the private sector and I can’t help but think they were able to get these positions for ” looking the other way” on some if these cases. Not sure how thus us different then bribery !

        • Yet another former employee

          The article states: “what has become a routine occurrence at the agency in the last three years”.  Unfortunately, I disagree that this is isolated to the just the last three years, but it could be it has gotten even worse in the last three years.  But I can tell you, political dealing, favoritism, and just outright improper actions have been going on for a long time at the DOR.  I always wanted to do something like what Dennis has done, but in every case where I thought something was just not right, I never had “enough” ammo for a slam dunk case, or what I knew would be considered “hear-say”.  Like Chuckwinfro says, the management was very good at not leaving a document trail.  However, I would strongly suggest that any investigation go in and “audit” the DOR’s closing agreements, is all I can say – especially those with large $ and/or high profile taxpayers.  My bet is they still don’t have proper internal controls on those things (hint to the legislators).  Also, there are a lot of good folks working at the agency, who understand this is a fact of life, and try to minimize the impact of these politically driven decisions as best they can.  But obviously, the only real way to stop this crap is to make an example of someone with real authority in a public fashion.  Dennis gets that.  I understand the current director has sent out an email to the staff pledging to get to the bottom of the matter.  Let’s hope they will cooperate, and the whistleblower complaint will be honestly investigated.  I am sorry though, I don’t have a lot of confidence that either is going to happen.

          • FedupDCM

            As a current DOR Compliance employee, I know these underhanded dealings all to well. I imagine the whole compliance management team and above never put any notes on the system but can assure all compliance staff have been asked to look the other way on stuff. There is nothing fair and equitable in the tax collection/assessments when upper management can decide who to pursue and who to leave alone. I hope the investigators interview all field compliance managers so we can finally state on the record how we feel about them selling the farm in Olympia. I have had enough of reprimanding staff for lack of notes when they can sell the farm in Olympia and never put one note in the system! From cmt up they have a political agenda. Hey if you cut the big companies deals you are guaranteed a good job when you leave DOT. I’m fed up with the double standards and hope this investigation gets some legs.

          • Mayuma

            Would you mind offering a statement in this regard? I have been dealing with the DOR since 2008, and have seen so many “red flags” with regard to unfair behavior when auditing my small business and rejecting my appeals. Anything you could do to help would be appreciated. You can email me if you wish at mayuma10@hotmail.com

          • Former Auditor

            I was an auditor for the DOR and I might be able give you insight here. If you have been audited, and contested your case in a DOR appeal, chances are likely that based on the current law, the decision, however much you dislike it, is probably according to the law or at least the department’s honest interpretation of it. The matters going through the appeal process are usually handled in an above board manner when the taxpayer is otherwise seen as not politically influential (small businesses mostly fit in this category). I saw very few things that I would consider “smelly” if it concerned a small business appealing an audit. The stinky stuff came from matters not involving the appeal. However any matter – even those in the appeals process – involvies a large corporation or influential person, that just as well could have an aroma.

            What small business owners often do is contest audits where it is clear the DOR is on solid ground on the legal side of it (I am not saying it is fair however – we all know tax laws are far from perfect). But the small business owners tax representatives are often happy to do is take your case and argue it, all the while charging you a fee. Some of those vampires won’t be honest with their clients on this matter – some are utterly incompetent and won’t really have a handle on the legal end of it. I hope you have a good and honest attorney or accountant if your basis for disagreement is at all valid on a strictly legal analysis. The best thing you can do is pick that accountant or lawyer well. Here is possibly where your business associations can help you.

            The real question you need to ask, but will never get an answer to, is another business, say especially a very large business that has its stock publicly traded, paying the same tax you pay under the same circumstances? My experience is that is where the duplicity comes in. The “stink” from these decisions from the well connected is often overwhelming…

            The reason you will not get an answer concerning the other guy’s taxes is something the DOR refers to as the secrecy clause. That big business, like your business, has the right to secrecy on all tax matters internal to the department. So as long as the matter stays out of the court system (internal department appeals are still technically under the secrecy clause), you can’t know about someone else’s tax decision without someone breaking the law and divulging this (note that Dennis Redmon is in fact sticking out his neck here on that – and all of us cheering for him hopes he has this side of it covered). In fact, only a few employees within the DOR will likely know about any particular decision. That, in a nutshell, makes it easy for the politicians, say like the Governor who has the absolute right to hire and fine top level managers, to force tax deals where the large corporations or other influential people who don’t pay the tax everyone else has to pay. Fedup is commenting on how that happens and how they manage to get these stinkers through so the big guys don’t pay.

            In fact, that is probably exactly what started this whole thing on the whistle-blower by Dennis Redmon. This “tax politicking” by big business or other influential people and their client politicians is a fact of life, and will likely always be there to some degree. What Dennis is saying here, it brazen and very bad where there is now no pretext of fairness.

            The other thing you need to know if “fedup” is a current DCM in the Compliance division, he/she has nothing to do with audits and will be risking his/her job to get involved in any way with your case. He/she can’t divulge anything or intercede in your tax matters without seriously taking a huge personal risk. If you don’t know what “Compliance” means, those are literally the guys who go after people to pay their tax debts – they are the “tax collectors”. The auditors are in another department with a whole other management structure.

            The only other thing you can do is go to your legislator and implore that person to look into things for you. But here’s the catch, that legislator, because of the secrecy clause, is also likely to be shielded from this information (that is, is the other guy paying the tax you have to pay?). This is unless the legislature conducts some sort of official investigation – than I believe the DOR cannot use the secrecy clause as a shield. But that likely won’t happen. So your legislator is going to be in the dark too. Ain’t pretty, but that is how it is.

          • Dennisredmon

            Dennis Redmon comment

            I have recieved a lot of comments from coworkers and freinds the last 2 days and just read the comment stream. Thanks for the support, and the discussion generally. Lets open up the look at use of state  government, resulting from 26 years of one partygovernors, to reward supporters financially. Making taxes just go away are a most abusive example.  

            Some quick personal info. I wasa fast track managment hotshot at DOR in the 1986 to 2000 period. Governor efficency commision, took over managing struggling Everett office and became top collecting office in state for 12 months. (89-91?) Great team. Moved to 1/2 Seattle office (bad struggling) by Assistant director.  Did better! Concepted and founded DOR bankrutcy unit 1994. Governors team award under locke. increased collections and cut staffing. 2001 took over managing Region 3 Tax Discovery. In 2004 state employees were forced to pay union dues or be fired. DOR was 96% non union. The facts are that on sept 17, 2004 the governors negotiators with dor managers Marv ostby and Chris parsons agreed with union/wpea reps to allow all 100% of dor to vote to ratify or reject this CBA IN EXCHANGE for union security. On sept 21 dor and union management sent emails to management stating that a CBA vote was to be held 9/24-25 and only “dues paying union members votes would be counted”. Only dues paying votes were counted. Management was ordered not to tell employees about the CBA or forced union dues until June 2005. I believed this was wrong, and stated that view in managemnt labor training.  Fate took a hand. My tax discovery staff in Vancouver WA found that NONE OF THE PUBLIC UNIONS ARE REGISTERRED WITH DOR AND PAYING B&O TAXES and they began a tax discovery investigation. I allowed them to open an investigation, but stopped them from contacting the unions, had a short brief of the union’s taxability to top management for approval to proceed. I was placed under investigation 2 weeks later, suspended from duty and paid to read the WSJ for three months then demoted. The PRB case posted was from my appeal of that demotion. The ruling states that the state need not show I did anything wrong. My pleadings made it clear I had violated no orders or legal prohibitions. I respect that decision, I should not be a manager for this DOR management team.

            The case at hand. The facts are that a $2 million dollar tax assessment, properly due from a very rich/active political buddy of the democrats in this state got put on hold, and kept on hold until it could not longer be assessed by top compliance division management. This means Nicole Ross. Since Suzane Del Bene became DOR director in November 2010 I believe, leaving DOR in December 2011, her term also perfectly covers the “hold” in January 2011 thru Jan 2012. Nicole Ross certainly would discuss this case with top management, and it is 90% that she was contacted by top management directly to put the “hold” on. It is nonsense that this kind of gimicky stuff to make tax debts go away if even rare in todays dor. Tremaine Smith was deputy director and main tax fixer until July 2011, when he was followed by close protoge Brad Flahert. Brad is now DOR director, and yesterday emailed all dor staff stating an independant investigation will be launched. He said this is not what DORis about. He should remember Great Wolf Lodge and leslie cushman. Nonthin that new here.

            I fully support a prompt investigation. I prefer the Wa State Patrol. There are criminal issues here for aiding and abetting the evasion and non payment of over $2 million in tax, now lost to the state. I do not support a long delay past the election and then maybe even have one of the big accounting firms inevestigate who have been doing business with dor. This is criminal issue. RICO is not out of line.

            Well, good thing I did not add fuel to the fire of the initial story. A final story. I have been an instructor teaching tax discover agents how to issue various tax assessments this week. Just before lunch yesterday directors email announcing the investigation came out. We all have computers for this training. I read the email at lunch. It tells readers where to read this story. After lunch I start a new topic, ASSESSING USE TAX ON AN EXPENSIVE JET. I sense a curious vibe in the room of tax investigators. Stopping from the topic introduction I clearly explained, this training is a copy I put on last year, and I was scheduled to prsent this months ago. I will say I do not believe in coincidences, and am a christian. Thisentire story is true, all of it.

            I filed the SAO whistleblower because a month ago I spoke with a couple managers about this case and some others. We all agreed DOR management is corrupt with political deals and no longer serving the public interest first, but are serving their own careers and serving government over the public. They said nothing can be done about it, and nothing will be done. I do not believe that. We can return to being a wall against political preasure to make taxes go away for favored players, and just fairly administer tax laws. I may fail, I may suceed if others feel the same and act. This is how I view public service, and it is an hornor!

          • Nomoredealsforbigcompanies

            Dennis, thank you for having the intestinal fortitude to file the complaint, I can only imagine the courage it took. I hope you realize us peons out in the field office are glad to see this come to light.

             I hope the State Auditors office also looks at the deal the the American multi-channel direct-marketing company that offers discounted magazine subscriptions and household merchandise to consumers with the chance to enter one of its many ongoing sweepstakes.and the closing agreement they recieved.

          • Dennisredmon

            A quick fact correction to my comment. DOR was 86% non union in 2004 before the forced unionization of employees after non union workers were cheated out of a vote to ratify the CBA after being granted that right in writing, not 96% non union.

          • Concernedcitizen

            Why am I not hearing about any of this on the news or reading about it in the newspaper ?
            I cannot believe the major news networks have not picked up on this. Where the heck is Jessie Jones from “get Jessie” when you need him.

          • Whowillwatchthewatchers

            It’s typical that if the taxpayer is an republican active in politics they get no favors at all just ask Eric Overson, Nicole’s underling who is a diehard Democrat and second in command at DOR Compliance. I’m sure some other conservative attorneys out there could second that. The corruption starts at the top and by the time it gets to the managers and agents in the field offices, they are told to just do it and ask no questions. There is a systemic problem with “soft corruption” in the upper echelons of DOR.

          • guest

            Sounds like the fox is going to be checking out the hen house.  When our governor said she didn’t know anything about our new director when she put him in the position I know she didn’t. 

          • Mayuma

            Would you mind offering a statement in this regard? I have been dealing with the DOR since 2008, and have seen so many “red flags” with regard to unfair behavior when auditing my small business and rejecting my appeals. Anything you could do to help would be appreciated. I can be emailed at Mayuma10@hotmail.com

    • Mayuma

      Would you mind offering a statement in this regard, Former DOR employee? I have been dealing with the DOR since 2008, and have seen so many “red flags” with regard to unfair behavior when auditing my small business and rejecting my appeals. Anything you could do to help would be appreciated. I would rather not get Mr. Redmon in any more trouble that he probably has!

  • Monterey22

    How dare the Democrats raise taxes on the citizens so their own don’t have to pay them!

  • Debbie

    In regard to the dismissed Unfair Labor Practice complaint posted by a Guest–readers should be aware that ULPs are filed with the Public Employee Relations Commission (PERC), whose 3 Commissioners are all appointed by the Governor.  

    Dozens of ULPs were filed by employees after the 2004 “elections” which established union shops in most state agencies, but the Governor’s PERC commissioners, despite gross election irregularities, dismissed all but the first complaint.  No surprise there–forcing all employees in the new union shops to pay dues if they wanted to keep their jobs increased union income by tens of millions of dollars, much of which ended up as campaign contributions to the Governor and supportive legislators.  

    Just as managers in DOR were told to give illegal tax breaks to big contributors, so were PERC commissioners told to dismiss any complaints that could invalidate the elections and thereby stem the flood tide of money from forced dues collections that were flowing into the Governor’s coffers.  

    As other writers have noted, this is just one more instance of the culture of corruption which has reduced Washington State to the level of a tin-pot dictatorship, where bribery to avoid taxes is rampant, and where citizens have to pay bribes to a government official in order to get, or keep, a government job.

    • Still pissed about the vote

      The first PERC complaint was decided on a legal basis.  Future complaints simply ignored the legalities cited in the first case.  I can only assume that the Governor got to the PERC Commissioners as well – I agree with Debbie.  Very sad.

      The whole thing was rigged so the unions could stay afloat, pumping a slice of the money back into the political machine (mostly to the advantage of the Demos).  The bad taste from this unfortunate event will remain on many people’s memory for a long time.

      The simple fact that the unions restricted the vote to for union shop to those already in the union, whereby the great majority was not in the union, was plain and simply an unfair vote.  The legal precedence cited specifically in the first case supports this basic fact.  Also, the Governor’s office employed tactics through the agencies to aid in that unfair vote by conspiring to withhold information from the employees (see Dennis’s comments).  And then through the PERC Commissions, made sure those aggrieved parties that filed complaints did not get their due process.

      This is corruption on a grand scale, and Dennis was one of the few that spoke out.  

      I don’t like McKenna’s politics.  But it is time to get rid of these corrupt politicians so there is no way I can vote Demo in the upcoming election.  This is easy for me, as I no longer look to the state of Washington for my pay check.  My bet is many state employees will vote for the corrupt demo party in this state because the alternative likely won’t be good for them in a more direct manner.

  • Mere Mortal

    You can read the PERC ruling of the Unfair Labor Practice commited by the WA Federation of State employees here: http://www.freeconscience.org/alternativeoptionspages/aopfullrule1.html
    This ruling describes what happened to all state employees, but ingnored that fact as the governor’s appointeees said it only applied to 1 college, despite only 1 ratification vote was held for all state employees.
    No favortism, political conections happening here! RIGHT.

  • FedupDCM

    I like how I saw Suzan asked about this on tv and she just sidestepped the question. Bottom line is the compliance management team that includes Nicole Ross , Eric Overson and his buddy Doug van de brake who he hired and now runs the CRRT brag about 30 days for tax discovery assessments to be issued when in reality they sit on them indefinitely when it’s a political player. Mr. Van de brake at one time worked for the Attorney generals office but maybe couldn’t hack it so came back to DOR where I think he still thinks he is practicing law. From what I hear most of these issues are coming out from the Yakima office so maybe a great place for the state auditors office to start would be there where they can speak with the employees there who attempted to issue said assessment to include one where over 25 million was assessed and DOR wrote off over $15 million. The decisions obviously were made above the field agents so a good place to start would be the regional compliance manager, Ross Garrison.

    • Whowillwatchthewatchers

      Garrison ? I think there are 20 family members from the garrisons who work at DOR, nepotism at its finest. I think one if his brothers is a manager in his same region. How the hell does that work and is not considered a conflict ?

      • Whowillwatchthewatchers

        Oh geez the Garrisons…I think one of them got demoted for having sex with his subordinates. That same Garrison has allegedly been arrested numerous times for beating up his girl friend. Yea, those Garrisons are a class act. Bunch of spineless, cuckolded yes men. I used to work with several of them in The Seattle office and see they would do anything to promote through the ranks to include selling their souls.

  • FEDUPFORMEREMPLOYEE

    Dennis,Thank you for speaking your mind.  As a former DOR employee, I would not be surprised if this is true.   Alot of people are afraid to voice their concerns because any DOR employee current or former, knows that if something negatively is said no one forgets it and they are pretty much blacklisted from ever promoting.  AND if they do say something like the employee satisfaction surveys which are a total joke and waste of time, nothing gets done.  But I guess that’s the price you pay for working in a political field and upper management just want to work with people who do what theyre told and never question anything.I do want to take this opportunity to say that I so glad to have left DOR.  Compliance is one of the most screwed up divisions in the agency.  The gossip is beyond bad but no one seems to care.  You only have CMT to blame since they encourage the gossip.  How else can you explain a rumor that starts in Tumwater and reaches Spokane the next day?  Also, why are people demoted still receiving the same pay such as Ms. Purrington? Or is it Perrington?  Anyways most of division has no clue what she does but she’s still getting paid big money.   How is this fair and motivating to employees when everyone knows she was demoted (twice i think?) but on OFM she was paid $6400 a month in 2007 and now she makes almost $90,000 a year?  I wish someone could explain that one.  How is it also fair that someone like the manager of the seattle office is still in charge?  Last I heard his office still has the highest accounts in the state, half his employees don’t do anything but take long breaks and socialize half of the day and instead of reprimanding the employees for screwing up, he avoids all conflict and does the work for his employees instead (Anyone who’s worked in Seattle before 2010 KNOWS this is true. maybe hes changed but who knows).  How is this fair to employees who actually work hard but because of the step salary scale, we are all paid the same no matter hard we work or how lazy some people are.I do want to say that I disagree with the comment made about Doud Vandebrak.  I only met him a few times but he never seemed afraid to speak his mind and is very intelligent which is more than I can see for most of CMT.  Rob Mckenna needs to come in and clean up this mess!  

  • Glad The Pennies are safe

    As a long time former employee who has witnessed irregularities, I always wondered about audits of DOR by the state auditor’s office.  I had noticed the greatest concern was the “safe keeping of assets”.    

    This should not be the only concern.  I can point to one little fact.  In  reference to some of the closing agreements I have seen, if you compared the total value of all computers and electronics used by the DOR, this would be dwarfed by the compromise amount on some of the agreements from large tax disputes.  

    The opportunity for improper acts concerning political dealing has a much greater fiscal impact – BY FAR – when compared to a few employees possibly taking a few dollars from a cash box.  By the way, that did happen in the local office I was in – I think someone stole $100 by breaking the lock.  They blamed the janitor, but everyone knew who really did it was a very desperate hard-up for cash employee who often worked late.  They fired the janitor, the employee was never questioned as far as I know (the compliance manager who had to fire the janitor – on orders from Olympia – told me they were just sick, because everyone knew who did it and that the janitor was a hard working stiff who was as honest as the day is long).

    Possibly the state auditor’s office should either expand the scope of their audit, or ask more pertinent questions besides who has keys to the cash box that has only a few “pennies” in it.

    I think the DOR should be audited for how it engages in compromise.  How, when, and most importantly for what reasons are they done.  Other folks commenting in this discussion have stated the rank and file have to document their cases to the hilt, but the folks in command don’t even have to write one chicken scratch on a napkin to justify a closing agreement.  Sounds like they are still “blaming the janitor”.   

    Finally, here is the most galling thing about compromise that could never reconcile in my own mind.  Some taxpayer, because of their size or based on the intimidation factor such as the reputation of the law firm involved, would be allowed some compromise.  However, other taxpayers similarly situated would be reamed for the same tax.  

    The culture of compromise was a strong one, at least when I worked there.  If it is worse now, it is really BAD.  But at least I can be assured that the pennies in the cash box are indeed safe because the state auditor is on the job.

  • Whowillwatchthewatchers

    Oh geez the Garrisons…I think one of them got demoted for having sex with his subordinates. That same Garrison has allegedly been arrested numerous times for beating up his girl friend. Yea, those Garrisons are a class act. Bunch of spineless, cuckolded yes men. I used to work with several of them in The Seattle office and see they would do anything to promote through the ranks to include selling their souls.

  • Mayuma10

    DOR runs the clock to their advantage as well when it comes to taking years to getting around to talking about a refund for small businesses. And misinformation abounds.

  • The Gray Man

    I have never seen a whistle blower who was not found out and punished, in my 25 plus years of public employment. That being said, my hat is off to this patriot who did the right thing. The Communist mafia Democrats, nationwide are corrupt to the core.