tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post114913283316347242..comments2020-04-11T03:30:02.282-05:00Gary R. Welshhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15185079937305083438noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1149985485419162222006-06-10T19:24:00.000-05:002006-06-10T19:24:00.000-05:00The IG's report doesn't say Bolejack falsified any documents. Various media and bloggers have reported that it did. Apparently there are some original minutes and then a subsequent set of more detailed minutes, neither of which Bolejack created, and both created months ago it would seem. <BR/><BR/>In my work environment we often have multiple versions of documents resulting from the draft creation of an original that wasn't finalized and later effort to finalize the document for distribution. Often the 'original' drafts still exist unless someone goes around to everyone's PCs and deletes the 'old' original, incomplete version. Version control of documents is an ongoing struggle in all offices these days. Just because two versions exist is NO SIGN of any wrongdoing. Not at all! If different versions exist it is usually no big deal and easily explained to people who WANT TO LISTEN! However, that seems to not be the case here as it seems the entire investigation was purposed for removing Bolejack and I'll let you ponder the multitude of reasons why but ask you to consider the possibility she was deemed a threat to the political aspirations of others and needed to go. Look, if she had falsified documents the report would have been VERY SPECIFIC about that. IT WASN'T AND SHE DIDN'T! <BR/><BR/>You will also note the IG's report mentions a subordinate putting expenses on their credit cards. If you'll recall the 'leaks' made to the media made a big 'hint' at a travel scandal associated with Bolejack. But there apparently was none so the IG, pressed to mention something in his report regarding her travel, had to find something to mention. I heard that there were a handful of times in which a someone from the office put expenses on their credit card that were hers. Never heard that the person was asked to do this but offered to do so and was reimbursed for those expenses. If you'll look closely at the report it doesn't say Bolejack made anyone do this, but again I've seen media reports and blog postings emphatically saying she did. In fact, there is even a reference to the agreeing or offering if one reads the report closely. <BR/><BR/>I work on the private side and can tell you that I too have put expenses of those traveling with me on my cards for the following reasons:<BR/>a) convenience - we're at an airport restaurant and want to get out quickly so we put everything on one card<BR/>b) for airline mileage - my personal credit card is associated with an airline and I get free mileage so I use it every chance I get to get those miles.<BR/>c) the person with me doesn't have a card or their card is maxed - this does happen<BR/>d) not every place accepts all cards so sometimes we have to dig in our wallets to find a card which is accepted<BR/><BR/>I think there are two questions we need to ask here regarding the travel matter:<BR/>a) Why was it so important to even mention this in the report and imply that Bolejack forced people to put expenses on their credit cards? There seems to be a clear intent to destroy and discredit her as the punishment (public character assassination) seems disproportionate with the concern. <BR/><BR/>b) Who at the State dropped the ball and didn't get the CJI staff travel cards so they didn't HAVE to use personal cards? On the private side I will say that most companies ask new hires to fill out forms for travel cards as part of their day one orientation. Travel cards get sent to new hires within a week. <BR/><BR/>Also, the IG's accounting of the grant is so bizarre I don't even know where to start but wasn't this program designed to deliver services to children this summer? Didn't the State interrupt the program several months before it was designed to deliver services, thereby preventing the services from being rendered? <BR/><BR/>Also, saying the program was never intended to provide services seems to be a ridiculous charge. <BR/><BR/>And finally, it is my understanding this type of program exists in other states, even under the same name?? so I don't know what to make about the IG's comments regarding the Coalition and Randolph, etc. Seems a bit 'tabloidish' for this kind of a report.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1149278392663190922006-06-02T14:59:00.000-05:002006-06-02T14:59:00.000-05:00It is a great analysis. I really wish Gary would write for the star. The star likely wont spend the time to cover this because they dont do investigative reporting anymore. Abdul wont be unbiased and will never speak ill of any of the likely other "culprits" and Amos is too pro Bolejack. We need someone (aka Gary) who might really look into what Randolph, Newman, MCPO were doing. We all know there is more.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1149171197670810642006-06-01T09:13:00.000-05:002006-06-01T09:13:00.000-05:00Gary,<BR/><BR/>Shoot me an e-mail if you can. I have a couple thoughts on your piece. Thanks.<BR/>AbdulAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12703782.post-1149169136855461352006-06-01T08:38:00.000-05:002006-06-01T08:38:00.000-05:00Great analysis Gary. I skimmed the report myself and had some of the same questions, you've really dug in and summed it up nicely. Some of the so-called "real" journalists (or perhaps their superiors whose priorities are seemingly elsewhere) ought to be a little embarrassed they were schooled by you on this. I think the "threat" to the prosecutors office by Bolejack of further funding drying up if they didn't cooperate on McKenna is pretty intriguing, and I hope someone has made a public record request for all the email back and forth between HB and/or anyone else at ICJI and the MCPO.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com