REPORT OF INVESTIGATION
Independent Administrative Review Panel
Date:

09/09/2015

To:

Mobile County Communications District (MCCD), Board of Commissioners
(BOC)

From:

Victor L. Houston, Richard L. Reeves, E. Hugh Shoultz, Earby Markham, Kathy
Brown

Investigative Period: 06/16/2015 – 09/09/2015
Purpose of Review:
The Independent Administrative Review Board (IARP) was formed by the BOC
of MCCD and instructed by the BOC to conduct an investigation of the
administration of the 911 Call Center, to include:
1. Review, evaluate, audit, and reconcile the planning stage (prior to 09/2013) of
the P25 Project, to include, the specifications drafting phase, the bid process,
awarding of the bid, the loan arrangements, and the overall P25 Project
management and oversight;
2. Determine who assisted ERIC LINSLEY in drafting the P25 Project
specifications, when and to what extent;
3. Document any Commissioner, MCCD staff, or Mobile County employee
involvement in the “sole source” procurement from Harris Communications
(HC), or Hurricane Electronics, Inc. (HEI);
4. Determine if the bid process was fair and competitive and if standard county
protocol was followed;
5. Determine the date HEI received the $5 million of mobile radios, why the
radios were ordered before the bidding process, who at MCCD authorized the
order, why were all of the radios delivered at one time and not staggered, who
is responsible for the installation of the radios, why were the radios not
installed;
6. Determine why five towers were shipped without painting and required FAA
lighting;
7. Review the loan negotiations;
8. Determine who authorized HEI’s private antenna on the MOWA tower;
9. Review the maintenance contract with HEI for $22,000 a month;
10. Review the costs associated with MOWA tower;
11. Determine who had Open Sky included in the contract;
12. Determine why a $3.2 million grant was spent on EDACS radios by Baldwin
County and not Mobile County;

 13. Locate the minutes of the BOC meeting authorizing the contract with HC and
the Letter of Award, awarding the contract to HC;
14. Review billing/invoices from LARRY WETTERMARK for last 90 days to
determine if he billed for a secret meeting TUSA;
15. Interview GARY TANNER, Director of MCCD, CHARLIE McNICHOL,
Assistant Director of MCCD, COREY HELPER, former employee of HC,
SHANNON GOFF, former owner of HEI, GEORGE WILLIAMS, retired
Director of MCCD, SANJA FASSBENDER, retired Office Services Manager
of MCCD, ERIC LINSLEY, Director of Public Safety Communications for
Mobile County and past President of the Harris Wireless Users Group, JOE W.
RUFFER, Chief Engineer for Mobile County and former Commissioner of
MCCD, DIRK YOUNG, owner of HEI, STEVE SMITH, HC Project
Manager, LANCE WILLIAMS, former employee of HEI, WILLIAM
WASDEN, former Attorney for MCCD, employees of MCCD, and employees
of HEI.
Synopsis:
This was a limited administrative investigation. All interviews were voluntary. ERIC
LINSLEY, JOE RUFFER, and DIRK YOUNG declined to be interviewed. WILLIAM
WASDEN did not respond to requests for an interview. SHANNON GOLF and STEVE SMITH
were not interviewed due to time restrictions. The findings of this investigation were not only
based on interviews, but were discerned from review of documents.
In 01/2013, GEORGE WILLIAMS was the Director of the 911 Call Center, and GARY
TANNER was the Assistant Director. WILLIAMS knew that the 911 Call Center equipment and
emergency responders’ radios needed to be upgraded. Over the years, WILLIAMS had been
very conservative with the 911 Call Center’s budget and had accumulated $5,000,000 for that
purpose. WILLIAMS had formulated a five-year plan to institute the upgrade, but he retired on
05/01/2013, before he could execute the plan. The plan was devised to pay for itself in seven
years without loans or bond liabilities.
After WILLIAMS’ retirement, TANNER was appointed Director of the 911 Call Center
by JOE RUFFER without the position being properly advertised. TANNER worked very closely
with RUFFER, who was then a Commissioner on the BOC of MCCD. After serving years as a
board member, RUFFER resigned from the BOC, in 2015. Former and current employees of the
Call Center were very critical of TANNER’s management skills and described TANNER as not
making a move without RUFFER’s permission. TANNER was constantly on the telephone with
RUFFER. They often went to lunch together, or met after work. TANNER instituted the policy
of destroying the audio recordings of BOC meetings after they had been transcribed. TANNER
asked employees to change the minutes of BOC meetings to add motions that were never passed,
which the employees knew did not occur. TANNER spent excessively without BOC approval,

 such as two $30,000 cars with heated seats for himself and McNICHOL. TANNER had the cars
equipped with emergency lights. TANNER had no procedures or policies in place for the
accountability of county employees doing work for MCCD. County employees’ work for
MCCD was never verified.
From interviews, it is clear that RUFFER was in charge of the P25 Project, and TANNER
and LINSLEY were following his orders. LINSLEY and YOUNG were close friends, and the
investigation did not find evidence of the bid for the Maintenance Service Contract ever being
published. It was not determined who prepared of the Contract Documents.
Investigation results:
1. At a press conference on 07/31/2015, RUFFER presented a timeline of the P25
Project which stated, in 07/2012, Mobile County Board met with HC about 700 MHZ
radios, LTE, and Open Sky. RUFFER stated in 08/2012, MCCD had a seven-year
plan at a cost of $41,000,000 for the upgrade. Also, RUFFER stated that HC wrote
the contract for the P25 Project. WILLIAMS stated that in 01/2013, the BOC raised
the rates of the 911 fees to pay for the upgrade, but he was not aware of any
specifications of the upgrade. In 06/2013, LINSLEY was in contact with NICK
TUSA, a consultant, by email, about Final System Acceptance. TUSA could not
recommend acceptance of HC’s coverage test plan. If HC had a coverage test plan, it
must have had specifications for the upgrade. LINSLEY has claimed that he prepared
the specifications without assistance from HC in only four days. HELPER also stated
that LINSLEY prepared the specifications. According to TANNER, LINSLEY
prepared the specifications. In the Contract Documents, Appendix III, the System
Design Section, is on HC paper, dated 08/22/2013, with a footer that states “HARRIS
Confidential, Proprietary & Competition Sensitive.” Since LINSLEY has refused to
cooperate with the investigation, it has not been determined if the specifications he
claimed to have prepared are the same as the specifications in the signed Contract
Documents, which would indicate HC used LINSLEY’s specifications.
2. It cannot be determined who prepared the specifications without cooperation from
LINSLEY or RUFFER.
3. Emails indicate that in 06/2013, TANNER and WASDEN were in negotiations with
HC, as a sole source provider of the upgrade. TANNER said that LINSLEY handled
the maintenance contract with HEI, but TANNER received a letter, dated 08/20/2013,
from HEI offering the maintenance service to MCCD. On 11/04/2013, TANNER
signed the contract with HEI for $807,793.20.
4. The bid was advertised on 08/07/2013, 08/11/2013, and 08/18/2013 in the Mobile
Press Register. It is questionable at best, whether or not a mere 11 days satisfies the
statutory requirement of “three consecutive weeks.” The bid was not advertised in
three newspapers of general circulation throughout the state. It was only advertised
two times statewide in Montgomery and Huntsville, and not advertised in the largest

 city of Alabama, Birmingham. There were no pre-bid conferences. A pre-bid
conference is prudent and generally accepted business practice. The bid was opened
on 08/22/2013. Only HC submitted the only bid. The P25 Project should have been
bid as two projects, a Public Works Project for the construction and installation of the
towers and a Communications Dispatch Upgrade Project. HC had an unmistakable
advantage in the bid process. HC had been preparing specifications and negotiating
with TANNER and WASDEN for months before the bid was actually advertised.
Motorola Solutions, Inc. (MSI) sent a letter, dated 08/12/2013, to TANNER advising
him that MSI was able to get a bid form on 08/12/2013, and requested a sixty day
extension for bidding, due to the complexity of the project and their desire to turn in a
thorough response. The request was denied without BOC approval. RUFFER was
aware of the request and summarily dismissed it without presenting it to the BOC.
On 08/21/2013, RUFFER received emails from Commissioner CONNIE HUDSON
and COMMISSIONER JERRY CARL, who both asked if the bidding could be
extended. RUFFER responded to Commissioner HUDSON, “We MUST award the
bid and have under contract this fiscal year…Hence we could not accommodate any
further delay.” His response to Commissioner CARL was, “No sir. You have been
given misleading information just as Comm Hudson was. This bid must be awarded
and under contract by 30 Sept 2013.” It is evident that RUFFER was in charge of the
bidding process. At the press conference on 07/31/2015, RUFFER stated that MSI
did not need sixty days because the bid specs were very specific, and he had to
protect the $5,000,000. RUFFER is wrong on this critical point. MCCD was never
in any danger of losing the $5,000,000 in its accounts.
5. The exact shipping date of the 1086 radios to HEI has not been determined because
HEI and HC have not cooperated with IARP. The radios were still HC property until
after the contract signing in 09/2013. The radios may have been shipped from HC to
HEI during June 2013 at the time TANNER and WASDEN were negotiating with
HELPER at HC, as sole provider, in anticipation of closing before 06/30/2013.
HELPER wanted to close on the contract before 06/30/2013 because that was HC’s
fiscal year-end, and he would get a sizable bonus on the sale. HELPER was
constantly contacting TANNER about paying for the radios, to the point of
annoyance. There is no reason why the radios should not have been installed by this
date, unless the radios do not meet specifications, as the two test radios failed. A
mobile radio and a portable radio have been removed from HEI for testing. The
radios did not meet specifications in the contract and were very expensive, based on
the needs of the MCCD user groups. One radio was manufactured in 2014. Now, the
question is whether or not the radios were ever shipped in 2013. McNICHOL’s
response to when were the radios deployed was contradictory to his response to when
was it discovered that the radios did not meet specifications. He said that it was
discovered after the bid opening, but he also said the radios were deployed after they
were re-worked by HC. Apparently, not all of the radios were re-worked. Also,

 6.

7.

8.
9.

McNICHOL said that deployment is not complete. Does HC still have MCCD radios
paid for on 09/27/2013?
RUFFER’s explanation of why a change order was necessary for the towers was that
LINSLEY made a mistake and did not include the painting and lighting in the
contract.
TANNER worked with REESE RAINEY, firm unknown, to prepare the loan
documentation. When TANNER presented the first draft, RAINEY said the income
was not high enough to support the loan. TANNER changed the numbers until
RAINEY was satisfied. A review of the investment documents of the bond issue
indicated the fees were high and eating up any investment income. A broker was
being paid $260,000 to bring in 1% revenues. The money, if placed in the Trust
Department of a bank, could have resulted in much lower service fees with similar
results. It could not be determined if the search for the lowest financing terms for
funding of the bond issue was conducted.
The private antenna of HEI on the MOWA tower was never authorized by BOC. It
was done on a handshake between LINSLEY and YOUNG, who are close friends.
A review of the HEI maintenance contract documents, titled “CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS/BID FORM AND SPECIFICATIONS/Maintenance Service of Harris
P25 and EDACS Provoice Simulcast Radio System/ Various Sites within Mobile
County, Alabama/MOBILE COUNTY COMMUNICATIONS DISTRICT” discerned
the following documents:
a. A letter, dated 08/20/2013, on HEI letterhead, from MIKE FARRELL, Senior
Account Manager, HEI, to GARY TANNER, Mobile County District Director,
which offered a proposal to provide service and maintenance on the Mobile
County Communications District Harris Radio System, and pointed out HEI’s
longstanding history of providing critical services to the District;
b. ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS, which stated bids would be opened on
08/22/2013; the document was not signed and no dates of being published in
the Mobile Register were listed;
c. INVITATION AND INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS;
d. BID FORM, dated 08/20/2013, Project Name: Maintenance Service for Harris
P25 and EDACS Provoice Simulcast Radio System;
e. CONTRACT, dated 11/04/2013, between MCCD and HEI, which stated that
MCCD was to pay HEI $807,793.20 for performance of work, beginning ten
days from the Notice to Proceed provided by MCCD to HEI; HEI is to submit
monthly an estimated total for work performed in the previous month; upon
completion of the work under this contract, HEI shall give notice in an
advertisement in a newspaper in general circulation published in the city or
county; no end date of the contract was given; the contract was signed by
CYNTHIA COLEMAN, Chairman, BOC and YOUNG, Pres/CEO, HEI, and
attested by TANNER;

 10. There was not enough time to conduct the review of the MOWA tower.
11. It has not been determined if LINSLEY had knowledge of Open Sky before this
project. HELPER definitely did;
12. There was not enough time to investigate why Mobile County did not use the Grant
money in full and what actual value was gained by Mobile County for the millions of
taxpayer dollars spent.
13. The employees who would have written the Letter of Award to HC never wrote the
letter. The minutes of the BOC meeting on 09/10/2013 stated in the last paragraph:
“Mr. Wasden stated that the Board has not formally approved awarding the contract to
Harris Communication, the only responding bidder, and that would need to be done,
subject to continued negotiation and revision. Motion was made by Commissioner
Benefeld to formally award the contract to Harris Communication, seconded by
Commissioner Ruffer, all approved, motion carried.”
14. WETTERMARKS invoices have not been reviewed.
Recommendations:
Establish Limits of Authority protocol and policy for all MCCD positions.
Establish a Project Management process.
Establish accounting checks and balances with a cap on the amount of expenses that can
be incurred without Board approval.
Establish the use of pre-screening qualifications for all contractors/vendors doing
business with MCCD to vet qualified entities.
Maintain the audio recordings of the BOC meetings to verify that the minutes have not
been altered.