30 January 2006

From: Greg C. Glass?

To: J. Nick Baird, M.D., Director
Subj: MEETING IN THE CASE OF VALERIE HUBER

Encl: Pre?Disciplinary Meeting Notice dated 1/12/06
(2) Investigative report dated 1/9/06
(3) Statutory Agent Update dated 1/ 13/06
(4) Alan Cox letter dated 1/ 13/06
(5) Donald C. Brey, Esq. letter dated 1/ 18/06

1. By enclosure (1), Ms. Huber was noti?ed ofa pre?disciplinary meeting to be held at
2:45 PM on January 18, 2006. Excluding myself, present at the meeting were:

A. Jodi Govern, General Counsel
B. Sue Wolfe?Schoener, Human Resources
C. Donald C. Brey, Esq, Counsel for Ms. Huber
D. Valerie Huber
Ms. Huber had previously been provided a copy of enclosure (2) as part of enclosure (1).

2. The charges levied against Ms. Huber are contained in enclosures and (2) and can
be generally summarized as violations of ORC 124.34 (inef?ciency, neglect of duty,
and/or misfeasance) as well as possible violations of state ethics statutes. In essence,
Ms. Huber is alleged to have agreed to become the statutory agent for a company that had
been selected for a personal services contract with eh Ohio Department of Health. More
detail is available in enclosure (2) and will not be generally summarized here.

3. Management?s Position. Management essentially re?stated the information contained
in enclosure (2). Ms. Govern indicated that other alleged incidents contained in
enclosure (2) were based solely on Ms. Govern?s interaction with Ms. Huber and were
not meant to be representative of Ms. Huber?s daily performance of duty of which Ms.
Govern knew little.

4. Employee Position. Ms Huber and Mr. Brey both indicated that there was no dispute
as to the facts of this case. Ms. Huber was asked to be the statutory agent for the vendor
after the vendor had been noti?ed that it had been awarded the contract. As an out of
state corporation, the vendor was required to be licensed to do business in Ohio and that,
in turn, required the vendor to have a statutory agent for the service of process. Ms.
Huber stated that agreeing to be the statutory agent was a mistake in retrospect. Given
the variety of administrative details she was working on with the vendor as part of the

Page 1 of3

contracting process, it did not appear to her at the time that there was anything wrong
with agreeing to be the statutory agent. Ms. Huber has resigned as statutory agent for the
vendor as evidenced by enclosure (3). She also provided enclosure (4), a letter from the
vendor, explaining how Ms. Huber came to be the statutory agent and denying that
anything of value was promised, offered, or paid to Ms. Huber. Ms. Huber stated that she
did not agree with the accuracy of the prior incidents described in enclosure (2) and that
in any case they were not representative of how she performs her duties normally. She
indicated she came to ODH approximately two years ago from the private sector and it
has been a challenge for her learning the rules and business procedures associated with
employment by a state agency. Ms. Huber indicated she had worked with the Of?ce of
General Counsel and others at various times in the course of the procurement action in
question. She did not, however, think to ask about the propriety of acting as a statutory
agent for the vendor.

Mr. Brey provided enclosure (5), a memorandum authored by Mr. Brey arguing generally
that none of the various Ohio ethics laws were violated by Ms. Huber being or acting as a
statutory agent for a prospective company seeking to do business with the Ohio
Department of Health. Mr. Brey also provided copies of the various authorities cited in
his memo. I indicated to Mr. Brey that I would not be including those copies in my
report. Mr. Brey further stated that in his opinion there was nothing objectionable about
Ms. Huber acting as a statutory agent and her doing so did not compromise the Ohio
Department of Health in any way. Finally, Mr. Brey attempted to discuss the prior
incidents mentioned in enclosure (2). I stated to Mr. Brey that was not going to allow
much discussion of these incidents because their sole relevance,-if true, was to establish
that Ms. Huber has been made aware generally of the need to seek advice in various
administrative contexts and the incidents would not be considered for any other purpose
including discipline. Mr. Brey voiced his opinion that he thought my decision was
unfair, which I note herein for the record.

5. Findings. The facts in this case are undisputed. Ms. Huber did agree to act as a
statutory agent for a company that had just been awarded a contract with the Ohio
Department of Health. Moreover, Ms. Huber played a signi?cant role in the award
process. While it is possible that this act constituted one or more violations of Ohio
ethics law, Ms. Huber?s counsel has argued to the contrary. It is a matter of record that
this matter has been referred to the Ohio Ethics Commission. That being the case, I
recommend that any action against Ms. Huber based on a potential violation of Ohio
ethics laws be deferred to the Ohio Ethics Commission. However, in my opinion, it is
improper for an ODH employee to act as a statutory agent for a company doing or
seeking to do business with the department. As documented in enclosure (4), the vendor
discussed the duties of a statutory agent with Ms. Huber. She agreed to serve as an agent,
apparently under the belief that doing so in no way compromised her or the Ohio
Department of Health. However, in my opinion, acting as a statutory agent for a vendor
does, at a minimum, raise a significant appearance of impropriety and may serve to
undennine the public?s confidence in the integrity of the contracting process at ODH.
The fact that the business address of ODH was submitted as Ms. Huber?s address in the
application to the Secretary of State exacerbates the matter. Moreover, it is my opinion

Page 2 of3

that Ms. Huber should have recognized this and sought counsel prior to agreeing to serve.
I therefore find just cause to impose discipline for neglect of duty. As a ?nal note, I wish
to emphasize that there is no evidence whatsoever to indicate that Ms. Huber?s action was
motivated in any way by pecuniary gain. Nor is there any evidence that she, in fact,
received anything of tangible value from the vendor in question. Her neglect was an
honest one, but serious enough to warrant discipline, nonetheless.

Page 3 of3