IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS CUYAHOGA COUNTY, OHIO CRIMINAL DIVISION STATE OF OHIO Case No. CR 636461-C Plaintiff, JUDGE PATRICIA COSGROVE v. STATE’S NOTICE OF INTENT TO INTRODUCE OTHER ACTS EVIDENCE PURSUANT TO EVID. R. 404(B) DOUGLAS DYKES Defendant. Now comes Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost as Special Prosecutor for the State of Ohio, by and through his undersigned assistants, and respectfully submits the State’s Notice of Intent to Admit the Other Acts Testimony, submitted pursuant to Evid. R. 404(B). Specifically, the State gives notice to the Court of its intention to introduce evidence concerning Douglas Dykes participation in Cuyahoga County’s firing of Cuyahoga County Office of Budget and Management Director Maggie Keenan on December 11, 2019. As more fully explained below, the State will seek to introduce Dykes’ involvement in Keenan’s firing as an act of witness intimidation and retaliation, and therefore evidence of Dykes’ consciousness of guilt. Additionally, Dykes participation in Keenan’s firing is further evidence of Dykes’ common plan or scheme, as well as modus operandi, of disregarding Cuyahoga County regulations governing the behavior of county employees, and therefore is admissible under Evid. R. 404(B). 1. Introduction and summary. a. Defendant Douglas Dykes participated in the December 11, 2019 firing of Maggie Keenan. Evidence will demonstrate that on December 11, 2019, Douglas Dykes participated in the firing of Cuyahoga County Office of Budget and Management Director Maggie Keenan, 1 who is an important witness in the criminal investigation of Dykes’ conduct. Dykes stood to personally benefit from intimidating and retaliating against Keenan. Video evidence taken from security cameras at the Cuyahoga County Administration Building on December 11, 2019 show the following: • at 3:59 p.m., Maggie Keenan left her office on the 3rd floor of the County Administration to travel to the 8th floor for a meeting with Bill Mason and Yolanda Guzman; • at 4:03 p.m., a County security guard stationed himself outside of Keenan’s 3rd Floor office; • at 4:06 p.m., Dykes left his office on the 7th floor to walk to the elevator. While waiting for the elevator one minute later, at 4:07 p.m., according to county phone records and surveillance video, Dykes placed a cell phone call to Eliza Wing, Cuyahoga County’s Chief Communications Officer;1 • at 4:08 p.m., Dykes, who had a noticeable smile on his face, entered the 3rd Floor Office of Budget and Management before Keenan returned from Mason’s office; • at 4:09 p.m., Yolanda Guzman entered the Third Floor Office of Budget and Management, followed by Keenan; • at 4:10 p.m., Keenan left the Third Floor Office of Budget and Management followed by Guzman; • at 4:12 p.m., Dykes left the Third Floor Office of Budget and Management and took the elevator back to the 8th Floor; • at 4:13 p.m., Dykes returned to the area of the 8th Floor that housed the offices of Armond Budish and Bill Mason. Dykes could again be seen smiling and talking on his cell phone while walking to the Executive’s chambers. According to a public statement by Wing, Dykes took no part in the decision to fire Keenan. “County spokeswoman Eliza Wing said in an emailed statement Friday afternoon that Mason decided to fire Keenan, and Dykes played no role in that decision.” Cory Shaffer, Prosecutors probing Cuyahoga County government subpoena security video from day of budget director’s firing, available for download at https://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/2019/12/prosecutors-probing-cuyahoga-county-governmentsubpoena-security-video-from-day-of-budget-directors-firing.html (last viewed January 8, 2020). However, in the same article, Wing acknowledged that Dykes did have some role in the firing: “An assistant county law director for labor and employment issues wrote a letter to Keenan as part of her firing, and ran it by Dykes ‘for content,’ Wing said. The move was in accordance with the county’s normal procedures, Wing said.” Id. 1 2 Evidence from the Cuyahoga County Inspector General also shows that Dykes had prior knowledge of Keenan’s firing before he participated, and had also considered Keenan an undesirable employee for being a “leak.” Cuyahoga County Inspector General Mark Griffin conducted an internal investigation to determine if Keenan qualified as a “whistleblower” under the Cuyahoga County Code, and whether Keenan was fired for her cooperation with a separate administrative investigation of former Jail Director Ken Mills. Although Griffin’s report did not specifically relate to the criminal investigation of Douglas Dykes, it did contain key information relevant to Dykes that the State will seek to admit at Dykes’ criminal trial. Griffin’s report noted that according to Keenan, Dykes accused Keenan of being a “leak” at a Chief’s meeting: In November 2017, Dennis Kennedy recommended and Armond approved an increase in pay for all OBM employees. My increase totaled $16,000. . . . I communicated Armond's approval to Douglas Dykes on November 4, 2017. I followed up several times, only receiving a response on November 28, 2017. The employees' raises were ultimately processed, but mine was not and no explanation was given for this despite multiple requests to HR. On December 20, 2017, two former Chiefs communicated to me that at the Chiefs Meeting that morning, Douglas Dykes incorrectly identified me as a “leak” ... It wasn't until months later that the Executive indicated that he would not follow through with my raise because of how it would be perceived in the media ... While I was later provided an increase in pay, it failed to create parity with Trevor. And failed to adhere to Dennis' recommendation at the time which was to "give [me] whatever [I] ask for." ... I believe that withholding my raise in 2017 was retaliatory and I respectfully request that you remedy that now with a parity increase. December 31, 2019 Griffin report at 4. (A copy of Griffin’s December 31, 2019 report is attached hereto as State’s Exhibit 3). 3 As part of their report, Griffin’s staff interviewed Yolanda Guzman, who was present when Mason fired Keenan. According to Guzman, Dykes did have prior knowledge of Keenan’s firing: AIG investigators asked Guzman whether she had a role in Keenan's termination. Guzman stated that she was not involved in the decision making or the process. She stated that she received an email from the law department telling her Keenan would be terminated. Guzman later met with Dykes and Myles who told her to be present with Mason while he conducts the termination. Meanwhile Dykes and Myles would talk to OBM staff. December 31, 2019 Griffin report at 16 (emphasis added). b. The Cuyahoga County Code bans employees from misusing their official position for personal benefit and misrepresenting their personal opinion to be the official position of the county. The Cuyahoga County Code provides background for both the charged offenses against Dykes as well as the other acts evidence from December 11, 2019. Section 403.03 states in relevant part as follows: A. No elected official, employee, or board member shall knowingly use his or her official position or official powers and duties to secure a financial or material benefit, or promise of a financial or material benefit, for himself or herself, a relative, or any private organization in which he or she has an interest. *** E. No elected official, employee, or board member shall knowingly misrepresent his or her personal opinion to be the official position of the County. See Cuyahoga County Code 403.01, available at Cuyahoga County Code, http://code.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/CCRC-T4C403.aspx (last viewed January 8, 2020). Additionally, Cuyahoga County Code Chapter 401 makes clear that County Employees must follow the requirements of R.C. 2921, which includes the Theft in Office statute. Id. In terms of Dykes’ common plan or scheme, the State is alleging that Dykes routinely 4 disregarded the rules and regulations governing County employees when he spent taxpayer money (Theft in Office), explained why he spent county money and who authorized him to do so (Falsification, Tampering with Records), and stood to personally benefit when he participated in firing a woman who had accused him of criminal conduct (Intimidation and Retaliation 404(B) Other Acts Evidence). a. Factual background. A significant part of the State’s case against defendant Douglas Dykes hinges on Dykes authorizing the payment of significant amounts of Cuyahoga County taxpayer money without legal approval from Cuyahoga County, and therefore without the consent of its owner. The evidence in this case will establish that Dykes approved the conversion of $13,500 in illegal moving expenses for IT employee James Hay into an unauthorized “signing bonus” of $15,000. Hay had complained to then IT Director Scot Rourke after Fiscal Officer Dennis Kennedy refused to authorize payment of Hay’s moving expenses. Kennedy flagged the moving expenses as illegal because Hay never actually moved to Cuyahoga County—he maintained his permanent residence in Cincinnati. To appease Hay and Rourke, Dykes sought—but did not receive—approval to convert the moving expenses to a retroactive “signing bonus” from Cuyahoga County Law Director Bob Triozzi, Fiscal Officer Dennis Kennedy, and former Chief of Staff Sharon Sobol Jordan. Instead, Dykes unilaterally directed a subordinate to issue the signing bonus to Hay. Dykes never told Triozzi, Kennedy, or Jordan about his actions. Kennedy discovered the $15,000 expense several months later, during a routine audit that he performed of Cuyahoga County’s payroll expenses. Both Keenan and Kennedy notified investigators of 5 Dykes’ actions and their belief that Dykes’ conduct had been illegal. Triozzi and Sobol Jordan likewise provided corroborating evidence concerning Dykes’ actions. On May 20, 2019, the State of Ohio provided a discovery disc to Anthony Jordan, Esq., attorney for Douglas Dykes, containing statements and evidence against Dykes that the State had obtained from Ms. Keenan. (A copy of the State’s May 20, 2019 Discovery Notice and attached documentation is attached hereto as State’s Exhibit 1). Contained within that May 20, 2019 discovery disc that the State provided to Dykes was: • an audio statement recorded on February 5, 2018 that Ms. Keenan gave to investigators concerning Dykes’ involvement in the Jim Hay bonus, which she believed to have been unlawful; • a May 14, 2018 email thread between Kennedy, Keenan, Dykes and several other county employees with the subject line “RE: Overtime request for exempt employees” in which Kennedy had to notify Dykes that he had no authority to financially compensate county employees outside of the requirements of the council-approved County Policy and Personnel Manual (a copy of the May 14, 2018 email thread is attached hereto as State’s Exhibit 2a); • a May 18, 2018 email that Keenan wrote to Armond Budish, Dennis Kennedy, and former Chief of Staff Earl Leiken notifying them of a “critical situation in the County Jail regarding nurses,” and which stated: o o o At present there are 10 vacancies, which is a third of total staffing levels The Sheriff's Office has been trying to fill, but is having difficulty attracting candidates due to the low wage; starting nurses in the Jail earn $28/hour, the industry standard is $38/hour. To combat the shortage, the Sheriff's Office has to rely on a contract for temporary nurses that is being paid out of the Commissary Account. This is an allowable use for Commissary, but Commissary cannot support this expense for much longer without affecting its ability to cover its other expenditures, maintain the minimum cash balance 6 required by law, and continue to reimburse the General Fund, the latter of which has been part of the Sheriff's budget reduction plan for years. o The temporary nurses are earning well over $38/hour, which creates a morale issue for our nurses. The ability to pay is there for temporary staff, but not our own employees. o There are six vacant nurses in the downtown County Jail, which as of March had an ADP of 2,331. The Jail is rated for approximately 1,700- it is over-crowded, prisoners are sleeping on mats on the floor, and our population is disproportionately unhealthy. A shortage of nurses creates risk. The County settles a lot of medical-related lawsuits, the most significant of course was the Lavert death. o There are four vacant nursing positions in the Bedford Jail. This is impeding our ability to utilize the facility, generate revenue, and most importantly maximize the availability of services for eligible inmates. Bedford was built for 200 inmates and there are only 20 in there now. Without a nurse, which I'm not certain complies with ACA guidelines. An advantage of the Euclid and Bedford facilities is the ability to segregate prisoners. Data show that keeping the low-level offenders[sic] separate increases recidivism rates, we're not able to follow that best practice now despite having spent nearly $400,000 renovating that facility. o Raising the wages of our nurses to $38/hour would cost, at full staffing would cost $400,000. But ultimately would be less expensive because we would decrease turnover, save on training costs, saving on the temporary nurses (that earn more than $50/hour), and minimize our risk and liability. If there's anything OBM can do to help address this issue, please let me know. In the meantime, our revenue estimates are falling way short of the budget and short of the revised estimates based on the delay. (A copy of the April 18, 2018 Email Thread is attached hereto as State’s Exhibit 2b). Although Dykes was not an original recipient of the email, it was provided to him in Discovery on May 20, 2019. As explained above, the content of the email contained Keenan’s conclusion that Cuyahoga County’s failure to properly pay nurses at the County Jail, for which Dykes bore some responsibility (according to Keenan), and which contributed to unsafe jail conditions. Keenan’s email predated the inmate deaths that occurred later in 2018; • a December 4, 2018 email thread between Keenan, former Chief of Staff Earl Leiken, and Human Resources department manager Ed Morales with the subject “FW: Council Committee.” The subject of the email thread was Keenan’s allegation that the Human Resources Department (managed by Dykes) had “decided against” prior pay raises for nurses at the Cuyahoga County Jail that 7 both the County Executive and County Council had approved (A copy of the December 4, 2018 email thread is attached hereto as State’s Exhibit 2c);2 Significantly, on March 2, 2018, Dykes told a subordinate during a consensual recording that the criminal investigation into the Jim Hay Bonus had been driven by certain county employees. Dykes specifically mentioned Maggie Keenan, who he claimed “did not like him”: I know it’s hard. It’s easy to say don’t worry about it [name redacted]. If this organization or the prosecutor’s office wants to put me in jail for doing something like this, you know, um, if that’s my fate, that’s my fate. And I’m not trying to be the hero here. And you know, [name redacted] probably sold me down the river. [Name redacted] has never liked me since I walked in the door I understand that’s fine. But, like I said, If the FBI wants to do that, you know, I’ll get a lawyer and, you know, and we’ll fight it. *** But I want you to know, they’re not after you. They’re after me. ‘Cause again, Dennis doesn’t like me, um, and he never has. And Maggie doesn’t like me, and she never has. And so, their thing is they’re going to get everybody out of here that, you know, that, uh, they [inaudible]. It is what it is. (March 2, 2018 Recording at 1:40-1:42, provided to Dykes in Discovery on March 22, 2019). 2. Law and argument. Evidence Rule 404(B) allows the admission of “[e]vidence of other crimes . . . for . . . purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.” The other acts do not need to be identical or even similar to the crime charged, but must only “tend to show” certain things. State v. Jamison, 49 Ohio St.3d 182, 187, 552 N.E.2d 180 (Ohio 1990). The Ohio Supreme Court requires courts to conduct a three-step test to consider whether other-act evidence is The lack of adequate nursing staff at the Cuyahoga County Jail has been frequently cited as one of the contributing factors to the unsafe conditions at the Cuyahoga County Jail correlated with a historically high number of inmate deaths in 2018. 2 8 admissible. State v. Williams, 134 Ohio St. 3d 521, 2012 Ohio 5695, ¶ 19, 983 N.E.2d 1278. "The first step is to consider whether the other acts evidence is relevant to making any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Id. at ¶ 20 (citing Evid. R. 401). The second step is to "consider whether evidence of the other crimes, wrongs, or acts is presented to prove the character of the accused in order to show activity in conformity therewith or whether [it] is presented for a legitimate purpose, such as those stated in Evid.R. 404(B)." Id. "The third step is to consider whether the probative value of the other acts evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice." Id. (citing Evid. R. 403). State v. Morris, 2012-Ohio-6151, P12, 985 N.E.2d 274, 280, 2012 Ohio App. LEXIS 5315, 8-9 (Ohio Ct. App., Medina County 2012). a. Dykes’ participation in the December 11, 2019 firing of Maggie Keenan shows his consciousness of guilt. Dykes engaged in acts of witness intimidation and retaliation against Keenan when he participated in her firing on December 11, 2019. Through Criminal Rule 16 discovery and a recorded statement made by Dykes himself, evidence firmly shows that Douglas Dykes knew that Maggie Keenan was one of his accusers in this criminal case. Nevertheless, Dykes—who stood to benefit personally by retaliating against and intimidating his accuser—involved himself in both the planning and the execution of Maggie Keenan’s December 11, 2019 firing. Evidence also shows that he did so with a smile on his face. Dykes had a personal motivation to inflict harm on his accuser when he officially participated in Keenan’s firing, demonstrating his consciousness of guilt. “Evidence of threats or intimidation of witnesses reflects a consciousness of guilt.” State v. Hamm, 1st Dist. Hamilton Nos. C-160321, 2017-Ohio-5595, at ¶ 20, citing State v. 9 Richey, 64 Ohio St.3d 353, 357, 1992-Ohio-44, 595 N.E.2d 915 (1992). Such testimony is “admissible as an admission by conduct.” Id. See also State v. Parnell, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 11AP-257, 2011-Ohio-6564, ¶ 30-35 (evidence that defendant complained to friends that witness was going to “snitch” on him admissible as a form of witness intimidation); State v. Exum, 10th Dist. Franklin No. 05AP-894, 2007-Ohio-2648, at ¶ 22 (defendant yelling “You snitching bitch” in jail loud enough for other inmates to hear admissible to prove intimidation of witness); State v. Soke, 105 Ohio App.3d 226, 250, 663 N.E.2d 986 (8th Dist.1995). “[I]intimidation of a witness is not ‘wholly independent’ of the charged offenses.” Id., citing State v. Leonard, 4th Dist. Lawrence No. CA92012, 1993 Ohio App. LEXIS 2725 (May 21, 1993) (“[b]y resorting to wrongful devices, the party is said to provide a basis for believing that he or she thinks the case is weak and not to be won by fair means, or in criminal cases that the accused is conscious of guilt.”); State v. Reese, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 53115, 53116, 1988 Ohio App. LEXIS 272 (January 7, 1988), at *22-3 (“defendant’s statement to witness that he could ‘do almost anything from jail’ admissible to show possible witness intimidation”). Keenan will testify that as Guzman was ordering her to get her belongings and leave her 3rd floor OBM office, Dykes was herding OBM employees nearby and stated in a loud, clear voice within Keenan’s presence, “Get her out of here!” Had Cuyahoga County sent anyone but Dykes for this task, this would be a very different case. Yet it was common knowledge within Cuyahoga County, and more specifically, Keenan’s OBM department, that Keenan had accused Dykes of criminal wrongdoing. Dykes presence, demeanor, and actions before Keenan and her staff had a clear, unmistakable message to county 10 employees: if you talk to law enforcement about Cuyahoga County’s officials, there will be consequences for you. Dykes’ behavior on December 11, 2019, telegraphs to anyone present or watching, including Keenan herself, that witnesses should think twice before they report criminal misconduct by Cuyahoga County’s officials. Indeed, even after being fired, Dykes still holds power over Keenan in ways that could affect her willingness to testify. As head of Cuyahoga County’s Human Resources department, Dykes has authority over Keenan’s continuing benefits, severance pay, personnel file, and even unemployment benefits. What Dykes did on December 11, 2019 shows that he is willing to use his official authority over Keenan to suit his own personal ends. Dykes conduct on December 11, 2019 was therefore a clear act of witness intimidation and witness retaliation, showing his consciousness of guilt. b. Dykes’ participation in Maggie Keenan’s firing shows a common plan or scheme and modus operandi to violate the rules and regulations governing County employees. As explained above, the gravamen of the State’s case against Dykes is that he uses taxpayer money and resources to suit his needs even when he has no authority to do so. In essence, his common plan, scheme, or system or modus operandi, is to violate the County’s code to accomplish tasks. “A certain modus operandi is admissible not because it labels a defendant as a criminal, but because it provides a behavioral fingerprint which, when compared to the behavioral fingerprints associated with the crime in question, can be used to identify the defendant as the perpetrator.” State v. Lowe, 69 Ohio St.3d 527, 531, 634 N.E.2d 616 (Ohio 1994). The other acts need not be the same as or similar to the crime charged, but must be related to and share common features with the crime in question. Id. 11 Likewise, “[o]ther-acts evidence is admissible pursuant to the ‘common scheme, plan, or system’ exception in two instances, the first of which is irrelevant to the current appeal: (1) the other acts are part of one criminal transaction and are inextricably related to the charged crime; or (2) the common scheme, plan or system tends to prove identity of the perpetrator. State v. Yancy, 8th Dist. Cuyahoga Nos. 96527, 96528, 2011-Ohio-6274, ¶ 13. Dykes conduct—intimidating and retaliating against witness Maggie Keenan—is inextricably linked to his underlying criminal conduct, theft in office and lying to another county employee about his legal authority to spend taxpayer money. By retaliating against such a high-profile and well-known witness, Dykes was yet again violating County rules and regulations governing the conduct of county employees (Sec. 403.01(A) prohibiting use of official position for personal benefit) to further a scheme that itself was another violation of the same rules (Sec. 403.01(E) prohibiting county employees from misrepresenting personal opinions as official county positions and 401, prohibiting county employees from engaging in theft in office). 3. Conclusion Because the evidence of defendant Douglas Dykes’ participation in Maggie Keenan’s December 11, 2019 firing is highly probative to the current case and admissible pursuant to Evid. R. 404(B), the State respectfully gives notice that it intends to admit the aforegoing evidence in the State’s case-in-chief. Respectfully submitted, DAVE YOST Ohio Attorney General and Special Prosecutor for Cuyahoga County /s/ Matthew E. Meyer DANIEL KASARIS (0043215) 12 Assistant Attorney General LINDA POWERS (0061070) Assistant Attorney General PAUL M. SOUCIE (0019520) MATTHEW E. MEYER (0075253) Special Assistant Attorney General 615 W. Superior Ave., 11th Floor Cleveland, Ohio 44113 (216) 787-3030 matthew.meyer@ohioattorneygeneral.gov email CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE A copy of the foregoing State’s Notice of Intent to Introduce Other Acts Evidence Pursuant to Evid. R. 404(B) was sent this 9th day of January, 2020, to Anthony Jordan, Esq., attorney for Douglas Dykes, The Rockefeller Building, Suite 1144, 614 W. Superior Rd., Cleveland, Ohio 44113, adj2065@msn.com. /s/ Matthew E. Meyer Special Assistant Attorney General 13 Special Prosecutions Section if? 08 I 615 W. Superior Ave, 11th Floor - Cleveland, OH 44113 . . . 3 1- - or." OhioAttorneyGeneral. gov OHIO ATTORNEY GENERAL May 20, 2019 Mr. Anthony Jordan, Esq. Anthony Jordan, Esq. Rockefeller Building Suite 1144, 614 W. Superior Rd. Cleveland, Ohio 44113 Re: State of Ohio v. Douglas Dykes et. Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas Case No. CR 636461 Dear Mr. Jordan: Enclosed please find two discovery hard drives labeled "Douglas Dykes Discovery Disc The content of this disc is re?ected in the file directories shown in the attached screen shots, and the State has maintained a copy of the items provided to you in its files. Please note, these items are provided to you pursuant to the Court?s Protective Order issued on April 30, 2019. Respectfully, Special Prosecutions Section 615 W. Superior Ave., 11th Floor Cleveland, OH 44113 [216) 787-3095 Encl cc:\ File 1 STATE EXHIBIT 1 Douglas Dykes Discovery Disc (My Passport .s .2 . 5: "lb-Inn arr-3mm - a Ian-up we} y, I ta. El ?an. 91.2 9M5- . mush-t .-. -- I mummumnm Bil-I1 1.7.. Emu Lama-mzu - 1! 5: -. 2" LI autumn?u. I:r l 9' .l Jvhnayqu-I uni-3J?J?r-u I I - 1. Oil. 0 Type ~wmuwmr? 4 - mar-Elm?! - -.- 7-7; 2 IMM I: W: E??mmr "Tm 25 items . um- :mwassm mm mm mime?mssm Jilin: CoufLuc-I Emmewam #30me cm [dental 19am 2' ?-Dchop (wmucwwum minus-155m visa-rouse: Ughi-polunw'n spams-3mm Hume amp," 'l Men-annoy Hum-seq 3 3' ?Wm Bum-er 3mm siromagmw mm?: 3 hail 51-20mm ?14 Filequ'zr amen ?3:51:19:an Fi?'elplc'u ?3ng ink: mwmiysaim Fannie: 3 3mm igajiusdm- snowmgzazm mum ?a [Wm MW mammal/m Fz?lot??.? Wampum H-I F?le 1045?: ?fwm? i sno?bwaas?u mum 3 avm 3% 0mm: win/mumps: Human: a $th Malawi-new Fiis lam: 53 WW Helena .3 I Mr Dis 52me 'Fat'lol?a (?puma-nth! ?TM?Mdnr sxemwm?m .. isms?, - a n?i?ulnnl?l i 3; '3 Rwanda-?lawn?:55 - . 12.6245 aim lyr-I hrrpI: marrh -. Name Sake 1'de T: ?wo?we-Cwahogi 39. mm Vvs'rllo ME?ol?ce 5?3 DOC mun: Records 5H .5le {??dtf $151201! 21., 5412 kids! 34 items A m: 2 federal man on Jail mammal)? Ene- midi-r . 3. 30 0mm $3 GWTW yuan-32117 91A. meta-m :53 Irgms from (my swim-rod 5315:2313 20? 9M 5% Debbie venom. 95:22:19 2.Items from jammy Mia magma 2m m, fakl? f? 35 mm Lem laden magma :73 me .rnu mm. 1? 5" MC 2 Ens/2019mm rue {ekkr 53W 34 umhomMamGIi?ii'l 5.153919 4mm We 2.5.15: 5 it mans Item Item Mira m. manner g3 WindM_ 5g Ilcmi h?om ONO ENG Comm-355m! 5/1542?0m ?New 52:5:2319 230 we. 5 ..n=dor .2 My hm 5% llerns from Robert Tnof? ?sinmw meme: Items [mm mm McLear 5.55.2019 2 rue ease-J Mano-m- ?Jaii We: and Pregame; 2? We Paid-2r 7 mm? ?53 Kikal Dom-um 31552919 I: bade! Wm?: M.) mm; 5,115,235; ?235 w. Maniac: 33 Red zone data iron-126144019 5,1 Iazzala 3.06 efsEIJer . yummy?; IL: mam W3 - 19.an Amblealupeiura *elscannzsam 'iLCnaadiaf??iw. 1'12 I m1,? ?immu- A 1 on 1 M1 vumgma A MmSaicelrumiew. a?u-zma mm mummy A Chief?eome nylon 2-12-2019 cum mums-ham, interview. 644-2019: A D?wKzI?aLtlpei or: 3 Km Kochurar, interview. March 29. 2019 A Maggiex?emz-u-zm A PhilinAmrln mam-a Hiawatha vLGn-mi 23,0251 h? 'anga'w 9M W: media fire I, W. 14.74? '15 L-.- us my me Adobe Amman 0 ti warm; 1:41 ?99. VIC. nwdia pr Cw. 25 12.). K3 ENZSOHA ?(mam yum 5:31:56 "42:10713-5 AM. w: media r33 La: 3 3:29:29? 5- \1Cm?di3 mm?- marten w: . 'zvarzm 9-15 mama 952?mm 1?:de Em: amaze are S: A 34 mm: fedem?zpmonlall ansizmz cider . ?hlihg?cllm?i 3 A emwu . . helm from Cory Swaisgnod sszow?wnm Tet-ale? hen-shamOebbie Danwith {Only-ch hem ?omkvemyM-?o I INN-W 3- wenunamtmaLocm - (hm-m Keenan . Imam summnlim }\luur 2i. mimm Milne mun-m war; 929m 9 hm mksmoluaEl?sComn?ssEou eirdder Ivan-n liens flo?m Rebeca Knpciemk} :?1191?6106 5r Ilenul'mrn??itho?r'e cider tIW-mm?l ., is nanulrom?obenl?riozzi dry 1" Hern?meIEvor may .419 7-579?! cidtv . rJun-uplnuwll. . win-win! 1m Edna-nu Puts-r" Kauai Documems 3- ?5 feidw 5r" 52019 1 4mm- .?Ihmn? OHLEG Photos Shem-1a .. nedzonedalafmm 2014-20?! He Ir-?Ller . . ?Hwy, Brand-[Carnem 2-12-2019 ?thug-II? Brian Sake 3-1440?! 21C 'rca 2a Cammock?uller teller 9 - Adub?fu . ?Nari-'1' George Two; 242?2019 inn-(I19 1 1 51:: rum J==r a; Imus! Dr- CliffPEnkmy, Shed". interview. 6-1-1 2019 Huhl ?Ho-Illn- D'r Dan?ee?e GakEnlEm'ew. 3 ?-20:19 WC Tl IMI nun. Donna Kalzal lapel 013 (rem I uJ. Donna Kamal lape 2 013 h- ?mm Donna KaLeal tape 9 DI 3 Km Kodm. interwar March 29 2019 her-Int 1.1lplmI-Ia ".Hrh Maw: Krenan. 2 1372019 Philip Angelainlerview, Mauh29, 20I9 Sherm?nhry. 2-19-2019 v.51." full-2.3 '13 r?m?ih??n?i?unm'wnl rvv. ?hmuwn' 0 u- Hrfwumgl?j II 'f - .3 ma ?am: i. DUI: m1; Buns *mw Irux. m" ?1 1130mm. my? ?lm-.2 I- um DCVS a Dun-nun a 41? I .. hm)? 13:55,; I View I . 9:5. ?3 Mj??l-lJu-Lm1 IHI mk?culhn - Una-m rn-Ieu 1. It, EA - av mum?: mum-m -- Manda-u - . mme) u- -- bun-NH i'IW?r WV ['iI Lonny Mam-.m- - se Mia-bindulqm ?flu-5'11! mm- 6 [ml-u: Outlaws 0 1,1? hm- ha mul- .1, kn Mn: Dung-?nu-e I.. . - a 3mm: Dr." I swam KB #4 rum unw-Inusurm Elz'?n?fl .2 ?sh! m?evold'er 1r 1 '1 trial! Hvliln'lrI'J-I mm "-1qu 411550191545 R. kab?q . 44 @1755 ll'. hon.- Lc ?unj- A a v. i! Hrmu-mll' . .- . Eur" {con- - r. at}: ?lm 3 .. ?1 - ?Egg, ?ght ?mux? 1 tn yaw $3619 I'm In much qunnq Nun - v. fMP-npuntf: I ham-r. lm MILIS 0191! I115 Il??lz'l - tiill'l'l? [Llh?ltaitmh's: . mdluhmwamm Ira-.1- ..-- . - .. [n Niaauwuun utca? 9 run. :1 4 bl :5 cl ilIIr'n I I [1:de 11-1 94:: 1. 4 ?gram-:12; muulluDIu-mu .- liq-mum 1 unm-m: - LIIW ll 0 . iimllz?myarugxw?m I 0 hp! hwy In Irv-Ll 1-: 310.2399?? 12j?iif??mdwu lamina 12131120" mm. (in; .2 From: Sent: To: Subject: Maggie Keenan Friday, February 15, 2019 6:53 AM DeSimone, Robert Fwd: Overtime request for exempt employees Begin forwarded message: From: Maggie Keenan Date: February 15,2019 at 6:51:59 AM EST To: Subject: Fw: Overtime request for exempt employees From: Douglas Dykes Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 9:18:04 AM To: Lisa Rocco; Dennis Kennedy; Dan Harbaugh; Holly Woods Cc: Rhonda Caldwell; Maggie Keenan; Staci Garlington; Douglas Dykes; Staci Garlington Subject: RE: Overtime request for exempt employees Working on it. Meeting with the 8th floor again today. Douglas From: Lisa Rocco Sent: Wednesday, May 16, 2018 4:14PM To: Dennis Kennedy ; Douglas Dykes ; Dan Harbaugh ; Holly Woods Cc: Rhonda Caldwell ; Maggie Keenan ; Staci Garlington Subject: RE: Overtime request for exempt employees Douglas- please let me know if this request has made it on the Executive Agenda. The appraisal is three weeks from being completed and it is important to get this item moved forward . ...1i44 ?lt. ~oua Director of Operations Cuyahoga County Fiscal Office 216.443.5730 lrocco@cuyahogacounty.us From: Dennis Kennedy Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 9:27AM 1 STATE'S EXHIBIT 2A To: Douglas Dykes ; Dan Harbaugh ; Holly Woods Cc: Rhonda Caldwell ; Lisa Rocco ; Maggie Keenan ; Staci Garlington Subject: RE: Overtime request for exempt employees Douglas- I think the policy stipulates that the Executive has to sign off. Not sure that the legislation allows for designation, so I'd plan on having Armond sign all requests for now. From: Douglas Dykes Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 9:11AM To: Dan Harbaugh ; Holly Woods Cc: Rhonda Caldwell ; Dennis Kennedy ; Lisa Rocco ; Maggie Keenan ; Staci Garlington ; Douglas Dykes Subject: Re: Overtime request for exempt employees Thanks Dan. Take a chance to reread my email. That's why I'm following up with Armond and Earl today. Douglas From: Dan Harbaugh Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 8:52 AM To: Douglas Dykes; Holly Woods Cc: Rhonda Caldwell; Dennis Kennedy; Lisa Ruccu; Maggie Keenan; Staci Garlington Subject: RE: Overtime request for exempt employees Douglas, as I reviewed the Straight Time Pay provision in the new Policy and Procedure manual item #6 on pg. 55 appears to require County Executive approval. I know I am probably the first to make such a request, however, I want to make sure we all follow the guidelines as intended. Daniel N. Harbaugh Director of Real Estate Appraisal Fiscal Office 2079 East Ninth Street, Room 3-128 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Office 216-443-7494 e-mail dharbaugh@cuyahogacounty.us From: Douglas Dykes Sent: Saturday, May 12, 2018 10:14 AM To: Dan Harbaugh ; Holly Woods 2 Cc: Rhonda Caldwell ; Dennis Kennedy ; Lisa Rocco ; Maggie Keenan ; Douglas Dykes ; Staci Garlington Subject: RE: Overtime request for exempt employees Dan I have approved your request. Let me check with Armond and Earl to see if they want to also approve, or designate to me. We should have something to you by COB, Monday. Douglas From: Dan Harbaugh Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 4:12PM To: Douglas Dykes ; Holly Woods Cc: Rhonda Caldwell ; Dennis Kennedy ; Lisa Rocco ; Maggie Keenan Subject: RE: Overtime request for exempt employees Please see attached, and let me know next steps. Daniel N. Harbaugh Director of Real Estate Appraisal Fiscal Office 2079 East Ninth Street, Room 3-128 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Office 216-443-7494 e-mail dharbaugh@cuyahogacounty.us From: Rhonda Caldwell Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 2:00 PM To: Dan Harbaugh Subject: RE: Overtime request for exempt employees You are welcome. Please feel free to call me if you have questions filling out the form . Rhonda Caldwell, CCP Compensation Manager X6436 From: Dan Harbaugh Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 1:57 PM 3 To: Rhonda Caldwell Subject: RE: Overtime request for exempt employees Thanks! Daniel N. Harbaugh Director of Real Estate Appraisal Fiscal Office 2079 East Ninth Street, Room 3-128 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Office 216-443-7494 e-mail dharbaugh@cuyahogacounty.us From: Rhonda Caldwell Sent: Friday, May 11, 2018 12:08 PM To: Dan Harbaugh Subject: RE: Overtime request for exempt employees Importance: High Dan, Sorry it took a bit longer than I expected. Holly and Douglas had a few modifications. The spreadsheet is attached with the employees names and rates already included. You just need to fill out the rest, get signatures & get it to HR. Thanks, Rhonda Caldwell, CCP Compensation Manager X6436 From: Dan Harbaugh Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 4:04 PM To: Rhonda Caldwell Cc: Lisa Rocco ; Dennis Kennedy Subject: RE: Overtime request for exempt employees Rhonda, thanks for taking the time to speak with me today. Hopefully you will be able to provide me tomorrow the form that will be utilized for straight time eligible requests. I will be meeting with Mr. Kennedy at some point on Friday to discuss the issue. Daniel N. Harbaugh Director of Real Estate Appraisal Fiscal Office 2079 East Ninth Street, Room 3-128 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Office 216-443-7494 4 e-mail dharbaugh@cuyahogacounty.us From: Lisa Rocco Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2018 3:53 PM To: Dan Harbaugh Subject: Fwd: Overtime request for exempt employees Please reach out to her and let her know how important this is. Thank you. Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Rhonda Caldwell Date: May 10, 2018 at 3:48:37 PM EDT To: Lisa Rocco Subject: Overtime request for exempt employees Lisa, We are working on an updated form for you to complete for the people that you would like to make straight-time eligible. As soon as the form is approved as final, I will get it back to you with the employee's names that you provided to Douglas and you can complete the form. I'm hoping to have this no later than tomorrow. Thanks, Rhonda Caldwell, CCP Compensation Manager Department of Human Resources Compensation Team 2079 East Ninth Street, Suite 7-200 Cleveland, Ohio 44115 Tel: (216} 698-6436 I Fax: (216} 698-2325 Com pensation@cuyahogacounty.us Learn more about Project DRIVE at http://intranet.cuyahoga.cc/en-US/DRIVEResource-Portal.aspx DRIVE Results I Innovation I Value I Efficiency Together We Thrive! Any information and/or file(s) transmitted with it are the property of the County of Cuyahoga, Ohio and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this is addressed. If you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this information error, please notify the sender and delete this immediately from your 5 desktop or mobile t:lectronil: devil:e. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this information and/or attached file(s) is strictly prohibited. 6 From: Sent: To: Subject: Maggie Keenan Friday, February 15, 2019 12:44 PM DeSimone, Robert Fwd: Nurses -Just FYI Critical and crisis aren't synonymous, but this shows he knew there was a problem. Before Brock. Begin forwarded message: From: Maggie Keenan Date: February 15, 2019 at 12:33:56 PM EST To: Maggie Keenan Subject: FW: Nurses- Just FYI From: Earl Leiken Sent: Wednesday, April18, 2018 5:21PM To: Maggie Keenan Subject: RE: Nurses- Just FYI Thanks Maggie for the heads up. From: Maggie Keenan Sent: Wednesday, April18, 2018 1:13 PM To: Armond Bud ish ; Dennis Kennedy ; Earl Leiken Subject: Nurses- Just FYI Want to make you aware of a critical situation in the County Jail regarding nurses: o At present there are 10 vacancies, which is a third of total staffing levels o The Sheriff's Office has been trying to fill, but is having difficulty attracting candidates due to the low wage; starting nurses in the Jail earn $28/hour, the industry standard is $38/hour. o To combat the shortage, the Sheriff's Office has to rely on a contract for temporary nurses that is being paid out of the Commissary Account. This is an allowable use for Commissary, but Commissary cannot support this expense for much longer without affecting its ability to cover its other expenditures, maintain the minimum cash balance required by law, and continue to reimburse the General Fund, the latter of which has been part of the Sheriff's budget reduction plan for years. o The temporary nurses are earning well over $38/hour, which creates a morale issue for our nurses. The ability to pay is there for temporary staff, but not our own employees. o There are six vacant nurses in the downtown County Jail, which as of March had an ADP of 2,331. The Jail is rated for approximately 1, 700- it is over-crowded, prisoners are sleeping on mats on the floor, and our population is disproportionately unhealthy. A shortage of nurses creates risk. The County settles a lot of medical-related lawsuits, the most significant of course was the Lavert death. 1 STATE'S EXHIBIT 2B o o There are four vacant nursing positions in the Bedford Jail. This is impeding our ability to utilize the facility, generate revenue, and most importantly maximize the availability of services for eligible inmates. Bedford was built for 200 inmates and there Date: February 15, 2019 at 5:57:21 PM EST To: Maggie Keenan Subject: FW: Council Committee From: Maggie Keenan Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 5:28 PM To: Earl Leiken ; Ed Morales Subject: Re: Council Committee I think it's significant as it relates to our inability to maintain adequate staffing levels. To say that people are leaving to ,pursue other opportunities" isn't getting at the underlying issues. We may pay the same, but we have also acknowledged that the jail is an undesirable work environment, perhaps we should pay the most by far to attract and retain staff. Thanks, From: Earl Leiken Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 5:07:41 PM To: Maggie Keenan; Ed Morales Subject: RE: Council Committee Maggie's correct as to what happened at the hearing in that Armond had been willing to spend extra money on nurses and I encouraged her to say this and she did. However, Ed is also correct that a study determined that we were competitive with others in the payment of nursing salaries and that, in contrast to remarks made by Donna at the hearing, our starting salaries for nurses turned out not to be well within the range of other hospital starting salaries. I don't personally think that the issue is that significant to our current situation- in my opinion, the findings in the U.S. Marshall's report had little .or nothing to do with nursing salaries. From: Maggie Keenan Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 4:48 PM To: Ed Morales Cc: Earl Leiken Subject: RE: Council Committee That wasn't very clear, the question posed was ,we were told that the salaries would be raised" and your response was ,the statement was wrong." 1 STATE'S EXHIBIT 2C From: Ed Morales Sent: Tuesday, December 4, 2018 4:46PM To: Maggie Keenan Cc: Earl Leiken Subject: RE: Council Committee The statement to Council that I was referring to and that was incorrect was the statement made, I believe by Donna Kaleel, that a $3 to $5 per hour increase was necessary to attract and retain RNs. This information does not correspond with research done by the Compensation unit. Ed From; M aggie Kee nan Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2018 1:44PM To: Ed Morales Cc: Earl Leiken Subject: Council Committee ------- Ed, You just stated in Council that what was communicated during a previous Committee meeting about increasing the wages for the nurses was incorrect. To be clear, I made that statement. And I made it at the request of the Chief of Staff. And both the Executive and the Chief of Staff approves the wage increase in advance of that statement. I appreciate that HR later decided against it, but the statement made to Council was NOT wrong, the increase was approved by the Exevutive and the Chief of Staff requested I make that statement. Thanks, Any information and/or file(s) transmitted with it are the property of the County of Cuyahoga, Ohio and are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom this is addresserl. Tf you are not one of the named recipient(s) or otherwise have reason to believe that you have received this information error, please notify the sender and delete this immediately from your desktop or mobile electronic device. Any other use, retention, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying ofthis information and/or attached file(s) is strictly prohibited. 2 CUYAHOGA COUNTY AGENCY OF INSPECTOR GENERAL REPORT OF INVESTIGATION CASE NUMBER: 19-0047-1 SUBJECT(S) INFO Employee Name: Position: County Department: Margaret Keenan Director Office of Budget and Management SOURCE OF REFERRAL: Complaint METHOD OF REFERRAL: Email INITIATED: July 10, 2019 DATE OF REPORT: December 31, 2019 I. SUMMARY The Agency of Inspector General ("AIG") received a complaint from former Cuyahoga County ("County") employee Margaret Keenan ("Keenan") alleging she was retaliated against because of her participation in a previous AIG investigation. 1 Specifically, Keenan alleged that she was subject to retaliation by members of County leadership - including County Executive Armond Budish ("Budish"), former Interim Chief of Staff & current Chief Economic Growth and Opportunity Officer Matt Carroll ("Carroll"), and former Fiscal Officer Dennis Kennedy ("Kennedy"). The AIG interviewed fourteen witnesses including Bud ish, current Chief of Staff William Mason ("Mason"), Caroll, Kennedy and every available employee in the Office of Budget & . Management ("OBM"). Keenan referred requests for an interview to her legal counsel who did not respond to the AIG's request. The AIG also examined relevant documents including emails, salary history, reports and related investigations by the Department of Human Resources. 1 The AIG notes that Keenan did not state in her complaint the specific AIG investigation in which she allegedly participated. However, it is believed that she is referring to AIG Case No. 18-0050-1 (the "Mills Investigation") dated December 31, 2018 (Amended January 8, 2019). Cuyahoga County Administration Headquarters 2079 E. gth Street, Sixth Floor • Cleveland, Ohio 44115 STATE'S EXHIBIT 3 Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 2 of 21 After reviewing the evidence gathered during this investigation, the AIG finds that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Keenan was retaliated against as a result of participation in an AIG investigation. Moreover, the AIG finds that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Keenan was terminated specifically in retaliation for her participation in an AIG investigation. Under the structure of the County Code, the County Department of Human Resources ("HR") has jurisdiction to investigate claims of retaliation based upon reports of discrimination. The AIG has jurisdiction to investigate claims of retaliation based upon participation in or cooperation with AIG investigations. Thus, this report of investigation only considers claims within the AIG's jurisdiction. Moreover, this report is limited to interpretation of the County Code. It does not interpret the Ohio Revised Code and is not binding on the Ohio Ethics Commission, the Ohio Attorney General, the County Prosecutor's Office or any other law enforcement entity. Keenan alleged that she was retaliated against in December 2017 by having her request for a pay raise initially denied, and then later approved. However, among other things, Keenan did not participate in any AIG investigation that was revealed until January 2019 - substantially after the alleged retaliatory act-- thus severing a causal connection. Keenan also alleged that "Armond stopped consulting with and communicating with me after I was outed by Cleveland .com in your investigation into Ken Mills and as a potential witness in the corruption case." In fact, Keenan made a similar allegation to the AIG before the Mills Investigation was released - again, breaking the causal connection. Further, in 2019, Budish continued to meet and communicate with Keenan regularly on County business including regular weekly Executive Review meetings, and meetings related to the bi-ennial budget process. Finally, the HR investigation into a related inquiry determined that Keenan's allegations of retaliatory conduct did not rise to an actionable level. Keenan was terminated on December 11, 2019. The AIG investigation indicated that the decision to terminate Keenan was made by Mason. Mason made this decision in approximately August 2019, but, at the request of Budish delayed implementation until after the County budget process was completed in December 2019. Mason was not aware that Keenan had participated in an AIG investigation, and thus, could not have acted with a retaliatory motive. As set forth in this document, the AIG determined that Keenan's allegations were not substantiated. Separately however, the AIG also notes that Keenan's retaliation complaints are limited by the restrictions of the County Code. County Code Section 406.01 requires that Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 3 of 21 employees report whistleblower retaliation "within five days of discovering" the retaliation. Section 406.01 further limits whistleblower protections to "written" reports or written expressions of an intent to file such a report with the AIG. The AIG recommends that the County review its whistleblower protections to enhance its protections. II. BACKGROUND OBM is responsible for the analysis and interpretation of financial matters affecting the County. OBM reviews, prepares and monitors operating and capital improvement budgets, report estimates of resources and expenditures, identifies new sources of revenue and opportunities for alternative service delivery, oversees the performance measurement initiative, analyzes legislation, and performs debt management functions. OBM manages and communicates the County's financial and management plans by providing information for effective decisionmaking and advocating the County's interest in public forums. 2 Keenan formerly served as Director of OBM and had been employed by the County since 2006. Keenan was responsible for oversight and management of the department. Ill. INVESTIGATION A. Documents Reviewed 1. Mills Investigation Documents- September 24, 2018- January 8, 2019 In late 2018, the AIG opened investigations relating to operations of the County Correctional Center and allegations that the Regional Jail Director made discriminatory comments. Keenan was one of the County employees interviewed. During the course of her interview, Keenan indicated that Budish was no longer communicating with her regularly and that their relationship had changed. The Mills Investigation was distributed on January 8, 2019 and identified Keenan as one of the witnesses who provided information to the AIG. Keenan was one of three witnesses included in the Mills Investigation as having relevant information. The other witnesses have not reported any retaliatory employment actions. 2. Email Complaint from Keenan- August 18, 2019 On August 18, 2019, Keenan requested that the IG review complaints of hostile work environment, discrimination, and retaliation. Keenan's email alleged that as a result of participating in an AIG investigation: 1) she was denied or delayed a raise; 2) Bud ish stopped communicating with her; and 3) other acts of discrimination based upon gender or other 2 See https://fiscalofficer.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/obm-about-us.aspx Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 4 of 21 protected classifications. As noted above, the County Code limits the AIG's jurisdiction to solely review claims related to retaliation as a result of cooperating with an AIG investigation. 3. HR Investigation Summaries- August-September 2019 The AIG reviewed summaries of investigations conducted by HR. Specifically, Director of HR Eric Myles ("Myles") and Former HR Manager Jonathan Zerulik investigated complaints filed by Keenan alleging harassment, discrimination, and retaliation against her by Kennedy and other County officials. HR's investigation determined that Keenan's allegations could not be substantiated and that the conduct alleged did not violate the County's harassment and bullying policy. Later, HR re-investigated a similar Keenan complaint. Finally, the alleged retaliatory conduct investigated in the HR investigation stemmed from a complaint of alleged discrimination, harassment, and bullying- not a whistleblower complaint. 4. Keenan Email to Mason- November 19, 2019 Keenan wrote: In November 2017, Dennis Kennedy recommended and Armond approved an increase in pay for all OBM employees. My increase totaled $16,000 ... . I communicated Armond's approval to Douglas Dykes on November 4, 2017. I followed up several times, only receiving a response on November 28, 2017. The employees' raises were ultimately processed, but mine was not and no explanation was given for this despite multiple requests to HR. On December 20, 2017, two former Chiefs communicated to me that at the Chiefs Meeting that morning, Douglas Dykes incorrectly identified me as a "leak" ... It wasn't until months later that the Executive indicated that he would not follow through with my raise because of how it would be perceived in the media ... While I was later provided an increase in pay, it failed to create parity with Trevor. And failed to adhere to Dennis' recommendation at the time which was to "give [me] whatever [I] ask for." ... I believe that withholding my raise in 2017 was retaliatory and I respectfully request that you remedy that now with a parity increase. 5. Keenan Email to Mason - December 6, 2019 On December 6, 2019, Keenan wrote an email to Mason with the subject "Outstanding Issues as of December 6th". Keenan's email notes that the "following questions/issues remain outstanding." The outstanding issues identified by Keenan were: reasons for denial of salary increases to other OBM employees; flexing her work schedule to allow Keenan to take law school classes; and a salary increase for Keenan to address alleged differences with a male employed by County Council. Keenan attached to her email charts indicating that she was Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 5 of 21 paid less than County Council's analyst, less than Cleveland State University's budget manager, but more than the budget managers in Franklin County, Hamilton County, Lucas County, Montgomery County, Summit County, and the Greater Cleveland RTA. Keenan also alleged that she was effectively demoted because Mason delegated debt management duties to Interim Fiscal Officer Mike Chambers. Keenan's email of "outstanding issues as of December 6th" did not include claims of whistle blower retaliation. 6. Keenan Termination Letter- December 11, 2019 The AIG reviewed the termination letter drafted by HR, dated December 11, 2019. The letter does not indicate the reason for Keenan's termination. It states that Keenan will be separated from employment, effective December 28, 2019, and placed on paid administrative leave from December 12, 2019 through December 27, 2019. The letter includes information on final pay, benefits and is signed by Myles. 7. SAP Employment Records for Keenan The AIG reviewed Keenan's employment record in SAP from May 2006 until December 2019 . The information includes start dates, end dates, appointments, and wage increases. 8. HR Personnel File for Keenan The AIG reviewed Keenan's HR personnel file as provided by the HR Department. Among other things, Keenan's HR file included Lean Six Sigma Yellow Belt Certification, Memo re: Investigation of Complaint of Unprofessional Treatment - Close Notice; email exchanges relating to requests for leave, claims by and against Keenan, etc; Personnel Action Notices; 2015 Hire Letter; 2013 Disciplinary Removal Letter; Performance Appraisals; 2006 Application; 2007 Resignation Letter; and other documents. B. Interviews 1. Employee 1 -October 4, 2019 Employee 1 is employed by OBM as a Budget and Planning Administrator. In this capacity, she prepares budget projections, fiscal agendas, and works on special projects. She has been employed with the County for over six years. Employee 1 reports directly to a Budget Manager, who reports to Keenan. According to Employee 1, OBM has approximately 9-10 employees and they share office space with the Budget Commission, Kennedy, and Kennedy's assistant. Employee 1 stated that Keenan and Kennedy have neighboring offices. Regarding Keenan and Kennedy's interactions, Employee 1 stated that their communication was limited to morning greetings. Besides Keenan, no other OBM employees work directly with Kennedy. AIG staff questioned Employee 1 regarding whether she was aware of any issues between Keenan and Kennedy. Employee 1 stated that she has not seen anything. She did, however, Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 6 of 21 state that she heard about an issue from a co-worker. Employee 1 further stated that Keenan informed all OBM employees that there was a problem between her and Kennedy. When asked to specify, Employee 1 stated that someone in OBM brought up a concern regarding Kennedy claiming that Kennedy had not seen the budget. Employee 1 stated that she did not believe this was true and that she was not aware of any complaints made by Keenan or Kennedy. Employee 1 was not aware of any complaints or retaliation arising from Keenan's participation in an AIG investigation. When asked whether she had any knowledge about Keenan's relationship with Budish or Carroll, Employee 1 stated that she did not. 2. Employee 2 -October 4, 2019 Employee 2 is employed by OBM as a Fiscal Officer I. In this capacity, he prepares fiscal agendas, pays bills, makes debt services payments, and generates revenue receipts. He has been employed with the County for twenty-two years. Employee 2 reports directly to Keenan. When asked if he knew who to whom Keenan reported, Employee 2 stated that she used to report to Kennedy but does not know who she reports to now. He is unaware of when the reporting structure change occurred. When asked whether he had heard of any issues between Keenan and Kennedy, Employee 2 stated that he heard OBM stated that he heard something was going on. Specifically, was no longer under the Fiscal Office but rather, under the County Executive. He believes that the change occurred within the last couple of months. Regarding the relationship between Keenan and Kennedy, Employee 2 stated that he heard there was a "headbutting session" from his co-workers. Employee 2 stated that he thought Keenan and Kennedy were friends, but that all changed around Kennedy's leave in early March of 2019. Employee 2 further stated that he "heard everyone is bumping heads with [Keenan]," including the Executive. However, he does not know what the issues were. Employee 2 stated that he never witnessed or heatd any interactions between Keenan and Kennedy. Employee 2 stated that he is aware of a complaint but is unsure if it was made by Keenan or Kennedy or when it was filed. Employee 2 was not aware of any complaints or retaliation arising from Keenan's participation in an AIG investigation. Out of all the employees in OBM, Employee 2 stated that Keenan is closest to Employee 4, Employee 8, and Employee 9. Regarding the general office environment, Employee 2 stated that everyone gets along and works well together and did not indicate a hostile work environment. 3. Employee 3 -October 4, 2019 Employee 3 is employed by OBM as a Budget and Planning Administrator. In his role, he is responsible for setting up and monitoring agency budgets. He has been employed with the County for eleven years, with two and a half years in OBM. Employee 3 previously worked in Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 7 of 21 the County Department of Public Works as an accountant. Employee 3 reports to a OBM Manager, who reports to Keenan. When asked if he knew who Keenan reported to, Employee 3 stated that Keenan used to report to Kennedy but now reports to Mason. He does not know when the reporting structure change occurred. Regarding the OBM's office environment, Employee 3 stated that the OBM staff are like a family, very friendly and team oriented. Employee 3 also acts as the Fiscal Office analyst and works with Fiscal daily. In this capacity, Employee 3 sends reports on budget projections to Mike Zapola, who then sends themto Kennedy. Employee 3 stated that he also works with Kennedy directly and has meetings with him. There is no tension between Employee 3 and Kennedy. When asked whether he had heard of any issues between Keenan and Kennedy, Employee 3 stated that he does not see them interacting "like they used to." Specifically, Employee 3 believes that their interactions changed about a year ago. He does not know why but noticed the change through the tone of the emails (which he was cc'ed on) sent between Keenan and Kennedy. Employee 3 stated that Kennedy claimed on several occasions that OBM employees were not doing their jobs, that Employee 3 never showed him any reports. Employee 3 stated this was is untrue and Keenan fought back. Employee 3 stated that he believes Keenan and Kennedy are going after each other and that he is the "middleman." Employee 3 stated that he is aware Keenan filed a complaint with HR alleging that Kennedy making the OBM staff uncomfortable. However, Employee 3 is unaware of any retaliation complaint with the AIG. Employee 3 stated that Keenan did not say anything to him about a complaint; rather, he found out when HR contacted him. Employee 3 was not aware of any complaints or retaliation arising from Keenan's participation in an AIG investigation. 4. Employee 4- October 4, 2019 Employee 4 is employed by OBM as a Budget Manager. In this capacity, she supervises three budget administrators, does employee appraisals, and helps Keenan direct work related to the budget system. She has been employed with the County and specifically OBM for 18 years. Employee 4 reports directly to Keenan. She believes that Keenan currently reports to Bill Mason but used to report to Kennedy before he went on leave. When asked to specify, Employee 4 stated that due to disagreements between Keenan and Kennedy, Keenan reported to Carroll and now reports to Mason. When asked about issues between Keenan and Kennedy, Employee 4 stated that Keenan does not take no for an answer from anyone. Employee 4 stated that one of the factors was that Keenan wanted OBM moved away from the Fiscal Office, but Kennedy did not agree. However, Employee 4 stated that Keenan has wanted OBM to be separate for years. Employee 4 also believed issues arose because Keenan tended to challenge people on everything, and Kennedy was not used to being challenged. Employee 4 stated that both Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 8 of21 individuals are headstrong. Employee 4 does not know of any non-work-related issues between Keenan and Kennedy. Employee 4 stated since Kennedy's return from leave, he and Keenan have not been talking. Employee 4 also stated that the two used to talk all the time, but now they do not even look at each other, which makes the office environment "kind of awkward." When asked whether she had any knowledge of any complaints being filed, Employee 4 stated that Keenan informed her she had two complaints. One was a gender discrimination complaint against Kennedy. The second was a more recent bullying complaint. Employee 4 stated that Keenan informed the OBM staff of her gender discrimination complaint at a staff meeting a month prior. However, Employee 4 does not remember if the second bullying complaint was mentioned to OBM staff. Employee 4 stated that she thought there was some retaliation against Keenan. In fact, Employee 4 stated she believed that Carroll and Kennedy sought to "get rid of' Keenan because they saw her as a "headache" and "whistleblower." When asked to clarify, Employee 4 stated that Carroll and Kennedy targeted Keenan because she went to the Prosecutor and , participated in what eventually became a corruption probe into the County Department of Information Technology ("IT') and the County jail. Employee 4 believes that both Carroll and Kennedy wanted to "get rid of' Keenan, each for different reasons, and were working together to do it. Employee 4 further relayed a rumored conversation she heard second hand from Keenan and purportedly reported by Donna Kaleal ("Kaleal"). Allegedly, the conversation was between former Internal Auditor Corey Swaisgood ("Swaisgood") and Kennedy, in which Kennedy informed Swaisgood that the only way he would return to work after his medical leave was if Keenan was fired. Purportedly, Swaisgood told Kaleal of the conversation and Kaleal subsequently told Keenan. Additionally, Employee 4 stated her understanding that Carroll was involved the first time Keenan was allegedly terminated under former County Executive Edward "Ed" Fitzgerald ("Fitzgerald"). Employee 4 stated that Keenan informed her that Fitzgerald and Carroll lied during their hearing regarding the complaint Keenan filed with HR. Employee 4 also mentioned a conversation between Carroll and Kennedy that Keenan relayed to her that took place in 2015, during which Carroll told Kennedy not to hire Keenan "because she's trouble." Allegedly, Kennedy later told Keenan about this conversation. When asked whether she had any knowledge about Keenan's relationship with Budish, Employee 4 stated that they used to be very close and would text often. However, Employee 4 believes that because Keenan cooperated with the Prosecutor's office on the corruption probe, Budish "distanced himself." Employee 4 did not indicate any specific comments or actions indicating a retaliatory motive. Prior to Keenan's termination, when Employee 4 was asked if she knew of any adverse employment action taken against Keenan, Employee 4 stated that she was unaware. Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 9 of21 Employee 4 also indicated that she was unaware of any complaints made by Keenan to the AI G. When asked about OBM's office environment, Employee 4 stated that the office dynamics are good. 5. Employee 5 - October 4. 2019 Employee 5 is employed by OBM as a Budget Manager. He supervises three budget administrators and assists with special projects. He has worked for the County for 26 years, 10 of which have been with OBM. Employee 5 reports directly to Keenan. He believes that Keenan currently reports to Mason. Employee 5 found out within the last two weeks that Keenan's supervisor was changed while Kennedy was on medical leave. Employee 5 said he now knows that Keenan began reporting to Carroll, then began reporting to Mason. Employee 5 noted that he only found out about this shift through his interview by Human Resources. He also expressed confusion about why OBM was not returned to the supervision of the Fiscal Office after Kennedy returned from medical leave. Employee 5 described Kennedy and Keenan's relationship, before Kennedy's medical leave, as very friendly. He stated that Kennedy and Keenan appeared to have excellent communication and would go out to lunch together. Employee 5 also stated that while Keenan "tells it like it is," she and Kennedy handled any professional or intellectual disagreements in an honest but respectful fashion. Employee 5 appeared to respect both Kennedy and Keenan's abilities and stated that he considered it "fun" to watch the two work through problems their department encountered. Employee 5 explained that since Kennedy's return from leave, Kennedy and Keenan refuse to speak to one another despite occupying neighboring offices. Employee 5 further explained the relationship has consistently deteriorated with no signs of improvement. Employee 5 expressed confusion about why Kennedy and Keenan could not get along, speculating that it may be related to OBM no longer being supervised by the Fiscal Department. Employee 5 noted that Keenan and Kennedy frequently correspond through email despite their close proximity, and that the emails have become progressively harsher in tone over time. When asked whether he had any knowledge of any complaints being filed, Employee 5 stated that he assumed Keenan had filed a bullying complaint against Kennedy after Employee 5 was interviewed by HR two weeks prior to his interview with AIG. Keenan mentioned an additional complaint against Kennedy, but Employee 5 claims neither Keenan nor Kennedy told him what the complaint was about. Employee 5 was not aware of any reprimands or disciplinary action being taken against Keenan prior to her termination. Employee 5 was not aware of any complaints or retaliation arising from Keenan's participation in an AIG investigation. Employee 5 stated that Kennedy generally does not discuss Keenan with him because Keenan is Employee 5's supervisor. However, on one occasion Kennedy told Employee 5 that he was Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 10 of 21 frustrated by his inability to communicate with Keenan, and that he had told Budish about his frustration. When asked whether he had any knowledge about Keenan's relationship with Budish, Employee 5 stated that he knew very little other than Budish and Keenan occasionally speak with one another. Employee 5 described OBM's office dynamics as good. He notes that the employees are very supportive of one another and that Keenan is very helpful with her staff despite issues between her and Kennedy. 6. Employee 6- October 4. 2019 Employee 6 is employed by OBM as a Budget Planning Administrator. In this capacity, she manages budget priorities for assigned departments, assists with the County's finances, and manages the County's debt portfolio. Employee 6 reports to a Budget Manager for most of her responsibilities but reports directly to Keenan regarding debt portfolio matters. Employee 6 has been employed with the County for approximately three and a half years and specifically with OBM since July 2017. She believes that Keenan currently reports to Mason. When asked about the issues between Keenan and Kennedy, Employee 6 stated that the relationship initially seemed professional, but that it had declined during Employee 6's time at OBM. Employee 6 believed this decline began during the time leading up to Kennedy's medical leave and had become significantly worse since Kennedy's return. Employee 6 has not seen Kennedy and Keenan speak face to face since Kennedy's return from leave despite their adjoining offices. Employee 6 reported that she had also heard of tension between Kennedy and Keenan through the grapevine at the OBM office. When asked whether she had knowledge of any complaints being filed, Employee 6 stated that she heard "through the grapevine" that Keenan made a complaint against Kennedy. Employee 6 was later interviewed by HR about Keenan and Kennedy's relationship. Employee 6 did not recall Keenan ever discussing this complaint in a staff meeting and did not report hearing about the complaint from Keenan. Employee 6 stated that she was not familiar with any disciplinary action being levied against Keenan. Employee 6 was not aware of any complaints or retaliation arising from Keenan's participation in an AIG investigation. Employee 6 witnessed only very limited interactions between Keenan and members of County leadership. She said that she attended one or two meetings with both Keenan and Bud ish -the meetings seemed professional and friendly. Except for the tension between Kennedy and Keenan, Employee 6 reported a very positive office environment in OBM. She described the OBM staff as a "well-oiled machine" and considers the supervisors supportive and helpful. However, Kennedy and Keenan's disagreements have placed a significant damper on the office environment, even making some employees not want to come to work. Employee 6 believes that this tension may have been because OBM was no longer under Kennedy's supervision - but Employee 6 did not have personal knowledge of this. Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 11 of 21 7. Employee 7- October 4. 2019 Employee 7 is employed by OBM as a Budget and Planning Administrator. He is responsible for assisting with budgetary issues within his assigned departments. He has been employed with the County for 4 years, all with OBM. Employee 7 reports to a Budget Manager who reports to Keenan. Employee 7 believes that Keenan currently reports to the County Executive. When AIG staff asked whether OBM had always reported directly to the Executive, Employee 7 stated that as far as he knew that was the case. Employee 7 claims to have never seen interactions between Kennedy and Keenan, though he acknowledged that the two occupied neighboring offices. He described the office environment in OBM as fine . Employee 7 described OBM staff meetings as straightforward and professional. He described Keenan's leadership style as fine and typical of other managers. AIG staff attempted to obtain a more detailed response from Employee 7 but he was hesitant and evasive in his responses. Employee 7 initially stated that he did not know about any complaints filed by Keenan. After AIG staff asked Employee 7 about his interview with HR, Employee 7 recalled Keenan's complaint against Kennedy. He noted that he attempts to stay out of workplace "drama" and is often the last to know about things of this nature. Employee 7 stated that his desk is on the opposite side of the office from Keenan and Kennedy's offices. When asked about conduct, Employee 7 stated that he did not witness any unprofessional conduct. Employee 7 was not aware of any complaints or retaliation arising from Keenan's participation in an AIG investigation. Employee 7 described his interactions with Kennedy as very limited and said he had only one extensive conversation with Kennedy regarding questions about a report produced by Employee 7. Employee 7 said he had never heard any complaints about Kennedy during staff meetings and that Keenan did not inform him of her complaint against Kennedy. 8. Employee 8 -October 4, 2019 Employee 8 is employed by OBM as a Budget Planning Administrator. Employee 8 reports to Budget Manager Employee 4 who reports to Keenan. Employee 8 believes that Keenan currently reports to Bill Mason but used to report to Kennedy before Kennedy went on medical leave. Employee 8 believes this change resulted from personality conflicts between Kennedy and Keenan. When asked about the issues between Keenan and Kennedy, Employee 8 noted that her desk is located near Keenan and Kennedy's offices, but Employee 8 still does not see any communication between the two outside of email. Employee 8 did not believe there had been Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 12 of 21 very much communication between Keenan and Kennedy in the past but noted that now there is no in-person communication between the two whatsoever. Employee 8 noted one instance in which she was told that Kennedy commented to his colleague, Dennis DeCamillo, that DeCamillo should be relocated to Keenan's office to bring more positivity to the area. Keenan was not present at the time of this comment. Employee 8 first discussed Kennedy's comment with her direct supervisor, Employee 4, regarding whether to inform Keenan. Employee 8 later informed Keenan by email. Employee 8 stressed that this was the only negative comment she heard Kennedy make about Keenan despite months of disagreement between Kennedy and Keenan. Employee 8 was interviewed by HR representatives, Myles and Yolanda Guzman ("Guzman"), in response to Keenan's complaint against Kennedy. During her interview, Employee 8 stated that she did not tell Keenan about Kennedy's comment about moving someone else into her office. After the interview was over, however, Employee 8 checked her emails and remembered that she had, in fact, informed Keenan of Kennedy's comment. Employee 8 then emailed Guzman to correct her response from the HR interview. Employee 8 stated that she received an email reply from Guzman directing her to call Guzman, and that Guzman reprimanded her for informing Keenan of the comment, telling her to "be professional" and that she didn't need to repeat everything she hears. Guzman also reprimanded Employee 8 for informing Keenan of a separate incident where Bryan Adams visited the OBM office, but Employee 8 claims to have never informed Keenan of this visit. Employee 8 stated that she had heard of one complaint filed two months ago by Keenan against Kennedy alleging that Kennedy had treated Keenan poorly. She heard about this complaint through discussions within the office. This was the only complaint of which Employee 8 claimed to be aware. Employee 8 was not aware of any complaints or retaliation arising from Keenan's participation in an AIG investigation. When asked about interactions between Keenan, Budish, and Mason, Employee 8 did not report any issues. She stated that she had attended three or four meetings that included both Keenan and Budish and their interactions seemed professional and cordial. Employee 8 stated that Keenan had said positive things about Bill Mason. Employee 8 stated that she was aware of only one recent instance in which Keenan may have been disciplined. Keenan told her staff that she was "supposed to be nicer." Employee 8 believed that Keenan's demeanor suggested she was repeating a criticism from a superior. This occurred in early 2019. Regarding OBM's office environment, Employee 8 stated that the staff get along very well. She notes that Keenan defends her staff and has a fiery personality. She also stated that Keenan can rub certain people the wrong way. When AIG staff asked for an example of someone Keenan had rubbed the wrong way, Employee 8 offered former Chief Innovation Officer Scot Rourke as an example. Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 13 of 21 Employee 8 reported very little interaction with Kennedy, saying that their interactions were essentially limited to greetings and goodbyes. 9. Employee 9- December 12,2019 Employee 9 works as a Budget Analyst in OBM. Employee 9 assists with the budgets of several departments including the Sheriffs department and reported to Keenan. Employee 9 stated that Keenan had a good working relationship with the OBM staff, but she was not surprised that Keenan was terminated. Employee 9 stated that she believed that Keenan was retaliated against because she spoke against administration. Specifically, Employee 9 mentioned that Keenan cooperated with the FBI regarding the deaths and overcrowding in the jail. Employee 9 also mentioned that she heard from Kaleal, that Keenan had work taken away from her and was left out of budget meetings in the Sheriffs department. Employee 9 stated that she did not have any knowledge of a whistleblower complaint from Keenan to the AIG and she did not have knowledge of Keenan's participation in an AIG investigation. 10. Dennis Kennedy- October 15, 2019 Kennedy is the former Fiscal Officer for the County. In that role, he oversaw all fiscal operations of the County, including the Board of Revision, Office of Procurement & Diversity, and OBM until February of 2019. Kennedy stated that while he was out on medical leave, OBM reported to the County Chief of Staff following a complaint by Keenan that Kennedy allegedly denied a request for OBM employees to attend a training. When Kennedy came back from medical leave, the reporting structure remained as it was with OBM reporting to the County Chief of Staff. Kennedy stated his relationship with Keenan began cordially, but over time she became difficult to work with. He believed that while he was her supervisor, Keenan regularly tried to go around him to get what she wanted, including communicating directly with Bud ish, and thus, at times, Kennedy would be left out of decisions that he believed he should have been a part of his role as the Fiscal Officer. Kennedy stated that he was unaware of Keenan's participation in any AIG investigation. He stated that Keenan only mentioned that she was interviewed by investigators in the Grand Jury case regarding IT. Kennedy stated that Keenan did not suffer any retaliation or backlash as a result of the IT investigation. In fact, Kennedy stated that Budish gave Keenan a raise in the beginning of 2019. Additionally, Kennedy mentioned that he believed that Keenan had been the subject of complaints and had been counseled regarding her temper and demeanor, but other than that received no disciplinary action. Kennedy also noted that Keenan is gone frequently during the day to attend law school. Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 14 of 21 11. William Mason- December 12, 2019 Mason is employed by the Office of the County Executive as the Chief of Staff. Mason was hired by the County in July of 2019. He supervises and oversees all County leadership in the operation of County business. Mason was Keenan's direct supervisor. Mason stated that when he arrived at the County, he was tasked with the responsibility of assessing County leadership. He stated that within approximately a month of joining the County, he determined that Keenan was not a good fit and that the County should go in a different direction regarding leadership in the OBM. Mason also stated that, at Budish' request, he decided to wait until the budget for 2020-2021 was completed before terminating Keenan Mason stated that during the time he supervised Keenan, he always tried to be nice and cordial to her. Moreover, he stated that he allowed her extra benefits such as being able to attend law school classes during the day. When asked about Keenan's termination, Mason stated that Keenan is an at-will employee, but also that she was insubordinate and the County needed to go in a different direction for that role. Mason stated that he was not aware of a retaliation claim with the AIG or of Keenan's participation with any AIG investigation. He stated that he was only aware of the complaints filed with HR surrounding bullying, harassment, and discrimination. HR determined Keenan's complaints to be unfounded. 12.Matthew Carroll- December 12, 2019 Carroll is employed as the Chief Economic Growth Officer in the Office of the County Executive. Carroll served as interim Chief of Staff from January 2019 until July 2019 when Mason arrived. While Carroll was Interim Chief of Staff, he supervised Keenan. He stated that, for years he thought Keenan was not a good fit for the organization, but she was never terminated. Carroll described their relationship as generally "okay", but there were frequent negative interactions. Specifically, Carroll described Keenan as "uncivil" in a number of situations. Further, Carroll stated that Keenan sometimes appeared to have the ability to get along with others, but also believed that she made some people uneasy. Carroll received several complaints about her behavior and believed that Keenan's behavior resulted in other employees leaving. Additionally, Carroll mentioned that Keenan was informally counseled regarding her behavior, by himself as Interim Chief of Staff and by former the chief of staff. Despite this informal counseling, Keenan was never formally disciplined nor was any other adverse employment action taken against her under Carroll's leadershhip. Carroll stated that he heard about Keenan possibly being terminated but was not involved in that decision process. He stated that he believed it was Mason's and/or Budish's decision. Moreover, Carroll stated that he was not aware of Keenan's whistleblower complaint to the AIG. As far as Keenan's participation in an AIG investigation, Carroll stated that he was Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 15 of 21 aware of the Mills report that identified Keenan and Kaleal as witnesses, but that no action, including any verbal or written reprimand or any other disciplinary action was taken against either of them. Carroll stated that at the next Chiefs/Directors' meeting after the release of the Mills report, he instructed all County leaders to immediately report any discriminatory actions or comments. Carroll stated that he did know of Keenan's complaints made to HR which he encouraged her to file if she felt it was a concern. 13. Armond Budish - December 16, 2019 Budish is the duly elected County Executive of Cuyahoga County. Budish was elected in 2014 and re-elected in 2018. Bud ish stated that he and Keenan had a professional relationship. He stated that while she did a good job with work, he believed that she could be hard to work with. Specifically, Budish stated that he believed that Keenan sometimes berated people with whom she did not agree. According to Bud ish, Keenan was counseled but never formally disciplined for her behavior. In regard to an AIG investigation, Budish stated that he does not remember Keenan being involved or otherwise participating in an AIG investigation. He stated that he knew Kaleal was involved in the Mills investigation but had forgotten or had no knowledge of Keenan's involvement. Budish stated that Keenan was never reprimanded for talking to the Inspector General. Budish stated that he did know that Keenan made complaints against Kennedy and Carroll but was not aware of any complaints against himself. Moreover, he stated that he never took any adverse employment action against Keenan because of a complaint she made. Budish also stated that Keenan never made any formal complaints to him directly. Budish explained, Keenan only made informal comments that he would have passed to the appropriate person to handle the issue. When asked about Keenan's termination, Budish stated that the issue of possible termination came up in the past both with former Chief of Staff Sharon Soboi-Jordan and Kennedy, but it was never carried out. The issue came up again soon after Mason joined the County as Chief of Staff. As Mason assessed County leadership, he felt Keenan should be replaced after seeing her interact with people. Budish noted that he requested that Mason not carry out the termination until the budget process was complete. Budish stated that Mason involved the Department of Law in the termination process to ensure it would be done properly. When asked why Keenan was terminated, Budish again stated that his understanding that Mason wanted to go in a different direction for several reasons, including but not limited to a belief that Keenan at times was not good with people. As an example, Budish described occasions on which Keenan was uncivil to others, particularly people who disagreed with her or challenged her. Lastly, Budish stated that he does not know what Keenan may have meant about allegedly being "shut out" by the County administration. She was never prohibited from attending Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 16 of 21 meetings, her emails and texts were never blocked. Budish stated that he never told her she could not talk to him or schedule a meeting - and that he has an open-door policy. Budish continued to meet with Keenan during the budget process, weekly Executive Review meetings, and at other times. He also stated that Keenan's duties were never diminished or changed. 14. Yolanda Guzman- December 17, 2019 Guzman is a manager in HR. Specifically, she oversees human resources operations for OBM. Guzman stated that to her knowledge, there has never been any disciplinary action taken against Keenan but feels that something should have been done because of Keenan's conduct in meetings, email, and other communications. Guzman is not aware that Keenan participated in an AIG investigation or any retaliatory conduct thereof. She is only aware that Keenan was involved in the opioid litigation, which benefitted the County. AIG investigators asked Guzman whether she had a role in Keenan's termination. Guzman stated that she was not involved in the decision making or the process. She stated that she received an email from the law department telling her Keenan would be terminated. Guzman later met with Dykes and Myles who told her to be present with Mason while he conducts the termination. Meanwhile Dykes and Myles would talk to OBM staff. Guzman stated that the termination meeting only lasted approximately three minutes and only included herself along with Mason and Keenan. Mason did all the talking. Specifically, Mason told Keenan that the County was going to go in another direction for the [OBM] department. Mason also told Keenan that she would receive more information regarding termination benefits. Guzman stated that Keenan did not say anything and that she immediately left the room after being informed of her termination. Guzman stated that she does not know exactly why Keenan was terminated but knows that there have been several complaints made about Keenan in the past regarding her conduct. Regarding Keenan's relationship with Budish, Guzman stated that she heard, from Kennedy, that Keenan and Budish were "cool" but at some point, that changed. Additionally, Guzman stated that Keenan made a number of complaints regarding Kennedy and others, but none of them were substantiated. Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 17 of 21 C. Timeline Date Action 5/30/2006 Keenan Hired as Budget Analyst 1/20/2008 Keenan Promoted to Budget Manager 10/07/2013 Keenan Terminated 10/19/2015 Keenan Rehired and named Director of OBM 02/19/2017 Keenan Receives 14.5% Pay Increase ($14,583) 10/23/18 Keenan Assists in AIG Mills Investigation 11/25/2018 Keenan Approved for 11% Pay Increase (15,017) 1/5/2019 Keenan Pay Increase Implemented (retroactive to 11/25/2018) 1/8/2019 AIG Releases Mills Report that Identifies Keenan as a Witness/Participant 2/2019 (appx) Keenan Requests Change in Supervisor 5/5/2019 Keenan Files Discrimination/Retaliation Complaint with HR 7/10/2019 Keenan Files Complaint with IG 8/18/2019 Keenan Files Written Email Retaliation Complaint with IG 8/2019 Mason Makes Decision to Terminate Keenan but asked to hold off. 12/11/2019 Keenan Terminated by Mason Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 18 of 21 IV. ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS A No Violation of Section 406.01 (D) of the County Code Prior To Keenan's Termination. Pursuant to Section 406.01 (D) of the County Code: No person shall retaliate against any individual who, in good faith, has filed a written report or expressed in writing his or her intent to report a violation or suspected violation of this Code, whether such retaliation is through threat, coercion, harassment, abuse of authority, or adverse employment action. The AIG construes the County Ethics Code broady so as to provide the maximum protection for whistleblowers. Here, Keenan's emails to the AIG regarding retaliatory working conditions, bullying and harassment constitute a "written report." Thus, the AIG investigated the substance of Keenan's allegations. Here, the AIG was unable to interview Keenan directly. Pursuant to the Ohio Rules of Professional Conduct ("Model Rules"), a lawyer shall not communicate about the subject of the representation with a person the lawyer knows to be represented by another lawyer in the matter, unless the lawyer has the consent of the other lawyer or is authorized to do so by Jaw or a court order. R. 4.2 (2017). When the AIG initially reached out to Keenan to obtain her attorney's contact information, Keenan refused to provide the name or contact information for her attorney. After Keenan was terminated, she provided contact information for her attorney and the AIG reached out to request an interview. As of the date of this report, Keenan's attorney has not responded to this request. As such, absent her attorney's approval, the AIG was unable to speak with Keenan directly about the subject of this investigation. Although Keenan did reach out to the AIG to ascertain the reason behind the initial request for an interview, the AJG did not communicate with Keenan beyond informing her that because she is represented by counsel, all communication regarding her retaliation claim must be made through her attorney or with her attorney's consent. See Model Rules R. 4.2, cmt. 2 (2017). Of the eight OBM employees initially interviewed, only one stated that she thought there was "some retaliation." When asked to clarify, the employee stated that she believed Carroll and Kennedy sought to "get rid of' Keenan because they saw her as a "headache" and "whistleblower." When asked to expand, the employee stated that the situation stemmed from when Keenan went to the County Prosecutor's office and participated in what eventually became a corruption probe into IT and the County Jail. However, the employee was unable to provide any specific instances of retaliatory conduct or first-hand knowledge. Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 19 of 21 Another OBM employee, who' was initially unavailable, later told the AIG that she believed there may have been retaliation because Keenan spoke out against administration. However, that employee could not tie any retalitatory conduct to Keenan's participation in an AIG investigation or whistleblower complaint. The OBM employees interviewed generally agreed that the relationship between Keenan and Kennedy was tense. However, none attested to witnessing any instances of "threat, coercion, harassment, abuse of authority, or adverse employment action." At most, two employees noted that the email exchanges between Keenan and Kennedy changed in tone since Kennedy's return from leave in June 2019. Again, these employees were not aware of any reprimands or disciplinary actions taken against Keenan as a result of participating in any AIG investigations. Additionally, the OBM employees were unable to provide any specific information regarding Keenan's interactions with Bud ish and Carroll. Two employees witnessed interactions between Keenan and Budish at various meetings and both noted that the interactions were professional and cordial. One employee stated that they believed that Keenan and Budish used to be close and "texted often," but did not attest to any adverse behaviors beyond an alleged decrease in communication. Here, the interviews did not reveal that any adverse employment action was taken against Keenan. Further, Keenan's claim that she was retaliated against as a result of her participation in an .. AIG investigation is also unsubstantiated. While the OBM employees noted that there were tensions between Keenan and Kennedy, such difficulties in relationships do not mean County leadership violated the County Ethics Code. As for Budish's conduct and the change in their relationship, a causal connection to retaliation cannot be established because, among other things, Keenan alleged that Budish's treatment of her had changed before the reiease of the Mills Investigation Report. Thus, Keenan's cooperation with the AIG cannot be shown to have caused pre-existing conduct. Moreover, Keenan herself did not provide evidence regarding instances in which she may have suffered retaliation. Consistent with prior findings by HR, the interview process and statements from the OBM employees, however, reveal that while Keenan may not have had friendly communications with Kennedy, Budish, or Carroll, none rise to the level of conduct necessary for a finding of retaliation under Section 406.01 (D) of the County Ethics Code. Accordingly, based on the information provided and gathered, the AIG finds that there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Keenan suffered retaliation pursuant to Section 406.01 (D) of the County Code prior to her termination. Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 20 of 21 B. Keenan's Termination Did Not Violate Section 406.01(D) of the County Code. On December 11, 2019, Keenan was terminated from employment with the County. While the AIG did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that there was retaliatory conduct prior to Keenan's termination, the AIG promptly investigated the details of Keenan's termination to determine if there was evidence to conclude that the termination was a retaliatory act in violation of the County Ethics Code. To that end, the AIG interviewed Budish, Mason, Carroll, HR staff, as well as re-interviewing OBM staff to gain insight into Keenan's termination. According to Mason, he made the decision, with the authority vested by Budish, to terminate Keenan. Mason stated that Keenan is an at-will employee and that he wanted to go in a different direction for her role. Moreover, Mason stated and Budish confirmed that Mason decided to terminate Keenan soon after Mason joined the County as Chief of Staff, in the summer of 2019. Mason stated, however, that Budish wanted to wait until the 2020 - 2021 budget process was completed. Keenan's email of December 6, 2019 re "Outstanding Issues as of December 6th" does not establish a retaliatory connection because: it does not reveal or allege cooperation with the AIG; the termination decision was made by Mason in August 2019; and Mason was not aware that Keenan had participated in an AIG investigation until he was interviewed after Keenan's termination. Mason's reason for terminating Keenan was made in good faith and nonretaliatory. Although Keenan was terminated, the AIG did not find sufficient evidence to indicate that the termination was in response to Keenan's complaint to the AIG or her participation in an AIG investigation. Both Mason and Budish stated that they were not aware of Keenan's complaint to the AIG nor her participation in an AIG investigation. Carroll admitted to being aware of Keenan's involvement in the AIG's Mills Investigation, however according to Carroll, he was not involved in the decision to terminate Keenan or the actual termination process. Additionally, no other employee interviewed provided insight as to why Keenan was terminated. Further, no other employee interviewed was aware that Keenan filed a whistleblower complaint or participated in an AIG investigation. Finally, the AIG was not able to speak with Keenan either directly or indirectly through counsel. Accordingly, this conclusion is based upon the documents reviewed and the interviews of County Leadership, OBM staff, HR staff, and other County employees. Case No: 19-0047-1 Keenan, Maggie Page 21 of 21 Thus, based on the information available at this time, the AIG is of the opinion that Keenan's termination was not a retaliatory act in response to her whistleblower complaint with the AIG or her participation in an AIG investigation V. CONCLUSION After careful review of the evidence collected and reviewed in this investigation, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that Keenan suffered retaliation by County Leadership as a result of a whistleblower complaint to the AIG or participation in any AIG investigation since 2017. In addition to the findings set forth above, the AIG also notes that Keenan's retaliation complaints are limited by the restrictions of the County Code. County Code Section 406.01 requires employees to report whistleblower retaliation "within five days of discovering" the retaliation. Section 406.01 further limits whistleblower protections to written reports or written expressions of an intent to file such a report with the AIG. The AIG recommends that the County review its whistleblower protections to enhance its protections. The AIG recommends this report be referred to the County Executive, Chief of Staff and the County Fiscal Officer for consideration and actions consistent with the findings herein. Delante Spencer Thomas Deputy lnsp~eneral Approval as to conclusions and recommendations: i2_-3/-17 . Griffin· Inspector General Date /