Page 1 of 7

Emergency Disputes Fund and Legal Services Committee
Tuesday, August 18, 2020
Virtual Meeting
Prepared By: Doug Steele, IAFF General Counsel
Committee Members Present
Sandy McGhee, Chair
Thomas A. Thornberg, Vice-Chair
Mark Woolbright
Jay Colbert
Mark Sanders
Ray Rahne
Fred LeBlanc
James B. Johnson
Also Present
General President Schaitberger
General Secretary-Treasurer Kelly
DVP Jim Slevin
DVP Andrew Pantelis
DVP Mike Carter
DVP Ricky Walsh
DVP Frank Lima
DVP Walter J. Dix
DVP Danny Todd
DVP David J. Burry
Trustee Mark Oullette
Trustee Alex Forrest
Trustee Tony Mejia

Jeff Zack, Chief of Staff
Matt Golsteyn, Chief Operating Officer
Teresa Valenzuela, Executive Assistant
Corrine Griffin, Executive Assistant
General Counsel Doug Steele

 Page 2 of 7

The Emergency Disputes Fund and Legal Services Committee met on Tuesday, August 18, 2020 beginning at
10:00 a.m. with all committee members present.
The purpose of this special Committee Meeting was to discuss the engagement of Nelson Mullins Riley &
Scarborough LLP (“Nelson Mullins”), including the unrequested “preliminary report,” and belated invoices
from Nelson Mullins and CBIZ. Given the serious nature of the allegations set forth in the “preliminary report,”
it is necessary and proper to discuss the history of the Nelson Mullins engagement, as well as addressing the
report itself.
Brief Overview –
Nelson Mullins was secretly and improperly hired without the approval, or even knowledge of the Executive
Board in January 2020. This was done using private email addresses to shield this engagement from proper
Executive Board oversight, in spite of the fact that this engagement represented a significant commitment of
IAFF Members’ dues. It is also important to note that Nelson Mullins is not the type of firm that the IAFF
would ordinarily engage. Rather, Nelson Mullins is an antiunion, anti-employee firm that regularly represents
employers against unions and employees around the country including, in at least one instance, defending a Fire
Protection District against a Guardian case brought on behalf of our members in South Carolina. This also
means hundreds of thousands of dollars of union members’ dues were committed to be paid to a law firm that
actively works against the interests of labor unions. This, in and of itself, should be of great concern to the
Executive Board, local affiliates, and dues-paying members. We are essentially funding those that fight against
us.
After learning of the Nelson Mullins engagement, the Executive Board requested a copy of the retention letter,
which clearly indicated that Nelson Mullins was working solely for the GST, and not for the organization as a
whole. Based on the GST’s assurance that he needed the services of Nelson Mullins to assist him in carrying out
his constitutional responsibilities, the Executive Board allowed the relationship to continue, provided that the
retention letter be redrafted so that the client would be the Executive Board itself and to remove the term
investigation from the retention letter. It is apparent from the documents that have been produced, the invoice,
and the “preliminary report” itself, however, that the scope and nature of Nelson Mullins work in no way
changed after the Board’s intervention.
We also now know that Nelson Mullins, without the knowledge or approval of the Board, then retained, at
considerable expense, CBIZ to analyze IAFF financial data. We do not know, however, what data was
transferred to this entity. Nelson Mullins also hired BDO, even though BDO was already engaged by the GST’s
office. That engagement was also initially made in secret without the Board's knowledge or approval, and using
personal email addresses that shielded this information from Executive Board oversight. Additionally, when the
Executive Board first requested that it be provided with documents and communications pertaining to its
representation of the IAFF, including the GST’s initial engagement, Nelson Mullins provided an incredibly
incomplete response. The documents were sequentially numbered, and from that we know that there were a
number of documents that were withheld from the Executive Board. This would indicate that the Executive
Board still does not have the entire picture of Nelson Mullins's work on behalf on the GST and IAFF, for which
invoices in excess of $368,000 have been submitted to this Board.

 Page 3 of 7
This all led to the decision of the Executive Board, on July 22, 2020, to instruct Nelson Mullins to immediately
cease all work on behalf of the IAFF, and further, instructing them to provide the Executive Board, no later than
August 7, 2020, with all documents, including correspondence and work product. Incredibly, despite that direct
instruction to Nelson Mullins, neither Nelson Mullins nor CBIZ ceased work. Instead they continued to
complete and submit this so called “preliminary report” that the Executive Board had not requested and, indeed,
in defiance of the Executive Board's explicit instruction to cease work.
Just as disturbingly, Nelson Mullins has ignored the Board’s request for case material, failing to provide any
additional documents. So, what we have here is a “preliminary report” completed after the firm was instructed
to cease work, and based upon documents and records not provided to the Board. Those factors alone would be
enough for the Board to disregard this report.
Having reviewed the preliminary report, it is clear that the report is filled with unsubstantiated allegations,
innuendo, and factual misstatements. It appears to be nothing more than a hit piece on the IAFF Executive
Board and General President, while entirely ignoring that nearly all the issues raised in the report actually fall
within the constitutional purview of the GST's office. This report will now highlight some of the many notable
issues of concern with this report. This is not an exhaustive list, however.
1. In its introduction, the report states that this review is being performed “to assist the Executive Board
in its review of its obligations in complying with the IAFF constitution and bylaws and other
governing legal statutes and standards.” The Executive Board however never requested any assistance
from Nelson Mullins with respect to its obligations under the IAFF CBL or anything else. The socalled report instead was clearly created for other purposes or with other objectives but certainly not at
the request of the Executive Board.
2. The “Executive Summary” is little more than a basic recitation of certain language in the IAFF CBL,
and an extremely superficial and selective reading of the LMRDA, neither of which were requested by
this Board. It regularly uses suggestive language such as “indicates,” “credible allegation,” “risk,” and
“suggesting” to create a false narrative that tarnishes the reputation of the IAFF, the Executive Board,
and General President without presenting any factual support that would survive scrutiny. And this
harm to the reputation of the IAFF is all being carried out with IAFF dues money.
3. Perhaps the most direct indication that the preliminary report is really a hit piece, comes in section
I(C) entitled “General President’s authority and responsibilities as prescribed by the IAFF constitution
and bylaws.” Throughout the report, it also makes many statements and assertions about the
constitutional authority and responsibilities of the Executive Board. Glaringly absent is that no similar
section appears in this document with respect to the constitutional duties and responsibilities of the
GST. A casual reader of the report would be excused for concluding that the IAFF’s organizational
structure does not even include a General Secretary-Treasurer.
4. Further, that same section begins by inaccurately describing the structure of the IAFF. That inaccurate
description, of course, guides the rest of the report. Specifically, the report indicates that the General
President has the “responsibility for executing contracts (along with the GST) and reporting on his
expenses. The responsibility for executing contracts, as has been repeatedly stated, is explicitly
provided to the General President, but not the GST. This continual assertion that the GST has the
authority to execute contracts on behalf of the IAFF has no textual support in the IAFF CBL, and is

 Page 4 of 7
contrary to the interpretation of the CBL by this Executive Board and the General President, who is
explicitly vested with the authority to interpret the IAFF CBL, subject only to appeal to the Executive
Board or ultimately to the convention delegates.
5. The ‘report’ states that “the GP has broad supervisory authority for other IAFF officers and members.”
This fundamentally misstates the organizational structure of the IAFF. The structure of the IAFF has a
General President, a General Secretary-Treasurer, and an Executive Board with oversight of both
principal officers. The General President does not exercise supervisory authority over the GST's office,
nor does the General President or Executive Board have “broad supervisory authority” over local
affiliates, officers, or members. As you know, IAFF affiliates have local autonomy. The IAFF is a
bottom-up, not top-down organization. That is the fundamental structure of the IAFF.
6. This is important, because the rest of the report rests on the false premise that everything that goes on,
or is perceived or alleged to go on, in the IAFF is under the control of the General President. Nelson
Mullins either has no understanding of the IAFF CBL, organizing structure, and operations, or this
language is intentionally deceptive and misleading in order to support a false narrative.
7. Under “Preliminary Analysis,” the Nelson Mullins report states that there is “material risk that IAFF
officers have not held union money and property solely for the benefit of the organization.” Such
language creates the appearance of impropriety even in the absence of any factual support. In this
regard, it is important to remember that there was a changeover audit performed at the beginning of
the GST’s tenure by PKF O’Connor Davies that found no fraud or wrongdoing, stating that the IAFF
“has benefited from a qualified, experienced financial management team that makes significant use of
technology and closely monitors day to day activities and budgetary compliance.”
8. We also have three elected IAFF Trustees who annually perform an independent a review of the
IAFF’s books and similarly found no fraud or wrongdoing.
9. Perhaps more importantly, however, we have independent outside auditors selected by the Trustees,
Renner and Company, that perform annual professional audits pursuant to proper accounting
standards, and have not found any financial fraud, misappropriation, embezzlement, or the like. Even
the secretly retained BDO did not find any fraud or missing money. This false narrative, which has
been pushed by the General Secretary-Treasurer, has the potential of severely tarnishing the reputation
of the IAFF, our local affiliates, and members.
10. At page five of the report, Nelson Mullins lists 6 bullet points that it contends show “materially
inadequate” processes and activities. A review of those bullet points, however, indicates that the focus
of those points are “the IAFF accounting manual,” “accounts payable process,” “required accounting
requirements,” “lack of standard procedures to track costs,” “the reporting of performance against
annual budgets,” and “the tracking of monthly or quarterly expenditures against budgeted amounts.”
What all these things have in common, however, is that they plainly fall within the duties and
responsibilities of the GST's office.

 Page 5 of 7
11. With respect to CBIZ, the items listed in the report are equally misleading or inaccurate. For example,
they claim that a review of budgets for fiscal years 2013 through 2018 show “a cumulative loss of 3.1
million over the six-year period.” Budgeting, of course, is an annual projection of the income and
expenses, and creates financial operating goals for the organization. By its very nature, budgets are an
estimate, and cannot be expected to be 100% accurate in predicting the revenue or the expenses that an
organization such as this encounters over the course of the fiscal year. To claim that a budget variance
is a loss of $3.1M is clearly misleading. Moreover, a budget variance totaling $3.1 million over a sixyear period would only represent a variance of less than 1 percent. Accordingly, this data would
actually indicate that the IAFF takes its budgeting process very seriously; that it has been quite
accurate, and that the various departments have done an excellent job constraining expenses and
keeping within the spirit of the annual budgets.
12. The report also alleges that from 2007 through 2013 the general fund borrowed money from other
funds “for undisclosed spending.” Again, this is false. The spending from the general fund is not
undisclosed. It is all reported carefully, subsequently verified by the GST's office as well as both
internal and external auditors. The problem here, is using a phrase such as “undisclosed spending”
creates the false impression that money is being paid out and that the records do not indicate where the
money went.
13. With respect to the 401(k) issue, the report falsely states that the General President received an
additional 5% employer contribution. Rather, the issue referred to relates to the General President’s
senior staff (not the General President) receiving a 5% bonus contribution, which has been budgeted
for in each annual budget that was submitted to the Executive Board and approved. It is also
nonsensical to suggest that this marginal increase (5% bonus) in employer 401(k) contributions for
three employees directly caused an enormous shortfall to the Employee Plan or the Principal Officers
Non-Qualified plan – plans that these employees do not even participate in.
14. The section on pension irregularities begins with a paragraph that inaccurately states that “payments
were made in a manner inconsistent with the plan founding documents,” apparently referring to a
provision in the 2010 and 2015 Staff Plan restatements relating to plan participants who separate
employment before age 53, then receive an unreduced early retirement benefit upon reaching age 53
and the 10th anniversary of the participant’s hire date. The report falsely states that this caused the
plan to disperse “significant sums that should not have been dispersed.” That is not true. As staff plan
attorney Mellin has explained, the Staff Pension Plan was administered consistent with the restated
plans regarding this issue. While it may be true that the restated plan language conflicted with the
intention of amendment 6 to the prior plan, this does not mean that the payment of benefits in
compliance with the existing plan language was improper.
15. Further, this ‘report’ does not mention or acknowledge that the operation of the IAFF pension plans is
primarily a responsibility that falls to the GST's office. Instead, this paragraph cites the Executive
Board’s responsibility to supervise disbursements and then refers to Article 15, Section 1
“Misconduct,” to create the wildly false impression that this interpretation of the Staff Pension Plan
restatement was not only somehow the fault of the Executive Board, but would rise to the level of
misconduct within the meaning of the IAFF CBL.

 Page 6 of 7

16. It then goes on to discuss the pension, from the Staff Pension Plan that was approved by the GST's
office and trustees with respect to the current General President and former GST. Of course, that is a
matter on appeal to the Staff Plan Claims Committee, which is charged, pursuant to the plan
document, with the authority to decide such matters. Moreover, the GST selected, and the Board
approved, Matt Mellin and the firm of Gordon Feinblatt, to be counsel for the staff and employee
pension plans. Given that the legal fees and expenses associated with Gordon Feinblatt's role is
appropriately billed to and is the responsibility of the IAFF, it is financially irresponsible to commit
IAFF members’ dues to have an the anti-union, anti-employee law firm duplicate work which is
plainly within the expertise and assigned responsibilities of the plan counsel, and for which the plan
counsel is paid substantial sums.
17. As we know, the GST’s office largely manages the Staff and Employee Pension Plans, and the GST is
a trustee to each of those plans. In spite of this, Nelson Mullins makes the incredible assertion that
mistakes allegedly made by the Plans evidences a violation of the General President's duties and
responsibilities, rather than a responsibility that would most appropriately fall at the feet of the GST’s
office.
18. This report, along with an Nelson Mullins's invoice, also demonstrates that Nelson Mullins spent
considerable time and members money researching and performing work with respect to the IAFF’s
457(b) plan even though, once again, that is work that was appropriately already tasked to the
approved plan counsel, once again doubling (at least) the cost to the IAFF.
19. It should also be noted that in spite of any stated rationale for retaining Nelson Mullins, its invoice and
report indicate that payment is being sought for work assigned by the General Secretary-Treasurer to a
non-union firm to re-do work that is already assigned to plan counsel and/or General Counsel.
20. Finally, regarding the section of the Nelson Mullins “preliminary report” pertaining to our grants
program, Elizabeth Del Re, Assistant to the General President for grants administration, has prepared a
separate rebuttal that is attached to this report as Attachment “A”.

Following lengthy discussion, the Committee, by a vote of six to one, to recommend to the full Executive Board
that the Nelson Mullins engagement be immediately terminated, and that they be instructed to supply all of the
previously requested documents that have not been produced.
The Committee is also of the opinion that receipt of the requested documents, and an explanation of the $25,000
CBIZ retainer payment, is necessary before the Committee can make a recommendation to the Executive Board
on the payment of the Nelson Mullins and CBIZ invoices. That being the case, the Committee will reserve a
detailed report on the invoices for a later date.
Having no further business, the committee meeting was adjourned.

 Page 7 of 7

This concludes the report of the EDF and Legal Services Committee.

MEMORANDUM
TO:

Harold A. Schaitberger, General President

FROM:

Elizabeth M. Del Re, Assistant to the General President

DATE:

August 20, 2020

RE:

Response to CBIZ

Sir, I am in receipt of the Nelson Mullins / CBIZ report and am compelled to express serious
concerns about the information they used to reach their conclusions and the many false
statements they make in their respective reports.
As you are aware, I have personally been administering federal grants for more than 20 years.
As the former U.S. Senate confirmed Assistant Administrator of the Department of Homeland
Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Grant Programs Directorate, I administered
more than $4 billion dollars in Preparedness Grants across 10 FEMA regions, 50 states and seven
territories. I have firsthand knowledge, understanding and application of the requirements
necessary to manage federal grants at the federal, state, local and private sector levels, ensuring
quality and integrity. I believe this is why you asked me to return to the IAFF in 2012 and lead
the new Grants & HazMat Training Division.
I take strong objection to Nelson Mullins references and the CBIZ report and any allegations the
IAFF is not compliant with 2 CFR 200. Nelson Mullins stated “as some of the facts to this
review relate to the use and disposition of federal grants awarded to the IAFF, we also briefly
reviewed the federal regulations governing organizations accepting federal grant money,” and
further cites 2 CFR 200.302, 2 CFR 220.303, 2 CFR 200.302(b)(5), 2 CFR 200.308(b) and 2
CFR 200.338. While Nelson Mullins may have had to look up those regulations in a book, my
staff and I are intimately aware of these regulations and have been since December 26, 2013
when OMB Circular A-133 was superseded by the issuance of 2 CFR part 200, subpart F. In fact,
prior to these regulations, information was published in the Federal Register for us to review and
comment – which we did.
It appears CBIZ has been subcontracted by Nelson Mullins to simply regurgitate false
allegations previously reported by BDO, leaving me no option professionally other than to
respond in writing.

 I have not met with any representatives from CBIZ or Nelson Mullins nor have any of my staff.
Additionally, no one from CBIZ or Nelson Mullins has requested to meet with me or my staff,
nor have they requested to attend one of our bi-weekly grants meetings to see and hear how
IAFF grants are managed between the Grants Division and Accounting Department.
In response to the CBIZ report I offer the following:
CBIZ Allegation #1: “As BDO pointed out in their report, the IAFF failed to update their
Policies and Procedures with respect to the administrative requirements for recipients of federal
grants. In October 2018, BDO made their presentation to the Board and cited this very issue.
Although Elizabeth Harman, assistant to the General President for Grants Administration,
represented to the Board during this proceeding that the process of updating the Policies and
Procedures was currently ongoing, it is our understanding that the process has yet to be
completed and that the Policies and Procedures remain outdated.”
IAFF Response #1: In 2018, I met with a representative from BDO as did one of my staff,
separately. They appeared to be efficiency experts, general in nature and not specific experts in
grants administration. I state this because nothing specific was asked about managing federal
grants or any federal rules - not even OMB or 2 CFR 200 – which is the backbone of how we
manage IAFF grants. They asked about budget processes, staff roles and responsibilities, and if
we thought there were issues with collaboration. They were told by my staff and me that we
work well and collaborate and that we have checklists and systems in place to manage grants.
They were provided our grant process chart as well as the active grants sheet that we use for our
meetings. While the meetings lasted no longer than 10 minutes, from my perspective as well as
my staff, I am confident they were provided a satisfying picture of how we administer grants. I
state this because they seemed surprised that we have checklists and a sheet with a process on the
acquisition of grants and our biweekly meetings – things new or immature organizations would
not have.
As a follow-up to these quick meetings, in an email dated June 21, 2018, my staff provided the
report from a Microsoft CRM site used to track our grants that we use in our biweekly Grants
Administration meetings. This report showed all grants we were managing at that time, balances,
due dates for reports, etc. In an email dated July 23, 2018, I provided the policy and procedure
guide for IAFF HazMat Evaluators, followed by an email that included the HazMat Instructor
Policy and Procedure Guide. I received a reply email requesting a policy on timekeeping for
grant employees and provided the Guidance & Highlights for Grant Expenses policy. I did note
that one document was in need of updating as the IAFF had recently switched from using ADP
to Dayforce.
The IAFF’s Grants Management Guideline (aka the CBIZ referenced Policies and Procedures)
was most recently updated in June 2020. As a recommended practice, this policy guide is
organized according to the Grant Life Cycle and provides an overview of the entire proposal
submission and administration process for the IAFF. This document was compared for
compliance purposes to a recent article in the July 2020 newsletter of the Federal Grants

2

 Management Handbook entitled, “NGMA Speakers Tout Benefits of a Policy Manual.”
Frankly, after comparison, no changes were necessary. It is important to note that awards and
contracts are administered using current IAFF policies and procedures such as the IAFF
Executive Board Policy Book, the IAFF Accounting Manual, and the Human Resources Policies
and Procedures Manual. All of these various policies and documented procedures satisfy the
requirements of independent and federal agencies and 2 CFR 200.
CBIZ Allegation #2: “Further, it is believed that the Executive Board has not addressed this
very issue since the October 2018 presentation.”
IAFF Response #2: The IAFF Executive Board Grants Administration & HazMat Training
Committee has met five times since October 2018 and has discussed a number of grant-related
issues, including our ongoing efforts to ensure compliance with all regulations. The IAFF’s
Grants Management Guideline dated June 2020 is a culmination of various IAFF policies that
comply with 2 CFR 200. The IAFF’s Grants Management Guideline is documentation of day-today roles and responsibilities of staff responsible for grants administration. The Executive Board
has not required documentation of these roles and responsibilities historically. Related IAFFwide policies, such as procurement for example, are the responsibility of the Executive Board
and require action that will then be incorporated into the IAFF’s Grants Management Guideline.
Currently, IAFF policies referenced in the Guideline are compliant with 2 CFR 200. If
modified by the Executive Board, the Grants Administration Department will review and
comment to ensure compliance prior to motions and voting, then will reference as necessary in
the Guideline.
CBIZ Allegation #3: “We have also learned that the overall grant program has failed to comply
with federal requirements and that a future audit of the program by federal regulators would
likely result in significant citations and possible loss or suspension of future grants.”
IAFF Response #3: The allegation that the IAFF has, “failed to comply with federal
requirements” is a BROAD UNFOUNDED STATEMENT that has not been substantiated with
any facts or specific examples. In reality, the facts display just the opposite.
Since 2011, the IAFF has undergone 11 INDEPENDENT AUDITS on our internal controls
over financial reporting and on compliance as required by the uniform guidance. Each of these
audits produced a final report and EVERY ONE of these audits found NOTHING TO
REPORT in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs - Major Federal Awards.
In addition to these independent audits since 2011, IAFF grants/cooperative agreements and the
administration thereof have undergone 12 formal FEDERAL AUDITS from THREE
DIFFERENT FEDERAL AGENCIES consisting of both programmatic and financial review.
These audits consisted of spot checks, desk reviews and site visits for federal awards going back
to 2008. Additionally, the IAFF currently participates in quarterly grant update calls with
funding agencies as well as provides details on expenditures for some drawdowns on a regular

3

 basis. The IAFF always provides the respective federal entity all necessary information to
include financial statements, timesheets, programs, policies and procedures. NONE of these
agencies reported significant findings, or even any findings or noncompliance rulings.
2 CFR 200.205 requires federal agencies to have in place a framework for evaluating the risks
posed by applicants (in this case the IAFF) before they receive Federal awards. If the Federal
awarding agency determines that a Federal award will be made, special conditions that
correspond to the degree of risk assessed may be applied to the Federal award. The IAFF HAS
NOT HAD nor do we currently have any special conditions imposed on us by ANY federal
agency. In fact, in 2018 one federal agency reported, “The results of that desk review showed
that the recipient had good policies, procedures and internal controls in place for effective
grants management.” The IAFF’s recent grant award from the Department of Transportation in
August 2020 award notes “Low Risk” in the award document.
CBIZ Allegation #4: “As noted by BDO, the IAFF currently lacks the requirements for
financial and program management and procurement standards.”
IAFF Response #4: On December 26, 2013, OMB Circular A-133 was superseded by the
issuance of 2 CFR part 200, subpart F. It is 2 CFR 200 by which we administer and manage
federal grants and to which we are required to be compliant. There are many ways we do this.
From a grants administration perspective, the IAFF has two Certified Grants Management
Specialists (CGMS) – one in Grants Administration and one in Budget/Accounting. The CGMS
is recognized globally and highly regarded by the federal government. Both are certified by the
National Grants Management Association (NGMA). Staff have also obtained two Recipient
Track Certificates from Management Concepts which delivers training for both federal and
nonfederal entities. Staff complete 60 CPE hours every three years to keep their certification and
attend the annual NGMA conference (3 days at 20 CPE credits). Staff are members of Grants
Professional Association (GPA) and attend annual meetings (3 days at 20 CPE) to network
across the globe on grants management and get updates on current practices. One staff member
is currently on the NGMA CGMS committee. This committee was setup to review the CGMS
exam and incorporate updates on current grants management practices into the exam.
To ensure continued compliance with Federal Requirements that have a tendency to change
frequently, the Department has a subscription to the Federal Grants Management Handbook,
with Thompson Publications which provides information and updates on grants management and
any changes made by the Office of Management and Budget. These monthly publications
provide important information on changing regulations, compliance, audits, etc. and drive
performance.
The Department has also consistently made updates to new software customized for the IAFF to
make sure that the IAFF is in compliance with federal guidelines. This includes reviewing
Dayforce and recommending changes to allow for grants employees to input their timesheet into

4

 the payroll system. When KwikTag was implemented, staff established a process where required
grants information (application, award, all correspondence) is stored and accessible in one
location for auditors. When UPS software and billing was changed that impeded our ability to be
compliant without our knowledge, we had them revert back to the process that made us
compliant.
Staff reviews and ensures that all software utilized by the IAFF that will be used for any federal
funded projects is setup to be compliant with Federal Awards. This includes the use of Moodle
for our LMS and our publicly accessible website for federally funded programs available to the
general public. It also includes the use of filters for internet security. Staff regularly attend
annual federal grantee meetings with our federal grantors (virtual/in person) to comply with all
the terms and conditions of IAFF awards.
The Grants Administration Department regularly reviews IAFF Policies and Procedures as well
as those proposed and makes recommendations for updates based on federal compliance
guidelines found in 2 CFR 200.
Although policies and procedures are typically established through a collaborative effort across
the IAFF, the Department, in collaboration with Budget and Finance developed a specific
procurement policy for grant funded purchases in 2018 to ensure compliance with 2 CFR 200.
Even without support, guidance or oversight by the new IAFF Procurement Director, the Grants
Administration Department makes sure to follow and implement all federal guidelines in any
procurement the grants administration department is involved with (documentation for sole or
single source, getting quotes, etc.).
CBIZ Allegation #5: “A review of this program is highly warranted to ensure the IAFF is in
compliance and that the process of updating of their Policies and Procedures had been
completed. The review will ensure the integrity of the overall program that the IAFF institutes
the necessary standards to confirm continued receipt of these awards and to protect itself from
any federal law enforcement scrutiny.”
IAFF Response #5: This is probably the most telling of all of the unfounded accusations made
by Nelson Mullins and CBIZ. As noted clearly and in bold above, our grants program has
willingly participated in 23 independent and federal audits since 2011. As a federal grant
recipient an organization must be ready to face that kind of scrutiny – and we have and
have passed with no findings, no conditions and have been deemed a “Low Risk”.
CBIZ goes on to state, “The review will ensure the integrity of the overall program that the IAFF
institutes the necessary standards to confirm continued receipt of these awards and to protect
itself from any federal law enforcement scrutiny.” Where did the jump to “protect itself from
federal law enforcement scrutiny” come from? Again, we’ve faced that scrutiny. However, that
statement appears to be intended for no other purpose but to attempt to instill fear. It is
shameful, and I am noting this from experience as the Assistant Administrator of FEMA GPD.

5

 In closing, the IAFF has been a recipient of federal grants, cooperative agreements and contracts
for nearly 30 years. Since the creation of the Grants Administration Department, we are able to
ensure that we are always becoming more efficient and that we remain compliant. In recent
years, with the acquisition of training, certification, advanced technological systems and
collaboration, we can, in real time, manage our grants with more quality assurance than ever
before. We are not new to federal grants, audits or the need for compliance and our federal
funding partners know and appreciate that. Simply put, the BDO conclusions that CBIZ recites in
its report and what Nelson Mullins states based on the CBIZ report are not only wrong but are
blatantly false allegations I am proud to defend against.

6