Commonwealth of Kentucky OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR SHARED SERVICES Final Report OIGSS Case: 2013-OIG-013

Date of Report: December 6, 2013 Investigators: Alan C. Wagers, Scott Hatfield, Rodney Beck, Cristina Violet, Gerald Lang, Kelly Lewis, and Walter Hammons I. SCOPE AND PURPOSE OF INVESTIGATION:

The Office of Inspector General for Shared Services (hereafter OIGSS) was requested by the Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet to investigate allegations concerning the Kentucky Department for Fish and Wildlife Resources (hereafter KDFW or department) that were contained in an anonymous letter received by the governor’s office late in 2012 (EXHIBIT). During the course of investigating the validity of those allegations, other allegations were uncovered that were also investigated. A summary of all allegations, meritorious or not, follows in Section I (A-D). Section I (E) lists a summary of allegations that had no merit or could not be substantiated, and as to which no findings or recommendations were made. Section II of this report lists all individuals that were interviewed by OIGSS and the date or dates of the interviews. This section also includes the organizational chart for the department. Section III of this report contains findings and recommendations concerning allegations that could be substantiated. Section IV of this report contains findings or recommendations as to certain allegations that could not be substantiated. This report is submitted on CD only, for ease of reference, due to the number of interviews conducted and the exhibits/references contained herein. Contained on the CD are three folders. The folder named “2013-OIG-011” contains the report in PDF format. The folder named “Interviews with EXHIBITs” contains folders bearing the name of each person interviewed and any exhibits that were particular to a specific individual. Any individuals interviewed in which exhibits were not used are found in the folder named “INTERVIEWS WITHOUT EXHIBITS.” The third folder named “Report EXHIBITS” contains exhibits that were general in nature and that might appear more than once in the final report. Additionally, this report contains hyperlinks to interviews or exhibits (as noted in blue font) that can be clicked on which will take the reader to the particular interview or exhibit referenced.
Page 1 of 59

OIGSS contacted Commissioner Jon GASSETT, KDFW, by telephone on September 10, 2013. At the time he was contacted, GASSETT was out-of-state at a conference. OIGSS attempted to schedule an interview with him prior to September 20, 2013, the date his resignation from the department was to be final, but he declined unless he could be accompanied by counsel. OIGSS advised him that this office was conducting an administrative investigation and not a criminal one, and that no other department employee had refused to participate. GASSETT again declined to be interviewed, on advice of counsel. OIGSS then made no further attempts to interview him. A. Allegations contained in anonymous complaint that resulted in OIGSS investigation

Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Commissioner Jon GASSETT: GASSETT allegedly used Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (herein, KDFW) employee labor, equipment, and supplies for personal use; and used his position as commissioner for personal benefit: 1. Instructed KDFW employees to bring KDFW equipment, including pumps and fans, to his personal residence and pump water out of his flooded crawlspace during work hours. 2. 3. Used his position as KDFW commissioner to promote his personal businesses. Used KDFW equipment and boats for his personal consulting business.

4. Removed KDFW decals from KDFW boats in order to utilize the boats for personal use. 5. Directed Facilities Maintenance Branch (FMB) workshop (a.k.a. woodshop, herein, the shop) employees to construct furniture, including a cabinet, for his home using KDFW tools and materials during work hours. 6. KDFW employees used state owned lumber and equipment to construct a deck at his residence. 7. in his home. 8. KDFW employees installed countertops and cabinets made from KDFW lumber

Decorated the front porch of his personal residence with confiscated elk antlers.

9. Asked KDFW employees to make repairs to his personal lawn equipment during work hours at the shop. 10. Used a KDFW bulldozer for work on his farm in Bald Knob.
Page 2 of 59

11. 12.

Asked a KDFW employee to do free electrical work at his personal residence. Put a mounted black bear belonging to KDFW in his house.

13. Gave special KDFW elk hunting permits to an organization with the condition that they hire his father as their elk-hunting guide. 14. 15. Incurred excessive travel expenses. Intimidated KDFW employees.

16. Alienated members of the General Assembly, LRC, Governor’s office, legislators, and other organizations. 17. 2012. Engineering Technical Associate III John AKERS—former supervisor at the FMB shop: AKERS allegedly misused equipment and supplies owned by KDFW, utilized state inmate workers and FMB employees for personal projects, and abused his authority as a KDFW employee: 1. Stored and constructed items using confiscated antlers at the shop instead of destroying them as required by statute. 2. Took elk antlers from the shop when removing his personal property. Opposed stipend granted to officers of the KDFW Law Enforcement Division in

3. Supervised and constructed furniture, including elk antler tables, elk antler mirrors, elk antler coat racks, turkey calls, canes, a wine cabinet and marble countertops, using state materials and labor for personal use by employees. 4. Repeatedly took KDFW equipment from the shop for personal use, including an air compressor, nail gun, nails, and an air hose, leaving employees without tools to do their jobs. 5. 6. 7. 8. Took two dozen 4x4 treated posts from the shop for personal use. Made a boat for personal use using KDFW materials and tools at the shop. Took a boat from the shop while removing his personal property. Asked a KDFW employee to perform free electrical work at GASSETT’s home.

9. Instructed a KDFW employee to purchase a piece of frosted glass for a wine cabinet he constructed at the shop for GASSETT.

Page 3 of 59

10. Had marble countertops delivered to and stored at the shop for GASSETT, which may have been installed at GASSETT’s home by KDFW employees. 11. Repaired GASSETT’s canoe at the shop using state time, materials, and possibly inmate labor. 12. Took employees and KDFW fans to GASSETT’s residence to help clean up after a waterline break. 13. Took state inmate worker George EADS to work at GASSETT’s residence.

14. Bought lunch for inmate workers after they repaired personal items for him, including lawn equipment, furniture, a KDFW All-Terrain Vehicle (ATV), and other equipment. 15. Took the state inmate worker George EADS to Louisville to see his wife.

16. Took half of a sack of clover seed belonging to KDFW from the shop for personal use at his farm. 17. Took department cutting harrows to use at his farm.

18. Tampered with new KDFW weed eaters and placed them in a KDFW auction in order to buy the “faulty” weed eaters cheaply at auction. 19. 20. 21. Repaired and then took a KDFW ATV. Rigged a Commissioner’s elk tag drawing to get a tag. Mistreated KDFW employees by accusing them of theft.

Additional allegations involving KDFW: 1. Improper transfers of funds among various department divisions at KDFW.

2. Excessive amount of money, including personnel costs, spent on the construction of a wildlife-holding pen at the Salato Wildlife Center. 3. Facility. 4. Indiana. 5. 6. Excessive amount of money spent by Wildlife Division’s Mussel Research

Wildlife Division employees made unnecessary purchases at the Bass Pro Shop in

Unauthorized use of Pro-cards by KDFW employees. KDFW property improperly recorded as surplus.

Page 4 of 59

B.

Allegations uncovered during OIGSS investigation 1. 2. Free fish deliveries to individuals in violation of regulation. Department employees using a state-owned tractor for their personal benefit.

3. Violations by commission members in reserving hunting days and duck blinds for themselves at the Ballard Wildlife Management Area. 4. Specific allegations of ethical misconduct against KDFW commission member James ANGEL by the Kentucky League of Sportsmen. 5. Allegations raised by ANGEL that department employees violated KRS 150.081 by attempting to interfere with his reappointment to the commission. 6. benefit. GASSETT improperly obtaining rotenone from department for his personal

7. GASSETT improperly taking advantage of discounted Fed-Ex rates provided to state agencies for his personal benefit. 8. GASSETT consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication at functions relating to his employment with the department and subsequently driving while impaired. 9. Necessity of firearms possession by upper management at KDFW and level of training required of the Law Enforcement Division director. 10. Questionable management decision regarding conservation officers issuing alcohol intoxication citations. 11. 12. 13. 14. Issue regarding new radio purchases by the department. Improper use of funds in procuring land (Layton Register complaint). Prearranged agreements to rehire employees following their retirement. Confiscated firearms being lost by the department.

C. Summary of findings and recommendations concerning allegations that could be substantiated

Page 5 of 59

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS-SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS Commissioner Jon GASSETT: 1. GASSETT improperly used state resources and employees to pump out the crawlspace under his home in the winter of 2009-2010. This violation is exacerbated by GASSETT being in a position of high authority and because of that position, he knew or should have known that his actions were improper. 2. GASSETT improperly obtaining rotenone from the department for his personal benefit. This violation is exacerbated by GASSETT being in a position of high authority and because of that position, he knew or should have known that his actions were improper. 3. GASSETT improperly taking advantage of discounted FedEx rates provided to state agencies for his personal benefit. This violation is exacerbated by GASSETT being in a position of high authority and because of that position, he knew or should have known that his actions were improper. 4. GASSETT improperly had state employees on state time and using a state vehicle pick up building materials for his personal use. This violation is exacerbated by GASSETT being in a position of high authority and because of that position, he knew or should have known that his actions were improper. 5. GASSETT improperly worked on his personal canoe at the department’s workshop during the workday and using state-owned tools. This violation is exacerbated by GASSETT being in a position of high authority and because of that position, he knew or should have known that his actions were improper. 6. GASSETT carried concealed weapons while commissioner without a Carry Concealed Deadly Weapon (CCDW) license as required by KRS 237.110. Deputy Commissioner Benjy KINMAN: 1. KINMAN improperly sent state workers and equipment to GASSETT’s home in the winter of 2009-2010 to pump out the crawlspace under GASSETT’s home. This violation is exacerbated by KINMAN being in a position of high authority and because of that position, he knew or should have known that his actions were improper. 2. KINMAN directed the utilization of state workers and resources to deliver free fish to KDFW commission member Christopher GODBY’s private pond in 2013 in violation of the department’s regulations. This violation is exacerbated by KINMAN being in a position of high authority and because of that position, he knew or should have known that he was violating the terms of the applicable regulation.

Page 6 of 59

3. KINMAN improperly directed the utilization of state workers and resources to deliver free fish to John Bruce LEE’s private pond in 2012 and 2013 in violation of the department’s regulations. This violation is exacerbated by KINMAN being in a position of high authority and because of that position, he knew or should have known that he was violating departmental regulations. 4. KINMAN violated KDFW policy by assisting GASSETT in obtaining rotenone from the department, knowing that the department did not provide that chemical to the general public. This violation is exacerbated by KINMAN being in a position of high authority and because of that position, he knew or should have known that he was violating department policy. Division Director Ron BROOKS, Fisheries Division (FD): BROOKS violated KDFW policy by assisting GASSETT in obtaining rotenone from the department, knowing that the department did not provide that chemical to the general public. This violation is exacerbated by BROOKS being in a position of high authority and because of that position, he knew or should have known that he was violating department policy. Division Director Hank PATTON, Law Enforcement Division (LED): PATTON and AKERS improperly worked on PATTON’s private boat at the woodshop using state resources. This violation is exacerbated by PATTON being in a position of high authority and because of that position, he knew or should have known that his actions were improper. Fish and Wildlife Program Manager Gerard BUYNAK, Fisheries Division: BUYNAK directed the utilization of state workers and resources to deliver free fish to retired KDFW employee Ted CROWELL’s private pond in 2013 in violation of the department’s regulations. This violation is exacerbated by BUYNAK being in a position of managerial authority and because of that position, knew or should have known that his actions were improper. Pfeiffer Fish Hatchery Branch Manager Steven MARPLE, Fisheries Division: MARPLE participated in the utilization of state workers and resources to deliver free fish to the private ponds of LEE in 2012 and 2013 and to GODBY and CROWELL in 2013 in violation of the department’s regulations. This violation is exacerbated by MARPLE being in a position of managerial authority and because of that position, knew or should have known that his actions were improper. Fish and Wildlife Management Foreman Mark ROBERTS, Fisheries Division: ROBERTS improperly participated in sending state employees and equipment to GASSETT’s home to pump out his crawl space; by more likely than not telling his employees to
Page 7 of 59

falsify their timesheets after working at GASSETT’s home; by improperly sending out state employees to deliver free fish to LEE in 2012 and 2013 and to GODBY in 2013; and by personally and improperly delivering free fish to CROWELL in 2013. ROBERTS also engaged in insubordinate actions by discussing the substance of his interviews at OIGSS with other KDFW employees after being directly cautioned not to do so. Engineering Technical Associate III John AKERS, Engineering Division: AKERS improperly worked on personal projects during his hours of employment, improperly utilized state resources for his personal benefit while working on personal projects at the department during and after his regular hours of employment, improperly stored personal items at the workshop and improperly assisted GASSETT and PATTON in performing repairs or installation of parts on their personal boats while at the department’s workshop. These violations are exacerbated by AKERS being in a position of managerial authority at the time of the violations and because of that position, he knew or should have known that his actions were improper. KDFW Commission Member Stephen GLENN: GLENN improperly used his position of authority as a member of the KDFW commission to have free fish delivered to LEE’s private pond in 2012 and 2013. KDFW Commission Member Christopher GODBY: GODBY improperly used his position of authority as a member of the KDFW commission to have free fish delivered to him in 2013. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS-SUBSTANTIATED ALLEGATIONS 1. The delivery of free fish to any private pond-owner by the department is a violation of 301 KAR 1:160. The regulation has been routinely ignored by the department. OIGSS recommends that no more free fish should be delivered and that the farm-pond regulation should be strictly followed. If the department produces excess fish that cannot be placed in a public waterway, the department should adopt a regulation for the dissemination of the excess fish to the general public for a reasonable fee. 2. All current KDFW commission members that may have participated in duck hunting at the Ballard WMA improperly used their official positions to secure a privilege, not available to the public at large. In this regard, OIGSS finds that department employees have routinely and historically given preferential treatment to the commission members that hunted at Ballard WMA, by actively soliciting from the commission members the days they wished to hunt there and providing the commission members with pre-selected duck blinds. All department employees should be given ethics training and specifically instructed that henceforth, no

Page 8 of 59

commission member is entitled to preferential treatment. In addition, all commission members should be directed to participate in ethics training. 3. Any use of the state-owned tractor by department employees since June 30, 2010 should not have been authorized as there was no legitimate program in place to justify such use of the tractor. OIGSS recommends that that the tractor not be utilized on the private property of any KDFW employee or commission member or be loaned out to the general public. 4. Department employees have utilized the KDFW Facilities Maintenance Branch workshop for personal projects for their personal benefit. A written policy should be adopted that forbids any use of state-owned equipment by employees and which forbids employees from working on private projects on state time. 5. No state inmate working at the department should be left unsupervised.

6. Although some rank-and-file department employees participated in the work at GASSETT’s house and the free deliveries of fish, OIGSS finds that they had little means by which to object to an order given to them by a supervisor, even though some of the employees had reservations about the work they were being directed to do. There was also present the fear of retaliation for refusal to follow a manager’s directive. However, following the issuance of Advisory Opinion 13-02 from the Executive Branch Ethics Commission (EXHIBIT), all department employees should be educated that they are henceforth put on notice that they have an obligation to refuse to comply with orders that anyone of ordinary sense and understanding would recognize as being contrary to the Executive Branch Code of Ethics and the need to report such misconduct to the Ethics Commission. 7. Appropriate disciplinary action should be considered against any individual enumerated in this report that violated department regulations or personnel laws and regulations. 8. Appropriate steps should be taken by management to insure no departmental retaliation be taken against any employee that was interviewed by OIGSS or who might have cooperated with OIGSS. D. Summary of findings or recommendations as to certain allegations that could not be substantiated. 1. Sportsmen a. Angel is alleged to have used his position of authority to improperly obtain grass seed from the department; to have improperly reserved a section of the Ballard WMA for his personal benefit during duck-hunting season in 2012; to have attempted to use his position of authority to keep from being cited by a KDFW conservation officer in December
Page 9 of 59

Complaint against ANGEL brought by League of Kentucky

2012; to have attempted to have others improperly seek dismissal of the citation by the department; and to have improperly submitted anonymous allegations against the department. OIGSS finds that these complaints have either no merit or that there is insufficient proof to warrant a specific finding. b. OIGSS does recommend that henceforth, no commission member be given any preferential treatment when it comes to hunting at Ballard WMA or any other location. c. OIGSS recommends that all department employees and all commission members receive appropriate ethics training. 2. Necessity of handgun possession by upper management of KDFW and insufficient level of training required of the Law Enforcement Division director a. During the investigation, questions were raised as to why GASSETT, KINMAN, and PATTON either carried or possessed state-issued handguns. OIGSS determined that GASSETT was issued firearms but had no Conceal Deadly Weapon license in violation of KRS 237.110. KINMAN was issued a firearm but did not use it and had it stored at his home and PATTON was authorized to carry a concealed weapon by virtue of KRS 527.020(3). b. The level of training required of the Law Enforcement Division (LED) director (PATTON) also came into question. It appears that pursuant to KRS 150.090(2), PATTON could have certain police powers granted to him by virtue of a statutory appointment but not possess the same degree of training as the conservation officers he supervises. c. to KDFW. d. OIGSS recommends that consideration be given to requiring the LED director to meet the same training requirements as the conservation officers he supervises. E. Summary of allegations that had no merit or could not be substantiated OIGSS recommends that KINMAN return the handgun in his possession

1. The only allegations against GASSETT that had merit are set forth in Section III of this report. After interviewing department employees, OIGSS cannot find that sufficient and credible evidence exists to substantiate the remaining allegations. 2. Any allegations concerning GASSETT’s outside business interests were not examined by OIGSS because those issues had previously been addressed in GASSETT’s favor by the Executive Branch Ethics Commission in advisory opinions issued in 2007 and 2009. 3. Some interviewees expressed concern that GASSETT abused the department’s budget process by transferring funds from one division to another. However, OIGSS cannot determine that any statute, regulation or policy may have been violated by any such budget
Page 10 of 59

transfers. It appears that GASSETT had the discretion as commissioner to make any adjustments to KDFW’s budget that he deemed necessary. 4. Allegations have been made that GASSETT’s travel expenditures were excessive. OIGSS does not have sufficient personnel with auditing experience to perform the level of audit review necessary to determine whether GASSETT’s travel expenses were excessive. Further, OIGSS notes that GASSETT’s travel expenses were ratified by the commission members, according to the interview comments some of the commission members made to OIGSS. If questions linger about the validity of GASSETT’s travel expenditures, OIGSS would recommend that the Auditor of Public Accounts (APA) be asked to perform a detailed audit. 5. Various specific allegations were made against AKERS as recounted in Section I (A) of this report. The only allegations against AKERS that had merit are set forth in Section III of this report. After interviewing department employees, OIGSS cannot find that sufficient and credible evidence exists to substantiate the remaining allegations. 6. OIGSS cannot conclude that department employees violated KRS 150.081 by attempting to interfere with ANGEL’s reappointment to the commission. While certain facts exist that could be woven together to attempt to produce a circumstantial case to that effect, there is insufficient evidence that would permit OIGSS to make a concrete finding. 7. The statements of Conservation Officer Major Larry ESTES, LED, and Conservation Officer Major Joseph CARRIER, LED, suggest that GASSETT was observed at department-related functions consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication and perhaps operating a motor vehicle while impaired. However, GASSETT was never arrested for DUI, so OIGSS cannot find that GASSETT operated a motor vehicle under the influence after leaving a department-related function. 8. In 2010, KDFW management issued a memorandum to its conservation officers related to the manner by which the officers would enforce Kentucky’s alcohol intoxication laws (EXHIBIT). Complaints had been raised by marina owners and legislators that conservation officers were unduly harassing boaters on Kentucky’s waterways that were observed consuming alcohol. As a result, the memo was adopted and an email was sent out requiring conservation officers perform field sobriety tests on boaters suspected of alcohol intoxication, testing that was not required by the alcohol intoxication statute. OIGSS issues no findings regarding this matter, but notes that it doubts whether the department may limit the conservation officers’ ability to enforce valid laws by a written policy and whether the department may impose additional requirements on the officers not required by a particular statute.

Page 11 of 59

9. At the time OIGSS was conducting its investigation, the department was considering whether to purchase Motorola radios of a type currently used by the Kentucky State Police (KSP) and whether to pay to have the KSP dispatchers perform that function for the department’s law enforcement officers. OIGSS notes that Jimmy MILLER, who currently supplies Kenwood radios for the department’s current radio system, also attended a meeting sometime between July and September 2013 when representatives of KSP and KDFW were discussing the proposed changeover to the Motorola radios. Although PATTON stated MILLER was present to provide technical advice to the department, MILLER’s presence at such a meeting could be considered improper, as MILLER would have benefitted financially from maintaining the current system and thus could have a vested interest in advising the department not to agree to such a switchover. OIGSS would recommend that at any such meetings in the future, the current radio provider to the department be excluded from participation. 10. OIGSS interviewed Layton REGISTER relative to his allegations concerning improper use of department funds to purchase land. A summary of his interview, findings and exhibits are found elsewhere in this report (EXHIBIT). OIGSS could find no improprieties as alleged by REGISTER. 11. Allegations were made that department employees Wildlife Program Coordinator Mark CRAMER, Commissioner’s Office; and Fish & Wildlife Information Specialist II Rick HILL, Information Center Section, had prearranged agreements to be rehired by KDFW following their retirement from the department. OIGSS could find no persuasive evidence of such agreements. During KINMAN’S interview, he stated that CRAMER, the former deputy commissioner, now serving as a wildlife program coordinator at KDFW, asked KINMAN to fill the deputy commissioner position when CRAMER retired five or six years ago. About 6-8 months after retiring, CRAMER was rehired to write KDFW regulations and to be the KDFW liaison for the recreational trail authority. KINMAN denied that he, GASSETT, and/or CRAMER discussed CRAMER returning to KDFW after retiring. KINMAN conveyed that he would be surprised if GASSETT and CRAMER had pre-arranged for CRAMER to return to KDFW after retirement. KINMAN added that CRAMER was upset about something when he left so KINMAN did not expect him to return. HILL retired about seven or eight years ago and then returned sometime after the time required by law. KINMAN denied that he was part of any discussions with HILL or GASSETT about HILL returning to KDFW after retiring. KINMAN added that he did not think HILL was going to come back to KDFW because he planned to do freelance artwork.
Page 12 of 59

OIGSS has considered KRS 61.637(17)(d)(1) that discusses the effect a prearranged agreement for an employee to return to work may have on that employee’s retirement benefits. OIGSS finds that insufficient evidence exists that the rehiring of CRAMER and HILL by the department following their retirements from KDFW violated the statute. 12. Allegations were made that the department was not properly securing confiscated weapons. OIGSS, after interviewing PATTON and reviewing the department’s policy related to confiscated weapons (EXHIBIT), cannot conclude the department has mismanaged the weapons in its control. The interviews of KINMAN, PATTON, ESTES and CARRIER are incorporated by reference into this finding. 13. OIGSS did not find that an excessive amount of money, including personnel costs, was spent on the construction of a wildlife-holding pen at the Salato Wildlife Center. This finding is based on interviews of department personnel, who estimated the construction costs to be under $200,000. OIGSS does not possess the auditing capability to perform an in-depth analysis of this issue. If questions linger regarding this matter, OIGSS would recommend the department request assistance from the APA. 14. Questions were also raised as to possible excessive amounts of money spent by Wildlife Division’s Mussel Research Facility. As stated in paragraph 13, above, OIGSS does not possess the auditing capability to perform an in-depth analysis of this issue. If questions linger regarding this matter, OIGSS would recommend the department request assistance from the APA. 15. Any purchases made by employees at Bass Pro Shop in Indiana were approved by management, according to Division Director Karen WALDROP, Wildlife Division. 16. While there was some indication that department employees on occasion had misused Pro-Cards to pay for personal items, OIGSS did not find this to be a pervasive and ongoing problem. However, if questions linger regarding this matter, OIGSS would recommend the department request assistance from the APA. 17. OIGSS could uncover no credible evidence that KDFW property was improperly recorded as surplus. 18. OIGSS could find no improprieties in the elk tag selection process. OIGSS has reviewed KRS 150.175, 150.177,150.178, and 301 KAR 2:132 in making this determination, in addition to the interviews conducted. II. INTERVIEWS CONDUCTED:

Page 13 of 59

The following individuals were interviewed by OIGSS: Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet—Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Commissioner’s Office: GASSETT, Jon—Commissioner—declined to be interviewed KINMAN , Benjamin “Benjy”—Deputy Commissioner—September 26, 2013 MCIVER, Nancy—Executive Assistant—August 15, 2013 Administrative Services Division MOORE, Darin K—Division Director—September 12, 2013 KING, Kenneth “Scott”—Fish and Wildlife Program Manager—June 10, August 9, September 3, and September 11, 2013. BRUCE , David—Fish and Wildlife Program Manager—August 22, 2013 Accounting Branch BREWER, Melissa—Administrative Branch Manager—June 10, 2013 Grants Branch TRENT , Melissa A:Administrative Branch Manager—June 10, 2013 Purchasing & Property Branch ALLEN, Daniel “Danny”—Program Coordinator—July 2, 2013 Engineering Division AKERS , John—Engineering Technical Associate III—September 18, 2013 Facilities Maintenance Branch SUTHERLAND, Christopher—Maintenance Superintendent I—June 11 and July 9, 2013 MATTOX, JoAnn—Maintenance Superintendent I —June 11 and 27, 2013 Lakes and Streams Branch REDMON, Walter—Administrative Branch Manager—August 1, 2013 Fisheries Division BROOKS , Ronald—Division Director—August 23, 29, and September 24, 2013 BUYNAK, Gerard “Jerry”—Fish and Wildlife Program Manager—August 8 and October 1,

Page 14 of 59

2013 Central District Branch CROSBY, Jeffrey—Fisheries Program Coordinator—August 15, 20, and 28, 2013 Federal Aid Coordination Branch BUNNELL, Donald—Fisheries Program Coordinator—August 13 and October 1, 2013 Peter W Pfeiffer Fish Hatchery Branch MARPLE, Steven—Fish Hatchery Manager—August 14 and September 27, 2013 Southeastern District Branch WILLIAMS, John—Fisheries Program Coordinator—August 27, 2013 Special Investigations Branch WILKES, Paul—Fish and Wildlife Technician III—August 30, 2013 Transportation Branch ROBERTS, Mark—Fish and Wildlife Management Foreman—August 7, 8, and September 24, 2013 ATHA, Kenneth—Fish and Wildlife Technician Supervisor—September 23, 2013 LYONS, Garry—Fish and Wildlife Technician III—August 2 and 7, 2013 HALE , David—Fish and Wildlife Technician III—September 27, 2013 CROXTON , Jeffrey—Fish and Wildlife Technician II—August 15, 2013 Information Center Section HILL , Richard “Rick”—Fish & Wildlife Information Specialist II—September 24, 2013

Law Enforcement Division PATTON , Hank—Division Director—September 20, 2013 ESTES, Larry—Conservation Officer Major—August 1, 2013 CARRIER, Joseph—Conservation Officer Major—August 8, 2013 District Three Branch HERNDON, Edward “Scott”—Conservation Officer Sergeant—August 21, 2013 Public Affairs Division CLARK , Brian—Fish and Wildlife Program Manager—October 2, 2013

Page 15 of 59

Wildlife Division WALDROP, Karen—Division Director—September 4 and 30, 2013 GARLAND , Paul “Chris”—Fish and Wildlife Program Manager—October 4, 2013 COOK, Willetta “Willie”—Administrative Specialist III—August 1, 2013 Bluegrass Region Branch BEARD , Derek—Wildlife Program Coordinator—September 30, 2013 MITCHELL, William—Fish and Wildlife Management Foreman—August 15, 2013 GRASCH, Christopher—Wildlife Biologist IV—September 3, 2013 NALLY, Jason—Wildlife Biologist III—September 30, 2013 Non Game Branch CARR, Sunni—Wildlife Program Coordinator—August 8, 2013 Purchase Region Branch COLVIS , Robert—Wildlife Biologist IV—October 3, 2013 Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Commission: TEITLOFF, Terry—First District Commission Member—July 10 and October 8, 2013 WILLIAMS, C.F. “Frank”—Second District Commission Member—July 17 and October 8, 2013 RAY, Stuart—Third District Commission Member—July 16 and October 7, 2013 ANGEL, James—Fourth District Commission Member—July 12 and October 4, 2013 BEVINS, Jim—Fifth District Commission Member—July 10, 2013 GLENN, Stephen—Sixth District Commission Member Stephen—July 17 and September 5, 2013 THACKER, Voncel—Seventh District Commission Member—July 17, 2013 FRYMAN, Norman “Joe”—Eighth District Commission Member—July 10, 2013 GODBY, Christopher—Ninth District Commission Member— July 9 and September 6, 2013 RICH, James—Commissioner Emeritus —not interviewed Others interviewed: WHITEHEAD, Harry—owner of Gunners Taxidermy—July 9, 2013 ELDRIDGE, Paul—retired KDFW Facilities Maintenance Branch employee—July 10, 2013 ALDRIDGE, John—retired KDFW Facilities Maintenance Branch employee—July 11 and 31, 2013 EADS, George—former Facilities Maintenance Branch inmate worker—August 2, 2013 HILTON, Steve—former Fisheries Division Transportation Branch employee—August 14, 2013 LEE, John Bruce—friend of Commission Member GLENN—August 23, 2013
Page 16 of 59

NETHERY, Mark—president of the League of Kentucky Sportsmen—September 20, 2013 CROWELL, Ted—former Fisheries Division assistant director—September 27, 2013 NOTE: KDFW’s entire organizational chart is found at EXHIBIT. III. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCERNING ALLEGATIONS THAT COULD BE SUBSTANTIATED A. Findings as to Jon GASSETT

1. GASSETT improperly used state resources and employees to pump out the crawlspace under his home in the winter of 2009-2010. a. Sometime during the winter of 2009-2010, GASSETT returned one evening to his home located on Harvieland Road in Franklin County, Kentucky and discovered that the crawlspace under his home had been flooded after a frozen water pipe burst. b. GASSETT called KINMAN at work at 7:00 a.m. the next morning and asked for a pump to remove the water from his house. c. KINMAN, bypassing the normal chain of command, directly contacted ROBERTS in the Fisheries Division and directed ROBERTS to deliver a state-owned portable water pump to GASSETT’S home. d. GASSETT’s home. ROBERTS directed ATHA, LYONS and HILTON to deliver the pump to

e. ATHA, LYONS and HILTON spent approximately three hours traveling to GASSETT’ home, pumping out the crawlspace and returning to the department. GASSETT was present at his home when the employees got there and observed them working to remove the water from his home’s crawlspace. f. During the time ATHA, LYONS and HILTON were working at GASSETT’s home, ROBERTS also directed HALE to take a second pump to GASSETT’s residence. HALE spent 1 ½ hours traveling to and from GASSETT’s home to deliver the second pump. g. In May or June 2013, after OIGSS began its investigation at KDFW, GASSETT admitted to MOORE that he had utilized state resources to have water pumped from his crawlspace.1

1

MOORE resigned his position with the department during the pendency of this investigation. As a result, he is now beyond the jurisdiction of OIGSS.

Page 17 of 59

h. OIGSS finds that four state workers, at the direction of GASSETT, KINMAN and ROBERTS, transported two state-owned pumps in state-owned vehicles to GASSETT’s home and pumped water out of the crawlspace under his home, all for GASSETT’s personal benefit. i. OIGSS finds that GASSETT improperly utilized state workers and resources for his private benefit. This violation is exacerbated by the fact that GASSETT was the commissioner of the department at the time the work was done. He was in the highest position of authority in the agency and knew, or should have known, that the use of state employees and resources at his home for personal benefit was improper. j. OIGSS further finds that ATHA, LYONS, HILTON and HALE were directed by their supervisors to carry out the work at GASSETT’s home. OIGSS further finds that they had little means by which to object to an order given to them by a supervisor, even though some of the employees may have had reservations about whether the work they were being directed to do was proper. There was also present the fear of retaliation for refusal to follow a manager’s directive. As stated elsewhere in this report, following the issuance of Advisory Opinion 13-02 from the Executive Branch Ethics Commission, all department employees should be educated that they are henceforth put on notice that they have an obligation to refuse to comply with orders that anyone of ordinary sense and understanding would recognize as being contrary to the Executive Branch Code of Ethics and the need to report such misconduct to the Ethics Commission. k. The interviews of KINMAN, ROBERTS, ATHA, LYONS, HILTON and HALE, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews are incorporated by reference in these findings. 2. personal benefit. GASSETT improperly obtained rotenone from the department for his

a. Rotenone is a chemical used by the department to kill off or reduce fish populations in a public waterway. It is purchased by the department at a discount through normal procurement practices. It comes in liquid or in powder form, but the liquid form is used by the department. It is regulated by the Kentucky Department of Agriculture. It may only be applied by an individual who has obtained an application certification from the DOA. The department does not provide rotenone to the general public, although it may have years ago. EXHIBIT entitled, “A Management Guide for Ponds and Small Lakes in Kentucky, states at page 6 that “Rotenone is not available through KDFWR.” The rotenone is stored by the department in a locked storage unit that is insulated and heated. b. GASSETT contacted KINMAN sometime in April 2013 and asked where he could obtain rotenone to use to kill off fish in a pond owned by GASSETT’s father.

Page 18 of 59

KINMAN directed GASSETT to contact the Fisheries Division, which was responsible for the storage and use of the chemical. c. GASSETT contacted BROOKS and requested a gallon of rotenone. BROOKS in turn directed WILKES to obtain the requested amount of the chemical from the storage unit. WILKES took the rotenone directly to GASSETT’s office. GASSETT and BROOKS were in GASSETT’s office at the time WILKES made the delivery. d. GASSETT, after obtaining the rotenone, then attempted to pay for it, even though the department had ceased providing rotenone to the general public years ago. GASSETT gave the department a personal check dated April 10, 2013 in the amount of $58.50 for reimbursement for the gallon of rotenone he was provided (EXHIBIT), but the check was never cashed. Had GASSETT purchased rotenone on the open market, he would have paid a higher price; thus the amount of his attempted reimbursement was based on the discounted purchase rate afforded the department from its rotenone suppliers. e. GASSETT improperly obtained rotenone for his personal use from the department when the chemical was not provided to the general public and then by attempting to reimburse the department in an amount that he could not have obtained had he purchased the rotenone on the open market. This violation is exacerbated by the fact that GASSETT was the commissioner of the department at the time he obtained the rotenone. He was in the highest position of authority in the agency and knew, or should have known, that obtaining the rotenone in such a fashion for his personal benefit was improper. f. Regarding WILKES, the findings made in Section III(A)(1)(j), above, are incorporated by reference at this point. g. The interviews of KINMAN, BROOKS and WILKES, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews are incorporated by reference in these findings. 3. GASSETT improperly took advantage of discounted FedEx rates provided to state agencies for his personal benefit. a. On May 8, 2013 at 8:17 a.m., department employee Rowhan JAHAN sent out an email to all department employees noting that the department had received a FedEx invoice in the amount of $18.63 for a third-party shipment.2 b. On May 8, 2013 at 9:37 a.m., MOORE sent out an email to all department staff in headquarters that reminded employees that they were not to benefit from the discounted mailing rates the department had obtained from FedEx, regardless of whether the employee attempted to reimburse the department (EXHIBIT).

2

All exhibits referred to in this section are found collectively at EXHIBIT.

Page 19 of 59

c. On May 9, 2013, GASSETT reimbursed the department $18.63 for the cost of for a 33-pound shipment from Lykes Brothers, Inc. in Okeechobee, Florida to American Tanning Leather in Griffin, Georgia. The shipment contained an alligator hide for GAS SETT’s personal use. GASSETT killed an alligator in Florida earlier in 2013 (EXHIBIT). d. GASSETT had used the KDFW FedEx account and reimbursed KDFW on two other occasions. An eMARS Receipts Inquiry shows FedEx reimbursements from GASSETT for $27.61 on April 25, 2013; and $99.41 on September 14, 2012 (EXHIBIT). e. The May 8, 2013 email (EXHIBIT) sent to all KDFW employees at the main headquarters also noted that all employees had executed acknowledgments that they had received the 8th edition of the Executive Branch Code of Ethics and that KRS 11A.040(4) prohibited them from knowingly enjoying the benefits of the discounted FedEx rates the department had obtained. f. OIGSS finds that GASSETT improperly had personal items delivered by FedEx and reimbursing the department at the discounted mailing rate available to the department through its agreement with FedEx. These violations are exacerbated by the fact that GASSETT was the commissioner of the department at the time he obtained a discounted mailing rate through the state contract. He was in the highest position of authority in the agency and knew, or should have known, that obtaining the discounted mailing rate for his personal benefit was improper. g. The interviews of KINMAN and MOORE, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews are incorporated by reference in these findings. 4. GASSETT improperly had state employees on state time and using a state vehicle pick up building materials for his personal use. a. AKERS admitted to OIGSS that in approximately 2008, GASSETT gave him around $400 via a personal check to be used to purchase lumber for GASSETT’s personal use. b. AKERS gave GASSETT’s check to ELDRIDGE and upon AKERS’ direction, ELDRIDGE went to Hardwood Specialties in Lexington and purchased the lumber for GASSETT. A KDFW vehicle was used to pick up and transport the lumber and ELDRIDGE was on state time when he picked up GASSETT’s lumber while also making a legitimate pick -up of materials to be used by the department. c. GASSETT improperly directed a state employee on state time and in a state-owned vehicle to pick up lumber to be used for GASSETT’s personal benefit. These violations are exacerbated by the fact that GASSETT was the commissioner of the department at the time he obtained the lumber. He was in the highest position of authority in the agency and
Page 20 of 59

knew, or should have known, that using state resources to obtain lumber for his personal benefit was improper. d. Regarding ELDRIDGE, the findings made in Section III(A)(1)(j) above are incorporated by reference at this point. e. The interviews of AKERS and ELDRIDGE, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews are incorporated by reference in these findings. 5. GASSETT improperly worked on his personal canoe at the department’s workshop during the workday using state-owned tools. a. Approximately three years ago, AKERS admitted that GASSETT called him and then brought his personal canoe to the department’s workshop one workday morning to repair a dent. AKERS helped GASSETT take the canoe from his vehicle to sit it on sawhorses in the shop and provided him with a state-owned heat gun. GASSETT used the heat gun to smooth out the dent which took him around 20 minutes. b. GASSETT improperly worked on his personal canoe on state time while using state resources. This violation is exacerbated by the fact that GASSETT was the commissioner of the department at the time he worked on his canoe. He was in the highest position of authority in the agency and knew, or should have known, that using state resources during the workday to repair his personal canoe was improper. c. The interview of AKERS, including any relevant exhibits made a part of that interview is incorporated by reference in these findings. 6. GASSETT carried concealed weapons while commissioner without a Carry Concealed Deadly Weapon (CCDW) license as required by KRS 237.110. a. During the investigation, questions were raised as to why GASSETT, KINMAN, and PATTON either carried or possessed state-issued handguns. GASSETT was issued two weapons: a .40 caliber Glock Model 22, and a snub-nose .357 titanium that he carried in an ankle holster. KRS 527.020(3) gives the Law Enforcement Division (LED) director (PATTON) the right to carry a concealed weapon. The statute does not give the same authority to the commissioner of the department. Thus, GASSETT must possess a CCDW license in order to have carried the .357 snub-nose in his ankle holster and if he also carried the .40 caliber Glock concealed on his person. b. On October 23, 2013, OIGSS contacted the Kentucky State Police, Concealed Deadly Weapons Division and learned that GASSETT does not hold a CCDW license.

Page 21 of 59

c. GASSETT knew, or should have known, that he must have a license in order to carry a concealed deadly weapon because neither KRS Chapter 150 nor 235 specifically give the commissioner any police powers, although those statutes give him the right to delegate limited police powers to others. Further, although KRS 527.020 specifically authorizes the LED director and conservation officers to carry concealed deadly weapons, that statute does not afford the same right to the commissioner. Thus, GASSETT violated state law by carrying concealed deadly weapons without a license. d. The interviews of KINMAN, PATTON, ESTES and CARRIER are incorporated by reference into these findings. B. Findings as to Benjy KINMAN

1. KINMAN improperly sent state workers and equipment to GASSETT’s residence in the winter of 2009-2010 to pump out the crawlspace under GASSETT’s home. a. KINMAN has worked for KDFW for 36 years beginning in the environmental section performing environmental reviews and investigating fish kills; as a research biologist evaluating various fish species for recreational fishing; and as a program coordinator handling federal aid. KINMAN also assisted in the construction of Cedar Creek Lake in Lincoln County and was the director of the fisheries division for seven or eight years. In 2008 KINMAN was promoted to the position of deputy commissioner. As deputy commissioner, KINMAN oversees all KDFW divisions, except for the administrative services division. KINMAN attended ethics training 10-12 years ago as well as an ethics “training overview” within the last four years. KINMAN is knowledgeable about KDFW regulations and statutes. As a state employee, KINMAN is subject to the requirements of KRS Chapters 11A and 18A. b. Sometime during the winter of 2009-2010, GASSETT returned one evening to his home located on Harvieland Road in Franklin County, Kentucky and discovered that the crawlspace under his home had been flooded after a frozen water pipe burst. c. GASSETT called KINMAN at work at 7:00 a.m. the next morning and asked for a pump to remove the water from his house. d. KINMAN, bypassing the normal chain of command, directly contacted ROBERTS in the fisheries division and directed ROBERTS to deliver a state-owned portable water pump to GASSETT’S home. e. GASSETT’s home. ROBERTS directed ATHA, LYONS and HILTON to deliver the pump to

Page 22 of 59

f. ATHA, LYONS and HILTON spent approximately three hours traveling to GASSETT’ home, pumping out the crawlspace and returning to the department. GASSETT was present at his home when the employees got there and observed them working to remove the water from his home’s crawlspace. g. During the time ATHA, LYONS and HILTON were working at GASSETT’s home, ROBERTS also directed HALE to take a second pump to GASSETT’s residence. HALE spent 1 ½ hours traveling to and from GASSETT’s home to deliver the second pump. h. Although KINMAN asserted that he did not know that ROBERTS directed ATHA, LYONS, HILTON and HALE to take the pumps to GASSETT’s home and pump out the crawlspace, OIGSS finds his assertion not to be credible. KINMAN had been the director of the fisheries division for several years and knew ROBERTS well enough that he made a direct call to ROBERTS to insure delivery of at least one pump. KINMAN knew, or should have known, that ROBERTS would have directed employees to deliver the pump to GASSETT. Given the relationship between KINMAN and ROBERTS, OIGSS finds it more likely than not that ROBERTS advised KINMAN that he had sent employees and equipment to GASSETT’s home. i. OIGSS further finds suspect the fact that KINMAN failed to inform BUYNAK, ROBERTS’ first-line supervisor, or BROOKS, the division director of fisheries, that he had contacted ROBERTS and requested the pump’s delivery to GASSETT’s home. Given the relationship between KINMAN and ROBERTS, it is more likely than not that KINMAN purposely failed to notify BUYNAK and BROOKS because he knew ROBERTS would comply with his request and to reduce the possibility that one of ROBERTS’ supervisors might object to the directive KINMAN gave ROBERTS. j. KINMAN admitted when interviewed by OIGSS that he would have made the same accommodation for any KDFW employee but not for anyone outside of KDFW. KINMAN further admitted that he did not have the authority to give anyone permission to use state-owned equipment for personal use and admitted that he never even thought about this issue. Thus, KINMAN in effect admitted that his actions in directing state resources to be used at GASSETT’s home were improper k. OIGSS finds that KINMAN improperly directed ROBERTS to send a state-owned pump to GASSETT’s home for GASSETT’s personal use. OIGSS finds that KINMAN knew, or should have known, that ROBERTS would direct employees to deliver the pumps to GASSETT’s home and pump out the crawlspace. This violation is exacerbated by the fact that KINMAN was the deputy commissioner of the department at the time the work was done at GASSETT’S home. He was in the second-highest position of authority in the agency

Page 23 of 59

and knew, or should have known, that the use of state employees and resources at GASSETT’s home for personal benefit was improper. l. Regarding ATHA, LYONS, HILTON and HALE, the findings made in Section III(A)(1)(j), above, are incorporated by reference at this point. m. The interviews of KINMAN, ROBERTS, ATHA, LYONS, HILTON and HALE, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. 2. KINMAN directed the utilization of state workers and resources to deliver free fish to commission member Christopher GODBY’s private ponds 2013, in violation of the department’s regulations. a. KDFW produces over 12 million fish a year in its hatcheries. These fish are produced for the purpose of populating public waterways for the benefit of the general public and other fish are provided to private landowners for a fee pursuant to the department’s farm pond stocking program. b. There is an additional program, called FINS (Fishing in Neighborhoods) in which fish are delivered to waterways near towns and cities in order to promote fishing among young people. These fish are delivered at no charge as part of the department’s responsibility to stock public waterways with certain species of fish. c. 301 KAR 1:160 governs the method by which the department is to stock fish in private waters and is the basis of the farm pond program. It provides as follows: “Section 1. Upon application and receipt of a nonrefundable stocking fee, any owner of a pond or lake may receive fish stocks for private waters, provided one (1) of the following conditions is met: (1) The pond or lake is newly impounded and contains no fish. (2) The pond or lake has been drained and refilled or chemically renovated and contains no fish. (3) The pond or lake has been checked by a fishery biologist who has recommended it for remedial stocking. Section 2. Species available for private waters include largemouth bass, bluegill, and channel catfish. The pond or lake must be stocked with largemouth bass and bluegill; the channel catfish are optional. Combinations of the above species are available at the discretion of the department.

Page 24 of 59

Section 3. Stocking applications shall be received by the department no later than October 1 of each year. The stocking cycle begins in late October with the delivery of bluegill and channel catfish. The cycle is then completed during May of the following year with the delivery of largemouth bass. Fish stocks are delivered to each county, with advance notice of time and place provided to each pond or lake owner. It is the responsibility of each pond or lake owner to pick up the boxed fish and place them in the designated waters following the stocking instructions which are printed on the outside of each box. (11 Ky.R. 1217; eff. 312-85; Am. 19 Ky.R. 456; eff. 9-23-92.)” d. The department provides information on its farm pond stocking program at two locations on its website. EXHIBIT is entitled “Kentucky Farm Pond Stocking Information”. As can be seen from that information, the public is advised that certain species of fish are provided. An individual must fill out the application (attached to the exhibit) and pay a specific fee for the delivery of fish. The application and fee are sent to the department, which provides delivery of the fish to a central location in each county or area. The applicant must pick up the fish at the central area. The fish to be delivered are “fingerlings”, generally 1”-2” in length. e. EXHIBIT is entitled “A Management Guide for Ponds and Small Lakes in Kentucky.” Information on the farm pond stocking program is found at pages 5-6 of this exhibit. The information provided there includes the fact that fish can be supplied for a fee to private ponds that are new or have been renovated. f. 301 KAR 1:160 provides that a private landowner can obtain fish for a pond or lake. The body of water is checked by one of the department’s district biologists who may then recommend the pond or lake is suitable for “remedial stocking”. Although this term is not defined in any applicable statute or regulation, it is a method by which a private pond-owner with an existing fish population can obtain additional fish in order to provide balance between the predator fish and prey fish in the pond. For example, there may be too many largemouth bass (a predator fish) in a pond and too little bluegill (generally a “prey” fish). The district biologist would perform a “technical guidance” by determining from a general observation of the pond the number, size and species of fish in the water. From that determination, he would provide the pond-owner with a recommendation of the fish that should be put into the pond to equalize the fish population. Although the regulation indicates that fish could be provided to the pond-owner via the application, payment and delivery methods set forth in the regulation, the district biologists OIGSS interviewed (Jeff CROSBY and John WILLIAMS) stated that the normal procedure was for the biologists to provide the landowner with a list of private hatcheries from which the necessary fish could be purchased. g. There is no program based upon a statute or regulation that authorizes the department to deliver free fish of any size to a private landowner. OIGSS finds that the
Page 25 of 59

department has regularly ignored the plain provisions of 301 KAR 1:160 since the regulation was first adopted in 1985 and has over the years engaged in an unauthorized delivery of free fish to private landowners. h. This practice is not only unauthorized, it is unfair. The general public for the most part is not aware that the department will on occasion deliver free fish to a private landowner upon request. From the interviews OIGSS has conducted, it appears that individuals that are somehow “connected” either through ties with the department or who may be in a position of authority in the agency have been the recipients of this unauthorized largesse. The practice is further unfair in that an applicant for fish delivery pursuant to the farm pond program must fill out an application, pay a fee and drive to a central location to pick up his fish. By contrast, the individuals who have been provided with free fish filled out no applications, paid no fees and the state expended its resources by delivering fish directly to their private ponds in state vehicles driven by state workers. In summary, the entire practice of the department delivering free fish to a person’s private pond or lake is unauthorized by any statute, regulation or written policy and must cease. i. With the foregoing as a background, OIGSS will now make specific findings as to improper fish deliveries to GODBY. GODBY has been KDFW’s commission member for the 9th District since December 2011. He lives in Somerset, Kentucky. Previously, his father served as a commission member for 20 years. j. On June 7, 2012, WILLIAMS conducted a technical guidance (TG) on the pond located on GODBY’s private property (EXHIBIT). WILLIAMS told OIGSS that he would normally recommend a private landowner purchase 4”-6” fish from a private hatchery for restocking purposes. WILLIAMS could not recall, and the TG form does not reflect, any recommendations as to fish stocking other than “thin out skinny bass.” k. At some later date, GODBY called KINMAN and requested “some catfish”. As GODBY recounted, KINMAN asked GODBY about the size of the pond “and that’s about it.” l. KINMAN contacted MARPLE at the Pfeiffer hatchery in Frankfort via email on May 3, 2013 (EXHIBIT). He asked MARPLE if the department could provide GODBY with some channel catfish. According to MARPLE, 150 catfish, 6”-7” in length, with a total weight of 10 pounds were set aside for delivery to GODBY. m. KINMAN then bypassed the normal chain of command (BROOKS and BUYNAK) and made direct contact with ROBERTS to set up the fish delivery to GODBY.

Page 26 of 59

n. HILTON was an employee of the department at the time and was directed by ROBERTS to deliver the fish to GODBY in spring 2013. HILTON said he was tasked by ROBERTS to deliver the fish to GODBY’s personal pond, but expressed his concern to ROBERTS that it was unethical. ROBERTS then called KINMAN and explained HILTON’s fears. KINMAN spoke with HILTON. During this conversation, HILTON voiced concerns about whether the delivery was ethical. According to KINMAN, HILTON asked, “Is this okay with all that is going on in the papers right now, to stock these fish?” KINMAN told HILTON, “If the truck is going there and we aren’t expending any state funds—it’s going that way anyway and we have the excess fish, fill out a stocking card and keep it on record…As long as these fish are going on a regular haul and we’re not making a special trip, spending state funds, that we’ve done this in the past.” o. The fish were subsequently delivered to GODBY’s private pond by HILTON. GODBY was aware there was supposed to be a charge for the fish delivery. GODBY was never billed by the department for the fish delivery. p. GODBY, being aware that OIGSS was investigating KDFW, made an attempt to pay for the fish delivery. He mailed a check dated August 10, 2013, in the amount of $200 to the department (EXHIBIT). KINMAN, after receiving the check, called GODBY and asked him if he was attempting to pay for the fish due to the pending investigation. According to GODBY, KINMAN attempted to explain the fish delivery by telling GODBY the fish that were delivered to him were “leftover” and delivered by a state vehicle that “happened” to be in the area. q. KINMAN returned the check to GODBY in an envelope postmarked August 28, 2013 (EXHIBIT). KINMAN, during his interview, attempted to rationalize the decision to return the check by saying, “How could I take a check for a fee for a program we don’t have, but we do have a way to give away free ones?” The response to that question, and the finding by OIGSS is that no delivery of fish was legally authorized and there is no legitimate program for giving away free fish to a private landowner. r. KINMAN admitted that there is not an official program at KDFW that provides for the free delivery of fish to private landowners. In an attempt to explain how fish could be delivered for free to a private landowner in the absence of an authorizing statute or regulation, KINMAN stated that the fish delivered in this manner were “excess” and the department has not developed a program to distribute excess fish because they do not plan for excess. He also claimed that landowners find out about the excess fish by “word of mouth”. KINMAN also admitted that legislator and commission member concerns are prioritized by the department.

Page 27 of 59

s. OIGSS finds that KINMAN knowingly violated the provisions of the farm pond regulation by directing the 2013 delivery of free fish to GODBY, a commission member. OIGSS further finds that the free fish deliveries were made to GODBY due to his position as a commission member. t. KINMAN’s violations are exacerbated because he was in the secondhighest position of authority in the agency and knew, or should have known, that the use of state employees and resources to deliver free fish to GODBY for GODBY’s personal benefit was improper and because KINMAN authorized the delivery of fish to GODBY less than two months after he signed a form on March 23, 2013, acknowledging receipt of the 8th edition of the executive branch code of ethics (EXHIBIT). u. GODBY had fish delivered to another pond he owned in 2010. OIGSS does not have sufficient proof to find that KINMAN was involved in that fish delivery. v. Regarding HILTON, the findings made in Section III(A)(1)(j), above, are incorporated by reference at this point. w. The interviews of KINMAN, BROOKS, MARPLE, BUYNAK, ROBERTS, WILLIAMS, ATHA, LYONS, HILTON, BUNNELL, CROXTON and GODBY, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. 3. KINMAN improperly directed the utilization of state workers and resources to deliver free fish to John Bruce LEE’S private ponds in 2012 and 2013, in violation of the department’s regulations. a. Paragraphs a-h of preceding Section III(B)(2) are incorporated by reference at this point. b. John Bruce LEE is a private individual that owns a farm located off U.S. 127 near the Franklin County/Anderson County line. He is good friends with commission member GLENN. Sometime in 2012 (exact date unknown), LEE approached GLENN for assistance with the pond located on LEE’s property. GLENN contacted KINMAN, who suggested a TG be performed on LEE’s pond. c. District Biologist Jeff CROSBY conducted a TG on LEE’s private pond on June 19, 2012, pursuant to an application purportedly from LEE, but signed “Via Benjy KINMAN” and “Via Commissioner GLENN” (EXHIBIT). The TG CROSBY prepared recommended that the pond-owner purchase from a private hatchery 250-300 largemouth bass,
Page 28 of 59

4-6” in length or as an option, 65-75 channel catfish, 8” in length. CROSBY explained that LEE wanted to know if it was okay to put larger bass in the pond, which possibly prompted CROSBY to write the note on the TG, “OK 12 inch bass”. CROSBY could not remember if he gave LEE a copy of the TG. d. As stated during his August 15, 2013 interview, CROSBY would usually recommend 4-6” fish for restocking “because that’s what the private hatcheries have.” CROSBY noted there would “possibly” be a fee associated with the delivery of the fish, because the private landowner would be dealing with a private hatchery. CROSBY noted that the landowner would be dealing with a permitted fish supplier, a company approved by the department to sell fish in the state. He would normally give the landowner a list of private hatcheries in the state (EXHIBIT). He reiterated by email on August 15, 2013, (EXHIBIT) that the fish he recommended be placed in LEE’s pond should come from a private hatchery. e. By an email dated September 4, 2012, KINMAN requested of MARPLE “about 225 farm pond catfish in Oct. for Comm. Glenn” (EXHIBIT). According to MARPLE, KINMAN picked up 225 fish weighing a total of 2.2 pounds from MARPLE on or about October 18, 2012. KINMAN picked up the fish after normal working hours and personally delivered the fish to LEE. KINMAN admitted during his interview that LEE was not charged for this fish delivery. f. By an email dated April 3, 2013, (EXHIBIT) KINMAN contacted MARPLE regarding the delivery of more fish to LEE at the request of GLENN. The email stated: “Commissioner Glenn recd some catfish last fall for a 1.5 acre pond. If u recall, I moved the fish for him. We now need some LMB since a LMB source for the pond did not materialize (I can explain later). This pond had a serious fish kill 1 year ago and they are trying to jump start after Fisheries checked and said they needed bass and catfish. If you get your hands on some bass this spring, I will come and load and move for him.” g. he stated: “This is the e-mail thread regarding Com. Glenn’s pond remedial stocking. We shipped about 35 of the ½-3/4 lb fish which would be about 12” maximum. A few may have been a little larger. (Smaller 5” fish from the Minor Clark Hatchery would not have been available till October)” MARPLE forwarded that email to OIGSS. When he forwarded the email,

Page 29 of 59

h. MARPLE contacted ROBERTS about the requested fish delivery. ROBERTS directed LYONS and CROXTON to deliver the fish to LEE. LYONS provided his activity log that showed he went to the Pfeiffer hatchery (where MARPLE works) and picked up approximately 50 largemouth bass to be delivered to a farm pond for GLENN (EXHIBIT). In LYONS’ opinion, the fish he delivered were 15”-20” in length, a size that was disputed by MARPLE. In either event, the fish were much larger than the “fingerling” size (approximately 2” in length) that is delivered pursuant to the legitimate farm pond stocking program. GLENN was present when this fish delivery was made. These fish were delivered at no cost to LEE. i. OIGSS finds that KINMAN knowingly violated the provisions of the farm pond regulation by personally delivering free fish to LEE in 2012 and directing the delivery of free fish to LEE in 2013, at the request of GLENN, a commission member. OIGSS further finds that the free fish deliveries were made to LEE due to the influence that GLENN had over KINMAN. In addition, KINMAN improperly used his official position to provide free fish to LEE in derogation of the public interest at large. j. Regarding LYONS and CROXTON, the findings made in Section III(A)(1)(j), above, are incorporated by reference at this point. k. The interviews of KINMAN, BROOKS, MARPLE, BUYNAK, CROSBY, ROBERTS, ATHA, LYONS, HILTON, BUNNELL, CROXTON and GLENN, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. 4. KINMAN violated KDFW policy by assisting GASSETT in obtaining rotenone from the department, knowing that the department did not provide that chemical to the general public. a. The findings contained at Section III(A)(2)(a-g) are incorporated by reference at this point. b. KINMAN improperly assisted GASSETT in obtaining rotenone from the department for GASSETT’s personal use when the chemical was not provided to the general public This violation is exacerbated by the fact that KINMAN was the deputy commissioner of the department at the time he assisted GASSETT in obtaining the rotenone. KINMAN was in the second-highest position of authority in the agency and knew, or should have known, that assisting GASSETT in obtaining the rotenone for GASSETT’s personal benefit was improper. c. Regarding WILKES, the findings made in Section III(A)(1)(j), above, are incorporated by reference at this point.
Page 30 of 59

d. The interviews of KINMAN, BROOKS and WILKES, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. C. Findings as to Ron BROOKS

BROOKS violated KDFW policy by assisting GASSETT in obtaining rotenone from the department, knowing that the department did not provide that chemical to the general public. 1. The findings contained at Section III(A)(2)(a-g) are incorporated by reference at this point. 2. BROOKS improperly assisted GASSETT in obtaining rotenone from the department for GASSETT’s personal use when the chemical was not provided to the general public This violation is exacerbated by the fact that BROOKS was the director of the department’s fisheries division at the time he assisted GASSETT in obtaining the rotenone. BROOKS knew, or should have known, that assisting GASSETT in obtaining the rotenone for GASSETT’s personal benefit was improper. BROOKS exhibited a lack of good judgment by helping GASSETT obtain rotenone from the department, especially in light of the fact that he probably committed this violation contemporaneously with his signature on a form, dated April 18, 2013, acknowledging receipt of the 8th edition of the executive branch code of ethics (EXHIBIT). 3. Regarding WILKES, the findings made in Section III(A)(1)(j), above, are incorporated by reference at this point. 4. The interviews of KINMAN, BROOKS and WILKES, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. D. Findings as to Hank PATTON

PATTON improperly used state resources when he worked on his private boat with AKERS’ assistance at the KDFW Facilities Maintenance Branch woodshop. 1. During his interview of September 20, 2013, PATTON admitted that he and AKERS put an Avery Quick Set Blind on PATTON’s 2009 War Eagle boat at the woodshop sometime in 2009. PATTON said the work was not done during work hours. 2. AKERS, during his interview of September 18, 2013, stated that around 2009 or 2010, PATTON called and asked AKERS to help him install a “duck blind kit” on a boat he owned. PATTON brought the boat to the shop after work. AKERS and PATTON used state-

Page 31 of 59

owned cordless drills to attach the kit’s adjustable pre-cut frame to the boat and zip-tied the cover. AKERS estimated that it took them an hour. 3. PATTON improperly utilized the department’s workshop enclosure, stateowned tools and electric power to work on his private boat. The fact that he may have worked on his boat after normal work hours is irrelevant to this violation. PATTON took advantage of his position and utilized state resources in a manner not available to the public at large. This violation is exacerbated by the fact that PATTON was the deputy commissioner of the department at the time he utilized state resources for private benefit. PATTON knew, or should have known, that his actions were improper. 4. The interviews of PATTON and AKERS, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. E. Findings as to Gerard BUYNAK

BUYNAK directed the utilization of state workers and resources to deliver free fish to retired KDFW employee Ted CROWELL’s private pond in 2013 in violation of the department’s regulations. 1. Ted CROWELL is a retired employee of the department. He worked there 30 years. He spent 23 of those years as the Fisheries Division assistant director. When interviewed by OIGSS on September 27, 2013, he stated that he would make monthly visits to his old agency, to drop by and say hello to employees with whom he used to work. 2. During sometime in spring 2013, when he was visiting the department, he told BUYNAK that he needed approximately 30 catfish and bluegill for his pond and BUYNAK arranged to have the fish delivered. The fish were delivered by ROBERTS to CROWELL’s pond at his home a few months later. CROWELL assumed that the catfish delivered were 6”-8” in length. He did not pay for the fish delivery. 3. CROWELL conceded that the free fish he received in 2013 were provided to him because he was well-known to the employees at KDFW. CROWELL said he did not ask to be “comped” but he was “comped” because he had hired BUYNAK, ROBERTS and KINMAN; and if he had to classify the receipt of free fish, it was a “perk” of being a 30 -year career employee of the department. 4. When BUYNAK was interviewed about this matter on October 1, 2013, he recalled that CROWELL dropped in at KDFW one day and asked BUYNAK if there were a few catfish he could get for his pond and for his grandkids. BUYNAK then called the Pfeiffer hatchery. MARPLE answered the call and they discussed a fish delivery to CROWELL. BUYNAK recalls MARPLE telling CROWELL that “he (MARPLE) had fish in the house and he (CROWELL) would have to go through them (KDFW).”
Page 32 of 59

5. MARPLE contacted ROBERTS, who personally delivered the fish to CROWELL. ROBERTS delivered catfish that were 5”-8” in length and bluegill that were 4”-5” in length. 6. BUYNAK was familiar with the farm pond stocking regulation, 301 KAR 1:160. He conceded during his interview that “We don’t have a defined, on-paper program” for the delivery of fish, and further conceded that any delivery of free fish to a private pond owner would be a violation of the regulation. 7. BUYNAK violated department regulations by directing the utilization of state workers and resources to deliver free fish to retired KDFW employee Ted CROWELL’s private pond in 2013. This violation is exacerbated by the fact that BUYNAK was the KDFW Fisheries Division program manager at the time he assisted CROWELL in obtaining the free fish delivery. BUYNAK, with his years of experience in that position and in a position of authority in the agency, knew or should have known that providing free fish for CROWELL’s personal benefit was improper. BUYNAK exhibited a lack of good judgment by assisting CROWELL in obtaining a free fish delivery from the department. BUYNAK committed these violations within days or weeks after he signed a form on March 25, 2013, acknowledging receipt of the 8th edition of the executive branch code of ethics (EXHIBIT). 8. The interviews of CROWELL, BUYNAK, ROBERTS and MARPLE, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. F. Findings as to Steven MARPLE

MARPLE participated in the utilization of state workers and resources to deliver free fish to the private ponds of LEE in 2012 and 2013 and to GODBY and retired KDFW employee Ted CROWELL in 2013 in violation of the department’s regulations. 1. The findings pertaining to KINMAN regarding the fish deliveries made to GODBY and LEE found in preceding Section III(B)(2)-(3) are relevant here and are incorporated by reference into the findings concerning MARPLE. 2. The findings pertaining to BUYNAK regarding the fish deliveries made to CROWELL found in preceding Section III(E) are relevant here and are incorporated by reference into the findings concerning MARPLE. 3. MARPLE was interviewed by OIGSS on August 14, 2013, and September 27, 2013. MARPLE has been the department’s Hatchery Manager at its Pfeiffer hatchery for approximately six years but has worked for state government for approximately 23 years. MARPLE stated he is the manager of the facility, which is comprised of 41 ponds,

Page 33 of 59

approximately 12 buildings, seven full-time employees, and approximately three seasonal employees. 4. MARPLE, even though he has been in his current position for six years, was not entirely familiar with the farm pond stocking program procedures found in 301 KAR 1:160. MARPLE conceded that he is not aware of a regulation, statute or written policy that would allow for the delivery of free fish of any size directly to private pond-owners such as took place in the deliveries to GODBY, LEE (at the request of Commissioner Stephen GLENN) or CROWELL. 5. As the employee directly responsible for fish production at the Pfeiffer hatchery, all requests for deliveries of fish from that hatchery must go through MARPLE, as any fish delivered by state employees from that hatchery must first be picked up there and he would be aware of the pick-up. Thus, MARPLE was aware of and participated in the unauthorized free delivery of fish to LEE in 2012 and 2013 and to GODBY and CROWELL in 2013. OIGSS cannot find sufficient evidence that would link MARPLE to the 2010 delivery of fish to GODBY, although any fish delivered to GODBY in 2010 would more than likely have come from the Pfeiffer hatchery. 6. MARPLE violated department regulations by directing the utilization of state workers and resources to deliver free fish to LEE’S private pond in 2012 and 2013, to GODBY’s private pond in 2013 and to CROWELL’s private pond in 2013. These violations are exacerbated by the fact that MARPLE was the Pfeiffer Hatchery Manager at the times these violations occurred. MARPLE, with his years of experience in that position and in a position of authority in the agency, knew or should have known that providing free fish for the personal benefit of LEE, GODBY and CROWELL was improper. MARPLE exhibited a lack of good judgment in assisting LEE, GODBY and CROWELL in obtaining free fish deliveries from the department. MARPLE committed these violations almost contemporaneously with signing a form on April 11, 2013, acknowledging receipt of the 8th edition of the executive branch code of ethics (EXHIBIT). 7. The interviews of KINMAN, BROOKS, MARPLE, BUYNAK, ROBERTS, ATHA, LYONS, HILTON, BUNNELL, CROXTON, GODBY and CROWELL, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. G. Findings as to Mark ROBERTS

ROBERTS improperly participated in sending state employees and equipment to GASSETT’s home to pump out his crawl space; by more likely than not telling his employees to falsify their timesheets after working at GASSETT’s home; by improperly sending out state employees to deliver free fish to LEE in 2012 and 2013 and to GODBY in 2013; and by personally and improperly delivering free fish to CROWELL in
Page 34 of 59

2013. ROBERTS also engaged in insubordinate actions by discussing the substance of his interviews at OIGSS with other KDFW employees after being directly cautioned not to do so. 1. The findings regarding GASSETT found in preceding Section III(A)(1) of these findings are incorporated by reference at this point. 2. The findings regarding KINMAN found in preceding Section III(B)(1-3) of these findings are incorporated by reference at this point. 3. The findings regarding BUYNAK found in preceding Section III(E) of these findings are incorporated by reference at this point. 4. The findings regarding MARPLE found in preceding Section III(F) of these findings are incorporated by reference at this point. 5. ROBERTS supervises the department’s Fish Transportation Section and is responsible for all fish stocking of public and private waters. ROBERTS has been a supervisor since 2005 and has been employed with KDFW since approximately April 1982. ROBERTS' immediate supervisor is Jerry BUYNAK. ROBERTS received ethics training in 2005 after he became a supervisor. 6. ROBERTS admitted to sending ATHA, LYONS, HILTON and HALE and two-state-owned pumps to GASSETT’s home sometime during the winter of 2009-2010 for the purpose of having those employees pump out the crawlspace underneath GASSETT’s home which had flooded due to a burst water pipe. He took this action in response to a call KINMAN placed to him. 7. ROBERTS was interviewed on three occasions by OIGSS. During his first interview on August 7, 2013, he said he did not think it was odd to send state employees to a private residence with state purchased equipment to work. ROBERTS said he did not have a problem with sending state employees to GASSETT’s residence. He said they try to help “everyone”. 8. ATHA, one of ROBERTS’ employees, stated in his interview that he questioned ROBERTS about accounting for his time at GASSETT’s residence and was instructed to code the time under Maintenance Code CF0243. This, in effect, would have required ATHA to falsify his timesheet, by requiring him to account for the time that was spent at GASSETT’s home as being a legitimate use of time, when in fact it was not. 9. ROBERTS was asked how the KDFW employees were advised to code their timesheets for the work done at GASSETT’s house. ROBERTS replied that he “thought” BUYNAK had told him to have the employees code their time as maintenance, code CF0243. ROBERTS said that that particular maintenance code is used when KDFW conducts
Page 35 of 59

maintenance on vehicles, equipment, and ground; in other words, for general maintenance. When ROBERTS was asked what code is used for working on someone’s private home, he replied, “There isn’t one”. ROBERTS agreed that it was not permissible to falsify a state document and code the time to maintenance, when in fact, the employees were conducting work at GASSETT’s house. OIGSS was unable to obtain any records regarding the employees’ time spent at GASSETT’s home, due to the 3-4 years that had elapsed since the work was done. 10. ROBERTS believed the department was authorized to deliver free fish to an individual if a district biologist recommended such action or if extra fish are available due to overproduction at the hatcheries. ROBERTS stated that he was familiar with the farm pond stocking regulation found at 301 KAR 1:160. ROBERTS, however, conceded that KDWF has no program that allows for free fish deliveries to private ponds. ROBERTS also acknowledged any such deliveries would not be legitimate because KDFW had no program providing for free deliveries of fish to private landowners. 11. ROBERTS admitted to directing the delivery of fish to LEE’s private pond in 2013. These fish were unusually large. MARPLE estimated that 35 largemouth bass, weighing ½-¾ pounds and having a maximum size of 12” were delivered (EXHIBIT, MARPLE’s August 14, 2013 email). LYONS estimated that 50 fish, 15”-20” in length were delivered (EXHIBIT, LYONS’ daily activity logs). ROBERTS stated that during his tenure with the department, he had seen fish of the size delivered to LEE on only two or three prior occasions. ROBERTS also noted that the largemouth bass delivered on behalf of GLENN to LEE’s private pond were brooders (fish that are in their prime reproduction stage). 12. ROBERTS admitted to having free fish delivered to GODBY in 2013, again at KINMAN’s request. 13. ROBERTS admitted to personally delivering free fish to CROWELL’s home in 2013, this time at the request of MARPLE. 14. When ROBERTS was asked by OIGSS why he never questioned sending employees out to GASSETT’s home or why he never balked at directing employees to make free deliveries of fish when no statute or regulation authorized such delivery, ROBERTS responded that he does what he is told, right or wrong, he does not question what he is told to do. ROBERTS said he “really never thought of it that way, you get an order, you just follow it”. 15. Each KDFW employee interviewed by OIGSS, including ROBERTS, was read a statement informing them that they could not discuss the substance of their interview with anyone and if anyone asked them to reveal information about the interview, the interviewed employee was to notify OIGSS. ROBERTS admitted that when he returned to work after his initial interview with OIGSS on August 7, 2013 he was asked by LYONS how the interview went. ROBERTS said he told LYONS that “he knew how it was” because LYONS was also interviewed. ROBERTS said he “probably” told LYONS the investigation was a “witch hunt”.
Page 36 of 59

ROBERTS said BUYNAK telephoned him to discuss a position vacancy in ROBERTS’ section and BUYNAK asked ROBERTS how the interview went. ROBERTS said BUYNAK told him not to lie and tell investigators what he (ROBERTS) knows. ROBERTS said he told BUYNAK that he informed investigators what he knew but that he (ROBERTS) thought it was a “witch hunt”. ROBERTS said he is guilty of discussing his interview with other employees after being instructed by OIGSS not to discuss the interview. 16. ROBERTS improperly participated in sending state employees and equipment to GASSETT’s home to pump out his crawl space; by more likely than not telling his employees to falsify their timesheets after working at GASSETT’s home; by improperly sending out state employees to deliver free fish to LEE in 2012 and 2013 and to GODBY in 2013; and by personally and improperly delivering free fish to CROWELL in 2013. ROBERTS also engaged in insubordinate actions by discussing the substance of his interviews at OIGSS with other KDFW employees after being directly cautioned not to do so. 17. These violations are exacerbated by the fact that ROBERTS was the supervisor of the department’s fish transportation program at the time he committed the violations. ROBERTS, with his 30-plus total years of experience with the department and in a position of authority in the agency since 2005, knew or should have known that directing employees to perform work at GASSETT’s home and directing employees to make unauthorized free fish deliveries for the personal benefit of LEE and GODBY and his personal delivery of fish to CROWELL was improper. ROBERTS authorized the 2013 fish deliveries to LEE and GODBY and personally delivered fish to CROWELL in 2013 within days or weeks after he signed a form on March 25, 2013, acknowledging receipt of the 8th edition of the executive branch code of ethics (EXHIBIT). 18. Similarly, OIGSS finds that ROBERTS’ insubordinate act of disregarding the directive not to speak with other employees about his interviews at OIGSS could have severely hampered the overall investigation. 19. The interviews of KINMAN, BROOKS, MARPLE, BUYNAK, CROSBY, ROBERTS, ATHA, LYONS, HILTON, BUNNELL, CROXTON, GLENN and CROWELL, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. H. Findings as to John AKERS

AKERS improperly worked on personal projects during his hours of employment, by improperly utilized state resources for his personal benefit while working on personal projects at the department during and after his regular hours of employment, by improperly storing personal items at the Facilities Maintenance Branch workshop (herein, the “shop”) and by improperly assisting GASSETT and PATTON in performing repairs or installation of parts on their personal boats while at the department’s shop.
Page 37 of 59

1. AKERS has been employed by KDFW for 22 years. He worked at the department’s shop from 1992-2010. From 2002-2010 he was the supervisor of the shop. He supervised five employees and from 2-8 inmates that were assigned to him for various duties. 2. AKERS was interviewed by OIGSS on September 18, 2013. During the course of that interview, he admitted to working on personal projects during his hours of employment, by utilizing state resources for his personal benefit while working on personal projects at the department during and after his regular hours of employment and by assisting GASSETT and PATTON in performing repairs or installation of parts on their personal boats while at the department’s shop. His admissions of specific violations and findings on each admission begin in the next paragraph. 3. In approximately 2008 or 2009, AKERS constructed a synthetic marble countertop for WALDROP at her residence. AKERS had the materials shipped to KDFW. AKERS “cut the lengths” at KDFW so he could transport it and install it in WALDROP’s home. AKERS worked on the countertops in the shop after hours. AKERS admitted that he used state equipment for the project. It took AKERS four or five hours to work on the counters. AKERS guessed that WALDROP paid him approximately $800 for the work that he performed for her. OIGSS finds that the work was impermissibly performed in the department’s shop. 4. For his wife, Administrative Specialist III Amy (GLASS) AKERS, Fisheries Division, AKERS repaired doors for and built a frame that holds wine bottles in the base of a cabinet. AKERS did the work at the shop at KDFW after hours and on lunch breaks. The project took AKERS two or three hours. OIGSS finds that the work was impermissibly performed in the department’s shop using state-owned tools. 5. AKERS admitted that it did occur to him that the use of KDFW equipment may be improper but he used his personal tools for KDFW use. AKERS said he “tried to keep a balance of tradeoff.” AKERS stated, “I am not saying I didn’t use department tools as well. I’m just saying as a tradeoff I try not to abuse any one tool more than I would use my own tool at work.” AKERS did not tell anyone he was working on private projects and did not ask for permission. AKERS claimed that he did not think what he was doing was unethical. 6. AKERS said he has used state-owned equipment such as cordless drills, pad sanders, a plainer, table saw, hammer, and nails for personal use. OIGSS finds that this is an impermissible use of state-owned equipment. 7. AKERS admitted to partially constructing a boat in the shop in 2008 or 2009. AKERS built the boat at his residence but brought it to the shop to “trim out and finish” because he did not have a covered storage area at home and he did not want it to get wet. The boat was at the shop 4-5 months. It took AKERS 7-8 hours to do the finish work. AKERS does not recall whether he used KDFW tools or his own tools on the boat. AKERS said he did use a KDFW band saw. Once constructed, AKERS took the boat to his farm for his personal use.
Page 38 of 59

OIGSS finds that the work was impermissibly performed in the department’s shop using stateowned tools during regular working hours. 8. AKERS admitted to storing certain personal items at the shop such as duck decoys, tools, and office “decorations.” AKERS further admitted he stored his motorcycle at the workshop during the winter of 2007. AKERS did not ask permission to store his motorcycle. OIGSS finds that AKERS used the shop to impermissibly store personal items. 9. AKERS admitted that in approximately 2008, he picked up lumber for GASSETT’s personal use and stored it at the shop for a couple of months. GASSETT gave AKERS a personal check for the materials. AKERS gave GASSETT’s personal check to either ELDRIDGE or SUTHERLAND and upon AKERS’ direction, ELDRIDGE or SUTHERLAND went to Hardwood Specialties in Lexington and purchased the lumber for GASSETT. A KDFW vehicle was used to pick up and transport the lumber for GASSETT and for legitimate department purposes. AKERS estimated the materials for GASSETT cost $400. GASSETT built a bookshelf out of the materials which included six or eight pieces of ¾ inch oak plywood for the shelves and framework, two or three sheets of ¼ inch oak plywood for the back, and finished rough lumber. AKERS only recalled that one trip was made to Hardwood Specialties for GASSETT. OIGSS finds that AKERS directed state employees to use a state-owned truck to pick up materials for GASSETT’s personal use. 10. AKERS admitted that he took a turkey call inscribed with the KDFW logo with him when he left the workshop for another position in 2011. 11. AKERS admitted that he took two boxes containing approximately 10 sets of antlers with tags to his new office when he transferred from the shop in 2011. He added that no one has access to them because they are “under lock and key”. AKERS explained that he still makes items out of antlers for KDFW but does this on his own time at his personal workshop. OIGSS finds that if these antlers are being utilized for legitimate department purposes, they should be turned over to the department and that AKERS should be prohibited from taking the antlers to his home. 12. AKERS admitted that GASSETT called him and then brought his personal canoe to the shop one workday morning (exact date unknown) to repair a dent. AKERS helped GASSETT take the canoe from his vehicle to sit it on sawhorses in the shop and provided him with a state-owned heat gun. GASSETT used the heat gun to smooth out the dent which took him around 20 minutes. OIGSS finds that the work was impermissibly performed in the department’s workshop using state-owned tools during regular working hours. 13. AKERS admitted that sometime in 2009 or 2010, he assisted PATTON with installing a “duck blind kit” on a boat PATTON owned. PATTON brought the boat to the shop after work. AKERS and PATTON used state-owned cordless drills to attach the kit’s adjustable pre-cut frame to the boat and zip-tied the cover. AKERS estimated that it took them
Page 39 of 59

an hour. Despite the work being done after hours, OIGSS finds that the work was performed in the department’s workshop using state-owned tools. 14. AKERS admitted that he told shop employees he was “off the clock” during the workday and used the remainder of the day to work on personal projects at the shop. AKERS estimated that this happened five or fewer times and was reflected on his timesheets. AKERS could not recall any of the dates that this occurred. OIGSS could not find any timesheets that verified this statement, and in any event, AKERS’ actions were impermissible. OIGSS could find no policy at the department that would allow employees to take annual or compensatory leave and then use the workshop and state-owned tools to work on private projects. 15. Sometime prior to 2010, AKERS brought a damaged deer stand to repair at the shop. This deer stand was owned by AKERS. He did not take the deer stand to his home because he did not have an indoor shop until 2010. An inmate worker (possibly James Last Name Unknown) welded the deer stand using some scrap steel without AKERS’ permission or knowledge while he and the other shop employees were at lunch. OIGSS finds that it is impermissible for an inmate to be working on personal property owned by AKERS at the shop during regular working hours and that AKERS failed to properly supervise the inmate during this instance or during any other instance when an inmate might be left alone for an extended period of time. AKERS admitted that inmate workers were left unsupervised during lunch on a regular basis. Leaving inmates unattended would no doubt violate any agreement for the use of inmates in force between the department and a local jail or the Justice Cabinet’s Department of Corrections, and would also pose a security and safety risk to other department employees. The potential for liability to the Commonwealth under these circumstances is unacceptable. If any inmates are still working at the department, OIGSS recommends that the department not leave them unattended in the future. 16. AKERS admitted that he allowed the employees he supervised to work on personal projects at the shop. AKERS said he “probably” instructed his employees to go “off the clock” while working on personal projects. AKERS did not recall if he ever checked their timesheets to make sure they did not do personal projects on state time. AKERS never obtained permission from anyone to do these private projects nor did he require his subordinates to submit an official request for permission. OIGSS finds that AKERS failed to properly supervise his employees during this period of time. OIGSS further finds that it is more likely than not that these employees worked on personal projects at the shop during regular work hours but did so because AKERS, their supervisor at the time, gave them permission to do such work. Because these alleged incidents of other employees working on personal projects during state time happened years ago, and because AKERS is no longer the supervisor of the shop, OIGSS did not interview each employee to determine if they committed any such violations. OIGSS does recommend that all department employees be directed to attend ethics training and be instructed as to the authorized uses of state resources.
Page 40 of 59

17. AKERS admitted that he worked on personal equipment and vehicles at the shop, dates unknown. He changed the brakes on his personal vehicle using a state-owned Cclamp and hand jack; repaired a personal weed eater; and sharpened the blades of his personal lawnmower at the shop. Around 2006, AKERS repaired his father’s riding lawnmower at the shop. On another occasion, date unknown, Program Coordinator Danny ALLEN, Purchasing and Property Branch, brought a lawnmower to the shop for AKERS to purchase. AKERS sharpened the blades of the lawnmower before taking it home. OIGSS finds that AKERS utilized state time and resources to perform work for his personal benefit. 18. During AKERS’ interview, he discussed several instances in which he performed work at GASSETT’s home. For example, four or five years ago, AKERS helped GASSETT put in an archway trim over his bedroom window. AKERS helped GASSETT seal off a door and cut and install crown mold in 2006-2009 and helped him put on vinyl siding around 2007-2009. AKERS also helped GASSETT with his roof. AKERS stated that GASSETT constantly made repairs to his house. GASSETT called on AKERS when he did not know how to make a repair or improvement; and AKERS either helped GASSETT or gave him advice on how to do it himself. AKERS claimed that he performed all of this work for GASSETT without receiving any compensation. While OIGSS cannot find that this work was done during work hours using state equipment, the possibility exists that AKERS felt compelled to perform this work for GASSETT due to GASSETT’s position of authority. 19. OIGSS finds that AKERS improperly worked on personal projects during his hours of employment, improperly utilized state resources for his personal benefit while working on personal projects at the department during and after his regular hours of employment, improperly stored personal items at the workshop and improperly assisted GASSETT and PATTON in performing repairs or installation of parts on their personal boats while at the department’s workshop. This violation is exacerbated by the fact that AKERS was the supervisor at the workshop when these violations were committed and that he knew, or should have known that his actions were improper. 20. The interviews of KINMAN, AKERS, PATTON, MATTOX, SUTHERLAND, ELDRIDGE, ALDRIDGE, WALDROP, and ALLEN including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. I. Findings as to Stephen GLENN

Commission member Stephen GLENN improperly used his position of authority to have free fish delivered to John Bruce LEE’s private pond in 2012 and 2013. 1. OIGSS incorporates by reference the findings made at Section III(B)(2)(ah) at this point, which contains a general discussion of the department’s farm pond stocking program as authorized by 301 KAR 1:160.

Page 41 of 59

2. OIGSS incorporates by reference the findings made at Section III (B)(3) (a-l) at this point, which provides findings as to fish deliveries made by the department to John Bruce LEE’s home at the request of GLENN. 3. GLENN has been a KDFW commission member representing the 6th district for five years as of August 2013. His current term ends in 2016. He went through the senate confirmation process for his current term but not for his first one. 4. GLENN was interviewed by OIGSS on July 17 and September 5, 2013. During his second interview, GLENN acknowledged that he was friends with LEE and that he sees LEE four times a week on average. GLENN further acknowledged that he was approached by LEE with a request for assistance with LEE’s private pond. GLENN contacted KINMAN and asked what services were available. As noted in the findings incorporated by reference above, KINMAN had CROSBY conduct a TG of LEE’s pond in 2012, KINMAN delivered free fish to LEE in 2012, and KINMAN instructed ROBERTS to have a number of largemouth bass ranging in size from 11”-20” in length be delivered to LEE in 2013 at no cost. 5. GLENN said he “instigated” the 2012 fish stocking of LEE’s pond. GLENN was also present at LEE’s property when KDFW employees delivered the largemouth bass in 2013. According to GLENN, the department delivered to LEE approximately 50 largemouth bass that were 12”-14” in length. 6. GLENN said that KINMAN did not inform him if there would be a cost for the 2013 fish delivery nor did GLENN have knowledge if there was a cost incurred for the fish delivery. GLENN said if it was wrong to help LEE acquire fish then he was “wrong” and that if, after he left the interview he received a request from someone in his district needing fish, then he will “help” them. GLENN said the fish were delivered to LEE at no cost “probably because I asked” and that KDFW was probably delivering the fish at no cost “for me”. 7. OIGSS finds that Commission member Stephen GLENN improperly used his position of authority to have free fish delivered to John Bruce LEE’s private pond in 2012 and 2013. As noted in the findings incorporated by reference, the farm pond stocking program requires an application, an advance payment for the costs of the fish delivery and a delivery of fish to a central location. In this instance, the regulatory requirements were ignored by the department so that GLENN’s friend LEE could receive a benefit to which he was not entitled. 8. GLENN, as a commission member, is in a position of authority in the department as he, along with the other commission members, is charged with oversight of the entire department. His behavior as a commission member should be above reproach. In this regard, OIGSS finds that GLENN expressed no remorse for his actions and stated that he would “help” another person in the same fashion if asked; that GLENN was not concerned that his friend LEE obtained free fish while other members of the general public had to follow the

Page 42 of 59

requirements of 301 KAR 1:160 to obtain fish; and that GLENN gave no thought to the state utilizing its employees and resources for the improper benefit of his friend. 9. Regarding any employees mentioned in the findings incorporated by reference in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section, the findings made in Section III(A)(1)(j), above, are incorporated by reference at this point. 10. The interviews of KINMAN, BROOKS, MARPLE, BUYNAK, CROSBY, ROBERTS, ATHA, LYONS, HILTON, BUNNELL, CROXTON and GLENN, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. J. Findings as to Christopher GODBY

Commission member Christopher GODBY improperly used his position of authority to have free fish delivered to his private pond in 2013. 1. (a-w) at this point. OIGSS incorporates by reference the findings made at Section III(B)(2)

2. OIGSS finds that GODBY knowingly violated the provisions of the farm pond regulation by having the department deliver free fish to him in 2013. OIGSS further finds that the free fish deliveries were made to GODBY due to his position as a commission member. Thus, GODBY improperly used his official position to have free fish delivered to him in derogation of the public interest at large. 3. OIGSS finds that GODBY attempted to pay for the fish by sending a check to the department that was subsequently returned to him by KINMAN. However laudable GODBY’s efforts may have been to pay for the delivery, that attempted payment came after OIGSS had begun its investigation and after GODBY had already been subjected to the first of two interviews by OIGSS. Thus, GODBY’s attempt to mitigate his violations came too late in time to be viewed as a legitimate effort at reimbursement. 4. Further, GODBY is in a position of authority in the department as he, along with the other commission members, is charged with oversight of the entire department. His behavior as a commission member should be above reproach. GODBY showed a lack of good judgment in accepting benefits that he knew, or should have known, were not available to members of the general public. OIGSS recommends that GODBY reimburse the department for all costs associated with the delivery of fish to him in 2013. 5. OIGSS finds that GODBY had fish delivered to another pond he owned in 2010. However, he was not a commission member at the time those fish were delivered to him and the evidence OIGSS has reviewed does not make it clear who arranged the fish delivery to his pond or how many fish were delivered. Thus, OIGSS cannot make any findings to this issue.
Page 43 of 59

6. Regarding any employees mentioned in the findings incorporated by reference in paragraph 1 of this section, the findings made in Section III(A)(1)(j), above, are incorporated by reference at this point. 7. The interviews of KINMAN, BROOKS, MARPLE, BUYNAK, CROSBY, ROBERTS, ATHA, LYONS, HILTON, BUNNELL, CROXTON, GLENN and GODBY, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. K. Findings as to unauthorized free fish deliveries by KDFW Findings: 1. The delivery of free fish to any private pond-owner by the department is a violation of 301 KAR 1:160. The findings made in Section III(B)(2)(a-h) are incorporated by reference at this point. 2. The interviews of KINMAN, BROOKS, MARPLE, BUYNAK, CROSBY, WILLIAMS, ROBERTS, ATHA, LYONS, HILTON, BUNNELL, CROXTON and GLENN, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. Recommendations: 1. OIGSS recommends that no more free fish should be delivered to the private ponds of individuals and that the farm-pond regulation should be strictly followed. 2. If there exist excess fish that cannot be placed in a public waterway, the department should adopt a regulation for the dissemination of the excess fish to the general public for a reasonable fee. 3. To insure that the department continues to adhere to the fish delivery provisions of 301 KAR 1:160, OIGSS recommends that periodic audits be conducted of department compliance with the farm pond regulation’s requirements. L. Findings as to Commission members participation in duck hunting at the Ballard Wildlife Management Area (WMA) Findings: 1. All current KDFW commission members that may have participated in duck hunting at the Ballard Wildlife Management Area (WMA) improperly used their official
Page 44 of 59

positions to secure a privilege, exemption, advantage, or treatment for themselves or others in derogation of the public interest at large. 2. 301 KAR 2:222, Section 5 provides as follows:

“(1) A person applying to hunt waterfowl on Ballard WMA or the Sauerheber Unit of Sloughs WMA shall: (a) Apply through the vendor supplied by the department by calling 1-877598-2401, or by completing the online application process on the department’s Web site at fw.ky.gov; (b) Apply from September 1 through September 30; (c) Pay a three (3) dollar application fee for each application; and (d) Not apply more than one (1) time for each hunt. (2) A person drawn to hunt may bring up to three (3) additional hunters. (3) A person shall be declared ineligible to hunt in department waterfowl quota hunts during the remaining portion of the waterfowl season and declared ineligible to apply for any department quota hunt the following year if the hunter violates state or federal regulations while waterfowl hunting on WMAs that have a preseason or daily drawing.” 3. Any person wishing to hunt waterfowl at the Ballard WMA must follow the above regulation. If a hunter is successful in the process, he is awarded with a specific day during waterfowl hunting season in which he may appear at the WMA. 4. After the hunter appears, he next must participate in a random drawing in order to secure a hunting blind. This procedure does not appear to have any statutory or regulatory basis and has simply evolved over time. The hunters must draw a “pill” out of a container. The “pill” has on it a number that corresponds to one of the blinds that is being utilized on a particular day (see EXHIBIT, which contains photographs of the “pill” and container). There are 21 total blinds in use at the Ballard WMA. On any given day, only 14 of the blinds are in use. The remaining seven blinds are “rested” in that the manager of the site (COLVIS) holds back those blinds and no hunting is allowed in the area surrounding those seven blinds, based on the judgment of the manager. See EXHIBIT for a map showing the current locations of the numbered duck blinds at Ballard WMA. 5. Commission members have historically not participated in the regulatory drawing process. The process for board members has evolved over time and merely involves the commission member picking two consecutive days during which he wishes to hunt and providing those days to the department. The attached letter from Nancy MCIVER, dated August
Page 45 of 59

17, 2012 (EXHIBIT) reveals this process. Commission members reserve their hunting days with the department. The drawing process set forth in 301 KAR 2.222, Section 5 is not followed. 6. See EXHIBIT, an email from MCIVER, dated September 28, 2012, where she lists the dates particular commission members set aside in 2012-2013 for hunting. 7. OIGSS performed follow-up interviews with three random board members to determine if those three hunted at Ballard WMA on the dates reflected in MCIVERS’ email. TEITLOFF said he only hunted one day, December 12, 2012, but not the second day. RAY stated he could not hunt on the days he had set aside, due to other commitments. He hunted at the WMA in 2010 and 2011. WILLIAMS also did not hunt on the days he had set aside. He has never been to the WMA to hunt. 8. On October 3, 2013, COLVIS was interviewed by OIGSS. COLVIS has been employed at KDFW since February 1999 and currently manages the Ballard WMA. COLVIS said commission members do not have to enter the drawing and are guaranteed two days each year to hunt waterfowl at the Ballard WMA. COLVIS said Wildlife Program Coordinator Ronald “Rocky” PRICHERT, Migratory Bird Program Branch, sends a document to commissioners to reserve a date to hunt and then they send the completed form to MCIVER to reserve the dates. 9. COLVIS said commission members do not choose a specific blind to hunt from, but it is a KDFW tradition that commissioners receive the best blind. COLVIS could not say how long this practice has been going on, but said it has been a “tradition” since before he worked at Ballard. According to COLVIS, commission members stand in line to draw a number for a blind, but the blind has been preselected by COLVIS. COLVIS said the pill containing the best blind is withheld from the bucket during the drawing and it does not matter which pill a commissioner draws because he will receive the best blind. When a commissioner gives the pill to COLVIS or another employee, the board member will be assigned the blind. COLVIS determines the best blinds for commissioners while studying areas of Ballard to determine which blinds will be open or closed. COLVIS said the drawing is “just for show”. 10. COLVIS elaborated on the duck-blind drawing process in a follow-up interview on October 8, 2013. COLVIS said the “pills” contain the actual numbers of the blinds at Ballard WMA. COLVIS said two KDFW employees sit in a boxed-in area during drawings and one person collects information from hunters and then the other person allows them to draw from the bucket. When a person draws a pill, he hands the pill to a KDFW technician, pays the necessary fees and has his hunting license checked. COLVIS once again said commissioners’ blinds are preselected and the number they choose is not the number of the blind they receive. COLVIS said TEITLOFF, RAY, ANGEL, GLENN and GODBY are aware of this procedure.
Page 46 of 59

11. Thus, commission members avoid having to draw for a day to hunt at Ballard WMA. They can just pick two consecutive days to hunt there; a privilege not afforded the general public. They also avoid the random duck-blind drawing process, as COLVIS preselects their blinds; another privilege not afforded the general public. 12. Commission members are not to be provided with such perquisites by either regulation or policy. As commission members, they are entitled only to “reimbursement for actual and necessary traveling and other expenses incurred by him in the discharge of his official duties and to be paid from the game and fish fund” (KRS 150.022(8)). There are no “special privileges” that commission members may enjoy by reason of their office. 13. All current KDFW commission members that may have participated in duck hunting at the Ballard WMA improperly used their official positions to secure a privilege, exemption, advantage, or treatment for themselves or others in derogation of the public interest at large. In this regard, OIGSS finds that department employees have routinely and historically given preferential treatment to the commission members that hunted at Ballard WMA, by actively soliciting from the commission members the days they wished to hunt there and providing the commission members with pre-selected duck blinds. 14. The interviews of KINMAN, WALDROP, GARLAND, COLVIS, TEITLOFF, WILLIAMS and RAY including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. Recommendations: 1. OIGSS recommends that the practice of allowing commission members to preselect their hunting days at Ballard WMA and all other WMAs where hunting may occur and the department pre-selecting duck blinds at Ballard WMA and any other relevant WMAs for the commission members immediately cease. 2. training. 3. All department employees should be given ethics training and specifically instructed that henceforth, no commission member is entitled to preferential treatment. M. Findings as to state-owned tractor use by KDFW employees Findings: All commission members should be directed to participate in ethics

Page 47 of 59

1. The Habit Improvement Program (HIP) is a department program currently in effect. As explained at the department’s website (http://fw.ky.gov/hipinfo.asp): “About 95% of the land in Kentucky is privately owned. To successfully manage our wildlife resources, the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources works cooperatively with Kentucky’s private landowners. One of the essential ingredients in conserving Kentucky’s wildlife resources is habitat improvement. Our Habitat Improvement Program offers an opportunity for interested landowners or managers, hunters, and groups to work with wildlife professionals toward a common goal of improving wildlife habitat--their cover, food, water, and space--across the state. Wildlife biologists are available to work with interested individuals or groups on properties of 25 acres or more that they own or have management rights on. This program helps create suitable habitats that benefit local wildlife populations and demonstrate to others the value of such improvements. The technical assistance is designed to help participants to meet their goals. There is no obligation for participation in this program. The Habitat Improvement Program can provide a link to available funds and other assistance offered by state, federal, and private agencies. There are many opportunities to receive technical assistance and even financial assistance through a variety of programs for incorporating wildlife habitat improvement projects into ongoing farming operations and other land management systems. Funding for habitat improvement projects is dependent upon how the projects will benefit wildlife. Availability of funds is also subject to annual changes in federal and state appropriations. Eligible projects must be approved before they are begun. Some commonly recommended practices include fescue eradication, beneficial grass establishment, shallow-wetland creation, and tree or shrub planting. Whether your recreational enjoyment comes from hunting, photographing, or simply observing wildlife, the Habitat Improvement Program can help make a difference in wildlife use of your property. Take advantage of this program to increase your enjoyment, knowing that you are helping conserve wildlife populations and their habitats. Let a wildlife biologist help you put wild know-how to work on your land. There is no charge or obligation for participating in this program. You will not be required to allow hunting or other public uses of your land if you participate in this or other technical guidance programs.” 2. The normal procedure is for an applicant to file a written application (EXHIBIT) requesting a district biologist to come out to the applicant’s property. The district biologist will make observations and then prepare a written report setting forth the department’s
Page 48 of 59

recommendations as to how to improve the property’s potential for being suitable habitat for wildlife. 3. According to WALDROP, the department assists private landowners in multiple ways, such as by offering various incentives and cost-sharing programs including loaning equipment, such as seed drills for plantings. Some of the objectives of the state-funded cost-share program are to encourage habitat improvement efforts on private lands, to promote small game, and/or to eradicate undesirable vegetation. WD pays a percentage a landowner’s habitat improvement costs through the cost-share program, with a maximum payout of $1000 per landowner. If the landowner wishes to begin actual work on the property the department will make available whatever financial assistance or equipment that KDFW can offer on a first-come first-served basis. KDFW does have some equipment available through the program, such as grass drills and sprayers, that are loaned out to private landowners. Grass seed and herbicides comprise the bulk of materials provided to landowners. KDFW does not maintain a database to track materials provided out of the KDFW budget to private landowners. In the words of GRASCH, the record-keeping is “willy-nilly.” Heavy equipment, such as tractors, is not loaned out to applicants. 4. Prior to the implementation of HIP, the department ran a program called the Landowner Incentive Program (LIP). This is a now-defunct federal program that provided monies and cost-shares to landowners to incentivize them to conduct positive wildlife habitat improvements for non-game species on their properties. This program came to an end on June 30, 2010 (EXHIBIT-email from WALDROP, dated September 6, 2013). 5. During the time LIP was in effect, the department purchased a John Deere 4410 tractor with federal funds through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This tractor was routinely loaned out to landowners. The exact date the tractor was purchased could not be determined. 6. The tractor is assigned to the department’s Wildlife Division. WALDROP is the division director. CARR oversees the use of the tractor. There are no procedures in effect that govern who may use the tractor or keep track of the tractor’s current location. There are no applications for use of the tractor that are filed with the department by the public. There are no liability waivers signed by anyone who may borrow the tractor. 7. During the time the LIP program was in effect, PATTON borrowed the tractor “five, six, seven” times between 2006-2007 and 2008-2009. The tractor was used on a landowner’s farm in Rockcastle County where PATTON hunted. PATTON obtained the tractor from CARR.

Page 49 of 59

8. HILL used the state-owned tractor on his 33-acre farm in Shelby County about five years ago to install two food plots. 9. KING used the tractor “at least three times.” The last time he used the trailer was sometime in August 2012. He used the tractor on property not owned by him to install food plots to improve hunting on the property. During the last time KING used the tractor, it developed a mechanical problem and the department paid $168.50 to have the vehicle repaired (EXHIBIT). He obtained the tractor from CARR. 10. CARR was interviewed by OIGSS on August 8, 2013. She stated that although KING was the last individual to use the tractor, she believed that private landowners could still use their tractor if she deemed their purposes appropriate. 11. The LIP program became defunct as of June 30, 2010. At that point, any use of the tractor by any state employee became problematical, as there was no written policy in place providing guidelines for the use of the tractor. From the interviews OIGSS has conducted, it does not appear that anyone except KING used the tractor since June 30, 2010. OIGSS cannot determine if anyone else borrowed the tractor because the department’s record-keeping about the tractor is non-existent. CARR was charged with the responsibility for keeping track of the tractor, but she did not keep records of the tractor’s use. 12. Once the LIP program expired, it appears no member of the general public had use of the tractor. The tractor’s use was limited to KING. Under the circumstances, the department should not have provided KING use of the tractor as no program was in existence that would justify him borrowing it and it would have been a benefit not available to the general public. Further, the liability issues are enormous. If KING or any other individual that borrowed the tractor had been injured while using it, the commonwealth may have had exposure for relevant damages through the board of claims, pursuant to KRS 44.070. 13. OIGSS finds that the use of the tractor by any state employee prior to June 30, 2010 would more likely than not have been permissible. The tractor had been legitimately purchased with federal funds under LIP, a program that was in existence at the time, and the department loaned out the tractor to any individual that may have requested it, including department employees. 14. OIGSS finds that any use of the state-owned tractor by department employees since June 30, 2010, is not permissible, as there is currently no program in place at the department that would justify the use of the tractor on private property.

Page 50 of 59

15. The interviews of WALDROP, PATTON, KING, GARLAND, BEARD, NALLY, CLARK, GRASCH, HILL and CARR, including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. Recommendation: The department should immediately cease loaning out the tractor to any member of the general public or to any department employee because no program exists to justify such use and because of the liability issues. N. workshop Findings as to improper use of the KDFW Facilities Maintenance Branch

1. OIGSS finds that workshop employees routinely and improperly used state time and resources for their personal benefit while under the supervision of AKERS.

2. OIGSS finds that this permissive environment was fostered by AKERS, who regularly and improperly used state time and resources for his personal endeavors.

3. The interviews of KINMAN, PATTON, HERNDON, AKERS, MATTOX, SUTHERLAND, ELDRIDGE, ALDRIDGE and WALDROP including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. Recommendation: A written policy should be adopted that prohibits employees from utilizing state time and resources to work on private projects at the workshop. O. Findings regarding inmate worker supervision Findings: 1. During AKERS’ interview, he conceded that during his tenure as workshop supervisor, inmates that had been assigned to duties at the shop were regularly left unsupervised. 2. OIGSS has attached a Memorandum of Agreement between KDFW, the Franklin County Regional Jail and the Department of Corrections, effective July 1, 2012-June 30, 2013 (EXHIBIT 1). 3. EXHIBITS 2 and 3 shows examples of supervision forms for state inmates that must be signed by any KDFW employee that might have supervisory responsibility for any
Page 51 of 59

inmates in the charge of the department. Among the many duties and responsibilities listed is the requirement that an inmate not be allowed to do personal work for a supervisor and the obligation of the supervisor to supervise the inmate at all times. Although OIGSS was not able to obtain a copy of the supervision form signed by AKERS, he would have had to have executed a similar form prior to assuming supervisory responsibilities over any inmates. 4. OIGSS finds that AKERS violated the Department of Corrections inmate labor program during his time as workshop supervisor. 5. The interviews of KINMAN, AKERS, MATTOX, SUTHERLAND, ELDRIDGE and ALDRIDGE including any relevant exhibits made a part of those interviews, are incorporated by reference in these findings. Recommendations: 1. OIGSS finds that no inmates should be left unsupervised by any department employee and recommends that KDFW establish a written policy to that effect, as a supplement to the Department of Corrections policy. 2. All inmate supervisors should be given sufficient training as to their responsibilities regarding the inmates they supervise. P. Findings as to ethics training Findings: 1. Many of the KDFW employees, including upper management, who were investigated and/or interviewed by OIGSS either disregarded or were unaware that they are required to adhere to the Executive Branch Code of Ethics. 2. Although some rank-and-file department employees participated in the work at GASSETT’s house and the free deliveries of fish, OIGSS finds that they had little means by which to object to an order given to them by a supervisor, even though some of the employees had ethical reservations about the work they were being directed to do. There was also present the fear of retaliation for refusal to follow a manager’s directive. Recommendations: 1. Following the issuance of Advisory Opinion 13-02 from the Executive Branch Ethics Commission (EXHIBIT), all department employees should be educated that they are henceforth put on notice that they have an obligation to refuse to comply with orders that anyone of ordinary sense and understanding would recognize as being contrary to the Executive Branch Code of Ethics and the need to report such misconduct to the Ethics Commission.
Page 52 of 59

2.

All KDFW employees should be required to attend ethics training.

3. KDFW employees should be specifically instructed that commission members are not to be given special consideration due to their status or in derogation of the public’s interest at large. 4. Considering the findings made in this report of improper acts by commission members, OIGSS finds that commission members should be required to attend ethics training. Q. Disciplinary action against employees Findings: OIGSS has found evidence of violations in this report that may warrant disciplinary action against certain KDFW employees. Recommendation: Appropriate disciplinary action should be considered against any individual enumerated in this report that violated state laws or regulations. R. Retaliation against employees Finding: During the course of this investigation, OIGSS has interviewed a number of employees who were very cooperative and furnished information that was useful in furthering the investigation. Some of these employees were concerned that their cooperation might result in them being the victims of retaliation by other department employees who were less cooperative. Recommendation: All employees should be educated as to the provisions of KRS 61.102, which prohibits reprisals against public employees for disclosure of violations of law. IV. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS TO CERTAIN ALLEGATIONS THAT COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED A. Complaint against ANGEL brought by League of Kentucky Sportsmen

Page 53 of 59

1. The League of Kentucky Sportsmen (LKS) filed a written complaint dated August 11, 2013, concerning commission member ANGEL (EXHIBIT). The letter was signed by NETHERY, the president of LKS. 2. The letter alleged that ANGEL had circumvented the lottery processes for selection of a particular day to hunt and for picking a duck blind; that ANGEL requested a certain section of the Ballard WMA to be set aside and cleared of any other hunters the week prior to December 14, 2012, the first day of ANGEL’s hunting trip; that ANGEL attempted to use his authority as a commission member with a conservation officer who cited ANGEL for a hunting violation; that ANGEL had former commission member Doug HENSLEY call PATTON in an attempt to get ANGEL’s hunting citation dismissed; that ANGEL filed numerous complaints against KDFW in retaliation for the hunting citations; and that ANGEL improperly used his authority to secure grass seed from the department. 3. As stated elsewhere in this report, department employees have routinely and historically given improper and preferential treatment to the commission members that hunted at Ballard WMA, by actively soliciting from the commission members the days they wished to hunt there and providing the commission members with pre-selected duck blinds. COLVIS, in his interview, was quite candid in admitting that he and his predecessor in his current position insured that the commission members who hunted at Ballard WMA got the prime hunting blinds and that the commission members drawing a “pill” containing a blind’s number from a container was “just for show.” In other words, the system was “rigged”. The commission members avoided having to draw for a particular date to be at the WMA, as all other hunters had to do, and then, although purportedly participating in a fair drawing to obtain a duck blind, in reality got the best duck blind from which to hunt that day, another benefit also denied members of the general public. 4. OIGSS finds that ANGEL and COLVIS had discussions about the hunting conditions at Ballard WMA before ANGEL travelled there on December 14, 2012. OIGSS obtained COLVIS’ cell phone records for December 2012 and those records show no incoming calls from ANGEL’s cell phone or any outgoing calls to ANGEL’s cell phone (EXHIBIT). COLVIS’ cell phone records reflect he checked his voice mail on December 8, 2012. COLVIS noted he checked his cell phone sometime after ANGEL called him. COLVIS did not retain the voicemail messages from ANGEL. ANGEL submitted to OIGSS his cell phone records for December 2012 (EXHIBIT). Those records show that he called COLVIS’ office phone (noted by a red “O” that OIGSS marked on the record) and cell phone (noted by a red “C” that OIGSS marked on the record) on Friday, December 7, 2012; called COLVIS’ office phone on Saturday, December 8, 2012; called COLVIS’ office and cell phone on Thursday, December 13, 2012; and called COLVIS’ cell phone on Friday, December 14, 2012. In all, ANGEL called COLVIS six times between December 7 and 14, 2012.

Page 54 of 59

5. COLVIS, in his interview, recalled getting two voice messages on his cell phone from ANGEL on December 7, 2012. However, his phone records obtained by OIGSS do not show any calls from ANGEL. If COLVIS did not answer ANGEL’s calls, those unanswered calls would not show up on COLVIS’ phone records. ANGEL’s phone records show two calls to COLVIS on December 7th. The first call was placed to COLVIS’ office phone and lasted one minute and the second call was placed to COLVIS’ cell phone and lasted 2 minutes. As stated in paragraph 4, above, ANGEL placed four other calls to COLVIS between December 7 and 14, 2012. ANGEL’s longest call to COLVIS was ANGEL’s December 8, 2012 call to COLVIS’ office phone that lasted seven minutes. 6. The telephone records substantiate that ANGEL and COLVIS had contact with each other prior to ANGEL coming to the WMA on December 14, 2012. OIGSS finds that more likely than not, the parties engaged in discussions about the hunting conditions at the WMA. What remains unclear, however, is the tone of those conversations. When ANGEL was interviewed, he conveyed that he called COLVIS en route to the WMA and asked about the hunting there. When ANGEL was informed that there was water in the Shelby Lake portion of the area (the more water in the area, the more conducive the area is to having ducks), he stated: “And I said, well, I’ve hunted in that Shelby Lake area and I told him, I said, I hunted one time in (blind) 102A and I really liked that blind. And I asked him, I said, do you know the blind I’m talking about? And he said, ‘yeah’, and I said, well, good, we’re going to be down there, what do we need to do? And he said he’ll be there at 4:30 in the morning. And so when I got down there I drew 105.” ANGEL also stated to COLVIS: “That I hope I get lucky enough to draw a blind where nobody’s hunted for a couple of weeks and is right in the middle of the Mississippi flyway or something like that. And I laughed and that was it.” 7. On the other hand, when COLVIS recalled his conversation with ANGEL, COLVIS characterized ANGEL’s tone as being “cut and dried” when ANGEL asked that COLVIS hold off hunting in the Shelby Lake field area of the WMA two days prior to ANGEL going to the area. COLVIS also stated ANGEL’s request to hold off hunting a particular area of the WMA was the first time such a request was made and that COLVIS felt pressured to take the action ANGEL requested, due to ANGEL’s position. However, OIGSS finds that ANGEL’s request to set aside an area of the WMA may not be a first-time event. COLVIS, in his interview stated that his predecessor, WILKINS, held off hunting in certain areas of the WMA prior to other commission members hunting there, but COLVIS did not know WILKINS’ motives as WILKINS did not divulge them. 8. Further, OIGSS finds that if ANGEL was the first commission member to ask for such a favor, COLVIS did not notify his supervisors of ANGEL’s request until some 31 days
Page 55 of 59

later and then only drafted the January 8, 2013 email (EXHIBIT) at the direction of someone higher in the supervisory chain. In addition, given the historical privileges afforded to the commission members in allowing them to reserve a particular day and a particular blind from which to hunt, the next logical progression of these privileges would be for a commission member to reserve a particular area of the WMA. Thus, regardless of whether ANGEL’s request was unique, the department had a policy of catering to the commission members, a policy that is improper and must cease. 9. OIGSS had the opportunity to interview ANGEL on two occasions, for interviews that lasted over five hours, and is thus in a position to comment upon his demeanor. ANGEL is gruff and to-the-point. He can dominate a conversation if given the opportunity. It could very well be that someone not familiar with ANGEL’s personality (and someone like COLVIS who felt he must comply with a commission member’s request, no matter how that request was couched) could misinterpret a comment ANGEL made about a particular spot in the WMA as a “demand” that the area be set aside for him. 10. Given the disparity of how each man interpreted the comments ANGEL made, and without any other objective source, OIGSS cannot make a definite finding that ANGEL directed COLVIS to set aside the Shelby Lake field area by knowingly using his position to gain a privilege or advantage. 11. Based on the foregoing, OIGSS finds that the allegations found in paragraphs 1-4 of LKS’ August 11, 2013 letter to OIGSS cannot be substantiated other than to find that all commission members should not be afforded any special privileges at the Ballard WMA due to their status and any KDFW employee that enabled the commission members to enjoy any such unfair advantages over the general public should be directed to cease such activities. 12. OIGSS finds that paragraphs 5 and 6 of LKS’ August 11, 2013 letter have no merit. Regarding paragraph 5, ANGEL admitted telling the conservation officer that he was a board member, but ANGEL was still cited. Further, the complaint was dismissed by the Ballard County district court, so it is irrelevant. Paragraph 6 also has no merit. ANGEL cannot control who may have placed a call on his behalf to PATTON, and if HENSLEY made the call, he had a right to do so. Further, PATTON did not intercede on ANGEL’s behalf to seek dismissal of the citation. 13. OIGSS finds that paragraph 7 of LKS’ August 11, 2013 letter has no merit. LKS alleged that ANGEL filed multiple complaints against KDFW and multiple ethics complaints against KDFW staff. However, LKS, through NETHERY, could offer no substantive proof. 14. The LKS letter, at paragraph 8, also alleged that ANGEL abused his position of authority in obtaining grass seed from the department for his farm. OIGSS interviewed BEARD, CLARK, GARLAND, NALLY, WALDROP and ANGEL about this subject. OIGSS finds that the department may have exceeded its guidelines on one occasion for the money spent to procure
Page 56 of 59

grass seed for ANGEL, but that expenditure and all other expenditures for any grass seed delivered to ANGEL were approved by department management. 15. During the interviews, OIGSS discovered that two department employees met with ANGEL at his farm on Easter Sunday 2010 to perform a technical guidance prior to the delivery of any grass seed, thereby incurring compensatory time for that meeting. The employees were not sanctioned by their supervisors for incurring the compensatory time, so the reasonable implication is that there was no serious objection to the employees meeting ANGEL that day. In addition, KDFW interviewees stated that it was not unusual for KDFW employees to meet with individuals on weekends, as part of what WALDROP described as “legendary customer service”. 16. merit. 17. As stated elsewhere in this report, OIGSS recommends that henceforth, no commission member be given any preferential treatment when it comes to hunting at Ballard WMA or any other location and that all department employees and all commission members receive appropriate ethics training. 18. The interviews of BEARD, CLARK, GARLAND, NALLY, WALDROP (1) and (2), PATTON, KINMAN, ANGEL, NETHERY, WILLIAMS, TEITLOFF and RAY are incorporated by reference into these findings. B. Findings regarding handgun possession by upper management of KDFW and level of training required of the Law Enforcement Division director Findings: 1. During the investigation, questions were raised as to why GASSETT, KINMAN, and PATTON either carried or possessed state-issued handguns. GASSETT was issued two weapons: a .40 caliber Glock Model 22, and a snub-nose .357 titanium that he carried in an ankle holster. KRS 527.020(3) gives the Law Enforcement Division (LED) director (PATTON) the right to carry a concealed weapon. The statute does not give the same authority to the commissioner of the department. Thus, GASSETT must possess a Carry Concealed Deadly Weapon (CCDW) license in order to have carried the .357 snub-nose in his ankle holster and if he also carried the .40 caliber Glock concealed on his person. 2. On October 23, 2013, OIGSS contacted the Kentucky State Police, Concealed Deadly Weapons Division and learned that GASSETT does not hold a CCDW license, which gave rise to the finding in Section III(A)(6) of this report that GASSETT violated KRS 237.110 by failing to possess a CCDW license. OIGSS therefore finds that paragraph 8 of LKS’ August 11, 2013 letter has no

Page 57 of 59

3. KINMAN was issued a .40 caliber Glock by the department. He has the weapon in a safe at his home and intends to purchase it upon his retirement per KRS 45A.600. PATTON was issued a handgun by the department as well. 4. OIGSS has reviewed KRS 150.090 and KRS 235.310 that ostensibly give GASSETT the right to swear in certain employees as officers, giving those employees police powers to enforce the provisions of KRS Chapters 150 and 235. It has also considered the powers of the commissioner as enumerated in KRS 150.061. 5. KRS 150.090(2) appears to give the commissioner the power to appoint “other persons” to enforce only the provisions of Chapter 150. However, these persons apparently do not require the same degree of training as a conservation officer appointed under KRS 150.090(1). If this interpretation is correct, then the LED director could have certain police powers granted to him by virtue of an appointment but not possess the same degree of training as the conservation officers he supervises. In the case of PATTON, that situation does in fact exist. PATTON had no law enforcement training prior to taking the position of LED director in June 2012. He has not gone through the same level of training as the officers he supervises. Yet, according to KINMAN, PATTON rode along with conservation officers at Lake Cumberland in 2012 and was involved in making arrests. While OIGSS makes no findings regarding this issue, it does note that legal questions could arise as to an untrained division director exercising police powers. In this regard, OIGSS notes that HB 429, submitted in 2010, attempted to amend KRS Chapter 150 to require the LED director to meet training requirements, but that particular amendment was not enacted into law. 6. Similarly, OIGSS notes that KRS 235.310(1) may be subject to interpretation. The first sentence of that section states: “The commissioner of the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources shall designate officers and employees of the department to enforce the provisions of this chapter and these officers when duly authorized by the commissioner shall have the general powers of a peace officer for the enforcement of other offenses against the Commonwealth.” (Emphasis added). An argument could be made that “officers and employees” in KRS 235.310(1) means just that: a conservation officer who is also, by nature of his employment with the department, an employee. Under that line of reasoning, the commissioner would be in error if he attempted to give police powers to anyone else but a duly qualified peace officer. It may be the statute affords the commissioner the authority to appoint as an “officer” a person with no police training, but again, as noted concerning KRS 150.090(1), the net effect is that the commissioner could appoint a law enforcement division director like PATTON who lacks the very training required of the rank-and-file officers. Perhaps this matter has been considered by the department, but OIGSS was unable to obtain a definite legal opinion from the department (See EXHIBIT, email string between KDFW attorney Margaret EVERSON and OIGSS, dated October 3-9, 2013). While OIGSS makes no findings as to the level of law enforcement training the LED director should have, it is an issue that should be considered by the department or reconsidered by the General Assembly.
Page 58 of 59

7. OIGSS has also considered KRS 15.380, KRS 15.400, KDFW’s “Career in Law Enforcement-Conservation Officer Recruit” information found on its website (EXHIBIT), information found at the Kentucky Department of Criminal Justice Training’s website (EXHIBIT), the department’s Field Training Program (EXHIBIT) and information concerning KDFW’s law enforcement academy (EXHIBIT). 8. The interviews of KINMAN, PATTON, ESTES and CARRIER are incorporated by reference at this point into this section. Recommendations: 1. OIGSS recommends that the issue of how much authority the commissioner has in relation to findings 4, 5 and 6 be considered by the department. 2. KINMAN was issued a firearm that he does not use. He is storing it at his home until her retires and then intends to purchase the weapon. This would appear to be a waste of the department’s resources. OIGSS would recommend that KINMAN return the firearm to the department.

* * * * * * * * * * END OF REPORT. NOTHING FOLLOWS * * * * * * * * * *

Page 59 of 59

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful